Editor’s note: This op-ed is by William J. Mathis, a former school superintendent and is managing director of the Education and the Public Interest Center. He lives in Goshen.
Gov. Jim Douglas has presented us a novel way “to advance necessary reforms to reduce property taxes.” His plan increases property taxes. As for his desire to “maintain and create jobs in Vermont,” he proposes we eliminate jobs. He opines that letting the schools have the $19 million federal stimulus money specifically allocated for school jobs “. . . would be irresponsible – particularly with budget challenges remaining for the foreseeable future.” All things being equal, a take-away of school revenue results in a direct increase in the community’s property taxes.
Schools are the biggest employers in many communities and diverting the funds would not only increase property taxes, it would increase unemployment. That’s hardly a fruitful or forward-thinking way “to adjust to new fiscal realities.”
Vermont schools were rated number one in the country by the American Legislative Exchange Council for showing the greatest gains for our economically challenged children. Morgan-Quinto has rated Vermont the “smartest state.” No matter who does the ranking, everyone gives Vermont education good grades.
One of the reasons for these positive scores is our low staffing ratios — which are the most favorable in the nation. While Montpelier Democrats as well as Republicans have called for laying-off staff, the citizens seem to understand that our ratios produce good social and economic outcomes (we currently rank third) as well as high test scores. Even the conservative Friedman foundation points to the social costs of drop-outs on Medicaid costs, unemployment, incarceration and lost tax revenues.
Taking into account our economic misfortunes, school districts pared their increases as student numbers dropped. Last year, the schools averaged a zero percent increase despite increases in the cost of living and ever-increasing mandates. Next year, the “challenges for change” targets demand an additional two percent reduction, on average. As Commissioner Vilaseca said, this looks like a $23 million reduction but, in reality, it is as high as a $50 million reduction. Again, the hidden costs of inflation and new requirements figure in.
Yet the government continues to blindly layer-on new mandates as if they didn’t cost anything. Governor Douglas, as Chairman of the National Governors’ Association, led the development of the “common core” curriculum which would result in uniform curriculum, tests and punishments across the nation.
Currently, Vermont’s state standards take 38 pages to cover all seven subject areas, opportunities to learn, and civic and social responsibility. Each subject area has about four pages of explanation per grade grouping. These are to be replaced with a massive 500 page set of standards — that covers only reading and mathematics. The cost to Vermont schools to junk their current curriculum and standardized tests is enormous. While the Governor attacks school costs, he led the imposition of these onerous new burdens. To be sure, the Gallup poll says the public favors “high standards” but they also say that “government interference” is now a major problem facing education. The people want good schools but they are increasingly weary of the government gumming it up.
State policy-makers do not seem to understand school budgets. Local budgets fluctuate because that’s what happens in real-life. For example, whether senior teachers retire, the septic system needs major repairs, the leaky roof needs replacing, building code upgrades are needed, and whether classes must be cut or added are the things that cause budget fluctuations. Bureaucrats chunking-out regression statistics that determines a hard cap for each school is more an exercise in hubris than in rational planning.
At the same time, Governor Douglas says the federal law, “really lacks flexibility in a lot of different ways.” Commissioner Vilaseca, in asking for dispensations, says that the federal law was not designed for rural states like Vermont. Perhaps the Montpelier leaders should exercise this same flexibility in Vermont. Rigid central government control of expenditures and production has the failed precedent of the Soviet Union’s five year plans. There are tasks that only federal and state governments can accomplish but there are also natural limits to what civil laws can accomplish. With Vermont’s admirable record at stake, ill-considered mandates have great potential for costly failure.
Claiming that taking money from schools will reduce property taxes doesn’t pass the straight-face test. Increasing tax burdens on the grounds that they are too high is disingenuous. Diverting jobs money does not increase jobs. Imposing new mandates, while complaining about school costs, is hypocrisy. Meanwhile, the Governor repeats his recurring, anti-education monologue even though voters show him, year after year, that their vision for our society and our children is a little more generous.
