Vermont’s Supervisory Unions: Government of the people, by the people, for the people…
Under Act 46, there was a belief that larger units would have more capacity and efficiency through an economy of scale. There are no doubt cases where that indeed happened, yet we also know that it did not necessarily happen. The goals of the law were not simply reducing the number of school board members, though there were those who celebrated such. The goals of the law were to:
“To encourage and support local decisions and action that:
Provide substantial equity in the quality and variety of educational opportunities statewide.
Lead students to achieve or exceed the State’s Educational Quality Standards adopted as rules by the State Board at the direction of the General Assembly
Maximize operational efficiencies through increased flexibility to manage, share and transfer resources, with a goal of increasing the district-level ratio of students to full-time staff
Promote transparency and accountability; and
Are delivered at a cost that parents, voters and taxpayers value.”
With Act 46, Vermont saw the most substantial shift in school governance in over 100 years. However, almost ten years later Vermont is now considering even more dramatic and disruptive changes to governance, and education funding that make Act 46 seem relatively minor in comparison. The architects of Act 46, and those promoting governance consolidation today, stress what will purportedly be gained and often fail to acknowledge what might be lost. It is evident in numerous districts that experienced forced mergers that there is a noticeable demise of “community” as traditional town boundaries were merged to form new school districts. We must recognize the basis for effective governance comes with the relational trust that is built around a sense of community.
Currently, the presence of the local school boards is clear evidence of direct involvement in the governance of our small, rural Vermont schools. In relation to the broader context of schools and their governance in our country, our present system has a high level of community involvement in direct governance. The institution of Town Meetings in Vermont still provides the opportunity for direct involvement of all stakeholders in many school districts. Yet, there are those who portrait this as a liability and not an asset. Forced district consolidation will not result in stakeholders such as boards, administrators, parents and taxpayers automatically having a broader view of school-community. Additionally, state directed governance consolidation often results in the closure of small, rural schools, furthering a decrease in a sense of community, while not resulting in the increased opportunities, equity efficiencies and cost containment often promised.
There is a continued need to foster authentic community connections and understanding of the common good of public education. Schools face many challenges: facilities needs, staffing shortages, declining enrollments, increased social/emotional and mental health needs of children. With continued increases in property taxes, school leaders find it increasingly challenging to maintain good will with citizens who are feeling the burden. A decline in a sense of community or commitment to traditional community institutions, such as schools, in the face of raising tax burdens, is perhaps a more formidable challenge not clearly recognized. What is more highly valued, having “local control” or having lower taxes?
The relationships and trust developed with individuals and groups within school-communities will determine the support for school budgets and ultimately, in many cases, the sustainability of schools. How we approach governance may have intended and unintended consequences.
Understanding Community and Schools in Society Today
In many ways, the term “community” is overused and often becomes cliché. We might refer to the community we live in or the community we work in. In addition, we might identify with yet other “communities” that we hold some level of membership with, a church, our profession, civic groups, social organization or listeners of a public radio station. The vast application of the word “community” results in it being diminished. The ubiquitous use and ambiguity of the term often causes complacent or mistrust in its use. Subsequently, the comprehensive use of the term “community” within the world of education results in a superficial understanding of its complexity and importance.
The relationship between school and community is organically intertwined and reciprocal. Our lives are influenced by practices along a continuum between what we might consider “community” and what we might see as a broader “society.” Understanding the contrast of this continuum furthers our understanding of how people in Vermont may perceive their place within a community and perceptions of school governance.
When one relates to organizations or governance as an extension of community, they see things in terms of traditional relationships, based on common locale, kinship, and friendship. Typically one knows their local school board members as neighbors, parents, or business owners within their own community. It is through this common membership that a sense of belonging is developed resulting in common goals, shared values and a shared conception of being. “We” subsequently become stronger than “I” There is a collective sense of a common good.
As the complexity of our modern world advances, there is a move away from a lens of community to one of society where community values become replaced by contractual agreements, rules and laws with connections between people and their institutions becoming more contrived. Decision makers are not known directly and are perceived as being distant from a local context and uncertain about their intent to serve the needs and interests of a particular community. Vermonters are very much “somewhere people” as opposed to “anywhere people” No surprise that rural Vermonters are often skeptical of the government.
Rural communities known for often having a stronger sense of community and thus holding fast to local control does not seem unusual. Collaboration between schools can be limited due to the geographic separation and unique context of each community. These two aspects, combined with a strong culture of local control, create an environment in which external initiatives are viewed skeptically at best. Local districts subsequently most often focus on issues at home as opposed to those across a larger region. Balancing local needs and interest with shared resources and services is the key to efficient and effective governance.
How a dynamic sense of community has altered the relationship and commitment to institutions is an important overarching theme in considering the effectiveness of governance structures. There is a need to develop community connections for the purpose of support and social capital. To what extent this happens more or less depending on governance is important to consider. Combined, the dynamics of governance, cost, quality, changing demographics and ethos around community impact public perceptions around governance.
It is important to understand interpersonal connections and how they impact the effectiveness of small, rural elementary schools in Vermont. Public education in Vermont is one of the last opportunities where the public has a direct say in the direction of a public institution. A supervisory union provides a structure that allows for the polarity management of “freedom and unity” that is necessary for effective governance. A supervisory union model allows for an economy of scale and a broader interdependence of a larger governance unit, while still providing a sense of agency and autonomy within the context of a local school-community. Yes, managing that tension takes a disposition and leadership that goes beyond management and recognition initiatives can take more time to move forward in a single direction, but with buy-in there comes a level of relational trust that is the glue to good governance.
