|
Stevens Point P.T.S.A. |
|
Home Page |
|
Minutes of the Stevens Point PTSA
Present: Karen Halverson SP Asst Supt. Of Curriculum/Instruction, Chris Scott, Al Flanders, Michael O’Maera of SP School Board, Deb Wilz of SP School Board, Carol Gangi, MaryKaye Bornbach, Susan Zach, Jen Zach, Susan Morrison, Ssuperintendent Emery Babcock, Julie Schneider, past-President Carol Weston, Treasurer Linda Greene, Vice President Renae Scheibley, Secretary Michele Bjella and President Bill Hettler. Business: Treasurer’s report: There was no new business brought forward. The following summarizes the evening’s special presentation. “REFORMING WISCONSIN”S
SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM” Ms. Grochowsi of the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future spoke on IWF’s goals to impact public policy regarding school funding and the critical issues that face us. IWF is funded through multiple sources, including foundations (85%), as well as unions and the Joyce Fund, of Chicago. IWF is very active on local and state levels. The Stevens Point Funding Revenue Forum held here in 2000 sponsored by our PTSA raised awareness of the state legislature that the problems we are experiencing here in Stevens Point are happening across the state. IWF asks, what system could work better? Schools operate through these funding sources: 57% state aid to communities, 37% at the local level, 4% federal government and 2% fund raising by parents. States across the nation utilize different tax funding sources, including sales tax, vehicle tax and combinations of tax forms to operate. Wisconsin relies on the property tax. IWF has found that the current finance system is not working for most districts. School funding is unfair and convoluted, according to IWF, with some districts spending $7,000, while others spend $12,000 per pupil. To further confound things, the formula is complicated. IWF advocates a simpler, more straightforward way of handling school finance. The aid for special education and English as a second language lags spending. Factoring Special Education and ESL in, for example, the state and federal government had agreed to reimburse for these costs. In actuality, they don’t come close to reimbursing for them. In fact, many ESL programs are not being reimbursed at all. Unfunded state and at times, federal mandates make the choices of school boards difficult. Incidentally, a group of parents are now suing the Milwaukee Public schools for not living up to the letter of the law. In 1990, Wisconsin salaries were comparable to other states. Since then, there has been a drastic decrease in starting teachers’ salaries nationally, significantly so in the Great Lakes region. Karen reviewed the main proposed ideas across the state for funding reform. IWF is working to look clearly at what are the resources schools need to fund their work. She cited the WI. Superintendent Association’s standard that “Every student must be guaranteed the opportunity to compete in the job market”. We need to define what we expect of schools and we have a long way to go. For example, only one-third of WI. Students are proficient on US tests for basic skills. In addition, low income and minority students are falling further and further behind. Caucasian students far out-perform academically, compared to children of the Black and Latino community. State and national experts, based on research, recommend small schools, where students learn in a community. They recommend elementary schools of 350 students, middle schools of 500 students and high schools of 600 to 1000 students. Many high schools have 70% higher enrollment than that recommendation. Smaller schools would foster meaningful one to one connections with students. The Superior, WI. Schools, which have a 3 grade middle school, have accomplished this by structuring two schools to meet their middle school needs. A broad curriculum is recommended, with higher level courses in all schools and art, music, physical education and foreign language available at all grade levels. Up-to-date technology, ongoing staff in-service training and time for teachers to plan jointly are recommended. Full funding for students with disabilities and English as a Second Language students. Karen also addressed the need for extra support for schools with concentrations of poverty and teacher pay factors. IWF recommends that a compreprehensive proposal for reform of educational funding be designed and seeks to get this message to legislators. Proposals that have been put forward include: Spence Plan for Regional funding – Create regional funding base by dividing the state into separate regions (pairing larger communities with smaller communities and redistributing the $); each region creates a taxing authority to set the tax rates (a weighted system to more fairly account for special education students in the formula: 1 =regular ed student, 1.2 – 1.5 for special ed students); each region sets a foundation spending level for its schools. Senator Mike Ellis’ Plan – Create statewide property tax where all owners pay about 8.5 mils per $1,000 of property value; Distribute funding throughout the existing system (state pays two-thirds using the three-tier formula); membership is weighted for special needs students). Association for Equity in Funding – recommends that State Aid = property tax base equalization (a ten mil tax rate that generates the same revenue regardless of property wealth), Categorical aid and levy funds be placed in an equalization formula; Student membership should be weighted (Children with special needs be counted as more than one member). With the state in debt and in light of the economic downturn, the legislature is likely to reconvene. IWF will continue to work for a clear and fair finance system that links spending to student proficiency goals. PARENT INVOLVEMENT AND PTA
STANDARDS FOR PARENT/FAMILY INVOLVEMENT These standards for parent involvement are based on Joyce Epstein’s 6 types, detailed in her recent book. Winnie urged us to adopt a school (start this process in a “pilot” school to try it out) and to strive to make meaningful parent involvement strong in our district. The components are: Communicating: with a two-way meaningful and ongoing method. Partnering between parents and schools: to promote and support the child’s skills. Student Learning: parents have an integral role in students’ learning; we help parents to help students Volunteering: design meaningful volunteerism Decision Making and advocacy: Parents are regarded as full partners in the decisions that affects children and families. Collaborating with Community: Work
with the community to create a supportive environment for learning.
Both invited speakers urged our chapter, as active members of the Central Wisconsin School community, to continue to become vocal with these issues with the state legislature in the weeks and months to come. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Michele Bjella, secretary 1/13/02
|
|
