“The law has created a lot of confusion … the Legislature has an obligation to clarify its intentions for local boards, parents and property taxpayers,” Scott wrote.
In September, the State Board of Education (SBE) clarified that like districts should merge with like districts in the first phase of consolidation. That means that school districts that offer choice would not be eligible to merge with school districts that operate a school and vice versa.
SBE Chair Stephan Morse said that they reviewed Act 46 with existing law (16VSA 822) and concluded that it was not possible to create a school district offering both choice and operate a school for the same grade level. “The board did not take a philosophical or public policy position on this issue. We simply interpreted the statutes,” he added.
The concerns being raised by Republican lawmakers are legitimate, according to Eric Davis, a retired professor of political science from Middlebury College. “This is a complicated issue and I’m not sure the State Board of Education has interpreted the law in the same way some of the legislators that voted for it intended.”
Scott wrote that lawmakers from both political parties have come to him and said they wouldn’t have voted for the bill if they had realized it could remove school choice for their constituents.
“Most legislators I worked with believed that Act 46 would allow school choice communities the ability to keep their school choice and still merge with non-school choice towns. When we return to Montpelier in January, we will make every effort to give clarity to this issue and push to have communities with school choice, receive the option to merge and retain what they have,” Turner, R-Milton, stated in a statement.
Turner said that Act 46 doesn’t need to be changed, but the underlying education laws that the SBE used to make their determination do need tweaking. “I think we set some good goals in Act 46 and taxpayers are looking for some relief.”
The new education law encourages school districts to merge to create larger units with at least 900 students and streamlined governance structures during the next five years. Section 4 of the new law states that districts with school choice can’t be forced to give it up when they merge with another district and also, districts that operate a school can’t be forced to close their schools after merging.
Some operating districts had been considering merging with choice districts and asked the SBE for guidance. The SBE has to approve merger proposals before they can be brought back to their communities for a vote. The districts were thankful for the clarification from the board but were also frustrated by the decision because it limited their options.
Turner told VTDigger that when he voted on the bill he was imagining neighboring districts merging. While he says choice is not limited by the law, he didn’t imagine a choice district in the south merging with a choice district in the north because they were “like” districts. “I thought regionalization, so I think there is some clarification that needs to be made there.”
Scott agrees and wants the legislature to “make absolutely clear that the law allows districts with choice to preserve that option if they elect to merge with other districts. That is how Act 46 was presented, and “it’s their obligation to make sure Vermonters get what their legislators voted for.”
Turner suggested extending the grandfather provision in the law that allows for high school students to keep choice after a merger for four years by eliminating the deadline. The Republican Caucus will issue a proposal next month to deal with the underlying problem, he said.
Still, education experts working with the state school boards and superintendents say that such a fix would not bring the cost savings the state is looking for at it could cause small schools to close.
“To allow districts to operate and pay tuition is not going to help accomplish those goals (set forth in Act 46). It is a cost adder. It becomes very difficult to control costs and to plan when you’ve got districts that are both paying for and keeping a school open,” said Nicole Mace, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association. Mace referred to Concord High School where they both operated and tuitioned students to the point where the high school had to close because fewer students went and per pupil costs increased.
“We gain efficiencies through economies of scale but this becomes dicey when combining choice and operating districts,” said Jeff Francis executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association.
The law doesn’t need fixing, said Mace. “It will go too far in terms of exacerbating some of the trends and issues we are trying to address through this legislation,” she said.
