Hello, welcome everyone.
My name is Katie Bellinger and I am
part of the team working with Law
Forward on this case.
Before we dive in, I want to share
some quick background on the case,
the plaintiffs, and the structure of
today's press briefing.
Yesterday evening, a group of
students, parents, advocates,
educators, school districts, and
community members from across the
state filed suit against the
Wisconsin State Legislature and its
Joint Finance Committee.
For failing to adequately fund
public schools across Wisconsin.
The 19 plaintiffs led by the
Wisconsin PTA are asking the
court to hold the legislature
accountable for not meeting
its constitutionally mandated
obligation to provide all children
with an equal opportunity for
education.
The list of plaintiffs includes five
school districts from around the
state, four education unions.
Two statewide education advocacy
organizations, and eight
individuals, which includes
teachers, parents, students,
and community members.
Rosa will be dropping a
list of the plaintiffs in the chat.
The plaintiffs are represented by
the Madison-based non-profit Law
Forward in partnership with
Wisconsin Education Association
Council, or WEAC.
Today's press briefing, you're going
to hear more specifics
about the case from Jeff Mandel,
president and general counsel at Law
Forward.
You'll then hear from four people
who are directly involved in the
case, a parent, a teacher,
a superintendent, and a leader in
the Wisconsin PTA.
I'll introduce each person
individually before they speak.
After they do so, we'll have about
20 minutes for questions, and
then Jeff will close us out.
If you have any questions while Jeff
or other people are speaking, please
drop them in the Q&A box.
I will be moderating those questions
when we get to the Q& A section.
And so with that, I would now like
to introduce Jeff Mandel.
Jeff is the founder and now
president and general counsel of Law
Forward, a nonprofit legal advocacy
organization dedicated to defending
and advancing democracy in Wisconsin
through strategic litigation.
Under his leadership, Law Forward
has achieved major litigation
victories, including leading
the Clark v.
Wisconsin elections
commission challenge that helped
overturn extreme partisan
gerrymandered state legislative maps
and secure fairer districts used
in the 2024 elections,
held fake electors accountable for
attempts to overturn the 2020
presidential results, and pursued
ongoing challenges to
anti-competitive congressional maps.
And other efforts that protect
voting rights and ballot access.
Without further ado, I will turn it
over to Jeff.
Thanks, Katie, and thank you
all for coming and being here today.
This is a really exciting day,
and this is something that is
deeply felt and
deeply personal for many of
us.
I'm a child of a public school
educator.
I am a product of public schools.
Public schools are the cornerstone
of our democracy, and
we are so.
Proud and humbled to be
able to do this today.
I want to thank all of our
plaintiffs who are really
bravely, courageously
standing up for what is
right for students
and for Wisconsinites.
Our school districts and
our communities that we're
representing here, as
Katie outlined, it's a
cross section of these communities.
So we have two statewide
organizations and then we have five
school districts. And in each of
those districts, we also have
the local teachers union
and individual parents,
students, and educators.
Those districts, since I'm
sure all of you are eager to know,
our Adam's friendship.
Beloit, Eau Claire,
Green Bay, and Nacida.
And you're gonna get to hear from
some individuals from those places
as part of this briefing
so that you
can hear about how important
this is and what the story is.
I'd also like to thank
WEAC, who are our co-counsel
in this case, representing the
teachers unions and the teachers.
They're an important.
Part of this.
We filed last night in
the circuit court for Eau Claire
County, and the
case will proceed
This is a constitutional challenge
to the deficiency
of the state
public finance system
for our schools.
This is not a new problem.
This is problem that has been going
on for decades.
This is the problem that has come to
the Wisconsin courts in the past.
The most recent case was
Vincent V. Voigt in
the year 2000.
But in the 25 years since
then, things have gotten
considerably worse.
And we are at a point where for many
districts, as you'll
hear today, they
are on the verge of crisis.
The claims in this case are
all constitutional ones.
From the birth of our state,
we have valued as
a state public education.
Article 10 of our State Constitution
is about public schools.
Article 10, section three of
our Constitution expressly
makes it the obligation of the
legislature to create and
maintain public
schools around the state that
provide every student between
the ages of four and 20 in the
state of Wisconsin an equal
opportunity for a sound basic
education with a character of
instruction that's as uniform as
practicable.
That simply isn't happening.
Our courts have explained
that the purpose of that sound basic
education is to prepare
our young people to be
productive and active participants
in our society.
The funding that the state is
providing for schools is making
it impossible for school districts
to fully prepare those students.
It is not a
situation where things are
just a little bit problematic
and we are running to court.
This is a situation that, as I said,
has been going on for decades and
where despite the heroic efforts
of everyone involved,
from school boards
to district administrators,
to principals and school
administrators, to classroom
teachers, to support
staff, to students
and parents and
community members who volunteer.
Despite those heroic efforts,
it is just those heroic efforts in
fact that have held our schools
together as
long as they've made it under this
deficient funding.
But it's not enough.
These folks are not magicians.
They are not Rumpelstiltskin.
They cannot turn straw into gold.
And we do not have
what we need for our
schools to thrive.
So we're bringing six claims here.
Four of them are rooted in
Article 10, Section 3 of the state
constitution.
The first says that the finance
system is deficient
so that students across the
state are not getting
the opportunity that they are
guaranteed.
To a sound basic education.
The second of them says that the
finance system is deficient such
that students around the state are
not getting what they are guaranteed
by the constitution, which is an
education where the character of
instruction across the state is
as nearly uniform as practical.
The third claim,
also under Article 10, Section 3,
focuses on high students.
That is, as the Wisconsin
Supreme Court defined it in Vincent
V. Voigt.
That includes students with
disabilities, English language
learners, and students from
severe economic disadvantage.
So the third claim is that those
students under the
current finance system are not
getting their opportunity,
their equal opportunity for a sound
basic education.
The fourth claim, also under Article
10, Section 3, is about
the way that the state reimburses
schools.
For special education services,
which they are mandated by federal
and state law to provide.
The state specifically
and knowingly
under-funds and under-compensate
schools for those services so
that schools are constantly stuck
in this impossible decision
about whether to provide those
services that are mandated, by law,
and thereby pull money
away.
From the general education fund that
serves all students and
make sure that all students are
getting as much as they can get
toward their constitutionally
guaranteed education or
whether it should keep that money in
the general fund and thereby
violate the law in a
different way and underfund
special education.
We have two additional
constitutional claims.
One is with regard to those
high needs students and
how their guarantee
of equal protection under the law
is violated by
the deficient school
finance system that we have here in
Wisconsin.
Our state constitution guarantees
everyone equal protection of the
laws and yet our high need students
are not getting the
same protection and the same rights
that our other students are getting.
And the last claim is under our
maintenance of free government
clause.
Our constitution guarantees
that Wisconsin will
forever have a
free government.
And that as part of that, we will
look back to first principles.
There might be no clearer first
principle in the state of Wisconsin
than the importance of public
education, which was true
here and validated here
before statehood,
when we were part of the Northwest
Territory, through
the territorial government,
from our constitutional conventions
in the 1840s,
and then through our laws ever
since. We're not respecting
that today and we're asking the
court to hold the legislature
to its obligation and
its responsibilities and say that
what is happening here violates the
constitution.
With that, I'm going to
stop and pass it back to Katie so
that you can hear from some of our
brave plaintiffs about the issues
in their communities specifically.
Thanks so much.
Thank you, Jeff.
Our first speaker will be Shane
McDonough, who's a special education
teacher and parent in the Green Bay
Area Public School District.
Shane is also a plaintiff in the
case. Thank you for joining us
today, Shane.
Katie, thank you for that
introduction.
I would also like to thank everyone
who's in attendance today or
will be listening to this and
watching this at a later time and
date.
I'm a public educator.
I chose this vocation.
I have three children who are
in the public school system.
My eldest receives special
education services.
I would be remiss
if I didn't also recognize
that I was taught
in the Public Schools
here in the state of Wisconsin, and
I'm grateful for the education I
received.
I think What makes
me most proud to be an
educator and a parent and a member
of the community in Green Bay Area
Public School District is
our commitment to every child.
All means all in Green bay.
Despite the
increased challenges that we faced
as staff and as
families and as a community, I
take pride in knowing that
I've seen firsthand
how schools operate I've
seen firsthand how schools bravely
and honorably serve our students and
families every day.
I look at the
social and emotional needs of
our students, and
I would say that we have
done the best with what we've been
given, but there's
tremendous pressure and
there's tremendous need that's
currently in our
school district and beyond.
Another source of pride that I feel
in this community is found
in the teachers, the staff, the
administrators, the students that
show up every day and are
committed to helping one another to
succeed.
Schools today do far more than
deliver education or specialized
services.
Academics, they create a sense of
belonging, a sense a community.
I think that we must continue
to create and cultivate
safe spaces.
Where students are valued,
and this is something our community
should never take for granted.
Schools are gathering places as
well. They support working families,
they provide meals, mental health
services and supports, and
we host community events that
help shape responsible citizens in
the state of Wisconsin and beyond.
Strong schools strengthen local
economies, property values,
and community pride.
Even residents without school-aged
children benefit immensely from
a healthy public school system.
I look at the
situation in Green Bay
where we have had to consolidate and
close a number of our schools,
where we have had do
some staff consolidation
as well, and
looking at what's facing us
in the very near future.
It's a very present situation.
And
I felt a calling,
a need to speak out and advocate
for those in our community
who are our most fragile,
including my son.
I would also like to share
a moment with all of you
as a parent, not just an educator.
Having a child with special needs is
not easy. When we
rely upon our schools to provide
not only essential academics,
but social emotional learning
and providing them with the skills
necessary to be successful beyond
high school, I think
of vocational skill development.
For 10 years, I served as the work
experience coordinator here in Green
Bay, where I was out in the
community helping students with
special needs advance their
skills and lead to
permanent placement and lasting
careers and vocational skill
opportunities.
Believe that the budget
that we are facing is,
we're at a critical
point and I don't want to
sound overly dramatic or ominous.
I want to keep this hopeful and
positive, but I
felt compelled to join this
litigation and join this because
of what we face.
I think I don t want to be too or
both.
But if I have to be frank with
everyone.
If staff and services
are going to be cut, the loss
would be deeply felt.
Students who need consistency and
specialized attention would be
impacted first.
Larger caseloads and fewer supports
means less individualized
attention, fewer opportunities
for inclusion, and increased
stress for students and families and
staff.
These cuts don't just affect
academics.
They affect a child's sense of
belonging and long-term independence
and success.
I believe that it is time for
us to address the needs
that exist in our public schools,
and I want to thank you for your
time.
Shane, thank you so much for
your incredibly heartfelt and
moving remarks and for
sharing your perspective with all of
us.
Our next speaker will be Tanya
Kotlowski, who is the superintendent
for the Necedah Area School
District, one of the five school
districts that have brought this
case against the state.
Thank you for joining us today,
Superintendent Kotlowsky.
And you are on mute.
I am China Katlowski and it is
a humble opportunity to be here
today representing our school
board, the children of
our Nacita school community, our
families, staff, and our
taxpayers.
During my 31 years in public
education and also as a
product of public education,
there have been many times where
I have sat back and waited
patiently and hopeful.
But there were times when my silence
was just easier than taking
action.
There are also moments when
you feel compelled due to
just faithful love and service.
It requires courage.
And right now at this moment
is one of those times.
So today I'm standing in front of
you, supporting my Nacita
School community.
And with a lot of love and
admiration, other school districts
around the state of Wisconsin that
are suffering the very same burdens
we are and the same struggles
we are experiencing.
For years, our school district has
been proactive in
sharing and communicating.
We have attended and provided
testimony to state committee
meetings.
Our board has passed resolutions and
shared them throughout.
We have met with local
legislators, we have
shared correspondence and things
with local elected officials.
But despite all of those
efforts, the funding
system has not kept up
with the needs of our children and
the needs our current realities.
It is through faithful stewardship
today that we
move forward with litigation.
We are currently facing
our third.
Operational referendum in our small
Nacita community.
I am so blessed that our school
community has shown such love
and commitment to our children to
fund them for the last eight years
and again they're being asked again
in April.
However our small community
represents a very high property
value but our demographics
and our local taxpayers are
affixed in low-income.
Over the past decade
We have been underfunded in special
education by over $13
million just in
10 years.
Our local referendum, some
would argue or could argue,
has been 100%
funding that mandated legal
constitutional obligation.
In addition, if you
consider the underfunding of
inflationary increases,
had we been given annual
incremental inflationary
increases, we would have over
$2 million more today
in this year's budget, and
we wouldn't be on the ballot again
for the third time in April.
Furthermore, the current
funding policy in the state of
Wisconsin has zero consideration
for the needs of our children.
We have children in
high-poverty school districts coming
from homes with drug addictions.
We have children coming from sexual
abuse.
Physical and emotional neglect,
a lot of needs that are coming
out of our children and our
households today.
We have children coming who
cannot eat with utensils
yet. They aren't potty trained
by kindergarten.
And yet some of our are coming to
us very socially adequate
and coming to us with 2,500
word vocabulary or more,
while others are at 100 or 200.
Current funding policy in
our state only focuses
on numbers, not needs.
Unmet constitutional obligations
shifts the burden of
the financial need to local
taxpayers on the
back of referendum after referendum
after referendum.
I believe championing children,
advocating for taxpayers
should not be competing
priorities.
They should be shared
responsibilities by all.
And when one is weakened,
the other is affected.
Our children, our
precious children, are the most
important asset on
our planet.
Attending public schools should not
be compromised by political will
or conflicting priorities.
These are our state's children.
When you feel constitutional
obligations are going unmatched.
Litigation feels like the next step.
So today I humbly stand with our
children, our school board, our
staff, our families, and our
local taxpayers.
It's time for the priority of
championing children and advocating
for taxpayers to unite.
Strong public schools means
strong local communities and strong
local community means a very strong
state.
And when we put strong states
together, we have a strong America.
This litigation.
Is a call for hope,
justice, and
truly a stewardship for
children and our communities.
The time is now to unite
and make things right for our kids.
Katie, back to you.
Oh, Katie, I think you're muted.
Now it's my turn to be on mute.
Thank you so much, Superintendent
Kotlowski, for your really
thoughtful remarks that highlight
so clearly the
importance of this litigation for
our children.
Thank you very much for your bravery
and your district's bravery in
standing up.
We're going to turn now to Joshua
Miller, who is a parent in the Eau
Claire Area School District.
Both Joshua and his daughter, Avi,
are plaintiffs in this case.
Thank you for joining us today,
Joshua.
Certainly communities good to be
here. Good morning everyone.
My name is Joshua Miller and my
kid Avi is a sophomore in the Eau
Claire Area School District at
Memorial High School.
I joined as a plaintiff in this
lawsuit against the state legislator
because for far too long lawmakers
in Madison have been negligent to
provide their duties to
have a quality well-funded education
for the students in Wisconsin.
One example of this in my community
of Eau referendum
just back in 2022.
My kid was attending South Middle
School, a school that was in such
bad shape that out of the $100
million approved by the referendum,
this one school got $40 million of
funds for capital improvements.
South Middle school had dozens of
rooms with no natural lighting,
a year-round need for dehumidifiers,
a cramped lunch room, and decaying
infrastructure to name just a few of
the problems.
The school had opened in 1982
and it was sagging under 40 years of
use and having no major renovations
done to it in that time period.
Now, we were fortunate in Eau Claire
that that referendum passed with 64%
of the vote.
Families with students in Eaux
Claire are fortunate to live in a
city where support for public
education is strong, but there are
communities across the state, like
we've heard from Shane in Green Bay
and others that are named here,
where the voters had not necessarily
approved the funds needed for their
schools.
But that shouldn't be the case.
It shouldn't a case of haves and
have-nots, depending on where you
live in the state what your voters
decide.
How you can bring a referendum if
you can, even if it gets approved.
A public school should not have to
go to the voters with that request.
The state legislator must meet the
needs of our children's and our
schools, and they have not been
doing so.
Another example of hardships was
created
just this past fall when the
Eau Claire school board announced
a proposal where one of the
core neighborhood elementary
schools.
Was planned to be closed.
And of those schools, the most
likely candidate was Flynn
Elementary School, my neighborhood
school, where Avi had gone
to as an elementary student.
And when this plan was announced,
parents came out in force to the
school board meeting, after school
board meetings for weeks and weeks,
months and months, drawing home
their fears and concerns about the
proposal, about how bussing
would affect, how the boundary
change would affect and how
the fabric of the
neighborhood would be affected.
I do trust that the school board
didn't come to that proposal
lightly, but in doing so
would have been a tear in the fabric
of our community.
Each neighborhood needs an
elementary school where parents can
walk with their kids and meet fellow
neighbors, where students can ride
their bikes and be friends on the
playground. And this is where a
sense of belonging to the community
grows, where a sense of civic
pride comes from, where our
children, you know,
bond with people and closing
these schools, consolidating.
Having to have students bus to other
schools where they're going to
perhaps schools your kids three
blocks down are going to a different
school, it rips
the fabric of communities.
The closure proposal
was presented partially because the
state legislator has divided the
policy that would financially reward
districts that consolidate schools.
That seems backwards to me.
Instead of funding the schools we
have, they want to incentivize
reducing the number of schools that
serve our children, our families and
our communities.
In Eau Claire, our school board
found a workaround for now, and
Flint is currently staying open,
but unless the budget formula
changes, I think they just pushed
off what may be inevitable and
has already taken place at countless
school districts across the state.
Budgets reflect priorities.
What you say you want to spend money
on shows what you care about.
Ever since 2019, the state has had
a budget surplus in the billions
of dollars, but they continue to
be stingy with our public schools.
Our schools had to scrape by year
after year after year,
slimming down, reducing, getting
smaller and smaller, what they can
do, what they could offer.
The dire need for adequate funding
has been made clear
to the lawmakers, but they
have refused to heed our pleas.
The situation is sad, absurd,
and infuriating.
Wisconsin's current school finance
system is broken.
And this lawsuit, which I am proud
to join, would be
a way for the courts to force
legislator can make a new system
that works and actually meets the
needs of the students of Wisconsin.
So I am very proud that
me as a parent and my kid as
a student have joined this lawsuit
and and
we are just, you know, one parent,
one family across the state and
we speak for tens of thousands of
other people in the same situation.
So, I thank you for your time and
I'll pass it back to Katie.
Thank you so much, Joshua, and for
sharing the personal implications
and impacts that this is having on
you and your kiddo.
We are now going to turn
to Kim Anderson
from the Wisconsin PTA.
Kim is the legislative chair, and
the PTA is a statewide organization
working to advocate for children and
families.
The Wisconsin PGA is also a
plaintiff in this case.
Thank you for joining us today, Kim.
Thanks for having me.
Our PTA was very enthusiastic
about becoming plaintiffs and
participating in this litigation
because this litigation very
closely follows what
our mission statement is, which to
is engage and empower parents
and communities to advocate on
behalf of all children.
We are the oldest and largest
child advocacy group in the country.
And our Wisconsin PTA has been
around for over a hundred years.
Um, our organization.
Represents children, families,
and educators across the state.
We have over 100 units in
over 30 districts.
And since the
revenue rate was uncoupled from
the inflation rate, I
think in 2010,
most of our
units are in districts that have
had to go to operational referenda
to support
their operational costs in those
districts.
With fully funded schools,
some of the things that we could see
that we have not been seeing
are educators receiving
paychecks
that are commensurate with their
professional levels.
Students that are receiving support
that they need desperately.
Um, sorry, I lost my place.
Well-funded schools will help us
retain the staff that we have
and help them receive training
that they need to educate and
support our children.
When public schools are well-funded,
our children will grow academically
and emotionally.
When public school are well funded,
class sizes are smaller and more
manageable.
When public are well founded,
teachers,
we, sorry, this is redundant.
Our community is more well
able to support our children and
teachers.
And when public schools are
well funded, excellent programs are
retained and improved.
When public schools are well-funded,
the curriculum is updated to engage
our children.
When public school are well founded,
buildings are maintained so that
emergency repairs will
decrease.
When public schools are well funded,
technology is protected with updates
and improved to support our
children's, teacher, and families.
When public school are well-funded
by the states, communities can
thrive.
Strong schools lead to strong
communities and
our rally cry has been
happening for decades to
better fund our public education
system in the state of Wisconsin.
And we
need to tell legislators.
To fully fund our public schools.
I'll hand it back to Katie.
Thank you so much, Kim, and
thank you for really underscoring
what is possible if
public schools were fully funded.
Now I would like to open up for
questions.
And so folks can drop
questions into the Q and A and
I will moderate as
well.
While we wait for questions, Katie,
can I just amplify a few of the
things we heard from our plaintiffs?
I just want to note a
few things. You heard from
both Joshua and Kim
about operational referenda.
And one of the thing you'll find in
the complaint is how
the school finance system has
taken,
has put the burden on
local taxpayers
to pay the operating expenses
of our schools.
We used to have referenda when
a school district needed a new
building or needed capital expenses.
And those were fairly rare and
taxpayers were usually really
understanding and generous and
enthusiastic. But what we're seeing
now is a system
where school districts have no
choice, but to go to referendum
regularly to try to fund
basic operations, to keep the
lights on and to keep payroll
flowing.
And it's really a tremendous
problem.
One of our plaintiff school
districts is Beloit,
where you can read about in the
complaint how in the last several
years, they have repeatedly had
referenda fail.
I also just want to
highlight Superintendent
Katlowski who talked
about being
a good shepherd of taxpayer
funds.
And really I think echoed something
that's super important, which is
that this is not, none of us is
itching to sue the legislature about
this.
None of us takes this lightly
or thinks that this about politics.
This is a moment of last resort.
And you can find in the complaint,
I think all
of our plaintiffs and all of
the school districts around the
state, really, as I said before,
have gone to heroic length.
But I urge you all to
look in the complaint and read about
the steps that Superintendent
Kotlowski has taken
to try to
make Nasida keep working,
taking on multiple jobs within
the district so that she doesn't
have to fill other positions,
asking that her own salary be frozen
so that there's a little bit more
money for the schools.
This is a perfect example.
And and we know that one of
the responses to this lawsuit is
going to be more money is not the
issue But I
urge you to look through the
complaint you will find
Example after example and
detail after detail about how
money really is the issue and the
tremendous Efforts that
people are making.
All right. I see that questions have
filled into the queue.
So I'm gonna stop
All right, well, thank you so much,
Jeff. And you gave us some time to
get the questions and start
organizing them.
So the first question is,
the lawsuit asks the court to
adopt a new finance system that
meets the needs of districts unless
the legislature and governor enact
one first in a
timely fashion.
How would you define timely fashion?
It's a great question, and the
court will have a lot to do with
that, but keep in mind that we
fund our public schools through the
biennial budget process.
So I would say that
once the court reaches a ruling,
ideally it will give the legislature
the opportunity to do a better
job in the next bienniale budget
process, and if the legislature and
the governor don't deliver on
that, don't heed the court's
instructions, then...
That's when we might have to ask the
court to step in.
All right, we've got a two-part
question here, Jeff.
How exactly will a
declaratory judgment from
a court help the funding issue?
What actions would you expect
from lawmakers to a declarative
judgment?
So a declaratory judgment is when
the court tells
others,
the public and policymakers,
what the constitution means.
And so what we're asking the court
to do is to step in and say to the
legislature, what you're doing isn't
good enough. It doesn't meet your
constitutional obligations.
And I would fully expect
in a functioning democracy
like we have here in Wisconsin,
that the legislature would take that
very seriously and would then try
to bring state law
into compliance with the
constitution based on what the court
has said.
So we really do believe
that if the court explains
where the shortfalls are and why
this is unconstitutional, the
legislature will respond.
Because we have a democratic
form of government with separated
powers, it's not up to
the court to decide exactly how we
should fund our public schools.
There are almost an infinite number
of options for how the legislature
could do this.
But what we're asking the court to
do is to look at it and say to the
legislature, not good enough,
try again, and give a little
bit of guidance on the parameters
for that, what the Constitution puts
in place.
And then we do expect that the
legislature and the governor will do
their jobs.
All right, our next question.
Lawmakers and the governor have been
discussing school funding and
property tax relief.
They haven't come to a compromise
yet.
But Assembly Speaker Robin Voss says
that there could be action in an
extraordinary session.
How do those discussions affect the
decision to file the lawsuit?
And are there actions that lawmakers
could take in the coming months to
make this lawsuit unnecessary?
It's a great question.
There are constantly, and certainly
right now, there are discussions
going on about directing more money
to our schools
from the surplus.
In those conversations, as I
have followed them, appear to have
two aspects.
One is about directing
more money to special education
to make good on the promise that was
made in this last budget to try to
step up the reimbursement rate.
To 42 cents on the dollar, and
then next year 45 cents on the
dollars, which is what the
legislature promised it was aiming
at, but in reality,
because the needs keep going up,
the reimbursement rate
is only going to
be 35 cents on dollar,
approximately, based
on the
money that the legislature put in.
So there's talk about putting some
more money into boosting that.
The governor has also asked for
more money for general student aid,
and that would certainly help.
What I can say is that this is
not, as I've said several times,
this is a not a problem that arose
overnight. It has developed over
decades, and it's not a problems
that will be solved overnight.
Any deal that the legislature
and the governor might reach
could help move things in the
right direction, but is not going to
solve the problem.
I think what the governor asked for
and the legislative leadership so
far has said is not acceptable
to them. Is $450 million
in additional general state aid.
What I can tell you is that the
complaint explains that
we are funding state aid
to our public school districts this
year is $2 billion
less than the
inflation adjusted number from 2009.
So building on that, we've got a
question here about the
complaint.
As I understand it, the suit doesn't
seek a specific dollar amount from
the state to make the school finance
system constitutional.
Is that correct?
And do you have a ballpark figure of
what would be a reasonable number
to be constitutional?
The suit doesn't name a specific
dollar amount, and that's really
what the suit is about, is helping
a court fully explain
and delve into how
the finance system works, what the
needs are, and to make some of those
decisions. We're not going to
prejudge that or put a
number on that.
And then building on your comments
around Governor Evers, we have a
question.
Considering Governor Ebers has
signed the last four state budgets
and most recently agreed to
a budget deal with no increase for
general equalized funding, why
is he also not a defendant?
Well, the legislature and
the joint finance committee
specifically are the defendants
because the constitution charges
the legislature with
creating and funding our schools.
The governor cannot appropriate
money without the legislature.
The governor can't just hand money
out.
And appropriations begin,
that process begins in the
legislature, so we have sued the
legislature here because that's
the party the constitution puts
this responsibility on.
All right, next question.
Do you expect more districts to
join and why are Milwaukee,
Racine and Madison not involved?
All 421 districts
in Wisconsin face their own
challenges and many
of them are
severe.
We probably could have written
this complaint and written
about almost any district in the
state. We looked
to work with communities
that were geographically
and demographically diverse
to help highlight how this is
a statewide problem and how
they deal with.
And face different challenges,
all of which come back to the root
problem of an insufficient
school funding mechanism
that isn't taking
student need into account.
It's hard to know exactly how much
money, right, because we need to
figure out what the student needs
are. That's what should be driving
this conversation rather than
abstract numbers.
So it's not that we left
any districts out or
pushed any districts away.
We chose districts and
communities that we thought helped
highlight the problem.
It is possible that additional
districts will reach out and want to
join the case and we'll figure
that out as we go.
Next question.
Republican lawmakers at the Capitol
have frequently blamed Governor
Evers' 400-year veto
for inaction on education
funding and for increasing property
taxes.
Can someone speak to why
more action is needed on school
funding beyond the $325
per pupil increase from
that veto?
Sure.
We have had in the state of
Wisconsin, the finance system
has been built on the idea of a
revenue limit.
That is a cap
on how much each district can
spend per student.
That's been in law since 1993.
And that cap is different district
to district and
significantly different and
somewhat arbitrarily is based on
what they were spending before the
caps went into place.
So Eau Claire for example is a
very low revenue limit district.
Other places have higher revenue
limits.
When those revenue limits were put
in place
and I think this is almost common
sense, they automatically adjusted
every year for inflation
because the costs to the
schools went up
under inflation.
And so we made sure that the amount
that the schools could spend per
student went up.
In 2009,
we ended
And the revenue limits have not
had an automatic increase for
inflation since 2009.
That's one of the reasons, as I said
before, that in inflation-adjusted
dollars, state aid is $2
billion lower today
than it was in 2009.
And in fact, in 2011,
rather than increase those revenue
limits, those revenue limit were cut
substantially by more than
$500 per student.
Which, you know, on a percentage
basis is a significant cut
four or 5% maybe.
We the the governor's
uh veto what it does is it
allows districts to increase
that revenue limit by 325
dollars per year that's
less than the rate of inflation and
every year because that
number is the same every
year every year it becomes an
even smaller percentage as
the revenue limits go So
that is not alone.
Enough to fix the problem and i
understand there's a big political
debate about that veto and
about that mechanism we don't
have a position on this what we're
saying is that the school funding
mechanism is not sufficient
and is unconstitutional even
with that uh the
current law which includes that feed
out.
All right, we've got five more
questions to get through.
The next one is, what can
local community members expect
and what will legislators be
looking at in the community's
response to this lawsuit and
unfolding situation?
Well, I mean, the wheels of
justice grind slowly, as
you all who have watched this
kind of litigation before
know.
And so I think local community
members can expect that
in the short term,
hopefully this lawsuit is going to
build more conversation and
the Fund Wisconsin Public Schools
Coalition working
in partnership with
the lawsuit, is going to
fund greater public
discussion.
And as well as sort of
the ongoing policy
debate that was referenced earlier.
There is already a
topic of public discussion and
hopefully this is going to add to it
and help inform it further.
But things are not going to change
immediately or overnight.
And we believe that
public schools are one of these
issues that cut across demographics,
that cut cross politics, that cut
a cross ideology.
We all share a commitment.
To our kids and to our
future, as Superintendent Katlowski
talked about.
And it is really my hope that what
we're gonna see in our communities,
the five communities that are
plaintiffs here, but also in our
community across Wisconsin,
is a broad support for
doing better for our kids in our
schools.
Next question, can you talk more
about the precedent for this kind of
lawsuit?
Sure, so I think when
we talk about the precedent for this
kind of lawsuit, we're really
talking about two different things.
One is school finance lawsuits in
general, and that is
not a super rare
thing, unfortunately.
In just recent months, there have
been successful lawsuits
saying that the state funding
mechanisms are insufficient
and violate the state constitutions
in Kentucky, in
New Hampshire, in Wyoming.
Note, by the way, these are not
notably blue or red.
These are states with different
politics and different needs
and different histories.
There's been a case in the last
couple of years in Pennsylvania,
there was a case in Arizona,
so there's that kind of
precedent that around the country we
see these lawsuits and we see the
lawsuits succeeding under their
state constitutions.
And then the second kind of
president would be about our own
state of Wisconsin precedent.
This is not the first time.
That school funding has gone to our
courts.
The most recent time, as I mentioned
earlier, was in 2000 in the Vincent
v. Voigt case.
And the Supreme Court said some
very important things in Vincent v
Voigt, including talking about
the constitutional guarantee for
every student in Wisconsin to have
an equal opportunity
to access an adequate basic
education, a sound basic education.
It talked about how that needed
to be tailored to every
student, that our schools need to
meet the needs of individual
kids. It's not enough to say, well,
we're providing a sound basic
education for the average kid and if
there are kids who have certain
struggles that make it hard for them
to take advantage of that, that's on
them.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has been
very clear that's not the way it
works. We meet kids
where they are and we make
sure that every child has
the opportunity that
they personally need to
get a sound basic education.
We're trying to build on that.
In 2020, sorry, in 2000,
when the court decided Vincent V.
Voigt, it articulated that broad
principle.
And when it came to the finance
part, it said we don't really need
to get into the details of that
because whatever the requirements
are, the system is
okay right now. It is
constitutional, it's not perfect.
But it's not so bad as to be
unconstitutional.
We think that 25 years later,
and keep in mind 25 years is two
full generations of school children,
right? Kids are in school for 13
years. So two full
cycles of schoolchildren have gone
through. The system is in
much, much, much
more dire straits.
And that's why we're doing this.
All right, our next question is
something that I think some of our
other plaintiffs could also address.
And Superintendent Kotlowski, I'm
looking at you first maybe to
take this question on.
So we have a question about how
aware are people in your community
of this issue and
what is their typical response?
Katie, I am so sorry.
Could you just repeat that one more
time? Yeah, absolutely.
How aware are people in your
community of this issue and
what is their typical response when
they learn what's going on?
Because we're, you
know, pressing into our third
operational referendum this April,
our community has become much
more deeply aware of a
larger systemic state issue.
I believe there are
still just that emotional,
you know, packets of just
frustration because I live in a
very, you know,
poverty stricken area where we
have fixed and low income residents.
I think there is a burden.
That we're asking them to pick up
that is not adequate.
And so certainly there is emotion
regardless of their knowledge
because it's asking them to open
their pocketbooks once again.
But we are forming an
alliance group with our taxpayers to
really help educate and to
help inform and to them be better
advocates for themselves.
And we start that work this next
month. So I think that There's
enough awareness that we're getting
momentum for a group of
individuals that really wanna play a
part and be an active
participant in the
decisions around the state that are
going to take place around funding
public schools.
Thank you, Superintendent.
Would any of other plaintiffs like
to weigh in on what you're hearing
from your communities?
Katie, I'll speak up.
I guess when I was speaking earlier,
I talked about we had
in 2022 a
capital referendum that passed and
that allowed my kids' middle school
being renovated.
I didn't even mention that in 2024,
we passed a four-year operational
referendum also in Eau Claire to
fund specific programs that,
as Tanya said earlier, are mandated
by the state.
In Eau Bye!
Recognition that, you know, the
schools are inactively funded by the
legislator.
That's proven by a 64%
in both the referendum, exactly 64%
voted for the referendum which is
wonderful news for me here in Eau
Claire.
But unfortunately other districts
across the state don't have
the same voters answering the same
questions and giving the same
support.
So and those who
didn't support it, you hear stuff
like, you know, the school needs to
live within their.
Means you know budget for themselves
but you know it's a difference in
understanding between what you know
personal finances and you know
school and state financing looks
like so um and then you want to
educate them on how the formula
works and how it's broken how it's
not keeping up they see oh yeah
there's nothing the schools can do
they are at the mercy of the
legislator so um it's very easy
to educate people on the
core of the problem with just a
short conversation and um
you want you to do that i find very
positive engagement after that.
Thank you, Joshua.
I'm going to go to our next
question, which is back to you,
Jeff.
What kind of response do you
expect from the legislature and
joint finance once they
find out about the lawsuit?
I'm not a legislature, a
legislator. Let me not
try to prognosticate what
they're going to do. Let me instead
say what I think, what I would hope
for.
I would that the
legislature and individual
legislators would look
at a lawsuit like this,
would review what
these five districts and communities
are saying and what they are going
through and would say,
this is something
that we need to figure out and
we might have different views about
how to do it, but
we need, to get to the bottom of
this. As I said earlier, this is a
problem that's been going on for a
long time.
This is a program that goes beyond
partisanship and politics.
When Governor Walker was in office,
there was a blue ribbon commission
that was created to study
the school finance problem
and spent a year going around
the state listening to people.
Talking to people, studying the
issue, and made a whole bunch of
recommendations, most of which have
still not been heeded or taken
seriously.
Certainly, Governor Evers and
the legislature have had significant
disagreements about how to fund
education.
And I should note, there was a
question earlier about the 400-year
veto and the $325
that increased the revenue limit
every year.
There's nothing about that veto that
raises property taxes necessarily.
It could be paid for with state aid
when it's not paid for state aid,
as in the 25 to 27 biennial
budget, which has no increase
in general state
aid.
Then districts have the opportunity
to raise that revenue limit because
they need the money.
And if it's coming from state aid
then it comes out of property taxes.
So there are lots of problems
here, there are lot of complexities
here, and what I would hope...
Is that the members of the Joint
Finance Committee and all members of
legislature would see
this as a little bit of a wake-up
call and an opportunity to
engage in this public discussion and
really try to solve this problem
that we all care about.
Well, we are coming down on time.
So if we don't
get to a question that you have
asked, we are happy
to follow up with you on this.
We're going to try to get to both,
but I'm just saying, we may not have
time for both questions.
So the next one is, if things
need fixing immediately,
why wait? Why file this in
a circuit court and when
whatever is decided will likely be
appealed?
I understand that over
the last several years,
we as a state have seen many, many
things solved through
original actions.
Those are lawsuits that are filed
directly in the Wisconsin State
Supreme Court.
But those are really only
appropriate for very narrow
class of cases.
The Supreme Court has said
repeatedly, including as recently
as this summer, that it doesn't
want cases that have big
fact questions brought to
them as original actions.
That's not what the Supreme Court is
for. And this case has a
tremendous amount of facts.
What's really important is what's
happening on the ground in our
schools.
The court is going to need to
master the school
finance system, which
is mind-bogglingly complex.
And the court is gonna need to
hear from our plaintiffs
and from other stakeholders in
that system.
This would not really be an
appropriate case to go straight
to the Supreme Court.
All right. Thank you very much.
I think we're going to move into
closing remarks.
I just want to say for anyone who
has other
questions, please email
media at fund Wisconsin
public, actually
fundwipublicschools.org.
That's media at
fundwpublicschool.org and we'll do
our best to get back to you ASAP.
Thank you all so much for being
here. I'm gonna hand it back to Jeff
to do some closing remarks and we
will wrap up.
I just also wanna thank everyone for
being here. I wanna thank Katie and
her team for the tremendous work
they've done. I wanna think again,
our plaintiffs,
certainly our four speakers today,
who I think really eloquently
and clearly illustrated
the variety of problems and
the depth of the problems, but
all of our plaintiff's and all of
the communities that have been
willing to stand up to protect
children in Wisconsin and say that
we have to find a way to fix this.
This is not, as I said earlier,
this is not taken lightly.
This is a really serious
and really kind of somber
thing that we're doing as
Superintendent Katlowski, I think,
underscored, but it
could not be more important.
And so I'm really proud
to get to stand with these folks.
I'm very proud to do
this work.
And I
know that the reporters on this
call have the complete.
But it and other materials
are available at
fundwipublicschools.org.
And this is the first step on
a long journey and we really
appreciate your attention.