VERMONT’S CURRENT STUDENT-to-STAFF RATIO =’S 4.67 TO 1 A 5 TO 1 RATIO =’S $74 MILLION/YEAR IN SAVINGS REBECCA HOLCOMBE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION NOVEMBER 16, 2014 NATIONAL AVERAGE…………….7.8 TO 1 MASSACHUSETTS…………………7.8 TO 1 MAINE…………………………………5.1 TO 1 (SECOND LOWEST) NEW HAMPSHIRE…………………6.0 TO 1 NEW YORK……………………………6.6 TO 1 VERMONT……………………………LOWEST IN THE NATION

Legal Observations – Brigham Offers Reasonable Flexibility “Equality of funding is neither a necessary nor practical requirement”: “Equal opportunity does not necessarily require precisely equal per-capita expenditures, nor does it necessarily prohibit cities and towns from spending more on education if they choose, but it does not allow a system in which educational opportunity is necessarily a function of district wealth.” “To be sure, some school districts may manage their money better than others, and circumstances extraneous to the educational system may substantially affect a child’s performance. Money is clearly not the only variable affecting educational opportunity, but it is one that government can effectively equalize.” Brigham v. State Statistical Observations Equity has been achieved: School district spending per pupil appears unrelated to district income measures. Of the ten towns reporting median AGI above $50,000, all but one was below the state average for spending per student. Shelburne, for example spends $14,829 per student, well below the state average. NECAP test scores appear unrelated to levels of spending per pupil: Eden spends $20,074 per ADM with low reading and math proficiencies while Pomfret spends about the same with very high reading and math proficiencies. School district consolidation is not the answer: School district spending per pupil appears unrelated to district student count Burlington, South Burlington, Rutland, Brighton, Stockbridge, and Shrewsbury all spend well above the state average. Barre City/Spaulding, Milton, and Montgomery all spend well below the state average. NECAP test scores appear unrelated to district student counts Burlington with 3,944 students has similar scores as Royalton with 320 students NECAP test scores rise in relation to rising district median adjusted gross income and fall in relation to higher Free and Reduced lunch measures. How do AHS and AOE recommend we leverage improvements in low income homes that foster better educational outcomes?

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE CONCEPT: PRESERVE THE ESSENTIAL VIABILITY OF LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS CREATE REGIONAL EDUCATION ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTS (READ’S) OF A SIZE THAT PRESERVE EQUITY READ’S TWO PRIMARY MISSIONS FOSTER EFFICIENCIES AND ECONOMIES OF SCALE REUNITE LOCAL/REGIONAL PROPERTY TAX SPENDING WITH PROPERTY TAX BILLS MINIMIZE LEGISLATURE’S ROLE IN PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM WHILE PRESERVE REVENUE EQUITY DISTRIBUTE STATE RESOURCES TO READ’s TO ACHIEVE A PER PENNY PER PUPIL YIELD RESULT COLLECT AND DISTRIBUTE INCOME SENSITIVITY REVENUES ActivityLocal Boards/Local VotersREAD/READ VotersState/AOE Elect Local School BoardLV Hire StaffLSB School District CurriculumLSB Facility ManagementLSB District Budget RecommendationLSB to READREAD to READ Voters Elect District Read RepresentativeLSB Approve READ budget and Tax RatesREAD Voters Negotiate Staff ContractsREAD Coordinate Transportation ManagementREAD Establish common purchasing contractsREAD Coordinate AP Course OfferingsREAD Initiate Annual Budget CycleTax Commissioner Distribute State Revenues consistent with READ budgets Tax Dept. Monitor/Manage Revenue EquityTax Dept./AOE Manage Income Sensitivity/Set associated Statewide Rate Tax Dept. Advise/Foster School Districts on Best Practices AOE Manage Standardized Test ProgramAOE

FY 2014 average rates (state plus multiplier) are $1.41 homestead and $1.44 non- residential From PVR Annual ReportFrom AOE $1.25 TECH CENTER 2013 Equalized Ed. Grand List used for FY 2014 Fall 2013 ADM used for FY 2014EEGL per ADM Raised per pupil at above rate Total Raised Barre Tech Center & Spaulding High School Campus 60,105,780 7,513 8,000 $10,000 $75,132,225 Southwest Vermont Career Development Center 48,453,930 5,507 8,799 $10,998 $60,567,413 River Bend Career and Technical Center 16,191,240 2,067 7,833 $9,792 $20,239,050 Windham Regional Career Center 74,839,890 5,199 14,395 $17,994 $93,549,863 Burlington Technical Center and the Center for Technology, Essex 210,396,700 23,681 8,885 $11,106 $262,995,875 Cannan School 1,702, ,543 $10,678 $2,128,088 Cold Hollow Career Center 7,320,830 1,590 4,604 $5,755 $9,151,038 Green Mountain Technology and Career Center 49,005,200 4,906 9,989 $12,486 $61,256,500 Patricia Hedford Career Center 37,573,910 4,462 8,421 $10,526 $46,967,388 North Country Career Center 28,747,130 3,818 7,529 $9,412 $35,933,913 Randolph Technical Center 29,558,850 4,108 7,195 $8,994 $36,948,563 Stafford Technical Center 57,996,140 7,759 7,475 $9,343 $72,495,175 River Valley Technical Center 39,016,130 3,267 11,942 $14,928 $48,770,163 Northwest Technical Center 35,694,850 5,338 6,687 $8,359 $44,618,563 Applied Technology Center at St. Johnsbury and Lyndon Institute Technical Center 27,160,010 4,165 6,521 $8,151 $33,950,013 Hartford Area Career 56,150,130 4,397 12,770 $15,963 $70,187,663 State Total 779,913,190 87,976 8,865 $11,081 Expected 781,332,030 87,963Property Tax by Tech Centers $974,891,488 Sales Tax in 2014 $123,800,000 P&U Tax in 2014 $30,600,000 GF transfer in 2014 $288,900,000 Lottery in 2014 $22,600,000 Medicaid in 2014 $6,400,000 other in 2014 $1,000,000 Per ADMPTRF Transfer $4,300,000 Tech Districts $16,510 $1,452,491,488 Raised in 2014 per JFO $16,506 $1,452,100,000

IN SUMMARY: Vermont is an outlier regarding K – 12 Education Spending The emerging property tax revolt will force change Data informs us that more spending and consolidated school districts offer false promise The Campaign for Vermont’s concept achieves the following: Retains the viability of Local School Boards relative to matters important to parents and their children. Preserves an important avenue for community democracy and civic engagement. Cost Containment: Reunites the decision to spend (or save) property taxes with the responsibility to raise (or lower) them. Education property taxes raised in a READ stay in that READ. Cost Containment: READ’s creates an environment of peer pressure among neighboring school districts to control spending and implement cost saving reforms Cost Containment: READ’s creates an environment of peer-to-peer learning among neighboring school districts regarding practices that save money and improve educational outcomes Cost Containment: Substantially removes the State from the property tax business except for income sensitivity. Makes the property tax cost of the State’s income sensitivity program transparent on tax bills. Respects the Brigham Decision while encouraging the diversity it allows among READS