By David F. Kelley
Editor’s Note: David Kelley is a Vermont attorney. He lives in Greensboro and is a 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, H.454 proposes using district consolidation as a cost-saving measure, along with a funding formula change aimed at containing spending.
With no proof that this tactic will actually save money (and plenty that suggests it will not), this legislation heads us in a dangerously 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. It severs ties between voters, communities, spending, and governance decisions.
Understandably, many superintendents want greater consolidation: bigger districts, fewer school boards, fewer meetings, and more control will make their jobs easier. But advantages for the 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 increasingly focused on creating a comprehensive system on 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.
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; and 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. Scott has called for; unfortunately, the real cost drivers are out of school boards’ control.
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.
Vermont values grew out of a rural economy and a deep, abiding commitment to community. If we want to build a healthier education system, then we need to reinvest in grassroots democracy with a renewed vitality in local decision-making.
