|
|
|
|
Click Here For Equity News Archives Email bhaig@execpc.com to receive every new issue. In this issue:
Along with other AEF steering committee members, Executive Director Doug Haselow and I talked to dozens of visitors to our booth at the WASB conference in Milwaukee. We truly enjoyed discussing your individual issues and explaining how AEF is working with legislators to clarify the need for equity. More than 300 people turned out to hear the various funding plans discussed at an afternoon session. In this newsletter, we've provided an analysis and comparison of those plans. Please review it carefully and discuss the school finance issue with your legislators as you have the opportunity. Following the afternoon session, several AEF members stayed for the annual meeting. Members voted on the committee's recommendation to reduce AEF dues for 2003-04 from 18/100 of a cent per $1000 (0.0000018) of valuation to 15/100 of a cent (0.0000015). We're all aware of how tight money is for school districts, and Doug is working to efficiently and effectively get our message out. He recently spoke at the WASDA Focus on Finance with an estimated audience of 600 and the Lakeside Leadership Conference, was seen on Public TV's Fourth Street Forum, and was heard on an excellent public radio show about equity. You can hear it by going to http://www.wuwm.com/atten and clicking on the program for January 29, 2003. Also at the AEF booth, we distributed the 2003 Legislative Proposal and some additional background information on the new educational standard and the school finance issue. If you would like these materials or other information call AEF toll free (866-781-8332). New Governor to Address School Finance Reform Each day seems to bring greater understanding of the need to reform our school finance system. It is becoming increasingly clear that our system favors some children and some taxpayers over others. It is also clear that our system of categorical aids has failed to provide funds for the additional educational needs of disabled, economically disadvantaged and limited English students. Governor Doyle has said our school finance system is broken and needs to be reformed to make it more equitable. Specifically, he has called for an end to the per-pupil financial disparities (from $7,001 in one district to $15,143 in another) and the end to a system where a child's education depends on where he or she lives. He also has called for a fair public school tax burden while warning about future budget cuts. "To say we should cut spending thoroughly is not to say we should do so thoughtlessly. If we slash education, we risk undermining the asset that makes our state most attractive," he said in the recent State of the State address. Task Force The governor won't attempt to reform the school finance system in the 2003-05 biennial state budget. In his speech, he called for the formation of a Governors Task Force on Education Financing. "This is too important of an issue to squeeze it into a budget proposal or devise a new plan in just a few weeks. To do it right we need to do two things. First, all views must be represented: parents, taxpayers, teachers, community leaders, urban districts, rural districts, wealthy areas, poorer areas," he said. The governor said the process would involve meetings that are "open, in full view of the public," in contrast to last year's closed meetings. AEF will be actively involved in these meetings, and we'll need to count on your involvement as well. This approach seems to be the same pattern followed by former Governor Pat Lucey when he appointed Ruth Doyle (Governor Doyle's mother) to head a school finance task force that called for full property tax base equalization. School finance reform is definitely on the table. Accordingly I would urge you to continue to discuss your school finance concerns with your legislators. At some point soon they will be forced to make some major decisions on the future of our system. Please call if I can help you in any way. Understanding the School Levy Tax Credit As Wisconsin taxpayers review their property tax bills, they need to pay attention to this line on their statements: School Levy Tax Credit. Don't be confused by the name: You'll never see this money and neither will your schools. It's just one more way that Wisconsin's school finance system cheats those who really need help. The school levy tax credit is a property tax relief program that is shown on the individual property tax bill as a reduction from the taxpayer's gross tax liability. The amount of the credit paid to a municipality is based on the municipality's share of a three-year average of the total statewide school levy. Each municipality's total credit is divided by the total value of the municipality's taxable property to determine a rate, which is applied to the individual tax bill. Suffice it to say that the credit is counted as part of the state's school aid payment even though it is paid to municipalities and not school districts. But as long as it is counted as school aid it should be evaluated that way. Last year the school levy credit per pupil varied from $174 to $2,432 per pupil, and the average amount was $540. The credit in 33 districts was less than $300 per pupil while it exceeded $1,200 per pupil in 32 districts. What's wrong here is that the state school finance system is intended to provide assistance to those who need it most, such as school districts in farmland, forested areas or urban areas with little property tax base. The school levy credit works in the opposite manner and provides the largest per pupil amounts where property values are the highest. Of the 33 districts where the credit is less than $300 per pupil the property values range from about $129,000 to $211,000 per pupil or 40-65% of the state average of about $325,000. On the other hand, the credits of $1,200 to $2,432 per pupil go to taxpayers in districts where the property wealth ranges from about $565,000 to $3,150,000 per pupil or 174-969% of the state average. It is clear that our school finance system favors some children and some taxpayers over others. Making the school levy credit serve all school districts fairly should be among Governor Doyle's top priorities. Examining Equity: How to Evaluate School Funding Plans In order to make sense out of the various school finance proposals that have been surfacing it is important to keep some of the following questions in mind: Does it recognize the problem? Wisconsin's Constitution calls "...for the establishment of district schools which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable..." Disequalizing factors in our school finance system continue to increase and it is difficult to understand how children can receive an equal educational opportunity for a sound basic education when districts are becoming less uniform. Does it address disequal elements in the current system, such as special payments? Does it address educational needs required in the State Educational Standard? AEF believes there are three main reasons why the schools are not uniform:
The reason that AEF has been striving for the past decade to change the school aid formula is to provide equal access to state and local revenues taking into account children with special needs, those who are economically disadvantaged, and those with limited English language skills. When examining other proposals, it is important to evaluate the impetus behind the particular proposal. Does the proposal simply say that the current system isn't working or does it offer an explanation of what is wrong with it? Does the proposal recognize the inequities and disparities that exist today? For instance, does the explanation of the problem include reference to the varying abilities of districts to raise local revenue due to the disparities in tax base? Does it recognize that some districts have to exert more tax effort to spend the same or less than others due to their lower property values? Do the recommended changes address the existing inequities caused by varying property values or does it simply cite too heavy reliance on property taxes as the issue? While many would embrace the idea of lowering property taxes, it must be considered that ANY continued reliance on property taxes calls for leveling the playing field. To the extent that local taxpayers and children need to rely on property taxes to fund any portion of their schools, the disparities across school districts, unless equalized for all levels of spending, create instant losers. It should be considered that many taxpayers and children in poorer districts have been "losers" for many years. Does the proposal do anything to provide more equitable access to resources across districts? Does it do anything to reduce the existing disparities between spending and tax effort? A proposal that does address the issue of equal taxing for equal spending will naturally suggest making changes in the distribution of state funds. That means that there will be "winners" and "losers." The only way that any proposed change can guarantee that there will be no losers is to put in lots of additional money. Without adding that new money or sustaining it over time, shifts in state aid and local levies will naturally occur. Any change in the system short of introducing enough new money to fund the highest spenders and/or lowest taxers contains winners and losers. Since that level of funding is not likely, there have been and will continue to be winners and losers. The real question is, are those who have been losing all along(in terms of equity) going to continue to be the losers? Finally, some will want to know if the plan is simple enough for people to understand it. No matter what system of funding schools is in place there will be those who will say that it is complicated. The subject of school funding is just not everybody's "cup of tea." In addition, it has to be recognized that some level of sophistication is necessary if a system is to take into account the variables that it needs to. For instance, starting from the premise that there will be some continued reliance on the combination of state aid and property taxes, the concepts of equalized valuation, mill rates and state/local shared costs automatically come into play. Add to that the three categories of student needs defined by the Supreme Court and another dimension is added to the mix. Now, consider each districtÕs spending, tax base, number of pupils and pupil needs, and it gets further complicated. Regardless of the type of plan, equalization or foundation, all of these dimensions will be components of the system. The result is likely to be confusing to those not working with it intimately. While there is no simple solution, and to pretend so is to present a picture that is too good to be true, the PDF document below should help those who live in your districts understand the differences in the proposals. |
