Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Rep. Peter Peltz, D-Woodbury.
My split role in Vermont’s educational system highlights the age-old dynamic of how education is delivered here. I have been on school boards for somewhere around 30 years, and I now sit on the House Education Committee, which provides me a front row seat on the local versus state control arena.
Fourteen years before Vermont became a state, a constitution was adopted that included these words, “ A school or schools shall be established in each town, by the Legislature, for the convenient instruction of youth, with such salaries to the masters, paid by each town, making proper use of the school lands in each town, thereby to enable them to instruct youth at low prices.” What was deemed then to be “the convenient instruction of youth….at low prices” set into motion the ongoing tension between whom best to determine the quality of education and who will pay for it.
Other education milestones reached before this year’s passage of Act 153 were in 1892 the Legislature reduced the number of districts from over 2,500 to less than 300, when schools’ districts became town districts. In 1963 Governor Hoff proposed reducing the supervisory unions and school boards to 12 districts. The Legislature resisted and instead created 24 regional high schools. Over 20 attempts to consolidate school districts have been made in the last 100 years; the last was Commissioner Cate’s in 2006. They failed because of insufficient local support. The Brigham decision and the resulting Acts of 60 and 68 have had the most significant historical impact: No longer is there any uncertainty about who pays for education.
Last December I hosted a facilitated gathering of educators to answer the question: how can we preserve and improve the quality of education with continued cutbacks and likely consolidation? What emerged from this group became the core principle of H.66 and Act 153: provide incentives for local voluntary mergers.
Board members have been under pressure in recent years, so it is not unexpected that Act 153 has been received with some trepidation. Challenges for Change has not helped. Leaders across the political spectrum have called for imposed consolidation, including the current State Board. Act 153 will offer a reprieve from forced consolidation, but how you receive and work with this bill will have an unalterable impact on who will control future oversight of our educational system.
A cadre of educational leaders has stepped forward to help boards study Act 153’s Regional Education District (RED). A template will be provided to answer questions, such as how much money will voluntary mergers save, and an action plan to help expedite the process. The only requirement is for boards to consider the merger at the supervisory level by December 1st of this year. The new district would be based on creation of a unified union governance structure. The incentives are substantial; they have a time limit; and will be awarded based on efficiencies and improved student outcomes.
Concerns that have arisen since Act 153 became law need to be addressed. As written, the new Regional Education District Board cannot close a school within the first four years unless district voters agree to do so. When districts negotiate, and the importance of negotiation cannot be over stated, the host district of a school can retain the right to close that school after four years.
Local participation at the school level must be defined. Advisory councils can be elected or appointed and will provide a local voice for vital education issues. They can have a defined connection to the RED, and they can have a defined role at the local level. Similar to today’s engaged parents, volunteers, and PTO’s, their reinforcing positive influence will advance learning opportunities.
There are three options for representation on the new board: proportional, weighted, and at-large representation. Flexibility will be available for districts that are concerned about being out numbered.
The final issue relates to the over 30 SU’s that offer choice or designation for school students. Currently a RED must offer the same enrollment options for all its students at a given grade level. A district may petition the state board to reassign it to a new SU, but this path complicates the RED formation process. Choice districts can choose to be aligned with other choice districts, or the State Board could assign them to a SU or RED at a later date. Early indications are that choice districts are uneasy about committing to the RED plan. The legislature can address this concern, or any other, at the beginning of the next session with the technical corrections bill.
Schools are often the centers of their communities. Whenever significant change is proposed outside the town lines, the response often gets personal and divisive. It is not easy to surrender local ownership of our schools, even if it means assuring quality education for our students. Quality education has been the mainstay of our state for close to 225 years, and we, at the local level, have been primarily responsible for delivering some of the best education in the country. Current global economic challenges confronting our students and state compound the necessity for continued improvement in our schools.
The dynamic of who controls the funding and quality of our educational system is best achieved in balance between state and local control. The state’s role in delivering education has expanded since the enactments of Acts 60 and 68; that trend will not abate, unless countered at the district level. Act 153 offers the opportunity to expand local options by sharing resources for improved learning opportunities and cost savings. The best, some might say the traditional way, is to initiate structural change in our education system by local decision, not by state decree. Act 153 provides financial incentives and resource support for districts and supervisory unions to seriously consider the benefits and challenges that might be available with creation of a Regional Education District.
