By Donald Koch

As people across the state open their property tax bills this year, there is a lot of talk about property tax reform and education funding.  But let’s be clear: Although we can improve the way we pay for education, we have more of a spending problem than a funding problem, and until we figure out how to reduce our education spending, our tax bills will continue to go up, regardless of whether those bills are for property, income, sales, or some other tax! And as soon as you begin to cut, someone is going to scream bloody murder, and therein lies our problem.

It may help to review some frequently repeated facts about our educational system.  Since Act 60 was adopted in 1998, our student population has dropped by nearly 25%.  Our student to staff ratio is the second highest in the country.  Our spending per student is the second highest in the country.  Our student population per supervisory union varies greatly from one supervisory union to another within Vermont, but compared to many school districts in other states, our student population per district seems quite small.  Our standardized test results are generally mediocre.  Vermonters place a high value on local control

Given those facts, as well as many others not stated here, what changes can we make to get our expenses under control?  Let me think out loud, not advocating for any particular solution, but rather laying several ideas on the table for consideration and inviting others.  I believe that we can crack this nut only if we approach the project with open minds.  But first, let me set out several thoughts that I would consider principles.

1. What we seek for our children is excellence in education—the opportunity to excel.
2. We honor and respect our teachers; they are the ones primarily responsible for delivering that excellent education to our children.
3. We value local control.  To a large extent, Act 60 has eliminated local control by severing the direct relationship between local budgets and local tax bills.  To the extent possible, Vermonters would like that relationship restored.
4. Vermont is constrained by the dictates of the Brigham decision, which requires the state to provide an essentially equal education for all students.

So here is a very incomplete, “back-of-the-envelope” menu of ideas that should be given consideration while the subject of “education reform” is being discussed.

 The number of supervisory school districts should be reduced to approximate the number of counties in the state (14).  Some counties, Essex and Grand Isle for example, might be too small to justify being a district by itself and might need to be joined with another nearby district.  Others (Chittenden, for example) might need to become more than one district.  There should be substantial administrative savings from such a reorganization, but in view of the failure of Act 46 to achieve promised savings, this will be a particularly hard sell.

The student-to-staff ratio needs to change so that there are fewer staff members, especially teachers, per student. Translation: larger classes.  Even with a commitment to a goal such as this, accomplishing it cannot be easy, due to prevailing demographics.  The question remains, however, just how long we can support a system with multiple second-grade classes in the same district, each with eight students.  School consolidations, modern technology, and much more might make some adjustments in this area possible.

Allowing parents to choose to send their children to the schools that they believe best serve the needs of their children, with state or district funding to “follow” the children, might be one way to adhere to the first principle set out above: providing opportunities for children to excel.  Programs of this nature have been tried in other states, with varying regulations and varying degrees of success.  Such programs have been cited as a means of allowing students in failing inner-city schools to escape to better schools; on the other hand, the flight of good students from failing schools might just condemn those schools to further failing.

Some programs should be recognized as more socio-economic and less educational.  Much has been said about the lack of discipline in schools and the need for behavior interventionists.  The school is also used frequently as a social service delivery system, identifying and students who need assistance outside of school.  The costs of these programs should be entirely paid for by the state out of funds not raised by the education funding formula; these are not part of the school budget.

Similarly, 100% of special education costs should be paid for by the state.  Some of these costs can be virtually astronomical, and payment for those costs should not depend upon where any particular student happens to live.  Special education is a special cause to be championed by all Vermonters, and the costs should be shared by all Vermonters.

SO, ISN’T THAT SIMPLE?  Of course not, but unless we are willing to ask the hard questions and work for answers that don’t come easily, we will not make any progress, and our tax bills for education will continue to rise uncontrollably!  That is the challenge.

Note that each of the ideas mentioned above has its proponents and opponents, and the views held by each are firmly—even vehemently—held.  Any discussion of these ideas could be described as “hot and heavy,” and I am tempted to end this position paper by saying, “Let the screaming begin!!”  But screaming won’t get the job done.  What is needed is legislative commitment and action to assure full development of the facts so that at least we have a common basis for discussion.  Then we need a calm, rational, good-faith exchange of views that allows all parties a fair opportunity to be heard.  Only then might we make some progress on this very difficult and complicated matter of improving our educational system.

 I hope to be part of that discussion as a member of the Vermont State Senate, and I respectfully ask for your vote!

The author is a candidate for the Vermont Senate in Washington County and lives in Barre