Journal Sentinel looks at school funding

An article by Amy Hetzner in today's Milwaukee Sentinel gives a thoroughly depressing picture of the insolubility of Wisconsin's school financing problem ("No solution in sight for baffling school funding problems"). A sidebar lists four proposals from various groups none of which seem politically viable.

While most of the information in the article will come as no surprise to anyone following Wisconsin's educational issues, Hetzner puts an unusual spin on the QEO (qualified economic offer). The QEO allows school districts to impose contracts on teachers' unions so long as the total increase in salaries and benefits is at least 3.8%, and the other terms are unchanged. This law is normally considered an aid to school boards in holding down costs and giving them leverage in negotiations. Thus it is widely assumed, at least among school board members, that ending the QEO (as proposed by the Governor's Taskforce on Educational Excellence), would raise the costs of education and result in further cuts to school programs.

But, Hetzner points to a counter argument. In this view ending the QEO would encourage more aggressiveness on the part of districts to attack the rising cost of benefits. Under the QEO law a district could not impose a new contract unless it kept the same benefits. Thus districts try to control costs mainly by holding down salary increases. Without the QEO, in this argument, districts would be much more motivated to challenge benefit packages.

I find this argument unconvincing even if plausible. The problem is that without the QEO it is likely that many labor contracts will go to arbitration. Would these arbitrators be willing to clamp down on benefit costs, especially if doing so antagonized the unions and put at risk future arbitration work?