ANGELO LYNN

The task for the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont is straightforward: devise a system that provides equitable, quality public education to all Vermonters — and make it affordable.

The last caveat is the tough nut to crack.

Part of the commission’s duties is to hold 14 public meetings throughout the state to get public reactions to the status quo and ideas on how to make the system better, and more affordable.

One of those meetings was held in Middlebury this Tuesday (see story on Page 1A) and the conversation shows how difficult it will be to keep the reins on spending while still providing the needed services to deliver a quality education. But there were some valuable suggestions, including:

• Decoupling school employee health care insurance benefits from school budgets. With health care insurance costs seeing double-digit increases year after year, it’s not long, said Jamie McCallum, a ACSD school board member from Weybridge, that those costs “will simply destroy the (educational) system.” Added Middlebury’s representative to the board Chip Malcolm, “With the way it’s going, it’s (health care) going to bankrupt us.”

How might Vermont decouple those benefits? First, we’d likely have to have a statewide teachers’ contract, which would also strengthen the state’s (public’s) bargaining position, and then they could negotiate moving the teachers’ health care insurance off private plans and onto the state’s Health Connect system. That could strengthen the state’s plan and potentially drive down costs statewide.

It seems like an idea with merit. Teachers currently have contracts at the district level, and each contract typically goes for several years, so it’s nothing that will happen year two or three, but it could be a longer-term strategy to pursue.

The challenge is getting teachers to understand, and accept, that in the end a statewide teachers’ contract might be in their best interest as well. (The bottom line is that we all must devise a system that’s affordable, and currently Vermont’s is not.)

• Removing some of the ancillary services schools are currently paying for and putting them back in their respective General Fund categories. Mental health and proper nutrition are two items that could be put into social service funding. This already happens in some ways, but a stringent effort at ferreting out those costs and shifting them into the General Fund makes good sense. (Vermonters would still pay the bill, through state income taxes, but it gets it off the property tax.)
• Allowing smaller schools to allocate space in underused facilities to a beneficial venture, also makes good sense. Such uses could include social services, mentorships, town libraries, daycare, and internship partnerships are examples.

**********

Those are examples of how to reduce costs. As for ways to create new sources of revenue, the gathering at Tuesday’s meeting pondered how it might change the funding model, such as moving it from a hybrid property-tax system to 100% coming from the income tax. That could make it more understandable and less confusing for taxpayers.

The problem with the proposal is that it would add to Vermont’s already high state income tax, which would potentially drive businesses away and would be a major deterrent to anyone considering moving to Vermont. Since we need those businesses, and new residents, that would likely be self-defeating.

The state might consider other forms of taxation that could, for example, fund school construction, which is a critical need in Vermont. Perhaps a 1% increase in the state’s sales tax (yes, it’s regressive, but it also taps a lot of out-of-state revenue) could be dedicated to that cause for the next decade — saving school districts from having to take on that added burden and putting it on the property tax. That’s no small deal considering estimates to bring ACSD’s nine buildings up to code put the figure at $110 million two years ago. And building costs are much higher today.

In another story in today’s Addison Independent, reporter John Flowers covers the ongoing conversation at the Ripton Elementary School as that community tries to attract enough students to keep it viable. It’s current K-5 enrollment is 35, but it’s projected to decline to 29 for the following school year.

Some creative ideas are being discussed, including creating a district school choice provision that would allow students from other district schools to attend Ripton Elementary if that was a preferrable fit. The school is also going to reach out to parents of the county’s 76 homeschooled children to see if any would enroll there, and finally, the idea of creating a ski academy at the school is creative genius — if only it would work. In any case, such creative thinking is the right attitude, as is understanding that at some point too small is not an effective option.

***********

Not mentioned in this preliminary discussion was any nod toward incentives that would reward school districts for cost-saving behaviors. That is, what incentive is there for a school district to run a tighter ship other than to get its budget passed by voters? Perhaps it’s impossible to craft a reward-based system that’s equitable, but if some business guru could imagine ways for schools to actually benefit from good cost management we wonder if it might produce a more competitive (in a fun way) edge.

It’s all a lot to think, and while you’re at it, share those thoughts with the Commission via email to [email protected]. They have a year to figure it out, and they’ll need everyone’s support along the way.

Angelo Lynn