This commentary is by Jess DeCarolis of Groton She has 20 years of experience in education and 13 years experience in municipal and state government, most recently serving as division director at the Agency of Education for eight years.
Gov. Phil Scott appears to be using his powerful platform to disparage working Vermonters who have the audacity to disagree with him, again. He accuses others of using techniques from “playbooks” while using a playbook of his own.
Those who disagree with Scott are disagreeable, those who are concerned with his plan are “fearful of any change from the status quo,” and those who believe that being re-elected does not necessarily mean a “mandate” to circumvent democratic processes are “special interest” groups.
Mr. Governor, please understand that across Vermont, taxpayers have expressed a spectrum of feelings based on your actions. To hide behind the assertion that any critic of your plan is a special interest group is disingenuous – especially when one considers you have so many special interests sitting in your circle of influence.
In the case of those whom you call “special interest” groups I imagine you are thinking about those membership organizations that represent democratically elected school boards, educators, principals, superintendents, school counselors, curriculum leaders, rural communities, advocates for children, etc. In this regard, I wonder if you’ve forgotten about all those working Vermonters you say you’re concerned for and thinking about.
You have a press office (whom Vermont taxpayers pay for) whose job is to get your message out. You have staffers (whom Vermont taxpayers pay for) who brief you. You have legislators (whom Vermont taxpayers pay for) who will introduce legislation for you. You have an education secretary (whom Vermont taxpayers pay for) who is devoting her time to selling your proposal. And, all of these resources you can marshall to your effort because it’s their job.
For the tens of thousands of children and adults that these “special interest” groups represent, they have a day job, too — teaching and learning, governing their local schools and communities, and taking care of their families. Most can’t take the day off to voice their concerns and perspectives. Instead, they rely on those groups you dismiss to give them a voice.
When you say special interest, remember that in fact you’re referring to a significant percentage of the Vermont population. That’s not special interest; that’s the body politic you’re supposed to be serving.
We understand that as a politician you will use rhetoric to sell your ideas; but we do expect that you don’t sell rhetoric at the expense of reality. You actually don’t know that your plan “creates much larger and more efficient districts” — you just hope it does. You state that “the gap between programs from school to school, district to district and region to region is staggering, and getting wider” but you offer no evidence to support this statement, and you fail to mention that you’re baking in the most staggering “gap” of all — an expansion of taxpayer funded private schools and choice carve outs for the lucky, lottery few.
Finally, you said (again), “a report released in January shows that our test scores in key areas are continuing to decline. Which means we’re not getting the best return on our substantial investment.” A few clarifications. Not only did the U.S. Department of Education report that across the nation students were slower to recover from the pandemic than
anticipated, but your characterization that our students continue to decline is misleading.
In both 4th- and 8th-grade mathematics, Vermont performance turned upward; and though our reading performance remains in a downward trend, we have declined to the national average. Vermonters know that we can want more for our students without misrepresenting the truth.
I would invite my fellow Vermonters to stay curious when looking at Vermont NAEP performance and resist glib statements about school performance. As an example, downward NAEP trends began right around the expansion of school choice, the change from a commissioner of education to a politically appointed secretary, sharp declines in AOE staffing and an annual, relentless cascade of legislation including Act 46, our last major governance change. None of these factors have been evaluated by the secretary and governor to inform their plan, nor have they evaluated what’s worked well.
Instead of sprinting to a conclusion, we should be asking more questions, looking at more data and engaging in a far more robust and open process to determine next steps for Vermont’s education landscape — including the impact of state decisions on local outcomes. This was the charge to the Commission on the Future of Public Education — a commission that the secretary and governor chose to circumvent. And, we should avoid the suggestion that big changes are better changes or bold plans are what’s best — particularly when the consequences affect our kids and the effects can be long-lasting.
As a public servant, the governor should be inviting questions and concerns, not denigrating them. That’s a citizenship lesson worthy of our children.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Jessica DeCarolis: Gov. Scott, don’t dismiss those who disagree with you as “special interest” groups.