Ethan Allen Institute

February 25, 2010

To:     Senate Education Committee

From: John McClaughry

Re:     Education governance changes

 I regret that the likelihood of a winter storm this afternoon makes it impossible for me to make the trip down today – I appreciate the Committee’s invitation. Please let me offer these points for the Committee’s consideration.

Why are we reorganizing into a small number of districts? The Commissioner’s Transformation Policy Commission, which strongly recommends this, does not claim that it will save any money. It will make life simpler for superintendents – that’s a plus (for them).

It will supposedly result in greater learning opportunities for pupils within the regional districts. (This was the argument of Commissioner Scribner’s 1970 Vermont Design for Education, which failed.) Pupils could enjoy public school choice within the regional districts. The teachers union has no problem with this since all public schools are staffed by dues paying union members.

But what about pupils in the 90 tuition towns where pupils have for 140 years had genuine choice of public and approved independent schools?

I organized a meeting with the Commissioner on February 8 to get his position on preserving choice within the regional districts. (See attached memo). It was perfectly clear to everyone in the meeting that the Commissioner would not take a position on this important question.

The most likely effect of regionalizing districts will be to terminate parental choice for thousands of pupils who benefit from it.  This likely outcome was largely responsible for defeat of the similar Brownell bill in the 1994 legislature.

The Commissioner says that parental choice for the four independent academies would continue to be allowed (within their four regions only) – but not the other approved non-religious independent schools. Indeed, he is clearly uncomfortable with the smaller independent schools and wants them to achieve (costly) NEASC accreditation before they can accept tuition pupils.

This is the typical “educators know best” view of superintendents, commissioners, and teachers unions: “We’ll assign these kids to the schools they ought to be in, because we have education degrees and thus know their needs better than uneducated parents.”

The obvious solution, given the creation of regional districts, is to give all pupils choice of public and approved nonreligious independent schools within or without the new districts.

A less obvious and more sweeping solution is to simply end the debate over “governance” and “districts”: let every public school compete for pupils (and revenues) , and give parents a wide variety of choices among diverse providers.

In any case: do not swallow “reorganization” unless its advocates go on the record that it will reduce taxpayer expenditures; put in consequences for failing to keep their promises; and protect and enlarge parental choice wherever possible.