Gov. Peter Shumlin spent time on the Vermont Public Radio program Vermont Edition last week. Much of the conversation between him, host Bob Kinzel and callers focused on the governor’s speech earlier in the week to the Legislature, devoted almost entirely to the scourge of opiate drugs infesting the state — from heroin to Oxycodone.
Most of the callers stayed with the theme, although one person expressed concern about education funding and property taxes. Kinzel pointed out some critics of the ever-increasing cost of education suggest an income sensitivity provision in state law takes away taxpayers’ sense of responsibility when they vote on local school budgets. The theory is voters aren’t impacted by the size of the budget because the law allows people whose income is below a certain level to have their property taxes reduced accordingly.
Shumlin said there might be truth to the idea, but he wasn’t sure. He did say, however, he knew that 10 percent increases in school budgets could not continue. He said school boards had to put a brake on spending and keep budget increases at a reasonable level.
The theme of the call was addressed again Tuesday, Jan. 14, at St. Michael’s College. The governor, legislative leaders, education officials and various policy makers weighed in on the ever-increasing cost of education and the property tax burden.
“Do we have a challenge as we look forward with income sensitivity driving school spending beyond a sustainable rate, because of the theory that not enough voters are directly impacted by the increases that they vote?” Shumlin said. “Or is that purely untrue?”
To listen to local school board members grapple with preparing budgets for the coming school year, one would be hard-pressed to think they are drafting “wish list” budgets for their schools, with the knowledge the voters won’t be impacted by the numbers presented to them on Town Meeting Day or later in the spring.
In Walden, where the current budget was only passed last month on the sixth go-round and at an amount many voters finally saw as a “slash and burn” approach to their kids’ education, the current proposal for the coming year is $8,643 larger than what’s on the books now.
The Lakeview Union School Board is trying to find $16,000 to cut to keep next year’s budget on track. Field trips, music and physical education supplies, maintenance, books and technology were looked at as places to cut.
The story was similar in Craftsbury. The school board danced around a $14,000 figure and heard there were savings to be had with propane, fuel oil and wood pellet costs. (Turn down the heat?)
The Cabot School Board is looking at a $66,255 increase in its budget, about a 1.82 percent increase over what the school has to make do with this year. The proposal is a 0.3 percent decrease from the budget of the year before. One board member termed the figures a “Plan B” budget.
The Hazen Union School Board is looking at a 1.46 percent increase. That amount comes by eliminating a technology integrationist to work with teachers and students or eliminating additional guidance support for the middle school students, both of which are deemed important by the administrators and teachers.
Stannard is in the Lakeview Union School District and its high school students are tuitioned. The town’s school board doesn’t have a budget to whittle away at. It does have a tax rate increase on the horizon because it has more students to educate in the coming year than this year: 30 students to tuition compared to 25 currently. That’s a 20 percent increase.
Maybe that is a window into solving the crux of the cost-of-education problem Shumlin and the other politicians need to address. Everyone knows more students cost more money and fewer students do not necessarily save money, as the cost per pupil increases as the number of pupils declines.
So long as the powers that be won’t change the tax structure to get a hold of some of the money horded by the nation’s and state’s wealthy (remember the 99 percent and the 1 percent?), the choice left is to continue to increase local property taxes to pay for education, cut the budgets so the education provided returns schools to the McGuffey Reader Era, or — just get rid of students.
Perhaps, spending millions of dollars on a statewide birth control campaign would save more money in the long run than spending money on education budgets that don’t provide what students need and are burdensome to taxpayers. Getting rid of young people would also save society millions and millions of dollars — maybe billions — on clothing costs, medical bills, new iPhones, the “just got to have it” music or app or whatever. Think of the money that would be saved not having to pay for the costs of juvenile delinquency, for automobile insurance, food, drug abuse and addiction, teen pregnancy, you name it.
Kids are expensive. Don’t have any. That will save the expense and end the burdens.
Maybe that’s the campaign the governor needs to lead.
Ross Connelly is editor of the Hardwick Gazette. This editorial appeared in the Gazette on Jan. 15.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexual language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be proactive. Use the "Report" link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.