On January 10th, Rep. Laura Sibilia (I-Dover) introduced H.634 – An act relating to school closures and the designation of a public school to serve as the public school of the district. It is another salvo against Vermont’s 150-year-old school choice system, “tuitioning,” and the independent schools that thrive – along with their students – as a result of this highly popular and effective program.
The bill is not remarkable as the VTNEA and their allies (like Sibilia) are doing all they can while enjoying supermajority, veto-proof power to eliminate any competition for the public school monopoly – and plunder the spoils of the vanquished. What is more remarkable is Sibilia’s explanations for why she is submitting this bill.
At one point in her testimony she says, “I’m very nervous. I have seen within my district, around the state, rural communities that are in stress contemplating, we’re going to shut down [the failing local public school] and just give our kids choice.”
Well, if that’s what the voters in your district want, why wouldn’t you support the wishes of the people who elected you? And why wouldn’t families want the ability to send their kids to the best school around, public or independent, that fits their child’s and their family’s needs? Not only does this practice lead to better student outcomes, parents being more involved in their kids’ education, and generally more satisfaction with a school, it also increases the property values in the communities that have it.
Sibilia should know this because, as she says, “I represent both choice towns and non-choice towns in my district. And my pledge to my choice towns when I ran was, I will defend what you have.” So much for campaign pledges, as this bill intends to do away with that choice by forcing those districts to designate public schools that the kids would be forced to go to, eliminating options such as Burr & Burton Academy, the Long Trail School – not for nothing, two of the top performing schools in the state – as well as other independent schools in the region.
These are schools Sibilia acknowledges her constituents are “really happy to send their students to.” But, she wants to kill that happiness and force the kids to go to schools the parents would not be really happy to send them to. Why?
Sibila calls the independent schools “aggressive,” whatever that means in this context. I think it means not rolling over to do what she is telling them is best for them, their students and the communities they serve. And she is using this bill to punish the Academies because, she is “extremely [emphasis in the original] disappointed that they have not come to the table [and accept designation]… “which I have districts that will not. They refuse.” For good reason. Let’s hope they continue to stand up to this bully.
Now, the spin Sibilia is trying to put on her position is that expanded school choice would “leave rural communities behind. “We simply don’t have the ability to do that with the number of buildings, with the terrain, with the transportation, with the dollars…. So, I will never support it.” Which begs the question, has the woman ever been to the Northeast Kingdom?
The NEK is the most rural region of our state, with some of the most challenging terrain. It also has near universal school choice, in many parts full school choice from K through 12. They have figured out the transportation. They spend on average less money per student and get better than average outcomes. Parents can choose schools like St. Johnsbury Academy – a top school in the state – Lyndon Institute, Thaddeus Stevens, Riverside, as well as public school options in Vermont and New Hampshire. It works! It works great.
Forcing tuitioning districts to designate public schools creates an issue even the House Education Committee Chair, Peter Conlon (D-Cornwall), certainly no friend of school choice, called out. “If the issue is geography, one could foresee a small high school closing, and the nearest high school is one of the four academies, and this would remove that as an option. And, I guess, some might say that doesn’t seem logical. [It’s not.] How would you respond to that?”
She gave a non-answer, but a revealing one. “This is an extraordinarily challenging opportunity, and if we can agree on what the problem is that we want to solve, and we can all come together we can solve it…. Again, I point to where are the academies? The academies are driving toward market-based solutions. And that doesn’t work for me.”
So that’s the problem she wants to solve: Letting her constituents decide what’s best for themselves and their families doesn’t work for her. She opposes a proven effective model that many of her constituents have and more want because under that model she doesn’t get the control – people do. That doesn’t work for her, and sadly it doesn’t work for most of the lawmakers in that building.
Conlon said he looks forward to discussing the bill in his committee further.
