Robin Hood plan

Last updated December 27, 2023

The Robin Hood Plan is a colloquialism given to a provision of Texas Senate Bill 7 (73rd Texas Legislature) (the provision is officially referred to as "recapture"), originally enacted by the U.S. state of Texas in 1993 (and revised frequently since then) to provide equity of school financing within all school districts in the state of Texas. The plan is now codified within the Texas Education Code as Section 49.002.^[1]

The original bill was passed in response to numerous court rulings (both Federal and state, notably the Texas Supreme Court's ruling in Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby) that previous financing schemes were in violation of the Texas Constitution's requirements regarding what constitutes "an efficient system of public free schools" as that provision interacts with another provision prohibiting a statewide ad valorem property tax. Though the legislation has been revised since then, its basic premise remains the same: it limits both the amounts that school districts can both spend on public schools and the amounts that they can raise through locally assessed property taxes and further requires that any amounts in excess be "recaptured" by the state and given to other districts which are unable to raise the required revenue.

Constitutional and Statutory Requirements

Article 7, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution states:^[2]

A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

However, state funding is constrained, in part, by Article 8, Section 1-e, of the Texas Constitution, which states:^[3]

No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State.

As such, and because Texas has no personal income tax (which it repeatedly mentions when encouraging businesses and individuals to relocate), the Legislature has been required to provide other sources of dedicated revenue for to fund public education. Some of the more prominent ones are:

Dedicating specified proceeds from the Permanent School Fund (which are transferred into the Available School Fund)^[4]
Dedicating 25% of all motor fuels taxes collected^[5]
Dedicating 25% of all business occupational taxes collected^[6]
Dedicating net proceeds (after payout of prizes, operating costs, and specified transfers for veterans' assistance) from the Texas Lottery ^[7]

Otherwise, outside of other minor dedicated revenue sources, public education funding is primarily provided by Legislative appropriations, and a school district's ability to assess property taxes in amounts sufficient to provide an adequate education. The ability of local school districts, specifically those which are "property poor", when considered in conjunction with the Constitutional requirement to provide an adequate education and the prohibition against a statewide property tax, have formed the bases for the numerous lawsuits against the State of Texas, claiming violations.

Local Property Taxes in Texas

Property taxes in Texas consist of two components:

The largest component is for maintenance and operations (M&O). This portion of the tax rate funds teacher, administrative, and other district employee salaries, educational materials used in classrooms, utilities, and routine facility maintenance including minor construction projects. M&O rates consist of two tiers of funding:
- Tier I funding is based on a series of state-mandated funding amounts. The predominant one is the per-student allotment (set at $6,160/student as of 2023; the amount is set by statute^[8] and notably is not indexed for inflation, which has been the subject of much political debate within Texas), which is then multiplied by a series of weights depending on the student's educational level and other factors.^[9] Additional amounts are provided for student success^[10] and to cover transportation costs. The sum of all these amounts is then compared to a state-mandated funding cap (calculated as the taxable value of property within a district—regardless of whether the property can be taxed at full value or even at all—multiplied by the maximum compressed rate, or MCR). Amounts below the calculated sum are made up by the state; amounts in excess are subject to recapture. (Funds received from federal sources—such as payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) for Federal land holdings within a district (such as an Army Corps of Engineers lake) or Federal funding for child nutrition programs, along with any private donations received,^[11] are not subject to recapture.)
- School districts then have the option to increase the tax rate by up to $0.17/$100 above their MCR to provide "Tier II Enrichment" funding. The funding can only be used for M&O, not for capital projects. The funding consists of two levels, each resulting in differing levels of funding, requiring different levels of approval, and differing in their interplay with recapture:
  - A district can propose an increase of up to $0.08/$100 above the MCR. This rate provides a guaranteed yield ($7.9 million as of 2023). If the tax increase does not provide the stated yield, the state makes up the difference; if the tax increase results in more than the yield, it is not subject to recapture (thus it is often referred to colloquially as "golden pennies"). The district's board can increase the rate by up to five "golden pennies" solely on its own action by majority vote;^[12] the remaining three pennies require voter approval in what is officially termed a Voter Approved Tax-Rate Ratification Election or VATRE (pronounced "vater"). Once the voters approve a VATRE, the board can continue to assess at the approved rate without further voter approval (unless less than the maximum three pennies were approved).
  - After assessing the maximum eight "golden pennies", a district can then propose up to an additional $0.09/$100 above the MCR. This rate provides a lower, non-guaranteed yield ($3.9 million as of 2023) and is subject to recapture (thus it is often referred to colloquially as "copper pennies"). These pennies require voter approval via VATRE (it can be combined with a VATRE for "golden pennies", and again does not require further voter approval unless less than the maximum nine pennies were approved).
The final component of the tax rate is for "interest and sinking fund" (I&S). These funds allow districts to issue bonds for major improvements such as land acquisition, new or major renovations to schools, technology purchases (computers and supporting infrastructure) or performing arts centers and/or sports facilities, and can only be used for such, not for M&O. These funds are not subject to recapture but are capped at $0.50/$100, except that if the district's property value would fall to a level where the maximum rate would not prevent default, the cap can be exceeded.
- Prior to 2019, districts in Texas would frequently combine all desired capital improvements into one bond package. Since voters grew tired of having bond money for schools tied to a district's desire for a state-of-the-art football stadium (notwithstanding the popularity of high school football in Texas), the law was changed to require sports facilities to be separate proposals from general school items.

Lawsuits and Legislative Actions

School finance lawsuits must take place in state court, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that education is not a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution (San Antonio v. Rodriguez, a case which originated in Texas). However, in response, between 1975 and 1977 the Legislature increased the minimum teacher salary schedule and increased the number of instructional days required.

Edgewood I

The first of the initial four lawsuits (all of which would involve the Edgewood Independent School District of Bexar County, Texas, a low-income school district in San Antonio) which would ultimately give rise to Robin Hood would be filed in May 1984 against then state Commissioner of Education William Kirby by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, citing discrimination against students in poor school districts. Edgewood ISD charged that the state's methods of funding public schools, which resulted in a wide variation of funding between districts, violated the Texas Constitution. The Texas Supreme Court would rule in October 1989 that the funding mechanisms in place were in violation of the Texas Constitution, ruling that an "efficient system" required "substantially equal access to similar levels of revenue per pupil at similar levels of tax effort".

In response, the Legislature passed legislation increasing the state's basic allotment and guaranteed yield to provide equalization at the 95th percentile, but specifically excluded the state's most "property wealthy" districts from the requirements.

Edgewood II

The exclusion of the wealthiest school districts from the requirement led Edgewood ISD to again file suit against Commissioner Kirby, this time in September 1990. Once again, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the district's favor, determining in January 1991 that excluding the wealthy districts made the legislation unconstitutional. One month later, the Court would later issue a (rare) "advisory opinion", stating that once the Legislature created an "efficient system", it may authorize local enrichment upon voter approval.

The Legislature responded by creating 188 "County Education Districts", designed to equalize the tax base by consolidating property-wealthy districts with property-poor ones.

Edgewood III

The creation of the County Education Districts would lead Edgewood ISD into court yet again. But this time, it would be the defendant in a June 1991 suit brought by the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District (a district north of Dallas), which argued that the districts were unconstitutional. The Court would rule in January 1992, agreeing that the districts were unconstitutional.

The Legislature responded by proposing a constitutional amendment to allow for the "County Education Districts"; however, the amendment was rejected by voters. It also passed Senate Bill 7 with the "Robin Hood" aspect. Senate Bill 7 also, for the first time, introduced a state-mandated limit on M&O tax rates, capping them at $1.50/$100 valuation, which would later become the subject of its own court battle.^[13]

Under recapture, a "property wealthy" district finding itself with more tax revenue than allowed, could choose from one of five options (or combinations thereof) to reduce or eliminate the amount owed:

Consolidate with a "property poor" district (thus resulting in only one remaining district),
Detach a portion of its tax base and transfer it to a "property poor" district,
Purchase “attendance credits” from the state which provides the district with a sufficient number of students to reduce the district's local revenue level to a level that is equal to or less than the district's entitlement,
Contract with a "property poor" district to educate a sufficient number of non-resident students to provide the district with a sufficient number of students to reduce the district's local revenue level to a level that is equal to or less than the district's entitlement, or
Consolidate tax bases with a "property poor" district (but not the districts themselves).

No school district has ever chosen Options 1, 2, or 5 to avoid recapture.^[14] Every district has chosen Options 3 or 4 or a combination of the two.

Edgewood IV

The Robin Hood plan would face yet another court challenge in June 1993, this time by two different sets of parties arguing two opposite positions:

Edgewood ISD (along with "property poor" districts) argued that the plan still didn't accomplish constitutional requirements.
On the other side, a group of "property wealthy" districts argued that the recapture mechanism was, itself, unconstitutional.

In January 1995 the Texas Supreme Court would, for a time, end the ongoing battle over school finance, ruling that the Robin Hood plan met constitutional requirements.

West Orange-Cove cases

After Edgewood IV the courts would see a roughly six-year break in the ongoing battle over school finance.

However, the state-mandated M&O cap (at which the majority of school districts were assessing taxes) would become the source of the next round of lawsuits, this time by the West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District (located in southeast Texas). The district filed suit in April 2001, arguing that the mandated cap constituted a de facto, and thus unconstitutional, state property tax, because the district had no "meaningful discretion" in setting the tax rate.

The Texas Supreme Court agreed in November 2005 with the district (West Orange-Cove I). In response, the Legislature met in a special session during April and May 2006, and made several changes to the tax structure:

The Legislature "compressed" (reduced) the maximum M&O rate to $1.00/$100.
It replaced the lost local revenue with additional state funding, primarily by state revenue from a new business tax and higher cigarette taxes.
Finally, it allowed local districts the option to assess up to an additional $0.17/$100—the "golden pennies" and "copper pennies" discussed above.

Upon passage of the legislation, the district and the state agreed to dissolve a second case (West Orange-Cove II) which was ongoing at the time.

The Texas Comptroller estimated a five-year $23 billion shortfall from the revised tax system.^[15]^[16]

Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition

The West Orange-Cove settlement would bring another six-year break in the battle, only to then be followed by a consortium of plaintiffs under the name shown above (notably over half the state's school districts, along with individual taxpayers and business groups), once again suing (in October 2011) that the compressed rate—even with increased state funding and the optional 17 cent rate—was still a de facto state property tax.

A Travis County district judge agreed in a February 2013 bench ruling that the system was unconstitutional based on equity, adequacy, and the creation of a de facto state property tax. After a rehearing in early 2014, the judge issued his formal ruling in August of that year, generally holding to his bench ruling, but that the system did not violate the "taxpayer equity" requirements of the state constitution.

However, the Texas Supreme Court (on direct appeal) would overrule the district court's ruling in May 2016, stating that the system (though "flawed and imperfect") met constitutional requirements. Notably, for the first time, the Court's opinion would state multiple times that the determination of a school finance system was the province of the Legislature, not the Court, and that going forward it would defer to the legislative choices unless any were "arbitrary and unreasonable".

Since May 2016 no significant challenges to the structure have been brought. The Legislature, meanwhile, has continued to compress the maximum M&O rate, but changed the determination from a state-wide cap to a district-specific calculation.

Related Research Articles

Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

The Constitution of the State of Texas is the document that establishes the structure and function of the government of the U.S. state of Texas, and enumerates the basic rights of the citizens of Texas.

The State of New Hampshire has a republican form of government modeled after the Government of the United States, with three branches: the executive, consisting of the Governor of New Hampshire and the other elected constitutional officers; the legislative, called the New Hampshire General Court, which includes the Senate and the House of Representatives; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire and lower courts.

Massachusetts shares with the five other New England states a governmental structure known as the New England town. Only the southeastern third of the state has functioning county governments; in western, central, and northeastern Massachusetts, traditional county-level government was eliminated in the late 1990s. Generally speaking, there are four kinds of public school districts in Massachusetts: local schools, regional schools, vocational/technical schools, and charter schools.

The Constitution of the State of Michigan is the governing document of the U.S. state of Michigan. It describes the structure and function of the state's government.

The 79th Texas Legislature met from 11 January to 30 May 2005 in regular session, and in consecutive called sessions from 21 June to 20 July and 21 July to 19 August 2005. It met again in 2006 from 17 April to 16 May. Most of the members of the House of Representatives and 15 members of the Senate were elected in the 2004 general election; the other House members were elected in special elections held in 2006.

The 78th Texas Legislature met from January 14 to June 2, 2003 in regular session, and in three called sessions in 2003, and a fourth called session in 2004. All members of the House of Representatives and all members of the Senate were elected in the 2002 general election, with seats apportioned among the 2000 United States census.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, which was based on local property taxes, was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

The government of Texas operates under the Constitution of Texas and consists of a unitary democratic state government operating under a presidential system that uses the Dillon Rule, as well as governments at the county and municipal levels.

At the 2004 and 2005 town meetings, the citizens of the ski resort community of Killington, Vermont, voted in favor of pursuing secession from Vermont and admission into the state of New Hampshire, which lies 25 miles (40 km) to the east.

Florida held various statewide elections on November 7, 2006.

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

Act 60, known as "The Equal Educational Opportunity Act", was a Vermont law enacted in June 1997 by the Vermont legislature intended to achieve a fair balance of educational spending across school districts, independent of the degree of prosperity within each district. The law was in response to a Vermont Supreme Court decision in the Brigham vs. State of Vermont case, wherein the court ruled that Vermont’s then existing educational funding system was unconstitutional, because it allowed students in towns with higher total property values to receive a higher level of education funding per pupil than students in towns with lower property values. Act 60 was followed by Acts 68 and 130, which addressed some imbalances caused by Act 60.

The 2007 Texas constitutional amendment election took place 6 November 2007.

The Connecticut Supreme Court issued its ruling in Horton v. Meskill on April 19, 1977. It held that the right to education in Connecticut is so basic and fundamental that any intrusion on the right must be strictly scrutinized. The Court said that public school students are entitled to equal enjoyment of the right to education, and a system of school financing that relied on local property tax revenues without regard to disparities in town wealth and that lacked significant equalizing state support was unconstitutional. It could not pass the test of strict judicial scrutiny. The Court also held that the creation of a constitutional system for education financing is a job for the legislature and not the courts.

The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts is an executive branch position created by the Texas Constitution. The comptroller is popularly elected every four years, and is primarily tasked with collecting all state tax revenue and estimating the amount of revenue that the Texas Legislature can spend each biennium. The current comptroller is Glenn Hegar, who took office on January 2, 2015.

DeRolph v. State is a landmark case in Ohio constitutional law in which the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the state's method for funding public education was unconstitutional. On March 24, 1997, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in a 4–3 decision that the state funding system "fails to provide for a thorough and efficient system of common schools," as required by the Ohio Constitution, and directed the state to find a remedy. The court would look at the case several times over the next 12 years before it relinquished jurisdiction, but the underlying problems with the school funding system remain to this day.

Serrano v. Priest refers to three cases regarding the financing of public schools in California that were decided by the California Supreme Court: Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971) ; Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976) ; and Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (1977).

The parcel tax is a form of real estate tax. Unlike most real estate taxes or a land value tax, it is not directly based on property value. It funds K–12 public education and community facilities districts, which are usually known as "Mello-Roos" districts. The California parcel tax, in its typical form as a flat tax, is regressive.

In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.

References

↑ "The Texas Education Code, Section 49.002".
↑ "The Texas Constitution, Article 7, Section 1".
↑ "The Texas Constitution, Article 8, Section 1-e".
↑ "The Texas Constitution, Article 7, Section 5".
↑ "The Texas Constitution, Article 8, Section 7-a".
↑ "The Texas Constitution, Article 7, Section 3".
↑ "The Texas Government Code, Chapter 466, Section 355".
↑ The statute requires that, if the district sets a tax rate below its "maximum compressed rate" (MCR), which is calculated by the state, the allotment is proportionally reduced. Texas uses the term "tax compression" to denote a state-mandated lowering of the capped rate.
↑ A weighting of 1.00 is for a student who is progressing satisfactorily at his/her grade level (not having learning challenges nor being talented and gifted), whose primary language is English, who is not in an "educationally disadvantaged" home (the term is used for what is otherwise called "economically disadvantaged"), and who is not otherwise at risk of dropping out (such as a pregnant teenager). Higher weightings, and/or add-on weightings, are used for students who fit in one or more categories which are considered "at-risk" of poor performance and eventually dropping out before graduation.
↑ For example, an educationally disadvantaged student who passes the ASVAB and subsequently enlists in the military, will earn the district an additional $5,000.
↑ Nearly all school districts have an "educational foundation", a legally separate 501(c)(3) non-profit entity, associated with them. These entities raise donations for various school projects and provide funding to the district.
↑ A provision applicable for only the 2020-2021 school year required unanimous board consent for the fifth "golden penny".
↑ Accounts, Texas Comptroller of Public. "The Litigation that Shaped Texas Public Education: Texas School Finance". comptroller.texas.gov. Retrieved 21 September 2020.
↑ Though some districts have consolidated, those were done for other reasons, such as shrinking enrollment or forced consolidation by the state due to poor academic and managerial performance.
↑ "Letter to Governor Rick Perry, 15 May 2006 "Comptroller of Public Accounts, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, ""
↑ Accounts, Texas Comptroller of Public. "The Litigation that Shaped Texas Public Education: Texas School Finance". comptroller.texas.gov. Retrieved 21 September 2020.

Resources

Robin Hood Plan is Working World Internet News
"EDGEWOOD ISD V. KIRBY". The Handbook of Texas Online. Retrieved 27 October 2008.
Schools and Taxes: A Summary of Legislation of the 2006 Special Session
An Introduction to School Finance in Texas (Fifth Edition, Revised March 2022), TTARA Research Foundation (TTARA).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] "The Texas Education Code, Section 49.002".

[2] "The Texas Constitution, Article 7, Section 1".

[3] "The Texas Constitution, Article 8, Section 1-e".

[4] "The Texas Constitution, Article 7, Section 5".

[5] "The Texas Constitution, Article 8, Section 7-a".

[6] "The Texas Constitution, Article 7, Section 3".

[7] "The Texas Government Code, Chapter 466, Section 355".

[8] The statute requires that, if the district sets a tax rate below its "maximum compressed rate" (MCR), which is calculated by the state, the allotment is proportionally reduced. Texas uses the term "tax compression" to denote a state-mandated lowering of the capped rate.

[9] A weighting of 1.00 is for a student who is progressing satisfactorily at his/her grade level (not having learning challenges nor being talented and gifted), whose primary language is English, who is not in an "educationally disadvantaged" home (the term is used for what is otherwise called "economically disadvantaged"), and who is not otherwise at risk of dropping out (such as a pregnant teenager). Higher weightings, and/or add-on weightings, are used for students who fit in one or more categories which are considered "at-risk" of poor performance and eventually dropping out before graduation.

[10] For example, an educationally disadvantaged student who passes the ASVAB and subsequently enlists in the military, will earn the district an additional $5,000.

[11] Nearly all school districts have an "educational foundation", a legally separate 501(c)(3) non-profit entity, associated with them. These entities raise donations for various school projects and provide funding to the district.

[12] A provision applicable for only the 2020-2021 school year required unanimous board consent for the fifth "golden penny".

[13] Accounts, Texas Comptroller of Public. "The Litigation that Shaped Texas Public Education: Texas School Finance". comptroller.texas.gov. Retrieved 21 September 2020.

[14] Though some districts have consolidated, those were done for other reasons, such as shrinking enrollment or forced consolidation by the state due to poor academic and managerial performance.

[15] "Letter to Governor Rick Perry, 15 May 2006 "Comptroller of Public Accounts, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, ""

[16] Accounts, Texas Comptroller of Public. "The Litigation that Shaped Texas Public Education: Texas School Finance". comptroller.texas.gov. Retrieved 21 September 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]