Phil Scott Shows His Educational True Colors

The above was burped out this morning by “National School Choice Week,” an organization that claims to support education but doesn’t know how to spell Phil Scott’s first name. For the record, it’s one-L, as in Ogden Nash’s lama.

“National School Choice Week” is one of those innocuous-sounding labels adopted by a right-wing organization to obscure its true nature. Here’s how they themselves describe what they stand for:

School choice means giving parents access to the best K-12 education options for their children. These options include traditional public schools, public charter schools, magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and homeschooling.

Of course, parents already have access to all these options. What NCSW wants is for public dollars to follow every student no matter where they are educated, including institutions that practice various forms of discrimination and religious indoctrination. Such a program inevitably drains resources away from the public school system, which is one of the jewels of American government.

And yes indeed, Scott did issue a proclamation in support of NCSW. It’s couched in the usual language about improving the quality of education and accountability and parental authority. But look: Scott is endorsing a cause put forward by the enemies of public education on the right. That should worry anyone in Vermont who supports a strong system of public schools.

This proclamation in itself doesn’t prove that Scott is on board with the “tear it down” approach to public education. But when you combine this with his own positions and the work of Education Secretary and Uber-Nebbish Dan French, and you get a clear picture. Phil Scott would like to have an open system of taxpayer-funded school choice, but he knows it’s politically impossible. So he’s doing his best through executive branch actions to chip away at the system and enable more public dollars to flow to non-public schools.

This is especially worrying given the current judicial climate. The Bush and Trump judges who make up so much of the federal judiciary are issuing decisions that open the doors to the conservative vision of school choice. The Scott administration isn’t going to do anything to stick a flag in the ground and staunchly defend public schools. It’s perfectly happy to see the enervation of the public education system without getting their own fingerprints all over it.

It’s often noted that Phil Scott’s presence blunts the power of the Legislature to enact a progressive agenda. But it goes both ways: The Legislature and the electorate’s liberal bent are a check on Scott’s ability to enact a conservative agenda. And the truth is, if Phil Scott had his way, his administration would be a lot less moderate than it is now by necessity.

Case in point: “Cradle to Career.” Scott repeats it at every opportunity, and has since his first campaign for governor in 2016. What it means is that the Education Fund would be responsible for preschool and higher education, not just K-12. That would mean that the public schools would get a lesser share of Ed Fund support.

How much less? Nobody knows, because Scott has never put forward a concrete “Cradle to Career” plan. That’s because he knows it would cause a political firestorm and wouldn’t get anywhere in the Legislature. So he doesn’t even try to advance one of his core principles.

Well, actually, he does. But only incrementally and only through the Executive branch, not the Legislature. He can’t mount an aggressive campaign for school choice, but he can speak its language and put out innocuous-seeming proclamations. Eventually, he hopes, he will swing the issue to the other side.

Just don’t take your eyes off the man, and don’t let him get away with being an educational ideologue in moderate’s clothing.

5 thoughts on “Phil Scott Shows His Educational True Colors

  1. chris katucki

    The rich have school choice. They can also afford to move to neighborhoods with the best public schools. Why should a working class family be deprived of the same opportunity, if the program is accredited? Why do wealthy families get to opt out of a public school education for their kid, if they wish? Disagree that all public schools are “one of the jewels of American government.”

    Reply
  2. H. Jay Eshelman

    The same tired old progressive dogma. “Of course, parents already have access to all these options”

    Well, no they don’t… unless they’re rich. Most families can’t afford to pay the taxes to fund one of the most expensive public-school monopolies in the country AND pay tuition to attend an independent school or to home school.

    And many of these parents and children are being discriminated against because they live on the wrong side of the tracks. Families living in towns with ‘tuitioning’ have School Choice. Hopefully, a legal case in Vermont Superior court will soon remedy this discrimination.

    But really… think about it… it’s okay for taxpayer money to stay in the public-school monopoly instead of following the students for whom it’s intended? And I guess parents shouldn’t have the right to choose the curricula that they believe best meets their children’s needs. They shouldn’t have the right to freely exercise their religion. Meanwhile, half the kids in the public-school monopoly graduate despite not meeting grade level standards. I guess it’s better to be indoctrinated and discriminated against buy a totalitarian monopoly that charges taxpayers as much to educate a first grader as Castleton University charges for a full year college course load PLUS room and board.

    So, John, explain to me how parents and their children are being discriminated against or indoctrinated simply by having the right to take their fair share of the taxes they pay to choose the school they believe best meets their needs? After all, they’re not being forced to choose their school. That’s what it means to have a ‘choice’.

    Reply
  3. Walter Carpenter

    “Why should a working class family be deprived of the same opportunity, if the program is accredited? ”

    Good question, but the GOP does not believe in anything public or that the public should have anything public, like education, health care, retirement, and so on, even though we pay for these things. They want to punish us for these things, and depriving us of the “same opportunity,” is their way of destroying us. Thanks to John for putting this out there.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to chris katucki Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s