BRATTLEBORO-I have been watching the hearings on school transformation and funding in the Legislature (H.454) since January, and I recognize and appreciate Rep. Emilie Kornheiser's efforts to make sure as much reality and detail as possible would be considered. I also applaud the work she has done to assure that the public dollars spent on increasing access to housing most benefit the people who need the housing.
The goal of the work on schools and funding has been to stabilize school spending by curbing cost drivers and addressing the inequities in school funding. Unfortunately, the bill coming out of the Legislature does not address these issues.
In a recent newsletter to constituents in which she discussed these education reforms, Rep. Kornheiser abandoned her typical concise and detailed communications and instead offered generalized claims that do not stand up to scrutiny.
She wrote that it is "crystal clear" that H.454:
1. "Lowers property taxes." This is plainly not accurate. The nonpartisan Joint Fiscal Office modeling shows a bewildering range of effects of the proposed foundation funding formula across the state. Dozens of communities will see tax increases during and after the proposed transition to the imagined efficiency and equity of fewer, larger schools.
There are no studies anywhere showing tax decreases as a result of consolidation or transitioning to a fully funded foundation formula. None. And on top of this, voters will no longer vote on property taxes. Montpelier will decide how much we pay.
2. "Bends the cost curve." This is especially misleading because it ignores the projected transition and building costs involved in creating a centralized school system. Additional transportation costs are also ignored.
In recent weeks, Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D-Chittenden-6-4) admitted to a room full of Burlington citizens that H.454 would not save money. Rep. Peter Conlon (D-Addison-2) and Sen. Ann Cummings (D–Washington County) have admitted the same.
Numerous studies clearly demonstrate that consolidation does not save money.
3. "Creates safe, consistent, quality education for all Vermont kids." Vermont kids have had one of the best school systems in the world for decades. Previous to the current administration, our students led the nation (and the world) in reading, writing, and math, regularly scoring among the top five states year after year. Our professionals developed programs that were world class. Vermont sent teams of classroom practitioners to every school in the state for extended visits and evaluation consultations.
The combined damage of No Child Left Behind, the wrong reading curriculum, and Phil Scott's neglect created this mess. Again, there is no evidence anywhere that the proposed approach will do anything to improve learning or make teaching less alienating to enthusiastic candidates.
The arguments for bigger is better are weak at best, and their applicability to Vermont's hilly rural environment, where transportation will limit the opportunities of so many students, has to be questioned. These are big changes that show no promise of positive outcomes.
There are other options that the Legislature has failed to consider. The recent Boards of Cooperative Educational Services legislation outlines a proven path to consolidate administrative functions and find efficiencies. Combining administrative services regionally is a much more realistic plan for Vermont, and it leaves local boards to continue to oversee our town schools.
A foundation funding plan with professional judgment panels could catch the glitches and unintended consequences of the transition and assure the changes don't cut support for schools.
A gradual change under current structures makes a lot more sense than a radical change that is not supported by evidence. Voices across Vermont are raising alarms over the direction the legislature is taking. The evidence does not support these changes. Haste and hubris will not bring the fairness Vermonters want.
David Schoales
Brattleboro
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].