School districts can’t consistently plan for the long term, because they don’t know what the impacts of ever-changing rules and regulations will be. Taxpayers can’t really understand where their money is going, how it’s spent, or what the real costs are. Some of the more obtuse components of the current law, prebates and rebates, common levels of appraisal, and income sensitivity, are confusing and convoluted at best.
This week, Vermont’s Speaker of the House, Shap Smith, announced the formation of a bipartisan committee to study the development of a new funding law. That was welcome news to many. Even more welcome is that two local legislators, Ann Manwaring, D-Wilmington, and Rick Hube, R-Londonderry, will be on the committee.
However, for those who are excited at the thought of Act 60’s demise, we say be careful what you wish for. A new funding law could be worse than what we have now.
Certainly, the state will not take its hand out of local taxpayers’ pockets. We assume that’s an axiom that will not go away. For those who long for a return to pre-Act 60 days, before the statewide redistribution of education property tax dollars, don’t expect anything like that to come out of this initiative.
There are some things that should be addressed, certainly. Here’s what we’d like to see in any new education funding plans:
First and foremost, whatever shape this committee that is being formed in Montpelier takes, we’d like to see them try to run a school district for a year before crafting any legislation. After all, how many of them have experience in running a school, a school board, or a school district? Our guess would be not that much. Have half the committee work with a large school district for six months, half the committee work with a small district for the same amount of time, flip them for another six months, and then have them sit down after a year to begin writing a bill. Our guess is what they do would be much different than if they just start working on a new bill this year.
Second, create a standardized set of rules, make them sensible and consistent, and keep them in place for a decade. That way school districts can understand how to work with them, explain them to voters, and plan for the future in a consistent manner. Of course, there will always be unintended consequences that have to be addressed, but having consistent rules and regulations makes planning, and cost control so much easier. Just look at what the towns of Wilmington and Whitingham are going through trying to plan a course of action to repair or replace the Twin Valley High School. The rules have been changed so many times that every time they seem to have a course of action some other roadblock pops up.
Third, and most important, we’d like to see the state define the items that make up a basic, equalized education and only fund those things. Core subjects like math. science, language arts, history, and other basics should be funded. Extracurricular activities, such as athletics, chess teams, and trips, should not be funded by state dollars, but should be funded by local communities only. That way, district voters could decide what “extras” they can afford. It has always seemed unreasonable to us that local tax dollars should go into the statewide education revenue pool so larger schools in other parts of the state can cover their football fields in Astroturf. As absurd as that seems, that’s exactly what happens now, because Vermont’s pool of education dollars comes in the form of a lump sum, not dedicated to specific school spending items.
If this truly is a chance to rewrite Vermont’s education funding laws, then we hope common sense will prevail. What would truly be a tragedy would be to have a new plan rushed through the Statehouse, because of the current economic climate, that would leave us all with something worse than we have now.
Post a Comment