I second the motion!

Can we point out that this is an article by John Lehman, about John Lehman?

@Greg - no, sorry. We're only talking about public school funding.

Thanks, Bob! I'm using you as an example of how to comment on the SUBJECT. Let me ask you a question (really, open to anyone) - what other funding model do you think could work? I think too much burden is placed on the property owner. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I'm not interested in a funding model that hides costs. Leave it on the property tax. If anything, add more of it to the property tax. Since much of the decision making is done locally, the costs associated with those decisions should be borne locally as well. I'd also restrict the ability of local schools to borrow money for facility expansion beyond certain levels of need. Unless there's an incentive to rein in costs, it's not going to happen. Obfuscating them only provides an opportunity for local districts to do the opposite of living within their means.

Local control, local funding, local accountability. Otherwise we'll continue to provide substandard education at a premium cost, or spend foolishly on non-necissities in those districts already performing well.

Bob:

The issue with having funding based on local property taxes is that the school funding would then reflect the income levels of the neighborhood. Impoverished areas of the inner city would be underfunded while wealthy suburbs would likely have a surplus of funding available for their schools. Granted the term 'underfunded' is rather fuzzy, but it seems reasonable to expect that per student costs should be fairly consistent across all schools.

Good point CD. So, let the funding formula require that 1/3 or 1/4 of all school districts to fund completely from the property tax. We can aid the remaining districts in poor areas. It would seem like less monies will be 'lost' in the cash 'hand-off' adminstration.

Perhaps in those low income areas (let's be honest, we're talking about the city of Milwaukee) we allow the locality some leeway in terms of how it chooses to self-fund. If it chooses to heavily pursue donations, so be it. If it chooses to access a "special fee" to businesses in the area, so be it. If it chooses to apply a city-wide sales tax, so be it. If it chooses to charge a "user fee" to those families above a certain income level who utilize the school system, so be it (actually I'd be fine with that in any area where they feel constrained by local funding and limitations on borrowing).

The less funding that comes out of an unidentifiable, general fund made up of monies coming, in whole or in part, from outside the district, the better. The more we blend, source from general funds and borrow, the less we hold the local systems accountable - not only for performance, but cost control as well.

I predicted that cuts to state educational aid would end up being covered by the local property taxpayer, and it turns out I'm right. The problem here is that property assessments don't always mean the ability to pay. This hits retirees hard.

While I agree that local funding is best, I don't think that it's really practical for all areas to 'self fund'. If you try to gig businesses to fill the funding gap, you run the risk of having businesses relocate in the suburbs to avoid the tax.

People that can afford to pay the 'user fees' are likely already sending their kids to private schools outside the city.

Having a citywide sales tax is likely the most feasible solution, but it also puts additional burden on those living in the inner city and can least afford to pay more in taxes.

One of the things I like about the choice/voucher system is that it provides a level of accountability in that parents can take their child out of a school and 'spend' the voucher somewhere else if the school isn't meeting expectations.

It hits everyone hard, Randy. You think families with kids who've suffered job losses or salary reductions aren't hit hard when property taxes go up? The idea is that, instead of always assuming budgets are inflexible and that the entire cost of funding shortfalls has to be made up elsewhere, some serious effort is put into cost savings. I find it impossible to believe that every other entity, except government, can manage to make ends meet on less.

The local beneficiaries have to have enough skin in the game that they hold the local systems accountable. If they don't, nobody else will.

CD, I'm not talking about 100% self funding in all cases. I'm talking about a greater share of those funds being borne locally. Enough to engage the local electorate, seriously, in addressing the issue from a cost control POV rather than one that automatically seeks additional revenue from alternative sources.

That's an idea I can certainly agree with, Bob. If the locality makes no contribution, or has only a passive role in the funding, they have no incentive to control costs or to eliminate waste.

Per Randy:
"I predicted that cuts to state educational aid would end up being covered by the local property taxpayer, and it turns out I'm right."

The cuts were covered by employee contributions and local savings. Act 10 did not allow a tax increase. Please explain how "this hit retirees hard".

As it turns out, it is the levies that are frozen, not people's property taxes as we had all been assured. The property taxpayer is called upon to make up any difference when the savings from Act 10 don't equal the loss of state and federal aid to schools. Waukesha's tax rate per thousand is going up.

You could argue that if you live in a $300K house you have the income to pay the higher tax, but that isn't always the case with retirees. Why shouldn't they be allowed to stay in homes they worked for and own? And now some people want the schools to be entirely the responsibility of the property owners?

If I recall correctly, MPS is funded 90/10 (state aid/local property tax) and most of the north shore school districts, at almost an inverse rate, in the 10/90 or 10/80 state/local funding range.

And now some people want the schools to be entirely the responsibility of the property owners?

***********************

If that's what it takes to get you out of your chair and down to a local meeting to insist on fiscal responsibility on the part of your school district, maybe that's what we need to do. Otherwise, you don't show up and they have no incentive not to keep operating as if money were no object.

Randy, Please provide information regarding the taxes that are going up, I could not find anything.

@greg -- http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/waukesha-school-district-budget-reduces-costs-proposes-tax-rate-increase

"In the preliminary budget, the tax levy for the district is estimated to be $83 million, a decrease of $891,000 from last year’s levy. Assuming a 2 percent decrease in equalized property value throughout the district, the resulting tax rate would be $9.33 per $1,000 of property value. Last year's tax rate was $9.24 per $1,000 of property value. A home valued at $200,000 would pay $1,866 for the school district portion of the tax bill, an $18 increase over last year."

Those numbers assume a few things and I don't think the math is quite correct, but if we do accept the numbers as presented I do not think that $18 is going to force grandma out of her $200,000 house. Also consider the fact that the 2012 mil rate of $9.33 is still lower than the 2010 rate, grandma is ahead some money.
Randy, You are making something out of nothing. I don't think you really understand the basics of property tax calculation. I would like to see an honest estimation of the tax increases that would have been required to pay for the budget Barrett would have had.

Randy1949 makes a great point and I agree with Randy when it comes to retirees. They should not be chased from their homes simply because the majority of the localities that they live in continue to elect big spending local leaders.

But McBride also makes a great argument that local leaders need to be incentivized to cut spending and find ways to make education more effective and efficient.

Perhaps a quasi Rick Snyder solution would work best here - the more a local district relies upon state funding, the more decision making power the state would be allowed to exercise over district function.

One thing that is evident is that Lehman's proposed solution of just throwing more state money at education is not viable, nor does it address or fix the problems in our public education system.

Exactly. What liberals, and even the Patch moderator here don't understand, is that school staffs have grown geometrically while student enrollment has grown more linearly over the past 20 years.

Why do schools now need 3 or 4 assistant principals when 20 years ago they maybe only had 1?

Just too much of a money black hole. Schools need to learn to spend within their limits, for too long they've always gotten their way, along with the teacher's union.

There's more to it than that, JRH. Why should seniors (or anyone else) be forced off property they own simply because their income no longer matches the perceived value of that property? Fiscal responsibility in the school districts is a good place to start, but that won't do the whole job. Education benefits us all, not just the property owners, and there should be a balance in education funding from all sources, income tax included.

*Central Office land swap. Sorry.

MPS per student costs are the highest in the country (adjusted for cost of living), more tax dollars are not the solution.

Well technically your comment about the comments was not on topic, so that would make two. Darn, now it's three. We gotta stop commenting about comments that are about comments.