MPS’ Levy Increase.

Wow.

Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent William Andrekopoulos will ask the School Board tonight for an over 16.4% increase in how much Milwaukeeans will pay in property taxes for this school year.

Combined with the effects of an error in taxpayers’ favor a year ago, the total property tax bill for schools in the city will increase over 21% from a year ago if the board approves the proposal, which history indicates it will.

In the short run, this is a tax that I won’t pay.  The citizens of Milwaukee elected a bunch of big-spending liberals to their school board and this is what they get, right?  Well, kind of. 

In Wisconsin, state taxpayers are committed to paying for two-thirds of school spending, but this is merely a state average.  State taxpayers pay more for some districts and less for others.  Last I checked, state taxpayers pick up about 78% of the Milwaukee Public Schools.  But the state taxpayers don’t get to decide on the spending level.  That’s a decision for the local school board. 

So here’s what will happen… MPS will increase it’s local spending on schools.  This will cause an overall spending increase, but it will also increase the percentage increase of local spending.  Perhaps this local spending increase will increase their percentage to 24% or 25% instead of the 22% it is now.  On the other side of the coin, the state portion of MPS’ budget will decrease on a percentage basis, even if the actual dollar amount stays the same, to perhaps 76% or 75%.  When the next state budget cycle comes around, this drop in percentage support for MPS will be spun as a “cut.” After all, the state used to support 78% of MPS and now it on;y supports 75%, right?  That’s less, right?  State lawmakers from Milwaukee will push to have that number put back where it was at 78% (or whatever), thus resulting in higher state spending on MPS.  And where does state spending come from?  Every state taxpayer.

And then the cycle repeats.  This method of school financing, where the decisions to spend are separated from the people who pay over two-thirds of the bill, is one of the many reasons why spending and taxation in Wisconsin continue to be out of control. 

That’s why you should care about MPS spending even if you don’t live in Milwaukee.  Every Wisconsin taxpayer helps pay for it. 

1. Owen, I don’t think you are entirely right on this one.  The reason the MPS levy is going up by such a high percentage is because they are aided at such a high percentage and state school aids were unchanged this year.  Most high-aided districts will see a large percentage increase in their school levy this year.  Essentially, it is like the gains or losses you get when you use leverage.  Next year, state aids will rise significantly compared to this year.  As a result, MPS’ levy will rise very slowly, and will probably decline.  These are the ups and downs that highly-aided districts have to deal with.

   Posted by on October 30, 2007 at 0905 hrs




2. How much is MPS inceasing spending from the prior year? is it 5 per cent? 10 per cent or?
   How much does MPS spend per student ? How does that compare to Chicago Publis schools and other school systems of simllair size Of MPS.
   Is it true that the city of milwaukee is losing population andthat the number of students attending MPS is decreasing ? less students and more people work for MPS..WHY?

   Posted by on October 30, 2007 at 1001 hrs




3. Jim, read the linked story.  Many of your questions are answered there.  As it says, a continued culprit is yet another state mandate not fully funded:  “the way the state funds the private school voucher program for Milwaukee [is] a major culprit . . . ‘funding flaws’ that result in Milwaukeeans paying more property taxes to support voucher students than MPS students.” Other stories linked here have cited that cost as $1,000 more per student going to so-called “private,” religious schools than to MPS schools.

   So the city taxpayers have to support two school systems.  As for whether it’s worth it in terms of student improvement, several recent studies say no.  As for whether it’s worth it in terms of indoctrinating inner-city children in primarily Catholic doctrine, the state legislature thinks that’s a good idea.

   Posted by on October 30, 2007 at 1044 hrs




4. So Kay, which government trough to you belly up to?

   Posted by Chris on October 30, 2007 at 1456 hrs




5. Key:  Wrong answer.  MPS actually receives funds for every child who vouchers out of MPS.  Pretty sweet deal, MPS gets cash, yet some other school has to educate the child.—It’s not the “city taxpayer” who supports 2 systems.  It’s the STATE taxpayer.

   Posted by on October 30, 2007 at 1505 hrs




6. Duncan, no.  Your school district receives state funds, too.  So what? 

   The point here is not about MPS.  It’s about property taxes. 

   In this city, per this post, the proposal is for property taxes to go up—because we essentially have to pay for two school systems. 

   Read the link.  That’s where the quote comes from. 

   Chris, I have no idea what your question is about—it’s missing a word or something.  Plus, what does a “trough” have to do with it.  I don’t work for the city or for MPS.  I work to pay property taxes in Milwaukee.  So this hike and the reasons for it matter to me.  What matters to you, who can tell from what you have here?

   Posted by on October 30, 2007 at 1658 hrs




7. 90,000 students.
   60% graduation rate at best, systemwide (real numbers are probably closer to 50%)
   Somewhere around $1.2 Billion spent.
   About $13,000 per student.
   Only about 25% of total budget reaches classrooms.

   The solution?  More spending and 100 new hires!

   Among the new spending items:
   > 53 math teachers (for one semester) at $94,000+ each
   > 40 reading tutors at $45,000 per
   > 15 teacher mentors at $50,000 per
   > 10 administrators at $130,000 per

   Posted by on October 31, 2007 at 1016 hrs




8. Lots of misinformation here on the financing of school choice.

   An illustration of the weakness of blogging.  People just get to say stuff.  No evidence or accountability for errors.

   Posted by on October 31, 2007 at 2004 hrs




9. Hey, George Mitchell, I’m still waiting for you to lay into Doyle, Huebsch, et al. just as vehemently as you’ve gone after Lena Taylor.  After all, you say a “fix” to the funding flaw was your goal, and--despite Taylor’s attempts to find one--the final budget negotiated by the leaders lacks it.

   Your silence has been telling.

   Posted by folkbum on November 01, 2007 at 0612 hrs




10. Lena Taylor (and Pedro Colon) blocked the Barrett fix, which had support of Assembly Republicans right to the end.

    Folkbum previously has claimed Taylor’s high poverty aid plan was a fix.  Glad to see he has backed off that, now saying the final budget lacks a fix.  He and I agree on that.

    Anyone doubting that Taylor and Colon blocked the Mayor’s plan, at Decker’s behest, should simply dial up the Mayor’s office and ask for Pat Curley.

    Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 0629 hrs




11. MPS has analyzed the various fixes that were under discussion.  The DPI (i.e. Barrett-Fields) plan was best for Milwaukee.  The Taylor non-plan was worst.  Call your school board member and ask for a copy if you don’t believe that.

    Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 0639 hrs




12. Folkbum previously has claimed Taylor’s high poverty aid plan was a fix.

    False, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false.

    I claimed--rightly so--that the poverty aid plus the Doyle fix was better than the Barrett-Fields fix alone.  The poverty aid would not have passed in the JFC if Barett-Fields had.  (Remember that the Doyle fix is exactly what Barrett asked for in 2006.)

    And there is NO GOOD REASON why, if all the Assembly Republicans and all the GOP on JFC supported Barrett-Fields, the Republicans couldn’t propose it themselves, or include it in their Assembly version of the budget, or indeed included it in the education supplemental that the Assembly passed later.

    You refer to “the Taylor non-plan” but the only “non-plans” that happened happened without Taylor’s involvement--the Assembly budget, the Assembly education package, and the compromise budget signed last week.  Taylor’s JFC-supported plan featured more tax relief for Milwaukee than any of the above.  Period.

    Posted by folkbum on November 01, 2007 at 0830 hrs




13. Unimpressive revisionism, folkbum.  You (now) argue that something that no one in either party ever thought could pass (Doyle fix + high poverty aid) was better for Milw than the Barrett plan.  When Colon and Taylor blocked the Barrett plan they said they could do better.  They did not.  The MPS summary proves that.

    Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 1146 hrs




14. That is false. MPS has analyzed the various fixes that were under discussion. Essentially, it is like the gains or losses you get when you use leverage. The point here is not about MPS.  It’s about property taxes. They need to be lowered.
    ________________________________________________
    Ada Nouveau Riche University

    Posted by on February 28, 2008 at 0806 hrs