Issue Position: Education and Early Child Care

Issue Position

QUESTION 1 -- How can we get the best value out of education dollars?

Education is Bigger than K-12 and the ABC's

When we consider education and education funding, it's first essential to define what we mean by "education," because in a rapidly evolving global economy that demands lifelong learning, education no longer means just the years we spend from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade and possible post-secondary education. It's lifelong. And it's also broader and deeper than just academics; it also involves health, wellbeing, and becoming a secure and productive member of our communities.

This broader role of schools is often under-appreciated when we have education funding discussions. Though we call all the money flowing to a school "education dollars," in fact, these funds also support the entire community: in addition to educating children, schools serve to deliver public health programs, including wellness and counseling, to students and their parents; food programs offer children breakfast, lunch and an afternoon meal; citizens use school facilities for public events and recreation; and more.

In short, schools are the place at which many programs not commonly thought of as education are delivered. And communities use schools as one element in a continuum of services to deliver early care, education, and health services, from birth through age 22.

Returning to the question posed--"how to get the best value out of education dollars"-- I would propose analysis first, and actions second--specifically:

revise the accounting system used for school budgets to distinguish "core educational services" (teaching) from "social services" (food, counseling, public health). We need to know how much we're paying for what services before we determine whether we are spending too much or too little.

For social services delivered through schools, analyze funding options other than the property tax. For example, outside of education, Vermont pays for social services through the General Fund, not the Education Fund. This could provide property tax relief.

For the social services elements of the budget, analyze (i) whether or not schools are the best place at which to deliver the services; and (ii) for the services that are best delivered at schools, who can most cost-effectively deliver them?

For both educational and social services at our schools, we can improve their effectiveness by reaching out to the population from birth to 5 to help our youngest students arrive ready to learn and succeed. In a similar way, we need to work with high school graduates to help ensure successful transitions into further education and employment.

Following such analysis and reorganization, we will see lower "education" costs. At the same time, because so many Addison County residents struggle (e.g. 1 in 9 families live in poverty, and 1 in 6 children is food insecure), it seems likely that total spending will remain level for the age group birth to 22, other than efficiency savings.

Turning to ACT 46, this law was designed first and foremost to provide for equal educational opportunity; the cost savings potential varies greatly by school and school district, and it is not possible to responsibly assert that the act will produce savings for all districts. We are still in the phase of organizing mergers and "alternative structures." We will need to see how schools operate before we can draw general conclusions. With time, we will also be able to discern best practices in the new and alternative districts in order to enhance education or reduce costs, and, in some cases, both.

QUESTION #2 -- How can we improve early childcare?

Addison County, and Vermont more broadly, needs a truly affordable and accessible system of childcare. Here are some daunting recent statistics that underline this challenge:

Our county has approximately 175 slots for children under 2, but each year 300 children are born--yielding an under-2 population of 600 for fewer than 200 places. Some parents are registering and paying to get their coming baby on waiting lists before the child's birth.

72% of the families with children under 6 have all parents working, further expanding the need for quality childcare prior to entering full-time kindergarten.

Most childcare programs have waiting lists of 5 or less, but some centers have waiting lists of 20.

The average cost per child in early childcare centers is $12,000 to $16,000, with parents on average paying 50% of the cost.

Steps to take:

For children from birth to 6, we need to fully fund the childcare subsidy program, which has not been adequately adjusted for inflation, and is currently approximately $9.6M underfunded. This increased funding can help in two ways: (i) it can increase the subsidy, making childcare more affordable for parents; and (ii) it can support better pay for childcare workers, whose generally low wages causes high employee turnover, making building and maintaining a high quality program difficult.

The funding for this increased subsidy should originate in the General Fund, not the Education Fund. Because our state economy is growing, the needed money could come from that growth, from shifting dollars, or from new revenues. That complex decision making is best resolved, in tandem, by the Finance and Appropriations Committees.

With the state's declining number of students, schools have an opportunity to take unused classrooms and to convert them into childcare "centers" within the school. Such conversions can jump-start the number of childcare programs, and because such centers would be located at the schools, this eases the challenge faced by parents who now often have to take their pre-school and school-age children to two or more different facilities and locations--all before getting themselves to work.

Source