Editor’s note: This op-ed was originally posted in ConnectedVermont, a blog for discussion of education, with an emphasis on school board-related issues hosted by the author. Rama Schneider lives in Williamstown and is a member of the Williamstown School Board.
Act 156 of 2012 contains a provision known as Section 8: “Supervisory Union Size and Structure.” Section 8 is a requirement placed on the governor’s office by Vermont’s Legislature that entails a study of the state’s current supervisory union (SU) structure with instruction to “design a revised structure based roughly on existing technical center service regions that results in no more than three supervisory unions within each region.”
The basic premise of the Section 8 study is supervisory unions shall continue doing what they’re doing (and maybe more) and schools will be better served by reducing the administrative and public oversight of these services. Primary consideration is to be given to “the optimal size of supervisory unions, in terms of geography and numbers of students, technical centers, schools, and school districts served.” Nowhere is mention made of optimal or even adequate services provided to the individual student.
I would propose that the governor’s office respond with a radically different approach. I believe we need to redefine the supervisory union model so that superintendents and supervisory unions are no longer the overseer of local districts, and instead we put the local school districts in the driver’s seat by making the SUs a contracted service provider — SU will stand for service union.
Educational requirements on schools and thus the educational needs of our students are quickly increasing. Algebra II, for example, that once was reserved for students on a path to institutions of higher learning, is now becoming mainstreamed for all, and this is happening instantaneously in practical terms. Those closest to the students, the teachers and principals, know the individual kids and young adults much better than superintendents, State School Board members, agency secretaries or governors, and because of this the teachers and principals need to be the primary institutors of educational policy.
It is possible we will end up with one statewide service provider service union, and it’s possible we will end up with 16 regional service unions, and it is possible we will end up with 60 or more service providers.
Our new reality is one that requires intimate knowledge of the student and the ability to respond quickly to changes. The current system of supervisory unions needs to change to reflect our new reality. And so my proposal for a new supervisory union structure — actually an end to supervisory unions and a beginning for service unions.
Service unions will replace supervisory unions. The shortest explanation of how is: Service unions will not oversee local school districts — instead local school districts will be free to contract with the service union of the district’s choice. Supporting services such as procurement, construction management, bookkeeping, data management, curriculum development, staff training and new hire search can often be sourced outside a given district. These are many of the services that are today performed by our current system of supervisory unions, and there is no reason to believe that local districts will not continue to require supports of these kinds from the new service unions.
In the very beginning the new service unions will provide the exact same range of services as were provided by the supervisory unions of today, but the relationship will change immediately. Local districts will become the true leader in the relationship by choosing which service union to contract with for services. The supervisory union superintendent will no longer oversee the local districts, but instead she/he will become the chief executive officer of a service provider, and the district principal will become the school district’s CEO.
Individual districts will be free to seek out a service union that provides desired services in a desired delivery style. Some districts will find a larger service union that can provide basic services at a lower price will fit their needs. Other districts will find smaller service unions that can provide more personalized services but may cost more will fit their needs. It is possible we will end up with one statewide service provider service union, and it’s possible we will end up with 16 regional service unions, and it is possible we will end up with 60 or more service providers.
But it will be the needs of the students as reflected in the contracts between the school district and service unions that determines all that. What the students receive should not be the result of a top-down managerial system. The students should be receiving what best reflects the students’ needs.
