Thursday, June 23, 2005

Rural Georgia schools demand equity Has it really been over a month since I posted? The Atlanta Journal constitution today is reporting that a consortium of rural school districts are suing the state of Georgia for the funding needed to allow them to provide adequate education, equal to those in urban areas, such as in the several districts that make of metro Atlanta. As a rule local districts are required to raise local property taxes to make up for what they need in addition to state funds. It is no secret that rural counties tend to be poorer communities, and thus, as the consortium bringing the suit is arguing, aren't able to make up that difference and therefore are not able to provide the an education comparable to that provided by urban disticts with significantly higher tax bases. They are arguing that the state's responsibility is to assure an adequate eduction for all of its school children. I guess that means the state would have to give a larger share of state funds to poorer areas. The state is not happy and the state attorney general's office, speaking for state superintendent of schools Kathy with a K Cox was quoted in the article as calling the action an "attempted treasury raid." Wow. But one of the main advocates behind the lawsuit is Joe Martin, executive director of the Consortium for Adequate School Funding in Georgia, who is a one-time candidate for state superintendent of schools and one-time president of the Atlanta Board of Education. He is someone I would trust. So I am not inclined to see this action in the same light as the attorney general's office. Now I do know that the issue of inequity between urban and poor rural distrticts has been addressed in other ways, such as the "virtual high school" program recently initiated by the governor, which gives rural students access to AP classes and such that are not available in the rural areas, through the Internet. This is certainly a positive thing. Though I am of course in an urban district that serves students in poor areas but has more than adequate (but often widely misspent) funding, I think I can support this action by the rural districts in the state. The question is what the solution would be. According to the article the metro area districts are worried that the potential solution imposed by the court would be a "Robin Hood" solution of taking funds from them and redistributing them to the rural districts. Would that be fair? Maybe. Other than that, if the court found that the state was mot meeting its responsiblity to provide adequate educational funding to all children throughout the state, the state may have to raise more taxes or who knows what. The article does point out that the rural districts impose a lower property tax rate than the urban and suburban districts do. But the consortium is arguing that they have raised taxes and even that is not adequate. Is it an argument against the case that people who live in rural areas have chosen to do so and therefore should settle for what they have chosen themselves? I don't think so. Children don't have a choice and should someone be punished becausee they are farmers or ranchers, for for whatever reason they live in rural Georgia (like maybe that's just where their family has been for genreations and they like it)? We'll keep and eye out to see how this turns out. 11:21:47 AM    comment []