La Follette School of Public Affairs

Transcription

1 Robert M. La Follette of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Working Pa Series La Follette Working Pa No An Analysis of the Proposal to Reduce s for Wisconsin s Andrew Reschovsky Professor, La Follette of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison reschovsky@lafollette.wisc.edu March 10, Observatory Drive, Madison, Wisconsin / The La Follette takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in this pa reflect the views of individual researchers and authors.

2 Author s Note The analysis in the original working pa released February 25, 2011 was based on a $500 student reduction in each school district s revenue limit. The $500 figures had been widely reported in the media prior to the release of the Wisconsin governor s budget proposal for the biennium. In his executive budget released March 1, 2011, the governor proposed a 5.5 cent reduction in revenue limits student (as opposed to the reported $500 student). The spreadsheet that starts on page ii of this document presents a new calculation of the changes in the revenue limits for each Wisconsin school district, based on the governor s proposed 5.5 cent reduction and a proposed change in the low-revenue ceiling from $9,000 to $8,900. i

3 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment 14 7 Abbotsford $6,422, $9,761 -$537 $0 -$537 $9,225 $6,069,726 -$353,265 Adams-Friendship Area 17,423,888 1,822 9, ,037 16,465, , Albany 4,332, , ,139 4,094, , Algoma 5,893, , ,900 5,580, , Alma 2,566, , ,439 2,425, , Alma Center 5,832, , ,405 5,511, , Almond-Bancroft 4,581, , ,945 4,329, , Altoona 13,824,446 1,441 9, ,066 13,064, , Amery 16,946,145 1,705 9, ,392 16,014, , Antigo 24,793,010 2,582 9, ,074 23,429,394-1,363, Appleton Area 140,095,344 14,217 9, , ,390,100-7,705, Arcadia 10,747,258 1,012 10, ,036 10,156, , Argyle 3,347, , ,360 3,163, , Arrowhead UHS 22,313,894 2,171 10, ,713 21,086,630-1,227, Ashland 21,361,367 2,193 9, ,205 20,186,492-1,174, Ashwaubenon 25,720,640 2,590 9, ,385 24,306,005-1,414, Athens 5,580, , ,064 5,273, , Auburndale 7,886, , ,900 7,467, , Augusta 6,843, , ,282 6,467, , Baldwin-Woodville Area 14,884,291 1,564 9, ,993 14,065, , Bangor 5,780, , ,926 5,462, , Baraboo 28,500,694 3,020 9, ,918 26,933,156-1,567,538 ii Source: Calculations by Andrew Reschovsky (Robert M. La Follette of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison) using data from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, March 10, 2011 Note: Simulation of revenue limits are based on the assumption that average enrollment for revenue limit purposes remains at levels.

4 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Barneveld 4,540, , ,665 4,291, , Barron Area 13,737,310 1,396 9, ,299 12,981, , Bayfield 5,947, , ,102 5,620, , Beaver Dam 34,538,018 3,499 9, ,328 32,638,427-1,899, Beecher-Dunbar- Pembine 2,888, , ,875 2,729, , Belleville 9,699, , ,315 9,166, , Belmont 2,949, , ,905 2,787, , Beloit 69,584,743 7,097 9, ,266 65,757,582-3,827, Beloit Turner 12,718,876 1,297 9, ,267 12,019, , Benton 2,440, , ,225 2,306, , Berlin Area 15,501,382 1,652 9, ,900 14,702, , Big Foot UHS 6,474, , ,699 6,118, , Birchwood 2,928, , ,564 2,767, , Black Hawk 4,366, , ,824 4,126, , Black River Falls 17,250,298 1,825 9, ,932 16,301, , Blair-Taylor 6,230, , ,900 5,891, , Bloomer 11,389,512 1,130 10, ,525 10,763, , Bonduel 8,403, , ,900 7,974, , Boscobel 8,403, , ,900 7,956, , Bowler 4,471, , ,781 4,225, , Boyceville 7,554, , ,118 7,139, , Brighton #1 1,392, , ,603 1,315,632-76, Brillion 8,368, , ,900 7,929, , Bristol #1 5,716, , ,315 5,402, ,428 iii

5 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Brodhead 10,471,600 1,114 9, ,900 9,914, , Brown Deer 19,443,116 1,582 12, ,614 18,373,745-1,069, Bruce 5,318, , ,088 5,025, , Burlington Area 37,099,748 3,567 10, ,829 35,059,262-2,040, Butternut 2,071, , ,301 1,957, , Cadott 7,727, , ,900 7,840, , Cambria-Friesland 4,433, , ,372 4,189, , Cambridge 8,774, , ,275 8,291, , Cameron 8,285, , ,105 7,830, , Campbellsport 14,029,276 1,480 9, ,958 13,257, , Cashton 5,460, , ,117 5,160, , Cassville 2,606, , ,659 2,463, , Cedar Grove- Belgium Area 10,444,917 1,108 9, ,908 9,870, , Cedarburg 30,202,922 2,988 10, ,552 28,541,761-1,661, Central/Westosha UHS 13,211,872 1,235 10, ,109 12,485, , Chequamegon 8,196, , ,167 7,745, , Chetek- Weyerhaeuser 10,710,578 1,109 9, ,127 10,121, , Chilton 10,608,904 1,133 9, ,900 10,083, , Chippewa Falls Area 50,692,428 5,000 10, ,581 47,904,344-2,788, Clayton 3,659, , ,296 3,458, , Clear Lake 6,001, , ,002 5,671, , Clinton 11,625,750 1,148 10, ,570 10,986, , Clintonville 14,754,117 1,498 9, ,308 13,942, ,476 iv

6 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Cochrane-Fountain City 6,237, , ,068 5,894, , Colby 9,172, , ,900 8,668, , Coleman 6,879, , ,905 6,500, , Colfax 8,024, , ,114 7,582, , Columbus 11,819,459 1,146 10, ,746 11,169, , Cornell 4,442, , ,900 4,200, , Crandon 9,313, , ,333 8,801, , Crivitz 6,960, , ,073 6,577, , Cuba City 6,788, , ,039 6,414, , Cudahy 27,161,304 2,518 10, ,194 25,667,432-1,493, Cumberland 10,066,082 1,046 9, ,094 9,512, , D C Everest Area 59,321,641 5,724 10, ,794 56,058,951-3,262, Darlington Deerfield 7,430, , ,049 7,022, ,699 8,508, , ,076 8,040, , Deforest Area 33,810,350 3,228 10, ,898 31,950,781-1,859, Delavan-Darien 25,684,836 2,680 9, ,057 24,272,170-1,412, Denmark 13,566,050 1,443 9, ,900 12,842, , Dee 36,874,330 3,754 9, ,282 34,846,242-2,028, Desoto Area 6,109, , ,254 5,773, , Dodgeland 8,953, , ,014 8,461, , Dodgeville 14,695,519 1,336 11, ,395 13,887, , Dover #1 1,363, , ,474 1,288,264-74, Drummond 4,538, , ,469 4,289, , Durand 10,309,797 1,012 10, ,627 9,742, ,039 v

7 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment East Troy 16,994,508 1,749 9, ,182 16,059, , Eau Claire Area 107,708,245 10,594 10, , ,784,292-5,923, Edgar 6,785, , ,672 6,412, , Edgerton 17,927,839 1,827 9, ,273 16,941, , Elcho 4,026, , ,014 3,805, , Eleva-Strum 6,078, , ,401 5,743, , Elk Mound Area 9,836,574 1,042 9, ,921 9,295, , Elkhart Lake- Glenbeulah 5,311, , ,399 5,019, , Elkhorn Area 28,952,817 3,029 9, ,033 27,360,412-1,592, Ellsworth 15,906,204 1,692 9, ,900 15,058, , Elmbrook 76,910,996 6,538 11, ,117 72,680,891-4,230, Elmwood 4,427, , ,416 4,184, , Erin 2,846, , ,341 2,690, , Evansville 18,229,999 1,816 10, ,486 17,227,349-1,002, Fall Creek 8,444, , ,662 7,980, , Fall River 4,858, , ,915 4,590, , Fennimore 7,049, , ,088 6,661, , Flambeau 6,956, , ,083 6,573, , Florence 5,251, , ,123 4,963, , Fond Du Lac 67,746,682 7,184 9, ,912 64,020,614-3,726, Fontana J8 2,909, , ,175 2,749, , Fort Atkinson 27,447,031 2,772 9, ,357 25,937,444-1,509, Fox Point J2 10,212, , ,733 9,651, ,712 vi

8 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Franklin Public 44,719,171 3,863 11, ,940 42,259,617-2,459, Frederic 4,980, , ,900 4,717, , Freedom Area 15,256,372 1,616 9, ,922 14,417, , Friess Lake 2,290, , ,882 2,164, , Galesville-Ettrick 13,545,400 1,441 9, ,900 12,824, , Geneva J4 1,601, , ,011 1,513,232-88, Genoa City J2 6,201, , ,988 5,860, , Germantown 41,604,275 3,961 10, ,926 39,316,040-2,288, Gibraltar Area 6,765, , ,764 6,393, , Gillett 6,701, , ,906 6,332, , Gilman 4,459, , ,005 4,214, , Gilmanton 2,122, , ,882 2,006, , Glendale-River Hills 11,087, , ,668 10,477, , Glenwood City 7,011, , ,114 6,626, , Goodman- Armstrong 1,903, , ,460 1,799, , Grafton 22,262,550 2,086 10, ,085 21,038,110-1,224, Granton Area 2,812, , ,067 2,657, , Grantsburg 8,705, , ,900 8,250, , Green Bay Area 199,215,111 20,512 9, , ,258,280-10,956, Green Lake 3,919, , ,225 3,704, , Greendale 24,886,531 2,177 11, ,803 23,517,772-1,368, Greenfield 30,826,332 2,922 10, ,970 29,130,884-1,695, Greenwood 4,121, , ,207 3,894, , Gresham 3,014, , ,559 2,848, ,786 vii

9 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Hamilton 47,077,193 4,388 10, ,139 44,487,947-2,589, Hartford J1 17,683,171 1,793 9, ,320 16,710, , Hartford UHS 18,162,320 1,594 11, ,767 17,163, , Hartland-Lakeside J3 Hayward 14,239,885 1,413 10, ,523 13,456, ,194 17,436,728 1,801 9, ,149 16,477, , Herman #22 1,000, , , ,241-55, Highland 2,723, , ,751 2,574, , Hilbert 4,744, , ,150 4,483, , Hillsboro 5,101, , ,900 4,823, , Holmen 38,593,316 3,683 10, ,902 36,470,684-2,122, Horicon 8,658, , ,172 8,181, , Hortonville 32,067,202 3,407 9, ,900 30,322,300-1,744, Howard-Suamico 51,024,778 5,420 9, ,900 48,238,000-2,786, Howards Grove 9,555, , ,466 9,030, , Hudson 48,064,746 5,459 8, ,900 48,585, , Hurley 6,512, , ,556 6,154, , Hustisford 4,403, , ,677 4,160, , Independence 3,726, , ,756 3,521, , Iola-Scandinavia 7,209, , ,976 6,812, , Iowa-Grant 7,644, , ,297 7,223, , Ithaca 3,636, , ,640 3,436, , Janesville 96,373,679 10,195 9, ,933 91,073,127-5,300, Jefferson 19,274,229 1,915 10, ,511 18,214,146-1,060, Johnson Creek 7,207, , ,273 6,811, ,416 viii

10 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Juda 2,788, , ,479 2,635, , Kaukauna Area 40,087,672 4,178 9, ,067 37,882,850-2,204, Kenosha 229,159,798 22,594 10, , ,556,009-12,603, Kettle Moraine 42,814,016 4,210 10, ,610 40,459,245-2,354, Kewaskum 19,694,746 2,021 9, ,209 18,611,535-1,083, Kewaunee 9,522,293 1,007 9, ,936 8,998, , Kickapoo Area 4,219, , ,427 3,987, , Kiel Area 13,534,989 1,418 9, ,020 12,790, , Kimberly Area 40,928,489 4,215 9, ,176 38,677,422-2,251, Kohler 5,607, , ,980 5,299, , Lac Du Flambeau #1 5,486, , ,054 5,184, , Lacrosse 75,844,014 6,793 11, ,551 71,672,593-4,171, Ladysmith 9,917, , ,099 9,371, , Lafarge 2,843, , ,967 2,686, , Lake Country 5,119, , ,704 4,838, , Lake Geneva J1 20,104,496 2,026 9, ,377 18,998,749-1,105, Lake Geneva- Genoa UHS 16,005,256 1,342 11, ,270 15,124, , Lake Holcombe 3,923, , ,707 3,707, , Lake Mills Area 13,454,524 1,335 10, ,524 12,714, , Lakeland UHS 11,108, , ,513 10,497, , Lancaster 10,131, , ,498 9,573, , Laona 2,540, , ,529 2,400, , Lena 4,128, , ,202 3,901, , Linn J4 1,743, , ,840 1,647,210-95,869 ix

11 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Linn J6 1,509, , ,088 1,426,542-83, Little Chute Area 13,557,708 1,438 9, ,910 12,812, , Lodi 16,385,543 1,657 9, ,345 15,484, , Lomira 10,490,794 1,082 9, ,162 9,913, , Loyal 5,408, , ,095 5,111, , Luck 5,002, , ,936 4,727, , Luxemburg-Casco 18,048,000 1,921 9, ,900 17,096, , Madison Metropolitan 279,767,398 25,085 11, , ,380,191-15,387, Manawa 7,444, , ,900 7,048, , Manitowoc 51,945,343 5,481 9, ,956 49,088,349-2,856, Maple 13,276,459 1,410 9, ,900 12,549, , Maple Dale-Indian Hill 6,326, , ,268 5,978, , Marathon City 6,466, , ,460 6,111, , Marinette 20,833,337 2,213 9, ,900 19,695,700-1,137, Marion 5,087, , ,900 4,823, , Markesan 7,207, , ,900 6,835, , Marshall 11,795,215 1,205 9, ,250 11,146, , Marshfield 37,434,026 3,951 9, ,953 35,375,155-2,058, Mauston 15,089,057 1,483 10, ,615 14,259, , Mayville 11,677,534 1,168 9, ,448 11,035, , McFarland 21,811,752 2,009 10, ,260 20,612,106-1,199, Medford Area 19,366,225 2,059 9, ,900 18,325,100-1,041, Mellen 3,079, , ,105 2,910, , Melrose-Mindoro 7,702, , ,823 7,278, ,618 x

12 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Menasha 36,070,799 3,672 9, ,283 34,086,905-1,983, Menominee Indian 9,788, , ,244 9,250, , Menomonee Falls 46,202,703 4,028 11, ,840 43,661,554-2,541, Menomonie Area 32,765,973 3,273 10, ,460 30,963,844-1,802, Mequon-Thiensville 39,782,217 3,603 11, ,434 37,594,195-2,188, Mercer 1,599, , ,689 1,511,542-87, Merrill Area 28,623,000 3,047 9, ,900 27,118,300-1,504, Merton 9,038, , ,086 8,541, , Middleton-Cross Plains 62,788,836 5,872 10, ,105 59,335,450-3,453, Milton 32,365,500 3,368 9, ,081 30,585,398-1,780, Milwaukee 863,401,296 85,455 10, , ,914,225-47,487, Mineral Point 7,541, , ,377 7,126, , Minocqua J1 6,238, , ,641 5,895, , Mishicot 8,770, , ,900 8,303, , Mondovi 9,866,750 1,050 9, ,900 9,345, , Monona Grove 31,897,071 2,896 11, ,408 30,142,732-1,754, Monroe 25,929,084 2,513 10, ,750 24,502,984-1,426, Montello 6,918, , ,900 6,550, , Monticello 4,054, , ,506 3,831, , Mosinee 21,623,946 2,145 10, ,527 20,434,629-1,189, Mount Horeb Area 21,651,234 2,300 9, ,900 20,470,000-1,181, Mukwonago 46,558,200 4,953 9, ,900 44,081,700-2,476, Muskego-Norway 50,715,752 4,848 10, ,886 47,926,386-2,789, Necedah Area 7,724, , ,335 7,299, , Neenah 62,845,677 6,399 9, ,281 59,389,165-3,456,512 xi

13 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Neillsville 9,613,574 1,017 9, ,933 9,084, , Nekoosa 12,699,368 1,338 9, ,969 12,000, , Neosho J3 2,117, , ,573 2,000, , New Auburn 3,227, , ,966 3,049, , New Berlin 53,399,084 4,625 11, ,911 50,462,134-2,936, New Glarus 8,988, , ,148 8,493, , New Holstein 11,183,347 1,191 9, ,900 10,599, , New Lisbon 6,229, , ,227 5,886, , New London 23,593,731 2,464 9, ,049 22,296,076-1,297, New Richmond 28,582,484 2,980 9, ,064 27,010,447-1,572, Niagara 4,125, , ,532 3,898, , Nicolet UHS 17,171,298 1,080 15, ,025 16,226, , Norris 481, , ,436 1,002 8, ,900 61, North Cape 2,349, , ,140 2,220, , North Crawford 4,872, , ,817 4,604, , North Fond Du Lac 11,572,686 1,221 9, ,957 10,936, , North Lake 3,481, , ,564 3,289, , North Lakeland 3,340, ,884-1, ,094 18,790 3,156, , Northern Ozaukee 8,800, , ,704 8,316, , Northland Pines 14,718,742 1,402 10, ,921 13,909, , Northwood 4,400, , ,294 4,158, , Norwalk-Ontario- Wilton 6,908, , ,615 6,528, , Norway J7 1,032, , , ,588-56, Oak Creek-Franklin 57,255,944 5,839 9, ,266 54,106,867-3,149, Oakfield 5,082, , ,149 4,803, ,552 xii

14 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Oconomowoc Area 50,072,191 4,942 10, ,575 47,318,220-2,753, Oconto 11,134,273 1,178 9, ,932 10,521, , Oconto Falls 17,541,760 1,841 9, ,004 16,576, , Omro 12,207,673 1,278 9, ,027 11,536, , Onalaska 27,101,591 2,861 9, ,952 25,611,003-1,490, Oostburg 9,603,469 1,022 9, ,900 9,095, , Oregon 38,592,779 3,619 10, ,077 36,470,176-2,122, Osceola 16,759,202 1,787 9, ,900 15,904, , Oshkosh Area 94,558,901 10,024 9, ,914 89,358,161-5,200, Osseo-Fairchild 9,670, , ,184 9,138, , Owen-Withee 5,251, , ,909 4,962, , Palmyra-Eagle Area 12,543,971 1,258 9, ,423 11,854, , Pardeeville Area 8,740, , ,910 8,259, , Paris J1 2,032, , ,272 1,920, , Parkview 10,603,005 1,039 10, ,644 10,019, , Pecatonica Area 5,038, , ,580 4,761, , Pepin Area 3,527, , ,126 3,333, , Peshtigo 10,780,862 1,144 9, ,906 10,187, , Pewaukee 24,432,364 2,266 10, ,189 23,088,584-1,343, Phelps 1,651, , ,987 1,560,204-90, Phillips 8,308, , ,900 7,858, , Pittsville 6,540, , ,733 6,180, , Platteville 14,787,411 1,392 10, ,039 13,974, , Plum City 3,010, , ,777 2,844, , Plymouth 22,254,103 2,362 9, ,904 21,030,127-1,223,976 xiii

15 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Port Edwards 5,100, , ,456 4,820, , Port Washington- Saukville Portage 28,031,011 2,689 10, ,851 26,489,305-1,541,706 23,298,728 2,463 9, ,939 22,017,298-1,281, Potosi 4,186, , ,433 3,955, , Poynette 10,628,342 1,115 9, ,008 10,043, , Prairie Du Chien Area 11,338,033 1,202 9, ,914 10,714, , Prairie Farm 3,200, , ,392 3,024, , Prentice 4,571, , ,729 4,319, , Prescott 12,256,292 1,288 9, ,992 11,582, , Princeton 3,600, , ,900 3,408, , Pulaski 36,271,843 3,746 9, ,150 34,276,892-1,994, Racine 210,317,835 21,342 9, , ,750,354-11,567, Randall J1 6,378, , ,957 6,027, , Randolph 5,243, , ,951 4,955, , Random Lake 9,231, , ,929 8,723, , Raymond #14 4,160, , ,513 3,931, , Reedsburg 25,081,373 2,561 9, ,255 23,701,897-1,379, Reedsville 6,953, , ,736 6,571, , Rhinelander 26,038,854 2,638 9, ,328 24,606,717-1,432, Rib Lake 4,509, , ,900 4,263, , Rice Lake Area 24,087,543 2,377 10, ,576 22,762,728-1,324, Richfield J1 4,489, , ,578 4,242, , Richland 13,278,281 1,379 9, ,099 12,547, , Richmond 5,299, , ,455 5,007, ,463 xiv

16 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Rio 4,831, , ,243 4,565, , Ripon Area 17,624,023 1,763 9, ,447 16,654, , River Falls 28,881,549 2,981 9, ,156 27,293,064-1,588, River Ridge 5,780, , ,248 5,462, , River Valley 13,103,372 1,388 9, ,921 12,382, , Riverdale 6,703, , ,947 6,334, , Rosendale- Brandon 9,727, , ,238 9,192, , Rosholt 6,029, , ,146 5,698, , Royall 6,180, , ,701 5,840, , Rubicon J6 990, , , ,795-54, Saint Croix Central 13,181,181 1,370 9, ,092 12,456, , Saint Croix Falls 11,674,698 1,143 10, ,652 11,032, , Saint Francis 9,519, , ,885 8,995, , Salem 10,377,787 1,105 9, ,900 9,834, , Sauk Prairie 26,454,399 2,646 9, ,448 24,999,407-1,454, Seneca 3,275, , ,682 3,095, , Sevastopol 6,465, , ,427 6,110, , Seymour 23,877,208 2,488 9, ,069 22,563,962-1,313, Sharon J11 3,172, , ,196 2,997, , Shawano 23,276,053 2,460 9, ,941 21,995,870-1,280, Sheboygan Area 107,183,876 9,892 10, , ,288,763-5,895, Sheboygan Falls 16,738,080 1,778 9, ,900 15,824, , Shell Lake 6,310, , ,922 5,963, , Shiocton 7,439, , ,095 7,030, ,169 xv

17 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Shorewood 19,579,547 1,618 12, ,436 18,502,672-1,076, Shullsburg 3,420, , ,904 3,232, , Silver Lake J1 4,884, , ,946 4,616, , Siren 5,035, , ,671 4,758, , Slinger 25,497,201 2,708 9, ,900 24,101,200-1,396, Solon Springs 3,441, , ,977 3,252, , Somerset 16,153,289 1,583 10, ,643 15,264, , South Milwaukee 30,894,497 3,075 10, ,494 29,195,300-1,699, South Shore 2,437, , ,693 2,303, , Southern Door County Southwestern Wisconsin 11,196,562 1,171 9, ,036 10,580, ,811 5,526, , ,260 5,222, , Sparta Area 24,681,015 2,611 9, ,933 23,323,559-1,357, Spencer 7,946, , ,329 7,509, , Spooner 12,531,964 1,331 9, ,900 11,845, , Spring Valley 7,239, , ,398 6,841, , Stanley-Boyd Area 8,683, , ,900 8,508, , Stevens Point Area 69,450,055 7,361 9, ,916 65,630,302-3,819, Stockbridge 2,449, , ,524 2,314, , Stone Bank 3,336, , ,582 3,153, , Stoughton Area 32,113,645 3,417 9, ,900 30,411,300-1,702, Stratford 7,971, , ,900 7,627, , Sturgeon Bay 10,867,597 1,148 9, ,946 10,269, , Sun Prairie Area 68,588,914 6,572 10, ,863 64,816,524-3,772, Suior 46,033,556 4,814 9, ,036 43,501,710-2,531,846 xvi

18 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Suring 4,837, , ,368 4,571, , Swallow 6,055, , ,147 5,722, , Thorp 5,312, , ,014 5,020, , Three Lakes 5,726, , ,664 5,411, , Tigerton 3,170, , ,697 2,996, , Tomah Area 29,745,358 3,130 9, ,981 28,109,363-1,635, Tomahawk 13,298,007 1,408 9, ,925 12,566, , Tomorrow River 8,785, , ,900 8,321, , Trevor-Wilmot Consolidated 6,389, , ,593 6,037, , Tri-County Area 6,817, , ,177 6,442, , Turtle Lake 4,767, , ,386 4,505, , Twin Lakes #4 4,546, , ,547 4,296, , Two Rivers 17,051,600 1,816 9, ,900 16,162, , Union Grove J1 7,574, , ,329 7,157, , Union Grove UHS 8,600, , ,953 8,127, , Unity 11,628,442 1,132 10, ,707 10,988, , Valders Area 11,080,136 1,086 10, ,642 10,470, , Verona Area 51,367,329 4,628 11, ,489 48,542,126-2,825, Viroqua Area 11,106,874 1,149 9, ,135 10,495, , Wabeno Area 5,054, , ,403 4,776, , Walworth J1 5,121, , ,995 4,839, , Washburn 5,712, , ,128 5,398, , Washington 792, , , ,065-43, Washington- Caldwell 2,582, , ,657 2,440, ,034 xvii

19 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Waterford Graded 16,527,659 1,584 10, ,860 15,618, , Waterford UHS 12,135,193 1,086 11, ,560 11,467, , Waterloo 9,047, , ,672 8,550, , Watertown 38,351,786 3,983 9, ,099 36,242,438-2,109, Waukesha 132,786,439 13,068 10, , ,483,185-7,303, Waunakee 36,922,684 3,590 10, ,719 34,891,936-2,030, Waupaca 20,692,935 2,333 8, ,900 20,763,700 70, Waupun 19,701,470 2,061 9, ,033 18,617,889-1,083, Wausau 87,945,288 8,362 10, ,939 83,108,297-4,836, Wausaukee 5,327, , ,188 5,034, , Wautoma Area 13,855,079 1,475 9, ,900 13,127, , Wauwatosa 63,150,594 5,942 10, ,043 59,677,311-3,473, Wauzeka-Steuben 3,900, , ,169 3,685, , Webster 7,072, , ,321 6,683, , West Allis 82,409,096 8,103 10, ,611 77,876,596-4,532, West Bend 65,263,601 6,933 9, ,900 61,703,700-3,559, West Dee 29,099,476 2,810 10, ,786 27,499,005-1,600, West Salem 16,650,572 1,737 9, ,059 15,734, , Westby Area 11,050,891 1,150 9, ,081 10,443, , Westfield 11,805,114 1,257 9, ,900 11,187, , Weston 3,175, , ,408 3,001, , Weyauwega- Fremont 9,112, , ,989 8,611, , Wheatland J1 4,603, , ,417 4,350, , White Lake 2,179, , ,951 2,059, ,885 xviii

20 Simulation of s based on Provisions in the Executive Budget Amount Enrollment Whitefish Bay 30,120,487 2,593 11, ,977 28,463,860-1,656, Whitehall 7,587, , ,349 7,170, , Whitewater 19,752,824 2,031 9, ,191 18,666,419-1,086, Whitnall 24,014,520 2,176 11, ,429 22,693,721-1,320, Wild Rose 6,605, , ,900 6,247, , Williams Bay 6,439, , ,748 6,085, , Wilmot UHS 13,878,978 1,216 11, ,786 13,115, , Winneconne 14,231,600 1,514 9, ,900 13,474, , Winter 4,033, , ,387 3,812, , Wisconsin Dells 17,129,738 1,704 10, ,500 16,187, , Wisconsin Heights 8,821, , ,451 8,336, , Wisconsin Rapids 52,921,910 5,518 9, ,063 50,011,205-2,910, Wittenberg- Birnamwood Wonewoc-Union Center 11,761,119 1,248 9, ,906 11,114, ,862 4,572, , ,858 4,321, , Woodruff J1 4,736, , ,482 4,475, , Wrightstown 12,121,356 1,264 9, ,062 11,454, , Yorkville J2 3,591, , ,223 3,393, ,532 /Average $8,564,682, ,578 -$547 $8,100,181,858 -$464,500,150 xix

21 An Analysis of the Proposal to Reduce s for Wisconsin s Andrew Reschovsky February 25, 2011 In 1993, the Wisconsin Legislature imposed revenue limits on local school districts. The limits restricted the amount by which each school district could increase the sum of district proty tax revenue and general aid from the state (sometimes referred to as equalization aid) in any given year. 1 In its first year of oation, the school year, the overall revenue increase was limited to $190 pupil. Although the revenue limit was increased in most years, reaching $275 for the school year, the revenue limit grew at or below the rate of inflation for most districts with stable pupil populations. limits were enacted because legislators were frustrated that increases in state aid were doing little to reduce the level of school proty taxation. By imposing revenue limits and continuing to increase general aid, the legislature could guarantee that most school districts would lower school proty tax rates. For each district, in any given year, the revenue limit was a fixed amount, so any increase in state aid would lead to a dollar-fordollar reduction in proty tax levies. The only way that a school district can increase revenues in excess of the revenue limit is to gain voter approval through a referendum. In enacting the biennial budget, the Legislature, in order to reduce proty tax increases in response to cuts in state aid, reduced the annual -pupil revenue limit increase from $275 to $200 for the two years of the current. The budget bill also specified that the limit would return to $275 pupil for the school year. The annual increases in the revenue limit are designed to reflect annual increases in the costs of providing education. As the allowable -pupil increases are a fixed dollar amount, they provide smaller centage increases in allowable revenues in districts facing above-average increases in costs. These cost increases may occur in districts facing large increases in pupils requiring extra services because of disabilities (special education), limited English language ability, or students coming from economically disadvantaged families. In years with rapidly increasing fuel costs, rural school districts that must transport their students long distances also face aboveaverage increases in costs. In most years, the revenue limits allowed -pupil revenues in the average school district to rise at about the rate of inflation. The $200 -pupil increase mandated in each year of the current biennium allows a revenue increase of 2 cent in the average -pupil revenue district. Although the governor s budget has yet to be released, the media have widely reported that the new budget will include reductions in school aid that total over $900 million and a new revenue limit that mandates a $500 -pupil reduction in the sum of general aid and proty tax revenue. 2 The state would reduce what it pays each district and districts would be further limited in their ability to compensate for cuts in state aid by raising proty taxes. In some cases, districts might even be required to reduce local proty taxes. 1 A small state aid program known as computer aid is also included in the revenue limit base. 2 For example, see a February 16, 2011, story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1

22 This pa analyzes the proposed reduction in the revenue limits that Wisconsin school districts face. Methodology Ideally, I would like to predict the revenue limit each of Wisconsin s 424 school districts will face for the school year. Carrying out those calculations, however, requires information on the number of students each district must educate in. As forecasting enrollment levels by district is difficult, I have chosen a simulation approach based on available data. First, I calculate the revenue limit faced by each school district in the current year. These calculations are based on a $200 -pupil increase in the allowable limit mandated in the state budget. Next, I calculate what revenue limits would have been this year ( ), if each district s limit had been reduced by $500 pupil. Although this simple simulation exercise is unable to account for increases and decreases in enrollment between this year and next, it provides a rough estimate of the likely impact of the proposed policy. Results In aggregate, the impact of lowering revenue limits would be to reduce total allowable revenues by $594.7 million. To get a sense of the impact on school funding, I calculate each school district s revenue limit reduction relative to its actual revenue limit. Across all districts, the proposal results in a 7 cent reduction in allowable revenues. To explore the different effects that the proposal to lower the revenue cap would have on low- and high-spending districts, the data in Table 1 present the average centage reduction in revenue limits for school districts characterized by the level of their actual revenue limit. As expected, centage reductions in the districts with the lowest revenue limits would be 7.4 cent, while allowable revenue in the highest-revenue-limit districts would fall by 5.3 cent. Table 1 Proposed in s by Average Per Number Number Percentage Percentage s of s of s of s Less than $9, , % -7.4% $9,500-$10, , % -7.2% $10,000-$11, , % -6.7% $11,000-$12, , % -6.2% $12,000 and over 23 11, % -5.3% , % -7.0% Source: Author's calculations using data from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction In Table 2, I organize school districts by their proty value student in order to see whether the centage decline in the revenue limit would be highest in proty poor or proty wealthy districts. The results indicate that with the exception of a handful of districts with very low -student proty values, districts with higher proty values student would on average face smaller reductions in allowable revenues. Thus, the allowable revenues in the average school district with -student values between $250,000 and $325,000 would fall by 7.2 cent, while revenues would fall by 6.0 cent in the richest 2

23 districts (those with -student proty values over $2 million). s with higher proty values would be forced to reduce revenues by a smaller centage than poorer districts. Simulation results for individual school districts are available from the author. Table 2 Proposed in s by Equalized Proty Value Equalized Average Proty Value Number Number Percentage Percentage of s of s of s Less than $250, , % -6.7% $250,000-$324, , % -7.2% $325,000-$400, , % -7.1% $400,000-$499, , % -7.1% $500,000-$749, , % -7.0% $750,000-$999, , % -6.7% $1,000,000-$1,999, , % -6.5% $2,000,000 and over 21 8, % -6.0% , % -7.0% Source: Author's calculations using data from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Discussion Governor Walker has stated that the requirement in Senate Bill 11 (the budget repair bill) that all state and local employees contribute 5.8 cent of their salaries toward their pensions and pay 12 cent of their health insurance premiums will enable school districts to cope with their lower revenue limits and avoid employee layoffs. The Office of the Governor has estimated that these employee benefit contributions would in aggregate save Wisconsin s school districts nearly $490 million in the first year. Even if this estimate proves to be accurate, these savings to school districts would be insufficient to cover the nearly $600 million reduction in allowable revenue resulting from the mandated reduction in revenue limits. Furthermore, the data in Tables 1 and 2 suggest that cost savings due to employee benefit cuts (which are likely to be more or less proportional to revenue limits) would come closer to covering the reduction in allowable revenues in high revenue limit (and hence higher spending) school districts and in high proty value districts. Even with sharp reductions in the costs of employee benefits, over the next two years school districts across the state are likely to face rising costs elsewhere in their budgets. If the current political unrest in the Middle East continues, it is likely that energy costs will rise dramatically. Even with employees paying a larger share of health-care premiums, the cost of health insurance is likely to increase. Data from the Wisconsin Association of Boards suggest that since 2003, the average annual cost of health-care premiums has risen at a rate of 6.5 cent. 3 If trends over the past few years continue, the proportion of public school 3 These data are available at 3.html 3

24 students who qualify for special education and who are eligible for free and reduced price lunches will increase. These increases have cost implications for districts as additional services are in many cases mandated by federal and state statute. Facing lower revenue limits, many school districts will be forced to eliminate programs and increase class sizes. I would predict that many districts will find it hard to avoid substantial teacher and staff layoffs. Most school districts will face additional fiscal pressure over the next two years because of reductions in federal aid. The federal stimulus funds, which prevented large cuts in school funding during the current biennium, will disappear. In addition, Congress is considering large reductions in federal education aid as part of attempts to curtail non-defense discretionary expenditures. 4