In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 3 Sharing in Vermont To keep a democracy competitive and thriving, students must be afforded equal access to all that our educational system has to offer. In the funding of what our Constitution places at the core of a successful democracy, the children of Vermont are entitled to a reasonably equal share. Amanda Brigham v. State of Vermont, 1997 Gross and Glaring Inequity in Vermont Vermont is generally known as a progressive state, yet, historically, it has spent considerably less money per pupil for education than many other states, including its neighbor, New York. Vermont also had the widest inequalities reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1998.1 In 1996, Carol Brigham, Amanda Brigham’s mother, sued the state for its unequal funding of education in Amanda Brigham v. State.2 The case quickly advanced to the state’s Supreme Court, which ruled the funding formula unconstitutional in 1997. Act 60, reforming the state’s funding was in place in record time, for the 1998 school year. Act 60 allowed towns to raise extra funds over the state allotment, but required them to share the extra funds with property-poor districts according to a recapture plan. In May 2003, the Vermont legislature revised Act 60 with Act 68, which eliminated the sharing pool in the school year 2004–2005. Apparently, the sharing pool provision of Act 60 was too contentious to last. In exchange for the elimination of the sharing pool, Vermont now pays a higher state share in the form of a larger flat grant regardless of the wealth of the district. In 2004–2005, under the new legislation, Vermont planned to spend a flat rate of a little more than $6,000 per pupil. Although the new state share is an improvement over earlier figures, nevertheless, the new amount is low compared to 67 New York’s average per-pupil expenditure of more than $9,000. However , New York’s figure is an average; some districts spend more, while others less, which will remain the case until the New York legislature acts on the Court of Appeals’ decision in Campaign for Fiscal Equity. The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 1996 (based on 1991–1992 figures) that districts in Vermont at the fifth percentile of revenues had total actual revenues per pupil of $5,382, whereas in the ninety-fifth percentile, revenues per pupil were $11,290. Large differences remained even when the indices were adjusted for cost and need. The adjusted total revenues per pupil were $4,546 in low-wealth districts at the fifth percentile, while revenues per pupil stood at $9,735 in high-wealth districts at the ninety-fifth percentile.3 Vermont also had one of the widest differentials in per-pupil spending among its towns, which correspond to districts in other states.4 Vermont ranked in the highest quartile in disparity among districts in both actual revenues and cost- and need-adjusted revenues. Only a handful of states joined Vermont at that rate of disparity—Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio.5 Sharing the honors with New Hampshire, New York, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, and Illinois, Vermont measured in the lowest quartile on all five measures of inequity used in the report.6 By 1998 these disparities had increased. Based on 1998 figures published in Education Week in 2000, researchers Bruce Biddle and David Berliner reported that Vermont was a “winner” in the “inequity derby” with disparities of an average of $15,186 per pupil in the ninety-fifth percentile of per-pupil spending to $6,442 in the fifth percentile.7 The reforms of 1998 aimed to reduce such disparities. The political economy of Vermont is, in part, the source of the difficulty . Property-rich ski towns (called “gold towns” and “sending towns” under Act 60), with expensive resorts and vacation homes had higher taxable assets than the property-poor rural towns (called “receiving towns”). Consequently, poor towns had to levy taxes at higher rates in order to fund even the basic minimum in school services.8 The gold towns, on the other hand, could raise enough for a quality education at a lower tax rate. According to William Mathis, the Brigham case began when Carol Brigham, Amanda’s mother, who was also a member of the school board, noticed, “The town of Whiting has limited property wealth and has always had a difficult time funding their school. Standing in the playground, you can easily see...

Share