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

DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 12, 1993                   TAG: 9305120347
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

DISPARITY

THE VIRGINIA Education Association has proposed an overhaul of the state's machinery for financing public education. The proposals, at least in broad outline, are intriguing - enough so, anyway, not to be dismissed casually as simply more special-interest pleading.

Under the VEA's three-tier plan, the state would bear the costs of meeting basic standards. For some programs and items beyond the minimum standards, a mix of state and local funds would be used. Above that, localities would be free to use as much of their own money as they wished on additional school spending.

The VEA presumably hopes such a system would increase the number of dollars for schools and teacher salaries. The concept, however, holds out promise for other reasons as well.

First, the cost of state-set minimum school standards would be borne by the state - thereby establishing a clearer link between authority and funding responsibility. With such clarity should come greater accountability.

Funding responsibility for meeting basic standards currently is divided between state and local governments. It's too easy for state and local officials to blame the other for not living up to school-funding commitments. Local officials can too easily find fault with the level of state aid and the formula by which it's distributed; state officials can too easily find fault with various localities for not exerting sufficient tax effort of their own.

Under the VEA plan, such issues would be swept aside. The focus then could dwell on the more important questions: What should be expected of Virginia's system of public education, and how much should Virginians reasonably expect to pay for it?

In addition, the VEA proposals imply a shift in the sources of revenue to meet the costs of basic public education.

Virginia localities rely heavily on property taxes for revenue; the state relies heavily on the more equitable income tax. By shifting the cost of basic education from a local-state mix to the state only, the VEA proposal would shift the source of money for basic education from property taxes to income taxes.

Finally, the plan addresses a central paradox of the school-disparity debate: How do you (a) equalize school funding across the state without (b) penalizing localities that want to spend more than the required minimum of their own money on their schools?

One solution, reflected in the VEA plan, is: Don't confuse equitable with identical. Equality of basic educational opportunity would be guaranteed via full state funding. Beyond that, though, localities would be free to experiment, to find what additional school spending best fits their needs - sometimes with state incentives, and never with state punishment.

by CNB