The long, slow rollout of Gov. Phil Scott’s education plan took another step yesterday, as Interim Education Secretary Zoie Saunders* testified before the House Education Committee about the governance portion of the plan. Her testimony was met with widespread befuddlement, as reflected in a series of “What the heck does this mean?” questions from majority Democrats on the committee.

*She dropped the “Interim” when she introduced herself to the committee**.

** It has been pointed out that Scott has appointed Saunders permanent secretary. Okay, but her entire appointment is still subject to a court ruling, so it remains to be seen whether she’s permanent or done.

Before we get to the sources of that befuddlement, we must mention the poison pills contained within Scott’s plan. First, it would implement statewide school choice and throw the doors open for unfettered expansion of the current “approved independent schools” system. Every public school student would have to be offered some measure of choice. That’s a nonstarter for Democrats, or it ought to be, because it poses a very real threat to the finances of actual public schools.

Second, it would centralize power over the education system to a remarkable degree. Local school boards would be gone. There would be only five large school districts. Each local school would have a “School Advisory Committee” with very little authority. Most of the state Board of Education’s powers would be assumed by the Agency of Education. And the current “boards of cooperative education services,” created and administered by school supervisory unions, would be replaced by “Education Service Agencies” controlled by the Agency of Education. According to the Scott plan, one of the purposes of this move is “to limit mixed messaging.” In other words, to stifle dissent.

One (anonymous) Democratic lawmaker suggested to me that House committees ought to just send this plan directly to the House floor and watch as Scott and Republican lawmakers — almost all of whom represent small, rural school districts at risk of disenfranchisement and school closures — try to explain themselves, or risk serious injury as they back away from the plan as quickly as possible.

To say this plan is doomed is to indulge in understatement. Besides the presence of poison pills, there are other signs that Scott doesn’t intend for this plan to be taken seriously. What he wants, I suspect, is for the Democrats to reject the plan so he can accuse them of refusing to face the issue. He has asked them to “come to the table,” but he has laid out a buffet of awfulness. It’s not an invitation; it’s a trap.

Continue reading →