As a Candidate for one of two State Representative seats in the Washington -2 district, I have been taking a deeper look at things that have created the current inefficient school funding system. Starting with the Brigham decision in 1997 the State was put on a path to do a better job of equalizing disparities between school districts ability to fund their schools. Simply put, some districts were ‘property-poor’ and some were ‘wealthy, and the Vermont Supreme Court said that Vermont needed to do a better job of ensuring that all students, whether from property-poor or wealthy school districts had a more equal educational opportunity. Specifically they stated that the State needed to ensure ‘substantial equality of educational opportunity’. Substantial equality. It is important to note as well that the courts in their discussion and analysis said that it was primarily a State (not town/district) responsibility to educate kids, and that in administering the education system statewide there were inherent disparities that made ‘absolute equality’ an impractical requirement.
Following the Brigham decision the Legislature enacted Act 60 and Act 68, and launched the beginnings of our school funding system. Over the years the two laws have been adjusted and ‘tweaked’, leading to the conclusion that they didn’t work very well as written and enacted. Then in 2022, yet another major adjustment in the formula came about with Act 127. Act 127 is yet another Vermont Law that was intended to respond to Brigham and make the school funding even ‘more equal’. This law focuses on a complex pupil weighting system which determines that different factors affect the cost of educating different students. This system assigns a ‘weighting system’ which results in students being counted as one student, as a percentage of one student, or perhaps being counted as two students. (Consider the reasonability of one student receiving and absorbing two times the educational input as the student next to them, while they get on and off the bus at the same time? We have to start critically thinking about these ideas imposed on us) Certainly there are valid reasons why some students need specialized/additional services, however, the entire construct of Act 127 and the pupil weighting system to make things ‘more equal’ amounts to a specious tangle of conditions which further isolates the school funding system from voter understanding and effectively creates new ‘inequities’ between school districts as they compete against each other for funding.
The evolution of the funding system over the 27 years since Brigham seems a quest towards the noble-sounding yet impossible goal of ‘equality’. We will always want to make things more equal where practical, however there is the inconvenient truth that some kids are better at math or reading, there are different learning styles, and some flourish in a machine shop over the classroom. However, the school system is on a quest for equality above all of these factors. Full equality. And this will ensure that the massive machinery of the Vermont school system with its highest in-the-country ratio of staff to students stays sufficiently overfunded. The education system has become an entrenched bureaucracy, concerned primarily with perpetuating itself, that is the nature of a bureaucracy. It is especially entrenched in this case because it leverages the sentiment of ‘we must do everything for children’. Indeed looking at the data available of declining students, (apprx. 100,000 in 2003 to apprx. 80,000 today) highest staff-per-student ratio, and second highest per-pupil cost to educate (educationdata.org) and throw in declining student proficiency over these same years and it is clear that the overspending is not reaching the children, but certainly is maintaining that bloated bureaucracy.
Act 127, recently enacted in 2022, contains these words in section 19: “Vermont’s system of equalized pupils within a shared education fund creates significant opportunities to meet the needs of schools and students. However, certain aspects of the current system distort or prevent a fully equitable and progressive education finance system.” Did you catch that, ‘fully equitable’. The Brigham decision said create a ‘substantial equality’ of educational opportunity, (relating to the process) to this most current layer of law which seeks to make the education system ‘fully equitable’, (relating to the outcome I would add). Now I could give the definitions of ‘equal’ and ‘equitable’ and find differences that the lawyers would argue over, but for the average legislator, I am going to assert that they are captivated by the ideal of ensuring a ‘completely equitable’ outcome for every student. This is an impossible goal, but the enduring pursuit of it will keep the entrenched bureaucracy of our education system very satisfied.
Take a look at the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxpsW7PweuI) of a hearing featuring The Chair of the Vermont Superintendents Association as he tells a House committee that they should ‘not limit the supply of money,’ and the State Education Committee member responds that they need to reapportion monies, but ‘not in a containment way’. ‘Cost containment’ is a phrase that I have seen a lot since doing this research, and it demonstrates the idea that the school system, like any other entity, is subject to the realities of things like having a budget and staying within it. To hear the dismissal of ‘cost containment’ in an education funding discussion shows how far we have regressed from sensible administration of our schools towards enabling a self perpetuating entrenched bureaucracy.
Solutions? Numerous solutions have been proposed over the years, and ignored. My solution at this point is to cut excess administration and staffing. During Covid there was an influx of federal money that allowed many additional positions to be created temporarily, and I have heard credible reports that these positions are effectively being made permanent. We live in a very sensitive world today, and realities of budgets, deadlines, and spending limits are ignored because these foundational aspects of an effective/efficient system may cause bad feelings. ‘Your temporary position is now ended’ is not in the lexicon, instead it's ‘don’t worry, well find a way to keep you around’. And the budget grows beyond reason. My job as your representative will be to say the truth. It may be unpleasant for some to hear, but thats where fixing the problem begins.
There are many more solutions I like at this point, perhaps legal caps on how much property tax can increase each year, (very common in other States) perhaps one Statewide school district, perhaps just the State and the general fund being more invested. I hope there will be a wave of voters willing to vote for new blood this year.
Peruse these sources for the data behind the above statistics:
National Center for Education Statistics
NationsReportCard.gov
Digest of Education Statistics: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp
EDUCATIONDATA.ORG
https://usafacts.org/education/