|
|
|
|
Click Here For Equity News Archives Email bhaig@execpc.com to receive every new issue. In this issue:
Survey to Spark Gubernatorial Discussion The state budget crunch will continue and the long-term resolution may put more pressure on local property taxes to fund public schools. If so, this would make property tax base equalization more important than ever. During the gubernatorial campaign, AEF is working to raise the visibility of equity issues. We have contacted the major candidates -- Scott McCallum, Tom Barrett, Jim Doyle, Kathleen Falk, Gary George and Ed Thompson -- to determine their positions on the specific school finance issues, and we will publish their responses. The candidates' thoughts on equity topics will be made public in August, which should create more public interest in the need for an equitable school finance system before the November election is held. In the meantime, I encourage you to stay aware of the issues in all state races and discuss the issues at all opportunities. No matter who wins, we want all the candidates to know about the need for equity for children and taxpayers. Later in this newsletter you'll read about another initiative to increase awareness of equity issues: AEF has completed development of a PowerPoint presentation to help educate Wisconsin citizens about who we are and what we're trying to accomplish. The presentation chronicles the history of school financing inequities and how they hurt students and treat taxpayers unfairly. It also lays a sound factual foundation for the reforms we all know need to be made and are working so hard to achieve. The PowerPoint presentation will be made available, free of charge, to every school administrator in every member district -- as well as anyone else who requests it. Budget Talks Highlight Equity Concerns It is clear that our school finance system will be revised in the 2003 legislative session. Even though the media doesn't generally report on it -- with all the other scandals going on -- there's still a good deal of activity.
At the same time several groups are looking at potential new litigation based on the premise that the current finance system does not provide the equal opportunity required and does not take additional student needs into account. A recent North Carolina case found that children at risk of not graduating were not receiving an equal opportunity to a sound basic education. Wisconsin has a statutory definition of children at risk, but our court did not identify that population as one that must be taken into account. For public school finance, the issues affecting 2002-03 seem to be settled -- but it's not over. A state budget to address the deficit has not yet been adopted, and it is apparent that the hard decisions will be put off until next session, after the November elections. We expect that the budget when it is adopted will maintain the current structure of school finance, revenue limits, QEO and 2/3 funding after a fashion. Anticipated changes include:
The next step is following the campaigns for governor, 17 state senators and 99 Assembly representatives. AEF will make the need for a more fair and equitable school finance system more visible than ever before. Our focus will be on broadening political support so that it will be difficult for candidates to ignore the issue in the campaign. This should make it easier for them to support major revisions once they are in office. Our actions will include reaching out to include more districts as AEF members, more media contact, more assistance for members in explaining the issues, and soliciting commitments from Gubernatorial candidates on various elements of a fair and equitable school finance system which would meet our new standard. A new tool to help educate citizens about equity in education issues is now available to AEF members and others who are interested in the AEF cause. The PowerPoint presentation called "Equity for Children and Taxpayers" presents information on:
The PowerPoint includes detailed notes for each slide to help presenters make effective presentations to school boards, parent groups, school and community organizations, and other audiences. The presentation is designed to help AEF achieve its goal to educate every Wisconsin parent, taxpayer, and lawmaker about equity in school financing issues. The PowerPoint can be downloaded by clicking here. To request a copy of the presentation on paper or overhead transparencies -- or if you would like an AEF Steering Committee member to make a presentation in your district -- contact Doug Haselow at 866-781-8332 or dhaselow@aol.com IWF Report Shows Disparity in Adequacy For the past three years the Institute for Wisconsin's Future has been working on a school finance system that bases district funding on the amount needed to provide the resources to educate every child. Now it has a study that evaluates this adequacy model. The IWF proposal is based on Wisconsin's new educational standard, which assures every child an equal opportunity to a sound basic education which will enable them to become personally and economically successful. It takes into account the additional student needs of disabled, economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient students, as the Wisconsin Supreme Court requires. The proposal also includes a rural school factor intended to address diseconomies of scale in sparsely populated areas. In a June 2002 report, IWF found that the average Wisconsin school district is living on only 75.3% of the per pupil revenue needed to provide an adequate educational program for all children. While many individuals would readily acknowledge that some districts do not have sufficient funds to provide all of the educational programs they would like to provide, most observers were surprised by the wide variation in the funding levels of districts reported by IWF. The ratio of actual per pupil revenues to the amount needed to provide an adequate educational program varied from a low of 60% ($5770/$9571) to a high of 130% ($12,350/$9495). Of those two districts, the one with the greatest need ($9571 to $9495) has only 46.7% ($5770/$12,350) of the revenue available to the one with the lesser need. Some 42 districts now make do with less than 70% of an adequate amount, while 21 districts currently enjoy 100% or more. See the Table below:
While this wide variation alone is sufficient to require prompt legislative action, any related consideration of fair property tax burdens makes the need for revision of our school finance system an urgent matter. Last year, school property tax rates per thousand dollars of valuation varied from a low of $3.16 in Gibraltar to a high of $16.08 in Norwalk-Ontario-Wilton. For $3.16/M, Gibraltar taxpayers got $11,139 per pupil or 99% of the adequate amount, but Norwalk-Ontario-Wilton taxpayers got only $6,909 per pupil or 64% of the adequate amount. How can anyone justify a school finance system where one district levies a property tax rate more than 5 times as high as another and still raises less money to invest in the education of its children? |
