vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

1.15.2007

School talk

There's probably not a school in Vermont in session today, between MLK Day and the snow, so let's use their day off to talk about what's on the minds of many trying to tackle spending issues: school consolidation.

Education Commissioner Richard Cate starts his five-month, statewide road show this week in Bradford, where he'll talk about whether Vermont schools could be governed more efficiently and hear from folks in the real world. In May, Cate proposed cutting the number of school districts from 284 to 63.

Maine is having the same debate. Gov. John Baldacci recently launched a proposal to shrink the number of districts there from 290 to 26. The idea wasn't immediately embraced. Read some of it HERE.

Change is tough. As soon as you walk the mental path toward bigger school districts, you have trouble imagining how parents in Williston would feel if their schools were overseen by a single school board that covered all of Chittenden South Supervisory Union. Gasp! Those impudent people from Shelburne would probably be pushing their ideas.

What gives, though? How can Vermont just keep doing things the same way as school populations decline and the number of staff does not?

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 11:22 AM |

Comments:

There is a bill that targets the consolidation of unions. I'm not sure if thats related to Cate's ideas.

The changes that would actually have impacts on individual taxes would have to be massive, perhaps even requiring investment in infrastructure.

Seems to me making fewer schools means either greater tarnsportation or housing costs. Changing just the governance of existing schools means fewer middle managers, perhaps some savings in elimination of redundancy. Seems like it does little to change the student/teacher ratio. So, I'm not sure if management changes would impact the cost per student to a significant degree.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:54 PM, January 15, 2007

Honest questions here, just trying to understand what you are saying:

Which unions would be consolodated?

How can the government "consolodate" a union? What legal right does the government have to interfear in the right of people to organize?

How would this save money for taxpayers?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:54 PM, January 15, 2007

From 1996 to 2005, spending on K-12 education in Vermont increased by 35%, after adjusting for inflation. Over the same period, the number of students in the schools decreased by over 7,000, or about 6%.

Cate is proposing reducing the number of school districts through consolidation. Getting rid of a few superintendents, deputy associate superintendents, business managers, etc., isn't going to bring down the cost of education by any significant degree.

Here are examples of the sorts of things that would be needed to really control the cost of education:

1. Neighboring small towns combining schools so that class sizes go from 10-12 to 20-25.

2. A statewide teachers contract, with a no-strike clause enforced by the courts, to prevent every NEA chapter in the state from threatening to go on strike if they don't get a contract as good as South Burlington or Essex.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:34 PM, January 15, 2007

A statewide teacher's contract will force some towns increase teacher salaries, but it won’t DECREASE anyone's salary.

Your “solution” will cost us all a lot more than it could possibly save ...

By the way, who is going to negotiate that contract?? Some fat cat in Montpelier? No thanks.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:19 PM, January 15, 2007

Something is being left out of the conversation:

Two major cost drivers --

1)the ever escalating cost of special education, mandated by the feds but not funded by them

2) the fact that health care costs for schools and everyone else go up an average of about 15% or so a year, give or take.

Anonymous is right that combining schools will decrease the cost of administration while increasing transportation costs -- probably a wash -- while contributing to environmental degradation.

It's time to look at combining special needs programs, by maybe creating more special schools. This will better utilize existing staff, both in the regular classroom and for the special needs kids.

That sector of school budgets it totally out of control. I support taking care of these special kids -- but it can be done much more cost effectively.

And health care...don't get me started! If the gov wasn't standing in the way of universal health care we would have had it by now and costs would be going down, not up. Not to mention taxesheading the same way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:58 AM, January 16, 2007

And just how do you propose to pay for "universal" health care? More taxes, not less.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:25 AM, January 16, 2007

Single payer would drive health care costs down. That point has been demonstrated time and time again.

We get slightly higher taxes for healthcare in exchange for dramatically lower taxes for schools, since they won't bare the burdon of healthcare ... and a huge boon to businesses who are laboring under the cost of healthcare.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:50 AM, January 16, 2007

Angelo Dorta head of VT-NEA has already stated that the NEA supports universal health care as long as his members don't have to participate. How does anonymous relate that statement to lower school costs if teachers get a different program than the rest of the citizens...if you think health care is expensive now wait until it is free

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:01 PM, January 16, 2007

Well, IF Angelo Dorta said that then I disagree with him. That's a silly position to have.

Oh, and your little slogan is cute, but nobody ever said that health care would be "free".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:52 PM, January 16, 2007

When it comes to healthcare, the teachers have a sweet deal right now -- so of course they aren't in favor of changing the system.

Few (if any) proponents of single payer would entertain the idea of excluding teachers from the program.

Don't get supporters of single payer confused with the NEA.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:26 PM, January 16, 2007

Saying that single payer on a statewide level would reduce costs is asinine, and the corresponding decrease in healthcare quality would be one more line item on millions of peoples' "why I'm not starting my business in Vermont" list. I wish to God we could have a moratorium on pretending that Vermont is going to have single payer until at least one other state comes up with a proven model for doing it. We absolutely cannot afford another experiment right now.

"From 1996 to 2005, spending on K-12 education in Vermont increased by 35%, after adjusting for inflation. Over the same period, the number of students in the schools decreased by over 7,000, or about 6%."

Most importantly, staffing levels went up, not just healthcare costs, and not just special education staff. Burlington's budget this year is a great example - enrollment declines again, healthcare cost increases "less than expected," so they add 3.5 ESL teachers and another librarian. When property taxes are crippling your state, you might want to think twice about how great it really is to have the lowest student-teacher ratio in the country.

Having the flexibility to adjust staffing levels to coincide with enrollment, just like any responsible business would adjust staffing to coincide with fluctuations in their revenue, would go a long way toward reducing the cost of education.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:01 PM, January 16, 2007

"We absolutely cannot afford another experiment right now."

Experiment??? Um, most of the developed world uses this system. They pay less on healthcare, and they live longer.

No. It isn't an experiment at all.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:25 AM, January 17, 2007

"Um, most of the developed world uses this system."

I assume you understand that there's a bit of a difference between a single state in the US doing something like this and an entire country doing it. Show me one state that has successfully implemented single payer. Until you can do that, we're talking about an experiment by definition.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:56 AM, January 17, 2007

Oh, so you think that single payer would be possible if it weren't for the Republican obstructionists in Washington.

I see now.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:14 AM, January 17, 2007

Oh, so YOU'RE suggesting that the solution to Vermont's school spending problems is the establishment of single payer health care at the national level. This is what Vermont can do to fix the problem, establish single payer health care for the entire country. Seriously, that's your solution. Brilliant.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:53 PM, January 17, 2007

"so they add 3.5 ESL teachers and another librarian"

With exception of the librarian (maybe another one quit?), ESL is considered special needs. You will note that special needs is mandated by the Feds. Don't meet the Fed requirements, then no Fed money (and the cost burden is shifted entirely to local taxpayers).

Real nice plan ya got there. Why not just come by and trash my car while you're increasing my burdens....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:03 PM, January 17, 2007

I said "add," not "replace," and it was actually two librarians. Federal law mandates only that schools take "appropriate action" to overcome the language barriers of LEP students, through the EEOA, and it has nowt to do with distribution of federal funds. The fact that there are states which actually forbid bilingual education might give you a hint that ESL is not specifically federally mandated. Vermont has no specific law specifying how this requirement is to be met.

So are the Burlington schools currently in direct violation of the EEOA, or was there a massive (and apparently very recent) influx of LEP students necessitating this last-minute increase? I'm going to go with "neither."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:50 PM, January 17, 2007

From a school commissioner in Burlington:
Actually, we have had a very large influx of students this past year through the refugee resettlement program. Our expected enrollment decline of 30 students turned into an increase of many more than that number. One of the major expenses in Burlington fueling our budget increase is that many of our newest Americans have come from refugee camps in which they have never experienced school at all. We need the extra ESL staff to handle the intensive needs of students who start by learning what a book is. It also is important to note that in Burlington our revenues (principally from the state) have increased about 8 % to cover the costs of our larger enrollment. We are asking for a 9% increase over last year's budget. This extra percent can be accounted for by our continuing the afterschool program after grant funding ended ($225,000) plus the cost of administering Catamount ($125,000) plus some added preventative maintenance.

# Posted by: