Education

AUSTIN - The debate over Texas public school funding will follow an uncertain path in the coming year, as a new slate of leaders decides whether to confront the politically divisive issue or to punt to the state Supreme Court.

On Thursday, state District Judge John Dietzruled Texas' current school finance method was unconstitutional, siding with more than 600 school districts that sued the state after $5.4 billion was stripped from the public education budget in 2011.

Attorney General Greg Abbott promised to appeal the ruling, and the case is likely destined for the Texas Supreme Court.

But Dietz made it clear in his ruling he hoped lawmakers would avoid further litigation. He reminded them they could address the system's failings during the next legislative session. He cited the Legislature's constitutional mandate to "establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public schools."

State lawmakers from both parties agreed the responsibility for funding public schools falls on them. But history suggests the Legislature is reluctant to act until its hand is forced.

"I would be surprised if the 2015 Legislature does more than put this issue on hold waiting for a Supreme Court ruling," said Scott Hochberg, a former Democratic state representative from Houston and one of Texas' premier public education experts. "Historically, legislatures want to know exactly what it is that is being expected of them before they'll take on these hard choices.

"Members like to say, 'I wouldn't have done this but the court required it,' " Hochberg added.

Statements made by incoming leaders in response to Dietz's ruling seemed to support Hochberg's predictions. While many Democrats hailed the ruling and urged lawmakers to address the issue immediately when the Legislature convenes in January, Republicans in leadership positions were less eager to promise action addressing the deficiencies identified in Dietz's ruling.

"It is our job in the Legislature to develop the next education budget, regardless of what happens in the next phase of the legal process, and to address problems in education that go well beyond dollars and cents," said Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, the incoming chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

"As a former teacher, I believe in the power of education. Our budget will prioritize education and prepare our students to succeed in today's workforce," Nelson said. She did not take a specific stance on Dietz's ruling.

Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who is running against fellow state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte for lieutenant governor, said elected legislators should make school funding decisions. But he tacitly acknowledged the Legislature would take its cues from the high court.

Unusual alliances

"Today's decision is the sole decision of one judge in Travis County," Patrick said Thursday, referring to Dietz's ruling. "The final say will come from the Supreme Court."

Sherri Greenberg, another former Democratic state representative who was a key player during education debates in the 1990s, said the case could make for unusual political alliances.

"School finance is one of those issues that are very particular to members' specific districts, more so than just about any issue that I can think of," said Greenberg, now a professor at UT-Austin's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. "Sometimes alliances are formed that you would not expect."

During debates to set up Texas' Robin Hood system - wherein property-wealthy districts help fund poorer schools by sharing tax revenue - Greenberg said she saw rural Republicans siding with urban Democrats in support of the idea.

The school finance case could take any number of paths in the courts.

In one scenario, the Legislature takes some action next session - allocating more money to public education, for example - before the Supreme Court hears arguments. This could make the entire case moot, or it could prompt the justices to kick it back to the district court level. By that time, Dietz will have retired. His spot on the bench will be filled by Karin Crump, a Democrat who ran unopposed.

If the Legislature fails to act, or delays, the Supreme Court will take up the case. Arguments would not be heard until late spring or summer of next year at the earliest, just as the Legislature adjourns.

Ending court case

This could signal the need for a special session, either to address just education funding, or even the budget in general. Education accounts for 37 percent of all state funds.

A less likely, but still possible, outcome is that Abbott's replacement in the attorney general's office decides not to advance the case.

Sam Houston, the Democratic underdog in the race, said Thursday the ruling was further evidence of Texas' flawed public education funding model. Signaling he might choose to end the appeal, he added, "School finance issues need to be resolved by the Legislature, not at the courthouse."

Republican front-runner Ken Paxton also left open the door to ending the court case.

Paxton spokesman Anthony Holm said the candidate would "honor his duty to the children of Texas by fighting to ensure that every child has access to an excellent education and uphold the constitutional duty ensuring each district has adequate financial resources to deliver that education."

If Abbott does not ask the Supreme Court to hear the ruling, the process would be further delayed as it is heard by an appeals court.

The state has 30 days to file an appeal.