The Facts on School Funds

I am writing in response to an article in the Southern Maryland Extra on Thursday. The article "Assembly Puts New Schools in Jeopardy" was misleading in connecting action during the special session of the General Assembly regarding what will still be record increases in funding for education in the operating budget and capital budget funding for public school construction. The reader is left believing that somehow the state has not adequately funded either public education or public school construction in recent years. Both contentions are untrue.

Incredibly, the General Assembly is criticized regarding public school construction funding in a year in which more than $400 million was provided. This funding level was put forward by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and was the highest level of school construction funding since the program began in 1971. Calvert County received $12.6 million (more than 63 percent of its request), Charles received $13.2 million (almost 50 percent of its request) and St. Mary's received $9.8 million (more than 71 percent of its request). The $400 million made up almost half of the capital budget and far exceeded the statutory goal of $250 million in annual funding that was adopted by the General Assembly in 2004. Many state capital construction needs were scaled down or delayed to allow this to happen.

This amount should also be compared against funding provided by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) in the first year of his administration, which totaled $116 million for the entire state. In fact, during the last four-year term, the General Assembly altered the capital budget each year to give more to public school construction, providing more than $200 million in funding beyond what was proposed by the former governor.

At the same time, however, because of the tremendous pressure on the state's capital budget every year, it is important to recognize that the General Assembly cannot fund these record levels of public school construction funding every year without new revenue to do so. During the special session, the General Assembly provided a means for significant public school construction funding in the future through a program of video lottery terminals. If the voters approve the referendum for video lottery terminals at full operation, as much as $600 million a year would be placed in an education trust fund for both operating and capital education funding. With these resources, the record funding of $400 million for school construction could become something the state achieves every single year.

With respect to operating funding for K-12 education, the state increased funding this year by a staggering $692 million when total general fund revenue for the entire state budget grew by only $573 million. This means that the increases in public K-12 funding this year exceeded all new general fund monies available to the state by $119 million. This does not take into account funding of any other aspect of state government, including increases in such basic mandatory costs as pension contributions and health care for state employees and retirees.

Included in the $692 million increase this year was almost $150 million as the result of an unanticipated windfall to the counties from an inflationary factor that was never estimated to reach the levels it did. The windfall related to the inflationary factor was the only item of education funding reduced in the recent special session. Through the action of the General Assembly, K-12 education will still grow, but it will be more in line with what was expected when the inflation factor was adopted six years ago.

Even with the action taken in the special session, Southern Maryland fared extremely well. Per-pupil education funding in the operating budget next year will increase in Charles by $122 per student, in Calvert by $94 per student and in St. Mary's by $43 per student. Additionally, although some counties such as Charles, Calvert, Montgomery and Prince George's will see a reduction in state grants relating to electric utility property, the General Assembly authorized the local governments to make up the difference by imposing a tax on the property of electric utility companies or by agreeing with the utility companies for payments to be made in lieu of the tax.

It is also particularly unfair that counties would complain about funding for education (capital or operating) when the primary reason that the state was forced to raise revenue in the special session was to maintain the increased levels of funding provided to local governments for education in recent years. In the past six years, state funding to local governments for education increased from $2.9 billion in 2002 to $5.2 billion this year with Calvert receiving $96 million, Charles receiving $161 million and St. Mary's receiving $109 million from the state.

These levels of funding represent an 80 percent increase in state funding to local governments for K-12 education since 2002 at a time when local governments increased their education funding contributions by only 34 percent. Clearly, it is the General Assembly and the state that have made the stronger commitment to education in recent years. Perhaps local governments concerned about school construction monies should use some of the funds they did not put toward operating costs of education in recent years for school construction instead. I, for one, am proud of the General Assembly's actions with respect to both capital and operating funding of public K-12. Education is the key to unlocking the future of children in Southern Maryland and across the state. I plan to continue to support it in every way I can.

Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D)

Maryland Senate president