|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Or the opposite of what the Commission on Protecting Education Special Interests is doing.
This story was originally published on Rob Roper’s Substack Page and was republished here with permission
By Rob Roper
As I have noted in past observations of the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont, this collection of special interest group lobbyists has no real desire to solve the property tax/education finance crisis facing Vermonters today. Their objective, quite to the contrary, is to keep the money flowing unhindered and unquestioned into their own coffers. And, to further that true objective, what this Commission is really trying to do is exploit this crisis to cut off funding for Vermont’s highly successful and popular tuitioning system and the independent schools that thrive under it. Don’t let them get away with it!
A point of debate that took place during the recent Caledonia County senate campaign between Scott Beck (R) and Amanda Cochrane (D) highlights why those with a serious interest in reforming our education finance and delivery systems should be emulating and expanding rather than dismantling Vermont’s school choice system. What sparked this teachable moment was Cochrane’s “Yes” answer to a VTNEA survey question asking if she agreed with the union’s position that “public dollars should flow only to public schools or those schools that abide by all the rules and requirements of public schools. In short, public schools or public rules.”
That is – not surprisingly given the VTNEA, Vermont Superintendents’ Association, Vermont Principals’ Association dominance of the not-really-reform Commission – the policy position presently being advanced by said Commission. It became an immediate problem for Cochrane, though, because she happened to be running for office in the district that is home to St. Johnsbury Academy, Lyndon Institute, and a number of other independent schools that serve hundreds of students and their families through the tuitioning program. Oops.
Calling Cochrane to the carpet, St. Johnsbury Academy Headmaster Sharon Howell explained in an article in the Caledonian Record why that policy position would be detrimental to the Academy’s ability to deliver a higher quality education to its students at, on average, less cost to the taxpayer.
[F]unctioning under the same set of rules [as government schools], Howell said, “would not make sense, and would even keep us from doing some of the things we do so well.”
The ability to recruit teachers, staff and administrators even if they aren’t licensed as educators is an important difference. “We can hire artists to teach art, scientists to teach science, and educators from higher ed with advanced degrees,” she said. “We develop our own curriculum. We manage our operations like the non-profit organization we are, rather than adhering to management rules that are specifically designed for the public school system made up of superintendents, supervisory unions and school districts.”…
“Our independence gives us flexibility: we can offer unique programs, experiences, and environments when we determine they will benefit learning, and we can respond creatively to challenges as we identify them,” she said. “Our independence ensures that we can continue to serve and support our local students at a high level regardless of their special needs or their ability to pay. We don’t want to be a school that only wealthy families can access, and the current Vermont public tuition system allows us to maintain that equity of opportunity for the students who choose us.”
Hmmm. So, it can be cheaper to have your child taught science by an actual scientist who is not a union flack. Ditching multiple levels of bureaucracy is more efficient than having to deal with them, more effective for creative problem solving, and saves money too. By being able to accept students from a broader geographic footprint allows for a more economically diverse student body. Overall, higher quality, lower cost. Eureka!
In 2023-24, the state approved tuition rate for independent high schools was $18,266 (it is $19,774 for the current school year). According to the NEA, the average per pupil spending in the government public schools in 2023-24 was $27,436 (I couldn’t find an estimate for the current year but given the property tax increases we all just experienced, it’s more.) $18,266 is a 33% discount from $27,436. Now, which of these systems should we be scrapping in favor of the other?
It’s not like the government run public schools are giving us a higher quality product for all of that money. The Vermont Agency of Education’s recently published “Vermont State of Education Profile” paints a dim and getting dimmer view of public school student outcomes.
And, no, Vermont’s publicly funded independent schools aren’t succeeding where government run public schools are failing because the former are allowed to discriminate in any way. Any and every school that receives public money has to abide by both state and federal anti-discrimination laws, Independents just the same as the public schools.
So, what this Commission should be doing is looking at how we can make the government-run publicly funded system operate more upon the lines of how the publicly funded independent schools operate. In a nutshell, with a set per-pupil tuition amount, but with more freedom at the local level to creatively problem solve with the resources available allowing for cuts to non-classroom/non-schoolhouse bureaucracy.
The farcical clown car that is the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont won’t do this because they are, by and large, there to represent the non-classroom/non-schoolhouse bureaucracy, the non-scientists teaching science and non-artists teaching art crowd. But the legislature can certainly take up this line of reform when they get back in January. Let them know that they should!
Oh, and for those wondering and who may have missed it, Scott Beck wiped the floor with Amanda Cochrane on November 5th. Congratulations, Senator-elect Beck!
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.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Education
Rob, et al.: The education governance of which you speak already exists and is sitting on the shelves of the House Committee on Education collecting dust.
BILL AS INTRODUCED H.405 – 2023
Page 1 of 4 Introduced by Representatives Peterson of Clarendon, Branagan of Georgia, Demar of Enosburgh, Higley of Lowell, Williams of Granby, and Wilson of Lyndon
Referred to Committee on Date: February 2023
Subject: Education; school choice; elementary education; secondary education Statement of purpose of bill as introduced: This bill proposes to allow all Vermont students to attend the school of the student’s choice, paid for by a School Choice Grant issued by the Agency of Education. The School Choice Grant would be paid from the Education Fund payment otherwise due to the student’s school district of residence. This bill also proposes to require the Joint Fiscal Office to issue a report with recommendations for the integration of the school choice program into Vermont’s current education funding structure.
An act relating to school choice for all Vermont students.
The property tax payer will still fund this operation. You need to set up another funding source.
I agree. Property Tax is the unconstitutional government seizure of private property. But regardless of the funding source, when parents have the opportunity to choose their children’s schools using Vermont’s existing tuition voucher program (see H.405), the cost per student (as Rob points out) drops from nearly $28K per student to $19K. That’s a 33% decrease in education costs.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Property taxes are a major source- but the education funding cancer has metastasized into all sorts of revenue sources. It is a $2,700,000,000.00 serpent,
so enmeshed in other revenue sources by legislative diktat that funds come from a medicaid transfer. In fact, the Homestead Property tax receipts were but 25% of total receipts- with non-homestead (39%) and sales and use(28%) receipts providing more than homestead property taxes.
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2024/WorkGroups/House%20Education/Education%20Funding/Education%20Finance%20Overview/W~Julia%20Richter~Education%20Finance%20in%20Vermont~1-11-2023.pdf
This is a beast that must be slayed, with tentacles of federal and state regulations requiring all sort of unneeded, unwarranted rules and the increased costs required to “comply”. The education and education funding fiasco is entirely of the D/P politicians making- and they’ve been making it for 50+ years. It is a cumulative enterprise of special interest, political ambition, dystopian ideals and greed that has gotten us here. The proven fact that K-12 education can be done for 1/3 less cost by private business should be more than enough evidence to the voter and taxpayer that severe change is required for the education system, with those that profit from the largess and complexity excluded from the discussion and actions required to fix it.
Outstanding work Mr. Roper!
The Joint Fiscal Office will be releasing a report in December, as happens every year. Last year it predicted an 18% increase in education property taxes. This year it will be the same increase or more, because none of the problems have been fixed, and teacher salaries will have increased by a step, and health care costs are rising. A real solution would be to pass a bill as soon as the session opens requiring no increase in property taxes next year. Then common sense decisions can be made by prioritizing classroom instruction in essential subjects and critical thinking, while eliminating administrative bloat, mental health as an educational responsibility (we have a Health Dept for that don’t we?), DEI, CRT, gender mania, climate hysteria, free meals to all, etc. Back to basics.
In order to get people excited about fixing this, you would get much further with a direct “bribe”, if you will. If a politician advertised that you would get $20,000/$30,000 earmarked for spending on your own children, you would have a lot more parents willing to stay home and teach, find a budget online school, have more affordable daycare options, etc etc.
They need to replace all public schools with a state run Virtual School platform for teachers anywhere to offer direct services on using existing 3rd party platforms. Good teachers and classes would be funded, and bad ones wouldn’t have any demand.
You can get an MIT level education for FREE on the internet. There is no excuse for all this “carbon wasting” on old fashion traditional school buildings and transportation.