News Articles

Clarifying points on 65-cent plan

I very much appreciate the fine coverage that Darren Allen provided for the 65-cent concept that First Class Education for Vermont is introducing to the state. However, I'd like to clarify a couple of key points.

Mr. Allen characterized our effort as the "least ambitious" of the major education reform movements in Vermont. But Sen. Wilton and I prefer to think of our idea as the most easily doable. The $10 million figure that appears on the national organization's Web site is already obsolete. If we use the most recent Vermont Department of Education figures, which are from Fiscal Year 2005, the savings would be more like $40 million - twice as much as the Vermont Lottery support for the education fund! And if we stop to think that school boards are now budgeting for Fiscal Year 2008, we're talking significantly larger savings.

But that number should not be our focus, because the savings would not be shared equally across the board. For some districts, those who are only spending 55 or 56 cents of every dollar on the classroom, our idea would mean tremendous savings.

The other point that is important to emphasize is that we are not pressing for a state mandate. And we couldn't in Vermont, even if we wanted to. What we want to see is a voter education effort, so that the thoughtful - and sometimes tough - questions will get asked of local school boards. This is a far cry from what has been done in other states, where mandates have been the direction of the movement. We agree that there shouldn't be a mandate.

This brings me to Angelo Dorta, president of the VTNEA, who mistakenly insisted we were asking for a mandate. Instead of thinking for himself, he predictably chose to mimic the tired old rhetoric of his national organization, which doesn't apply at all to our Vermont concept. Then he claimed that teacher training, student support and food services would be "excluded." The $350 million-plus that would be spent on these endeavors with our plan hardly seems to me to mean being "excluded." I encourage Mr. Dorta to visit our Web site at www.fcevt.com to become more informed about our proposal, as it relates to Vermont.

Administrative expenses in Vermont's schools have increased at nearly 7 percent per year for the past few years, while average teacher wages have increased less than 3 percent - barely the rate of inflation. One would think that the VTNEA would take up the cause of teachers - and ultimately students - on this point. We're quite sure that Vermont's citizens will. Vermonters generally support their teachers, and they support good educational practices.

CURTIS HIER
Fair Haven