Commentary

Burns: Substantial equality, not bloated bureaucracy

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By John J. Burns

John Burns

As a candidate for one of two State Representative seats in the Washington -2 district, I have been looking deeper at things that have created the current inefficient school funding system. Starting with the Brigham decision the State was put on a path to do a better job of equalizing disparities between school districts’ ability to fund their schools. In Brigham, the Vermont Supreme Court decreed  that the state needed to ensure “substantial equality of educational opportunity.”  Substantial equality. Also the Court noted that ‘absolute equality’ was an impractical requirement. 

Following the Brigham decision in 1997 the Legislature hastily launched our education funding system with Act 60 that same year. This system was adjusted numerous times over the ensuing years, and in 2022 they added Act 127, an attempt to make school funding even more equal. Act 127 creates a complex and illogical ‘pupil weighting’ which effectively results in a school funding system isolated from voter understanding and responsible for new inequities between school districts as they compete against each other for funding. 

The evolution of the education funding system over the 27 years since Brigham amounts to a quest towards the noble-sounding yet impossible goal of ‘full equality’. We always want to make things more equal where practical, however, there is the inconvenient truth that some kids are better at math or reading, there are different learning styles, and some kids will flourish in a machine shop instead of the classroom.

Still, the school system is on a quest for ‘full equality’ despite all of these factors. This quest will ensure that the massive machinery of the Vermont school system with its highest in-the-country ratio of staff to students stays sufficiently overfunded. The education system has become an entrenched and bloated bureaucracy, concerned primarily with perpetuating itself,  which is the nature of a bureaucracy.

It is especially entrenched in this case because it leverages the sentiment of ‘we must do everything for children’ and who is willing to go against that? Along with the nation’s highest staff-per-student ratio, Vermont has declining students, the second highest per-pupil education costs, and declining student proficiency, as related once again by WCAX this past week.  School (over)spending is not reaching the children, but certainly is maintaining a bloated bureaucracy. 

Act 127, in section 19, proclaims a quest for a ‘fully equitable and progressive’ education finance system. Fully equitable. Remember the Brigham decision required ‘substantial equality’, and now in 2022 it seems that Act 127 has evolved this into ‘fully equitable’. Equality and equity are different, with equity being more difficult to achieve, but our legislature is on that quest to make things fully equitable, reaching far beyond the ‘substantially equal’ mandate set by the Brigham decision. Fully equitable is an impossible goal, however, the enduring pursuit of this and the unlimited supply of funding that it requires will keep the entrenched bureaucracy managing our inefficient education system very satisfied for as long as we allow it.

I hope this short commentary sparked your interest, and that you will visit my website for a more detailed version, including sources and examples. And solutions. Many solutions have been proposed and ignored for years. If you elect me to represent this district I am willing to go against the prevailing sentiments perpetuating the current system and implement some of these solutions.  


Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Commentary

6 replies »

  1. Mr. Burns, while your web site addresses Vermont’s education system, it misses the point that the Brigham Decision is *not* about ‘equality’ per se. It’s about ‘equality of educational *opportunity*’. In other words, it stipulates equal access, not equal outcome.

    Ergo the H.405 School Choice bill languishing in the House Education Committee. H.405 seeks to remedy the unequal access to educational opportunity that is currently afforded only to a minority of Vermont students. H.405 allows *all* students to have the same *opportunity* to choose the educational program they believe is best for them. Again, it’s a choice that only a minority of Vermont students already have.

    In my district, for example, I was able to choose from between a dozen different schools and programs, in both independent and traditional public settings, because I was in a district that provided School Choice Tuitioning.

    See 16 V.S.A. § 821 &. § 822. School Choice Tuitioning is available in 90 or so Vermont school districts to some extent. School Choice Tuitioning is an educational opportunity. But only a minority of students have access to Tuitioning. According to the Brigham decision, that’s unconstitutional.

    Not only does H.405 seek to remedy that inequality of opportunity, School Choice for all has been shown, over and again, to improve outcomes and save taxpayer money.

    • H. Jay, the ‘opportunity’ part was not lost to me, It was included in the Brigham quote. I’m trying to prompt some new thinking, in little bites. In so many areas of society we have moved from ‘equal opportunity’ to ‘equal outcome’ and thats probably too much input to help fix this education finance mess. I appreciate your input, esp. regarding H. 405, I’ll learn the details. JB

  2. In reply to H. Jay, I don’t know why the reply button didn’t work, but i’ll try this. Education ‘opportunity’ was not lost on me, and I agree, but thats probably too deep for this initial level of attempted reform. Small bites. Thanks for the 405 reference

    • Thank you for the reply/ies, John. And thank you for considering H.405. I hope you will follow up with me as the inevitable application questions arise. Suffice it to say at this time, establishing a voluntary educational free market through H.405 is not only the most effective education reform available to us, academically and financially, it’s the simplest reform governance to implement.