Rutland Herald | March
25, 2017
Bill Mathis has been at the leading edge of
education reform in Vermont for many years, which rubs some people the wrong
way. As a member of the state Board of Education, he has continued his role as
a defender of education equity, though two members appointed by Gov. Phil Scott
are not so happy about it.
The board recently selected a new chairwoman,
Krista Hurley, and chose Mathis as vice chairman. But the new members, John
Carroll and John O’Keefe, dissented on Mathis.
Mathis’ latest cause has been rules under
consideration by the board requiring private schools using public money to
adhere to the same rules as public schools with regard to services provided to
students. Mathis argues that private schools serving a public role, such as
Burr and Burton Academy in Manchester or St. Johnsbury Academy, have a
responsibility to serve all students, as public schools do.
Friends of Burr and Burton are not amused, and the
school has some powerful friends, including Sens. Dick Sears and Brian Campion
of Bennington County. They have suggested curbing the independence of the board
in response to the board’s consideration of the new rules.
The equity issue arises if private schools fail to
provide special education services required by local students. Public schools
have an obligation to serve all students, even those who are severely disabled.
Doing so is often a significant cost burden for schools and taxpayers, but
denying education to students with disabilities is against the law. Providing
education for them is the fulfillment of a sacred trust to the residents of
Vermont.
Vermont’s education system has evolved as a kind of
hybrid. Historically, some regions have relied on private institutions as their
principal local schools. State law allows students from towns lacking public
schools to attend the schools of their choice, with their own towns providing
tuition. Thus, Burr and Burton and similar schools have become de facto public
schools, though because they are privately operated, all public regulations
have not always applied.
As a matter of fairness, Mathis and others believe
that allowing private schools to opt out of providing needed services is wrong.
It gives those private schools a financial advantage (an advantage not lost on
taxpayers), and forces some students to search far and wide for needed
services.
Defenders of private schools recoil from the
prospect of state regulation that would add to the schools’ costs and make
their lives more difficult. But in assuming a public role, and receiving public
money, those schools also accept a broader public responsibility.
Fairness in education has been at the center of
Mathis’ long career. For many years he was superintendent of the Rutland
Northeast Supervisory Union, which is centered in Brandon, and in that role he
helped spearhead the legal case that revolutionized education funding in
Vermont. Amanda Brigham was a schoolgirl in the tiny town of Whiting, within
Mathis’ supervisory union, and it was the case she brought with Mathis’ help
that resulted in the landmark Brigham decision. That ruling by the Vermont
Supreme Court found that Vermont’s educational finance system, which allowed
some towns, with vastly more educational resources than others, violated
constitutional standards of equity. Act 60, approved by the Legislature in 1997
to create financial equity among all public schools, was the result.
Act 60 was bitterly opposed by those towns where
abundant property wealth created abundant revenues for schools, even at low
rates of taxation. Manchester was one of those towns privileged by the old
system, where residents complained about being subjected to the new regime of
educational equity.
Lately, Mathis’ focus has been on the disadvantages
some students and schools suffer because of poverty. While others complain that
our schools have too many teachers, need more testing or more efficient
administration, Mathis has shown that broader social forces must be addressed
to remedy the economic inequality that creates educational inequality in
schools.
He has also been critical of Act 46, the school
consolidation law, which wrongly focuses on the role of small schools in
creating high education costs, and threatens to weaken local education.
For these reasons, Mathis seems to have found
himself in the crosshairs of Republicans who would seek to protect the
privileges of private schools or wealthy taxpayers. It is noteworthy that it
was Scott’s two appointees who voted against Mathis’ elevation to the post of
board vice chairman.
It is the nonwealthy schools, such as Rutland,
Barre, Bennington and Springfield, that have benefited from Act 60, and it has
been students with disabilities who have benefited from the public schools’
willingness to fulfill their obligations. The Board of Educaton’s reluctance to
carve out areas of privilege for some ought to be applauded.
