VSA/VSBA/VPA
EDUCATION LEGISLATIVE
BULLETIN
February 29, 2008
Foreword: This Education
Legislative Bulletin includes information about the status of education related
legislation as members of the General Assembly leave for their Town Meeting
break. Town Meeting week presents an
essential opportunity to discuss the issues reviewed in this Bulletin with your
legislative delegation. In particular,
it will be important this week to talk with Senators about the action taken by
the House to repeal the two-vote provisions of Act 82. Senators must be left with the impression
that we expect them to take the House action seriously and that the enactment
of even more unfunded mandates through S.348 (described below) is unacceptable. It will also be important to talk with your
Representatives in the House. If they voted to repeal the two-vote provisions
of Act 82, thank them. If they did not, it is quite appropriate to express
disappointment.
House Supports
Repeal of Act 82 Think Twice Provisions—H.864
The House Education Committee sent the “Miscellaneous
Amendments to Education Law” bill (H. 864) to the House floor on February 21st. As reported in our legislative bulletin at
the end of last week, the bill was sent back to the
Education Committee, apparently to avoid voting on an amendment to the bill
that called for a repeal of the two-vote requirement in Act 82. When the Committee reconvened after receiving
the bill, discussion immediately turned to the possibility of replacing the
two-vote requirement with a reduction in the excess spending threshold—the Act
68 device that requires districts that spend more than 125% of the statewide
average per pupil to raise from the local tax base $2.00 for every $1.00 of
spending over the threshold.
Last year, the House approved, as its contribution to the
cost-containment debate, a bill that would have reduced the threshold from 125%
to 123% in FY 2010 and 120% in FY 2012.
During the negotiations leading to Act 82 two-vote “compromise” the
House abandoned its preference for reducing the threshold and agreed to the
two-vote requirement. After revisiting
the reduced threshold idea last week and earlier this week, the House Committee
approved an amendment to H.864 that would replace the two-vote requirement with
last year’s reduced threshold measure.
The Committee vote in favor of the amendment was 7-3-1, with
Representatives Ancel, Hosford,
Peltz, Mook, Donovan,
Gilbert and Oxholm voting in favor of the amendment
and Representatives Kilmartin, Crawford and Clark
voting against it. Representative Barnard was not present for the vote.
On Thursday, the House adopted the Education Committee’s
proposal by a vote of 99 to 38. The
rationale provided by the leadership to support repeal of the two-vote
requirement showed that board members and administrators who have discussed the
two-vote requirement with their legislators ultimately succeeded in bringing
about a change of heart. When the
Speaker addressed the Democratic caucus prior to the vote, she said that she
now believes that the two-vote requirement would confuse voters. She said that “cost-containment that happens
because voters are confused is not good.”
The Douglas administration declared the House action
“shameful,” and will no doubt continue to characterize it as an abandonment of
a “fair and square deal” made on the last day of last year’s session. Also, Peter Shumlin,
President Pro Tem of the Senate, announced his opposition to the House action
immediately after the vote was taken.
This means that the road ahead is entirely up hill. Senators
must be contacted during Town Meeting week, and give a message urging support
of the House bill when it arrives at the Senate. Please help us to ensure that no Senator
returns to Montpelier on March 11th without having received this
message from numerous constituents.
H.864 Also
Repeals Act 31 of 2007—The Statewide Calendar Bill
H.864 was originally labeled as this year’s “Technical
Corrections” bill, meaning that its content would be restricted to matters that
do not involve changes in policy, such as wording changes in existing statutes
intended to clarify their meaning. As
the House Education Committee worked on the bill, however, its name was changed
from “Technical Corrections” to “Miscellaneous Amendments to Education
Law” in order to allow inclusion of
sections clearly dealing with policy changes.
This change allowed the inclusion of sections that repeal last year’s
statewide calendar bill (Act 31 of 2007) and replace it with revisions to the
existing regional calendar system.
H.864 amends the existing regional calendar statutes by
making it clearer that regional calendars for the next school year are to be
developed in each technical center service region, prior to April 1st
each year, by the superintendents and tech center directors in the region. Once agreed upon, the regional calendars must
be observed by each school district in the region. H.864 specifies that the Commissioner may withhold
state funds from non-complying districts.
As part of the regional calendar development process, superintendents
and tech center directors would, under H.864, be required to make “provisions
for the transportation of students attending a technical center in the region.”
This return to the regional calendar system indicates an
acknowledgement on the part of the House Education Committee that last year’s
hastily adopted statewide calendar bill created a process and result that was
unpopular and, in the eyes of many, unworkable.
If the House passes H.864 in its present form, and the Senate agrees to
the H.864 regional calendar provisions, it will mark the end of the attempt to
put all schools in the state on the same 175 day schedule.
A summary of all
of the provisions in H.864 as passed by
the House on Friday should be on the legislative website, www.leg.state.vt.us, early next week.
Further
Discussion of Cost-Containment in House Education Committee
The House Education Committee has also been reviewing
several proposals intended to provide some “help” to school districts in the
area of cost-containment. It is likely
that a bill will emerge from these discussions with at least some of the
following provisions.
1.
Special Education Audits. After hearing, over a period of several
years, about the onerous special education audit system, the Committee took
testimony from representatives of the Department of Education on the audit
process and the importance the Department places on being able to audit
whenever a reimbursement system is used to support school expenditures. The Committee approved a draft proposal to
collect more information through a study of, and report on, the current system
by the Commissioner in consultation with the VSA, VCSEA and VASBO. The Commissioner’s recommendations are to
include ways to “…improve the timeliness and efficiency of the audit process,”
with specific recommendations: 1) on how
to ensure that each audit is completed and provided to the district within one
year of submission of the district’s expenditure report; 2) providing clear
guidelines as to the type of records that will be audited and how to maintain
those records; and 3) ensuring that audits result in recommendations to help
districts correct deficiencies in their systems for claiming reimbursements.
The Commissioner’s
report would be due on January 15, 2009 and the Department is to suspend its
auditing of special education reimbursements during the 2008-2009 school year. In place of
audits in the coming year, superintendents would be required to certify that
supporting documentation of expenditures is on file and time studies have been
conducted and are on file for all staff time for which reimbursement is sought.
2.
Cost Saving Incentive Fund. This provision would establish a “cost-saving
incentive fund” in the State Treasurer’s office and create a competitive grant
program for projects in supervisory unions or school districts that “…have
significant, demonstrable cost savings.”
Grants would be available for projects to share services, equipment or
facilities or to reduce energy consumption.
The Vermont Economic Progress Council would administer the grant program
and establish the criteria for grant awards.
An appropriation from the general fund would be required to fund the grants,
and the Committee has tentatively included a FY 2009 appropriation of
$1,000,000 in its proposal.
3.
Repeal
of Mandated Reporting. The House committee has also reviewed a list
of statutorily required reports with an eye toward eliminating as many of them
as possible. The list includes some
reports required of the State Board and Commissioner, but almost all of the
listed reports are required of either supervisory unions or school districts.
Among the reports listed for possible elimination are school reports required
by 16 V.S.A. § 165 on health and social well-being of students, early reading
instruction, community support to families, student participation in technical
education or regional job opportunities and postsecondary activities of high
school graduates. Also listed are the
annual reports on the results of hearing and vision tests, the status of
educational support services in each school and Commissioner’s reports on
technical education pilot projects, regional high school choice and special
education cost-containment. The
Committee has also expressed interest in reducing the annual Act 51 drug and
alcohol teacher education requirements.
4.
Minimum
Quality Standards for School Based Pre-Kindergarten Programs. Act 62, the
Pre-Kindergarten bill passed last year, and the proposed State Board rules on
Pre-kindergarten programs, require that school based programs meet standards
developed either by the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC) or the Step Ahead Recognition System (STARS) sponsored by the
Vermont Department of Children and Families (DCF). Further examination of this requirement has
shown that school programs have found the NAEYC accreditation program to be very
costly and very process oriented. Several
school districts have decided to discontinue affiliation with NAECY as a
result. The STARS program, on the other
hand, is oriented toward private providers and is not applicable to public
school programs in several ways.
The House
Education Committee appears ready to discuss a bill that would provide a
transition to use of the STARS system by school districts while the STARS
requirements are being reviewed and revised to meet the needs of public school
Pre-K programs. The draft bill likely to
be considered would give “presumptive eligibility” to school districts and
private providers of Pre-K programs that are not currently participating in the
STARS program if they submit applications to the STARS program by August 15,
2008 and are in “good regulatory standing” with DCF. Private providers would also be required to
show that they have a contractual relationship with a public school. Finally, the draft bill would require that
the STARS program be subjected to the administrative rule-making process and
that rules be in place by July 1, 2009.
Ways
& Means Committee Proposes Education Income Tax—H.866
The House Ways & Means Committee is developing a
proposal that would change how residential Vermonters pay for education. Currently, an education property tax is
assessed on all residential property, although a majority of residents pay the
tax based on their income (i.e. the income sensitivity program, also known as
the property tax adjustment). The
Committee’s proposal would eliminate the residential education property tax and
the property tax adjustment. Instead,
all residents would pay based on income, as many do now, although the formula
would be different from income sensitivity.
Significantly, for the purposes of income sensitivity, a
resident property owner pays based on “household income.” As envisioned in the bill (H.866), all Vermont residents would pay the
education income tax. The base rate
would be 1.82% for all income levels.
The base rate would be adjusted up or down annually to generate the
necessary revenue to pay education costs.
This process would be analogous to how the education property tax rate
is adjusted annually now.
The education income tax rate would also be adjusted in
each district in proportion to education spending per equalized pupil, as
residential education property tax rates are adjusted now. For example, if a district spends 25% more
than the base education amount per equalized pupil, under the current system,
the district’s residential education property tax rate would be 25% greater
than the base rate. Under the
Committee’s proposal, the district’s education income tax rate would be 25%
greater than the base rate (i.e. 2.28% on a base rate of 1.82%).
The bill includes several other provisions, including a cap
on tax liability for residents earning less than $47,000, and a rebate for
renters who would otherwise be double-paying education taxes (on rent paid and
income earned). There would not be a cap
on total tax liability for high-income taxpayers. Nothing in this bill would affect
non-residential education property taxes; the rate would continue to be set and
adjusted annually by the State, with an adjustment for common level of
appraisal. Taxpayers would also continue
to pay municipal taxes based on residential property value, as they do now.
The bill would apply an income-based formula to all
residential taxpayers. Therefore, under
the proposed system, we would expect increased tax bills for taxpayers with
substantial incomes and modest domiciles, and decreased bills for taxpayers
with modest incomes and substantial domiciles.
The Committee’s proposal is not in final form, and it is working to
refine the details. However it was the
Committee’s intention to make this draft available for the general public’s inspection
in order to receive feedback during the Town Meeting break. You can view the text of the bill as it was
introduced here: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/H-866.HTM
The Committee will hold a public hearing on the bill on
March 13th.
Teen Parent
Education Bill Approved by House Education Committee—H.812
The House Education Committee has passed a bill that would
change the funding formula for teen parent education programs. As you may recall from past Legislative
Bulletins, funding teen parent education programs has been a legislative topic
for three years running, since a federal rule change prevented these programs
from drawing down funds from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program. In the past two
legislative sessions, temporary measures were approved on a one-year basis, but
the bill discussed here (H.812) would function as a permanent solution if
enacted.
The bill calls for approved teen parent education programs
to be paid for each attending student an amount equal to the prior year’s net
cost per pupil, as defined in 16 VSA § 825, if the pregnant or parenting teen
attends the program for a full year. The
amount would be pro-rated for teens that attend less than one full year. The pro ration would be based on a full-time
schedule of 27.5 hours per week of education services for a school-year (35 week) program, or 18.5 hours of educational services per
week for programs that run year-round.
Two key provisions of H.812 are that the district of residence would be
allowed to count the teen in the district’s average daily membership, and the
Commissioner of Education would reimburse the district for all payments made to
the teen parent education programs from the Education Fund.
H.812 envisions a partnership between the pupil, the teen
parent education program, and the pupil’s district of residence for the purpose
of developing the educational services to be provided the student. The goal of this provision is to ensure that
the student’s education is relevant to the district of residence’s curriculum,
and to ensure that the student remains on a path towards high school
graduation. These stakeholders would
jointly determine the length of time that the pupil will be allowed to attend
the teen parent education program, and any disagreement would be resolved the
Commissioner.
The funding formula envisioned in this bill would be
effective during the FY09 school year for all currently approved teen parent
education programs and also those that are recognized by the Department of
Children and Families. Policymakers are
discussing a process for formalizing the approval of teen parent education
programs that would likely take effect for the FY10 school year. The bill is now awaiting action in the House
Appropriations Committee.
Senate Committee
Considers Raising Mandatory School Age—And Placing
Unfunded Mandates on Schools—S.348
The Senate Education Committee has passed out a bill that
would increase the mandatory age of school enrollment from 16 to 18 and provide
alternative learning environments for students who cannot, or choose not to,
thrive in a traditional high school. S.348 would also require schools to use
their Act 117 Educational Support Teams to monitor their student population for
signs that a student may be on a path to dropping out, and to intervene
appropriately.
The heart of the bill is the proposed change to mandatory
enrollment. Currently, students are only
required to attend school until age 16, but under S.348, the student would
either have to attend until age 18 (unless he or she has completed the
requirements for high school graduation) or: attend a postsecondary school or
technical education program, or a home-school program, or a workforce training
program, or enroll in the high school completion program created by Act 176 in
2006. To attend these programs, other
than postsecondary education, the student must be granted a waiver. The district’s school board would identify a
person with authority to grants waivers for students who meet one of the above
criteria. If a student who does not meet
one of the above criteria wishes to leave school before the age of 18, he or
she would be required to appear before the school board to obtain a waiver from
the school’s attendance requirements.
Failure to obtain a waiver would result in the student being considered
truant.
S.348 would also require that schools utilize their educational
support teams to identify students at any age who may
be in danger of not completing high school.
Students identified as such would be given a personal education plan
(“PEP”), to be developed and updated by annually by the team, with input from the
student and his or her parents. The PEP
would outline procedures for obtaining services as diverse as literacy
instruction (if necessary), an adult mentor which may be a parent, applied
learning opportunities, dual enrollment courses, outreach programs administered
by the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, or “any other service to
encourage the successful completion of elementary and secondary school and
preparation for life after graduation.”
The bill also requires students who are imminently near dropping out to
be informed of alternative paths to graduation, regardless of whether he or she
had participated in a PEP.
Thirdly, S.348 would amend the statutes governing the high
school completion program (16 VSA 1049a) to ensure that the “graduation
education plan” includes services such as career exploration and workforce
training.
S.348 imposes the above process requirements on schools
without consideration of their costs. No
effort has been made by the Senate Education Committee to quantify those costs,
or to seek a source of funding support for its required activities. Senators
should be urged to vote NO when S.348 reaches the floor of the Senate.
Senate Committee
Proposes Restructuring Leadership of Education
Frustrated by what they see as a lack of leadership and
accountability, the Senate Education Committee has proposed changing the way
the Commissioner of Education is appointed in Vermont. Currently, the State Board of Education
selects the Commissioner, with approval from the Governor. The Senate proposal would eliminate the State
Board and require the Governor to appoint a Secretary of Education, whose
duties would combine the purview of the former State Board and
Commissioner. The Department of Education
would also be elevated to a cabinet-level agency under this proposal.
The proposed change is a significant one, with potentially
major effects for Vermont public schools, and there appears to be significant
political will in Montpelier to affect this change. The Senate Education Committee appears
willing to pass the legislation out, and we have not heard specific objections
to the concept from the House. Governor
Douglas has indicated he would strongly support such a proposal. With so much talk these days about school
costs, education spending, and the statewide education property tax, many feel
that allowing the Governor more direct oversight of public education would
improve accountability for the system.
The VSBA has a long-standing resolution opposing this
change. The opposition is based on recognition that education is a unique
governmental activity. Local and state
governments share responsibility for the delivery of educational services. The State Board of Education was created in
the early 20th century to allow the state to play its role without
being subjected to partisan political influences. The system has served Vermont
fairly well, as state education governance mirrors local education
governance. In both cases, non-partisan
boards of lay people develop education policy without undue political
influence. Giving the Governor direct
authority over education at the state level would increase political influences
at the state level to the disadvantage of local school officials.
The VPA recently conducted an informal poll of its members,
and many more opposed the concept than supported it, but “I would need more
information” was the most popular response.
The VSA does not have an official position, but its many of its members
may be inclined to support the change.
In a heated exchange in the Senate Committee room last
week, Senators strongly questioned the usefulness and practicality of the State
Board of Education. With the House
leadership inclined toward making this change, this may be a historic year for
education governance in Vermont.
The Committee
will hold a public hearing on this concept at 6:30 P.M. on Wednesday, March 13th
in the State House.
Requirements for
Hiring Architects—S.211
At the end of the first week in February, the Senate
Education Committee took testimony on a bill that would require school
districts to solicit proposals from at least three qualified architects before
hiring an architect to provide services related to construction or renovation
of a building. The bill would require
that each proposal include a delineation of the percentage of the architect’s
bid that are attributable to the architect’s base fee, the cost of change
orders due to action by the school district, by action or error on the part of
the architect and due to action or error on the part of the contractor. Bids would also include rates and charges for
reimbursable expenses such as mileage and telephone charges.
The Committee invited testimony from three architects with
experience working on
school construction projects.
Each of the invited architects expressed opposition to the bill,
primarily on the grounds that architectural services are comparable to legal or
other professional services not generally susceptible to a “lowest bid gets the
job” approach. Comments of committee
members and architects frequently referred to the problem of “school boards not
knowing enough to effectively manage construction projects.” The testimony of the School Boards
Association was that, 1) it isn’t the job of school boards to manage construction
projects and 2) the legislature should not micro-manage in an area where the
state has cut off financial aid for school construction projects through the
unilateral declaration of a “moratorium” on state aid for school construction.
The Senate Committee has not returned to S.211 since early
February, but we expect that it could be taken up again soon.
Public Assets
Institute Dispels Act 60 / 68 Myths
Two weeks ago, 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.
The Vermont School
Boards Association provided a financial grant to partially defray the cost of
producing PAI’s independent report. 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
John A. Nelson,
Executive Director
Vermont School
Boards Association
2 Prospect
Street
Montpelier, VT
05602
802-223-3580