I object strongly to what the Legislature has done to schools in this budget. The Legislature's budget would reduce future annual school revenue increases to about half the amount authorized for the 1993-94 school year, when limits were first implemented. Some school district administrators believe that, at these levels, their allowable increases may not even cover anticipated growth in fuel and maintenance costs, even if teacher compensation were frozen. At a time when Wisconsin's and the nation's economy is under siege from global competition, it is foolhardy to think that providing a quality education is a luxury we can no longer afford. Our children must have more opportunities to learn, not fewer. A strong public education system is what made Wisconsin a great place to live, and it is what will make Wisconsin a great place to live and do business in the 21st century.
A387
Unfortunately, the Legislature gave Wisconsin taxpayers the unacceptable choice of either cutting schools or emptying their pocketbooks. My original budget proposal provided the only reasonable option, which was to protect both taxpayers and schools. With this veto, I will restore that balance. It is no secret that Wisconsin property taxes are too high and that we must continue to find ways to reduce this burden. By cutting spending in other parts of the budget and reallocating the savings to real property tax relief, my veto provides $330 million to help us reach that goal.
As a result, unlike the Legislature's reckless proposal, we will not achieve this goal by sacrificing high-quality public schools. These funds will be used to offset the property tax impact of restoring school district revenue limit authority to the level needed to maintain quality schools. To ensure that the entire $330 million is used for property tax relief, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to transfer $155 million in fiscal year 2005-06 and $175 million in fiscal year 2006-07 to the Department of Public Instruction's general equalization aids appropriation, where it will be paid out directly to school districts. In combination with my veto that partially restores my proposed increase to the school levy credit, we can restore current law revenue limit authority to public schools, preserve educational quality and freeze property taxes for the average Wisconsin homeowner.
5.
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Eligibility
Sections 1895h, 1895p and 9337 (6m)
These sections make changes to pupil eligibility criteria for participation in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Section 1895h allows pupils to remain eligible to participate in the program until family income exceeds 220 percent of the federal poverty level. Under current law, pupils may no longer participate if family income exceeds 175 percent of the federal poverty level. Section 1895p repeals the requirement that pupils entering the choice program must have either been enrolled in a choice school, been enrolled in a Milwaukee public school, been enrolled in grades kindergarten through three in a Milwaukee private school or not been enrolled in school in the previous year.
I am vetoing these provisions because they need to be part of a comprehensive proposal that addresses the needs of both choice program and Milwaukee Public Schools students. As included in this bill, these provisions will do little more than increase the number of pupils who will be denied access to the choice program because the number of eligible applicants will likely exceed the statutory enrollment cap sometime in this coming academic year. In addition, recent reports about the quality of some choice schools, including the lack of classroom materials and teachers and administrators lacking suitable training or experience, raise serious questions that need to be addressed before the program is expanded. While the No Child Left Behind Act requires the annual testing of all public school students (in grades three through eight and one high school grade), the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program still does not require testing in any grades despite the expenditure of more than $87 million in state tax dollars. Most of the choice schools offer a good quality education, but expanding the program without proper safeguards will allow the establishment of more schools that do not deliver the education that Milwaukee's children deserve.
I believe the modifications included in these sections have considerable merit, but should be part of a more comprehensive package that raises the choice cap, improves educational and operational accountability in the choice program, and benefits all students in Milwaukee, not just those in the choice program. I look forward to working with legislators and interested parties to resolve this issue in the fall session.
6.
Milwaukee Charter School Pupil Eligibility
Sections 1883f, 1883r and 9337 (7m) (b)
These sections modify the pupil eligibility criteria for participation in the Milwaukee charter school program. Under this provision, pupils residing outside the Milwaukee Public Schools district boundaries would be permitted to attend a Milwaukee charter school.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to the expansion of the Milwaukee Charter Schools original intent to serve as an educational option for families residing within Milwaukee Public Schools' boundaries. The Milwaukee Charter Schools Program should continue to focus on providing alternative educational opportunities for city of Milwaukee children. While the provision requires these charter schools to give preference in admissions to pupils who reside in Milwaukee, over time it is likely that nonresident pupils will diminish the ability of children in the city of Milwaukee to attend these schools.
7.
Milwaukee and Racine Charter School Program Funding
Sections 1897g, 1897i, 1898b [as it relates to a charter school operating under s.
118.40 (2r)], 1898e, 1898m, 1898s, 1899m, 1912m, 9137 (4p) and 9337 (9m)
This provision modifies the current funding mechanism for the independent charter schools operating in the Milwaukee and Racine school districts. Under current law, these independent charter schools are funded as a first draw on the general equalization aids appropriation. Under the modified formula created by this provision, the pupils attending independent charter schools would be counted as pupils in the Milwaukee and Racine school districts, respectively, and be funded under the current equalization aid formula in the same manner as pupils attending regular public schools.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to the immediate distributional impact that this change will have on school districts and the potential longer term impact it will have on Milwaukee and Racine. Under the current equalization aid formula, the fiscal impact of independent charter schools is distributed across all school districts that receive equalization aids, including the most affluent districts, which only receive aid under the "first tier" of the formula. The modified formula would exempt these affluent districts from any charter school cost impact, while distributing the costs across the remaining school districts. About 120 Wisconsin school districts would lose approximately $5.4 million in aid, with school districts in Madison, Middleton, Waukesha and Wauwatosa among the most negatively affected.
A388
Second, while analysis indicates that the change appears revenue neutral for the Milwaukee and Racine school districts in the short-term, it is unclear what the long-term impact on those districts revenues would be, especially if charter school enrollments continue to increase. Without clear data on the long-term impact of this formula change on Milwaukee and Racine, I do not believe modifying the formula justifies the risk.
Lastly, the Legislature's primary intent in making this change appears to have been to create the appearance that the cost of these independent charter schools will be paid entirely by the Milwaukee and Racine school districts. The fact that the aid that pays for these charter schools will no longer be explicitly itemized in the aid notifications sent to school districts does not mean that other districts are not affected, it only means that the effect will not be apparent. Allowing the Milwaukee and Racine school districts to count pupils attending independent charter schools will increase the equalization aid allocations to Milwaukee and Racine, thereby reducing the aid allocations to all but the most affluent districts. Paying for these charter schools by running the program through the formula may redistribute and hide the impact, but it will not eliminate it.
I support the independent charter school program. These schools are chartered by the city of Milwaukee and University of Wisconsin System campuses, which are both accountable to the public. These schools also participate in the state's student testing program. Vetoing this funding change is not a criticism of the program, but simply reflects my concern that the benefit of not reporting the impact of independent charter schools on the distribution of equalization aid does not outweigh the potential financial risk to the Milwaukee and Racine school districts.
8.
Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program
Sections 1888m, 1888r, 1888s, 1891t and 1893m
Sections 1888m, 1888r, 1888s and 1891t permit school districts that currently participate in the SAGE program to opt out of grades two, three or both. Section 1893m would expand the eligible uses of SAGE funding in the Milwaukee Public Schools district to include meeting the criteria for the prekindergarten through grade five (P-5) program. The P-5 program allows up to 25 students per teacher in grades prekindergarten through five, while the SAGE program requires a class size of no greater than 15 students in grades kindergarten through three.
I am vetoing sections 1888m, 1888r, 1888s and 1893m, and partially vetoing section 1891t, because they are contrary to the intent and spirit of the SAGE program. Research has shown that smaller class sizes in the early years of a child's education increases academic performance; the benefits are even greater for students from low-income families. Further, research indicates that the class reductions must occur over several grades in order for those gains to be sustained in later years. For example, studies of the Tennessee Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) program, which reduces class sizes to 13-17 pupils in grades kindergarten through three, have shown that pupils in small classes for at least three years had significant sustained benefits through grade eight, while those in small classes for fewer than three years showed mixed long-term effects. That finding was replicated in separate studies conducted by researchers at Eastern Michigan University and the U.S. Department of Education. The positive results of sustained, small class size include reduced achievement gaps, greater student engagement, more time spent on active teaching, less time spent on classroom management and behavior problems, and lower rates of grade retention.
The positive impact of the SAGE program in Wisconsin is reflected in the most recent third grade reading achievement scores. In 1998, there was a 21-point difference between SAGE and non-SAGE schools in the percentage of students scoring proficient and advanced in reading achievement. The gap closed to just 8 points by 2005. This is solid evidence that Wisconsin's SAGE program is working for our children.
Allowing the Legislature's provisions to be implemented would reduce access to smaller class sizes for children throughout the state and diminish the benefit of the SAGE program. We should be working to expand, rather than eliminate, smaller class sizes for our children. My budget proposal included a $44 million increase in SAGE funding, which was reduced to just $6 million by the Legislature, and an increase in the per pupil reimbursement rate, from the current $2,000 to $2,500 per child by 2006-07. What is needed to support SAGE schools and encourage new ones is greater funding and the first reimbursement rate increase since the program was started in 1996, not flexibility that will destroy the positive impact of smaller class sizes. As Governor, I will continue to make funding increases for the SAGE program a priority.
9.
Mentoring Grants for Initial Educators
Sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (2) (kg)], 173m, 187m, 1854g, 1854m and 9337 (6f)
These provisions require the Department of Public Instruction to increase fees for teacher and administrator licenses from $100 to $150 as of July 1, 2006, and direct the department to use the revenue generated from the fee increase to distribute grants to school districts that provide mentors for new educators. The budget I submitted included GPR funding in each year to help pay for teacher mentors.
I fully support the mentoring grant program, but I object to raising teacher license fees for this purpose. This fee increase would be a tax on teachers who have already sacrificed salary increases under the provisions of the qualified economic offer. The 50 percent increase in teacher license fees would make Wisconsin's one of the highest in the country. Furthermore, the major benefits of a teacher mentoring program are to increase the quality of classroom instruction, support beginning teachers in their first years on the job, and reduce hiring and recruitment costs for school districts by improving teacher retention. These are costs that should be broadly distributed.
A389
I am partially vetoing sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (2) (kg)], 173m and 187m and vetoing sections 1854g, 1854m and 9337 (6f) to eliminate the teacher license fee increase and the requirement that the department use licensing fee revenue for the mentoring grant program. My partial veto of section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (2) (kg)] will also delete the reference to program revenue-service as the fund source of the appropriation created for the grant program. Under s.
20.005 (3), all appropriations are made from the general fund unless otherwise indicated. Therefore, this partial veto will preserve the mentoring grant program and restore GPR as the fund source, beginning in fiscal year 2006-07. Under s.
20.003 (2), the Revisor of Statutes has the authority to renumber the appropriation for mentoring grants to make it consistent with the numbering system under s.
20.003 (3).
10.
Federal Administrative Funding
Sections 1856f and 9437 (3v)
These sections require the Department of Public Instruction to obtain approval from the Joint Committee on Finance, through a 14-day passive review process, for plans to use federal funding to support the department's general program operations.
I am vetoing these sections because it is important that state agencies have the flexibility to manage their budgets. Requiring agencies to seek approval from the Joint Committee on Finance for administrative costs that are supported with federal funds places an unnecessary burden on the agency and removes the operational flexibility required to provide services in an efficient manner. Furthermore, the department would be the only state agency subject to this requirement, and I object to it being singled out in this way.
11.
Special Education Studies
Section 9137 (2q)
This section requires the Department of Public Instruction to complete a study of the distribution of special education aid on a census basis rather than a cost reimbursement basis and to report to the Joint Committee on Finance by December 1, 2006. This section also requests the Joint Legislative Council to study the effectiveness of the state's special education policy and funding, and to report its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2007.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The department may conduct studies without a specific statutory directive, and the Legislature does not require specific statutory language to request a Joint Legislative Council study.
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
12.
Surcharge Beyond 125 Percent of Graduation Requirements
Section 697rm
This section requires the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents to charge students the full cost-per-credit for any credits exceeding 125 percent of the graduation credit requirements towards a first baccalaureate degree.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary given current board policy. Beginning with the 2004-05 academic year, the Board of Regents requires that students accumulating more than 165 credits or 30 credits above what the major requires, whichever is greater, pay a tuition surcharge equal to 100 percent of the cost of instruction. Furthermore, I am concerned that the requirement, if enacted, would adversely affect students who change majors, arrive with advanced placement credits or pursue double majors, issues that were considered by the Board of Regents prior to setting its current policy.
13.
Course Retake Surcharge
Section 697s
This section requires the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents to charge students a 100 percent surcharge for each course retaken as a result of a failing grade on the first attempt.
I am vetoing this section because the issues that surround failing a course are often complex. Students do not always fail courses because they are not doing the work. Family and medical issues, the stress of adjusting to campus life, and the need to work to pay tuition while attending the university can result in academic problems for which students should not be penalized. In addition, many campuses already have course retake policies in place that discourage repeating courses while ensuring that students maintain adequate academic progress. Furthermore, enactment of this provision may do little more than encourage students to drop difficult courses early in the semester, simply to avoid the surcharge.
14.
Task Force on University of Wisconsin-Waukesha
These sections create a task force and provide $30,000 GPR in fiscal year 2005-06 to study and develop an implementation plan for merging the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Section 9152 (6r) further requires that the two campuses be merged no later than July 1, 2007.
The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, under its existing authority, has the ability to review its policies and take actions to improve the quality of education and expand opportunities for students to complete baccalaureate degrees. To this end, a number of agreements between the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha already exist to permit students at the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha to complete baccalaureate degree programs at Waukesha and receive a degree from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
A390
The Board of Regents, in its on-going efforts to increase the number of baccalaureate degree recipients in Wisconsin, should give consideration to merging the two campuses. In such a review, the Board of Regents should examine the issue of maintaining access and affordability to the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha. The Board of Regents should consult with not only representatives of both the campuses, but also community, political and business leaders in the metropolitan Milwaukee area.
The Board of Regents should take any necessary actions, including recommending to the Legislature the merger of the aforementioned two campuses, to increase the number of baccalaureate degree recipients in Wisconsin.
Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes the increase to fund the task force, the purpose of this funding was included in a Joint Committee on Finance amendment to the bill. By lining out the system's s.
20.285 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $30,000 in fiscal year 2005-06, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds the task force. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
15.
Collaboration Study
Section 9152 (7f)
This section requires the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents to study possible collaborative efforts between the University of Wisconsin-Superior and the University of Minnesota-Duluth.
I am vetoing this section because the study is unnecessary. Collaboration between the two institutions already exists and is ongoing. While I am in support of collaborative efforts and would encourage the Board of Regents to continue developing and implementing collaboration with Minnesota and other campuses where appropriate, there is no need for a study.
16.
Repeal of Certain University of Wisconsin System Reporting Requirements
Sections 78m, 484m, 486m, 695p, 697m, 697r, 704t, 704w, 704x and 738p
These provisions repeal certain University of Wisconsin System reporting requirements, including reports on: (a) student fee funded reserves; (b) state-imposed costs not covered by general purpose revenue; (c) 100 percent fee funded course offerings; (d) the University of Wisconsin System's sick leave accounting system; (e) the industrial and economic development research program; (f) in-kind contributions and nonfederal gifts and grants; (g) interest paid by the system in the previous fiscal year due to any delayed payments to vendors; and (h) program revenue appropriations with a cash overdraft.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to the elimination of these reports without further study, especially at a time when some University of Wisconsin policies and practices have come under question. It is important to keep all state agencies, including the University of Wisconsin System, accountable for the expenditure of state tax dollars. For example, one of the reports slated for elimination is a report on the University of Wisconsin System's sick leave policy, which has come under scrutiny recently.
Additionally, campuses are funding more student sponsored projects with student funded fees. One of the reports slated for elimination requires the system to report on the reserves being maintained for these student fee funded projects. To ensure that student interests are protected, it is important that the Governor and the Legislature be aware of these reserves to make sure they are maintained at appropriate levels. Eliminating this report and the other reports included under this provision could erode the state's ability to monitor the University of Wisconsin System and hold it accountable. While some of these reports may provide little useful information and may warrant repeal, eliminating them should follow a review of their merits.
17.
Midwest Higher Education Compact
This section provides $40,000 annually to the University of Wisconsin System to partially cover Wisconsin's dues for membership in the Midwest Higher Education Compact. I am vetoing this provision because it is reasonable to expect the University of Wisconsin System to cover dues for an organization designed to benefit higher education. I am further requesting the Board of Regents to direct that these dues be paid from the system administration appropriation and not be charged to individual campuses.
Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Joint Committee on Finance amendment to the bill. By lining out the system's s.
20.285 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $40,000 annually, I am vetoing the part of the bill that partially funds dues to the compact. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
18.
Higher Education Committee
Section 9152 (9m)
This section creates a committee to study the public benefits of the state's public system of higher education, expand baccalaureate degrees for state residents, foster economic development, provide a research environment to develop intellectual properties, and assist in the development of new businesses. The committee consists of representatives from the University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Technical College systems and four legislators.
I am vetoing this section because I object to creating yet another group to study the future of the University of Wisconsin System. The latest study, Charting a New Course, was released in June 2004 by the Board of Regents, and it may convene another study committee at its discretion, but there is no need for statutory authorization. Furthermore, the proposed committee does not contain any representation from the public or business community.
19.
Study of Joint Academic Programs
Section 9152 (8q)
A391
This section requires the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and the Board of Trustees of the Medical College of Wisconsin to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance on the feasibility of creating joint academic programs.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. Collaboration between the University of Wisconsin System and the Medical College of Wisconsin is already well established. It was recently strengthened by the creation of the Wisconsin Institute for Biomedical and Health Technologies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The institute will support interdisciplinary research in biomedical engineering, health care informatics, and clinical research on patient outcomes and treatment efficacy. The institute is one vehicle for the collaborative programming to support related economic development and research in southeastern Wisconsin. While I encourage these efforts to continue and expand, there is no need for a report.
20.
University of Wisconsin System Building Project Cost Study
Section 9152 (8m)
This section directs the Legislative Audit Bureau to study and complete a cost comparison of University of Wisconsin System building projects with similar projects at other public universities.
I am vetoing this section because the Legislature does not need statutory authority to direct one of its own service agencies to conduct a study.
WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
21.
Levy Limits on Technical College Districts
Section 707m
This section limits, for three years, the increase in property taxes that a technical college district may levy. Under this provision, technical college districts are limited to an annual increase in property tax levies of 2.6 percent. This section also provides adjustments to the limits for debt service and allows for the limits to be exceeded by referenda.
I am vetoing this section in its entirety because it restricts economic development and hinders educational attainment and job training. The Legislature fails to recognize the importance of the Wisconsin Technical College System to help Wisconsin's economy grow. If technical colleges do not have the ability to respond to the rapidly changing needs of businesses in Wisconsin, economic growth will suffer.
These levy limits also hinder educational attainment and job training. The limits on technical college levies will require students to pay more for classes or reduce the course availability at the technical colleges. In either case, this diminishes our ability to provide individuals with the skills necessary to improve their earnings, compete for better paying jobs and help Wisconsin's economy grow.
Finally, Wisconsin's technical colleges have had levy restraints in place longer than any other unit of local government. In total, technical college levies comprise less than nine percent of the average property tax bill. Property taxes can be frozen without placing limits on technical colleges because I increase funding for K-12 education and fully fund shared revenue to local governments. To risk Wisconsin's economic future by restraining resources available to the technical colleges even further is not a risk worth taking.
22.
Jobs Advantage Training Program
These sections transfer the Business Employees' Skills Training Program from the Department of Commerce to the Wisconsin Technical College System, change the name of the program to the Jobs Advantage Training Program, establish what businesses are eligible for a grant and provide $1,000,000 annually to support the program.
