Candidate Questionnaire

A tough question. My answer as a former school board member is no. If we support private schools receiving public dollars, the same educational quality standards and financial reporting standards should be followed by all schools. These standards have been developed to promote fairness and equity for students, families, and taxpayers. Why should some be allowed to ignore them?

public school requirements should not be reduced to allow them to cut costs

No

No. We should be focused on raising standards and expectations for all taxpayer-funded schools while centering the best interests of all students. We can do that AND find ways to reduce costs — perhaps by taking a closer look at the social services that public schools are expected to cover in their budgets. If the education fund was being relied on simply to pay for educating students, we would be having much different conversations.

No. We should not defund our education system. We should invest more money into our education system and not less.

No

Sorry, I don’t know enough about which requirements we’re talking about to know whether reducing those requirements in public schools would do any damage to the education, the students, or the teachers.

No

Private schools should have to meet the same requirements as public schools. I do not think public school requirements should be reduced simply to allow cost cutting. I do think we need a review of some of the requirements that have been placed on public schools over the past decade to see if they are actually helping us reach our goals. I also think there should be no further mandates put on public schools without a source of funding in place to support them.

Again, it seems reasonable to have consistency in requirements of schools accepting public funds, and it is important to make sure reporting requirements are productive and not just creating extra work for schools.

• declined to respond

I'm not sure which requirements you're talking about, so I'll say this: either reduce public school requirements or increase private school requirements. They should be the same if the school is accepting public funds.

A complicated question. The administrative complexity and burden of government and international programing requirements and financial reporting as well as federal and state mandates directly impacts the cost of education. Over the last century excessive public school legislation has been enacted to ensure no child is left behind and every child succeeds. These costly programs have driven up the administrative cost of public education, while national test scores, standards and student enrollment have declined. So yes, public schools should look at the private school model to glean insight into how to streamline or reduce costs associated with federal educational requirements.

• declined to answer

All of our students have a right to a high quality education. Should public school requirements be reduced to allow them to cut costs? There is a legislative process by which we would do that, and it would include much public stakeholder input. Not being an expert on education funding, or requirements—but a parent of two young students, it is my opinion that we be inclusive, listen and put students first when contemplating change.

NO

As long as all of the laws that our public schools have to comply with are student centered, then all schools that receive public funds should comply with the same laws.

When, as we do today, we have different requirements for public and private schools that receive tax dollars, this question could be asked somewhat differently.  The question could be "should public schools be required to educate all students, even those that have special needs and cost more to educate". We would never ask this question. We, as a society, have agreed that all students must be given the same opportunity to learn.  Public schools are required to provide this to all students.  Private schools in Vermont often choose students that best "fit" their school. This can keep their costs lower than public schools.  Another question that we would never ask would be "should public schools be allowed to hire teachers that are unlicensed to keep costs down".  When we ask these questions it is much more clear why this is a problem today in Vermont.

Public school requirements should not be reduced; private schools should be held to the same requirements that public schools are. And, I must add, they should be held to the same standards regarding Act 1/educational quality standards, HHB, discrimination, and treatment of marginalized populations (including parents, students, and staffing). Further, I feel they should not only be held to quality standards set exclusively by their peers, but by levels held by their public school counterparts.

No - we should have the same standards for all public dollars and all public dollars should stay IN the system that supports ALL students

Well that would depend on what the requirements are - don't you think? Having blanket statesmen like this one and #1 above do no one any good with out knowing the details and the context. The State and public schools are known for there inefficient use of funds. I also know that charter school offer in many cases better education then public schools for lower cost. In fact there are Charter Schools in "undeserved" parts of Harlem that compete on and equal or higher level with public schools in more affluent neighborhoods?? I just did research on Alpha Schools that have an incredible new way of teaching and the cost/ kid is slightly more the the real state cost/ kid in Vermont. There current student performance stats easily exceed tradition school systems. For instance Burlington cost/kid is about $31,000+-. There is an Alpha Public Schools system of East San Jose which is privately owned by parent whose demographics are the same as the San Jose public school, but their outcomes seem to be much better. I think you guys should be looking into these innovations instead of trying to trying to denigrate private education. Overall Vermont Public School and funding are failing miserably with cost going UP and performance going DOWN per the Joint Fiscal committee. What is needed is a drastic reconstruction of Vermont's entire education system. The above question do nothing to solve our public school issues.

No

Yes

Cut requirements to save costs? Probably not… which requirements.

The public schools should have the ability for local reforms to spending, while maintaining compliance with state laws.

Reducing requirements for public schools in order to allow for a reduction in costs is a challenging issue, one that balances fiscal responsibility with the need for high educational standards. I support ensuring that Vermont's public school students have access to the highest quality education possible. However, where appropriate, I support cost saving measures in order to provide parity. I do not support lowering requirements when it will mean vulnerable students are underserved.

I think my answer is no if I'm understanding the question. Public schools should cut costs when possible to be fiscally responsible, but never at a cost to a student's education. If I'm off track, please further explain the question.

yes, I will propose eliminating the state AOE and school board to end the wasteful mandates that burden local school systems. Of course there would need to be standards that must still be met. In place of the state school board I will propose having local school boards statewide meeting to discuss successes, failures, and inviting educators to come discuss their success stories.

No. If we have standards and requirements set to ensure a certain quality of education, then those requirements should be across the board. If they are optional for any school, then they shouldn't be "requirements" in the first place. Private schools should have to meet all of the same requirements as public schools. We need to lift private school requirements up, not lower public school's.

Those requirements are a diverse group. Reducing some might make sense. It would be worth taking a look while keeping in mind that most of those requirements were put in place for good reasons.

It depends on which costs you are referring to. This is too general and open-ended a question.

hard to answer, depends on which requirements. But in general, I don’t think requirements with proven value should be cut

In my opinion, the public schools have been tasked with more than education. Because of this, the education of our children has taken a back seat to other non-educational agendas. Many parents have seen this and chosen a private education that centers on education rather than a host of other influences. Should the requirements for public schools be reduced to cut costs? Yes. However, until this reduction in non-educational requirements actually becomes a reality, parents/caregivers should be able to choose the school that most aligns with their vision for their child. That choice could be aided by the dollars they currently pay to the education fund as long as there were no strings attached. Maybe this move toward a free-market educational system would allow our educational dollars to fund an education rather than the very expensive quagmire that currently characterizes public education.

This is a question that we need to grapple with as a state and it is something I would hope could come out of the work of the Commission on the Future of Public Education. In order to make education more affordable, do we reduce requirements across the public education system? Or do we keep the high level of accountability and professionalism and make other changes to the system to cut costs? In either scenario, I maintain that private schools that accept public dollars must be held to the same requirements as public schools. Anything less is inequitable, unfair, inefficient and difficult to manage and oversee.

No. Public dollars, public rules.

No

We should make sure that we align our public and private schools to share what works and what doesn’t and how we move forward.

No. We need to maintain high standards, not lower them.

All schools that are funded out of the Public Education Fund should have to follow the same rules as public schools.

Thetford Academy is an example of how committing to follow public school rules doesn't erode quality. It has private governance but committed to the same public mission it had prior to 1991. It commits to meeting public education standards and the town designated Thetford as its public school for the purposes of tuition, which means every child in Thetford knows they can continue with their peers, and the school is a hub of the community. TA employs licensed teachers who are all subject to a fingerprint supported background check. Thetford includes democratically elected school board members on their board of trustees.TA provides school meals, and school events are community events.  Based on older data, despite serving a more diverse population, its academic performance was on the high end of performance in the state's historical academies. With this example in mind, I question those who say that having to meet the higher standards imposed on public schools and the inclusive standards imposed on public schools is bad for children.

Which of the rules are bad?  How is it bad to give every kid a fair chance? How bad are high standards? How is inclusiveness a bad way to prepare young people to live and work in our communities?  How can our democratic institutions function if we don't believe we can go to school with our neighbors?

I think it is important to scrutinize exactly what requirements people seem to think we should apply to public schools but not taxpayer-funded private schools.

What requirements would we reduce? The right to due process? Protection of civil rights? No publicly available performance data? The requirement that teachers have qualifications to teach in their subject area and a fingerprint-supported background check to ensure they don't have a history of predatory behavior? No responsibility for accessing medicaid dollars to reduce the impact on taxpayers? No responsibility for completing school meal paperwork, effectively putting the burden back on VT taxpayers for meals the federal government would have funded?  No financial transparency to ensure that public dollars are not being used to fund the retirement of a headmaster in Florida or property improvements and lawn maintenance by students on the private property of a headmaster. as has happened, without consequence?

Should some students in some regions that depend on public schools just not have to teach advanced math and science, or have a social studies teacher teach science, as the Scott administration once suggested? Or not provide free meals to economically disadvantaged students-- meals they need?

AOE data suggest that public schools (and inclusive schools like TA) serve a disproportionate number of economically disadvantaged students or students with disabilities from neighboring tuition districts. Should they be allowed to "just say no" to this concentration of disadvantage in public schools by tutioning districts, leaving these students without a school?

Would we lower the academic standards for public schools to match the lower standards for private schools?

Since a few taxpayer-funded religious schools insist on their "right" to exclude and not hire LGTBQ people, should public schools be allowed to refuse to hire people with strong religious beliefs that are hostile to LGTBQ people?

If there is a regulation that is too burdensome and provides no value to children, then of course we should not apply it to either public or private schools. However, if a statute was passed because it benefits students, why on earth would we not also apply it to the private schools that are funded by taxpayers to serve our children. We do need to be wary of turning schools into compliance machines. However, a race to the bottom does not serve children.

Public schools are not perfect, because as a state, we are not perfect.  Our public schools reflect the diversity, the strengths and the weaknesses of our communities. We cannot have a strong future for democracy if we cannot learn to work together and find common cause across our differences.  The answer is not to pull back into schools with only people like ourselves and people we feel are "a good fit."  The answer is to embrace the fact that we share our communities and this beautiful state, to learn about each other, and find ways to work through our democratic institutions towards shared purposes.  We cannot do that without public schools.

Any school sanctioned by the DOE should meet the same academic standards as any other school.  That is essentially the Brigham decision foundation...

Yes, absolutely. Our public schools frequently cite the requirements from the state for their policies and their costs. There should be a concerted effort made to lower those mandates to allow public schools to operate more competitively. Please allow me to add that educating our children is a very high priority for me. Whether that happens through public schools, private schools, or at home is of less concern. Our public schools , like many government institutions, seem to have forgotten who they are intended to serve. Having to compete for the funding they receive will ultimately benefit our public schools.

No, public schools should not lower their standards to get into a race with private schools about who can be the "cheapest". We can, and should, have high standards for our public school systems.

No.  If they want public money, they should meet the inclusive standards we set for public schools.

No. The private schools should be meeting the same requirements as public schools. Cutting costs usually lowers quality, and that is not an acceptable use of taxpayer dollars.

No. Any process by which we determine public school requirements should be made completely independent of considerations for how those requirements would impact private schools.