By George J. Schaefer
Does anyone understand the school funding problem? There is no funding problem. We have a significant spending problem. The NEA 2015 rankings show Vermont’s public schools are:
No. 19 in the number of school districts in the state, while number 50 (the smallest) in school enrollment.
No. 51 student-teacher ratio – the lowest at 7.3 versus the national average of 15.4.
No. 11 in noninstructional staff at 59.2 per 10,000 pupils, more than 37 percent higher than the national average, 43.1 per 10,000.
No. 1 in spending per student ($27,962) – the highest in the entire nation, ~26 percent plus higher than no. 2, more than 2.2 times the national average ($12,578).
This is funded not only by property taxes. Governor Shumlin has noted that 30 percent of the General Fund, 35 percent of the sales tax and the entire lottery all go to education funding. We cannot just shift education costs to other sources. In 1997, Vermont had 103,898 students; in 2014, only 76,102 students.
We have a significant out-of-control spending problem in the Legislature. And it is going to get much worse.
In 2007, Act 62 was signed into law reaffirming a long-standing practice for publicly funded pre-kindergarten education for 3- to 5-year-old children by schools and private programs. In the 2014 legislative session, legislators passed Act 166 which requires all Vermont school districts to provide universal publicly funded prekindergarten education for a minimum of 10 hours per week for 35 weeks annually for all 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children who are not enrolled in kindergarten. Act 166 was to come into effect on July 1, 2015; but the Transition Relief Bulletin allowed school districts to wait until July 1, 2016, to fully implement Act 166 – this year.
And who pays? Vermont taxpayers pay. Already Senator Anthony Pollina and Representative Chris Pearson have introduced legislation that ignores the cost side but adds 2.5 percent to the state income tax. The party line suggests that residents may get some property tax relief. But, with our tax-and-spend Legislature, I find that unlikely.
In December 2014, Vermont received a $33 million federal grant (free money) to support full-day, 40-hour-per-week pre-K programs for 4-year-olds. Eight supervisory unions, three school districts and three Head Start programs are reported to be using the federal pre-K expansion money. However, I understand that there are currently 62 supervisory unions in Vermont.
The $33 million grant (average $8.25 million per year) covers only pilot programs in eight supervisory unions and other individual school districts. That’s about $1 million per supervisory union per year. School taxes will go up another $62 million annually.
The way Vermont taxpayers would take over responsibility for this cost would be to increase the average daily membership weight of pre-K students from 0.46 to 1.0 on the education fund – a more than doubling overnight. Statewide property taxpayers would be responsible for a (as yet unmentioned) very large tax increase. After that, you can double that price again when they inevitably move onto the next phase of the plan, adding 3-year-olds into the mix.
Some will say that we need the equivalent of day care for children so that struggling parents can work several jobs. Why is that? According to the annual Rich States, Poor States, Vermont is again 49th out of 50 states on economic outlook due to Vermont’s rating on 15 different variables, including tax rates, labor policies and overall regulatory burden. Cut through taxes and regulations and perhaps good jobs would become available.
Do we really want the state to teach our children from the time they are 3 years old? But that is a separate issue.
George J. Schaefer lives in Warren.
