EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Association for Equity in Funding, UA (AEF) is a group of state school districts that seeks financial equity in the state system of school financing. The members include large, urban districts such as Milwaukee, Green Bay, Racine and Beloit, as well as small, rural districts, such as Abbotsford, Bowler, Luck and Wauzeka-Steuben.
The two issues that brought this group together and have kept it together are the wide differences in the amount school districts were able to invest in the education of their children and the even wider differences in the property tax burden to pay for that investment. This 2006 Legislative Proposal addresses those issues.
In 2000, the State Supreme Court established an educational standard which provides:
- ìWisconsin students have a fundamental right to an equal opportunity to a sound basic educationÖthat will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally.î
The Court also specified courses to be provided and required that ìÖdistricts with disproportionate numbers of disabled students, economically disadvantaged students, and students with limited English language skillsÖî be taken into account. The effect of this decision is to demand that the legislature revise our school finance system to assure that every child has an equal educational opportunity.
The obvious question is, what has been the result of the standard? The answers are disappointing. In absolute terms, Table 1 shows that the spending gap has widened since 1993-94 (first year of revenue limits). By 2005-06 the amount spent in the highest spending district had increased by $7,812 per pupil, while the increase in the lowest spending district was only $3,569. Relatively, things are about the same as the lowest spending district in 2005-06 spent 43% of the amount spent in the highest spending district, 2% more than 12 years ago.
During the same period school tax burden differences have widened relatively. While school property tax rates declined when the state increased its aid levels, the formula distortions which accompanied the aid increase helped to keep the tax burden differences from narrowing. In 2005, K-12 property tax rates per thousand dollars of valuation ranged from $2.46 to $14.01 and the average was $8.63.
The bottom line is that in the past 12 years the tax rate in the lowest taxing district has declined 59%, or 7% more than the state average. And the highest taxing district now pays a tax rate of 570% of the lowest, up from 505% eleven years ago (see Table 2).
Table 1: School District Exenditures Changes from 1993-94 to 2005-06
Source: School Facts 06 by Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance |
|
1993-94 |
2005-06 |
1993-94 to 2005-06 Increase |
Increase as % of Average |
| Highest per Pupil |
$11,619 |
$19,431 |
$7,812 |
194%
|
| Lowest per Pupil |
$4,758 |
$8,327 |
$3,569 |
89% |
| Average per Pupil |
$6,681 |
$10,704 |
$4,023 |
100% |
| Lowest as % of Highest |
41% |
43% |
|
|
Table 2: School Property Tax Rates
Source: School Facts 06 by Wisconsin
Taxpayers Alliance |
|
1993-94 |
2004-05 |
% Change |
| Highest |
$30.00/M |
$14.01/M |
-53% |
| Lowest |
$5.94/M |
$2.46/M |
-59% |
| Average |
$17.91/M |
$8.63/M |
-52% |
Highest as %
of Lowest |
505% |
570% |
|
Concerning the three student populations with additional educational needs to be taken into account, more litigation may be coming.
Data produced with the 2005-07 state budget shows that:
A. Since 1991-92 special education costs per pupil are expected to increase $4,441 while per pupil aids have decreased $33.
B. In the last fifteen years the per pupil aid for English Language Learners has been cut by more than half.
C. The per pupil grant for the SAGE program has never been increased. No grade 4-12 program exists for economically disadvantaged students.
D. Revenue limits make no allowance for the categorically unaided costs incurred by school districts in addressing additional educational needs.
How does such a system take the additional educational needs into account?
In summary, little has changed. We continue to have a school funding system that does not provide an equal educational opportunity for our children; does not meet the additional needs of the three student populations identified in our standard; and does not provide a fair and equitable school tax burden for property owners.
Regardless of the level of state aid, the continued reliance on local wealth means property-poor districts must continue to tax their residents at higher rates to obtain the same dollar amount for each pupil. Disequalizing state aid payments continue to increase.
Many school districts have disproportionately high numbers of children who need additional help such as children with disabilities, children from backgrounds of poverty or children of limited English proficiency. The 2000 Supreme Court decision requires that the legislature take these children and districts into account in our school finance system. To date, the needs of these populations have not been well or completely addressed.
In recognition of the continuing financial disparities among school districts and taxpayers along with the legislatureís failure to address the elements of our standard AEF will continue its effort to improve our school finance system. This legislative proposal will attempt to accomplish the following two general goals in the school finance system:
(1) 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; and
(2) additional funds to meet the additional needs of the three student populations cited in our standard on a continuing basis which takes account of the cost of serving those populations and inflation.
It is imperative that the current inequities be addressed so that all school districts in our state have the resources to provide an equal opportunity for a sound, basic education for their children. AEF believes that everyone in the state of Wisconsin ó those who know the importance of a good education as well as those who believe in fiscal responsibility ó will understand that these changes are appropriate and equitable for our children and taxpayers.
Back to TopÝ
Ý
