Schoolchildren First

What should the focus of Vermont education policy be? Schools? Or Schoolchildren?

That’s the question posed by an important new report published July 17 by the Ethan Allen Institute, entitled Schoolchildren First. The goal of the report is to expand and improve high quality educational opportunities for all of Vermont's children. To achieve that goal, the report proposes to shift the focus of education policy from "schools" to "schoolchildren". Its plan would for the first time empower all the parents of all of Vermont's children to choose the kind of education that they believe is best for their children.

Everyone's child is different. Some thrive in a disciplined environment. Some do better with student-centered learning. Some prefer traditional subject matter. Some prefer a curriculum built around a theme, such as art, music, science, community service, or work opportunities. Some want moral and religious values integrated with their schoolwork.

About eight percent of Vermont’s parents choose independent schools, or homeschooling, as better for their children than public schools. If the parents are wealthy, this is easy. The parents of thousands of kids, however, make real sacrifices to make it possible for their children to attend what they think is the most suitable school, rather than saving the money and allowing the government to assign their child to a public school.

For 132 years parents in (today) 90 Vermont towns have had a choice of schools for their children to attend. In those towns parents can send their children to any public or independent school, in or out of the state, except for sectarian schools.

Schoolchildren First proposes to expand that educational choice system to all parents and all children in all towns of the state. It also proposes a tax credit mechanism that will generate private contributions to underwrite scholarships for pupils wishing to attend faith-based schools not now eligible to receive public tuition payments.

Schoolchildren First proposes no major departure in school financing. There is no magic pot of money that will allow the repeal of the two state property taxes. The report does propose to eliminate one of the state property taxes - the so-called sharing pool - by increasing the other state property tax. Much as most Vermonters would like to reduce the dependence on the property tax for the support of education, there appears to be no feasible way of doing so.

What about "local control"? "Local control" in education means to most Vermonters that local taxpayers vote local taxes to pay for local education. The Supreme Court put an end to that era with its Brigham decision. Despite some complicated accounting methods, the fact is that all the funds for education are now levied by the state, and disbursed by the state. Act 60 is leading the state into creating One Big School System. Running such a system from Montpelier is possible, but long distance management of a government education monopoly would not be good for Vermont's kids.

Schoolchildren First recognizes that the state will continue to levy all the taxes to support education. It proposes that instead of the state paying out the funds to 251 captive local school districts, the state pay the funds out to parents to enable them to choose the educational opportunities they think are best for their children. It replaces the disappearing "local control" at the town level with real "local control" at the family level.

Why all this now? Because, the report points out in detail, Act 60 is steadily running aground. Without the annual $36 million sharing pool subsidy (voted by the legislature in each of the past three years), support for Act 60 will steadily dwindle. The current business slowdown, plus the escalating fiscal demands of the Medicaid program, mean that there is not likely to be any surplus to bail out Act 60 in years to come.

More and more Vermonters are realizing that it’s time to find a replacement for Act 60. Schoolchildren First is a well-conceived replacement. It’s based on experience in other choice states like Florida and Arizona. It makes a strong case that the parental choice and competition among schools will go further to satisfy consumers - parents and their children - than a system where government makes the decisions for everybody’s child. It complies with the equity requirement of the Supreme Court’s Brigham mandate.

Not surprisingly, three liberal Democratic Senators (Shumlin, Rivers, and McCormack) called a news conference to denounce Schoolchildren First. They said that such a parental choice plan would undermine public schools; low income people would find that being able to choose their children’s school is “fool’s gold”; and it looked (to Sen. McCormack) like this plan was the creation of the much-despised (by him) “Christian Right”. It will be interesting to see how thoughtful Vermont parents respond to those attacks - especially parents who are unhappy with their child’s education and wish they could afford to choose a more suitable one, public or independent, secular or religious.

#####

July 2001