Superintendent's Message
Welcome to the Thrall ISD website-this is the home of Tiger/Tigerette Pride!
As a new superintendent of schools, I have observed the high value the Thrall community and school district places on the quality of education students deserve. The successes have been overwhelming in the area of academics and athletics, and all campuses have been Exemplary schools leading to the tremendous success as a district. If you want a great place that promotes student achievement, Thrall ISD is displaying dedication to be the BEST!
The mission of Thrall Independent School District is to provide each student with a meaningful, challenging education, delivered in a safe learning environment that prepares him or her to graduate from high school as a lifelong learner who is a capable, productive, and contributing citizen.
We are preparing our students for the future and our Goals include:
1. Every student will achieve continuous improvement toward excellence in academic achievement.
2. The district will recruit, train and retain highly qualified and motivated staff to promote a positive influence on all students.
3. The district will strengthen community partnerships and increase parental involvement.
4. The district will develop a Five Year Plan for district improvement.
As the Superintendent of Schools, I have the belief that student achievement, communication, and leadership at all levels are 3 major factors contributing to a successful school. I hope you will join me as we continue to display the great school pride and celebrate the successes of our students.
Thrall ISD Superintendent
Equity - Part III: October 18, 2011
In this article, we want to look at the term adequacy. Adequacy, as defined in the Texas Education Code simply stated requires school districts to be able to “provide all of their students with a meaningful opportunity to acquire the essential knowledge and skills reflected in…curriculum requirements… such that upon graduation, students are prepared to continue to learn in postsecondary educational, training, or employment settings.” TEX. EDUC. Code §28.001 (emphasis added)…
In West Orange-Cove (WOC) vs. Neely (2005) the Supreme Court added:
“The public education system need not operate perfectly; it is adequate if districts are reasonably able to provide their students the access and opportunity the district court described.”
While a pure adequacy suit is difficult to prove, the Court in WOC conceded this about the system in place at that time: “the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education.”
For the first time since the Gilmer Akin Law (state school finance) was written in 1949, the Legislature failed to fund current law. They cut $4 billion from the foundation school fund and another $1.3 billion in special programs, grants and allotments for a total of $5.3 billion this past year. This school year, public education was cut an average of 5.6%; in 2012-2013, it will be cut an additional 5.4% on the average.
Before all these cuts last session and since the last law suit in 2005 (when the state supposedly fixed the system), school districts have had to call 369 Tax Ratification Elections (TRE elections) to try to make up for failure of the state to meet their obligations on the maintenance and operation (M&O) of school districts. Seventy-One percent of these elections have passed. Not only did the state not fund Gilmer Akin, they significantly cut $5.3 billion in present funding. What affect do you think this will have on TRE’s in the next two years? Districts across the state are looking to increase tax rates for next year’s cuts. Many experts in finance are predicting much greater deficits in the next biennium.
Over the past five years, Texas public schools have continued to grow at an average of 89,171 students per year. Each year that number has risen. Between the 2006-2007 school year and the 2007-2008 school year, the growth was 74,583; last year the student growth in Texas Public Schools was 108,839. Much of this growth is not migration from other states, where students have been raised in American public schools. Many are from foreign countries where students either speak only a limited amount of English or none at all. This compounds the problems and greatly expands the costs of education. The Legislature defied the Supreme Court and continued raising standards. Not only did they not provide for any “substantial change” that would offer some form of relief for Texas schools; they slashed the funding forcing huge cuts in both personnel and programs. The new standards are much greater than before. In addition, the new testing program implementation is so complex that the Texas Education Agency (TEA), for the first time, passed it on to the school districts to figure out on a local basis. This causes massive amounts of new training for the teachers and administrators not even counting the students.
In the WOC suit in 2005, the Supreme Court ruling on the adequacy warned that it remains to be seen whether the Legislature will reverse the “predicted drift toward constitutional inadequacy.” The Supreme Court characterized the situation as “an impending constitutional violation.”
One thing we can say is that it no longer remains to be seen whether the Legislature will reverse that predicted drift toward constitutional inadequacy. They have not reversed! We feel the only way they will respond positively is to take them back to the courts.
In my last message on this issue, I am going to reprint an article put out by the Equity Center Executive Director, Dr. Wayne Pierce, summarizing the justification for school finance litigation.
Superintendent
Equity - Part II: September 29, 2011
In Part I we began looking at why it is the time for Thrall ISD to join with other low wealth districts in litigation against the State of Texas. The purpose is to challenge in court the “fact” that the legislature has failed to properly perform their duty as written in the constitution which dates all the way back to 1876. This is not over modern day issues as in “conservatism versus liberalism” or in the redistribution of wealth in the sense that the government is attempting to take from rich individuals and give to poor. This is strictly a constitutional issue concerning failure of duty on the part of the state. Governments are formed for the purpose of providing certain basic needs for a collective society. These basic needs are why constitutions (both state and federal) are written. The constitutions provide for the common good, limit power and protect the governed against abuse by those who would exceed their authority for ill-gotten gain or power.
In this issue, we want to examine the first of two components that the courts have declared are crucial to the legislature’s proper execution of their duty in the establishment of a constitutional school finance system. Those two key components are equity and adequacy.
Equity or efficiency has been the focal point of the past suits that have been successful. As discussed in last week’s article, in Edgewood I and in Edgewood II the courts established that it was the duty of the state to provide equity in its treatment of all students and all tax payers. The courts have ruled that Districts with great wealth (due to natural resources, large successful businesses, etc.) should not be able to affect the financial efficiency of the overall educational system. However, the legislature has built a system that does just that. With regards to equity, the legislature has written laws that have created the exact opposite of what they are charged by the constitution to do. Wealthy districts as well as poor districts are created by legislation.
Until Edgewood IV, the inequities were calculated in dollars per weighted average daily attendance (WADA). The weights are assigned by the number and type of special needs children attending a school district. Low wealth districts pointed out in their arguments that there existed a $600 gap in WADA between the rich districts and the poor districts and that was too much. The courts in that case changed the manner of calculations to a tax rate gap by comparing the 15% of the wealthiest districts to the 15% of the poorest districts. The gap at that time was 9 cents and the Court concluded that a 9 cent gap was not so great as to cause the system to be unconstitutional.
The latest data developed by the Equity Center shows both the dollar gap and tax rate gap. Since Edgewood IV, the $600 gap per WADA has grown now to gaps of $1,500 per WADA being common. Using the Courts top and bottom 15% of the districts, analysis reveals that the gap has grown from 9 cents to approximately 50 cents. This does not even include the huge gaps that exist for facility funding.
Rich districts will challenge the state on issues of adequacy and the state property tax issue limiting meaningful discretion. These same rich districts fall deafly silent when it comes to fighting for the issue of equity, because they could not function at the rate of funding the poor districts are forced under. Instead, they take the stance that the issue of equity is divisive while we all can agree to fight for adequacy. One must understand that adequacy takes nothing away from their huge financial advantage over poor districts. Rich districts thrive on what is called Target Revenue (TR) and/or Hold Harmless (HH). These are the vehicles that give the rich districts such a huge advantage over the poor. According to the Texas Association of Rural Schools “Legislative Alert” sent out 09/21/11, this past session is a good example of how the legislature protects the rich districts at the expense of the poor districts. In the latest session “when $4 billion was cut out of the foundation school fund”, just remember “the cost to maintain Target Revenue and Hold Harmless was costing the state $5.5 billion.” The legislature protected these “pillars of advantage” for the rich at the expense of the poor districts. The “structural deficits” created by the 2006 special legislative session ($10 billion) has been allowed to remain. Instead of balancing the budget by removing the target revenues for the rich, the legislature chose to balance it off the backs of the poor districts which were severely underfunded already.
As long as some districts join the legislature in resisting the efficiency (equity) issue in the constitution, it will be difficult to gain a system that is fair to all students and all tax payers.
Next time we will look at adequacy.
Superintendent
Equity - Part I: September 15, 2011
At Thrall ISD’s regular monthly board meeting in September, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution to join with other Texas public schools, taxpayers and parents as an unincorporated association for the purpose of speaking with one voice in the litigation of public school finance matters essential to the fair treatment of Texas taxpayers and public school children.
Over the next several weeks we are going to try to explain why it is important for the public to understand the necessity for the litigation. The state has defended the current system and many have tried to paint the efforts of the poor districts as attempting to take monies that do not rightfully belong to them. Many people residing in poor school districts fall for this false concept because of the way it is presented many times by the media. These same people even believe that poor school districts are wrong in suing the state.
The ideals over which we are returning to the courts is not a recent belief system dating back only to the 1980’s, and it is not a system conjured up by the poor school districts who are envious of the rich schools. Our forefathers brought forth these same ideals and placed them in the Constitution of 1876. The constitution stated “it is the duty of the state legislature” to provide a system of education that is “suitable” (for support and maintenance) and “efficient” for the children of this state. The definition of “efficient” in 1876 meant efficacious or a system producing desired results. It did not mean cheap! The state courts have defined efficient and suitable as carrying the mandate of being equitable and adequate. Our forefathers envisioned a system of public education as being necessary and fair for all its citizenry, not one that would be used for the sake of politics and power.
Taken a step further, results of past litigation not only show that the state has unfairly treated the children of these poorer districts, but they have unfairly treated the taxpayers also. “Edgewood I established that districts (students) should have access to substantially equal revenues at similar tax rates.” The Edgewood II law suit not only “reaffirmed Edgewood I but extended the equality requirement to taxpayers.” Due to the way the legislature had established the funding of public schools, the ruling in Edgewood II “held that property that was being taxed very low by wealthy school districts created inefficiency in the system. Because of the lack of taxes from those wealthy districts, the system was being deprived of the revenues from these under taxed properties. Thus taxpayer equity was established.”
Our children, our businesses, our parents and our taxpayers deserve the rights granted them by the constitution and defined by the courts. It will take the efforts of all these groups to convince the legislature in Austin to provide such a system. It is time, once again, to challenge the way public schools are being funded in Texas.
Next week we will look closer at the equity and adequacy issues now facing us.
Superintendent