FY09 FAQ

Colchester School District

FY09 Budget

Frequently Asked Questions

The Colchester school budget was developed with the understanding that the reduction of student population is met with a declining number of teachers; this occurred. We have one of the highest student teacher ratios in the area. This means that we have fewer administrators than most school districts adding to our costs. Our direct classroom ratio has the students at the maximum level for effective teaching based on today’s climate and standards thus reducing costs.

The Colchester School District is now billed an extra $254,319 for vocational training for Fiscal Year 2009, are we to not pay for vocational training? The expenses for Special Education is increasing by $268,002, do we just not pay for that expense? Our support of varsity athletics and other after school educational activities budget increases by $119,617, should we stop supporting our after school athletics and activities?

We are “Paying it Forward”. Those children we educate and graduate will provide the taxes from their salaries to pay for Social Security, Medicare, prisons etc. We need to say “Yes” to kindergarten education; as our legislators have changed the learning requirements for our youngest community members.

The CSD budget is not a household budget or a business budget. We are a social infrastructure and service budget. We have few options as to what we don’t pay; of which maintenance is one. It is deferred and paid later. We can’t say no to students going out of the district for technical education. We can’t say no to special needs children.

The budget was built around multiple factors of which the “learner” is primary. The board fully considered the community and how the lack of economic improvement is making educational support difficult. We reflected often on the strain of an increased budget on the community. We have an excellent educational infrastructure in Colchester with the highest production at the lowest cost.

This budget is designed to continue in that philosophy of best quality for lowest cost.

If I could steer you to our CSD budget web page http://www.csdvt.org/budget.htm you can see the breakdown of our revenues and expenses by source and object codes respectively. Obviously since this business is predicated on human capital, most of our budget is dedicated to salaries and benefits. We must adhere to state education standards in terms of classroom student/teacher ratios but the inclusive style of Vermont classrooms also demands aides for students with special needs, hence our support staff numbers are up as well. Since all our employees are offered health insurance the increase of staff drives up that expense as well. (Benefits up $419K total)

So in addition to our support staff growth, we were hit with a major increase in our Vocation Center enrollment and tuitions, on the order of increase $254K for next year, a reflection that both our students are interested in Vocational Training and that the tuitions have risen to above $15K/Student at ETC and $11K+ for BTC (1/2 day program). Transportation is also a big hitter this year due to fuel price escalation on the order of $120K.

Stipends that we pay to teachers and staff to support our co-curriculars adds $108K to both create more opportunities for students and better compensate coaches and mentors that give so much time to students and expect little in return. So at the end of the day just a cursory look at our budget causes these big numbers to jump out at you and even though we tune and tweak the budget as best we can, these big drivers tend to shadow our efforts to rein in costs. This is what the Legislature has found I suspect, and why no solution comes from under the Golden Dome, other that to punt it back to the local districts with some scheme like Act82.

On the other hand Colchester is a serious winner when it comes to Act60/68. Those homesteads that earn less than $90K AGI and often are on fixed incomes. This year 66.6% of Colchester homesteads get some sort of credit deducted from their tax bill with the average being $948.00. We on the board focus on keeping our Per Pupil Spending down, the element that directly impacts both the Tax Rate and the Income Sensitivity Cap.

Those homesteads earning under $90K had their Education Property Taxes "capped" this year at 2.33% of AGI and will see a modest increase in the FY09 cap to 2.36% of AGI, due to the fact that we focus on that Per Pupil Spending number. Overall, the School District $$ impact on the Adjusted Education Tax Rate has gone down for the last 3 years and is anticipated to do so again, see http://www.csdvt.org/Budget2009/Homestead_Tax_Rate_Calc.pdf line 27. What kills us is the CLA. The 8.06% drop in CLA down to 73.01% dooms us to an education tax increase not by virtue of what we do on this board, but simply by the adjustment of the Colchester Grand List.

If I could direct you to: http://education.vermont.gov/new/excel/data/teacher_FTE/teacher_FTE_07.xls at the DOE's web site the Colchester School District student / teacher ratios, staffing levels are listed in what I must admit is numbing detail. Each school's breakdown is there. However if you look at the 2007 data for districts that are "peers" of Colchester the following emerges:

So you can see that in our peer group we have the 2nd highest Student / Teacher ratio in the area and the statewide ratio is 11.12 S/T. We are a lean District. Our Per Pupil Education Spending is the lowest in the peer group with the exception of Burlington that offsets Per Pupil Spending by virtue of the large percentage of grant monies coming into their district. The last thing we want to see happen is that young families opt out of our town. This board feels the pressure of taxation like everyone else in the state. We need to balance that with the best rounded educational experience that we can for our children. It is no mystery why we here in Vermont are considered amoung the smartest, heathiest, safest people in the nation. Our focus on children and their development puts us in a leadership role here in Colchester and I personally think we do this by getting the best "bang for the buck" that we can.

We are a school district serving learners from EEE to the age of 22 depending on circumstances. This means that we are not a supervisory union which includes many districts sending to a middle/high school. The current breakdown is:

Based on recent experience in the Colchester School District when the class size for 5th and below reaches greater than 24 the test scores drop dramatically. So 24 is really our do not exceed area. For grades K-2 the maximum class size should not exceed 20 as the results for testing are lower. Colchester High School has different criteria and class sizes this year ranged from 14 to 30 depending on the subject and availability. The AP courses tend to have fewer students however we expanded one or two AP courses due to demand.

Evaluating our class sizes indicates that we are at or near the maximum class size for the best learner environment. This translates to our current test scores as being among the top ranking for the state and based on a per pupil spending perspective, arguably the best in the state.

To aid understanding of the use of financial resources towards impacting learners referencing the federal legislation "No Child Left Behind Act" NCLB (Nickel Bee) or my definition "Normal Children Left Behind" a challenged learner can have an instructor and an aide assigned just to them to get them to perform.

There is no historic compilation that I could find and the earliest report is dated 2001. These ratios are mildly deceiving as all instructional FTEs are included. This includes some nurses, counselors, administrators, and others that have instructional credentials. Thus you could have a very low student teacher ratio 10:1 and a large number of students in the classroom to a teacher 30:1. This would be due to have a large number of counselors etc. in the schools' employ.

The ratio that needs to be looked at is the number of students in the classroom with an instructor.

Approximately $20,500 can be added to the salary for full benefits including family health care; less for single coverage. The grid as depicted in 2007-2008 appendix A-3 is the current agreement. When a contract is negotiated it is for "new" money. The current grid took approximately 1.1% of the new money to fund internal grid growth. Which is at 5.25% for vertical steps (if eligible) and 5.0% for column movement (if eligible).

A significant population of current teachers are not eligible for vertical or columnar increases. Thus 2.9% of a contracted 4% new money increased the base salary from 32,150 in 2006-2007 to 33,075 in 2007-2008. Due to a contract being negotiated for more than a one year period of time the grid is in place to allow for growth during the period of time that negotiations are not on-going. So to help understand the salaries there is no zero growth of salaries in a grid unless all teachers have reached the maximum for step and columnar movement. To recap the 2007-2008 salaries for the teachers; all received approximately a 2.9% pay increase. Some received an additional 5.25% step increase, a very small number received a 5.00% columnar increase, and an exceedingly small number of teachers may have gotten both step and column increases. I do not recall any individual that did receive the dual increase.

The Colchester School Board has completed the budget for the 2008-09 school year. This budget includes an all-day kindergarten program (ADK). Following last year’s vote on all-day kindergarten, the Board voted to approve at least partial implementation of ADK for the next year. The Board’s commitment to increasing the amount of time for our future kindergarteners is evident and strong.

We can’t imagine putting math, science and humanities programs on the ballots for approval in a separate article. The ADK Article last year allowed voters to do just that. It is not proper to "deconstruct" the district budget and may in fact be illegal since this is being litigated presently. In hindsight we believe creating a "cafeteria" budget last year was an error.

There are many reasons supporting an all-day kindergarten program. Aside from the research, let’s view it from a practical end. Frankly, the current kindergarten day is very short and does not allow teachers the time to address many of the concepts in core academic areas. The requirements placed on students at the kindergarten level have increased substantially. Preschool programs in the area have expanded their day and skill levels for their students. Many children arrive in kindergarten with greater readiness skills than before. Further, our district receives the full state base amount for each kindergarten student which is equal to other students in grades 1-6. This year’s FY08 amount is $7,736 and FY09 will be $8,210 per equalized pupil.

To meet our ADK goals, teachers will be rearranged from grades whose student / teacher ratios allow for it and other positions added to make the program whole. The board feels that making ADK an article last year sent the wrong message to families that were looking for a comprehensive K-12 District. They turned away from Colchester and as a result we missed our enrollment target by 42 students last year. We need to earn those young families back. Had we gained those additional students we would have received funds from the state sufficient to run the program on the order of $322,000.

The Colchester School District works hard to maintain and meet the requirements set by the state and federal government. There is more accountability for our students, teachers and administrators than ever before. Though our enrollments have declined, we continue to enroll students with a wide variety of academic, social and behavioral needs. An all-day kindergarten program plays an important part in preparing students for a successful educational experience.

The addition of All Day Kindergarten to the FY09 budget moves the Per Pupil Spending in the District from $10,783 to $10,843, a difference of $60 which equates to 6/10th of one cent on the tax rate even after the multiplier effect of the CLA.

Fact. If your household income for 2006 and 2007 remained around $45,000, then the school portion of your property taxes will increase by $13.50 with the approval of the school budget, regardless of the value of your property.

Fact. If your household income for 2006 and 2007 remained around $90,000, then the school portion of your property taxes will increase by $27.50 with the approval of the school budget, regardless of the value of your property.

These facts, along with other important information addressed in this article, can be reviewed by reading the 2/19/08 Budget Presentation to the School Board file, which is located on the district’s website of www.csdvt.org. Just click on the School Budget Information link.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the implementation of Act 60 and the 4th anniversary for Act 68. Yet, it appears many residents think the school portion of their property taxes are tied directly to the school budget, as is the case for the municipal portion of our property taxes and was that way prior to the adoption of Act 60.

The Tax Commissioner’s Office establishes a Base Amount Paid per Pupil and sets the rate for the Homestead Tax Base. The School Board has no involvement in creating these figures. Our Business Manger is notified as to what each number is expected to be in order for us to calculate, and inform residents of, the tax impacts of our recommended budget. The figures change each year. The Base Amount will be $8,210 for FY09, while the Homestead Tax Rate will not be finalized until after Town Meeting Day.

Before we discuss the CLA impact, please note: over the last four years the combined tax rate from the first two sections has declined from a rate of $1.26 to $1.12. Yet the final tax rate, with the CLA, has grown from $1.32 to the proposed $1.53 during the same period. The CLA impact on the tax rate has grown from $0.06 to $0.42 in four years!

Prior to Act 60, the Colchester school budget was divided by the value of Colchester’s Grand List, the appraised value of all Colchester properties, to determine the school tax rate. Now, the Colchester Grand List is combined with all other Vermont towns. In an effort to compare apples to apples, the accuracy of our Grand List appraised values is compared to actual selling prices of home sold during the year to create an equalizing factor. For 2006, the appraised values were, on average, 83% of the average actual selling prices for Colchester homes. For 2007, the appraised values were 73% of the average actual selling prices. This 10% increase has driven the tax rate up $0.15 for this budget year, which offset the combined $0.01 reduction from the Tax Commissioner and school board. Because of this dynamic, the legislature is focused on developing a non-property value based funding mechanism.

The school board no longer has the same direct impact on the Colchester property rates as it had prior to Acts 60 and 68. The school board has several other roles. Paramount of them is to use our limited resources to effectively teach our children. The facts show we have the second lowest cost per student spending in the County, yet our test results are very competitive with the best. Basically, we spend $2,000 to $2,500 less per student than the schools with similar strong test results. By all local market metrics, we are delivering strong results, while maintaining a sustainable cost structure.

The following table is a comparison of Colchester and surrounding District Per Equalized Pupil Spending.

You can see that Colchester spends less on an Equalized Pupil Spending level than any other local district than Burlington. Indded, Burlington's PPS is held down by the amount of grant dollars they receive for levels of poverty and English Language Learners. (ELL) One can also see that Colchester's impact on taxes is minimal as well. We strive to keep the PPS number down as this is the number that directly impacts both the local education tax rate and the Income Sensitivity Cap.

The Equalized Tax Rate column figure is of course prior to the addition of the CLA multiplier. Each community will have a unique CLA which is intended to equalize Grand List values between towns.