Candidates have education assignment

Second of three parts

Education is the single largest piece of Idaho’s state budget, and it is a key priority of the state as outlined in its founding document, the Idaho Constitution.

“The concept that our forefathers had … created the system of the free, common school that takes the children of all of the people and gives them a place at the starting line,” said Jerry Evans, who served 16 years as Idaho’s state superintendent of schools. That, he said, gives all citizens a chance to participate in both their government and the economy.

But Idaho ranks 50th among the states in its per-pupil expenditures for schools, and last winter, the state’s Supreme Court declared the system for funding school construction unconstitutional and inadequate. Most of Idaho’s high school graduates don’t go on to any higher education.

Idahoans, Evans said, “should expect a governor who would work to create a public school system that serves the needs of all of our children. … A child who goes to school in Idaho should never be at a disadvantage, and the money should be well-spent.”

The four candidates running for governor have very different visions of how to accomplish that – and one doesn’t even want to try.

Marvin “Pro-Life” Richardson, the Constitution Party candidate, said: “I’d ask the state Legislature to start the process of changing our constitution so that there’s not a mandate for public education in the constitution. … Public school is a communist doctrine. It breaks down the religious faith of people.”

Libertarian candidate Ted Dunlap wants to set up a $5,000 tax deduction for sending any child to a private or parochial school. “The private sector can do a lot more for a lot less money,” he said.

Republican Butch Otter and Democrat Jerry Brady take a more traditional approach, supporting public education and advocating different ways of improving it. On one point they agree strongly: lowering the two-thirds supermajority now required to pass a school construction bond to 60 percent, while moving those elections to the general and primary election dates.

“We’ll turn out a lot more people to the process,” Otter said.

That change is one of several suggestions the Supreme Court offered state lawmakers to improve the current funding system, which requires local voters to vote by a two-thirds supermajority to raise their own property taxes in order to build a school.

But Evans said there’s more that needs fixing. The lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision has “been around forever,” he said. “Basically it says it’s too difficult for the school district to acquire adequate school facilities, and it’s unfair. It’s too difficult because a no vote counts twice as much as a yes vote, and it’s unfair because some school districts have very high property tax bases per pupil, and others have very low.”

As a result, “We have some people paying very, very high tax rates to build schools, and we have some others that are paying practically nothing.”

Both adding state money to the equation and lowering the supermajority are needed, Evans said.

State lawmakers have taken only tiny steps toward state funding so far, however, and Otter – like legislative majorities in recent years – likes the traditional system of leaving school construction costs to local property taxpayers.

“I’ve always liked the idea of the local folks deciding what they want – I like that,” Otter said.

Brady said he is reserving judgment to see how school bonds fare after the property tax reductions lawmakers approved in August. “I think if we reduce the supermajority there’s a likelihood that you wouldn’t need to directly subsidize from the state,” he said. “We’d have to see.”

The candidates also differ on how to view Idaho’s low ranking for per-pupil spending on schools – a U.S. Census report last spring ranked Idaho 50th, with only Utah spending less per student. Idaho dropped from its earlier ranking of 48th when Mississippi and Tennessee outspent it. The District of Columbia spent the most.

Otter noted that as a congressman, he had some oversight over District of Columbia schools, and he said they were forced to spend money on non-education needs like crime-fighting. “Go into the classroom, and you’d find two policemen on every floor,” Otter said. “We’re (nearly) dead last – part of the reason is because our crime rate is a lot lower than everyone else.”

He added, “It’s easy for those who want to say we’re not spending enough money because we’re not spending as much as somebody else. … We don’t need all these things that are going on in other states.”

Otter opposes Proposition 1 on the November ballot, which would require a $219 million increase in school funding next year, though he initially supported the measure. School funding should be increased “if it’s needed,” Otter said. But he said the measure would put school funding “on auto-pilot,” adding, “I think the Legislature needs to bear that responsibility and I think they’ve done it well.”

Brady, who supports Proposition 1, disagreed. “Local school districts all over are having a hard time meeting the needs of their children,” he said. “If anybody thinks we’re doing well enough, they’re not looking at the statistics.”

Brady said he favors “not simply throwing money at the problem, but to give local schools and local parents more say.” Proposition 1 would provide the additional money to school districts to spend on nine specific areas as they choose, he said.

Both major-party candidates say they want to boost math and science education, but Brady warned, “That is not going to be inexpensive – it’s going to require new funds.”

Evans said, “It’s a very complex issue, but as long as Idaho spends less money per child than most states, then it’s difficult to expect that we’re going to get better results than other states. … We have to be aware that it doesn’t cost any less to buy a textbook in Idaho than it does in Ohio or Maine or Iowa or anyplace else.”

Idaho has an advantage, Evans said, because it’s a rural state where people have a strong work ethic and a strong connection with their children, and that helps children succeed. “So we have an advantage, but we are underfunded, and all of our kids’ needs are not being well-met in the schools,” Evans said.

Both Otter and Brady favor expanding community colleges in Idaho to serve more students with accessible, low-cost higher education, though they differ somewhat on how to do that.

Brady favors gradually expanding the number of charter schools, but not just to serve “well-to-do planned communities.” If the most involved, most affluent parents and their kids are siphoned off to charter schools that they help form, regular public schools would be left with all the poor kids. “That’s not the American way, not the Idaho way,” Brady said.

Otter said he wants “a better, more responsive and customer-driven education system.”

Evans said, “I hear some fairly positive things concerning education and the future of the schools in Idaho coming from both of them.”