Email bhaig@execpc.com to receive every new issue.  In this issue:

• State Budget Action Disappointing - Bill Vincent
• Setting the Stage - Doug Haselow
• Interpreting Wisconsin's New Educational Standard - Doug Haselow
• Guaranteeing Equal Educational Opportunity Through Wisconsin's Educational Standard - Karen Drazkowski

State Budget Action Disappointing

Bill Vincent, AEF Steering Committee Chair

The recently enacted state budget was a series of disappointments despite AEF efforts and strong bipartisan support for AEF proposals.  "Wisconsin may 'win the prize' of having the worst state budget mess," according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  The most common criticism in the Washington-based report was the absence of a long-term perspective.

The state budget staff failed to address Wisconsin's new educational standard in preparation of the executive budget.  And the same staff failed (refused) to address the standard in subsequent presentations to the legislative committees on education and finance.

Discussions with individual legislators showed bipartisan support for AEF proposals to address the standard (click to see LRB2360/2) and willingness to incorporate those provisions in the budget during the legislative process.  Democratic Senator Brian Burke and Republican Assembly Representative Tom Sykora took the lead in their respective houses; and they deserve our thanks for their efforts.

Throughout the budget process, however, projections of future revenues continued to decline.  And in the end we have a biennial budget which maintains K4 and SAGE funding, but does little to reduce inequities among districts.  Even worse, this budget does nothing to provide for special education, limited English proficiency or revenue limit flexibility.

Many have already acknowledged that the next state budget must address the school finance system in a comprehensive manner.  But for many of our districts the real question is whether we can wait that long.(r)

Back to top

Setting the Stage

Doug Haselow, AEF Executive Director

I think there is good reason to believe continued efforts toward school finance equity will be productive.  AEF's legislative proposal continues to receive strong bipartisan support, and other legislators are developing a constitutional amendment to assure equal educational opportunities for children.   

We are working on many fronts.  In August, the AEF steering committee met for the first time with State Superintendent of Public Instruction Elizabeth Burmaster for the purpose of discussing the meaning of Wisconsin's new educational standard.  We later shared with Superintendent Burmaster our interpretation of the court-defined state standard.  Her comments on the standard are included as an insert. 

Through many letters to the editor, contact with reporters and frequent meetings with lawmakers and decision-makers around the state, AEF is working to focus attention on the issue of school finance as a matter of utmost importance to the future of Wisconsin.  We've found that many politicians and candidates are anxious to talk about the issue, but we're concentrating on the public policy aspect rather than let it deteriorate into another item of partisan political bickering. 

The leadership provided by Ms. Burmaster is critically important as she is the chief education nonpartisan elected official in the state.

Please contact me if I can help you or others in your school community get more involved in this complicated issue.(r)

Back to top

Interpreting Wisconsin's New Educational Standard

Doug Haselow, AEF Executive Director

1.  In setting our new educational standard the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that every child has a fundamental right to an "....equal opportunity for a sound basic education."

AEF believes this should mean:  The school finance system should provide equal access to state and local revenues for all districts so that the cost of money to invest in K-12 education is the same for all children in all districts.

2.  In defining a sound basic education the Court said it is one "....that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally."

‡          Section 118.30 (1g) (a) 1 of the statutes requires that every school district adopt pupil academic standards in mathematics, science, reading and writing, geography and history;      

‡         Section 121.02 (1) (L) 1 provides that in the elementary grades, districts must provide regular instruction in reading, language arts, social studies, mathematics, science, health, physical education, art and music. 

‡          Section 121.02 (1) (L) 2 provides that in grades 5-8, districts must provide regular instruction in language arts, social studies, mathematics, science, health, physical education, art and music along with an introduction to career exploration and planning.

‡         Section 121.02 (1) (L) 3 provides that in grades 9-12, districts must provide access to an educational program that enables pupils each year to study English, social studies, mathematics, science, vocational education, foreign language, physical education, art and music.

‡         Section 121.02 (1) (L) 4 provides that the social studies curriculum include instruction in the history, culture and tribal sovereignty of the federally recognized American Indian tribes located in Wisconsin.

‡         Section 121.02 (1) (L) 5 requires districts to provide instruction in foreign language in grades 7 & 8.

AEF believes this should mean: The quality and duration of these educational programs must be comprehensive enough to equip students for their roles as personally and economically successful adult members of our society.   Funds must be made available to all school districts to assure that the quality of educational programs meets the standard for every child every year.

3.  The Court said that our school finance system must be one which "....takes into account districts with disproportionate numbers of disabled students...."

AEF believes this should mean: The Court has recognized that disabled students at all grade levels have greater needs and force school districts to incur greater costs to meet those needs.  The school finance system must provide additional funding to meet those needs and cover those additional costs for every disabled child every year.

4.  The Court also said that our school finance system must be one which  "....takes into account districts with disproportionate numbers of ... economically disadvantaged students."

AEF believes this should mean: The Court has recognized that economically disadvantaged students at all grade levels are likely to need more assistance and support in order to succeed in school.  School districts must incur greater costs to provide that additional assistance and support.  The school finance system must provide additional funding to cover the additional costs of that assistance and support for every economically disadvantaged student every year. 

5.  The Court also said that our school finance system must be one which  "....takes into account districts with disproportionate numbers of ... students with limited English language skills."

AEF believes this should mean: The Court has recognized that students with limited English language skills at all grade levels need additional assistance and support in order to learn all subjects and succeed in school.  School districts must incur greater costs that additional assistance and support.  The school finance system must provide additional funding to cover the additional costs of that assistance and support for every student whose English proficiency is limited every year.

6.  The Court concluded our new educational standard by saying  "So long as the legislature is providing sufficient resources ... the state school finance system will pass constitutional muster." 

AEF believes this should mean: The Court intends that funds made available to school districts must be sufficient to provide all of our children with a sound basic education to equip them for their roles as personally and economically successful adults in our society.  Funds must also be available to meet the additional needs of the three populations the Court identified as likely to need additional help in order to succeed in school.  Both types of funds must be increased annually as the costs and needs increase.(r)

Back to top

Guaranteeing Equal Educational Opportunity Through Wisconsin's Education Standard

Karen Drazkowski, AEF Steering Committee - West Salem Schools

In Vincent vs. Voigt, the Wisconsin Supreme Court set the educational standard for Wisconsin, ruling:  "Wisconsin students have a FUNDAMENTAL right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education. . . An equal opportunity for a sound basic education acknowledges that students and districts are not fungible and takes into account districts with disproportionate numbers of disabled students, economically disadvantaged students, and students with limited English Language skills."  (emphasis added) 

Wisconsin's school finance system depends on property taxes, and due to the disparities in property wealth, some school districts find it difficult to provide that equal opportunity for a sound basic education.  To make matters worse, taxpayers do not pay the same equal tax rates. 

For example, the 1999-2000 issue of Basic Facts indicates that Gibraltar was able to raise $10,350 per pupil, but had to levy a property tax rate of only $3.51 per thousand of valuation.  At the same time, Peshtigo had to levy a tax rate nearly three times as high ($10.31.M) in order to raise only 3/4's ($7,731) as much for the education of its children.

While such a variation is tolerable for purely local functions, it is never appropriate for a state function.  Consider the other school system for which the state is responsible the University of Wisconsin.  We would never tolerate a state university system that required a student from Peshtigo to pay three times the tuition as a student from Gibraltar, and invest only 75% as much to educate that student from Peshtigo.  Yet, that is the direct result of our present K-12 school finance system.

Because of the strong history of local control and the belief that local control is tied to property tax based school finance, an equitable and equal system is a constant target that Wisconsin has not yet met.  This system would provide equal access to state and local revenues by requiring that the property tax rate be directly and proportionately related to the amount of state and local funds invested to educate a child, no matter where that child lives. 

Such a school finance system (which provides equal access to state and local revenues) would fulfill our constitutional responsibility to provide all of our children with an equal opportunity for a sound basic education that will equip them for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally.  And it would retain local control.

In setting our new educational standard, the Wisconsin Supreme Court also identified the three special populations that are likely to need additional funds to receive a sound basic education.  While the Court merely required that they be taken into account, in our proposed school finance system, it is clear that additional funds would be necessary. 

The most appropriate way to provide those additional funds would be by adding those funds to the base on which the school finance system is built, as this would assure an annual increase in those funds.