Everybody’s “for” education, and everybody wants to pump more money into Virginia’s educational system. From what I can tell, it looks like the Dems want to increase educational spending a lot more than the GOP-dominated House of Delegates in the next biennial budget. But I’ve seen very little discussion on the topic.
According to documents maintained by the Department of Planning and Budget, here are the budget numbers of the Department of Education, including Fiscal 2007 and 2008 proposed by departing Gov. Mark R. Warner:
FY 2003…… $ 9.55 billion
FY 2004…… $ 9.97 billion (+4.4 percent)
FY 2005…… $11.2o billion (+12.4 percent)
FY 2006…… $12.05 billion (+7.6 percent)
FY 2007…… $13.70 billion (proposed) (+13.7 percent)
FY 2008…… $13.95 billion (proposed) (+1.8 percent)
As can be readily seen, after the “starving time” of the early Warner administration, spending on education has soared, and would continue to soar if Warner’s proposed budget were enacted. The proposed 2007/2008 budget represents a 16.4 percent biennial budget-to-biennial budget increase.
Now, here’s what Vincent F. Callahan, Jr., House appropriations chairman, says the House budget is doing for education:
The budget will provide approximately $11.5 billion in funding for public education over the next two years. This represents an increase of $1.5 billion over the current funding level or approximately 36 percent of the net new revenues available. … The budget will invest approximately $419 million in additional general fund support for higher education. This represents an increase of approximately 13 percent over base funding levels.
If I’m comparing apples to apples, in the House budget, educational spending would increase “only” 8 percent from one biennial budget to the next. Bottom line: The House would increase education spending at half the rate of the Warner plan. (If I’m comparing apples to oranges, I’d appreciate it if someone would let me know.)
The House plan is a bad thing if you think the only solution to Virginia’s educational woes is pouring more money into the existing system. It’s a good thing if you think there’s a limited amount that the system can usefully absorb, or if you think the system needs serious reform. So far, I’ve seen very little debate on this issue. Any observations?
