Group Think in Montpelier 
By Curtis G. Hier

Like most people, I always accepted the premise that we’re experiencing global warming, that the consequences will be dire, and that the United States could reverse it by reversing its policies. Now, I’m not quite so sure. I’m not an expert on this topic, but I can see how there might be peer pressure in the scientific community to support those ideas. I have come to see the dangers of groupthink, and I wonder if that is happening with our scientists.

I’m fairly certain that Vermont is limited in its influence on the subject of global warming. However, I’m absolutely certain that Vermont can influence the success of its children in schools.

I’ve seen the dangers of groupthink in education policymaking. I’ve seen the education special interests line up as a single bloc and oppose worthy ideas, such as charter schools and the 65-cent proposal. I’ve seen myths and urban legends perpetuated, largely by these special interest groups, for so long that they’ve become absolute fact in the minds of even the most knowledgeable educators and policymakers in Montpelier and around the state.

I want to clear up some of the myths that I have encountered as I have tried to get Vermont’s schools to restore teaching as their basic mission and save money in the process.

Myth #1: Cost and quality is an either-or proposition.

That is absolutely not the case. We can spend more efficiently. By emphasizing direct instruction and bringing support services more into line, we can improve education outcomes and save significant amounts of money.

Myth #2: There are too many teachers.

It’s important here to separate out actual classroom teachers from the aides, support personnel, administrators, and teachers of special education and EEE. According to the University of Vermont’s Center for Rural Studies in its Vermont School Report, in Fiscal Year 2004, there were 6,890 classroom teachers in Vermont. Last year, there were 6,743 classroom teachers in Vermont. In my own district, Fair Haven Graded School had 29 classroom teachers in 2004, but last year had 24 classroom teachers. Meanwhile, the total number of school employees in Vermont increased. At the Fair Haven Graded School, the increase was from 69 to 83. Actual classroom teachers are not a driver of cost increases.

Myth #3: Teacher salaries are driving education cost increases.

The average annual teacher salary increase from 2001 until 2005, was 2.6 percent – less than inflation. At the same time, public education costs went up an average of over 6 percent annually. The bottom line on salaries has gone up significantly, but that’s because we have more non-classroom teachers and personnel.

Myth #4: Health insurance and fuel costs are driving education cost increases.

This is a myth that is being perpetuating by the Vermont Business Roundtable and their report that is being highly touted by Speaker Gaye Symington and others.

VBR’s report, entitled Vermont State Public Education Expenditure Overview and Analysis, is laden with misinformation and distortion. It insists that direct instruction employees are increasing at the same rate as other employees in public education. And it uses statistics from 1996 to compare to 2006. The problem is that they are presenting pre-Act 60 data. They are not showing current trends, such as what has been happening over the past two, three, and five years.

Given that the bulk of health insurance coverage goes to direct instruction personnel, one would think that direct instruction spending as a percentage would be rising. But it’s steadily declining, and has been for the last five years.

And fuel prices actually went down from 2001 to 2004. During that same period, we saw our education spending go up 18 percent. Fuel prices are an issue, but they are certainly not the main cost driver. However, they’re an easy target, because everybody gripes about fuel prices.

Myth #5: There’s no real crisis.

The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus recently ran an op-ed piece by Paul Cillo, one of the architects of Act 60 ("Outcomes are Outpacing Property Tax Bills"). On the same day, the paper’s editorial ("What Crisis?") cited Mr. Cillo’s faulty figures and declared: "The Legislature need not be rushed into an ill-advised reform of a system that mostly is working."

The Legislature does need to act quickly. It was unfortunate that two knowledgeable legislators on the House Education Committee retired from the House. But it further complicated things when Speaker Symington decided to shake up the committee even further. This has caused the Committee to require more time to get up to speed on the most basic issues facing Vermont public education.

Mr. Cillo is fond of doing the same thing that Tom Kavet, the author of VBR’s report likes to do: cite figures from 1996. Cillo has said repeatedly that our tax burden is going down and has picked 1996 as a comparison. That is like saying American troop casualties are going down and picking 1968 as a starting point.

Myth #6: Politicians in Montpelier are not proposing where to cut costs.

One prominent member of the Montpelier press corps has insisted more than once on Vermont Public Television’s Vermont This Week that nobody in Montpelier is suggesting where to cut costs. That’s not exactly true, although it is certainly true of the "leadership" in Montpelier. A group of legislators led by Senator Mullin and Representative Errecart, for instance, are trying to pass legislation that encourages school districts to spend no more than 35 percent on non-instruction. This resolution can be viewed at www.fcevt.com.

It’s time we overcome groupthink, dispel the myths, get serious about cost containment, and restore teaching as the basic mission of our public schools.

Curtis G. Hier is a teacher at Fair Haven Union High School and Chair of First Class Education for Vermont.