Presented To:
House Ways and Means Committee, House Appropriations Committee
Senate Budget and Taxation Committee
The League of Women Voters of Maryland actively supported passage of the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act in 2002 (Thornton). We have also consistently supported the Geographical Cost of Education Index (GCEI).
Under the funding required by the Bridge to Excellence Act, Maryland has moved toward fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide a “thorough and efficient” education for all students, and Maryland students have made substantial progress in recent years. We would prefer that the General Assembly fulfill the goals of the Bridge to Excellence Act by fully funding the price inflator for FY2009 and beyond.
The League recognizes the difficulties members of the General Assembly and the Governor face in closing the state’s fiscal gap and balancing the budget, and applauds your efforts at addressing this challenge. The implicit price deflator was included in Thornton as a measure of the real cost of education and so that Thornton would hold its value over time. Freezing the price deflator for two years will result in permanent cuts in state education funding.
The League of Women Voters opposes freezing the price deflator, as proposed in the Budget Reconciliation Act. Freezing the inflation factor for two years, as proposed, means that school systems must absorb the increased costs of schooling. For low-wealth counties, this will be particularly difficult.
While the proposed bill includes a supplemental grant for counties that do not receive at least a one percent increase in state funding, without a fiscal note, the full impact of the one percent guaranteed increase is unclear. Additionally, we are concerned about the apparent decrease in future funding caused by changing from the Implicit Price Deflator to the Consumer Price Index.
For these reasons, we oppose the current proposal.
These hearings are a welcome step in sorting out the effect of these changes on state funding for education in Maryland. However, we are especially concerned that the deadlines for submitting testimony and lack of a timely fiscal note have made it impossible for the public to adequately analyze the effect of the freeze in the price deflator and the supplemental one-percent guarantee or the implications of replacing the Implicit Price Deflator with the Consumer Price Index.
