1. Announcement: Two Public Hearings
2. Q & A with a LEAF Sponsor
3. Who Should Appoint the Commissioner?
4. From VBE’s Executive Director
5. House KO’S Two-Vote Law
6. How Did you Choose a School?

ANNOUNCEMENT: TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS

These two public hearings fit in with the theme of this week's VER. Consider attending to give your opinion.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
6:30 - 8:15 PM  Public Hearing: Changing the Department of Education to an Agency & the Commissioner to a Secretary for Pre-K Through Grade 16 
Room 11

Thursday, March 13, 2008
 6-8 pm   Public Hearing: Education Finance, H.866, Education Adjusted Gross Income Tax and H.869, Local Education Affordability Formula (LEAF) 
Room 11 

Q&A WITH A LEAF SPONSOR

A month ago, several Republican legislators introduced a new education finance program in reaction to continued discontent over how the state finances schools and rising property tax costs. Nicknamed LEAF (Local Education Affordability Formula), the plan was unveiled at a February 6 news conference by its architects who also announced a web site launch to explain the program. 

On February 26, it was introduced in the legislature as bill H.869. It now sits in House Appropriations. The bill is sponsored by: Representatives Richard Hube (South Londonderry), Carolyn Branagan (Georgia), Patricia McDonald (Barre), Steven Adams (Hartland), Patrick Brennan (Colchester), Howard Crawford (St. Johnsbury), Dennis Devereux (Belmont), Andrew Donaghy (Poultney), Anne Donahue (Northfield), Joyce Errecart (Shelburne), Margaret Flory (Pittsford), Patti Komline (Dorset), Judith Livington (Manchester), Michael Marcotte (Newport), Linda Myers (Essex Junction), Pat O’Donnell (Vernon), Heidi Scheuermann (Stowe), Leo Valliere (Barre), Scott Wheeler (Newport), PhilipWinters (Williamstown), and Kurt Wright (Burlington), all Republicans. 

Under the LEAF plan, each school district would receive a per-pupil grant equal to 85 percent of the average statewide per-pupil spending for the prior year. The statewide property tax on residential property would be eliminated, with funding for the LEAF plan coming from other sources. A more complete explanation can be found at www.vermontleaf.com or at the legislative web site – www.leg.state.vt.us (as bill H.869). More information can also be found here on VermontTiger.com.

The VER recently sent several questions to LEAF sponsors about the bill. Rep. Richard Hube responded:

VER:  Do you see this as saving the taxpayers money? It shifts the burden off of primary residences and to the general fund. I find it appealing that special education costs would no longer be in the local school budgets. This is a problem, particularly for small schools when special ed kids move into town after a budget is set for the year. Is there a cost savings in the bigger picture for taxpayers?

HUBE:  From our perspective the key to LEAF is local control. With incentives, lowering taxes on those that are directly impacted, the voters should at a minimum slow the run up in spending. One of the arguments is to what degree there is local control with Act 60. Those that believe there are cost controls cite the fact that the income sensitivity percentage increases as per pupil spending goes up, thus increasing the cost to those paying based on income. I do not buy that perspective as the increase in taxes is so modest as the base percentage is so low. I am having some research done to try to determine the effects on school budgets. In 1996, pre-Act 60, I think there were about 24 education budgets that were defeated. I will be identifying those towns to determine what the year—over-year increase was leading to the defeat. I will then take a look at those same towns since Act 60 to see what year-over-year increases passed. This should provide some sense of the level of "connect" or "disconnect" due to income sensitivity. 

VER:  Will this improve education, and, if so, how?

HUBE: I have never been a believer in one size fits all and I also believe the best control is local control. I truly believe that Vermonters, given the tools, the opportunity and the incentives, will do a great job. We see this year in and year out with municipal budgets. 

VER:  As you are aware, the issue of shifting from a property tax to an income tax is of concern to many, both those who support such a move and those who do not. How does your plan differ? Would income-based taxes rise sharply? How do you answer any of the concerns about a shift?

HUBE: A revision to the way we pay for education came out of the House Ways & Means Committee on which I serve. Though I do not object in concept to this legislation, I could not and did not vote for it, as there is no mechanism to contain costs. I would like to point out that the Governor, the Speaker of the House and leader of the Senate on January 31, 2007 said we do not have a funding problem, we have a spending problem with education. Unfortunately, the Education Committee, from my perspective, has done little, if anything, to quantify why we are seeing such a run up in the cost of education with a shrinking school population. We are unable to agree among ourselves exactly what is driving the cost. We know that health care, special education, energy, mandates, staffing rations are all factors, but we have yet to see anything specific from the DOE or the House or Senate Education Committee. 

VER:  Finally, will this satisfy the Brigham ruling? I re-read Brigham just a couple of weeks ago. I do not really see how education has been "equalized" among Vermont's school children with what is being done now. Would LEAF bring us closer to the intent of Brigham? Or does it interfere with that intent?

HUBE: The equity argument is a smoke screen for maintaining the status quo and "Montpelier knows best." Pre Act 60 the argument was that not every town had a ski area or IBM on their grand list. Now with a split grand list all, property owners share in that wealth. Paul Cillo, one of the architects of Act 60 and former House majority leader, stated recently that most of the pre act 60 inequity was in the non residential property. Ultimately, the only way to determine if a law will stand up to a challenge is via a legal challenge. I would hope that those that think LEAF would not withstand a challenge would put forward suggestions or a definition of what would be acceptable. 

I agree that I can make a very compelling argument that Act 60 is not equitable. Is the treatment of special education equitable? Tax rates vary wildly due to where a special needs child lives. Six identical houses with identical tax rates could have vastly different tax bills depending on the town of residence. Is it equitable that the teachers in my town are paying 20% of their insurance premiums and the teachers in a neighboring town are paying only 10% of their insurance premiums? Etc, etc, etc.

WHO SHOULD APPOINT THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION?

As reported previously, the Senate Education Committee has been looking at ways to restructure the Department of Education, making it more accountable to elected officials by having a three-member committee select the Commissioner of Education. The committee would be made up of the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the leader of the Senate. 

Currently, the Commissioner of Education, who heads the department, is appointed by the State Board of Education. The State Board (SBE) is composed of unelected citizens appointed by the governor. So the state’s education CEO is very indirectly accountable to the people. 

Some states elect part or all of their state boards of education, thus introducing accountability at that level. Some states allow the governor, a high-profile elected official, to appoint the education CEO, thus making the position a cabinet post and one the governor is held accountable for at election time. And a few states even directly elect their commissioner or superintendent of education. 

Vermont is among only a few states where an unelected board, the members of whom could have been appointed by a previous governor (as was the case at the beginning of Governor James Douglas’s tenure), chooses the education CEO.

FROM VBE’S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:

Dear Readers,

Vermonters for Better Education supports more accountability at the leadership level of education in the state.  Here are VBE’s points and concerns on this topic as it is being discussed in the legislature:

1. Governor appoints the Commissioner – this would hold the Department of Education more directly accountable to the voters. Opponents of this approach will ask if consistency can be maintained at the helm of the Department of Education when new governors could be elected every two years. Nothing is more disastrous for education in Vermont than to change
commissioners frequently. But Vermont hasn’t had a one-term governor in nearly 50 years.

2. Shift the Department to an Agency – this could create a larger bureaucracy, which is of concern.

3. Losing the State Board of Education: This is a citizen organization, a place where parents, children, taxpayers, teachers, principals, homeschoolers, independent schools, superintendents, and school board members, and the public can go seeking intervention concerning the bureaucracy of education found within the department. I have witnessed this access by the people. It has solved problems for various people over the years. The SBE is over the Department of Education and should remain in place. You can, however, give it a different type of leadership role.

4. Encourage true local control. The legislature’s draft on shifting education leadership speaks to this and this should be more heavily focused in our educational system. The work the SBE is doing concerning transformation is addressing this. The legislature and SBE should act on the information they have.

Have the governor appoint the commissioner of education and then have the commissioner serve as the chair of the SBE. The governor also appoints all of the members of the SBE as is done now. This is a less drastic change and will maintain public access to the educational system in Vermont through the SBE. I do not see real transformation happening without the SBE in place.

Retta Dunlap
VBE Executive Director

VT HOUSE KO’S “TWO-VOTE” REQUIREMENT

By a vote of 99-38, the Vermont House voted to repeal Act 82, the law that requires school districts to vote twice on school budgets that spend more than the state average per student plus one percentage point. Under Act 82, districts crossing that threshold would have had to split their budgets into two parts, submitting each for the voters’ approval – one part would include a budget of the state average per pupil increased by inflation plus one percentage point, the other would include additional proposed spending.

The House initiative moves to the Senate where, according to the Burlington Free Press, it might not move far as Senate leaders have little interest in repeal and the governor has already voiced his intention to veto a repeal.

Meanwhile, some repeal supporters have crafted an alternative plan that is, practically speaking, no cost control at all, letting district spending rise by as much as 25 percent per year before any controls kick in.

How did individual representatives vote?  For the discussion of the repeal and its various votes, go to the H.864 portion of this page on the website of the Vermont Legislature.

HOW DID YOU CHOOSE A SCHOOL FOR YOUR CHILD?

Vermonters for Better Education is putting together a booklet on “How to Choose a School in Vermont.”  The editors would love to hear from Vermont parents who’ve been through the school selection process. What worked for you? What questions did you find most useful to ask? What observations did you find most helpful?  How would you advise other Vermont parents of school age children?

Send your thoughts to us at vbe@comcast.net

WORTH REPEATING: IS YOUR SMALL SCHOOL AFRAID OF CONSOLIDATION?

From the 2/4/2008 VER: The school consolidation movement in the state is a fearful prospect for some communities that value their small schools.  After all, consolidation is often just a euphemism for “small school closure.”  In the name of economizing, consolidation advocates will argue that larger school districts (perhaps built on a county district model) would get rid of redundancies in administration, particularly superintendents’ offices. 

But some communities are looking into a way to preemptively attack this problem and keep their small schools open, no matter what consolidation plans become law– by turning their towns into tuition towns.  If a district privatizes its public school and becomes a tuition town, it can keep its small school open, and even accept students from other tuition towns.

Several Vermont towns are looking into this process now.  For those who need help, Vermonters for Better Education compiled a booklet, “How To Privatize a Public School in Vermont: A Layman’s Guide.”  This booklet, put together several years ago, includes specific references to Vermont statutes, a step-by-step guide, and the story of Winhall, which privatized its public school in 1998.

The booklet is available for free - download here.
 

We do!  Please consider a gift to Vermonters for Better Education, the publisher of the weekly Vermont Education Report, Vermont's ONLY continual source of education news. Send donations to: VBE, PO Box 72, Woodbury, VT 05681. VBE is a nonprofit organization and contributions are tax-deductible.

The VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT is published by Vermonters for Better Education PO Box 72 Woodbury, VT 05681 - 802-472-5491. The Vermont Education Report may be reprinted with the editor's permission. For more information contact: VBE@comcast.net or visit us on the web: http://www.schoolreport.com

VERMONTERS FOR BETTER EDUCATION is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to enlist parents and the public at large in achieving quality educational opportunities for all the children of Vermont by monitoring the state of education in Vermont; promoting the value of educational freedoms for all parents; and giving parents the evaluative tools with which to identify excellence.

Retta Dunlap, executive director
VBE@comcast.net