¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Since returning to the Statehouse in early January, top Democrats in the Legislature have let Gov. Phi Scott lead the way on education reform and carefully refrained from criticizing his ideas.

But as key details have emerged, so to have notes of skepticism. And this week, Democrats drew a line in the sand.

A proposal, unveiled last week by Education Secretary Zoie Saunders, that would allow every student in the state to enter a lottery to attend a “school choice school,� was a non-starter, Senate leader Phil Baruth wrote in a statement Tuesday.

“Vermonters have made clear that they want transformation in the educational system, changes that will address property tax rates and education spending while improving the quality of education for Vermont’s kids,� the Chittenden County Democrat/Progressive said. “What Vermonters did not demand was an expansion of school choice in our state.�

“Put simply, insisting on recasting choice in Vermont has the potential to sink education transformation efforts,� he continued.

House Democrats, meanwhile, took to Facebook on Saturday to write that “expanded school choice and voucher policies are an attack on the strength and quality of our public education system.�

Scott has generally proposed a two-pronged plan to overhaul Vermont’s preK-12 system. First, he wants to consolidate nearly all of the state’s 119 existing school districts into five. And second, he wants the state, not local districts, to dictate school spending.

But large-scale consolidation cannot happen without dealing with the politically explosive question of choice. Because in Vermont’s current system, school districts essentially have three options. They can operate a school, they can provide families with a voucher to go wherever they like, or they can designate a limited number of schools to take their students, often at a discounted rate to the district. For now, these options are mutually exclusive.

Since districts can’t operate a school and tuition out their students, choice generally presents an impediment to regional consolidation, because it would require some communities to either expand school choice � or give it up.

Saunders� proposal appeared to attempt to solve the problem by both expanding and limiting choice. Communities who currently use vouchers would instead be assigned public schools. But all students would be able to enter into a lottery to attend specialized “school choice schools.� Districts would get to decide what schools � public or private � could operate as “school choice schools,� but would need to designate at least one. (A choice already exists that allows high school students to request transfers to other public schools, but it is much more limited.)

Saunders has insisted that in practice, the administration’s proposal would likely reduce the number of private schools eligible for public dollars. But public school advocates, including the teachers union and the Vermont School Boards Association, have panned the idea, and argued it sets the stage for a dramatic expansion in choice.

On Saturday, Scott’s office released a statement excoriating “defenders of the current system � which has declining test scores, massive annual property tax increases and pays teachers unequally,� for “misleadingly� referring to his proposal as a “voucher system.�

“The plan eliminates the flow of public dollars to private schools outside of the state and country,� he wrote. “The plan also assumes the General Assembly will maintain the current moratorium on new independent schools and proposes more accountability standards for independent and public schools.�

In an interview, Baruth did not say how he would solve the problem of choice if lawmakers were to move forward with regional consolidation. But he also noted that he hadn’t committed to consolidation, either � and implied he was far more enthusiastic about funding reform than he was about a governance overhaul.

“One thing that's non-negotiable for me is that Montpelier has to have control of spending in its hands,� he said.

In an interview, House Speaker Jill Krowinski expressed “deep concern� that the governor’s plan could expand choice and undermine public schools.

“We want to strengthen public schools, not weaken them,� the Burlington Democrat said.

But whereas Baruth had suggested lawmakers might deal with funding and leave governance alone, Krowinski argued that, too, could be problematic. Instead, she echoed education officials who have argued that changing how schools are funded without settling key questions about how they are governed and operated risks doing more harm than good.

“We have to make sure that the education policies that we are moving forward with happens first, and then how we fund those changes happens second,� she said.

Have questions, comments or tips? Send us a message.