State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding served in the Vermont State Senate from 1985-2000. He chaired several committees over the course of his eight terms as a senator, including the Appropriations Committee and Joint Fiscal Committee. During his years as Education Committee chair, he sponsored various versions of bills authorizing charter schools. Spaulding hoped that Vermont would become the second state after Minnesota to adopt charter schools. But it was not to be. None of the bills ever became law, and Vermont is still not a charter school state.
We contacted Treasurer Spaulding recently to recall what happened with the charter school bills that he sponsored. Spaulding was quick to point out that he wasn’t as up on the current research on charter schools as he would be if he were still in the Senate. The demands of his current job have pulled him in other directions. Nevertheless, his philosophy about school choice remains as solid as ever. Here is our conversation:
Vermont Tiger: Did you have kids in school at the time?
Spaulding: Yes, I did.
Vermont Tiger: In public schools?
Spaulding: Yes, my two daughters went through 12 years of Montpelier public schools.
Vermont Tiger: Would you say you were happy with the results?
Spaulding: Yes. So that’s not what motivated my interest in school choice and charter schools.
Vermont Tiger: So that’s not what was influencing your thinking?
Spaulding: No. I’m still -- for several reasons, for school choice – I’ll use the broad term “school choice” because eventually you have to get down to what you mean by school choice. Charter schools would be one form of school choice. There are several reasons why I favor choice. But the primary one is I don’t see how you can say you’re for equal educational opportunity when wealthy people have all the choice they want getting their kid into a school that meets their own needs, and people with no wealth have no choice – and, to me, that is patently unfair. My kids happened to do well in Montpelier in the public schools. But if they hadn’t been successful there, I would have had the capacity to find a private school to fit their needs or paid the tuition to send them to another public school. And I just think that’s – since I think education’s the most important thing we can provide for our kids – I think that’s unfair. For me, if you believe in equal educational opportunities, then all children ought to have the opportunity to get into a learning situation that allows them to thrive.
Vermont Tiger: So you would say it’s a pretty progressive concept then?
Spaulding: Absolutely. Still do.
Vermont Tiger: So what prompted you to propose charter schools specifically?
Spaulding: The first reason I proposed charter schools was that it would encourage innovation within the public school system, provide models of what works well and examples of what doesn’t work well. The kinds of things that worked well would likely spread to the larger public school system. So, charter schools would be an impetus for innovation. Secondly, my personal opinion is that there isn’t one right school for all children. I think diversity within the public school system would be a good thing. There was another reason to propose charter schools. It was a way to bring some modest aspect of competition to public schools and to the educational system for all the reasons you’d imagine – or maybe wouldn’t imagine. But I think that’s a good idea too.
Vermont Tiger: The version of the bill I remember seemed modest. It had a limit of ten, right?
Spaulding: The reason for the ten was that Minnesota, the first state, did it on a sort of pilot basis. If I remember, they had some sort of limit – ten or twenty. Other states that started moving ahead said let’s put a limit on this thing. So it was ten.
Vermont Tiger: So what were the objections?
Spaulding: The objections were that ultimately the same objections as school choice faces -- so, you know, if you think about what those are, people didn’t like competition. They thought it would take money away from current public schools. But I still feel that, if we give parents school choice but not take the money that follows the student away from the host schools, well, that strikes me as irrational. It doesn’t make sense to me at all. Part of the motivation was to make people care whether kids wanted to be in their schools or not. And if they were thinking, I’d rather be somewhere else, and there were some repercussions for not being attractive to students, people would try to be more responsive to their needs. So the objections were, again, that it was perceived as a form of school choice, and the established parties have always resisted that. I could never get the House to go along. It’s kind of funny, in some ways. I got some fairly good charter school bills through the Senate, but I could never get it through the House. And then later on, there was some interest in the House, but you probably couldn’t get it through the Senate.
Vermont Tiger: Now, when you say the “established players” – in general – who are you talking about?
Spaulding: People often malign the NEA. It isn’t just the NEA that resists charter schools. It’s the established players. The school boards. The superintendents. And the Vermont-NEA. It’s not just a union thing. You might think it is, but it’s the establishment. Those who have, don’t want to share. The school boards are just as opposed to school choice, if not more so, than the Vermont-NEA.
Vermont Tiger: Well, they seem to have the most money, and they’re the most visible. Would you agree with that?
Spaulding: Yes, but their opposition isn’t because they’re a union. It’s because they’re a part of the group that currently enjoys the monopoly.
Treasurer Spaulding is right on charter schools. But I think he's splitting hairs regarding the NEA. One aspect of the union's "mission" is to protect its monopoly, whether it admits as much or not. The union's purpose is twofold: to advance the interests of its individual members, and of the "collective." For the individual, that means higher wages and better benefits, and if possible, less onerous duties. Maintaining a monoply on education allows its members to keep obtaining pay raises and new perks, because they remain the only game in town.
It's two sides of the same coin, in other words. I think the Treasurer is just wary of looking like a union-basher. With respect to the NEA there is no significant difference between the concepts of union and monopoly.
Posted by: Jon Harrison | January 25, 2008 at 08:51 AM
Jeb is an old friend and I have long admired his stance for the regular folks. It amazes me that while the democrats claim to be for the common man, they are not, but Jeb is.
Posted by: Karen Kerin | January 26, 2008 at 12:01 PM