It should be clear by now that Washington is committed to a lopsided economy that keeps concentrating money in the hands of fewer and fewer people. But in some state capitals, including Montpelier, elected officials are beginning to recognize that smarter tax policies are aimed at helping working families. Read more

There’s a case to be made that this year’s budget showdown in Montpelier was lot of high drama with little substance. After all the drama, the budget that was finally approved created one problem that the Legislature will have to address next year and ignored another that should have been addressed long ago.

It was a messy finish to a messy legislative session, but Vermonters can take some comfort that no permanent damage was done to the state education funding system. It’s disappointing that the governor insisted on another year of pretend budgeting—using one-time revenue again to artificially lower property tax rates. Read more

Public education—pre-k through 12—has become a coveted source of revenue in recent years. People look at the $1.7 billion Education Fund and imagine how some efficiencies here, a little school consolidation there, could free up hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now Gov. Phil Scott has proposed his “Five-Year Education Revitalization, Tax Stabilization, and Investment Act.” It dangles the prospect of improving education, but the real aim appears to be a raid on the Education Fund.

Winner to Receive $15,000 Cash Prize Nominations are now being accepted for the $15,000 Con Hogan Award for Creative, Entrepreneurial Community Leadership. Initiated in 2015, the annual award is a tribute to Con Hogan’s life’s work and commitment to public service. Read more

Vermonters know there’s a difference between taxes and tax rates. Especially when it comes to property taxes, a lower rate doesn’t mean lower taxes if the grand list value of a property goes up. It’s important to distinguish between taxes and rates as the administration and the Legislature seek a compromise on education funding for next year. Read more

Pssst. Did you hear about the $60 million deficit in the Education Fund?

Guess what. It’s not true.

Given the headlines and news stories in recent weeks, Vermonters may be surprised to hear there is no deficit in the Education Fund. That’s because funding for schools—like funding for municipalities—doesn’t work like the state budget, and never has. Citizens vote directly on their school and municipal budgets. Their elected representatives vote on the state budget. That makes a big difference.

It’s finally spring in Vermont. That means a little lingering snow, the occasional summer-like day, and a last-minute proposal from Governor Scott to slash education spending.

In a replay of 2017, just when the Legislature is wrapping up its negotiations on the budget, the education fund and other bills, the governor this week upended the process by releasing a proposal to cut education spending. Read more

Our recent blog about the fluctuations in school spending among high-spending towns prompted questions from curious readers looking for details. In response to those questions, we’re publishing the list of the 65 towns that appeared at least once among the top 25 in education spending per pupil from fiscal 2012 through fiscal 2018. The list below shows the towns, how many years they appear among the top 25, whether they tuition some or all of their students, and the number of equalized pupils in each town. If you want to sort the list, download the spreadsheet.

The Legislature is again considering using the property tax as a deterrent against high spending in Vermont schools.

Currently, school tax rates go up proportionally with per-pupil spending increases. The bill recently passed by the House would change the education funding system so that tax rates would rise faster than spending increases as a disincentive to higher spending.

Legislators say they understand the pressures on property tax payers and want to ease their plight. But in the name of cost containment, they’re proposing to make it more painful for Vermont resident homeowners who want to or have to spend more on their kids’ education.

That might make sense if towns were willfully or carelessly spending too much on education. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.