William Mathis, whose six-year term ends in 2021, has served on the SBE since 2011. The former school superintendent has long raised questions about Vermont’s school choice system, which allows towns without schools to pay for students to attend private schools. In his current role as managing director of the University of Colorado Boulder’s National Education Policy Center, he’s published articles and papers that are critical of voucher programs.
On Monday, Reps. Oliver Olsen (I-Londonderry), Adam Greshin (I-Warren) and Laura Sibilia (I-Dover) sent a letter to SBE chair Stephan Morse asking him to investigate whether in doing so, Mathis is violating Vermont’s executive code of ethics.
In a nine-page memo, the trio of lawmakers make the case that Mathis, who has worked at NEPC since 2010, is “performing advocacy work for an organization that receives substantial funding from groups that have a material interest in matters within the jurisdiction of the SBE.” The most concerning area of overlap for them: school choice.
In Vermont, Mathis and other SBE members recently voted to increase regulation of private schools that receive public tuition money, causing an outcry from people who contend that the new rules could undermine school choice.
The state reps point out that the NECP gets money from teacher unions that oppose voucher or school choice programs, including the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.
During an interview Monday afternoon, Mathis denied any potential for conflict. “Basically it’s a nuisance tactic. It’s political harassment,” he said of the letter, noting that Olsen, a former member of the Burr and Burton Academy board, has been an outspoken critic of the SBE’s approach to independent schools.
Mathis said the University of Colorado pays his salary — he declined to disclose the amount — and he has never fundraised for the NEPC. He works with people who do, but said, “I keep a certain distance from them.” In a follow-up email he reiterated, “Nothing I’ve done on the board on these issues impacts my financial interests.” Mathis acknowledged that groups including the NEA and AFT pay the NEPC to conduct research, but he maintained that the funders have no editorial control over the work.
Morse said he doesn’t yet know how he will respond to the legislators’ request. “I guess before I comment on it I need to get some legal advice,” he told Seven Days.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Mathis has clearly been the most destructive force in Vermont’s educational system. His actions fail to consider the drastic consequences they will have on students. He should either voluntarily resign or be forcibly removed before he causes any more damage.
Totally agree with the removal of Mathis. This man is hurting our kids and determined to undermine nearly 150 years of school choice in our educational system. Wake up people! Speak out before this man causes working families with kids to flee the state. Let your state reps know you want him gone!
Mathis’ mission is to utterly destroy school choice in Vermont. If what he’s done isn’t unethical, then I don’t know what is.
Mathis is a threat to School Choice and therefore threatens to destroy the educational opportunities that Vermont students have. His unethical behavior is now becoming revealed and it will hopefully force him out of the position he never deserved to have.
So how does one shut down an articulate and well researched Bill Mathis? Attack his ability to speak publicly and openly about his opinions and knowledge. Think of it … why debate him when the easiest path is simply to try and keep Mathis from expressions of free speech? Why worry about a public and deliberative body, the Vermont State Board of Education, when one can operate in the legislative environment that allows for secretive meetings and out of the public decision making?
This doesn’t seem strange at all coming from three Representatives who appear to have taken on the mission of protecting private school opaqueness and lack of public accountability.
I would suggest these legislators tend to the business of public accountability for the use of public dollars instead of attacking Bill Mathis who is pushing FOR public accountability for the use of public dollars
The major difference between Bill Mathis and his critics is that Mathis works from facts and openness not opinion and self interest as his critics do. Bill Mathis simply asks that those who receive public dollars play by the same rules.
This is not the first sign Mathis is anti-choice. Much of his research and testimony in front of the legislature has been predicated on the assumption that public or private school choice allows for segregation, yet many cities around the country are looking at choice models for desegregation of inner-city school systems. Wealthy families have the option to send their children to private schools, but working-class families do not unless a publicly financed option is available. Requiring independent schools to comply with public school requirements may sound appealing at first (I say this as someone who has fought for gov ethics for the past four years), but it will undermine the very thing that allows independent schools to succeed: their individuality.
As for Mr. Mathis’ ethical dilemma, this group of independent legislators asks some very good questions that must be answered by Mr. Mathis, the State Board of Education, and the Governor’s office who’s responsibility it is to enforce the executive code of ethics. At the very least, Mathis should recuse himself from voting on school choice issues that come before the SBE including the rule 2200 series and 3500 series.
If Mr. Mathis is receiving funding from sources with an interest in the outcome of SBE decisions he shouldn’t be on that Board in a quasi judicial position. It is cut and dry.
Perhaps David F. Kelly would like to make a specific allegation instead of insinuating guilt by vague BS.
Bill Mathis is a highly informed, respected and experienced educator and he has a point of view that comes from his education and experience. Just because his point of view is not what some others want it to be, does not make for a conflict of interest. In fact, are the three legislators complaining about Mr. Mathis have their own conflicts of interest in this matter? Should legislators abuse their elective offices to bully and threaten appointed officials with whom they disagree? That sounds like an abuse of political power to me.
David F. Kelley suggests that “receiving funding” is an adequate standard for calling an individual’s or group’s ethics into question. Republicans also had this standard when it claimed that Planned Parenthood was using fungible money for abortion services, when it was clear that PP could segregate its abortion funding from its other health care services. Unless he has evidence that Mathis’ claim that his only remuneration is from UC is false, he is simply engaging in obfuscation and fake offense.