The Friday announcement, via emailed press release, came after Seven Days and VTDigger.org published pieces critical of her original assertion, and the Scott administration categorically denied it.
For the first 10 days of her campaign, Holcombe had accused the Scott administration of promoting a statewide school-choice policy that would strip public schools of millions in state funding. In her new press release, she instead accused Scott of promoting a “vision” of a statewide voucher system.
“If Governor Scott’s team wants to say that a statewide voucher program was their ‘vision’ and not their policy, I will take them at their word and amend my critique,” Holcombe wrote. “I strongly disagree with that ‘vision,’ and I’ll continue to say so, loudly and unapologetically.”
Holcombe had based her original voucher attack on a January Agency of Education document, Designing Our Future, which outlined the consequences of a radically simplified public education system with only one school district for the entire state. The concept included statewide school choice encompassing public schools, technical training centers and independent, non-religious private schools.
However, the document’s introduction describes it as a “visioning exercise” using a single school district as “the most extreme simplification possible.” Spokespeople for the Agency of Education and the Scott administration categorically denied that the document was a policy proposal.
In her Friday statement, Holcombe cited a new piece of evidence: a written response by then-candidate Scott to a July 2016 questionnaire from the advocacy organization Campaign for Vermont. “School choice should be afforded to every parent and student in every school in every corner of Vermont,” Scott wrote. “I will vigorously support legislation that would … make school choice an option for all Vermont families.”
That is another data point in Holcombe’s favor. But in his two and a half years as governor, Scott has never publicly followed through on that promise. It may be a statement of intent — or a vision — but so far that’s all it is.
Holcombe’s revised attack is not as misleading as her first draft. But given Scott’s lack of open advocacy for universal vouchers, it may not be very convincing to voters. Other Democratic candidates have tried to paint Scott as a stealth conservative. But he’s been governor for two and a half years, and if he’s been hiding his true colors, he’s been doing a spectacular job of it.
Scott’s administration did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Holcombe: Ok, so I lied. But I sorta, somewhat, kinda think I’m right. So I don’t think I really lied. I just didn’t tell the exact truth. But I was sorta close. So I’m good, right?
Holcombe is a self-entitled pedant embittered over her failed effort to craft herself as an indispensable bureaucrat.
Will never be governor.
If you’re splaining, you’re losing.
Governor Scott is only now finishing his seventh month of his second term in office. Perhaps this is a little too early for an ongoing campaign. It might be best to let him govern as he was elected to do, at least through both sessions of the legislature, and then start the campaign for governor next summer.
If I may give candidate Rebecca Holcombe one piece of advice,
Its not a lie, if you believe it.
George Kastanza
You either support public schools or you don’t. Period.
They aren’t perfect, but public schools have made America what they are. They are the number one thing that will level the playing field. Public, accountable charter schools and alternative programs can achieve much of what “choice” advocates argue for.
When communities decide that private options are the only outlet they divert resources that could fix the public option–the option that benefits ALL students. Those resources don’t just include money, but concerned parents who advocate for their children and demand higher standards and accountability. Those resources include pride and program for local institutions, which strengthen not only schools but everything from the police and fire department to the local library. When the option of “I don’t like it” is to leave, community and democracy go with it.
Your zip code shouldn’t dictate your future.
Vouchers are the best.
Is it the policy of School Choice that would strip public schools of millions in state funding, or the actions of parents choosing schools that best meet the needs of their children? Why are public schools more sacrosanct than the parents and children public schools ostensibly serve?
Vermont has one of the most expensive public K-12 education systems in the world (yes, in the world) and touts a 90% graduation rate. Yet half of its graduates dont meet minimum grade level standards, fewer than half go on to post-secondary education, and 40% of those who do go to college require remedial instruction before taking their college level classes. Is it any wonder then, they drop out before completing college, often while accumulating debilitating debt?
God forbid that parents, making decisions on behalf of the cognitive development and well-being of their children in the face of a failed monopoly, be demagogued for being stealth conservatives. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. W.S.
Is this what her platform is based on? Seems like you’d want to have a few more topics that show you know about Vermont issues and politics …