Morath v. Tex. Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coal.

• Decision Date: 13 May 2016
• Docket Number: NO. 14–0776,14–0776
• Citation: 490 S.W.3d 826
• Parties: Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in his official capacity; Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, in his official capacity; The Texas State Board of Education; and the Texas Education Agency, Appellants, v. The Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition, et al.; Calhoun County ISD, et al.; Edgewood ISD, et al.; Fort Bend ISD, et al.; Texas Charter School Association, et al.; and Joyce Coleman, et al., Appellees
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

490 S.W.3d 826

Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in his official capacity; Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, in his official capacity; The Texas State Board of Education; and the Texas Education Agency, Appellants,

v.The Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition, et al.; Calhoun County ISD, et al.; Edgewood ISD, et al.; Fort Bend ISD, et al.; Texas Charter School Association, et al.; and Joyce Coleman, et al., Appellees

NO. 14–0776

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued September 1, 2015

OPINION DELIVERED: May 13, 2016

Nichole Beth Bunker-Henderson, Assistant Attorney, Daniel T. Hodge, First Asst. Attorney General, Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor General, Beth Ellen Klusmann, Assistant Solicitor General, Kristofer S. Monson, Assistant Solicitor General, Rance L. Craft, Evan S. Greene, Shelley Nieto Dahlberg, Office of the Attorney General, Greg W. Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, Austin TX, for Appellants.

Mark Ryan Trachtenberg, Haynes and Boone LLP, John David Thompson III, Philip D. Fraissinet, Thompson & Horton LLP, James Christopher Diamond, The Diamond Law Firm, P.C., Houston TX, Richard E. Gray III, Richard Gray IV, Toni Hunter, Gray & Becker PC, Craig T. Enoch, Melissa Prentice Lorber, Shelby Leigh O'Brien, Enoch Kever PLLC, Holly McIntush, Thompson & Horton LLP, Rachel Anne Ekery, Wallace B. Jefferson, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP, Denise Pierce, Texas Charter Schools Association, Leonard J. Schwartz, Schulman, Lopez & Hoffer, LLP, Doug W. Ray, Randall Buck Wood, Ray & Wood LLP, Austin TX, David G. Hinojosa, Celina Moreno, Marisa Bono, Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, Robert Allen Schulman, Joseph E. Hoffer, Schulman, Lopez, Hoffer & Adelstein, LLP, San Antonio TX, John William Turner, Haynes and Boone LLP, James C. Ho, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas TX, Roger L. Ricem, META, Inc., Somerville MA, for Appellees.

Adam Warren Aston, Office of the Governor, Roger B. Borgelt, Borgelt Law, Brian W. Bishop, Attorney at Law, Robert Earl Henneke, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Charles R. 'Skip' Watson, Mike A. Hatchell, Robert Bruce Laboon, Susan A. Kidwell, Locke Lord LLP, Austin, TX, Alexander S. Elson, Lynn B. Bayard, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, Jodi Bender, Duffee + Eitzen, Adam H. Charnes, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Dallas, TX, Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, AR, Kristi Hassett, Flower Mount, TX, Ronald Johnson, C.Ph.D., Zephyr, TX, Albert Kauffman, St. Mary's University School of Law, San Antonio, TX, Michael Q. McShane PhD, Director of Education Policy, Kansas City, MO, Eric N. Green, Cal–Tex Protective Coatings, Schertz, TX, David M. Russell, Templeton Smithee Hayes Heinrich & Russell LLP, Amarillo, TX, Zaakir Tameez, Houston, TX, Warren V. Norred, Norred Law, PLLC, Arlington, TX, Briscoe Cain III, The Cain Law Firm, Deer Park, TX, David Upham, University of Dallas, Politics Dep't, Irving, TX, Andrew B. Piel, Harrison Steck, P.C., Fort Worth, TX, for Amici Curiae.

JUSTICE WILLETT

delivered the opinion of the Court.

For the seventh time since the late–1980s, we are called upon to assess the constitutionality of the Texas school finance system, a recondite scheme for which the word “Byzantine” seems generous.

In this round, more than half of the State's 1,000–plus school districts have brought the most far-reaching funding challenge in Texas history. We are presented with a court reporter's record exceeding 200,000 pages and a trial court judgment accompanied by 1,508 findings of fact and 118 conclusions of law. Dozens of briefs, many filed by new parties raising new claims, frame the intricate arguments now before us. The depth and breadth of Texans' attention is understandable—and also commendable: Good education is good policy.

But our judicial responsibility is not to second-guess or micromanage Texas education policy or to issue edicts from on high increasing financial inputs in hopes of increasing educational outputs. There doubtless exist innovative reform measures to make Texas schools more accountable and efficient, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Judicial review, however, does not licence second-guessing the political branches' policy choices, or substituting the wisdom of nine judges for that of 181 lawmakers. Our role is much more limited, as is our holding: Despite the imperfections of the current school funding regime, it meets minimum constitutional requirements.

Imperfection, however, does not mean imperfectible. Texas's more than five million school children deserve better than serial litigation over an increasingly Daedalean “system.” They deserve transformational, top-to-bottom reforms that amount to more than Band–Aid on top of Band–Aid. They deserve a revamped, nonsclerotic system fit for the 21st century.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Overview of the Texas Public School System

1. The Public Education System

The Legislature has enacted numerous statutes articulating its goals for Texas schools. Among those statutes, section 4.001(a) of the Education Code¹

provides:

The mission of the public education system of this state is to ensure that all Texas children have access to a quality education that enables them to achieve their potential and fully participate now and in the future in the social, economic, and educational opportunities of our state and nation. That mission is grounded on the conviction that a general diffusion of knowledge is essential for the welfare of this state and for the preservation of the liberties and rights of citizens. It is further grounded on the conviction that a successful public education system is directly related to a strong, dedicated, and supportive family and that parental involvement in the school is essential for the maximum educational achievement of a child.

Subtitle F of the Education Code sets out provisions for curriculum, programs, and services. Section 28.001 of the subtitle² states:

It is the intent of the legislature that the essential knowledge and skills developed by the State Board of Education under this subchapter shall require all students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to read, write, compute, problem solve, think critically, apply technology, and communicate across all subject areas. The essential knowledge and skills shall also prepare and enable all students to continue to learn in postsecondary educational, training, or employment settings.

In Neely v. West Orange–Cove Consolidated Independent School District

(WOC II ), we noted that the Texas school system has “four integrated components: a state curriculum, a standardized test to measure how well the curriculum is being taught, accreditation standards to hold schools accountable for their performance, and sanctions and remedial measures for students, schools, and districts to ensure that accreditation standards are met.”³

As part of that system, the Education Code requires school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to offer both a foundation curriculum and an enrichment curriculum. A foundation curriculum consists of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.⁴ An enrichment curriculum consists of languages other than English to the extent possible, health, physical education, fine arts, career and technology education, technology applications, religious literature, and personal financial literacy.⁵ Alongside these requirements, Texas law establishes bilingual education programs with the goal of “providing a full opportunity for all students to become competent in speaking, reading, writing, and comprehending the English language.”⁶

Establishing the required curriculum is a significant undertaking. The State Board of Education (SBOE)⁷ is required to “identify the essential knowledge and skills of each subject of the required curriculum that all students should be able to demonstrate.”⁸ To that end, as we discussed in WOC II

, the SBOE adopted the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum.⁹

In 2006, the Legislature required the SBOE to incorporate college readiness standards into the TEKS curriculum.¹⁰ The Legislature has defined college readiness as “the level of preparation a student must attain in English language arts and mathematics courses to enroll and succeed, without remediation, in an entry-level general education course for credit in that same content area for a baccalaureate degree or associate degree program.”¹¹ Adoption of these standards has been a laborious process that continues today, involving “the direct input of educators, parents, business and industry representatives, and employers,”¹² followed by public hearings and comments.

As we explained in WOC II

, “[t]o correspond to curriculum changes, the Legislature required the development of a new state standardized test–the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (‘TAKS') test—to replace the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (‘TAAS') test.”¹³ The TAKS test was harder than the TAAS test and covered more subjects.¹⁴ Since WOC II, the incorporation of college-readiness standards into the TEKS curriculum led to a new test, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) test.¹⁵ The STAAR testing program is directed at postsecondary readiness. The record is clear that the STAAR test is significantly more difficult than the TAKS test.

Beginning with the 2011–12 school year, the STAAR test was gradually introduced, beginning with Grade 9. The 2014–15 school year was the first in which all high school students took the test. High school students currently must pass five STAAR end-of-course exams in order to graduate: Algebra I, Biology, English I, English II, and United States History.¹⁶

The Commissioner of Education (Commissioner)¹⁷ sets three performance levels for the STAAR testing program: Level I (unsatisfactory), Level II (satisfactory), and Level III (advanced). Level II was chosen as the college readiness standard. As we noted...