Fighting for Fairness

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.