In the Fifth and Final Part of his closing argument in behalf of Edgewood Intervenors in the 2004 Texas school funding trial, attorney David Hinojosa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) shows how Texas school facilities can be perfect pictures of resources never offered.
And finally, the evidence proved that the State system for facilities financing is inefficient, and I would even say grossly inefficient. And it’s not a suitable means to provide — or part of a suitable means to provide — a general diffusion of knowledge for the children of property poor districts.
In 1995, the Supreme Court stated that but for an evidentiary void in Edgewood facilities funding, the system would be unconstitutional. We feel at this time there’s no question about it. The overwhelming evidence in this case shows that the system established after the 1995 decision that was meant to provide some measure of equalization actually never provided the constitutionally efficient system for facilities financing and has, in fact, fallen completely apart.
Unlike Tier 1 and Tier 2 funds, facilities financing is not subject to recapture, as it was in 1995. And there is no equalized wealth level for property rich districts, meaning that property rich districts are able to keep every single tax dollar raised from their huge property tax base. And property poor districts are just left with the hope year to year that enough funds will be allocated, appropriated by the legislature to assist them in building new and renovating old facilities.
The evidence proved that back in 1997, 200 million was appropriated, and most districts who applied for IFA received IFA. Then in the 1999 biennium, only 150 million was appropriated, and more districts were denied because of the insufficient funding appropriated by the legislature. And in the 2001 biennium only 100 million was appropriated, with even more districts’ applications being denied.
And by 2003, the well had dried up for IFA, and zero dollars was appropriated in the first year of the biennium. In the second year of the biennium, the State got generous and threw out a peppercorn of $20 million to property poor districts. And that was gone with only 16 districts receiving funding under IFA, and a hundred denied.
As Edgewood Exhibit 407 shows, these are the only 16 districts. If you had more than $63,000 of initial wealth per ADA, the value after reduction, then you were just too wealthy for our State to help you. And if we scroll down the list, the shaded districts are the districts that just did not receive IFA funding, compared to the ones that did receive IFA funding. (I have to mention Ric, too, because he saved me, as well, during this trial, and us as a team of MALDEF. I’m glad that he is here to help us out again.)
Even the State’s own chief witness acknowledged this gross insufficiency, stating that only 12 percent of those districts applying and qualifying for the IFA received IFA assistance. And why do these school districts need State assistance? It’s because the revenue earned from bonds is based on the local property values. For the Edgewood intervenors, their property values are at an extremely low level.
For instance, Alamo Heights Independent School District, located just a few miles away from Edgewood ISD, has approximately 15 times the wealth per ADA as Edgewood, which means that Alamo Heights could fund bonds for approximately $75 million worth of tax effort, just seven to eight cents, while Edgewood could only be able to fund a $5 million bond at that same tax effort. Even with IFA assistance, Edgewood would still only be able to afford bonds in the amount of roughly 50 million, 33 percent less than Alamo Heights.
This year South San Antonio ISD voters went to the time and expense of approving a bond election to meet their facilities needs. And even at only approximately 69,000 of property wealth per ADA, South San ISD did not receive IFA assistance. And now their facilities needs are put on hold. And the State’s response? “Well, EDA can cover it.” And the evidence has shown that EDA is not a viable alternative for some of those districts. They cannot make that first payment.
And for those districts, they lose opportunities to address facilities needs. Even the State’s own witness on facilities financing admitted that risk exists in making a determination on whether to go pass the bond in hopes of receiving EDA – in hopes of. It’s not guaranteed, because if EDA is not rolled forward, the district will face much higher tax rates than they can afford.
So what are some of these facility needs? The first one shows a portable in Edgewood ISD. This next one shows the over-crowding at PSJA, where you have 23 students in the second grade class, whereas 22 is the maximum. So they have had to go out and seek a waiver. A waiver — they have passed the maximum amount — even though they have a significantly high proportion of economically disadvantaged students in their district.
This one is the barracks at PSJA. This is similar to the building where the migrant laborers used to live at. There are no windows, just a long corridor of walls. Now, PSJA has 130 portables in their district -– 130 — that house 11 percent of the students. More than one out of ten students in PSJA gets their education through a portable.
The State says that Valley districts just don’t have high growth. Mr. Guadarjo of PSJA said yes, they do. As a matter of fact, this past year he has had the equivalent of a whole school, a whole campus population, go within the district and enroll.
These are more pictures of those illustrious facilities in the Valley where PSJA invites their students to come and learn. This is the foundation of an older campus, a crumbling ceiling, decaying. Now, this right here is the hot tin roof of a PSJA ISD cafeteria, where children eat. This one right here is the natural air conditioning of the elementary gym in the Valley of PSJA.
The poor technological infrastructure for Edgewood ISD’s alternative center. A portable for Edgewood ISD, another elementary for Edgewood ISD. And the district, Edgewood ISD, at least, certainly is not spending their money on non-instructional facilities, as you can see in this picture of their maintenance building. And this sump pump at Memorial High School in Edgewood ISD also depicts some of the facility inadequacies. These are some of the walls in Edgewood ISD.
The Ysleta Bellaire High boiler we were talking about which shuts down. A hole in the classroom in Ysleta ISD. And these kids, when they go out to play – go in to play, stay in to play, they don’t have far to go to eat, where they run around and sweat. It’s the same facility, where they’re eating and playing. This is a sky walk with a molded AC unit at Bellaire High School in Ysleta. Here’s an inside picture. It doesn’t get much better. Here’s the foundation shifting at Eastwood in Ysleta, a drinking fountain at Ysleta. They probably need a lot of water out there in El Paso, too, especially in the dry, hot heat of summer.
This one is at West capacity, where they have very huge problems. As the superintendent testified, the roofs leak throughout the campus. And this shows -– of course, science is required as part of the TEKS curriculum — manipulatives and science. The only problem with this science class is that the lab is missing. And here’s another problem with the leak, you can see the missing tile and the garbage can catching the leaks. Kids might slip and fall, and maybe sue the school district. And here we have another roof leak with the kids. Another roof leak in South San.
As Dr. Earthman testified, school facility conditions affect students’ achievement and learning. The State didn’t offer any expert to dispute that. School building design features and conditions have a measurable impact on learning. For example, the deficiences
in temperatures, acoustics and lighting have a negative impact. Over-crowding has a negative influence, especially for poor and minority students. And all of these conditions are evident in many of our representative focus districts.
The superintendent of Monte Alto testified in his deposition as to the inadequacy of this equipment, describing his science lab on wheels as basically a cart that was rolled around from one class to another. Other superintendents testified.
The PSJA superintendent testified, remember, Your Honor, that he had a new hire, a new teacher come into his district, ready to go. The only thing that kept her from staying and teaching these kids was one of those portable buildings. She just couldn’t teach in those types of buildings, not down there.
The superintendent of Edgewood ISD also talked about how he had a new teacher. She was from an Ivy League. I can’t quite remember exactly where she was from. But they got an Ivy League graduate to come down there and teach and help their students. The only problem was that they don’t have the money for professional staff development, especially for the immediate new hires. And once she had a week in that school with those economically disadvantaged children, she couldn’t last, and she left just one week after signing up. And that was just a few weeks ago.
Facilities make a difference in student achievement and lead to more opportunity to succeed, yet property poor districts are severely restricted in their efforts to build new facilities to replace the old or to address rapid growth, or to repair old facilities or build new facilities. Instead they are left with the patchwork and bandaid approach in addressing their facilities needs. South San Antonio was another one of the districts that was just a little too rich to receive IFA.
Even though we have offered evidence that the property rich districts receive far more money than the property poor districts, we’re not offering any evidence to support an opinion on whether those districts have enough. They have more, yes, but whether or not they have enough, we don’t know. That was their case. We certainly know that for these bilingual education students and compensatory education students in those districts that they were not provided with sufficient funds to educate those students.
* * *
In no manner are our districts enlisting the Court to establish policies, yet even the policies, themselves, must be policed when those policies violate our Constitution. It is then the role of the Court to put a stop to those. And in our present case, this is exactly what has occurred.
The defendants have created inequity in the system that substantially favors property rich districts over property poor districts. The defendants have arbitrarily set the weights for comp ed and bilingual ed at such low cost adjustments, effectively denying the districts the resources necessary to provide these students with an adequate education.
The defendants have an accountability system that allows so many students to fall through the cracks that it effectively distorts the true picture of Texas. The defendants have an accountability system with a more rigorous test than ever before, with standards that low ball the education of our students, and resources that fail even to meet those low standards.
We have a facilities financing system that is grossly inadequate and inequitable, and one that benefits the property rich districts to the nth degree, yet fails our most needy districts to provide similar tax efforts.
Your Honor, Texas is growing rapidly in economically disadvantaged and Hispanic and LEP. Every school district superintendent that took that stand and also was deposed, every single one said that their major concern was addressing, meeting the needs of these special populations. The resources they receive to educate these students is not sufficient to provide for quality education to each and every one of those children.
And as the State demographer, Steve Murdock, alluded to, and it was touched upon earlier in more detail, Texas will be poorer, less educated and more in need of social services and less competitive globally. Investing in our children’s education today will cost far less both economically and socially than having them fail. It is not a policy statement to invest in our children. It is what our children deserve and what our Constitution requires.
We’re not stating that the accountability system, itself, has to change. But we’re stating whatever that accountability system might be, it is not, in and of itself — it does not encompass, in and of itself — the elements for an adequate education under our Texas Constitution.
This is a system that as a whole the state defendants have created. It is a system that fails our Constitution, a system that is inefficient, inadequate, and unsuitable for our changing times, needs and public expectations. In no manner are our districts demanding that the system be leveled down to their current funding level in order to bring all districts into an equitable system. This would not bring access to the opportunity that our students need to achieve.
And in no manner are our districts demanding that the recapture and equalization provisions be done away with. Our districts would lose millions and millions of dollars, and they would lose even more opportunities to provide for their children.
Just as Lieutenant Governor William Ratliff stated when asked, “So long as the system continues to rely so heavily on local property taxes, should Robin Hood live?” His response, “Should? No. Must.” Thank you.
Texas Civil Rights Review 
Leave a comment