| by the Journal-Opinion Blue Mountain Union in Wells River could be one of the beneficiaries of a 2022 state law that ‘dramatically shifts’ Vermont’s education funding system. “The intent of Act 127 is, put simply, to direct education money toward students who need it more,” reports VTDigger. “The law is based on the understanding that certain categories of students cost more to educate. Those categories include low-income students, English language learners, and students at rural and small schools.” It does not get much more ‘rural and small’ than preK-12 BMU, which is anticipating an influx of state revenue under Act 127. Wells River is located in Orange County along the Connecticut River. The district’s equalized pupils, a variable used in determining the amount of state revenue local districts generate, have “basically doubled” school board members from Groton, Ryegate, and Wells River learned last night. With town meeting just around the corner, board members have been reviewing a proposed 2024-2025 budget. And while it may be another month or so before a draft is finalized, officials say they could propose an increase in education spending by as much as 20% with negligible impact on property tax rates. The new revenue will enable the district to retain several interventionists supported by federal pandemic relief funding set to expire at the end of the current academic year. BMU could also add a handful of new positions, set funding aside for a building renovation study, and purchase new books for students. Winooski, with its high number of English Language Learners, is another district that is prepared to use new state revenue to keep staff that were supported by federal pandemic relief. Not all districts, however, will benefit under Act 127, which takes effect on July 1, 2024. Mount Mansfield, for instance, states it may have to reduce education spending by over $6.6 million to maintain level property tax rates. Champlain Valley is another district that is preparing for adverse impacts under Act 127. The Journal-Opinion is the weekly newspaper serving Orange County and surrounding towns on both sides of the Connecticut River. Read more and subscribe (both free and paid packages) at http://www.jonews.com. |
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Education
Re: “The law is based on the understanding that certain categories of students cost more to educate. Those categories include low-income students, English language learners, and students at rural and small schools.”
This is nothing new. The Agency of Education has been ‘equalizing’ education spending ever since the Brigham v. State ruling in 1997. The AOE and education bureaucrats have also used the process to arbitrarily inflate enrollments.
So, how has it been going after 25 years of this nonsense?
The cost per student has more than doubled.
Student academic performance has cratered.
Student enrollments have declined 25%.
And the Agency of Education has as many employees as there are students.
Keep on ‘grappling’. That’s what you’re good at.
Mr. Eshelman, I am curious. I ask you because I understand your background in serving the school board in your town amongst other experiences. And because I usually respect your take on a situation. My query is this: Why would “low-income students” cost more to educate? The other categories make sense to me but being poor should not cost anyone anymore. Unless you are factoring in the meals, the amount of social support to the family. Seriously, just curious.
A quick search on the interwebs and this is one result from some website called “Momentous Institute”: ” … higher levels of stress, which can inhibit cognitive functioning – aka learning. They’re less likely to have received quality prior education, so they enter kindergarten at an educational disadvantage. Their families are less likely to be able to afford school supplies or pay for field trips or extracurricular activities. They’re more likely to miss more days of school for health-related or transportation-related issues.”
Not sure how this equates out to costing the district more. Does the school then have to pay for their supplies or out of pocket expenses? Do they have to hire extra staff to bring the student up to speed or help them catch up for health or transportation related issues? Or is that funding come from somewhere else?
Another site, thedvocate.org stated because poor families come from poor communities, they collect less taxes and therefore have less funding. Does this play out here in Vermont? Does that mean it costs more to educate children in Readsboro than in Burlington or Rutland?
Or is that just an unproven but wholly accepted concept perpetrated by MSM and other various entities? I appreciate any information you may be willing to share.
Respectfully,
Pam Baker