Education Legislative Report

Property tax adjustment

Eliminate income-sensitivity for Vermonters with household income over $75,000. Under current law, Vermonters with household income up to $90,000 are eligible. In the aggregate, this is an education tax shift, not an education tax reduction, estimated to be around $9 million.

From the Joint Fiscal Office: The new revenue forecast adopted by the emergency board on January 13th lowered projected education fund sources by $7.3 million over FY2009 and FY2010. As a result, the administration’s proposal would lower the Education Fund stabilization reserve from 5% to 3.5% unless modified.

As indicated by the following chart, the sum total of the Governor’s proposals would reduce the Education Fund’s balance by about $9.5 million, as compared with current law estimates and the tax rates proposed by the House Ways & Means Committee.

*Estimated Financial Effects of Governor’s Proposals on the Education Fund*
Governor’s Proposals	Estimated Change to Ed Fund	Notes
Freeze per pupil education payments & freeze categorical grants at FY2009 amounts	+$65.3M	$65.3M savings based on preliminary FY2010 budget estimates, not actual school budgets.
Reduce GF transfer	-$22.4M	Shifted from GF obligation
Add teacher retirement obligation	-$40M	Shifted from GF obligation.
Reduce base education tax rates 2¢	-$12.4M	-$12.4M is compared to House Ways & Means recommendation of a 1¢ reduction. Returned to taxpayers.
Reduce income sensitivity	No change.	Shifts $9M among taxpayers.

House W&M Recommends 1¢ Tax Reduction

Official state forecasts announced January 13^th decreased projected Education Fund revenue sources by $7.3 million over fiscal years 2009 and 2010. As a result, the House Ways & Means committee has passed H.12, a bill that would reduce the education property tax rates to $0.86 for homestead property and $1.35 for nonresidential property for fiscal year 2010. These rates are 1¢ lower than the rates in fiscal year 2009. Previously, the projected surplus in the Education Fund had appeared sufficient to reduce the rates by 2¢.

Springfield District Has Act 82 Challenges

Last Wednesday, Springfield school district superintendent Frank Perotti testified before the House Education Committee on the challenges his district is facing under the two-vote provision of Act 82. Perotti began by explaining the pre-existing challenges in Springfield. The town has high rates of poverty and violent criminal acts. Four out of Springfield’s five schools have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (a federal requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act). Historically, it has been a challenge passing the school budget, often taking three or more votes before it is approved. The district’s enrollment is increasing, and in 2006, before either Act 82 or the school construction aid moratorium, the electorate approved a new, bonded school construction project with significant annual debt service to begin this year.

Therefore, Perotti testified that the district must exceed the Act 82 Maximum Inflation Amount and win approval of both Question 1 and Question 2 to provide an adequate education to its children. Perotti is uncertain of the prospects for passing the second vote. With no increase in program or positions, the addition of debt service would have added $1.4 million (or 10.2%) to the district’s budget. The school board directed Springfield’s administration to present a budget with the same dollar amount of spending as the prior year plus the debt service. This proposed budget resulted in the elimination or reduction of fourteen staff positions, elimination of school field trips, reduction in supplies and equipment across the board, elimination of technological resources and reduced and deferred maintenance. The Question 2 amount in this proposed budget is still $964,686.

In written remarks to the committee, Perotti assessed the situation as follows.

“The current proposed budget begins the destruction of a school program that in recent years has struggled to begin to make the organizational and structural improvements to make AYP and conform to the Vermont Education Quality Standards. Our class sizes at the elementary level will exceed recommendations in the Standards. If we are forced on June 1, 2009 to find another $964,686 in cuts, the school will not be able to operate as anything that resembles a school. This very well could be an educational disaster in which Act 82 was a major contributor.”

Sexual Abuse Bill Passes Senate Committee

S.13, a bill to improve Vermont’s child sexual abuse response system, passed the Senate Judiciary committee on a 5-0 vote last Friday. The full Senate will now consider the 61-page omnibus bill, and we expect it to be approved by that body. After Senate approval, the bill will cross over into the House. S.13 is the culmination of the work of a summer study committee and its recommendations that we summarized in our first Legislative Report. The following is an overview of the bill’s components that are relevant to school officials.

Section 2 of the bill would direct the Legislature to build upon the work of S.13 and, “develop a comprehensive statewide approach to the prevention of child sexual abuse” over the next year.

Section 3 would add “prevention of sexual abuse and sexual violence” to the required components of comprehensive health education under 16 V.S.A. § 131. It also directs the Department for Children and Families to convene a group of stakeholders to develop technical assistance materials related to sexual abuse health education.

Section 4 would require the Commissioner of Education to run a criminal record check, child abuse registry check, and adult abuse registry check on anyone applying for an initial educators license, or anyone applying to renew or reinstate his or her license. (Current law requires the Commissioner to run just the criminal record check for those applying for a new license.)

Section 5 would require superintendents (and headmasters of independent schools) to run child and adult abuse registry checks on prospective employees, contractors who may have unsupervised contact with schoolchildren, and student teachers working in schools.

Section 6 would allow superintendents and headmasters to recheck the criminal record or abuse registries of any employee, contractor, or student teacher that was required to be checked at the time of his or her hiring. Section 6 would dispense with the current system of superintendents maintaining completed criminal record checks to be used for future checks (i.e., any record check will now be a fresh check). Section 8 would implement a “subscription service” for rechecking persons by maintaining personal information including fingerprints at the Vermont Criminal Information Center. The subscription service language is intended to simplify the rechecking process; however, due to budgetary constraints, section 8 would not be implemented until July 1, 2010. The proposed subscription service procedure is a somewhat complex. Due to the delayed implementation, we will report on its development in the coming year should the bill pass with this provision retained.

Section 7 would add to the existing requirement that all school boards adopt a policy on supervision of volunteers and work-study students. The new requirement would be that these policies must direct superintendents, headmasters and their contractors to check the names and birth dates of any volunteers or work-study students on the Vermont Internet sex offender registry before allowing volunteers and work-study students unsupervised contact with schoolchildren.

Section 9 would expand the powers and duties of school boards to include two additional requirements. The first would be that the board must ensure that adults working in schools receive orientation on the prevention, identification, and reporting of child abuse based on materials provided by state agencies. The second would be that the board must provide an opportunity for parents and caregivers to receive information and education regarding sexual abuse, sexual violence, mandatory reporting of child abuse, signs of child abuse and sexual violence, and signs of predatory behaviors. Section 10 would require that adults working in licensed child care facilities also receive the orientation required for adults working in schools.

Section 13 would criminalize sexual acts with a minor (17 years old or younger) when the following conditions are met: The offender is at least 48 months older than the minor; the offender is in a position of power, authority, or supervision over the minor by virtue of the offender’s professional, legal, occupational, or volunteer status and the minor’s participation in a program or activity; and the offender abuses his or her position of power, authority, or supervision over the minor in order to engage in a sexual act.

We will continue to follow and report on the development of this extensive bill as it winds it was through the legislative process.

U.S. House Committee Issues American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill

The U.S. House Committee on Appropriations issued a press release on Thursday afternoon describing its version of a federal stimulus package and urging its passage by the Congress in the next two weeks. The education components of the bill are referred to in the press release as the “Education for the 21st Century” provisions, with the promise to “…put people to work building 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries to help our kids compete with any worker in the world.” The following itemization of proposed appropriations directed toward education was included in the release.

School Construction: $20 billion, including $14 billion for K-12 and $6 billion for higher education, for renovation and modernization, including technology upgrades and energy efficiency improvements. Also includes $100 million for school construction in communities that lack a local property tax base because they contain non-taxable federal lands such as military bases or Indian reservations, and $25 million to help charter schools build, obtain, and repair schools.

Education Technology: $1 billion for 21st century classrooms, including computer and science labs and teacher technology training.

K-12 Education

IDEA Special Education: $13 billion for formula grants to increase the federal share of special education costs and prevent these mandatory costs from forcing states to cut other areas of education.

Title I Help for Disadvantaged Kids: $13 billion for grants to help disadvantaged kids in nearly every school district and more than half of all public schools reach high academic standards.

Statewide Data Systems: $250 million for competitive grants to states to design and develop data systems that analyze individual student data to find ways to improve student achievement, providing teachers and administrators with effective tools.

Education for Homeless Children and Youth: $66 million for formula grants to states to provide services to homeless children including meals and transportation when high unemployment and home foreclosures have created an influx of homeless kids.

Improving Teacher Quality: $300 million, including $200 million for competitive grants to school districts and states to provide financial incentives for teachers and principals who raise student achievement and close the achievement gaps in high-need schools and $100 million for competitive grants to states to address teacher shortages and modernize the teaching workforce.

Early Childhood Development

Child Care Development Block Grant: $2 billion to provide child care services for an additional 300,000 children in low-income families while their parents go to work. Today only one out of seven eligible children receives care.

Higher Education

Pell Grants: $15.6 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500, from $4,850 to $5,350.

College Work-Study: $490 million to support undergraduate and graduate students who work.

Student Loan Limit Increase: Increases limits on unsubsidized Stafford loans by $2,000.

Student Aid Administration: $50 million to help the US Department of Education administer surging student aid programs while navigating the changing student loan environment.

Of course, this is just the first step toward the eventual enactment of a federal stimulus package. Quick Congressional action could yield a bill passed by the House and Senate in time for the President’s signature in mid to late February. But things will not necessarily move that quickly, and there will certainly be changes to the proposal presented yesterday as it moves through the legislative process. As we receive more information about developments in Washington, we will report on them in future Education Legislative Reports.

Obama’s Plan for Disabled Persons

President-elect Barack Obama has released a position paper on empowering Americans with disabilities. The following is an excerpt regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (which provides federal funding for special education).

Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Barack Obama has been a strong and consistent advocate for fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Congress promised to shoulder 40 percent of each state’s “excess cost” of educating children with disabilities, but it has never lived up to this obligation. Currently, the federal government provides less than half of the promised funding (17 percent). Children are being shortchanged, and their parents are forced to fight with cash-strapped school districts to get the free and appropriate education the IDEA promises their children. Fully funding IDEA will provide students with disabilities the public education they have a right to, and school districts will be able to provide services without cutting into their general education budgets.

New Education-Related Bills Introduced

The following bills pertaining to education have been introduced by one or more legislators between January 7^th and January 19^th. To read a bill as introduced, or to follow its progress after introduction, go to http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm and enter the number of the bill. The statements of purpose following each bill below may be abbreviated forms of the statements contained in the bills as introduced.

H.9 An Act Relating to Excluding the Portion of Education Spending Attributable to the Cost of Planning the Merger of a Small School with Another School from the Calculation of Whether a Proposed Budget is Presented as a Divided Question and from the Calculation of Excess Spending

Introduced by: Reps. Jewett of Ripton, Flory of Pittsford, and Stevens of Shoreman

Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to exempt that portion of a district’s proposed education spending that is attributable to the cost of planning the merger of a small school with another school or schools from the calculations of (1) whether that district’s proposed budget is presented as a divided question; and (2) excess spending.

H.12 An Act Relating Education Property Tax Rates

Introduced by: Committee on Ways and Means

Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to decrease the FY 2010 property tax base rates to $1.35 for nonresidential property and $0.86 for homestead property.

H.23 An Act Relating to Improving Vermont’s Sexual Abuse Response System

Introduced by: Rep. Grad of Moretown and Emmons of Springfield

Statement of Purpose (abbreviated): This bill proposes to develop a comprehensive statewide approach to the prevention of child sexual abuse. Editor’s Note: This bill is substantially the same as S.13, which has passed Senate Judiciary and is summarized in this Education Legislative Report.

H.29 An Act Relating to the Requirement of Mandatory Binding Arbitration; the Elimination of Strikes and Imposed Contracts in Connection with the Employment of Teachers and Administrators; and Voter Approval of Some Contracts

Introduced by: Rep. McAllister of Highgate, Branagan of Georgia, Flory of Pittsford, Komline of Dorset, Larocque of Banet, and Savage of Swanton

Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to prohibit teachers and administrators from striking and school boards from imposing contracts; to require mandatory binding arbitration; and to permit voters the opportunity to approve or disapprove the budget in school districts in which the mandatory arbitration has resulted in a contract that exceeds the previous approved budget by more than the state of Vermont’s most recent total rate of salary adjustment available to classified employees under the collective bargaining agreement plus two percent.

H.30 An Act Relating to Calculation of Education Tax

Introduced by: Rep. Ancel of Calais

Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to repeal the requirement for an insert in property tax bills.

S.16 An Act Relating to Regional Common Levels of Appraisal

Introduced by: Sen. Bartlett of Lamoille District

Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to create assessment districts, require reappraisal of all towns in the assessment district every three years using a common appraisal methodology, and mandate lister training, and to create a districtwide common level of appraisal.

S.24 An Act Relating to the Repeal of the Requirement that School Budgets in Excess of the Maximum Inflation Amount be Presented to the Voters as a Divided Question

Introduced by: Sen. McCormack, Campbell, Cummings, Flanagan, Lyons, MacDonald and Racine

Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to repeal the provisions of Secs. 5 and 6 of No. 82 of the Acts of 2007 amending 16 V.S.A. § 563, which require that school district budgets in excess of the maximum inflation amount be presented to the voters as a divided question.

End