By Bob Messner
This letter was sent to Vermont House Speaker Shap Smith.
Representative Smith:
I believe you have stated that the property tax/school cost issue has an extremely high priority for you and the House in the coming session and rightly so. My thoughts on this are as follows:
The issue is not so much how to jigger the property tax or pass some of the school financing onto other revenue sources but to attack the cost side. Compared to other states on a per-pupil basis, we spend way too much money on our schools and, frankly, we do not get particularly outstanding results from them. Basically, the schools determine what their budgets are and the state adds up these budget numbers and sets a property tax rate to fund them. (I realize this is a little too simplistic but good enough for my argument.) Certainly some budgeting districts do a good job on this, but many/most don't have to be very cost conscious as the state will essentially fund all they ask for. This has led to the ever-growing school cost amid a shrinking student body and has become an unsupportable load on the state's taxpayers. But you know this.
I suggest that the state determine the two or three or even four best states in the country in terms of education quality and average their costs per pupil. Set that cost-per-pupil number, multiplied by the number of students in the Vermont system each year, as the total amount of state contribution to the school districts, passed out to them on a per-pupil basis. Distribution to the districts could be adjusted as necessary (for small schools, for example), but the total dollars available for distribution would be as determined above.
This contribution would come from a mixture of statewide property tax receipts and funds from the state's general fund as has been historically done. It would seem this should completely satisfy the requirements the Supreme Court ordered in the Brigham case and give the districts enough money to fund a high-quality education for everyone, based on the results the chosen best states above are able to achieve. Whether the districts can spend the money wisely, including making some hard choices on staffing, should not be a burden placed on the state's general population. Further, if some districts want to budget more money than they receive from the state, that extra amount should be completely up to them to raise in their own districts on a dollar-for-dollar basis, as was done before Acts 60/68. That is the local control everyone wants.
Perhaps a bit of radical thinking, but I don't see the problem ever being fixed just with politically palatable minor tinkering here and there from time to time. Bold moves are needed, albeit maybe difficult politically. The driving factor in our high school costs is payroll, which means staff and teacher head count. That can only be resolved by head count reduction, a very unsavory prospect for elected officials. I realize such a plan could not be adopted right away, but it could be set up as a goal to be reached incrementally over a few years. But if the head count issue is not faced, the problem will never disappear. I hope the Legislature will accept the responsibility to address this in the new year. I would be happy to discuss this further with you or the appropriate committee.
Messner lives in Warren.
{loadnavigation}
