This commentary is by Tom McKone of Montpelier.
The build-up to Town Meeting Day and the record failure of 30 school budgets have overshadowed an earlier, stunning report that has received only modest coverage: Vermont faces at least $6.3 billion in school construction costs over the next two decades — even more, if we don’t start putting $300 million per year into this right away.
An immediate question is: If taxpayers don’t support their local school budget, how likely are they to vote to spend even more on aging school buildings — even if the Legislature establishes a new school construction aid program that would cover part of the cost?
The comprehensive, 42-page, School Construction Aid Task Force Report presented to the House and Senate Committees on Education last month, provides a sobering picture of the condition of Vermont’s 384 school buildings and recommendations of ways to move forward, with the conclusion that “a paradigm shift is necessary.”
The 16-member task force — which included Co-Chairs Treasurer Mike Pieciak and then-interim Secretary of Education Heather Bouchey, legislators, leaders from several education organizations, and community members — described the serious underfunding of local school maintenance and capital budgets, the further slippage caused by the state’s 16-year moratorium on providing state construction aid and a long list of construction-related needs.
“With an average age of 61 years for Vermont schools, this significant reduction in school construction aid has contributed to a backlog of school construction projects and the decline of school facilities conditions statewide,” the report stated. “This has resulted in less safe and less healthy learning environments, as well as disparities in the quality of education between better-resourced communities and high-need districts.”
The $6.3 billion is an underestimate. Referring to a statewide school facilities inventory and assessment done in 2022, on which the current cost estimates are based, the report notes that the needed $300 million per year is only to address existing deficiencies and “to replace systems that have reached the end of their useful life ‘in kind.’”
The facilities assessment “does not include the creation of 21st century learning environments.”
“(M)ost of our school buildings were built in a period when Vermont had more students and so, classroom space is largely adequate to meet current enrollments,” the report stated. “However, Vermont’s older portfolio of school buildings do not provide spaces that align with current educational delivery models or the requirements for one on one spaces and flexible learning spaces. These results speak to a key recommendation of the taskforce: it is not enough to simply repair existing buildings. State investment should be directed towards projects that will improve student learning.”
This would mean writing tighter provisions for receiving state construction assistance. Districts would be required to have five-year facilities plans, but there would also be grants available to districts that lack the capacity to develop such a plan. Priorities could include climate resistance and efficiencies, including school consolidation.
The previous school construction aid program, which ended in 2008, provided 30% funding from the state. The report provides examples of how 20% and 40% state support would work. The cost of addressing deficiencies in our schools exceeds the state’s bonding capacity, so the report includes recommendations about alternative funding methods used in other states.
Since receiving the report, the House Committee on Education has met with Jill Briggs Campbell, the director of operations for the Agency of Education, as well as representatives from New Jersey and West Virginia for information about how they address school construction statewide. The committee has also been discussing what needs to be done in the planning stages, how to prioritize aid, and the “newer and fewer” concept from the report, which would include the consolidation of school buildings as an incentive in awarding aid.
The School Construction Aid Task Force has provided the Legislature with a good starting point for planning the anticipated new school construction aid program. Although discussion of education costs often focuses on staffing, which is the largest portion of school budgets, this report emphasizes that we cannot continue to ignore our deteriorating facilities.
This brings us back to the issue I raised at the beginning: If taxpayer support for local school budgets is weak, how willing will they be to approve additional funding for deteriorating facilities?
This year’s school budget failures have been blamed on the end of temporary Covid-19 funds from the federal government, large increases in health care insurance, and salary increases.
However, the overall educational funding shortfall clearly goes further back, and without a dramatic change, it is going to extend into the future. In the past, school budgets did well in strong economies, but here we are in trouble in a strong economy. What happens when there is a downturn?
Following the failure of the local school budget where I live, the school board voted to close an elementary school. Some parents complained that the board shouldn’t be making major decisions while in crisis mode. Having been a Vermont school principal, having dealt with declining enrollments and limited funding, and, at one point, having had to lay off educators for six consecutive years, I think we’ve been in slow-burn crisis mode for a long time.
For a budget to work, expenditures and funding have to balance, and we don’t seem to have either half of that equation figured out very well.
