Things to include in funding reform plans
Feb 01, 2018 | 1634 views | 0 0 comments | 133 133 recommendations | email to a friend | print
As 2017 wound down, one of the things we said we’d like to see the Vermont Legislature tackle during this year’s session was education funding reform. We were hopeful that there was momentum building to make changes to the Act 60/Act 68 funding laws that have been the state’s guiding principles for the past 20 years. It now appears that may be the case, as there have been at least two draft bills introduced into the House Ways and Means committee that attempt to make significant changes to how Vermont taxes and funds public education. One draft bill in particular seems to be gaining steam (see story on page A1) and is garnering a fair amount of support.

It’s important to remember that draft bills are a work in progress, and if and when they become law, often look substantially different from when they were first introduced. With that in mind, here are a few things we’d like to see any education funding overhaul bill include, things that are missing from the current draft bill.

Spending caps, for one.

Any new plan to change how education is funded in Vermont should take into account real stresses on the education fund, such as total spending, and not rely on relatively arbitrary per-pupil averages. Cost containment should absolutely be included in any new funding formula. But it’s not enough to rely on the per-pupil averages, which is a benchmark of the current system. Those averages don’t take into account the reality of declining enrollment, especially in rural districts, school choice, or a host of other forces that financially stress a school district and have nothing to do with direct spending.

Any bill should offer recognition that there are different cost factors at play between large districts and small, rural ones and offer methods to compensate for those. Despite the consolidation brought about by Act 46, there are still significant differences in how large, urban districts can mask hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost increases, compared to smaller districts. This is because of the per-pupil spending calculation and how it is weighted toward larger districts with more students.

The state needs to move away from the per-pupil averages it uses to track school spending, and look at actual dollars and cents. By doing so, a hard cap would be one way to control school spending and keep rising property taxes in check.

Equity of outcomes is another concept that needs to be included.

Any bill should include language to require equity-based education outcomes, instead of just equity on the money. While some might argue outcome equity is not related to education funding, that has been a real issue for small districts like Twin Valley, and was a big part of what pushed the town of Whitingham to file suit against the state. The lack of educational opportunities by the current funding systems, which places financial penalties on districts for crossing those artificial per-pupil spending thresholds, is real and needs to be addressed. Smaller school can’t offer the same opportunities as larger schools, in large part due to the restraints of the per-pupil funding formula.

Legislators need to also realize most public school districts, their staff, and board members, work extremely hard to keep costs in line. Sometimes it appears, based on comments made by legislators, they think school districts are run by a bunch of profligates willing to spend every last tax dollar they can get their hands on. It’s just not true. Most school board members are fiscally prudent, and in smaller districts, know where just about every dollar is going. Despite being prudent, many small district board members are understandably frustrated when they can’t offer a robust learning environment due to the per-pupil penalties.

We know it’s early in the process, but better to speak out now while bills are still in their formative stages. While a revised education funding process won’t stem the loss of students due to changing demographics, it could make for a more fair, comfortable, and transparent system for all Vermont.
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet

Comment Policy

In an effort to promote reasoned discussion, transparency, and integrity in online commenting, The Deerfield Valley News requires anyone posting comments to identify themselves using their real name. Anonymous commenting will not be allowed. All comments will be subject to approval before posting, and may take up to 24 hours for approval to be granted.

We encourage civil discourse among readers, and ask that they be willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. No personal harassment or hate speech will be tolerated. Please be succinct and to the point. For longer comments, please consider submitting a letter to the editor instead. It will appear in both the print and online editions.

All comments will be reviewed, and we reserve the right to reject, edit or remove any comment for any reason. For questions or to express concerns feel free to contact our office at (802) 464-3388.