|
|
|
|
Click Here For Equity News Archives Summer 2000 In this issue: ‡ Vincent v. Voight: Good News v. Bad News - Dave Hase ‡ It's Time! - Executive Director's Report - Doug Haselow ‡ AEF Continues Crusade - Chairman's Report - Bill Vincent ‡ A Board Member's Perspective - Bill Schalk ‡
Extra:
Summary of Vincent v. Voight Findings Vincent v. Voight: Good News v. Bad News For
the
Association for Equity in Funding, the decision of the Supreme Court in Vincent
v. Voight provides some good news and some bad news.
The
good news is that the court adopted a standard against which to measure
legislative compliance with the constitutional mandate of Article X, ¤ 3 --
that the legislature shall establish "district schools, which shall be as
nearly uniform as practicable. . . .".
The new standard leaves the door open for the advocates of school
finance reform to take their case to the legislature, and ultimately again to
court, if the legislature fails to live up to the new constitutional
test.
The
bad news, at least from the standpoint of AEF, is that the court did not
equate fiscal equity with uniformity.
On
evidence of inequity, which Justice Bablitch viewed as undisputed, the Vincent
plaintiffs advocated a constitutional uniformity standard which would have
required the state school finance system to provide equal access to
resources.
However, the four justices that were persuaded to adopt a
constitutional standard chose a broader one.
But in doing so, they did not dismiss fiscal equity as a relevant
consideration. In
fashioning the new standard, which requires that Wisconsin students be
provided "an equal opportunity for a sound basic education," Justice
Crooks suggested that both fiscal equity and adequacy must be considered.
This was echoed in the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Shirley
Abrahamson and Justice William A. Bablitch.
The Chief Justice found the wide disparity in per pupil spending in
Wisconsin persuasive evidence of the system's constitutional deficiency.
Justice Bablitch even more particularly focused on the evidence of
spending and taxing disparity and agreed with plaintiffs that "the
system's disparities deny students in property-poor districts equal
educational opportunities." By
recognizing the significance of fiscal disparities, the justices who fashioned
the new standard have provided a powerful tool for equity advocates.
The legislature will now have to justify each of the disequalizers in
the system in light of the standard.
Thus,
an equity advocate can say to any legislative proponent of the levy tax
credit, "how does this work to provide students with 'an equal
opportunity for a sound basic education?'"
Property tax relief simply does not equate with a "sound basic
education." The same can be said for the hold harmless provision and the
other disequalizers in the system. Therefore,
the standard the court adopted has real practical utility for the cause of
school finance equity. However,
the standard has the support of only a narrow majority of the court.
The three justices who did not embrace the standard are the three
members of the current court who were first appointed to their seats by
Governor Thompson. This suggests
that the advocates of school finance reform need to be as alert to court
politics as legislative politics if the gains made by the Vincent
decision are to be protected over the long term. (r) Doug
Haselow AEF
Executive Director Now
is the time for the legislature to improve our school finance system.
The recent state Supreme Court decision clearly fixes that
responsibility with our elected representatives. While
we would have preferred the court establish a financial standard which could
be easily defined, the court gave our children an equal opportunity for a
sound basic education. Specific
courses to be provided and student populations to be taken into account were
spelled out in that decision. It
seems clear that the court recognizes our school finance system does not now
provide an equal educational opportunity for disabled students, economically
disadvantaged students or students with limited English language skills. Accordingly,
the next legislature must address those needs.
In addition, legislators will need to address complaints of individuals
whose children have not been given the equal educational opportunity cited in
the decision. AEF
efforts now must be directed at the legislature and the specific provisions of
the 2001-02 state budget. Several
groups are developing legislative proposals for consideration in the budget
process. Some are directed
primarily at revenue limit concerns, while others have a broader scope.
All may be revised to reflect the new requirements of the court
decision. All seem to recognize
that the next legislative session will provide the best opportunity for
improving our school finance system that we have seen in many years. I
welcome your comments throughout the process.
My toll-free number is 877-353-4755(r) AEF
has spent many years and many dollars working to convince the state to change
the inequitable financing system.
While
we may have not achieved our goal in the Supreme Court, we've gone a long way
in educating legislators, school boards, parents, teachers and even the media
about the crippling inequities that are harming our children. We
advocated for Act 27, which increased state support for education.
We've participated in DPI and legislative task forces, representing
equity issues. In short, we're
the only organization in the state that truly stands for equity.
Others may be compromised by their membership's interests, but AEF has
been steadfast in our pursuit of striving for financial equity for our kids
and taxpayers. While
the judicial side of our struggle was lost on a slim margin, we have known
from the beginning that our real battle lies in the legislative halls in
Madison. We solicited our members
in July, and the message was to carry on.
Our members are telling us to keep equity in the spotlight, so people
know this issue will not die.
It's
not going to be easy, but with the commitment of Executive Director Doug
Haselow and our members, we have an opportunity to go even farther in the
legislature. The key, according
to one state lawmaker who attended our last meeting, is to make our voices
heard in Madison. It's not just
marches and protests -- it's the personal letters and phone calls to tell your
elected officials that Wisconsin's future depends on a fair school financing
system so all of our kids have an "equal opportunity" for an
education. 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.
Our
phone numbers are listed on Page 4 of this newsletter. (r) AEF
Steering Committee Member, Racine Unified School District Board In
light of Vincent v. Voight, I believe the glass is half full and not
half empty. I remain optimistic
even though I'm glad I wasn't shaving with a sharp razor when I learned of the
decision. I'm
optimistic because the Supreme Court did establish a standard for
school funding. Advocates for our
cause would argue that this provides an avenue for future litigation, if
necessary. More important,
though, this standard puts the Legislature on alert that they have to do more
about school finance than they have done in the past. I'll
leave the specific analysis of Vincent v. Voight to others.
However, I would be remiss if I didn't comment on the makeup of the
court. The three members
(Justices Prosser, Sykes and Wilcox) who voted with the majority were
appointees of Governor Thompson.
With
appointments comes a political and judicial philosophy that normally is
consistent with that of the appointer.
In
our case, the governor was opposed to our position, and so were three of his
appointees. Bottom line:
While we can't always influence who will be appointed, we can affect
who will be elected or re-elected. Where
do we go from here? First,
we must remain active members of AEF.
AEF
is the only action organization that is dedicated to leveling the playing
field in financial terms for our school districts. Second,
we must continue to press our legislators to work harder on our behalf.
As the proverb says, "It takes a village to raise a
child."
A new AEF proverb says:
"It
takes a coalition to pass legislation to educate a child."
This decade will be the most exciting one in the history of education,
and we must tell our legislators that we don't want them to miss the
opportunity. Third,
we must encourage outside agencies to contact legislators about inadequate
funding. These groups could
include Chambers of Commerce, business organizations, tax groups, church
groups, etc. Fourth,
we must help ourselves as individual school districts.
The Packers can't depend on the Vikings losing their last three regular
season games in order to make the playoffs; likewise, we can't depend on the
legislature alone to solve our problems.
It may be time to consider a referendum, school reconfiguration,
revenue enhancement options and other innovative ideas. We
must never give up trying to solve our own problems. A
few days after reading the Vincent decision, I read the poem written in
1883
by
Emma Lazarus to
grace the Statue of Liberty.
"Keep,
ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With
silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, America
is the golden door. Wisconsin is
the heart of this golden country.
Our
districts may contain some tired and poor children, but the spirit and
enthusiasm for educating our children is still there. If
we stay positive, together one day we will drink out of a full
cup.
(r) Summary
of Findings In the Vincent, et al, v. Voight, et al
Case AEF
Attorney On
Tuesday, July 11, 2000 a widely divided Wisconsin Supreme Court announced its
decision in Vincent, et al v. Voight,
et al, the most recent Wisconsin school finance case.
An unprecedented six of
the seven justices wrote separately to explain their views as to the
constitutionality of the Wisconsin school finance system.
Only Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who concurred in an opinion written by
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, chose not to write an opinion. By
a narrow 4 to 3 vote,
the court concluded that the system complies with both Article X, ¤ 3 and
Article I, ¤ 1 of the Wisconsin constitution.
Justices Jon P. Wilcox, David P. Prosser and Diane S. Sykes joined
parts of an opinion written by Justice N. Patrick Crooks, which concluded
that, the Vincent plaintiffs and
the WEAC intervenors did not show that the current school finance is
unconstitutional. After concluding that
the present school finance system more effectively equalizes the tax base
differential among school districts and provides more aid than was the case at
the time of the Kukor decision,
this majority held that the system did not violate the constitutional
uniformity mandate or deny Wisconsin school children equal protection of the
laws. In his opinion holding
the system constitutional Justice Crooks articulated a new standard for
interpreting the uniformity provision of Article X, ¤ 3.
That standard was
expressed in terms of a fundamental right.
According to Justice Crooks the constitution affords all students an
equal opportunity for a sound basic education.
"A sound basic education" is an education that "will equip
students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically
and personally," he wrote. A different majority of
four justices consisting of Justice Crooks, Chief Justice Abrahamson and
Justices Bradley and William A. Bablitch endorsed this standard. Chief Justice Abrahamson
and Justices Bablitch and Bradley dissented from the court's holding that
the present system is constitutional.
In
separate opinions, the Chief Justice and Justice Bablitch reviewed the
evidence and concluded that the school finance system is failing in certain
respects. They, along with Justice
Bradley, would have remanded the case to the circuit court to give the parties
an opportunity to develop additional facts bearing on the constitutionality of
the system in light of the newly announced standard.
As Justice Bablitch observed, "this record raises serious and
troubling questions about our system of education that should be examined more
thoroughly below." Justices Prosser and
Sykes wrote separate opinions, in which each joined the other, attacking the
adoption of the new standard.
Justice Prosser found
that neither the text of Article X, ¤ 3 nor the court's precedent
interpreting that provision support the standard articulated by Justice
Crooks. In the absence of a
standard, Justice
Prosser concluded that the responsibility for
shaping education policy is reserved by the constitution to the executive and
legislative branches. Justice Sykes came to
the same conclusion taking a somewhat different tack.
Like Justice Prosser, she reviewed the court's previous cases
interpreting Article X, ¤ 3 and found no support for the new standard
"anywhere in the text of the Wisconsin constitution." Consequently,
she concluded that the court should have declined the invitation to articulate
a constitutional standard by the plaintiffs and intervenors, some of the
non-parties filing amicus briefs,
the circuit court and the court of appeals. Rather she would have
had the court invoke the "political question" doctrine and refuse to
interpret Article X, ¤ 3 because it deals with issues "that are essentially
political in nature, exclusively committed by the constitution to another
branch of government and not susceptible to judicial management or
resolution." Justice Wilcox rejected
the conclusion of Justices Prosser and Sykes that school finance is not an
issue for the judiciary. He did
join them however in repudiating the standard articulated in Justice Crooks'
opinion and endorsed by the Chief Justice and Justices Bablitch and
Bradley.
In Justice Wilcox's
view, the state legislature's determinations concerning the school finance
system are entitled to great deference by the court.
Viewing the system from that perspective, he concluded that plaintiffs
and intervenors had not made the case that the system violates the uniformity
provision of Article X, ¤ 3.
Thus the court expressed
itself on the subject of school finance.
Two justices would have had the judiciary take "hands off" approach
to the subject. A narrow majority
found the present system constitutional and a different, but likewise narrow,
majority established a standard to which the system must conform in the
future. Failure to measure up to
this standard over time could subject the system to future attack in the
courts. Would you like to subscribe to Equity News? Just email bhaig@execpc.com |
