The target date for that to occur is July 1, 2019.
Study committees would “be encouraged” to form across the state to consider creating the larger districts. Reports from those studies must be approved by the State Board of Education and the local electorate, the draft states.
There would be exceptions to permit a supervisory union to remain if the state approves.
Districts that do not meet the steps outlined in the act by Nov. 30, 2017, with votes to move toward a regional integrated education system, would be realigned into districts by the Secretary of the Agency of Education.
The new systems aim to create larger education districts that would be “responsible for the equitable delivery of high quality education to all resident pre-kindergarten through grade 12 students,” in that larger educational system.
The goal of the move to the larger districts, the draft legislation notes, is to provide “stable, affordable education costs.”
Faced with continuing declines in student enrollment as well as population declines projected to continue through at least 2030, the Legislature is grappling with how to best provide students equitable educational opportunities and a call by taxpayers across the state to control rising property taxes linked to climbing education spending.
The policy goals in the updated version of the draft legislation, state:
“By enacting this legislation, the General Assembly intends to move the State towards integrated educational systems that are responsible for the education of all resident students in prekindergarten through grade 12.”
The policy goals statement goes on, “The General Assembly has designed the legislation to encourage and support local decisions and actions that:
(1) promote equity in the quality and variety of educational opportunities available throughout the State, regardless of the school’s size or location;
(2) enable Vermont schools to meet or exceed the education quality standards set forth in 16 V.S.A. § 165, including goals established by the school in the continuous improvement plan it develops pursuant to that section, and to provide a sequential, logical curriculum to all students in the region;
(3) advance solutions, including structural changes, that are developed and implemented at the local level to meet community needs and priorities;
(4) enhance the possibility that the State’s small schools remain open and provide students with equitable educational opportunities;
(5) create conditions that promote stability in leadership;
(6) foster strong relationships between schools and the broader community;
(7) facilitate operational and educational efficiencies through greater flexibility in the management of resources;
(8) improve affordability and stability for taxpayers through economies of scale; and
(9) increase accountability and transparency through greater consistency in educational governance structures.
“The bill has a long way to go before it gets to the governor’s office,” said Rep. David Sharpe, D-Bristol, chairman of the committee. “My goal is to get a bill out of committee; it would be great if this committee got together and got it out say a week from today,” getting a bill to the Ways & Means Committee by next Wednesday, he said.
To meet that deadline, Sharpe said the committee would need to meet Monday next week, which it usually does not.
VSBA weighs in on latest draft
Stephen Dale, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, testified with Ken Fredette, board member from Wallingford Elementary School, on Wednesday.
“We had asked last Friday to be on the agenda this afternoon, because you were moving forward with version 2.1 and we wanted to make sure that before you launched into your deliberations … and in the meantime you have now moved into 3.1,” said Dale. “Many of the changes are changes that we strongly support and we greatly appreciate.”
Structural changes should be encouraged, Fredette said through a series of incentives and disincentives, “and solutions should be crafted to retain strong community connections.”
On a piece of the bill which would restrict the exporting of Vermont public education dollars to other states except in strict exceptions, Dale said the VSBA does have concerns.
In Windsor, students from Cornish, N.H., come to the high school there, and if New Hampshire were to retaliate, “I think it’s a legitimate concern,” Dale testified.
Sharpe said another exemption has been proposed, being any Vermont town immediately bordering another state’s line, which Dale said would satisfy the concern, he believed.
The bill also calls for a study on school leadership shifting from superintendents to principals; on special education funding; and on teacher strikes and binding arbitration.
Listers, business managers testify
Tom Vickery, a member of the board of directors for the Vermont Assessors & Listers Association, urged the committee to take the lead and draw the boundaries for new districts.
“We hear from the taxpayers; they’re tapped out. There is a lot of anger out there on what people are paying for school taxes,” Vickery testified.
Vickery said the association would like to see the Legislature set one tax rate, and get away from the homestead and non-homestead variations to help reduce confusion.
Also offering input on the latest version of the bill this week were Richard Pembroke and Grant Geisler, both school business managers in Vermont; Pembroke is the president of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO).
They estimated savings by moving to educational districts in regions could see savings of $12 million to $32 million, based on lower education spending per equalized pupils for supervisory districts.
On class sizes, the VASBO testimony noted that the average supervisory district class size is 11.98 students to each teacher, while in supervisory districts it’s 11.18.
“If SUs (supervisory unions) could increase their ratio to 11.98, the statewide number of teachers would be reduced by 505.75,” the VASBO information noted.
Testimony submitted to the committee by VASBO noted that, “Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics average Vermont teacher salary of $53,759 and conservatively estimating benefits at $14,514 (27 percent of salary), you arrive at potential savings of $34 million.
