Let's be fair about this. Education funding, that is.
If they agree that a child is a child is a child, and that a child in Alpine or Davis District is entitled to the same educational amenities as a child in Salt Lake City or Park City, Utah's Legislature faces a whopping challenge in the upcoming session.We've already had a little taste of the magnitude of the anticipated debate as the Education Committee tiptoed close to the problem in interim sessions. Committee members have considered a half dozen ways to raise $15 million to partially even out capital outlay budgets across the state - and it obviously isn't going to be easy.
Utah actually does a better job than many states in trying to assure parity for schoolchildren. Because the state depends mostly on income taxes to fund education and distributes revenue on a per-child basis to the districts, each child starts from the same base. That base constitutes 60 percent to 75 percent of the total in most districts.
After that, things begin to get out of whack. Locally, districts must raise 23.28 mills in taxes for capital outlay. Beyond that commitment, they have a number of options for adding to the educational pot. How much additional tax they levy and how much they can raise by doing so is the point at which inequity occurs.
Several factors influence district decisions on local taxing, including:
- The tax base. If a district has a substantial tax base, it can tax less and get more. There is not as much incentive in a district that levies a heavy burden on its taxpayers and does not realize as much revenue, comparatively, in return.
- Numbers. Where the money has to be spread over greater numbers of students, the per-child share goes down. Growth contributes to the equation. Housing huge numbers of new students - as they are in several districts such as Park City, Davis, Washington and Cache - creates exceptional pressures on those districts. Capital outlay budgets suffer during high-growth periods. Districts that have older schools feel the pinch more than those with relatively new facilities. Taxpayers have the burden of bonds as well as property taxes.
- Local support. For many of the reasons already listed, taxpayers in some districts have refused to support property taxes. For a low-income family, additional taxes can become a significant portion of their income. A wealthy family may pay more in dollars but less in percentage. A school district that is largely residential can levy the same amount of tax and get much less money per child than a small district with a hefty industrial tax source.
There are those who think pooling the existing capital outlay taxes and dividing them on a per-child basis would solve the problem without increasing taxes or fees. That "Robin Hood" approach of taking from the rich districts to help the poor, however, is not fair, either. Taxpayers in the so-called rich districts have agreed to tax themselves to provide educational enrichment and to meet growth demands. The likelihood that they would continue to support higher taxes if they knew the income was going to leave their districts is not great.
Some, including Gov. Norm Ban-gerter, argue that until the districts have made the full effort to support their own schools, they should not look for additional help from the state. I agree with the concept but have real sympathies for those districts that can tax the bejabbers out of their folks and see very little in the pot as a result.
If a relatively few students were affected by disequalization, it might be glossed over more easily. In fact, some of poorest districts are also the most populous.
Absolute equity in educational funding is obviously not possible, but Utah should make the effort to get closer. I'll be happy to be standing on the sidelines, rather than in the middle of the fray, as the Legislature tackles the issue come January.