COMMENTARY: School Funding Reaction Raises Doubts

Skepticism is a requirement of the job for any journalist. Cynicism is one of the job’s hazards, best avoided by nurturing a hope that most people will choose honesty over lying and doing what’s right instead of what’s expedient or self-serving.

When a politician says almost anything, it’s healthy to be skeptical. It’s not often I’ve found one who just out and out lies, but people in the political world develop a way of speaking in incomplete truths. What they’re saying might very well be true, but the structure of their answer gives them plenty of wiggle room to modify their stance as circumstances, or the political winds, change.

My skepticism kicked in last week when Gov. Mike Beebe, a politician I fi nd generally trustworthy, said he would sign legislation removing churches from the places concealed handgun permit holders are barred from carrying their weapons. Beebe said he would sign it if it passes both houses of the Legislature.

His statement almost seems like a no-brainer. Of course it has to pass both Houses of the Legislature before the governor can sign it into law. But I also wondered if Beebe knew something many of us didn’t. Was it easy for him to say he’d sign the bill because he believed the bill lacks support to get passed?

Or was he merely stating the facts?

My skepticism has been bugging me lately, too, about all the gnashing of teeth in state government over the Arkansas Supreme Court’s ruling about statewide education funding.

Beebe and others have been hot and bothered over the court’s decision in a lawsuit brought by two school districts, Eureka Springs and Fountain Lake.

The ruling allows the districts to keep money that had been going to the state of Arkansas, and state officials say they fear the court’s decision will undo the hard work and legal foundation for the state’s current education funding system.

Here’s some quick background: In November 1996, Arkansas voters approved a constitutional amendment establishing established a uniform rate of taxation on all property, levying a state tax of 25 mills for maintenance and operation of public schools.

Every school district in the state collects that 25 mills on local property values and remits the money to the state.

The state takes that pool of money, adds money from general revenue, then distributes state funding to districts across the state.

The result is the current expenditure of $6,267 on every public school student in the state annually.

The 25-mill tax levy in Eureka Springs and Fountain Lake school districts, however, brings in more than $6,267 per student.

School officials there believe the excess money belongs to the local schools. The state argues that money needs to be reallocated to poorer districts where 25 mills generates less than $6,267 per student.

The money involved is not insignificant. For fiscal 2013, eight districts are expected to generate $8,436,000 in excess funds.

But it’s relatively small when one considers the 25-mill levy generates about $1.8 billion a year.

So what’s my skepticism about? State leaders gripe that the court’s finding might destroy the longtime efforts to provide adequate and equitable education across Arkansas.

But what is really at stake in terms of state funding is who pays the bills, rather than whether the bill gets paid. If the state can’t take the excess money from the wealthier school districts, it will have to make up the difference through general state revenue. With the state budget remaining fairly tight, one can’t blame the state for wanting to keep its hands on that money.

To be fair, another state concern is about maintaining equity in education, another aspect of the long fight for a constitutional education system in Arkansas. How can equity be argued if one school district gets to spend more than $11,000 on each kid and another is stuck at the state-guaranteed $6,267 per kid?

Still, it’s a challenge to argue for a reduction of education funding for one set of students just so funding for poorer districts doesn’t have to come out of general state revenue.

The question lawmakers have to answer is this: Is it better to take extra money from a few wealthier districts and redistribute it or to face finding that money in a state budget with little wiggle room?

Will state lawmakers representing these few wealthier school districts be able to convince all those legislators representing the poorer districts their desire to keep the money should be accommodated?

Let’s just say I’m skeptical. GREG HARTON IS OPINION PAGE EDITOR FOR NWA MEDIA.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 01/28/2013

Upcoming Events