Act 170 doesn’t solve education problems

To the Editor:
This letter is in response to a steady push over the last two years to consolidate Vermont school districts and to close small rural schools on the part of Gov. Phil Scott and his appointed Secretary of Education, Zoie Saunders. He is recently quoted by Alison Novak in Seven Days as saying “Every year of delay means another year of unequal opportunities for students, another tax increase that families can’t afford… .” Yet neither he nor the Vermont Agency of Education have provided the data to support this claim.
The timeline for beginning to implement Act 170 has already begun: merger study committees are being formed and will start meeting by October 15, even though there is little good information for these committees to investigate. There are at least three major problems with this effort.
First, there is no evidence that Act 170 will either make opportunities more equitable or reduce property taxes. As an example, Act 46 was passed over ten years ago with two main goals: to lower property taxes and to improve educational outcomes. There has been no evidence shown that either of these has happened, and in fact most Vermonters agree that local education property taxes are higher than ever.
Second, Act 170 as it exists currently only includes the governance part of the law. The funding part of the law will be debated during the upcoming session, with decisions made by June. This means that merger study committees are being urged to rush into decisions without knowing what the costs will be. Saunders has offered to make information available to the merger study committees but any data provided before the funding portion of the law is resolved will be partial at best.
Thirdly, the timeline for careful consideration of such monumental changes in Vermont education law is way too short. Act 170 was finalized behind closed doors in the last few days of the last session. The governor knows legislators are already talking about reviewing the timeline of the law in the upcoming session, which is the likely reason to push so hard now, before the Legislature has a chance to review and change the timeline. He should not be pushing this through quickly.
Completely revising Vermont’s education system in such a very short timeline will make for problems ahead, both in the unintended consequences of a poorly-organized revision and in terms of working with Vermont school administrators and the public to understand what is being explored and to build support for any changes.
Dan McArthur
Steering Committee, Rural School Community Alliance, Marlboro School Board member
Marlboro