Author: mopress

The Electionline Briefing of Dec. 2004 strikes a tone favorable to statewide registration as it reports that, “Statewide registration databases were used in 16 states
and the District of Columbia, making for a smoother election process by reducing the number of double registrants and better tracking voter movement between jurisdictions.” As we will see below, however, in Georgia “better tracking” may be the best explanation for why the state tossed out 70 percent of provisional ballots cast.

According to the electionline database the 16 states with statewide registration are: Alaska (1985); Arizona (2004); Connecticut (2005); Delaware (1990); Georgia; Hawaii; Kentucky (1973); Louisiana (1987); Massachusetts (1993); Michigan (1998); Minnesota; New Mexico; Oklahoma; South Carolina (35 years); South Dakota; and West Virginia.

Pennsylvania reports that 56 of 67 counties are covered so far.

Georgia offers an interesting example how the use of a statewide database may make it more difficult to get your vote counted. In Georgia, 70 percent of the state’s nearly 13,000 provisional ballots were tossed out. And electionline speculated that one reason for the high rate of rejection might be the use of a statewide database to more easily identify out-of-place voters (p. 5). The possibility that Georgia’s database resulted in more effective post-election “discipline” is just the kind of thing that worries us.

We would rather see a statewide database used to explain higher rates of participation and success in having votes counted. It is what we call the frontend-backend test of registration technology. Did the statewide database enable voters to more easily vote or did it enable state officials to more easily discount votes after they were cast?

Don’t know how we missed this the first time around. But this morning I was clicking through link referrals to the Texas Civil Rights Review and found (via dogpile) this Irwin Tang profile of Hubert Vo at AsianWeek.Com.

Hubert Vo: Universal Immigrant (Jan. 14, 2005)

In Part Two of his closing argument in the school funding trial, attorney David Hinojosa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) focuses on Texas’ failures to meet needs of bilingual students.

While the equity gap has negatively affected our property poor districts as a whole, the limited English proficiency students, also known as English language learners, also do not have the opportunity to achieve their full potential because of the insufficient bilingual education allotment.

The Edgewood intervenors offered three recognized experts, documenting a myriad of way that the State fails to meet the needs of LEP students, both in rich and poor districts. The State could offer no expert in its defense. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the State has failed to treat these LEP students equitably and adequately.

Texas recognizes that districts require more resources in order to provide an access to a quality education for LEP children, and in fact, provides them with a .10 weight to the adjusted basic allotment. But the level of the weight to bring our LEP children to the achievement standard set in Texas and in our nation is grossly inadequate and unsupported by any research in Texas or in any other state or by the testimony of any of the superintendents in this case or by any of the experts in this case.

In fact, it was arbitrarily set at such a weight. The evidence indisputably shows that studies were commissioned by the State as early as 1974 and again in 1984 and as late as 1989, in order to find out what additional resources are required to provide a quality education to LEP children.

And in each of these studies, the suggested minimal weight was between .38 and .4 in order to provide these children with a minimally accredited education as defined. But the .38 and .4 weights, in and of themselves, were very conservative and actually discounted to provide those children with an adequate education.

Districts like the Edgewood intervenors are responsible for educating a much higher percentage of the LEP children compared to the state average on inadequate bilingual education funding, and it’s disproportionately borne by such districts.

For example, while the state average LEP population was roughly 15 percent for the year 2003, Edgewood ISD’s LEP population was 22.3 percent. Pharr-San Juan-Alamo’s LEP population was at 37.4 percent, San Elizario was 53.1 percent, and Laredo ISD was 59.9 percent.

Three out of five children in Laredo ISD are LEP. The State’s own witnesses said that all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, language in the home, including LEP, all students must meet the State minimal criteria under standardized tests.

But the State’s failure to provide districts with sufficient resources, as the evidence showed in order to provide the LEP children with an adequate education, has led to dreadful achievement results in Texas.

For the 2002-2003 TAKS, all tests taken, at two SEMs below panel recommendations, fifth graders passed the English test at a meager 31.8 percent. On the LEP Spanish test it was 31.9 percent versus the State average of 55.9 percent

.

For the eighth graders, only one quarter of the LEP in the state passed the all test standard, while the state average was 69.9 percent. For the eleventh graders, only 15.2 percent of the LEP passed, while the state average was 49.8 percent.

And it’s a peculiar thing about these scores that we have just shown. The state averages aren’t impressive in and of themselves, with one in three failing to pass all the TAKS subject area tests in the fifth grade and almost that same amount for the eighth grade and just under one-half of the eleventh graders in the state averaged half. Yet the LEP scores still fell far below those scores for the state.

For the 2004 TAKS, all tests, at one SEM below, the fifth grade LEPs passed at merely a 27 percent. The state average was 62 percent, eight graders at 21 percent for the LEP, results for the eleventh graders was was an abysmal 24 percent versus the state average of 32 percent. These gross disparities in achievement reflect the State’s neglect of educating our LEP population.

The State went so far as to claim that these abysmal pass rates for LEP were practically expected, that it wasn’t an alarming outcome for them, LEP children are supposed to perform poorly because the children are what they are, they’re limited in English language, no matter exactly how poorly they performed.

But the funny thing is that the only LEPs who take the TAKS test, whether in English or Spanish, are the LEP children who have been cleared to be ready to take the test by their language proficiency advisory committee, people who have evaluated the children and said yes, they’re ready to take the test. So only the more prepared, the more competent LEPs are taking the TAKS test, but are still failing because of the insufficient funding provided by the State.

And the State also attempted to argue that LEPs are mostly immigrants, they just got here into this country, and that is, you know, partly attributable to the poor performance by LEPs in Spanish taking the test. Yet over 50,000 of the 200,000 students who took the RPTE were here in the U.S. at least five years, and 70 percent of those students had been here at least three years.

Now, when the State has provided additional resources to school districts above and beyond the weights, LEPs have shown that they can close the gap. Looking at the third grade test results the superintendents and state witnesses testified that when substantial additional resources would being poured in, the achievement gap between LEPs in all students tested and the state average was reduced considerably.

For the 2002-2003 school year, the LEPs taking the English version scored at 72.1 percent, passing all tests, and on the Spanish test passed at 72.7 percent, only 12 points behind the state average. For the 2003-2004 school year, all tests passing rates were not available, but looking at the reading in March administration, 82 percent of the LEPs met the one SEM standard on the English version. And for the Spanish grade three reading, 83 percent met the one SEM, versus the state average of 91 percent. And the math test scores reflected only 5 percent difference on the English test and 10 percent difference between LEPs and the state average on the Spanish test.

So yes, money can and does make a difference. But for most of the other grade levels, superintendent after superintendent testified how they needed tremendous amounts of additional resources to address the needs of the growing LEP population.

Dr. Forgione, Dr. Moses, Dr. Sconzo of the West Orange-Cove plaintiffs voiced these concerns, as did each of the Edgewood superintendents from the focus districts. They expressed concerns about needing funds to recruit and hire certified bilingual ed teachers, to train all Teachers and administrators to work with LEPs, to have smaller class sizes to address the needs of LEPs, summer school remediation programs, instructional resources and assessments, full day programs for preschool aged children.

Even Commissioner Neeley, herself, testified that she established 12 newcomer centers throughout her district to address the needs of recent immigrants. Most of our districts can’t afford the costs for these types of centers, with the limited bilingual funds provided by the State.

And the lack of sufficient bilingual funds also is reflected in the high dropout rates for LEP students and the pitifully low graduation rates. Taking the State numbers as is for the 2001-2002 school year — even though there has been evidence offered in this case which clearly showed that those numbers are severely underestimated and in fact, misleading — the LEP graduation rate was a mere 53.4 percent compared to the state average of 82.8 percent. And the four-year dro

p out rate was 20 percent compared to the state average of 5 percent.

Each and every school district and the bilingual experts testified that they were unable to provide all of the elements required for an adequate bilingual education for students within their districts, even with additional federal funds.

And the State seems to expect the federal government to supplant rather than supplement their duty to educate the children. The TEA bilingual director, herself, stated that the State without federal money would need to increase the weight to at least .3 in order to provide the eight elements of an adequate bilingual education. That’s rising from a .1 to a .3, clearly showing that the bilingual weight is insufficient.

Each of the bilingual experts and superintendents testified that the needs of bilingual students are in addition and different from the needs of economically disadvantaged students. The needs of a child who does not speak English in the home are very different from the needs of a child coming from a low income family.

The teaching methods required are different. The materials required are different. The literacy coaches required are different, among many other differences. One must caution that the group of limited English proficiency students is growing and is expected to grow and the population of LEP children in Texas has now climbed to 15 percent of children in Texas, almost one out of six.

So by failing to provide a constitutionally adequate bilingual education to our children, we’re also failing our communities and our state.

And a few will attempt to explain the achievement differences. Among its experts, the State called Dr. Armor, the State’s hired expert witness, who said that, on average, minorities and economically disadvantaged children and LEP children cannot achieve at the same levels as whites. Even with additional resources, Dr. Armor stated that minorities and children in poverty cannot achieve at the same level as whites.

And in his analysis he controlled for LEP and economically disadvantaged students. But in our standards in Texas, we don’t control or allow for different standards to meet the TAKS standards, whether you’re black or white or brown. You just have to meet them.

Another thing that Dr. Armor mentioned was that high poverty and LEP at the secondary level have a much higher likelihood that they will drop out and leave our system. And the overwhelming evidence in this case also showed our State’s failure to provide an appropriate and adequate compensatory education weight in order to provide for our at-risk children to have access to meaningful opportunities through a quality education.

Part One of final argument by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in the 2004 Texas school funding trial. Delivered on Sept. 15 by attorney David Hinojosa in the District Court of Judge John Dietz.

Your Honor, if it please the Court, “lost opportunities” are two simple and yet profound words to describe why our clients, the Edgewood intervenors, appear once again in court.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every child in their district because of the inequity in funding between property poor and property rich districts.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every limited English proficiency child in their district because of the insufficient weight and allotment provided for bilingual education.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every poor child in their districts because of the insufficient weight and allotment provided for compensatory education.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every child in their districts because of the inequitable and insufficient funding for facilities, forcing our districts to place their children in overcrowded, deteriorating and unsafe facilities.

And all of these lost opportunities lead to the most glaring, the most disheartening opportunities lost, and those are for our Texas children.

Lost opportunities for our children to succeed in school, to make the most of their abilities, and to learn in facilities that are safe and not overcrowded, ultimately lost opportunities to fully participate in the social, economic and educational opportunities that present themselves now and those that await them in the future.

Our clients ask for nothing more and our children deserve nothing less. And what our children deserve is exactly what our Constitution guarantees.

Is it too much to ask our great state of Texas for equal access, meaningful opportunities for each and every child, whether they’re rich or poor, black, white, Hispanic or whatever other race or ethnicity, whether the children live in Alamo Heights or in west side San Antonio, in Edgewood, in the downtown suburban district of Highland Park, or the
little town in the Valley known as Edcouch-Elsa.

Each and every child has a constitutional right to access meaningful opportunities. Yet the State defendants, whom we entrust to deliver these opportunities to our children are the very same ones who deny our children.

Your Honor, I would like to introduce some of our clients who were able to join us in court today, representatives of the Edgewood intervenors. And I would ask them to stand at this time.

I would also like to acknowledge our team of lawyers and staff who are present today. I won’t go through the names, because there’s kind of a long list here today.

And I would like to also acknowledge our attorneys from Meta, Jennie and Roger from Boston, who came down and joined us, and Leticia from UNLV, who aren’t present today but who committed their time and energy in our fight for justice, as well our intern, one of which we have here today, who continued to help even after their internship had expired.

So is the notion of equal access to meaning opportunities for each and every child simply an ambitious, unattainable goal? Well, if it is labeled as such, there can be no explanation for it, because our Constitution does not allow for it.

So how are they denying children access to opportunities? Now, that question was answered in this case, at least by a preponderance of the evidence. And I would submit to you that the evidence most likely even climbed the hurdles of being clear and convincing, without even needing to, of course, as our designated focus districts, who represented all of the 22 Edgewood intervenors, as agreed upon by the State, have exhibited.

How has the current system caused our children to lose opportunities because of the inequity in funding between the property poor and property rich districts?

Well, it’s by allowing the average property rich district, the Chapter 41 district, to be provided with more than at least $1009 per WADA, weighted average daily attendance — as we found out, which is slightly more than just one child — $1009 more than the average property poor district, that is, the Chapter 42 district. And how can that be?

All of the research, every single opinion offered in this case — save for one, and that was of an expert offered and paid for by the State, all of those opinions and the evidence offered in this case point to the fact that children in property poor districts should
receive more resources in order to bring them up to a level playing field.

The tax payers in the districts, both Chapter 41 and Chapter 42 districts, are paying the same tax rate, yet the average property rich district manages to take home at least $1009 more per WADA than the property poor district.

What this amounts to is $20,000 for a classroom of 20, at least $600,000 more for a campus of 600, and at least 5 million more for a district of 5,000 students.

All of that money going to property wealthy districts, those children who are lucky enough to live in that district’s boundaries, for those who live on the right side of tracks even in this day and age, to access $5 million more of opportunity to succeed in life.

And for those unlucky children living on the other side of the tracks, this gross disparity amounts $5 million of lost opportunities to succeed in life, even though the parents of those children are making the same tax efforts, paying the same tax rates as the parents who live on the other side.

And the evidence showed that $1009 of WADA difference resulted from a number of provisions. Those provisions include the hold harmless provisions that were promised to the Court in 1995 to be phased, but were instead phased in, phased up and written permanently into law.

They include the compensatory education set-asides, where a Chapter 41 district gets the full benefit of .2 weight for compensatory funds, while the property poor district must set aside 10 percent of their compensatory ed funds and therefore receive what amounts to only .18 weight for the property poor district.

It includes the Available School Fund allotment that operates with an effective bonus for Chapter districts but is lumped into the State aid received by Chapter districts.

It includes discounts on recapture, wherein Chapter 41 districts can benefit from entering into early agreements, agreements that they must enter into anyway, and they receive either 4 to 5 percent benefits on selecting one of the two recapture methods.

The Tier 2 guaranteed yield cap in which property poor districts are guaranteed up to an equalized wealth level of $271,400, but the wealthy district are able to take advantage of a wealth level of $305,000.

The Tier 1 guaranteed basic allotment gap.

Once again, the property poor districts are equalized for a basic allotment of up to 295,000 per WADA. Property wealthy districts are able to take advantage of a wealth level of 305,000.

Also the facility funding gap, in which property poor districts must tax at substantially higher rates to raise funds to pay for the same amount of bonds simply because of the substantially lower tax base, coupled with the limitations on State funding and the absence of recapture from the facility funding.

But the $1009 gap, that doesn’t tell the entire story. What was commonly referred to as $600 gap found by the 1995 Supreme Court in Edgewood IV has actually grown to $1670 per WADA.

Dr. Cortez used the same analysis performed by then State defendants’ witness, Lynn Moak. And in that analysis, it showed a projected gap in revenue of $631, when comparing the 5 percent of students in the wealthiest districts versus

the five percent of students in the
poorest districts.

Dr. Cortez’ analysis, undisputed analysis compared the 5 percent, once again. And the evidence shows that the equity gap has grown to almost 300 percent higher than the projected $600 gap back in 1995.

For classroom of 20 students, this translates to over 33,000 more for the children in the wealthiest districts. For a campus with 600, $4 million more, and for a district of 5,000 students, this translates to more than $8.3 million dollars for the children fortunate enough to be able to live in and attend the public schools in the wealthiest districts.

Even with similar tax efforts by the parents in each of the respective districts, the wealthy districts have access to over $8 million for their children.

The Honorable Paul Colbert also analyzed the equity gap looking at what is referred to as the actual gap. And he depicted a gap in favor of Chapter 41 districts in the amount of of $1,716 up to $1,868 per WADA in favor of the rich districts.

His alternative analysis confirms Dr. Cortez’ analysis. And even when you look at the State’s own witness, Dr. Joe Wisnoski, even after he manipulated the figures used by the Honorable Mr. Colbert, he offered evidence of an equity gap existing between an average of $929, but looking at maintenance and operations only — he didn’t even touch facilities in that analysis — in favor of wealthy districts over the poor.

He said nothing to discount the gap by Dr. Cortez. The State did not touch Dr. Cortez’ analysis or even attempt to address the analysis, even though it was the same analysis used by Mr. Moak for the State in 1995 and adopted by our Texas Supreme Court.

What does this equity gap mean to our property poor districts? It means that, despite similar tax efforts between taxpayers in the rich and poor districts, the wealthy districts are able to generate substantially more revenue, and greater revenue translates into greater opportunity for the children in the property rich districts.

The wealthy districts are better able to hire, recruit, train, develop and retain quality teachers. They’re able to hire more specialized support staff, including counselors, curriculum specialists.

They’re able to offer a broader and more rigorous curriculum, and even to provide far better opportunities to their students to achieve their potential and to fully participate in the social, economic and educational opportunities of our state and nation.

I am not saying that they’re able to provide what is required by our Constitution because of that equity gap. They just have more in their efforts to reach toward the meaningful opportunities.

So 15 years after Edgewood I was announced, proclaiming justice for property poor districts, the Edgewood intervenors stand before you once again because the equity gap still exists and, in fact, has grown to unconstitutional proportions. And who suffers? Who loses out on opportunities to succeed and to escape poverty?

It is our children who attend the public schools in the property poor school districts, such as those of the Edgewood intervenors, and at no choosing of their own, oftentimes at no choosing of their parents.