Dave Hase

AEF Attorney

Because of the importance of the case, the court allowed each side 45 minutes to argue. That's 15 minutes more than is allowed in a normal case, but we were required to divide our time with the WEAC intervenors.

As is typical in an appellate argument, the justices interrupted all of the lawyers with questions. Several of the justices were very involved in the argument and asked many probing questions. While this process interrupts the flow of the presentation, it also gives the lawyers a chance to make their major points in response to the expressed concerns of the court.

In this regard, I felt we were able to make most of the points we intended to make. I also felt the court’s questions directed to the state's attorney, Peter Anderson, allowed us to formulate a rebuttal argument that effectively responded to the defendants’ major legal point. That point was that the court should leave the determination of constitutional uniformity mainly to the legislature. This argument seemed to leave several of the justices uneasy. If it did, that could be to our advantage.

The major theme we tried to stress is that the uniformity provision of the state constitution should be interpreted by the court to require the school finance system to provide school districts with equal access to resources. This, we argued, means that all state funding should be equalized.

This principle, capsulized in the AEF catchphrase "districts that spend the same should tax the same," is not an easy concept to convey. I have found it a challenge, as perhaps have many of you, to make this concept easily understandable whether I am talking to the press, an interested group, or arguing to a court.

However, I did leave the Supreme Court after the oral argument feeling that we had been able to convey the message effectively, at least to some members of the court.

We now have to rely on these justices to convince their colleagues of the merits of our position during the opinion drafting process and court conferences on the case.

It generally takes the court at least 30 to 60 days to prepare an opinion and announce its decision. Given the complexity of this case and the length and number of briefs submitted by the parties and nonparties, I expect it will take a bit longer for the court to issue its opinion. However, it is likely we will get a decision before the end of the court’s term on June 30. You can be sure we'll let you know as soon as possible.¨

top

Lessons From The Farm

Doug Haselow

AEF Executive Director

Our Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether the huge variation in the amount of public funds invested to educate our children -- and the even larger variation in the tax burden to pay for it -- is acceptable. In a system of schools that is required by our constitution to be "as nearly uniform as practicable," the answer is clearly NO.

It seems clear that many public officials and educators already have concluded that the court will order major changes in our school finance system:

• State superintendent Benson has created a task force to determine whether our system needs modification or sweeping reform.
• WASDA is in the process of developing its own recommendations for change.
• State Senator Mike Ellis released his school foundation plan in December, and UW professor Alan Odden continues to discuss his.
• The Institute for Wisconsin's Future is developing an adequacy model of school finance.

Change is coming - and soon. AEF's effort will be to forge a consensus around a legislative proposal which provides equity for students and taxpayers - and can realistically be enacted. In that process we must review and consider all proposals and actively support the best elements of each one in the legislature.

As these various proposals are developed and released, I hope you will examine them carefully and share your reactions with me. ¨

top

New Steering Committee Members

Bill Vincent

AEF Steering Committee Chair

Rich Hess is the district administrator for the Shawano-Gresham school district. He takes the place of AEF founding member Jerry Sommer, who's going to concentrate a little more on his retirement. Rich's thoughts on equity are in his essay in this issue.

We're also happy that Michelle Nate, the director of finance for Milwaukee Public Schools, is joining us. She will finish the unexpired term of Tom McGinnity, who has taken another position within MPS. Michelle's expertise in finance issues will be a huge asset as we move forward.

During our January meeting, the AEF membership also voted to renew the expiring committee terms of Bill Loasching (Seymour), Bill Schalk (Racine) and myself (Elk Mound).

I'd like to thank everyone for their continued support -- and encourage you to contact your AEF steering committee representative if you have questions, concerns or requests for information. We're all certainly willing to help explain this complicated issue to districts, board members, teachers, parents and others.

One other matter: I know Dave Hase is much too humble to admit it, but he and his associate, Heidi Vogt, did a tremendous job preparing for the lawsuit and presenting our case before the highest court in the state. I'm certainly glad Dave and his team were on our side!

I also was pleased that many AEF members and plaintiffs were present at this impressive hearing. There will be other opportunities outside the courtroom to show your support in the future.¨

Rich Hess

Shawano/Gresham School District

Imagine if the University of Wisconsin system worked like this:

Tuition for students from River Hills will be $8,000, and they can take any class they like. Students from Appleton will have to pay $16,000 and will only be able to take a limited amount of classes. If you're from Mishicot, you'll have to pay about $10,000, but forget about majoring in computers or foreign language. But those from Gibraltar -- you'll only have to pay $7,000, and you can live in the best dorms.

We'd be outraged! But in essence, that's the kind of inequity Wisconsin public school students entering the UW system have faced for their 13 years (K-12) of education. It's why more than 100 school districts and others have asked the state Supreme Court to rule the system unconstitutional in the Vincent vs Voight lawsuit.

Last year, the amount of public funds invested in the education of our children varied from $6,033 to 14,481 per pupil. At the same time, the property tax rate for public schools varied from $3.62 to $18.64 per $1,000 of property valuation.

Over the 13-year career of a public school student, the difference in the amount of public funds allowed to be invested to educate our children under the state revenue limits is staggering. Based on 1999 dollars, a child who lives in Bayside would have about $145,000 invested in his or her education while the comparable amount for a child from my district of Shawano/Gresham could be only $75,000 -- almost $70,000 less.

This is not an isolated example. Take a look at these examples of differences in K-12 educational investments:

 

• A child from River Hills receives nearly $158,000, almost twice the $84,000 invested in the education of a child from Appleton
  
• A student in Lake Geneva obtains $139,000, compared to the $85,000 invested to educate a child from Racine.
  
• Parents in Gibraltar can expect $116,000 to be spent on each child, compared to $74,000 for a child from Mishicot, about an hour away.
  
• In some cases, the educational investment and property tax burden depends on which side of the road a child may live. A child from Ripon, birthplace of the Republican Party, receives $88,000 in educational investment. Just on the other side of County Highway A, a child in Green Lake receives almost $27,000 more. And the owner of a $100,000 property in Ripon would pay about $5,700 more than the owner of equal valued property in Green Lake.

The net result is that many Wisconsin taxpayers pay more, but have less for their children, while others taxpayers have more for their children and pay less to get it.

The Governor submitted an amicus briefs in the Vincent vs. Voight case alleging that the current school district revenue limits, which allow every district to increase its per-pupil revenue by the same amount each year, would narrow the differences in per-pupil public investment. Under current law it would take

Without a major change to assure equal educational opportunity for all children, it is apparent that even the great, great, great grandchildren of today's first graders will not be treated uniformly.¨