Today's Blog: LAST CHANCE - 8th CD candidate forum, next Tuesday Right here in river city – close by and hundreds of parking plac...(more) Search Archives

Blogs

LAST CHANCE - 8th CD candidate forum, next Tuesday (9/2/2010)

When a guy gets his hands on more tax dollars…. (9/1/2010)

How many times can you say 'small business?' (8/31/2010)

A Constitutional government depends on you and me (8/30/2010)

That last $million or two is the toughest (8/27/2010)

The left just can’t stop hacking away at Johnson (8/26/2010)

Vote Your Values! Voter’s Guide for September 14 now available (8/25/2010)

(more)

• The Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES)
• The Institute for Wisconsin’s Future
• The latest entrant, as imperious-sounding as the rest, The Wisconsin Way, wanting to create “a more fair and equitable funding system that promotes excellence in education and public service.”
• The School Finance Network includes school board members, principals and superintendents, teachers unions, WAES and the state PTA.
• UW’s Consortium for Policy Research in Education (UW CPRE). (Their report “Moving from Good to Great in Wisconsin: Funding Schools Adequately and Doubling Student Performance” opens with a Michelangelo quote: “The greatest danger for most of us is not that we aim too high and fall short, but that we aim too low and achieve our mark.” Profound.)

In the last corner stands unwary, defenseless taxpayers. James Wigderson does an excellent job detailing the lay of the land. As James subtitles it “Tax Shift means taxpayers get the shaft.” He is right on in detailing Senate Joint Resolution 27 which would require a change (though no specific change…) in the school funding formula by July, 2009. James speaks of WAES’ “adequacy” in school funding and weaves in his worries about the goals of The Wisconsin Way – a coalition of odd bedfellows. Patrick McIlheran also exposes the dangers of the school change crowd.

In one big study last winter, UW “adequacy” consultant Allan Odden [CPRE] tried to quantify how many tutors schools should have per child, how many secretaries, how much technology. His conclusion: We need to spend 9% more.

Then there’s the study by Jones’ group [WAES]. It called for 32% more.

And how to finance all this extra “adequacy?” John Smart has lots of suggestions:

Most of our school districts are dealing with declining enrollments and rising school costs that cannot continue to be carried on the backs of property taxpayers…. It was pointed out that corporations pay a decreasing percentage of the state tax burden…. Business taxes should be re-examined…

…Our 5% [sales tax] rate is lower than that in most of the surrounding states…Maybe some products and services currently exempted from sales tax should be added to the list – like hair salons and pet groomers perhaps.

Both Dems and Republican legislators can be found that support the need for change in the funding formula. But “the need for change” isn’t the same thing as throwing more money at our schools. The problem is that any change in the school funding formula for whatever reason will create winners and losers. And in order to get enough votes for change, it will cost big bucks to buy off the losers. Your bucks and my bucks.

Mr. Smart again: 

It is clear to everyone – or it certainly should be – that our schools are a priority, and that the funding mechanism in place for them is woefully inadequate and frequently downright unfair.” 

Well, it’s not at all clear to me – absolutely not clear that any education solution involves more money. Nevertheless, the drumbeat of a growing number of special interest groups will continue to tell us otherwise.

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend