Emerson Lynn On Politics

Vt. needs to view ed issue as key
opportunity

The trick to mounting opposition to an idea is to reduce it to its barest essentials and then pretend there is no reasonable option but to oppose it. That’s what’s happening with the request unveiled by the governor last week to restructure how we pay for the state’s K-12 school system.

Senate Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin has said that Democrats will oppose the idea saying it was unconscionable to pin the blame for the state’s economic woes on the backs of students and our schools.

The governor, of course, did no such thing. We spend over $1.4 billion in education and he pointed out the obvious, which is that it doesn’t make any sense to think that we can cut everywhere else, but to hold our schools harmless. To suggest otherwise, as Mr. Shumlin does, is to pander to the special interests and to ignore the potentials for true reform. It does Vermont a disservice, and ignores other parts of the debate that may also hold considerable potential.

True, the governor put a bull’s eye on K-12 education. But he also brought to people’s attention the fact that we don’t spend enough on pre-K education and higher education. He wants to increase their budgets by a whopping 20 percent. He also has asked that he be given recommendations by Nov. 15 as to how the Vermont State College system and the University of Vermont can be transformed into a single unit. The governor wants to know whether there are efficiencies that could be realized in terms of administration, program offerings, etc.

Again, the governor treads on fragile grounds. The legislature doesn’t hold a candle to our educational structures when it comes to internal politics. Most conversations there begin with the refrain: “We can’t do that…”

And it may be that the gains are so marginal that it’s not worth the battle. But the governor should staff his task force with personalities that don’t give in easily to that mentality. What is needed is a group that views the governor’s task as being full of opportunity.

To do that also requires the governor’s proposal to be viewed in its entirety, even though it was not presented as such.

There are three parts at work: early education, public K-12 education, and higher education. The common denominator to each is one thing: educating our children at an affordable price.

To view this in the macro sense, it breaks down like this: To be successful at stages two and three, the first has to be solid, which means the governor is right to put more money into early education. The sooner children at risk can be put into an educational environment the better. The third stage – college – cannot be fully realized until it becomes more affordable and until a higher percentage of high school students are ready to attend. Putting more state money into higher education is a start.

That puts the onus on K-12, since that is where the bulk of the money is spent. But it should also be in cooperation with the other two to determine how all three can succeed together. This isn’t a discussion that can happen in isolation. Our colleges and state university, for example, have a huge stake in our K-12 outcomes. And their observations are…?

There is a new book out called “Outliers” by Malcom Gladwell and in it, he describes the KIPP – Knowledge is Power Program – in which the lead school in Brooklyn deals with a student population in which 85 percent is eligible for assistance and about the same percentage is of students of color. To make a long story short, about 80 percent of its students now go on to college and it scores off the charts with its standardized tests. How? Lots of reasons, but king among them is the 7:25 a.m. – 5 p.m. school day, which also includes two Saturdays a month [8 a.m. – 2 p.m.] and a three week summer school session [8 a.m. – 2 p.m.].

Statistics show that it’s the summer months that most often contribute to the lag between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Going to school longer, in other words, is the best means by which to help those at the bottom while also giving those at the top more opportunities as well.

Vermont is a tiny state. Could we not embrace such change? Instead of picking apart the details of the governor’s
as-yet unformed educational plan, could we not agree that what we have before us is an opportunity to recast the educational landscape in a way that seeks efficiencies and improves outcomes?

(Emerson Lynn is editor & publisher of the St. Albans Messenger where this essay first appeared.)

Comments

[Peter Joes]

Interesting point - - "We spend over $1.4 billion in education and he pointed out the obvious, which is that it doesn’t make any sense to think that we can cut everywhere else, but to hold our schools harmless."

But - - health care costs three times as much, is rising three times as fast and is totally uncontrolled - - but not a word from the Gov. We vote to put our school boards in. We vote on the school budget. We vote to put our legislators in. We don't get any vote on medical costs because there is no health care budget, no health care system. But silence from the Governor.

The emphasis on school costs is misplaced.

PJ

[Richard]

Peter writes:

"We don't get any vote on medical costs because there is no health care budget, no health care system."

No vote on medical costs? No health care budget? No health care system?

Add up all the costs of your ELECTED legislature's regulations; mandates; guaranteed issue policy; community rating policy; and cost shifts - to name a few - and here, Peter, you can find your "vote on medical costs." Here you can find your "health care budget." Here you can find your [failed] health care system.

[Lazarus Long]

Hey Peter,

Take GOVT out of the health paying and regulating business and then you can vote on your health care - with your dollars. Then your dollars will be better spent and worth more.

[Peter Joes]

Interesting that no one could address the main premise of the post - - medical costs are three times the cost of education and are rising three times as fast - -

Nothing is being done about this.

Emphasis on ed costs are misplaced.

I guess you'all just agree with me on the main point.

PJ

[Richard]

What? Peter writes "that no one could address the main premise of the post - - medical costs are three times the cost of education and are rising three times as fast -- "

Peter, VOTE out the legislators that have regulated, mandated and restricted (inter-state purchase of insurance) this sector of our economy to its high and rising costs and then maybe you might see real reform.

Issue addressed.

[Peter Joes]

Thanks Richard for your response. The only specific you mentioned is the inter-state purchase of insurance.

Surely you know what the issue is here.

It's the old community rating thing.

By allowing people to buy any insurance policy anywhere you wind up with a class - - let's say college students with no health problems- - than can buy really cheaply. Good for them, but what about the rest of us that don't fit in that category.

We would either pay much higher rates, or more than likely, would be denied insurance altogether.

So, the people that would have these higher rates, either go bare (no insurance) or, if they can, pay the cost. This means that general taxes, your favorite, is left to pay for most of the people that don't fit into the favored categories.

Is this what posters on this forum want? I'm just trying to understand.

PJ