Click here to view La Crosse Area Weather
Home > Opinion > Story
 Advertisement 

Published - Wednesday, April 18, 2007

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (7 comment(s))

GUEST VIEW: Good budget for great public schools


.
Schools throughout Wisconsin are struggling under revenue caps imposed on local school budgets since 1993 by the state

government. Revenue caps are tied to enrollment figures.
In districts like La Crosse, where enrollment is declining, the reduced funding from the state resulting from a loss of just 1 percent of our students negatively impacts the remaining students because of resulting program and staffing cuts. When you’re losing students, you can’t cut costs at the same level. The funding loss penalties for declining enrollment are greater than the funding increase benefits from increasing enrollment.

Problems from district revenue caps are magnified in small, rural districts where cuts are even harder to make due to less area over which to spread the pain. Almost every district in the state is cutting programs, laying off staff and increasing class sizes at the expense of the children we are educating and the future workforce we are creating.

As teachers, many of us confront the difficult realities of the state budget and other state policies related

to public education in the work we do every day.

Each year, more responsibilities are piled on us while needed resources are being taken away due to budget cuts. There is, however, still hope on the horizon. We are fortunate to have a governor who is willing to address these concerns in his new budget proposal by giving some relief to public schools in this part of the state.

Gov. Jim Doyle’s proposal recognizes that support for education needs to rise above partisan politics and recognizes that great schools benefit everyone. In La Crosse and rural areas, the proposal will help by:

  • Addressing the concerns of declining enrollment districts such as La Crosse by further modifying the revenue limit calculation, increasing the statewide revenue limit authority by an estimated $15 million to $18 million each year.

  • Increasing the per student low revenue ceiling below which school districts are exempt from revenue limits. The increased limit is expected to benefit about 100 districts throughout the state, most of them small and rural.

  • Covering the $56 million costs for K-12 student buses out of the transportation fund.

  • Increasing the state reimbursement rate for school transportation costs for students who travel more than 12 miles to get to school and exempting the cost from the caps.

    While this proposal won’t take away the vital need to pass future referendums when they are brought to voters, it

    will “slow the bleeding” as we work toward further modifying or eliminating the state caps and deal with our current district budget crisis.

    The students in our classrooms today will drive the La Crosse area’s economic engines in the decades to come. Thankfully, the governor’s budget priorities for education reflect our community’s and Wisconsin’s values, and help us build for the future.

    Kraig Brownell is a teacher in the La Crosse School District and president of the La Crosse Education Association.
    .
  •  Advertisement 
     Tell us what you think...

     Comments »

    Nestor wrote on Apr 19, 2007 9:38 AM:

    " Money? Scale back 1/2 of the contribution taxpayers make to school employees to retirement as was originally intended in the WRS and still itemized. Stop the post retirement health benefits from 55-65 and make those same employees plan and save with their own salaries as almost all of us do. Not for retirement at 55 either. Raise the bar for heterosexual and Gay pals/partners and ask for a real commitment, not a choice of two requirements on a very limp list (shared deeded property, tenants in common, vehicle joint ownership, etc). They still will have much better benefits than almost all of you. They even have better health coverage than Doctors at Gund/Luth. Now roll in all the money that would be freed up. "

    sjal925 wrote on Apr 18, 2007 2:27 PM:

    " you make an excellent point. why can they not save up for retirement like i do? as far as the homosexual community it would never pass.why? well according to "unbiased" polls nobody wants to see them together,so why make it easier for them. it is a start however to a long list of "trimming the fat". i am aware it is not just political figures. "

    Nestor II wrote on Apr 18, 2007 11:56 AM:

    " What can we do. Scale back the 11.7% matching pay contribution taxpayers make to their WRS contribution back to the originally intended employee/employer split. Stop the post retirment health benefit and do what almost all of us do out here plan and save with a portion of our salaries in order to retire, let alone at 55. Require more commitment shown from Gay or Pal couple or partners such as tenants in common, joint ownership in property housing, and vehicles. Not just the easiest two requirements on a limp list. Then let's add private sector 'comparables' in the equation during negotiations. Then let's scrutinize the staff at 'binding arbitration' and their politics. Then let's count how much school money we now have. "

    Nestor I wrote on Apr 18, 2007 11:49 AM:

    " Teachers and school employees can retire at 55 after 30 years at near or soon what they made while working. The receive better health coverage than doctors at Gund/luth. They receive post retirement health coverage at 55-65 worth approximately $140k and up for the period 55-65. They can cover their heterosexual 'live-in' pal with helath coverage by procuring a checkbook with both their names and signing a limp affidavit. "

    Nestor II wrote on Apr 18, 2007 11:06 AM:

    " What should happen? Lets scale back to the originally intended and still itemized employee/employer split of the 11.7% contribution. Then lets kill the post retirement health benefits and force those employees to do what almost all of us out here are doing, planning and saving with are salaries. Then let's require more from Gay and heterosexual pals or couples. Require tenants-in-common contracts, vehicle shared ownership ,property, etc. Not just the two easiest from a list. Require the same commitment that married couples have. Let's scrutinize 'binding arbitration' and it liberal leaning participants that do not amazingly use private worker 'comparables' in their equations. Now lets count our School money available! "

    Nestor I wrote on Apr 18, 2007 10:47 AM:

    " Our local School employee (not just teachers) are able to retire after 30 years at 55 at near or soon more they made while working. Because you and I as taxpayers contribute an astounding 11.7% matching their pay for the WRS fund. 11.7% derived at to do just that, retire at what they made while working. They have great health coverage while working, (better than doctors at Gund/Luth), and will continue with a post retirement health package worth upwards and more than $140k for a couple with no children for the period from 55-65. Then they give heterosexaul 'live-in' pals health coverage by going to the local bank and procurring a checkbook and signing a limp affadavit. "

    sjal925 wrote on Apr 18, 2007 8:45 AM:

    " this wouldn't even be an issue if we had more financially responsible people in our government offices.i tire of hearing about government officials who live in luxury while our children suffer cutbacks not to mention other cutbacks in other areas. how many hungry children can you feed on doyles income. how many programs could run off of his income and others "


    PLEASE NOTE: Comments on stories that frequently update through the day disappear with each update.
    The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the La Crosse Tribune.

    Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post.

     Post a comment (150 word limit) »

    Log In - If you have already signed up with The LaCrosse Tribune, please sign in now!
    Member ID:
    *Password:
      Forgot Your Password?
     
    Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, The LaCrosse Tribune requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

    **Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

    Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

    Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

    Create a Member ID:
    *Choose a password:
    *Re-enter password:
    E-mail Address:
    Year of Birth:
     

    (children under 13 cannot register)

    First Name:
    Last Name:
    Company:
    Home Phone:
    Business Phone:
    Address:
    City:
    State:
    Zip Code:
     

    LACROSSE JOBS

    TOP HOMES

     
     
    Dailies
    La Crosse Tribune
    Winona Daily News

    Weeklies
    Coulee News
    The Chronicle
    Holmen Courier
    Houston County News
    Onalaska Life
    Tomah Journal
    Vernon Broadcaster
    Westby Times

    Regional
    Inside Preps
    My LIVE! Entertainment
    Best of River Valley
    Business Report
    Healthy Living Today
    Strictly Golf
    River Valley Bike Trails
    River Valley Blogs
    River Valley Outdoors

    Shoppers
    Tri-County Foxxy

    Marketplace
    Newspaper Ads
    Local Website Directory
    7 Rivers Rentals
    HomeSeller
    Wheels Website
    Work For You

    Portals
    La Crosse NET
    Winona NET

    Classifieds
    River Valley Classifieds

    Links
    Lee Enterprises

    About Us | Classifieds | Contact Us | Terms of Use | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | Search | RSS | Videos | Advertiser Directory | Add to My Yahoo!
    Copyright © 1997 - 2008 The La Crosse Tribune. All rights reserved.
    Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.