State education commission members may not ‘fully represent Vermont,’ chair says Calls for 'good faith' efforts to bring other voices to the table

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2024 Telegraph Publishing LLC

While the second meeting of the full Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont covered agenda items in detail, one thread ran through the three-hour meeting: public representation, engagement and credibility.

Even before the meeting’s agenda and previous meeting’s minutes were approved, commission chair Meagan Roy spoke to the issue describing a concern about “who’s at the table for this conversation” and a fear that their work would be “discounted before it even begins” due to the “makeup of the committee.”

“I want to acknowledge that the members appointed by the General Assembly to this commission may not fully represent Vermont,” Roy said. “…I think it’s important to say that out loud and state it as a reality.” She went on to say that the commission was “committed to bringing voices in” while allowing that was different from having a seat at the table.”

Still, Roy hoped that people would see the panel doing its work “in good faith, attempting to right some of the missed opportunities” in who was selected for the commission and that members would help bring other voices in. She called these “true concerns.”

The job of proposing how the commission will address openness and accessibility to public opinion and input will fall to the Communications and Engagement Subcommittee, which by statute must be made up only of commission members. That’s true of all of the subcommittees except for the education finance subcommittee. The commission agreed that the following members sit on the Communications Subcommittee:

• Meagan Roy, South Burlington, Census-Based Funding Advisory Group
• Jeff Fannon, Calais, Vermont National Education Association
• Oliver Olsen, Manchester, Vermont Independent Schools Association
• Jay Nichols, Enosburg Falls, Vermont Principals Association
• John Castle, Holland, Vermont Rural Education Collaborative

The subcommittee may have to hire an outside consultant to help with its work, but the state’s procurement process could result in a delay of a couple of months. The commission discussed whether any of the consultants currently working for the AOE would be suitable and if the commission’s outreach efforts could be simply added to an existing contract. Interim Secretary of Education Zoie Saunders said she would check and get back to the commission at its next meeting.

According to Roy, the work of the subcommittee looking at education funding is underway. That subcommittee is charged with coming up with recommendations for solutions in education financing by December of 2025. But first it will have to recommend “cost containment” strategies by Dec. 15, 2024 for the upcoming legislative session. Sen. Ann Cummings said that education finance was not part of the original work of the commission and that under a great deal of public and political pressure, the legislature will take some action in the session starting in January.

Cummings indicated that an unnamed organization was collecting “legislative pledges for one solution.” She also pointed to the problem of interim solutions interfering with putting a better system in place later.

The finance subcommittee consists of:

• Zoie Saunders, interim Secretary, AOE or her designee
• Craig Bolio, Essex Junction, commissioner, Department of Taxes or his designee
• Sen. Ann Cummings, Montpelier, chair, Senate Finance Committee
• Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, Brattleboro, chair House Ways & Means Committee
• Rep. Peter Conlon, Cornwall, chair, House Education Committee
• Nicole Mace, Winooski, Vermont School Boards Association
• Michael Leichliter, Waitsfield, Vermont Superintendents Association
• Elizabeth Jennings, Bristol, Vermont Association of School Business Officers

What data to use in its pursuits

Roy said the public has also urged the commission use “all of the data,” from financial information and student outcomes.

Saunders and AOE General Counsel Emily Simmons gave the panel the  Agency of Education’s 42-page PowerPoint presentation of education data, which you can read here. (According to an AOE spokesperson, the slide show is preliminary and an updated presentation incorporating commission feedback will be released later this week.) The presentation included several slides regarding the legal authority around the commission’s work followed by more than 20 slides showing statistics on student demographics, numbers of students per teacher, student performance by funds spent and district size, outcomes by student subgroups, national rankings, test score trends, staffing levels, staff salaries and more.

Members of the commission asked a number of questions about specific data for closer analysis, asking  whether student populations were counted as individuals or as “equalized pupils”  and how certain mandates — including mental health services — affected spending.

Nicole Mace suggested “unpacking” education spending to capture the lack of scale among smaller schools and communities. She pointed to large districts that may have low per pupil costs but are paying teachers more than $100,000 while other districts can barely pay teachers $50,000 but their per pupil cost appears to be higher. She suggested looking at the actual effects on the education fund when considering actions like closing smaller schools versus spending decisions around the state that are “masked over” by the scale of large districts.

There was more detailed discussion on how to break apart many other aspects of education spending and outcomes as well as state demographics and geography.

Workplan for the commission

One of the commission’s first deliverables is a plan of work laying out how and when it will complete the remainder of its tasks. That’s due back to the legislature by Sept. 15, 2024.  The Steering Group presented the Commission with a memo and chart which Roy called a “framework” noting that it’s not a calendar, but she believes it meets the spirit of the legislation.

Roy said the Commission is charged with doing a really good job of engagement and for that to be happening across the committees will be important.

Public comments highlighted areas to explore

QUESTIONING VALIDITY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ON THE COMMISSION: Jay Denault of Franklin repeated a comment he made during the commission’s Steering Group meeting on Aug. 5, pointing to a document he said was sent to legislators and others from the associations of education professionals and school boards who have representatives sitting on the commission. At that time Denault called it a “hidden agenda” and a “reprehensible attack on the people of Vermont.” Denault said those organizations were advocating for the legislature to allow school boards to bypass voters and directly petition the governor to amend their governance structure and close schools.

SEEKING OPEN FINANCIAL BOOKS OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS: Ken Fredette of Wallingford asked that the commission insist that private schools show the public their books to give a clear understanding of the costs of education. He asserted that private schools say that  such an accounting would be too expensive, but he noted that public schools do this “line by line” every year. “Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent,” said Fredette.

LOBBYING FOR TEACHER, PRINCIPAL PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS: Dan MacArthur of Marlboro wants to see participation by classroom educators and principals in the commission’s process. He also hoped that this commission would work with the other state commission that’s looking at school construction.

MODIFY PUBLIC FUNDING FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS: Greg Hughes of Bethel pointed to the state legislature agreeing to pay for private schools in response to public school overcrowding in the 1990s.  With lower population, public funding for private school is no longer needed, he said, and should be modified. Hughes later encouraged commission members to read Sen. Bernie Sanders’ testimony on the “attacks” on public education.

LACK OF INFORMATION ON ACT 46 OUTCOMES: Margaret MacLean of Peacham pointed to the “pretty big information gap” since no analysis of Act 46 has been done on a state level and legally required reports have not been delivered to the legislature. She asked if the commission would require that gap be filled before making any decisions.

INCLUDE PRIVATE SCHOOL DATA: State Rep. Elizabeth Burrows of Windsor-1 District said she would like to see projections 20 years out, not just five years. She would also like private school data, including student performance, to be part of the discussion.

LACK OF COMMISSION DIVERSITY COULD SKEW PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: Mary Gannon of Winchester N.H. said the commission lacks diversity, which may cause those not represented to see the results as valid.

Public comments may be sent to Chair Meagan Roy: Meagan.Roy@partner.vermont.gov or  AOE.FutureofPublicEdVTPublicComment@vermont.gov