Vermont Tiger

Wrestling Horses

2012-02-14T09:45:01-05:00

by Michael Gardner

Horses are generally great animals, you can bet on them, ride them when gas hits $5 a gallon, and sometimes you can even get things directly from their mouths. Such is the case when we need to get a better feel on total spending on education in Vermont. A simple trip to education.vermont.gov can provide us with useful information on total spending as recently as 2010.

The pie chart below is a great example. (click to view in larger format) On the left you can see the cherry picked data titled Current Expenditures. This has been bantered about frequently as what we "actually spend" on education. However, just as if you only paid 88% of your mortgage every month, there is more to the story. Things like debt service, construction, and payment to other parts of the government need to be considered. These are Other Expenditures, combined they provide Total Unduplicated Expenditures.

My Take on Those Test Scores

2012-02-14T06:00:00-05:00

by Art Woolf

There's no doubt that Vermont's per pupil spending is among the highest in the nation and in the aggregate, Vermont taxpayers devote a larger share of their resources (income) to education than do taxpayers in nearly any other state (Table 12). Does that spending translate into a high quality education system?

Unfortunately, the NECAP tests that the state requires of all schools is only given in a few New England states, so the ability to make comparisons to other states is limited. One way to try to answer the quality question is to look at how Vermont's students compare to students in other states on the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) test, which is given in all 50 states (although not in all schools in all states, so we can't look at individual school data).

If you look at those comparisons, and the recent Picus study did (page iii of the summary), you could conclude that Vermont students scores are among the best in the nation. But dig below the surface and you'll find that the truth is more more complicated.

The table below (click to enlarge) shows how Vermont students compare to the U.S. average on one test--the 8th grade NAEP math test. The first column shows why Picus, and others, can say that "Vermont's student performance ranks among the highest in the country." While only one-third of 8th graders nationally scored proficient or advanced on the math test (meaning they have mastered the math concepts and applications that are appropriate to that grade level), nearly half of all Vermont 8th graders have. Score one for Vermont. Maybe.

But we know, as I have pointed out in other Vermonttiger posts, and is pretty clear to anyone, that the profile of Vermont students is very different from the average student nationally. One-third of all students in the U.S. are black or Hispanic. In Vermont, it's one percent. Nationally, nearly half of all students are eligible for the federal government's free or reduced lunch program--meaning they are low income. In Vermont, one-third are eligible. Those are very large differences.

If we look at how well Vermont students perform after adjusting for race, ethnicity, and income, Vermont's educational performance looks a lot closer to average. Our white students perform a little better than the national average for white students. Our low income white students perform a little better than low income white students nationally. Middle class white students perform better than their national peers, but not by a huge margin. It's basically a Lake Wobegone story.

I put Massachusetts on the table because that's a state whose students actually do perform very well. By every measure, they outperform the national averages and the Vermont average.

If we want to improve Vermont's education, we could do worse than to look south of our border and learn some lessons from our neighbors. Not only do Massachusetts students ourperform Vermont students, they do it at a lower per pupil cost. What's not to like?

Fed Valentines

2012-02-14T06:00:00-05:00

by Art Woolf

Geeky, but cute Fed Valentine tweets.

Like fiat money, our love is built on trust

I can only make guesses about the future. But I know I'll feel this way until at least 2014

I'd like to borrow you overnight and then hold you to maturity #FedValentines

There's nothing irrational about my exuberance for you.

Girl, I know a central bank is supposed to be independent but I don't ever want to be apart

You’re my long-run target; my nominal anchor

Read 'em all.

Medicare – The Promise That Can’t Be Kept

2012-02-13T21:07:29-05:00

a mistake is becommng a betrayal

by Tom Evlsin

The promise was simple: once you reach 65, Medicare will assure that your medical costs don't become a catastrophic burden to you or children who might feel obliged to care for you. Since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill in 1965 and gave ex-President Harry Truman the first enrollment card, the definition of "catastrophic burden" has been lowered many times by both Republicans and Democrats, the cost of medical care has skyrocketed as has the number of possible (usually expensive) medical interventions, and life expectancy has increased. The promise cannot be kept!

Geezers like me who recently reached 65 on the average had put in only on dollar for each three dollars of benefits we'll receive. That's a huge UNEARNED benefit. We didn't know that we'd be ripping off those still working but we are. The cap has been taken off earnings subject to Medicare tax; rich people pay a higher tax on their earnings than poor people. Premiums for recipients have been raised for those who are still classified as high earners. Payments to providers have been cut back forcing other users of health services to subsidize Medicare. But the funding gap keep growing inexorably as the number of workers supporting each retiree shrinks, we live longer and longer, and ever more ingenious (and expensive) medical procedures are invented. Raising taxes on the rich wouldn't solve the current problem let alone the future one; there's no one to pay for our care but us and our kids. Charging the kids more now means there's an even bigger gap when they retire. The promise cannot be kept!

The future of Medicare is a lousy campaign topic because there is no good answer. Politicians made us a promise they can't keep. We believed what we wanted to believe. And now there'll be a Medicare default plus an expensive Medicare bailout. There's no one to sue. We have to pay the piper both in terms of benefits we won't receive and money we'll have to pay.

Cutting benefits to current retirees is both unfair and absolutely necessary. We were promised our medical needs would be taken care of, so we didn't make any provision other than the Medicare tax we were paying. We didn't think we were getting something for nothing. We didn't have the chance to choose a different option. But we getting $3 of care for each $1 we paid. Our premiums can – and should – go up on a means-tested basis. Which procedures are covered should be more tightly restricted, although we should retain the option of paying for them ourselves if we or our heirs can. I'd like the option of opting out, self-insuring for routine stuff, and buying only catastrophic insurance. It may be, however, that giving me that option and forgoing my already higher premiums would make the problem even worse. Perhaps the more well-to-do ought to be able to buy themselves part way out. There is no answer that's fair to those already in the system or close to retirement. It's just a question of limiting the damage. The promise cannot be kept!

We can't keep the promise to today's workers that they can have medical care from 65 to the grave at almost no expense to them or their heirs. We need to tell them the truth and let them make some choices now. Private insurance can provide plans for retirement coverage – but it is hard to convince a twenty-something to forgo current expenditures to pay for those impossible to imagine days as a geezer. But young people do pay into retirement funds; they do (sometimes) save for their own kids' college. Under compulsion, they're paying for Medicare now; but we're spending every penny they're paying. I don't think it's a terrible injustice for those who have money but failed to buy insurance to have to sell their (or their heirs) assets in order to pay for the medical care they want. We spend our retirement funds on our other priorities. I would've sold my house to pay for my stent if I'd had to – or chosen a lifestyle that let me work around a damaged artery. What's essential is to present these options to current workers today so that they can still make a choice. We cannot make them promises that can't be kept!

I'm sure you've noticed that I haven't talked about what should happen to those who couldn't afford insurance and can't afford medical care. That's a different, although still critical, problem. The Medicare problem is a promise made to us who had alternatives, a promise there is no one to pay for except us, which turns out to be a promise that can't be kept. The sooner we recognize the default, the less the pain of curing it.

Medicare's a Fraud – And I'm the Beneficiary

We Can't Have All the Medical Care We Want

Vermont's Schools: Good Enough?

2012-02-13T11:03:53-05:00

a letter to the editor

This is not an opinion piece arguing or debating the details of how to improve Vermont’s education system. This is the short simplified story of my family, and our joy, angst, and reservations about deciding to raise our children in Vermont. I realize this is not everyone’s story, and I want to stress that there is only one reason I would share my family’s story in a public forum; and that is because many families like mine are struggling with the same decisions about their children’s future.

Although not everyone comes to live in Vermont in the same way, I know that our route resembles that of many people who would like to make Vermont their home as well. There are many prospective Vermont families who must debate if the sacrifices they make outweigh the benefits of living in Vermont. I want what is best for my family, and I want what is best for Vermont. I speak out only to encourage Vermonters to join the conversation about our states future, and to look closely at the realities of our challenges as a community.

I was born in Vermont and educated in the public system from kindergarten through High School, continuing on to attend an in-state College as well. Over the intervening years I have lived in and out of the state, met my wife, married her in Massachusetts, and recently moved back to raise our children in the state that we both love. As with any of life’s big decisions, we have had many discussions about raising our children in Vermont. And even though we love it here, and we are firmly settled, we still have some reservations that we continue to discuss. Inevitably we return to the topic of education.

There are a few things that we know won’t change wherever we choose to live. We believe that the most important factor in any child’s education is their parents, or guardians. We feel that a schools culture has a lot to do with its quality of education. If a school puts a priority on excellence and encourages its students to be the best they can be, then those students are off to a great start. We recognize that every kid is different, and what works well for one may not work as well for another.

So we ask ourselves:
What is the culture of our Vermont schools? Will our children be encouraged by their teachers and classmates to reach their highest potential? Is there an emphasis on cultivating a love of learning? Is there a diversity of school choice where our children can be educated?

I think Vermont has a good public education system. But I also say that when it comes to education, “good” isn’t good enough. We can always do better. And I would argue that Vermont must to do better. The fact is our State has many practical reasons why young families can’t or don’t want to move here. Frankly, Vermont’s education system must be a selling point to encourage young families to choose Vermont. We can’t afford for public education to be a negative factor.

We have legitimate reason to be concerned about the future of education in Vermont. Currently nearly two thirds of VT 11th graders test below proficient in Math, and over 50% test below proficient in Writing. We have an ageing population and dwindling school enrollment. In the past decade, Vermont has had a stranglehold on the lowest birth rate in the Nation. The importance of these facts can’t be overstated. This is an unsustainable path; both for our economy and our public education system.

I don’t pretend to know the solutions to the many challenges facing Vermont. But what I do know is that the State of Vermont is not doing enough to meet these challenges head on. And without proper attention, I fear that 10 years from now my family, and many others like mine, will not be living in Vermont.

(Christopher Eaton is a resident of Weybridge with his wife and two children, grew up in Middlebury and earns his income working three jobs. Mr. Eaton is also a partner of Campaign for Vermont.)

About Those School Spending Figures

2012-02-13T10:37:02-05:00

a letter to the editor

There is a constant barrage of opinions about school spending in Vermont. The Picus Study and the Dover-Wilmington Study are the most recent iterations of these opinions. It is important to note that tracking school expenditures in Vermont is difficult at best and almost impossible at worse. This is due to the fact that 250+ school districts in Vermont use a variety of accounting programs and diverse charts of accounts. Further, each district typically reports its data via one of the 61 supervisory unions to the state department of education. While the data collection has improved over the years it is a long way from total standardization. The need for one accounting system and a standard chart of accounts for all districts, web based and easily understood has been recognized for years. However, every attempt to move in that direction has been thwarted at one juncture or another usually around financial or territorial issues.

The Picus Study has indicated that Vermont spends $17,447 per student annually. For those of us who have spent years in Vermont schools this number was a big surprise. The facts found on the Vermont.gov website under the Department of Education tab do not support this per pupil expenditure. The latest fiscal year with complete data is FY ’10. Table 7 Current Expenditures in the SASRS Report for FY’10 states that the expenditures for all schools totaled $1,356,911,686. This number is an unduplicated expenditure total.

The Average Daily Membership Report for FY ’11 charts a FY ’10 ADM of 91,308. (The FY ’10 report is not in an Excel format thus the columns cannot be easily totaled.) Dividing the total expenditures for FY ’10 by the ADM for the same year yields a per pupil expenditure for that fiscal year of $14,861. This is 15% or $2586 per student less than Picus reports.

A per pupil cost of $14,861 is still a high cost. If we are ever going to understand why the cost is higher than other states, we need to at least begin from the real data. We also need to be careful about making those comparisons. There is no national curriculum, no national set of standards, no national assessment program, and no way to track students as they move from school to school or even state to state. Other countries have all four. Do we really want a national program? Or, do we want to exercise state rights? We really cannot have it both ways!

George C. Cross

(Mr. Cross is a former Winooski school superintendent and Democratic state legislator. He served on the House Education Committee for eight years, two as chair.)

About Those Test Scores ...

2012-02-13T10:31:06-05:00

a letter to the editor

Gentlepeople:

Contrary to the recent release of state test results, assessment experts know that you cannot simply add and subtract the percent passing a test across different grade levels (4, 8 & 11). The standards setting process is independent for each of the grade levels and subject matters. Thus, there is no way of legitimately comparing a 40% pass rate at one grade level to a 60% pass rate at another. This compares apples and oranges. But, that's what the state did.

This gets extra funky the higher you go in the grade levels and as the comparisons span multiple grades. Subject matter gets more diverse and human minds do not behave in such an orderly and linear way.

Furthermore, there is no external validation that says the cut-off point should be set "here" rather than "there." It's simply the judgment of some folks and the tests are designed to measure at that point.

This wrongly leads some observers to the conclusion that we should have a set-piece curriculum in science and math in order to get high test scores. That is, everybody takes the same courses in the same sequence. Such a conclusion cannot be validly derived from the NECAP data nor is it good education or social policy.

On the contrary, this is precisely the narrowed kind of curriculum and education that the President (and most all parents and researchers) say is destructive. It also philosophically contradicts Vermont's "transformation" agenda where a diversity of programs and approaches are proposed to meet the kaleidoscopic and different needs of every child. Further, such a test-score driven system does nothing for the creativity, flexibility, individuality, artistic, entrepreneurial, civic and other vital aspects needed for the twenty-first century.

Finally, for a state that scores so high (even by international standards) and has such fine social indicators, painting Vermont in such dark colors is not only incorrect, it is a disservice to education and to the state.

Sincerely,

William J. Mathis, Ph.D.
Managing Director
National Education Policy Center

On the Radio

2012-02-13T08:00:04-05:00

by Art Woolf

My latest commentary, on how much Vermonters earn, is on VPR's website. Choose your media: text or audio.

Grounds for Appeal?

2012-02-13T07:52:50-05:00

can the legislature be stopped before it violates the Constitution again?

by Geoffrey Norman

The deadline is just a few days off and Attorney General William Sorrell is still pondering his decision and getting advice from a Washington law firm. He paid the same firm (Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and Figel) $50,000 to help him prepare the case against Vermont Yankee, which he lost and was given 30 days to appeal. Time runs out February 21^st.

If Mr. Sorrell does appeal to the Second Circuit and loses, again, he could go all in and try to convince five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that Act 78 as passed by the Vermont legislature does not, in fact, violate the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Sorrel may be getting understandably weary of trying to defend the Vermont legislature in federal court where he keeps losing and paying for the privilege. He lost a campaign finance case in 2006 and a data mining case last year. The state, as loser in both cases, paid the winner’s legal fees, which came to more than $7 million. Now, Yankee’s owners want $4.6 million. The courts may rule that this is too much. But if the Attorney General does appeal and loses again, the final bill might be much higher.

So we are talking about real money, here. Mr. Sorrell could be forgiven for deciding that it might just be time to fold his hand.

These large legal bills have a way of getting your attention and you tend to fix your gaze on the numbers and not so much what they stand for. But consider this for a moment: Mr. Sorrell’s opponents in these cases were able to afford the kind of fancy lawyers who run up seven figure bills for arguing a case. Who has that kind of money?

The question is pertinent because Mr. Sorrell was in court arguing the constitutionality of laws passed by the Vermont legislature. Three times now, the courts have ruled against him. But it costs a lot of money, obviously, to mount a defense against the constitutional capriciousness of the Vermont Legislature. There could be other victims out there who just can’t pay the freight.

We now know that the legislature has crafted at least three unconstitutional laws, which makes it seem less like an honest mistake than a bad habit. One almost feels sorry for Mr. Sorrell for his choice of clients. He’s stuck with a serial violator of the Constitution. A recidivist legislature. But, then, the Attorney General’s office is called in to render its opinion on the constitutionality of any proposed legislation. So, in a way, Mr. Sorrell has been representing himself in these cases and we are all familiar with the old line about how a lawyer who chooses to represent himself in court has a fool for a client.

Still … three unconstitutional laws by one legislature. That must be some kind of record. What is it about the United States Constitution that is so hard for Montpelier to understand? Or, could it be that the legislature considers itself superior to the Constitution which, after all, was written by a bunch of dead old white men a long time ago?

And, one further wonders, is it only three? How many unconstitutional laws has the legislature inflicted upon people who don’t have the kind of scratch it takes to hire lawyers who bill in the millions? Our legislature meets for several months, every year, and works feverishly to produce bills. Given how well its work has stood up under legal testing in federal court, one wonders about the quality of the rest of its work. The most basic test of legislation, after all, is that it not violate the Constitution.

Montpelier is currently hard at work on the construction of a health care apparatus that promises to be long on coercion. In an effort to become the first state in the union to institute a single payer system might the legislature write laws that will have Mr. Sorrell (or some new Attorney General) back in federal court trying not to lose on the law and in the checkbook?

But what if provisions of whatever plan Montpelier does come up with are in violation of federal law and there isn’t any defendant with deep enough pockets to take the state to court?

It might be expensive but in the end, one is inclined to hope that Mr. Sorrell will appeal the Yankee decision and that he will lose again. Whatever it costs, it will be worth it since this could be the only way to get Montpelier’s attention.

(My weekly column in the Caledonian Record, reprinted here with permission. gn)

Legends and Facts

2012-02-12T11:02:09-05:00

by Art Woolf

In an interesting story about the potential redrawing of Chittenden County's six-seat Senatorial district (it ain't gonna happen, folks) in Seven Days I came across this sentence

Problem is, because of Chittenden County’s explosive growth during the past decade, its voters are numerically underrepresented in the Senate...[emphasis added]

Chittenden County gained about 10,000 people between 2000 and 2010, and probably somewhere around a quarter to a third of that was due to enrollment increases at Champlain College and UVM. Chittenden County's population growth was 6.8% over the decade--far less than one percent per year. It was above Vermont's almost non-existent population growth rate of 2.8%. But the U.S. population grew by 9.7% over the decade.

Chittenden County's population growth was more like a thud than an explosion.