Educational Administration
Quarterly
http://eaq.sagepub.com
Situating Texas School Finance Policy in a CRT Framework: How
"Substantially Equal" Yields Racial Inequity
Enrique Alemán, Jr.
Educational Administration Quarterly 2007; 43; 525
DOI: 10.1177/0013161X07303276
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/5/525
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
University Council for Educational Administration
Additional services and information for Educational Administration Quarterly can be found
at:
Email Alerts: http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 32 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/5/525
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Educational Administration Quarterly
Vol. 43, No. 5 (December 2007) 525-558
Situating Texas School Finance Policy
in a CRT Framework: How “Substantially
Equal” Yields Racial Inequity
Enrique Alemán Jr.
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to conduct a critical race policy analysis of
Texas school finance policy. This empirical article examines three chapters of the Texas
education code (TEC) and identifies the racial effects that the school funding system
has on seven majority-Mexican American school districts.
Methodology: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Latina/o Critical (LatCrit) theoretical
frameworks are employed in this article in which race and property are highlighted as
concepts central to the analysis. The methodology allows for a critical perspective on
history and the racial effects of policy to be outlined. First, a historical analysis of race
and racism, schooling, and politics in Texas contextualizes the debate over school finance
equity. Second, an analysis of the effects that the school finance system has on communities of color is completed.
Analysis and Findings: An examination of primarily 2002–2003 school finance data,
Texas Supreme Court opinions, and TEC indicates that majority-Mexican American
school districts are disadvantaged by Texas school finance policy. Whether it is operational, maintenance, or facilities funding, the school finance system institutes inequity.
Keywords: Critical Race Theory; policy analysis; school finance; equity
INTRODUCTION
On a recent 60 Minutes program, correspondent Leslie Stahl reported on
the Texas Top 10% Plan, the state’s college admissions policy that automatically admits students who rank in the 10% of their high school’s graduating class to any of the state’s public institutions of higher education. The
plan has come under legislative attack recently as university enrollment has
ballooned, limiting the options of certain powerful and elite constituencies
and their children. Put plainly, as the number of “automatically” accepted
DOI: 10.1177/0013161X07303276
© 2007 The University Council for Educational Administration
525
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
526
Educational Administration Quarterly
students has risen, the remaining available slots have dwindled, limiting
options for some. Constituents and legislators from majority White, high
socioeconomic communities are now lobbying for a legislative revision or
repeal of the policy.
In her report, Stahl portrayed the plan as an “unfair” policy, which punishes higher achieving students who attend “more rigorous” high schools
and rewards students from lesser educational backgrounds. The story centered on two students, one of whom was White, who had attended one of the
wealthiest school districts in the state, and was denied admission to a state
flagship institution because of the cap on enrollment. The other student, a
Mexican American, graduated from one of the poorest public school districts
in the state, lived in public housing with her family, and was admitted under
the admissions policy.
Stahl’s reporting implied that the White student was disadvantaged because
she was fortunate enough to attend a high school where Advanced Placement
courses were the norm, where fierce student competition resulted in academic
rigor, and where students’ expectations were to attend one of the state’s
premier universities. What Stahl failed to explore, however, was the long historical practice of disadvantaging communities of color and the institutionalization of inequity within the Texas public school system.1 She provided no
historical context for the long struggle to provide fair and equitable funding to
the state’s 1,037 school districts (Cardenas, 1997; Farr & Trachtenberg, 1999;
San Miguel & Valencia, 1998), and although relative change has occurred, her
report lacked an analysis of the racism institutionalized by current Texas
school finance policy.
Stahl’s report exemplified much of what is wrong with the practice of and
the research conducted in traditional educational policy analysis. It lacked a
contextual analysis of historically racist practices, ignored the power dynamics that disadvantage communities of color, and failed to insert a critical
analysis of the winners and losers of a given policy. Furthermore, the report
failed to link the funding inequities in the public school system to academic
readiness and access at the higher education level. In this article, I initiate a
discussion of how Texas public school finance policy continues to disadvantage both poor communities and students of color. First, I discuss the study
of race and racism and outline the major tenets guiding Critical Race Theory
Author’s Note: Please address all correspondence to Enrique Alemán, Jr., University of Utah,
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, 1705 E. Campus Center Drive, Salt Lake
City, Utah 85112; phone: (801) 585-5097; e-mail: [email protected].
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
527
(CRT), describing the advantages of utilizing this framework in analyzing
school finance policy. Second, I conduct a brief historical analysis of Texas
school finance policy, highlighting how race and the loss of property formulated the school funding system early in Texas’ history. Finally, I provide a
policy analysis of three chapters of the Texas education code (TEC), demonstrating how school finance policy institutes a racial hierarchy among the
state’s school districts.
CRITICAL RACE EPISTEMOLOGY AND METHOD
In this article, I employ a critical race epistemology and methodology,
which allows for analysis of educational policy by contextualizing history,
inserting an understanding of Latina/o community struggle, and an interrogation of state statute. This section delineates CRT and Latina/o Critical
(LatCrit) Theory frameworks that were utilized to conduct the study and
complete the analysis. These perspectives are not used separately; rather they
are used as complementary frameworks in the analysis of school finance policy and their effects on majority-Mexican American school districts.
CRITICAL RACE THEORY
A CRT perspective situates school funding inequity as a political, social,
and historical process in which the normalization of inequity, subjugation
of marginalized groups, and oppression of communities of color exists via
the institution of a racist school finance system. It complicates terms like
“equity” and “adequacy” and encourages problematizing the effects of funding formulas. In addition, a CRT framework provides critical administrative
and policy analysis tools for educational leaders interested in the struggle for
social justice.
Critical race theorists posit that racism, White privilege, and an ahistorical
context dominate institutions and systems, social norms, and daily practice.
They point to the legal system, including the U.S. Constitution, and cite
traditional historical narratives in an effort to highlight the tensions and
inconsistencies inherent between property and human rights (Crenshaw,
Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995; Valdés, Culp, & Harris, 2002). Taylor
(1998) describes CRT research as “a form of oppositional scholarship” which
challenges the “experience of Whites as the normative standard and grounds
its conceptual framework in the distinctive experiences of people of color”
(p. 122). Parker and Lynn (2002) describe it as a “discourse of liberation” that
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
528
Educational Administration Quarterly
“can be used as a methodological tool as well as a greater ontological and
epistemological understanding of how race and racism affect education and
lives of the racially disenfranchised” (pp. 7–8). Delgado and Stefancic (2001)
describe CRT as a “movement” and a “collection of activists and scholars
interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism,
and power” (p. 2). The theoretical framework has branched out into fields of
study outside the original legal studies. It is now utilized by scholars in sociology, ethnic studies, women’s studies, and most recently, in education.
CRT scholars generally operate under the following central tenets
(Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001;
López & Parker, 2003; Parker, 1998):
1. Racism is endemic and ingrained in U.S. society;
2. The civil rights movement and subsequent laws require reinterpretation;
3. Concepts of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness and meritocracy must be
challenged;
4. Providing a space for the “voices” of marginalized people to be heard is
vital to reform; and,
5. Whiteness is constructed as the “ultimate property.”
Solórzano (1998) adds commitment to social justice and an interdisciplinary perspective to these tenets and notes that in education, CRT challenges
dominant education theory, discourse, policy, and practice.
LatCrit Theory
Made up of scholars who participated in the formation and growth of CRT,
LatCrit was designed as a project to highlight the “racing” of Latina/os in the
legal discourse (Trucious-Haynes, 2001; Valdés, 1997). Haney-López (1998)
argues that LatCrit scholarship should avoid the elimination of race discourse
or the substitution of ethnicity-centered explanations as a means for understanding Latina/o identity and marginalization. Similar to CRT, LatCrit scholarship provokes liberatory research and promotes self-determination by
Latina/os, for Latina/os (Nuñez, 1999). Arguing that “the best way to attack
the effects of racism upon Latinos in this country is to establish a distinct
Latino Critical Race Theory” (p. 3), Nuñez posited that the current discourse
and analysis on race for Latina/os is inadequate, does not interrogate a predominant Anglo, racist ideology, and does not foster cooperation and collaboration with other marginalized groups.
Theorists also contend that LatCrit complements CRT work, never supplanting it or its central tenets. By complicating definitions of race and
racism, Espinoza and Harris (1998) challenged LatCrit scholars in their
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
529
understanding of racial hierarchy and pushed those in the field to accept
Latina/o histories, cultures, perspectives as epistemologies and ontologies
worth understanding. Furthermore, Trucious-Haynes (2001) stated that
“Latina/os must acknowledge and investigate the ways in which the dominant culture defines our group as a Non-White, White or non-racial group
that is outside of the race discourse, in order to suit its convenience . . .”
(p. 3) as has been done at different points in history. She was forthright in
her assertion that “[A]t a minimum, it is critical that LatCrit scholars confront our community’s ambivalence about its group racial identity” (p. 3).
Stefancic (1998) stated that the Latina/o critical research has been conducted and written about for many years, although it has been ignored or
marked as illegitimate by the traditional and positivistic segments of mainstream academia. She pointed to Rodolfo Acuña as the “progenitor” (p. 1509)
of LatCrit discourse and his book, Occupied America, as the first work in
LatCrit scholarship for its historical accounting of Latina/os, specifically
Chicana/os in the United States and southwest. In her annotated bibliography
of works of LatCrit scholarship, Stefancic (1998) organized the literature into
17 themes. In her listing, several corresponded generally to central tenets
noted by CRT scholars, whereas others were more specific to issues in Latina/o
communities. They included, among others, storytelling/counterstorytelling
and “naming one’s own reality,” Latina/o essentialism, black/brown tensions,
assimilationism and the colonized mind (pp. 1511–1515). Espinoza and
Harris (1998) argued for an expansion on the Black–White paradigm that
dominates racial discourse.
In the educational research community, scholars have begun to tell the stories of Latina/os in higher and public education, integrating LatCrit scholarship and their research agendas while promoting social change. Researching
and examining the issues that affect Chicana/o graduate students (Solórzano
& Yosso, 2001; Yosso, 2006) and proposing practical applications of CRT and
LatCrit to student services staff that serve Latina/o undergraduate students
(Villalpando, 2004) are just two examples of how educational researchers
have begun to apply LatCrit to the field. Others have studied the histories,
experiences, and cultures of Chicana/os in the colleges and universities
(Delgado Bernal, 2002), as well as how Chicana activist teachers combat
oppression in the public school setting (Revilla, 2004) in an effort to propose
critical frameworks from which to analyze research findings.
Utilizing CRT in Educational Policy Analysis
Parker (2003) states that critical race policy analysis seeks to link a
historical analysis with educational policies “racialized effects” (p. 147).
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
530
Educational Administration Quarterly
He proposes a framework from which to analyze policy decisions, scrutinizing them and the conditions they create for students of color. Borrowing
Parker’s framework, I seek to investigate these effects and the conditions created by Texas school finance policy on majority-Mexican American school
districts. As exemplified by the plethora of research, Mexican Americans
have historically been disadvantaged in many areas of K-12 education
policy—curriculum and instruction, bilingual education, assessment and
accountability systems, and school finance (Allsup, 1982; Cardenas, 1997;
Cortez & Montecel, 2003; Delgado Bernal, 2002; Donato, 1997; Kozol,
1991; San Miguel, 2004; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Valencia,
2002b; Valenzuela, 2002; Yosso, 2006). Therefore, this article further seeks to
use CRT to determine how Texas school finance policy institutes inequity by
analyzing the “racialized effects” of the Texas system of school funding.
Completing a critical race policy analysis such as Brady, Eatman, and Parker
(2000) and arguing for race-conscious education policy as does Moses (2002)
gives voice to marginalized communities, questions the disadvantaging of
communities of color, and problematizes the effects of “equity” statute. As
proffered by Parker (2003), my central argument is that race should be the
primary factor used in analyzing educational policy.
The rationale for utilizing this methodology is amplified by its potential in
achieving an understanding of the intersection of politics, policy, and race and
its applicability to educational practice. Aside from some notable exceptions,
this type of scholarship is lacking in the educational administration/leadership
or educational policy fields of study (Brady, Eatman, & Parker, 2000; LadsonBillings, 1998; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1997; López, 2003; López & Parker,
2003; Parker, 1998, 2003; Parker & Lynn, 2002; Tate, 1997). As Parker (2003)
has noted, “CRT has not crossed over into the field to any significant extent
and is virtually absent in the area of educational policy” (p. 154).
Therefore, the premise of this article is based on CRT and LatCrit’s central tenets in an effort to tell “the story behind the story” (López, 2003). It
situates the “story” of Texas’ school finance policy in a contextualized critique of a racist historical past, questions the neutrality of school funding
formulas and law, challenges the notion that school finance equity was
achieved through recent litigation, and places a racist funding structure at the
heart of inequity and discrimination. As argued by Parker (2003) and Young
(1999), it deviates from traditional educational policy analysis—which
neglects the pervasiveness of racism embedded within policy structures and
endorses a rationalist perspective of policymaking—by employing a critical race policy framework. Similar to the analysis of higher educational
finance completed by Brady, Eatman, & Parker (2000) and the critique of
human capital theory in educational finance conducted by Alemán ( 2007),
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
531
this article specifically calls for a critique of educational finance policies
employing a CRT framework.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE POLITICS
OF TEXAS SCHOOL FUNDING
To understand why the Texas school finance system exists in its current
form, one must first examine the molding of the United States and Texas, and
the roles that property and race played in instituting inequity. The war for
“independence” against England was a liberating moment for capitalism, the
free market economy, and Anglo domination. The central concern of the
American political and economic elite was the issue of property rights.
As stated by Takaki (2000), the war allowed enterprises to convert Native
American land into private property, open up trading opportunities, develop
business and industry, and “in general, expand the market” (p. 5). Kramnick
(1987) noted that the primary concern raised by newly “liberated” property
owners was whether the central government would have power over the
states. He stated that it was concern of states’ rights issues that became “…so
threatening to the rights of property, which evoked the most outrage” (p. 25)
among the White ruling elite.
Like property, race and racism played a central role in the formation of the
United States. Spring (1997) explained that the “English belief in their own
cultural and racial superiority over Native Americans and, later, enslaved
Africans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Asians, was not born on
American soil” (p. 39). However, these beliefs provided the underpinning for
the elimination and subjugation of non-Anglo groups of people. This belief
system, exemplified by the enactment of the Naturalization Law of 1790 by
the First U.S. Congress, required that applicants demonstrate 2 years of U.S.
residency, show good moral character, and be “white” (Takaki, 2000, p. 15)
in order for citizenship to be granted.
Similar to the “Founding Fathers’” strategy to rid the land of Native
American tribes, appropriate African American labor, and instill a republican,
puritan work ethic (Spring, 1997; Takaki, 2000), Texan policymakers implemented efforts to eliminate Mexicans from their land, create a dual-wage
system of labor, and inculcate a sense of Manifest Destiny (Acuña, 1988;
De León, 1998; Montejano, 1987; San Miguel, 1987; Spring, 1997). For
example, as expressed by two of America’s most notable “democratic
thinkers”—Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson—Whites were superior
and Texas would play a significant role in the Manifest Destiny plans of the
United States (Takaki, 2000). Takaki expanded on Franklin’s notion of the
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
532
Educational Administration Quarterly
“lovely white,” (p. 11), whereas Acuña (1988) stated, “Jefferson predicted
that the Spanish borderlands ‘are ours the first moment war is forced upon
us’” (pp. 6–7). Although it would not be until 1836 that war would be “forced
upon” the United States by a struggling, poor, and resource-stripped nation,
the creation of dominant and subordinate classes was imminent once the
Texans defeated the Mexican Army with the help of American “men, money
and supplies” (Acuña, 1988, p. 13).
Revolt! Fighting for Education
Although many recall the “Remember the Alamo” rallying cry as a seminal moment in Texas history, education was also a “rallying cry” of sorts at
the onset of Texas–Mexican War. Texas “revolutionaries” in 1836 declared
that the Mexican government had “failed to establish any public system of
education, although possessed of almost boundless resources” (Gammel cited
in Walker & Casey, 1996, pp. 1–2). The revolutionaries used this purported
lack of educational opportunity as one of the major themes for inciting revolt.
In this case, the revolutionaries adroitly argued against this lack of educational opportunity, stirred up anti-Mexican sentiment among Mexican land
grantees, and enlisted the assistance of the U.S. government in “freeing”
Texas land from dictatorial control (Acuña, 1988).
However, the Mexican Constitution of 1824 did address public education
and not unlike its counterpart to the north, left the responsibility of education
to the states. The Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas (modern day Texas) made
provisions for education through land grants and municipal funds in 1827 and
1833; however, land grantees themselves failed to put a high value on education. Instead, the newcomers settled the land, established economic ties, and
fought with Native American tribes for control of local lands (Acuña, 1988).
Individual communities and families determined local educational funding, a
method soon employed by the newly formed Republic of Texas (Walker &
Casey, 1996).
With both the Republic of Texas Constitution of 1836 and the Texas state
constitution of 1845, educational funding consisted of allotting counties land
for generating revenue or space to educate a county’s children. The state also
dedicated its first state funds, albeit a very small amount, to be used by counties toward the establishment and maintenance of public schools. Walker and
Casey (1996) contended that public interest in establishing and administering public schools was virtually nonexistent. However, San Miguel (1987)
demonstrated how Mexican parents struggled to educate their children,
founding their own schools, enrolling in Catholic schools, or sending
them to Mexican schools to be educated. Whichever the case, it is clear that
wealthy landowners, the vast majority of whom were White males, controlled
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
533
the political, educational, and economic structures at Texas’ inception
(Acuña, 1988; Johnson, 2003; San Miguel, 1987; Spring, 1997). This elite
group of White men formed the state’s school finance system, laying the
groundwork for the modern debate on school finance equity and local control of property taxes.
Loss of Property, Institution of Segregation
After the Texas–Mexican War of 1836, Mexican and Mexican American
communities continued to comprise the majority of the population but held
little or no institutional power. Mexicans were stripped of their land, enabling
White cattle ranchers and farming interests to take control of the Texas economic and political system (Acuña, 1988; Johnson, 2003; Montejano, 1987).
With the end of the Mexican–American War in 1848 and the signing of the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexican inferiority was further institutionalized within the new state’s political, economic, and social structures (Alonzo,
1998; Menchaca, 1993; Montejano, 1987). Although Mexican negotiators
had debated for two articles that would have granted full citizenship rights to
Mexicans living in annexed territories as well as recognized Spanish and
Mexican land grants as valid, the articles were summarily rejected by the
U.S. Congress (Montejano, 1987, p. 311). Menchaca (1993) demonstrates
that the treaty “stipulated the rights of inhabitants of the ceded territories
(including Indians), set the U.S.-Mexico border, and brought several binational agreements on economic relations to closure,” but that the “American
legislators violated the treaty and refused to extend Mexicans full political
rights” (p. 584).
With the assistance of the Texas Rangers—known by Mexican American
citizens as the “diablos Tejanos—the Texan devils” (Johnson, 2003, p. 12)
because of their savagery and brutality—a powerful ruling class of White
elites secured its place in Texas society. Establishing authority over the now
displaced Mexican citizenry, Whites began assuming ownership of the land
quickly and solidified White domination in the newly formed state. Economic
transformation from a primarily ranching to a farming industry required a
steady stream of cheap labor. Because of the state’s proximity to the border
and the depressed nature of the northern Mexican economy, there was endless
demand for and supply of cheap labor. Yet as Montejano (1987) noted, White
power brokers struggled with, “What was to be done with the Mexican?”
(p. 177). He stated:
Growers argued that the feared social costs of Mexican immigration could be
regulated, small farmers and workers, on the other had, predicted the “undoing” of America. The end result . . . Mexicans were to be kept in the fields
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
534
Educational Administration Quarterly
and out of industry. The proper place for Mexicans in modern Texas was that
of farm laborers. (p. 179)
However, in the off-season when crops were not ready to be harvested,
farmers and local citizens found it necessary to get Mexican American
children “off the streets” (p. 193). They attended separate schools lacking
adequate resources, housed in antiquated facilities and staffed by an untrained
faculty (Montejano, 1987; San Miguel, 1987; Spring, 1997; Wilson, 2003).
Compulsory laws were either enforced or ignored based on the seasonal
needs of farmers. Many White administrators justified their racism by citing
district financial distress. San Miguel (1987) noted, “They [White administrators] argued that the increase of Mexican enrollment would financially
burden the school budget” (p. 52). It was not until the state instituted funding
formulas that generated state monies based on attendance that Mexican
American and other students of color, primarily African Americans, were
“wanted” in schools (Cardenas, 1997).
Policy Reform Through the Courts
From the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to 1949, the state of Texas school
finance did not change significantly. The first major reform since the annexation of the state—the Gilmer-Aiken Act of 1949—provided an infusion of
state funding and consolidated inefficient school districts, but it did not fundamentally alter the way Texas schools were funded (Walker & Casey, 1996).
In other words, districts continued to generate school operational and maintenance funds primarily through local property taxes. The state system was
“unequalized” and the varied property values across the state resulted in wide
disparities in local school funding. The negative impact on majority-Mexican
American schools was most egregious. Even after several governorappointed statewide commissions recommended a massive infusion of state
funds and a restructuring of the system to include a method for “equalizing”2
funding, the legislature failed to act. It took a group of parents and leading
civil rights groups to initiate change through the courts (Cardenas, 1997).
In 1969, a San Antonio-based parent group from one of the poorest
districts in the state filed suit against a wealthier local school district.3 In
the landmark San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez
(1971), a U.S. District Court declared the Texas school finance system
unconstitutional. The court held that the state’s method of relying heavily on
local property wealth discriminated against children living in poor school
districts (Cardenas, 1997; Farr & Trachtenberg, 1999; Hobby & Walker,
1991; Walker & Casey, 1996). As noted by Valencia (2002a), the case was
“unique in that it is the first, and only, case of school finance equity to be
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
535
adjudicated before the United States Supreme Court” (pp. 19–20). When
heard on appeal, the court overturned the lower court decision, referred the
case back to the state, and reiterated that education was not a fundamental
right protected under the U.S. constitution (Valencia, 2002b).
The threat of litigation notwithstanding, the Texas legislature failed to
address the evident school finance inequities in legislative session from 1973
to 1983. Rather, they dealt with the issue piecemeal, allocating inadequate
additional funds and refusing to restructure the school finance system.
Lobbying efforts and civil rights protests failed to budge the legislature.
Once again, litigation tactics were employed to force legislative action (Farr
& Trachtenberg, 1999; Hobby & Walker, 1991).
The state constitutional case that provided the impetus for shifting
from unequalized local enrichment to an equalized system of finance was
Edgewood ISD vs. Kirby (1989).4 Although the original Edgewood case went
to trial in January 1987, the state constitutional cases were adjudicated multiple times, spanning 8 years before district, appellate, and the Texas Supreme
Court (Cardenas, 1997; Farr & Trachtenberg, 1999; Walker, 1988; Walker
& Moak, 1988). Edgewood ISD leadership, attorneys from the Mexican
American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF),5 and directors of the
newly formed Equity Center6 provided leadership on legal and political fronts
(Farr & Trachtenberg, 1999).
However, MALDEF and Equity Center leadership utilized disparate legal
strategies. Districts represented by the Equity Center consisted of majorityWhite, rural, and poor school districts, yet they did not agree with the arguments presented by Edgewood ISD and MALDEF. As a result, the Equity
Center school districts joined the struggle against the state system as plaintiffintervenors, but provided an alternate argument to the court. The original
Edgewood plaintiffs, along with other majority-Mexican American school
districts, advocated a race-based argument. Equity Center supporters preferred a wealth-based discrimination legal argument.
In Farr and Trachtenberg’s (1999) interviews with Craig Foster, head of
the Equity Center, and Al Kauffman, lead attorney for MALDEF, reasons
for the abandonment of the equal protection argument were provided.
Citing political concerns, Foster found that if the struggle for school finance
reform were made into a “Mexican-American issue” (p. 643), no one in the
legislature would support them. More specifically, Foster stated:
The reason for [bringing in the plaintiff-intervenors, i.e. the Equity Center
group] was that MALDEF was unwilling to give up the ethnic component
even though David Long from California [attorney in Serrano v. Priest] and
everybody that had ever done a school-finance lawsuit said that you don’t
really get anything out of that if you have an inequitable system . . . It is best
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
536
Educational Administration Quarterly
to just go with inequity for everybody and not try to make it an ethnic or
racial thing. (pp. 643–644)
Kauffman, however, frustrated by the Supreme Court’s reluctance to
accept an equal protection claim, planned on using the equal protection
argument as was used in federal voting rights cases. In his interview with
the authors, he concurred with Foster’s warning about legislative resistance
to an equal protection claim yet was cognizant of the racial reality.
Kauffman stated, “To this day, I still feel there was discrimination. . . . The
main reason this [type of system] was allowed to go on was discrimination
against Mexican-Americans” (Farr & Trachtenberg, 1999 p. 643).
In June 1987 the district judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that
the state’s finance system was unconstitutional and inefficient, and that education was a fundamental right protected by the state constitution. Farr and
Trachtenberg (1999) stated, “The State’s only victory came at the expense of
Kauffman’s race-based equal protection claim. On every other point, the
plaintiffs were victorious” (p. 633). After the state appealed and won in appellate court, the Texas Supreme Court once again declared the Texas school
finance system unconstitutional. As had the lower court, the Texas Supreme
Court focused on the “wealth-based” efficiency provision and ordered the
Texas Legislature to create a constitutional system by May 1990 (Hobby &
Walker, 1991; Walker, 1988; Yudof, 1991).
Five more years of litigation and legislative proposals ensued, finally
resulting in the adjudication of the last Edgewood case in 1995. After more
than 25 years of grassroots struggle, political action, and litigation, advocates
were able to secure additional funding for their communities and students.
Gone were the days of a blatant and overtly racist system that provided virtually no state assistance to districts in poor property value areas and permitted wealthy property value districts to benefit unchecked. However, Texas
school finance policy evolved into a more subtle brand of institutional racism
and inequity. Whereas the early years of Texas schooling denied Mexican and
Mexican American students the opportunities to attend integrated and betterfunded schools, a new era of school finance inequity was mandated by Texas
educational statute. What follows is an analysis of the racialized effects that
three chapters of the TEC have on majority-Mexican American schools.
THE RACIALIZED POLICY EFFECTS
OF TEXAS SCHOOL FINANCE
Even after intense political action and mandated court remedies brought
about substantial changes to the Texas school finance system, the state funding
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
537
structure continued to utilize the property value of a local district as the primary factor in generating state funds—a variable that disproportionately disadvantaged poor, majority-Mexican school districts (Clark, 2001; Walker &
Casey, 1996). Provisions outlined in the Texas School Law Bulletin7 delineate how funding formulas consider property value, student counts, and tax
effort in determining state aid. The most vulnerable districts maximized
local tax rates and awaited legislative appropriations to fund their academic
programs. As stated in TEC, §42.251 (b) (4), the legislature required that a
district’s academic program be financed “in an amount sufficient to finance
the cost” of the district’s basic academic program (Texas Education Agency,
2001). This provision, potentially most damaging to school districts over
reliant on state funding for operational expenses, forced property-poor,
majority-Mexican American school districts to trust the historically reluctant
legislature to provide “sufficient” funding.
In this section of the article, I analyze three chapters of the TEC and interrogate their racial effects on seven majority-Mexican American school districts, most of which are among the poorest of the poor school districts
in Texas. These data are from a larger study of Mexican American school
district leadership and their political discourse of school finance equity.
Therefore, the seven majority-Mexican American districts analyzed in this
article were specifically chosen because they were led by the participants of
the larger study at the time of their participation. The superintendents and
districts were selected because of their majority-Mexican American student
enrollments, because they were among the poorest of the poor school districts in the state, and because the superintendents were politically active in
the struggle for school finance equity.
The educational statute, specifically chapters 42, 41, and 46, provide the
broad structure for school district revenue generation, distribution, and state
funding (Texas Education Agency, 2001). Although statewide and regional
data provide an overview of the enormity of the Texas school finance system,
the majority of these analyses focus on how these three chapters affected the
seven participant school districts. Because the districts were also members of
the South Texas Association of Schools (STAS),8 some of the analyses were
conducted from a regional perspective that encompassed members of this
organization. Historical data up to the 2002–2003 school year gathered from
the Texas Education Agency’s Public Education Information Management
System (PEIMS) were analyzed. To begin, I provide an illustration of statewide
and regional data before outlining district-level student enrollment and total
revenue data.
In 2002–2003, approximately 4.2 million schoolchildren attended
Texas public schools in which the majority were Latina/o.9 White students
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
538
Educational Administration Quarterly
comprised the next largest racial group and African Americans were the
third largest group of students. Total revenue generated for district operations, maintenance, and debt service was approximately $29.4 billion. The
majority of revenue for schools—almost 52%—was generated at the local
level, whereas state appropriations provided the next largest portion—
approximately 40%—of local district budgets. Regionally, the 59 members
of the STAS served over 403,000 Texas schoolchildren or approximately
9.7% of the state’s student population. The STAS schools were overwhelmingly Latina/o and economically disadvantaged, 91% and 79%,
respectively. Only 7.6% of STAS student populations were White and an
infinitesimal 0.99% were African American. Furthermore, Latina/o student
population in STAS districts accounted for one fifth or 21% of the state’s
total Latina/o student population. Finally, the STAS member districts generated total revenue of $2.7 billion, representing approximately 10% of
total revenue statewide.
The seven participating school districts educated a combined 112,300
students, 73.6% of which were economically disadvantaged and 30.8% of
which were classified as Limited-English Proficient (LEP) in school year
2002–2003 (see Table 1). The student demographics were more pronounced
when factoring in the skewing effect that the Karankawa ISD10 had on the
total percentage of Latina/o and economically disadvantaged. The only district not located on the border, it consisted of a more diverse student population and was the largest district in the study.
The seven districts generated $750.7 million in total revenue in
2002–2003, 76.9% of which was provided by state aid. Only 28.9% of all
funds were raised locally. This stark illustration of the fragility in which
most and specifically these STAS districts operate highlights the vital
nature of state appropriations for the funding of their schools.
A Continued Reliance on Property
Combined with historically limited state appropriations for equalized
funding, an examination of TEC Chapter 42 indicates how a reliance on
property value severely disadvantaged these seven STAS school districts.
As outlined in educational statute, districts account for total operating
costs from a combination of local taxes and state aid. TEC chapter 42 provides equalized funding for a “basic” academic program through Tier I
state aid formulas and for an “enrichment” program funded by Tier II state
aid formulas. Tier I state and local allotments are determined by a district’s
property value and tax effort, meaning, for example, that higher property
wealth requires local funding to generate more funding than state resources
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
539
TABLE 1
Student Demographic Data for Study Participants
District
Algodón
Snowbird
Oso
Azúcar
Cuatro
Nopalito
Karankawa
Students
% Economically
Disadvantaged
2,102
10,934
25,186
2,691
30,655
1,503
39,268
82.7
91.1
90
93.2
72.9
82.2
56.7
% Latino
% Limited
English
Proficient
% White
95.1
98.7
98.6
99.9
97
96.1
71.9
12.1
51.3
37.4
52.5
47
18.5
8.1
4.9
1.1
1.2
0.1
2.3
3.5
20.8
NOTE: Data for this table was compiled from the 2002–2003 Texas Education Agency Public
Education Information Management System database.
(Texas Education Agency, 2001). The inverse effect occurs for propertypoor school districts.
Tier II finance formulas generate funds beyond the cost of the regular
academic program in a similar manner to Tier I funding formulas. Although
student enrollment and characteristics account for weighted adjustments to
funding levels, they are not the primary variables in determining revenue.
State aid, based on a guaranteed yield of a district’s weighted average daily
attendance (WADA), property value and tax effort, is consistent with Tier I.
A district’s property value plays a prominent role in state aid generation
(Walker & Casey, 1996).
Prior to investigating how the policy’s overreliance on property value is
more disadvantageous for those districts dependent on state funding for the
majority of their operational and maintenance expenses, the following data
demonstrate majority-Mexican American school district property wealth.
Table 2 shows, by calculating the property wealth per average daily attendance (ADA) for each of the state’s school districts, that 76% or 38 of the
50 poorest school districts were majority Latina/o, whereas 48% or 24 of the
50 poorest districts were at least 95% Latina/o. The data further amplify how
the seven participant districts, as well as all STAS member districts, fare under
the school finance system. Forty-two percent or 21of the 50 poorest school districts were located in the Rio Grande Valley region and were STAS members.
Of the seven participant districts, four were among the state’s 50 poorest
(see Appendix A, Table A1 for a complete list of the 50 poorest districts).
Of the 50 wealthiest school districts, 76% of them were majority-White
and 35% of them were at least 75% White.11 Three majority-Mexican
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
540
Educational Administration Quarterly
TABLE 2
Fifty Poorest School Districts as Measured by
the Texas School Finance System
% Latina/o
50% or more
70% or more
77% or more
95% or more
Number of Districts
38
35
29
24
% of 50 Poorest Districts
76
70
58
48
NOTE: Data compiled from 2002–2003, Average Daily Attendance (ADA) and Comptroller
Property Tax Division (CPTD) data, Texas Education Agency School Finance and Fiscal
Analysis Division.
American school districts were on the 50 wealthiest school district list; however, this resulted from their sparse populations, low student counts, and high
property values because of oil, gas, and mineral-rich land and/or portions of
oceanfront property not enjoyed by their predominantly-Mexican American
communities. Despite their apparent property wealth and majority Latina/o
student enrollment, their district leadership participated in STAS organizational and political efforts (see Appendix A, Table A2 for a detailed list of the
50 wealthiest districts).12
The seven participants and a majority of the STAS school districts were
further disadvantaged by their overreliance on state funding as their primary
source of revenue. As shown in Table 3, for the 59 STAS member districts,
only 5.5% of their total revenue was provided by the federal government,
whereas 28.8% was generated at the local level. The majority of their total
funding, almost 64%, came from state appropriations. Analyzing the participant districts, the reliance on state aid is even more striking.
All generated the majority of their funding from state coffers. Cuatro
and Karankawa ISDs skewed the data because of their ability to raise a
higher percentage of total revenue from local sources despite their significant numbers of economically disadvantaged and LEP students. Contrary
to other districts that generated the majority of their total revenue from state
resources, both are located in economically developing areas of southern
Texas with growing tax bases.
The district data on property wealth and their reliance on state funding indicate the tenuous predicament in which the seven majority-Mexican American
school districts must operate. Prior to the Edgewood victories, tremendous
inequity existed between districts with high property value and those with low
property value. Under a so-called “unequalized” system of finance, districts
capable of taxing themselves minimally were able to raise more funds than
those taxing themselves to their limit. With the Edgewood court victories and
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
541
TABLE 3
Participant District Total Revenue, 2002–2003
Independent
School District
Algodón
Azúcar
Cuatro
Karankawa
Nopalito
Oso
Snowbird
% Federal
% Local
% Other
% State
7.3
9.7
5.5
4.1
6
6.7
5.8
11.8
10.7
34.7
41.7
14.9
16.1
10.4
2.3
0.5
2.3
3
2.2
1.2
1
78.6
79.1
57.5
51.2
76.9
76.1
82.8
NOTE: Data was compiled from 2002–2003, Texas Education Agency Public Education
Information Management System database.
subsequent legislative enactments, additional state monies became available,
eradicating issues of blatant inequity (Cortez & Montecel, 2003).
Yet, a continued reliance on property value as a primary driver in state
funding formulas bore racialized effects. Whereas with TEC chapter 42,
property-poor districts would be equalized up to the $271,400 wealth per
WADA threshold, TEC, §42.001 (a), would codify inequity (Texas Education
Agency, 2001). It states the following:
It is the policy of this state that the provision of public education is a state
responsibility and that a thorough and efficient system be provided and substantially financed through state revenue sources so that each student enrolled
in the public school system shall have access to programs and services that
are appropriate to the student’s educational needs and that are substantially
equal [emphasis added] to those available to any similar student, notwithstanding varying local economic factors.
The “substantially equal” level for property-poor school districts was set
by the legislature. In 2002–2003, the “equalized” amount was set at $271,400
per WADA. As is shown in the next section, although TEC chapter 41 forced
property-wealthy school districts to “share” their wealth, it allowed them to
operate with more funding than property-poor school districts. The “substantially equal” provision of the TEC amounts to legalized inequity (Texas
Education Agency, 2001).
The “Robin Hood” Provisions
The main feature of the Texas school finance system is the “recapture”
provisions in TEC chapter 41. These provisions require property-wealthy
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
542
Educational Administration Quarterly
TABLE 4
Districts With the Majority of the 2002–2003 Recapture Cost
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Independent School
District
Recapture Cost
Austin
Plano
Highland Park
Carrollton-Farmers Branch
Eanes
Richardson
Deer Park
$139,238,091
$117,983,118
$57,788,110
$52,590,091
$51,121,251
$48,389,624
$36,862,339
Cumulative % of
Total Recapture
14.47
26.74
32.74
38.21
43.52
48.55
52.38
Cumulative Total
$139,238,091
$257,221,209
$315,009,319
$367,599,410
$418,720,661
$467,110,285
$503,972,624
NOTE: 2002–2003 Chapter 41 district and cost data was collected from the Texas Education
Agency School Finance and Fiscal Analysis Division.
school districts—those with a property value per WADA that exceeds
$305,000—to “share their wealth” with the state or with other school districts
(Farr & Trachtenberg, 1999).13 According to 2002–2003 school year data,
only 105 school districts, or 10.13% of districts, were required to “share” their
wealth. Twenty-seven school districts were considered “gap” schools, meaning they did not generate Tier II funds nor were their local funds recaptured.
Because they generated between the guaranteed level of $271,400 wealth per
WADA and the recaptured wealth level of $305,000, the districts remained
unaffected by either TEC chapters 41 or 42. Districts capable of generating above $271,400 wealth per WADA were legally able to have more funding per student. The “recapture” provisions hardly instituted an “equitable”
system as professed by many in the school finance debate; rather, the TEC
Chapter 41 legitimized and codified state-sanctioned inequity (Texas
Education Agency, 2001).
The 105 recapture districts provided $962.1 million to the state and
property-poor school districts in school year 2002–2003. The majority of
these costs were borne by only seven districts. These seven districts combined for 52.4%, or approximately $504 million of the total recapture cost
(see Table 4). Students attending these seven districts totaled 214,000 or
5.1% of the student count for the entire state.
Twenty school districts accounted for 75.4% of the total recaptured costs
and educated only 7% of the statewide student population. White students
were most affected by the recapture provisions. Of the total student population attending recaptured schools, 55% were White, 28% Mexican American
and 11% African American.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
543
TABLE 5
Comparison of Funding per Student in Seven Wealthiest Participant Districts
Independent School District
Total State/Local per Student
Total Funding per Student
Eanes
Nopalito
Carrollton-Farmer’s Branch
Plano
Highland Park
Richardson
Deer Park
Algodón
Austin
Snowbird
Oso
Azúcar
Karankawa
Cuatro
$8,298
$7,929
$7,538
$7,379
$7,250
$7,073
$7,026
$6,997
$6,697
$6,609
$6,379
$6,232
$6,159
$5,730
$8,984
$8,637
$8,114
$7,981
$7,792
$7,544
$7,473
$7,738
$7,147
$7,093
$6,922
$6,940
$6,631
$6,212
NOTE: Data was compiled from 2002–2003 Texas Education Agency Public Education
Information Management System database. The bolded districts are those that had superintendents that participated in this study. Total State/Local is state aid, whereas Total Funding
includes state and federal funding.
The “substantially equal” language in TEC chapter 42, along with chapter
41 Robin Hood provisions advantaged wealthy, majority-White school districts, in that they were legally entitled to more funding per student than poorer,
majority-Mexican American school districts. Of the participant districts, six of
the seven generated less funding per student than did the seven recaptured districts reviewed earlier. Austin and Nopalito ISDs were the lone anomalies
because of their high concentration of low socioeconomic-status students
(Texas Education Agency, 2001; see Table 5).
Of these 14 districts, chapter 41 districts generated an average of $859
more per student in state and local funding than did participant school districts. The largest discrepancy was exhibited by Cuatro ISD, which has
$2,500 less per student in local and state funding than did Eanes ISD. If
Cuatro ISD were provided with the $2,500 difference in funding per student
for each of its 30,600 students, the district would have generated an additional $78.5 million for its budget. The additional funding generated for
Karankawa, Azúcar, Oso, Snowbird, and Algodón ISDs would have been
$83.5 million, $2.3 million, $48.4 million, $18.4 million, and $2.7 million,
respectively. The total additional funding for the seven participant districts
would have amounted to $234.2 million in 2002–2003.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
544
Educational Administration Quarterly
TEC chapter 41 has traditionally contained the school finance system’s
most controversial provisions. The media and public have named it “Robin
Hood” because of the perception that the state requires districts to give back
“their” money, a form of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (Texas
Education Agency, 2001). Many Texans falsely believe that property-poor
school districts generate more total revenue than do the property-wealthy
school districts. As demonstrated by these data, Robin Hood has not “stolen”
as much money from the rich as is publicly perceived.
Utilizing Debt to Re-Enforce Inequity
The original Edgewood plaintiffs presented evidence of disparate expenditures in school facilities funding. By the January 1995 Edgewood IV decision, the Supreme Court admonished the state to consider additional or
equalized state funding for facilities. As a result, the state legislature finally
appropriated funding for a limited facilities grant program in 1995. It was
the precursor to the better-funded and more-inclusive Instructional Facilities
Allotment (IFA)14 program that was instituted in September 1997 (Clark,
2001; Farr & Trachtenberg, 1999; Walker & Casey, 1996). Two years later,
the Existing Debt Allotment (EDA)15 program was created to assist school
districts with eligible existing general obligation debt (Clark, 2001).
Both the IFA and EDA programs, often referred to as Tier III, coexisted
since 1999, yet they served different types of districts. Districts in need of
state funding for facilities construction projects were once again at the mercy
of the biennial appropriation process as was the case with Tier II funding. If
Tier III was unavailable or insufficient to meet the demands of rising school
enrollment or deteriorating existing facilities, property-poor districts were not
able to initiate construction projects. Majority-Mexican American school districts were subsequently at a disadvantage to attain facilities funding.
Many school districts typically issue bonds or borrow money to pay for
major facilities construction or renovation projects, which is why the state
created and implemented the IFA program as a method of assisting districts
in their repayment of school construction bonds. As stipulated in TEC,
§46.003 (a), the IFA program provides funding for districts to repay bonds
used to “construct, acquire, renovate, or improve an instructional facility”
(Texas Education Agency, 2001). The IFA program distributed state funding
based on property wealth—the wealthier a district, the less state funding it
received and more local funds it was required to raise. The inverse was
required for poorer school districts. The EDA program assisted districts similarly; however, the funding eligibility criteria were set by the definition
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
545
TABLE 6
Comparison of Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA) and
Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) Funding for 59 South Texas Association
of Schools Districts from 1997–1998 to 2002–2003
Year
2002–2003
2001–2002
2000–2001
1999–2000
1998–1999
1997–1998
IFA Total
% Total IFA
EDA Total
$74,111,275
$68,371,821
$60,530,175
$35,069,647
$22,640,360
$7,973,722
25.62%
27.02%
27.70%
20.01%
19.01%
12.36%
$41,792,385
$46,416,447
$44,081,235
$44,851,335
% Total EDA
9.24
8.61
9.18
10.09
NOTE: Data compiled is from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) School Finance and Fiscal
Analysis Division as well as the TEA IFA Web site, www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/facilities/
ifa.html. The data includes all state aid data since the inception of both the IFA in 1997–1998
and the Existing Debt Allotment in 1999–2000.
of “eligible debt.” In 2002–2003, eligible EDA debt was defined in TEC,
§46.033 (1) as tax-supported debt that “[t]he district made payments on the
bonds during the 2000–2001 school year or taxes levied to pay the principal
of and interest on the bonds were included in the district’s audited debt
service tax collections for that school year” (Texas Education Agency, 2001).
This “cutoff” date of 2000–2001 forced districts to issue their debt prior to
and without the assurance that the state would assist in the repayment of it.
Higher-wealth districts were typically able to take the calculated risk that the
state would appropriate EDA funding to meet their obligations. Propertypoor districts delayed construction projects or maintained their deteriorating
facilities, choosing to wait for IFA funding opportunities rather than risk issuing debt without the state’s assurance of assistance.
The STAS member districts exhibited this phenomenon in that they were
more likely to benefit from the IFA program than the EDA program. In
2002–2003, STAS member districts generated a total of $115.9 million in
facilities funding, accounting for approximately 26% of the total IFA funding
and only 9% of the total EDA funding. Since 1999–2000, the first year of EDA
funding, the STAS districts garnered no more than 10% of the total EDA
funding. They benefited more from the IFA program, and in 2000–2001,
reached their highest percentage at almost 28% (see Table 6).
District-level facilities funding analysis of the seven participating districts demonstrates how they typically did not benefit from the EDA, or
relied more significantly on IFA awards for facilities funding. For example,
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
546
Educational Administration Quarterly
TABLE 7
Comparison of Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA)
and Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) Funding
for Participant Districts, 2002–2003
Independent School District
Algodón
Azúcar
Cuatro
Karankawa
Nopalito
Oso
Snowbird
Average %
IFA 2003 %
EDA 2003 %
62.04
100.00
24.94
24.22
100.00
80.11
100.00
54.88
37.96
75.06
75.78
19.89
45.12
NOTE: Data compiled is from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) School Finance and
Fiscal Analysis Division as well as the TEA IFA Web site, www.tea.state.tx.us/school
.finance/facilities/ifa.html.
three of the seven districts did not generate any EDA funds in 2002–2003
(see Table 7). Because they did not issue “eligible” bonds or were already
benefiting from the IFA program for the bonds they did have, the districts
were not able to capitalize on the states funding of EDA. Karankawa and
Cuatro ISDs both earned substantial EDA monies, skewing the average percentage of the group of districts. Their generally higher wealth per ADA
status combined with the fact they exist in fast-growth, relatively economically stable communities helped to qualify them for this funding. Azúcar,
Nopalito, and Snowbird ISDs were excluded from the EDA program
because of the stipulation that they issue debt prior to receiving assurance
from the state of assistance. Algodón and Oso ISDs received minimal
EDA funding.
In the debt servicing or repayment process, property-wealthy school districts are not forced to “share” their interest and sinking (I & S) fund tax collections as is required in the maintenance and operations (M & O) or Tier II
funding formulas.16 As was stated in the previous subsection, Chapter 42
provisions “equalize up” to a $271,400 wealth per WADA formula, whereas
chapter 41 provisions require districts with property value per WADA in
excess of $305,000 to select one or more of the five options to bring the district “down to an equalized level” as required by the state. This equalizes tax
collections generated from the districts’ M & O tax rate. However, TEC
chapter 46, subchapters A and B do not require that the districts’ I & S fund
tax collections be equalized (Clark, 2001). Therefore, property-wealthy
districts are able to issue as much debt and build as many facilities as their
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
547
TABLE 8
Comparison of Per District Funding for Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA)
and Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) since 1997–1998
School Year
IFA Total
Funding
Number
of
Districts
Per
District
Funding
2002–2003
2001–2002
2000–2001
1999–2000
1998–1999
1997–1998
$289.20
$253.00
$218.50
$175.39
$119.10
$64.570
400
370
308
264
220
115
$723,040
$683,841
$709,548
$664,028
$541,266
$561,120
EDA Total
Funding
Number
of
Districts
Per
District
Funding
$452.1
$539.3
$480.0
$444.7
532
570
570
623
$849,745
$946,092
$842,071
$713,731
NOTE: Data compiled is from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) School Finance and Fiscal
Analysis Division as well as the TEA IFA Web site, www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/facilities/
ifa.html. The totals in the IFA Total Funding and Existing Debt Allotment Total Funding are
in millions.
communities are willing to build, and property-poor school district must rely
on legislative appropriation for facilities funding.
Finally, state appropriations for new IFA funding must be approved every
biennium as does a change in criteria for “eligible” existing debt. EDA funding is permanently fixed in the state funding formulas, but IFA funding is
not. Districts must compete for scarce funding every funding cycle. In the
first six cycles of IFA funding, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has run
out of money every year but the first two (see Table 8).17 The bulk of facilities funding has been appropriated in the EDA program. For example, since
the programs’ existence the state legislature has appropriated more funding
for districts qualifying for EDA funding ($1.9 billion in 4 years) rather than
in the IFA program ($1.9 billion in 6 years).
In the 4 years that the programs have coexisted, the IFA has never had a
higher funding-per-district level than districts in the EDA. The largest disparity occurred in 2001–2002 when districts awarded in the EDA program
earned $262,251 more per district than if they were awarded in the IFA. The
state’s two allotment programs are designed to assist school districts with
repayment of district-approved debt; however, those issuing debt without the
assurance of state assistance are more likely to generate more funding from
the state. Districts not able to afford debt repayment solely on local tax collections remain disadvantaged. The state’s facilities programs reinstitute
inequity because wealthy school districts generate more funding and have
ability to collect I & S tax collections without the requirement of recapture.
This affects majority-Mexican school districts disproportionately.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
548
Educational Administration Quarterly
DISCUSSION
By situating this policy analysis in a CRT framework and understanding
the history of Texas school finance from a LatCrit perspective, structural and
institutional racism are evident. A system based historically on property
rights, Texas school finance policy continues to disadvantage, discriminate,
and oppress communities and students of color in much the same way that
Menchaca (1993), Montejano (1987), and San Miguel and Valencia (1998)
found that the invalidation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo aided racist
institutional and social practices. Although substantial progress was made in
rectifying a more overt system of inequity (via the Edgewood state court
cases), property-poor, majority-Mexican American school districts continue
to endure a racist school finance system. The neutral language of “substantially equal” only seeks to mask codified inequity. As shown in these analyses, property-wealthy school districts generate more funding, and facilities
programs continue to advantage wealthier school districts.
Chicana/o and Latina/o scholars have, for many years, studied the plight of
Chicana/o and Latina/o students and communities (see, i.e., Acuña, 1988;
Darder, Torres, & Gutiérrez, 1997; Delgado Bernal, Elenes, Godinez, &
Villenas, 2006; Elenes, Gonzales, Delgado Bernal, & Villenas, 2001; Pizarro,
1998; Solórzano, 1998; Valencia, 2002b; Valenzuela, 1999; Vigil, 1999;
Villalpando, 2003). However, promoting CRT and LatCrit understandings of
educational policy are essential if a new form of educational leadership and
study of educational politics and policy within the educational administration
field of study are to take root. This approach argues that educational policy
analysis should attempt to explain and describe policy effects in a similar
methodological manner. More specifically, applying CRT and LatCrit tenets to
policy analysis would provide an alternative to traditional methods of evaluating policy in “unbiased,” “scientific,” or “objective” ways (Boyd, Crowson, &
Geel, 1994; Cibulka, 1994; Fowler, 2004; Guthrie & Rothstein, 2001), as has
often been the case in this field.
The analysis of Texas school finance policy in this article is one example
how CRT and LatCrit may be applied. Texas school finance policy was challenged and problematized as the hallmark civil rights achievement in attempting to achieve equity for the state’s public school children. Despite the fact
that many continue to hail the Edgewood state court cases and other legislative reforms as “moving toward equity,” CRT provides a sound framework
from which to question its ability to accomplish this. Given that property is
disadvantaging in nature (Harris, 1993) and that funding has historically been
based on property value, CRT provides an ample critical framework that asks
the viability of this occurring (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1997). Scholars, such
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
549
as Bell (1992a, 1992b, 2004) and Delgado (2002, 2006) have also provided
analytical concepts capable of evaluating the racist nature of reform. Their
“interest convergence” principle maintains that reform will not occur unless
Whites are benefited. Having the ability to understand “racial realism”
grounds this research on the pervasiveness of racism in this country while
stressing that policies have maintained inequity and racial hierarchy.
The discussion of school finance history exemplified the utilization of
LatCrit as a method for providing alternative explanations of inequity and discrimination. Scholars, such as Padilla (1999, 2001), have called for Latina/os to
consider the way by which dominant practices and policies infect the “other.”
She describes how Latina/o communities have been mislead by members of
their own community, overtaken by a “colonized mind.” Because this can
affect social critique while perpetuating self-hate, it is critical that Latina/
o-centered understandings of history be made central to combating the often
crippling nature of self-hate and self-doubt in Latina/o communities. Finally,
LatCrit inserts an analysis of majority-Mexican American school districts in a
state that is now majority Mexican American. As the nation moves toward having majority Latina/o “minority” populations, problematizing the Black-White
binary that has often overshadowed conversations of racism and other communities of color will result in more productive analysis and coalitionbuilding efforts across communities of color (Stefancic, 1998).
CONCLUSION
Like the Leslie Stahl story, educational policy is commonly examined
from a traditional perspective, ignoring racism and calling for a rational view
of the “facts” (Boyd, Crowson, & Geel, 1994; Cibulka, 1994; Fowler, 2004).
Similar to many educational leaders and policy makers, Stahl neglected what
López (2003) has described as the “story behind the story.” This story behind
the Texas school finance story deviates from convention and refutes traditional analysis. It employs a CRT framework to center race and racism and
provides a LatCrit view of the history of domination and loss of land in
Texas’ formative years and in its codification in current policy. Above all, this
critical race policy analysis interrogates the racial effects of educational policy (Brady, Eatman, & Parker, 2000; Parker, 2003) and questions how “substantially equal” equity perpetuates racism.
It is a utilization of CRT policy analysis of school finance policy, as well
as other educational policies, that will begin to foster change in areas such as
student achievement and university access and success. This article makes an
argument for understanding race and racism from a systemic and institutional
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
550
Educational Administration Quarterly
level. Like other work in educational research (Anyon, 1997; Kozol, 1991),
it serves to emphasize the linkages between race, social class, and inequity
while also providing a critical framework from which to conduct social justice analysis in school finance (Alemán, 2007; Brady, Eatman, & Parker,
2000; Rodriguez & Rolle, 2007). A need to discuss, research, advocate, teach,
and lead from alternative perspectives is necessary if social justice goals are
ever to be attained. This article calls for such action, exemplifying the need
to deconstruct and contend with the policy assumptions and traditional
“American” values that dominate the majoritarian view of the world—
demanding that language like “substantially equal” be turned on its head.
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1
Fifty Poorest School Districts as Measured by the Texas School Finance System
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Wealth per
ADA
Independent
School District
$15,353
$17,628
$22,977
$27,471
$27,738
$33,347
$36,664
$36,868
$36,930
$39,112
$40,958
$44,637
$47,187
$47,834
$49,420
$50,841
$51,103
$52,777
$53,752
$54,054
$55,284
$55,928
$56,711
$57,594
Boles
South Texas
San Elizario
Edcouch-Elsa
Progreso
Tornillo
Santa Rosa
Mercedes
Santa Maria
Fabens
McLeod
Edgewood
Donna
Presidio
Robstown
Somerset
Rio Hondo
Clint
San Benito Cons
Southwest
Orange Grove
Valley View
Poteet
Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco
% White
% Black
% Hispanic
88.3
18.6
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.9
2.5
1
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.1
5.9
75.1
98.9
99.3
99.8
98.4
97.4
98.8
99.6
97.6
1.5
97
98.6
98.2
97.8
79
95.4
94.8
97.4
83.9
57.6
99.8
83
92.1
2.1
94.5
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.4
19.8
4.6
4.5
2.5
11.4
41.5
0.1
16.3
7.7
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.1
3.2
1.6
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.1
4.2
0.7
0.4
0.2
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
$57,729
$57,836
$57,850
$58,513
$59,470
$60,164
$61,085
$62,302
$62,615
$62,783
$64,027
$64,167
$64,495
$64,945
$65,742
$66,808
$67,582
$67,605
$68,069
$68,366
$68,439
$68,567
$69,242
$69,521
$69,682
$69,720
Crystal City
Southside
Harlandale
Ector
La Feria
Olfen
Rio Grande City CISD
Mission Cons
Axtell
Martinsville
Laredo
Rice
Splendora
Roma
Natalia
Grape Creek
Weslaco
Hubbard
La Pryor
Eagle Pass
Maud
Hawley
Central Heights
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo
La Villa
South San Antonio
1.3
16.7
5.2
98.3
10
41.7
0.2
2.5
87.5
83.9
0.8
72.1
88.5
0.2
24.5
75.2
2.5
71.1
5.2
1.3
92.3
93.7
86.8
1.3
0.3
3
0.7
1.5
0.6
551
98
80.6
94.1
1.3
89.8
54.8
99.7
97.4
7.1
10.8
99.1
21.4
10.5
99.3
74.2
23.9
97.1
4.2
94.3
97.1
0.2
5.1
5.5
98.4
99.7
94.9
0.2
3.6
0.1
4.9
5.4
0.1
6.5
0.5
1
0.7
0.1
23.9
0.5
0.1
7.1
0.5
7.4
0.2
1.7
NOTE: Data is 2002–2003 school year data compiled from the Texas Education Agency, School
Finance and Fiscal Analysis Division. The bolded rows indicate those districts that are located in
Region One and Region Two and are members of the South Texas Association of Schools.
TABLE A2
Fifty Wealthiest School Districts as Measured by the Texas School Finance System
Rank
Wealth per ADA
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
$913,766
$917,094
$947,398
$958,621
$978,938
$997,779
$1,003,294
$1,009,670
Independent
School District
Tatum
Sterling City
Divide
Austwell-Tivoli
Whiteface Cons
Hunt
Plains
Round Top-Carmine
%White
%Black
%Hispanic
56.6
59.6
60
29.5
69.5
73.2
45.2
83
23.9
19.3
40.4
40
69.9
27.6
26.3
54.6
6.9
0.6
1.4
0.2
8.9
(continued)
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
552
Educational Administration Quarterly
Table A2 (continued)
Rank
Wealth per ADA
Independent
School District
%White
%Black
%Hispanic
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
$1,021,516
$1,023,935
$1,034,170
$1,052,076
$1,068,477
$1,090,319
$1,104,849
$1,110,687
$1,119,253
$1,123,704
$1,140,259
$1,165,711
$1,214,866
$1,244,904
$1,290,402
$1,297,437
$1,308,947
$1,340,463
$1,365,459
$1,374,729
$1,412,604
$1,485,647
$1,515,351
$1,521,917
$1,592,147
$1,617,679
$1,637,105
$1,734,658
$1,788,924
$1,909,508
$2,018,144
$2,096,541
$2,105,072
$2,112,646
$2,168,276
$2,215,169
$2,930,389
$3,023,232
$3,103,150
$4,307,619
$4,630,192
$5,046,781
Beckville
Matagorda
McCamey
Highland Park
Pringle-Morse Cons
Denver City
Crane
Dawson
San Isidro
Port Aransas
Seminole
Sudan
Westbrook
Evadale
Buena Vista
Loop
Wink-Loving
Sundown
Rankin
Glen Rose
Plemons-Stinnett-Phillips CISD
Glasscock County
Crockett County Cons CSD
Ezzell
Iraan-Sheffield
Terrell County
Boys Ranch
McMullen County
Palo Pinto
Borden County
Webb Cons
Grandview-Hopkins
Guthrie Csd
Darrouzett
Miami
Fort Elliott Cons
Kenedy County Wide CSD
Jayton-Girard
Sabine Pass
Allison
Kelton
Dew
75.1
73.4
38
96.8
52.8
36.4
42.4
66.1
4.1
89.3
55.9
49.1
73.3
99.2
64
51.7
72
50.6
57.8
76.9
86.4
61.9
33.4
97.1
52.2
36.3
78.4
50
87
73.3
5.1
100
83.5
83.1
93.6
92.8
28.2
88.4
89.3
100
64.7
82.5
14
5.1
0.8
0.2
9.4
21.5
60.6
1.2
47.2
61.5
54.7
33.9
95.9
7.6
41.5
44.5
22
0.6
36
48.3
26.5
47.6
38.9
20.9
11
38.1
66.2
2.9
44.5
60.2
12.6
50
13
24.2
94.9
0
16.5
16.9
5.1
1.8
71.8
9.6
4
0
29.4
13.8
1.5
2.1
0.9
2.2
5.8
3.3
0.2
1.2
1.3
3
0.4
0.3
0.2
2.9
0
6.7
2.1
4
5.9
1.3
NOTE: Data is 2002–2003 school year data compiled from the Texas Education Agency, School
Finance and Fiscal Analysis Division. The bolded rows indicate those districts that are located in
Region One and Region Two and are members of the South Texas Association of Schools.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
553
NOTES
1. What Stahl also failed to mention were recent data indicating that top 10% students have
higher undergraduate GPAs than those non-top 10% admitted students. For the latest University
of Texas report see http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report7.pdf.
2. Prior to the Edgewood court cases, the state had virtually operated under an “unequalized” system of finance in which a property-wealthy school districts could tax low and continue
to generate substantial local funds. In contrast, property-poor school districts would tax their
local community very high and yield low local funds. The resulting “equalized” system of
finance guaranteed districts a “substantially equal” amount of funding for their tax effort. The
concept of “substantially equal” will be explored further in a subsequent section of the article.
3. The parents resided in Edgewood Independent School District (ISD), one of the poorest school districts in the state of Texas. Located on the west side of San Antonio, parents and
community activists from the districts spurred the initial Rodriguez vs. San Antonio ISD (1971)
federal case in the late 1960s. When the federal case was dismissed, a state strategy to contest
inequitable funding was led by the same group of parents, activists, and attorneys. The state
constitutional challenges are known as the Edgewood cases. Prior to the onset of arguments,
the plaintiffs (Mexican American parents and advocates) shifted their legal strategy, choosing
to sue the state rather than the local school district.
4. Edgewood Independent School District et al. vs. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (1989) was the
first of four iterations of state constitutional challenges. This historical background primarily
focuses on the first of the Edgewood cases.
5. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is a leading civil rights,
advocacy, and litigation nonprofit agency serving the Latina/o communities. The organization
was founded in San Antonio in 1968. During the Edgewood cases, they represented the majorityMexican American school districts.
6. The Equity Center is a nonprofit organization formed as the technical analysis arm of
the plaintiffs’ case, lobbied legislators and organized rural, poor school districts.
7. For purposes of the larger study and the analysis in this article, most data and all
statutes analyzed come from the 2002–2003 school year.
8. The South Texas Association of Schools consists of 59 school districts, mostly from
the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, the southernmost region of the state. As is the region, the districts are among the poorest and consist of majority-Mexican American student enrollments.
9. I use Latina/o interchangeably with Mexican American and Hispanic. Although most
of the students in the seven participating districts are Mexican or Mexican American, there are
some students from other Latin American nations. The state data does not categorize Latina/os
into subgroups. The state categorizes its students under the identifier Hispanic.
10. District names are pseudonyms.
11. Boles ISD is ranked the poorest school district in the state of Texas for the 2002–2003
school year. Although the district is majority-White, when evaluating the list of poor school
districts it is plainly evident that the majority of poor school districts, and those disadvantaged
by the state system of funding, are majority-Mexican American.
12. The ranking of the 1,037 Texas public school districts by wealth was calculated by
dividing the districts’ assessed property value by its average daily attendance (ADA). Both
appendices list the 50 poorest school districts (ranked from 1 to 50) and 50 wealthiest school
districts (ranked from 988 to 1,037). Percentages of students may not add to 100 because only
the three largest student groups were included in the table.
13. See Texas School Law Bulletin, TEC, §41.003, which documents the options for “sharing”
wealth that exceeds the $305,000 per weighted average daily attendance (WADA). The five
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
554
Educational Administration Quarterly
options include consolidation with another district, detachment of ADA credits, purchase of
ADA credits, education of nonresident students, and tax base consolidation with another district.
14. See Texas School Law Bulletin, TEC, chapters 46, subchapter A, Instructional Facilities
Allotment, as well as Texas Administrative Code (TAC), §61.1032, Commissioner’s Rules on
Instructional Facilities Allotment.
15. See Texas School Law Bulletin, TEC, chapter 46, subchapter B, Existing Debt
Allotment, as well as Texas Administrative Code (TAC), §61.1035, Commissioner’s Rules on
Assistance with Payment of Existing Debt.
16. Interest and sinking (I & S) tax rate is used by school districts to tax for the specific
purpose of raising funds for general obligation or voter-approved bonds. A district is typically
able to tax up to a $.50 I & S tax rate. The maintenance and operations (M & O) tax rate is
assessed for the specific purpose of maintaining the operations of a school district. A district
is typically able to tax up to $1.50 M & O tax rate.
17. Information and data gathered from Texas Education Agency, Division of School Finance
and Fiscal Analysis staff.
REFERENCES
Acuña, R. (1988). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos (3rd ed.). New York: Harper
Collins.
Alemán, E. (2007). Critical race theory and human capital theory: Framing the discourse on
the nexus between social justice and education finance. In G. M. Rodriguez & R. A. Rolle
(Eds.), To what ends and by what means: The social justice implications of contemporary
school finance theory and policy (pp. 35-57). New York: Routledge.
Allsup, C. (1982). The American G.I. forum: Origins and evolution. Austin, TX: The University
of Texas at Austin.
Alonzo, A. C. (1998). Tejano legacy: Rancheros and settlers in south Texas, 1734-1900.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New
York: Teacher’s College Press.
Bell, D. A. (1992a). Faces at the bottom of the well. New York: Basic Books.
Bell, D. A. (1992b). Racial realism. Connecticut Law Review, 24(2), 363-379.
Bell, D. A. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes
for racial reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyd, W. L., Crowson, R. L., & Geel, T. V. (1994). Rational choice theory and the politics of
education: Promise and limitations. In J. D. Scribner & D. H. Layton (Eds.), The study of
educational politics: The 1994 commemorative yearbook of the Politics of Education
Association (1969-1994) (pp. 127-145). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Brady, K., Eatman, T., & Parker, L. (2000). To have or not to have? A preliminary analysis of
higher education funding disparities in the post-Ayers v. Fordice era: Evidence from critical race theory. Journal of Education Finance, 24(Winter 2000), 297-322.
Cardenas, J. A. (1997). Texas school finance reform: An IDRA perspective. San Antonio, TX:
Intercultural Development Research Association.
Cibulka, J. G. (1994). Policy analysis and the study of the politics of education. In
J. D. Scribner & D. H. Layton (Eds.), The study of educational politics: The 1994 commemorative yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (1969-1994) (pp. 105-125).
Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
555
Clark, C. (2001). Texas state support for school facilities, 1971 to 2001. Journal of Education
Finance, 27(Fall 2001), 683-700.
Cortez, A., & Montecel, M. R. (2003). Fair funding for Texas school children. San Antonio,
TX: Intercultural Development Research Association.
Crenshaw, K. W., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory:
The key writings that formed the movement. New York, NY: The New Press.
Darder, A., Torres, R. D., & Gutiérrez, H. (Eds.). (1997). Latinos and education: A critical
reader. New York: Routledge.
De León, A. (1998). Initial contacts: Niggers, redskins, and greasers. In R. Delgado &
J. Stefancic (Eds.), The Latino condition: A critical reader (pp. 158-164). New York:
New York University Press.
Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical racegendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105-126.
Delgado Bernal, D., Elenes, C. A., Godinez, F. E., & Villenas, S. (Eds.). (2006). Chicana/
Latina education in everyday life: Feminista perspectives on pedagogy and epistemology.
New York: State University of New York (SUNY) Press.
Delgado, R. (2002). Explaining the rise and fall of African American fortunes—interest convergence and civil rights gains. Harvard Civil Rights—Civil Liberties Law Review, 37, 369-387.
Delgado, R. (2006). Rodrigo’s roundelay: Hernandez v. Texas and the interest-convergence
dilemma. Harvard Civil Rights—Civil Liberties Law Review, 41, 23-65.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY:
New York University Press.
Donato, R. (1997). The other struggle for equal schools: Mexican Americans during the civil
rights era. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Edgewood Independent School District et al. vs. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (1989).
Elenes, C. A., Gonzalez, F. E., Delgado Bernal, D., & Villenas, S. (2001). Introduction:
Chicana/Mexicana feminist pedagogies: Consejos, respeto, y educación in everyday life.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 595-602.
Espinoza, L., & Harris, A. P. (1998). Embracing the tar-baby: LatCrit theory and the sticky
mess of race. La Raza Law Journal, 10(Spring), 1585-1644.
Farr, J. S., & Trachtenberg, M. (1999). The Edgewood drama: An epic quest for educational
equity. Yale Law and Policy Review, 17, 607-727.
Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Guthrie, J. W., & Rothstein, R. (2001). A new millennium and a likely new era of education
finance. In S. Chaikind & W. J. Fowler (Eds.), Education finance in the new millennium,
AEFA 2001 yearbook (pp. 99-120). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Haney-López, I. F. (1998). Race, ethnicity, nationhood: Race, ethnicity, erasure: The salience
of race to LatCrit theory. La Raza Law Journal, 10, 1143-1211.
Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106, 1707-1791.
Hobby, W. P., & Walker, B. D. (1991). Legislative reform of the Texas public school finance
system, 1973-1991. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 379-394.
Johnson, B. H. (2003). Revolution in Texas: How a forgotten rebellion and its bloody suppression turned Mexicans into Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Harper Perrenial.
Kramnick, I. (Ed.). (1987). The federalist papers: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and
John Jay. New York: Viking Penguin.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
556
Educational Administration Quarterly
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1997). Toward a critical race theory in education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47.
López, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 69-94.
López, G. R., & Parker, L. (Eds.). (2003). Interrogating racism in qualitative research methodology. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Menchaca, M. (1993). Chicano Indianism: A historical account of racial repression in the
United States. American Ethnologist, 20(3), 583-603.
Montejano, D. (1987). Anglos and Mexicans in the making of Texas, 1836-1986. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Moses, M. S. (2002). Embracing race: Why we need race-conscious education policy. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Nuñez, R. (1999). The validity of LatCrit: History, race, and the education of the Mexicano/
Chicano child. Harvard Latino Law Review, 3(1).
Padilla, L. M. (1999). Social and legal repercussions of Latinos’ colonized mentality.
University of Miami Law Review, 53, 769-785.
Padilla, L. M. (2001). “But you’re not a dirty Mexican”: Internalized oppression, Latinos, and
law. Texas Hispanic Journal of Law and Policy, 7, 59-113.
Parker, L. (1998). “Race is. Race isn’t”: An exploration of the utility of critical race theory in
qualitative research in education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 43-55.
Parker, L. (2003). Critical race theory and its implications for methodology and policy analysis in higher education desegregation. In G. R. López & L. Parker (Eds.), Interrogating
racism in qualitative research methodology (pp. 145-180). New York: Peter Lang.
Parker, L., & Lynn, M. (2002). What’s race got to do with it? Critical race theory’s conflicts
with and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qualitative
Inquiry, 8(1), 7-22.
Pizarro, M. (1998). “Chicana/o power!” Epistemology and methodology for social justice and
empowerment in Chicana/o communities. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 57-80.
Rodriguez, G. M., & Rolle, R. A. (Eds.). (2007). To what ends and by what means: The
social justice implications of contemporary school finance theory and policy. New York:
Routledge.
Revilla, A. T. (2004). Muxerista pedagogy: Raza womyn teaching social justice through
student activism. The High School Journal, 87(4), 80-94.
San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1971).
San Miguel, G. (1987). “Let all of them take heed”: Mexican Americans and the campaign for
educational equality in Texas, 1910-1981. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
San Miguel, G. (2004). Contested policy: The rise and fall of federal bilingual education in
the United States 1960-2001. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press.
San Miguel, G., & Valencia, R. R. (1998). From the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to Hopwood:
The educational plight and struggle of Mexican Americans in the southwest. Harvard
Educational Review, 68(3), 353-412.
Serrano vs. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971).
Solórzano, D. G. (1998). Critical race theory, racial and gender microagressions, and the experiences of Chicana and Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 11, 121-136.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
Alemán / CRT ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY
557
Solórzano, D. G., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance
through a critical race and LatCrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an
urban context. Urban Education, 36(3), 308-342.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counterstorytelling. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471-495.
Spring, J. (1997). The American school: 1642-2000 (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.
Stefancic, J. (1998). Latino and Latina critical theory: An annotated bibliography. La Raza
Law Journal, Spring, 1509-1584.
Takaki, R. (2000). Iron cages: Race and culture in 19th century America (Revised edition).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Tate, W. F. (1997). Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and implications. In
M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 22, pp. 195-247). Madison, WI:
American Educational Research Association.
Taylor, E. (1998). A primer on critical race theory. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education,
Spring(19), 122-124.
Texas Education Agency. (2001). Texas school law bulletin. Charlottesville, VA: Matthew
Bender & Co., Inc.
Trucious-Haynes, E. (2001). Why “race matters”: LatCrit theory and Latina/o racial identity.
La Raza Law Journal, 12(1).
Valdés, F. (1997). Under construction—LatCrit consciousness, community, and theory. California
Law Review, 85, 1087-1142.
Valdés, F., Culp, J. M., & Harris, A. P. (Eds.). (2002). Crossroads, directions, and a new critical
race theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Valencia, R. R. (2002a). The plight of Chicano students: An overview of schooling conditions
and outcomes. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present
and future (2nd ed., pp. 3-51). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2002b). Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future
(2nd edition). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Valenzuela, A. (2002). High-stakes testing and U.S.-Mexican youth in Texas: The case for multiple compensatory criteria in assessment. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 14, 97-116.
Vigil, J. D. (1999). Streets and schools: How educators can help Chicano marginalized gang
youth. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 270-288.
Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and
Latina/o critical theory analysis of a study of Chicana/o college students. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 619-646..
Villalpando, O. (2004). Practical considerations of critical race theory and Latino critical theory
for Latino college students. New Directions for Student Services, Spring(105), 41-50.
Walker, B. D. (1988). What did the Texas supreme court say about remedies in Edgewood
I.S.D. v. Kirby? Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
Walker, B. D., & Casey, D. T. (1996). The basics of Texas public school finance (6th ed.).
Austin, TX: Texas Association of School Boards.
Walker, B. D., & Moak, L. M. (1988). The research response to Edgewood v. Kirby. Austin,
TX: Texas Center for Education Research.
Wilson, S. H. (2003). Brown over “other white”: Mexican Americans’ legal arguments and
litigation strategy in school desegregation lawsuits. Law and History Review, 21(Spring),
145-194.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.
558
Educational Administration Quarterly
Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational
pipeline. New York: Routledge.
Young, M. (1999). Multifocal educational policy research: Toward a method for enhancing traditional educational policy studies. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 677-714.
Yudof, M. (1991). School finance reform in Texas: The Edgewood saga. Harvard Journal on
Legislation, 28(2), 499-505.
Dr. Enrique Alemán Jr., is an assistant professor in the department of educational leadership
and policy at the University of Utah. His research interests include the politics of education,
school finance equity, and Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Latina/o Critical (LatCrit) Theory
applications in educational research.
Downloaded from http://eaq.sagepub.com at Ebsco Host temp on December 6, 2007
© 2007 University Council for Educational Administration. All rights reserved. Not for commercial
use or unauthorized distribution.