There is widespread agreement that the State Board of Education is ripe for reform. Its own chair, John Carroll, has kicked off the conversation, arguing the board needs to let go of some of its current responsibilities in order to do more big-picture thinking.
But Carroll isn’t exactly ready to give up quite as much power as Dan French, Vermont’s Secretary of Education, would like him to.
Despite Vermont’s tradition of local control, and the board’s reduced authority following reforms in 2012, the body continues to play a pivotal role in the state’s education system. It was granted the final call on mergers under Act 46, Vermont’s controversial school district consolidation law. And Act 173, the state’s sweeping special education reform, will be implemented through regulations the board adopts.
French often argues the state’s balkanized preK-12 system needs more centralization and “policy coherence.” To that end, he has suggested the board give up nearly all rule-making authority, save for regulations having to do with independent schools and school district boundaries.
Carroll, meanwhile, says that the 11-member body is closer to the people, and better positioned to solicit public input from those directly impacted by state policies. He would like to see the board retain the power to write the rules on a much larger roster of subjects, including special education, employee licensing, and school quality.
Speaking in committee to French and Carroll on Wednesday, Senate Education chair Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden, told the two men he thought they could likely meet in the middle.
“It’s very close. And if we were to look at this as a first, incremental change, it seems there’s a good deal of agreement that’s represented here,” Baruth said – before Carroll cut in.
“Really not,” the latter retorted.
Still, Baruth said he was committed to finding a compromised path forward instead of dropping the subject entirely. Otherwise, he said, the conversation could be hijacked by those who would like to see the board disbanded entirely.
“So I would prefer to make a guided step toward a new duty split between AoE and board which may well not be permanent,” he said.
In interview, Krista Huling, the state board’s former chair, said the board should hold on to important rule-making authority, even if it offloads more administrative functions to the agency. The board creates an extra point of contact for the public and lends transparency to the rule-making process, she said.
But she also argued the board’s independence is undermined by the fact that it has no budget and no staff, and instead relies on the agency for support. This is an oft-made point – particularly by board members – although the question of providing the body with a regular appropriation is considered a moot point in the Legislature.
The board has, on occasion, hired its own legal counsel. Huling said she fought for one-time funding to retain an independent lawyer, for example, when the board was in the final phase of the Act 46 process. But she said the board can’t do its job properly unless it has adequate resources.
“Otherwise, they’re dependent on the agency. Which they’re supposed to be checking,” she said.
