by Tom Pelham
In February 1997, Vermont’s Supreme Court found “the current system for funding public education in Vermont, with its substantial dependence on local property taxes and resultant wide disparities in revenues available to local school districts” is in violation of the Vermont Constitution. In response, in June 1997, the Vermont Legislature and Governor enacted the Equal Educational Opportunity Act—Act 60— a Vermont law intended to achieve a fair balance of educational spending across school districts independent of the degree of prosperity within each district. Act 60 was followed by Acts 68 and 130, which addressed some imbalances caused by Act 60. Acts 68 and 130, established a system to pool the state’s educational budgetary requirements from across jurisdictions and pay for them, in part, with pooled statewide property taxes.
Yet, despite these structural changes (or maybe because of them), school budgets for the coming fiscal year are in chaos. VT Digger reports that “State economists, using the latest available school budget projections, have predicted that education spending could increase almost 15% next year. As a result, the latest modeling indicates the average Vermonter could expect education property tax bills to increase 20%”. “School officials say a variety of factors have compounded soaring budgets this year, from disappearing federal dollars, increasing health care costs, school construction needs, teacher salaries, special education costs and more.”
It does appear that since the passage of Act 60, that school boards and legislators have allowed themselves to become overwhelmed by the amount of school budgets and the school budget approval process. Consider these underlying facts:
- The National Center for Education Statistics reports that Vermont’s enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has dropped by 18,395 students, or 18%, from 102,049 in 2000 to 83,654 in 2022.
- Yet, despite the above significant drop in school enrollments, the actuarial analyses of the Vermont State Teachers’ Retirement System for fiscal 2000 and 2023 indicate the number of active teachers in Vermont’s schools has remained essentially flat at 10,389 in FY 2000 and 10,618 in FY 2023.
- Further, the National Education Association Rankings of States profiles Vermont as having the lowest ratio of enrolled students per teacher at 10.2 as compared to the national average of 15.3. Further, the Education Data Initiative profiles Vermont as spending the second highest amount per pupil on k-12 education at $24,666. The EDI profiles the national average at $19,380.
- Regarding taxpayer burdens, the Legislature’s “FY 2000 Fiscal Facts” profiles the Education Fund as providing $420.2 million in revenues toward k-12 education appropriations. For the current fiscal year 2023, the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office reports that amount has increased to $1.92 billion.
The passage of Act 60 and its amendments has been embraced by most Vermonters. Equitable access to educational resources across all Vermont communities is both the law and the right public policy. However, one casualty of these reforms has been the erosion of the long-standing connection enjoyed by Vermonters relative to the passage of local school budgets. In today’s world of “equalized pupils”, “income sensitivity”, “pupil weights relative to economic and language differences”, “5% spending caps” among many other mandates established by the legislature, it’s hard if not impossible for most everyday Vermonters to understand the budget they are being asked to support. Given the strong influence of special interest advocates, school budgets have been substantially hijacked over the years and are now indecipherable and unaffordable for most Vermonters.
As noted above, Vermonters already spend generously on their public education system. A 20% increase is unreasonable and intolerable. Given the amount Vermonters already spend on k-12 education, sending budgets back to school boards and the legislature to craft and enact fiscal reforms is the responsible course. It’s OK for Vermonters to vote no on school budgets and deliver the message that the current entangled and costly system is not OK.
This commentary is by Tom Pelham of Berlin, who was finance commissioner in the Dean administration and tax commissioner in the Douglas administration and served on the Appropriations Committee in the Vermont House as an Independent
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Education
Thank you Tom for the first understandable summary of how we got into this mess. We now need to round up the experts to find our way out of this. The simple solution is to mandate that the pupil ratio not be allowed to exceed the national average of 15.3 in any school district. Districts that exceed that should be required to forgo some funding.
Let’s get to work on the solutions!
I totally agree with you Charlie. I have been saying for a long time that reducing the teacher to student ratio would reduce the Ed Budget significantly, incl. our property taxes. I witnessed this first hand when I subbed at my local school. Also-in general-most folks have no idea the number of special Ed Assistants required for “challenged” students. That includes not only students needing learning assist, but many requiring behavioral attention. I could elaborate on that issue, but not hear and now. Thank you Tom for your summary, as usual. I just wish at least some of those folks under the Golden Dome would seriously lsten to you.
Are you suggesting that children with special needs should not be served? Federal law requires special education and related services to those children. As far as costs go, special education aides are paid much less than accredited teachers.
Mark: It’s not that children with disabilities shouldn’t be served. It’s that children labeled with disabilities often aren’t disabled. When I served on our local school board years ago, the AOE audited our district Special Education (SPED) program and found that forty percent of the students coded as learning disabled simply were’nt taught to read properly in early elementary grades.
And ‘behavioral’ disabilities are the latest gravy train. Keep in mind that Special Education spending is reimbursed the year following the initial expenditure. The more SPED spending, the larger the reimbursement a year later. The incentives are for more and more students to be coded as learning disabled.
If only it was that simple. Unless you’re proposing to consolidate rural elementary schools and require young children to bus long distances, there is no way that Vermont can reach the national average teacher-pupil ratio. Everything looks simple when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You have an issue with bussing? Huh. So did Joe Biden a few decades ago.
Re: “Unless you’re proposing to consolidate rural elementary schools and require young children to bus long distances,…”
This is what I call an ‘Armageddon Response’. There are many alternatives to consolidation and lengthy bussing. One size doesn’t fit all. Never has. Never will.
There is almost no one left to drive the busses.
one who can not come to a result/// will depend on experts/// bad advice///
Re: “The National Center for Education Statistics reports that Vermont’s enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has dropped by 18,395 students, or 18%, from 102,049 in 2000 to 83,654 in 2022. ”
The NCES has it wrong. There are only 72,093 K-12 students in Vermont’s public school system.
Re: “Further, the National Education Association Rankings of States profiles Vermont as having the lowest ratio of enrolled students per teacher at 10.2 as compared to the national average of 15.3. Further, the Education Data Initiative profiles Vermont as spending the second highest amount per pupil on k-12 education at $24,666. The EDI profiles the national average at $19,380.”
The Vermont Agency of Education employes more than 37,000 people, from bus drivers to teachers to superintendents to student interventionists. That’s fewer than two K-12 students per employee, each employee with higher-than-average pay rates and gold-plated benefits.
Re: “Regarding taxpayer burdens, the Legislature’s “FY 2000 Fiscal Facts” profiles the Education Fund as providing $420.2 million in revenues toward k-12 education appropriations. For the current fiscal year 2023, the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office reports that amount has increased to $1.92 billion.”
The current 2025 Agency of Education spending report projects a $2.7 billion education spending total. That’s more than $37,000 per K-12 student.
One last point: It won’t matter that you vote down your school budget – except, perhaps, to make a political statement. You have to get your legislators to change the law – and there is a fat chance of that happening.
As the law currently stands, when a budget is voted down, the school district can continue to operate using a percentage of the previous year’s spending as a benchmark, and it can deficit spend at its own discretion. As long as it reports the deficit each year, taxpayers are required to pay the bill. Unless the laws are changed, there’s no stopping this public education monopoly juggernaut.
People need to vote ” No ” It won’t change a thing for now, but they’ll start to worry
and your elected officials will get the message that they are not doing what the people want and they’ll be gone…………………………… Vote them out, be it the Governor,
House or Senate member, and your local cast of clowns, that’s all they’ll understand !!
If you think your schools are doing a great job, check the test scores, then you’ll understand, they don’t care !!
https://www.timesargus.com/opinion/letters/vote-no/article_3049c7c7-1800-54c1-bbbc-c9e5fd4b0609.html
Although the author mentions components of Act 127, he does not name the act which is an “equity”driven law passed in 2022. While so called equity might seem like a fair or nice concept, its implementation into law has never worked and only leads to regression, be it economical, educational, criminal, etc. Know the tree by its fruit. The equity tree needs to be tossed in the woodstove.
..If you vote no for the school budget people will claim that you don’t care about the children. I have voted no for school budgets for years and I do care about the children. ..The school board in my district have already cut many of the programs that were beneficial to the children. The school board claims we have to have the best teachers but over the years we have had the same teachers. The main reason I vote no for the school budgets is the teachers and employee’s health benefits. I have had to pay for teachers health care benefits , while I could not afford health insurance for myself. The teachers have been totally unreasonable about paying their share for health benefits. They want to claim it is not their fault health care costs so much so just pay your property taxes. This is what happens when the people in my district complain about the high education tax. The school board immediately threatens to cut busing . The parents get hysterical and vote for the budget. I hope people will vote no for their school budgets. The cost per student is too high and the number of staff per student is too high. I’m glad some of the actual figures are finally being published. Finally, I am hearing that many teachers are leaving their profession because they don’t like all the foolishness they have to put up with in the schools. In my district children are allowed to identify as animals.
Student are allowed to identify as animals in your district? Really? That’s awful! Do they moo and bark and meow or what? Can they hold a crayon? Does the district put out litter boxes? What a mess!
Don’t worry, I have been for the last 5 or so years and will continue to do so without a smidgen of guilt
Another missing component in this article is academic proficiency. It would be one thing if cost of education and student academic proficiency rose simultaneously. The reality is, the bigger and more expensive the bureaucratic education industrial complex becomes, the less educated graduating students are. I might be willing to pay more when I get a better product but simply simply put, this is bad business.
Willing to pay more? More than $37,000 per student?
Re: “Another missing component in this article is academic proficiency.”
Yep. At last count more than 50% of high school graduates didn’t meet minimum grade level standards in reading, writing, math, or science. Not to mention the destruction of the family unit via parental lock out on gender dysphoria and healthcare issues, the quadrupling of drug overdoses over ten years, and the doubling of 15 – 24 year-old suicides last year alone. It’s hard to fathom the extent to which the behavioral breakdown of our societal norms is accelerating. And still, public educators are going to point their fingers at parents, even while they and their legislature enablers do everything they can to prevent parents from being able to choose the education programs they believe best for their children.
Again, this discussion is about the difficulties we face funding schooling institutions and their infrastructure…the organizations intended to provide schooling services to families. Wouldn’t it be simpler to skip over these middleman organizations and just give the funds directly to the families trying to educate their kids. The legislative function would be to vote on the per pupil commitment the constituents wish to make. Those funds are set aside for families to use. The curriculum, teachers, and schooling services would be a la carte decisions of families.
RE: “…sending budgets back to school boards and the legislature to craft and enact fiscal reforms is the responsible course. It’s OK for Vermonters to vote no on school budgets and deliver the message that the current entangled and costly system is not OK.”
I suspect this is a near perfect articulation of what’s behind most “no” votes. Where do we go from here, though? As a local school board member, if our budget is shot down on Tuesday, we are the ones stuck cutting local staff and programs, which in my opinion are already pretty fiscally conservative. I’m concerned that the pain will all be felt locally, while the legislature will not get the message that is intended for them by the voters. Any suggestions on how school districts can help deliver that message from the voters to Montpelier that “the current entangled and costly system is not OK”? Is it fair (or “equitable” in the preferred parlance) that we are forced to make deep, painful, and likely detrimental budget cuts at the local level while the Agency of Education and expensive items like universal school meals sit unscathed?