Editor’s note: This commentary is by Dottye Ricks, of Graniteville, who is a retired teacher and school administrator and former Spaulding Union School Board member.
[O]n Jan. 31, Barre Town voters will be forced to vote again on district Act 46 consolidation plans. I encourage all Barre Town voters to go to the polls or vote by early ballot and vote No on those plans. A strong voter turnout can help, again in defeating these plans.
In November, Barre Town voted a resounding No on consolidation. In spite of that, the Act 46 Study Committee decided to force another vote with no changes to their plan. Barre Town taxpayers will foot the bill for this forced revote, not Barre City voters whose representatives strongly pushed for it.
Since then Barre City has revealed that its school budget will increase by three quarters of a million dollars. If consolidation occurs, Barre Town taxpayers will take on that additional funding through increased taxes. And in a combined budget, taxpayers will not know what monies will be spent on Barre Town and what monies on Barre City. Depending on need, it is conceivable that the whole budget of an item, such as “building repairs” could go to one school in any given year, but we as taxpayers will not know that nor have any say in where our dollars go.
Another concern for Barre Town is that all assets and indebtedness will be shared. This means that Barre Town will take on Barre City’s indebtedness and turn over their savings, surpluses, investments and buildings to a pool used by both town and city. On the proposed consolidated mega school board, Barre City directors will have direct voting control over former Barre Town assets and depending on who is in the majority, Barre Town can lose control of what they have worked so hard to contribute to their local school.
Act 46 was supposedly designed to promote educational equity and quality schools. Currently Barre Town and Barre City schools meet or exceed state test averages. Yet when the populations are combined at Spaulding High School, test scores fall. In individual schools with individual school boards, we have already achieved quality. Do we want to lose that committed direct, local control of each school that has worked so well for our children in exchange for another consolidated model that for whatever reasons has not?
Do we want to lose that committed direct, local control of each school that has worked so well for our children in exchange for another consolidated model that for whatever reasons has not?
As to equity – please read the Voices for Vermont’s Children analysis of the inequity in Vermont schools. Nothing proposed in the Act 46 plan addresses equity concerns – in fact, consolidation can impede equity.
Finally, please recognize the scare tactics used in promoting this act. We are warned that we have to approve these plans just as they are or “the State” will force their own version of consolidation — even though Barre closed their small rural schools years ago and currently meet enrollment numbers for consolidation. It is true that the Department of Education and the State Board of Education are interpreting Act 46 in the most draconian possible ways and are recalcitrant about options other than their own. However, they are also bound by Act 46 to seek equity and quality in school planning. I may be wrong but I cannot see them seeking to ruin our successful schools in retaliation nor come up with their own plan without considerable study and review.
Through our representatives and state legislative committees, I do believe Barre Town can seek relief from both state agencies in their power grab to determine local school control. Personally, I am sorry for Barre City in their budget dilemmas. However, I believe there are other ways to help with their issues instead of putting the burden on Barre Town taxpayers and drastically decreasing local voter control and an engaged community.
I strongly encourage you to go to the polls on Jan. 31 and vote No on Act 46.
