School Funding Update

I just wanted to point out an article that came out in Monday's Morning News. The front page headline was about school funding and about a report questioning Idaho's system of funding schools. The report was by the nonprofit Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy. The report says because of changes to the school funding system the state may be in violation of the state constitutional requirement to maintain a uniform and thorough system of public and free schools. This is interesting to me because it states many of the same problems with our school funding, and what's happened over the last few years, that I asked Senator Bair and the Department of Education about. The report talks about how the funding problems have brought about the need for local funded property tax levies. It says two thirds of the state's school districts now have them. One major problem with this is the disparities in wealth among school districts. So as I interpret what this means. It's saying because of the differences in wealth among school districts it violates the state constitution to provide uniform and thorough system of education. In other words wealthy school districts can provide better funding to schools than those not so wealthy and that violates the constitution. I would think this is especially the case when the school levy may only provide the very basic funding needed for the district. Funding that I would think should be provided from the state, not the local taxpayers. The report says that changing funding to schools and forcing the local schools to have to use levies in a dramatic way violates the constitution. One thing that the article doesn't point out, is there is an even bigger issue in districts that can't get voter support to fund a levy at all let alone a lesser amount than rich districts. Now the trick will be to get anyone in state politics to accept this report and do anything about it.

The article goes on to quote the Senate Education Chairman John Goeddle from Coeur d'Alene. After reading what he said he must be from a very rich district where funding isn't an issue. He states that the current system gives communities the chance to approve property tax levies if they want to spend more than the state supplies. He goes on to say, he thinks the state has an obligation to fund some equitable level of public school education, and I think it's the option of the local taxpayers to fund anything over that level if it's their desire. Later he says he hasn't read the report, but questions if there is any problem with equity in funding, or anything constitutionally wrong. His last statement was, "just throwing money at the public schools does not result in better education." At least he says if there is a problem it needs discussed.

After reading this, where do I start? When he says schools are given the chance to approve levies if they want to spend more than the state supplies, you wouldn't have two thirds of the districts with levies if the state supplied anything close to adequate funding. I don't claim to understand how state school funding works, but I can't see how districts with a low tax base can achieve an adequate level of sustainable funding without a local levy. We don't just have a desire to have a levy over what the state provides, there is no way we can now even sustain the basics of school funding anymore without a levy. This is the problem I have talked about with the state politicians. They seem to think they have done an okay job of funding schools, and that opinion gets presented in the media. Funding levies for more than what the state provides used to mean, if you wanted to pay more for coaches or teachers than the state funds, so maybe you could attract that star winning coach, or keep your very best teachers you would have a levy. If you wanted to lower your class sizes below state standards you had a levy. If you wanted to fund numerous extra-curricular class electives you had a levy. Now I think most school districts are just trying to fund basic school funding. I know a lot of schools have had to reduce funding for these extra traditional ways levies were used in the past.

In Firth, to my knowledge, we have never funded teachers, class sizes, or coaches or anything else above state funded recommendations. So as the school funding has dropped the last few years, we have had to cut in a lot of other areas. So to me he implies that if we live within what the state provides we shouldn't need a levy. I think he is very wrong, and it bothers me that the chairman of the senate education department thinks this way. As I have written about recently, it sure seems as if most of the politicians just go along and vote with the majority without really studying things over for themselves. And also the fact they have pushed school funding back on local property tax payers. So in the media they make themselves look good and local school boards end up appearing as if they just can't manage what they are provided.

I have not had my meeting with Senator Bair yet. I will write an update after I do. Thank you, Brian