On Vermont's Experiment in Equal Opportunity
Education
Allyson Shortle '05, an honors
student of Political Science Professor Terry Weiner's,
studied the controversial Equal Educational Opportunity Act that passed in Vermont
in 1997.
Allyson, a native of Rutland,
summarized the history behind passage of the act (also known as Act 60): It was
a response to a lawsuit called the Brigham Decision, in which the court agreed
that a poor Vermont child had not
received an equal-opportunity education. Vermont
voted to fund its public schools through a state property tax, rather than base
funding on local property taxes. The towns and cities in Vermont
would all be taxed at an equal rate, and the money would be sent to the state
and later distributed in the form of a block grant to each town as an equal
amount. If any town wanted to raise more money for its school system, it would
have to contribute money towards a share pool, and that money would also be redistributed
throughout the state. However, rich towns, labeled “Gold” towns, with
the help of private foundations, were able to get around having to put money in
the share pool.
Allyson analyzed assessment scores
statewide, to see whether this controversial act, for the short time it lasted,
was able to provide equal educational opportunity and improve the educational
system in Vermont. Assessment scores, she found, showed very little change,
although there were some signs of improvement. She believes that positive
changes might have been clearer over time, had the Act not been replaced with
Act 68, which got rid of the mechanism by which funding could have been
equalized.
She also analyzed the performance of students
of the South Burlington
School District, a “Gold”
town, and the Rutland School
District, a “receiving” town, to
determine if either showed any improvement or in fact suffered from the
legislation. In addition, she examined program cuts and additions to determine
whether the schools made effective changes that would either substantially hurt
the “Gold” towns or improve the “receiving” towns. South
Burlington, she found, did not suffer because of Act 60 and Rutland
did have increasing assessment scores. In South Burlington,
some nonessential programs (technical assistance, music classes, and foreign
languages for elementary school) were eliminated; the changes in Rutland
were more basic: They were able to buy textbooks to replace those over 30 years
old, and hire more teachers.
Statewide, Act 60 showed signs of
working, although there was little relative change in the discrepancy between
the two districts.
To a question posed by Weiner
(“What lessons can New York
learn from Vermont if they're
really serious about equalizing educational opportunity?), Allyson suggested
that a program like Act 60 would undoubtedly be too controversial to pass here.
Consuming Less and Living More
“Resisting Consumerism: An
Exploration of Voluntary Simplicity” is the title of sociology major
Shannon Gibson's '04 thesis. Professor Jan Grigsby is her adviser.
The
negative impacts, writes Shannon, of America's
excessive consumption have led some to embrace a simpler and arguably more
satisfying lifestyle. As a growing social movement and an emerging lifestyle
for thousands of Americans, simplicity has challenged marketers, advertisers,
and social researchers alike. Members of the Voluntary Simplicity Movement are
vowing to work less, consume less, and live more. In embracing a simple life,
they often modify behavior, change diets, employment, and housing.
Shannon
drew from research completed by other sociologists, as well as from interviews
of simple-livers in Troy. She
attended a simplicity circle meeting in Troy,
and questioned eleven on how they would define “voluntary
simplicity,” and how practicing voluntary simplicity has changed their
lives. She also explored the Voluntary Simplicity Movement, its goals, its
current position in American life, and the struggles faced by simple-livers in
modern America.
One
man Shannon spoke with had gone into the movement in
response to a simple life experience: Working on a home improvement project, he
had owned five levels and, when he couldn't find any of them, was about to go
out and buy a sixth. Apparently, that was the last straw: He is now building
himself a treehouse.
Most simple livers are older,
educated, and middle class. Why do they go the Voluntary Simplicity route? To
get rid of material possessions, alleviate environmental problems especially
for future generations; in response to life experiences; and to have more time.
Rewards they report include peace
of mind, knowing they aren't challenging the earth's resources, and having more
time.
How
hard is it to go simple? Not so easy, when taking into account the high cost of
natural foods and alternative energy sources; the social stigma; family
tensions (one marriage broke up because the husband was more committed than the
wife to voluntary simplicity); and feelings of isolation. But most people she
interviewed would not go back and are very happy with the shift.
She
predicts Voluntary Simplicity will not take off as a movement, because it goes
too much against the American grain. She thinks “if we could all integrate
a few ways though,” that might help all around.