Editor’s note: This commentary is by Mike Ryan, who worked for 25 years in management at Digital Equipment Corp., followed by several years working as an independent consultant. He is retired and lives in Hyde Park.
[I] was encouraged when I read the VTDigger report on Feb. 25 summarizing the shape of a bill that was expected to emerge from Dave Sharpe’s House Education Committee. It looked like they were really aiming to carry out the meaningful change to education spending, funding and equality that is desperately needed. I even sent an email right away to Dave praising the committee’s effort to that point, but pointing out some of the things that, in my opinion, were still missing for it to be a complete bill.
I was shocked when I read the VTDigger update on Feb. 26 — only one day later; it is almost like they stopped working on the bill in mid-sentence, declared victory and decided to go for a drink. What a disappointment. They went from focusing on consolidation with some urgency and student/teacher ratios of 15:1 as the goal to a weak unenforceable consolidation plan starting in 2019 with no further discussion on student/teacher ratios; only some vague unhelpful cap on spending of 2 percent per year for three years. I am sorry, Mr. Sharpe, but this simply will not do, and I am confident that with your experience and knowledge you know this to be so. It begs the question – what happened?
I only started studying the matter in October 2014 when I became aware at our local level of the mess our state system is in. I have been on a steep learning curve since; through discussion and debate with other interested people my thoughts have matured a little since my first VTDigger commentary on Dec. 5, 2014, however most of my core beliefs remain intact.
Consolidation
There is no doubt that large school districts will offer opportunities to improve education and, at the same time, reduce cost. Economy of scale can be very powerful on both of these dimensions. The reason large districts are spending more per pupil today is that they can afford to offer a more complete range of programs. With the cost spread over a much larger property tax base in spite of income sensitivity we are able to get more education for our tax dollars because of the potential for economy of scale. It follows that if we create many more large districts they would also be able to spend more to have a complete range of programs. That would be the basis for “equality of opportunity” required by Brigham. But in and of itself this will not save property tax dollars because it does not contain a mechanism to limit spending.
But there is a way to offer more educational opportunity for students and to reduce overall cost.
First, I think a strong effort needs to be made to inform parents in today’s smaller districts that their children can reap real benefits as a result of having access to a broader array of courses. We must stop thinking that saving money will deprive children of a good education. It is not only about saving money, even though this is the most urgent issue today. Consolidation with appropriate limits on spending needs to be driven from the top and 2019 to get started is not acceptable. Strong responsible leadership will be necessary, it won’t get done otherwise.
Limits on Spending
• Move the responsibility for setting budgets to the state and have local control over how the local budget is spent. This would be done by setting competitive cost/student rates statewide. Rates would be different for pre-K, elementary, middle and high school students. The student rate multiplied by the number of students would equal the budget for each district. Local voters would not be involved in voting for this total budget. That would fix the non-taxpayer issue. Local voters would, however, work with the district boards to decide on how the money would be spent. That means that local parents would have a real voice in deciding the outcomes they want.
• The state should set competitive guidelines for student ratios to teachers, assistants and administrators. Major deviations would for sure be questioned by local voters. But it is probably not necessary to introduce mandates for this. I believe competitive cost/student rates would drive competitive ratios in order to deliver the education choices that voters will insist upon.
The state must find a better way to work with the NEA. It makes no sense and is for sure very costly and time consuming to have 266 school districts carrying out separate negotiations with the NEA.
• The Legislature needs to eliminate or at least reduce current state mandates. Those that are really education-related should be revisited for justification and priority being trimmed back where appropriate. Non-education-related mandates that fit the purview of other state agencies should be given back to them. Agencies of Human Services, Health, Corrections, etc., should defend their funding as part of the general fund where they will be forced to compete with other priorities. If the agencies won’t or can’t fund them or can only partially fund them, they should be scaled back or shut down in accordance with these decisions.
This would have the support of the school boards and teachers and would produce immediate property tax savings with a big positive reaction among voters. It would have the added benefit that people will know then that we are really serious about solving the education spending problem. The state should stop even thinking about any future non-education-related mandates.
• The state must find a better way to work with the NEA. It makes no sense and is for sure very costly and time consuming to have 266 school districts carrying out separate negotiations with the NEA. It must contribute to inequality across districts. My biggest concern is that today, local communities play no role whatsoever in the negotiations and they are not concluded until after budgets are voted on. School boards don’t have to answer to their voters on the outcome of the negotiations so I don’t understand why they need to be involved at all either. We need a statewide contract. We also need to establish with the NEA some ground rules of behavior. Number one on my list is they should not be allowed to strike. They would approach their work very differently if they did not have this weapon and there was only one statewide contract negotiation. They need to be viewed as a part of the solution and no longer as part of the problem. The state cannot allow our education system to be held to ransom by a union representing only 2 percent or so of our population.
Funding Mechanism
Use the income tax to fund education. It is more representative of ability to pay, is not hostage to the vagaries of the housing market and removes the threat of forced sales and evictions from those who are running out of ability to pay their property taxes due to major changes in circumstances.
I hope it is not too late to get these important additions into the bill as I believe they are critical to making it work. There may be other variations that achieve a similar result but so far I have not seen or heard them.
The voters expect that our representatives and governor really have listened. Now is the time to do the really heavy lifting and demonstrate that it was more than just words.
