Shortly after listening to closing arguments, Judge John Dietz called the funding mechanism unconstitutional. He has promised to issue a detailed, written decision soon. The trial took more than 240 hours in court and 10,000 exhibits to get this far.
Attorneys representing around 600 public school districts argued Monday that the way Texas funds its schools is "woefully inadequate and hopelessly broken," as a sweeping case featuring more than 12 weeks of testimony came to a close.
At issue are $5.4 billion in cuts to schools and education grant programs imposed in 2011 by the state Legislature, but the districts say simply restoring that funding won't be enough to fix a fundamentally flawed system.
They point out the cuts have come even as the state requires schools to prepare students for standardized tests that are getting more difficult and amid a statewide boom in the number of low-income students and those who need extra instruction to learn English, both of whom are more costly to educate.
Texas does not have a state income tax, meaning it relies on local property taxes to fund its schools. But attorneys for the school districts said the bottom 15 percent of the state's poorest districts tax average 8 cents more than the wealthiest 15 percent of districts but receive about $43,000 less per classroom.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office countered that the system is adequately funded and that school districts don't always spend their money wisely.
The state is expected to appeal the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. This was the sixth case of its kind since 1984. In 2005, Dietz found the previous funding system unconstitutional and directed the Legislature to devise a new one.
In all, the case involves six lawsuits filed on behalf of about two-thirds of Texas school districts, which educate around 75 percent of the state's roughly 5 million public school students.
Districts in rich and poor parts of the state are on the same side. Texas' funding system relies heavily on property taxes and a "Robin Hood" scheme where districts with high property values or abundant tax revenue from oil or natural gas resources turn over part of the money they raise to poorer districts.
Many "property wealthy" districts say that while they are in better shape than their poorer counterparts, the system still starves them of funding since local voters who would otherwise support property tax increases to bolster funding for their schools refuse to do so, knowing that most of the money would be sent somewhere else.
All the school districts involved argued that funding levels were inadequate, regardless of what level of funding they received.