David Trahan: School funding gimmick courts disaster
Bangor Daily News, Match 7, 2008
(excerpt) LD 1 also included, however, significant changes in the definition of education in Maine known as Essential Programs and Services. The intent was to identify the cost of educating students statewide before splitting this cost 55 percent state and 45 percent local. Unfortunately, by leaving this, "cost of education" undefined, it left plenty of wiggle room for our elected officials to use it as a tool for spending shifts.
Before these changes in the EPS formula, the Department of Education and the Maine Legislature paid for new programs such as laptops for junior high students ($11.4 million per year) through a dedicated account. Other programs, such as Jobs for Maine Graduates ($1.6 million) and the Maine School for Science and Mathematics ($1.7 million) as well as the Governor Baxter School for the Deaf ($6.5 million), were paid through the state’s General Fund.
Through legislation initiated in recently approved state budgets, the Legislature and the administration, through 2008-09, will have added 19 programs to the EPS formula since it was created in 2005. These programs were previously funded 100 percent by the state and now will be a shared cost on the backs of property tax payers.
The gimmick does two things. First, because of statutory language passed in LD 1, all new ramp-up education money through 2009 is exempt from the state’s spending cap limitation. This maneuver makes spending look less than it actually is.
Second, the shift from the General Fund to EPS artificially inflates the new education ramp-up money. In fiscal year 2008, more than $35 million in General Fund spending was added to EPS. This type of fiscal maneuvering accounted for $123 million of the four-year ramp-up. This money is not new subsidy, but simply a shift into EPS of existing programs to give the appearance of new money.
Many towns across Maine have not benefited from so-called new education money. In the 2006-07 fiscal year, more than 70 school units received less in school subsidies than in the previous year. In this fiscal year this trend continues and grows to 85 units.
(excerpt) LD 1 also included, however, significant changes in the definition of education in Maine known as Essential Programs and Services. The intent was to identify the cost of educating students statewide before splitting this cost 55 percent state and 45 percent local. Unfortunately, by leaving this, "cost of education" undefined, it left plenty of wiggle room for our elected officials to use it as a tool for spending shifts.
Before these changes in the EPS formula, the Department of Education and the Maine Legislature paid for new programs such as laptops for junior high students ($11.4 million per year) through a dedicated account. Other programs, such as Jobs for Maine Graduates ($1.6 million) and the Maine School for Science and Mathematics ($1.7 million) as well as the Governor Baxter School for the Deaf ($6.5 million), were paid through the state’s General Fund.
Through legislation initiated in recently approved state budgets, the Legislature and the administration, through 2008-09, will have added 19 programs to the EPS formula since it was created in 2005. These programs were previously funded 100 percent by the state and now will be a shared cost on the backs of property tax payers.
The gimmick does two things. First, because of statutory language passed in LD 1, all new ramp-up education money through 2009 is exempt from the state’s spending cap limitation. This maneuver makes spending look less than it actually is.
Second, the shift from the General Fund to EPS artificially inflates the new education ramp-up money. In fiscal year 2008, more than $35 million in General Fund spending was added to EPS. This type of fiscal maneuvering accounted for $123 million of the four-year ramp-up. This money is not new subsidy, but simply a shift into EPS of existing programs to give the appearance of new money.
Many towns across Maine have not benefited from so-called new education money. In the 2006-07 fiscal year, more than 70 school units received less in school subsidies than in the previous year. In this fiscal year this trend continues and grows to 85 units.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home