Gov. Jim Doyle this week revealed an education funding overhaul that poses real promise and threats to Wisconsin taxpayers.
Doyle, during a meeting Wednesday with the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board, outlined his plan for a bill he hopes to propose next fall to reform the school revenue formula. His proposals include potentially disastrous plans to diminish revenue caps and eliminate the qualified economic offer (QEO), measures that have proven to be effective safeguards against skyrocketing property taxes to fund schools. They also include potentially effective efforts to improve student performance and rein in the costs of health care benefits.
The governor's proposals are intriguing but flawed. They should serve as a starting point in one of the most important debates the state Legislature could have in the coming months.
Doyle would allow districts to avoid revenue caps if they join together to negotiate union contracts, make employees use the state health plan unless they already have a cheaper plan, and agree to practices to improve student performance.
The state would be wise to pursue the health care component. The cost of health benefits is perhaps the greatest driver of the gap between school district revenues and expenses. Rep. Brett Davis, R-Oregon, made a similar overture in an education funding reform plan he pitched during last fall's campaign. A Davis proposal to reward districts that consolidate services and purchasing to reduce costs also should be pursued.
Requiring districts to adopt practices to improve student performance, and tying it to funding formulas, is worthy of discussion. But the state would need to take great care in determining which practices will be efficient and effective. That could be a difficult and controversial task.
But the financial effectiveness of all of those efforts will be lost if the state eliminates the QEO, which aides school districts in trying to keep salary and benefit increases in line with revenues. That's a difficult enough task for districts now. Eliminating the QEO would make that goal virtually impossible to reach - forcing schools to make even more drastic choices between cuts and tax increases.
As Davis proposed last fall, adding flexibility to revenue caps and the QEO, and tying that to cost-saving and classroom performance initiatives, gives taxpayers the best shot at getting the most for their money.
Davis, as the ranking minority member on the Assembly education committee, must continue to push that cause. The Democratic governor has made some proposals that challenge the school establishment. There's an opening for having meaningful discussion and making changes to a school funding formula in need of a fix.
Doyle, during a meeting Wednesday with the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board, outlined his plan for a bill he hopes to propose next fall to reform the school revenue formula. His proposals include potentially disastrous plans to diminish revenue caps and eliminate the qualified economic offer (QEO), measures that have proven to be effective safeguards against skyrocketing property taxes to fund schools. They also include potentially effective efforts to improve student performance and rein in the costs of health care benefits.
The governor's proposals are intriguing but flawed. They should serve as a starting point in one of the most important debates the state Legislature could have in the coming months.
Doyle would allow districts to avoid revenue caps if they join together to negotiate union contracts, make employees use the state health plan unless they already have a cheaper plan, and agree to practices to improve student performance.
The state would be wise to pursue the health care component. The cost of health benefits is perhaps the greatest driver of the gap between school district revenues and expenses. Rep. Brett Davis, R-Oregon, made a similar overture in an education funding reform plan he pitched during last fall's campaign. A Davis proposal to reward districts that consolidate services and purchasing to reduce costs also should be pursued.
Requiring districts to adopt practices to improve student performance, and tying it to funding formulas, is worthy of discussion. But the state would need to take great care in determining which practices will be efficient and effective. That could be a difficult and controversial task.
But the financial effectiveness of all of those efforts will be lost if the state eliminates the QEO, which aides school districts in trying to keep salary and benefit increases in line with revenues. That's a difficult enough task for districts now. Eliminating the QEO would make that goal virtually impossible to reach - forcing schools to make even more drastic choices between cuts and tax increases.
As Davis proposed last fall, adding flexibility to revenue caps and the QEO, and tying that to cost-saving and classroom performance initiatives, gives taxpayers the best shot at getting the most for their money.
Davis, as the ranking minority member on the Assembly education committee, must continue to push that cause. The Democratic governor has made some proposals that challenge the school establishment. There's an opening for having meaningful discussion and making changes to a school funding formula in need of a fix.
