KMUC School Districts Struggling to Survive
| 'Please bring your lawn mowers' Bonnie Tennie, Manitowoc Education Paraprofessionals president, injected a little dark humor into the Kettle Moraine UniServ Council legislative dinner as she delivered a possible future principal’s “welcome back” speech. In the speech, the principal asks the staff to take note of some “changes”:  “If you’re in the office and the phone rings, please answer it as we’ve had to cut secretaries. Also, since maintenance has been cut to once a month, please bring your lawn mowers to work; in the winter, toss a snow shovel in the trunk. You’ll also fix all the roof leaks, take larger classes, become your own librarian, and be limited to five sheets of paper per day. In addition, since the aides for our disabled students have been cut, you’ll have to feed and diaper students as well as administering medication – no more nurse.”
Tennie added, “Legislators need to know who is helping to educate students besides teachers.” |
"We used to talk about possibilities; now we talk about realities. The reality is that many school districts are struggling to stay viable.”
With those words, Kettle Moraine UniServ Council President Linda Helf introduced the KMUC legislative dinner, an event that focused on the growing impact of revenue caps.
The dinner, held March 10 in Kiel, gave representatives of three Kettle Moraine school districts – Manitowoc, Plymouth and Two Rivers – an opportunity to explain the devastating effects the revenue caps and levy limits are having on their ability to educate children. Also in attendance were three state Assembly representatives and one state senator. While representatives of all three districts made convincing cases for why the funding formula must be changed, the legislators gave them little hope for any changes in the foreseeable future.
Helf reminded the 200 participants that when federal funding, such as that promised for students with special needs, falls short, the deficit must be made up by state funding or the general fund for regular education needs. If the shortfall cannot be remedied on the state level, it must come from local districts, through property taxes.
“We must do something about revenue controls, do something about the funding formula,” Helf insisted.
Manitowoc Superintendent Mark Swanson declared that Manitowoc schools “have been a model of efficiency and service, focusing money on the classroom. We were a low-spending district in 1993, and we’re low-spending now, but we’re not the same district we were 15 years ago. There is no provision in place in the funding formula that tells a district with growing enrollment how to operate under a 3.96% revenue cap.”
Noel Peterson, Plymouth Education Association president, had praise for Plymouth’s educators. “I can’t tell you how proud I am of our teaching staff. Our students consistently score in the top 15% of standardized tests, yet they are in the bottom 15% of per-pupil spending.”
Plymouth Superintendent Clark Reinke said the state “must find creative solutions for districts in trouble.” Reinke thanked legislators for the “bumps” for declining districts in past state budgets, but lamented, “I worry that we are losing our creative spirit because we have no resources for new programs. We have put forth three referendums in the past four years with another one coming. We have found that referendums don’t unite the community; they divide it.”
Two Rivers Superintendent Randy Fredrikson observed, “We are our own worst enemies. All these school districts have found a way to make things work with less and less. The longer we find a way to make it work, the longer the legislators say, ‘What’s the problem?’ ”
Three state representatives – Democrat Terry Van Akkeren, Republican Steve Kestell, and Democrat Bob Ziegelbauer – and Republican State Senator Joe Leibham joined the panel after the presentations to answer questions from the audience.
When asked how the Legislature would address the developing system of “have” and “have-not” districts, Van Akkeren asserted, “The state must take schools in lower echelons and move them up. It’s not a fault that they were being fiscally responsible.”
Kestell agreed that some districts should get an extra “bump,” and agreed “that no one anticipated the impact of declining enrollment.”
Leibham declared that he was waiting for Governor Doyle to reveal his plan for funding schools.
“I look forward to working with Governor Doyle. I also believe that districts should be able to address the unique aspects of their programs.” When Leibham was pressed by UniServ Director Jim Carlson to say whether that meant Leibham would approve of school boards raising levies without going to a referendum, Leibham said “we could consider that possibility if it came to that point.”
None of the legislators felt that any change in the state funding formula would be coming in the foreseeable future. Van Akkeren stated, “There will be no change in funding, no change without a change in the Legislature.”
When asked if any reform would include the removal of the QEO, Van Akkeren and Ziegelbauer saw no problem. Ziegelbauer added, “The system would not be affected by (the QEO) not being in place.”
Van Akkeren declared, “I have faith in my local school board to take care of the citizens, and if they don’t, vote them out.”
Kestell and Leibham were not in favor of dropping the QEO at this time, with Kestell stating that he wanted to see “a 20-year plan” before he would agree to any changes.
For the most part, those in attendance left feeling disappointed and frustrated. One teacher insisted, “I’m going home now to grade my students’ papers. After the spiral logic I heard here tonight, their writing will look flawless.”
A Two Rivers instructor observed, “It’s all very well for the legislators to ask us to get additional money locally. Thirty-two percent of our students are on reduced-price or free lunch. Our community is dealing with widespread poverty. There’s no more money to be had locally.”
Posted April 9, 2008