I am writing to express my deep dissatisfaction with Gov. Scott’s school reform plan for the state. I would like to preface this criticism by saying that though I have never voted for Scott, I hold him in high regard and am thankful for his steady, rational and humane leadership during the COVID-19 crisis and its aftermath. It is precisely because I have this respect for him that I am so taken aback by what is a patently radical plan (I reject Zoie Saunders’s descriptor of “bold” as mere euphemism) to transform educational governance in Vermont. Although the Republican Party made historic gains in Vermont and Scott was re-elected with an overwhelming majority, I fear the governor has misread his mandate.

Of course, the only way this plan was proposed in the first place is through the parliamentary tricks Gov. Scott used to appoint Zoe Saunders without the approval of the legislature. When that occurred, I gave the governor the benefit of the doubt, as a popular political figure whose agenda had been thwarted or revised, depending on your perspective, repeatedly by Democratic supermajorities in both legislative chambers in Montpelier. After reading about the plan, the manner of Saunders’s appointment should be seen as indicative of how out of step her and, apparently, the governor’s ideas are about educational reform in our state. My objections are twofold.

First, the creation of five mega-districts is an arrogation of local power that flies in the face of what used to be a central tenet of conservative politics: limited centralized power and deference to local control. Has the governor changed his views on this traditional conservative first principle? The policy proposed seems to suggest that he has. Additionally, the mega-districts will have negative downstream effects on the excellent practices of deliberative democracy, which local school boards both encourage and exemplify. Community engagement, understanding and discussion of educational matters will suffer as a result.

Second, the proposal also entails a nearly universal ability to opt for so-called “school choice,” a vast augmentation of, admittedly, extant practices. If private and even private religious schools are eligible for such a school choice program, we really need to think of another name. As a former private high school teacher, I want to stress the private element of these institutions. The instant you join a private school faculty, you are informed that this is not a private school, but instead an “independent” school. More euphemism. Private schools have the ability to decide upon the make-up of their student body and cannot be compelled to admit students. With regard to private schools, we should think about this as “schools’ choice” rather than school choice, because it will be the private schools who decide which students they want. Moreover, the endgame of such a program is a voucher system. This would amount to a vast and regressive transfer of wealth as more and more public funds go towards private school tuition. The vast majority of Vermonters cannot afford a single annual private school tuition cost (let alone the costs for multiple children) even with the state paying 50, 60 or even 75 percent of the total bill. Thus, wealthy families who are already paying for private school tuition will be getting a nice subsidy drawn from public coffers, while the overall funding for public schools will be systematically siphoned away. Given Ms. Saunders’s background — the majority of her career (2012-1019) has been spent in senior positions at Charter Schools USA — this is not idle speculation about what might be but rather takes seriously the mission of such an organization. Founded in 1997 by a researcher from the Heritage Foundation (of Project 2025 fame/infamy), Charter Schools USA partakes in a larger national movement to be rid of “government” (read: public) schools. The method? Death by a thousand cuts…or a thousand vouchers.

In an era where public things, indeed, the public thing (the res publica, or republic), are under attack on multiple fronts, Vermont has the opportunity to model deliberative democracy, civic engagement, and community participation through the local governance of our schools. I encourage Gov. Scott to reconsider his proposal and focus on making Vermont’s public education system the envy of the nation. For the sake of our children and the generations to come.

Amit Prakash

Middlebury