Costs for K-12 Education in Vermont

A calendar is unnecessary to know the season in Vermont. It's time for the legislative session to begin when the talk turns to taxes and nothing inspires tax talk like education funding.

During the next four months we will be inundated or 'blizzarded' (depending on the pace of global warming, of course) by editorials, various talking heads, failed local school budgets, and of course, the rhetoric of legislators as they sprinkle their magic dust to fix the problem.


Now firmly in Democrat hands, the Legislature must choose among alternatives. They can do nothing and enable the spiraling costs of education to continue to eat away at Vermonters' dollars with today's complex income-sensitized property tax regime. Or they can choose to do nothing to control education spending and merely shift the funding away from property taxes toward income taxes. Another choice is to seriously consider controlling education costs as enrollments inexorably decline.

My guess is they will justify rearranging the funding for a system whose costs are spiraling out of control because this is easier than controlling or reducing costs. Their argument will be that cost (spending) decisions are local. The disconnect is the crux of the problem.

These quotes from today's Burlington Free Press Point/Counterpoint: Financing Vermont's School Systems demonstrate the chasm to be crossed.


From the "Revolt and Repeal" group:

"Apologists for this system continue to argue that it merely needs a few "adjustments." This assertion ignores an inconvenient fact -- for a decade the system has been almost continuously 'adjusted' until it is now so complicated that virtually no one understands it. Meanwhile Vermonters are being driven out of their homes, off their land and out of the state -- all thanks to a system which has also severed the connection between local school budgets and local taxes.

Clearly, something is wrong.

Consider these findings, gleaned from data in an October 2006 report from the state Education Department:

Between 2003 and 2006, the number of public school students declined by 3,342;

Over that same period, the number of employees in Vermont's educational system increased by 2,172;

Administrative support staff increased 88 percent.

So, for every 1.5 students we lost through declining enrollment, we added one additional employee, many of them administrative, to the payroll."

From the Chair and Co-chair of the House Ways and Means Committee:

"First, all Vermont children deserve an equal educational opportunity.

Second, Vermonters should pay their school taxes based on their ability to pay.

Third, there must be incentives to deliver high quality education in a cost-effective way.

Using these principles as a guide, we will look for ways to contain the costs of public education without compromising quality or jeopardizing small schools that are so important to our rural communities. We will continue the hard work of addressing health care and energy costs, two of the key drivers of school budgets. But fundamental questions such as our governance structure, increasing numbers of children with special needs, and the ever increasing expectations our communities have of our schools must also be part of any serious discussion of school costs."

One could argue, I suppose, that the legislators' opinion is the voice of reason while the first is a radical knee-jerk reaction to a looming crisis.

My take on our education dilemma is that first and foremost we have a spending (cost) problem. How can we possibly justify adding employees to a system that continues to lose students? That makes no sense. Of course, I understand that these hiring decisions are mostly 'local' and were perfectly justified by those hiring them. And I know well the arguments of health care spending, growing special education demand, rising energy costs, etc. All the arguments individually can be supported by their proponents, but the result on a Statewide basis is unacceptable and, left unchecked, will create an unsustainable tax burden for Vermonters, regardless of the type of tax.

We must fix the cost problem before rearranging the funding sources. Governor Douglas agrees. I encourage the Legislature to act likewise, otherwise they will bite off more than they can chew.