Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Heidi Spear, the school board chair at Fayston Elementary School.
H.538, this year’s bill on education finance reform, has passed the House and is on the front burner in the Senate this week. Many of our legislators voted for this bill, though it will translate to higher costs for the majority of us. I understand why it passed — legislators know we need to do something to decrease education spending. The problem is that this bill will do very little to contain it, as it principally targets small schools, a minor piece of the puzzle and the total costs. Furthermore, it does absolutely nothing to address the inequities in financial consequences for spending that undermine fiscal responsibility and guarantee that those who pay for the bulk of the expense will see higher tax bills regardless of whether they level fund or cut their our own school spending — just as we have in recent years.
A question needs to be asked of our legislators and our schools: What are we learning? We have 16 years of experience since Act 60 and Act 68 revolutionized the way we fund education in Vermont. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the only substantive analysis of impact of this legislation is known as the Picus Report. The Picus Report was commissioned by the Legislature to understand if Acts 60 and 68 had achieved their intended goals. In January 2012 the report was delivered and it provided some hard-hitting and salient points about what we had achieved, our lack of spending controls and a need to focus on outcomes to ensure substantial spending translates to improvements in student learning.
We are at the end of our second legislative session since the Picus Report was issued and the Legislature has not put forth any legislation to directly address the main findings of the study.
The Picus Report clarifies that while the tax rate is equal across the state for local communities that vote for the same equalized cost per pupil, the tax price increase — the burden — is very different across communities. Many of us knew this, but it goes on to confirm that communities with lower tax prices spend significantly more year over year. According to the report, in 2011, the 10 percent that paid the lowest price for spending increases spent $1,248 more per pupil than the 10 percent that paid the highest price increases for spending increases. The data shows that we have clearly undermined fiscal restraint in some communities. H.538 fails to act on this insight and provide additional incentives for fiscal responsibility where it is known to be lacking.
The facts say our state has small schools that are top performers and manage budgets to optimal outcomes and we have small schools that do neither. The facts say that we have large schools at both ends of that spectrum as well. We also have large schools that spend just as much per pupil as our smallest schools and in so doing have a far more devastating effect on our overall spending.
At this point you might think I am one of those people that come out on Town Meeting Day and tries to vote down school budgets. The opposite is the case. I serve on the Fayston School Board and I work to convince our voters to pass our budget, which, thankfully, they have thus far done. However, our community has paid sharply rising tax bills year over year and I do empathize with taxpayers who are getting crushed by the highest relative education finance burden in the country. I find their call for fiscal restraint reasonable. I find their notion that our particular small school budget is the root problem disheartening, mistaken and the natural result of the obfuscation our tax policy creates. I maintain that the major issue with Acts 60 and 68 is the pretense that the impact of spending is uniformly felt and that money is spent equally well dollar for dollar — that equal spending is equal value. We must begin to qualify education investments, not just quantify them. We need to introduce accountability across all communities to support investments that best serve our students, rather than just targeting small schools as the problem and driving them under with tax policies that make them unviable.
The Picus Report states that “the next big education finance issue for the state [is] forging a closer connection between the state funding formula, school use of resources and student performance.” They make this point, not just because we don’t have any connection at present, but because while we spend the most, we do not perform the best.
They make the following suggestions:
• Establish a system of more state accountability for student performance.
• Develop an incentive system that provides rewards for schools that meet or exceed state set targets for improved student performance beyond historical trends.
• Develop more insight into best practices through a larger set of case studies that reflect the different unique circumstances across Vermont.
• Consider a “production function” study to determine the degree to which there is a link between higher spending and higher achievement across all schools.
• Take steps to ensure supply and recruitment of top principal and teacher talent.
• Implement comprehensive evaluation processes for teachers and principals.
The House Education Committee Chair Johannah Donovan introduced last-minute amendments to H.538, replacing removal of the small schools grants with a study about achievement in small schools. How wise to at least seriously consider the efficacy of small schools rather than condemning them to closure or decline without facts, as many proposed tax changes in H.538 seem designed to do. The facts say our state has small schools that are top performers and manage budgets to optimal outcomes and we have small schools that do neither. The facts say that we have large schools at both ends of that spectrum as well. We also have large schools that spend just as much per pupil as our smallest schools and in so doing have a far more devastating effect on our overall spending.
The Legislature’s current approach to use tax policy to push for larger schools is done without evidence that the change they force will result in lower spending. Further, it risks damaging high performers while doing nothing to help the low performers. I believe our education finance reform efforts should be, by contrast, focused on fostering accountability, achievement and implementation of best practices that save money and optimally serve our students. We need to consciously build up spending accountability across all communities. Vermont needs to level the playing field and fairly support high-functioning schools that match its variable landscape. Scale should not be deemed and promoted as the only path to containing cost.
In our current framework, there is no distinction between a job well done and a job poorly done. We don’t distinguish between mandatory spending and wasteful spending. Following this path of using increased tax burden as a bully stick undermines communities that we all want to grow and prosper to become economic centers with a healthy middle class. How can we attract young families to increase our pupil counts, or even keep the tax base we have going, when these tax rates, coupled with destination-town property values, continue to climb and we don’t even have a local school? I believe that Vermont residents and taxpayers feel strongly that healthy small communities are essential to our economy and culture. Education policy should reflect this desire and strive to make our education system work better within the realities of our unique state and population.
The spending trajectory has to change, but it needs to do so by drawing on what we have learned. We need to recognize that unbridled spending does not equal unbridled success for all our students. We need to restore fiscal accountability where it is lacking by implementing accountability for student performance measures, achievement incentives and best practices.
I can’t close without saying that the Picus Report does point to areas of inefficiency and apparent excess expense in our education system. Our small supervisory unions, districts and schools translate to administrative costs that are well above the regional and national norm. We are also second highest in the country on per pupil support services spending.
It is important to have meaningful dialogue on collaborating across communities and ensuring investments made translate to improved education and outcomes. There is plenty of work to be done, but we need our elected leaders to support that work through smart, differentiated tax policy and meaningful research that can guide us. H.538, as it stands, does neither. Here is hoping that if this bill becomes an act, it has been amended to offer far more constructive education finance reform.
