Schools must change

In the just-concluded election campaign, people complained loudly about the statewide property tax for financing schools.

Trouble is, they want the taxes lowered without any changes in how schools are run. That’s simply not possible. In our view, change is essential to bring common-sense efficiencies into Vermont’s education system.

House Speaker Shap Smith of Morristown has been collecting ideas from a 10-member working group; its members cover the political spectrum and the state’s geographic regions. Anne Galloway of VTDigger.org reports that three basic concepts have emerged from the group: an overall plan to reduce school spending; a variable income tax proposal, which would shift the burden for education finance away from the property tax; and a “regional block grant model,” which would result in a major overhaul of the education finance system. The last two plans would replace the Act 60 finance system.

The problem is this: Vermont has 20 percent fewer students than it did 15 years ago, but staffing adjustments have not kept pace. As a result, Vermont has the highest per-pupil cost and lowest student-teacher ratio in the nation.

All that shows up in the statewide property tax for schools, which keeps rising. The increase proposed for the coming year — 20 cents per $1,000 of property value — will bring the school-tax rate to $10 per $1,000 of property value for Vermont homeowners, and $15.60 for nonresidential property. On a property worth $200,000, that translates to an annual bill of $2,000 and $3,120, respectively. Municipal taxes and local school taxes come on top of that.

Rep. Dave Sharpe, D-Bristol, told Galloway that, for the past six to eight years, the Legislature has been deadlocked. Some legislators want change; others want none. Sharpe hopes the Legislature and Gov. Shumlin will “agree that we have a problem” so solutions can actually be considered.

“The question is: How do you right-size the ship to the number of students we have now?” Smith says. “It’s not something we can do in one year, but it will have a long-term impact on cost if we do it right.”

Among the ideas:

• Adopt a bunch of ways to control costs: Set a threshold for staff-to-student ratios. Phase out grants that prop up small schools. Phase out payments to schools where enrollment has dropped sharply. Shift resources to schools with high numbers of children in poverty.

• Adjust the ratio of staff members to students. Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Canaan, said 80 percent of school costs are salaries. Now, Vermont schools have an average of 1 staff member per 4.75 students. If the ratio were 1 to 5.5, the state would save $75 million a year.

• Set a statewide cap on per-pupil spending. If local voters want to spend, say, 10 percent more, then local taxes would have to supply that money. Rep. Jeff Wilson, D-Manchester, thinks that would drive spending down, spur more efficiencies and “inspire more creative ways for schools to work together.”

• Set a fixed, uniform property-tax rate statewide for school costs, and get the rest of the money from the state income tax.

• Use regional block grants to fund schools. State money would be allocated in block grants to regional entities, which would distribute funding to local school districts. From there, the regions and districts could direct spending to suit the unique needs of communities. The details have not yet been worked out.

Because the money would be distributed regionally, the variability among school districts could be smoothed out, says Rep. Oliver Olsen, I-Londonderry.

Who knows how many of these things will fly? The important thing is that state leaders are talking seriously about changes that Vermont needs. Without those changes, nothing changes.