This commentary is by Andrew K. Gentile, an electrical engineer who lives in Sheffield.
The Vermont Legislature recently approved $29 million for the Universal Meals Act. According to the act, studies “found that universal school meals programs in Vermont were associated with, among other benefits, improved overall school climate as a result of financial differences being less visible and improved readiness to learn among students overall.”
While offering meals to everyone might reduce the stigma of free lunches in the eyes of parents, it will definitely not fool the students into thinking they are all financial equals. It is also doubtful that there has been any objective, repeatable study of “improved overall school climate” based on free lunches.
However, if free lunches could be definitively linked to improved academic performance, I think more Vermonters would be accepting of the associated tax increase. From what I have learned about our schools, the lack of free lunches is the least of our problems, and if this is truly an attempt to improve student performance, it is a Hail Mary pass.
According to the academic proficiency summation on the Vermont Education Dashboard, for all academic categories listed, Vermont schools are in the state of “not meeting” any achievement objectives except graduation rate and college/career readiness. This appears to mean that every student graduates, whether or not they have achieved the required academic skills, and that the act of graduation is, in and of itself, considered to be sufficient preparation for college or career. For all subjects in all grades, the dashboard does not have a single assessment of “exceeding expectations.”
The dashboard also includes an “Equity Index” associated with each academic category, which is a measure of how well the school system ensures all students have an equal educational experience. For equity, we have the lowest possible score in every subject for every grade.
In our current, misdirected educational climate, achieving equity takes precedence over academics, exemplified by the fact that some schools have abolished homework on the grounds that not all students have equal internet access. Apparently pencil and paper have also been abolished.
Not included in the dashboard is a measure of student behavior and/or discipline, two critical requirements for learning. Misbehavior in the classroom is a crippling issue that any Vermont teacher can tell you about. The schools allow chronically disruptive students to remain in the classroom, thereby nullifying the learning environment for the rest of the students. One poorly behaved student can stop 20 more from learning anything.
In accordance with school policy, when a student is sufficiently unruly, or deemed a potential hazard to others, instead of expulsion, the school provides a full-time, paid attendant to manage the student, costing the state at least $50,000 per year. Intensive instruction assistants, also known as one-on-ones, remain at the side of the disobedient student for the entire school day, including trips to the bathroom. It is not uncommon for a student to have an assistance for the entire school year.
In 2020-21, Vermont spent $23,731 per student, which makes it one of the most expensive school systems in the country. Including an intensive instruction assistant, one problem student costs Vermont over $73,000 per year.
Vermont spends the most money on the worst students, while it fails to provide programs for the ambitious and the gifted, fearing that diversity in educational outcomes might make some students feel inferior. Such strategies might fool the parents into thinking all students are equal, but it won’t fool the students. AP classes or not, students know who is smart and who isn’t.
Academic expectations have been reduced to the lowest common denominator by a pointless focus on equity, a skill that will not help anyone ever to get a good job, except as an administrator in the Vermont school system. And instead of changing these absurd policies, Vermont’s answer to mediocre academics is to provide free lunches so some students can pretend they are not poor.
Equity is not a leading indicator of academic performance, and there is no compelling evidence that poor students or minorities are at a disadvantage in the classroom. The Stuyvesant High School in New York is a merit-based school where the minority enrollment is 82%, and 48% of students are economically disadvantaged. This school is ranked as one of the best schools in the country, and has produced four Nobel laureates. There is nothing wrong with being poor, and it certainly doesn’t limit a child’s learning potential.
Free lunches will not help Vermont’s academic performance, but removing problem students will. If a student’s behavior is so bad that he needs a security detail assigned to him, he belongs somewhere else.
The removal of disruptive students will improve the classroom for teachers who are trying to teach, for the students who are trying to learn, and — assuming there are at least two in each school — will save over $146,000 annually per school, enough to pay for breakfast and lunch for the entire school for the whole year. It would be beneficial to find a more suitable environment for troublesome students so that all students can get a free, appropriate public education, as is required by Vermont law
We spend enough money that we should have excellent schools. Students don’t need to pretend they are all smart and rich. Students need discipline, and they need to be challenged so they can reach their own unique potentials. Without discipline, they won’t learn anything.
