Yesterday, for the first time in recent memory, comprehensive school-funding reform was the topic “du jour” in Madison. Wisconsin’s current funding formula needs a major overhaul – the current system is not working for many school districts across the state. Both small rural districts and large property-poor districts suffer because of the complicated formula that rewards growing communities, but penalizes districts with declining enrollments..
While I appreciate the built-in control over spending the current formula has, there are problems with it. While there is a law that states teachers must receive a 3.8% annual raise, districts are only allowed to raise revenues by 2%. Of course if a community grows, districts are allowed to levy more than the 2%.
Let’s pretend that a school district such as RUSD lost 125 students from the previous year. This means that the district will receive approximately $1,000,000 less from the state. So Unified will now need to cut $1,000,000 from its budget - we have 34 buildings in the district, so a loss of 125 students is only going to be 4 less students per building – less than one student per grade per building in many instances.
So what can be cut from the budget? It can’t be a teacher position because the district didn’t lose enough students to warrant this! It can't be salaries for the existing teachers, the QEO states the teachers must receive a 3.8% increase in compensation! What has happened over the last 15 years is that slowly, each year, these cuts have whittled away facility budgets, curriculum choices, and extra-curriculars activities.
Now, factor in that there has been federal legislation that has passed since the last time Wisconsin has addressed school finance reform. With the IDEA Act of 1997, and NCLB of 2001, districts now have diffferent mandates they must follow – most of which are costly and draining the budgets of already cash-strapped school districts.
What upsets me about the hearing yesterday in Madison, is that the group pushing for the Adequacy Funding Model “does not include any specifics for how a new system should work” but calls generally for providing adequate funding for each district. They’ve worked on this for what, 5 years, and DON’T HAVE A FUNDING PLAN?
Rightly so, some Republicans had some tough questions they wanted answered:
Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon) asked the main sponsors of the resolution, Sen. Roger Breske (D-Eland) and Rep. Sondy Pope-Roberts (D-Middleton), whether they were seeking an increase in state spending on schools - currently more than $5 billion a year - or a revision of the complex formula for allotting money to schools. The formula relies largely on property values in districts.(emphasis is mine)
If these “new” formula is going to rely on other more equitable ways of funding, say by eliminating the sales tax exemption, or by raising the sales tax WITHOUT a SIGNIFICANT DECREASE in PROPERTY TAXES, they may just save themselves a whole lot of time and stop right now. We don’t need any MORE taxes in Wisconsin, we need less of them, and taxes that are JUST and FAIR.
Somehow the legislators in Wisconsin have to figure out how other states can pay for schools, fire and police protection, libraries and parks without overburdening the average homeowner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Actually the group who sponsored much of the testimony -- the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools -- has talked openly about its plans and its specifics for years, including in Racine.
You can learn more at their website at www.excellentschools.org.
In addition, Prof. Allen Odden has done some extensive and very specific work for the state of Wisconsin in terms of a new formula.
It is not secret. The problem is that the solution lies in the Capitol ... legislators have to come up with the formula. These groups have offered to help, but they know -- as Rep. Pope-Roberts said -- that once they put their work out there legislators will chop it up for all the wrong reasons.
Since when do we expect citizens to solve the problems lawmakers create? Heh, I'm not saying it wouldn't be a better idea, but right now it's not the way we do things.
If the funding source is no secret, is it an increase in sales tax as the Alliance for Excellent Schools suggests?
Maybe its just me, but I have spent a lot of time researching this organization, but have not come across any real solution, except ADEQUATE funding - we all want that, but what does it mean?
If we make the senate and assembly start from scratch, we may NEVER have a new funding formula!
They couldn't even pass a budget a time. I have to say I was hoping for WAES to give them at least a jumping-off point to begin the debate!
William F. Buckley once said something to the effect..."I'd like to electrocute everyone who uses the word fair when discussing income taxes."
Though I don't want to electrocute anyone, this business of taxes, regardless the type, being fair is preposterous.
If I'm paying for a service I've never used (and paying quite a bit I might add) or never will use, how can that be fair, regardless of which taxing agency procurred my payment?
Let's briefly discuss the article today that suggests a sales tax for KRM. Though I may be buying the product for which the sales tax applies, I'm paying an additional charge for that product to fund a service I'll never use, thus rendering the sales tax unfair as well (not to mention that item has already been taxed 3 or 4 times before I buy it.)
In fact the only taxes I pay that I consider "somewhat fair," our government refers to as fees!
If I choose to drive a car on Wisconsin roads - I pay a fee!
If I remodel my house and my local municipality has zoning laws to maintain standards, I pay a fee so they can inspect the work.
If I build a home in Caledonia, I pay a fee because the impervious surface I've created will mean the village needs to reroute drainage water.
These fees are at least somewhat honest - you use something - you pay for it.
And do you really believe these efforts to find different funding sources are to make taxes more "fair" - these efforts are to tap into new funding sources where there's a larger pool of money from which to draw so there's more money available to spend.
Just imagine how much money our government could save us in taxes if they spent as much time looking for spending cuts as they do looking for ways to get more blood from the Wisconsin turnips.
Brenda, I really do appreciate that you're opening up discussion of other avenues to fund schools, but unless and until users pay their share of the services they use, it'd be great if you don't send my blood pressure through the roof by using the word "fair" or "just" when discussing taxes ;^) Please, I have no life insurance!
I appreciate your viewpoint (more than you think I do) on the existing tax burden and its effects on us here in Wisconsin.
I think we both agree that taxes are simply too high in Wisconsin, and something needs to be done about it. The current funding formula is NOT providing adequate funding for some districts, while other districts seem to be doing fine.
Perhaps a different funding source (sales tax revenue) is NOT the right solution, but we need to find (at least) a funding formula one that is agreeable to MOST.
Other states have schools that perform much better (on a national scale) without placing the burden of funding on the average homeowner.
Let's use this opportunity to begin that conversation on how to solve Wisconsin's addiction to taxes, instead of the infighting we seem to have now.
Realistically, EVERYTHING needs to change in order for Wisconsin to lose its designation as a tax hell - but we have to start somewhere, and I think the "somewhere" is how we fund our schools, or at the very least, a funding formula that provides adequate funding.
With a large amount of tax dollars (5 Billion) going to our schools - it seems that this is a good place to start.
Beware the old increase sales tax, decrease property tax scam. Somehow the property tax never gets reduced.
The current system will never risk asking for fair taxation across the board. They will double tax, and triple tax the working population (property owners) caring little about pushing them out of their homes. Asking for fair funding would risk losing votes, and then losing political office and control. Forget the children, it's all about power.
Post a Comment