Decoupling a common sense solution to Wisconsin school funding conundrum
Education is not a zero-sum game, but unfortunately divisive politics and ideologies are holding us back. At the end of the day, public schools, charter schools, private schools, homeschooling, all offer unique choices for parents and families and should be seen as part of one education ecosystem.
Funding education, however, is proving to be a difficult endeavor. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue and, frankly, not just a problem here in Wisconsin. All 50 states are dealing with the expiration of COVID-19 relief funds and uncertainty over how federal education dollars will be distributed in the coming years.
Additionally, choice schools and public schools are going to need to find a way to coexist. And it can happen as long as we have a sincere discussion about how education in Wisconsin is currently funded and what we can do to improve it.
At the heart of this issue is what I believe to be a false notion that school choice 'siphons' money away from public schools. That's a political slogan—not a fiscal reality. When a student uses a voucher, the public school no longer incurs the cost of educating that child. While state aid to the district is reduced, the district can—and almost always does—raise its property tax levy to recoup the lost revenue. Giving the school the same level of funding to teach fewer students.
About 1,153 students in the Green Bay Area Public School District use a voucher to attend a private school, amounting to $12 million in state aid. That's just 3.8% of the district's $311 million budget—even though those students represent over 6% of enrollment.
A similar story holds statewide. On average, Wisconsin school districts receive $15,569 in state and local revenue per student, while choice schools receive $10,798. Statewide, spending on choice students represents about 4.6% of total educational spending even though choice students are about 6.5% of total enrollment. Bottom line: taxpayers are getting more value per dollar.
Opinion: Wisconsin must follow the lead of Florida and Tennessee on how it funds schools
Opinion: Wisconsin is failing to fund education. State budget must make this right.
Some have raised concerns about the property tax implications. In fact, property taxes are the most hated tax, especially for fixed income households. But there's a solution: decoupling public and private school funding so one doesn't affect the other. The Legislature introduced such a reform last year. Gov. Evers, who supported the idea as state superintendent, can once again consider it in this year's budget.
Decoupling means separating choice program funding from public school funding in Wisconsin. Instead of seeing their funding reduced and having the ability to make up for it through higher property taxes, public schools would see their funding exist entirely separately from private school choice and charter schools. Public school funding would be more stable, and property taxpayers would see their burden eased. Statewide, the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates decoupling would save property taxpayers more than $342 million.
I learned more about decoupling's 'positive' effects at a Green Bay Common Council meeting where Council member Brian Johnson touted decoupling as a potential 'common sense' solution, because it provides stable and reliable funding from state coffers, not constant property tax increases on local residents.
Opinion: We asked readers about wake boats on Wisconsin lakes. Here's what you said.
The policy solution exists, and it's been out there for quite some time. The question is whether lawmakers and the governor are willing to make a difference.
Let's be clear: if you like your public school, nothing changes with decoupling. In fact, it provides the school with consistent state funding. And for thousands of families across Wisconsin — especially low-income and working-class families — decoupling keeps the ability to choose the best school with the family.
Cate Zeuske is an education reform advocate, former elected official, and resident of Brown County.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Choice and public schools need to coexist. Here's how. | Opinion
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
Sellers: US under Trump is ‘drifting towards authoritarianism' – full interview
CNN Political Commentators Bakari Sellers, Xochitl Hinojosa, Kristen Soltis Anderson, and Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis join CNN's Dana Bash to respond to President Trump's decision to federalize thousands of National Guard troops and deploy them to Los Angeles.


CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
GOP Sen. Johnson: Trump's bill ‘just doesn't go far enough' to cut spending
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson tells CNN's Dana Bash that "nothing's really changed" in his criticism of President Trump's spending and tax cut bill.


Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat
Los Angeles is rioting again. Mobs, amped up by professional agitators and implicit support from Democratic elected officials, have attacked federal law enforcement officers with deadly intent. This violence, which includes hurling rocks, torching cars, launching fireworks, and assaulting federal law enforcement officers, aims to prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) from carrying out lawful deportation efforts. Missing the irony, the rioters enthusiastically waved the flags of nations to which they are fighting against being returned. In response, federal and some local law enforcement deployed tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the crowd in the LA suburb of Paramount. But with law enforcement lives clearly threatened and the local law enforcement response less than robust, President Donald Trump ordered up 2,000 members of the National Guard to restore order. Additional active duty troops are said to be on standby. Predictably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass clutch their pearls, whining about "cruel" immigration enforcement while the city spirals into anarchy. Newsom labeled Trump's federalization of the National Guard "purposefully inflammatory." He said it would escalate tensions—one supposes the future presidential candidate sees the ruckus as "mostly peaceful." The pro-immigration without limits group, the League of United Latin American Citizens, predictably condemned Trump's order, claiming it "marks a deeply troubling escalation in the administration's approach to immigration and civilian reaction to the use of military-style tactics." Trump isn't moved by the criticism. He doesn't want to see federal law enforcement officers killed or injured by anarchists and would-be revolutionaries for simply doing their jobs. I saw this movie before. In 1992, as a California Army National Guard captain, I patrolled LA's scorched Crenshaw District during the Rodney King riots. Looters ran wild, businesses burned, and chaos reigned until Gov. Pete Wilson called up the National Guard and President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, sending 3,500 federal troops—active duty Army and Marines—to back 10,000 federalized Guardsmen. Order swiftly returned. It worked. There's a big difference—so far—between today's unrest and that of 1992. The Rodney King riot was initially sparked by resentment over what was seen as excessive police force. Due to LA's chronically under-staffed police department and a tactical error—pulling back law enforcement from an intersection that had been taken over by a violent mob—the riot quickly spiraled out of control. By the end, some 63 people were dead, 2,383 injured, 12,111 arrested, and more than $2.3 billion in inflation-adjusted property damage was inflicted. In comparison, the 1992 LA riot equaled all the death, injuries, arrests, and damage of the 2020 George Floyd-Antifa-BLM riots of 2020 combined. In 1992, once law and order broke down, opportunistic looting and arson quickly followed. Today's riots are fueled by open-borders radicals and their enablers, not anger over police using excessive force. ICE is enforcing federal law, rounding up illegal immigrant criminals and those with final deportation orders. And the danger, so far, is more focused on federal law enforcement officers, not private property per se. Thus, there's a subtle difference in the call-up of troops, both in the size of the deployment—13,500 in 1992 vs. 2,000 today—and in their purpose. Normally, National Guard personnel, when operating on a state mission for a governor, can enforce civilian law. The post-Civil War Posse Comitatus Act which generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce civilian laws doesn't apply. But when the Guard is federalized—that is, called up to federal service—the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions apply to the Guard, just as they do to active-duty service members. But there's a big exception: The Insurrection Act. Through 1992, presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act 31 times. Essentially, when local law and order break down, the president is authorized to use the military to enforce civilian law. But Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act. What he did instead was to call up the California National Guard and potentially some Marines to protect federal law enforcement officers. Thus, these military personnel will not be allowed to arrest agitators and rioters or conduct immigration enforcement operations, but they will be allowed to perform force protection missions and provide logistical support. Of course, if that's not enough. Trump can always invoke the Insurrection Act, federalize more National Guard soldiers—even from other states—and send in additional active-duty forces, just as Eisenhower and Kennedy did to smash segregationist resistance in the 1950s and 60s. Newsom and Bass are at fault here. Their failure is glaring. Californians have been voting with their feet for years, fleeing Newsom's wrong-headed policies. Now, his mismanagement of LA's violence will torch what is left of his presidential ambitions. These rioters aren't protesters—they're insurgents. Like Antifa in 2020, they're attacking federal authority, targeting ICE agents enforcing laws Congress passed. Newsom and Bass coddle them. Since they won't act, Trump must. The left will scream "tyranny," and some retired generals will fret about "politicizing" the military. But anarchy is a brutal tyranny of its own kind.