flatulent cow  |   Home  |   Refocus

“Funding public education is not a revenue problem”

Amen.

Currently, approximately 35 percentof Waukesha’s teaching staff has a master’s degree plus 30 credits (why they are needed to teach K-12 is beyond me). With more teachers racing to get to the pinnacle of the salary scale, there is less revenue available. Less revenue to pay the more expensive teachers means the teachers with less seniority or education are eliminated. And, contract clauses protect those at the top from job elimination.

Even a negotiated change in current contract talks can’t undo the financial damage caused by this financial commitment. Members of the committee were absolutely stunned, both Democrat and Republican, when I presented literature explaining that one teacher was able to increase their salary by 78 percent in one year. This teacher at Waukesha North went from $34,795 to $61.986. Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) asked, “What school district is this?”
While some teachers claim that the majority of their 3.8 percent raise (not the QEO) went to preserve benefits, it’s pretty obvious that is a misleading half-truth.

The second problem is benefits. I really don’t think the public has a clue as to how generous Waukesha taxpayers are to public educators compared with those who pay them:

- A $21,000 annually family plan health insurance policy.
- Dental insurance.
- Income protection insurance.
- Life insurance.
- Double digit pension contributions.
- Sick days.
- Contracted to work approximately 36 work weeks per year (180 contract days).
- More pay for additional activities such as coaching sports.
- Retirement eligibility at age 55.

Retirement benefits including health and life insurance, accumulated vacation days, and terminal bonuses.

Many of these benefits contribute to the Waukesha School Districts’ outstanding debt for Post Employment Retirement Benefits. I informed the committee that a recent actuarial study projected the unfunded liability for the School District of Waukesha alone is $195 million dollars over the next 20 years. This dollar amount does not reflect the actual cost of pensions.

[...]

Finally, we need to get politics out of the classroom. Parents of children in the Waukesha School District are more than a little concerned that union educators have taken their cause to the kids as the result of budget cuts.

Contract negotiations above the QEO and raises for administrators in light of such cuts to “attract and retain top talent” are not the fault of the kids. If nearly $11,000 per child is not enough tax revenue to educate a child in Waukesha, the state legislature needs to pass legislation to expand the voucher program for all families statewide and let all parents decide what educational system is best for their children.

Funding public education is not a revenue problem, it’s a local expenditure problem.

Posted by Owen at 1503 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. I know this is slightly off-topic & a different school district, but a few weeks ago I was hoping to see the Whitnall School District situation covered here - seemed like a perfect B & S topic - I thought maybe local school issues were taboo here, until I saw this post.

   Anyway, the school superintendant had requested an early retirement package that could have cost the district as much as $230,000.  She has since withdrawn the request, but initially she had said she needed an early release from her contract because of “stress” & because of an unspecified security/safety threat (maybe something posted on this blog?).  Just a few facts - she is 54 years old, makes $148,000 a year, started August of 2000, and and in August of 2010 she will be entitled for up to $90,000 in insurance coverage until eligible for Medicare.

   Some of the contract terms were obtained via an open records request by a citizen.  Just curious what the aggregate $$ contingent liability exists for our WI school districts for these kinds of benefits that are in contracts?

   Here are some links:

   http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=697300
   Whitnall superintendent wants $230,000 departure package

   http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=698244

   Whitnall official drops request

   http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=696752
   Whitnall schools’ Petric to retire early

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 1725 hrs
   
   
   

2. As a teacher, I totally agree with the assessment here, for the most part.  The pay schedule and the fact you cannot fire incompetent teachers make it almost impossible for new teachers break into the school districts.  Unless you are a special education, science or math teacher, good luck getting into a school district.  Then the new graduates, most who are eager to teach, leave the state, give up on teaching or take part time teaching jobs or at the least, become a substitute teacher, hoping to get their feet in the door.
   I do question how a teacher got a 78% pay raise unless they went from teaching to an administrtor.  If they are teaching, I find it virtually impossible.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 2125 hrs
   
   
   

3. Owen,
   Thanks for the post. For Dan the teacher, the salary increase was for real and is only the worst case reported. The overall picture is much worst and is destined to collapse the system within a short few years. For the best explaination and the absolute source for how this nightmare was made possible, and likely in all school districts by the union contract, there is a powerpoint presentation on the website of the Waukesha Taxpayers League at www.waukeshataxpayersleague.com.  A study authored by the queens of tax issues, Chris Lufter and Kathy Briggs uncovered this horrific situation.

   The obligation for post employment benefits was required by an accounting change instituted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) as a bulletin requiring ALL governmental entities to have an acturial study performed by July (?) 2007. You can do an open records request from your city, county, school district, even the state for this report. Waukesha school district’s was approximately 25 pages. I wish somebody in the legislature would reguire the fiscal audit bureau to do a totalization of the OPEB for all public education systems K-12, another for technical colleges, and another for UW.

   Happy New Year!

   Steve Edlund

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 2155 hrs
   
   
   

4. Owen/Steve,

   My comments to this are lengthy, so I have made an independent post out at OTBL.. 

   http://www.ontheborderline.net/?p=5116

   Posted by bildanielson on December 30, 2007 at 1233 hrs
   
   
   

5. Currently, approximately 35 percentof Waukesha’s teaching staff has a master’s degree plus 30 credits (why they are needed to teach K-12 is beyond me). With more teachers racing to get to the pinnacle of the salary scale, there is less revenue available. Less revenue to pay the more expensive teachers means the teachers with less seniority or education are eliminated.

   As a taxpayer, I want highly-educated, professional teachers in our schools. I want teachers to continue their education and participate in professional development activities throughout their careers. Professional growth/continuous improvement should be a requirement for all educators.

   And, contract clauses protect those at the top from job elimination.

   What does this mean? Is the author saying that a teacher at the top of the salary schedule can’t be reassigned? Or fired for documented incompetence?

   ...one teacher was able to increase their salary by 78 percent in one year. This teacher at Waukesha North went from $34,795 to $61.986.

   I wonder how common it is for an educator to get a raise of 30, 40, 50% (not very). What are the details in this example - is the raise due entirely to the teacher earning more graduate credits? Did he go from less than 100% to full-time? Does it include him assuming additional coaching and extracurricular responsibilities? A raise of this magnitude isn’t common and is perhaps unprecedented. Has anyone in a non-educational profession ever earned a 78% increase and raised eyebrows? Are there any circumstances in which someone that got a 78% pay raise earned it?

   The problem isn’t in the funding formula which seeks to equalize funding per student as the state constitution requires, but rather the revenue caps and the QEO that are not in line with each other. But as usual, the “it’s for the kids” people just want to throw more money at education and directly into the wallets of teachers and administrators without taxpayers’ permission.

   When the total budget for a school district can go up by about 2% (by law, revenue caps) but salaries and benefits can go up by about 4% (by law, QEO), you have a permanent budget inequity. Salaries and benefits make up about 80% of most school district’s budgets, meaning that, every year, a smaller slice of the pie is available for everything else. This has been a problem since these two laws were passed in 1993.

   ...retirement eligibility at age 55…

   Allow (encouraging) educators to retire when they reach a certain age, number of years of service or a combination thereof, helps school district budget problems by replacing the highest-paid teachers with those nearer the bottom of the salary schedule but there’s a downside as well: losing the most experienced teachers to retirement is a loss to the development of younger teachers, who benefit from more experienced teachers’ mentoring and leadership.

   I strongly support our public schools and believe they have benefitted our society in incalculable ways. I also think public scrutiny is a good thing. The public should (want to) know how their taxes are being spent. Accountability is important, as are strong public schools. School financing is a mess and needs to be fixed. Funding public education is both a revenue problem and a test of local communities values.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 1236 hrs
   
   
   

6. Joe,

   The way we finance schools is messed up, but the salary and benefits we pay to teachers is even worse. The benefit and seniority structures are dinosaurs, representative of generations past when those benefits were inexpensive.

   The cost of effectively teaching kids has risen as our society has advanced, and it has been exacerbated by federal policies like NCLB and many state policies. Given that taxpayers cannot and will not agree to pay these costs plus the increasing cost of teacher benefits, those benefits should be the first to go.

   The fact is the younger generation, like myself, are not terribly interested in defined benefit-style pensions. We want more pay and more flexibility.

   The entire structure needs to be ripped apart and put back together from scratch, using successful models from other states and countries.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 1255 hrs
   
   
   

7. We spend about $4600 per student at our parochial school. 

   Guess what - the students are respectful (we always get compliments on their behavior after field trips), we don’t have fights at our basketball games, we have 100% literacy, and all students can find Wisconsin on a map.

   Public schools are now spending in the neighborhood of $9000-$11000 per student. 

   It isn’t how much is being spent, it is how it is being spent….

   and it ain’t “for the children”

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 1822 hrs
   
   
   

8. RC,

   Are you required to teach any student that walks through you door regardless of their situation, or do you get to pick and choose your students?

   Thanks.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 2133 hrs
   
   
   

9. Tosa -

   I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at with your question.  Which “problem” students are you referring?  Financial, behavioral ?

   We are spaced constrained, so limit class sizes to 25 - we have waiting lists for some grades.  We have poor children that receive tuition assistance.  We have several children with behavioral issues and in counseling or on medications.  We administer the “Iowa” tests even though we are not required to by law.  Children that need extra help receive it.  Parents are involved in these decisions.  The school is old and has stairs so children that would require it, get help up and down the stairs. 

   So - in the vague context of your question, we don’t refuse students, but we also address issues as they come up.  Classrooms are not allowed to get out of control.  We actively teaching students to respect teachers and other authority.  There is a dress code and a code of conduct.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2008 at 1009 hrs
   
   
   

10. Of course you understood the question because you proceeded to qualify your answer.

    So no, you do not take every student that comes to your door regardless of their financial, behavioral or mental problems. You keep it “under control”.

    In fact, it appears children with good parents are more likely to show up at your door, given that they would have to seek out your school instead of merely asking “where the nearest school at?”

    Given that your school can choose its market while a public school cannot, do you now sort of understand why it might be misleading to simply claim your school is less expensive to operate than a public school?

    Yes or no.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2008 at 1706 hrs
    
    
    

11. Well said Tosa, that is the most salient point of this ongoing debate of the parochial vs. public.  Privates do not take all comers and when they qualify their answers like RC then they are being disengenuous.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2008 at 1827 hrs
    
    
    

12. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Los Angeles, CA – The publication of Fishman’s Framework for Tax Reform heralds the introduction of the tax reform plan that will save our middle class.  This revolutionary tax reform plan lowers taxes for individuals and corporations yet raises almost $1 trillion dollars more revenue than our current tax system.  This was accomplished by a simple restructuring of the tax code which requires everyone to pay their fair share of taxes.  And, when everyone pays their fair share of taxes government revenue increases.

    The additional revenue solves Social Security’s long term funding problem, creates and fully funds National Health, expands public education to include college, free of charge and helps all 50 states with their fiscal responsibilities.  It does all this and more while running a budget surplus.

    Fishman’s Framework for Tax Reform is also the most comprehensive economic growth and stimulus plan ever proposed.  The tax plan itself is only 17 pages long and the book comes with 40 pages of commentary, specific tax revenue estimates and five year budget projections.  Additionally, there are seven appendices that prove that his tax reform plan lowers taxes and funds all government programs while running a budget surplus.

    Fishman’s Framework for Tax Reform is now available to read free of charge at: www.serioustaxreform.com

    Contact: Mark Fishman
    .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by Mark Fishman on May 07, 2008 at 2207 hrs
    
    
    

13. Mark,
    Why is another gimmick tax shift being proposed rather than addressing expenditures?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 08, 2008 at 0549 hrs
    
    
    

14. Expenditures need to be addressed, however, it must be in relation to the proper and equal funding of public education.  Reducing expenditures, which usually occurs in poor school districts first, is unreasonable.  Additionally, reductions usually punish students first by cutting back or eliminating the elective courses, i.e. theatre, music, dance, art and sports.

    The fact that we have so many overcrowed classrooms, teachers who are underpaid, and schools in need of repair makes the case for increased public education funding the priority.

    Posted by Mark on May 08, 2008 at 1008 hrs
    
    
    

15. Mark,

    Either you have not read my commentary on where the money for public education in Wisconsin is being spent, or we simply disagree on the the cost of educating a child with public tax revenue.

    I’m going to assume the both. I would suggest you begin your own expenditure research by requesting the OPEB acturial study for the public education system where you live. It was required by all units of government last year and shows how much your district will shell out for Obligations for Post Employment Benefits other than pensions for the next 20 years. This is revenue that will not go toward education therefore taxes the very children in the system without the benefit of public education.
    For my district the amount is $195 million for a district of 11,000 kids. Now we have found out our district set up a trust fund to deal with this debt and invested in bonds which have lost value and now a call letter has been issued requesting $13 million dollars to shore up the loss. More money not spent on education.
    Truth is Mark, public education is a sad sorry inefficient way to educate children. The teachers unions have bit the hand that feeds them too many times. It’s time to consider tax plans such as that by Bil Danielsen, a blogger at “On the Boarder” which provides a 100% tax credit to parents who choose NOT to send there children to a public education system. This system does not tax shift, it creates competition for students, much like universities and colleges, and reduces the need for communities to “invest” in public facilities, infrastructure, out of date defined benefit plans for employees, bussing, etc.
    Public education is necessary, but throwing more revenue at a dead horse(i.e. a tax shift as you suggest) only emboldens the problem and continue to fail the children with exactly all the reasons you cited.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 08, 2008 at 1750 hrs
    
    
    

16. Kris Beaver, “kbeaver@west-bend.k12.wi.us”  Board Member.

    “Privates do not take all comers and when they qualify their answers like RC then they are being disengenuous.”

    Ok, I’ll ask this question.

    How much money would it take to satisfy you guy’s?

    And then the next question,

    How much more money next year will it take to satisfy you guy’s?

    All this with enrollment going down each and every year..

    The real costs, wages, benefits and free health care for life.

    P.S. Doesn’t the school district email account your using have spell check?

    disengenuous is actually spelled – disingenuous.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 08, 2008 at 1818 hrs
    
    
    

17. These arguments about private versus public schools and the children they accept are ridiculously circular.  We have a problem because we spend equally ridiculous amounts of money attempting to build Rube Goldberg machines capable of taking any child, regardless of how hopelessly scarred by their environment or undisciplined, and transforming them into a well-educated graduate.

    If the likes of WEAC were truly interested in producing a better product they would demand internal discipline and have government focus on improving the inputs rather than throwing money at a failing process.  Fixing the inputs as opposed to torturing the process is a well-established precept of quality methodology (too bad DPI doesn’t have any such quality experts).  Ahh, but here is the rub.  Politicians are more interested in staying in office and educational bureacrats are more interested in controlling the money.  To hell with the children.

    THAT is the unvarnished truth and treachery of the entire failed system.  There is NO amount of money that can deliver the impossible and fraudulent alchemy being sold by public education today.  Things were not always this way and we all intuitively know the source of the inexorable slide to failure.  The facilities are better, the teachers more highly educated, and the curricula constantly improved.  What does that leave?

    The system will never right itself until we demand responsibility from the source of the inputs, the parents, and demand discipline and excellence from our students and educators.

    Posted by Chris Kliesmet on May 08, 2008 at 2136 hrs
    
    
    

18. Mark,
    I would profer my 17% solution (http://www.ontheborderline.net/?p=776) - in essence, for every child who is removed from the government schools there is an approximate $5,000 differential savings to the taxpayer over the long run.  If just 17% of K-12 students left the system, the State of Wisconsin would have saved the equivalent of the budget shortfall several years ago (I believe it was 1.5 billion bi-ennial).

    Raising more money IS NOT the answer - if it were, then by virtue of the same logic the actions of the Federal Reserve in wildly printing money and creating its equivalents over the last 10 to 12 years would have resulted in the price of oil going from perhaps 25 per bbl to 50 per bbl due to core demand, not 125!  Such are the lessons that redistributionist tinkerers simply fail to grasp…. real economic educational choice brought about by market forces, not more money through redistribution to serve a monopoly, is the answer.

    Also see The Philosophy of Liberty as applied to K-12:
    http://www.ontheborderline.net/?p=5544#comment-12418

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2008 at 0953 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.