STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS... What about that 2/3 funding?

Most people, even school people get confused by the 2/3 state funding and think that means the State of Wisconsin funds 2/3 of the budget for every school in the state. That is incorrect. The 2/3 funding is an average for the entire state. I found the following on the Madison School District site and while it pertains specifically to Madison, much of the explanation applies to Oshkosh as well (I will insert Oshkosh data when it differs from Madison)

From the Madison School District Web Site:

"The major issue facing schools currently is the revenue cap that limits the amount of money that a Wisconsin school district can spend -- based on a formula that does not take into account the actual increased costs that occur each year.

The state does currently fund 2/3 of the cost of education across the state. This is an average figure and varies dramatically from district to district. In the case of Madison, the state funds approximately 28% of our costs.[For Oshkosh it is nearly 2/3 I think about 62%] The revenue cap is a property tax measure, not an education measure. The more the state funds K-12 education, the less that property tax payers in a district have to pay.

The service reductions that district's across the state are having to make every year is the result of our inability to fund the same level of service each year. This happens because the amount of money we can use per pupil is not allowed to increase as rapidly as the cost of providing the service increases.

In the case of Madison, the state mandates that our budget can increase by only 2.6% a year,[that figure is about the same for Oshkosh] but our costs to continue providing the same services to our children increase at least 3.8% per year. This is the minimum increase that occurs because of the current state law that allows school districts to avoid arbitration with their teachers union if they offer that 3.8% increase in total salary and benefits. Obviously, that means that unions are never going to settle below 3.8%.

Salary and benefits are 86% of our budget,[about the same for Oshkosh] so the 3.8% creates a floor to our expenses. Our other expenses such as insurance and utilities rise much more than the 3.8% each year. In these areas, we are subject to the same market forces that homeowners and businesses are.

The gap that results from the difference between the 2.6% we can expend and the 3.8% minimum increase in costs (it is usually 4.0 - 4.2%) [again that is the same for Oshkosh] is the reason we and almost every other school district in Wisconsin has to reduce services to their students every year.

To put this in context, if we were doing everything today that we were doing in 1993 -- when the revenue cap law went into effect -- we would have 526 more employees and our budget would be $46 million higher that it is today. [I don't know those figures for Oshkosh but it would certainly be more significantly more than it is today]. I think this number quantifies the difference that the revenue cap has made in services to children."

I find the above to be a very understandable explanation for how 2/3 funding works, and why districts can't "live within their means" as some like to criticize. Contrary to what many taxpayers believe, school districts cannot just increase taxes to provide services, most are limited to a 2.6% increase in their budget and as the above explains, costs increase at a greater amount than revenue is allowed to increase, hence budget cuts are required, pretty much every year. Revenue controls have been good for property taxpayers but not good for school districts. The Revenue Controls have hit Oshkosh Schools especially hard because it has always been a frugal district and the Controls locked school districts in at what they were spending in 1993 and only allowed approximately 2.6% increases each year. It doesn't take an accountant to understand why so many school districts are struggling.

It is too bad more taxpayers don't understand this whole issue. It is not poor management on the part of school districts, it is an unfair funding formula (primarily favoring school districts in the Milwaukee suburbs).