A recent commentary by Reps. Rebecca Holcombe, of Norwich, Erin Brady, of Williston, and Monique Priestley, of Bradford, while making a few fair points about the rising cost of education, unfortunately ended with inflammatory rhetoric about independent schools and the Vermont style of school choice that has provided amazing opportunities for generations of students in rural Vermont. The thrust of this argument is that students from rural parts of Vermont are driving up taxes because they attend independent schools. These three representatives then assert that our students are served by an “uncontrolled, poorly regulated” voucher system. We are compelled to set the record straight.
First, Vermont does not have an education voucher system. A voucher system, as we see in some other states, is one in which a school district operates a public school, while also providing an option for families to withdraw their children and take a “voucher” to another school. This voucher has the effect of draining resources from the local public school. But under Vermont law, families have no entitlement to tuition payments from their school district if the district operates a public school. In rural parts of Vermont, a number of school districts do not operate public schools for some or all grades. In these rural areas without public schools, school districts can pay tuition for students to attend independent schools, such as Burr and Burton Academy, St. Johnsbury Academy and others. Often, public schools in operating towns are only peripherally available — if at all — to these rural areas. They are not a viable alternative. Independent schools fill the gaps.
Second, this is not an “uncontrolled, poorly regulated” system that is driving up taxes for the rest of Vermont. As a benchmark, Hanover High School, the out-of-state public school serving students from Norwich, has the highest tuition rate of any high school paid by Vermont taxpayers — $23,598. By comparison, the Taconic & Green School District, which serves parts of Bennington, Windham and Windsor counties and is served by independent high schools, pays a tuition rate of $19,987 to Vermont independent schools — a savings of $3,600 per student that benefits all Vermont taxpayers.
Unlike public schools, Vermont’s independent schools require approval and re-approval by the state Board of Education at least once every five years, and they must demonstrate compliance with strict regulations laid out in statute and in rules promulgated by the state Board of Education. This includes compliance with anti-discrimination rules that protect vulnerable students and staff, including our LGBTQ+ community.
In addition to complying with stringent regulations, Vermont’s independent schools are held accountable to the highest standards of all — the need for the support of families and local school districts. Independent schools survive only when they deliver high quality education, for the simple fact that families can exercise a choice of where to send their children. And if the availability and quality of independent school options is not meeting the needs of the community, the local voters always have the power to end tuition payments by building and maintaining their own public school.
Of course, the construction of several new public schools across rural parts of Vermont, for which the authors appear to advocate, would not be without considerable expense to Vermont taxpayers. Where would that money come from? This takes us to a powerful truth often ignored by those attacking the extraordinary opportunities independent schools provide for rural students. Independent schools are not eligible for state construction aid and, therefore, fund their capital construction and improvement programs on their own, resulting in huge savings to Vermont taxpayers. These avoided costs result in increased state bonding capacity available to meet the overwhelming capital improvement needs currently faced by so many of our public schools. It cannot possibly make sense to require the construction of new schools in areas that are already so well served by the current system.
Finally, contrary to erroneous claims made by our colleagues, Vermont’s four historic academies were never public schools. These academies were incorporated as nonpublic, nonprofit entities and have operated as such since their founding in the 19th century. In fact, some of them pre-date the arrival of public education. While a number of other historic academies voluntarily converted from nonpublic, nonprofit entities to public schools (Leland & Gray Seminary, for example), the remaining four historic academies made the decision to forego this transition and have remained independent throughout their history.
While the authors advocate for a ubiquitous, one-size-fits-all system, we suspect most people recognize that just because something is different, doesn’t make it something we need to kill. Throughout the course of the past 200 years, rural parts of Vermont have developed a rich mosaic of options for their children, often public in some grades and independent in others. That mosaic provides extraordinary opportunities for our children at the same time we have saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of construction dollars. The system deserves to be celebrated, not demonized.
Reps. Seth Bongartz, D-Manchester; Scott Beck, R-St. Johnsbury; Michelle Bos-Lun, D-Westminster; Bobby Felice-Rubio, D-Barnet; Robin Chestnut-Tangerman, D-Middletown Springs; Mike Rice, D-Dorset.
