 Earlier this week, the Indiana State Teachers Association came out with some rather vocal criticism of the way that Governor Daniels' property tax reform package deals with the issue of school funding, among other things. Specifically, he would have the state assume all of the school operating costs -- they currently pick up the tab to the tune of around 85% -- which the ISTA views as problematic due to the fact that the sales and income tax increases that would fund this initiative would be much more susceptible to shortfalls during times of economic sluggishness. They would rather the state cover half of the school building fund costs, leaving the general funds to be paid for by property tax bills, which they view as a more stable funding option in the long-term.
While those on the far-right have launched into their standard "we-hate-all-things-related- to-teachers-and-unions-and-schools-and-gubernatorial-candidates..." shtick, it's important to note that even if you don't agree with the ISTA proposal, they do raise a very valid point about the dangers inherent to moving our revenue stream to more dynamic sources. The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette agrees: Credit the Indiana State Teachers Association for directly addressing a key issue that proponents of major property-tax changes have downplayed: Property taxes are a more stable source of tax revenues than sales and income taxes, which fluctuate more on economic highs and lows.
Gov. Mitch Daniels' property tax plan calls for the state to pay the entire cost of running schools, plus picking up transportation costs; the state currently pays 85 percent of operating costs.
The ISTA this week also offered a related proposal on an almost ignored issue that deserves attention. The teachers union suggested that state sales and income taxes pay half the cost of building and renovating schools, a cost now borne entirely by property owners. Most of the focus on property-tax plans by Daniels and others has focused on how much money homeowners would stand to save on their tax bills. Personally, I think their proposal deserves a close look, if nothing else. Those on the right love to complain about school building projects, but apparently they think those are best left on the local level while the day-to-day funding is moved to the state. (See: Other blogs where they are already complaining about the ISTA raising questions.)
Doesn't it make more sense to leave the operating funds with the more stable funding source and move the building projects under the umbrella of a tax structure that might face shortfalls during times of economic recession? If we were facing a big deficit in revenue at the state level, would you rather that school building projects were put on hold, or that remedial ISTEP tutoring was ended for the students that need it?
Seems like they may have a point, if you ask me.
They also have an interesting idea for dealing with another part of the property tax reform plan that I found troubling: In addition, ISTA -- while saying there is a lot that it supports in the various property tax reform plans, including Daniels' -- opposed the governor's proposal to have referendums on major school building projects.
Rich communities would pass those referendums, they said, while poor ones would not, further widening the gap between the facilities a student in Carmel might have and a student in Gary or Indianapolis has.
The union proposed instead that the state keep the current remonstrance process for projects that are for classrooms, while holding referendums on non-classroom projects such as administration buildings and athletic facilities that are beyond what is needed for student instruction. I've already expressed my thoughts on school building referendums in a previous post, and at first glance this would appear to address some of the concerns I have with the tax plan as it stands now.
What are your thoughts? |
