Dear Gov. Scott,

After reading your letter in the Opinion section of VT Digger — where you refer to “… quality … equity … efficiency … savings…” as being the foundational characteristics of your new “bold” restructuring of public education in Vermont, I have these thoughts and questions:

1. How is the quality of the students’ education improved by imposing minimum numbers of students per elementary school and minimum numbers of students per classroom in those schools? How do those minimums relate to the on-going and ever-changing dynamics and needs of those students within those classroom populations? How do those standardized numbers across Vermont add to the quality and equity of addressing the individual students’ needs? Was there consideration for more regional and local issues and needs relative to the student populations?

Presumably, this will require more administrators evaluating the on-going issues and constantly juggling the numbers; how is that affecting more efficiency? And where is the savings in adding more bureaucracy and administration as part of your new proposal?

2. Regarding going back to a “means testing” evaluation to determine who qualifies for the free food programs in schools — how does that improve the quality of students’ ability to learn? Are you familiar with Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs?” Essential to the pyramid of needs for anyone’s self-actualization are the very basic foundational needs regarding clean water and healthy food. Your proposed system of “means testing” will require on-going administration of evaluation of families. To me this means more stress to those in society on the lower and middle rungs of the ladder of income/opportunity. Will this testing be sensitive/responsive to the ever-changing world of employment or other family dynamics that might occur within a given school year? Wouldn’t this “means testing” require more monies to be spent on implementation by bureaucracy, monies which could instead go to investing in the quality of classroom resources, including options like additional aides to address individual needs?

Even if there are “means” to pay, the modern day family can face many challenges and stressors just getting the family “out the door” in the morning. This could contribute to choosing “convenience” processed and pre-packaged and less fresh food options for the students’ meals during the day. While volunteering for a local public school lunch program, I have witnessed the fresh food and well-balanced meals offered, which I have been told are the same meals district wide.

Speaking of districts, how will those larger proposed districts affect the quality of the meals offered? Nutrition is a huge contributing factor when considering the welfare of our students and their ability to learn. How is it equitable when the potential stigmas of assistance and added bureaucracy for monitoring the program compromise which students have access to the same fresh well-balanced meals? And how much savings is truly realized? And if those proposed larger districts are adopted, how removed will the “means testing” deciders be from the local family dynamics and understanding of the impact of their decisions?

3. Regarding another aspect of savings, many have cited the increasing costs of healthcare for the teachers as a main driver of the increasing costs of elementary school budgets. I have heard no mention in any of the reports about this “bold” plan of how it in any way addresses the issue of healthcare costs for teachers. I totally support healthcare for teachers, but if your plan does not include addressing these costs, how is it a “bold” step in reducing the ever mounting costs of public education in Vermont?

In conclusion, I am not afraid of change. I agree that changes must be made. However, I do not understand how the proposed changes from your plan that I have referenced above will align with your stated goals of improved quality, equity, efficiency and savings for the public elementary school students in Vermont.

Susan Potter Davis

Weybridge