For as long as we can remember conservative Republicans in Vermont have been whining about increased property taxes. Democrats, on the other hand, are always posturing about issues related to equality and political correctness in our schools. In the meantime the Vermont Legislature dithers on endlessly about school financing. But isn’t the real issue underlying all of the bickering, “Who owns, operates, finances, and controls our local schools?”
Increasingly our overregulated, oversized, overcentralized, overstandardized, overregimented schools are no longer controlled by local school boards but rather by federal, state, and district authorities. The McDonaldization of Vermont’s public schools is almost complete, and it’s not a pretty sight. They will soon be all the same - - just like Corporate America and the U.S. government want them to be. Clearly our mass production, mass marketing, mass distribution, mass consumption global economy works best if we are all the same. Thus it’s hardly surprising to find that our kids watch the same TV programs, visit the same websites, play the same computer games, listen to the same music, and buy the same consumer goods. And just in case our school teachers and administrators don’t get it, President George Bush’s technofascist standards and testing policies known as “No Child Left Behind” drive the point home.
Maybe it’s high time we considered a paradigm shift in the way education is organized, financed, and delivered in Vermont. What is called for is a decentralized education system, entirely free from state and corporate control, that is funded by a voluntary, democratized philanthropy. Instead of being supported by mandatory taxation, which arouses endless conflict over school budgets and requires standardized accountability to the state, education would be supported by a new philanthropic spirit and sense of community responsibility.
Such a philanthropic spirit might very well arise, if Vermont were once again to become an independent republic as it was between 1777 and 1791. It would be free of the shackles of the underfunded and unfunded mandates of the U.S. Office of Education. Being free of the federal “nanny state” might inspire a new sense of community and social responsibility among all Vermonters.
Once Vermont schools have escaped from the clutches of the American Empire, they may also want to sever their relationships with the Vermont Department of Education and the union school district with which they happen to be affiliated. Just as a group has a right to form, so too does it have a right to disband, to subdivide itself, or withdraw from a larger unit as Thomas Jefferson opined in the Declaration of Independence.
Perhaps communities or regional networks would establish local education funding agencies, supported by voluntary contributions and administered by representatives of the community. In principle, these would act like benevolent or mutual aid societies that many religious and fraternal groups have established, with the important difference that their concern would embrace the entire community, not only their own members. Or perhaps local or state government bodies could be entrusted with the task of administering funding, so long as they are prohibited from interfering with the educational process itself.
An underlying premise of this approach is that people are more willing to engage in democratic collaboration when they are released from an authoritarian imperative to think or act alike. They are more likely to participate in local, voluntary associations that give vitality to society.
A compassionate democratic community, a partnership community, acknowledges the inherent value of its diverse constituents and invites them to participate in a larger collaborative endeavor, to find a sense of unity (common purposes, the pursuit of collective goals) through the interaction of their various perspectives. A decentralized system of education enables parents to choose from many options, allows young people to learn in many different ways, inspires educators to teach from their hearts instead of authorized scripts - - and then they find that all their efforts add up to a cultural whole that is greater than any of their individual efforts or the simple sum of those efforts. The whole is a flourishing democratic community open to constructive dialogue and collaboration.
To be sure, we will need to deal with some tough questions. How would a decentralized, voluntarily financed system guarantee equitable funding to economically disadvantaged communities? How many educational choices can reasonably be offered in rural areas and small towns? How would the administrators of educational funding determine which projects are worthy of support? How will they be assured that funds are being used effectively? Would religious schools be eligible? How will a community draw the line between sectarian educational programs that represent separatism, prejudice or hatred, and others that might offend some citizens but still have cultural value?
In summary, what we are calling for is a return to the Vermont village school, as an alternative to the corporate, state controlled megaschools of the twentieth century, financed by the generosity of local citizens rather than by the coercive power of the state. What we are proposing is that the control and funding of local community schools reside in the hands of local citizens rather than government bureaucrats in Montpelier or Washington. And that’s not altogether bad!
Ron Miller
Thomas H. Naylor
November 15, 2007
Ron Miller is an educator, a writer, and author of the forthcoming book The Education Revolution, who lives in Charlotte, Vermont.