Sharpe, ed panel ‘missed’ change to funding formula

David Sharpe

Rep. David Sharpe, D-Bristol, is chairman of the House Education Committee. File photo by Amy Ash Nixon/VTDigger

Lawmakers were told about an education funding formula change in November, but legislators say they weren’t aware that there was a problem with the calculation at the time.

Last week, in testimony before lawmakers, representatives from the Agency of Education said they misinterpreted a section of the law dealing with the new allowable growth spending thresholds and unintentionally provided school districts with erroneous per pupil spending amounts for fiscal 2017 for the budgets they are currently putting together.

The Agency of Education removed exclusions from local school budgets for principal and interest on capital construction expenditures; excessive special education funding over $50,000; payments districts make into the state teacher retirement fund; and other items that were included under the old system of excess spending thresholds. Agency officials believed these exclusions would not be included under the new allowable growth percentage mechanism in section 37 of Act 46.

Brad James, finance manager for the agency, told the House Committee on Education how he was calculating the threshold amounts under Act 46 at a hearing in November, but it was not clear to lawmakers or members of the Joint Fiscal Office that there was an issue with his interpretation.

“I did tell the committee in mid-November at the hearing how I was calculating the threshold – exemptions were not taken out,” James said in an interview.

The House panel met late last year to consider ways to tweak the allowable growth percentage threshold. Lawmakers have been under pressure from school boards and the governor’s office to relieve pressure on districts that face a hefty financial penalty under the spending caps. At the meeting, James told lawmakers that AOE was not including exemptions for special education and capital construction in the calculations.

During his testimony, James first explained how he arrived at his calculations:
“What is happening in the FY17 budget, the way it is currently structured right now, the way the language was written, was all of the calculations for what the growth is for FY17 come from FY16 data, so any new exclusions you have for FY17 don’t show up because all FY16 information is what we are making the calculation based on,” said James.

James then recommended that lawmakers tweak AGP by putting the exclusions that were allowed under the old excess spending thresholds back into the law to help localities meet their allowable growth thresholds.

“Another idea would be to carve out some of the exemptions in the FY17 numbers to reduce those costs so you end up squaring it up a bit more,” he said.

Brad James

Brad James is education finance manager for the Agency of Education. File Photo by Amy Ash Nixon/VTDigger

Rep. David Sharpe, chairman of the House Committee on Education, said at first that he must have missed James’ explanation, but after reviewing a videotape from ORCA media, Sharpe pointed to two different times he questioned James to clarify what he meant, and James was “less than clear,” Sharpe said.

Rep. Sarah Buxton, D-Tunbridge, also questioned James about the exclusions. “I thought you were talking about education spending with exclusions,” Buxton said.

“I am,” James replied. “The spending per pupil number that would drive your tax rate is offsetting exclusions that are in current statute for what was the current excess spending threshold. So before I start this process, I’m taking Tunbridge’s real spending per pupil and I’m subtracting out those exclusions on a per pupil basis and that is what you are seeing here — so you are starting out with a lower number.”

“I missed it,” Sharpe said, “clearly, the committee missed it — our Joint Fiscal Office was there.”

On Jan. 8, Sharpe understood better what had happened. “It only became clear to me when our legal staff at Legislative Council came to us and said this is a problem,” he said.

On Tuesday, James testified before the House ed panel that he had been interpreting section 37 of Act 46 differently than the Joint Fiscal Office and the legislative office. He believed that under the new law the exclusions for construction principal and interest payments, some special education costs, payments districts make to the state for teacher retirement and some others that were part of the excess spending thresholds in the old system no longer applied. Because of this school districts had received the wrong fiscal year 2017 per pupil threshold amounts — but their allowed growth per pupil and their allowable growth percentage, or AGP, remain correct.

“It was listed right out of the previous language, so I don’t understand how it could have been interpreted differently,” Sharpe said. “It is a big concern of ours that it was not interpreted as we intended in the first place.”

The excess spending thresholds in place before Act 46 allowed the agency to compare spending per pupil after the exclusions were backed out. Lawmakers thought that was what would happen under the new spending thresholds. Now the exemptions have been calculated back in and will alter many districts’ allowed per pupil spending.

“As far as I understand, for school districts that have the exact same amount of exclusion costs year after year, this makes no difference in their calculation. For school districts (where) exclusion costs are increasing, they will have more room to spend and stay under the thresholds that are now correctly interpreted by the Agency of Education,” Sharpe said.

Much of the outcry from school districts over the allowable growth thresholds has been around uncontrollable costs such as those that might now be excluded by many districts.

“Business managers or legislators from districts have told me they are OK now that the threshold is being calculated differently,” Sharpe said.

Districts that will feel a negative impact and have a tougher time staying under their AGP are those with decreasing exemptions — such as fewer special education students, less in construction costs, or a bond that has been paid off.

“There may be a number who thought they were under but now aren’t,” said Sharpe. “It is a real problem that we do not know what those exclusions look like in FY17 from district to district.”

The allowable growth percentage assigns each school district an amount it can increase spending, ranging from 0 to 5.5 percent, based on the previous year’s per pupil spending. If a district votes to spend more than the allowed amount, it is penalized with a double tax on each additional dollar.

The House Education Committee is proposing to increase every district’s allowable growth percentage by 0.9 percentage point to help accommodate an unforeseen 7.9 percent rise in health care premiums. The Senate Committee on Education has introduced a repeal of the allowable growth mechanism. The administration also favors delaying or repealing the AGP.

The confusion over how to interpret the law and the continuing debate over whether to adjust the AGP or repeal it is happening at the same time that school boards are finalizing their budgets to meet deadlines for Town Meeting Day on March 1. This has led some to side with repealing AGP and reverting back to the former excessive spending thresholds for fiscal 2017 in the interest of time.

“The only responsible course of action is to repeal,” said Nicole Mace, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association.

Sharpe isn’t giving up. He is spending the long holiday weekend trying to figure out a solution. Right now he is considering allowing school districts to use either per pupil threshold calculation with or without the exemptions plus the 0.9 percentage point increase in their allowable growth rate.

“School districts can either calculate the old way of doing it or the new, whichever is more beneficial and helps them stay under the thresholds. That plus 0.9 will bring many more school districts into compliance with Act 46,” Sharpe said.

Tiffany Danitz Pache

Leave a Reply

13 Comments on "Sharpe, ed panel ‘missed’ change to funding formula"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
George Cross
7 months 11 days ago

All the more reason for the House to agree with the Senate. Repeal the caps, task the local districts, the AOE and BOE to develop ways to reduce costs and get out of the way!

Tom Pelham
7 months 11 days ago
It’s all now as perfectly clear as mud. Right? Most certainly, there are less than a handful of Vermonters who can follow the substance of this story. Even state budget staffers, legal staffers and state representatives themselves have become entangled and paralyzed by their own opaque terms and the byzantine infrastructure of Act 68 and Act 46. Click on the hyperlink “calculations“and ask yourself whether or not you understand the legal technicalities of terms such as “phantom” pupils, “equalized pupils”, “education spending”, among others. Trying to manage this system of nuanced definitions, inclusions, exclusions and caps to reduce property taxes… Read more »
Seth Henry
7 months 9 days ago

Tom Pelham says it perfectly. It is time to go back to the drawing board with Act 60/68/46 and start fresh. Continuing to build on this rotten foundation serves nobody.

Heidi Spear
7 months 9 days ago
Spot on Tom. Transparency, accountability and effective management have long been an impossibility with Act 68. Act 46, overlaying Act 68 as it does, just magnifies the problems inherent. Conflating Act 60 and Act 68 with the Brigham Decision, inaccurately, has led to the perpetuation of a system that has done Vermont great harm. Ignoring the underlying problems with our education funding system and doling out very significant carrots and sticks in Act 46 on the basis of nothing but consolidating governance- not education quality and not relative expenditures- was irresponsible. Those who decry its impact, the inaccurate data and… Read more »
Dave Bellini
7 months 11 days ago

Does anyone connected to this have any idea what they are doing?

Jim Christiansen
7 months 11 days ago

Clearly not. Repeal this mess and start over.

7 months 10 days ago

Sadly, not having any idea of what they’re doing is not limited to education reform. It seems that Montpelier is also at sea with health care reform, energy policy, drug abuse policy, budget setting and the list goes on.

Granted these are difficult issues……but if the road ahead is not clear than its time to slow down and think things through before acting.

Over the past five years we have time after time witnessed a failure in this regard.

Jamie Carter
7 months 11 days ago
It seems like Sharpe and the rest of the legislators are taking a page out of the Jonathon Gruber play book. They, along with the AOE, have created a amazingly overly complicated education system. In doing so, they have eliminated transparency, accountability, and created total and utter confusion for a process that should be very clear and simple. Of course, this is exactly what they wanted. And we have yet another example in the pipeline, the carbon tax. Legislators could enact an 8cent tax and use it to fund a weatherization program, but instead they want to raise and 88c… Read more »
Bruce Malcolm
7 months 10 days ago
The Town of Elmore has a unique and unfortunate relationship to this controversy. We are the only Town in Vermont that actually voted on a school merger based on this inaccurate information. The Elmore per pupil cost for 2017 was presented at a Town Meeting on Act 46 shortly before the December 29th vote. Secretary Rebecca Holcombe of the AOE was personally in attendance, and described this data as the best available. Since rising special education costs are a big factor in Elmore, we now know that the per pupil costs offered were seriously flawed. There is little doubt that… Read more »
Joyce Hottenstein
7 months 10 days ago

What a load of B.S.!!! An unforeseen 7.9 percent rise in health care premiums, everyone saw this coming but the legislators???? The exchange is on a death spiral, state coffers are down and the VTNEA wants us to pay more for fewer students. ENOUGH!

Steve Beck
7 months 10 days ago

I am voting NO tomorrow

Paul Richards
7 months 10 days ago
The nea does not care and the sooner our elected officials realize this and work to rute them out of the system, the sooner we can have some hope of resolving this. As long as these public sector unions are allowed to obscure the facts and hide behind closed doors with their lawyers, away from public scrutiny for over 80% of the budget we will continue to have these problems. Public sector unions should be outlawed once again. They go against the intent of our constitution because; with them there are no provisions for real representation of the taxpayers. We… Read more »
Patrick Zachary
7 months 10 days ago

Of course they missed this. I cant recall many they’ve hit a home run. For an example of a home run would be the denial of an increase to efficiency vt last session. I certainly wish for more and different homeruns this session.

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Sharpe, ed panel ‘missed’ change to funding formula"