Op-Ed: Education School Funding

By Representative Ivan M. Ivan

The Senate Finance Committee has adopted a Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 36, introduced by Senator Randy Phillips (R-Eagle River). SB 36 relates to the public funding program; to the definition of a school district; to the transportation of students; to school district layoff plans; to special education services; and to the child care grant program.

The revised CS SB 36 would shift educational resources from our state's most rural and difficult to serve school populations, to those urban districts that already retain a sufficient economic tax base and economies of scale to support more comprehensive levels of instruction or additional local support. This bill would reduce state aid for as many as 34 rural districts.

Critical Points of concern of CS SB 36:

• Requires the local contribution of an REAA be the deduction of a 4% employment tax from state support. This bill does not provide a mechanism for taxes collected from REAA districts to be returned to areas that generate it.
• Provides if the local contribution of an REAA is not made, the state share of school aid shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount required to be contributed.
• Provides a cap on administrative costs.
• Redraws REAA boundaries based on model borough boundary study. This is an effort to consolidate school districts. Affected REAASs in House District 39 are the Lower Kuskokwim and the Yupiit school districts.
• Provides funding for special and bilingual education to be spread evenly throughout the state. This would discriminate against rural districts where English is a second language. Additionally, it would have a disastrous budget effect on our Yup'ik immersion programs in the LKSD and the Yupiit school districts.
• Provides a tiered transition period for school districts that would receive reduced funding, but does not provide transitional language for newly formed boroughs.
• Completely eliminates state aid to the North Slope School District.

The sponsor of this legislation believes that our current educational funding formula is "broken" and the overall goal of CS SB 36 is, Simplicity - Equity - Accountability. While these goals may be commendable, it is certainly not the outcome.

If the current formula is unfair, shifting resources from the impoverished rural districts to the affluent urban districts is certainly not equity. What theory of equity in school finance supports an equity determination on the basis of adjusted dollars versus percent of students? I would suggest the only thing "broken" in the current formula is not the method of how the money is divided, but in actuality, is there sufficient money to begin with.

When considering rural issues, this pattern of urban mentality has been constant. I oppose CS SB 36 and will work with other rural legislators to do everything possible to stop this legislation on the House side.