OPINION: Why I am voting NO on the school bond
October 29, 2021 | By Matt HenchenI wasn’t planning on making a public statement about the upcoming bond vote, but after seeing so many other people share their perspectives I decided to share my truth as well.
I’m voting NO because the process used to develop the bond wasn’t nearly as thoughtful, open-minded, or inclusive as it should have been. Not only were students and teachers not involved in the process in any meaningful way, but there are far too many community members who have not felt heard, valued, or respected. This is a once-in-a-generation decision that deserves significantly more community involvement to get things right. Until this happens, I will continue to vote NO.
I will also continue to vote NO until the district bylaws have changed in a way that no longer allows residents from neighboring towns to close or reconfigure schools in another community. Nobody would want Montpelier to have the ability to close down or reconfigure our schools against our will, so why would anybody feel it’s okay to do that within our own school district?
In addition, I am voting NO because I don’t believe this bond will actually improve the quality of education in our district. In fact, I believe this bond might prove to be detrimental to both academic outcomes and student well-being.
I keep seeing comments arguing that “restoring and modernizing our educational facilities” is the most important investment our community can make. However, “improving our facilities” is not the same as improving education. The simple fact is that we have very limited resources and every million dollars spent on facilities is a million that cannot be spent on people and programs that would benefit students far more.
Clearly, any student will say yes to a second gym, a new track, more windows, or upgraded science labs, but these are not the things that my students have expressed the most concern over in the past decade. Instead, they’ve been frustrated by changes in the schedule that make it difficult to take electives, the loss of course offerings such as metals, woodshop, home economics, computer programming, business, and, at times, by the quality of instruction, which is diminished when overloaded teachers are constantly dealing with new initiatives, additional logistics, and increased class sizes.
What would be better for your student? A class of 12-18 students where the teacher has adequate time to work with colleagues to plan engaging and highly personalized learning in a classroom with no windows. Or a classroom with windows packed with 28 students and a teacher who has precious little time to plan for instruction, give meaningful feedback, or really get to know their students? Which classroom would yield better test scores and a higher sense of belonging and well-being? If you’re still not sure, just ask a student. The answer is quite evident. This is not simply a vote for better facilities, it is a vote that prioritizes buildings over people and programming.
We were originally told that the goal of Act 46 was to improve opportunities and outcomes for students, but it seems like all we’ve seen are reductions in both the quantity and quality of offerings. We’ve lost many outstanding educators in the past few years and the ones remaining are overburdened and unable to provide the same level of instruction they are used to. My own department has gone from seven full-time to five full-time teachers and we’ve been forced to compensate by offering fewer electives, increased class sizes, the dismantling of our American Studies program, and a significant reduction in the extended learning opportunities we are able to offer during Flex Block. My personal teaching load is higher now, in the midst of a global pandemic than at any point in the past 15 years. I fear that excessive spending on facilities will ensure that this becomes the new normal, and if this is the case then please don’t be surprised when highly qualified teachers begin to look elsewhere.
I am not sharing these details to complain or point fingers. As a school, we are working hard on each and every one of these issues. Everybody involved has the best intentions and we are all trying to do what is in the best interest of our students and community.
This is the truth as I see it, and I am fully aware that others hold equally valid perspectives. As a teacher, I have enormous appreciation for all of the taxpayers willing to vote YES for this bond, but we must consider the long-term impacts and unintended consequences of such a decision.
If you’ve ever felt unheard or undervalued by the process, then a NO vote might be the only power you have to demand a better process. If the bond fails, let’s go back to the drawing board, clarify the real problems we face, and genuinely consider all options. For example, there seems to be significant support in the community for moving 7th and 8th graders from Crossett Brook to a new middle school on the Harwood campus and then converting Brookside and Crossett Brook to PreK-6 schools just like the rest of the valley. This option, as well as many others, deserves closer consideration.
Our democratic traditions run deep in Vermont and we must all recommit ourselves, in the tradition of Town Meeting Day, to a more deliberative and democratic process. Nothing this significant or costly should be accomplished by the slimmest majority of votes. If this happens and the bond passes, it might improve our school, but will it truly improve education? If this bond passes by a slim majority will that bring our community closer together or further apart?
If this bond truly represented the will of the people, it would not need an expensive media campaign to promote it. Let’s hit reset, hire a superintendent with the right skillset to begin healing our community, and put forward a bond that a strong majority of us can not only tolerate but proudly support.
Matt Henchen
Moretown
Matt Henchen is a civics teacher at Harwood Union High School.