NOTE. After I posted this piece, I became aware that the Agency of Education has issued a press release saying that the original headline cited below was “generated by VTDigger.” I take the Agency’s word for this. It’s a pretty stunning lapse of judgment on the part of Digger’s editorial team. My criticism of Saunders’ essay itself still stands.

Zoie Saunders’ PR team could maybe use a shakeup?

Gov. Phil Scott’s Education Secretary sent an opinion piece to VTDigger echoing the governor’s talking points from his State of the State Address last week. But the original bore an unfortunate headline, and the text wasn’t any great shakes either.

Headline Number One, as published by VTDigger on the evening of Monday, January 12:

“Stupid,” eh? I get the callback to James Carville’s most memorable concoction, but it bore an unpleasant whiff of condescension toward the governor’s critics. Now, Saunders’ boss has no problem with condescension toward his critics, but apparently someone thought better of the headline. Because by the next morning, “Stupid” had been excised:

It’s a shame, isn’t it, that a sharp-eyed correspondent noticed the original headline and sent me a screenshot before it could be altered?

I can’t say for certain whether the first headline came from Team Saunders or someone in Digger’s editorial room, but I suspect the former. Seems a stretch that a Digger functionary would attach a potentially offensive headline to an essay by a prominent state official.

(There’s an editor’s note at the bottom of the essay that says “Correction: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story contained a misleading headline.“ It doesn’t identify the source of the headline. Also, “misleading’ is a funny way of saying “offensive.”)

But even without the “Stupid,” there’s something off about that headline. “It’s Not All About Taxes” carries the implication that it’s mostly about taxes, right? And I don’t think that’s the argument the Scott administration wants to deploy.

Until his speech last week, the governor’s presentation of public education reform was first and foremost about saving money. He complained endlessly about the system’s cost, and trumpeted unproven claims that a massive consolidation in school governance would save money — quite a lot of money, in fact. His State of the State Address represented an attempt to turn the page, to emphasize educational quality and equity. It’s almost as if someone in the governor’s office suddenly realized he was coming across as uncaring about Our Kids.

And now here’s his education secretary all but acknowledging that cost is the biggest factor in Scott’s reform push.

What follows is a sweaty exercise in hype so extreme that it strains credibility. Act 73, in case you were wondering, wasn’t about redrawing school district lines and consolidating oversight. It was about making Vermont’s school system “the best…in America.” Act 73 “doubles down on public education as the great equalizer, the pathway out of poverty and the engine that fuels our economy.” It “positions Vermont as a national leader in education.”

It’s also an effective treatment for arthritis, tumors, insomnia, digestive disorders, anxiety, headache, lumbago, and the fantods.

After that, we get some serious straw-man punching. With an odd twist.

Will this plan save money? Will this plan actually give kids more opportunities? Will it better support teachers? Will it result in a more predictable and equitable approach to funding our education system?

Supporters say the answer is yes.

Supporters say?

Supporters?

That’s the kind of equivocation you expect from a reporter on deadline who’s trying to both-sides a story as quickly as possible. You don’t normally find it in a piece of advocacy writing.

The fig leaf of “supporters’ is quickly discarded, as Saunders ticks off the various pieces of partisan bumpf produced by the Scott administration. Including, yes, the whole “economies of scale” thing that’s an article of faith in the governor’s camp but considered absolutely unproven in other precincts. Indeed, there’s a credible argument that Act 73 would actually raise costs in the aggregate due to (a) the price tag for a system-wide reorganization, (b) the need for new facilities large enough and well-equipped enough to handle a centralized student body, and (c) the fact that larger bureaucratic entities usually mean larger, and better compensated, cohorts of administrators.

Headline notwithstanding, it’s a determined effort by Saunders to change the subject, to make it seem like the administration is focused on The Kids, not on saving money.

Determined, yes. Convincing, no.