He further spoke of the quality of Harwood's education compared to other
Vermont schools. Was he equating cost to quality? In reality, cost
doesn't always translate into quality or success. If that were the case,
with our cost/student we should be the best in the nation - we are not.
When one looks at our economic education problems, the solutions are
relatively simple to see - it is the political will to implement the
solutions that is the problem.
The biggest problem, by far, is Act 60/68. It places a disproportionate
burden of cost on people who have no control over the spending of other
districts. Anytime someone can spend someone else's money, the results
are not good. Hence, Vermont's problems.
Act 68/60 also forces donor districts to restrict essential spending
(not salaries) not to bankrupt their own communities. Donor towns
restrict appropriate spending also for fear of bankrupting their
citizens because of the school tax burden.
Income sensitivity is another major contributor to our problems.
Because not all people are paying their full fair share, they are
sheltered from their voting decisions. While appearing at a legislative
hearing, I heard one woman who was all about spend, spend, spend, her
last comment was telling - " thank God for income sensitivity." Or let
someone else pay for it.
And, finally, the biggest reason for our high school taxes are school
districts that can't afford the burden of their own school system which
brought us to the problems we are in today.
What are the broad-based long-term sustainable solutions?
1) Repeal Act 60/68. The Vermont Supreme Court erred in its decision.
Nowhere in the Vermont constitution does it say or even intimate the
state is responsible for education. In fact, it is clear to state the
"towns" are responsible. The Legislature compounded the error by
presuming that flatlanders, who don't vote, will pay for little Johnny
and Mary - the law of unintended consequences struck - we are all
suffering. Any system predicated in screwing someone else is not
sustainable - as we now see. Nor is it ethical. The immediate result
will be the elimination of a huge Department of Education overhead
contributing nothing to education.
2) Districts that are too small need to merge with others until they
have economy of scale. We are starting to see that now. Hey, we did it
for high schools and technical schools. Put the cost of education back
into the hands of the community - where everyone shares the burden of
educating our kids.
3) End income sensitivity. If everyone had to pay their fair share, the
rates would be considerably lower for all, so we could all afford to
educate our kids. Voting on expenditures would be more frugal. If 50
percent of the state is on income sensitivity, the tax rate has to be
disproportionately high to accommodate those not paying. Does this make
sense?
4) Change how current use is paid for. Again we are paying for someone
else -- to own land which we have limited or no right to. Not a good
system. Believe me, I don't disagree with current use, but we need a
system that all the beneficiaries of the program, hence "all"
Vermonters, pay for it.
What to do about the current problem - excessive cost?
These are truly simple solutions and the school boards have it right. We
need to reduce costs now! There are only a finite number of ways to do
that. The largest and least flexible costs are usually fixed costs --
capital assets and salaries.
However, before one thinks about cost reductions, essential goals and
priorities of the education system need to be clearly and succinctly
defined. In other words, what is the end result of the education system?
My view of the goals of an education system:
1. students that can read and write superbly,
2. use mathematics as an everyday tool,
3. have a clear understanding of how our government and economy grew and works, not how some think it should work,
4. understand the principle that made this country great,
5. be physically fit (this is carried with them for life and helps addresses the current medical crises we are and will face)
6. and know how to discern BS from reality, i.e., critical thinking.
Cost Reduction Options:
1. Sell buildings and equipment. Doable with consolidation. The
chancellor of the DC school system, steadily losing the title of worst
in the nation, stated in her consolidation effort, "We spend too much on
buildings and not enough on students."
2. Reduce staff - clearly the simplest way to reduce cost. Class size
should not be a major consideration if established norms are used, not
current wants.
3. Reduce the cost of staff, hence salary stabilization which preserves jobs for more people. The boards understand this one.
4. Change benefit structure. In other words, share the cost of benefits
with the taxpayer that usually has less benefits or no benefits. The
boards nailed this one as well.
5. Reduce the cost of supplies and materials? Better purchasing practices and use of technology.
6. We need to can all these phony day care programs disguised as
education programs. All the research shows that these programs provide
no education benefit. The only reason some schools have them is to up
their student count to help mitigate Act 60 ramifications or get outside
funding. It would be much less expensive if parents read to their kids
every night and paid attention to their education - not leave it up to
the schools and taxpayers.
I guess the biggest thing to remember is that the government is we - not some cash machine.
Bifano lives in Warren.
