Texas is approaching a pivotal moment in its civic life: Another crucial ruling from the state Supreme Court on the status of funding for public schools is expected soon. As with anything this important, waiting is difficult.

The ruling could come this week. The court's normal practice is to issue such rulings on Fridays.

Just like at the ballpark when they tell you that you can't know the players without a program, a quick look at what's already known might help put the ruling in perspective when it comes.

The latest lawsuit (a slew of them went through Texas courts in the first half of the 1990s) was filed in April 2001 by four school districts, eventually joined by more than 300 others. Before testimony was even presented, the suit was thrown out at both the trial court and appeals court levels -- but, significantly, the state Supreme Court reversed those decisions in March 2003 and sent the case back for a full trial.

After hearing six weeks of testimony and arguments in the summer of 2004, Austin state District Judge John Dietz issued a ruling that faulted the school finance system on two major points:

He ruled the system unconstitutional because changing conditions over time, combined with a cap on tax rates to pay for school district maintenance and operations, had caused some local school property taxes to meet the legal definition of a state property tax.

In earlier school finance cases, the Supreme Court had ruled that even though local property tax rates are set by individual school boards in each of the 1,000-plus districts across the state, the taxes in reality are state taxes if state restrictions mean that the districts run out of "meaningful discretion" in deciding how much money to raise and how to spend it. The Texas Constitution expressly forbids state property taxes.

More than half of the state's school districts have set their maintenance and operations tax rates at the maximum. The districts in this case argued that this means they no longer have the local financial flexibility required under the constitution.

Dietz also ruled that funding for public education is inadequate and does not provide school districts with enough money to meet constantly increasing state and national education standards. He noted that the problems associated with adequacy in funding will worsen significantly as more low-income and limited-English students enter public schools.

So now what?

Many experts on both sides of the debate expect the court to agree with Dietz on the first issue -- the unconstitutional state property tax. Even if that's all the court does, it means that the Legislature will have to address school finance again very soon -- and do much better than its oft-repeated spectacular failures of the past two years.

But the real nail-biting tension in waiting for the court's decision comes from the other issue in the Dietz ruling: Will Texas be ordered to devote more money to public schools?

The state's more conservative lawmakers have shown that they can devise ways to give school districts what at least looks like more flexibility in spending without really giving them much more money. But if the Supreme Court agrees with Dietz on the issue of adequate funding, the Capitol's foundation will shake. Legislators would be forced to find that money, even if it means raising taxes.

Another crucial point to look for: How long will the court give the state to correct any problems?

The smart bet here is: until Sept. 1, 2006. After all, if a suit that was argued in mid-2004 has pointed out something that is unconstitutional, it means that schools must have already operated under those unconstitutional conditions during at least three academic years: 2003-04, 2004-05 and the current 2005-06 year. How could the court allow that condition to continue into another academic year?

What's so important about that timing? It would require another special legislative session before the regular 2007 session.

This is where the political waters in which this issue is immersed get considerably more murky.

It's already unlikely that another special session would be held until after the March 7 primary elections. Republican Gov. Rick Perry has named Democratic heavyweight John Sharp to head a commission to study ways to revamp Texas taxes -- the major stumbling block in the most recent regular and special legislative sessions. That commission probably won't have its work done at least until the election season is in full swing, if not later.

Already, two months before candidates officially begin filing for spots on the primary ballots, many contests are shaping up -- with many of them focused on the question of school finance. And there will be several open seats: At least nine House members (six Republicans and three Democrats) are known to be retiring, running for other offices or otherwise not returning.

Here's a key point: In Texas these days, elections are mostly settled in the March party primaries, not the November general election. So a special legislative session on school finance held next year after the March primaries will be a lame duck session.

What effect will those lame ducks, especially those in the House, have on the outcome? That's an unknown. What we do know is that more than once in the most recent sessions, crucial questions on education reform -- an issue that House leaders deem essential if school funding is to be changed -- have been decided by a one-vote margin. The question becomes whether some of those votes change during or after campaign season.

Many people who follow the school finance debate hope that the Supreme Court's ruling will give clear direction on how the issue should be settled.

But others know that where the Texas Legislature is concerned, clear direction is rare.