Editor’s note: This commentary is by Randall Szott, of Barnard, a writer, educator and library director who has lectured on education around the U.S. He is running for the Windsor 4-1 seat in the Vermont House of Representatives.
[I]n our larger political context we are witnessing a catastrophic erosion of faith in our institutions and thus a breakdown in our capacity to accept the legitimacy of their governance. In Vermont we have been mostly immune to this poisonous atmosphere, but signs of change are on the horizon.
Communities have been told that educational equity is of utmost importance yet the Agency of Education has just issued its Proposed Statewide Plan which further consolidates power for the advantaged (whether that be political, financial, geographic or demographic) at the expense of the disadvantaged. This is a ”trickle down” approach to education. Somehow we are all supposed to benefit when the privileged are given more resources.
Along with this, the use of euphemism is on the rise — we hear people pretend that merging “school governance structures” will not lead to “merging schools” which is somehow not school closure. And so when Vermont’s Act 46 Sec. 3(b) says, “it is not the State’s intent to close its small schools …” we have to cynically ask ourselves if the state’s intent is to get unified union boards to do so.
School districts were given the opportunity to vote on merger proposals that this plan seeks to impose, only to be told that the results of those votes were to be treated as mere, “community sentiment.” (p. 13 and throughout Proposed Statewide Plan) If it were mere sentiment, why did the state require such votes be duly warned? Why not solicit a poll? Why give the appearance of a procedure that would carry legal authority? This characterization is patronizing, much like Gov. Scott’s recent assertion that voters didn’t know what they were doing when they voted on school budgets.
Further feeding this atmosphere of distrust, we have the uncanny result that the Proposed Statewide Plan has recommended forced mergers for nearly every proposal in which there was not a structural or ongoing procedural reason it was not possible. It strains credulity to believe that the process was fair. The adversarial nature of the acting secretary’s response to Sec. 9 proposals is clear evidence of this. This stands in stark contrast to the nearly perfunctory approval of merger proposals, many of which were filled with soaring rhetoric about “expected savings,” “anticipated efficiencies,” and other proposed advantages to their plans. Those claims did not receive a point by point challenge, they were accepted prima facie.
It is unfortunate that the Proposed Statewide Plan does nothing to quell the fears that the process was a foregone conclusion. It is unfortunate that the hundreds of unpaid hours of work by volunteers was simply cast aside by paid employees of a state agency. It is unfortunate that the on-the-ground experience of local school boards has been glossed over in favor of procedural platitudes and bureaucratic doublespeak. It is unfortunate, but not surprising. This is a microcosm of this time of transition. I want to believe Vermont is better than this.
The State Board of Education has the ability to ensure that we are. In reviewing and making final judgement on the Statewide Plan, they must not myopically focus on Acts 46 and 49, but consider all state laws (most importantly Act 60). And they must not focus on the hollow technicality of laws, but on the greater good they are supposed to serve. They have latitude in implementing the acting secretary’s proposed plan, and owe it to posterity and the common good to utilize their discretion to restore trust in these fraught times.
