Buried deep in the budget plan drafted by House leaders this week are two little paragraphs that would reduce state aid for public schools by several hundred million dollars.
In the first, Republican delegates declared their intent to rewrite the rules for funding the Standards of Quality in a way that puts more burden on local governments. Democrats on the Appropriations Committee consented with barely an objection.
If the amendment is adopted, lawmakers could brag that they are still paying their fair share, when the reality is that they won't be.
Under existing rules, local school systems often give more generous raises for teachers than those approved by the legislature. In 2006, for example, the state funded its share of a 3 percent raise, but the average teacher got a 4.12 percent pay hike. Cities and counties initially pick up the extra cost, but the state has historically absorbed its share of the total salaries after a couple of years.
In their budget plan, House leaders renege on that commitment. This saved $124 million over two years that would have supplemented the salaries of school secretaries, aides and bus drivers. Local school divisions are now stuck with this extra expense.
The second change is worse. The delegates signaled they will follow this policy for teachers in the next budget, shifting an estimated $200 million of state expense back to the school division. Portsmouth and Norfolk will be hardest hit by the change, but it will put additional strain on every municipal budget in the region.
House leaders believe school spending is out of control, and they're attempting to impose more discipline on budget decisions. Between 1998 and 2007, the state's portion of spending on schools nearly doubled from $3.4 billion to $6.6 billion. Student enrollment increased by 80,000 and the number of teachers by 48 percent.
If that seems out of kilter, consider the new demands placed on schools during that decade. State leaders mandated smaller class sizes in kindergarten through third grade.
Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which calls for new remedial programs for struggling students. There were also new requirements for special education, vocational programs and computer literacy.
School financing has been a partnership between the state and local governments, but an increasingly lopsided one. According to the U.S. Census, Virginia ranks 33rd in per-pupil state spending. The additional dollars plowed into schools by the commonwealth's cities and counties boost the ranking for combined spending to a more respectable 20th.
Now, House Republicans want to scale back their obligations. Given that their only commitment right now is to fund minimal standards, what exactly do they deem frivolous?
Is closing the achievement gap between rich and poor children an unnecessary luxury?
Should children wait until college to learn computer skills?
Is the average state-funded teacher salary of $40,561 too rich?
Are classes with 25 students too small?
If House Republicans believe Virginia's education standards are too high, they should file legislation to lower them, not try to sneak a funding cut into their budget.
Who'll volunteer to sponsor that bill?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Upload Your Video
iTunes Podcast
Video Feeds
Watch The Dot
And once again you miss the point...
I have two degrees, working on my third. I've not been on a Government Welfare program nor have I ever taken Tax Payer money for my own benefit. I've also been through near poverty to a point where I'm in the upper middle class. I'm about to get a 20 thousand dollar pay raise because of my next degree program and I've got a few certifications under my belt.
Before you go whipping people you don't know you better do your research. Like I've done about you and the city council. I'm all for people making it rich. I'm not for people getting sweetheart deals at the expense of the tax payer no matter how much they also have at stake. Because if you fail on the project it's not just you who looses, it's every tax payer in the city. So spare me your holier then though opinion. Because we all know that in the end it's about how you can make a buck at the expense of the homeowners.
If the city would cut development spending by 10% I bet you would not hear 3/4ths of the complaints about development. So spare me your sad story Captain.
Well, you and other anti tax
Well, you and other anti tax zealots who populate these boards have never made any sacrifice for our projects of which I am aware. Frankly, most of them have not a clue about the contributions that private developers make, and if they did, they could care less. And that bothers me not one wit, except when they spout off about all the subsidies we receive, or all the benefits, or all the special favors, etc. Fact is, we take risks, we invest, we produce a product that people want, and nothing you nor any of your cohorts at the taxpayers association say will change the fact that you have not a clue about the impact of private development. You just accept all the benefits of the projects we develop, yet never cease to complain about them. Typical bureaucrat reaction. Most of your group have not one entreprenurial bone in your body, having received a government paycheck all your lives thinking that entitles you to everything for nothing. Well, your are entitled to an opinion, btu that does not make it right.
You miss the point...
I am not against development. I'm against development with no thought to sustainability. I'm against always being the one to have to make sacrifices while the City Council continues to approve deals that still pay you and other developers. I'm well aware of development. I've seen Stafford County go from a two lane road in-between DC and Richmond to a near thriving metropolis with sustainable growth and lower tax rates then VB and sustainable prices on houses.
I'm against developers that make an excuse from one side of their mouth and justify something completely different out the other side.
I'm against paying for things that cost way to much to sustain but yet we're still forced to make sacrifices...
Not a clue
It is clear that you have no comprehension of either the development process nor public investment. Just to be clear, I have never built a hotel, and have never razed a home that was obtained by condemnation. Of course, to an anti tax zealot, the facts matter little. In fact, perhaps you would acknowledge that private investment is what produces most of the increase in the tax base. For example, one of the business parks we developed is now assessed at $63,629,725 and at current tax rates, produces over $566,305 dollars per year in real estate taxes alone. Now we bought the land, developed the road network, sidewalks, water and sewer systems, traffic signs and signals, and dedicated all this to the city. We and others built buildings in the park, jobs were provided, and the employees of these businesses pay real estate, sales, income, personal property taxes. All of your vitrolic condemnation of developers misses the point. Without private development, you would not live, work, shop, play, or worship here.
No Mr. Barrett...
It's not about what the State government will or won't do. It's about you and people on the council will do to get what they want in their accounts. You can't have it both ways. Unless you want to be called on it. You can't have the lowest tax rates in the region then in the next breath say that our tax rates are soaring. Yes the state has an obligation but we're talking about the local level here. We're talking about what the city is doing versus what it is doing.
You say you're the defender of the minority. Your words, not mine. But yet you salivate at the possibility of razing homes in "blighted areas" so you can build your next hotel.
It's not about fiscal dividends to the city. Because we've yet to reach the break even point for the investment in 31st street. And now if what happens with the land actually happens that will be pushed back even further.
And the local tax payer, us, will bear the burden once again so you can get rich.
Transfer of Cost
Clearly, our rates are much higher than they would be if the Commonwealth met its obligations. At the Beach, the last estimate I heard, just for the schools, was that the city subsidized the state by over $60,000,000. That is true throughout the Commonwealth. State delegates profess to be anti tax, in fact many have signed the Grover Norquist inspired No Tax Pledge, yet their actions result in a transfer of cost from the Commonwealth to the cities and counties. So they look good, the local elected officials look bad, and the cycle continues. The legacy at the state level of this kind of leadership is a transportation system that has degraded so much that our level of service is now costing businesses and citizens billions of dollars in lost productivity.
The two faces of Mike Barrett...
First he tells us over and over again how we can survive any tax increase because we have one of the lowest tax rates around and some of the best services... Then in the next breath he confirms the "soaring" real estate tax rates in this area... So, which one is it? Either we have the lowest around or they are soaring, unless you play off both depending on the position you're supporting that day.
Questions for Mike Barrett
If they say that they will fund a 3% pay raise for teachers, and subsequently insist on funding only that 3%, how is that running away from their obligation?
If localities want to give pay raises over and above, should they not be required to fund the difference?
jmo
Cost Transfer
Actually, this just continues a trend that has existed ever since the republican majority took over in the House of Delegates. They run on a program of anti tax rhetoric but when they get in office they run away from their obligations to pay for their share of education, public safety, courts and justice, transportation, and human services. That substitutes real estate tax revenue for revenue from the sales tax, corporate income tax, and personal income tax. No wonder local real estate tax rates have soared, and of course will soar even higher if they pass the Homestead Exemption which could reduce the residential real estate tax base by 20%, thereby jepoardizing the city's credit rating. The most amazing thing about this sleight of hand is how easily these anti tax delegates get away with strategy. I guess they just believe we are all either ignorant or just not paying attention.
SPIN
Spin, spin....Spin Spin Spin. Spinny Spin Spin. SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! spinagin spinagain spin spin. Thank you so much Pilot Editorial Staff. (for the spin).