Legislators have known for years that they have passed on the mandate to fund education to local property taxpayers. Now that the state has a money surplus created, in part, by shifting education costs, lawmakers are willing to pretend that almost nothing can be done to reimburse the people who have been supporting the education system for much of this decade.

The debate in the Legislature is whether to increase school funding by 2 percent (Republicans and the governor) or 3 percent (Democrats) in one-time, tax-you-tomorrow funding. For property taxpayers, expecially those in poorer districts, the level of proposed increase is a serious disappointment.

A properly managed homestead exemption, in which the state cuts a check that goes directly to taxpayers, could help take some pressure off school funding. Right now, however, it is not clear that’s the sort of exemption lawmakers will pass.

As important as the exemption, however, is the one-time school funding. It must make a substantial difference to schools to help them begin to catch up on long-neglected services.

Ralph Townsend, chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Maine, explained on the OpEd Page last week that poor districts are working harder than ever to pay for schools and are falling further behind. The average mil rate in poorer districts is 12, while better-off districts average a 9-mil effort. “Property-rich towns make smaller sacrifices to provide better education for their children,” Professor Townsend wrote. “State funding that compensates for differences in the property tax base was supposed to equalize opportunities for children.”

It did until the Legislature approved a cap nine years ago on how much it would spend for education. After that, the funding formula began to have perverse effects — it hurt poor communities much more than well-off ones. As long as the cap remains — and almost no one is suggesting that it come off — the formula will continue to hurt those districts. Adding money to the pot lessens the pain. The question is how much are legislators and Gov. Angus King willing to spend on what they consider a one-time expense.

Some numbers to consider. Education funding has been cut 10 percent in the 1990s even as the overall state budget has grown 7 percent, in real terms. The one-time budget surplus is more than $200 million. A 1 percent increase in General Purpose Aid to Education costs approximately $5.5 million.

For schools to use this money to do anything except stop falling behind so quickly, they need legislators to advocate for an increase of at least 4 percent or 5 percent, or a total increase next year of 7 percent or 8 percent. They need someone to stand up and demand that the state stop the gimmick of passing school costs on to local taxpayers and live up to its statutory responsibility. They need a forceful lawmaker to make the case that schools were denied hundreds of millions of dollars in tough economic times and, now that better times are here, they deserve some of it back.