Rutland Herald
Opinion/Editorial
October 04,2014
Vermont’s property-rich towns appear to be
stuck on the idea that they have been treated unfairly by the state’s
education finance system. In fact, what has happened to them is that
they are subject to fairness that did not exist in past years, and they
are feeling the pain like everyone else.
Killington officials have joined the chorus of towns pressing lawmakers to reform the system established by Acts 60 and 68. Those are the laws that created the state’s Education Fund and placed the state in the role of clearinghouse for most education funding. Dorset is another of what used to be called the gold towns.
It used to be that towns such as Killington and Dorset could afford lavish levels of education spending while paying tax rates that were as much as a tenth of what other cities and towns were paying. That’s because they had a rich tax base from which to draw revenue and they had no obligation to share it.
Acts 60/68 changed that. Now a penny on the tax rate in Killington provides Killington the same amount of revenue for schools as a penny on the tax rate in Rutland. Towns that previously were able to afford high levels of school spending with a low tax rate found that high spending demanded a high tax rate. Conversely, cities that in the past could barely keep up with a minimum level of school spending, while paying a high tax rate, found that finally they could afford to pay for a decent education.
From the point of view of the old system, this change might be viewed as a “Robin Hood situation” — that’s how Killington Town Manager Seth Webb described it. But if the property tax base is viewed as a state asset to be shared fairly among all residents, then no one is stealing from anyone. The existence of the Killington Resort benefits the tax base of the state, rather than one town.
The rhetoric surrounding school funding has been mired in confusion for years, and recent comments suggest that the confusion continues. Killington Selectman Ken Lee said we need a new system that will “rein in unsustainable spending policies.”
It is common for taxpayers, when confronted by escalating school costs, to bemoan the system and claim that a new system might contain costs. But for the system to contain costs, state control of the system would be necessary, and that’s something policymakers have long resisted. In fact, spending on schools is controlled by voters. If Killington’s school expenses are too high, then that is due to school budgets approved by Killington voters. Appeals for control of school spending ought to be directed at local voters rather than at state policymakers.
As it happens, voters have tended to do a good job of controlling costs. In recent times, school budgets have largely been held in check, with increases ranging from zero to 2 percent. When voters feel the pain, they act.
Changing demographics have put pressure on school boards. When enrollment declines, schools receive less in per-pupil revenue from the state Education Fund, which forces up the local tax rate. School boards have responded by scaling back personnel and sometimes by considering closing schools and consolidating with neighboring districts. Attempts to allow the state to force those decisions on local districts have been quashed by lawmakers who believe local control is an important foundation for Vermont’s civic life.
It is argued sometimes that Vermont’s high level of education spending is not producing commensurate results in the achievement of our students. Who says? In fact, Vermont students regularly rank high in performance among the states. What are the aspirations of those who want to cut spending — that Vermont perform as well as Mississippi or merely reduce performance to a mediocre, middling level?
The state Agency of Education appears to be interested in working with communities at the local level in exploring ways to reduce costs while improving educational standards. These improvements cannot be imposed by bureaucratic dictate. Education is a human endeavor, and improvements must be achieved one on one between teacher and student in a school system that is adequately supported by its communities.
Killington officials have joined the chorus of towns pressing lawmakers to reform the system established by Acts 60 and 68. Those are the laws that created the state’s Education Fund and placed the state in the role of clearinghouse for most education funding. Dorset is another of what used to be called the gold towns.
It used to be that towns such as Killington and Dorset could afford lavish levels of education spending while paying tax rates that were as much as a tenth of what other cities and towns were paying. That’s because they had a rich tax base from which to draw revenue and they had no obligation to share it.
Acts 60/68 changed that. Now a penny on the tax rate in Killington provides Killington the same amount of revenue for schools as a penny on the tax rate in Rutland. Towns that previously were able to afford high levels of school spending with a low tax rate found that high spending demanded a high tax rate. Conversely, cities that in the past could barely keep up with a minimum level of school spending, while paying a high tax rate, found that finally they could afford to pay for a decent education.
From the point of view of the old system, this change might be viewed as a “Robin Hood situation” — that’s how Killington Town Manager Seth Webb described it. But if the property tax base is viewed as a state asset to be shared fairly among all residents, then no one is stealing from anyone. The existence of the Killington Resort benefits the tax base of the state, rather than one town.
The rhetoric surrounding school funding has been mired in confusion for years, and recent comments suggest that the confusion continues. Killington Selectman Ken Lee said we need a new system that will “rein in unsustainable spending policies.”
It is common for taxpayers, when confronted by escalating school costs, to bemoan the system and claim that a new system might contain costs. But for the system to contain costs, state control of the system would be necessary, and that’s something policymakers have long resisted. In fact, spending on schools is controlled by voters. If Killington’s school expenses are too high, then that is due to school budgets approved by Killington voters. Appeals for control of school spending ought to be directed at local voters rather than at state policymakers.
As it happens, voters have tended to do a good job of controlling costs. In recent times, school budgets have largely been held in check, with increases ranging from zero to 2 percent. When voters feel the pain, they act.
Changing demographics have put pressure on school boards. When enrollment declines, schools receive less in per-pupil revenue from the state Education Fund, which forces up the local tax rate. School boards have responded by scaling back personnel and sometimes by considering closing schools and consolidating with neighboring districts. Attempts to allow the state to force those decisions on local districts have been quashed by lawmakers who believe local control is an important foundation for Vermont’s civic life.
It is argued sometimes that Vermont’s high level of education spending is not producing commensurate results in the achievement of our students. Who says? In fact, Vermont students regularly rank high in performance among the states. What are the aspirations of those who want to cut spending — that Vermont perform as well as Mississippi or merely reduce performance to a mediocre, middling level?
The state Agency of Education appears to be interested in working with communities at the local level in exploring ways to reduce costs while improving educational standards. These improvements cannot be imposed by bureaucratic dictate. Education is a human endeavor, and improvements must be achieved one on one between teacher and student in a school system that is adequately supported by its communities.
Comment:
Do these guys read their own newspaper. Sept. 26th headline, " Tests show science scores decline in Vermont." What more needs to be said. Phantom students anyone?
Vito
No comments:
Post a Comment