School Forests: Part of a Larger Solution to Public School Funding?

Nick Hylla

Wisconsin Forest Resources Education Alliance

TPA Article

July, 2006

If you have a child in school, pay property taxes, or even just listen to the news occasionally, you have surely heard of problems with public school funding in Wisconsin. As with most issues, we hear the two (or more) sides state their case and often end up with the impression that the problem will be difficult to solve and that any solution will help some and hurt others. The discussion about public school funding seems to fit this mold well.

The debate pits property tax payers against schools. On the one hand, taxpayers are fighting to keep their property taxes from increasing, and on the other, schools are fighting to keep programs running, and in some cases, keep the doors open.

In 1993, Wisconsin passed legislation to reduce property taxes by controlling school costs. The school revenue formula caps the amount of revenue that districts are allowed to raise from one year to the next and commits the state of Wisconsin to 2/3 funding of the total cost of public education statewide. The revenue a school receives for the year is determined by how many pupils the school has, meaning that schools with a growing student population have greater opportunity to increase revenues. The school closures that have been seen across the state are a result of growing costs (e.g., energy, textbooks, building repair) and stable or shrinking student populations in many districts.

Even schools that have an increasing student population have been forced to cut programs. According to a study released in December 2005 by the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, 78% of school superintendents say the law has had a negative effect on the quality of education offered by their districts and 34% reported cuts in every one of the 27 program and service areas listed in the study. Only 4% of districts reported no cuts at all. The programs most likely to be cut or eliminated include art, music, physical education, foreign languages, business education, family and consumer education, and technology/vocational education.

On the other hand, property taxes still continue to rise slightly each year. Even though school funding has decreased from nearly 60% of the property tax in 1970 to less than 45% today, funding for local services (think first responders) has taken up the slack. In the last decade, school taxes increased less than the rate of inflation in 81% of Wisconsin school districts.

Today, it is obvious that public schools are in a difficult financial situation and that a significant percentage of property tax payers are unable or unwilling to make up the difference. Yet, one has to wonder, does a solution exist outside of this one-versus-the-other debate? In my mind the question is, “Can we improve education and make it less expensive?” With vision, ingenuity and collaboration, the answer is yes.

The vision needs to be one that addresses the current problem and offers a more promising alternative. The current problem is one of cost and effectiveness. The cost of instruction and the cost of infrastructure are high and increasing and effectiveness is criticized and scrutinized by nearly all parties involved (everyone tends to recognize the failures but disagree on the solutions).

For now, I ask you to ponder one component of a new vision for public schools (with the promise of expanding on the idea in the future):

Wisconsin public schools continue their outstanding record of achievement in reading, math, and science. Districts continue to place priority on teaching and testing these important subjects. Districts improve retention and provide students with comprehensive, real-life learning experiences by creating and sustaining interdisciplinary learning environments focused on locally relevant issues. Students are involved in economics, art, literature, society, and environment through projects and experiences connected to their school, community, and region. Districts take charge of their curriculum through teacher training and collaboration and the development of partnerships with regionally active agencies and industries.