Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, December 19, 1993 TAG: 9404220015
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: D2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The committee has a good point - but not, as a new Virginia Education Association report reveals, a huge one.
Inadequate local effort is indeed a problem in many jurisdictions around the state. But the main culprit behind Virginia's school-funding disparities is a chintzy state government, including the honorables on the Finance Committee, that refuses to fully fund its own school-spending formulas.
The greater the gap between what the state should be but is not paying under the wealth-based school-funding formulas, the greater the hardship for poorer localities that cannot make up the difference as easily as more affluent places.
Sure, some localities are laggards that want the state to raise taxes to improve schools, while themselves refusing to impose property taxes - localities' main revenue source - at a level commensurate with their taxpayers' ability to pay. But not very many, and the sums pale beside the state's abdication of responsibility.
In the Roanoke Valley-New River Valley area, for example, the VEA found only one locality that would have to increase local funding, under the matching formulas, if Virginia were to get serious about ensuring that all Virginia schools meet minimum basic standards. Franklin County, in the past notorious for underfunding its schools, would have to increase local money in the1994-96 biennium by only about $260,000. The state's contribution, according to the VEA, would have to rise by $4.8 million.
It is understandable, then, that lawmakers from places claiming to be disparity's victims are wary of what the finance committee's study portends: another assembly session where no serious effort will be made to address the school-funding issue.
In all, says the VEA, the state realistically needs to spend $505 million more in 1994-96, and the localities $12.5 million more, to meet the costs of meeting minimum school standards.
The grand total is, of course, a lot of money. As an increase in Virginia's tax burden, however, it would be a trifle - even assuming every penny of the money would have to come from increased taxes. The commonwealth is a low-tax state now; it would remain a low-tax state.The underlying problem isn't money but political will.
What Virginia can't afford is to become a poor-school state.
The finance committee report concluded, accurately, that student poverty is a key factor affecting educational achievement. Among other things, this argues for targeting more spending on Head Start-style programs for poor children. The Senate report also recommends preschool classes for at risk 4-year-olds and a lowered (22-1) pupil-teacher ratio in elementary schools. Good ideas. If lawmakers can only focus a limited effort, this is where to focus.
They should keep in mind, however, that the poverty/education correlation goes both ways: Inadequate educational achievement is a key factor behind persistent poverty and - potentially - development of the kind of low-skill work force that all Virginians have a stake in avoiding.
The three-tier system proposed by the VEA overcomes many of the theoretical difficulties associated with equitable school funding. Under the plan, the state would fully fund its share toward meeting basic education standards, and the localities would be required to provide their formula-based amount. In addition, matching money would be provided by the state to localities wishing to offer certain programs beyond the basics. Finally, no locality would be penalized for spending on school programs not included in the first two tiers - perhaps to experiment with innovative programs that meet a particular district's special needs.
An even better plan might be for the state to provide all the money for the first tier. That would establish a clearer line of accountability for the setting and funding of the basic education standards; would shift the burden from property taxes to fairer and more readily accepted taxes such as the income and sales taxes; and would simplify this business of deciding who, state or locality, pays for what.
If those aims were met, it would improve the odds that the standards and the money to pay for them would be set at a level sufficient to reach the fundamental goal: an opportunity for all Virginia schoolchildren, regardless of where they live in the state, to get a quality education.
by CNB