JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and other schools. He is a New York Times best-selling author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (available here) and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” (#2 on NY Times Bestseller List).
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In 2024, a G.W. alum endowed a fellowship after him, “The Professor Jonathan Turley Public Interest and Public Service Summer Fellowship.”
In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. (He was ultimately cleared of all charges in 2026). In 2020, the federal court found that there was merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also served as an expert defense witness in the extradition proceedings of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. Turley was asked to testify on the likely pre-trial, trial, and appellate issues facing Mr. Assange as well as the prison conditions that he could expect upon extradition to Northern Virginia for trial.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC program “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including with the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He has testified over 100 times in the House and the Senate. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter and has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with his fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by The Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
In 2024, the Washingtonian recognized Turley as one of the most influential persons in shaping policy. His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley was selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame. In addition to teaching a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, he is on the board of the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
Twitter: @jonathanturley
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
Thanks, Vince.
Mike Appleton, very well stated. Boyle and Fitchue also should be reminded that there is a Bankruptcy Clause in the Constitution that authorizes the modification of contracts.
And that tax measures must originate in the House of Representatives, the people’s branch, so that taxes are assessed democratically.
James E. Boyle, all taxation involves taking money from one group and giving it to another. Some taxes are intended for general revenue purposes (e.g., income taxes). Some taxes are intended for specific purposes (e.g., property taxes for schools). Some tax policies are implemented to promote behavior deemed to be socially desirable (e.g., deductions for charitable contributions) or to discourage certain behavior deemed socially undesirable (e.g., taxes on alcohol and tobacco). Tax policy is determined by elected representatives in the House and Senate. To argue that one is opposed to the redistribution of wealth is absurd because even the most rabid among us is not opposed to paying taxes for police and fire protection. Thus your complaint is properly about tax policy. Democrats generally tend to favor “redistribution” to the middle and working classes. Republicans generally tend to favor “redistribution” to the investor class. So if you don’t like tax policy, elect someone who more clearly agrees with your list of preferred beneficiaries of redistribution. Beyond this, all of the arguments are meaningless bluster.
Tom Fitchue, since you are a realtor, you certainly have experience with contracts for sale and purchase. I write in response to your comments about the constitutionality of judges changing contract terms. You have been misinformed. Bankruptcy courts around the country daily do all sorts of things to contracts, including terminating them completely. Indeed, the primary purpose of reorganization law is to restructure debt. Leases are cancelled, credit agreements reworked, pension plans eliminated and legitimate debts completely discharged. Secured creditors generally fare best. Unsecured creditors who provide goods and services on a credit basis, relying upon honor rather than collateral, routinely are left with nothing.
Corporate enterprises have used the provisions of the law to their advantage for many years, which is precisely what GM is doing even as we speak. This is not some form of socialist plot invented by Pres. Obama. What conservatives have complained about is not the ability of corporations to change the terms of their obligations through bankruptcy proceedings, but the suggestion that individual homeowners should be permitted to do the same. It is a simple philosophical difference. ABC Corporation can freely walk away from those unfunded retirement promises it made to you over the past thirty years, but don’t you dare propose that courts be authorized to restructure the mortgage on your house. Conservatives approve of ABC Corporation’s actions because it’s about “business.” They oppose the homeowners’ proposal because it promotes “personal irresponsibility.” If you or any other conservatives are prepared to explain to me why more “responsibility” is demanded of an individual than of a company (i.e., a group of individuals acting in concert), I’d love to hear your comments.
Irwin Schiff, not Irving.
Boyle is completely missing the point. The argument that women cannot hold office under the Constitution is frivolous. There are some cranks who support it, but no scholars.
Boyle started by claiming that women cannot hold office under the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that excludes women from office. He, in fact, cannot point to a word that excludes them, other than the sex-neutral pronouns he and him. He cannot even quote a single founder to that effect. He keeps raising the founders. Can he point to any statement by any of them that women cannot hold office? No. The question never came up. The founders never addressed this point.
As I have explained, the right to vote was left to the states. In Article I, the electors for Congress have to have the qualifications of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. The 20th Amendment forced the states to grant that vote to women.
Now, what the founders thought to themselves or assumed is not binding on us. We are only bound by what they put in the words of the Constitution. Some of their writings are helpful in interpretation. But the Constitution prevails.
Boyle thinks the founders assumed women and slaves could never hold public office. Maybe so. But they should have put it into the Constitution if they thought so. The fact that the founders tolerated slavery, and even owned slaves, and referred to them as “persons” in the text of the Constitution is irrelevant. They did not put in a clause saying that only men could hold office. If they had wanted to excluded women and slaves, they should have said so. They knew how to exclude people, and showed it when they excluded foreign-born citizens from the Presidency.
So Boyle can go on with this fantasy. There is a guy named Irving Schiff who is convinced that the income tax is unconstitutional, and has advised others not to pay it. He is in jail at age 90.
If women cannot hold office under the Constitution, go ahead and institute a lawsuit to unseat the Senator from Texas. Send her letters telling her to resign. Good luck.
Boyle’s logic is wrong. He reasons that slaves were described as persons, but the founders did not let them hold office. Therefore, he argues, even if women were described as persons, they could not hold office either. He argues that the 20th Amendment gave women the right to vote, but no amendment gave them the right t to hold office. But, by his own logic, he has to hold that, although the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 15th Amendment barred denial of the vote on the basis of race, nevertheless no amendment has yet granted the right to hold office to the people freed by those amendments. So Boyle would require an amendment to allow African-Americans to hold office.
At any rate, these arguments have already been refuted at the Turley website.
In addition, Chief Justice Taney was a racist who believed that black people were inherently inferior to whites. He let his own personal prejudices caused him to twist and distort the Constitution. Nothing in the two-thirds clause or any other provision justified his holding that black people could not be citizens of the United States. Source: Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case.
Ronald Holst,
It’s my nature to say what I feel and so I was responding to the whole of your thoughts and not trying to “butter you up.”
You have a good and inquiring mind and that is something I respect. Why not hang out here a bit by clicking on the Blog tab at the top of the page. It is good to have thinking people around and we have plenty of them, coming from all political positions. With your insight you would be a good fit.
“The only way out of this mess is for government to get out of the way and allow people who made bad decisions to own up to the consequences. I often think of Noah and the ark. Imagine how many children perished because their dads and moms didn’t believe Noah. God gave many chances but stayed true to his word. Obama “feels” too much instead of “thinks” too much. People by their very nature are self-centered. The cure for this is to allow consequences when we mess up so that we learn not to repeat the same mistakes. Government was not created to take from group of society and give it to another group in society. This is however what is going on now and we will reap the harvest from this sowing.”
James E. Boyle,
While you call yourself a Christian, your religious belief self described is a “self centered” one. This is directly contrary to Jesus “Golden Rule” and the biblical concept of being our brother’s keeper. However, I’m sure you can rationalize yourself around all that and still think you are a good Christian. This is because for you, based on your statements, money comes before your religion.
“We here in Texas are only one of three states to be financially o.k. We are a conservative state by the way and have a great educational system.”
In truth as Vince showed the only thing good about your State educationally is that you produce some good College Football Teams. You didn’t have the honesty or integrity to respond to his points, which I thought were also supposed to be Christian values. I guess with you honesty and integrity also along with your religion takes second place to money.
Sadly though when you talk about Texas being a financially sound State you also don’t bother to deal with the facts. Last year Texas was number one in the requesting of FEMA grants, these requests coming from your Governor In The Closet Rick. Texas also receives about 1 & 1/2 more funds from the Federal Government than it pays in taxes. It’s very easy to be fiscally sound when your getting all that pork from the Feds. In short some conservative Texans like to talk about personal responsibility as long as the State keeps raking it in.
Now for your constitutional questions, they are so stupid, that Vince actually has shown you a kindness by bothering to answer them seriously. A kindness you felt no need to reciprocate. I on the other hand can not forget that Texans were among the group that committed treason against our great country by seceding. Now again their Governor has called for the consideration of such a treason. No doubt this is a man you support and have voted for. How dare you,
given the recklessness of your State’s actions and having its’ large mouth fastened firmly around the teat of the Federal government, talk about the soundness of your financial situation. Have you no shame? I guess though that is the case and more sadly I presume that you are proud of it. Your argumentation is basically silly and you have shown yourself not to be honorable in your posting, you’re simply not worth further bother.
I did not miss it. Read my post. I referred to the three-fifths, importation, and fugitive slave clauses.
You read that clause yourself. It does not does it say that women are excluded from office.
The Presidential oath can be taken by a man or a woman. It has no pronoun of he or she.
You have found nothing that states women are excluded.
You have not posted a single word by a founder to that effect.
VINCE
You missed this in the constitution!!!
Here is a direct quote from Article 1 sec 9
Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such PERSONS as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Vince,
Name one founder who held the belief that a woman should be president or for that matter vote. We the people… in the preamble explains what we as a people need to do in order to have a perfect Union and then the Articles attempt to clarify the specifics of that. If you spoke Madison, Jay, Hamilton, or even Mason, do you think any of them would have actively been out campaigning for the women’s right to vote. If not, then why would they have wanted them to hold NATIONAL political office? I am saying that we addressed the vote in the 19th amendment but nver addressed the office part. Also, Judge Taney in the Dred Scott case was only upholding the 3/5 compromise as discussed at the Convention in 1787. Slaves were called persons at the time and associated with “property.” As a result, My original question was never answered. Did the founders truly want slaves voting or holding political office since they were called persons?
Ronald,
Everybody has a place in this country as long as they come here legally. I am a God-fearing Chrisitian and use many Biblical examples to make my points. As a Christian the Bible clearly says that a NATION whose God is the Lord will be blessed. I want God’s blessing and not his curse. However, I would never suggest to anyone that they have to follow my beliefs. As far as political office, anyone can hold office as long as the Constitution allows it. At the same time, living a God-fearing life would be an added benefit to that office.
Mr Boyle
Sir may I ask You a question Sir From What I have read, you believe that if a person is not a God fearing Christian that they have no place in this country or in political office Or am I wrong On my interpretation of what you have been writing .
and If so could you please explain it In more of a simple way .
I do not have a college degree or even a high school diploma.
As lawyers like to say, if there are no facts or law to go on, pound the table. The founders thought a lot of things, but we can only go on what they put in words. The Constitution of 1789 did not address the right to vote and left it to the states. The Amendments later addressed color, age, sex and poll tax. There is nothing in the Constitution barring women from office. If you find any words, other than pronouns, to that effect, let us know.
The founders failures on the issue of slavery were total, complete, and inexcusable, but are no support for you position. Slaves were described as persons held to service or labor, in three clauses (three-fifths, importation, and fugitive slave), but there were no other mentions of slavery whatsoever.
If you had any respect for the Constitution, you would start with the words “We the People of the United States” and work from there, instead of looking for bizarre theories to exclude people from its reach.
To repeat, women are eligible for all offices under the Constitution. You cannot point to any language excluding them. It was hard for them to get elected when most of the individual states did not let them vote, but one of them got elected anyway. These are the facts, that he studiously ignores. The Constitution has to be read as amended, and his has been amended to guarantee equal protection for all.
The rest of your questions would be answered if you took Professor Turley’s course in constitutional law.
The rest of the ideas posted by Tom and James are just tired old right wing hack stuff that they repeat to each other until they cannot think anymore. Noah’s Ark!
Boyle started by trying to keep women out of office. He has not cited or quoted even one word from a founder or the constitution itself. He just assumes he knows what they thought. If he did the research, he would find that they never considered many of these issues.
Tom,
I couldn’t agree more. Suggesting from Obama is a code word for mandate. The only way out of this mess is for government to get out of the way and allow people who made bad decisions to own up to the consequences. I often think of Noah and the ark. Imagine how many children perished because their dads and moms didn’t believe Noah. God gave many chances but stayed true to his word. Obama “feels” too much instead of “thinks” too much. People by their very nature are self-centered. The cure for this is to allow consequences when we mess up so that we learn not to repeat the same mistakes. Government was not created to take from group of society and give it to another group in society. This is however what is going on now and we will reap the harvest from this sowing.
I have no problem with women in pubic office. What I do have a probelm with is taking our constitution and trashing it. If we don’t like what it says, then change it according to article 5. It’s like Separation of church and state. Those words are not in the U.S. Constitution. In Fact, they are not even implied. The founders simply didn’t want a state run church that forced everybody into one religion. How we got from that to not even allowing a prayer at a graduation is beyond me. Now the mention of Jesus is threatening to many but mentioning Allah is acceptable. Give me a break! I mean come on. If the founders really believed in women holding NATIONAL office then why didn’t they give them the right to vote? Answer that?
Mr. Boyle,
I’m not versed/educated on constitutional law, as many on this site seem to be. I “run into” resistance when asking similiar questions, like, taking over the auto companies, the banks, and mortgage companies, to name a few. When I suggested Obama forced the sitting CEO of GM to step down, the answers herein were that “he DID NOT use force but, just suggested”.
I am an active Realtor, of long standing (some WILL call me old). I’m aware of contract law, to some minor degree, and I know forcing lenders to modify existing mortgages is unlawful. Suggesting that foreclosure judges be given the “power” to change contract terms is unlawful, as is shaming lenders to “voluntarily” change agreed-upon contractual clauses is a horrendous use of governmental power that can’t, in my mind, be justified anywhere in the Constitution.
No amount of the taxpayers’ money “thrown” at the housing situation will make any difference EXCEPT to the taxpayer whose money is badly wasted. This is popular and political ONLY, and will assist very few families. No one in DC is mentioning that there’s another monster “storm” bearing down on our economy in the form of massive foreclosures/failings in the commercial real estate world, probably as serious as the residential melt-down. This won’t be pretty, and it WON’T be fixable, even if there’s any money left to “burn”. Of course none of our money is of any value, anyhow.
Tom Fitchue
As far as Texas goes, WE are NOT Bankrupt. What good does it do to have the best statistics and be on a sinking ship?
You said it applies to persons. Well then, I guess the founders believed slaves should be elected officials because that is how they referred to them when debating the 3/5 compromise. You surely wouldn’t agree with that. And, tell me specifically which founder believed women should hold public office. I would like to research their writings.
Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).
Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).
Texas is #33 in the nation in teacher salaries. Teacher salaries in Texas are not keeping pace with the national average. The gains realized from the last state-funded across-the-board pay raise authorized in 1999, which moved the ranking from 33 to as high as 26th in the nation, have disappeared over the last five years.
Texas was the only state in the nation to cut average per pupil expenditures in fiscal year 2005, resulting in a ranking of #40 nationally; down from #25 in fiscal year 1999.
Texas is #6 in the nation in student growth. The general student population in Texas public schools grew by 11.1% between school years 1999 and 2005, with the largest percent of growth seen among low income and minority children.
Between school years 1999 and 2005, the number of central administrators employed by Texas public schools grew by 32.5%, overall staffing in public schools grew by 15.6%, while the number of teachers grew only 13.3%.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. More at:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/
Res ipsa loquitor