The Committee on the Future of Public Education is circulating an online survey to gauge public awareness and opinions regarding Act 73, the public education reform law that intends to restructure and consolidate Vermont’s school districts. While the introduction to the survey references that “The law was enacted in response to residents’ concerns about high and rising property taxes…” the survey itself, just like Act 73 itself, does its best to — most frustratingly — steer questions away from the tax issue.
I would encourage everybody to complete this survey and answer in a way to bring the discussion back to the message Vermonters sent with vivid clarity in November 2024: Lower our [choose your expletive] property taxes now! To that end, here are the survey questions and my answers”
Before this survey, how familiar were you with Act 73?
Very, unfortunately.
From your experience or observations, what is currently going well in Vermont’s education system?
The tuitioning system and the independent schools that operate within that system are doing a better job of providing high-quality education, a diversity of pathways to student success, and serving rural Vermonters for less taxpayer dollars on average than the government-run public schools. This successful tuitioning system, based on parental choice with money following the child, is going very well and should be expanded, not attacked.
From your experience or observations, what is not going well or could be improved?
The union-controlled, government-monopoly public school model is a proven failure. Costs are skyrocketing due to bureaucratic bloat, and the more money we spend, the faster test scores drop, and the achievement gap between lower-income and higher-income students grows. According to a recent analysis by Open Books, between 2019 and 2023, “Vermont’s 74% payroll boost led the nation, yet it slipped 13% in the rankings, the nation’s third-biggest loss.” The unions and administrative associations need to be held accountable – fired – for this record.
What factors are most important to the success of our education system? Select the top three.
[Of the ten pre-written choices, I found none particularly compelling as either biased toward centralized control and ‘one size fits all,” so-called solutions, vaguely iDEIological, or so obvious as to be irrelevant, such as “Career and college readiness: Preparation for life after graduation.” I mean, duh. So I chose “Other” and wrote in]: 1. Universal school choice. 2. Expanded options for publicly funded educational opportunities (e.g.: home schooling, tutoring, learning pods, etc.) 3) Break up the union monopoly.
Act 73 requires creating larger districts with the goal of increasing student opportunity while controlling costs. What do you see as the biggest barriers or pitfalls to be avoided in moving to larger school districts? Select top 3 concerns.
[Though the 12 check-box options were better here, I again chose “Other” and wrote in]:
1. Loss of parent-directed school choice. 2. A repeat of Act 46 consolidation, where, despite promises to the contrary, costs skyrocketed and student outcomes declined. 3. Hyper-politicization of regional school board elections in districts comprised of 40,000 residents.
What benefits do you think larger districts could bring?
None. School districts aren’t the problem. The number and influence of Supervisory Unions and their bureaucracies is the problem. Fix that.
How do we maintain or strengthen community voice throughout the district consolidation process and in future larger school districts? Check all that apply.
I clicked all the boxes, as they were all obvious, and added under “Other” “Regular scientific polling of constituents regarding key issues under discussion.”
How familiar are you with how Vermont currently funds its education systems?
Very familiar (unfortunately)
As the state considers different funding structures for education, which three do you believe are the most important?
[Hmmm…. No “other” option here. Curious. I chose]: “Transparent: The process of funding education should be open and clear, so taxpayers and school leaders understand where the money comes from and how it is spent.” “Affordable: The funding system should keep costs reasonable for families and communities, such as maintaining fair property tax rates.” And, “Fair and Equitable: It’s important that the funding system distributes money in a way that gives all students, regardless of where they live, an equal opportunity to succeed.”
BUT… again, there is no real reference to property tax relief here. The best they offer is to “maintain” (not reduce) “fair” (according to whom) rates. And the four other options that I did not pick are all about keeping the money flowing to the union-dominated monopoly, such as “Sustainable: The funding system should protect against sudden changes or cuts that might disrupt students’ education or school operations.” Sorry, but that is not my definition of “sustainable.” I would say sustainable is protecting taxpayers from sudden changes in their bills – like the 14 percent increase we experienced last year, which led to this discussion in the first place.
Or “Predictable: The funding system should be consistent and reliable over time, so schools and communities can plan and budget with confidence.” How about a system where taxpayers can predict they won’t get body slammed with a 38 percent increase in their property taxes year over year, so households can plan their budget with confidence? No? I guess not.
Or “Reliable: Funds should be delivered promptly and without unexpected shortfalls, ensuring schools have the resources they need when they need them.” Clearly, taxpayers are not the focus of “reform” here. It’s getting The Blob its cash. The definition of reliability under Act 73 means taxpayers get reliably screwed.
Do you have any other comments to share?
The entire reason we are having this discussion is because of a property tax crisis, which is really an overall spending crisis. Nothing in Act 73 does anything to remedy this in the short term, and makes no firm promises for taxpayer relief in the long term. You have failed. As a citizen and taxpayer, there is nothing in this proposal that benefits me. I lose my ability to vote for a local school board with direct connections to my local schools. If I live in a school choice town, I may lose that choice all together, or at least a number of potential choices of independent schools where I could send my children. And my taxes are going to go up. So, my final comment to share is this: Act 73 sucks. Go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan to cut my property taxes without raising other taxes that would negate that relief.
That’s my two cents. I hope you’ll give them yours because you know every member of the VTNEA, Superintendents Association, Principals’ Association, et all is going to fill out this survey and call for a “sustainable” “reliable” “predictable” cash delivery system for their increasingly unaccountable, spectacularly failing government monopoly quagmire. And if they succeed, it will cost you a whole lot more than two cents.
