This commentary is by state Rep. Scott Beck, R-St. Johnsbury, a member of the Task Force on the Implementation of the Pupil Weighting Factors.
Vermont’s PreK-12 education funding system is arguably the most equitable (far from perfect) in the country, and also the most complicated. Only a handful of people understand the unsolved equity issues and the underlying education funding system that supports students.
Since July, a legislative task force has been meeting to discuss Vermont’s funding system and equity, particularly how Vermont weights categories of students who require increased resources.
Fortunately, in 2018 the Legislature requested a study to look at how Vermont currently weights students. UVM, with assistance from national experts, conducted this study with clear findings and recommendations.
UVM found that the origin of Vermont’s current weights are unknown and don’t appear to have any scientific basis. UVM recommended appropriate increased weights that are supported by science.
UVM’s research supported two sets of weights, one more modest than the other. The task force looked closely at the differences and chose the more modest increase.
This “modest” increase chosen by the task force is anything but modest. It will increase the weighting for poverty more than four-fold; other weights increase about three-fold. In addition, a weighting was created to support rurality. Support for small schools was increased as well.
It also created a state grant program to support English language learners; a handful of Vermont districts with significant numbers of English language learners students (Winooski and Burlington included) also receive a federal Title 3 grant. These changes are supported by science and UVM’s work.
Vermont’s struggles with equity stretch beyond weighting. The homestead tax rates received by districts, dollar equivalent of weighting, education delivery, and taxpayer fairness all suffer from equity problems within the Education Fund.
To address these equity issues, and the proposed weighting changes, the task force recommended moving to a cost equity model. Basically, instead of giving district weights and increasing (at least until the equalization ratio is applied) their equalized pupil count, they would be given grant aid in the form of dollars.
The cost equity proposal solves many problems. Eliminating equalized pupils eliminates the troublesome equalization ratio; I won’t even try to explain how this works. It also eliminates the annual discussion about what an equalized pupil is.
The cost equity proposal more closely connects a district’s spending decision to its homestead education tax rate, achieving greater rate equity between districts. Currently, district rate assignment favors high-spending districts at the expense of lower-spending districts, a real head-scratcher.
In alignment with the Tax Structure Commission, the task force recommends moving to a local education income tax rate in lieu of the current system, where some pay based on income, some on property, and some on both. Good luck explaining that.
Finally, the Task Force recommends that the Agency of Education and the State Board of Education work together to propose a system that will ensure that all Vermont students being supported by the Education Fund are receiving an excellent and equitable education.
Basically, the task force’s recommendation on an 8-0 vote is simple. It redirects resources in a way that addresses all known equity issues and ensures that all districts have access to the resources necessary to offer their children an excellent education, in a way that is explainable.
The cost equity proposal is not a magic wand. Education and the funding of education are complex, and evolve. Continuous care will be required to ensure that the weights and associated dollar amounts accurately reflect costs.
Fortunately, Vermont has a self-balancing Education Fund (unique to Vermont) and a required Tax Letter to ward off possible political malfeasance and weighting manipulation.
By achieving equity, Vermont will by default remove advantages that many school districts have enjoyed for decades. Even with change, the children in these currently advantaged districts are entitled to an excellent education, and any transition should be sensitive to this.
Of course, change brings critics; so does inaction. Like previous education reform efforts, some will embrace increased equity as an opportunity. Others won’t. Some may attempt to preserve their advantaged position; others will support changes that benefit them, and oppose the ones that don’t.
In the end, the Legislature needs to ensure that equity wins, all Vermont children receive an excellent education, and it can be explained to taxpayers.
