Response to Governor Scott’s Education Plan: Part II–Equity (see tinyurl.com/ScottEdPlan):

Secretary Saunders’s Jan. 22 PowerPoint highlights the following questions:

How can Vermont reduce the inequities in per pupil spending to ensure students with similar needs receive similar resources? How can we align funding and resources with student needs, to drive student outcomes and success?

What’s missing:

These questions put finances before student needs. As long as an administration’s focus is through a financial lens, leadership will be missing out on knowing the students. What does “student need” mean? How is similarity determined?

“All” student needs are currently not being met (as measured by flight to private schools, restructuring IEPs to reflect current resource availability, classroom disruptions). Schools need to be able to educate those who walk in the door, and not fit imaginary needs into pigeonholes. Education requires resources, yes, and flexibility. Where’s the flexibility to take care of the needs that present themselves?

What does student success look like? Aligning resources “to drive student outcomes and success” sounds like 5-year-plan edu-speak absent critical analysis of how real students are actually functioning.

The journey to equity is important — are we clear about what equity means versus equality? AND, if we agree to provide a “robust” education to “all” students, how student needs are identified and addressed should be the drivers. If the focus is purely financial equity, mediocrity will continue.

Secretary Saunders: How can we create more meaningful opportunities for students and support a Whole Child approach to reduce absenteeism, and improve student engagement?

What’s missing: Students will find meaning in school when schools find meaning and purpose in seeing students, listening to students, having time for students, working with student interests to create meaningful standards-based studies. Many, many teachers are already interacting and engaging students in these ways; the governor’s plan would (and many current structures already) interfere with teachers’ ability to have time and resources to appropriately engage.

Data is important. However, it seems test scores, absentee rates, and graduation rates are the primary sources of data. Those are dipsticks, missing the “whole child” aspect of education. The data-driven focus on “content delivery” has impacted pedagogy by creating a pre- and post-test nightmare for students. Students who are able to will opt out and go to private school. Students who have no choice to opt out won’t show up (absenteeism), or they will act out, and/or they will drop out.

These are NOT arguments for school choice, rather these are arguments for reconsidering how school days and “content delivery” are structured. A robust, thoughtful, student-centered curriculum with dynamic pedagogy will engage students. Students are the most important stakeholders, they are not products on an assembly line.

Secretary Saunders: How can we support effective and cost-effective delivery of special education services in all districts and schools?

What’s missing: How might the governor define “effective” and “cost effective”?

The word “delivery,” while common in government, is a mismatch with students; it smacks of assembly line widget production. Teachers are not attaching parts to passing vehicles. Teachers work with each individual student to attain academic goals; if teachers don’t consider and work with the individual, then students go to private school, drop out, or become disenfranchised learners, hating school — poor outcomes for students and society. Teacher training and attitude, combined with adequate resources, bolstered by attentive, student-focused administrative support are what create effective teaching/special and general ed.

Secretary Saunders: How do we ensure that every student has a highly-qualified teacher in a safe, healthy and welcoming school environment?

What’s missing: What does “highly-qualified” mean? “Highly qualified” teachers can still be woefully ill-prepared for many student needs, while un- or under-supported by administration. “Highly-qualified teacher” is an unhelpful designation when faced with significant student needs and inadequate systems of response. Where are the resources and flexibility to meet the needs of “all” students who walk in the door?

Additionally, “highly-qualified” suggests significant teacher training and experience. Who’s paying for that?

What does “safe” mean?

Safe from environmental toxins (PFAS in water, asbestos tiles and pipe wrap, lead paint, lead solder, lead in water, etc.)?

Safe from gun violence?

Safe from discrimination?

Safe from implicit emotional neglect?

Safe from physical/emotional abuse (including online harassment)?

We teachers have stories to tell about safety issues and their impacts on the school environment, student lives, and, consequently, student performance. We also have concrete suggestions to create a safe, healthy and welcoming school environment. Who’s listening to the teachers?

The governor’s proposal has generated counter proposals. Legislators, administrators, community members, teachers, parents, students — all of us have skin in this game, whether or not we know it or want it. Any serious proposal must consider and address all of the above posed questions (and I’m sure there are many questions others might pose), if Vermont is to deliver on “robust,” “equitable,” “engaging” education for “all” students.

In the current political and financial reality, we might allow ourselves to become distracted from considering “the whole child” — a consideration critical to fulfilling the governor’s lofty language, critical to children’s well-being, and critical to making Vermont a desirable place to live and work. Change could present an opportunity for improvement. Let’s hold tight to that focus on “the whole child!”

Christina Wadsworth

Weybridge