>> DO YOU WANT ME TO DO MY LEAD?
OKAY.
>>> WELCOME TO "NOON WEDNESDAY,"
I'M MARISA WOJCIK, MULTIMEDIA
JOURNALIST WITH "HERE & NOW" ON
PBS WISCONSIN.
TODAY IS JULY 14.
LAST WEEK, GOVERNOR TONY EVERS
SIGNED INTO LAW THE STATE'S
BUDGET FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS,
WHICH INCLUDED A $128 MILLION
INCREASE FOR WISCONSIN'S PUBLIC
SCHOOLS.
FUNDING FOR THE K-12 EDUCATION
IS ALWAYS THE LARGEST PIECE OF
THE BUDGET PIE, HOWEVER, PUBLIC
SCHOOL ADVOCATES ARE SAYING IT
IS STILL FALLING SHORT.
JOINING ME TO EXPLAIN THAT
PERSPECTIVE IS DR. JULIE
UNDERWOOD, FORMER DEAN FOR
UW-MADISON, AND DR. UNDERWOOD,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING
ME.
>>> WELCOME TO "NOON WEDNESDAY,"
I'M MARISA WOJCIK MULTIMEDIA
JOURNALIST WITH "HERE & NOW" ON
PBS WISCONSIN.
TODAY IS JULY 14.
LAST WEEK, GOVERNOR EVERS SIGNED
INTO LAW THE STATE'S BUDGET FOR
THE NEXT TWO YEARS, WHICH
INCLUDED A $128 MILLION INCREASE
FOR K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
FUNDING FOR K-12 EDUCATION IS BY
FAR THE LARGEST PIECE OF THE
BUDGET PIE EVERY TWO YEARS,
HOWEVER, PUBLIC SCHOOL ADVOCATES
SAY WHAT PASSED IS FALLING WAY
SHORT.
JOINING ME TODAY IS DR. JULIE
UNDERWOOD, THE FORMER DEAN OF
THE UW-MADISON SCHOOL OF
EDUCATION AND CURRENTLY SITS AS
THE BOARD PRESIDENT FOR THE
WISCONSIN ALLIANCE OF EXCELLENT
SCHOOLS, AND DR. UNDERWOOD,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING
ME.
>> THANK YOU FOR ASKING ME.
I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE, AND THIS
IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC SO THANK
YOU FOR DOING THIS SERIES.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I JUST WANT TO START WITH THE
FUNDING FOR K-12 SCHOOLS AND THE
ENTIRE BUDGET WAS MAINLY SHAPED
BY REPUBLICANS AND THE EDUCATION
PORTION GOT A LITTLE BIT MESSY,
BUT YOU WROTE ON BEHALF OF THE
WISCONSIN ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENT
SCHOOLS THAT THIS WAS A, QUOTE,
GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW?
>> WELL, IT WAS A GOLDEN
OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IN THE STATE
OF WISCONSIN, WE HAVE A GREAT
BUDGET.
THERE'S A GREAT BUDGET FORECAST,
AND THE FISCAL BUREAU ACTUALLY
IN THE MIDDLE OF JUNE FORECASTED
EVEN ADDITIONAL REVENUE LIKE
$4.4 BILLION OF ADDITIONAL
REVENUE THAT WAS NOT EXPECTED.
SO WE HAVE MORE MONEY TO SPEND
THAN WE HAVE IN THE PAST.
THIS ISN'T A DAY WHEN YOU LOOK
AT A BUDGET AND THINK THAT WE
NEED TO BE AUSTERE.
IT IS A DAY WHEN YOU CAN LOOK AT
THE BUDGET AND LOOK AT A GREAT
REVENUE FORECAST, AND YOU CAN
SAY, WE NEED TO INVEST IN OUR
FUTURE AND FIX SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS
WITH IN THE PAST.
THAT REALLY IS WHAT HASN'T
HAPPENED.
WE HAD A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO
DO RIGHT BY KIDS, AND THE
LEGISLATURE'S BUDGET JUST
DOESN'T DO THAT.
>> NOW, YOU HAVE CALLED RAISING
REVENUE LIMITS THE BIG STORY,
AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS CAN RAISE
REVENUE BY RAISING LOCAL
PROPERTY TAXES, BUT THEY ARE
LIMITED IN HOW MUCH THEY CAN AND
NOW ARE OFTEN TAKING IT TO
REFERENDUM TO ASK THE COMMUNITY
TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE MORE MONEY.
WHY IS RAISING REVENUE LIMITS
THE BIG STORY TO YOU?
>> THIS IS THE BIG STORY FOR
SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, WE
HAVE REVENUE LIMITS, THEY ARE
ACTUALLY SPENDING LIMITS, AND
THEY WERE SET IN 1993.
THE ONLY WAY THAT REVENUE LIMITS
OR SPENDING LIMITS CAN GO UP IS
IF THE LEGISLATURE DOES THAT OR
IF A SCHOOL DISTRICT GOES TO
REFERENDUM.
THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET PROVIDES
A $0 INCREASE IN THE SCHOOL
SPENDING AUTHORITY, IN THEIR
REVENUE LIMIT, IN THEIR SPENDING
AUTHORITY.
IT REALLY IS A SPENDING LIMIT,
AND THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WAS
TO INCREASE THAT SPENDING
AUTHORITY BY $200 PER STUDENT,
SO IF YOU DON'T RAISE THE
SPENDING AUTHORITY, NO MATTER
HOW MUCH MONEY FROM THE STATE
YOU PUT INTO THE BUDGET, THE
SCHOOL DISTRICTS CAN'T SPEND IT,
SO IT COMES IN, AND THEY HAVE TO
SEND IT BACK OUT, REALLY,
THROUGH A PROPERTY TAX CUT, AND
SO IT MEANS THAT THERE'S NO
SPENDABLE MONEY FOR SCHOOLS.
>> NOW --
>> AND THE LEGISLATURE --
>> K-12 --
>> NO, THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW
IS CLAIMING THAT THEY HAVE
INCREASED SPENDING CONSIDERABLY,
THAT IT IS A GREAT BUDGET FOR
K-12 SCHOOLS, BUT THAT'S NOT
REALLY TRUE.
SINCE THEY HAVE NOT INCREASED
THE SPENDING LIMIT, SCHOOLS ARE
KIND OF CAUGHT IN A BIND.
THEY HAVE MONEY THAT'S COMING IN
THROUGH THE EQUALIZATION
FORMULA.
STATE MONEY THAT'S COMING IN TO
THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
THROUGH THE EQUALIZATION
FORMULA, AND THE LEGISLATURE IS
SAYING THAT THEY NOW INCREASED
SPENDING ON K-12 EDUCATION, THEY
ARE NOW SPENDING TWO-THIRDS THE
COST OF K-12 EDUCATION, WHICH
WAS A PREVIOUS PROMISE THAT WAS
MADE TO EDUCATION A NUMBER OF
YEARS AGO, BUT IT IS NOT REAL
INCREASES.
THEY ARE NOT SPENDABLE
INCREASES.
THIS IS KIND OF A SHELL GAME.
>> AND SO THAT $128 MILLION,
YOU'RE SAYING, DOESN'T GO INTO
SCHOOLS EXACTLY, BUT IT GOES
TOWARDS PROPERTY TAX CUTS?
>> EXACTLY.
SO IF YOU GOT A SPENDING LIMIT
AND THE STATE POURS IN MONEY
THROUGH THE EQUALIZATION FORMULA
AND THEY DON'T ALLOW SCHOOLS TO
SPEND ANY MORE, THEIR HANDS ARE
TIED, AND THE MONEY THAT COMES
IN TO THEIR BUDGET, THEY NEED TO
JUST SEND RIGHT BACK OUT AS
PROPERTY TAX CUTS.
SO LET ME PUT A FURTHER POINT ON
THIS.
ADDITIONAL MONEY DOESN'T GO TO
EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES UNLESS THE
LEGISLATURE AUTHORIZES THE
DISTRICTS TO SPEND IT, AND THEY
DIDN'T INCREASE THE SPENDING
LIMIT.
>> SO THE G.O.P. BUDGET WRITERS
SAID THEY ALSO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT
THE ONE-TIME FUNDING OF NEARLY
$2.5 BILLION FROM FEDERAL
PANDEMIC AIDE THAT'S GOING TO
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
DOES THIS NOT FULFILL WHAT
SCHOOLS WILL NEED, AT LEAST
UNTIL THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE?
>> WELL, SO THE FEDERAL MONEY --
THE FEDERAL MONEY, THAT'S COVID
RELIEF, AND, CERTAINLY, THERE IS
A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY
COMING IN TO THE STATE IN
VARIOUS WAYS, INCLUDING MONEY
FOR SCHOOLS, BUT THAT FEDERAL
COVID FUNDING REQUIRES THE
STATES, ONE, TO CONTINUE
SPENDING IN PROPORTION TO THEIR
BUDGET, THE SAME THEY'VE DONE
FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, SO
BASICALLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DOESN'T WANT THE STATES TO STIFF
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND USE THE
FEDERAL MONEY INSTEAD OF STATE
MONEY.
THEY WANT THE FEDERAL MONEY TO
ACTUALLY GO TO COVID RELIEF,
TO -- WELL, IT IS SET UP SO THAT
SCHOOLS ARE REIMBURSING FOR
EXPENDITURES THEY'VE HAD THAT
ARE COVID RELATED.
IT IS NOT JUST A BLOCK SUM THAT
ALLOWS SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SPEND
MONEY ON TEACHER SALARIES OR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING
PROGRAMS OR -- THAT'S NOT
ALLOWED.
THEY HAVE TO BE REIMBURSED FOR
THINGS, EXPENSES, THAT WERE
CAUSED BY COVID.
AND WHAT THIS -- WHAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REALLY
DOESN'T WANT THE STATE TO
SUPPLANT FEDERAL MONEY WITH
STATE MONEY.
FEDERAL MONEY IS EARMARKED FOR
COVID RELIEF.
SO YOU CAN'T RELY ON THE FEDERAL
COVID MONEY FOR YOUR REGULAR
EXPENDITURES.
IT'S JUST NOT ALLOWED.
YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THIS FOR
SALARIES.
YOU KNOW, AND MOST SCHOOL
DISTRICTS SPEND 90% OF THEIR
MONEY SPENT ON SALARIES, AND THE
COVID RELIEF MONEY IS COVID
RELIEF MONEY, NOT SALARY MONEY,
NOT TEACHER SALARY MONEY.
IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR THAT.
>> SO THIS ONE-TIME EXPENDITURE
CAN'T BE USED FOR WHAT SHOULD BE
REGULAR STATE FUNDS.
NOW, AS YOU CALLED THIS "A SHELL
GAME," THE REPUBLICANS TOOK
MONEY AND ALLEVIATED PROPERTY
TAXES SO THAT THEY WOULD HIT THE
LIMIT NEEDED TO QUALIFY FOR
THOSE FEDERAL DOLLARS, AND AS
YOU STATED AT THE BEGINNING,
THIS GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY, THIS
BUDGET SURPLUS, WAS USED MAINLY
FOR A SIGNIFICANT TAX CUT, AND
YOU WROTE A LETTER TO THE
GOVERNOR ASKING HIM TO VETO THE
BILLIONS IN TAX CUTS IN THE
BUDGETS SO THAT MONEY CAN GO TO
EDUCATION, BUT WOULD THAT
FUNDING HAVE AUTOMATICALLY GONE
TO SCHOOLS IF EVERS HAD
PARTIALLY VETOED THAT?
>> WELL, THE MONEY WON'T
AUTOMATICALLY GO TO SCHOOLS.
CERTAINLY, THE LEGISLATURE HAS
TO GO BACK AND DECIDE HOW THEY
ARE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY
THAT WAS RELEASED WHEN THE TAX
CUTS WERE VETOED, SO, NO, IT IS
NOT AN AUTOMATIC KIND OF VETO
THAT WOULD ALLOW -- THAT WOULD
CHANGE THE TAX CUT INTO
EDUCATION SPENDING.
IT WOULDN'T WORK THAT WAY.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS TO DO THAT.
>> AND SO EVERS, AS HE CALLS
HIMSELF, THE "EDUCATION
GOVERNOR," HE FELT HIS HANDS
WERE A LITTLE BIT TIED BY THIS
BUDGET.
HE COULDN'T VETO IT IN TOTAL, IT
WOULD HAVE JEOPARDIZED THE
FEDERAL COVID MONEY GOING TO
SCHOOLS, BUT HE ALSO SAID HE WAS
LIMITED BY HIS PARTIAL VETO
AUTHORITY THE WAY THE BUDGET WAS
WRITTEN, SO IN YOUR MIND, DOES
THIS KIND -- IS THIS KIND OF THE
BEST THE EDUCATION GOVERNOR
COULD DO WITH THIS BUDGET?
>> WELL, YEAH.
HE -- WITH THE LIMITED POWER
THAT HE HAD AND THE CAREFUL
CRAFTING OF THE BUDGET, I DO
BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ABOUT THE
BEST THAT HE COULD DO.
IN MY MIND, HE SAVED THE STATE
SOME FUNDS.
HE VETOED THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
THAT WENT INTO THE RAINY DAY
FUND, AND HE IS PULLING THAT
MONEY TOGETHER.
LEGISLATURE WILL HAVE TO GO
BACK, AND THEY CAN SPEND THAT
MONEY IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
NOW, OBVIOUSLY, THE GOVERNOR
WOULD LIKE THEM TO SPEND THAT ON
EDUCATION RATHER THAN COME
FURTHER TAX CUTS, BUT THAT WILL
BE -- THAT WILL BE A HARD PUSH
WITH THIS LEGISLATURE.
>> SO THERE IS ADDITIONAL
FUNDING IN THE BUDGET FOR MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES, SPECIAL
EDUCATION, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS.
DO THOSE ALLOTMENTS IN FUNDING
GO FAR ENOUGH?
>> WELL, SO THERE ARE -- THERE
ARE FUNDS FOR MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES.
THE GOVERNOR HAD ACTUALLY
PROPOSED A $50 MILLION INCREASE
IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, AND
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS
STATE BUDGET, AND INSTEAD, THEY
PROVIDED A SMALL AMOUNT FOR
COMPETITIVE GRANTS FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICTS, BUT THAT MONEY'S IN
THE ENOUGH TO EVEN MAKE A DENT
IN WHAT IS NEEDED ACROSS THE
STATE.
THANKFULLY, THE REIMBURSEMENT
FOR SPECIAL ED, THE
REIMBURSEMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES CAN BE TAKEN THIS YEAR,
THIS UPCOMING YEAR, FROM COVID
RELIEF DOLLARS.
THAT IS ONE OF THE ALLOWABLE
EXPENSES SO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO FALL BACK
ON, BUT THE STATE MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES REALLY ARE NOT THERE.
>> AND --
>> AND YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
SPECIAL EDUCATION --
>> AND TALKING ABOUT SPECIAL
EDUCATION.
>> YES, SO LET'S THINK ABOUT
SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR A SECOND.
YOU KNOW, OUR SPECIAL EDUCATION
FUNDING IS NOT GOOD.
THE WAY WE FUND SPECIAL
EDUCATION IN THIS STATE OF
WISCONSIN.
WE ARE CURRENTLY AT THE BOTTOM
AMONG STATES IN TERMS OF THE
AMOUNT THAT THE STATE FUNDS OR
STATE FUNDING IS ALLOCATED TO
SPECIAL EDUCATION.
WE DO IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY WITH
AS WELL, AND IT'S IN A MORE
UNIQUE WAY.
WE USE REIMBURSEMENTS, AND SO
DISTRICTS SPEND THE MONEY TO
PROVIDE SPECIAL ED SERVICES AS
THEY SHOULD, AND THEY DO, BUT
THEY ARE NOT PROVIDED
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THAT FROM THE
STATE.
RIGHT NOW, THE STATE IS
REIMBURSING SCHOOL DISTRICTS AT
ABOUT 28 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR,
ABOUT 28% OF THEIR SPENDING IS
PAID FOR BY THE STATES, BY THE
STATE, AND THE WAY THE LOCAL
DISTRICTS MAKE THIS UP IS THAT
THEY PULL MONEY FROM THEIR
GENERAL FUND, THEIR FUND THEY
USE TO SPEND ON ALL CHILDREN.
THEY PULL MONEY OUT OF THAT
GENERAL FUND TO FILL THE HOLE IN
THEIR SPECIAL EDUCATION BUDGET,
AND SO COMING INTO THIS, INTO
THIS BUDGET CYCLE, WE ARE WAY
BEHIND IN A BAD PLACE IN TERMS
OF SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING.
THE BIPARTISAN BLUE RIBBON
COMMISSION THAT TOOK PLACE A
COUPLE YEARS AGO, THAT WAS
SPECIAL ED FUNDING THAT WAS ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT EVERYBODY
AGREED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE.
WE NEEDED TO INCREASE SPECIAL
EDUCATION FUNDING.
DURING THE LAST BUDGET CYCLE,
THE BUDGET THAT WAS PASSED
ACTUALLY SAID THAT WE WOULD
INCREASE THAT FUNDING TO 30%.
HOWEVER, THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT
MAKE GOOD ON THAT PROMISE
BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT
SUFFICIENT FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT
TO MEET THAT TARGET OF A 30%
REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICTS, SO WE'RE SITTING AT
ABOUT 28% REIMBURSEMENT RIGHT
NOW.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE GOING INTO
THIS BUDGET.
THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED 45%
REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR THE FIRST
YEAR, AND THEN HIGHER FOR THE
SECOND YEAR IN THE BIAN NNIUM.
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET WOULD
RAISE IT TO 30%, WHICH IS WHAT
THEY SAID LAST TIME.
SO HAVE WE MADE ANY PROGRESS?
IS THAT AN INCREASE TO SCHOOLS?
I DON'T THINK SO.
>> AND SCHOOLS ARE REQUIRED TO
HAVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION, ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS.
ARE THESE, IN SOME WAYS,
UNFUNDED MANDATES?
>> WELL, THESE ARE -- THESE
PROGRAMS ARE MANDATED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THEY ARE
MORALLY AND EDUCATIONALLY
CORRECT AS WELL.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD
DO, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
MANY YEARS AGO IN THE '70s,
MANDATED THAT STATES PROVIDE
SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES AND
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING
SERVICES.
UNFORTUNATELY, OUR STATE DOESN'T
PROVIDE MUCH STATE MONEY AND
PUSHES THAT EXPENSE DOWN TO THE
LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
>> SO WITH THIS COMPLICATED
FUNDING FORMULA AND SCHOOL
DISTRICTS BEING STRAPPED, SHOULD
THE STRUCTURE OF HOW K-12
SCHOOLS ARE FUNDED IN THE STATE
BE SOMEWHAT OFFENDED?
DOES THAT FUNDING STRUCTURE NEED
TO CHANGE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
WE HAVE A FUNDING SYSTEM THAT
HASN'T BEEN TOUCHED FOR YEARS,
SINCE THE '70s.
IT JUST KEEPS GETTING MORE AND
MORE COMPLEX SO THAT IT IS HARD
TO EXPLAIN TO SOMEBODY -- IT IS
HARD FOR VOTERS TO UNDERSTAND,
AND IT IS HARD EVEN FOR ELECTED
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS TO
UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S NOT A TRANSPARENT SYSTEM
OF FUNDING.
IT IS ALSO NOT -- IT'S NOT
PREDICTABLE.
THERE ARE TECH REVENUE LIMITS,
FOR EXAMPLE.
REVENUE LIMITS, IF THERE WERE A
PREDICTABLE SEQUENCE SO THAT
SCHOOL DISTRICTS COULD BE
ASSURED THAT THEY WOULD AT LAST
GET A COST OF LIVING INCREASE,
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PREDICT
THEIR BUDGETS AND THEIR SPENDING
SPENDING.
BUT THERE ISN'T AN AUTOMATIC
INCREASE IN THOSE REVENUE
LIMITS.
IN FACT, WE'VE SEEN TWICE SINCE
REVENUE LIMITS WERE CREATEED
WHERE THERE WERE NO INCREASES IN
REVENUE LIMITS.
DURING THE SECOND SCOTT WALKER
BUDGET, THERE WAS NO REVENUE
LIMIT INCREASE, AND, OF COURSE,
DURING THE FIRST SCOTT WALKER
BUDGET, THERE WAS A CUT OF $550
MILLION -- I'M SORRY, $550 PER
STUDENT IN REVENUE LIMIT OR
SPENDING LIMIT, AND THIS IS
THE -- THIS WILL BE THE THIRD
TIME WHERE WE HAD NO INCREASE IN
REVENUE LIMITS.
REVENUE LIMITS IS JUST ONE
EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS SYSTEM IS SO
CONVALUDED WHY SCHOOL BOARDS
HAVE A HARD TIME PREDICTING WHAT
THEIR BUDGETS WILL LOOK LIKE IN
THE FUTURE.
>> SO WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE
POLICY GOES FORWARD, EITHER FOR
THIS PARTICULAR BIANNIUM, SHOULD
THE LEGISLATURE OR COULD THE
LEGISLATURE TAKE ANY ACTION TO
TRY AND STILL GIVE SCHOOLS MORE
MONEY, OR PASS THIS BUDGET
CYCLE?
WHAT DO YOU SEE GOING FORWARD?
>> WELL, CERTAINLY, IN THIS
BUDGET CYCLE, WHEN THEY COME
BACK TO DEAL WITH THE BUDGET AND
LOOK AT THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
THAT IS THERE AND AVAILABLE, I
BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD SPEND
MORE MONEY ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
THAT, IN MY OPINION, IS OBVIOUS
THERE.
I'VE HEARD CONCERNS ALL OVER THE
STATE, AND THERE ABOUT 140
SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ARE NOT
GOING TO GET ANY ADDITIONAL
FUNDING, AND, IN FACT, WILL BE
CUT, THEIR FUNDING WILL BE
REDUCED, STATE FUNDING WILL BE
REDUCED.
THAT INCLUDES 20 OF THE POOREST
SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN.
NOT JUST GENERALLY LARGE CITIES,
NOT URBAN CITIES, NOT POOR
DISTRICTS, BUT, LIKE, THIS
PROBLEM IS ACROSS THE STATE,
BUT, OF COURSE, IT'S WORSE FOR
THE POOR DISTRICTS, AND THE
PROBLEM IS, REGARDLESS OF SIZE
OR GEOGRAPHY OR POLITICAL
LEANING, THIS BUDGET AS WE HAVE
NOW IS NOT GOOD FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICTS, AND THEY NEED TO FIX
THAT.
THEY NEED TO SPEND SOME OF THE
MONEY THAT THEY HAVE IN THIS
GREAT FINANCIAL PREDICTION TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN, TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN IN
PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACROSS THE STATE
OF WISCONSIN.
THIS BUDGET IS HISTORIC IN THAT
IT PROVIDES MINIMAL FUNDING TO
LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHEN THE
NEED IS SO GREAT AND WHEN THE
DEMAND PLACED ON SCHOOLS
CONTINUES TO INCREASE, AND
THERE'S DEFINITELY ENOUGH MONEY
TO INVEST IN THE FUTURE OF OUR
CHILDREN.
STATE'S GOT THE FUNDS.
THERE'S A LARGE BALANCE
REMAINING, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
THAT COULD BE SPENT, AND THAT IS
CERTAINLY SUFFICIENT TO FUND
SPECIAL EDUCATION, MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNING PROGRAMS, AND IT COULD
EVEN JUSTIFY THE $200 PER PUPIL
REVENUE OR SPENDING LIMIT THAT
WAS PROPOSED BY GOVERNOR EVERS.
>> NOW, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE
REFERRING TO IN YOUR LETTER TO
THE GOVERNOR AS THESE GAPS
WIDENING?
>> THE GAPS WIDENING ARE EXACTLY
THAT.
WE HAVE LARGE GAPS IN OUR STATE,
OPPORTUNITY GAPS, ACADEMIC GAPS,
ACHIEVEMENT GAPS, CALL IT WHAT
YOU MAY, FUNDING GAPS, LARGE
GAPS IN OUR STATE, PARTICULARY
CHILDREN IN POVERTY, RURAL
CHILDREN, ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS, CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL
NEEDS, AND THESE ARE CHILDREN
WHO DON'T HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITIES, ACADEMIC
OPPORTUNITIES, THAT CHILDREN IN
WEALTHY COMMUNITIES HAVE, AND
THESE CHILDREN ARE IMPORTANT.
EVERY CHILD IS IMPORTANT IN THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND EVERY
CHILD SHOULD BE GIVEN A FUTURE
OR OPPORTUNITY FOR A GOOD
FUTURE.
THOSE ARE THE GAPS.
IN THIS TIME OF COVID, THOSE
GAPS ARE LAID BARE.
THEY ARE REALLY HARD TO IGNORE
AT THIS POINT.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHO DON'T HAVE
BROADBAND.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHO DON'T HAVE
SUFFICIENT TEACHERS OR AIDES,
SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT NEED
ASSISTANCE, STRUCTURALLY NEED
ASSISTANCE.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, ENGLISH
LEARNING LANGUAGE SERVICES.
THE GAPS ARE LAID BARE, AND THIS
PARTICULAR BUDGET IS GOING TO
MAKE THOSE GAPS WORSE RATHER
THAN BETTER, AND WE HAVE
SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO CLOSE THOSE
GAPS.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT DONE
THAT, AND, YOU KNOW, BUDGETS ARE -- PUBLIC BUDGETS ARE A
STATEMENT OF VALUES.
YOU WONDER HOW MUCH EDUCATION IS
VALUED WHEN YOU SEE THIS KIND OF
HISTORIC MINIMAL FUNDING.
YEARS AGO, OUR PARENTS AND
GRANDPARENTS IN THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN INVESTED IN PUBLIC
EDUCATION TO CREATE A GOOD
SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACROSS
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN SO THAT
CHILDREN COULD BENEFIT.
DON'T YOU THINK THAT AT THIS
TIME IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA
WHEN WE HAVE FUNDS TO INVEST IN
OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN
JUST AS OUR PARENTS AND
GRANDPARENTS DID FOR US?
>> THIS IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE
WE'LL BE WATCHING GOING FORWARD
AND DEFINITELY MORE REPORTING TO
DO, BUT DR. JULIE UNDERWOOD,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US
TODAY.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
TO THIS ISSUE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> FOR MORE FROM "HERE & NOW"
AND PBS WISCONSIN, VISIT
PBSWISCONSIN.ORG/WISCONSIN, AND
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ON
"NOON WEDNESDAY."