Today's buffoon: Sen. Mary Andrews
Here's a quote from the Kennebec Journal:
"On Monday, Sen. Mary Black Andrews, R-York, will present Maine's version of the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, a measure put in place in Colorado a decade ago that puts tight controls on the government's ability to spend money. The Taxation Committee will hold a public hearing at 10 a.m. Monday in room 127 of the Statehouse on 'An Act to Establish the Maine Taxpayers' Bill of Rights.'"
The article later goes on to say:
"The bill puts limits on spending for state, county, municipal and school budgets, and ties increases to population and inflation, or population and student enrollment."
And as a result, rural school districts will get shortchanged, including these in western and central York County:
Acton School Department
MSADs 6 (Buxton, Hollis, and Limington), 55 (Cornish and Parsonsfield), 57 (Alfred, Limerick, Lyman, Newfield, Shapleigh, and Waterboro), and 60 (Lebanon, Berwick, and North Berwick)
It should be interesting to see how some of the right-leaning legislators in those districts will vote on that.
I have one question left about this bill, however, does this mean they'll cut the Sexual Harassment Panda?
posted by Nathan at 10:22 AM
4 Comments:
It would be useful if you quantified how you think the school districts referenced would get shortchanged. On what do you base this statement?
TABOR won't cut existing spending, it limits new spending. Local school budgets will still be governed by the new EPS limits, regardless.
School district spending in Maine is out of control, despite declining enrollments in many areas.
In Kennebunk, for instance, the MSAD 71 budget has risen a full 95% since 1995. ($13 million+ in 1995, $26 million+ in 2005).
I wish I could say our MEA scores had kept pace, in the same direction. They haven't. Check out the state DOE website sometime, or www.msad71.net for budget figures and scores.
Over the same ten-year period, we've had an approximate 17% decrease in enrollment. Despite this, staff numbers have done nothing but escalate, until last year. That's where the majority of that 95% increase came from, salaries and benefits.
Before you categorically state that TABOR would hurt rural schools, it would be good to do some further research, and give us the numbers to back up what you're saying.
I don't thing I need to put together a lot of statistics to point out that if spending limits are tied to population, rural schools will have lower limits than their urban counterparts.
Nathan -
You do need to present something that backs up what you say, if you want to be taken seriously. And I'm sure you do.
State school funding is tied to each district or town's enrollment numbers for students, as you stated - PLUS a towns' or districts' property valuations. That will not change under TABOR. Each district or town will get state school funding according to its needs, per EPS. There will be a limitation as to increases, based on population growth and inflation.
But EVERYBODY will be getting the same limitation. If your district grew by 25 kids, that will be allowed for. Likewise, if you lost 25 kids, there will be an adjustment made.
TABOR will NOT necessarily shortchange rural areas. The reason being that town valuations are part of the equation. Rural areas have less monetary value than say a town like Kennebunk does. Because we're on the coast, we have more million dollar houses over here, as I'm sure you know.
Therefore, because we have a higher valuation, we get LESS state funding every year. Rural areas have LOWER property valuations, therefore they get MORE state funding for each student. The state considers property valuation an indication of a district's ability to pay. (Sometimes incorrectly, but that's the way it is, and has been for some time).
Under TABOR, each district will get the amount of state funding they would have gotten, based on the factors above. They will get a limitation as to population growth and inflation, but EVERYBODY will. Not just rural areas.
Anything above the EPS limits will simply be voted on at an election, to see if the local residents will fund the additional monies. That's because of LD1, which goes into effect for the 2005/2006 school budget year.
TABOR will NOT change that.
Educational costs can be divided into fixed costs, required to run the system at all, and per student costs which vary with enrollment. As Maine continues its relentless march toward old age, our school enrollment continues to decrease (source: http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs/pj/p97c08.asp). For rural areas with small numbers of students per square mile, this is already resulting in a shift toward a higher ratio of fixed costs to per student costs. In response to this we are seeing pressure to consolidate school districts into larger and larger areas. (source: http://www.maineinstitute.com/mppi_in_news/040901_schoolconsol_BPC.htm)
Students already traveling an hour each way on the bus may soon be stretching that to an hour and a half. Think about it, right now some kids are spending 10 hours a week on buses. That's an entire 40 hr work week just getting to and from school every month. In the course of a school year these students spend about 360 hours or 15 full days on a school bus. What could you do with an extra 15 days each year? Then, of course, there is the issue of violence on school buses. I won't even get into that here, but please read your local papers.
TABOR would exacerbate these problems. Our local funding limits would actually decrease proportionally to the number of students. No allowance is made for the fact that fixed costs do not decreasse with enrollment.
I will grant you one point; rural areas will not suffer alone. Basically, our entire public education system is in the crosshairs.
Post a Comment
<< Home