Election Commission upholds. In education news, it was a year
that saw Wisconsin voters approve a record number of
referenda to boost spending in local school districts to the
tune of $4.4 billion. At the same time, the state
Superintendent of Public state K-12 funding by a total of
new proposed spending of more than $4 billion. Meanwhile, in
Washington, moves to eliminate the U.S. Department of
Education. Lots afoot. We check in with Christopher Saldana,
professor of K-12 educational leadership and policy analysis.
And thanks for being here. >> Thanks for having me.
>> So in terms of Dpi's $4 billion budget request, it calls
for funding 90% of special education costs. What's your
reaction to that? >> I think it's a great
proposal. I think schools are federally mandated to provide
education for students with disabilities and for the last at
least since for the last 20 years, school districts have had
to fund the majority of that. So I think currently the state
reimburses about 30% of spending on public education, and school
districts have to supply 70% of those costs, and that those
funds come from their general funds. So those are supposed to
be dollars that are supposed to support all students in general
education classrooms. >> But is this request on the
part of the Department of Public Instruction kind of more
aspirational than than real, at least politically?
>> I think that's a question for the legislature. I think that's
a question for what our values are in the state of Wisconsin. I
think special education is something that we want to ensure
that's provided to every single student, regardless of their
disability or need. And I think currently, because of the
different financial capacity that school districts have,
there's a huge amount of variation in what school
districts can afford. So having the state step up and play a
bigger role in funding special education creates greater,
greater equality of opportunity for students who have
disabilities, whether they're in a small rural district or in a
large urban district like Milwaukee.
>> Why have we allowed it to be so underfunded for so long in
the state of Wisconsin? >> That's a great question, too.
I think one of the things that folks are very familiar with, in
particular because of the recent referenda that have been
requested on the parts of districts, is that funding for
any public service, any public good, requires tax dollars. And
I think from the state's perspective, there is this
question about raising revenue for providing adequate public
education for students and for far too long, the answer to that
question has been to just not fund public education, because
it's easier. You don't raise taxes on people. You don't face
the repercussions of that kind of political action.
>> So the Wisconsin Policy Forum reports that this past year was
a record year for the passage of these referenda, as we said,
$4.4 billion. But they have also noted a decline in the passage
of these over the years. Do you think there is kind of referenda
fatigue? come to someone who is doing
their best in their life to try to pay their bills, and you say,
we have this need for public schools. I think generally folks
across the state of Wisconsin, folks across the country support
public education. But when you're asking them to pay 100,
200, 300, $400 more in property taxes per year, that starts to
hit people's wallet. And I think it becomes a question of, can I
afford this? I think this is very closely tied to Doctor
Underly budget proposal at DPI, because I think what she's
proposing is to say, let's provide additional state
alleviate some of these referenda questions and are
going to provide some relief for local taxpayers by providing
state funding. >> And yet, school districts
over the years have really not had a choice but to go to the
local voters. Right? That's right.
>> As years go by, costs rise. You have to pay teachers more
health care costs rise, you have to repair your buildings. All of
those things cost more and more money. I think people are now
very intimately familiar with inflation. Those things exist
within school buildings, too, and within school districts. And
so if the state provides the same amount of funding over time
with no inflationary no other option but to ask their
communities to foot the bill. >> Meanwhile, in Washington,
there is a move to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
What are the implications of that?
>> I, I don't think it's entirely clear yet. I think
there's this argument that we should eliminate aspects of
government. One of the proposals being eliminating the Department
of Education. I think there is an argument that then the
control over education should go back to states. I think there's
a there's this myth that states and local communities don't
already control their education. State's constitutionally do
decide what happens in schools. They determine curriculums. They
determine standards. Local school districts do folks elect
their school boards? A lot of that that decision making power
is local control. But what would happen? I think, is unclear
because of the programs that the department of Education has.
They administer funding for students in poverty. They
administer funding for students with disabilities. They ensure
that those students aren't discriminated against, and then
they provide a ton of research for education, which is really
the innovation wing of our country's educational system.
But it's very unclear what abolishing the Department of
Education means. Does it mean no more funding for students in
poverty? No more oversight of discrimination? Or is it really
a reallocation of those responsibilities in the
different agencies? >> I guess we will find out.
That's right. All right. That's right. All right.