Schools Group Finds Schweitzer’s Funding Plan ‘Unacceptable’ (MT)

December 2, 2010

The group representing Montanaschool districts say Go v. Brian Schweitzer’s  fundingplan for schools comes close to meeting their hopes for the next two years –but that his proposed transfer of oil-and-gas revenues to finance the plan is"unacceptable."

They also note that while Schweitzercalls his funding proposal a sizeable increase in state money for schools, itactually cuts entitlement payments next year that are the basis of mostschools’ general-fund budget.

"In fact, when you include theone-time (federal) money that schools will lose this biennium, school districtswill have less in the coming biennium," the Montana School BoardsAssociation said in a summary distributed to its members within the past week.

Still, officials in some of thestate’s largest school districts say they’re encouraged by Schweitzer’s stateddesire to maintain and increase state funding for public schools.

"He’s extremely supportive ofwhere education needs to be and where it needs to go," says Alex Apostle,superintendent of schools in Missoula. "I think his initial take on thebudget is very positive."

Schweitzer, a Democrat, unveiled hisschool-funding plan Nov. 15, when he submitted his proposed budget for the2012-13 biennium.

The proposal, which will beconsidered by the 2011 Legislature, increases state funding by about $40million over the two-year period. However, most of that increase is in fiscal2013.

In fiscal 2012, which begins nextschool year, districts would see a slight decrease in basic per-district andper-student payments from the state. The decline also limits many districts’overall budget authority and their ability to ask local taxpayers to bolsterdistrict budgets.

The only increased state money forschools in Schweitzer’s budget next year is for special education and at-riskstudents, about $6 million out of a $736 million pie.

Schweitzer’s proposed oil-and-gasmechanism to fund $76 million of the $1.4 billion in state funds for schoolsover two years is causing the most concern, as the school boards’ group says i tamounts to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Schweitzer is proposing to take $76million of oil-and-gas tax revenue that currently goes to several dozen schoolsin petroleum-producing regions and distribute it to all schools statewide.

Lance Melton, executive director ofMSBA, says many school districts now getting this money would have todramatically raise local property taxes to replace the loss of those funds.

The governor’s plan essentiallytakes money from the state treasury that had been used for schools, spends iton other programs, and replaces it with the oil-and-gas money that had beengoing to some schools, he says.

"Our members have passed aresolution specifically opposing this move and there has to be a moretransparent, direct way of prioritizing the funding of schools than what hasbeen proposed so far," Melton says.

Dan Villa, the governor’s educationpolicy adviser, says school districts with oil-and -gas revenue have receivedmore than they expected the past two years, and that some have sizeablereserves that could help offset the need to raise property taxes to replacethat money.

Melton says most school reservefunds have legal restrictions on how they can be spent, and that"unencumbered" funds in reserves are relatively small.

"We’re supportive of thegovernor’s overall proposal," he says, "but just not the way that hewants to fund it."

Bruce Messinger, superintendent ofschools in Helena, says schools benefited from a fair amount of federal stimulusmoney the past two years, and realized it would come to end by next year.

While it may be disappointing thatthe governor’s proposal doesn’t fill the entire gap created by the loss of thatmoney next year, it does increase state funds in 2013 and makes a good effortto maintain education funding in difficult economic times, he says — if it’sfully funded.

"I do applaud his effort to make educationa priority for our state," Messinger says.