As I have noted in past observations of the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont, this collection of special interest group lobbyists has no real desire to solve the property tax/education finance crisis facing Vermonters today. Their objective, quite to the contrary, is to keep the money flowing unhindered and unquestioned into their own coffers. And, to further that true objective, what this Commission is really trying to do is exploit this crisis to cut off funding for Vermont’s highly successful and popular tuitioning system and the independent schools that thrive under it. Don’t let them get away with it!
A point of debate that took place during the recent Caledonia County senate campaign between Scott Beck (R) and Amanda Cochrane (D) highlights why those with a serious interest in reforming our education finance and delivery systems should be emulating and expanding rather than dismantling Vermont’s school choice system. What sparked this teachable moment was Cochrane’s “Yes” answer to a VTNEA survey question asking if she agreed with the union’s position that “public dollars should flow only to public schools or those schools that abide by all the rules and requirements of public schools. In short, public schools or public rules.”
That is – not surprisingly given the VTNEA, Vermont Superintendents’ Association, and Vermont Principals’ Association dominance of the not-really-reform Commission – the policy position presently being advanced by said Commission. It became an immediate problem for Cochrane, though, because she happened to be running for office in the district that is home to St. Johnsbury Academy, Lyndon Institute, and a number of other independent schools that serve hundreds of students and their families through the tuitioning program. Oops.
Calling Cochrane to the carpet, St. Johnsbury Academy Headmaster Sharon Howell explained in an article in the Caledonian Record why that policy position would be detrimental to the Academy’s ability to deliver higher quality education to its students at, on average, less cost to the taxpayer.
[F]unctioning under the same set of rules [as government schools], Howell said, “would not make sense, and would even keep us from doing some of the things we do so well.”
The ability to recruit teachers, staff and administrators even if they aren’t licensed as educators is an important difference. “We can hire artists to teach art, scientists to teach science, and educators from higher ed with advanced degrees,” she said. “We develop our own curriculum. We manage our operations like the non-profit organization we are, rather than adhering to management rules that are specifically designed for the public school system made up of superintendents, supervisory unions and school districts.”…
“Our independence gives us flexibility: we can offer unique programs, experiences, and environments when we determine they will benefit learning, and we can respond creatively to challenges as we identify them,” she said. “Our independence ensures that we can continue to serve and support our local students at a high level regardless of their special needs or their ability to pay. We don’t want to be a school that only wealthy families can access, and the current Vermont public tuition system allows us to maintain that equity of opportunity for the students who choose us.”
Hmmm. So, having your child taught science by an actual scientist who is not a union flack can be cheaper. Ditching multiple levels of bureaucracy is more efficient than dealing with them, more effective for creative problem solving, and saves money, too. Being able to accept students from a broader geographic footprint allows for a more economically diverse student body. Overall, it is of higher quality and lower cost. Eureka!
In 2023-24, the state-approved tuition rate for independent high schools was $18,266 (it is $19,774 for the current school year). According to the NEA, the average per pupil spending in the government public schools in 2023-24 was $27,436 (I couldn’t find an estimate for the current year, but given the property tax increases we all just experienced, it’s more.) $18,266 is a 33% discount from $27,436. Now, which of these systems should we be scrapping in favor of the other?
It’s not like government-run public schools are giving us a higher-quality product for all of that money. The Vermont Agency of Education’s recently published “Vermont State of Education Profile” paints a dim and getting dimmer view of public school student outcomes.
And, no, Vermont’s publicly funded independent schools aren’t succeeding (where government-run public schools are failing) because the former are allowed to discriminate in any way. Any school that receives public money has to abide by both state and federal anti-discrimination laws, and independent schools are just the same as public schools.
So, this Commission should be looking at how we can make the government-run publicly funded system operate more like publicly funded independent schools. In a nutshell, with a set per-pupil tuition amount, but more freedom at the local level to creatively problem-solve with the available resources, allowing for cuts to non-classroom/non-schoolhouse bureaucracy.
The farcical clown car that is the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont won’t do this because they are, by and large, there to represent the non-classroom/non-schoolhouse bureaucracy, the non-scientists teaching science and non-artists teaching art crowd. But the legislature can certainly take up this line of reform when they get back in January. Let them know that they should!
Oh, and for those wondering and who may have missed it, Scott Beck wiped the floor with Amanda Cochrane on November 5th. Congratulations, Senator-elect Beck!
If you would like to donate by check, email me at steve@granitegrok.com.
