Editor’s note: This oped is by Odell A. D. Johnston, a 20-year school board member from Pittsford, and William J. Mathis, the managing director of the Education and the Public Interest Center (epicpolicy.org).
With brass bands blaring and basses booming, the parade proceeded down Main Street. All the townsfolk marched, watched or sold refreshments! Suddenly, from out of the crowd, two men leaped in front of the lead color guard, and promenaded down the street loudly shouting “Look everybody! We’re leading the parade!”
And so then finance and management commissioner Jim Reardon, and our education commissioner, Armando Vilaseca took credit for local school boards putting together level-funded school budgets. You see, our two parade leaders put out a memo on Nov. 10, 2009, demanding that local school boards cut their budgets or else they would recommend a series of punitive measures to the Legislature.
Of course, every school board and half-awake person in the state knew we were in the midst of a major recession and that student numbers were declining. They hardly needed the state to tell them what everyone could plainly see. So the school boards simply did what they have been doing forever. They came in with prudent, economical budgets. In fact, school year-to-year budget increases are at a lower rate than state budget increases. The taxpayers examined the facts, liked what the schools were doing, accepted the price, and 93% of the districts approved their budgets.
Perhaps wishing to pretend to lead another parade (and demonstrating that the state has better judgment than the local voters), the state charged schools with cutting another 2 percent next year. In a memo of June 7, 2010, the education commissioner says boards must tell him whether they are going to meet their budget markers and that he is “charged” with reporting any shortfall to the legislature with recommendations to “ensure” that the targets are met.
If this were all, then it would merely be officious and unnecessary puffery. But the Legislature went further. They added new and expensive mandates. In these dire economic times, schools are to meet the “education challenge.” This means they are to increase electronic and distance learning, increase graduation rates, increase higher education participation, and increase early education. Computers and the necessary staff and support do not come for free. Increasing graduation rates is necessary for society’s well-being but this means new investments with our most alienated children. Early education is our wisest investment but it would have been good if the Legislature had not opened the door to funneling this money to private day-care providers. It takes no special expertise to see that lecturing school boards about being profligate while imposing new costs makes no sense.
The state’s “education challenge” also says administrative costs should be made more efficient “in a manner that promotes student achievement.” Of course, this is a contradiction. The research shows that improved student achievement requires a greater investment in administration and teacher supervision.
The cry from Montpelier for cheaper schools was also accompanied by incredulous calls for consolidation. This is to be the great economy move. The problem is there is no scientific evidence that consolidation saves money. Apparently unknown to state policy makers, the educational benefit of a diversity of programs in larger high schools was achieved through the union school movement in the 1960s.
What consolidation does do is separate the people from their government, disempower them, and cause poorer social outcomes for children (see http://www.epicpolicy.org/files/cerai-00-35.htm for the effects of school size). Despite the citizens’ and legislature’s clear opposition to top-down consolidation, the state board commissioned their own task force to push consolidation. Apparently, the state board did not consider that the Legislature had already passed a new law to encourage local boards to combine programs and schools.
Money does matter. Small schools and small class sizes are among our wisest social investments. Our supportive school staffing is one of the reasons Vermont ranks so high on academic and social indicators. Schools are not factories where closing them can save money. Schools are labor intensive and saving money requires staffing cuts.
Commissioner Reardon said maybe we could afford to be ranked lower in education. We could diminish the quality and save some money — but that is not what the citizens voted. Local schools, boards, towns and communities have demonstrated that they can run schools and can actually do it quite well — even by international comparisons.
Local citizens keep in mind the wishes of their community and their dreams for their youth. They take their children to see those celebrations of community, the parades. But if our state bureaucrats feel they need to lead somebody else’s parade, we can loan them an empty parking lot and fancy uniforms where they will be undisturbed – and cause far less harm.
