Editor’s note: This commentary is by William J. Mathis, of Goshen, who is vice chair of the Vermont State Board of Education and managing director of the National Education Policy Center.The views expressed are solely those of the author.
[W]ith shades of déjà vu, another state school reform proposal has thudded down; this one touted as a vision of a “modern education system.” Unfortunately, it is more a remnant of a failed past rather than a view of a promising future. It is a mélange of 30 years of unsuccessful neoliberal reforms with non-Vermonty authoritarian overtones. Most puzzling, this new “blueprint” proposes unsupported solutions to undefined problems.
The Phantom Problem — Claiming an “overly complex system … as the chief cause of our inefficiency” (with no documentation or proof for either end of this vague claim), a single statewide school system is proposed eliminating school boards, superintendents and all but vestigial citizen involvement. Overlooked is the research that tells us that highly centralized systems perform less efficiently. We might also look back to Vermont’s past where over 25 such plans entertained us during the past century. These schemes crashed for, in large measure, separating the people from their schools.
It is a particularly strange time for such a tone-deaf proposal. Thoughtful observers across the nation caution us about disempowering the citizenry, the dangerous decline in civic participation, and unchecked commercial and government agents collecting and misusing data.
Defining the “Inefficiency” – The plan rightly says we must have “quality data.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t use quality data. Beginning with the oft-quoted, misquoted and very important cost of education, the blueprint uses national union estimates to claim Vermont spending is $23,557 per pupil as compared to a national average of $11,787. There is no need to rely on “estimates.” Official government numbers are available. The real numbers show Vermont spends a smaller amount than reported of $19,627 and the nation spends a greater amount at $13,474. To be sure, Vermont still has higher per pupil expenditures but a data driven plan missing the real number by $6,000 per student (about 25%) raises eyebrows. While the blueprint says that Vermont spending is not decreasing at the same rate as the decline in students, that’s not the whole picture. The nation’s spending went up 3.9% while Vermont went down 3.2%
“Design Team” vs. Democratic Participation — The blueprint begins with a return to the past invoking the spirit of the 1968 Vermont Design. But the contrast is inappropriate. Vermonters of that day embraced citizen participation with great fervor. As befits a democracy, the Vermont Design involved citizens from every town, village and walk of life. In contrast, the new blueprint was developed by an unnamed “small design team, based on expertise and experience.” This exclusion of the public is justified by saying, “A design strategy is more applicable to the Vermont context since Vermont will be facing a series of adaptive challenges that will require new solutions” (p.7). The reader is left adrift as to what such a vague proclamation means. It is certainly true that life is a series of challenges requiring new solutions but such fuzzy and rhetorical abstractions provide no substance, guidance nor rationale.
Back to the Past: Our Real Problem — There are two fundamental omissions:
The first is the absence of emphasis on improving the quality of education. Beyond having a state curriculum which the state would “supervise and coordinate,” little is said. If we value the diverse talents of children, we must also value building long boats, studying around campfires in snowfields, and peering at galaxies.
The second is the absence of purpose. Our biggest problem is the achievement gap. The blueprint presumption is that a grand unified school system will somehow solve this problem. It lacks a guiding star. Education’s primary role is to maintain and strengthen a democracy. It is a universal public good and draws its power from the people, generously and fairly shared among all children. It is about the core values and necessities of a civilization. It is the continuous building and rebuilding of knowledge, skills and community. Perhaps our ancestors had the better view and the more accurate instincts. Rather than an aggressive surrender to the fears of the present, we are better served to go back to the best of our future.
