State Superintendent Tony Evers has released a proposed framework for school finance reform in Wisconsin- its about time. The current system, put in place in 1993 under Governor Thompson, and there is general agreement that it is broken and needs significant reform. Ever's proposal has received initial support both from the WI School Board Assocation and WEAC - I think not so much due to the specifics of the proposal but because it is an important step to jumpstarting the process that will lead towards overdue reform.
Evers' proposal includes items like redistributing the school levy tax credit funding directly to schools. Currently schools levy a higher amount and then the state refunds a portion to property taxpayers- rather than providing the money directly to schools district so they don't levy as much in the first place. The school levy credit adds an unneeded layer of complexity and, because it is based on local property tax rates, it changes the distribution of state funds from that intended. The school levy credit also helps the state "balance the books" on paper because it doesn't pay out until the following fiscal year. The proposal is property tax neutral.
Some of the other items in the proposal include reviewing and streamlining the 40 different "categorical aids" distributions -this is money delivered to districts earmarked for specific purposes, and adding poverty metrics into the aid formula calculation.
You can read more here.
Although school finance reform is overdue, in my view arguing about where the money comes from and how it flows through the system is a minor point. The important question is: How much funding is adequate for an educational system that meets the needs of the Wisconsin and its residents, and are we going to commit to providing it? Click here for more on the topic of adequate funding.
Total WI K-12 funding as a percentage of GDP has been declining over the last 10 years, the education "share of the pie" has been shrinking. What I would like to see is a commitment to a constant (in GDP terms) funding level predicated on adequacy. Call it "A percentage for Kids". But its not really about children, its about securing a prosperous future for everyone.
Custom Search
(photo ©2008 Bruce Fritz)
About Me
- Peter Sobol
- My family moved to Monona in 2003 and have been happily ensconsed in the Frost Woods Neighborhood ever since. I have 2 kids who graduated from Mg. I have been serving on the school board since April of 2007. We moved back to the Midwest in 2002 after spending 10 years in California, where I was a Department Director for Maxtor, a Fortune 500 company. In truth we left California largely because of the school situation - chronically underfunded schools did not offer the kind of programs or opportunities we wanted for our children. We picked Monona because our thorough research showed that this was a place we would really like to educate our kids. Our experience has taught us to value the quality schools we have here in Monona, and the importance of careful stewardship to maintain community support for those schools.
5 comments:
I don't think we've ever been short on good ideas about how to fund schools. The problem is, unless we find new sources of revenue (i.e., raise existing taxes, create new taxes, or significantly cut spending in other areas), how can we change anything? Because if we redesign how we fund schools, but do not increase spending, there will be districts who get more money and those who get less. And creating a winners/losers scenario won't survive the politics of our legislature.
So what we're really talking about is raising revenue and regardless of how we do that, well, good luck to those who try that in this economy.
My personal form of heresy is that we first cut costs. And one really good way to do that is to condense and merge the 400+ school districts in Wisconsin. Ya, ya, I know that some coordination in some areas is accomplished through things like our CESAs, but the redundancies and duplication of efforts is still very costly. Imagine if we had county-wide school districts. I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be tremendous savings.
"Imagine if we had county-wide school districts. I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be tremendous savings."
I think you would have bloat and worse education.
You might want to look at states that do not have so many districts per students, see what they are doing, and then make your judgment. We like to pat ourselves on the back in Wisconsin, but let's not be so quick to assume our students do all that well here, especially if you correct for socio-economic inequities.
"You might want to look at states that do not have so many districts per students, see what they are doing, and then make your judgment. We like to pat ourselves on the back in Wisconsin, but let's not be so quick to assume our students do all that well here, especially if you correct for socio-economic inequities."
Give me an example.
um, o.k.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/PropertyTaxSession/OPI/Does_School.pdf
and
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/PropertyTaxSession/OPI/Does_School.pdf
and
http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=13218
This last piece is by the guy who did the research in the first piece. No doubt there is economy of scale. Political will in Wisconsin to tackle this? I doubt it.
Post a Comment