Editor’s note: This commentary is by John Freitag, of Strafford, who is past president of the Newton School PTA, Newton School facilities manager for 33 years (retired) and current member of the Strafford Selectboard and moderator of the Universalist Society of Strafford.
[I] still recall Gov. Peter Shumlin touting his idea for providing pre-K stipends for all 3- and 4-year-olds in the state during an interview with Bob Kinzel on “Vermont Edition.” Gov. Shumlin went on to say that we would not have to raise new taxes to pay for this. As the son of a schoolteacher mother and as a longtime school employee myself, I am a big supporter of early childhood education. However, I am also the son of an accountant father and this immediately raised some red flags. It turns out that the way this was to be done was not to have the Legislature raise any new taxes but to have this new benefit be funded through the education fund, whose primary source is property taxes.
The purpose of the education fund up to the Shumlin administration was the funding of K-12 education. During the Shumlin years, this fund was opened up to a host of other programs. This helped lead to the high property taxes we now face as well as a further disassociation between what was passed at school meetings and the amount in taxes to be raised. In addition, income sensitivity which was originally intended for lower income Vermont households was raised by around 50 percent in 2015 to a level where going into this year incomes up to $147,000 qualified and individual payments of up to $8,000 were allowed. This income sensitivity increase helped mask some of the true costs of what has become an ongoing hole in the budget and between what is approved for school budgets and what is needed in the education fund.
To their credit, Kitty Toll and other legislative leaders took some steps in the budget they proposed to address these problems by reducing the value of a housesite and the income level that qualifies to receive income sensitivity payments from the state. They also provided for a consistent source of other funds used to support our schools. In addition some programs, put in the education fund during the Shumlin years, have also been taken out. These include over $18 million to support adult education, prison education, and the renters rebate program. These much-needed reforms should be recognized and appreciated.
Unfortunately there is still over $20 million of non K-12 items in the education fund that should be returned to the general fund. None is more egregious than the annual contribution ( this year $7.7 million) to the teachers retirement account. This legislative-created and -controlled program has been in the general fund since its inception many decades ago. It was added to the education fund only last year and is not part of any school board budget or agreement with teachers. Slipping programs into the education fund and then asking people to respect local decision-making, when they do not have control over all aspects in the education fund and what they are paying for is disingenuous at best.
It is not uncommon for politicians to manipulate the budget for what they feel is the greater good. Gov. Shumlin was especially noted for being clever in this regard. However, cleverness and short-term gain has its cost and we are paying part of that cost in the current budget standoff. Faith in government depends on transparency and for people to be able to understand the budgets they approve. It is time, as part of a budget compromise, to correct a past mistake and take the education fund back to where it was in 2010 when its only purpose was to fund K-12 education controlled by school boards.
