Editor’s note: This commentary is by Markus Vogt, a longtime state licensed teacher with experience both in public and independent schools. In 2003, he co-founded East Burke School, a state-approved independent school for students in grades 8 through 12, where he is president of the board of directors.
[A]s you have widely covered in this publication, the Vermont State Board of Education (SBE) is proposing changes to rules that govern the state approval of independent schools. Despite a resounding rebuke from the Interagency Committee on Administrative Rules, the SBE is determined to charge ahead anyway. The Vermont Independent Schools Association rightfully summarizes these proposed changes this way:
“The general thrust of the SBE proposals is to make approved independent schools operate more like the public schools and to imply that independent schools have unmet duties to students and the state. This thrust, which runs counter to explicit state policy, is counterproductive and is an improper characterization.”
I would just like to mention four examples here to support this assessment of improper characterization:
1. Independent schools have been trailblazers and models for public schools. Consider that some public high schools in Vermont (North Country Union High School comes to mind) have in the last few years experimented with the idea of breaking up their big institutions into academies. The academy idea is a prime example of where independent schools have been leaders for decades. The system that is now supposed to control independents is a very late-comer to the academy idea: Ski, tennis, soccer and other athletic academies plus a bunch of arts and even science academies have been around for decades — outside of the public education system.
Project-based learning and personal learning plans are other ideas that did not originate in the public school system but are now emulated there.
The SBE rule changes jeopardize innovative educational ideas and practices. They require independents to become more like what’s always been there and what can’t get out of a seemingly eternal top-down reform loop that tends to drain the energy and enthusiasm of everyone involved in public education.
2. Independents are also supposed to become more like public schools in that they can employ only state-licensed teachers.
Project-based learning and personal learning plans are other ideas that did not originate in the public school system but are now emulated there.
At a personal level I can say that I have been state licensed here in Vermont for about 20 years. State licensure hasn’t made a lick of difference in the quality of my teaching. If the SBE wanted to know what even teachers within the system think of the teacher licensing requirements here in Vermont, it would get an earful of complaints.
The only one benefitting from this licensure requirement, as far as I can tell, is the state treasurer, who has by now cashed checks from me worth about $1,000 for relicensing fees.
3. The proposed new rules also mention accountability and quality control and ask for outside evaluators. I submit to the SBE that the ultimate quality control does not lie in the rule (sometimes tyranny) of best practices, but in what the student and her parents think about the education they receive. If the education we provide doesn’t meet their needs, they can simply walk out the door and take their public tuition money with them.
In the public school system, a student can be unsuccessful again and again, and there is no way out except to drop out.
4. Lastly, the special education requirement. I co-founded East Burke School back in 2003. By design and mission, we don’t ever want more than 20 students at our school; right now there are 10. We have had years with an enrollment of eight. The SBE rule changes would require us to staff for covering all categories of learning disabilities — for what? We won’t ever have enough students to make this a reasonable requirement.
We have had successful instances of collaboration with the local public school system where everyone agreed that a student would be better served at our small independent school and would continue to receive special education services two times a week at the local middle school. That is a reasonable approach.
The proposed rule changes and the way the SBE goes about their implementation simply tell me that the public education system is solely interested in the tuition funds that our small, state approved independent school receives from the local supervisory union to do our work. They would not think twice about legislating us out of existence to the benefit of the public school system (which doesn’t even run a high school in this area) and to the detriment of all the students who have often had only one choice left in their educational path to success: a high-quality school small enough to pay attention to them as a whole person with all their strengths, weaknesses, fears, misconceptions and dreams.
Anyone interested in this issue can participate in a meeting called by the SBE to gather stakeholder input. This meeting takes place on Tuesday, Dec. 6, at 6 p.m. at St. Johnsbury Academy’s Fuller Hall.
