(ed. note: this is fourth in a series of conversations with Hugh Kemper
about his study of Vermont’s funding of K-12 education and his
proposals for reforming the process. The previous conversations can be
found here, here, and here. Mr. Kemper is currently serving on the
Governor’s Education Funding Task Force. He is a frequent contributor
to Vermont Tiger where he first began publishing on education issues in
Vermont.)
VT: Hugh, last time we focused on the State assuming responsibility for Special Education, the first of four core initiatives that you propose and that would result in a more streamlined and cost-effective K-12 organizational structure. What are the other three?
HTK: They are (1) the establishment of statewide resource parameters by function and purpose, (2) the provision of on-call consultancy support for local school boards and principals and (3) the standardization at the State level of teacher and support staff contracts.
VT: How do they work?
HTK: The first initiative, resource parameters, and the second initiative, consultancy support, directly mitigate current educational spending. The third initiative, standard statewide contracts, affords the opportunity to contain future spending within Vermont’s capacity to pay.
To understand the underlying rationale behind these initiatives, we need to review history and to remember to distinguish between the two basic components of the education equation, i.e. between the capacity to provide a quality education and outcomes. Education spending and funding determine capacity, i.e. the number of teachers, teaching assistants, support staff, etc. Outcomes are a function of how effectively this capacity is deployed.
VT: Ok, we’re focusing on capacity, not outcomes. What role does initiative #1, resource parameters, play?
HTK: Vermont K-12 has more capacity, i.e. more staff, than it needs to provide a quality education. The application of resource parameters- or ratios- to Vermont staffing, brings resources in line with the requisite capacity to provide a quality education.
In 1997 when K-12 enrollment peaked at 106,341 students, Vermont’s Pupil/Teacher ratio at 13.8:1 and Pupil/Staff ratio at 6.8:1 were the lowest in the US. Since 1997, or since the enactment of Act 60, Vermont’s staffing has increased by 23% while its enrollment has declined by 11.5% resulting in a Pupil/Teacher ratio of 11.1:1 and a Pupil/Staff ratio of 4.9:1.
This increase in staffing as well as the annualized growth of total compensation above private sector norms combined to generate an annualized growth in per pupil spending of +/- 6.5% since 1997 vs. the 2.2% annualized growth of per pupil spending from1990 to 1997 or during the seven year period prior to Act 60’s enactment.
Applying statewide, on a school by school basis, conservative staffing parameters (or ratios) to instructional staffing (teachers and teaching assistants) and non-instructional staffing at the local school level (e.g. administrators, guidance counselors, nurses/nurses aides, etc.) as well as to reorganized non-local school support staff would raise Vermont’s Pupil/Teacher ratio to 12.5:1 (from 11.1:1) and Pupil/Staff ratio to 5.8:1 (from 4.9:1).
The resulting realignment of staffing resources is fully consistent with the requisite capacity to provide a quality education and would reduce current education spending by 10% or by approximately $130 million.
VT: How does initiative #2, consultancy support, mitigate costs?
HTK: The proposed reorganization eliminates Supervisory Unions while making the knowledge and experience that Superintendents provide available to school boards and principals on a more cost-effective basis.
School boards, assisted by a competent principal, and principals themselves can manage quite effectively the routine issues they encounter. However, from time to time, issues arise that require the expertise that Superintendents possess. The proposed reorganization positions 10-12 former Superintendants at the state level with specific liaison responsibilities for school districts. This way, the guidance school boards and principals require on occasion is available when needed.
VT: Finally, initiative #3, standardized teacher and support staff contracts at the State level. How do you make the case for that?
HTK: Standardized teacher and support staff contracts negotiated at the State level would (a) level the negotiating playing field and (b) align accountability for salaries and benefits, which represent 80% of education spending, with the State’s ability to pay or funding capacity.
Labor unions exist to negotiate on behalf of their members and, as such, approach negotiations in a very organized, informed and professional manner. School boards, whether negotiating contracts at the local or Supervisory Union level, are simply not as savvy- nor is it realistic to expect them to be- as their labor union counterparties. State level negotiations would not only level the playing field but also generate significant statewide savings in negotiations related legal costs.
As importantly, however, is the need to contain total compensation, i.e. salaries and benefits, within the State’s funding capacity, i.e. its ability to pay.
As we’ve discussed before, the two principal cost
drivers behind the growth in K-12 spending are the increase in staffing
and increases in total compensation (salaries and benefits) that exceed
private sector norms. The result is education spending that currently
consumes 42% of state revenues, i.e. the equivalent of 100% of
education property taxes, 45.1% of personal income taxes and 33.6% of
state sales taxes.
While reducing and reorganizing staffing would
reduce current education spending by 10%, this would provide only
temporary relief if total compensation, which accounts for 80% of
education spending, is not contained within the State’s capacity to pay
on a sustainable basis. The State is much better positioned to make
this call than school boards are.
Geoff,
Even the Prince of Darkness himself, former House Speaker Ralph Wright, favored a statewide teacher's contract as a companion to statwide property tax. As a schoolteacher himself, he was undoubtedly aware of the imbalance the current system would create.
Merle
Posted by: Merle | April 14, 2009 at 06:09 PM
Such sensible recommendations deserve strong support. I wonder if there may be 100 members of the House who would agree to this framework.
Probably not, but is a plan underway to build support for this change? The EdLobby will fight hard to keep such a plan from daylight.
Posted by: David Usher | April 14, 2009 at 06:11 PM