State Education Monopoly 
By Bruce P. Shields

Secondary and primary schooling in Vermont is organized as a State monopoly.  That is, every town and city must provide a school, in which all parents or guardians in that jurisdiction are compelled under penalty to enroll every child of appropriate age.   The only exception regarding attendance is for children whose parents provide alternatives entirely at their own expense.  The school committee collects operating funds under the police powers of the State, which funds may be used  exclusively for schools directly controlled by that town committee.  Thus, the same organization designs the program, collects and disburses the funds under legal penalties, controls attendance, evaluates and polices the results.

Most economists have observed that monopolies are non-responsive.  For example imagine that three companies compete to sell lawnmowers.  If their product is identical, one is hard put to imagine how three could survive very long.  So they will develop some differentiation -- in price, in features, in durability, in size, maneuverability, and so on.  They develop this differentiation in response to the constant feedback they receive from the marketplace.  The salespeople handling these items involuntarily return to the manufacturer (in the form of orders) a steady stream of information as to what works and what does not work.  But if there were only one manufacturer, that feedback would be irrelevant.  Henry Ford learned at great cost that refusing customers the choices they want leads to disaster.

In the present Vermont arrangement, the system is completely non-responsive to feedback from individual students.  State law vests primary authority over expenditure of funds and hiring of employees in a superintendent.  Final authority rests with the elected board; voters are only allowed to approve or disapprove a budget once annually.  When the budget is prepared, overwhelmingly, citizen boards feel intimidated by the vast bulk of regulation and rely on the advice of the superintendent.  Because of the dynamic of collective bargaining, a board has almost no influence over the actual arrangements inside a school -- and once a contract is signed by both sides, voters can only disapprove the entire school budget.  It is difficult to find how a child or his parents can influence this system, which so clearly elevates the interest of employees over that of either voters or clients of the system.

Milton Freedman many years ago suggested that students could influence educational programs by allocating public educational funds to each student to spend where ever that student chooses.  Devotees of the perquisites negotiated by union employees argue that such a system will destroy "public" education, though universities appear to thrive on student choice.  The Thatcher government in the United Kingdom initiated a "Parents’ Bill of Rights" which included portable tuition vouchers.  Despite a great outcry from the teachers, a limited program was adopted, without any of the dire predictions being realized.  As Vermont’s experience with choice among Vocational Centers shows, giving students more control over their own education would be a very positive development, and would probably lead to a more rapid improvement of our public education.
 

Bruce Shields has retired from three professions; college English teacher, sawmiller and executive of the Vermont Forest Products Association, and operator of a farm supply store.  In retirement, he works his woodlot and maple sugar place, sits on the boards of several statewide organizations related to natural resources, and serves as Lister in the town of Eden, VT.