- Restoring two-thirds state funding of education.
- Increasing the cap on enrollment in the choice (voucher) program by 6,000 over four years.
- Counting choice students as part of MPS in calculating state aid.
- Having some accountability measures of choice schools. The article mentions either accreditation or testing.
The Wisconsin state aid formula depends on the ratio of the total property value divided by the number of students. The lower this ratio the more a district must struggle to support its schools, justifying a higher percentage of state aid. By excluding choice students, present law makes Milwaukee richer than it is, unfairly penalizing Milwaukee taxpayers (the same effect could be achieved by neglecting to count fifteen thousand MPS students). The last time a proposal to change this formula was made, it died for lack of Democratic support. With Barrett's support, it may be harder for Democrats to vote against the interest of Milwaukee property tax payers.
I particularly like the idea of including choice students in the testing program. The argument that including such requirements would create constitutional problems strikes me as both dubious and hypocritical. Choice is constitutional precisely because its purpose is to educate children, not to aid religion. Testing that helps determine whether the education is effective fits this purpose. If government did not care whether the education was effective, one might conclude that aiding religion was the purpose of the legislation.
1 comment:
While I agree with you that Barret's proposal does show some promise, it is merely a starting point.
On his points:
1. Restoring 2/3's funding would be great, but it is inplausible in this fiscal situation. Barret may as well add points addressing immediate stability in Iraq or a cure for the common cold.
2. Is the 6,000 cap raise high enough? If more choice schools continue to open is 1500 more a year to small? This point needs discussion.
3. Counting choice students for aid purposed seems fair, but are they counted fully or as a percentage equal to MPS costs for choice. Also, what are the origins of choice students not being counted, why is this an issue now and not before?
4. Accreditation sounds good, but with the extensive fiscal rules for choice schools, and the basic instruction guidelines of all private schools, doesn't some sort of accrediation already exist? Also, a more extensive system could be costly, Barret does not mention this. As for tests, why would we want to put the same accountability measures on choice that have brought lacking results in MPS? The Public Policy Forum reports that over 90% of choice schools already take tests, why not just release those?
Overall, Barret's proposal is a great starting point, but appears to be politically motivated. Why did he release it just one day before Joint Finance took up choice and charter issues? There was no time to sell his plan and get it in the budget even if it was serious.
Post a Comment