Valley News – Column: Gov. Scott’s ‘education transformation’ contains big flaws

Last week’s Valley News editorial asked whether Vermont is ready to overhaul its education system. Now that Gov. Phil Scott has presented his Education Transformation Proposal we have an answer — No.

Billed as “a plan to build stronger schools, stronger students, and vibrant communities,” Scott’s “education transformation” is driven by the need to save money and focuses primarily on two issues: funding and governance.

The plan makes a strong case for replacing the current school funding mechanism for Vermont; its complexity and failure to connect district budgets, local tax capacity and individual tax bills make it difficult for taxpayers to understand. In its place, the governor’s plan recommends adoption of a “student-based” formula, a method 36 other states use. Under this model, Vermont would use “an evidence-based base per-pupil funding amount” that would provide districts with “the resources needed for a student with no special needs in a district with no special circumstances, to receive a quality education.” That base amount would then be adjusted to provide districts with additional funding to support the needs of students who are economically disadvantaged, who require special education, or who need to learn English.

Such a system is easier to understand than the complicated and opaque system in place. But one only needs to look across the Connecticut River to see the biggest challenge with a student-based formula: defining “the resources needed for a student with no special needs in a district with no special circumstances.” New Hampshire law calls this funding level “an adequate education” and for nearly two generations legislators and school boards have litigated the definition of that term and the amount needed to cover the cost for it. Currently, New Hampshire budgets just over $4,100 to provide “an adequate education” to every child, a figure that Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff determined should be $7,352. As it stands now, the $3,252 difference in adequacy aid is downshifted to local districts, which raise property taxes to compensate for the state’s shortfall.

Earlier this year, the Vermont Legislature commissioned a report by Picus Odden and Associates to help determine a reasonable budget for K-12 spending. The report determined that Vermont’s current per pupil spending was roughly $16,900 per student with adjustments based on student circumstances. Given that funding baseline, Scott is proposing an “evidence based per pupil funding amount” of $13,200 per student with adjustments such as an extra $9,900 for at-risk students and another $19,800 for English language learners. In all, the governor’s proposed budget calls for $184 million less than the $2.324 billion currently budgeted. The result of this lower level of state funding will downshift the costs to local districts which, in the long run, will lead to the inequities between school districts that led to the Brigham lawsuits in the late 1990s.

So where might additional savings for public education be realized? Like many before him, Scott believes consolidating school districts will achieve greater efficiency and savings. This belief was buttressed by the Picus report’s contention that per pupil spending could be reduced to between $12,300 and $12,900 per pupil based on assumptions that required consolidating schools and districts. Scott proposes that Vermont move from 52 supervisory unions and 119 districts to five districts.

Based on my experience consulting with several Vermont school districts that attempted to implement consolidation plans in accordance with Act 46, I believe the governor and Legislature face one monumental obstacle in their effort to reduce the number of school districts: Vermont’s allegiance to local governance. Town, village and local school district governance structures pre-date the multi-town governance structures created to oversee public schools and in many cases a tension exists between the multi-town boards and local boards, a tension rooted in deep-seated demographic differences and perceptions among the towns within the district. These differences among communities cannot be changed by legislation. Given the challenge of unifying neighboring districts, it seems highly improbable that diverse towns from Bradford to the Canadian Border or from Windsor to the Massachusetts border will accept oversight from a single board.

Moreover, the resistance to consolidation I witnessed a few years ago is exacerbated by the suspicion we are witnessing today toward “big government.” I met fierce resistance from many townspeople when I engaged communities in dialogue on the benefits of governance by a large unified district as opposed to independent communities. Many board members and members of the public preferred hashing out budgets on a town-by-town basis to the “efficiency” of developing one centralized budget. Further, many in attendance expressed resistance to “Montpelier” dictating decisions like consolidation to their community.

After my consulting dozens of communities in Vermont, I came away convinced that achieving efficiency by consolidation of schools was the wrong approach, especially given the consensus among teachers, administrators, school board members and members of the public that schools played a vital and beloved role in their communities. They all seemed to realize and accept that many children need supervised child care before and after school, need readily available on-site health care and social services, and need nutritious snacks and meals.

If Scott and the Legislature are serious about transforming education, they might begin by recognizing that what the public expects from schools today is far different than what the public expected a half-century ago. Transforming schools will require much more than a tweak to funding mechanisms or the consolidation of governance structures: it will require a new look at the scope of education.

Wayne Gersen is a retired public school administrator. He lives in Etna.