This commentary is by David F. Kelley of Greensboro. He is an attorney and the former chair of the Hazen Union School Board. He was part of the legal team that represented more than two dozen rural elementary school districts that appealed forced mergers under Act 46.
The road to education reform in Vermont has been long and winding, and we are at another crossroads. Driven by increasingly unaffordable property tax bills, House bill H.454 attempts to use district consolidation as a cost-saving measure along with a funding formula change meant to contain spending.
With no proof that this tactic will actually save money (and plenty that suggests it will not), this legislation heads us dangerously in the wrong direction. We need to look both ways before we go any further down this road.
H.454 proposes a massive transfer of power. If it is enacted, taxpayers will no longer get to vote on their school budgets. Rather than the checks and balances between local and state power, school spending will be determined by the governor and the Agency of Education.
Additionally, this legislation will not only take away voters’ power to control local spending, but also the power over whether their school remains open. It severs ties between voters, communities, spending and governance decisions.
It’s understandable that many superintendents want greater consolidation: bigger districts, fewer school boards, fewer meetings and more control will make their jobs easier. But advantages for central office come with costs.
Those school boards and meetings instill leaders with an understanding of the communities they serve. The movement toward greater consolidation is movement away from local input, community engagement and informed democracy.
The Legislature and administration spent the winter largely stymied on education reform, attempting to choose from among vastly unwieldy, universally unpopular proposals that do not address the real issues. Policymakers have become obsessed with creating a system with a larger scale.
But Vermonters understand that size and scale have little effect on either fiscal responsibility or academic quality. Quality and cost should be the indicators receiving the most scrutiny. High-quality, cost-effective schools and districts come in all shapes and sizes.
As we have already seen in Roxbury and Westford, the gravitational pull of the big towns on consolidated boards causes the closure of rural schools. Quite frankly there is no data to suggest that dynamic solves either our fiscal or academic problems. In fact, it may exacerbate them.
But answers have emerged from a source that should not surprise us: our communities. Common-sense, bottom-up solutions are being offered by the 97 towns that make up the Rural School Community Alliance. RSCA has offered testimony that is well-documented, fact-based and articulately presented.
The Alliance reminds us that elementary-aged children should be educated close to home, and that elementary schools are fundamental to a thriving community. They warn that closing rural schools will not fix Vermont’s problems and could create damaging new ones. They stress the need for an education funding system that provides immediate tax relief to low- and middle-income Vermonters and distributes education funds equitably, while strengthening high-quality education.
Before we pass a bill, we need to:
1) Carefully consider Vermont data. We need fiscal analysis of each district to know what produces good outcomes at sustainable costs and what doesn’t.
2) Implement a public school approval and certification process using professional panels made up of Vermont experts who visit schools to make recommendations about budgets as well as programs.
3) Model the real financial impacts of any changes including accounting for transition costs. Guessing about future tax impacts is not good enough. It’s dangerous to assume scale will deliver on cost effectiveness and quality.
Local school boards have long delivered and managed the tough decisions Gov. Phil Scott has called for; unfortunately, the real cost drivers are out of school boards’ control. Clearly, there is real work to be done at the state level.
Legislators should focus on getting health care costs under control and tackling the education fund by moving non-education needs into the general fund where they belong. They can address immediate tax relief for moderate income households by updating the outdated income sensitivity thresholds (so-called “tax cliffs”) without waiting to rewrite the entire funding formula.
Vermont values grew out of a rural economy and a deep, abiding commitment to community. Community is the singular, non-monetizable asset that has long helped Vermont’s policies work at a human scale. Vermont’s schools reflect this history.
Our system has evolved over generations springing from community, history and geography, and we need to respect the organic connections between people and place. Rather than attempting to control these from the top down, we need to listen to their messages and utilize their strengths.
Above all, if we want to build a healthier education system, then we need to help Vermont get back to her most fundamental values. We need to reinvest in grassroots democracy with a renewed vitality in local decision-making.
