The current educational funding formula is not constitutional, effective, or equitable.

by Tom Evslin

Unconstitutional

“Children who live in property-poor districts and children who live in property-rich districts should be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to similar educational revenues,” ruled the Vermont Court in its 1997 Brigham decision. Next year the State will fund expenditures of over $40,000 per student in Winooski and about $20,000 per student in the Elmore-Morristown district!

The Court also said “In the funding of what our Constitution places at the core of a successful democracy, the children of Vermont are entitled to a reasonably equal share.“ They were concerned that property-poor towns were in some case spending only half as much per student as property-rich towns. Now, thanks to the Vermont legislature, Elmore-Morristown will be able to spend only half as much per student as Winooski. This is not “a reasonably equal share”. To add insult to injury, estimates are that educational property taxes on primary residences (which go into a statewide fund) will go up this year 5% in Morristown and 11% in Elmore while going down in Winooski!

The legislature justified these disparities in funding by creating the fictional “equalized pupil”.  For example, a student from a non-English-speaking poor family counts for more than 4 times as many “equalized pupils” as a student from a wealthier English-speaking family. If you want the math and details of this, I posted them here. Winooski has about the same number of actual students as Elmore-Morristown; but it has almost twice as many “equalized pupils”. “Equalized” has the same meaning in this context as the famous line in George Orwell’s Animal Farm that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

The Brigham decision said that the revenues available per student must be reasonably equal. It did not say per equalized pupil.

Ineffectual

Ironically, the extra money Winooski has gotten in past years (although not as wildly disproportionate) has not resulted in better results. Winooski students in every grade perform under the state average in standardized testing for proficiency in every grade and in every subject; students in the Elmore-Morristown district in all grades perform better on proficiency tests for math and English competency than the state average. School funding doesn’t depend on results. Even though Vermont spends more per actual student than any other state, our results on standardized tests are only in the middle of the pack.

Inequitable

It’s not only the funding which is inequitable; so is the quality of education in different schools in different districts. Some are able to offer a wealth of courses; some can’t. Some districts have better leadership. Pockets of poverty and/or rural isolation add to the burden of some districts. Students whose parents cannot afford tuition must, in most districts, go to their local schools no matter how poor their education will be.

School choice

School choice will lead to effective equitable results and may be constitutionally required. The Brigham decision said that educational opportunity must be equitable but left the mechanism for achieving equity to the legislature. So far the legislature has only created new inequities in funding and done nothing about access to equal quality. If all students in Vermont can go to any public school in the state which their parents choose, there will literally be equal opportunity within the limits of geography.

School funding will be very simple. The state allocates a certain sufficient amount per student and the money goes to whichever school the student attends. Today, the Stowe district allows a limited number of students to attend from other districts; but the money for those students stays in the districts where the students live assuming those districts have schools. Since Stowe can’t afford to let in a large number of students for which it is not compensated, the scarce slots are allocated by lottery. If the money came with the students, the receiving schools, the schools where parents choose to send their kids, will have the money to add students and staff. The under-achieving schools will shrink and some will disappear.

Since our school population is continuing to decline, we must close some schools. School choice means that the best schools will thrive as will their students. Districts should be free to spend more than the state-provided funds on their schools, perhaps as an investment in attracting more students. This extra spending will NOT cause inequity since the benefits will be available to students from anywhere in the state.

It will not be easy to transition to school choice. The various educational unions hate the idea. No school can immediately grow to accommodate all the students who may want to go there. School construction funding must be part of the solution as well as creative use of temporary classrooms. Transportation is a problem which must be solved. There must be a transition plan for students at schools which are closing.

School choice means better education. That’s why it is needed.

The author, an author, entrepreneur, former Vermont state cabinet officer, lives in Stowe. He founded NG Advantage, a natural gas truck delivery company. This commentary is republished with permission from his blog, Fractals of Change.