Property Tax Propaganda 
By Peter Behr

Recent editorials in the Valley News and the Rutland Herald, bleating the prevailing political line from Montpelier, pointed to the approval of most school budgets at town meetings as evidence that the "property tax revolt" is over. This must come as quite a shock to Revolt and Repeal and the 60 plus towns and hundreds of taxpayers that have called for the repeal of Acts 60 and 68, and as a relief to the legislators, such as Harry Chen, who were pilloried at Town Meetings.

Valley News staff writer Erin Hanrahn was closer to the truth in a March 7 report headlined "Bridgewater Budgets Pass, But Tempers Rise." Apparently the editors are so high up in their ivory towers that they don't see the disconnect between approving school budgets and reducing property taxes. Maybe they would have better understood had they been in Bridgewater to see citizens rake Representative Chen over the coals, and then unanimously pass resolutions addressed to the Legislature expressing their "extreme dissatisfaction" with excessive property taxes and inviting their lawmakers to discuss their "dire tax situation." Bridgewater passed its school budget, but property taxes are a different matter.

The editors surely know of the disconnect, but their preoccupation with redistribution of wealth apparently overshadows consideration of fair play. Take Woodstock, as another example. The school budget, which was well presented by the school boards, passed with little opposition. But property tax bills for Woodstock residents will be about twice as much as needed to fund its schools, and Montpelier will keep half for redistribution to other towns as it sees fit. Act 60 created a giant bureaucracy to oversee its mechanics, which are Machiavellian, both in complexity and intent, and a cash cow to fund it. Ten years after its enactment, Vermont children are no better educated, but the cost of education has skyrocketed, and is among the highest in the nation on a per pupil basis. And it will increase by an estimated additional $70 million per year if the educrats and the Vermont NEA expand "free" pre-K to include all three and four-year old middle and upper class kids who are not at special risk. Are you listening Harry, Alison and Mark?

The education lobby attempts to explain the high per-pupil cost in many ways. The core problem they ignore is too many administrators and teachers for too few students. Also note that the same cost factors they cite exist in other states. Consider special education: its cost has increased far more rapidly than other education costs. They blame the federal government for not supporting "its 40 percent share," as envisioned in the original legislation – but the federal law never imagined the scope of special ed as it has grown over the years to the monster it is today (and all other states are subject to the same requirements). Thank the lawyers for this – many of them specialize in suing teachers and school boards, with the result that they take all measures possible to avoid litigation, at a huge cost. If the Legislature had the courage to defy the trial lawyers' lobby and passed a law protecting teachers and administrators from lawsuits, it would be a good start toward controlling special ed costs. Look at the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Public School Expenditure/Pupil  Student-Teacher Ratio
                  Rank    Amount      Rank   Ratio
STATE
Massachusetts       5    $11,681       20    14.6
New Hampshire      13      9,642       12    13.5
Utah               51      5,245       51    22.5
VERMONT             6     11,609        1    10.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National Education Association Rankings and Estimates - Fall 2005

Space does not permit showing the NAEP rankings for grades 4 and 8. Massachusetts ranks highest, with New Hampshire second and Vermont third. Utah is in the mid-twenties. But the difference in scores is minuscule. One can definitely say that all three of the other states listed are getting far more for their money than Vermont is getting.

So the claim that Vermont ranks "among the best in the nation" rings hollow. We are really mediocre. America ranks only 20^th out of the top 32 countries in undergraduate science degrees earned, and this is a reflection of our basic K-12 systems. The achievement test our kids take - "NECAP" is only used by Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Generally it gives 30% higher results than the test used almost universally by the rest of the nation, the NAEP, and it costs far more. Why did Vermont opt for this test? Can you spell SCAM?