Schools Budget Endorsed Legislative Committee Agrees To 5.2 Percent Increase In State Aid

Gov. Phil Batt’s 5.2 percent increase in state aid to public schools sailed through the legislative budget committee on Thursday, carrying what some fear is sweeping new authority for the state schools superintendent to withhold cash.

Only five members of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee - the three Democrats and moderate Republicans John Hansen of Idaho Falls and Hod Pomeroy of Boise - objected to the governor’s $741.7 million general tax allocation to the state’s 112 school districts.

Although the largest increase in three years, the total is still $5.6 million less than a coalition of education interests had sought.

The direct state support for the 1998-1999 school year is augmented by $55 million in state-paid property taxes, more than $50 million in special funds and nearly $200 million in property taxes.

The only discussion - and it was limited - came on how the extra money should be spent. The committee generally followed the coalition’s recommendations, although no new money was authorized for mentor teachers, classroom aides and innovative teacher grants.

Moreoever, cash set aside for accommodating students with limited English skills and general discretionary spending by districts was curtailed to account for the governor’s lower total.

The panel also turned back attempts to divert money from the fifth year of the school technology initiative to finance Batt’s plan to give all public libraries electronic access to thousands of publications, leaving that $465,000 expenditure for the state library budget.

And with barely a note of concern, the 20-member committee acceded to Superintendent Anne Fox’s request for “authority to establish criteria for school districts to receive their allocation of funds.”

The three-line legislative directive, finally adopted without dissent, places no limitations on the type or quantity of standards Fox could impose.

The superintendent told lawmakers she needed the authority as a hammer on school districts to provide information required to respond to legislative performance audits on pupil transportation and use of the tobacco tax money for substance abuse programs.

Analysts said there was no intention of interfering with school board discretion, and the School Board Association was not concerned.

But Finance Chairman Atwell Parry, R-Melba, was not so sure.

“Even though the intent is not to take away the discretion of school boards, this is what it looks like we’re doing,” he said.

Still, he did not press for rejection of the provision, and while Democratic Sen. Marguerite McLaughlin of Orofino dropped her formal opposition, she warned her colleagues, “we’re treading on thin ice.”

McLaughlin questioned why there was a need for such authority when it had never been provided before.

Fox’s proposal follows her failure to convince key lawmakers to consider her school accountability legislation. Districts suffering from chronically low academic achievement would have had to develop improvement plans and inform patrons, while those running budget deficits for more than a year would have had to develop and implement finance plans.

The state superintendent would have defined the criteria for determining a low-achieving school.

But critics, including some of the many district superintendents who have had no confidence in Fox’s leadership since she took office more than three years ago, argued that the department is incapable of adequately handling the responsibility.

They bolstered their case by citing the stormy relationship between Fox and the State Board of Education, which has intensified its supervision of public school matters since Fox was elected.

On Monday, the House Education Committee will have a public hearing on legislation that would elevate the state schools superintendent to the executive officer of the State Board of Education.