« Legislative and Budget Alert | Home | Urgent Budget Update »
Education Omnibus Motion #103
By Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance staff | June 15, 2023
This week the Legislature not only moved to approve a bill that both raised the low revenue limit ceiling and increased the amount of payments to voucher schools and independent charter payments. This bill was advanced tangentially with the budget as part of the compromise Governor Evers and Legislative Leaders reached last week that included shared revenue increases. The Joint Finance Committee (JFC) approved the education omnibus late Tuesday night on a party-line 11-4 vote. The omnibus motion by JFC outlines the major provisions agreed to as part of the compromise made last week and provides additional details around other categorical aids. The legislature is also moving forward on a literacy proposal – an update on that legislation is also provided below.
The budget proposal does not include many details thus, there many questions that need to be answered including the property tax implications of Senate Bill 330, implementation of the low revenue increase, methodology for the distribution of several categorial aids and others. Below is a summary of the major provisions included in the omnibus motion #103:
School Funding
- Revenue Limit Per Pupil Adjustment: All school districts will receive a per pupil adjustment under revenue limits of $325 in FY24 and $325 in FY25 (total of $650/pupil increase over the two years) – these increases will provide all school districts with increased revenue raising capacity.
- Low Revenue Ceiling: raised from $10,000 to $11,000: school districts with a per pupil revenue limit of less than $11,000 will be permitted to raise their revenue limit/pupil up to $11,000 (beginning in FY24 and remaining at that level for FY25)
- Note that the motion did not address the ramifications of 2017 Act 141 and districts will continue to be held to the LRC threshold that was in effect when they failed to pass the referendum, for three years. After closely reviewing the language in 2017 Act 141, an agreed upon interpretation is that if you have a successful referendum after a failed on your district will be able to receive the increase.
- Per Pupil Aidwas not increased in the motion so it is assumed the amount for school districts will remain at $742 per pupil in FY24 & FY25.
- General Equalization Aid: provides $154.7 M in FY24 and $379.6 M in FY25; general state aid goes directly to schools, but because it is received under the revenue limit it does not increase spendable resources.
Categorical State Aids
- Special Education Aid: increased by $97 M over the biennium to raise the reimbursement rate to 33.3% in FY24 and FY25 (rate is ~31.5% for FY23).
- High-Cost Special Education Aid: increased by $4.6 M over the biennium to raise the reimbursement rate to 45% in FY24 & 50% in FY25 (rate is estimated to be 39.5% for FY23).
- Bilingual-Bicultural Aid: increased by $3 M over the biennium ($1.5 M annually) to modestly raise the reimbursement rate to ~8.8% (rate is estimated to be 7.6% for FY23)
- High-Cost Transportation Aid: increase by $5.88 M over the biennium ($2.94 M annually) to raise the reimbursement to 75% (and eliminate the $200,000 cap on stop-gap payments for districts that lose eligibility for aid.)
- Pupil Transportation Aid: increase the reimbursement rate for pupils transported 12+ miles from $375/pupil to $400 per pupil (no increase to the appropriation but the appropriation is anticipated to be able to absorb the additional cost of the increased aid payment).
- Sparsity Aid: increase funding by $630,200 in each year to raise the reimbursement rate to 100% of eligible costs (for districts with fewer than 10 members per square mile, a district with 745 or fewer members is eligible for $400/member and districts with 746 to 1,000 members is eligible for $100/member).
- School-Based Mental Health Grants: increase by $30 M over the biennium ($15 M annually).
- The motion specifies that instead of distributing as a competitive grant, DPI will distribute these funds on a per pupil basis to school districts and independent charter schools.
- The motion also modifies the current law language for the program’s purpose, from collaborating with “community mental health agencies” to instead refer to “mental health providers”.
- The motion notes that the funding provided in the motion ($25 M annually) would provide $31 per pupil in FY24 & FY25, and then when the appropriation returns to $10 M annually, the funding would support payments of $12 per pupil. For this program, pupils include those enrolled in school districts and in independent charter schools.
- School Library Aids: increase funding by $24 M over the biennium ($7 M annually), based on estimates of the amount available from the Common School Fund.
- Robotics League Participation Grants: increase funding from $250,000 annually to $500,000 annually.
- Lakeland STAR Academy: provide $250,000 in FY24 & $500,000 in FY25 for this school.
Choice/Charter Funding
- The motion indicates that using the current law indexing for determining the per pupil payment for Choice/ICS/SNSP/Charter program, the indexing change would increase by payments by $412 in FY24 and then by another $348 in FY25.
- These figures do not account for the impact of SB-330 (which would have a significant effect on the per pupil payment amounts).
- These amounts might be overstated b/c I don’t think LFB accounted for the decrease in the appropriation for Per Pupil Aid (decreasing membership).
- The fiscal impact of these changes to the payment amount has implications for school districts that incur aid reductions associated with the programs.
- The motion shows changes to the appropriations for choice, SNSP, and independent charter schools based on estimated enrollments and per pupil payments under the motion.
JFC Supplemental Appropriation
NOTE: The motion did not indicate the process for DPI to access these funds, it will be up to JFC to release the funds when the respective policy pertaining to the set aside is signed into law.
- Early Literacy and Reading Improvement: set aside $50 M (for use implementing AB-0321/SB-0329, i.e., “the Reading bill”).
- Shared School District Services: set aside $5 M for shared school district services (presumably, for implementing the multiple shared services bills introduced earlier this session).
- Recovery High School: set aside $500,000 annually for a recovery high school (public, private, or tribal school) designed for students recovering from a substance use disorder (presumably to implement AB-0271/SB-0276)
Literacy Proposal
This week the legislature advanced Assembly Bill 321 through the Assembly Committee on State Affairs. Concerns were raised in the public hearing, and it is expected legislators may be discussing this with education leaders in their district. There are many areas of concern with this bill, including the development of a reading council with six appointees from the majority party and three from the Department of Public Instruction. The make up of this council could lead to the further politization of literacy in our state and I think we can all agree that will not be good for our students. The proposal, as currently drafted only allows a student one test to show their reading proficiency – if a student falls in the bottom 25% – the student must be retained for third grade reading. We all know that years of research has shown us that retention is not the best way to serve our students who are struggling with literacy. Additionally, the bill prescribes what type of materials can be purchased in public schools, specifically prohibiting certain materials.
The Joint Finance Committee set aside $50 million intended to fund some of the initiatives included in the literacy proposal including the deployment of 60+ reading coaches across the state and to fund the purchase of approved curriculum by districts. While the investment in literacy is important there are concerns it will not be enough to serve all our schools and given the staffing challenges across the state, hiring 60+ reading coaches will not only be challenging but it may draw reading specialists away from districts where they are currently serving students.
The future of this bill and subsequent amendments is very much in flux. We all want to see our students’ literacy skills improved but moving this bill that contains too many logistically unworkable situations, too many unanswered questions and policy that has been proven to not be in the best interest of students at such a rapid pace simply does not make sense. I encourage you to contact your legislator and let them know how this proposal would impact the good work you are doing. Here is a sample communication from one of our colleagues.
As always, please reach out to me if you have any questions.
Topics: Legislative Action, SAA Capitol Reports, SAA Capitol Reports with Email Notifications, SAA Latest Update | No Comments »
Comments are closed.