While we don't agree that repealing the qualified economic offer (QEO) for our state's teachers is a good move for Wisconsin's school districts or taxpayers, we can agree with Gov. Jim Doyle when he says it's time for people to get more serious about education funding reform.
It's way past time, actually.
The governor visited Tuesday for about 45 minutes with the Times editorial board. The meeting concluded with a discussion about Doyle's vision for changing the way the state's public schools are funded. Interestingly, his vision sounds a lot like one Republican Assemblyman Brett Davis was sharing about this time last summer. That is cause for some encouragement that common ground can be reached on the issue between majority Democrats and at least some Republicans.
"Maybe now that the Legislature is done with the budget, the economic challenges we face will cause people to get more serious about" education funding reform, Doyle told the editorial board.
Doyle shared his proposal for reforms, which he said is based on the state first determining how much it wants to spend on education, and determining the results it expects from that investment. That would be a good start, as opposed to the current formula in which school districts determine what they'll spend, then the state government (at least in theory) commits to funding two-thirds of the costs. "The state doesn't really know what it's getting with that formula," Doyle said.
Doyle would like to allow school districts to get out from under revenue caps, but to do so they'd need to meet state requirements in efficiencies. Those would include:
• Ensuring improvements in the educational performance of students by committing to a series of accepted educational practices and data-driven achievement measures that have been proven to work.
• Joining together to form larger collective bargaining units of at least 500 employees. This means smaller districts wouldn't have to consolidate, Doyle said, but would be a "step toward really looking to help lower costs."
• Pooling together to make purchases and taking other economic efficiency measures.
• Committing to health care plans for employees that are equal too or less expensive than the state plan.
• Finding ways to compensate teachers for high levels of performance.
A number of the efficiency steps Doyle proposes were included in similar form in the education funding reform plan Davis unveiled during the 2008 campaign. Davis, however, used the steps as a way to allow school districts to shift some of their funding burden away from property taxes.
When Davis unveiled his proposal, we called it risky but with laudable and necessary goals. We said it would require significant concessions from all involved parties in Madison.
We feel the same way about Doyle's ideas. Perhaps the fact that our Democratic governor and Republican Assemblyman are at least on the same chapter, if not the same page, of education funding reform is a hopeful signal that meaningful education funding reform can happen in Wisconsin.
It's time to get something done. A bipartisan solution would be ideal.
It's way past time, actually.
The governor visited Tuesday for about 45 minutes with the Times editorial board. The meeting concluded with a discussion about Doyle's vision for changing the way the state's public schools are funded. Interestingly, his vision sounds a lot like one Republican Assemblyman Brett Davis was sharing about this time last summer. That is cause for some encouragement that common ground can be reached on the issue between majority Democrats and at least some Republicans.
"Maybe now that the Legislature is done with the budget, the economic challenges we face will cause people to get more serious about" education funding reform, Doyle told the editorial board.
Doyle shared his proposal for reforms, which he said is based on the state first determining how much it wants to spend on education, and determining the results it expects from that investment. That would be a good start, as opposed to the current formula in which school districts determine what they'll spend, then the state government (at least in theory) commits to funding two-thirds of the costs. "The state doesn't really know what it's getting with that formula," Doyle said.
Doyle would like to allow school districts to get out from under revenue caps, but to do so they'd need to meet state requirements in efficiencies. Those would include:
• Ensuring improvements in the educational performance of students by committing to a series of accepted educational practices and data-driven achievement measures that have been proven to work.
• Joining together to form larger collective bargaining units of at least 500 employees. This means smaller districts wouldn't have to consolidate, Doyle said, but would be a "step toward really looking to help lower costs."
• Pooling together to make purchases and taking other economic efficiency measures.
• Committing to health care plans for employees that are equal too or less expensive than the state plan.
• Finding ways to compensate teachers for high levels of performance.
A number of the efficiency steps Doyle proposes were included in similar form in the education funding reform plan Davis unveiled during the 2008 campaign. Davis, however, used the steps as a way to allow school districts to shift some of their funding burden away from property taxes.
When Davis unveiled his proposal, we called it risky but with laudable and necessary goals. We said it would require significant concessions from all involved parties in Madison.
We feel the same way about Doyle's ideas. Perhaps the fact that our Democratic governor and Republican Assemblyman are at least on the same chapter, if not the same page, of education funding reform is a hopeful signal that meaningful education funding reform can happen in Wisconsin.
It's time to get something done. A bipartisan solution would be ideal.
