School Consolidation: Money, Democracy and Community

by William J. Mathis
 
Twenty major reports calling for state mandated consolidation of Vermont schools were flung on the trash heap in the twentieth century. The twenty-first century opened with Richard Cate presenting the twenty-first report. It also failed.

The twenty-second plan, to eliminate local boards and collapse Vermont’s town districts into 12 to 24 mega-districts, has now been placed on the state board table. Meanwhile, Commissioner Armando Vilaseca touts consolidation in practically every speech.

Before, yet again, embarking on such an ill-starred journey, we should ask why the previous efforts have suffered such ignominious defeats. The reasons are straightforward.

First, any effort to take away the democratic powers and authorities of citizens immediately runs into a vociferous backlash. Second, none of the plans show we can save money. Third, the citizens instinctively understand that the vital bond of communities, parents and children is essential for quality education. Democracy:  The recent Council on the Future of Vermont reports that citizens see the school as the heart of their town. They value local schools, in their communities, where their children and the town’s children attend together. They value the election of local school board members. They value the ability to be able to call their neighbor to register a concern or a complaint and get something done. They value locally developed school budgets, voted by them. Whether mega-banks, mega-business or mega-government, people are wary of distant decisions by far-away people where their voice is lost in voice-mail purgatory. The proposed replacement of school boards with toothless “community school councils” is a pale and wane substitute.

Money: Despite Commissioner Vilaseca’s oft-repeated claim, there is no evidence that consolidation saves money. In fact, in the short term, it costs more, Dr. David Silvernail, a national expert, told the Vermont Education Funding and Effectiveness Committee.

Some business groups tout consolidation as it works in their environment. However, schools are more labor intensive and are, by nature, less automated. When schools consolidate, it often will cost more as teachers bargain up toward the higher paying school’s salaries. Savings in abandoning a local school (which often becomes a real estate albatross) are offset by higher transportation costs and building renovations. Parents are faced with the cost and inconvenience of going to a more distant school for events.

As for consolidating central offices, they consume only 2.4% of education dollars. Saving a great deal from such a relatively small percentage is an even smaller savings. The minuscule savings are easily swallowed up by the annual increase in health premiums.

Education as Community: Vermonters, as well as citizens across the nation, understand that schools are far more than just test scores. They intuitively know what the research says. Small schools raise student achievement, reduce violence and disruption, combat anonymity and isolation, increase attendance and graduation rates, elevate teacher satisfaction, improve school climate, operate more cost-effectively, weaken the effects of poverty and increase parent-community involvement. These civic knowledges are vital to the core purposes of schools. Perhaps it is because Vermont schools embrace these characteristics that our performance is so high, our child well-being measures so positive and our citizens support their school budgets so well.

The Commissioner has to show that consolidation will not diminish democratic participation, will save money, and enhance student learning and civic virtues to such a degree that citizens will swap off part of their democratic power. There is little evidence that this case can be made.

Local towns and schools should, however, band together for greater efficiencies and better programs. More than 30 successful and productive examples have occurred in recent years. (Full disclosure requires me to report that I have been involved in very successful and not so successful local consolidation efforts).

Likewise, we can increase school efficiency while maintaining our democratic linkages in our communities. School business operations, special services, transportation, curriculum and professional development are needlessly fragmented. Centralizing these functions is simple and expedient.

The Council on the Future of Vermont said the state’s number one priority is affirming Vermont’s identity. The second concern is promoting community and the third is building Vermont unity in a society increasingly economically and cyber-segregated. There are good ways to achieve and sustain these values. One would be in strengthening, rather than weakening, the bonds between towns, citizens, and generations in the democratic governance of our schools.

 
(William J. Mathis was a long-serving Vermont Superintendent and now serves as the Managing Director of the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC). He resides in Goshen, VT.)
           
            
           

Comments

[Richard]

William, You write: "The Council on the Future of Vermont said the state’s number one priority is affirming Vermont’s identity. The second concern is promoting community and the third is building Vermont unity in a society increasingly economically and cyber-segregated..."

Where does this council derive its right to speak for Vermont?

It is these words which Americans are increasingly looking to:

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness..."

[Hugh Kemper]

The Kemper Plan’s proposed reorganization of Vermont Public K-12 education (available on this site under Essential Reading) is predicated on Vermonters’ values of local control of local schools and an inclusive Special Education. As such, local school boards are fully empowered to manage their schools and the identified savings assume no school closings. That said, consolidations should be considered if (a) there are clear and identifiable cost savings and administrators are held accountable for realizing them, (b) there is a real prospect for improved outcomes and (c) there is support among the communities for them.

While Mr. Mathis alludes to the centralization of various functions to achieve efficiencies, he neglects to address the two principal cost drivers of Vermont K-12’s unsustainable spending; namely, (1) that K-12 has far too many staff (primarily teachers, teacher aides and administrators) relative to current and prospective enrollment and (2) that staff compensation (salaries and benefits) has risen at a considerably faster pace than in the private sector. The number of staff and staff compensation are critical issues for a very simple reason- staff compensation accounts for 80% of current education spending. No initiatives proposed to achieve “savings” that do not include significant and warranted staff reductions will be particularly meaningful. The containment of future education spending will be problematic without aligning compensation (including pension benefits) with private sector “best practices”.

The public sector should not be immune from reorganizations warranted by circumstances. Vermont’s education spending/tax crisis- both current and prospective- demands that we reduce significantly K-12’s spending. As the Kemper Plan suggests, significant savings are achievable without compromising Vermonters’ values or denying our kids the resources they need.

[timv]

Mathis is part of the problem. He has had a lifetime in the current (dydfunctional) "system."

The biggest cost is labor. Consolidation in a business always improves labor efficiency. If two grade schools each have a 2nd grade class of 12 students each, why can't one grade school have one class of 24 students - thus eliminating a position? Simplistic example, but you get the idea.

And the idea of "local control" is a myth. Between NCLB, state mandates, Act 60, imposed union contracts, etc. about the only decision that the local school board makes is when to meet.

If anything a large district would be able to get better deals from vendors and - hopefully - hire better labor negotiators.

[RFC]

Prof. Mathis, in his usual arrogant manner, suggests that he is the God of Education in Vermont, the all-and-only-knowing prophet and practitioner. As he frequently - even normally - does, he distorts the facts to favor his point of view while ignoring many of the realities which place his specious diatribes at the top of the trash heap.

For those who may not be aware of it, it was Mathis who identified and then presented Amanda Brigham as the name plaintiff in the law suit which resulted in the so-called "Brigham Decision" by the Vermont Supreme Court. That decision gave the General Assembly the green light with legislating Act 60, the law which actually took away most of power of Vermont towns to control not only the curriculum in the district schools, but, as importantly, the funding. Under the infamous Act 60, virtually all of both of those powers ended up in Montpelier.

That Mathis should offer the reluctance of school boards to give up control over the running of their local schools as the reason that previous efforts toward consolidation failed is as fallacious and deceptive as most of his other utterances. The fact of the matter is that Act 60 effectively removed virtually all such powers from local control and those who don't realize it are still drinking too many of the verbal cocktails which Mathis offers up from time to time to try to convince others that he has all the answers.

At this festive time of year when we offer gifts to those we love and thanks to those who have contributed to our well-being, perhaps some may want to praise Mathis for delivering us into the hands of Act 60 which has created so much divisive angst in our state for over ten years. I am not one to be counted among those who are prepared to confer sainthood on the professor.

[Retta Dunlap]

I was on the transformation commission and for what ever the document is worth, only time will tell. However, it needs to be represented accurately.

I see why a former superintendent needs to discredit this report and fast.

First, it would eliminate supervisory boards for starters. On page 64 it states, “The powers of an education district board shall be revised to align with education transformation and to eliminate responsibilities to supervisory union boards.” A layer of bureaucracy gone...

Second, the report restructures education so that the single governance board focuses on the things that need to be consolidated (centralization) while leaving the education decentralized and up to the local schools and parents. On page 65 it says, “Community School Councils will exist to advise the principal on how best to educate learners and improve school performance. The council helps shape the school environment…

{This report is NOT about closing schools and consolidating them – just taking the smaller districts and creating fewer bigger ones. They will work just similar to districts do now with more control than they have now. It is a red herring to say this is about closing small schools. It is not.}

Third, it would give families more control over their child’s educational needs. The document states on page 59, “With larger education districts, learners would have full access to enroll (full- or part-time) in any public and approved independent school in the district.”

Fourth, it makes schools and faculty actually accountable for the education they are delivering. On page 9, in the Education Quality Standards section it says to “…strengthen accountability for outcomes.” This is something that has been fought against for years. (Merit pay is one such example but not mentioned in the transformation document as it is not about accountability but about rewarding teachers for good work done).

Fifth, by changing how education is delivered to students we will be able to eliminate some of the issues surrounding special education by letting kids learn at their own pace. ON page 28 it says, “Each learner follows the learning path that best supports success. The time
required and range of learning activities can vary dramatically among learners. Failure is not an option. Mediocrity is not an option. The old grading paradigm of the “bell-shaped curve” is no longer acceptable – each learner must perform at a high level and the learning process adapts to ensure all succeed.” Sound like a learner progress at their own pace without the need for a label.

Now about democratic power: I can not think any power greater democratic power than a family choosing the school for their child. Or democratic power of a school community of parents, teachers and the principle having the freedom to choose and control what goes on in their school (they will be held accountable for it).

Now about saving money: We currently have a system of education with its current structure that we simply can not afford. The costs are going up and up and up and the student population is going down and down and down. Currently we have no control. Transformation offers a better way to control those costs. That is how you save future tax dollars.

Now as for the bonds of community: Every single school whether public or private has a community surrounding them. So does every church and relief agency. Within towns there are multiple communities. What is essential for a quality education is not a single school building which the town pulls around but for parents to be involved in their children’s lives.

Now as for the replacement of local school boards: The local school boards have very little power as it is. They are currently toothless. So if they indeed have little control, then let’s transform the system and change it to a board that only cares about the education that goes on inside the school. Let the larger district take care of things like the purchase of oil.

I would swap off the so called “demoractic power” that Mr. Mathis refers to for a different kind of democratic power. The ability to choose the school for my child and then the ability to work democratically within the school to provide a quality education for my child.

There is a concept of a democracy that very few talk about and that is the rule of the majority. This means that a minority can be ignored. Children are falling between the cracks in Vermont schools. About 30% of them. I am not sure that I want this kind of governance without some kind of check and balance in place like the ability of the child to enroll the school that best fits their needs.

After all this is supposed to be about the children.

[G. Cross]

"perhaps some may want to praise Mathis for delivering us into the hands of Act 60 which has created so much divisive angst in our state for over ten years." Such a statement can only be made by one who has absolutely no idea about the inequities which were the rule prior to Act 60 or the pain that was endured by parents and students in poor communities. The fact that Act 60 brought a degree of equal education to all Vermont students and reasonable tax equity to property tax payers, seems to be lost on many posters on this site. The problem now is that those who reaped all the benefits under the old system now have to pay their fair share and that makes them angry. They loved the old system that ensured that kids in poor towns would never have the programs offered in the rich towns. Under that system it was easy for the haves to keep and to make sure the have nots would never get. Sorry, boys and girls that era has gone bye, bye!

[GEN X Vermonter]

One of two things needs to happen with education.

-Give full control of school funding to the state; ie no more silly town meetings. The state does, after all control the real bulk of the spending through act 60.

-Amend the state constitution to give funding control to the towns. Hey if you don't like your towns school, MOVE TO A DIFFERENT TOWN!

Our current system is a hybrid socialistic operation. It gives you the "feel" of local control. The reality of it is no 2 schools are the same; you will always have some schools better than others, no amount of funding will help that. The legislature should have amended the constitution instead of creating act 60. Thank you Gov Dean >8-(

[DCE]

Ah, yes, the bugaboo of the"consolidated" educational system.

From past experience (and history) one can equate such a consolidated system with mediocre education. The lowest common denominator ends up being the driving force for all educational decisions at that level, meaning the quality of education will decline even while costs continue to climb. Parents will have no say in how their children will be educated, but they'll still be obliged to foot the bill.

This is supposed to be a better way of educating our children? Really? There are far too many examples out there to prove that supposition wrong.

[Vermont Woodchuck]

"Under that system it was easy for the haves to keep and to make sure the have nots would never get. Sorry, boys and girls that era has gone bye, bye!"

Sorry George, the haves are going bye-bye and they're taking it with them. Dropping enrollments and rising costs are your legacy.

For a peep at Vermont's future, look west to NY, MI or CA. NY and CA taxpayers are fleeing causing budgetary devastation; MI has been a Socialist basket case since 1961.

[G. Cross]

Well Chucker, apparently equity, fairness and a willingness to do your part are not your bag. That is fine, just keep looking for a better hole in the ground. I am sure there is one somewhere that will meet your needs.

[GreggB]

The whole VT school bit is funny. Anyone who cares about their children's education has left VT. You folks are fighting over stuff no one with any sense wants.

[Vermont Woodchuck]

George, I'm not alone. Gregg summed it up. So did a bunch of others who viewed Vermont in the rear view mirror. I miss Vermont. I don't miss the stupidity of the politics.

You're peddling corn syrup in front of maple trees. Smart people quit buying that product five years ago; they're getting out-Vermont is going broke and the numbers are staring you in the face.

Get your wallet open, you voted for the programs. Now you pay for them.