Senate Committees
On
The Senate Committees on Education and Health & Welfare, chaired by Senators Don Collins and Doug Racine, hosted a joint hearing last week on cost shifts from human service agencies to school districts. The House Committee on Education also attended the meeting.
At the beginning of the hearing, Racine stated his belief that too much of the legislative discussion so far has been “…about the state telling school districts how to operate, but we need to find a role for the state that is a partnership with local school districts. A lot of new costs are being placed on school districts—it’s not all a result of profligate spending on their part.”
The Committees heard from school district and special education administrators, the Joint Fiscal Office, and the Department of Health’s Mental Health Division. The testimony painted a stark picture of school districts regularly providing and funding an array of services that are human service in nature.
Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) Analyst Stephanie Barrett presented findings from the 2001 Report On The Provision Of Special Education Services. The Report found that programs and services have been created and funded where the need arose, through community collaborations and “the legal obligation of the school to provide special education and related services.” The JFO estimates that Vermont has been forced to spend $20 million annually to cover the under-funding of the federal special education law, using the original Congressional promise of 40% reimbursement as the base. .
The 2001 Report, often referred to as the “Pink Report” because of the color of its title page, includes several observations and recommendations, none of which has been given serious attention. Two of those recommendations are particularly relevant to the issues raised by Barrett in her testimony:
1) The
State should acknowledge the extent to which local special education service
provision for children with disabilities is the product of several
factors. These are: collaboration at the community level; the
legal obligation of the school to assure special education and related services;
the fact that services historically paid by a variety of human services agencies,
or not provided at all, have become services paid by school districts; and
actual increases in the incidence and kinds of service needs.
2) The
costs for such services paid by school districts, therefore, reflect a shift in
payment from the state General Fund to both the Education Fund and the local
school taxpayers. As a result, any
consideration of special education costs should acknowledge that they are, in
part, a function of this historic development.
Nancy Thomas, Director of Special
Services for Washington Central Supervisory Union, and Jeanne Collins,
Superintendent of the
Collins shared with the Committee
several specific examples of cost shifts affecting school districts. She described receiving a doctor’s note
requesting that the school district provide medical services because a child’s
insurance carrier would not pay for them.
She also described current questions in Burlington and elsewhere about
including in-building school safety officers in school budgets. Whereas police departments have often
provided the officers, budget constraints have caused some municipal
departments to reduce or eliminate the service.
In addition, limited Medicaid Global Commitment funds have forced the
Jack McCarthy, Superintendent of Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union, testified about two significant cost shifts experienced by his S.U. “Child Find,” the program to identify children from birth to age 3, has previously been conducted in McCarthy’s area by the Department of Children and Families. Now, under new interpretations of the law, it must be funded by the Supervisory Union. When combined with expanding costs for speech and language services for 3-5 year olds, this has added $100,000 annually to the Supervisory Union budget. McCarthy also noted that if a student’s family is unable to pay Medicaid insurance premiums, the school must provide the required services and pay all the costs, even though it would be less expensive for the school district to pay the insurance premiums.
Chaunce Benedict, the principal of Missisquoi Valley Union High School, estimated the impact of cost shifts on his school budget. He manages a school of 1100 students with a budget of $12.8 million. Mr. Benedict testified that outside of special education, which costs $2.5 million annually, around $740,000 (or $670 per student) is dedicated to services that are funded by the school district as a result of cost shifts. Examples of such services include programs for homeless students, after school programs, additional guidance counselors and school psychologists.
Michael Hartmann and Charles Biss from the Department of Mental Health also testified. Biss emphasized the rapidly growing interagency coordination with the Department of Education by stating that in 1996, his department served 246 students in schools and it now it serves 4037 students utilizing a budget of $30 million. Hartmann testified that the issues discussed here were pandemic, and that very expensive programs were scattered among several agencies.
Judging from the comments and questions during the hearing by legislators, it appears likely that the committees will consider legislative action on cost shifts during this biennium.
Legislative Committees Consider The
“CLA PROBLEM”
The House Ways & Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Michael Obuchowski, and the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Ann Cummings, took testimony last week on the continuing dissatisfaction on the part of many tax payers and local officials with the effects of the common level of appraisal (CLA) on property tax bills. The Governor and legislators alike have expressed interest in limiting the CLA’s impact on tax bills.
The Governor’s proposal is to cap the CLA in the 10% of towns whose CLA changes most drastically in a single year. Steve Jeffrey of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns told the Committee that his organization opposes the Governor’s plan, describing it as an arbitrary measure, using the examples of Guildhall and Kirby, nearby and similarly sized towns. Under the Administration’s proposal, Guildhall would have benefited from the CLA-cap this year, and Kirby, among others, would be subsidizing the benefit even though the latter town’s CLA-change was just a fraction less then Guildhall’s.
Former representative Bob Rusten offered the Ways and Means Committee plans to mitigate the CLA’s effect. One suggestion is to cap the effect of the CLA on towns whose single-year change was greater than the state median. The towns positively affected by this idea would be determined less arbitrarily then under the Governor’s plan, but the program would be more expensive for towns at or below the median. Another idea is to consider only the two previous years of property sales when determining the CLA, as opposed to the current three-year history. This would keep a town’s CLA more aligned with the current property sales market, but have the downside of potentially being less accurate (because fewer sales would be used in making the determination). Finally, the Committee expressed some interest in the concept of, in lieu of applying a different CLA for each town, having regional CLAs whose tax effect would be spread over more properties and taxpayers then current practice.
Paul Cillo, a former legislator and current director of the Public Assets Institute, emphasized to the House committee his belief that the CLA is a fair and effective tool for incorporating market factors into property valuation. He cited what he described as a “perception problem” regarding the CLA in public debate, saying that too many taxpayers blame it for their rising tax bills.
Lori Bibeau, business manager for the Washington Central Supervisory Union, and Charlotte Bassage, of the Calais school board, testified in the Senate Finance Committee that changes to the CLA in Calais have been responsible for the vast majority of that town’s 55 cent tax rate increase over the last three years. The Senate Committee also heard from Senator Ginny Lyons, the sponsor of S.72, a bill that proposes to keep grand list values of residential properties assessed at purchase price, with an annual inflation adjustment. The value on the grand list would be altered only by site improvements and inflation. Senator Lyons’ approach relies on the assumption that a property’s purchase price is a better indication of ability to pay taxes than a property’s market value.
It is unclear how or whether the legislature will address the on-going concerns about the CLA. Although not discussed in these hearings, there continues to be interest in the legislature in applying the CLA to individual appraised values rather than tax rates, thereby making the connection between the CLA and property values more clear. This approach has met with stiff opposition in the past, particularly from local listers and other town officials, who argue that, since the CLA is a reflection of a town’s appraised values generally, it can not reasonably applied to individual homestead values.
Cillo is likely correct in his assessment of a perception problem, in that during budget time, many school officials must report higher anticipated tax rates than are reflected in the modest growth in their school budgets. Many economic forecasts predict a slow-down in the growth of grand list values, which may turn out to be the only sure fix to the “CLA problem.”
Idling Bills Not Idle
Senate Education Moves
On Wednesday of this week, the Senate Education Committee approved S.13, a bill related to vehicular idling on school grounds. As the bill left the Education Committee, it would have required school districts and independent schools to adopt and widely communicate policies on idling.
In an unusual move, S.13 was on
re-written the Senate floor through a “strike-all amendment” that includes
requirements not discussed before the bill left the Education Committee. The bill as amended would have the Department
of Education produce a model policy “concerning the reduction and location of
idling by school busses and other motor vehicles on school property in close
proximity to where students and staff are located or are expected to board” by
Your associations testified on S.13, specifically calling for an approach that would lead to administrative rules to prevent unnecessary idling of school buses and would include an analysis of the cost implications for school districts and taxpayers. Following is an outline of our testimony:
§
We recognize the public health and environmental
importance of curbing the unnecessary idling of diesel vehicles.
§ We acknowledge the importance to the health of children of school bus idling specifically.
§
We believe that regulating the idling of all
diesel vehicles in a comprehensive manner is the best approach.
§
With respect to school bus idling, we are
supportive of carefully implemented measures to address the issue.
§ If school buses are to be addressed narrowly, we called for an administrative rules process that would establish regulations reflecting operating conditions and would result in a local cost impact statement that would accurately measure the costs of equipping buses with the equipment necessary to limit idling. Under Title 3 § 832b of Vermont Statutes, administrative rules affecting local school districts must include a local school cost impact statement. We understand that not idling buses will result in some operational savings over time. However, this does not negate the importance of addressing the upfront costs of retrofitting of buses with equipment that might be necessary under some regulatory schemes.
By by-passing the regulatory process, S.13 would not yield an analysis of the cost implications for local schools and taxpayers. The bill will now go to the House for assignment to a House Committee.
Prekindergarten Committee Releases Final
Report
The prekindergarten legislative study committee created by Act 186 of 2006 released its final report last week. The 16 page report can be read in its entirety at
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/PreKEducationStudyCommittee/Documents/prek_report-final.pdf.
The Report’s recommendations are as follows.
1. Clearly authorize public schools to provide prekindergarten education services to three- and four-year-old residents and to count a student served in its prekindergat1en education program in its average daily membership as 0.46 for ten hours of services a week and that this be prorated for programs which offer at least six and fewer than ten hours of services.
2.
Cap the number of students a school
district may count as prekindergarten students in its average daily membership
(
a. 10 students;
b. one plus the average annual percentage increase or one- minus the average annual percentage decrease in enrollment in the first grade as counted in the census period over the prior five years, multiplied by the prior year's first grade census count; or c. the total number off our-year-olds in the district.
3.
Repeal Sec. 2(a) of Act 186 of 2006,
which prohibits the state board of education from changing any rules regarding
early childhood or prekindergarten education services prior to
a.
Establish that before beginning a
prekindergarten education program in which it wishes to count students in its
b.
Direct a school district to use existing
and interested public and private qualified service providers unless it finds
that it cannot efficiently and effectively meet quality program standards by
using one or more of these providers when beginning or expanding a
prekindergarten education program for which it wishes to count students in the
c.
Establish a requirement for effective
parental participation in the prekindergarten education program.
d.
Establish a process by which any of the
following may request that a school district enter into a contract with a
resident or nonresident provider: a resident parent, a resident provider, a
nonresident provider.
e.
Establish how
f.
Provide transparency and accountability
by requiring private providers under contract with a school district to report
prekindergarten costs and student outcomes to the school district. Require
school districts to report prekindergarten costs,
g.
Require school districts to include
prekindergarten and
h. Create
an appeal process for a person or provider who believes that a school district
has not followed the rules. The appeal process shall include the authority to
reverse a decision of a school district made under the rules.
4. Direct the commissioners of the department of education and the department far children and families (DCF) to provide annual reports on funding and expenditures far early childhood nurture and development services, including educational services.
5. Require the commissioner of education and the commissioner of the department for children and families to report to the legislature by January 2011 on the effectiveness and cost of the prekindergarten education program.
6. Adequately fund the child care subsidy program administered by the department for children and families which enables many at-risk children to receive nurture and developmental services, including educational service, crucial to preparing them to enter school.
7. Clarify statutory authority of SBE and DCF to regulate early childhood programs by incorporating the provisions of the memorandum of understanding described in section VIII of this report into state statute.
8. Provide incentives to businesses to offer early care and child development services.
9. Extend the life and
composition of the Prekindergarten Education Study Committee to
10. In order to create the integrated system of early childhood programs that we envision, the General Assembly should consider consolidating the authority, currently exercised by the department far children and families and the department of education, to regulate and fund all early childhood programs. To accomplish this, the General Assembly will need to determine how it will pay for these services.
Annual Technical Corrections
The “technical corrections” bill is the annual bill presented by the Department of Education to make changes to the education statutes that are seen as important for greater clarity or accuracy while not presenting significant policy issues. Because the bill does not present policy questions, it is usually passed without much debate in committees or on either floor of the State House. This year’s technical corrections bill got its start in the Senate Education Committee, and has been placed on the Senate calendar for action next week.
There is at least one provision in the technical corrections bill that does not appear to pass the “technical” vs. “policy” test. The bill includes a proposed change to the bidding requirements for public schools. The public school bidding statute requires the invitation or advertisement for bids when the cost of certain services or items exceeds $15,000. In the case of services, the statute requires bidding for “transportation, maintenance, or repair services.” The significance of this has been that professional services, such as architectural or legal services, as well as insurance services, have not been subject to the bidding requirements. The technical corrections bill would change the bidding requirement to include “any goods or services.” The threshold amount of $15,000 is maintained in the bill under current consideration. We have pointed out to the Senate Education Committee that the change in bidding requirements, while perhaps a positive one, does amount to more than a merely “technical” change.
The technical corrections bill also includes other significant provisions. It extends the 50% state reimbursement for school construction projects that result in the consolidation of school buildings and some union or joint contract construction to the year 2010. Similarly, it extends until 2010 the Commissioner of Education’s authority to use up to 2% of the special education appropriation to assist school districts with “special education expenditures of an unusual or unexpected nature.”
Another provision in the technical corrections bill would clarify that school districts that send or receive tuition students may enter into tuition agreements with terms differing from the statutory requirements “provided that the receiving district must offer identical terms to all sending districts.” The agreements contemplated in this provision include agreements related to over or under charges as well as base tuition amounts.
The bill would also eliminate the
current distinction between grade 7 and 8 schools and grade 9-12 schools in the
allowable tuition statutes. Under the
bill as proposed, there would be one allowable tuition limit (the average
announced tuition of
S.93 is now posted on the legislative website.
House Committee Approves Mandatory
Statewide Calendar Bill
The House Education Committee unanimously approved a bill on Wednesday of this week that would empower the Commissioner of Education to develop a uniform statewide calendar for use by all public schools. The bill (H.15) will be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives on Friday of this week and, if approved, will go to the Senate for assignment to a committee next week. It is a near certainty that the Senate Education Committee would be given the bill.
H.15 would require 175 common student attendance days in each school year. Districts that have more than 175 student days would be allowed to schedule those days at any time not covered by the statewide calendar. In addition to the student days, the statewide calendar would include five common in-service education days and “a sufficient number of makeup days to compensate for unanticipated closings.” The calendar would also include “…to the extent possible, common periods for statewide assessments” and “…periods of vacation and holidays so as to ensure uninterrupted periods of instructional time.” The bill provides that the Commissioner’s calendar would be voluntary for school districts for the 2008-2009 school year and mandatory for the 2009-2010 school year and thereafter.
The statewide calendar bill includes a number of legislative findings, or statements of rationale for establishing a mandatory common calendar. The findings cite improved collaboration leading to “…improved student learning and reduced costs through sharing of resources.” The findings also project that instructional services can be delivered “…more efficiently and effectively when schools are following the same vacation, holiday and statewide assessment schedules.”
Don Collins, Senate Education
Committee chair, informed the House committee last week that he will introduce
a uniform statewide calendar bill in the Senate, with two significant
differences from the bill currently being considered by the House. According to Collins, his bill will create a
so-called “
To read H.15 as it appeared on the House Notice Calendar for Thursday, February 15th, go to
Business
To Analyze
Motivated by the mutual desires to control the rate of increase of the state’s public K-12 education system while, at the same time, improving educational outcomes for all Vermont students, three business partners and three education partners have joined forces to provide bold and long-term leadership on the dual goals.
The Vermont Business Roundtable, Lake
Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, Greater Burlington Industrial
Corporation Vermont Principals
Association, Vermont School Boards Association, and Vermont Superintendents
Association announced their collaborative effort as the next logical step
following the business community’s phase I study entitled, “Vermont State
Public Education Expenditure Overview and Analysis”. The report showed that
though student enrollments have been declining over the past decade, public
education spending during that same time has been rising at rates more than
double that of general inflation, and is likely to continue doing so without
policy intervention.
The Business-Education Alliance will develop a scope of
work that builds upon the findings of the expenditure report, and which seeks
to understand the fiscal and outcome impacts of the expanding mission of public
schools, human services-related cost shifts onto school districts and the
state’s lowest in the nation student-teacher ratio among others. The
According to Mary Powell, Chief
Operating Officer at Green Mountain Power, and a member of the
Senate Committee Begins Review of
The Senate Education Committee is
preparing a committee bill that would charge the Next Generation Commission to “(D)evelop
and recommend a plan for statewide implementation of the Robert T. Stafford
Schools of Mathematics, Science, and Technology…”. The proposal to establish Stafford Schools
originated in Governor Douglas’s State of the State speech at the beginning of
this legislative session. The draft
being considered by the Senate committee cites the need to “…meet the demands
of the next generation of high-technology/high-wage jobs, particularly in the
field of environmental engineering…” as the rationale for establishing the
schools. Although the governor called
specifically for five new schools in his proposal, the draft before the Senate
committee states that the
There are features of the
committee bill worthy of particular note.
First, the bill begins with the assumption that Stafford Schools, the
number and nature of which remains undefined, should be established. If the bill were to pass in its present
form, there would be no analysis of the need for Stafford Schools. The
draft bill’s charge to the Next Generation Commission requires a report by
Noteworthy for its absence in the draft proposal is any mention of funding for the new Stafford Schools. The Next Generation Committee is simply not charged with the responsibility of determining how much the new schools would cost or how they would be funded. Because of this omission, we have suggested language to add to the bill calling for a fiscal analysis of the proposal.
Nor does the bill include any reference to the State Board of Education, the body statutorily assigned responsibility for “…supervision over, and management of…the public school system.”
Senate Education Committee chair Don Collins has indicated that his committee will continue its discussion of the Stafford School bill next week, with an eye toward approval of a bill in the near future.
New Bills
The following education related bills have been
introduced since our last update on February 5th. To read a bill as introduced, or to follow
its progress after introduction, go to http://leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm
and enter the number of the bill. The sponsor
name and statements of purpose following each bill below may be abbreviated forms
of the sponsor list and statement of purpose in the bill as introduced.
H.224 AN EXPANSION
OF PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL CHOICE
Introduced
by Representative Chen of
Mendon
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to expand
public school choice to require each high school to enter into a transfer
agreement with every high school in an adjoining district; to provide that if a
student chooses to transfer out of the district of residence, for purposes of
counting students to determine funding, one‑quarter of the student count
shall follow the student and three‑quarters shall stay in the
district of residence; and to increase transportation reimbursements for
schools transporting students exercising school choice.
H.232 THE
REQUIREMENT OF MANDATORY BINDING ARBITRATION
Introduced
by Representatives Wright of
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to prohibit teachers
from striking and school boards from imposing contracts; to require mandatory
binding arbitration; and to require that voters in a school district in which
the mandated arbitration has resulted in a contract that exceeds the previous
approved budget by more than a certain percentage be provided the opportunity
to approve or disapprove of the budget.
H.263 CALCULATION OF
Introduced
by Representative Obuchowski of Rockingham
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to stipulate that
the school district spending adjustment shall be based on an average of
spending over a two-year period.
H.265 EDUCATION FINANCE TASK FORCE
Introduced
by Representative Adams of Hartland and
others.
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to create a task
force to analyze
H.276 CONSOLIDATION
Introduced
by Representatives Chen of Mendon, Komline
of
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to create a
bipartisan commission of legislative and nonlegislative members appointed by
the speaker of the house, the president pro tempore of the senate, and the
governor to develop a plan to consolidate and reduce the number of the
supervisory unions, supervisory districts, and school districts in the
state. The commission’s plan, which would be based upon testimony received
in public hearings and would employ a methodology used in connection with
military base closings, would be presented to the general assembly for its
approval or disapproval during the 2008 legislative session.
H.282
RELATING TO ILLEGALLY PASSING A SCHOOL BUS
Introduced
by Representatives Turner
of
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to provide, in cases where a school bus has been illegally passed
by a driver who has not been identified, that it shall be prima facie evidence
that the registered owner of the vehicle was driving. The bill
additionally provides that if the owner of the vehicle is a lessor or a rental
car company and maintains a record identifying the name and address of the
lessee or renter of the vehicle, the penalty shall be assessed against the
lessee, first-listed lessee, or renter. The owner, lessee, or rental car
company may not be penalized if another person has been convicted for that
violation, or the motor vehicle was stolen at the time of the violation.
H.291
RELATING TO 50 PERCENT CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION AID FOR A UNIFIED
Introduced
by Representative
Trombley of Grand Isle
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to provide 50 percent state aid for capital costs of constructing
a school building for a new unified union school district made up of three or
more former or member school districts.
H.292
RELATING TO DESIGNATED SCHOOLS
Introduced
by Representative
Trombley of Grand Isle
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to permit schools to designate one public school as the school to
which it will pay tuition for students in its district attending one or more
grades in another district.
H.293
RELATING TO SUPERVISORY UNION AGREEMENTS FOR CENTRALIZED PURCHASING
Introduced
by Representative
Trombley of Grand Isle
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to permit supervisory unions to enter into agreements with other
supervisory unions for centralized purchasing of supplies.
H.300
RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR SKATING RINKS USED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Introduced
by Representatives Smith
of
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to allow a property tax exemption without a vote for skating
rinks used primarily by public schools.
H.307
RELATING TO A FOUR-
Introduced
by Representative Clark
of Vergennes
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to clarify that nothing prohibits a school
from operating on a schedule of four student days per week. This bill
also proposes to clarify that nothing prohibits a school from establishing a
school calendar that shortens the summer vacation to no more than 30 days and
increases the number, length, or both the number and length of mid-year
vacations.
H.308
RELATING TO CHARTER SCHOOLS
Introduced
by Representative Clark
of Vergennes
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to authorize local school boards and
public postsecondary institutions to grant a charter to operate a public
charter school.
H.312
RELATING TO REGIONAL AUTISM CENTERS
Introduced
by Representative Barnard
of
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to develop and implement regional autism centers to provide
life-long services to children and adults with autism spectrum disorders.
H.318
RELATING TO INCLUSION OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN GRADUATION
Introduced
by Representatives
Donahue of
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to ensure that secondary students with disabilities are able to
join their peers in activities and ceremonies such as graduation even if their
individualized education plan (IEP) or 504 plan allows them to continue their
secondary education at a different pace and complete their graduation
requirements at a later date.
H.319
RELATING TO CENTRALIZED PURCHASING OF PROGRAMS
Introduced
by Representatives
Trombley of Grand Isle, Fitzgerald of
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to clarify that the program of centralized purchasing developed
by the commissioners of education and of buildings and general services shall
include the opportunity to purchase programs and textbooks aligned with
S.86 RELATING TO A STATEWIDE SECONDARY STUDENT ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM
Introduced
by Senator Coppenrath of
Caledonia District, Senator Starr of Essex-Orleans District, Senator Condos of
Chittenden District, Senator Doyle of Washington District, Senator Kittell of
Statement
of purpose: This
bill proposes to direct the state board of education to develop and, by the
2009–2010 school year, to implement a statewide secondary student assessment
program. The bill also requires the board of education to provide data
comparing the new program with current and contemplated assessment instruments.
S.93 AN
ACT RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO EDUCATION LAW
Introduced
by Committee
on Education
Statement
of purpose: This
(technical corrections) bill proposes to make technical corrections and other
miscellaneous changes to Title 16.