 |
|
Georgia Quick Links Georgia's Top Five |
|
- Home
- News
- GeorgiaTrend’s Business Daily
- Business Daily Audio Interviews
- On The Record
- About Us
- FAQ
- Advertising on GDD
- Our Partners
|
Essential Links Business/Consumer Education Government Legal Lifestyles Media Nonprofit Transportation |
 |
|
|
On The Record |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sis Henry: "If we based the actual operation of a school system on this type of fluctuation of funding, we would have chaos." |
Jeannie M. "Sis" Henry, executive director of the Georgia School Board Association (GSBA) talks with Georgia Daily Digest about a proposed constitutional amendment that would abolish property taxes as the primary funding mechanism for schools. (Editor's Note: This interview may be reproduced for distribution with credit given to GeorgiaDailyDigest.com.) GDD: House Majority Leader Jerry Keen has proposed a constitutional amendment that would abolish property taxes as the primary funding mechanism for schools and replace it with a sales tax. Your organization opposes this idea. Why? Henry: Allowing school systems to educate children using property taxes as a major source of local revenue provides stability. Relying on the use of the sales tax would wreak havoc in the planning and budgeting process. We have concrete examples of the volatility of sales tax through the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST). School districts using SPLOST funds (such as Gwinnett County and Jefferson City) had to revise building programs based on less favorable than expected economic factors over the last four years. For example, Gwinnett projected the penny to bring in $976 million but, in reality, it brought in closer to $670 million. If we based the actual operation of a school system on this type of fluctuation of funding, we would have chaos. This proposal would have a devastating impact on the educational services we deliver to children at a local level by taking away local funding sources. Locally funded programs such as art, music, foreign language and physical education at the elementary level would be jeopardized. It would also limit what school boards could offer employees in the way of salary supplements. Any local choice to fund programs beyond funding provided by the state would be lost. This proposal puts all education funding in the hands of a state bureaucracy. Adding a three-cent sales tax would also make it more difficult in some cases to come back and add an additional one-cent for SPLOST campaigns, thus affecting building programs. GDD: The sales tax proposal does appear to be creating a “per pupil” funding structure for Georgia’s schools. Does the GSBA support the per pupil funding aspect of this idea? Henry: GSBA supports the weighted per pupil funding method now in law. However, GSBA also supports Governor Sonny Perdue’s Education Finance Task Force, the Investing in Educational Excellence Committee, chaired by Dean Alford. According to the charge by the Governor, the IE2 Committee is working towards revising Georgia’s public education funding mechanism. GSBA believes it is crippling to the work of the committee and poor public policy to be putting forth this legislation at this time before the Task Force has completed its work. In lieu of the system put forth in this proposal, we would favor staying the course with the current method under QBE, which is a weighted system, until such time that the Task Force makes its recommendation on the best method to fund public education. GDD: At one of the public hearings, local school spokespersons have said that this would strip local school districts of local control by taking away their ability to tax. Why is this such a bad idea? Henry: Local citizens support their schools in a number of ways. One way is to elect board members to represent their interests on the board of education. Local control means that each local school system does and should look slightly different from the next. One school system may decide to hire more art and music teachers at the elementary level, while another may choose to hire additional foreign language teachers. Yet another school district may choose to reduce class sizes across the district at all grade levels. Another school district may want to attract better teachers for its schools and decide to supplement the state salary scale with additional money. These kinds of programs are now funded locally. Local control means that local school districts have the ability to decide to raise funds in order to provide the kinds of educational opportunities that its community feels best suits the needs of its children. GDD: Do you view the sales tax proposal as a regressive form of taxation? Henry: Absolutely! Under our current system, many senior citizens are completely exempt from school taxes. Under this proposal, the research shows that to make ends meet, to maintain funding at current levels, there cannot be any exemptions from a sales tax. That means that farm equipment, food and many other items currently exempt from sales taxes would have to be taxed in order to create enough revenue to fund our public schools at the current level. Also, anyone who now pays property taxes would not have that exemption on their federal income taxes. GDD: Has the substitution of a sales tax for property tax been tried anywhere else that you are aware of? Henry: Yes and no. Michigan tried a variation of this. They got rid of local property taxes as a funding source for schools but had to quickly restore a statewide property tax. They also have a large portion of their statewide sales tax and income tax that goes to funding their public schools. GDD: Some of the sales tax advocates have said that school leaders are resistant to this idea because they are programmed to resist every governmental attempt at accountability. Is this charge fair? Do public schools resist all accountability? Henry: No, this is not a fair charge. I can give you many cases of boards going out of their way to show public accountability. Gainesville City Schools posts their board and superintendent evaluation instruments on their website. We have 85 boards in Georgia posting their policy manuals on the Internet through our electronic policy service and many others do this on their own. There are 22 boards in Georgia using our electronic board meeting service as well. This allows them to post board meeting agendas and other items on the Internet. New accountability measures on the testing side call on school systems to post many types of student test scores and notify parents of numerous indicators. But accountability runs both ways. School system leaders continue to be concerned about increasing state and federal government mandates that go unfunded. Not only are these mandates often unfunded, in Georgia, we have actually faced $1 billion in austerity cuts over the last four years. Hold us accountable, but don’t tie our hands by eliminating funds. GDD: On a related subject, currently 51 small, rural Georgia school systems are suing the state over the adequate and equitable funding of schools, a move that could raise state taxes by as much as $1 billion or more. Do you ever worry that Georgia’s public schools are asking too much of Georgia taxpayers? Henry: Georgia is constitutionally bound to provide an adequate education to its children regardless of where they live, and we believe that is the right thing to do. I believe also that most people agree that an educated work force is desirable and will not be attainable without adequate funding for education. GDD: Can you give us an early preview of GSBA’s agenda for the 2006 legislative session? Henry: GSBA will support initiatives that protect the constitutional authority granted to boards of education in Georgia. We also support initiatives that grant funding flexibility at the local level that will allow local school systems the ability to deliver instructional programs to children based on where the need exists. Systems should not be limited to funding certain programs if other programs have greater funding needs. GSBA also urges legislators to fully fund the training the professional development needs associated with implementation of the Georgia Performance Standards. Under accountability laws in place, many middle school students are predicted to need remediation in the coming years in reading and math. There currently are no funds set aside for this purpose. GSBA is urging legislators to address the needs of these students. In 2000, funding for non-vocational (e.g., computer labs and science labs) was totally eliminated at the state level. GSBA supports restoration of funding for the high school non-vocational lab program.