All right. 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 in 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
link, a list of the plaintiffs in the chat. The plaintiffs are represented by the Madison-based
nonprofit Law Forward in partnership with Wisconsin Education Association Council or WIAAC. 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 fair 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'm 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 Nasita. And you're going to 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
there. 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 a problem that has been going on for decades.
This is a 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, we are there 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.
And 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 rumple-stilt skin. 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-need 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 undercompensates 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 under fund special education.
We have two additional constitutional claims. One is with regard to those high-need 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
our constitutional conventions in the 1840s and then through our laws ever since. But 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 received 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 of
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 to 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
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 in vocational skill opportunities. I 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 verbose, 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 mean 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 Kupowski, who is the
superintendent for the Masita Area School District, one of the five school districts that
have brought this case against the state. Thank you for joining us today, Superintendent Kupowski.
And you are on mute.
I am Tanya Kupowski and it is a humble opportunity to be here today representing our school board,
the children of our Masita school community, our family, 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 Masita 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 of 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 Masita 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 a fixed and low income. Over the past decade, we have been underfunded
and 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 district 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 children 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.
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
mean strong local communities and strong local communities mean 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. Thank you.
Katie, back to you.
Oh, Katie, thank you very much.
Now it's my turn to be on mute. Thank you so much, Superintendent Kalowski,
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 Katie's good to be here. Good morning, everyone. My name is Joshua Miller,
and I could Avi the sophomore in the Eau Claire area school district at Memorial High School.
I've joined as a plaintiff in this lawsuit against the state legislator because for far too long,
lawmakers of Madison have been eligible to provide their duties to have a quality,
well-funded education for the students in Wisconsin. One example of this in my community, Eau Claire,
was the need for a capital referendum just back in 2022. My kid was attending South Middle School,
a school that was in such bad shape that of the $100 million approved by the referendum.
This one school got $40 million of funds for capital improvements.
South Mill School had dozens of rooms with no natural lighting, a year-round need for
dehumidifiers, a cramp lunchroom, and decaying infrastructure to name just a few other problems.
The school had opened in 1982 and it was sagging under 40 years of use and having no major
renovation done to it in that time period. Now we were fortunate and clear that that referendum
passed with 64% of the vote. Family with students, Eau Claire fortunate to live in a city or support
for public education is strong, but there are communities across the state like we've heard from
Shane and 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 be a case
of hows and how nots depending on where you live in the state, what your voters decide,
how you can bring a referendum if you can and 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
just as past fall when the Eau Claire school board announced the 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 obviously had gone
to as an elementary student. And when this plan was announced, parents came out and forced to
the school board meeting after school board meeting for weeks and weeks, months and months,
drawing home the fears and concerns about the proposal, about how busing would affect, how the
boundary change of effect 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. East neighborhood needs 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 bond with people and closing these schools consolidating,
having to have students bus to the school where they go into perhaps schools, your kids three blocks
down are going to a different school in the fabric of communities. The closure
proposal was presented partially because the state legislator has divided the policy that
would financially reward districts that can solve these schools. That seems backwards to me. Instead
of finding 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 work
for now and Flynn 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 have to scrape by year after
year, slimming down, reducing, getting smaller, smaller, what they can do, what they can offer.
The dire need for adequate funding has been made clear to lawmakers, but they have refused
to hit 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 the legislator to make a new system that works and actually meets the needs of the students
of Wisconsin. So I am very proud that me and the parent and my kid as a student have joined this
lawsuit. And we are just one parent, one family across the state, and we speak for 10 to 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, 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 PTA is also a plaintiff in this case. Thank you for joining us today, Kim.
Hello. 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 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 100 years. 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. Sorry, I lost my place.
While 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 schools are well-funded, class sizes
are smaller and more manageable. When public schools are well-funded 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 schools are well-funded, buildings are maintained so that emergency repairs
can 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 schools 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. 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&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 things you'll find in the complaint is how the school finance system
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's 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 Cutlowski,
who talked about being a good shepherd of taxpayer funds, and really, I think,
echoed something that's super important, which is that none of us is itching to sue the legislature
about this. None of us takes this lightly or thinks that this is 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
lengths, but I urge you all to look in the complaint and read about the steps that Superintendent Cutlowski
has taken to try to make Naseeta 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 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 going to 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 biennial 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
further. 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 declaratory 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? That'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 $0.42 on the dollar and
the next year, $0.45 on the dollar, 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 $0.35
on the 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 not a problem that arose overnight. It has developed over decades,
and it's not a problem 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 set
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 complaints. 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 is is 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, 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 Evers 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. Thank you. 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
are are 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 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 when you 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 we'll figure that out as we go.
All right. 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 three hundred and
twenty five dollar per pupil increase from that veto? Sure. So 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 in in law since 1993 and that cap is different
district to district and and 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. They 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 that 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 two billion dollars lower
today than it was in 2009 and in fact in 2011 rather than increase those revenue limits those
revenue limits were cut substantially by about by more than five hundred dollars per student
which you know on a percentage basis is a significant cut for five percent maybe.
We the the governor's veto what it does is it allows districts to increase that revenue limit
by three hundred and twenty five 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 up. 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 the current law which includes that that veto.
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
in unfolding situation? Well I mean the the wheels of justice grind slowly as as you all who have
watched this kind of litigation before now 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 was
Wisconsin Public Schools Coalition working in in partnership with the lawsuit is going to fund
greater public discussion and 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
across politics that cut across ideology. We all share a commitment to our kids and to our future
as Superintendent Kalaski talked about and it is really my hope that what we're going to see in
our communities the five communities that are plaintiffs here but also in our communities across
Wisconsin is broad support for doing better for our kids in our schools. Right 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 and and that is not a super rare thing unfortunately in 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 you know 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 these lawsuits succeeding under their state constitutions
and then the second kind of precedent 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 the constitutional guarantee
for every student in Wisconsin to have an equal opportunity to access an adequate
basic education a sound basic education and 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 school children
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 Kalowski 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? Lady 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? Yeah 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 pockets 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 you know an alliance group with our taxpayers to really help
educate and to help inform and to help 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 want to 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 Zuberun Tenet. Would any of other plaintiffs like to weigh in on what you're hearing from your communities?
For Katie I'll speak up. I guess I want to speak in earlier I talked about we had in 2022 capital
referring that passed and that allowed the my kids meals will be 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 Tonya said earlier are the mandated by the state and Eau Claire right now
there's a strong recognition that you know the schools are inequity funded by the legislator
that's proven by us 64 percent in both the referendum exactly 64 percent
voter for the referendum which is what wonderful news for me here 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 a budget for themselves but you know it's a difference
understanding between what you know personal finances and you know school and state financing
looks like so 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 it's very easy to educate people on the core the problem which is a support conversation
and you want to do that I find very positive engagement after that thank you Joshua I'm gonna
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 hope 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're 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 problem that
goes beyond partisanship and politics you know during when Governor Walker was in office there
was a blue ribbon commission that was created to study this 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 heated 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
dollars 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 with 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 not coming
from state aid then it comes out of property taxes so there are lots of problems here there are lots
of complexities here and what I would hope is that the members of the joint finance committee and all
members of the 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
so all right 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 and 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
sure that's just a you know 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
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 in 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 going to 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 so I think
we're going to move into closing remarks and I just want to say for anyone who has other questions
please email media at fund wisconsin public actually fund wi public schools.org that's media
at fund wi public schools.org and we'll do our best to get back to you ASAP thank you all so much
for being here I'm going to hand it back to Jeff to do some closing remarks and we will wrap up
I just also want to thank everyone for being here I want to thank Katie and her team for the
tremendous work they've done I want to thank 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 plaintiffs 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 and and really kind of
somber thing that we're doing as superintendent katlaski I think underscored but it it could not
be more important and so I'm really proud to get to stand with these folks I'm really proud to get
to do this work and I know that the reporters on this call have the complaint but it and other
materials are available at fund wi public schools.org and this is the first step on a long journey and
we really appreciate your attention.