John McLaughry's summary of the education data for Vermont through 2002 reveals the mammoth increases in Vermont education spending since Act 60 was implemented without the quality results. This spending cannot continue unchecked. This one statistic points to the heart of the problem: Spending per pupil rose 42% in Vermont in just four years, twice the increase nationally.
We are on a spending and taxing spree that is unsustainable. See below.
+++++++++++++++++++++
ETHAN ALLEN INSTITUTE"Ideas for Vermont's Future"Independent - Nonprofit - Nonpartisan 4836 Kirby Mountain Road Concord, VT 05824 802 695 1448
For release Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Vermont Education by the Numbers
John McClaughry
Each year the U.S. Department of Education publishes a Digest of Education Statistics. The September 2003 Vermont Economy Newsletter takes a close look at state education spending trends reported in the 2002 Digest. It finds some eye-popping conclusions about VermontÂ’s performance.
Since school year 1996-97 the number of children in public schools nationally has increased by five percent. In Vermont, enrollment peaked in 1996-97 and has decreased by eight percent since. At the same time the number of Vermont teachers has increased by six percent.
As a result, VermontÂ’s pupil to teacher ratio is the lowest in the nation (11.4). Over the past 20 years the Vermont ratio has fallen 46% faster than that of the rest of the country.
Now letÂ’s look at spending, in inflation adjusted dollars. Back in 1983 Vermont spent right at the national average per pupil. Spurred by the new Foundation Plan of 1986 and the state surpluses in 1987-89, by 1991 Vermont per pupil spending had risen to $8800, 25% above the national average of $7000. Then in the early 1990s per pupil spending dropped because cash strapped legislatures froze the general fund contribution to state foundation aid, and local taxpayers resisted sharp property tax increases.
But after enactment of Act 60 in 1997, Vermont school spending took off like Seabiscuit. This was due to the availability of revenues from the new state property tax, coupled with official exhortations to low spending towns to jack up their spending in the name of “equal educational opportunity”. By 2002 per pupil spending had reached $10,200, 29% above the national average.
From 1997-98 to 2001-02 Vermont spending rose 30%, compared to 25% for the nation as a whole. But the rest of the nation had more students; Vermont had fewer students. Spending per pupil rose 42% in Vermont in just four years, twice the increase nationally.
The Vermont Department of Education has lauded the performance of our public school students, measured by test scores. Around the country, black and Spanish speaking students, for whatever reasons, do less well on tests. Since only two percent of VermontÂ’s students are black or Spanish speaking, a more informative comparison is between all Vermont students and all white students nationally.
That comparison shows that for 4th and 8th grade writing - the only NAEP outcomes measured in 2002 – Vermonters scored within two percent of the national average. However only 46% of 8th graders scored “proficient” or above, and only 32% of Vermont 4th graders did so.
What does this add up to? Since 1997 Vermont has been on an education spending jag. Its per pupil spending is now 29% above the national average. Even as the number of pupils has dropped by 8%, the number of teachers has increased by 6%. Spending per pupil has increased from $7800 to $10,200 in inflation adjusted 2002 dollars. But student outcomes are stuck at the national average for white children, and a majority of Vermont students tested fall below the level defined as “solid academic mastery”.
And all that spending has come from taxes – mostly property taxes, both statewide and sharing pool. No wonder the 2003 legislature made serious changes in Act 60.
Those changes are not likely to stabilize real education spending, or the property tax burden, the sales tax increase notwithstanding. At the present rate of spending the relief promised in 2003 will evaporate by no later than 2006, and perhaps sooner.
The real problem is that when Act 60 broke the historic link between local taxation and local school spending, there remained no effective mechanism to restrain education spending. That’s why the legislature was forced to create a “cost containment” study committee to figure out what to do next.
If, as the Supreme Court decreed in the Brigham case, there can no longer be a link between local tax base and local school budgets, then pressure to contain school spending will have to be imposed from the power that now controls all education spending – the state. That will not prove to be popular.
Assuming the Five Supreme Legislators won’t repent of their Brigham handiwork, the only way out – both for better education and for taxpayer relief – lies in completely changing the way children get educated. We now have a monopoly education system controlled from Montpelier, its costs constantly pushed upwards by, notably, an aggressive and politically well organized teachers union.
The alternative is to give up the monopoly whose revenues come entirely from the government Instead, go to a “system” where many vendors, public and private, compete for the patronage of informed, empowered consumers, placing their children in schools or other arrangements that best do the job the parents want.
If Vermonters donÂ’t begin to examine the merits of such an alternative, the education statistics of 2012 are likely to make the disappointing results of the past six years seem pretty moderate by comparison.
#####
John McClaughry is President of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org).
No comments:
Post a Comment