Frederica Freyberg:
In education news, it was a year that saw Wisconsin voters approve a record number of referenda to boost spending in local school districts to the tune of $4.4 billion. At the same time, the state superintendent of public instruction wants to increase state K-12 funding by a total of new proposed spending of more than $4 billion. Meanwhile, in Washington, moves to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. Lots afoot. We check in with Christopher Saldaa, professor of K-12 educational leadership and policy analysis and thanks for being here.

Christopher Saldana:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So in terms of DPI’s $4 billion budget request, it calls for funding 90% of special education costs. What’s your reaction to that?

Christopher Saldana:
I think it’s a great proposal. I think schools are federally mandated to provide education for students with disabilities and for the last, at least since for the last 20 years, school districts have had to fund the majority of that. So I think currently the state reimburses about 30% of spending on public education, and school districts have to supply 70% of those costs, and that those funds come from their general funds. So those are supposed to be dollars that are supposed to support all students in general education classrooms.

Frederica Freyberg:
But is this request on the part of the Department of Public Instruction kind of more aspirational than real, at least politically?

Christopher Saldana:
I think that’s a question for the legislature. I think that’s a question for what our values are in the state of Wisconsin. I think special education is something that we want to ensure that’s provided to every single student, regardless of their disability or need. And I think currently, because of the different financial capacity that school districts have, there’s a huge amount of variation in what school districts can afford. So having the state step up and play a bigger role in funding special education creates greater, greater equality of opportunity for students who have disabilities, whether they’re in a small rural district or in a large urban district like Milwaukee.

Frederica Freyberg:
Why have we allowed it to be so underfunded for so long in the state of Wisconsin?

Christopher Saldana:
That’s a great question, too. I think one of the things that folks are very familiar with, in particular because of the recent referenda that have been requested on the parts of districts, is that funding for any public service, any public good, requires tax dollars. And I think from the state’s perspective, there is this question about raising revenue for providing adequate public education for students and for far too long, the answer to that question has been to just not fund public education, because it’s easier. You don’t raise taxes on people. You don’t face the repercussions of that kind of political action.

Frederica Freyberg:
So the Wisconsin Policy Forum reports that this past year was a record year for the passage of these referenda, as we said, $4.4 billion but they have also noted a decline in the passage of these over the years. Do you think there is kind of referenda fatigue?

Christopher Saldana:
I think, you know, when you come to someone who is doing their best in their life to try to pay their bills, and you say, we have this need for public schools, I think generally folks across the state of Wisconsin, folks across the country support public education. But when you’re asking them to pay $100, $200, $300, $400 more in property taxes per year, that starts to hit people’s wallet. And I think it becomes a question of, can I afford this? I think this is very closely tied to Dr. Underly’s budget proposal at DPI, because I think what she’s proposing is to say let’s provide additional state revenues that are going to alleviate some of these referenda questions and are going to provide some relief for local taxpayers by providing state funding.

Frederica Freyberg:
And yet, school districts over the years have really not had a choice but to go to the local voters. Right?

Christopher Saldana:
That’s right. As years go by, costs rise. You have to pay teachers more, health care costs rise, you have to repair your buildings. All of those things cost more and more money. I think people are now very intimately familiar with inflation. Those things exist within school buildings, too, and within school districts. And so if the state provides the same amount of funding over time with no inflationary adjustments, then districts have no other option but to ask their communities to foot the bill.

Frederica Freyberg:
Meanwhile, in Washington, there is a move to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. What are the implications of that?

Christopher Saldana:
I, I don’t think it’s entirely clear yet. I think there’s this argument that we should eliminate aspects of government. One of the proposals being eliminating the Department of Education. I think there is an argument that then the control over education should go back to states. I think there’s a — there’s this myth that states and local communities don’t already control their education. States constitutionally do decide what happens in schools. They determine curriculums. They determine standards. Local school districts do folks elect their school boards. A lot of that, that decision making power is local control. But what would happen, I think, is unclear because of the programs that the Department of Education has. They administer funding for students in poverty. They administer funding for students with disabilities. They ensure that those students aren’t discriminated against, and then they provide a ton of research for education, which is really the innovation wing of our country’s educational system. But it’s very unclear what abolishing the Department of Education means. Does it mean no more funding for students in poverty? No more oversight of discrimination? Or is it really a reallocation of those responsibilities in the administration of those funds to different agencies?

Frederica Freyberg:
I guess we will find out.

Christopher Saldana:
That’s right.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Professor Christopher Saldana, thanks very much.

Christopher Saldana:
Thank you.