| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HB 1001/SF 1002: SCHOOL REFORM - 1997 Special Session Sponsor: Management Council These bills dealt primarily with defining the educational basket and making structural changes in Wyoming’s public school finance system. To consider these two bills, the Legislature used the "mirror bill" process it has recently adopted for consideration of budget bills. This means an identical bill is introduced in each house, which proceeds to consider it through three readings. After that, the amendments added by each house are submitted to a "straw poll" vote in the other house. Given the opinions of each house on each amendment, a conference committee is then given the responsibility of coming up with a final product acceptable to both houses. HB 1001 and SF 1002 were both heavily amended in their respective houses, with very few amendments getting roll call votes. Consequently, only one is shown below. In addition, the concurrence votes on the final version of the bill are given for both houses; the Senate concurred 23-7, and the House 38-22. Classroom Size. The classroom size amendment (offered by Rep. Phil Nicholas, R-H14, Laramie) required each school district to report to the state Superintendent of Public Instruction regarding the district’s current and projected compliance with classroom size goals by October 1, 1997. The amendment set these goals at 18 students per teacher for K-5, 20 per teacher for grades 6-8 and 17 per teacher for grades 9-12, with the K-5 ratio decreasing by one student per year for school years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The amendment specified that the above ratios were goals, not absolute maximums, and that districts could not be compelled to meet the sizes specified. It also required school districts to annually publish a listing of actual classroom sizes for the current year, projected sizes for the following year and a comparison of those sizes with the goals set out in the amendment. The class size amendment also phased in more money to get closer to the funding level recommended by the MAP study. Proponents of the amendment argued that studies show small class sizes improve student learning, so a quality educational system should encourage lower student/teacher ratios. Opponents argued that the state could not afford the extra funding and should not tell school districts what their class size should be, thereby imposing a burden on the districts. The classroom size amendment barely the House, 31-29, but went down heavily in the Senate straw poll, 4-26. The amendment was dropped from the final bill by the conference committee. The votes listed below are the House vote and the Senate "straw poll" vote on the Nicholas classroom size amendment. (Readers should be aware that the straw poll vote reflects many senators’ desires to maintain a strong bargaining position in the conference committee, rather than their true views on the issue.) A YES vote means the legislator favored setting goals for class sizes and phasing in additional funding. A NO vote means the legislator opposed setting goals for class sizes and phasing in additional funding.
CONCURRENCE VOTES ON CONFERENCE COMMITTEE VERSION OF HB 1001/SF 1002 The votes listed below are concurrence votes on the final version of HB 1001/SF 1002, School Reform. Most of the "reforms" enacted in this bill were subsequently found unconstitutional by a state district court in December 1997. This bill included so many issues it is difficult to characterize a yes or no vote. One might reasonably conclude that a YES vote indicates the legislator believed the good elements of the bill outweighed the bad, and a NO vote indicates the legislator believed the opposite.
www.equalitystate.org Copyright 1999, Equality State Policy Center | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||