I guess I am not the only one who wondered if the Dallas Morning News got it wrong this morning in many of its articles on the meaning of Tuesday’s ruling by the Texas Supreme Court on school finance. Wick Allison opined in Front Burner today that he had a similar reaction to one of the News’ articles on the issue where he came to the "exact opposite conclusion" from the News based on the same facts.

Here is my problem with the News rendition: part of the headline of the News story reads: "‘Robin Hood’ left alone". The article itself bluntly states that the 7-1 ruling "does not alter the "Robin Hood" wealth-sharing system." That is not how I read the majority opinion of the Court authored by Nathan Hecht. (Hecht previously had voted with the minority in the last Edgewood decision. Four members of the Court, including Hecht, argued that Robin Hood was an unconstitutional violation of the constitutional prohibition against a statewide property tax.)

While Hecht is careful to appear to accept the precedent set in the previous cases, he states in two separate sections of his opinion that the current public school finance system is in violation of the prohibition against a statewide property tax. I don’t see how the legislature "fixes" this problem without eliminating Robin Hood or drastically reducing its reach.

(I will discuss all of this in greater length in an upcoming viewpoint article on school finance.)

Meanwhile, don’t jump to the conclusion prematurely that, as the News put it, "the ruling did not change the state’s so-called Robin Hood system." Also, if you want to know why we need to end Robin Hood now, go to our Boot Robin Hood Blog section on our editorial site, and see why the current system is a lousy way to fund public education in Texas.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment