by H. Jay Eshelman
In the Brigham v. State [of Vermont] case, filed 05-Feb-1997, the justices opined that: “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”
There are 185 school districts in Vermont. But only 95 of those school districts provide publicly funded education ‘tuition’ for parents to use to send their children to the school they believe best meets the educational needs of their children. And even then, not all students in a district providing tuition vouchers are eligible to receive the tuition. This fact alone offends the Vermont Supreme Court Brigham v. State decision.
However, the court determined, in Vitale v. Bellows Falls Union High School (2022), that Vermont’s Education Clause “states in general terms the state’s responsibility to provide for education, but is silent on the means to carry it out.” And that – “Within this framework, school choice itself is not an educational opportunity but rather a means to provide for educational opportunities.”
This decision ignores the fact that simply having the opportunity to make a choice is as much an educational opportunity as whatever specific school or program results from the act of choosing. School Choice isn’t a ‘means’ to educational opportunity. School Choice ‘is’ the educational opportunity. While the plaintiffs themselves are somewhat responsible for not articulating this fact, it is the justices and attorneys that must read up on Self-Determination Theory and the opportunity for educational advantages inherent with autonomous intrinsic motivation.
“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.”
Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being – Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci, University of Rochester
Ryan and Deci’s peer reviewed report expands on this notion.
“For example, 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).
“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.” – American Psychological Association
Nonetheless, the Vermont court ruled that only the legislature has the authority to remedy this conundrum. But their decision is pure sophistry. It reflects Vermont society’s misunderstanding of the dynamic relationship and importance of self-motivated students in an educational setting. After all, intrinsic self-motivation is contrary to everything authoritarian that is taught in today’s teacher colleges.
The plaintiffs in the Vitale v. Bellows Falls Union High School case must take another bite of the School Choice judicial apple. And it’s up to the students, the parents, and their attorneys, to put that apple on the teacher’s desk.