The Utah Foundation Breakfast last week was certainly interesting, but not terribly helpful. Half of the presenters were there primarily to push their political interests, some ignoring the purpose of the summit as I understood it.

Paradox Lost

If your keeping an eye on the public education debate in the state, you know that the Utah Foundation released a report earlier this year titled “Paradox Lost,” a follow-up to their previous report, “Utah’s Education Paradox.” (pdf) The paradox was this: Utah has the lowest per-pupil spending in the country [1], while in 1995 spending a higher percent of our personal income on public education than 45 other states. (”Paradox Lost,” p. 1)

“Paradox Lost” highlighted that while we are still last in per-pupil spending, we can no longer claim the same level of support of public education as we could several years ago. The primary reasons for this drop are the floating down of the property tax basic levy, and the shift of income tax funds to higher education. [2] The breakfast, as I saw it, was to allow diverse groups to propose solutions, or (as some did), to debate whether the problem is a problem at all.

The Presentations

Some of the presentations were, unfortunately, political and predictable. Others were interesting, some thought-provoking. I’ve summarized some of their comments, and my response, in the order they presented.

USBA, USSA, UASBO

Bruce Williams, a district business administrator and presenting on behalf of the Utah School Boards Association, the Utah School Superintendents Association, and the Utah Association of School Business Officials, proposed a very simple idea. He recognized that school districts are required to participate in funding, and that local property taxes are their most stable source of funding. He argued that rates are falling without matching appraisals, resulting in reduced taxes per household. To address this issue, he proposed that instead of adjusting the basic property tax rate down annually, do it every four years, matching the cycle in which appraisals are completed. He concluded by saying that if the downward trend un the funding effort (particularly the floating of the basic levy) were to continue, he doesn’t believe we can continue to fund education at even a minimal level.

Utah Education Association

The UEA president repeated their call to “Invest in education” and reduce class size. It’s not something I’ve heard too many disagree with, but I didn’t hear anything that addressed the matter at hand. Unfortunately, her presentation, while very “feel-good” lacked substance. Their position paper does a much better job of highlighting causes, but their bottom line is still “spend more on education.”

Utah Taxpayers Association

Mike Jerman, Vice President Utah Taxpayers Association, had two main points: 1) funding isn’t the problem, and 2) tuition tax credits are the answer to all of education’s significant [but unspecified] problems. He pointed to competition in higher education as an example of how competition can improve the system, and how education can provide “a more personalized experience.”

I bristled at this for a couple of reasons. Higher education has a drop-out rate that would be wholly unacceptable in public education, not counting the significant number of young people who never go to college. Additionally, it was my experience that higher ed was the most impersonal part of my education. Everywhere I went, I was a number, not a name. At the time of my graduation, only one professor really knew my name, and that was only because I had worked for him outside of school.

Lastly, the tuition tax credit system that Mr. Jerman argued for bore only passing resemblance to the one making annual appearances at the legislature. He emphasized means testing and providing tax credits for the economically disadvantaged, suggesting the rich wouldn’t want (or be able to use) such credits.

If you want another perspective, head on over to the Utah Taxpayer Blog for their impression of the presentaitons.

Parents for Choice in Education

Doug Holmes, Executive Director for Parents for Choice in Education pointed participants to the position paper they submitted, suggesting the model they propose would simplify education funding while maintaining equity. He didn’t go into the details, but his report is worth reading. It suggests moving away from the most line items and the WPU—which although it stands for “Weighted Pupil Unit” has only passing resemblance to per student funding—to a model that more closely resembles per student funding.

Mr. Holmes lost points with the crowd (to the detriment of his proposal) for using quotes from Horace Mann suggesting schools can and must operate in locos parentis (in place of parents), and comparing our current education system to communism and planned economies. He summed up his presentation saying, “Exposing the public system to competition will create a greater willingness to fund that system.”

State Charter School Board

Dr. Scott Smith, chair of the State Charter School Board echoed my sentiments, saying, “I don’t feel that the system is broke; I see that it is underfunded.”

Higher Education

Richard Kendell, Commissioner of Higher Education told attendees he believes plans to freeze the basic levy or earmarking a certain percentage of income taxes to public education are ill-fated, because we tie the legislature’s hands. He argued other earmarks, including those for water projects and transportation ought to come off as well, to allow the legislature more flexibility. He said one of the unintended consequences of the 1996 constitutional amendment allowing income taxes to be used for higher education has not resulted in a windfall for higher education, as some in public education assert. The level of funding to higher education has gone down, but its importance has not. A high school graduate with no skills will no longer be introduced into the middle class.

Posted in Education, Utah Politics