What Does This Inadequate Ruling Mean

The short answer is that nothing has changed. The long answer, in my non-judicial opinion, is that it means the way Texas uses a property tax to fund schools is unconstitutional. It looks like Gov. Perry got what he wanted from his appointed judges. Property taxes have to be lowered, school funding is adequate and I believe this leaves "Robin Hood" intact. That means Perry can continue on his "revenue neutral" campaign and doesn't have to add any new money to public schools. From what I've seen so far I think there is one word in the majority opinion that Democrats and those who think the funding in our schools is inadequate and that word is "ADEQUATE". Like this comment to the post over at BOR on the ruling:

Here's a snippet of Chris Bell's statement:

"Rick Perry now has a choice. He can either hide behind black robes on the Supreme Court or his hand-picked campaign donors on the tax commission, or he can show real leadership and fight to give our public schools the resources they need to thrive."

Agreed. Again, while the court said that we're constitutionally OK on the adequacy of education, it's important to note that "adequate" means that 55% of students pass the TAKS test. If a student got a 55 on a test, we'd give them a failing grade.

Why, then, shouldn't we expect the same from the state?

Republicans are for adequate education funding! That would look good on a billboard.