Differing Views of a Vermont Law

To the Editor:

In your article on the Freeman Foundation (“Big Fund Hits a Nerve in Vermont,” April 22), your reporter seems to have found only proponents of Act 60, the state law on public-school financing. May I offer another viewpoint?

I live in a “gold town.” By this proclamation, you would assume that everyone who lives here vacations in the Caribbean and has a few houses littered around.

In fact, many gold towns aren’t so gold after all. For example, there is only one school here, with 230 children in kindergarten through 12th grade. We have no hot-lunch program, as we have no kitchen and cannot build one because of inadequate sewage disposal. We have dropped technical education, living arts, and any gifted and talented program. All art, music, library, computer, and guidance positions are not full time. This is coupled with rising special-education mandates and more children in need of those services.

Many of these problems existed before Act 60 came to town. We were looking at a 36-per-cent increase in property taxes before the “shark pool” — the “sharing pool” of funds created by Act 60 — siphoned 70 cents of every dollar that we wanted to raise to help provide a good education for our children.

What is a school to do when faced with those circumstances? First, we tried to cut 30 per cent out of the budget. We found that all the special-education requirements are untouchable by federal mandate. This and other budget items like debt servicing and salaries meant that there was only about 15 per cent “give” in the budget.

Needless to say, when the Freeman Foundation announced that it would match any dollars raised, we jumped at the opportunity. To raise this kind of money took many dedicated parents and community members many evenings on the phone, and we were able to raise enough money to stay out of the “shark pool.”

Raising money for education is never wrong. … We are very grateful for the Freeman Foundation’s generous offer, and I am truly sorry that our legislators felt it was a political hot potato.

We have one more year of the grant money, which gives us the blessing of time to come up with a local solution and time to let our feelings known to the legislators. Call me a gold digger, but my children’s public school is worth fighting for.

Patricia Michl
Dorset, Vt.

* * *

To the Editor:

At the root of the controversy over the Freeman Foundation’s grants to school districts whose advantage has been modified by school-finance-reform law is plain old-fashioned selfishness.

Affluent school districts with sizeable advantages over most others in the state (and, ironically, with lower property-tax rates) simply want to retain the upper hand without paying more taxes. In steps a private foundation to rescue the affluent. What ever happened to the goal of equity that so many foundations espouse?

Overreliance on property taxes has long punished lower-income school districts. The Vermont legislature should be applauded for crafting a solution to the problem instead of being undermined.

As to the argument that the Freeman Foundation is dabbling in public policy: Tell it to the dozen or more foundations that support think tanks and media juggernauts that influence public policy day in and day out.

Richard Magat
Bronxville, N.Y.