Wisconsin State Senator Robert Jauch speaks for a motion before the Joint Committee on Finance during its May 27, 2011 meeting. The motion seeks to address the increased inequality within Wisconsin's education funding which would result from Governor Walker's proposed budget.
Thank you.
This motion gives us an opportunity to talk about our moral and constitutional obligation to provide equal education for every child in the state of Wisconsin. And I think that one thing that should not be argued at all is that both the reduction in aids—the $850 million reduction in aids, the $890 million reduction in levy limits—is going to result in an educational system that provides less opportunity and is less equal than the one before it, and that it is moving away from that constitutional responsibility we have to every child. It says:
In order to provide reasonable equality of educational opportunity for all children the state must guarantee that basic educational opportunity be available to each pupil, with the state contributing to a district's educational program if... [it] meets state standards.
The standards will remain in place the dollars will not. And we will have those school districts unfortunately that are the least-spending school districts that are the most adversely impacted. One would think, under the rhetoric and the way the governor is treating public education in this budget, is that public education is public enemy number 1 instead of public envy number 1. Our public schools are the reason that Wisconsin is recognized as a state that is committed to its future. Education is the way in which we commit to the promise of our future: our children. And as a result of this budget, it is going to be less equal, less opportunity, and the poor are going to fall further behind.
Much is said again about, by Governor Walker, that he was going to provide the tools to school districts that would make up the difference for the cuts that he was making in general aids. He wasn't telling the truth. He was using bad math. He was deceiving people. He was hiding the fact that there is going to be a gap that school districts are going to have that they can't make up, forcing them to make additional cuts. The ones that are making the cuts are those that have been making the cuts all along.
But there's a huge inequity that I want to point out. Just from the Governor's proposal that's not being addressed in the Republican motion. One would think that there was shared sacrifice by all communities in this budget. You look at the Governor's budget: I have an example of three communities, three school districts that will see increases in their state aids, not decreases. I don't have any districts in northern Wisconsin that see increases, they all take deep cuts. So here are three that have increases: Mequon-Thiensville, Nicolet, and Pewaukee. Good school districts no doubt. Mequon: 3.2% increase, Ashland: 6.4% decrease. The equalized property value per pupil in Mequon is $1,300,000, it's $1,316,092. The equalized value in Ashland, Wisconsin is $299,582. In other words, there will be more money in this formula going to a community that has property value worth five, four times what is available for the citizens in Ashland. I want to hear the argument as to why that meets our state constitution's expectation, requirement that there be equal education opportunity between every child. Nicolet: 2.9% increase. Nicolet's equalized value is $3,729,000. Rice Lake: Rice Lake's decrease is 10.2%. Their equalized value is 596,000. Nicolet has almost six times the property value. They're getting an increase in their state aid, Rice Lake is seeing a decrease. Pewaukee: 7.4% increase. They have $1,114,000. Superior, which you visited is seeing a 10.2% cut, $404,000 equalized value.
In other words, these statistics reveal how there is prosperity for the wealthiest and sacrifice for the poorest, and that we become less equal as a state. Matter of fact, I'm beginning to wonder the state we live in today. Wisconsin has always been a progressive state. Not a red-blue state but a state that has supported the values of the citizens of Wisconsin, and that means that they favor equal opportunity. They don't want to build walls around rich communities and disparity for opportunity for those communities and then disparity for poor communities. We have an equalization formula that is established to try to balance state funding for those poor schools, so they don't fall further behind. So the fact of the matter is that this formula widens the gap between the rich and the poor. It makes it more difficult for those who have been struggling all along to be able to have a chance to provide their children an equal opportunity with those that live within the wealthiest communities that have been spending more money.
Now, as part of a history lesson, go back to 1995 when revenue was... I think it was '95 when revenue controls were put into place. When revenue controls were put into place, you did have a gap between the rich and the poor. Matter of fact, I think it was Nicolet that was spending about 10,000 per student and Rice Lake was spending around 5,000 or 4,000-5,000. They were spending substantially less. When the revenue controls were implemented Nicolet was a allowed the choice between a cost-of-living or $140. Nicolet was able to increase their child by $310, Rice Lake could only increase their spending per kid by 140. In other words, revenue control said a child in Nicolet was worth more than a child in Rice Lake. That gap was created, that disparity was established in 1995 or four when revenue controls went into place, and that gap is now widening even further. That means that a community that has wealth has a chance to invest. Sort of the policy of the state where the child in the poor district is treated like Raggedy Ann and the child in a poor [sic] district is a fashion model. It's not fair, and this budget is going to make it worse. The paper points out that when there is less money put into public K-12 education, two things happen. This budget reduces state aid down to about 61%—is that the—Fiscal bureau?—we were once at 66%? We were once at 66% and this budget's what, now going down to about, reducing down to 61? And last year was about 62? So anyway, it's going the wrong direction. It's going in the direction where the state is committing less dollars to public education, local property taxpayers are picking up more, which burdens the poorer communities because they are less able. What this budget is doing is forcing poor people to have to dig deeper into their pockets to raise their own property taxes.
We could go—I talked about South Shore, I think it was a week ago. I mentioned to you that South Shore was facing a referendum because they were looking at dissolution as a result of this budget. They voted 7-1 to increase their property taxes. They were forced into voting to raise their property taxes because they value education and they know the state of Wisconsin, this legislature and governor, does not. So they were forced to go through a fight to save their schools because this legislature doesn't have the commitment to save the schools. There are going to more school districts around this state that are facing dissolution, where they're carved up by someone in Madison because they can't get to consolidation. And a lot of those are going to happen up in rural Wisconsin, where you'll lose your identity, you'll lose your sense of who you are. You lose your community. When a community loses its school it loses its centerpiece. And this budget treats schools as though they are the cause of our problems in this state. At the same time it celebrates private education as though Wisconsin will triumph if a few parents have a few more choices for themselves while we deny the rest of the parents the chance to have equal opportunity for education. So what this... The point that I'm trying to make is to remind us of the history lesson that the less money the state puts into K-12 education the more likely you are going to face a constitutional challenge when you have a real Supreme Court. A constitutional challenge: when the Supreme Court made its decision in Vincent vs Voight the Supreme Court said:
the present school finance system more effectively equalizes the tax base among districts... [than the previous school finance decision of the court] Kukor [vs Grover].
The court noted this was due to the significant increase in state function in the time between the two decisions. In other words, they hung their hat on that decision. On the basis that the state of Wisconsin was putting more money into education. Try to have that decision today where the state of Wisconsin is cutting money to education, and the gap between rich and poor is widening even more. So the fact of the matter is that this budget is abandoning our commitment to public education. It is going to be harder for kids to have the chance to get an equal education. It is wrong for us to treat the parents and the taxpayers of the state who live in those districts who've been spending less to accept that.
No comments:
Post a Comment