ANGELO LYNN

As Vermonters begin to understand the debate around reforming Vermont’s educational system, a few priorities should remain front and center: first, change is needed; second, we shouldn’t be in the business of funding charter or religious schools (which will only further weaken Vermont’s public schools and put an added burden on taxpayers); and third, local control needs to remain a strong component of school governance.

Let’s consider these three priorities.

• Change is needed for the obvious reasons: the state’s demographics don’t lie. For the past several decades the state has seen its student population decline, while those over 65 have increased. That trend continues into the next decade, at least. That has led to cost-inefficiencies in many of the state’s rural schools, including throughout Addison County. A new policy at Addison Central Supervisory Union, effective in 2026, sets a minimum classroom size of 10 students, with an average of closer to 18 students. That makes financial sense, but puts a pinch on small elementary schools like Ripton, which currently shows just three students expected to be enrolled in its K-1 classroom. In an innovative twist, the district created a loophole that allows residents in other district towns to tuition into the Ripton school to boost any classroom under 10 students — with some reasonable restrictions and caveats. It is an example of current school districts trying to resolve the economic inefficiencies on their own.

Gov. Phil Scott’s proposal goes to the other extreme. He would consolidate the state’s 119 school districts into five mega-districts. Addison County schools would be combined with schools in Chittenden and Franklin Counties to form the state’s largest school district with about 34,000 students. The other four school districts would be closer to 10,000-15,000 students each.

Under Scott’s plan, the Agency of Education would dictate class sizes and school configurations, meaning which schools were to be closed and which were consolidated into other schools. School boards would be consolidated and each board member would represent a far larger population than is currently the case. In short, there would be far less local control and representation.

Scott has said this is a good thing because the state would determine the tough questions local boards have been unable to grabble with. This should go against Republican orthodoxy (that big government is evil and local government is supreme), but it is what Scott’s proposal suggests.

Scott’s bill would rely on a foundation formula for funding, which is the model the state used before the Vermont Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional and the state legislature adopted Act 60 back in 1997.  If a foundational formula is to be used, a new version of it would have to comply with constitutional rulings to provide equitable funding to all students throughout the state.

Perhaps the worst part of Scott’s proposal is that the changes would occur over the next two years. That’s an extremely short timeframe for such significant change. It’s also easily extended.

Other initiatives to reform the state’s education system are also being considered, including one by Rep. Matt Birong, D-Vergennes, as described in a front-page story in today’s Addison Independent. Introduced as bill H.122, Birong suggests forming 25 school districts (instead of 119 or 5). The bill sets minimum class sizes and the size of elementary and secondary school (which would lead to some consolidation), but maintains more local control, keeps the same funding system, and, importantly, extends the transition to 2030, rather than 2026.

• A flaw in the governor’s proposal is that he opens the door to fully funding charter and/or religious schools with public money. He wrote a statement rebutting that his proposal favors charter schools, but the wording in his proposal clearly makes school choice funding more likely. If he wants to disavow that provision, he should make it plain in his proposal  He knows as well as everyone else that funding more charter and religious schools takes money away from public schools and puts an extra burden on Vermont taxpayers.

• The toughest task in any school reform proposal will be to keep a strong sense of local control. If consolidation is the primary way each district seeks to control costs, it only figures that more expansive districts diminish local participation. H.122 is better than the governor’s proposal, but other measures are also in the pipeline and deserve consideration — picking and choosing parts of each proposal to craft a more solid legislative framework. As Rep. Birong said of his bill: “I don’t see this bill being the (final) vehicle. I see it as having possible components of policy that come into consideration.”

That’s a good approach to a difficult problem.

Angelo Lynn