property
taxes will rise to unacceptable levels and school district budgets may be
rejected much more broadly than we have experienced in recent memory… We are
all in this together, and we encourage school boards and supervisory unions to
reduce FY 2011 budgets…” The letter
praises the low, overall two-percent increase in school budgets in fiscal year
2010, but goes on to say, “However, these are unprecedented times as we are
asking you to do more.”
Since the
letter was sent in November, our Associations have taken issue with two general
aspects of the letter. First, the
commissioners circumvent the local democratic process by predicting that voters
in 2010 will “much more broadly” reject school budgets than in the past. We see no structural problem in allowing the
local democratic process to run its course.
When electorates approve or reject school budgets, they deliver a direct
and definitive message regarding their community’s priorities and their school
budget’s affordability.
Second, although the commissioners
warn about potentially “unacceptable” high property taxes, a number of the
recommendations that the letter indicates may be presented to the Legislature
would significantly increase, not decrease, total property taxes paid. The
following is an analysis of some of the changes under consideration by the
commissioners.
“Phasing out the Small
Schools Grant given the demonstrated need to encourage school consolidation;”
The Small
Schools Grants (SSGs) provide revenue to many of Vermont’s smallest schools for
general operations. The program was
implemented as part of Act 60 to allow these schools to operate at a reasonable
cost to residents. Eliminating the SSGs,
which totaled $7 million in FY2010, would not reduce education costs or property
taxes in Vermont. But it would sharply
increase property taxes paid by residents of the more than 100 towns that
benefit from the SSGs, while marginally decreasing taxes paid in other towns.
The SSGs are
state-level assurances that were approved by the Legislature at the conception
of the statewide education property rate.
If state policymakers decide Vermont’s smallest schools are no longer
financially viable and/or necessary, the solution can not be found by simply
burdening residents of school districts receiving SSGs with a large spike in
property taxes.
See Appendix A for a map of school
districts that would have been adversely affected by this proposed change had
it been effective in FY2010.
“Scaling back the 3.5
percent enrollment decline ‘hold-harmless’ provision to 5 percent;”
This
provision of our funding system protects residents of towns with rapidly
declining student enrollment from significant increases in property taxes. Like the SSGs, “hold-harmless” is a
protection built into the statewide education property tax system. Although it is too early to accurately
analyze the effect of this potential change in FY2011, if “hold-harmless” had
been rolled back to 5 percent in FY2010, taxpayer residents in 120 districts
statewide would have seen increased property taxes.
See Appendix B for a map of school
districts that would have been adversely affected by this proposed change had
it been effective in FY2009 or FY2010.
“Paying a portion of the
annual contribution to the Teachers Retirement Fund from the Education Fund,
exclusive of costs associated with an accrued liability;”
The actuarial
recommendation for the FY2011 state contribution to the teachers’ retirement
system is $21.8 million, exclusive of a larger, additional contribution recommended
for the accrued liability (i.e., underfunding in prior years). Shifting this cost to the Education Fund with
no increase in General Fund support for public education would increase the
statewide education property tax rate by approximately 2.5 cents. This proposal would be a permanent cost-shift
and property tax increase. The state’s
contribution to the teachers’ retirement system is an annual expense that is
expected to increase each year for the foreseeable future. This proposal is clearly at odds
with the commissioners’ stated desire to mitigate property tax increases.
“Repealing the recently
passed 100-percent funding provision for mainstream costs for state-placed
students, returning to the 60/40 split;”
“Increasing the
threshold for extraordinary special education costs from $50,000 by an
inflationary amount;”
Both of these
provisions would have the effect of shifting costs to individual districts that
are currently shared by taxpayers across the state in order to provide relief to
districts with disproportionately high special needs cost burdens.
In the case
of mainstream costs for state-placed students, these are expenses that are
solely attributable to the decision of a state agency to place a student in a
school district other than the district the student would normally attend as a
result of his or her residency.
“Extraordinary
special education costs” are attributable to very high needs students who are
entitled to individual education programs under federal law. Current state policy mandates that a majority
of these costs be shared by taxpayers across the state.
See Appendix C for a map of school
districts that would have been adversely affected by this proposed change
(extraordinary reimbursement) had it been effective in FY2009 or FY2010.
We will
monitor action on each of these policy issues and report on actions by the
General Assembly if and when it occurs.
Again, it is not too early to let your legislators know your
perspectives on each of the issues.
Retirement
Commission Update
The Commission met on December 15th and voted
on what recommendations to include in its report to the Legislature. The final report is expected shortly. The report is not binding; the Legislature
can accept, reject or ignore its recommendations. The Commission will recommend several changes
to the Vermont State Teachers Retirement System (VSTRS) contributions and
benefits. All of the changes, except
one, would adversely impact at least some current and future employees.
The Commission will not recommend changes to the funding
source for the employer contribution (currently, the State’s general fund). The Commission will, however, recommend that
the Legislature continue to consider changes that would implicate the education
fund, particularly with regard to the health care benefit for retirees.
The Commission will recommend that VSTRS members who are
eligible for normal retirement within five years be unaffected by the following
recommended changes.
Pension
Benefit and Contribution Changes
·
Normal
retirement age increased from 62 or 30 years of service to either 65 years of
age or the rule of 90 (i.e., combined age and years of service must meet or
exceed 90). Early retirement age increased from 55 to
58.
·
Average
final compensation (AFC) will be calculated on an employee’s highest earning
five consecutive years of service, not his or her highest earning consecutive
three years.
·
The
maximum final pension benefit increased from 50 to 60 percent of AFC, with six
additional years of employment required to earn the 60 percent benefit.
·
The
Commission will recommend that VSTRS members and the State share the burden of
actuarially recommended contributions to the pension fund. The final recommendation will be to enact an
approximately 55 percent State and 45 percent employee sharing ratio. This will markedly increase employee
contributions, from 3.4 percent of salary to greater than a 5 percent
contribution. The State’s contribution
would remain in the 7.5 percent range of salary that it paid in fiscal year
2010.
Retiree
Health Insurance Changes
·
A
tiered system so that degree of retiree premium assistance is linked to length
of service:
10
years of service: 40% benefit;
20
years of service: 60% benefit;
30 years of service: 80% benefit.
·
“Recapturing”
one’s health insurance benefit will require 20 years of service. “Recapturing” refers to a vested member who
leaves the teaching profession for a period but later retires, begins to
receive his or her VSTRS pension and wishes to participate in the retiree
health care program.
Committee
on the Financing and Effectiveness of the Vermont Education System in the 21st
Century to Issue Report
Last year
during the 2009 session, the Legislature established the Committee on the
Financing and Effectiveness of the Vermont Education System in the 21st Century
and instructed it “to examine potential improvements to the structure and
funding of the Vermont educational system in light of the state’s limited
financial resources.” The report of the
Committee will be available shortly after the General Assembly reconvenes on
January 5th.
The
Committee, comprised of legislators, the commissioner of education and
constituent members met six times during the latter months of 2009 to examine
the current education and funding systems for public education in Vermont. Chaired by Commissioner Armando Vilaseca, the
Committee heard from more than 30 witnesses and explored a wide array of ideas,
suggestions and concepts relevant to school district governance and funding.
With its
emphasis on efficiency and an interest on making recommendations that might be
achievable during the 2010 legislative session, the Committee ultimately
decided on two areas for further legislative consideration. These are:
·
Addressing
the nature of the relationship between a supervisory union and its member
districts by more clearly delineating the roles of each and creating a
standardized statutory framework for the work of the supervisory union in the
areas of special education services, centralized purchasing of goods and
operational services, budgeting and accounting, and transportation services,
among others. This emphasis will, at a
minimum, require changes to 16 V.S.A. § 261a (supervisory union duties)
and 16 V.S.A. § 242 (superintendent duties).
·
Addressing
declining student enrollment in Vermont’s public schools and the fact that much
of the expense of education in Vermont is driven by labor and related
costs. In order to support a focus on
the management of labor costs, the Committee will recommend that the General
Assembly consider the advisability of requiring each supervisory union to
develop and implement policies regarding the minimum, maximum and optimal class
sizes. The Committee believes that the policies should be applied on a
supervisory union-wide basis, but that certain latitudes should be available to
schools and school districts based on factors such as geography.
We will
provide more comprehensive information on the recommendations as soon as the
Committee’s report is released. We will
also provide a link to the full report when it becomes available.
Education
Transformation Policy Commission Issues Report
The Education
Transformation Policy Commission submitted its final report to the State Board
of Education last month. The Commission
was comprised of school board members, superintendents, principals, elected and
appointed state-level education policymakers, teachers, higher education
administrators, parents and parent-advocates, one business representative, and
a high school student. The Commission’s
charge was as follows:
Recommend a state policy framework that will build and
enhance the capacity of schools and communities to reinvent Vermont public
education so all students acquire the knowledge and skills needed for college,
careers, and citizenship in the 21st century.
Notably, the
Commission was not asked to frame its recommendations within any particular
budgetary constraints, nor did it do so.
The Commission made recommendations under the framework of “education
transformation” as opposed to confining its work to school improvement. The Commission divided its recommendations
into five “interdependent” sections, and what follows is a brief description of
each. The Commission’s recommendations were
presented to the State Board of Education at its December meeting. The full
report, including expansive details and rationales for each recommendation, can
be viewed here: http://education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/dept/transformation/commission/transformation_policy_commission_report_1209.pdf
Education
Quality Standards
·
Supplement
and replace the current School Quality Standards with “Education Quality
Standards” that focus on learning outcomes and processes, to be developed by an
EQS commission.
·
Enhance
accountability via long-range education quality assessments in each public
school, and utilize data to continually develop more effective practice.
Learning
Expectations for a New Generation
·
Personal
learning plans for each student.
·
Three
stages of learning progression (to replace PK-12 grades), and proficiency-based
advancement and graduation requirements.
·
Transition
from grade-level groupings to multi-age small learning communities with
differentiated learning opportunities.
State-level
PK-16 Partnerships
PK-16 means prekindergarten through a
four-year college.
·
Establish
ambitious state-level educational attainment targets and strategies to achieve
these targets.
·
Establish
state-level standards for college readiness.
·
Expand
access and ensuring funding for dual enrollment and other college-level
learning opportunities for high school students.
Educator
Quality
·
Expand
clinically-based learning opportunities for aspiring educators.
·
Adopt
a four-tier career ladder and proficiency-based licensing standards for
educators.
·
Expand
professional development and collaborative planning time for educators.
Formation
of Regional Education Districts
·
Education
Redistricting Commission to facilitate consolidation of all public school
districts (including all public schools and technical centers) into 12 – 24
education districts, each governed by a single board of directors.
·
Multi-year
transition process to fully implement consolidation by 2015.
·
Each
public school would have a “Community School Council,” with advisory
functions.
See Appendix K and Appendix L in the
Commission’s full report for two consolidation concepts (13 and 20 districts
respectively).
Tax
Commissioner Recommends Rate Increase; Warns of Narrowing Base
Last July,
Governor Douglas appointed Richard Westman as Vermont’s Commissioner of Taxes.
Westman had been a long-serving House member representing the towns of
Cambridge, Belvidere, and Waterville. He
replaced outgoing commissioner Tom Pelham, who accepted a new appointment as
deputy secretary in the Agency of Administration.
Last month, Commissioner Westman recommended that the Legislature
increase both the homestead and nonresidential statewide education property tax
rates by 2.2 cents ($0.022) for fiscal year 2011, to $0.882 for homestead and
$1.372 for nonresidential property.
This is the first time since its creation by Act 60 that the statewide
base rate will likely increase. Although
school spending has increased each year, total grand list value also increased
rapidly in prior years, allowing the Legislature to lower the base rates. However, the Tax Department is projecting
that in fiscal year 2011 the grand list will increase only two percent before
decreasing each of the next three years.
As a result, Westman warned in his recommendation letter that the base
rate may be pressured to increase by as much as 22 cents over a three-year
period.
Separate from
his tax rate recommendation, Commissioner Westman is also warning policymakers
about another challenge for the property tax: a narrowing taxable base. In a PowerPoint presentation the Commissioner
has shared with various groups around the state, Westman identifies three
policies that he believes are limiting total revenue generated from statewide
education property taxes: exempt property, tax increment financing (TIF)
districts, and increasing income sensitivity.
A fourth
factor the Commissioner has looked at is local option sales taxes, which have
been adopted by several towns and cities.
Local option taxes do not directly affect property tax rates, but the
Commissioner suggests that they create inequity, because towns with local
option taxes can pay for a significant portion of their municipal services with
this revenue stream. Therefore, these
towns have relatively more property taxing capacity to expend on education than
other towns without the tax.
Business-Education
Alliance Reissues Recommendations
In April
2008, the Business-Education Alliance, comprised of our Associations, the
Business Roundtable, the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation, and the
Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, joined together to issue a report
titled Vision, Goals, and Governance in Vermont’s Public
Education System. Last month, the Alliance decided the current
conditions were such that it would be meaningful to restate the report’s
recommendations to key state policymakers.
In particular, the Alliance highlighted its recommendations to (1)
reconfigure the State Board of Education to include representatives from a
variety of education practitioners, thus creating a more practical connection
to issues in public education, and (2) to elevate the position of commissioner
of education to secretary of education appointed directly by the governor.
Our
observations of state-level policymaking since 2008 have reinforced our belief
that these two changes would benefit efficacy and efficiency in our public
education system. The renewed focus on
these recommendations will be realized during the first week of the legislative
session when the House Education Committee will take testimony on the report
from Alliance leadership.
Editor’s Note: At the time of initial release of the
Business-Education Alliance report, the VSBA issued a minority statement
opposing the recommendation that would have the education commissioner/secretary
appointed directly by the Governor. This
continues to be VSBA policy.
Gubernatorial
Candidates to Participate in Panel Discussion on Education
Castleton
State College, St. Michael’s College, and the University of Vermont are
collaborating to host a panel discussion for candidates for the 2010
gubernatorial race to present and discuss their ideas regarding education
issues facing Vermonters. The panel discussion will be held on
January 25th at 7 p.m. in the Davis Center on the University of
Vermont campus. At 8:30 p.m., a
reception will follow the discussion at which point members of the public will
have an opportunity to engage the candidates with their questions and thoughts.
New Bills
Introduced
The following
education-related bills have been introduced by one or more members of the
Legislature since the conclusion of the 2009 session through December 29th. To read any bill’s full text or see its
current status in the legislative process, go to http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm.
S.186 An act relating to requiring
fiscal notes for all bills
Introduced
by Senator Brock
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to require that the joint fiscal office prepare
a fiscal note for each bill prior to introduction of the bill.
S.193 An act relating to public
prekindergarten education programs, existing service providers, and property
tax rates
Introduced
by Senator Starr
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to require amendments to rules concerning the
creation or expansion of a prekindergarten education program operated by or
through a school district or supervisory union.
The amendments would add elements to the community assessments school
districts must conduct when considering creating or expanding prekindergarten
programs, with an emphasis on determining the potential impact of the program
on existing service providers and property tax rates.
S.209 An act relating to prohibiting
the first student day of the academic year to occur before Labor Day
Introduced
by Senator Lyons
Statement of Purpose: This bill proposes to prohibit
public school districts from scheduling the first student day of any academic
year to occur before Labor Day.
S.225 An act relating to
the calculation of average daily membership in regional school choice
agreements
Introduced by Senator Racine
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to permit a
school district that enrolls a nonresident student through a regional school
choice agreement to consider the student a resident for purposes of calculating
its average daily membership. The district in which the student actually
resides would not include the student within its average daily membership.
S.240 An act relating to
providing a financial incentive to encourage early secondary school completion
Introduced by Senator Giard
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to provide a
$4,000 payment from the education fund to any secondary student who completes
all requirements for graduation at least one year prior to the year in which
the student’s cohorts will graduate.
S.241 An act relating to
mediation and administrative due process hearings concerning the provision of
special education services
Introduced by Senator Giard
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to preclude the possibility of a conflict of
interest arising from mediation or an administrative due process hearing
related to the provision of special education services. It would do so by
transferring to the agency of administration all administrative
responsibilities for special education mediation and administrative due process
hearings that are currently performed by the department of education.
S.242 An act relating to
ensuring a free and appropriate education for a child with a severe disability
whose needs are best met at home
Introduced by Senator Giard
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to ensure that a
parent is not financially precluded from enrolling a severely disabled child in
a home study program by (a) providing an annual payment from the education fund
to the parent in an amount equal to the average announced tuition for the year
and (b) seeking a federal waiver that would allow a parent to be named and
receive payment as a child’s personal care attendant.
S.243 An act relating to
the creation of six regional centers to provide lifelong support to individuals
with autism spectrum disorders and their families and to the creation of a
Vermont council on autism spectrum disorders
Introduced
by Senator Giard
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to
(1) create a council on autism spectrum disorders (ASD)
to include the directors of six newly created regional centers on ASD, family
members of individuals with ASD, legislators, and agency personnel;
(2) direct the council to establish six regional centers
on ASD in geographically diverse areas of the state by selecting one or more
Vermont-based nonprofit entities to develop and operate the centers pursuant to
a contract with and funding from the agency of human services;
(3) require the regional centers to provide lifelong
support and services to children and adults with ASD and their families,
including vocational and other supports for individuals with ASD as they
transition to adulthood;
(4) designate the New England Autism Center as the entity
to develop and operate the first of the six regional autism centers, which
shall serve as a pilot program;
(5) appropriate $100,000 for the benefit of the New
England Autism Center in connection with the first year of its contract with
the agency of human services; and
(6) dissolve the Vermont inter-agency autism spectrum
disorder planning advisory committee.
S.244 An act relating to
creating a pilot regional center on autism spectrum disorders to serve
Chittenden County
Introduced by Senator Giard
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to require the
agencies of human services, of commerce and community development, and of
transportation and the departments of education and of labor to select and
oversee a nonprofit entity that will develop and implement a pilot center on
autism spectrum disorders pursuant to a contract with and funding from the
agency of human services.
S.252 An act relating to
creating regional school districts and no more than 16 supervisory unions
Introduced by Senator Hartwell
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to replace
existing supervisory unions with no more than 16 supervisory unions to be
established by the commissioner of education and to require the merger of
existing school districts into larger regional districts. It would require the
commissioner to develop a governance structure for the supervisory unions and
regional school districts.
S.253 An act relating to
promoting parental rights within the special education process
Introduced by Senator Giard
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to:
(1) permit the parent of a child with a disability to
request mediation for individualized education plan (“IEP”) meetings to be paid
for by the department of education if the parent believes the IEP team is not
giving appropriate weight to the opinions and recommendations of the parent or
the parent’s independent experts or if the parent believes that the team’s
decisions are not in the best interest of the child;
(2) prohibit a school from restricting access to a parent
of a child with a disability unless a hearing officer or judge has temporarily
prohibited access after the school demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence that the parent has threatened and is a physical danger to persons at
the school;
(3) require a school district of residence to pay an
independent provider for special education services required under the most
recently agreed-upon IEP when a parent has decided to enroll a child with a
disability in a home study program;
(4) require the school district, supervisory union, and
department of education to bear the burden of proof in any action relating to
providing a free and appropriate education to a child with a disability;
(5) identify the parent as the prevailing party in an
action and entitled to costs and attorney’s fees if the district voluntarily
began to provide a significant benefit sought by the action; and
(6) require a parent to engage in mediation before
beginning any administrative or judicial action regarding the provision of
special education services to a child with a disability.
S.254 An act relating to
educator licenses and professional development
Introduced by Senator Giard
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to require the
Vermont standards board for professional educators to evaluate the efficacy of
requiring the individual professional development plan in connection with
relicensure and to consider whether professional growth can be demonstrated in
a more pertinent and less time-consuming manner. It also would require
collective bargaining agreements to provide educators with complete discretion
to select professional development courses.
S.259 An act relating to
the tuition to be paid by a designating school district
Introduced by Senator Starr
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to direct a
school district that has designated a secondary school as the school for the
students of its district to pay tuition equal to the lesser of two amounts,
rather than the least of three amounts, to a different school chosen by a
student’s parent or legal guardian.
S.262 An act relating to
insurance coverage for autism diagnosis and treatment
Introduced by Senators Carris and Campbell
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to require
health insurers to cover diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders.
H.466 An act relating to the tuition
to be paid by a designating school district
Introduced
by Representative Crawford of Burke
Statement
of purpose: This bill proposes to direct a school district that has designated
a secondary school as the school for the students of its district to pay
tuition equal to the lesser of two amounts, rather than the least of three
amounts, to a different school chosen by a student’s parent or legal guardian.
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
