School-funding reform

Despite the hesitancy and confusion of some of Maine’s political leaders, legislators this week put together the better part of a reform to the state’s education-funding system and included a budget that begins to bring property tax relief to the hardest-hit towns. The public has reason to support this work — while making sure the plan isn’t picked apart between now and the end of the session.

The proposal shifts money to poorer districts by coming closer to recognizing the actual cost of education: It raises the per-pupil guarantee, the assumed cost to educate a student, from just over $3,700 a year to $4,055 next year, $4,307 the year after and $5,204 by 2002-2003. That change pushes more money into districts that are making a heavy funding effort through property taxes but are still falling behind. The key for legislators is to ensure that these figures are not just wishful thinking, but are actually in writing in a system that, instead of establishing a fixed mill rate, uses the rate in combination with the total funds in the formula to set a fair per-pupil figure.

Under the proposal, lawmakers would also have more control over how money for GPA is directed. Legislation by Sens. Peter Mills and John Nutting contained the sensible suggestion that funding be divided into four parts: classroom operating expenses, special education, debt service and direct state costs. And the plan puts the state on the path to fully funding its share of program costs — transportation, vocational education and special education and early childhood programs. It also helps towns losing students by averaging losses over a couple of years.

The committee didn’t do a comprehensive job — it left income in the formula, although it did freeze it at current levels until a better measure could be used. The fact that the committee was largely in agreement that income reports are not reliable should have been reason enough to drop it. As compromises go, however, this one was reasonable. Waiting for more accurate figures, in any event, gives the committee time to look at other issues, such as how school costs vary between city and rural districts.

None of this works, however, without considerably more money in the system. The committee proposed spending $627 million in the first year of the next budget and $665 million in the second. That is still short of the statutory 55 percent of funding for General Purpose Aid to Education, but already some legislators are saying the figures are too high.

If this added money is merely regarded as more spending, then certainly it is too high. But if lawmakers are listening to property taxpayers throughout Maine, then they know the money will be used to cut taxes at the local level. Nothing mandates that the money go to tax relief: The question is whether Augusta politicians trust the people of Maine to spend their own money wisely.

Trusting them means postponing the half-penny sales tax until the promise of education funding is met. Sen. Mark Lawrence has legislation that will do that but is meeting resistence from lawmakers who think a sales-tax break is more important. It’s true that a half-cent cut in the sales tax would reduce the cost of a T-shirt at Old Orchard Beach by approximately 6 cents; on the other hand, a serious property-tax break could make the difference between someone keeping or losing a home. Just a matter of priorities.

Priorities, unfortunately, can get sort of muddled toward the end of the session, even by the best lawmakers. Consider the actions of respected House leader Tom Murphy. As the Education Committee put together easily the most important legislation of the session, the Republican leader was passing out a confused rant warning that unless Maine took the half penny off the sales tax, it

would suffer a bout of “tax rage” (all those angry T-shirt buyers), which would, in turn, be directed at schools. Besides the use of violent language against schools being in questionable taste these days, Rep. Murphy stepped into the issue late and muddled a bipartisan agreement that had taken months of careful work to develop.

Gov. Angus King’s position is even more difficult to understand. Not his preference for the sales-tax cut — he has made that clear enough. But while he was defending this decision, his administration — through the Department of Education — played a key role in developing the school-funding proposal he says his administration cannot afford.

Lawmakers who favor doing nothing, who favor letting rural Maine accept less for yet another year, will make this issue as complicated as possible, then claim another study is needed before the state can take action. Don’t believe it. The Legislature has both a serious start on reform from the Education Committee and a way to pay for it from Sen. Mark Lawrence.

The question that remains is whether your legislator has the will to support them.