|
|
|
|
Click Here For Equity News Archives Fall 2000 Equity News Proposals
for Change - Bill Vincent SAGE
Advice: Serving Economically
Disadvantaged Students - Doug Haselow Special Education: Categorical Aids or Pupil Service Weighting - Doug Haselow The
kids are back at their desks, the legislators soon will return to the Capitol
-- and the inequities our school systems continue. When the Wisconsin Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of our school finance system in July, the
basis for the court’s decision was simply that
“... the right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education
has not been shown to be violated by the present school finance system.” The
court did not measure our system by any financial standard and made no
determination that the system was either “fair” or “equitable” as some
defenders have claimed. The court
acknowledged the financial disparities among districts by saying
“...merely showing disparity of the financial resources among school
districts is not enough in this state to prove a lack of equal opportunity for
a sound basic education.” So
the definition of “a sound
basic education” is left to the legislature.
AEF representatives have met with State School Superintendent John
Benson to discuss his role in more precisely defining that term, and he is
considering appropriate administrative or political action in that regard.
He also is considering how his office will address complaints alleging
the lack of an equal opportunity for a sound basic education. For
the next year, here's what we'll see:
The
long-term outlook is pretty gloomy unless we achieve change.
Virtually every interest or advocacy group in and around public
education recognizes these discouraging facts of life.
Many have proposed significant modifications of our school finance
system that will address some of its most serious problems. This
issue of Equity News is devoted to the specific proposals for changes
in our system. The more
important effort will be to convince the legislature to make the appropriate
changes. Legislators
and candidates are not getting a clear message that Wisconsin needs a fairer
system of financing schools. Many
seem to have taken the attitude that no change is needed because the Supreme
Court did not strike down our system.
And the concern that is most often expressed seems to be focused on
revenue limits and the QEO as most districts struggle each year to maintain
existing programs. Revenue limits
are a problem, but they are only a part of the larger problem of unequal and
unfair funding of our schools. AEF
will provide the leadership, but it will take input and action from our
members to make our school finance system fair for all kids and taxpayers. ¨ Serving Economically Disadvantaged Students The
new standard requires that school districts with disproportionate numbers of
economically disadvantaged students be taken into account in the state
financing system. In the last 15
years, the state has created programs that are generally intended to address
low academic achievement commonly associated with economically disadvantaged
students. First,
characteristics of children at risk of not graduating were defined and
children were identified. School
districts were required to offer programs to serve these children, and now
school districts are allowed to contract for those programs and services.
The state has provided 10% additional state aid to help pay for the
additional costs of those programs. The
at-risk experience has led to a new alternative education program, which
serves a small number of students in a few districts. Subsequently,
the P-5 (preschool through Grade 5) program was created to provide additional
funds for poor, low-performing elementary schools and those with large
differences in the academic performance among ethnic groups.
The P-5 program also only serves a small number of students in a few
schools. Even
the settlement of the Milwaukee desegregation lawsuit provided for additional
programs in Milwaukee “...to correct the academic deficiencies of
educationally and economically disadvantaged students....”
While that program has been confined to Milwaukee, the budget
appropriation has been significantly reduced. Today,
we have the SAGE (Scholastic Achievement Guarantee in Education) program,
which provides up to $2,000 per pupil to reduce class size to 15 in Grades K-3
in schools or school districts with concentrations of poverty.
The program is being phased in to Grades 2 and 3 in existing SAGE
schools, but is not yet provided in all eligible schools, cannot be provided
in P-5 schools and does not serve economically disadvantaged students in
grades 4-12. It
seems apparent that the cumulative effect of these programs does not meet the
new standard. A
more effective way to meet the standard would be to address the needs of all
economically disadvantaged students.
This could best be accomplished through replacement of the current
narrowly focused programs with a weighted pupil count for all students
eligible for free and reduced lunch. P-5
and SAGE programs are successful -- but the funds should be used for the same
purposes in all schools, for all children in poverty, with lower
class size as the priority. The
pupil weighting would apply to both revenue limits and aid allocation.
It would grow with inflation in the same manner that revenue limits are
now increased. For example, a
poverty child in a district with revenue limits of $7,000 per pupil would
generate $8,400 with a 20% weighting factor.
One year later, a $200 increase in the revenue limit base would provide
$7,200 per pupil and would yield $8,640 for every poverty child. Regardless
of the specific way in which Wisconsin would address poverty issues, it seems
clear that a narrowly focused program will not meet the new equal educational
opportunity standard. Our system
must treat all students in similar circumstances in a similar manner.
¨ Special
Education:
Categorical Aids or Pupil Service Weighting AEF Executive Director Historically,
Wisconsin has provided categorical aids to cover some of the cost of providing
special education services, but the portion of costs covered by categorical
aid has steadily declined. Even
in the last legislative session, when unanticipated revenues exceeded hundreds
of millions of dollars, the portion of costs covered by categorical aid was
approximately maintained, but not increased. Here are two reasons.
First,
state administrations and legislatures tend to resist increases in line item
appropriations that are not "sum sufficient."
When a sum certain appropriation is increased, it is only a temporary
solution because legislators have to debate the funding and/or proration level
during every budget period. For
example, state superintendent John Benson has requested an increase in
categorical aid for 2001-02 to just maintain the current aid/cost proportion.
Even if his budget request would be granted for the next two years, we
will have the same problem in the next budget cycle. Many remember how the
state failed to maintain the overall proportion of school funding before the
2/3 commitment was enacted. Second,
there is a broad recognition that categorical aids which cover a portion of
costs are disequalizing as a property wealthy district won’t need to levy as
high a property tax rate to pay for the unaided costs.
As a result, many legislators who support greater equalization are not
inclined to increase categorical aids. While
it should be considered as matter of fair treatment for poor districts, it is
clear that some legislators do not share that view and support categorical
aids simply because those aids favor wealthy districts. A
better and more permanent way to finance special education costs would be to
create a weighted pupil count that reflects the cost of providing special
education services. Like
categorical aid, a pupil weighting would provide additional funds to serve
disabled children. The
principal difference is that an appropriate weighting would provide a permanent
source of funds that would increase with inflation.
For
example, in a district with $7,000 per pupil revenue limit, a 50% additional
weighting for a moderate disability would provide $10,500 (50% more).
The amount provided through this weighting would increase with
inflation just as revenue limits now increase.
Similarly, pupil weighting for limited English proficiency would also
provide additional permanent funds. Imagine
a 63% weight for special education at the time categorical aids covered 63% of
the cost. Would the legislature
have allowed the 63% weighting to slip to 35% as the categorical aid has?
Of course not, because a reduction in the pupil weighting effectively
says that the children are worth less than they had been in the past.
By maintaining the weight at the prior year level, inflation in pupil
costs is built into the funding for special education in the same manner that
inflation is built into the revenue limits. Weightings
based on categories of disability have been criticized as incentives for
labeling children in order to obtain additional funds.
To avoid that potential problem, any weighting system should be based
on the services actually provided to the student, and the aid should not be
paid until the year after the services have been provided. The
AEF legislative proposal includes a three-level pupil service weighting as a
replacement for existing categorical aids for special education:
Many
have called for a new, narrow state aid to cover the additional cost of
serving disabled children whose individual condition requires their school
district to allocate extraordinarily high amounts in order to provide the
needed services. Some have
advocated a higher-level categorical aid for this purpose, but that approach
retains the disadvantages of a categorical aid. AEF proposes that the state
assume full responsibility for any per pupil cost in excess of 250% of the
state average, just as it has assumed the cost of providing services to
children at the Wisconsin School for the Visually Handicapped.¨ Would you like to subscribe to Equity News? Just email bhaig@execpc.com
|
