by Renee McGuinness
During a community forum on education reform, Democrats made it evident once again that they support government-run schools, not education. There is a difference between the two: the first is support of government institutions that are lucrative for special interests; the second is support for the academic success of each individual student, to equip them to become productive members of society by cultivating a strong work ethic, moral character, and skillsets.
Vergennes Union High School hosted a K-12 Education Community Forum on Saturday morning, May 10, for citizens who are concerned about how changes to Vermont’s K-12 school system will impact children and families, community schools, and property taxes. The bulk of the discussion was on the H.454 education bill.
Senator Ruth Hardy, member of the Senate Finance Committee; Representative Peter Conlon, Chair of the House Education Committee; and Senator Steven Heffernan, Member of the Senate Education Committee, were present to update attendees on the status of school reform and take questions.
H.454 passed out of the House, was amended by the Senate Education Committee, and is currently in the Senate Finance Committee. Once H.454 is passed out of Senate Finance and the Senate floor, a conference committee of both the House and Senate will deliberate until they come to an agreement on the final form of the bill upon which both House and Senate will vote a second time on each chamber floor.
Senator Hardy stated she is opposed to the current Senate version of H.454, as amended by the Senate Ed Committee, because it removes planning for the future and makes it easier for private schools to receive funding compared to the version of the bill passed out of the House. She does not want taxpayer dollars to follow Vermont students who attend out-of-state private schools. This limits choice for some Vermonters. Hardy wants taxpayer dollars to be contained to schools within Vermont, apparently even if the Vermont school to which the parents would be limited is not the best fit for their child.
Hardy also stated the House version of H.454 contained an empirical-based formula, while the Senate Education Committee changed the formula to a “hodge-podge” that doesn’t work. She explained that the current formula is tax-based. Under the foundation formula established in H.454, school districts would receive a set amount of $14,836 per pupil, which would be weighted (P.321) based upon Federal Poverty Level, English Language (formerly English as a Second Language, and students with “disabilities,” and then districts would vote on supplemental spending for their own district.
As previously explained by Representatives Ashely Bartley and Carolyn Branagan, who both voted against H.454, this bill creates a carve-out for six “historic” independent schools who receive at least 51% of their tuition dollars from public tax dollars. Independent schools whose tuition from public tax dollars is less than 51% would not receive any taxpayer funds.
Why is there a carve-out for six historic schools?
Legislators have been trying to find a way to prevent public funds from going to private Christian schools, even if a Christian school has better academic outcomes than the nearest public school, and even if parents have decided that an independent Christian school is the best choice for their child, either because it offers a better education, culture, aligns with the parent’s beliefs, or any mix of the above.
In a May 2024 discussion on Proposition 4, House Judiciary Committee members were gnashing their teeth at having to reimburse public tuition dollars to Christian schools when Vermont lost in two cases filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, AH v French and EM v French, which were filed because Christian schools were denied access to Vermont’s town tuition program.
Conlon stated that legislators are attempting to craft legislation that “does not prompt more lawsuits.” It appears that they might be crafting legislation that will court lawsuits from secular independent schools under the town tuition program, not just religious schools.
When I asked Representative Conlon, Chair of the House Ed Committee, why he had not taken up the H.89 school choice bill, under which parents would choose the school to which they send their children under a voucher system, he responded, “there’s not much appetite for it,” and that he doesn’t want independent schools to drain resources from the public school system. Conlon stated he wants to maintain strong public schools and that he doesn’t want to divide children up or cause transportation issues, even though school consolidation under H.454 will cause transportation issues.
While Vermont has not conducted a poll to find out whether there is an “appetite” for school choice, Texas has, and the results demonstrate, depending on how the question is asked, that the majority support a voucher system, including those living in rural areas. When asked whether they support public funds going to parochial schools, less were supportive of a voucher system.
Clearly, the public’s antagonism is directed specifically toward Christian schools, not school choice, even in a conservative state such as Texas.
I am not attempting to proselytize Vermonters to the Christian faith, which is a matter of free will, and cannot be forced. However, allow me to make this point: perhaps people are better off under the leadership of persons who live out their Christian faith, because people are much more likely to be free to make choices for their own and their family’s best interests when elected officials swear their oath and allegiance to a Higher Authority, our Creator, rather than under elected officials who desire to make an affirmation based upon their personal honor, because their personal honor is based upon fluctuating, groundless morals, a.k.a. moral relativism. (Listen to Representative Ella Chapin introduce H.28 to the House Judiciary Committee to include an affirmation option for circumstances in which oaths are required by law).
Elected officials who are – in their own minds – their own authority and therefore their own gods, are operating with a savior complex: they claim they are protecting us from potential dire consequences if we are allowed to make our own decisions based upon our own research amongst the vast resources available to us: resources that our elected officials might determine to be misinformation or disinformation, depending upon whether the information threatens the power and control of these self-appointed saviors. Meanwhile, the Christian God Himself does not stop us from acting on our own decisions in the name of “protection.” Which system offers freedom and autonomy, and which is oppressive?
Back to the subject of education reform . . .
Dave Sharpe, former representative and Chair of the House Education Committee when Act 46 was enacted in 2105, which is the school merger law against which more than thirty school districts initiated a suit and ultimately lost in the Vermont Supreme Court the outcome of which has had questionable results, directed his comments to my question on the school choice bill, H.89. Sharpe stated that the desire for public education is important: he had just returned from a trip to Greece, where only the educated are allowed to vote, compared to the United States, where we educate everyone so they can vote. Sharpe claimed that school choice would cause disparity, with only those who could afford it being able to choose schools with better outcomes to which they would send their children. We certainly don’t want parents to have the choice to send their children to private schools with better academic outcomes, because that would destroy the equity of mediocracy!
While Senator Hardy and Representative Conlon repeatedly emphasized decision-making based upon data, neither are willing to look at data on the success of school voucher programs. At the federal level, there is an effort to expand educational opportunities for low- income working families, military families, and children eligible for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, under the POTUS’ Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families – The White House. These are the types of policies against which most of our Vermont legislators are fighting: why?
Senator Hardy jumped on the anti-private school bandwagon, stating that there is no oversight on the spending of taxpayer dollars sent to private schools: we can’t get information on how private schools spend their money, therefore they should not receive it. Unless, of course, you are one of the six “historic” independent schools “with 100+ years woven into the fabric of Vermont” according to Conlon, who mentioned five out of the six schools by name: Burr & Burton Academy, St. Johnsbury Academy, Lyndon Academy, and Thetford Academy, and Long Trail School, which is the independent school that has a transgender male on the girls’ basketball team, for which Mid Vermont Christian School is being banned from school sports by the Vermont Principal’s Association for forfeiting a game to Long Trail instead of forcing the girls to risk injury by playing against a biological male: a lawsuit is ongoing.
Independent schools not mentioned by name that might be included in the carve-out: The Sharon Academy in Sharon, the Village School of North Bennington, the Mountain School at Winhall, amongst others.
Hardy also mentioned that Christian schools are charging school districts more than their published tuition amounts. This is confirmed in an article from Vermont Digger published in March of 2024 . However, Hardy neglected to provide the detail that less than 2% of public funds went to Christian schools in 2022-2023 (that’s a huge drain on public school funds, isn’t it, Representative Conlon?), and that scholarships and endowments at independent Christian schools reduce the cost for students of families who do not have the same access to public funds as public-school students that are tuitioning to Christian schools.
Hardy also failed to mention that Vermont has regulations for private schools and failed to consider that we can determine that the public money that private schools receive is being well-spent when their students’ academic proficiency exceeds that of public schools.
Senator Hardy claimed that public schools are the “basis of democracy,” which is only true in the sense that our public schools now teach the virtues of mob rule rather than the virtues of a constitutional republic under the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, public funding of public schools is a relatively new endeavor when measured in the timeline of world history. While Thomas Jefferson advocated for the funding of public schools, his platform was based upon local control, not state control, of education. Likewise, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that the federal government must establish, direct, regulate, or provide funding for education.
Vermont has a 200+ year-long history of the battle between local and state control of education. Parents used to choose textbooks for their own children and had local control over the schools their children attended, including hiring teachers that would teach from multiple textbooks to students in multiple grades. Historically, proponents for state control claimed this was unwieldy and wrestled for control over streamlining curriculum content, while parents fought to keep local control. It is a battle that requires vigilance: alas, the public’s forbearance has waned.
Several supervisory union superintendents were also present at the forum. Mount Abraham Unified School District Superintendent Patrick Reen distilled the intent of education reform as ensuring equity and opportunity. Elected officials have the stated goal of making sure students in rural areas have access to the same opportunities as students in suburban schools, such as access to after-school enrichment classes, without regard to the fact that parents choose to live in rural areas for their own reasons, and can choose to seek out their own options for enrichment of their own children, rather than obligating taxpayers to fund enrichment in the name of “equity” and “opportunity.”
Ironically, Colin Igoe, Head of the Long Trail School, testified to the Senate Education Committee in January (36:00) that, “facilities are really important, but they do not make an educational program. I cut my teeth – I was teaching in Asia, my first job, and all I had was a piece of chalk and 55 students in a classroom. I may not be the best teacher . . . the facilities are important, but they don’t make the educational program.” In other words, money for resources might provide opportunities, but does not ensure productive outcomes. More often than not, so-called “lack” cultivates creativity, determination, and resilience, while too much affluence can often cultivate apathy, gluttony, and sloth.
While it might appear that support of public schools has not changed among the public, support for the content being taught within these institutions has: I sense a seismic shift on the horizon as the public’s conscience becomes increasingly aware of the true nature and failure of public schools behind the façade. An increasing number of parents are becoming disenchanted by the notion that one is on the wrong side of the education issue if they do not support government-run public schools.
Education is individual. We should be supporting students, not institutions. The best way to accomplish this, along with reducing education costs, would be to take education regulation out of the hands of government and put it back into local communities. This would require a constitutional amendment, as follows:
Ch2, § 68. [Laws to encourage virtue and prevent vice; schools; religious activities]
Laws for the encouragement of virtue and prevention of vice and immorality ought to be constantly kept in force, and duly executed; [STRIKE: and a competent number of schools ought to be maintained in each town unless the general assembly permits other provisions for the convenient instruction of youth.] All religious societies, or bodies of people that may be united or incorporated for the advancement of religion and learning, or for other pious and charitable purposes, shall be encouraged and protected in the enjoyment of the privileges, immunities, and estates, which they in justice ought to enjoy, [STRIKE: under such regulations as the general assembly of this state shall direct.]
Such a constitutional amendment would not be acceptable to the public until they come to the full realization that our legislature and governor are acting on behalf of organizations that are involved in the education industry complex, not their children; that government-run schools used to be trusted institutions, but no longer are; and that parents, not government, are well-equipped to make decisions on the education of their own children.
The author is an Addison County resident.