Editor’s note: This commentary is by Mike Ryan, who worked for 25 years in management at Digital Equipment Corp., followed by several years working as an independent consultant. He is retired and lives in Hyde Park.

My wife and I are retired and have never needed to use the public school system. We have, however, been aware of some of the issues for a number of years as we have been obliged to contribute significantly to its funding.

Matters came to a head for us when we found out in early October that there was to be a bond issue on the November ballot for more than $18 million to expand and repair our local elementary school. Digging deeper into the issues I discovered that in order to fund other priorities within the “state cap” there had been no serious maintenance and repairs budgeted for a number of years. I have not been able to find out exactly how long but it must be a good number of years given the state of some of the roofs. Only emergency repairs had been carried out during that time. There existed a vision to turn the school into a feature in the village and to cover all necessary repairs as part of the expansion and upgrade. This would have increased our property tax by more than $2,000 for each of the next 20 years. Fortunately, many people in our local community were as upset as we were and the proposed bond was voted down by almost 5-1.

I subsequently met with the school board chairman and am trying to maintain a dialogue because I would like to try to help them if they have properly digested what happened with the vote and are really ready to chart a more realistic course.

I have also put much more time into understanding how our current system works, its perceived strengths and weaknesses. I have given my comments to the group working on the Vermont Strategic Plan for Education but have heard nothing back from them yet.

Anyway, I would like here to get involved with the debate statewide as I think the problems cannot be solved at the local level. So here are my ideas as to what is wrong and how we might change what we are currently doing for the benefit of all Vermonters.

Vermont has three major problems in K-12 education cost and funding:

We have a major spending problem compared with almost all of the other 49 states – we spend 30-50 percent more than the average depending on whose data you use. It should be possible for Vermont to maintain the current level of educational outcomes whilst reducing cost over time to the national average. I am looking for average outcomes, which is what I believe we have today at average cost.

There is no accountability for overall spending at either the state or the district/town level. Every district/town school budget that is approved locally is automatically approved in aggregate at the state level; all of these local budgets are aggregated up and after equalization are used to set rates for each town. There is no visible state pushback in the process. Districts/towns don’t feel responsible for the major portion of their budgets as they are set by the state using aggregated local numbers which have been subjected to equalization massaging. The towns are only responsible for ensuring that the taxes are collected. Result? No one is accountable! Local voters however are convenient scapegoats.

Vermont has a funding mechanism that uses a secretive and selective property tax basis as the means by which the amount to be contributed to K-12 education by each household is calculated and collected. More than 70 percent of Vermonters receive subsidies to offset the cost of this tax. We can’t rely on a system that is subject to both the vagaries of the real estate market in addition to the variability of incomes to fund education. Income alone is the more stable of the two and probably the fairest.

How can we fix it?

First, we need to simplify the mission of our K-12 schools. Get back to basics excluding all expense not related to K-12 education with the possible exception of one year of preschool. All other non-education demands on schools should be funded by the appropriate agency.

We must have clear accountability for setting spending targets, budgets and controlling actual spending at the state and district level.

We must have a fair and sustainable funding mechanism.

We must comply with Act 68.

Spending

Cut spending significantly — reduce per pupil cost statewide to the national average over next three to four years and set a goal and an expectation of maintaining this average level out into the future – regardless of growing or declining student populations.

Make public and very visible the difference between the average national cost per pupil and the aggregate Vermont 2014 statewide budgeted cost per pupil and the total annual cost of this difference.

Get agreement in the Legislature and the districts that this gap needs to be closed if we are to be seen internally and externally as a state that has a competitive and sustainable education system. This is essential for attracting and retaining businesses and therefore jobs.

Assign cost reduction programs at the state and district level that will see the cost gap closed in four years.

Initiatives to reduce and contain spending

Consolidate school districts to achieve economies of scale at a manageable and affordable level. This must be mandated, it will not happen if it is voluntary. Someone needs to be appointed by the governor to prepare a consolidation plan working with the existing districts.

Stop the practice of voting each year at Town Meetings for the dollar amount of school budgets. Under today’s system a yes vote in every town aggregates up to the statewide spending budget which, after substantial massaging, is allocated back to towns authorizing them to set their property tax revenue budgets based on a formula that no one understands. There is no other control of costs beyond the aggregate of town voter approvals. Budgets should be mandated and paid for by the state to each school district using a standard statewide per pupil allowance that gets us to and maintains us at the national per pupil average. Town voters should only vote on how the money will be spent in the coming year, not on the total amount to be spent.

All schools should drastically increase their student/ teacher ratios to not less than 25:1

All schools should eliminate as far as possible their need for paraeducators. These should only be necessary to cater for real special needs students. For example, it is absurd that I should have to accept that 54 percent of the children in my local elementary school have special needs.*

Schools should not be performing health and social services activities which are outside the remit of education. If the Legislature requires schools to perform any of these functions, they must be budgeted and paid for by the responsible agency if they are affordable.

Other than for students in Corrections of high school age, education should not be paid for out of the K-12 education fund. Again, legislators need to see that these are budgeted and paid for by the appropriate agency.

College/high school programs should be funded by both K-12 funds and separately by college tuition based on the goals of the program.

We must not allow legislators to pile more unfunded mandates onto K-12 budgets. If they want to write laws to expand the services provided by our public schools they must ensure that these are properly funded separately – not funded from the K-12 education fund.

There will be for sure other initiatives that people will want to introduce to reduce and contain cost.

We can solve the accountability problem by putting responsibility where it belongs:

The state should assume responsibility for goals, budgets and actual spending in K-12 education statewide for each year using the following methodology:

The state sets the goals, e.g., that statewide educational outcomes versus national averages will be maintained.

That per pupil spending will be at the national average by achieving the maximum possible cost improvements over the next four years with specific goals for each year.

They will be responsible to ensure that these standards are maintained at the national average level into the future.

The state would be responsible for achieving and maintaining national average cost per pupil statewide.

Having satisfied the above the state will set a statewide per pupil spending allowance which will be used by all school districts to set their budgets by multiplying the allowance by the number of pupils in their district.

Districts would be responsible for identifying specific cost reduction and containment programs that they will implement to meet the state’s goals. They would also be responsible for allocating proposed annual spending in line with the known priorities of the district and for ensuring that budgets are not overspent.

Each year, voters in each district would review and approve the district’s proposal on spending priorities and how the budgeted spending would be allocated.

Funding K-12 education

The process and mechanism used currently is far too complex, does not achieve fairness relative to who is required to pay and to what level. It is not transparent and it is understood only by a very few.

It puts an enormous burden on many of those 30 percent of taxpayers who get no relief from state subsidies or exclusions. In addition this method has no connection to statewide household disposable income whatsoever and so misses the point of who can afford to pay and who cannot.

As an example: Many retired people live in homes that have been assessed with high property values which attract very high property taxes. Most values were set in pre-bubble times. Because they have relatively modest fixed incomes they get no subsidies and are being forced to pay up even if they absolutely cannot afford it. The problem is that there are no buyers at the high end of the market as all higher end property is currently overvalued and large mortgages are very hard to get.

Under this proposal the state would fund all K-12 education from income tax creating a K-12 education fund. The state would be responsible for actual statewide annual spending performance versus budget and management of the fund.

Implementation

Year 1 – Set 2015 per pupil allowance at 2014 statewide actual spending levels — no increases. Understand the impact of 2015 cost reduction efforts for the purpose of setting 2016 cost per pupil allowances.

Year 2 – Set lower 2016 allowance. Reduce the allowance by the savings from 2015 cost reduction efforts and the projected savings from 2016. Confirm that the cost gap is closing, take further cost reduction action if necessary.

Year 3 – Set lower 2017 allowance. Use the savings from 2016 and check that the cost gap will be closed before the start of 2018. Take further corrective action if necessary. Follow national average for future years – applying increases and decreases as necessary.

*Editor’s note: Raven Walters, the chair of the Hyde Park Elementary School Board, says that just under 16 percent of its students receive special education services, which is just below the state average. Mike Ryan, the author, says the 54 percent refers to all special needs and the information came from a letter to the editor of the News and Citizen.