|
|
|
|
Click Here For Equity News Archives Email bhaig@execpc.com to receive every new issue. In this issue:
Convention Brings Positive Response to AEF As part of our efforts to better communicate with members and other school districts, AEF sponsored a booth for the first time at the WASB annual convention in January. We distributed our new brochure, a bookmark with the state standard on it, and several information sheets. Representatives from dozens of school districts and other organizations stopped by to chat about several issues with Steering Committee members. Generally, it was a success as we received many expressions of interest and support. At the AEF membership meeting, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice William Bablitch presented a lively talk on the state's school finance cases and the incremental steps that need to be taken to achieve a school finance system that meets the educational needs of state youth (see excerpts on Page 3). He also suggested that AEF continue to seek equity within an adequacy model of financing public schools. He noted that the new educational standard does lead to an adequate school finance system and adequacy may be more politically acceptable as it does not imply redistribution. Also at the meeting, members re-elected Roland Rockwell (CESA 2) and Todd Gray (CESA 5/6) as Steering Committee members. Jim Friesen (CESA 9/10) was elected to replace Paul Schoenberger. We thank Paul for his years of involvement and wish him the best in retirement. Membership dues were maintained at $1.80 per million of equalized valuation. We also spent a few minutes talking about our direction in the coming months. Members determined that AEF continue indefinitely with annual review of how the process is going. We're committed to moving forward in the legislature and with the public to educate them about our kids' needs throughout the state, especially as we enter the next election campaign. The steering committee is now developing a communications plan which may be implemented in the coming campaign. At the same time, the steering committee will attempt to increase AEF membership and public support. I look forward to your thoughts in the coming year. Political Chaos Provides Potential Opportunities Plato once said "The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." He died 2350 years ago so he could not have seen the Wisconsin political landscape, but he sure described some of the participants we see today. It is not a pretty picture when you consider what has occurred and what is coming. Every ten years we have a census and the legislature district lines must be redrawn to reflect the current population. Historically, reapportionment has been the subject of bitter partisan action and frequently, court action. This process is now underway as the new lines must be in place for the Legislative campaigns that begin in June. Additionally, legislative leaders are dealing with prosecutors who are attempting to determine the extent to which legislative caucus staff employees have been actively working in partisan legislative campaigns on state paid time. Partisan wrangling broke out on the floor of the Assembly early in February, and more should be expected. The 2001-2003 budget, enacted last August, appropriated $23.1 billion in general purpose revenues for the two-year period. The general fund taxes to support that budget are estimated at $21.8 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion over the 2000-01 level, but $1.3 billion less than the biennial spending level. In January, state revenue estimates were revised, and some budget cuts have been made. The result is that the state is now projecting a GPR revenue increase of $626 million over 2000-01 and a budget deficit of $1.1 billion for the biennium. The Governor's budget proposal has generated a great deal of political opposition around the state and very little political support in the Capitol. And now his consultant Morris Andrews is floating another plan. This one would reduce the level of state cost sharing by 3% in 2003-2005 and another 3% in 2005-07. Each 3% reduction is equivalent to a 9% increase in school property taxes. His proposal does not include any increase in equalization aid, freeze aid for school facilities and freezes school tax rates, which allows property-wealthy districts to increase their per pupil revenue limits more than lower value districts. The Governor's staff has disowned this plan, but it looks like a long-term budget approach and confirms the notion that we are in for a short-term fix that partially or temporarily relies on tobacco or Medicaid funds. Combine all this with the coming gubernatorial and legislative elections, and it looks like ongoing political chaos for the next several months. In the end we may see a court-ordered reapportionment; a caucus scandal that ends some legislative careers; a budget deficit only partially solved with major long term decisions put off till 2003; and a bitter political campaign. In any event, there will not be any quick or easy solutions to the problems facing our state today. More Changes in 2003 At this point it seems clear that school finance is still on the table. Regardless of any legislative action this year we should expect further changes in 2003. The Decker-Olsen committee is just beginning its deliberations, and they are not expected to be completed until after the 2002 elections. Bill Vincent and Bill Loasching serve on this committee. WASB has also created a committee to review our school finance system and report to the WASB membership in January 2003. Bill Schalk is a member of that committee. While the outlook is uncertain at best in a politically partisan atmosphere, remember that the financing of K-12 public schools is a state responsibility. And remember too, that all of our children have an equal opportunity for a sound basic education that will enable them to become personally and economically successful citizens. Finally, I would urge you to think of public school finance in the following way. K-12 education is a state responsibility. The state has created school districts to help meet that responsibility. The biggest state mandate imposed on any governmental body is the requirement that school districts provide a free public education to all children. That state mandate is substantially (at least one-third) unfunded by the state. To the extent it is funded, it is unfairly funded as the amount invested to educate some children is more than twice the amount invested to educate others, and the tax burden on sum property owner is more than five times the burden on others. Vincent was a very important case. We frequently are asked, particularly when you're on the verge of retirement, "What are the most important cases that you wrote in the court?" The individual justice will respond to some opinion that he or she put his name on. To me the most important case, and where I had the most impact, was a case that I never even wrote the majority opinion on. To me it was sort of a culmination of all the experiences that I had in the legislature and working with people to get us to where we are today. So I'm very, very proud -- prouder than anything I've done on the court. I knew that the (decision) was going to be four to three. I could read the tea leaves even before the argument was made. And when we got back in the conference, we voted -- and sure enough, it was four to three. After the vote was done, and Justice Pat (Crooks) had gotten (the job of writing the majority opinion for) the case, I didn't wait a day. I went immediately into Pat's office, sat down and gave him the materials that I had on adequacy in funding and equity in funding and talked a little bit about the problem of having a standard without a definition. Pat liked my (state educational) standard, my definition from the Kukor case of eleven years back. A lot of cases in other states had developed it and taken it beyond that, so we eventually got to the point where Pat had the definition that you see today. He tried to sell it to the members on the court that made up his majority. And so out came the definition of public education. "A majority of this court" -- and this is stated three times in the majority opinion -- "A majority of this court holds that Wisconsin students have a fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education." That's nothing more of a repetitive of Buse and Kukor but it wraps it up -- it's tight now. "An equal opportunity for a sound basic education is one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally." It had a nice ring to it, I thought. "The legislature has articulated a standard as the opportunity for students to be proficient in mathematics, science, reading and writing, geography and history and to receive instruction in the arts and music, vocational education, social sciences, health, physical education and foreign language. So long as the legislature is providing sufficient resources so that school districts offer students equal opportunity for a sound basic education as required by the constitution, the state school finance system will pass constitutional muster." That's as broad a standard-broad a definition I think any state in the union has adopted at least by the court. So I, of course, took great, great exception to the fact that they found that the way we are financing education comes even close to meeting that standard. It's a vicious circle, as I tried to convince my colleagues. When you have these special needs kids that are overwhelming you, the administrators have to take funds from the regular programming to use them on special needs kids. The regular needs kids decide that, like in Wausau, they have to go to a different school, so they go to a private school. Therefore you have fewer dollars to do more. You can't have that kind of system and meet the constitutional standard. (In my dissent) I ended up saying this: "Unquestionably the cost to fix the system is high. The cost of not fixing it will be much higher. Uneducated citizens will extract extremely high social costs in the future. As the mechanic on television says, 'You can pay me now or you can pay me later.'" I'm singing to the choir, I know that. Well it seems to me the state of public education in this state is our dirty little secret. Tens of thousands of our children suffer from conditions that make the constitutional guarantee of an equal opportunity for education a meaningless promise. A meaningless right. To me, that is an outrage. So, what did we learn from all of this? Four things:
Don't give up. You have right on your side, you've got education, you've got public education for kids, and eventually you will prevail.
|
