P E Y T O N W O L C O T T |
| PAYING FOR TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION: A PRIMER |
| PAYING FOR TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION: A PRIMER By Peyton Wolcott - June 8, 2006 - 9:00 p.m. |
| As elsewhere, public school finance in Texas is Hatfield & McCoy territory, which feud we note began with Randolph McCoy accusing Floyd Hatfield of stealing his pig. Similarly, the past three and a half decades of litigation here have had to do with poor districts wanting more pig at the expense of richer districts, all the while singing the "Mo' Money Mantra." Long gone are the days of struggling folks taking a hard look at their circumstances and saying, "Golly, gee, I want better for my kids. Guess I'll work harder and move across town to that better school district." Now, they find a special interest group whose lawyers will litigate on their behalf over constitutional nuances, aided and abetted in this enterprise by liberal legislators and professionals running the education establishment variously named the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Association of School Boards, the Texas Association of School Administrators, and their ilk. |
The 79th/3rd Lege's Legacy: You do the Math Appropriations by FY 2009 $ 10.3 billion Revenues by FY 2009 $ 4.2 billion Shortfall $ 6.1 billion |
| NOTE: The source for these numbers is the Legislative Budget Board, which is appointed by Governor Rick Perry--and presumably a pro-Perry source of information. |
| But first-- Let's go back in history to March 2, 1836, the cold, dank and stormy day our Declaration of Independence from Mexico was signed. Even though this document had been written on the fly the night before as the siege at the Alamo entered its second week, the framers still took time to point out Mexico's failure to produce a "public system of education" despite "almost boundless resources," thus making it clear that from the beginning public education and paying for it has been a major issue even when under duress: The same day our declaration was being signed at Washington-on-the-Brazos some of our bravest men--Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, William Travis, 186 others--were 57 hours by hard riding and four days away from their deaths at the hands of Santa Anna's army in San Antonio. |
| 'The Fall of the Alamo' (Courtesy/Governor's Mansion Austin, Texas) |
| Paying for public education From the get-go, paying for our public schools has been a responsibility assumed by the legislature starting with our first constitution, a hastily thrown together pastiche which expeditiously incorporated bits of the U.S., Mexico's and various states' constitutions; only later did local property taxes become a vehicle. Texas has no state income tax, I like to think because we are the only state in the nation to have been our own country before we were a state and our citizens therefore prone to clear and independent thinking. But long-time public policy researcher and publisher of the New Katy News George Scott has his own take. "No political party will guarantee that government will not spend as much next year as this year," he says. "The bottom line is no one who is in a position of actual authority wants to control spending on public education. Consequently, those who believe that public education is systemically corrupt and past the tipping point of academic integrity are not going to be willing to create a new revenue source of an industry that has become the new Tammany Hall of American governance. From a practical standpoint, Texas Democrats know that calling for a state income tax will not bring them majority status and Texas Republicans know that advocating for a state income tax will cost them majority status." For almost a century after the Civil War public schools were funded by a state poll tax "on all male inhabitants between the ages of twenty-one and sixty," originally a dollar a head then increasing in price and including women after suffrage passed. |
| First signature page Texas Declaration of Independence |
| Our litigious ways Two pivotal lawsuits both occurred in 1931: Love v. City of Dallas which said that the state could not force local school districts to use local taxes to pay for education of non-local students, and Mumme v. Marrs, the first attempt by the Texas judiciary to impose so-called wealth equalization or socialism, depending on your political stance, on school finance. The Gilmer-Aikin laws in 1949 created the Foundation School Program for sending state funds to local schools, further laying the groundwork for state senator Bill Ratliff's Robin Hood system of state edu-funding in 1993 which introduced socialism to state public school finance and in the bargain "destroyed about $81 billion of property wealth in Texas," according to a report published in 2004 by Harvard's Caroline Hoxby and Ilyana Kuziemko, who noted that "good intentions about redistribution are not enough in school finance." Robin Hood was a multi-tiered system which forced property-rich districts to send their "excess" funds to property-poor districts via a complicated formula talked about by educrats in terms of "pennies" (really). Two years later Ratliff introduced SB 1 which at the local level stripped elected school boards of their authority, giving it to their hired superintendents, and at the state level similarly robbed the State Board of Education of its authority, giving its power instead to a governor-appointed Texas education commissioner. |
| Bill Ratliff, the state senator responsible for bringing socialism aka 'Robin Hood' to Texas public schools, now a paid TASB lobbyist earning $50,000-99,000. |
| So here's the bind: While as we have noted paying for public education has been a constitutionally mandated duty of the state from the beginning, in actual practice parents by their own efforts through property taxes have paid for the bulk of their children's educations at the local level. Where current annual distributions to local schools from the Texas Permanent School Fund only run about $765 million, $18.6 billion will be generated this year by local taxes for public education. Enter two decades of legislation and lawsuits by rich and poor districts alike--although the poor ones started it--resulting in judges making decisions our elected representatives wouldn't. |
| What the current (1876) Texas Constitution says "A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools" (Article VII, Section 1). It's the words "general diffusion of knowledge" and "efficient" that have proven troublesome to the point of litigation, especially with the stretching of the latter to include "equity." Edgewood and its spawn Regarding the first Edgewood lawsuit (of an eventual five) filed in 1984, "The Supreme Court said that efficient means producing results with little waste--but that under the current system some were being taxed at higher rates to achieve lower student expenditures," says Charles Rhodes, constitutional and state constitution law specialist and associate professor of law at Houston's South Texas College of Law, pointing out that because school funding is the responsibility of the Lege, efficiency has to be looked at statewide, not on a district-by-district basis. |
| 1876 Texas Constitution |
| "Local school district supplementation still doesn't change the fact that the system must be efficient statewide," Rhodes says. "The problem was you had places like Edgewood taxing at over $1.00 per $100 valuation while Alamo Heights [both San Antonio suburbs] taxing at less than half that rate. But now Robin Hood's created its own inequities." After a decade-plus of Robin Hood, many districts are fast approaching the maximum property tax rate allowed under the scheme--$1.50 per $100 for M&O and $0.50 for I&S--while others such as Katy ISD in suburban Houston are already there. As one example of the inequities to which Rhodes refers, when Llano ISD (a Hill Country school district now ranked 63rd wealthiest among the state's 1,031) sent a $2 million Robin Hood payment to Panther Creek CISD during the 2001-02 school year, the monies generated for the hefty check came from Llano ISD's taxing its residents at $1.62 while Panther Creek residents were enjoying a much lower $1.33 tax rate. |
| Edgewood HS |
| The mo' money mantra For a variety of reasons, including inequities such as these and also because wealthier districts were chomping at the $2.00-max bit, the most recent Robin Hood lawsuit was filed, West Orange-Cove, with a mix of plaintiffs: 47 rich, 260 middle- income, and 24 poor districts. This was the suit heard before Judge John Dietz in Austin during August-September 2004 in which Bill Ratliff testified that Texas would not be able to get away from Robin Hood without a statewide property tax--or income tax--and Dietz found that mo' money needed to be found for educating children-- despite massive evidence presented to him that more money does not equate better education. And, oh, he also found that Texas' school finance system was unconstitutional because it didn't allow districts “meaningful discretion” in setting their local property tax rates. According to West Orange Cove plaintiff Austin ISD, "The scope and detail of Judge Dietz’s written orders is unprecedented in the history of Texas’s school finance litigation–Judge Dietz’s findings consisted of 655 fact findings and 24 conclusions of law, and totaled 125 single-spaced pages." |
| Judge John Dietz Robin Hood trial, Austin |
| Last November the Texas Supremes found Robin Hood unconstitutional as it amounted to a state property tax, and that “the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change,” giving the Lege a June 1, 2006 deadline for repairs. |
| What the 79th/3rd did Appropriations by FY 2009 $ 10.3 billion Revenues by FY 2009 $ 4.2 billion Shortfall $ 6.1 billion |
| The 79th Lege's 3rd called So the current Legislature in its third special session, called specifically to resolve school finance, has just passed a series of bills which will lower the maximum property tax to $1.00 in two years for districts already at $1.50 M&O, and make up the difference with a revised business franchise tax meant to cure the Delaware Sub loophole, with an additional $1.00 cigarette tax along with a new used car tax, all projected to yield $4.2 billion** by fiscal year 2009. At the same time, Lege appropriations, projected at $10.3 billion** by FY 2009, include a $2.4 billion across-the-board teacher pay increase over the next three years, $600 million in teacher awards, and $275 per high schooler for reducing dropout rates and college prep. Texans are torn between taking bets as to how much difference this $1 billion commitment over the next three years will actually make as throwing money at education problems has never worked before, as with the example of Kansas City and others, and conjecturing as to just how many more consultants will now be employed in our schools. |
| Robbing Peter to pay the piper Because it's difficult to put Governor Perry's announcement that "homeowners and businesses will save $15.7 billion on school property taxes" together in the same sentence with the projected $6.1 billion shortfall, we queried the governor, whose spokesman Kathy Walt responded yesterday, "The revenue sources you cite [above] represent only those bills passed during the special session. They do not reflect the surplus, nor do they take into account new revenue estimates that will be generated prior to the start of the 2007 regular session. The tax measures passed by the legislature will go into a property tax reduction fund to pay for future reductions of property taxes. Should additional revenues be needed beyond what these taxes generate and is available from surplus, general revenue (GR) funds could be used. The new tax measures represent only a small portion of revenue that flows into GR." |
| Texas Governor Rick Perry-- All saddle, no horse? |
| Public education to be funded by a $23 billion 'hot check'? Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who is running as an independent against Perry in this November's gubernatorial election, said in certifying HB 1, the largest single piece of legislation this session, "Perry's entire plan is a massive increase in business taxes that will increase the state's budget by $6 billion a year, leave a $23 billion hot check, increase the number of businesses that will have to pay or file taxes by 200,000, increase business taxes by 200 percent, and give the average homeowner a $52 property tax cut in school taxes only, this year." In her press release Strayhorn says, "Were it not for the state's historic $8.2 billion surplus, I would not be able to certify the bill and abide by the state's Constitutional pay-as-you-go, no-deficit-spending mandate. Because of the huge surplus I would have enough revenue to certify this bill through 2008, but not 2009 and 2010. I am certifying this bill, but that does not mean it is good public policy--far from it. And the Governor is not telling the people of Texas the truth. He is exaggerating, inflating and misstating what the average homeowner is going to see cut on his or her tax bill by more than 300 percent." Another state official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said yesterday, "All of this money, this surplus the governor's talking about, is already dedicated. And a $6.1 billion income spike is unrealistic, unless it comes from a combination of further cutting state government expenses and increasing the sales tax. The problem there is that you only get $2 billion per penny of tax, and our sales tax is already one of the highest in the nation. So the ten per cent budget cut the governor announced yesterday afternoon represents the first element of what we knew had to come in order to fund this boondoggle, and the next will be an increased sales tax. Even though right now we're awash in fuels tax money, how long will this boom continue? You can only sustain a run like this on the economy for a short time, twelve to eighteen months, before the cycle's over. But the governor's saying we've got to boom like this for the next ten years." |
| Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn first found the $23 billion 'hot check' (PHOTO/Dallas News) |
| Texas Legislature |
| War of the Worlds Put simply, while a major conservative premise is that cutting taxes will boost the economy, the corresponding liberal premise is that more money needs to be spent on governmental services. Perry's 79th Legislature's third special called session delivered both a tax cut and increased spending. In a move considered by many to be not a reform but a power grab, the Lege has agreed to a P-16 curriculum alignment to replace the previous K-12, and in the process neatly discarded what SBOE member Terri Leo calls "parents' last firewall" by shifting the little power the elected SBOE has left to commissioners Shirley Neeley and Raymund Paredes, both gubernatorial appointees. As Leo points out, while the SBOE has been granted "veto power over the end result, the bill language still has 'the commissioners evaluating, reviewing, recommending, developing, aligning, establishing, coordinating and approving the curriculum.' In other words, the two unelected commissioners control the whole process." |
| Perry (left) wih educrats Shirley Neeley, Robert Scott |
| TASA 1, parents and taxpayers zip Alas, the open records "open checkbook" originally discussed--and opposed (is "violently" too strong a word?) by the supe's union, the Texas Association of School Administrators--in which districts would be required to post all checks written on their districts' websites, was diluted down to a requirement that instead districts simply post summaries of their proposed annual budgets. |
| Supes at 65% Task Force meeting at TEA - Oct. 2005 |
| But is it constitutional? While according to Governor Perry's press "this is one of the most significant legislative accomplishments for Texas in a generation, because it is one of the most significant steps we have ever taken to improve opportunity for the next generation," the jury's still out on whether "because of House Bill 1, school finance is now out of the courthouse, and back on constitutional footing.” "I have questions as to how long the new financing scheme is going to be considered to be constitutional," says Charles Rhodes. "I think it's another short-term fix. The school finance litigation is far from over. There will be challenges to this new system--essentially they've come in and added dollars, but down the road in five to ten years there's going to be a problem with funding levels creating efficient results. The legislature has dealt with the question of the statewide property tax by increasing the state's percentage of contribution and reducing the burden of property tax, but they've not done anything with system-wide concerns regarding educational outputs. Nationwide school finance has gone through waves; first is funding and financing, then the second and third are concerned more with the adequacy and suitability of the education that's being provided. House Bill 1 does very little to change educational quality--it's predominately a different method of funding rather than dealing with some of the structural concerns." Local newspaper headlines are taking a similarly cautious note: "‘Average’ tax break depends on who you are" (Athens Daily Review) and "Don't spend it yet--property tax cut is not quite what Perry promised" (Abilene Reporter-News). Oink, oink. |
| West Orange-Stark HS (of West Orange-Cove lawsuit) |
| Ending on a note of drama TASA notes: "Due to the passage of recent legislation by the Texas Legislature, Travis County District Court Judge John Dietz has lifted the injunction that threatened the closure of public schools on June 1." _________________________________________________________________________________________ * "The federal court ruled . . . that if every 10th grade student has an equal opportunity to answer 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th grade questions then all must be well. " -- George Scott. ** SOURCE: House Research Organization/Legislative Budget Board http://www.house.state.tx.us/featured/schools&taxes79-13.pdf If charts appeal to you, and you'd like to know more about the back and forth of litigation and legislative response, try pages 6-7 here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/hrofr/interim/int77-8.pdf#6 |
How we take back our children's education: one person, one question, one school at a time. |
| F o c u s i n g o n a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f i r s t : T h i s i s h o w w e t a k e b a c k o u r c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i o n -- o n e p e r s o n , o n e q u e s t i o n , o n e s c h o o l a t a t i m e . Copyright 1999-2006 Peyton Wolcott |
AASA - American Association of School Administrators ASA - Association of School Administrators CSD - Consolidated School District DOE - Department of Education ES - Elementary School HS - High School ISD - Independent School District JHS - Junior High School MS - Middle School MSM - Mainstream media NSBA - National School Boards Association NSPRA - National School Public Relations Association PS - Public School(s) SBEC - State Board for Educator Certification SD - School District Sup't - Superintendent TAKS - Texas Assessment of Knowledge & Skills TASA - Texas Association of School Administrators TASB - Texas Association of School Boards TASBO - Texas Association of School Business Officials TEA - Texas Education Agency TEKS - Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills USD - UnifiedUnited School District |
| GUIDE |
| FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a republic. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Chapter 1, Section 107 which states: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright," the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use" you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
| QUOTES |
| Helping parents & taxpayers implode Education, Inc. |
| ATTENTION EDUCATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS: Every attempt possible has been made to verify all sources and information. In the event you feel an error has been made, please contact us immediately. Thank you. |
| Copyright 1999-2006 Peyton Wolcott |
| POP QUIZ: How do you yourself know for a fact that your state or local supe is actually using the funds entrusted to them for the correct purposes? |
David v. Goliath: How America's Moms & Dads are taking on Education, Inc. PEYTON WOLCOTT |
| QUERY THE SUPE & THE PR GUY |
TO:
KATHY COX-GEORGIA
SUP'T OF SCHOOLS &
CEO-GEORGIA DOE
CC:
DANA TOFIG-
GEORGIA DOE
PUBLIC INFO. OFCR.
DATE: JAN. 22, 2006
Can you please send me
the annual dollar
amount for each school
year (the five annual fiscal
cycles 2000-2005) that the
Georgia Public Schools
DOE has spent with
vendor Computer
Consulting Services
Corp., described as a
consultant to Georgia's
DOE.
KATHY COX-GEORGIA
SUP'T OF SCHOOLS &
CEO-GEORGIA DOE
CC:
DANA TOFIG-
GEORGIA DOE
PUBLIC INFO. OFCR.
DATE: JAN. 22, 2006
Can you please send me
the annual dollar
amount for each school
year (the five annual fiscal
cycles 2000-2005) that the
Georgia Public Schools
DOE has spent with
vendor Computer
Consulting Services
Corp., described as a
consultant to Georgia's
DOE.
| STATUS: No response rec'd from Sup't Gray as of June 8, 2006 |
The question is not how to measure excellence at public schools and education agencies. The question is how to measure competence. -- Dianna Pharr |
| QUERY THE SUPE (& CC THE BOARD) |
DATE FIRST SENT:
FEB. 14, 2006
RE-SENT 03/26/06
Dear Strongsville
Superintendent
James Gray:
I'm hoping you can
clear something up for
me for my book and
website regarding your
standards for
administrative
practices in
Strongsville as there
have been not one but
two situations this past
year warranting
scrutiny....
Regarding special ed
teacher Christine
Scarlett's offering a
date with herself as a
grades incentive
1. What rules/
guidelines do you now
have in place to
assure that nothing
like this happens
again? Would these
be administrative
changes or has your
board set specific
policies in place for
you to follow in future?
2. Rumors of an affair
between Scarlett and
Bradigan persisted for
several months. You
have stated that you
have no idea such an
affair was going on.
Do you feel the fact
that you are
commuting from your
home in Akron (if this
has changed, please
let me know) has
adversely impacted
your ability to monitor
what's going on with
your employees in the
Strongsville
community in an
important and
sensitive area such as
this? Has your board
since made a
condition of your
employment that you
move to Strongsville
and become an
integral part of their
community?
Regarding the sex
education booklet
placed last fall in
young children's
lockers
4. What guidelines
did you follow from
your established
board's policies for
such?
5. There appears to
be a growing number
of parents who want to
be consulted before
such materials are
given to their students.
As one mom put it,
"What's wrong with so
many people in the
educational fields that
they don't even think
twice about providing
children with
inappropriate
materials and not even
consider the parents
wishes....Their tactics
mirror those used in
Communist China and
Cuba where children
are considered not
children of parents, but
wards of the State."
While this is clearly the
statement of an upset
parent, it does raise an
interesting issue
regarding public
school administrators
in the U.S. Do you
consider the students
in your schools yours
to educate as you
deem best or the
offspring of parents to
be consulted before
disseminating such
materials?
Regarding trainings
and conferences
6. Of which
education-related
associations are you
and Strongsville City
Schools a member?
What are these
organizations'
guidelines for
disseminating such
materials?
7. In which
education-related
conferences have
your and your staff
participated this past
year? Where were
they and what were
the costs for each?
Have you attended any
other seminars,
workshops or the like
offering guidance in
this area, and what
were those costs?
It may well be that
there are perfectly
reasonable
explanations for your
approving the placing
sex-education
pamphlets in young
students' lockers
without notifying
parents first, and it may
also well be that there
is a perfectly
reasonable
explanation for your
allowing a teacher to
offer a date at the Dairy
Queen with herself to a
young student; if so, I
am eager to learn such
reason or reasons.
==================
She said the booklet,
which also provides
information on the need for
parental consent for
abortion and a Web
address for the
Lesbian/Gay Community
Service Center of Greater
Cleveland, is
inappropriate for
11-year-olds. I believe
some sex education needs
to be given, but when
subjects are discussed or
material is given to kids of
this nature, a notice
should be sent home to
the parent and they should
be allowed to opt out of
the program if they wish,
Fleming said. School
Superintendent James
Gray said he gave an OK
for the pocket-sized
directories, which were
provided to the district by
United Way Services in
conjunction with the
county health department
and county commissioners,
to be given to students at
the high school, middle
schools and to sixth
graders. Gray said he
received two calls from
parents who took
exception to the booklet's
content. I understand that
and probably, in
retrospect, I should have
considered sending a
letter along with it as far
as an explanation, he
said, adding, this is a
developing situation. I
don't know what we are
going to do at this point.
Colleen Grady, a city
resident and a member of
the state school board,
said she got calls from four
parents concerned about
their children getting the
directory. Grady, who is
also a former city school
board member, said she
has not personally seen
the publication, but they
(parents) read me sections
over the telephone. She
said the state board of
education may wish to
make a legislative
recommendation to the
Ohio general assembly,
and the board could also
consider discussion about
adoption of a model policy
for the distribution of such
materials. Gray said there
will be continued
discussion, in the district's
curriculum and pupil
services departments on
whether to curtail
distribution of materials
which are considered to
be sensitive, particularly
for the younger kids.
FEB. 14, 2006
RE-SENT 03/26/06
Dear Strongsville
Superintendent
James Gray:
I'm hoping you can
clear something up for
me for my book and
website regarding your
standards for
administrative
practices in
Strongsville as there
have been not one but
two situations this past
year warranting
scrutiny....
Regarding special ed
teacher Christine
Scarlett's offering a
date with herself as a
grades incentive
1. What rules/
guidelines do you now
have in place to
assure that nothing
like this happens
again? Would these
be administrative
changes or has your
board set specific
policies in place for
you to follow in future?
2. Rumors of an affair
between Scarlett and
Bradigan persisted for
several months. You
have stated that you
have no idea such an
affair was going on.
Do you feel the fact
that you are
commuting from your
home in Akron (if this
has changed, please
let me know) has
adversely impacted
your ability to monitor
what's going on with
your employees in the
Strongsville
community in an
important and
sensitive area such as
this? Has your board
since made a
condition of your
employment that you
move to Strongsville
and become an
integral part of their
community?
Regarding the sex
education booklet
placed last fall in
young children's
lockers
4. What guidelines
did you follow from
your established
board's policies for
such?
5. There appears to
be a growing number
of parents who want to
be consulted before
such materials are
given to their students.
As one mom put it,
"What's wrong with so
many people in the
educational fields that
they don't even think
twice about providing
children with
inappropriate
materials and not even
consider the parents
wishes....Their tactics
mirror those used in
Communist China and
Cuba where children
are considered not
children of parents, but
wards of the State."
While this is clearly the
statement of an upset
parent, it does raise an
interesting issue
regarding public
school administrators
in the U.S. Do you
consider the students
in your schools yours
to educate as you
deem best or the
offspring of parents to
be consulted before
disseminating such
materials?
Regarding trainings
and conferences
6. Of which
education-related
associations are you
and Strongsville City
Schools a member?
What are these
organizations'
guidelines for
disseminating such
materials?
7. In which
education-related
conferences have
your and your staff
participated this past
year? Where were
they and what were
the costs for each?
Have you attended any
other seminars,
workshops or the like
offering guidance in
this area, and what
were those costs?
It may well be that
there are perfectly
reasonable
explanations for your
approving the placing
sex-education
pamphlets in young
students' lockers
without notifying
parents first, and it may
also well be that there
is a perfectly
reasonable
explanation for your
allowing a teacher to
offer a date at the Dairy
Queen with herself to a
young student; if so, I
am eager to learn such
reason or reasons.
==================
She said the booklet,
which also provides
information on the need for
parental consent for
abortion and a Web
address for the
Lesbian/Gay Community
Service Center of Greater
Cleveland, is
inappropriate for
11-year-olds. I believe
some sex education needs
to be given, but when
subjects are discussed or
material is given to kids of
this nature, a notice
should be sent home to
the parent and they should
be allowed to opt out of
the program if they wish,
Fleming said. School
Superintendent James
Gray said he gave an OK
for the pocket-sized
directories, which were
provided to the district by
United Way Services in
conjunction with the
county health department
and county commissioners,
to be given to students at
the high school, middle
schools and to sixth
graders. Gray said he
received two calls from
parents who took
exception to the booklet's
content. I understand that
and probably, in
retrospect, I should have
considered sending a
letter along with it as far
as an explanation, he
said, adding, this is a
developing situation. I
don't know what we are
going to do at this point.
Colleen Grady, a city
resident and a member of
the state school board,
said she got calls from four
parents concerned about
their children getting the
directory. Grady, who is
also a former city school
board member, said she
has not personally seen
the publication, but they
(parents) read me sections
over the telephone. She
said the state board of
education may wish to
make a legislative
recommendation to the
Ohio general assembly,
and the board could also
consider discussion about
adoption of a model policy
for the distribution of such
materials. Gray said there
will be continued
discussion, in the district's
curriculum and pupil
services departments on
whether to curtail
distribution of materials
which are considered to
be sensitive, particularly
for the younger kids.
| CONTACT: Peyton Wolcott P.O. Box 9068 Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657 peyton@peytonwolcott.com |
| Key dates in Texas public school finance 1845 - Permanent School fund established (current annual distribution: apx. $765 million) 1876 - Property (ad valorem) taxes legalized. 1917 - The Lege authorizes the state's purchase of textbooks for all schools. 1949 - Gilmer-Aikin created the Foundation School Program for sending state funds to local schools in which "equalized" local taxes would be supplemented by the state. 1968 - Ad valorem taxes abolished. 1973 - U.S. Supreme Court rules finds in Rodriguez v. San Antonio ISD that the state's school finance system was not unconstitutional, should be settled in Texas, and that Texas would not have to subsidize poor school districts. 1984 - More dollars to property-poor school districts via House Bill 72. 1989 - Texas Supreme Court translates "efficiency" in Art. 7, sec. 1 of constitution to mean "equity." 1992 - Texas Supreme Court links equity to "adequacy,” also to “suitable” in Art. 7, sec. 1. 1993 - Senate Bill 7 (Robin Hood) school finance plan authored by Bill Ratliff. 1995 - Texas Supremes uphold SB 7 as constitutional re "equity" and "efficiency." 1995 - SB 1 (also Ratliff) strips both local board and the SBOE of any real power, concentrating it in the hands of locally appointed superintendents and at the state level the commissioner of education, appointed by the governor. 2000 - Federal judge Edward Prado upholds TAAS testing in MALDEF, paving the way for the accountability testing movement and NCLB.* 2004 (Nov.) - State District Judge John Dietz rules Texas' school finance system unconstitutional, gives the legislature a June 1, 2006 deadline to fix. 2005 (Nov.) Texas Supreme Court concurs. 2006 (May 31) - Gov. Rick Perry signs 79th Lege's third-special session legislation into law: is it a real cure for Texas school finance or merely the latest legislative fix which the judiciary will undo? Only time will tell. |