Author: mopress

Veteran actor TOMMY LEE JONES has criticised Texan Senator KAY BAILEY
HUTCHINSON’s ideas on how to control immigration on the US/Mexico
border.

The FUGITIVE star, who lives in San Antonio near the
Texas/Mexico border (sic) with his Hispanic wife DAWN, is angered by
Hutchinson’s plans for vigilante groups to guard borders.

He says, "We have a United States senator who has been quoted
as saying that our borders are haemorrhaging, a bleeding wound… and
wants to introduce a bill that pours millions (of dollars) into federal
enforcement of the borders and by golly she wants to give money to the
vigilante groups.

"Just like a lot of politicians, (she) feeds on headlines.

"In this case she’s making her appeal to rabid paranoia which is dangerous.

"It’s a very complicated issue. There are people working in
agriculture whose families have been split by the existence of this
border and they’re willing and able to do jobs in the north that no one
else will do.

"They don’t deserve to have their culture and their families split in two." 11/11/2005. found at a few websites, not well sourced

Poor Districts Can Wait

It’s kind of an interesting pretzel to contemplate. Everybody’s
education in Texas is good enough, but those with the best schools need better still,
while those with the worst are not yet faced with an impossible
situation. C’mon Texas, why not give the rich kids a break while the poor kids try harder! And the court so ordered it
done.–gm

[Please see seven-part review of Supreme Court decision below.]

In order for the wealthier districts to pursue higher local tax rates,
they had to argue that the existing tax cap left them no ‘meaningful
discretion’ beyond funding educational basics.  Here the Supreme
Court agreed that the trial judge had made the right assessment; the
richer districts in Texas needed more money:

Meaningful discretion cannot be quantified; it is an
admittedly imprecise standard. But we think its application in this
case is not a close question. The district court found that the
plaintiffs= Afocus districts@ for which evidence was offered Alack
>meaningful discretion= in setting their local property tax rates.@
Contrary to the dissent=s assertion, this finding was supported by
evidence other than conclusory opinions of district superintendents.
The district court detailed evidence showing 108 how the districts are
struggling to maintain accreditation with increasing standards, a
demographically diverse and changing student population, and fewer
qualified teachers, while cutting budgets even further. The district
court found that due to inadequate funding: 52.8% of the newly hired
teachers in 2002 were not certified, up from 14.1% in 1996; more
teachers were being required to teach outside their areas of expertise;
and attrition and turnover were growing. The court cited the higher
costs of educating economically disadvantaged students and students
with limited English proficiency, noting that 90% of the growth in the
student population has come from low-income families. And as set out in
more detail above, the district court noted the increased curriculum,
testing, and accreditation standards, and the increased costs of
meeting them. These are facts, not opinions. The State defendants point
to evidence of some discretionary spending on programs not essential to
accreditation, but there is also evidence that such programs are
important to keeping students in school.

From the Supreme Court ruling (p. 103):

Neither the structure nor the operation of the funding system
prevents it from efficiently accomplishing a general diffusion of
knowledge. The State may discharge its duty to make suitable provision
for free public schools through school districts by relying on local
tax revenues, even as heavily as it now does. Such reliance, especially
given the multitude and diversity of school districts, inevitably makes
it difficult to achieve efficiency because of the vast disparities in
local property wealth, but efficiency is not impossible. We have
suggested that these difficulties might be avoided by fundamental
changes in the structure of the system, but the possibility of
improvement does not render the present system unsuitable for
adequately and efficiently providing a public education. Accordingly,
we conclude that the system does not violate the constitutional
requirement of suitability.