Editor’s note: This commentary is by Carol Brigham, mother to Amanda Brigham, lead plaintiff of the lawsuit against the state that lead to the Brigham Decision in 1997. She has been a school board member for 22 years, and is currently on the Whiting board and the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union board.
Dear Gov. Shumlin,
[I] am confused … are you interested in investing in the future of Vermont, its communities and children or are you not?
You say that you do not support mandatory school consolidation, yet you support the current draft of bill H.361, which is now in the hands of the Senate Education Committee. You say it has potential to change governance, save money and improve education quality across Vermont. You say that you want to partner with school districts to help them better understand where they are now and where they will be in five years. You say that one person’s mandate is another person’s opportunity. You also say that after five years redistricting authority should be given to the State Board of Education or the secretary of education. Language in the Senate Education Committee’s bill points to consolidation through incentives and disincentives, regardless of school quality and/or efficiency. I interpret this as supporting mandatory consolidation and the closing of schools.
If you truly want to partner with school districts across the state on evaluating where they are in quality, then sufficient time and resources are needed to allow the Agency of Education to conduct school reviews based on the State Board of Education’s newly adopted Education Quality Standards. Passing legislation previous to these reviews is rash and potentially damaging to many high functioning school systems and student opportunities and learning outcomes across the state.
Passing legislation that allows a governor-appointed person or body to decide at any given time the fate of a community school without the values and participation of its community is against our democratic values and lacks the understanding of what our communities really need.
I agree that one person’s mandate is another person’s opportunity … of course when a school loses funding in a community it will allow more resources to funnel into another school and community. This is a sure way to undermine small and rural communities and their schools and ensure the disparities between our communities. Small schools grants and the hold harmless provisions do what they were intended to and were put into place to minimize the cost effects of small schools and fluctuations in populations; in effect, to comply with Brigham. To redistribute this money in the forms of incentives to encourage consolidation of schools may very well run against the intent of Brigham.
Passing legislation that allows a governor-appointed person or body to decide at any given time the fate of a community school without the values and participation of its community is against our democratic values and lacks the understanding of what our communities really need. We need policies that help fight poverty and grow livable wage jobs. We need families, not to just love Vermont, but who can live and raise their families in any and all communities of Vermont.
If you truly care about the future of Vermont, please do not pass legislation that will diminish funds to needy schools and minimize the importance of our local communities and our schools. True change will only occur through commonly held values and the commitment of the community it serves.
