Ross Momaney (rmm-art.com) is a visual artist and arts educator. By blending these roles, he makes a meaningful impact both in the gallery and the classroom, championing the transformative power of art.
DUMMERSTON-On Feb. 24, I attended the special meeting hosted by the Windham Southeast Supervisory Union and Windham Southeast School District boards and our local elected representatives at Brattleboro Union High School. This meeting reviewed Gov. Phil Scott's "transformative" education plan.
Scott's plan focuses on making major changes to our current school- and property-tax system, revising the funding formula for our schools, changing school governance though major district consolidation, and strengthening state control over our education system through standardization and reducing local control. All of these responses stem from Vermonters' perpetually increasing property taxes.
When this plan was first announced, I found myself angry at the blatant irresponsibility of its creation and presentation. Since then I have been trying to create a fully realized response.
In the beginning, my biggest question was anchored in trying to discover who told the governor his plan was the correct and most thoughtful proposal to fix a failing education system. I wanted to know what teachers and administrators approved of his convoluted and problematic formulation.
After the meeting at BUHS and after spending time researching and reading the various aspects and responses to the plan, it is clear that the answer is simple: He didn't ask anyone who matters.
* * *
Having background and experience in education, both locally and in rural Maine, it is very apparent that Gov. Scott's proposal is, quite simply put, dangerous. We as Vermonters must see it as such in order to respond effectively and appropriately for the benefit of our students and public school staff.
The largest danger I see is the blatant erasure of the prioritization of our students and teachers. The most profound disservice and threat of this plan is that students and teachers were not consulted in the formation of this plan.
In examining its language, we see that students are reduced to concepts that position them as terms in a funding equation rather than what they are: human beings in the most profound and turbulent developmental stage of their lives.
I can't imagine what it must have been like to be a Vermont public educator and see this plan appear, knowing it was created without any consideration for their voice and knowledge of a system where they are directly in the center. Once again, the individuals whose voices and opinions matter the most are being completely ignored.
* * *
During the meeting at BUHS, another danger of the proposal became clear, and many participants and commenters are buying into the same story. Our high property taxes and public education are two systems, and each requires singular decisions that will affect the other in a mutually beneficial way.
When we frame necessary education system changes as a response to increased taxes, it keeps us from prioritizing the positive educational outcomes that our students deserve. It removes the whole educational complex entirely and puts a priority on solving tax problems before removing impediments to student success.
The stark reality is that these impediments directly contribute to high property taxes. The more money schools invest in trendy curricula that will be abandoned for the next latest and greatest every few years, or in consultants delivering redundant and out-of-touch professional development, the more we funnel tax dollars toward ineffective student success solutions.
Treating high property taxes and education as a combined force is dangerous. These two concepts must be divorced and re-examined separately if we plan to make any positive changes with regard to either failing system.
* * *
There are people who disapprove of Gov. Scott's proposal because they want to maintain the status quo in our public education system, whose current condition at the state level is just as dismal as the proposal itself.
While it was incredible to hear the outpouring of support for our local school systems and the praise for how things are currently running, the fact remains that our education system is broken. The proposal from the governor and other education stakeholders is a result of understanding that our educational climate and outcomes are in sharp decline, and critical response and re-evaluation will be necessary if we have any intention of correcting it.
The danger of Scott's plan and those who wish to maintain the status quo is that our current education system is no longer applicable to our current workforce needs.
The current education system was created to educate students to become workers and participants in a society with a thriving economy. We must start educating our students to have success in the modern era by being compassionate, thoughtful, engaged, and creative members of their community who are visionaries and problem-solvers.
Instead, we are marching them through school with the goal of getting a college degree for jobs they will not be qualified for with a traditional four-year diploma or for jobs that perhaps will not even exist.
* * *
The standardization of curricula written into the plan is profoundly dangerous. This is a nonsensical idea to put forward considering that curricula are already standardized through Vermont's use of the Common Core and other educational guidelines.
These standards clearly dictate the education goals and outcomes that each student is expected to meet during their timespan within the public school system. In the proposal, standardization reads as denying teachers their valued ability to engage with teaching material in a meaningful way, all in an effort to create a standardized student while lowering our property taxes.
This approach is in distinct opposition to current educational best practices, which call for teachers to use their knowledge of individual students to selectively boost engagement and meaningful interaction with learning goals.
Furthermore, standardizing high school graduation requirements creates a dynamic where students who wish to enter trades or take nontraditional tracks will be required to complete courses that are not essential to their intended careers or aspirations, thus leading to increased dropout rates.
* * *
A serious danger of the plan - one that hits close to home for me - is the absence of room and space for the arts in public schools.
While there is mention of building rigorous programming around the arts within schools at all grade levels, I believe this is a means of satisfying those who believe in the value of the arts rather than actually confirming the importance of arts education within the plan.
This becomes evident when part of the plan's justification for arts programming is to create an important time for classroom teachers to be without students so they can plan and collaborate with one another, rather than it being an important time for students to engage in skills, problem solving, and community building through the arts.
This emphasis creates an atmosphere of profound isolation for arts teachers who would be unable to participate in essential opportunities to plan and collaborate with colleagues to deliver relevant, meaningful, and integrated arts experiences across disciplines.
* * *
This so-called transformative education plan is a dangerous proposal that should embolden all Vermont citizens to demand that a response to high taxes and failing school systems should be considered carefully and with the profound input of those whom it will directly affect. The goals for these two systems need to be considered and set independent of one another.
Only then will it make sense to start looking at ways education can be delivered most efficiently and ways in which property tax dollars can be deployed most effectively.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].