League of Women Voters of Idaho
LEAGUE POSITIONS on Education
League of Women Voters of the United States: “The League is committed to equal access to education and racial integration, equal access to quality education, federal education programs to meet the needs of the poor, minorities and others, federal job training programs, nondiscrimination and affirmative action.”
League of Women Voters of Idaho Current Position in Brief:
“Support for revision of the state school fund distribution formula to achieve greater equalization of educational opportunity and tax burden; support for increased state funding for public schools; support for kindergartens, career and vocational education, and special education; support for reducing the supermajority required to pass bonds.”
LWVID Position Details: “The League of Women Voters of Idaho believes that every child in Idaho should have an equal educational opportunity in the “general, uniform, and thorough system of public free common schools: required by
Article IX of the Idaho Constitution.”(Adopted October, 1971)
NOTES: This requirement has been litigated at the District and state Supreme Court and the system was found to be unconstitutional. Even though plaintiffs won in court, there is noenforcement mechanism to compel the state legislature to perform its duty.
**********************************************************************
LWVID Position Details: “The League believes that the goal of equal educational opportunity cannot be realized until assessment practices are uniform throughout the state.” (AdoptedJanuary, 1970, amended July, 1979)
NOTES: There are state rules about assessments and the practices are audited. Even with standardized assessment practices, the outcomes are unequal because the tax bases of districts are significantly different.
*********************************************************************
LWVID Position Details: “The League supports consistency in state education funding based on long-term educational goals. To allow local school districts to plan more effectively and deal with local needs, caution is urged in the use of one-time funding and in attaching detailed ‘strings’ to school appropriations. Inducements to lowering class size should be offered.”(Adopted, July 1991)
NOTES: The state appropriations for public education are not stable and come from revenues subject to economic and political forces. Early on, there were informal guidelines suggesting that approximately half of the state budget be spent for education. That is no longer the case and the total amount for education is below the amounts provided in the last decade. Tax cuts and the increased amounts needed for the state Medicaid program have impacted the state’s share of school funding.
**************************************************************************
LWVID Position Details: “The majority needed to pass a school bond issue should be either (a) not more than 60% or (b) 55% if the school district’s bonded indebtedness is less than 0.2% of market value.”(Adopted July 1991)
NOTE: The state currently requires a 2/3’s vote of the school district electorate to pass a local school bond levy.
**********************************************************************
LWVID Position Details: “The League believes that the distribution of state funds to school districts should result in equalization by guaranteeing that district taxing at the same rate would receive the same total numbers of dollars per distribution unit from state and local taxes.”(Adopted January 1970, amended July 1983, amended May 2002)
NOTES: The state did have a policy for a funding adjustment related to local tax bases that provided some equalization between districts but that changed in the special session of 2006. HOWEVER, the steadily increasing use of local Supplemental Levies to operate and maintain public schools has led to vastly different per pupil resources for school districts. The taxable property value per student ranges from $9,380,744 value per student in the Avery District to $168,752 value per student in the Homedale Joint District.
(Source: Financial Summaries Idaho School Districts and Charter Schools 2012-2013)
********************************************************************
LWVID Position Details on Endowment Lands: “The League of Women Voters of Idaho believes that Idaho’s endowment lands should be managed to provide the maximum possible revenue for public schools and other endowed institutions. Maximizing revenue can, however, be in conflict with other important values such as good land-use practices, protection of the environment and preservation of other future-oriented values. When the short-term goal of maximizing income for the endowment is in conflict with those other values arising from more long-term goals, the long-term goals are more important.” (Adopted March, 1975)
At Your Local Meetings
OPENING THOUGHTS TO SHARE WITH GROUP:
Professor David Adler wrote in a newspaper opinion column that Aristotle had said that if you really want to understand what a state values, observe how it spends its money. Recently, another contemporary observer of public choices said “we appear not to value our children as much as we say we do.”
“Idaho ranks 50th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in per pupil spending, according to the U.S. Census Bureau….Idaho’s per public spending was 35.4% LOWER than the national average of $10,560…. In 2013, Idaho was spending $5000 less per classroom than it had 5 years before.” (Source: Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy, reprinting newspaper column by David Adler, October 24, 2013)
OPENING DISCUSSION QUESTION:
Do the citizens of one community have a duty (as opposed to rational self-interest) to pay for the schools in another community? Put more starkly, should it concern citizens in Moscow (or Boise, Lewiston, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, etc.) that the schools in some districts don’t have, or choose/vote not to pay for, the same level of resources to provide for their local public education?
CONSENSUS QUESTIONS:
- As the State of Idaho retreats from the state funding of public education, should school districts be given complete authority to raise funds locally to support local schools? In other words, should the state eliminate its various restrictions on debt levels and requirements for super majority voter approvals?
- What should be the source of increased state revenues to provide for additional funds for public schools?
New revenues from sales of state resources?
Increased individual income tax rates?
Increased corporate income tax rates?
Reduced sales taxexemptions?
Citizen initiative requiring increased funding for public schools?
1