A proposed two-year moratorium on privatizing public schools deflected two amendments in the Senate Thursday.
S.91 aims to temporarily prevent municipalities from closing a public school only to reopen an independent school in the same physical property. The legislation, which now heads to a final Senate vote and potentially to the House, also would create a committee to study the constitutionality of such transitions.
To date, two Vermont schools have transformed from public to private: Winhall in 1998 and North Bennington in 2013. Westford is now considering the same. Sen Philip Baruth, D-Chittenden, said that looks like a trend, and it’s got the Senate Education committee worried.
Their resistance to privatization is not fueled by opposition to independent schools, senators say.
Sen. David Zuckerman, P-Chittenden, said they shared the concerns of the new Secretary of Education, Rebecca Holcombe, about whether different standards for independent schools might compromise students’ access to services. Special education, for example, and free- and reduced-price meals are not required at all independent schools.
They also worry that voters give up too much control in privatization, because independent schools are not bound by the same laws of transparency and participation.
Baruth additionally questioned the fate of public assets that have been put into public schools, should residents choose to make those schools independent.
In opposition, three senators sponsored an amendment to strip the moratorium out of the bill: Dick Sears, D-Bennington, Joseph Benning, R-Caledonia, and Alice Nitka, D-Windsor.
They also turned the question of constitutionality back on the state, asking not whether residents have the right to turn a school private, but whether the state has jurisdiction to stop them.
Sears said he voted against the privatization in North Bennington when it came to a vote, but he stands by his neighbors’ right to make the decision.
“It wasn’t because they wanted to make teachers non-union, or provide less special education,” Sears said. It was because they feared the school consolidation being discussed at the Statehouse. The village’s small school is part of its identity, Sears said.
Sears also challenged Zuckerman’s suggestion that it might not be legal for voters to turn their public school private. It’s already been done twice, Sears said, which proves that towns do not need the same kind of legislative approval required for charter changes.
Their effort was defeated 18-10 in a roll-call vote. (See below for details.)
A different amendment, from Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, went the opposite direction.
“This does not prohibit the ‘flipping,'” White said, using the terminology most senators had settled on in the course of their debate. “But it says that if that’s going to happen, there are some guidelines we need to follow.”
White’s amendment essentially would have brought the bill back to where it was when it was introduced, establishing the standards without conducting a study. It lost 19-9 in a division vote.
S.91 as recommended by the committee will now go to a third reading for final vote.
Zuckerman indicated to Sears the committee would be willing to revisit the scope of the special study committee to include his concerns about the state overstepping its authority.
While democratic control, public assets and access to special education form the core of the committee’s reservations about public schools going independent, a handful of other questions came up on the floor that posed their own complications.
For example, it was not entirely clear whether students retain school choice if a municipality transitions its school from public to private.
Mill Moore, executive director of the Vermont Independent Schools Association, said some misinformation about the bill is complicating its debate.
He was referring to the question floated about what would happen if a new independent school might take on a religious affiliation. After a break to consult with legislative lawyers, senators determined that public money could not be applied to a student’s tuition in such a scenario.
“Even on the floor today Senator Zuckerman got mixed up over some important facts,” Moore said by email. “Though he later fixed the errors and apologized, this illustrates how easy it is to turn mistaken assumptions into convincing reasons for doing the wrong thing.”
Many of these questions were meant to be discussed in a 2013 study committee, chaired by former Education Secretary Armando Vilaseca — an ardent opponent of privatization. Vilaseca’s final report recommended the practice be banned. Moore was among the committee members who said Vilaseca had shorted the process.
