Editor’s note: This commentary is by Ward Heneveld, Ed.D., who is retired in Enosburgh after a career in education as a teacher, administrator, planner and program officer in Vermont, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and throughout Africa where he first taught in Kenya. He has worked in Vermont as a professor of education, as executive director of a community action agency, and as director of the School for International Training. After more than 10 years at the World Bank he was program officer for the Quality of Education in Developing Countries joint initiative of the William and Flora Hewlett and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations.
[F]or the last two years I have followed both the Vermont Legislature and Franklin County’s process to formulate and now implement school district unification according to Act 46. While I agree that unifying town school districts is a good idea, I am voting against the Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union’s (FNESU) unification plan for Bakersfield, Berkshire, Enosburgh, Montgomery and Richford.
Here’s the reasons: Act 46 is not designed well; the consultation process in our five towns has been inadequate in outreach, time and transparency; and the relentless advertising campaign in support of district unification pursued by the St. Albans Messenger and the district’s education establishment is so one-sided that I worry that they’ve missed important considerations.
The most obvious flaw in Act 46 was the unrealistic requirement that district budgets not increase by more than 2 percent this year. As soon as it became clear that increases in insurance costs and special education, expenditures outside of a board’s control, would for breaking this ceiling (duh!), the Legislature had to change the requirement.
Equally misunderstood by the legislators was the impact that district unification would have on school choice. Since the elimination of school choice was not clear in the law, the Vermont State Board of Education ruled that a town in a unified district will no longer have school choice for the grade levels that the town does not provide.
The Vermont House and Senate’s most egregious shortcoming was to think that the incentive of a temporary tax reduction could drive inclusive and creative planning for a change of this magnitude in less than a year. Apparently, our legislators and the education establishment that did most of the testifying to pass the law are not aware that the more people participate in designing a required change, the more they will own it. As any parent or boss knows, or should know, using rewards and punishments to force change may achieve acquiescence but usually not ownership.
Apparently, our legislators and the education establishment that did most of the testifying to pass the law are not aware that the more people participate in designing a required change, the more they will own it.
I observed in the Enosburgh School Board’s early meetings on unification that the options for the tax reduction drove the discussion. There was very little attention given to how to address the need for unification openly, creatively, and with time for community members to think through carefully the best design for a unified district. Act 46 outlines an approach that would allow more time (but eliminates the tax advantages). This option received little attention in the Enosburgh School Board meetings I attended before the Unification Committee was formed.
The town of Peacham provides a more sensible approach to thinking through unification. In Peacham a community group, not an Act 46 Unification Committee, has reviewed what the town’s education values and the school’s mission are and identified four options for the future. They are now researching how each option responds to the goals of Act 46. This process includes a community survey and an analysis of school activities and statistics to see how well the school is accomplishing the goals of Act 46. The study group will make recommendations to the town’s school board once their work is complete. If the FNESU towns had each undertaken a more fact-based and deliberative approach before forming a Unification Committee, we would not be facing a yes/no vote on a too-general unification plan on June 7.
On a personal emotional level I have been put off by the inundation of uncritical public explanations of all that unification will do for the education system and the students in it. The media (especially the St. Albans Messenger), local educators and the Unification Committee’s explanatory meetings with interested voters all reiterate over and over the same list of benefits to the school system, and presumably to students. They are probably right.
Still, I wonder why no one identifies and discusses possible downside consequences. As we all know, there are always unintended side effects when change occurs. I think the possible negative effects of the FNESU district unification may be on how communities feel about their schools and on how the school provides social glue for a town’s inhabitants. These topics were sufficiently ignored by the FNESU’s Unification Committee to cause one committee member to resign. With more care and more time, our five towns could work through these changes to design a unified district that improves educational offerings, reduces costs, and preserves the towns’ democratic commitment to and involvement in their schools.
At the FNESU Q&A meeting I attended last weekend there was reassurance that the new board would decide the details of how unification will work, including elements that will respond to maintaining community ownership of the schools. That may be so, and I have offered myself as a candidate for the new board because I’d like to help shape how the new district will work. However, I’m voting no on unification because I’m sure that it will be harder for us voters to have a say once the new organization is in place. I think it would be better to work more on designing the district town by town first so that we establish a district structure and operating procedures that improve both Vermont’s education system and Vermont’s commitment to local democracy. I am convinced that only then will the people in all five towns feel we still own our schools.
