|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In response to “Gov. Phil Scott’s education plan would create an optional school choice lottery in every district” (VT Digger, 2/6/25)
by H. Jay Eshelman
Governor Scott’s proposal is clearly trying to straddle two governance concepts. On the one hand we have continued clamoring for School Choice (the H.89 School Choice bill). On the other hand, we have H.122, the complete and total control of education by special interest groups, obviously interested in the single largest revenue stream in the State ($2.7 Billion).
This Scott/Saunders ‘plan’ is a typical political compromise, replete with the vague and undefined provisions that will not only continue but exacerbate the status quo – specifically, the chaos, academic dysfunction and outrageously high costs to taxpayers. It’s overly complicated, with oodles of operational details yet to be determined by various committees, existing and yet to be established. And we all know how that process works out.
Who, in the five districts, gets to ‘designate’ the private schools allowed to be in the lottery? What about private school governance and curriculum? What about out-of-state schools? What about religious schools? What about homeschooling? How are costs controlled? How are student outcomes improved?
Because this is a far more complicated set of circumstances of which most people are unaware, the pitfalls are just as obscure… and numerous.
There are two school bills currently being tossed around. The H.89 School Choice bill that simply expands Vermont’s existing and centuries old School Choice tuitioning – and H.122 submitted by VT NEA advocates, that not only eliminates all School Choice in Vermont, it gives all authority to the State Board of Education and as yet non-existent committees and commissions. H.122 severely limits private school curriculum to be carbon copies of the one-size-fits-all State controlled public schools.
There is no doubt that the H.89 School Choice bill is the way to go. It’s simple. It’s easy to implement. It does everything and more of what is proposed by Scott and Saunders… with little if any hidden restrictions. Basically, H.89 takes Vermont’s existing and time-tested tuitioning governance and allows all students in Vermont to have the same choices, from elementary school (PK-6) thru high school. No more committees. No more commissions or study groups. No politics. No special interest lobbying. Just parents using the Annual Announced Tuition voucher to send their children to the education program they believe best meets the needs of their children.
Keep this in mind. Currently, there are only 72,093 full-time equivalent K-12 students in Vermont’s $2.7 Billion public education system. Do the math. That’s a cost of more than $38,000 annually for each student. Even if we count the least expensive part-time PreK students, high school equivalency students, and all publicly funded students attending private schools to the mix, we are paying for 84,256 students. That’s still more than $32,000 of annual cost per student.
So, what do we get with these two governance models?
The H.122 and the Scott/Saunders proposals are all about controlling the money. Period. There’s nothing in these plans accepting responsibility for lowering costs or improving student outcomes. Zero, zilch, nada.
What do we get with School Choice?
First and foremost, for every student choosing to attend an independent school, taxpayers will receive up to $10,000 per student in annual savings. That’s the difference between the Annual Announced Tuition voucher and the current cost per student.
Second, when parents choose the school best suited for their children, Special Education labeling declines – because students can choose the program that best meets their individual needs, not a one-size-fits-all curriculum.
Third, when parents and students chose poorly (as some surely will), they learn from the experience and make better choices in the future.
Fourth, when schools make poor choices (and we surely know they do), they also learn from the experience and make better choices in the future.
The end result with School Choice is that we have an ever improving and lower cost education system, because outcomes and financial efficiency are incentivized.
Again, the current political environment is all about controlling and increasing the revenue stream to education special interest groups. Their concern is always that School Choice takes taxpayer money away from the public schools, gives it to private schools, and, God forbid, gives it to religious schools.
So what? No one is forcing parents to send their children to a private or religious school – as the special interest groups are trying to force students to attend the public-school monopoly. School Choice is school choice, be it a public school, a private school, or a private religious school.
To those taxpayers who don’t want their tax dollars to go to a religious school, understand this. The SCOTUS has ruled that once a School Choice voucher is awarded to a parent, the money is theirs. State and taxpayer control ends at that time. The First Amendment not only says ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, it says “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. It’s our choice!
Clearly, neither H.122 nor the Scott/Saunders compromise are ‘for the children’… or the taxpayer. If Vermonters really want to improve education and our standard of living along with it, ask your representatives to enact H.89 and forget the rest of the subterfuge.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Education
The need to get education off the back of the property tax payer is now. Forming another lottery goes to show you the people in the state house have no answers. My home is not a community asset to be pissed away by this pack of cave monkeys running this state. Find another way or get out of office.
So, now the pot is calling the kettle black. The former system and those administering it did the same thing as regards controlling the money, or lack thereof. They are the reason the schools are such a burden on property owners and was going to be even more so this year. And for all the money spent per student, I am appalled that my nine year old grandson can’t read, can’t do the simplest math, doesn’t know what the days of the week are, and more. The administration claims to expose the shortcomings of the previous methods of funding schools. It’s not just funding that is the problem.
“I am appalled that my nine year old grandson can’t read, can’t do the simplest math, doesn’t know what the days of the week are, and more.” Does this kid have parents? Parents are the biggest teachers, want to know why the kids are dumb, don’t blame the schools
H.89 doesn’t go far enough. Their scam won’t work if you take away the money and they will have to keep raising the cost per pupil.
This keeps coming up so I’ll keep repeating the actual solution over and over until people start repeating this idea.
Equatable schools required in the VT constitution – Fine the internet makes this easy. A SINGLE online State school for Teachers to use to offer their services, the majority of which will be managed and maintained by technically savvy students. A single debit card earmarked for spending on the child, where the parent can decide to home school – tutor – private school – or State online school. Lets do it like we are in 2025! Shoot I have run companies larger than Vermont, I would quit my day job and do the whole thing for them just to help out.
Re: “H.89 doesn’t go far enough.”
VermontVermonter: H.89 doesn’t restrict any of the educational recommendations you make below.
Re: “Equatable [Equitable] schools required in the VT constitution”
‘Equitable schools’ are NOT required by the VT Constitution or Vermont Statute. If you delve into the weeds of VT Statute, you will see that the lawful requirement is ’16 V.S.A. § 1. Right to equal educational opportunity – To keep Vermont’s democracy competitive and thriving, Vermont students must be afforded substantially equal access to a quality basic education.”
Again: Vermont students must be afforded substantially EQUAL ACCESS to a quality basic education.
If you want to propose an amendment to the Vermont Constitution, specifically eliminating all responsibility by Vermont citizens for providing ‘afforded’ education to all Vermont children, be my guest. But that ‘can of worms’ is not one opened by H.89.
The H.89 School Choice bill works within current law and established precedent. It is simple to implement. It will improve student outcomes. It will save taxpayer money. H.122 and the Scott/Saunders compromise will, for all intent and purpose, not only eliminate School Choice, their proposals will force all schools (public and independent) to operate under the one-size-fits-all governance that created this mess in the first place.
It’s all about choice. Choose your poison.
From H.89 – “may select from a list of public and approved independent schools
maintained by the Agency of Education the school to which the parent or
guardian wishes to have the parent or guardian’s child attend for the coming
school year, and shall notify the Agency of that choice”
H.89 financially restricts parents from having a homeschooling choice. The same administration that is causing the issues is the administration you are empowering to continue to create barriers to a good education for less cost to the taxpayer. We need parent/student approved, not Agency approved.
It may appear that H.89 is a great choice, however it’s not solving the fundamental problems, just like in Arizona where they have a similar system, the costs continue to increase because the “choices” don’t actually create any competition. The unions and administrators will continue to give themselves raises and expensive benefits.
My proposal would actually fix the fundamental problems behind the increase in costs to the taxpayer, and be MORE inline with the CURRENT constitutional requirements for education. It would remove all power from the unions and administrators, and put the power in the hands of the parent/student. A single state online portal appropriate for living in the year 2025. A single debit card to the parents. The only way the education oligarchs could get a raise is to provide a service that is overwhelmingly better than the alternative options. Also a single online school would remove the need for 95% of the current overhead, a HUGE win for the taxpayer and student.
The reason H.89 won’t do much to save the taxpayers any money is because even though some parents will choose a less expensive education option, the money needed to pay for the current education mafia doesn’t change, and they will just bamboozle their way into the same spending patterns, whereby the cost per pupal rate will rise to make up for the “loss in revenue” by the parents choice to choose another less expensive school.
Despite the above problems, I would choose H.89 as the slightly better poison for sure.
One issue at a time.
Re: “H.89 financially restricts parents from having a homeschooling choice.”
No, VermontVermonter. H.89 does not restrict homeschool governance. Please read the bill.
Re: “It may appear that H.89 is a great choice, however it’s not solving the fundamental problems,…”
Arizona’s School Choice “…where they have a similar system, the costs continue to increase because the “choices” don’t actually create any competition. The unions and administrators will continue to give themselves raises and expensive benefits.”
Excellent point. I agree. There is nothing in the H.89 School Choice bill that prevents the existing public school system from being corrupt. If you have a solution in that regard, let’s hear it. But that’s a separate issue.
H.89 does promote competition. It’s an alternative. But, like the Mafia and any protection racket, as the public-school monopoly does whatever it can to stifle that competition, H.89 shows us that reasonable alternative. Why else do they oppose School Choice to the extent they do?
I say, take a chance. We’re going to go bankrupt one way or another if something doesn’t change. At least H.89 gives us that reasonable and affordable alternative…. if we’re allowed (or have the common sense) to choose it.
Re: “My proposal would actually fix the fundamental problems behind the increase in costs to the taxpayer, and be MORE in line with the CURRENT constitutional requirements for education.”
Your proposal doesn’t explain how it’s implemented. How do you propose to take power away from the corrupt oligarchy? Who creates ‘the online portal’? Who controls it? Who establishes the curriculum? Is it one-size-fits-all?
My recommendation for H.89 is based on experience. I’ve lived it. My children benefited from it. Our school district saved money as a result. Yes, it was a battle, all the way. But we managed. The quickest way to create the alternatives of which you speak is to allow parents to choose from various other alternatives.
And, as you finalized, “Despite the above problems, I would choose H.89 as the slightly better poison for sure.”
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/BILLS/H-0089/H-0089%20As%20Introduced.pdf
This is the bill I have read. I read that it only allows “approved” schools. I don’t see anything about funding for homeschooling or online schools. It also seems about as vague as my proposal, which I haven’t written out a bill for, but I could make one up as simple as the above one haha 🙂
If the school you want to send your kid to doesn’t allow boys in girls locker rooms, for example, could they be disqualified? If they teach that the bible says being gay is a sin, would they be disqualified? If they refuse to obsess over our differences and teach how everyone different is a victim, could they be disqualified?
“Your proposal doesn’t explain how it’s implemented. How do you propose to take power away from the corrupt oligarchy? Who creates ‘the online portal’? Who controls it? Who establishes the curriculum? Is it one-size-fits-all?”
It’s actually quite easily implemented. The state education department could be disbanded, and a single competent technology coordinator could replace them all. There are hundreds of commercial out of box / CMS systems already available. They would pay for an education CMS (content management system), and Teachers would immediately be able to offer their services and class sizes to remotely teach students over the internet. The teachers create and advertise their own curriculum, and teachers all over already use services like “teachers pay teachers” to choose learning plans that work with their teaching style. All of the current administrators would need to go find some other way to scam money out of people because no one would be paying them, the parents would be directly paying the teachers, with money they received on a debit card, earmarked for spending on their child. That immediately defeats the entire power structure and places it directly with the parent and student. It doesn’t get any more simple / cheap / and effective than that. There would be a thousand “what abouts”, but there are easy solutions to all of them. This is the 2025 way.
If the parents don’t want the State online school, then they could pay for a private school or homeschool using that same debit card. The student and parent would be the winner. The government would decide how much the parents get on the debit card using fair market value of education, but they wouldn’t have a powerful political lobby of special interests setting those numbers.
Again, one issue at a time.
Re: “I don’t see anything about funding for homeschooling or online schools.”
Precisely. And you don’t see anything prohibiting an independent school from providing homeschool programs or online programs either.
And it’s not as though homeschool programs and online programs don’t already exist. As a former school board director, I was involved with one of our high school tech centers that had extensive online instruction more than ten years ago. And when my kids were in our local public high school, we arranged for a homeschool alternative to the public-school language arts program.
The problem is that public school administrators resist these programs, and most parents don’t understand what they can and can’t do. H.89 opens that door to them.
Re: “If the school you want to send your kid to doesn’t allow boys in girls locker rooms, for example, could they be disqualified?”
Paradoxically, this is what’s happening in our public schools today. And the application of this disqualification is precisely what is proposed for independent schools by H.122 and allowed by the Scott/Saunders compromise bill.
H.89 makes no stipulation in that regard. Under current standards, an independent school can set its on terms for bathroom use.
Again, this is not to say that a corrupt legislature won’t try to enforce its will on everyone. But H.89 does not do so.
Re: “If they teach that the bible says being gay is a sin, would they be disqualified?”
No. That would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;” (capitalization for emphasis).
Re: “It’s actually quite easily implemented. The state education department could be disbanded,…”
And just who would disband the Agency of Education? I haven’t figured out how to do it, and I haven’t met anyone else who’s figured it out either.
Again, H.89 works within the existing confines of the Vermont School Choice governance that has existed and worked well for many Vermont students for more than 100 years. H.89 simply expands that governance to cover all Vermont kids.
Re: “The teachers create and advertise their own curriculum, and teachers all over already use services like “teachers pay teachers” to choose learning plans that work with their teaching style.”
And under H.89, parents and their children can choose which of those teachers best meet the needs of their children. That’s constructive competition in an educational free market. Pass H.89. Case closed.
Re: “The government would decide how much the parents get on the debit card using fair market value of education,…”
Vermont’s current School Choice tuitioning governance already does this. It’s called Average Announced Tuition. This year, for Elementary K-6 schools, the voucher is $18,346 per student. For high schools (grades 7 thru 12) it’s $19,774 per student.
And H.89 specifically incorporates the process for all Vermont students. It includes “recommendations for the integration of the school choice program created in 8 Sec. 1 of this act into Vermont’s current education funding structure, …” (Page 4, Line 7)
Again, it’s already in H.89.
Again, VermontVermonter. H.89 does everything we want it to do. Its governance is already well established. It’s simple to implement. And while I put nothing past a corrupt legislature – compared to the current cost per student in the public-school monopoly, H.89 it will save taxpayers money.
In theory at least, pro-choice sounds great. It’s the American way. You should have the right to buy a gasoline powered vehicle, an EV, or a hybrid – as you wish, right? Again, in theory, market forces result in more folks choosing private, religious, or other higher-performing public schools. Because why? The obvious and only answer should be, because of measurable, increased academic performance.
Please educate me, as I honestly don’t know the answer. Are there any legitimate, peer-reviewed studies that show increased academic performance for students who switch from public to private schools? And I don’t mean in general, as we all know rich folks live in wealthier towns and do so in part because of the better education offered at their own public school.
So I’m looking for studies that show this: Student A goes to public school in, say, Bennington. She then uses school choice to attend a private school, also in Bennington. Does her performance stay the same? Improve? Regress? What about Bennington students as a whole who opt for school choice? Now take Student B. He attends public school in Stowe. Does his performance stay the same? Improve? Regress? What about Stowe students as a whole who opt for school choice?
In other words, I’m looking for hard information that takes social class, wealth, and genetics out of the debate. Apples to apples, bunches of grapes to bunches of grapes.
Thank you to whoever can answer my question. I’m sure this would be a data point that parents could actually use in making the decision as to where they prefer their child(ren) to be educated.
You have a point. This is another corollary, to consider, all the other crappy schools in the United States do it for 1/2 the money, so if we can’t be better, at least we could be affordable.
My guess is being Vermont frugal we could do it for $3500 per student and get at least the same results. Cut our school tax by 80%. It’s the 21st century and we are stuck in communist principles of the 1800’s that don’t work.
Send us more money, it’s for the kids!….that ruse no longer flies.
Re: “Please educate me, as I honestly don’t know the answer. Are there any legitimate, peer-reviewed studies that show increased academic performance for students who switch from public to private schools?”
One of the best questions yet, Robin.
The first resources I recommend you review are studies on Self-Determination and intrinsic (autonomous), as compared to extrinsic (controlling), motivation. Google it.
https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf
“Perhaps no single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation, the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn.”
“Field studies have further shown that when teachers who are autonomy supportive (in contrast to controlling) [they] catalyze in their students, greater intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and desire for challenge.”
“Students taught with a more controlling approach not only lose initiative but learn less effectively, especially when learning requires conceptual, creative processing.”
“Specifically, factors have been examined that enhance versus undermine intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and well-being. The findings have led to the postulate of three innate psychological needs — competence, autonomy, and relatedness– which when satisfied yield enhanced self-motivation and mental health and when thwarted lead to diminished motivation and well-being…. the more students were externally regulated the less they showed interest, value, and effort toward achievement and the more they tended to disown responsibility for negative outcomes, blaming others such as the teacher.”
“Recent research has indicated that “self-determined students were more likely to have achieved more positive adult outcomes including being employed at a higher rate and earning more per hour than peers who did not possess these skills”(Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997).
“Increasing Student Success Through Instruction in Self-Determination:
An enormous amount of research shows the importance of self-determination (i.e., autonomy) for students in elementary school through college for enhancing learning and improving important post-school outcomes.”
https://www.apa.org/research/action/success.aspx
There is more… so much more. But the point is that improved outcomes aren’t necessarily the result of a chosen educational path, but the result of being able to make a choice in the first place. After all, some choices will be mistakes. But under School Choice, those mistakes become immediately apparent – and alternative and, ostensibly, more successful choices are the result.
We learn by making mistakes. But in the one-size-fits-all system, where everyone (including the educator) gets a trophy, the concept of making a mistake and learning from it is cancelled. Learning ceases to exist, higher costs and diminished outcomes are the result.
Robin: FYI – I’ve addressed your questions in a separate post that is still being reviewed by VDC because it has web links in it.
Robin: What follows is my reply to you, absent the specific web links.
Re: “Please educate me, as I honestly don’t know the answer. Are there any legitimate, peer-reviewed studies that show increased academic performance for students who switch from public to private schools?”
One of the best questions yet, Robin.
The first resources I recommend you review are studies on Self-Determination and intrinsic (autonomous), as compared to extrinsic (controlling), motivation. Google it.
“Perhaps no single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation, the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn.”
“Field studies have further shown that when teachers who are autonomy supportive (in contrast to controlling) [they] catalyze in their students, greater intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and desire for challenge.”
“Students taught with a more controlling approach not only lose initiative but learn less effectively, especially when learning requires conceptual, creative processing.”
“Specifically, factors have been examined that enhance versus undermine intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and well-being. The findings have led to the postulate of three innate psychological needs–competence, autonomy, and relatedness– which when satisfied yield enhanced self-motivation and mental health and when thwarted lead to diminished motivation and well-being…. the more students were externally regulated the less they showed interest, value, and effort toward achievement and the more they tended to disown responsibility for negative outcomes, blaming others such as the teacher.”
“Recent research has indicated that “self-determined students were more likely to have achieved more positive adult outcomes including being employed at a higher rate and earning more per hour than peers who did not possess these skills”(Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997).
“Increasing Student Success Through Instruction in Self-Determination:
An enormous amount of research shows the importance of self-determination (i.e., autonomy) for students in elementary school through college for enhancing learning and improving important post-school outcomes.”
There is more… so much more. But the point is that improved outcomes aren’t necessarily the result of a chosen educational path, but the result of being able to make a choice in the first place. After all, some choices will be mistakes. But under School Choice, those mistakes become immediately apparent – and alternative and, ostensibly, more successful choices are the result.
We learn by making mistakes. But in the one-size-fits-all system, where everyone (including the educator) gets a trophy, the concept of making a mistake and learning from it is cancelled. Learning ceases to exist, higher costs and diminished outcomes are the result.
Prolog: Meet the Alpha Wolf
“Senate Leader Says School Choice Expansion Is Off the Table
Sen. Phil Baruth said making all students eligible for school choice could sink broader efforts to overhaul education governance and funding. February 11, 2025 at 1:04 p.m. Seven Days”
I hope everyone understands that Baruth speaks the truth. Expanding School Choice WILL “sink broader efforts to overhaul education governance and funding.”
That’s the point of H.89 of course.
BTW: Not only are 40% of the Vermont workforce employed in the government, healthcare, education sectors, 18% of the workforce is employed by 501 (c) 3 NGOs, most of them receiving public tax dollar grants and tax-deductible donations.
Two Wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Say hello to Vermont tyranny by its majority.