|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Paul Bean
After a year that saw school spending jump 20%, school leaders, lawmakers and taxpayers should brace for another potential school spending and tax tsunami, unless corrective measures are taken, the Vermont School Board Association said.
In August, The Vermont School Board Association sent a letter outlining the main cost drivers for education for next year – not this year, but the budget the Legislature will be preparing in January.
Nothing the widespread rejection of school budgets at this year’s Town Meeting, the VSBA said that “Vermont cannot endure an FY2026 budget cycle like FY2025. Without successful efforts to significantly reduce the rate of increase in school district spending proposals for FY2026 as compared to FY2025, more budgets could fail.”
Here are some of the cost centers:
Personnel. Vermont has a 4.4/1 pupil-to-staff ratio, the lowest in the nation. The FY2023 cost of school system wages, salaries, and benefits totaled $991 million. The entire budget for the State of Vermont was $8.5 billion. Assuming an annual 6% salary hike since FY2023, “that is a significant contributor to increased education spending across the state.”
(It’s worthwhile to note here that the Vermont NEA, the teachers’ union, did not co-sign the letter.)
Healthcare is a key driver of rising personnel costs. “Given that no structural changes are expected to happen with the VEHI plans in the coming year, we anticipate that FY26 will bring another year of double-digit rate increases similar to last year.”
Healthcare coverage is one of the biggest incentives for folks to join and stay in the education workforce. It isn’t cheap. States the report: “Spending on health insurance premiums (only) was $211 million in FY2023. Assuming this increased by 12.5% in FY2024 and 16.4% in FY25, then a 17% increase in FY2026 would cost an additional $42 million to the State Education Fund.”
Special Education costs are “predicted to increase by approximately $40 million between FY2024 and FY2025.”
This increase in special education costs is the result of a continued transition in education spending put forth by Act 173 of 2018, a law “enhancing the effectiveness, availability and equity of services provided to students who require additional support,” the state website says.
Facilities. If all of this was not enough, one of the most concerning figures is the cost of upgrading and replacing school buildings and facilities. “In a report to the Vermont House Education Committee in January 2024, the Agency of Education stated that immediate facilities needs for the state totaled $228,613,264 and placed total costs at $6,352,324,952,” said the VSBA report, which warns: “These figures, according to the Agency, are likely an underestimate.”
Inflation. The overall inflation rate, running at 4% annually, also affects school budgeting, the letter said.
Tuition increases. The three signers, all affiliated with public schools, also took a shot at paying tuitions to private schools: “Overall tuition costs increased 5% from FY2022 to FY2023. For every student educated outside the public education system, it drives up the cost per pupil within the system. This directly increases property tax rates.”
Excess Education Spending – The excess education spending threshold (118% of statewide average) has been reinstated beginning in FY2026. The legislature repealed the exemption of voter-approved bond payments from the excess spending threshold. BUT – for all bonds approved by voters prior to July 1, 2024, voter-approved bond payments toward principal and interest will not be included in education spending for purposes of calculating the excess spending threshold.
This ‘exempt’ bond spending was a big driver in last year’s out-of-control education spending. And the payments for those bonds enacted pre-July 1, 2024 will still be exempt.
What can be done?
The letter recommends local school boards review several areas of potential cost-containment:
- “Responsible budgeting” by local school leaders.
- Pay more attention to class size. “Vermont law currently does not set minimum class sizes; however, pursuant to Act 153 of 2010 all school districts must have minimum and optimal average class sizes,” the letter notes.
- Consider school re-configuration and school size. “We anticipate that challenging conversations will surface about the number of schools operated in Vermont as a whole and in local school districts.”
The letter is skittish about cutting administrative costs. “When administrative positions are cut from budgets, some of their responsibilities are often ederal and statewide requirements. Cutting administrative personnel can mean that more responsibilities are placed on principals and teachers.”
- Collaborate with other school districts on professional learning, such as ‘in-service days.’
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Education
Spending money wantonly doesn’t produce desired results. Keep spending and taxing to cover or perhaps to cover future costs. It’s a downward death spiral. 180 mindless elite controlling 650,000. Fed liberals caused this future taxation and the local Libs go along with it without question or figuring outside the box. Vote with your feet.
Is there a reason why we never hear of the performance tsunami moving up the skills of children in public schools?
There must be some correlation between spending and end results.
No? Then someone needs to tell us how this bottomless pit ends.
Remember it is the state negotiating health insurance with the teachers! The power to negotiate with local boards was taken away by the state! Now the state complains that cost of health insurance is too high, phony’s 👎👎 The cost for the top family health plan is $40,000. With it going up 20% next year to $48,000. The state will once again complain but it is the state’s responsibility 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I’m gonna be late for my PT job trying to keep up with all the foolish spending going on that has put me into a low-income situation from mandatory sharing of my resources even though I did not make any of this expense and debt happen in America all my 65 years. Thanks a lot. My thumbs don’t work anymore and I still have to pick up heavy things people put on a cashier belt for 5 hours straight who then pay with SNAP b/c they got a great education somewhere, maybe in Vermont.
This is all policy driven. The per head per household component in the welfare incentivizes people with no parenting skills to have as many kids as possible, thus the massive increase in special ed.
My neighbor is an elementary school teacher in Southern Vermont. She says that about 75% of her students are messed up kids from messed up homes with virtually no shot at being contributing members of society.
I would suggest we start paying women on welfare to not have kids.
Yup…..we need to start having some serious discussions about our drug and alcohol problems. We have one of the highest addicted birth rates in the nation, that’s kids born addicted to crack, heroin, meth…..
Being in a household full of drugs is also not a great atmosphere…..
We’ve taken on Big City policies, and now we have big city issues.
It’s not that difficult, but those from the Big Cities that got themselves into the power seat can’t fathom they might be the cause.
We seem to spend a lot of effort discussing how to “fix” this wobbly government schooling business. Considering the “tsunami’ of costs and criticism it garners might we consider that it’s a failed venture? Should the commonweal get out of the schooling business? In order to live under our constitution with it’s underpinning of individual liberty, society has an interest in having an educated citizenry. Instead of continuing to invest in organizations and their ever growing self-serving infrastructure wouldn’t we be better served by investing our tax dollars directly with parents/citizens? Return their freedom to educate their kids. Teachers have skills. Let parents do business directly with them. Wouldn’t they buy schooling services and curriculum suited to their kids.
The VSBA, VSA and VPA as much as any entities, have been right in the thick of the activities through the years that have created this awful mess. That letter should go to “file 13”.
Re: Vermont has a 4.4/1 pupil-to-staff ratio, the lowest in the nation.
The Agency of Education listed over 37,000 fulltime equivalent employees back in 2021. Today, there are just over 72,000 K-12 students.
That’s less than 2 students per staff member. And that doesn’t count subcontractors or Independent School staff.
You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
Paul Bean: If you would like to see the 2021 AOE documentation, let me know.
Another HJE mea culpa.
As I was trying to publish the Agency of Education Staff Report for FY 2020-2021, I noticed that the spreadsheet included 2019-2020 staffing in the same list. It’s clear then that there are 18,988 full-time equivalent employees in our public school system – NOT the 37,000 I originally specified.
For 72,093 K-12 students this year, that’s the equivalent of 3.8 students per full time equivalent staff members, if the staff level didn’t increase over the last two years.
I’ve asked Guy to publish the report because I can’t format it to fit in the comments area.
You will see that there are ‘teachers’ listed. But you will see there are only 7 teacher categories and 62 other staff categories in addition to teachers. And I’m not sure if the 161 Agency of Education administrative staff are included in this report either. Suffice it to say – it’s a lot of people.
Also keep in mind that there are 7843 Pre-K students in addition to the 72,093 K-12 students. But these are 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children who are not full-time students. And in my district, for example, Pre-K services are provided by independent subcontractors at a cost of about $3000 per student. So, in the greater scheme of things, their effect on the over cost of the AOE education system is insignificant.
Again – I want to apologize for initially misrepresenting the overall AOE staff count.
How many of you complaining about your property taxes are prepared to close your small, rural, inefficient school to help control statewide school spending?
I bet you could run a small private school for less than 1/4 of what is being paid for by the state.
It’s called the internet.
They closed all the small schools, to save money. Somehow that doesn’t seem to be working, does it? Every major plan is done to save money, and every major change ends up costing way more money. Huh….
Could it be they are overpaid, poorly run and a complete failure. Nope
And they won’t allow any, I mean ANY competition for education. Wonder why? Oh yeah, it’s to save money.
We couldn’t possibly to anything at all to improve our schools, no they are absolutely, perfect, just send more money.
Just send more money.
Here’s a novel idea, there are cities that have more population than our entire state and one superintendent.
That one idea could save what millions?
Perhaps the fact that unelected supervisory unions and plentiful, overcompensated staffers gobble up more money than a small, rural school could ever spend. Hogs at the trough who are nothing more than dead weight on a failed institution. Johnny can’t read or write because adminstrators and NGOs earn ten times more than the a majority of taxpayers they pretend to serve.
Mark: Do you know what a false dichotomy is? Close your small school or shut up.
When will you stop beating your wife? or your dog? or your friends and neighbors?
Here’s a thought.
Given Vermont’s $2.7 billion education system, controlled by the Agency of Education, serving 72,000 K-12 students @ $36,000 per student…. why not close the public education system, give every parent $30,000 for each child in grades K-12, let them choose whatever approved school they feel is best for their child, and decrease property taxes by 15% instead of increasing them 15%?
IF we gave the parents $10k to go to any school, we’d have an explosion of quality private schools, our tax bill would drop 60%. Great outcomes for everyone in the animal farm, except for the more equal marxist pigs. It would be nice to hear them squealing all the way home.
Of course, Neil (et al), the best thing the legislature can do is pass the H.405 School Choice bill, currently tabled in the Education Committee. Because Vermont already provides a voucher to some parents to choose the school that best meets the needs of their children, through what is called ‘tuitioning’, simply expanding that option to all students (as H.405 proposes to do) will not only lower the cost per student to $18,346 for Elementary students and $19,774 for 7th-12th grade students, it will improve both the existing public schools and independent schools as they compete for students and begin a decline in the property taxes currently controlled by the State public school monopoly.
The system exists and it works well. Just not for all Vermont students (which is, of course, unconstitutional).
But, unfortunately, no matter how many times H.405 is considered or discussed, the concept is forgotten in the incessant ramblings of perennial complainers and whiners, legislators, taxpayers and curiously, our esteemed Governor. Why is that? Just pass H.405. Or at least explain why you think it’s not appropriate to do so.
I can already hear the crickets.
A lot of the problems come from kids social
media involvement. Take away their cell phones during school would be a good first step. A small step perhaps, but an important beginning.
This is what happens when some pigs are more equal than others.
Why isn’t anyone asking, How come we have so much special ed?
1) They classify students how don’t need it to be in the program, more money.
2) Drugs and alcohol have a bad impact on “product of conceptions”
3) Drugs and alcohol in the home have a bad impact on the young children.
4) Planned Parenthood says 50% of children are unplanned, making their plan a complete failure.
5) Starting a family before marriage, before getting a job, before finishing high school is problematic.
6) Feeding our children what is approved by the FDA is poison for their brains and bodies.
7) Feeding the children what is on our store shelves is retarding their physical health, intelligence and general outlook in life.
8) We, per capita have one of the highest addicted birth rates in the nation, that is babies born addicted to crack, meth, heroin, etc. That’s a tough start.
9) What about the 72 vaccines?
10) What about all the drugs, ritilin aka kiddy cocaine, etc, etc.
See they aren’t interested in your kids, they are interested in your money, they are interested in your child being a ward of the state, being a medical experiment their entire lives.
We are big on Farm to Plate, but somehow our children don’t even register. Have some more fruity pebbles and chocolate milk, with a big hand ful of skittles and a mountain dew, what could possibly go wrong.
Our kids don’t have a chance in this state.
We can do much better in Vermont, much better.
Too much special Ed.
Did you know that teachers are now given assignments as “co-teachers” in VT public schools? That’s two, 100k/yr teachers working the same class. Yup, this has become common. The “support” staff is another bottomless pit where millions are thrown at students who rarely show up to school but if they do, there’s a group of virtuous teachers waiting in the empty room to welcome them, usually with prizes of some sort. Give me a hatchet and I’ll cut Vermont school spending in half and results will at the very least, stay the same.
Every supervisory union and the Vermont Agency of Education could float down the Connecticut River into the Atlantic Ocean and the result would be much lower taxes and a huge increase in academic achievement.