Vermont is at a crossroads when it comes to funding for education. Just about every statewide leader or administrator agrees that the current methods of funding, Act 60 and Act 68, are broken. The issues are so large, and so complex, that there is no consensus for how to move forward.

Don’t think there’s a problem? Just look at this week’s issue. On page one we have a story about tax commissioner Richard Westman’s visit to Wilmington last week. He paints a very black picture about the outlook for education funding. In particular, Westman points to the expected rise in the statewide property tax rate to make up for reduced property values and shortfalls associated with those declining values. In his estimation, he expects a 26% increase in the tax rate over the next few years. Scary news, indeed.

On page six, Bob Hartwell, the state senator from Bennington County whose district includes Wilmington, calls the coming crises in education funding a “gathering storm.” His hypothesis is that the current amount of funding is unsustainable in large part due to the declining enrollment of students in Vermont schools. Hartwell bases his assumptions on the drop in the birth rate over the past decade. Factor Hartwell and Westman together, and there is no doubt we as a state cannot continue with business as usual.

For a third perspective, look at Paul Cillo’s letter on page five. Cillo is a former state official who now heads a think tank in Montpelier. He takes a different perspective, that the Legislature and governor are dumping additional financial burdens on the education fund, burdens the fund was never designed to bear. Merging Cillo’s arugement with Westman’s warnings, it’s easy to see why education funding under the current system will be unsustainable over the next decade.

Where do we go from here? That’s the million-dollar question. With 2010 being an election year, there is no doubt that politicians from all sides of the spectrum will call for a change in education funding. The real question is which ones will actually have the political courage to support real change to the system. After all, in many ways the current education system favors large communities and school districts, which, after all, is where the votes are. It is easier to upset a few thousand voters in Wilmington, Dover, and Stowe, than tens of thousands of voters in Burlington and Rutland.

That polical reality, however downplayed it may be, is one of the issues that has to be dealt with. After all, current funding is based on a variety of factors, but in the end it doesn’t discriminate between districts on what will be funded. Personal trainers for the football team at a large school, as long as it’s a budget item, will be funded. Somehow that just doesn’t seem fair, or equitable. Until the Legislature enacts legislation defining what statewide education funding will, and more important, won’t pay for, education funding in Vermont will never be equitable, or sustainable. Foreign languages or arts should be funded, AstroTurf on the athletic field or digital display signs, absolutely not.

Vermont is in for a rough sail, as Hartwell rightly points out. The seas are already churning, and the waves could start breaking as soon as January, when the next legislative session begins. We can only hope that once the clouds clear, we have an education funding system that is clear, understandable, and truly equitable.