In legislative testimony and media statements last week, we expressed strong opposition to the governor’s proposals; both with regard to the timing of the release and with regard to the destabilizing effect they are apt to have on this year’s school district budget considerations.

The VSBA distributed informational materials to help school boards respond to requests to delay already scheduled budget votes. In general, the VSBA has urged boards to continue the budget adoption process now in its concluding stages.

For more information on the fiscal impact of the governor’s proposals, see the Department of Education analysis.

Staff Reduction Targets Set for Education Department

In his budget address, Governor Douglas recommended a reduction of 660 positions across state government; the governor estimated that the change would save $17 million in fiscal year 2010. The total staff reductions were broken out into targets for each state department, including education. In a memorandum, Secretary of Administration Neale Lunderville informed Commissioner of Education Armando Vilaseca that his department’s reduction target was 33 positions. Currently, the Department of Education employs approximately 190 persons, so the rescissions amount to a 17% reduction in staff. Commissioner Vilaseca was urged to make decisions “very soon,” and inform the Secretary of any proposed program restructuring or elimination by mid-February.

In the last 18 months, the Department has already cut 21 positions. The proposed new reduction would bring total Department staff cuts to 54 positions, or 25% of the workforce, over three years.

Education Department Analyzes Governor’s Proposal

The following financial analysis was produced by the Department of Education, based on their analysis of education funding proposals make by the governor. The “FY2010 Statutory” column represents actual or best-estimate spending without the governor’s proposal, and the “FY2010 Level Funded” column includes the governor’s concepts. Please note that the $1.16 billion listed as the statutory FY2010 education spending grant is based on preliminary Department analysis, not board-approved budgets.

	FY2010	FY2010
	Statutory	Level Funded	Difference
Technical Education Ed Fund		Douglas Proposal
Tuition Reduction	8,547,953	8,240,653	(307,300)
Sal Assist Co-op	354,852	341,568	(13,284)
Sal Assist - Guidance	524,861	526,226	1,365
Sal Assist - Director	994,972	1,034,267	39,295
Transportation	1,355,200	1,318,900	(36,300)
Secondary School Reform	100,000	103,800	3,800
Youth Leadership	78,328	78,328	-
Tech Ed Equipment	500,000	500,000	-
Innovative Program Development	372,517	322,517	(50,000)
Total Technical Education	12,828,683	12,466,259	(362,424)
Special Education Formula
Mainstream Block Grant	30,685,261	30,685,261	-
Special Ed Expenditures Reimbursement	105,452,554	100,245,633	(5,206,921)
Extraordinary Reimb	8,456,427	8,456,427	-
Statewide I-Tm & Rg MH Sp	740,325	712,978	(27,347)
Statewide Hearing Impaired	848,313	824,405	(23,908)
Statewide Visually Handi.	516,433	501,879	(14,554)
BEST	510,776	496,381	(14,395)
Higher Education Participation	173,964	169,061	(4,903)
Act 230 Training	376,562	365,950	(10,612)
Total Special Education Formula	147,760,615	142,457,975	(5,302,640)
State Placed Students

LEA Reimbursement	10,481,581	7,934,707	(2,546,874)
Individual Residential	7,435,193	7,435,193	0
Other	691,600	691,600	-
Regular Ed Tuition	306,000	306,000	-
Total State-Placed	18,914,374	16,367,500	(2,546,874)
Block Grants

Education Spending Grant	1,160,965,285	1,093,955,921	(67,009,364)
Tech FTE's Not Enrolled	355,149	473,826	118,677
ADM Adjustments	150,000	200,000	50,000
Vt Academy of Science	260,155	249,984	(10,171)
Adult Diploma	678,516	694,782	16,266
Driver Ed	450,706	450,706	-
Total Education Spending	1,162,859,811	1,096,025,219	(66,834,592)

Local Essential Early Educ.	5,742,960	5,517,841	(225,119)

Small School Grants	6,977,336	6,565,714	(411,622)

Capital Debt Aid	188,000	188,000	-

Transportation	15,440,790	15,002,711	(438,079)

Adult Education & Literacy
High School Completion	3,000,000	2,250,000	(750,000)

House Passes 1¢ Reduction to Education Taxes

On Tuesday, the House passed H.12, a bill to reduce the statewide base education property tax rate by 1¢ compared to last year, on a vote of 136 in favor and 0 opposed (14 members were not present). The rates would be $1.35 for nonresidential property, and 86¢ for homestead property. Our associations had previously reported that the rates should have been reduced 2¢, but the latest revenue forecasts, updated earlier this month, reduced the expected education surplus by several million dollars. The bill has been sent to the Senate for consideration.

State Board Endorses Governor’s Proposal

At its most recent monthly meeting last Friday, the State Board of Education voted 6-1 to support the governor’s proposal to level-fund school budgets. Three board members were absent. Kathy Larsen of Wilmington was the lone dissenting voice.

Public Assets Institute Dispels Act 60 / 68 Myths

Editor’s Note: This article originally ran in our Legislative Bulletin of February 29^th, 2008. PAI Executive Director Paul Cillo, testifying in the House Education Committee on last week, reiterated some of the findings in the report. The following is a summary of the PAI report.

In 2007, the non-profit Public Assets Institute released a report on school spending patterns under Act 60 and 68. Their findings support the view that the education finance system is successfully decreasing spending disparities among districts, while ensuring the consequences of spending decisions rest firmly in the hands of those taxpayers who voted for the spending. In particular, the research found that when towns choose to increase per pupil spending, the tax consequences are, on average, 200 times greater on the district’s homestead taxpayers compared with taxpayers in other districts.

The report’s authors, policy analysts Deb Brighton and Jack Hoffman, write that, “There is no incentive for a community to increase its spending in order to shift costs onto those outside the community. In fact, there is a strong reward built into the system to restrain spending – lower taxes.” PAI explored the tax consequences for a $100,000 homestead if one average sized Vermont district chose to increase per-pupil spending by $500. They found that for taxpayers within the district, taxes would rise by $56, while for taxpayers outside the district, the total effect would be an increase of 25¢ (on the tax bill, not the tax rate). In other words, the effect would be at least 200 times greater on those taxpayers who voted for the spending increase, or there is no “free lunch” when it comes to school spending in Vermont.

The authors also successfully dispelled another myth about our tax system. They investigated whether towns that received the most money from the system relative to what they raised in homestead education taxes chose to spend more than other towns (i.e. are the towns that are benefiting the most from Act 60/68 increasing their spending more than other towns?). PAI found the opposite to be true. Districts that received the most back from the education fund are spending less than other districts. Spending per pupil is actually correlated with individuals’ income within a school district.

It appears that net gain from the education fund is not a factor when determining how much the school should spend, but the income level of residents was. Taxpayers are funding education based on their ability to pay. And strong local tax consequences have assured that districts are not spending revenue frivolously. This research supports our belief that, although complicated, the Act 60/68 system is a fair and equitable method for generating the necessary revenue to pay our educational costs.

You can view the full report here: http://www.scribd.com/slurp?url=http%3A//www.publicassets.org/PAI-RPT0801.pdf&publisher_id=pub-43690652874856687801&public=false&view_mode=fullscreen

New Education-Related Bills Introduced

The following bills pertaining to education have been introduced by one or more legislators between January 19^th and January 28^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.37 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: Representatives Nuovo of Middlebury, Stevens of Shoreham, Ancel of Calais, Andrews of Rutland City, Audette of S. Burlington, Bissonnette of Winooski, Bohi of Hartford, Botzow of Pownal, Branagan of Georgia, Bray of New Haven, Browning of Arlington, Canfield of Fair Haven, Cheney of Norwich, Clarkson of Woodstock, Courcelle of Rutland City, Davis of Washington, Devereux of Mount Holly, Donahue of Northfield, Edwards of Brattleboro, Evans of Essex, Fisher of Lincoln, French of Shrewsbury, French of Randolph, Gilbert of Fairfax, Haas of Rochester, Howard of Rutland City, Jerman of Essex, Jewett of Ripton, Krawczyk of Bennington, Lanpher of Vergennes, Lenes of Shelburne, Macaig of Williston, Maier of Middlebury, Marek of Newfane, Masland of Thetford, McFaun of Barre Town, Milkey of Brattleboro, Miller of Shaftsbury, Mitchell of Barnard, Mook of Bennington, Moran of Wardsboro, Mrowicki of Putney, Orr of Charlotte, Pellett of Chester, Peltz of Woodbury, Poirier of Barre City, Pugh of S. Burlington, Shand of Weathersfield, Sharpe of Bristol, Stevens of Waterbury, Sweaney of Windsor, Taylor of Barre City, Webb of Shelburne, Weston of Burlington, Wilson of Manchester, Wizowaty of Burlington 1 and Young of St. Albans City

Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to repeal the provisions of Secs. 5, 8 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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

H.38 AN ACT RELATING TO THE CONSOLIDATION OF SUPERVISORY UNIONS

Introduced by: Representatives McAllister of Highgate, Ainsworth of Royalton, Branagan of Georgia, Dickinson of St. Albans Town, Komline of Dorset, Larocque of Barnet, Lawrence of Lyndon and Savage of Swanton

Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to direct the state board of education to consolidate all existing supervisory unions into 14–16 supervisory unions and to require that supervisory union boards be composed of members elected by member school boards.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

H.66 AN ACT RELATING TO INCLUDING SECONDARY STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN SENIOR YEAR ACTIVITIES AND CEREMONIES

Introduced by: Representatives Donahue of Northfield, Andrews of Rutland City, Frank of Underhill, French of Randolph and Haas of Rochester

Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to ensure that each secondary student with a disability has the opportunity to join his or her age-appropriate peers in all senior-year activities and ceremonies even if the student's individualized education plan (IEP), 504 plan, or both anticipate that the student will need more than four years in which to complete all graduation requirements.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

H.67 AN ACT RELATING TO SCHOOL ENROLLMENT FOR STATE-PLACED CHILDREN

Introduced by: Representatives Donahue of Northfield, Andrews of Rutland City, Fisher of Lincoln, Frank of Underhill, French of Randolph, Haas of Rochester and Pugh of S. Burlington

Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to authorize the commissioner for children and families to require that a state-placed child finish the school year in the district in which he or she was most recently enrolled, even if the student’s foster placement changes during the school year.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

H.73 AN ACT RELATING TO COMMON LEVEL OF APPRAISAL CAP DURING REAPPRAISAL

Introduced by: Representatives McFaun of Barre Town and Koch of Barre Town

Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to allow a freeze of the common level of appraisal for any town which is in the process of townwide reappraisal.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

H.87 AN ACT RELATING TO GRANTING POSTSECONDARY CREDIT FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF ADVANCED PLACEMENT COURSES, DUAL ENROLLMENT COURSES, AND POSTSECONDARY COURSES COMPLETED THROUGH AN ONLINE OR CORRESPONDENCE COURSE OFFERED BY AN ACCREDITED POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTION

Introduced by: Representatives Gilbert of Fairfax, Bissonnette of Winooski, Branagan of Georgia, Clerkin of Hartford, Consejo of Sheldon, Courcelle of Rutland City, Crawford of Burke, Dickinson of St. Albans Town, Evans of Essex, Haas of Rochester, Howrigan of Fairfield, Keenan of St. Albans City, Lenes of Shelburne, McAllister of Highgate, McDonald of Berlin, Mitchell of Barnard, Mook of Bennington, Moran of Wardsboro, Nuovo of Middlebury, Peltz of Woodbury, Potter of Clarendon, Savage of Swanton, Spengler of Colchester, Stevens of Shoreham, Trombley of Grand Isle, Turner of Milton, Waite-Simpson of Essex, Wheeler of Derby, Young of St. Albans City and Zenie of Colchester

Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to require that Vermont postsecondary institutions receiving appropriations from the state adopt policies granting postsecondary academic credit to all enrolled students who have successfully completed: an advanced placement course at a Vermont secondary school and received a score of 3, 4, or 5 on the examination; a course through a duel enrollment program; or an online or correspondence course through an accredited college or university. Postsecondary institutions, however, shall have flexibility in awarding credit if the course is a required course in the student’s declared major filed of concentration. This bill also permits postsecondary institutions to grant academic credit for relevant life experience.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

H.90 AN ACT RELATING TO THE COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL OF VERMONT

Introduced by: Rep. Myers of Essex and Rodgers of Glover

Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to clarify that the corrections department education program is called the community high school of Vermont; to clarify that the community high school is an independent school; to clarify that the community high school is an independent school; to clarify that the community high school is subject to approval by the department of education; to stipulate that the community high school shall be overseen by a licensed administrator; to stipulate that education costs shall be paid for from the budget of the department of education; to increase the minimum age for mandatory participation in the community high school from 23 to 26 years of age; and to direct the commissioners of education and corrections to gather information about pupils served by the community high school and make recommendations for future legislation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

S.30 AN ACT RELATING TO SCHOOL CHOICE FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO HARASSMENT

Introduced by: Sen. Mullin of Rutland

Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to authorize school choice for students who have been subject to harassment.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

S.45 AN ACT RELATING TO NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

Introduced by: Senators White and Ayer

Statement of Purpose: The bill proposes to direct the state board of education not to comply with the testing and consequence provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

End