Editor’s note: This op-ed by Rama Schneider was originally posted in ConnectedVermont, a blog for discussion of education, with an emphasis on school board-related issues hosted by the author. Schneider is a member of the Williamstown School Board.
When the Vermont General Assembly in 2010 passed Act 153 they included in Section 8 (“Reports; Effects of Merger; Recommendations”) a requirement for a series of annual reports “regarding the status of merger discussions and votes.” The third (and latest) installment from
the James M. Jeffords Center for Policy Research of the University of Vermont has just been published to the state Legislature’s website with an acknowledgement of a reality that is scuffed over in favor of pleas for more centralization.
The biggest surprise, and one sure to be a disappointment for many in the Statehouse, is really no surprise to many of us not in state government: The concepts of local schools, local input, local accountability and local governance are still carrying the day when it comes to school consolidation.
The Jeffords Center report (“Interim Report on Act 153: An Act Relating to Voluntary School District Merger, Virtual Merger, Supervisory Union Duties, and Including Secondary Students with Disabilities in Senior Year Activities and Ceremonies”) was officially submitted on Jan. 30; and despite the lengthy and overly inclusive title it deals with only two subjects: school district and supervisory union consolidation. More specifically this report looks into what has occurred up to date, and it attempts to delve into some of the whys.
The record of Regional Education District (RED) attempts is very one sided and obvious: “Six supervisory unions have had their [RED] articles approved by the State Board, four of which have been rejected by voters and one of which was withdrawn by its board. As of December
31, 2012, a single district merger has been approved, concurrent with one merger of supervisory unions.” (You can find some background regarding two of these RED explorations on my website ConnectedVermont.)
The Jeffords Center in its second (2012) Section 8 report brought out a very interesting reality that was underlined by its own exit polling of voter thoughts and concerns during a vote on a RED for the Chittenden East Supervisory Union towns. (Spoiler alert: The vote failed with two of six districts saying no despite a barely majority supervisory union-wide approval of 50.7 percent.) According to the poll, a substantial number of folks were concerned about the loss of local control.
This expressed concern over losing say so in their children’s upbringing and education ranged from a high of more than 60 percent in Huntington to a low of about 35 percent in Jericho. Other towns in order were Richmond (more than 50 percent), and Underhill, Bolton and Underhill Center all around 45 percent.
That apparent fear by the state issue of local schools, local input, local accountability and local governance rears its mighty head again in this year’s Section 8 installment.
In this report the Jeffords Center has only one successful RED story to tell, and that one is about the new Mountain Towns Regional Education District. As the report quotes one unnamed survey participant: “Another thing that was unique, that created clear sailing for passage was that no one would lose high school choice as result of the merger, as all the towns were part of Flood Brook. There was no loss of high school choice and no need to fear school closure.” Under the heading of “Challenges” in the creation of the RED is listed “Concerns of losing local control were a continuing focus of public discourse” with a corresponding “How they were met” of “Reiteration that schools would not close; no loss of school choice (Mountain Towns RED).”
This mirrors precisely what I’ve heard personally and read in newspaper accounts: The Mountain Towns RED was formed to protect the existing structure — not to consolidate. Folks in those towns already had a union elementary school, and they wanted to protect their school
choice status for the rest of the grades. Even the change in supervisory unions for these towns was done with those concepts in mind — these people were trying to keep the state from meddling in their schools.
But the Jeffords Center in conjunction with the Agency of Education had to tout a successful RED vote. And they did this despite a reality that says the rationale for that vote was exactly opposite the rationales the state continues to put out for centralizing school governance (more centralized state governance and less local oversight are a good thing).
Don’t believe me? Scroll down to page 11 of the 2013 report to the section titled “Issues and recommendations for local planning and implementation.” One of their bullet points reads: “The potential loss for local control is always a concern when mergers are discussed. However, the loss of local control is balanced by real benefits, such as an improved educational experience, and increased accountability at the state and federal levels.”
At the end of the day, the issue of local governance needs to be decided by the folks residing in our communities. I’m a school board member, and my job is not to reach school district conclusions based upon my own personal opinions — and the only way to get an answer is to ask the question: Just how important are the values of local schools, local input, local accountability and local governance in the community? Fear of an answer that may make me change my future decision making is not to be a consideration.
So with that in mind, I joined the rest of my fellow members of the Williamstown School District Board of Directors in approving the following item as an advisory vote:
“Shall the voters direct the Williamstown School Board of Directors to send the following statement to the Vermont General Assembly for consideration and action:
We, the voters of Williamstown, Vermont, believe that local governance and control exist only when we have immediate, direct and effective access to those who make and implement policy. Furthermore it is our belief that local governance and control are vital to the education of our community’s children and young adults; they assure that parental and community values are a part of our children’s upbringing; and adherence to these two principles is the only way to insure the local community is adequately represented when educational policies, including the financial, are considered and put into action.
We therefore request the General Assembly enact legislation stating that it is state policy to preserve and encourage local governance and control as it pertains to our public education system including control over efforts to consolidate school districts or supervisory unions.”
