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.
House Bill 521 has found a posted voice, and this is one bill to take very seriously. I say this for two reasons: This bill will pass into law in one form or another as it deals with a multitude of miscellaneous changes to Title 16, Vermont’s education law; and this bill contains a very strong element of ill-thought-out proposals born of bureaucratic frustration.
You will find in H.521 non-controversial and polite applause invoking measures such as an extension and clarification regarding the date the Secretary of State is expected to record the official creation of a new union school district, and you will find what may, for some, be a bit controversial but still laudable proposal to require eight hours joint training for superintendents and school board chairs.
Unfortunately there is a dark side to this bill — a hurried insertion improperly marked up and aimed directly at the decisions made by Vermonters.
As you go through the following I want you to keep one school district in mind: North Bennington Graded School (NBGS). I want you to do this because it is the recent decisions made by the Vermonters and voters of the NBGS district that the following is about. Members of the House Education Committee, Secretary of Education Armando Vilaseca and the chair
of the Vermont State Board of Education (VSBE) Stephan Morse, along with other members of the VSBE, have all voiced a distaste that the good people of the NBGS district would dare to do what they did — give general approval for the closing of their public school and allow for
leasing the building (which would be vacant at that point) to an independent school (see this link for background information). http://connectedvermont.net/things_we’re_following
H.521 amends 16 V.S.A. § 821, school district to maintain public elementary schools or pay tuition, by proposing an addition that reads “(e) Notwithstanding the authority of a school district to cease operation of an elementary school and to begin paying tuition on behalf of its resident elementary students pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) or subsection (d) of this section, a school district shall not cease operation of an elementary school with the intention, for the purpose, or with the result of having the school building or buildings reopen as an independent school serving essentially the same population of students.”
There is a proposed amendment to 16 V.S.A. § 822, school district to maintain public high schools or pay tuition, that reads “(d) Notwithstanding the authority of a school district to cease operation of a secondary school and to begin paying tuition on behalf of its resident secondary students pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) of this section, a school district shall not cease operation of a secondary school with the intention, for the purpose, or with the result of having the school building or buildings reopen as an independent school serving essentially the same population of students.”
That school district and the NBGS Prudential Committee have made a deliberate decision that they, the parents and local voters, feel will best protect the students and their children. They are embarking on a path intended to enhance the district’s educational offerings.
The final portion of this nonsense is the real giveaway that we are not discussing a well-thought-out series of proposals that have undergone any scrutiny whatsoever. This part originally proposed to amend 16 V.S.A. § 166b with the following: “(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, approval under this subsection of a new or existing independent school that proposes to operate in a building in which a school district operated a school is subject to either subsection 821(e) or 822(d) of this title, as appropriate for the grades operated.”
The immediate problem is that 16 V.S.A. § 166b is titled “Home study program”! And there isn’t even a 166b(7) or 6 or 5 or 4 or 3, 2, 1. What this assault on the right of Vermonters to directly participate in their children’s education really meant to address was 16 V.S.A. § 166, approved and recognized independent schools, but had anyone gotten over their immediate anger at the residents of North Bennington and the Shaftsbury School District long enough to think this through they would have known this. (Apparently someone did catch on after I widely circulated this oped on March 19 and a hurried change was made to correct the reference to 16 V.S.A. § 166b and instead have it refer to 16 V.S.A. § 166(b) which was the appropriate legislation — my point stands.)
Did I mention that this proposal came directly from the chair of the House Committee on Education (originally introduced as H.461)?
The people involved in the North Bennington Graded School decisions have been involved in a multi-year process that has given time to explore visions and possibilities and expectations and yes, even roadblocks. That school district and the NBGS Prudential Committee have made a deliberate decision that they, the parents and local voters, feel will best protect the students and their children. They are embarking on a path intended to enhance the district’s educational offerings.
And nothing has been left to be taken for granted. The voters gave the Prudential Committee authority to close their public school and, if the school is closed, then lease the building to the newly approved independent Village School of North Bennington. Giving that authority, however, does not guarantee the public school will close as the Prudential Committee has stated outright that they will not use that authority if it increases the taxpayer costs.
Compare that years-long process with the hurried and obviously harried response from those who know better in Montpelier.
And then get hold of the Senate Committee on Education because this bill will pass with or without the offending inclusions.
