Necessity is the mother of invention, and perhaps Republican Gov. Jeff Landry hit on some needed reform of education expenditures.
After two attempts fell short to amend the Constitution in two consecutive spring votes that would have rejiggered state finances to shuttle money to school districts to provide educator and staff raises, Landry proposed a plan to reshuffle the state’s Minimum Foundation Program for this year to take money from operational and other non-instructional expenses and send it to salaries. This would require an intercession vote remotely by two-thirds of legislators in each chamber.
Problematically, some state school boards have raised alarms about the plan. In essence, they would be required to beggar spending on non-instructional expenses that could delay projects and support services or leave a district short in case of an emergency such as rebuilding after a disaster. Alternatively, they could dip into reserves for this one-time expense (policy-makers have convened a task force to reform educational spending that they hope provides a permanent increase in future years).
A Legislative Auditor report maintains that the majority of systems could dip into reserves this one year, following recommendations by the auditor of keeping 20 percent of operational money in savings. However, it’s not required by law and all systems could handle the extra expense for the moment.
As a result, some superintendents have voiced concerns about the plan to legislators. As a result, the necessary majorities may not coalesce, and basically school personnel will see a decrease in take-home pay as compared to the past three years when a regime of temporary stipends acted as a pay raise.
This would come as welcome news to the political left, especially organized labor. Its goal is to bake in permanently higher pay to the MFP formula so state taxpayers have to foot the bill rather than local systems. About a third of spending in the state on education comes from state sources, principally the MFP, while about four-ninths come from local sources.
The MFP’s purpose should be to provide a basic floor to ensure adequate education. And although the state regulates some aspects of it in detail, it is local education agencies delivering the product and with some discretion, so they should have to shoulder much of the funding burden. As of now, they rely too heavily on the state generally speaking (although deference should be awarded to smaller districts with fewer means of revenue-collecting).
Landry’s plan disrupts the traditional model of over-reliance on the state for anything beyond the basics in school operational funding. He further promulgated this new model, when responding to complaints from districts about the enforced swap, by proclaiming that any LEA which this year had awarded pay raises that match or exceed the contemplated $2,250 for educators and $1,125 for other staff didn’t have to make the swap (and those whose raises were of a lesser amount would have to move around less money).
Hopefully, legislators will approve the notion. Better still, the task force should investigate a funding mechanism that asks LEAs to take up a greater proportion of funding by them — although they also should be given legal authority to increase revenues while attenuating the state’s ability to raise revenues; in other words, make things revenue neutral where if greater local taxes become necessary taxation at the state level falls.
This plan that encourages LEA self-sufficiency also encourages greater efficiency. With fewer state dollars and a need to go to local voters to increase local dollars, extra incentives become created to spend parsimoniously.
Things are happening in the breech, but they provide an avenue to jumpstart this needed transition. Louisiana policy-makers need to take advantage of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment