Peltz: Consolidation or Merger?

Editor’s note: This oped is by Rep. Peter Peltz of Woodbury. He serves on the Vermont House Education Committee.

Vermont adopted its constitution in 1777 before it became a state in 1791. Each town was given the right to establish a school or schools “for the convenient instruction of youth.” Property was taxed to fund the schools. For over 230 years we have sought to find the balance between the obligation to educate our youth and the resources to pay for it.

More than 20 attempts have been made during the past 100 years to consolidate the state’s school governance structure. None of them have succeeded. The most recent was Commissioner Richard Cate’s plan three years ago to eliminate local school boards within a supervisory union by forming one governing board.

The current economic downturn has intensified concerns about the cost of educating our primary and secondary students. As has happened during past recessions, the reduction in school spending has mirrored the economic trend lines. The painful cuts of staff and programs have tested the precarious balance between the quality of the educational programs and the revenues to sustain them.

The plan includes choice between the schools and a common tax rate and grand list.”

The Board of Education has received a recommendation to consolidate our current 60 supervisory unions down to 12 to 24 new larger districts with particular focus on our current 16 technical school districts, which for example in the Stowe/Morrisville area is the Green Mountain Technical and Career Center at Lamoille Union High School. Such a new district for our region would combine Lamoille North and South with Orleans Southwest. The towns would extend on a north/south axis from Belvidere to Stowe, and an east/west axis from Stannard to Cambridge along with all the towns in between. The plan includes choice between the schools and a common tax rate and grand list. The assumption is money would be saved in time by having only one superintendent and one central office. But most agree the transition costs would exceed current spending.

I have been on school boards for 30 years, and I’m not an educator. I defer to those who are and, in particular, to those who have done well by their students. I have concerns about another top-down consolidation plan and have made an effort to solicit ideas from those in the front line.

Here are several of those ideas:

• Incentives for districts to merge on their own have received strong support. There is common commitment to cutting cost while focusing on quality by reducing administration and by sharing staff and facilities. Less paper work and state oversight would not only save money but would assure best results for all students.

• Setting state revenue support over a four-year period would allow for a transition period and address the issues of a common tax rate and grand list. A minimum number of students and districts would be required. Debt would be relieved. A variety of options including a virtual high school, increased dual enrollment of high school students in state college courses, secondary school choice and a new special education system are under consideration.

While we in Montpelier mull over what to do, parties on the delivery level are already making decisions to reduce spending. State employees and the Vermont NEA have made concessions and several districts are talking about merging on their own.

Engaging those who are most impacted by change often leads to the best decisions. Permitting local districts to choose who they want to merge with will result in lower spending and a better educational delivery system.