Sen. Scott Beck
Caledonia District
Senate Minority Leader
Thoughts On Education Reform
A considerable amount of attention and work this legislative session has been devoted to Vermont’s Pk-12 public education system and how it is funded. This is important work. 30% of Vermont state spending is devoted to our most precious resource, 83,000 children.
Vermonters understand how meaningful these conversations are. Education is critical to our communities and a pillar of democracy. Schools serve as important community hubs, are essential for economic and workforce development, attract families, and foster individual and societal success. Taxpayers are important too, and their voices in November were heard loud and clear.
In short, Vermonters want change. Here are a few of my thoughts on how change could be structured so that all Vermont children receive an excellent education that taxpayers can afford.
Vermont should transition to a foundation funding formula that is far more transparent and understandable than our current Act 60 funding formula and closely connects a district’s local spending decision to its local education property tax rate. Vermont’s current income sensitivity program oddly benefits fewer than half of its 100,000 recipients, places an unnecessary administrative burden on the Tax Department, is impossible to explain to Vermonters, and disconnects the budget voting decision of some homeowners from their education tax rate. An income-dependent property value exemption targeted at 40,000 homeowners and paid for by non-property taxes would be a dramatic improvement and protect our most vulnerable taxpayers.
Funding reform is integral to how Vermont delivers education. Act 60 is a unique Vermont funding formula constructed 28 years ago when Vermont had 115,000 students and full schools; it is still unique, no other state has adopted a similar funding system. Funding is closely linked to how Vermont delivers public education. Act 60 gives districts equitable taxing capacity; it does not guarantee equitable education spending across Vermont.
Vermont will likely continue to move toward an education system composed of local elementary schools, central middle schools, regional high schools, and career & technical education centers. In many areas of Vermont, this shift has already begun, in others, it is current practice, and in some, reform is necessary. Geography, bussing, school building infrastructure, and special education are factors that must be considered in this conversation, among others.
Further consolidation of school districts is being considered; much of Vermont has already moved beyond the governance model of one school district for every town. The Agency of Education’s proposal is five school districts, the Senate is exploring nine. Presently, Vermont’s largest school district is 4,000 students and smaller than what many experts believe is necessary to efficiently deliver an education required by 21st century students.
Local control is important and will continue to be defined differently as school districts increasingly do not conform to municipal lines. We need to focus on children; they all deserve an excellent education no matter which town they live in.
Public tuition to public and independent schools continues to be a complicating factor when considering the consolidation of school districts. Districts with different operating/tuitioning structures cannot merge because of equal opportunity considerations. I believe that Vermont’s use of public tuition for more than 150 years is indispensable in areas where it is used. It is possible that public tuition could be limited to schools considered critical to the delivery of public education. Sen. Bongartz’s governance proposal addresses public tuition within governance reform.
Vermont needs to be more attractive to highly trained educators, especially in rural and less affluent areas. There is broad support for ensuring that educators in all areas of Vermont are fairly compensated. I am unconvinced that Vermont needs a statewide teacher contract and instead support a salary floor. The employer share of school healthcare plans has become too expensive and unaffordable for school districts and taxpayers; costs are crowding out core education programs. Vermont needs to rethink how these plans are negotiated and paid for.
Vermont’s Agency of Education under Secretary Saunders does not have the resources and staffing necessary to lead Vermont through a transformation process of this magnitude. Vermont’s Legislature must make sure AOE is resourced so that Vermont gets this transformation right.
Please do not hesitate to reach out and share your perspective(s). I can be reached at sbeck@leg.state.vt.us.
