A third version of a spending cap on public school spending was voted out of the House Education Committee as an amendment late Wednesday.
The cap is designed to curb school spending until larger school systems can be established in regions across the state. It sunsets after three years.
The committee previously approved a flat cap of 2 percent on per-pupil spending across the board.
The new proposal restricts spending for school districts to either a 2 percent increase in school equalized per-pupil spending rate on average, or a 2 percent increase in overall school spending.
The legislation also contains a variable formula. Districts with lower than state average equalized per pupil spending rates are rewarded under the formula and high spending districts face lower caps.
Depending on where districts fall on either side of average statewide education spending, districts would be permitted spending increases of between 1.39 and 4.04 percent.
The amendment can be seen here.
The provision includes a waiver for extraordinary circumstances such as unexpected special education costs and emergency capital needs, such as a failed heating system.
Last week the House Education looked at a 1.5 percent flat cap, which the state teachers’ union described as “draconian.”
Rep. David Sharpe, D-Bristol, chair of the House Education committee, said the amendment is an improvement over the flat cap proposals. The committee voted 10-1 for the amendment; Rep. Alice Miller, D-Shaftsbury, cast the sole vote against the provision.
The cap on school spending has drawn intense debate and scrutiny.
“It may cause schools to lose art, music, languages,” Miller said. “I think it’s very unfair to towns who have done so well, such as my town, and others throughout the state who have kept their costs under control.”
Members of the House Education Committee believe the cap will keep property tax rates in check. They want the cap to put pressure on schools to increase student-to-staff and student-to-teacher ratios, and they underscored that desired outcome in the intent language of the bill.
“The purpose of all this is getting the rate of increases in education spending closer to the rate of inflation,” said Rep. Tim Jerman, D-Essex Junction.
According to the Vermont Agency of Education, the average student-to-staff ratio in the state’s public schools is 4.67 to 1. Vermont’s student to teacher ratio is 9.2 to 1. The state has the lowest ratios in the nation.
Rep. Sarah Buxton, D-Tunbridge, will bring the new cap provision to the floor as an amendment. Members of the House Ways & Means Committee have been waiting on the education committee to finalize the amendment before they take a vote on the education bill.
The cap is one facet of the committee’s “big bill,” H.361, which seeks to create school systems of 1,100 students and improve student opportunities, while finding efficiencies for taxpayers.
Jeffrey Francis, executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association, said his organization doesn’t support any form of the cap. “I think that once it passes, if it passes, there will be a slew of unintended consequences,” Francis said.
The Vermont-NEA and the Vermont School Boards Association have also opposed the cap provision.
Rep. Ann Manwaring, D-Wilmington, said she was concerned about how schools could meet state mandates, such as universal prekindergarten with the caps in place.
“I get the value of Pre-K, I get it, but we can’t increase the value to younger kids and rip the heart out of second and fourth grade, that’s one of the things I see happening, and the spending caps exacerbate that problem,” Manwaring said.
Mark Perrault, a senior analyst with the Joint Fiscal Office, said that pre-kindergarten programs add pupils to schools and can actually reduce a district’s equalized per-pupil spending rate.
Rep. Oliver Olsen on Wednesday suggested removing the three-year sunset provision and allowing districts to lift the cap in a referendum on Election Day.
“They can vote to lift the cap, but they’re basically saying, ‘We want to raise our property taxes,’ ” Olsen said. “If you don’t want your property taxes to go up, you keep the cap in place.”
That idea was not tacked onto the amendment.
Here is a chart showing how the cap proposal would work, created by the Joint Fiscal Office.
The House Education Committee also voted out a second, 12-page amendment section for the big bill, which addressed language changes and other technical concerns. That amendment passed unanimously, and can be seen here.
