[L]ast week the Agency of Education issued a memo to superintendents and principals to “correct misperceptions” about a recent vote taken by the State Board of Education.
A number of news outlets, including VTDigger, have zeroed in on the board’s clarification of a controversial provision of Act 46 that requires merging districts to either offer choice or to operate schools.
Rebecca Holcombe, the secretary of the Agency of Education, says the decision doesn’t limit current school choice options, and she blames the media for “erroneous reporting.”
“There appears to be some level of misperception that the State Board … made a ruling to change or limit school choice options,” Holcombe wrote. “This is not true. The State Board simply reaffirmed the fact that Act 46 of 2015 did not modify, amend, or repeal existing laws regarding the operation of schools, or payment of tuition, by a school district.”
Holcombe says the board’s clarification of the new law did not “change the landscape.” The board merely passed a resolution, she said, that restates the fact that Act 46 “did not change any of the current statutory provisions regarding the operation of a school or paying tuition by a school district.”
Under the law, the State Board of Education cannot entertain merger proposals that allow both choice and operate schools.
“At the end of the day it isn’t about promoting operation or choice. It is a fact that that is a decision the Legislature has given to the electorate,” Holcomb added.
Holcomb felt compelled to combat media coverage that she said “inflames but doesn’t inform” and creates controversy where there isn’t one at a time when school boards are working so diligently to comply with Act 46.
David Baker, the superintendent of Windsor Southeast, doesn’t agree that the conflict over the state’s new school district merger law has been created by the media.
“I think the State Board of Education decision and the current law on operating and paying tuition is an absolute stumbling block for those small towns and districts who want to merge, are willing to merge and see the efficiencies but can’t because of those laws. It is a real issue,” Baker said. “Act 46 basically never addressed that.”
The school choice issue, he says, is at the center of a stalemate over implementation of the law at the local level.
Jeffrey Francis, of the Vermont Superintendents Association, describes the memo as a useful explanation of the state board’s role in the merger process.
“Rebecca was endeavoring to make clear with respect to Act 46 that it didn’t change the options or opportunities associated with whether a district operates or not,” Francis said. “The existing law says that the districts themselves get to decide that.”
Francis said it isn’t surprising that clarification was needed since Act 46 was only approved in June and school districts are now in the throes of figuring out the best way for their communities to move forward.
Part of the problem is the irregularity of Vermont’s local school governance system. The state has 59 supervisory unions and supervisory districts. The supervisory unions have different kinds of districts and all operate in different ways, Francis said.
“Some operate all grades and others pay tuition; some operate certain grades and tuition others; others operate on a preK-12 or a K-12 basis,” he explained.
Some districts interested in merging asked the State Board of Education if they could tuition students and operate schools at the same time in the same merged district. The State Board took time over the summer to consider this possibility. Ultimately, the board came to the conclusion on Sept. 15 that the law would not allow both.
“They stated what the law is,” Francis said of the board’s action.
The decision he said cuts both ways for communities that want to participate in a merger but don’t want to forgo choice or that want to merge but want to keep operating local schools.
And that is the problem in Windsor Southeast. The supervisory union was looking at a merger plan that would have mingled choice for all students preK through 8th grade at the same time it would operate Windsor High School, according to Baker.
Early in the summer, the State Board of Education indicated Windsor Southeast would likely be able to proceed with this plan. However, when the board later scrutinized the plan more closely, they recognized that it wouldn’t work.
While Baker applauds the “hard work they did to figure out that difficult part of the law,” and he welcomes the clarification, he says it will “cause havoc” in his supervisory union.
“That option is off the table, we can’t do it anymore. We have to have everybody go to Windsor if we operate and if we have choice we have to get rid of Windsor,” Baker said.
Francis believes the General Assembly was deliberate in its efforts to “not impede” on a district’s ability to operate or offer choice. “They are just saying that if you are going to come together you have to make a decision,” and that provision of Act 46 is consistent with previous state statutes, including Acts 153 and 156.
Windsor is reluctant to open up to choice because it costs a lot to subsidize an all-choice district, according to Baker.
Holcombe says if a district prefers not to change its structure, it will have fewer merger options.
“There are different ways of delivering education and they have different implications for budgets,” Holcombe said. “What people should always go back to is: what are the goals for the kids and what is the best ways to provide that in the future? Most places that are moving forward have really focused on children.”
Baker would like to see the Legislature take up the school choice provision of Act 46 when they convene. “It isn’t just the media, this is a real issue and the Legislature is going to have to address it if they are serious about mergers and sustainability.”