Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 5, 1992 TAG: 9202050394
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: WILLARD L. LEMMON
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
SCHOOL-FUNDING DISPARITY
SPEAKING AS an individual, I find almost all of the first 11 pages of the Wilder administration's plan to end school-funding disparity to beautifully state the situation. Where, then, is any disagreement?The Commission on Educational Opportunity for All Virginians found there was not just one disparity; there were two:
There is a "de facto" Standards of Quality out in the field that is stronger than the state-mandated standards. Schools decisions have, in effect, voted with their own money for things with which all from the wealthiest to the poorest agree.
The minimum "de facto" standards exceed the state standards by approximately 25 percent. The commission believes that the state should bear its proportionate part of those "de facto" standards. New money would go to all divisions, rich or poor. In effect, it would increase the size of the pie.
In my opinion, the administration's plan addresses this first disparity very well indeed.
There is great disparity in ability to pay. As you raise the cost of a program and the number of dollars required of the locality, it becomes harder and harder for some localities to be able to meet their share. An equal required tax effort may simply be inadequate.
The first thing addressed by the administration's plan is the composite index. I personally have no real quarrel with this administration proposal.
My disagreement with the plan is that it does not adopt the proposals of the disparity commission that we raise the 80-percent cap [on the percentage of school costs in poor localities to be borne by the state under the index] and that we equalize distribution to the localities of revenue from the state 1-percent sales tax for education.
Frankly, the change in the cap makes so little difference that it perhaps is not worth worrying about. However, when we do not equalize the 1-percent state sales tax, we are talking about a horse of an entirely different color.
As far as per-student spending is concerned, I do not think we should take from any locality anything now being received. The state should provide for a stop-loss for any school divisions that would receive less state funding, until overall costs make no-loss no longer necessary. Thus, no locality would ever receive fewer funds per child than it now receives.
I also believe that a change equalizing the sales tax should be phased in over maybe three or four biennia.
It is stated that to equalize the sales tax would bring a Robin Hood effect. Even without a stop-loss, this would not be so.
Robin Hood took from the rich what was theirs. A Robin Hood approach would be requiring a locality to send some of its locally passed taxes on to Richmond for redistribution - for instance, sending real-estate taxes such as other courts have required.
I do not believe local taxes should be sent from one jurisdiction to another. I do not agree that local money is state money. But we are speaking here of equalizing a state tax passed by the General Assembly.
Look long and hard at the figures. Take various costs for the standards. Take required tax rates for localities that are equal. You will find that, without this equalization of the sales tax, there is simply no way you can achieve equal opportunity for all Virginians so far as state funding is concerned.
The plan as presented by the administration really only addresses program equity properly. I can assure you that just a few years down the road, you will have this matter before you again.
I have urged the coalition of poorer districts to stay away from the courts until legislators have had time to consider this matter. I do not believe anyone should hope for a suit because only the good Lord, and I say that reverently, knows what the outcome might be.
The state could win - and heaven knows what then would happen to the poor.
The plaintiffs could win, and maybe something just like the commission has recommended would be adopted. In that way, tens of thousands of dollars would have been wasted.
Or, the plaintiffs could win, and a court could order equal-dollar expenditure. Then, we could only level down to mediocrity. Much that Virginia has worked so hard to achieve would be down the drain.
I hope the General Assembly will work to meet both forms of disparity, but do so with no-loss provisions to keep anyone from suffering grievous harm. I would then hope that thoughts of a suit would be banished forever.
Willard L. Lemmon of Marion chaired the Governor's Commission on Educational Opportunity for All Virginians. This is excerpted from his recent remarks to a General Assembly committee.