District Info |
Parent Info |
Instructional Support |
Departments & Programs |
Home
Number 4, August 10, 2000
The state Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Wisconsin's school aid formula on a 4-3 vote, but possibly opened the door to further litigation by establishing a "sound basic education" standard. The split opinion had Justice Patrick Crooks writing the majority opinion, but then joining the minority (Justices Shirley Abrahamson, William Bablitch and Ann Walsh Bradley) to set the new standard.
The opinion said, "An equal opportunity for a sound basic education is one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed…a sound basic education…takes into account districts with disproportionate numbers of disabled students, economically disadvantaged students, and students with limited English language skills. So long as the legislature is providing sufficient resources so that school districts offer students the equal opportunity for a sound basic education as required by the constitution, the state school finance system will pass constitutional muster."
Justice David Prosser, former Speaker of the Assembly and an 18-year legislative veteran, took his four colleagues to task for exceeding their purview. Prosser wrote, "It is …unsettling to give Wisconsin students 'a fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education' and to ground that right in a section that makes no reference to individual rights, only to 'school districts.' The responsibility of this court in constitutional interpretation is to state the law, not make the law."
The suit, filed in 1995 by 104 Wisconsin school districts, and costing in excess of $1 million, raises several questions for the future, but, ultimately affirms the constitutionality of the state's school finance system. The decision appears to have taken the wind out of the sails of legislative efforts to overhaul Wisconsin's school aid formula. The July agenda for the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission on State and Local Partnerships for the 21st Century, originally planned a full-day discussion of school funding issues. However, after the Court's decision, school aid items were deleted from the agenda.
Plaintiffs, including the Wisconsin Education Association Council and the Association for Equity In Funding, are assessing the decision to determine their next course of action.
Prior to the state funding two-thirds, on average, for K-12 education, Madison received about 12 percent of its budget from the state. Currently, Madison receives about 25 percent of its budget from the state.
When the Joint Legislative Council Committee announced its study committees this summer, the news release from co-chairs Rep. Carol Kelso (R-Green Bay) and Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) said, "A committee to study special education issues has been authorized and will be appointed at a later date." Unfortunately, partisan politics appears to have waylaid the study.
The charge for the committee details several issues raised by the May 1999 Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) report, "Special Education Funding." However, there is no mention of funding in the proposed committee's charge. Mary Jan Rosenak, former Madison school board member and aide to Kelso, said there was an "understanding" between the Senate and Assembly that Legislative Council study committees would not discuss funding – leaving fiscal issues for the Joint Finance Committee. Rep. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), tabbed to co-chair the committee said, "I'm not looking at funding being an overwhelming issue. We won't get deeply into money."
Au contraire, according to Risser and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala. There is no such agreement or understanding between the houses. Nearly one-third of the LAB's report focuses on special education funding – and, in fact, the title is "Special Education Funding." Curiously, another one of the Legislative Council's studies is titled "Arts Funding."
The proposed committee charge identifies several issues to examine, including: the disproportion of African-American males identified for special education, consistent identification of students for special education, examination of individualized student evaluation teams, violent students, availability of alternative programs, the impact of statewide standards for referrals to special education, teacher training and support and recovery of federal Medical Assistance Funds.
Last week, Risser said he still believes the Legislative Council will undertake the special education study. The Legislative Council is a legislative support agency offering legal counsel to all of the Legislature's committees. For more information on the proposed Special Education committee, please see http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/2000studies.htm.
The Department of Public Instruction has sent rules to the Legislature that modifies eligibility criteria for cognitive disabilities, visual, hearing and speech/language impairments, specific learning disabilities and emotional behavioral disabilities. The DPI has been working for nearly four years on revising eligibility criteria.
The LAB report, referred to in the previous article, noted that identification for special education is sometimes subjective and there is no uniformity in identification. DPI hopes to address these issues with the new rules. The rules are supported by the state's major education groups, with the exception of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards. The Assembly Education committee has tentatively scheduled a hearing on the rule, August 22, 10am in Room 417 North, Capitol. To review the rules see: Notice of Rules in Final Draft Form.