Editor’s note: This commentary is by Stephanie Seguino, who is vice chair of the Burlington School Board.
This year, once again, school budgets remain a topic of intense interest and concern. Some information about Burlington’s budget proposal may help to explain the complex pressures many school districts are facing.
Burlington School District’s proposed FY19 budget is less than 1 percent higher than last year’s — a rate of growth that is less than the rate of inflation.
We made the decision to invest in strategic areas, including resources to help close the achievement gap. One way we managed to contain spending was by cutting $540,000 from central office. This type of cut is not sustainable, however, because the district requires the services of central office to function well. But due to pressures from Montpelier on the education fund, we felt it imperative to limit the tax impact of our budget.
Per equalized pupil spending will rise from $14,991 to $15,111 — a 0.8 percent increase. Some commentators have said we (and the rest of the state) spend much more per pupil than do most other states (the U.S. average is $11,392 per student).
Why the difference? Burlington is a city with a high poverty rate (and relatively stable enrollments). As a result, 50 percent of our students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, that is, are low income. We do a better job than many states in supporting children across the socio-economic spectrum, making our spending more equitable. Lower spending in other states may in fact reflect failure to invest in supports for children with disabilities, who are low income, or English language learners. Average per pupil spending, in other words, tells us nothing about how those dollars are distributed and therefore comparisons with other states may not be “apples-to-apples.”
Despite our efforts to contain spending, the property tax increase associated with this year’s budget will be 7.99 percent, due to factors other than school spending. To state this more clearly, less than 1 percent of the property tax increase is due to budget increases, and over 7 percent is due to pressures from Montpelier.
Those pressures are not new. In 2000, Montpelier paid over 42 percent of the education fund, leaving 57 percent to come from property taxes. By 2015, that 33 percent came from the state, with 67 percent from property taxes. (These data are from the Joint Fiscal Office). One of the problems with this trend is that the property tax is regressive — those with less pay a higher percentage of their income for property taxes.
There is a bill in the Legislature now to address the problem of relying on the property tax to fund education. I think that bill has merit, and hope it moves us to a more sustainable and fair distribution of the responsibility for funding education. That said, this year we face a property tax increase that is not easy to accept.
On the portion of the property tax the school board does have some control over, our district has worked hard to spend tax dollars wisely while improving the quality of education for all of our students. We have faced several years of cuts, and to cut more this year would do unacceptable harm in our efforts to meet the needs of our students.
I am not going to downplay the concerns folks have about rising property taxes. They are real, especially for those on a fixed income. The mandate of school commissioners is to represent the interests and well-being of all of the constituents in our community — students, parents, district staff, the community and taxpayers. The goal then is to maintain a balanced approach so that we stay connected as a cohesive community, not one splintered and divided.
Our budget decisions this year were very challenging, given the tightrope we have to walk between concerns about tax burdens and spending on education. What I hope we can all keep in mind, however, is that spending on education is the best economic development strategy we have.
