Print
Category: Editorials Editorials
Published: 21 February 2017 21 February 2017

By Carla J. Sonntag

President and Founder, New Mexico Business Coalition

We spend a lot of time talking about how bad New Mexico educational system is - ranked 49th in the nation. Is the answer more money? Absolutely not! Some states spending less per student rank higher for educational quality. More money is not the answer, but how we spend it is. If we invested in competitive teachers' salaries that support quality personnel, we might see a difference. We also need to invest in better educational materials and equipment.

New Mexico desperately needs accountability for its educational investment. While we've increased funding significantly, many of our children are failing to meet minimum standards. We've seen improvement by our Public Education Department, but there is a syphoning of funds from state education for nonprofit groups that provide what equates to no more than babysitting.

Special interest groups focused on educational funding are always on a quest for more money and the Land Grant Permanent Fund (LGPF) is the easiest target. Many say the LGPF is a rainy day fund; it is not. The LGPF was established with New Mexico's statehood in 1912 and is held in trust as an educational endowment fund for our public schools.

While enrollment in New Mexico's schools has been relatively consistent, the education budget has increased over $900 million in the last 12 years. Over one-third of that increase came from the LGPF. And while advocates demand more money from the fund, it is estimated that by 2025, the LGPF will produce $1 billion annually at the current five percent distribution rate.

If special interest groups get their way and increase the distribution rate by one to two percent, does it matter? Yes! Economists and responsible fund managers have proven that a five percent distribution rate allows for fund growth through up and down market cycles. Distributions greater than five percent, however, risk eating into the corpus of the fund.

Sensible withdrawals from the LGPF are key to providing for our children's education in perpetuity. It also saves taxpayers close to $1,000/year per household in taxes. Increasing withdrawal rates would be irresponsible to our children as well as to our state's taxpayers.

Activists are seeking up to $1 billion or more per year - in addition to current distributions - for childhood services. They say that more money and younger intervention are the answers to better educational outcomes, but the money is not earmarked for teachers and classrooms. They promise this G