Editor’s note: This commentary is by Helen Keith, s resident of the Mount Mansfield Union and Huntington school districts.
[F]irst, many thanks for the contributions of Fayston School Board chair Heidi Spear; Peter Berger for his recent commentary on Chittenden East Supervisory Union’s (CESU) merger problems; Frank Bryan for his depiction of the concentration of authority through consolidation movements and its dangers; and, Bill Mathis for his piece on Ghost Dances.
I offer some grassroots concerns about the CESU merger plans. My interest is in keeping school governance as close to home as possible, in the community where our children live, for our youngest children (ages 3 to 10 in this case). The Chittenden East Supervisory Union’s Voluntary Merger Planning Committee’s effort to resurrect the previously defeated measure (in 2011) is, in my opinion, driven by the committee’s anger at having lost previously. And the belief that they don’t need all the towns now due to a revision in the law where some towns can vote no and those that vote yes can move ahead, if they constitute a majority of the school districts. This ability to split the vote, and move ahead without molding – seeking consensus after the last defeat put the cart before the horse. No planning, no studying, only many declarations of just “trust us” and let’s get these required y the state articles of agreement to the voters now. Talk about stopping a discussion that could have been meaningful. I prefer community-building. The committee was 14-1 on the fast track.
The proposal, approved by a confused (in my opinion) State Board of Education (check the video of the meeting on Aug. 19) includes eliminating six pre-K-4 elementary school districts that are located in Bolton, Huntington, Jericho, Richmond and Underhill and their boards, transfer their properties and become one district with a super-powered, regionalized board the same size as the current MMU board. With a legal stipulation that no schools can close for four years after merger, there is no question in my mind that the key issue is who gets to decide whether to close a school (and there may have to be school closures).
There is a 44-page report with the minority report beginning on page 35. It is available on the CESU website and the VermontRedworks site. CESU is the only SU that has moved forward on this in the whole state, with the surrounding supervisory unions deciding not to go forward to even bring it to the voters. Others nearby are having difficulties with boards that already have consolidated. These are not easy questions to answer: how to improve educational opportunities especially for hard to reach children, cost containment/accountability and runaway property taxes that have little to do with local school board decision making. The system itself needs reforming and teachers, families and community members need to be front and center in offering their opinions in an organized, thoughtful, facilitated manner. Our children and their needs are the best known by teachers and families. As far as I know, no one asked them in any organized and anonymous ways for their input.
Regarding the report approved by the state board and the Agency of Education, it provides little data other than historical enrollments and a weak attempt to identify some cost savings, and is mythical in four big ways.
Why not get creative about even more collaboration, building communities, encouraging them to stand up for their youngest children who are going to very good schools.
Firstly, improved educational opportunities for anyone, let alone hard to reach children/students are not addressed in any meaningful ways.
Secondly, most studies on consolidation efforts in rural states say, paraphrasing, “don’t base consolidation on cost savings.” Even the minutes of the one of the Legislature’s education committees this winter had testimony about this aspect, with the state suggesting “don’t ask” about cost containment. Unless schools are closed, there won’t be money to improve outcomes, and then again, who makes that decision: a local board close to home or the single, super-powered regionalized board?
Another myth, the third of many the merger committee presentations put forth, assumes property taxes will decrease for those towns that vote yes. Well, temporarily. We all pay for any tax incentives associated with the merger law. And, it is likely that the $50-$100 savings won’t be noticed in the property tax bill as that bill most likely will go up, driven by the education funding formula embedded in state law. The funding formula is not even understood by very many of the legislators who actually vote on the governor’s recommendations and those of his staff. This issue is going to take a lot of thoughtful, informed discussion so that we don’t end up with slight adjustments of the current financing system that has really negative social policy implications/probable results for people living on fixed/limited incomes, policies that may force them out of their homes. This is a statewide and a local issue.
The last myth I want to suggest regarding the vote on Nov. 4, is that CESU needs this single, super-power regionalized board in order to do certain things, the specifics of which remain, essentially, undisclosed. The report contains a 2014 cost benefit analysis, which is pretty much a 90 percent cut and paste of the 2011 cost benefit analysis into their 2014 Agency of Education-required template for mergers. For me, there is not enough detail in the report that identifies problems or a real plan that might interest voters in moving toward merger. Once a problem list is out there with proposed solutions, perhaps much of this can happen through letters of agreement with the pre-K-4 elementary school districts. Better this route than ditching the current boards at this point.
In closing, VSA Title 16, Chapter 7, section 261a outlines the responsibilities of Vermont supervisory unions. The responsibilities and authority already exists to address anything mentioned thus far. So let’s do it in our existing structure. Why not get creative about even more collaboration, building communities, encouraging them to stand up for their youngest children who are going to very good schools. Unification exists in the MMU middle and high school district already. I hope we continue that along with embracing the role of local school boards/districts, their staffs and their communities. While there is a lot of “fear” floating around about what will happen to districts that vote no, do not fear standing up for local governance systems for our youngest children, their families and our communities. They can’t make money on those districts that vote no and they still have to provide SU support. I see no reason to vote yes – therefore, I will be voting no on article 1. These issues are not just local.
