A closer look at the VT Digger Q&A with Secretary Saunders

Q&A with Secretary Saunders: A Closer Look  

I read with interest the Q&A interview that Vermont Education Secretary Zoie Saunders did with VTDigger. While Secretary Saunders does her best to convince us to stay the course with Act 73, her answers to the questions were not convincing and warrant further exploration.

Secretary Saunders explained how Act 73 came into being with the commissioning of the Picus and Odden report. Picus and Odden is an out of state consulting firm specializing in education funding. What Picus and Odden prepared for Vermont was remarkably similar to reports prepared for other states such as Michigan and Maryland. It was not based on a study of Vermont schools, and Vermont voices were not heard because the consultants did not solicit any community input.

The Picus and Odden report suffers from a critical flaw in that it is not relevant for most of the state. On page 14 of the report the authors acknowledge that their report focuses only on “normal size” schools in Vermont’s larger districts. Although they recognize the role that small schools play in educating Vermont’s children, those schools were outside the scope of their report. This means that the Picus Odden report is only relevant for about one third of the state. Sixty-six percent of Vermont is made up of communities of less than 2,500 people and these small communities were not included in the report. Act 73, therefore, rests on a framework that overlooks most of Vermont's school districts.

Secretary Saunders made the statement that those at the Agency of Education are the subject matter experts in education matters statewide. This was true in the past. Unfortunately, this assessment does not reflect current realities at the Agency of Education. In the past the AOE provided assistance with curriculum development, policy guidance, technical assistance and compliance monitoring. However, due to long-standing staffing shortages at the AOE these responsibilities have shifted to individual districts. Before the AOE can realize their potential of being subject matter experts, they will need to engage in a robust staffing effort and modernize their data systems.

The Secretary is correct when she states that the Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) recommended by the Redistricting Task Force do not represent anything new. They are widely used in other rural states in order to share the cost of services like special education, transportation and business operations. The goal of BOCES is not to merge district’s governance, but to share the cost of services.

The Redistricting Task Force recommends the use of Cooperative Education Service Areas.

Instead of redrawing district lines, the Task Force proposes creating five regional "cooperative service areas" to pool resources for high-cost services such as special education, transportation, and specialized staffing. Research from states with similar geography to Vermont shows that cooperative services improve access and reduce duplication far more effectively than consolidation.

Secretary Saunders is very focused on Vermont’s lack of scale, which she mentioned nine times in her interview. In the secretary’s opinion this lack of scale impacts the cost and quality of education She professes that under the Governor’s plan, moving into larger districts would address these issues. While the secretary makes some valid points, the lack of scale does not address Vermont’s largest cost drivers. Health care, special education, facilities and transportation are not solved by district size. The Redistricting Task Force points out that consolidation alone will not address major cost drivers; regional coordination, shared staffing, and well-planned collaborations will address these cost drivers better than mandated consolidations.

Is the Governor listening? During recent Senate Education Committee meetings in Rutland, Woodstock and Royalton the public was invited to give comments to the committee. It is worth noting that at each of these meetings nobody endorsed Act 73. Alternatively, at each of these meetings citizens did enthusiastically endorse the recommendations of the Redistricting Task Force.

The Secretary is in a difficult position because she is compelled by state statute to promote a flawed plan. The Governor’s plan has two major weaknesses; it has limited relevance because it is based on a cut and paste report by out-of-state consultants and it was developed without any public input.

Alternatively, the Redistricting Task Force conducted a data-driven review of Vermont, researched comparable rural states, and listened to more than 5,000 Vermonters. The evidence pointed toward a targeted, regional approach that respected Vermont’s rural geography, and community identity. The Task Force recommends voluntary mergers as a means to improve quality and reduce costs. These mergers should emerge from community driven processes rather than state imposed, arbitrary redistricting.

If the overarching goal of Vermont’s educational reorganization is to enhance quality while containing costs, then the legislature should give serious consideration to the Redistricting Task Force’s recommendations.

Greg Hughes

Friends of Vermont Public Education