Notes On Education Funding |
11th May 2008
Gubernatorial candidate Don Pogreba wrote an interesting opinion piece on education funding in the Billing Gazette. While Don and I don’t agree on everything, I think he generally nails the issues surrounding education dead on. This piece being no exception, Don manages to distill the debate that is going on in this state in a few sentences:
Rather than acknowledge funding shortfalls, conservative critics of education would like you believe that Montana is already spending too much on its education programs. Despite laudable increases in the last few years, statistics demonstrate that Montana has failed to keep pace with the spending necessary for quality education. The conservative American Legislative Council just issued some troubling statistics about education spending in Montana. According to their research, we rank dead last in the nation in compensation for education professionals, and 42nd in the rate of growth in education expenditures, from 1986-2005.
[snip]
The people of Montana have a choice to make. We can either look backwards to 1950, focusing on resource extraction that will primarily benefit multinational corporations, or we can look ahead to 2050, focusing on the best-educated, most creative people in the world, giving them the tools to create their own destinies because we had the sense to invest in them.
During last years legislative session, I was dismayed to see that there was a debate over this at all. To fund or not to fund while we have teachers buying classroom supplies from their own meager salaries. It just doesn’t make sense to me that legislators don’t seem to get the point that Don makes above: educating our children is far and away the best investment we can make.
With the recent defeat of mill levies to fund schools in Great Falls and Billings, we should see that there are some very serious issues with the regard for education in this state. In order to help deal with budget shortfalls Senators Ryan and Kitzenberg (also a candidate for OPI) will propose a special session to consider a bill that would add $30 million to fund Montana schools.
“We think such economic factors as rising gasoline and food costs were a big reason why people opposed levies,” Ryan said. “And we believe the state has enough surplus revenue to help prevent school districts from cutting too many teachers and programs.”
One important point that this statement should bring out to people is that the same budget issues caused by inflation facing individuals are also afflicting schools. While I applaud their effort to deal with the issues, I would also make the claim that there is something fundamentally problematic about the state’s attitude to school funding. Emergency funding is good but positive policies with long term growth plans would be so much better.
For instance, consider my own neighborhood here is Helena. New houses go in everyday, but the school has stayed the same size. Kids are just shipped further and further away. Builders should be putting money into building new schools in the area as they are the ones making the profit off of building the houses there. The increased value of the property will support the school, but it has to be built first.
As Don points out, we need a shift in the way that we think about school funding. It is not a sink hole, it is an investment.
This article is right — it is not about whether or not to fund Montana’s education system. The debate is whether property taxpayers (local funding) or income taxpayers (state funding) should pay for Montana’s education system. Personally, I think the state should increase their funding. This would shift the burden of education onto income taxpayers, rather than on local property tax payers. Because our income tax system is slightly progressive and our property tax system is horribly regressive, this shift in funding would result in a more progressive and fair overall tax burden. However, if the state provides greater funding, they should have a greater jurisdiction over local schools, including the ability to eliminate some of the bureaucratic structure at the local level, which wastes so much money.
I agree with the concept that schools would be better funded from the state, it would insure that funding is balanced. I also agree that it would be a more equitable system for taxpayers. I also agree that increased efficiency in local administration would go a long way towards solving the very budget problems we are debating.
However, I understand arguments that wrestling local control would possibly result in a state equivalent to No Child Left Behind.
As for your first point, tat the debate is not about whether or not to fund education. I think that, to an extent, it is. I stand by the point that their is a fundamental problem with the regard that school funding is given in this state. Otherwise, explain the way that house Republicans embraced Rick Jore, who would have eviscerated public school funding. I don’t believe for a single second that he represents the views of the average Republican, but I believe the very fact that he was elected demonstrates some fundamental flaws.