Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jay Eshelman, of Westminster, who is a business owner and a former Work Force Investment Board and River Valley Technical Center board member.
[C]ontinuing with John McClaughry’s “Vermont’s Shaky State Government” commentary and some of the related discussion suggesting that Mr. McClaughry’s and my “thought and brain power should be used to talk about real detailed solutions” as opposed to “pointing out problems that are well known,” I’d like to take this opportunity to reiterate what I have often presented as a specific detailed solution, both in formal VTDigger commentary and in its “join the discussion” format.
Suffice it to say, I was not aware that this degree of specificity was a prerequisite for legitimacy or for publication. Nonetheless, I ask Digger readers to accept my apology for the oversight, consider this continuation of the discussion, and, yet again, consider the following suggestion.
Some background: Mr. McClaughry referenced, among other issues, the implementation of Act 46, “the Legislature’s ‘solution’ (a)s not property tax relief, but consolidation into mega-districts,” the “inevitable growth of educational bureaucracies” and its “practical effect of shrinking parental choice in education,” all with which I am in agreement.
I then referenced my concern over Mr. McClaughry’s evaluation of Vermont’s environment, I took issue with the performance of our schools, our crime rate and the assessment that Vermont has a reliable workforce. I based my concern on what I’ve experienced and learned, having lived in Vermont for 40 years as a parent of children who attended our state school system, as a former school board director and as an employer somewhat experienced with Vermont’s workforce.
This proposed solution is simple to implement because it’s already a significant and time-tested aspect of Vermont’s current education statute.
It is in this context that I make the following recommendation, not as a substitute for or replacement of the various “other real solutions” put forth by our legislators or by those advocating solutions that have yet to be put forth, but as a specific solution implemented in conjunction with all of the above.
Specifically then, increase the scope of VSA T16 § 822. (c)(1) to include all grades, preK-12. Provide that a school district “may both maintain … and furnish … education by paying tuition: (A) to a public school as in the judgment of the school board may best serve the interests of the students; or (B) to an approved independent school or an independent school meeting education quality standards if the school board judges that a student has unique educational needs that cannot be served within the district or at a nearby public school.”
I make no other recommendations at this time, because, in my experience as a businessman, making numerous changes to complex operating procedures at once, as our legislators all too often do, limits the capacity to assess the success of any specific aspect of that change.
And it’s important to understand that increasing the scope of VSA T16 § 822. (c)(1) does nothing to prevent the implementation of the several and various other state school governance modifications listed in the current Act 46 legislation or the administrative interpretation thereof. However, increasing the scope of VSA T16 § 822. (c)(1) will allow parents to choose alternatives to the state school system should its success prove less than the expectations of its supporters.
Whether or not school choice “tuitioning” will improve Vermont’s environment, state schools performance, crime rate or the reliability of its workforce remains to be seen. But the same can be said for the implementation of Act 46, not to mention the dubious success of the many preceding legislative efforts to date.
As abstract as the correlation may seem, my experience convinces me that school choice is the first and best tangible next step toward making improvements — to all of the issues listed above. Nonetheless, what do we have to lose by the effort? At the very least, if current tuitioning costs are any indication, it will allow parents to choose education alternatives at less cost to taxpayers.
This proposed solution is simple to implement because it’s already a significant and time-tested aspect of Vermont’s current education statute. It offers choice and flexibility, not a mandate. If the state school system is everything its supporters believe it will be, parents can, and should, choose it. At the same time, those who may disagree will have alternatives that in no way detracts from the sensibilities of state school supporters. We all win.
