ordered the legislature to figure out the actual cost of "ample"
PERFECT! This is EXACTLY what is needed. Now we have a number that can be spent, and if things aren't better the whiners can't come back and demand more. We have a target, and I can guarantee that when we hit the target we'll have the same problems we have today: a largely dysfunctional education system. Except that system won't be able to hide behind the ruse of "not enough money" anymore...
Posted by Shanghai Dan at February 4, 2010 04:41 PMHe ordered the state Legislature to establish the actual cost of providing that education, and then to pay for it through stable and dependable sources.
1. He doesn't know what is right, he just knows this isn't it. Good guideline.
2. For over forty years, we have been hearing about how school funding is ALWAYS too little, yet no brainiacs (politicians or educators) have appeared to determine what the proper amount should be.
3. What are stable and dependable funding sources? Income taxes? When so many people are laid off and not working, no taxatiojn source is stable.
4. Perhaps we should dedicate 60% of our state budget to K-12 education - no matter what our revenue or budget, 60% would be dedicated. If more taxation occurs, it automatically adds to the schools. Would the judge find that in line with what he doesn't know the answer to?
Yes We Can!
Posted by Dufus McBroke at February 4, 2010 05:40 PMGotta love that living constitution approach. Why bother with a constitutional amendment-just impose a tax by judicial fiat
Posted by iconoclast at February 4, 2010 08:20 PMThis ruling is still crap though since the judge admits that higher spending does not increase results.
It should get thrown out at the state supreme court level.
There is an interesting case similar to this in I beleive Kansas city where a judge essentially took over running the school district. He had basically unlimited funds to make it better. after hundreds of millions of dollars later the results were the same but the schools had swimiing pools and other luxuries and the teachers were much richer and more of them.
The answer is NOT more money and this judge knows it. The answer that neither the judge nor the legislature understand is amending the state constitution and getting the state out of education.
Posted by Lysander at February 4, 2010 08:48 PM"It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex."
The state does not have to provide "funding", but "provision"!
If the state wrote a law allowing the establishment of private schools funded solely with private money, and the people stepped forward to fund the same themselves, then, according to this section, the requirements are met even though not a penny flows from state coffers to educate a single child.
Now, Section 3 is a mess and needs to be rewritten or abolished altogether. Who can possibly understand what it is saying?
Posted by Jonathan Gardner at February 4, 2010 10:07 PMSECTION 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established. But the entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.
Almost makes it look like "common" schools are grades 1-8.
...donations and bequests by individuals to the state or public for common schools; the proceeds of lands and other property which revert to the state by escheat and forfeiture; the proceeds of all property granted to the state when the purpose of the grant is not specified, or is uncertain; funds accumulated in the treasury of the state for the disbursement of which provision has not been made by law......and all moneys other than rental recovered from persons trespassing on said lands; five per centum of the proceeds of the sale of public lands lying within the state
Does our common school fund really get the fines of people trespassing on those lands? Do we really sell public lands and put 5% into the common school fund? Are there ever any funds in the treasury that haven't been disbursed by law that can go into the common school fund?
How much common school funds are used for non-common school funding?
Posted by SouthernRoots at February 5, 2010 07:40 AMIt is -- obviously -- possible to LOWER funding and STILL constitutionally provide for education. There is no constitutional justification for ordering more funding. None, period.
Further, what is ACTUALLY unconstitutional is when the Democrats cut the school funding and then say we need to increase revenue to provide for ample funding.
What a dreamer! I know people who have graduated from college who do not have the level of education described above. What an ass. I suppose he believes in unicorns, too. Or a magic pill that will give everyone these abilities. But no, it takes a lot of time and effort that many people are unwilling to give. But we have to pay to appease this judge, regardless. We pay and pay (even those of us without children), and it will never be enough because the goal is impossible to accomplish. All children will never accomplish as much as is described here in K-12. They might have in my parent's generation, because (a) there was less to learn, (b) they did not put developmentally and learning disabled children in the same classes as students who could achieve the goals, and (c) they had an entirely different expectation of intellectual discipline, classroom order, educational rigor, and home activities (studying vs gaming). You can't get blood out of a rock, regardless of whether you try out of stupidity or because you were ordered to by a court.
Posted by srogers at February 5, 2010 08:46 AM