This commentary is by Mark O’Maley of Essex County. He has devoted 35 years to education, both in the public and private sectors, serving at the secondary and higher education levels across the United States and Vermont.
Gov. Phil Scott’s proposal to restructure public education into five sprawling Montpelier-controlled school districts poses a considerable threat to the democratic values and traditions that Vermonters hold dear.
Scott, who throughout his first eight years in office, has demonstrated a deep lack of commitment to public education — now seeks to rapidly overhaul the system seemingly disregarding the concerns of Vermonters. Is this how you intend to utilize your well-deserved political capital earned during the Covid era, governor? Now in term five, his vague, piecemeal and poorly articulated education plan appears intent on dismantling local governance, directly challenging over two centuries of democratic practices in Vermont, particularly those of town meetings and local control of schools.
Secretary of Education Zoie Saunders seems unfamiliar with our democratic traditions — showing little respect for them or us as she aims to consolidate her power within her Agency of Education while at the same time attempting to undermine local school boards, and you: the taxpayer and voter. Saunders thinks your rights and freedoms can be bought for a supposed property tax break — which shows this initiative seems to silence the voices of Vermonters, particularly in rural and poor areas such as the Northeast Kingdom.
The passage of Act 46 in 2015 marked the beginning of these efforts, which ultimately proved disingenuous regarding taxpayer savings. Now the Scott administration is attempting to mislead the public once more with a one-size-fits-all approach to education that lacks specificity and threatens to fail Vermont’s students and communities.
This plan is unlikely to significantly reduce homestead property taxes, just as Act 46 did not. Now the push to eliminate the opportunity for annual discussions and votes on school budgets — historically the last chance for Vermont taxpayers to voice their opinions and frustrations toward disconnected political leaders. This effort parallels the Scott’s attempts to change Act 250 while eroding Vermonters’ rights concerning questionable local real estate developments.
Scott appears to believe that only he, his political allies and profit-driven companies have the expertise to make informed decisions, dismissing the perspectives of Vermonters as uninformed obstacles. In addition most Vermonters have largely lost control over the property appraisal process in their towns to unelected, unaccountable, profit-driven, condescending private companies.
Scott and Saunders aim to further strip away your rights — ultimately threatening the culture and vitality of our small towns as they seek to privatize public education with your money. Their actions reinforce this notion by marginalizing the Board of Education— the very body responsible for approving private schools in Vermont.
Saunders herself appears to believe that she alone should make educational decisions, a perspective possibly stemming from her lack of experience in public education and Vermont. She and Scott seem intent on the same anti-taxpayer attitudes found in the for-profit property assessment process being applied to public education, where taxpayers are treated as poorly.
With this new model for public education, Vermonters would lose their ability to influence their children’s education and local school budgets. Towns would also lack power to prevent school closures. Wealthy communities may retain their schools, while impoverished areas would likely see closures instigated by Scott, Saunders, and their allies, including new Senate Minority Leader Scott Beck. The “nod to local control” idea of each school or town forming an “advisory committee” is merely a distraction, creating a façade of democracy, as these committees would hold no real authority — something the governor and secretary are acutely aware of, hoping voters and taxpayers remain oblivious.
It is disheartening that Sec. Saunders, who recently relocated to Vermont, is spearheading this attack on Vermont’s democratic principles. Despite being overwhelmingly rejected by the Vermont Senate during her initial confirmation hearings, she and Scott proceeded to disregard Vermonters and their elected representatives, installing her to serve as (interim) secretary of education anyway. With this decision they both showed us exactly who they are.
There is no denying that Vermont’s education funding system is working against those of us who “homestead” here. The responsibility for this crisis rests with the governors and legislatures from all parties, along with profit-driven companies.
Yet, in his correspondence to school boards in the fall of 2024, Scott sought to vilify these local public school boards for rising budgets and property taxes — when school boards lack any control over major budget drivers like health insurance, special education and tuitioning high school students. This tactic fits into a broader agenda to dismantle public education.
To effectively address the challenges facing Vermont’s public schools, we must first determine as a state and as Vermonters who we aspire to be? What do we want Vermont to become? What future do we want for all of Vermont’s children and for education? Do we actually care about local and democratic control? Are we genuinely civic-minded in the spirit of Freedom and Unity?
Sec. Saunders recently expressed concern to the State Board of Education that “this conversation doesn’t feel like we’re all in partnership in getting there.”
You are definitely correct there Secretary. It appears that you are not with us Vermonters — nor is Phil Scott.
Don’t Tread On Us, indeed.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Mark O’Maley: Gov. Scott’s one-size-fits-all approach to education threatens to fail Vermont’s students and communities.