Scribblings: An occasional letter from a former legislator

by Thomas F. Koch

Education finance is the leading candidate for the most significant political issue affecting Vermonters’ lives this year.  It began on December 1, 2023 when the Tax Commissioner, as required by law, estimated the increase in education taxes to be about 20%.  It overshadowed  the ensuing legislative session, causing legislative leadership to react as if this were some unforeseen emergency.  And it dominated the legislative elections this fall, resulting in a substantial gain in legislative seats by Republicans, who nevertheless remain the minority party in the State House.

With the new legislative session about to open, it might be wise to focus on what the legislature has done in the past to solve this problem, and what it might do in the coming session.

The picture is not pretty, and the legislature has little or nothing to brag about when it comes to education finance. Goaded by an activist Vermont Supreme Court that exceeded judicial propriety and created law by fiat, the legislature enacted Act 60 in 1998, essentially equating dollars spent with equality of education opportunity.  Act 60 remains the basic framework of Vermont’s education finance system.  It was modified three years later by Act 68; by Act 46 in 2015, which was designed to save expenses by school district consolidation (it didn’t); and effective just this year, by redesigning the distribution formula to give more money to districts with students thought to cost more to educate than the rest of the districts in the state.  Meanwhile, student population declined from 107,000 students in 1998 to 84,000 students currently, and the cost of education has soared from $700 million/year to $2.23 billion/year. 

Faced with a taxpayers’ revolt, and not having any immediate solutions, the legislature adhered to the time-honored advice to “do something, even if it’s wrong.”  They did something, and indeed, it was wrong: they created a study committee, thereby passing the buck to a group of “stakeholders” with the mission to study the provision of education in Vermont and make recommendations for a statewide vision for Vermont’s public education system to ensure that all students are afforded substantially equal educational opportunities in an efficient, sustainable, and stable education system.  The committee’s first report was due on December 15, 2024 and was submitted essentially on time.  But that’s about all the good that can be said for it.

 Consisting of a total of 13 pages, page 1 is the cover page, page 2 is an index to the remaining 11 pages, and page 3 and the first half of page 4 summarize the creation, mission, and membership of the committee.  The next eight pages summarize some already well-known facts about Vermont’s education system, and the final page, labeled “Recommendations to the General Assembly,” proceeds to explain why the committee has, in fact, no substantive recommendations to make at this time!  Instead, the committee plans to hire a consultant to take public input on both “short-and-long-term education policies” and also proposes that it should continue to work “to analyze the intersecting policy challenges within the context of its guiding principles of Equity, Quality, Sustainability and Affordability and make critical recommendations in 2025.”  One might be excused if one chooses to ask why, after that bit of word salad and 14 pages of nothing, the committee should be allowed to waste taxpayers’ money by continuing in existence for another year.

What, then, comes next?  Let me suggest that the legislature should MAKE EDUCATION REFORM PRIORITY ONE for the next two years. Rather than passing the buck to some outside committee or consultant, the legislature should use its regular committee process and ensuing floor debate to respond to the demands the people of Vermont made, loud and clear, last November 5.  The Speaker should instruct the House committees on Education and on Ways and Means to consider nothing except education reform, except for absolutely necessary matters; and the President Pro Tem should give similar instructions to the Senate committees on Education and on Finance. They should take testimony from the full range of public opinion, investigate what works for the 49 other states, receive expert testimony, and do whatever is needed to pass an education reform bill not later than April 15, 2026.

In undertaking this project, it is important to realize that changing the way education taxes are paid does nothing to control the total cost of maintaining our present education system.  We frequently speak of property tax reform, because the property tax is the principal source of funds for the education fund.  But reducing the property tax by substituting a new tax, or onr or more increased taxes (as the legislature actually did this past year!!), does not amount to anything except—to use a well worn cliché—rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Education reform means not just changing the way we pay the bills, but substantially reorganizing the way we educate our children, with a view toward delivering a better product at a lesser cost!  This is no easy task, but it is a necessary one.

So, let this citizen offer a summary of some ideas which I believe the legislature should consider as it undertakes this massive task.

First, consider consolidating school districts.  While this is a hard sell after the failure of Act 46 to deliver its promised savings, I am convinced that there is a lot of administrative work being duplicated among the 62 supervisory unions and 17 career technical centers remaining after Act 46.  Though I don’t have the proof of this, I believe that proper investigation would show that data entry and paper generation is being done repetitively throughout the various school districts.  One must also ask how many curriculum coordinators, assistant principals, and directors of guidance are needed.  What if the number of school districts were to be reduced so that there would be essentially one district for each county?  Of course, one would expect that Grand Isle County would be combined with, perhaps, Franklin County; and Essex County might be combined with either Caledonia or Orleans County.  And Chittenden County might have two or three districts, rather than just one.  Just asking.  But the legislature should give serious consideration to the question of consolidation.  After all, they weren’t elected just to answer the easy questions!

Class size also needs to be considered.  Vermont has one of the very lowest student-to-staff ratios (second, I believe) in the entire country.  Personnel expense is the largest portion of a school district’s budget, and it’s difficult to justify paying a teacher if there are only 8 students in that teacher’s class.  Woodstock High School has recently been considering dropping Latin from its course offerings, due to considerations of expense.

I took Latin in high school, and I think it has helped me through the years.  I support offering Latin.  But cost needs to be considered.  Perhaps modern technology can help.  Could arrangements be made for one teacher to teach Latin to students in a group of high schools (or perhaps statewide?) by Zoom at, say, 1:30 in the afternoon?  Does the legislature have a role in enabling such arrangements?  There are millions of dollars to be saved if we can increase the student-to-staff ratios.  We need to take this task seriously, and we need to be innovative, including using modern technology in some places.

In 49 states, the legislature appropriates a sum of money to the school districts and tells them to work with it.  Vermont is not one of the 49.  Here, we adopt our school budgets by voting at town meeting on the budgets proposed by our school boards, and when all of the budgets are finally approved, they are added up, and the total bill is sent to the legislature, which then proceeds to set the property tax rates at a level sufficient to raise the funds to pay the bill. It’s called “local control,” and while there is a local aspect to it, there certainly has been no “control” exercised in the years since Act 60 was adopted.  In this system, a town can actually adopt a budget that is less than the previous year’s budget, and its tax rate may go up anyway.  That provides little incentive to keep budgets under control.  Indeed, Act 60 has sometimes been described, understandably,  as an ATM for the benefit of the education establishment.  The legislature needs to consider adopting a system similar to that used in the other 49 states.

That said, we once had a system called a “foundation formula,” as well as several systems over the years that were similar, and it was this type of system that the Vermont Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in the Brigham decision.  Because some “rich” towns could supplement the amount provided by the state in a manner that “poor” towns could not, the Supreme Court found that the state’s education system was providing unequal educations between students of different towns, depending on the “wealth” (however measured) of their respective towns.  Other than a direct challenge in the Supreme Court, asking the Court to overrule their predecessors’ inane decision, I would suggest two provisions that would likely comply with the strictures of the Brigham decision.

First, if a district chooses to augment the amount of the foundation formula provided by the state for the operation of its schools, it must raise an equal amount to be deposited into the state’s education fund, for distribution to “poorer” districts who wish to augment their own budgets but are less able to do so.

Second, the legislature should adopt a system of “school choice,” where students and their parents or guardians who feel that their student is not doing well in their local school can choose to enroll in another school of their choice, and significantly, the pro rata share of the sending school’s budget will travel with the student to the receiving school.  Each of these suggestions will have advocates and opponents, but any solution that both complies with Brigham and improves the current education system will be enacted only if legislators can summon the courage to overcome the possibly vehement opposition of certain factions.

Did you vote for a legislator with such courage?  Just asking.

Another suggestion is that items that are not strictly educational should be paid for by some source other than the education fund.  The universal school lunch program comes to mind.  While one can make the argument that a student learns better on a full stomach, it is hard to justify the program as being “strictly educational,” and the savings to the education fund (which would admittedly have to be made up elsewhere) is about $30 million.  I’m sure if one chooses to look, there are similar methods of trimming the pressures on the ed fund.

So, those are just one citizen’s suggestions.  But what are my ACTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS to the legislature?

First, recognize the seriousness of the situation.  There are Vermonters who cannot afford to pay the taxes on their homes, and they are at risk of losing their homes, moving to a more affordable state, or becoming homeless.  This begs for a legislative solution, sooner rather than later.

Next, it’s fine to ask the governor for his recommendations, and I suspect, without actually knowing, that he will have a package of recommendations ready early in 2025.  If he does not, however, or if his recommendations are not agreeable to the legislative majority, remember that the primary responsibility for developing legislation resides with the legislature.  Blaming the governor doesn’t solve the problem.

Third, stop passing the buck.  Forget about outside committees and consultants.  They may be useful as witnesses during the committee process, but they are not the people who ran for election and asked their constituents to put their trust in them. Vermont’s legislative committee process exists for a reason and has generally been successful for over 200 years—use it!

And last but really first: Get to work!  Do your job! Happy New Year!

“Scribblings” originated as a report on legislative affairs while the writer was a member of the Vermont House of Representatives from Barre Town.  Since then, it has been written less frequently and with less focus on the legislature and more of whatever happens to move the writer.  If you are not on the distribution list and wish to be added, simply send your name, town of residence, and email address to TomKochVT@gmail.com.