
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, April 2, 1990                   TAG: 9004020212
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

SCHOOL MONEY

NO QUESTION, far more money is spent per student in some Virginia school districts than in others. Assuming a link between the amount spent on a child's education and the quality of that education, then some Virginia children enjoy substantially better educational opportunities than others.

But why the disparity? Here's where things start getting tricky - and there's a chance the answers might not work to the advantage of some of the localities that are complaining the loudest.

Consider, for example, the case of "rich" Alexandria in Northern Virginia and "poor" Pulaski County in Southwest Virginia. In 1987-88, more than $7,000 was spent per student in Alexandria to operate the schools; in Pulaski, about $3,300. Kids in Pulaski, you might conclude, are getting the short end of the stick.

But why should this be? In that year, the state sent about 35 percent more in school aid to Pulaski per student (more than $2,400) than to Alexandria (less than $1,800). If relative costs of living were taken into account, Pulaski's favorable treatment would be even greater.

The difference is that Alexandria spent more than $5,300 per student of local money on its schools. Pulaski County spent only about $850. Granted, Alexandria is wealthier than Pulaski County, and can afford to spend more. But more than six times as much?

The answer, strange as it may seem, is that perhaps Alexandria can afford to - given the Virginia system of forcing localities to rely chiefly on property taxes for local revenue.

A July 1989 report of the Virginia Education Association, based on figures for 1987-88, listed Alexandria fourth among localities in the state in its ability to pay for schools (that is, the value of taxable property per student). Pulaski was listed 112th.

That's not particularly surprising. But in light of the big difference between Alexandria and Pulaski County in actual local spending per student, it's surprising that Alexandria ranked a lowly 97th in "effort," or the amount of local funds spent on the schools per $100 of taxable property. Pulaski's rank, 81st, was less than the median, too: In other words, Pulaski put relatively little local money into its schools even after its relative low tax base was figured in. Still, by the VEA's way of reckoning, Pulaski tried harder than Alexandria.

How valid, though, is a locality's property-tax base as a measure of its ability to pay? Quite valid, of course, in the sense that the measure reflects the current system of local taxation in Virginia. But if the issue of school-funding equity goes to court, there's no reason a judge should so accept it: Indeed, there's some reason not to, inasmuch as a chief criticism of property taxes is that they don't reflect well enough a property-owner's ability to pay.

Maybe the drive for school-funding parity will never go so far. But a logical destination of the quest for equity would be a statewide school system funded by statewide taxes at statewide rates on something other than property. (Income is an obvious alternative.)

To our knowledge, nobody yet has taken the considerable time and effort necessary for predicting the net fiscal impact of such a system on each locality. It seems more than slightly possible, however, that not all "rich" districts would be the losers and not all "poor" districts the winners.

by CNB