Editor’s note: This op-ed is by William J. Mathis of Goshen, the managing director of the National Education Policy Center and a former Vermont superintendent.
Obscured by debates over jobs, taxes and the economy, the gubernatorial candidates’ positions on education are not as prominent. Brian Dubie’s plans are relegated to sub-categories of his jobs plan. Peter Shumlin’s web page presents his plans in an abbreviated form. Yet, with a bit of digging, the contrasting positions of the candidates can be seen.
School and District Consolidation
With enrollment declines, school boards consider whether they can keep their town school open. While there is virtually no research that says larger schools are more economical or provide a better education, education commissioner Vilaseca continues to beat the consolidation drum. Shumlin says consolidation is a local decision and no uniform top-down approach should be mandated. Each town should decide what is best for them. Dubie also says this is a local decision but speaks more forcefully about consolidation as a “serious option” and he is “open” to the elimination of duplicative administrative costs.
School Spending
The Public Assets Institute charted education spending as a percent of gross state product and found it has been remarkably steady since 1992. Nevertheless, because enrollments have declined, per pupil spending has shot up. This led Gov. Douglas to call for state level spending controls and a 2 percent reduction is imposed on schools for next year. Education costs represent “unsustainable” costs, says Dubie, and he calls for caps. The “education fund should grow even more slowly” and the “relentless escalation of education spending must be stopped.” (Dubie does not recognize the reduction in school increases over the past five years). As a Senator, Shumlin supported the two-vote requirement for school budgets and the current two percent soft cap. However, he has since reaffirmed that funding decisions are best made by local districts rather than by Montpelier.
The $19 million Jobs Money
The federal government granted Vermont $19 million in stimulus money specifically to protect school jobs. Vermont’s fine social outcomes and test score rankings are in many ways due to our widely-acknowledged small class sizes. Dubie views school staffing as too generous while Shumlin says school spending is a local decision (and local tax rates go up or down based on these staffing decisions). Shumlin argues that we should use this money, as intended, to maintain jobs while Dubie wants to use it to shore-up the state’s underfunding of the teacher retirement program.
Funding Religious Schools with Public Money
Dubie has said he would allow public monies to be used for religious school tuition. This has been declared a violation of the state constitution by our Supreme Court. Shumlin has not announced a position on this issue.
Creeping Federalism
Under the No Child Left Behind law and subsequent federal interpretations, Vermont schools have been increasingly controlled by federal law. The most recent example is the over-riding of the 37 pages of Vermont school standards by 500 pages of prescriptive curriculum in reading and mathematics. The Douglas-appointed state board acquiesced in this expensive unfunded mandate. Shumlin has pronounced excessive federal testing and proposed teacher evaluation systems as unwarranted intrusions on state and local education. Shumlin has also announced that he seeks a waiver from the No Child Left Behind Law. Dubie has no written position but as Douglas’ “co-pilot,” it appears he embraces the federal over-reach that Douglas spear-headed as chairman of the National Governors’ Association.
Local Control
Both candidates say they favor local control which, in Vermont, no viable candidate can say he’s against. But the differences are clear. Shumlin says neither the state nor the federal government has all the answers to school problems. Our highly decentralized system is strong and demonstrably effective. Our finance system is equitable and progressive, says Shumlin. Dubie would use state force to reduce costs while apparently passing on the costs of federal and state mandates.
The overarching difference is that Dubie targets our leading education system for significant cuts. The unspoken subtext is we can afford to be less than a first-tier state in education. Control has shifted away from local citizens to Montpelier and to the federal government. Shumlin has been the more outspoken of the two in opposing this abrogation of power. Dubie’s vision is of education as an economic subsystem while Shumlin embraces a broader view of education in a democracy. To be sure, Vermont’s future resides in our children. Thus, maintaining and sustaining a strong system of public schools is essential to the state’s well-being. How you vote does make a difference.
