Barrett:

As stated above, I support a system of accountability for school districts and schools that includes a state assessment system that measures student attainment of academic standards and a local and state report of test results. In addition, under current law, all public school districts are required to meet school district standards that require, as examples, that all students have access to foreign language courses and that school facilities be safe and healthful. These standards have promoted a more "level playing field" for Wisconsin students but have not been reviewed by the Legislature for many years. DPI does not routinely monitor compliance with the standards, but it does hold a public hearing and audit a school district's compliance if requested to do so. I support retaining a set of school district standards in law, but a review of these standards, as well as the administrative rules that interpret them, is overdue.

However, also relevant to this question is the adequacy of Wisconsin's educational funding. School districts must have sufficient resources to provide all of these educational opportunities. I support maintaining the stateÕs commitment to pay 2/3 of public school costs. Even though the state has met its 2/3 commitment for several years, many school districts are now struggling to offer the "equal opportunity for a sound basic education" articulated by the Court. They are stymied by revenue limits, which strictly limit the amount of state general aids and property taxes a school district may spend. The revenue limits are reported to have caused many school districts to reduce or eliminate extra-curricular activities, cut back on textbook purchases, delay or cancel purchasing and defer building maintenance. Throughout the state, educational programs have been downsized or cut and educational improvements such as smaller class sizes postponed. While districts may exceed the limits if approved by local referendum, many hard-fought efforts to pass referenda fail. A property-poor district may find it harder than a property-rich district to pass a referendum. However, comparatively wealthy school districts are suffering under the limits. Districts with declining enrollments are under the most stress, with some officials warning that districts will have to shut down altogether unless they receive relief. Another concern with revenue limits is that they have "frozen in" spending disparities among school districts, thus making it almost impossible to achieve greater equality of spending for each student.

As Governor, I would propose to "fix" the revenue limits and fix them soon. If the state must have a program to restrain school spending, the system must be more flexible and it must take into account the unique circumstances and needs of large, small, urban and rural school districts.

Doyle:

The largest obstacles to students having educational opportunities are funding and quality teachers. By changing the school finance system to provide more equal support for each student, we will improve educational opportunities for students all across the state. We must also attract, train, and retain world-class educators by developing a broad base of well-trained, talented teachers as the foundation for our children's education.

Falk:

To achieve equity, we need to reform the funding formula as a whole; but we also need to make sure our public schools have the funding they need to provide these opportunities. That's why I have offered the reform plans to get our budget back in the black. Through my reform of our corrections system, which should save $143 million over four years; my proposal to increase the cigarette tax by 85 cents per pack, which would generate over $250 million a year in new revenue; and my economic plan, which is designed to create new jobs and raise wages across the state, I have proposed those reforms that will allow us to fund education in Wisconsin.

Barrett:

Disabled students: Currently, services for the state's students with disabilities are supported by special education aid, equalization aid and property tax revenues. However, only special education aid may be spent outside the revenue caps, and special education competes with regular education for the remaining funds. Special education aid was not increased in the 2001-03 budget. Federal funding for special education has increased recently, but districts still struggle financially to meet critical special and regular education needs, especially those districts with disproportionate numbers of students whose disabilities are severe. Increases in special education aid and a formula that provides greater state support for services to students with extreme disabilities should be considered for inclusion in Wisconsin's school funding system. I would also consider an aid formula (such as the one proposed by the Association for Equity in Funding) that would "weight" students with disabilities, but the formula would somehow have to prevent overidentification of students with disabilities or of disabilities themselves. Finally, as Governor, I would work with the state's Congressional delegation to press for more federal funding for special education.

Economically disadvantaged students: Many economically disadvantaged students also require extra educational services, such as preschool and smaller class sizes, to succeed in school. But the higher costs to educate these students are not recognized in the school aid formula's student count. That is, an economically disadvantaged student is counted the same as a "regular" student for purposes of school aid distribution. Several "categorical" aid programs--the P-5 program, SAGE and Head Start, for example-- assist districts meet economically disadvantaged students' needs. A district like Milwaukee, which educates tens of thousands of economically disadvantaged students, faces enormous challenges to meet all its students' needs. The state, as well as Milwaukee, must aggressively address the tragedy of low academic achievement and high dropout rates. And this will cost money. Many states "weigh" students from low-income families in their funding formulas to distribute more funds to districts with high numbers of children in poverty. Such weighting should be considered for inclusion in Wisconsin's school funding system.

Limited-English proficiency students: Finally, enrollments of students with limited-English proficiency (nearly 30,000) have rapidly increased in Wisconsin, creating a strain on school districts attempting to meet their educational needs. The state categorical aid program designed to assist districts educate high numbers of these students has been frozen at the same level for over a decade and now provides less than 20% reimbursement of costs. Thus, services for these students are financed largely by equalization aids and the property tax, reducing the availability of funding for other educational programs. Again, many states "weigh" students with limited-English proficiency in their funding formulas to distribute more funds to districts educating large numbers of these children. Such weighting should also be considered for inclusion in Wisconsin's school funding system. I support the Court's new educational standard and, as Governor, will propose funding changes and/or educational initiatives that help districts meet that standard.

Doyle:

As the Supreme Court noted, "students and districts are not fungible." Additional factors that must be financed separately are special education, English as a second language and low-income or disadvantaged students. A school district does not control which children enter through their doors and should not be penalized by having to serve one group of children at the expense of others. I believe that the quality of a child's education should not depend on where they live or what special needs they may have. I want to guarantee all Wisconsin students a quality education that is appropriate to their needs.

Falk:

To fund those programs mandated by the federal government, we need to continually fight for a fairer level of funding directed toward them. At the state level, we are restrained by our budget in what spending may be available; that is why I have proposed reforms of our priorities for the coming years, so that education comes before more prison spending.

Barrett:

It is not possible for the present school finance system to uniformly educate all children when some districts are able to invest much more money than others to educate their students. However, the state can make progress in providing more equitable educational opportunities for students by:

1. Adequately funding public schools. As stated previously, I support the state's commitment to pay 2/3 of public school costs.

2. To the extent possible, more closely connecting taxpayer burden to spending level (see response to question 5). If school districts that spend at the same rate must tax at the same rate, school district spending per student will likely be more uniform.

3. Modifying revenue limits to permit school districts, which spend the least per student to increase spending equivalent to the state average spending per student. When the revenue limits were imposed, school districts' revenue bases were "frozen." Since then, allowable increases per student each year apply to nearly all school districts, whether they are high spending or low spending.

4. Distributing state school aids and school levy credits based on school districts' "needs" (as measured by property wealth or poverty levels) rather than on, for example, levies.

5. Promoting school district efficiencies such as: providing incentives for school district collaboration (for example, in business services for small school districts); providing access to state health insurance plans; support of a state-wide distance learning network; standardized building plans and a statewide purchasing cooperative.

Doyle:

Currently, there is wide variation among Wisconsin school districts in how much they spend per child, ranging from less than $7,000 per student to more than $14,000. The variation in property taxes paid for schools is even greater. In some communities, taxpayers pay more than $15 per thousand of their property value for education, while in others taxpayers pay less than $4 per thousand of property value. I believe that the quality of a child's education should not depend on where they live. I want to guarantee all Wisconsin students a level of spending for a quality education that is appropriate to their needs, and ensure that the tax burden is fair.

Falk:

The current school finance system does not create an education system where all children have the access to a sound basic education they are afforded under the Court's decision. In order to move toward more equality in education funding, we must do two things... first, we must pass the reforms in other areas of our budget that free up funding for education; second, we must reform the existing school finance system to better reflect the inherent differences in cost and available funding for our many local school districts.