Editor’s note: This oped is by Rep. John Zenie, Chittenden 7-1, Colchester.
For the past two years I served on the House Education Committee. There were fundamentally two subject matters that drove all of our discussions. The first subject was about how we can improve on our excellent educational system so that our children can be more successful; they are our future. The second subject was about how we could reduce the costs of our educational system in light of ever increasing property taxes.
Almost every time the committee talked about one subject matter we had to ask how it affected the other. How do you increase school quality without increasing costs? How do you reduce costs and not negatively affect quality? This conundrum is not new but it is becoming ever more pressing an issue looking for some type of resolution.
The Vermont Department of Education and the Vermont Board of Education, with the help of legislators and other citizens, have completed some excellent work regarding the future of the educational system in Vermont. Please take the time to look at the Transformation and Strategy documents that can be found here: http://www.education.vermont.gov/new/html/mainboard.html.
To be able to transform our educational system and to get implementation of these strategies will require large investments. This is contrary to our desire to reduce the cost of education. So where is the proper balance and who gets to decide?
Most of us know that the responsibility of the educational system has been growing every year for decades. We not only expect our schools to teach fundamental reading, writing, and arithmetic to our children but also to expect our schools to make sure that they are fed, have clean clothes and that they are protected from harm from others including their own families. We now expect our schools to take on the responsibility that once belonged to parents, communities, and human services agencies.
Last year when the state passed S.13 for sexual predators we added more unfunded mandates to schools under “Health Education” in Title 16: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=16&Chapter=001&Section=00131
This is the mandate that schools teach our children on how to recognize and prevent sexual abuse and sexual violence. There is currently discussions going on regarding having the schools teach more about nutrition to help combat the obesity problem that now exists. Who will pay for that?
Then this year we saw the report on “Roots of Success” on how to have effective schools, http://rootsofsuccess.wordpress.com/report-materials/ which is wonderful information on how we can be doing better for all of our children. But can anyone put the price tag on one of this report’s required characteristics of: “The belief that school staff are ultimately responsible for students’ success and must therefore continually improve their practice”. If we agree with supporting this statement then we need to put boundaries on what “ultimately responsible for students’ success” really means as an expectation of our schools and have dollars to support it.
The mantra of lower enrollments equals lower costs is a false equation. We must add the additional responsibilities that we put on our schools in some kind of quantitative way to correct that equation. To have the schools do more with less funding will result in adverse effects. We can not have it both ways. We can not expect our schools to take over the responsibilities that use to be done by parents and communities and expect lower educational costs. I hope that the administration will lead these discussions and that the legislature will aid in the resolution as necessary.
Permalink |
John, I observed many meetings of the committee this spring and you were always a thoughtful participant, willing to give consideration to all sides of an issue.
I disagree that schools should continue to fulfill the role of parents. A system that promotes parent responsibility rather than picking up the slack is the direction I prefer we move in. Lowering the bar is a slippery slope.
Permalink |
Angelique, I’m not sure we can close that barn door at this point; the horse is long gone. We’ve come to a consensus that children with poor or ineffective parents should not be subject to the disadvantages normally accruing to that situation. Of course, this requires having the schools take over parenting responsibilities for those who can’t, or won’t, do them. The problems with this approach are obvious.
But there is no going back, I’m afraid. There are an absolutely overwhelming number of children who are already at a major disadvantage in life; if we take away school meals, health checkups, domestic violence reporting, etc., they would be at a demonstrably worse place. You can’t force parents to be responsible and you can’t punish the children for that irresponsibility.
Permalink |
Thank you so much for your kind remarks Angelique.
I agree with you on having a system that promotes parent responsibility. What that would look like? I understand it is not an easy problem to work on but it does need to be confronted.
Tom C. has a point that you can’t force parents. So what do you do to get taxpayers to accept the higher costs with these higher expectations?
Permalink |
I absolutly disagree with your premise that lower enrollment can not mean lower costs. It must.
I agree that the legislature both state and federal must find a way to reduce current and past unfanded mandate. Those were irresponcible buck passing. pun intented.
Education management (local, state and Federal)must find a way to reduce costs while maintaining our good results.
Our current educatin cost are not competative with other nations in cost or performance. We must not drink to much of our own bath water. The focus must be education 1st
When federal education funding dry up, we can not raise taxes or reduce quality. We need our education establishment to find ways to be much more productive, with measurable results in student results and reduction in costs.
Permalink |
Bob, I agree that lower enrollments and consolidation and other efficiencies helps to lower costs. I believe that the added responsibilities that we have placed on schools far exceeds those savings.
I also agree that the focus on education should be the highest priority. When comparing educational costs and outcomes between the US and other nations we must factor in some other variables. Most other nations have a higher parental and community involvement in their schools than we have in the US. It is that lower involvement in the US that is driving up costs and having a negative impact on outcomes. There is nothing more important than parental and community support for helping make a child’s learning experience the best it can be.
Permalink |
I’m not sure I buy into the statement that most other nations have higher parental envolvment. That is pretty strong enditment of our culture…vs Europe, etc Like to see some facts that back that up.
I do think our Education establishment has taken on too many diversionary tasks, the parenting issue is but one, poverty etc etc. While these are real and important to varying degrees they are not the core education task. I think it is past time that they education establishment managment, demonstrate some critical think, stand up and focus on core education to get cost down. Paying everincreasing property taxes and income taxes to fund prebates for too many is intollerable.
I agree with the statement that these issues should be addressed, if they are to be addressed at all, outside of the education system. The Education establishment must change its mind set on needing to solve all aspects of a child problems and environment. That is an arogance and presumption that we can not afford. It is the parent responcibility. If the legislature chooses to punish, encintivize or ignor parents roles so be it.