The long legal battle over school finance in Texas changed this
past week -- subtly but significantly, and perhaps permanently.

It changed from 30-plus years of a ghetto uprising aimed at
achieving equitable funding for poor school districts to a
carefully planned, sophisticated effort to get more money for every
district in the state.

For the first time, adequacy of funding trumped equity of
funding in a Texas school finance lawsuit. Although subtle, the distinction looms large over the approaching political battles that will be necessary to change the school funding system.
In his lengthy and meticulously reasoned final judgment in a
case argued in his court last summer, state District Judge John Dietz in Austin sided with a legal team representing a diverse
coalition of 47 property-wealthy, property-poor, urban, suburban and rural school districts from every geographic region of the
state.

He said that the Texas method of paying for public schools is unconstitutional in that it does not provide an adequate amount of money for schools to meet state and federal education requirements.

He also said that this inadequate funding system has forced many school districts to the maximum $1.50 tax rate for school maintenance and operations, creating a de facto state property tax
that is forbidden by the Texas Constitution.

That much was expected. Dietz promised those two rulings when the trial ended Sept. 15.
The subtle legal shift became apparent deep in his 125-page
final judgment. Dietz rejected reasoning that has guided litigation and reshaped school finance since 1968.

In accepting arguments that the school finance system is
inadequate for all, he also turned away claims from 282 additional plaintiff districts that the system is specifically unfair to
property-poor schools.

He acknowledged "a structural disparity in access to revenues" that "still puts property-poor districts at a financial disadvantage," but he said that the disparity has not reached the level of a constitutional violation "at this time" and ordered no relief.

Inequitable funding between property-wealthy and property-poor school districts guided four cases, all led by the Edgewood school district in San Antonio, to the Texas Supreme Court between 1989
and 1995. Those cases resulted in the current "Robin Hood" school
finance plan, in which wealthy school districts share part of their
property tax revenue with poor school districts.

The origins of the new path taken by Dietz go back to March 27 of last year, when the Supreme Court made an initial ruling on the
current case.

The case, filed in April 2001 by a small group of mostly wealthy schools led by the West Orange-Cove district near Beaumont, originally involved only the claim of an unconstitutional state
property tax. Its complaints were thrown out at the district court and appeals court levels, but it received new life when it reached
the Supreme Court.

In sending the case to district court for trial, the Supreme Court gave guidance on two key points:

* It said that school districts, even a single district, could
bring down the public education finance system by proving "that they have lost all meaningful discretion in setting the rate of tax
as it pertains to their ability to meet a state-imposed obligation." Proof of that point would show the local property tax to be, for all practical purposes, an unconstitutional state property tax.

* The court said, for the first time, that it would be willing "to review the Legislature's policy choices in determining what constitutes an adequate education."

In the Edgewood cases, the Supreme Court had accepted the
Legislature's definition of an adequate education simply as one that was delivered by an accredited school.
This time, the court acknowledged the limits of judicial authority over legislative action, but it added that "once policy
choices have been made by the Legislature, it is the judiciary's responsibility in a proper case to determine whether those choices as a whole meet the standard set by the people" in the Texas
Constitution.

Those two points set legal minds in motion. In the words of David Thompson, one of the attorneys for the West Orange-Cove group of plaintiffs, "We presented the case that the Supreme Court indicated it was willing to hear."

The West Orange-Cove legal team methodically added school
districts to its plaintiff group, most notably the huge and influential Dallas, Houston and Austin districts.

In doing so, the lawyers assembled a diverse coalition through which they could
demonstrate inadequacies in school finance not just for individual districts but systemic funding failures across the state.

They were joined by two other plaintiff groups: 22 property-poor school districts led by Edgewood and 260 diverse districts led by Alvarado and including Fort Worth. Those two groups focused their
arguments mainly on demonstrating the problems experienced by poor
districts.

Unfortunately for them, nothing in the Supreme Court's recent statements on the case indicated a desire to revisit the poor-vs.-rich arguments, and Dietz didn't accept them.

The good news for poor districts in Dietz's final judgment: The state's system for funding new school facilities was declared
inadequate and uncostitutional, as was its lack of proper funding for bilingual, economically disadvantaged and other special-needs students.

State Attorney General Greg Abbott quickly promised to take the case immediately back to the Supreme Court and to ask for a hearing "at the earliest possible date." His office points out that it is
Abbott's job to defend the Texas Constitution and the laws adopted by the Legislature.

The all-important questions now: Will the Supreme Court really take the active role that it promised in its earlier ruling? Will it second-guess the Legislature on the adequacy of school funding and the level of education that it affords Texas children?

Texas has not been known for an activist judiciary.
Just as important is the shadow that this case and the pending Supreme Court decision will cast over the legislative session scheduled to begin Jan. 11. Dietz's final judgment dissected the
school finance system, but the Legislature historically has not moved on school finance until the Supreme Court has ruled -- and
then in reluctant stutter steps.

Supreme Court oral arguments could happen as soon as March, but a ruling probably won't come before the legislative session ends
May 30.

Finally, just as the coalition of diverse school districts in the West Orange-Cove group of plaintiffs proved to be a decisive
factor in the outcome of this case, the direction of legislative action on school finance probably will be greatly influenced if the
diverse education interests in Texas can unite -- and stay united -- in common cause.

A thoughtfully planned, broad but united effort brought success to West Orange-Cove and its attorneys. Politics, though, has a way of separating the best of bedfellows.