|
|
 |
| 2/26/2009 10:20:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Plans on school funding worthy of debate
From Jill Gaskell
Blanchardville
As a parent and leader in the Pecatonica and Wisconsin PTAs, I value our state's public school system, and it is clear we need to change the way we are funding our public schools. Class sizes are increasing in some schools, while other schools are losing state aid because of declining enrollment; technical ed, agriculture, arts, music and other classes are being cut; school districts are being faced with deferred maintenance, downsizing and more. After 15 years of spending controls, flaws have developed that need attention now, before they put our children's education any further at risk. A recent Monroe Times editorial indicated that Governor Doyle's current funding proposal should serve as a starting point in the Legislature for debate on the topic. I strongly agree.
I am a member of the School Finance Network (SFN), a statewide coalition of parents, teachers, school board members, administrators and others, who realize the critical importance for accountable school funding, especially in a down economy. We praise the governor for making school funding a priority. He has ideas, as does Rep. Brett Davis. While different, all of these ideas are worthy of discussion and debate as our state looks for a realistic solution.
The SFN also has a plan, which took two years to develop and can be seen at www.sfnwisconsin.org. It controls costs, aligns them with revenues, and targets funding where it is most needed - toward students. Every public school district statewide would benefit. The SFN plan would keep the qualified economic offer (QEO) for teachers and revenue limits, yet add flexibility to both while allowing districts more "spendable" revenue targeted to children with special needs. The State Supreme Court has identified these special needs students as needing greater recognition in any funding formula. The SFN has worked to answer this call in a plan that we truly believe is responsible, reasoned and financially accountable.
Above all, the SFN approach works to protect taxpayers and calls upon the Legislature's expertise in determining the appropriate mechanisms to fund the plan.
To be sure, any change will not happen overnight, but it will be important for all parties to work together for the greater good of Wisconsin's education system. As long as we continue to keep Wisconsin's longstanding tradition of providing a quality education for students front and center, progress and a solution are within our reach.
 |  | |
|
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Alan Green
The School Finance Network proposal is the product of a number of organizations, all of which are concerned about equitable and adequate financing of our public schools. Those of us who are familiar with the current funding formula agree that it is badly in need of repair. Mr. Ryan's mention of Henry George is an irrelevant red herring rather than a debating point. High quality public education is essential for a functioning democracy. Would he make it voluntary? deny that it's important? No debate points made, Mr. Ryan.
Posted: Sunday, March 01, 2009
Article comment by:
Dan Rayn
A debate is an engagement in argument by discussing opposing points.
It is not a debate when the plans of the Governor, the SFN, and every other educational funding proposal all desire the same outcome – more spending. The property taxpayer should not be fooled by a false consensus arrived at by a coalition of teacher union groups all acting from the same progressive/liberal educational playbook. Increased school funding disproportionately benefits one group - the teacher union monopoly.
A debate must begin about the continued existence of compulsory (forced) education in the modern age, rather than about its method and amount of funding. Every American should ask why the State forces its children to attend State schools under penalty of law. Forced schooling is an affront to the foundations of our Republic: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The natural right of individual liberty is severely eroded when the State system of forced schooling is allowed to exist as the only educational option.
It must be noted that the technical advice and funding for the State Finance Network Funding Proposal comes from The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. The Institute is founded on the ideas of Henry George, a self-taught economist who was a proponent of the land value tax (LVT), and the philosophy that everyone owns what they create, but that everything found in nature, most importantly land, belongs to all humanity. The SFN proposal must be considered in the context of the goals and values of the Lincoln Institute and its inspirational source – Henry George.
The school funding debate is a false debate. The debate should be about the continued existence of State controlled compulsory education.
Let the debate begin.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
|
|
