by Rob Roper
Act 183 establishing The Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont (a name almost as convoluted as the system it’s supposed to reform) is charged by law to, among other tasks, submit “a written report containing its preliminary findings and recommendations, including short-term cost containment considerations for the 2025 legislative session, [emphasis added] on or before December 15, 2024.” And (sad trombone slide) it did not.
The fourteen page report it did turn in instead supplied the following excuse, “The Commission is committed to providing the General Assembly substantive information to inform its upcoming discussions; however, we also need to be clear that the timeline given to us arguably does not allow the Commission to undertake the work in the way the Act requires.” In other words, the legislature passed the buck to the Commission to come up with solutions, and the commission, having wasted half a year, passed the buck right back.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
Funny thing, the chair of the Commission’s Finance Subcommittee who complained they didn’t have time to do the necessary work, Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (D-Brattleboro), is also the chair of the House Ways & Means Committee that wrote Act 183 establishing that timeline and reporting requirement. So… she knew she was setting the Commission up for failure?
I wish I could say I was surprised. (See my July 19, 2024, article, “Who Will Save Us from Crippling Education Taxes? Not This Crowd!”)
But on this note, a recent conversation caused me to revisit a 2020 piece written by former House Education Committee chairman, Dave Sharpe (D-Bristol) about a previous education policy debacle, also ostensibly undertaken to lower taxes and improve student opportunities, Act 46. In it Sharpe complained that he and other lawmakers were “hoodwinked” by public education special interests “into permitting a power grab by superintendents and school administrators.” Instead of intended reform, Sharpe noted, “Now, several years into implementing the plan… we have not seen the promised reduction in administrative staff in school buildings or in the superintendent’s offices.”
Whether or not Sharpe was really taken in or his after the fact letter was more performative posturing a la Captain Renault from Casablanca — “I’m shocked, shocked that a special interest power grab took place in my committee room!” – is another conversation. But he does instructively point fingers and name names. Who were the liars liars, pants on fire, culprits behind the Act 46 con game? According to Sharpe:
- Testimony from principals and the Principals Association told the committees that the principal’s job would become much easier and that they would be better able to address the educational needs of their students if we consolidated school governance and administration.
- Testimony from superintendents and the Superintendents Association told the committees that they could be much more efficient in delivering educational services to their children because of the flexibility in the use of staff members and far less bureaucratic paperwork associated with multiple workforce budgets and other issues. Those administrative costs could be substantially reduced to mitigate the pupil costs increasing due to loss of students, if we consolidated school governance and administration.
- Testimony from business managers and the Business Managers Association told the committees that financial management costs would be greatly reduced (by $30 million statewide) with the simplified bookkeeping costs associated with keeping track of spending for one larger district rather than several small school districts, if we consolidated school governance and administration.
- Testimony from curriculum directors told the committee that they would be much better able to design and implement school curriculum that met the needs of their students in an equitable manner to raise the educational achievement of all students, if we consolidated school governance and administration.
- Testimony from school board members and the School Boards Association told the committees that small schools would be better able to survive and thrive in a larger integrated school district, if we consolidated school governance and administration.
All of that was, of course, a crock of poo, and since Sharpe published his article in 2020 (Act 46 passed in 2015) public education spending has gone up statewide 18.5 percent from $1.88 billion to $2.23 billion according to the Commission’s lame report.
Why bring this up again now? Because look who makes up this Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont: The Principals’ Association… The Superintendents’ Association… The Business Managers’ Association… The School Boards’ Association… The Teachers’ Union…. The same cast of greedy, corrupt characters who have made careers out of cashing in on Vermonters’ sincere and desperate hope for financial relief.
Those who don’t pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it. It’s just as well that this collection of special interests didn’t come up with any recommendations for “reform” because nothing they recommend could or should be trusted to achieve the hoped for outcome. In fact, as the legislature takes the baton back in January, my advice would be to do the opposite of whatever these folks are telling you to do. Hoodwink me once, shame on you. Hoodwink me twice… I deserve that 35% property tax increase.
Share Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics
- Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.