In the ongoing saga of Vermont’s Byzantine education funding scheme and how legislators are hustling to repair the fallout from Act 127, a poorly designed and researched piece of legislation, the Vermont Senate changed a component of the complex formula used to calculate what each district will receive in per pupil ‘yields’ from that formula last week.
Last week the House passed H.850 which was an attempt to fix the disastrous Act 127. H.850 increased local education taxes about five-fold over Act 127. But Act 127 included a 5% cap on education tax increases which apparently too many districts (legally) took advantage of, ballooning education spending so much ($200 to 300 million) that lawmakers proposed a different fix. H.850, like Act 127, (and Vermont’s education funding formula) is overly complicated.
The House version of H.850 included a per pupil ‘yield’ of $9,171 which resulted in an increase in education taxes from $574 to $790 per $100,000 of assessed value.
After House approval, the bill went to Senate appropriations and finance where that ‘yield’ was increased to $9,775 per pupil, which resulted in district education tax increases ranging from $417 to $621 per $100,000 of assessed value.
Local State Representative Kari Dolan (D-Waitsfield) facilitated a meeting with Representative Chris Beck (R-St. Johnsbury) this week, during which Beck pointed out that the Senate had increased the yield last week.
Here’s where it gets absurd. The ‘yield’ is a bit of mathematic voodoo based on what schools spend, state education funds and far more ingredients than anyone wants to know. The yield is generally finalized in May.
So, voters in our district facing tax increases that could range from 30 to 40% or from 22 to 31.7% or some other numbers entirely, are going to be voting on a $50.8 million budget in two weeks. So are lots of other districts. It’s absurd to ask people to vote and make a financial commitment without understanding what that commitment means. How are voters going to be able to support or reject budgets that could have such varying tax impacts. It feels a bit like a bait and switch. That’s not how we buy cars, or houses or take out student loans or develop budgets for our towns.
Vermont’s education funding formula is hopelessly broken.
