[Biker53]

Originally Posted by Sporin

I agree, but let me tell you as someone very involved in the local Act 46 process, getting the small towns to consolidate, to give up HS choice, has basically been a non-starter. These towns point to their traditions and such (and I don't blame them for that) and they won't give it up, period.

At some point, I expect the State to just force it. But the State is also quite blind to what happens outside of the upper-west corner of the state.

I agree. The sentiment and loyalty to the small local schools is understandable. Its just human nature to value tradition. After the State succeeds with getting districts formed, then the real change will be mandated. The formation of districts is just a 1st step putting infrastructure in place.

[Biker53]

Originally Posted by cgregor

One of Springfield's best teachers came from Essex County, New Jersey, one of the wealthiest in the nation. His department's resource room (where they stored all the books teachers used in the curriculum) was larger than the entire library at Springfield's high school, where he taught. Every year in NJ his budget planning consisted of telling the head of the department what he wanted. He and all the other teachers in that high school got everything they asked for. He once asked, "If I ask for a car, can I get it?"

His father, on the other hand, had taught at one of those NYC public schools where the teachers had to be escorted by police when they left school. His father was also a very good teacher, but the school was terrible.

Anecdotally, any Vermont public school is not as good as the one you attended or that the Springfield teacher staffed, but statistically all Vermont schools are far better than almost all American schools.

If we concentrate on the dollars rather than the quality of the education, we will get poor education. We are seeing this already with such corporate-backed efforts as Democrats for Educational Reform and Facebook founder and future presidential candidate Mark Zuckerberg's failed $100,000,000 effort in New Jersey.

So, we simply have to start with understanding the relationship between the teacher and the student that inspires learning.

Averages aren't helping the bright kid looking to go into a STEM field at a top tier college. If they never took Physics or advanced level math and science classes, they will be playing catch up with their peers who did. Only a couple wealthy States spend more per student than we do. It isn't a shortage of money that causes such limited curriculums in small towns. It is our not being willing to let go of the tiny high schools.

[cgregor]

The bright kids will almost always do well no matter how mediocre the school. It's the other 95% that get better treatment in Vermont than they do in almost every other school. If you saw the movie, "Moonlight," it had a high school chemistry class scene that represents too much of what our schools are.

Every country-- so why not the US-- benefits from a system that shows children that they have capabilities they never suspected. We don't need everybody well-versed in STEM; we need citizens who can apply to their neighborhood insights they realized through being exposed to "Coriolanus" and the Peloponessian Wars; who can see the manipulation behind a Super Bowl ad; who can detect the BS in a candidate's logic; who appreciate that the education they got in school is a treasure everybody else's child deserves to have; and who fit their particular and peculiar talents into the slot that society needs filled. Vermont with its "inefficiencies" in education, does that better than most states. If we address the "inefficiencies" without first attending to the key ingredient-- the teacher-student relationship-- we will kill what we have.

As I said, we have to start from what is best for the student and society, and then we make the money fit it.

[Biker53]

Originally Posted by cgregor

The bright kids will almost always do well no matter how mediocre the school. It's the other 95% that get better treatment in Vermont than they do in almost every other school. If you saw the movie, "Moonlight," it had a high school chemistry class scene that represents too much of what our schools are.

Every country-- so why not the US-- benefits from a system that shows children that they have capabilities they never suspected. We don't need everybody well-versed in STEM; we need citizens who can apply to their neighborhood insights they realized through being exposed to "Coriolanus" and the Peloponessian Wars; who can see the manipulation behind a Super Bowl ad; who can detect the BS in a candidate's logic; who appreciate that the education they got in school is a treasure everybody else's child deserves to have; and who fit their particular and peculiar talents into the slot that society needs filled. Vermont with its "inefficiencies" in education, does that better than most states. If we address the "inefficiencies" without first attending to the key ingredient-- the teacher-student relationship-- we will kill what we have.

As I said, we have to start from what is best for the student and society, and then we make the money fit it.

And those things can only occur in tiny high schools?

The reality is that the high cost of living (of which high property and income taxes are key components) in combination with a business-unfriendly State govt. does not attract or retain the kinds of modern economy businesses we need to keep our educated young people in VT. We export far too many. Everyone I know with college educated kids has lost one or more to other States where they could pursue careers in their field. I have a kid in NC and one in MA. My next door neighbor has a kid in NC and one in MA. The folks across the road have a kid in NC and one in VA. I doubt you find neighborhoods in NC, MA, or VA where everyone has a kid in VT. A friend up the road has 5 kids, none in VT. The average age in my community continues to rise as our school enrollments fall year after year after year for lack of young families choosing to live here.

My daughter in NC and her husband love VT and its culture, but would not consider moving up here. Why? Career opportunities are limited for educated people such as them, comparable housing is much more expensive, property taxes here are triple what they pay, and our schools are severely lacking what their kids have available to them down there in their large suburban system.

[cgregor]

Well, a good number of people in Springfield have moved here not expecting to be served, but to change it to what they and their families need and deserve. It's all how you look at life.

[Sierrajeff]

Originally Posted by cgregor

In discussing education, it helps to start with the desired result and work backward. Despite America's attention to standardized testing, privatization of education, etc., nationally we have disappointing results compared to Vermont and the rest of the world.

If we Vermonters are lucky, we will continue to emphasize an education system that makes it possible for every teacher to bring out in every student something each student never knew he/she had.

There are multiple factors that make for a good education. I'm the product of a consolidated public H.S. in West Virginia; it served a roughly 600 square miles [that sounds bigger than it is; that's essentially a rectangle 30 miles by 20 miles), which yes meant some students had to ride a bus for up to 45 minutes.


But it also meant a H.S. of 1,500 students, that could (and did) offer everything from auto mechanics and Future Farmers of America, to calculus, advanced physics, and multiple chemistry classes. It meant a wide array of sports, from golf to baseball to football; it means a regionally competitive marching band *plus* choral group, jazz band, and symphonic bad. All of that meant I was much better prepared to go on to college, than if I'd been in a H.S. where the entire student body was 20 or 40 people. I shudder to think what would have happened to me, if I hadn't been exposed to such diverse classes (and students) as I was in my teen years.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by cgregor

Well, a good number of people in Springfield have moved here not expecting to be served, but to change it to what they and their families need and deserve. It's all how you look at life.

I think one problem with Springfield is career opportunities for the college educated. Another would be the poor graduation rate at the HS when compared to others in VT and nationally. An educated family is not going to take a chance on their children in such a setting BUT a young couple with a decent job opportunity might.

[cgregor]

Perhaps the single biggest problem with Springfield is the number of well-meaning but clueless people in positions of influence.

One such group decided that people who wanted to turn a vacant lot in their neighborhood into a mini-park could not be punished enough.

Fortunately, there are people who are working to change this pattern. I think of them as pioneers.

[Biker53]

cgregor, communities can and do reinvent themselves over time. It is not always a quick path or an easy one, and sometimes it does take pioneers willing to gamble to do it. Hopefully Springfield will get a critical mass of those pioneers. The folks in charge of Springfield should take a look at some of what Rutland has done in recent years as it too slowly reinvents itself. A look of good stuff has happened to the downtown and out on Rt 7.