Commentary: Rescue School Choice Now! (February, 2016)

by John McClaughryJohn McClaughry

The most pressing education policy issue of 2016 is protecting parental choice in education against extermination by Act 46.

For years the prevailing view in Vermont’s majority party – the Democratic Party – has been to increase state control of local public education, create larger administrative units more closely under the thumb of the State Board and Agency of Education, mandate universal pre-K (to counter the loss of K-12 pupils), increase pay and benefits for teachers and staff, shift as much school financing as possible to the income tax, require private early education operators to unionize, and reduce the opportunities for parents to choose what education is best for their children.

These policies are aggressively promoted by the Vermont-NEA teachers union which, on matters of interest to it, can fairly be said to own the majority party.

In November 2014 the voters demanded relief from ever-growing school property taxes. Governor Shumlin, Speaker Shap Smith, and the majority party responded with a non-solution: forced consolidation of local districts into unified mega-districts.

This has been the recurring goal of the education establishment since Gov. Phil Hoff promoted the idea in 1964. Despite feeble claims of “achieving operating efficiencies”, there is little reason to believe that the proliferating mega-district bureaucracy, plus higher transportation costs, won’t end up costing as much or more than what it replaced.

But one thing that consolidation into unified districts will certainly achieve – if not resisted – is the extermination of parental choice now enjoyed in 93 tuition towns. The agent of destruction is Act 46, the consolidation bill pushed through by Speaker Smith and his Education Committee chairman David Sharpe.

Here’s why. Suppose that in order to grab five years of property tax incentives, districts A, B, and C agree to consolidate into Unified District U. District A is K-12. District B is K-8. District C, the smallest, operates no school and is a tuition town for all grades.

If District C goes into District U, it will have to give up parental choice, and its pupils will have to attend the District U public schools formerly operated by District A and B. So ruled the State Board of Education last September. This has already happened with two tuition towns, Westford and Elmore.

Suppose the voters and parents of District C reject the tax incentives, stand up to the pressure from Montpelier, and stay independent. Act 46 essentially puts them on death row. By 2019 the Board and Secretary of Education will assign them to a unified district or an “alternative governance structure”. To her credit, Secretary Holcombe has expressed a willingness to consider a unified “side by side” district of all-choice towns. But no such creature has ever been created, and Holcombe may not be Secretary when the day of decision comes.

Supporters of Act 46 point to language in that law intended to protect school choice where it exists. No, they say, Act 46 won’t force a district to give up choice! But if the tuition town district takes the bait to merge, it then vanishes. The likely result will be loss of choice for its pupils.

Whether Act 46 was deliberately drafted to obscure its likely effect of destroying choice remains a matter of controversy. Chairman Sharpe assured legislators that Act 46 does not take away tuition town choice. Maybe he really believed that, maybe not.

But now legislators of both parties who took Sharpe’s word that Act 46 protects choice have come to realize that that’s not good enough. The legislature badly needs to enact “choice rescue” language that allows pupils in tuition towns to retain choice when they merge into a unified district.

Sens. Rich Westman, Brian Collamore and Peg Flory have introduced a bill (S.249) that protects choice for tuition town pupils in newly merged districts, and actually extends it to the pupils entering the unified district from K-8 and K-12 districts.

Rep. Heidi Scheuermann and twelve cosponsors, including two Democrats, have introduced a similar bill (H.579) in the House. Both bills apply only to unified districts created under Act 46 on or before mid-2019.

Parental choice is a good for parents and children. It’s good for the public education system because it forces public schools to improve to keep from losing pupils. A well-drafted “choice rescue” bill won’t increase education costs, and it will keep Vermont at the forefront of states that recognize the value of parental choice in education.

Parents and school directors will have the chance to speak out for protecting school choice at a hearing and rally at the State House on February 24 (1:15pm) . The teachers’ union hopes no one will come. Disappoint them.

– John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

samuel shultis February 16, 2016 at 3:50 pm

Vermont can defy federal law and grow/sell reefer …. but send children to a ‘religious’ school with tax dollars? Hell forbid ….


Jim Bulmer March 1, 2016 at 4:28 pm

Bottom line of all this is the power of the NEA over the legislature. If the NEA objects to S 249 and H 579, forget about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Montpelier is broken and the only way it can be fixed is a major house clearing and replacing the dreamers with folks who have some plain old common sense. We’ve had enough of these feel good, tree hugging tax and spenders !!!!!!!!!!!!


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

A Response to “Who’s Really Politicizing Our Kids”

June 13, 2019 by Rob Roper The following is in response to a letter that appeared in the Caledonian Record on June 10th by Steven Isham.  To the...

VPIRG’s Plastic Agenda

June 12, 2019 By John McClaughry The plastic bag ban is sitting on Gov. Phil Scott’s desk. If he signs it, Statehouse Chronicle writer Guy Page reports, a working...

The Blittersdorf Special

June 11, 2019 By John McClaughry Remember the Champlain Flyer? That was Howard Dean’s commuter train that ran 13 miles from Charlotte to Burlington. After three years’ operation...

Roll Call! Senate Blocks Amendment to Remove Insurance Innovation from Bill (7-22), 2019

S.131 – AN ACT RELATING TO INSURANCE AND SECURITIES (BARUTH AMENDMENT) FAILED in the State Senate on April 3, 2019 by a vote of  7-22  . Purpose: The Amendment called for removing...

California Prison Drugs

June 7, 2019 By John McClaughry Steven Greenhut, writing in the Orange County (California) Register, makes an interesting point about drugs in prisons. He quotes a San Francisco...