The Education funding reform bill passed
after split votes in both House and Senate on Monday, with lots of angst even
among some voting yes. It brought an end to this year’s extended session.
For many years, I’ve believed that “local
control” over education funds has been a façade, given the actual funding
mechanism. I believe that a state obligation for a crucial statewide system
should have funds raised and budgeted at the state level for all students
equally, across the state. Setting a path – a work plan -- for that shift is
the only thing this bill actually does, and I supported it.
Contrary to discussions or opinions:
1.
It does not save money.
It spends more for transition needs, and
could theoretically save money in the future. It could just as theoretically
spend more. The difference will be that it will be in the hands of the
legislature, accountable to voters, instead of in the hands of individual towns’
votes combining into a statewide fund imposed on all. Statewide fund, thus
state budgeted spending… like roads, social services, court systems and the
rest.
There are built-in new costs, such as
re-starting school construction aid (and assuming the need for new construction
for regional needs.) The future cut in property taxes for lower-income homeowners
may cost more than the current income sensitivity system. Future consolidation
may save some money, but not enough to offset new costs. Increasing class sizes
will save some money, but the required increases are minimal. (At least 10
students for first grade; 12 for 2nd-5th; 15 for 6th-8th; 18 for high school.)
2.
It does not close small rural schools.
There are multiple exemptions for size to
meet needs; the decision-making process for closure is yet to be defined. I
think upper grades need and benefit from larger regional schools, but not
elementary schools.
3.
It does not mean teachers will be laid off.
Again, class minimums requirements remain
low; at most, there could be reductions achieved through attrition. There is a
timeline for any changes, and a soft-touch consequence for not meeting them.
4.
It is not happening too fast for good decisions.
Almost every aspect is yet to be
determined over the next several years after more work by sub-groups that
include professionals. If those steps aren’t achieved (after being fought over
in future legislative sessions), the process ends. A map for proposed larger
districts next year will be the first test for whether consensus will be
possible for moving forward.
Note that even pieces that are
“established” in this year’s bill don’t take place immediately, which means
they can be changed if new information demonstrates the direction should
change.
5.
It does not “privatize” education and place the public
system at risk.
It actually cuts back on some access to
independent schools. Yes, in theory it could make it easier in the future to expand
a private school voucher system, but that would require a whole, new,
controversial change in law.
6.
It does not impose big tax increases on thrifty towns,
or force cuts.
Sorting out the issue of addressing
changes from up or down from current local tax rates or budgets is one of the
many work areas yet to be resolved. If it does have unfair results, the
opportunity will be there to say, stop; this doesn’t work.
7.
It does not ignore the major cost drivers in school
budgets.
Some of those drivers, such as special
education, are elements that are part of the further work outline in the bill.
Others are not addressed because they are not direct education system issues.
Health care’s staggering cost increases are a separate problem for all of our
budgets. Yes, it helps drive school budgets in a big way, but that is a
component that will now be a shared problem for the state to address in
funding, rather than for each town to react to by rejecting a local budget that
has soared upwards because of health care costs.
What was I happy to see in the final
version of the bill that came forward?
Two things:
First, an intent to try for a faster
timeline: three years instead of four to start actual changes. It is unlikely
to meet the timelines because there is so much work and so many decisions yet
to be made. We will likely be voting regularly on time extensions, something we
do often. But dragging out change can be a detriment; I think a goal to move
decisions forward as soon as reasonably possible is good.
Secondly, it was the first time a
transparent statement was made in the bill that clarifies that there is not
necessarily an intent to reduce the taxes needed to support our schools. The
intent is to reduce the increases in the property tax, which is being perceived
as the main thing taxpayers are upset about: increased property taxes, not
taxes overall.
The bill now states that within the intent
to prevent property tax increases, if need be, we will transfer current
spending into other budgets that have other revenue sources (income tax, sales
tax… anything other than property tax.) Some of these could be very
appropriate. Are school lunches or mental health supports a part of education,
or are they social services that should be in our social services budget? But
the outcome will be more pressure and increases to those other budgets. It
shifts funding to increase other tax categories.
Speaking of mental health support – which
a majority believe are a critical need in our schools – that is one of the clear
examples of how inequitable the current system. Schools must pay the matching
funds for the federal Medicaid support for having mental health clinicians.
Many of our schools, in communities that don’t believe it’s affordable for
their town, don’t have those services. These supports should not be dependent
upon where you live.
If one wants to consider whether our
current convoluted system of education spending represents local control while
also creating equal tax burdens for equal education support across the state,
one need only consider the Northfield budget over the past two years.
In 2024, Northfield tightened its belt
compared to many other districts in the state. Northfield spends less than the
statewide average per pupil. Yet in the final outcome, the average property tax
rate increase across the state was 14%. In Northfield, it was 18%. This year,
Northfield (or, the full district) tried to catch up on some pressing needs.
The budget increase was 14%. Yet the tax rate will only increase by 2% to meet
that increase.
This is why I term “local control” a
façade under the current funding structure
While many folks are scared about
potential implications, the bottom line is that this bill, this year, only
begins a process for a statewide system of equal taxing for equal resources for
the opportunities for each student. And it uses the same system that the
majority of states use for education funding. This bill is about doing the necessary
groundwork to address the many complex issues that will determine how, and even
whether, it is able to move forward. It sets out intent, but no final
decisions.
Most of the big decisions are still ahead
of us and will present major challenges to resolve.
***
This year’s session is over, but I’m still
available if you want to discuss legislation or other state issues. Stay in
touch at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us (and with Rep.
Ken Goslant at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us.) We appreciate being able to serve
you.
No comments:
Post a Comment