Henry Raymond
Fairfax News => Political Issues/Comments => Topic started by: Gary Gilbert on April 12, 2010, 08:03:03 AM
-
The House Education Committee made its recommendation to Appropriations Friday April 9th. The challenge was to provide equal or better services for less cost - $23 million in fy 2012. We rejected three options from the Dept of Education: Mandatory Consolidation into 50 or fewer districts; mandated staff ratios; or mandatory 2% reduction for all school districts. The department was correct in that the great difficulty is that Vermont is running a city size school system across an entire state. But it errs when it believes a Montpelier –one size fits all – solution can be better than one designed by local boards who are dedicated to overseeing the funds and programs determined by the voters in their communities.
The House Ed. Committee refused to let the DOE tell our schools what they must do. We chose to work with the schools to help them do what is needed. The current proposal is a proportionate 2% reduction with consideration given to districts that have demonstrated fiscal restraint, have low per-pupil administrative costs, high student to staff ratios, or serve high percentages of poverty or second language students.
Districts that have kept their spending down should not be asked to do more until all make a similar effort. These district specific challenge amounts will be presented to House and Senate Education committees for approval, and after any adjustments, communicated to each district for their review and response. Adjustments may be made. The Districts will report on progress by Dec. 1, 2010, which gives ample time for the legislature to take action, including necessary statute changes, for the 2012 budget year.
Representative Gary Gilbert
Fairfax/Georgia
Below are my notes of each proposal studied by the committee
Challenges for change History in House Education
Problem: Running a city size school system across an entire state. There are 280 reasons why we spend what we do on education. And there are 280 organizations dedicated to overseeing the funds and programs determined by the voters of their communities.
Challenges for change
Proposes to provide equal or better services for students at less costs.- $23 million in 2012. The Challenge for 2011 has already been met
Options submitted by DOE
mandatory consolidation into 50 or fewer districts formed by the state;
larger districts eliminate smaller boards, share resources, create greater options for students, share highly skilled professionals that are equipped to assist high needs low-incident students. Eighty percent of education is in labor costs. The only way to reduce staff is to increase class size and that can not be done with small schools.
Effectively makes education a function of the state and may run counter to Constitution of Town responsibility
Larger board may be better able to make decisions for the benefit of all district students
Larger board may be insolated from public and lead to greater dis-engagement by the public and increase incident of budget defeats
Sharing resources may increase opportunities/access to high level and low level courses
This option is rejected by house education
mandate staff ratios- reduce numbers of adults in school systems to reduce costs based on average salary of $35,000
does not address range of para-educators salaries and benefits range from $11,000-35,000.
Outsourcing may cost more yet reduce staff ratios, it also would make some former school employees eligible for unemployment benefits and increase total costs
Some districts maintain own transportation, custodial and food service or share maintenance of recreation space in the community
Ratio may be determined by levels of poverty, ESL students, IEP needs etc
This option is too limited and gives no options to local boards. It is rejected by house education.
mandatory reduction in spending – would require a 2% reduction across the board for school districts. Would leave it up to local districts to determine what they will change, where they will remain the same, and how they will manage with less dollars.
Effectively strangles schools districts where small districts have limited room to save and improve learning outcomes.
May result in loss of low enrollment high level courses, i.e. welding, advanced math., opportunities for gifted and talented students
May become a movement to adequacy rather than quality. This could mean that schools will offer the minimal courses experience to grant diplomas i.e. three years of math rather than math to a given level of performance
Would have disproportionate effect on low spending districts, on districts that had taken recent steps to reduce spending while maintaining quality i.e. it may create a larger gap in student opportunities among districts
Cap spending per district with high spending threshold set at that level to hold ed. fund harmless if districts chose to spend more
Penalty likely to violate Brigham decision with unequal access to funding
Mandatory equal reduction is rejected.
House ed. generated options
A proportionate 2% reduction
Recognition of recent reductions and historic spending levels which would more fairly distribute the impact of the proposed reductions among districts with the greatest options for innovation and cost reductions.
Criteria to be designed to meet this targeted reduction and submitted to H.ed. and S.ed.
Cap spending per district and place high spending threshold at that level to hold ed. fund harmless if districts chose to spend more
Penalty likely to violate Brigham decision with unequal access to funding
This option rejected as interfering with options of local school districts and does not guarantee spending reduction demanded by Challenges bill.
Exempt Ed from Challenge $23 million mandatory reduction in 2012 based on serious efforts of past years and willingness to address budgetary concerns while meeting the quality outcomes.
Keeps authority with the local boards which are responsible to the voters in their community.
Funding will be reduced (ed fund transfer) and local boards would be forced to respond.
Savings can not be guaranteed in fy12
Quality outcomes would not need to be addressed
May result in arbitrary reductions and little innovation
It removes House Education from its responsibility to work with districts to meet both the outcomes and decrease spending
This option was rejected
A proportionate 2% reduction without caps to fairly distribute the impact of the proposed reductions among districts with the greatest options for innovation and cost reductions.
· Requires DOE to establish district specific targets considering districts that : have demonstrated fiscal restraint during no fewer than the last three fiscal years;
· Have low per-pupil administrative costs
· Have high student to staff rations
· Serve a high percentage of students from economically deprived backgrounds or for whom English is not the first language or both;
· Have other unique circumstances that affect the district’s level of education spending
Procedure
· The DOE will submit the targets and the method used to calculate them to Sen Ed and House Ed and if/when approved will be submitted to the districts for their review and response.
· The joint committee shall review district responses, accept the targets or ask the commissioner to make changes based on district feedback.
· Districts will be notified of approved targets with a progress report required by Dec. 1 2010.
This option was presented to House Appropriations this morning. It acknowledges that $23 million has been established as a reduction in fy2012. It prevents the DOE from imposing requirements on districts, and recognizes that the districts are the administrative agency that should be designing the method to address both the reduction and the outcomes; and it does not punish districts that have already made serious efforts to address the current financial restraints. It does not guarantee the method by which the reduction will be guaranteed. Districts are better equipped to determine the most appropriate methods for their communities than the legislature or the DOE ever could.
Approved 9-2-0
Reconsidered
Approved 8-3-0