Still playing catchup with old lost posts. In the end, so many people objected to the proposed cuts to the Harvest Program that it survived--but its troubles are not over. The last I knew, they were working on restructuring the program to ensure its viability. Let's hope they succeed.
This is a copy of a letter I'm sending to the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union and to each member of the RNESU Board.
As a member of the Otter Valley Union High School Class of 1966, as the son of two OVUHS teachers, as a writing teacher has worked with 11 of the 12 primary and secondary grades, as a 26-year Rutland Herald reporter who began their column "Schooldays, Schooldays," and as a senior citizen who has benefited from Otter Valley student social service, I want to object in the strongest possible terms to the idea of removing the Harvest Program from Foxcroft Farm in Leicester.
Told that I ought to do a story on the Harvest Program some years ago, I looked into what they were about, and was so impressed that I did a major feature story on them and have stayed in touch since. Based on my experiences with this unique endeavor, here are several points I urge you to consider before making any final decisions regarding its relationship with Foxcroft Farm and the Young family.
First, it is unfair to take the total cost of the program, divide that by the number of students involved this year, then compare that figure with the average cost of educating a student. No doubt you have encountered the saying, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." If you think Foxcroft Farm is expensive, try the cost of out-of-state special education placement. Or think of the cost per year of keeping someone imprisoned-not an unlikely fate for individuals who are unable to establish a connection with other people during their student years. I have seen how relationships between at-risk kids and animals can open the way for other relationships, just as they can bring people out of their personal pain in "pet therapy." Then there is the real need to do chores on a farm, something which, it has often been observed, leads farm kids to grow up faster than others. It is absurd to think that the Harvest Program experience could be replaced by putting the kids into a larger program at the old Brandon Training School, no matter how much formal education its directors had.
Then there is the social service side of the Harvest Program. Kids who may have felt themselves to be marginal and of little worth get to see the smiles on the faces of the seniors who often receive the fruits of their labors, and get to hear expressions of gratitude that may be missing from the rest of their lives. There is a kind of student social service that is aimed as much at having something to put on college applications as it is directed at real needs. In contrast, the Harvest Program's donations are up close and personal. Objectively, their list of beneficiaries goes beyond any ordinary expectations, partly because they have something tangible to give. These efforts would not be nearly as dynamic without the real products the farm has available to share-products the givers can remember bringing into existence.
The field trips. Think back to your own school experiences and I think you will agree that field trips can make extraordinarily powerful impressions. Foxcroft Farm has welcomed all sorts of younger grades to its regular farming environment and to their annual fall corn maze. Another point that should not be underestimated: this is a case of older students welcoming and being supportive of younger students. Too often little kids get belittled, if not actually bullied, by students who are so much bigger that they seem almost like adults. The Foxcroft Farm field trips serve as a worthwhile corrective.
Cutting out Ann Young and relying instead on "professionals" would be a dreadful mistake. Good companies hire the person, not the resume. She may not have all the letters after her name that some people do, but there could be no substitute for her years of experience resolving one crisis after another and steadily growing closer to all sorts of participants. Her ability to maintain the flow of a day with her students should not be taken for granted; far from being a simple matter of scheduling, it is hands-on management of the first order. An example: usually at one point in the day, everyone goes for a long walk around the farm's varied terrain. More than a way to avoid restlessness and get exercise, it's a way for everyone to come together as a group and not leave anyone out. Getting out on the trail is an educational practice dating back thousands of years, to hunter-gather days, but it is no less effective for that. Indeed, something in the human character seems to make such expeditions particularly rewarding-in this case through literal field trips.
It is easy to consider the Harvest Program expensive and expandable by looking at it strictly from an educational point-of-view, but there are larger issues to consider. All over Vermont, people are wondering how to preserve a working agricultural landscape based on other activities than dairying. All over the country, people are worried about relying on "factory farming" for the food supply. All over the world, officials are looking at growing obesity and wondering how children can be led to get away from indoor electronic environments and be more active. The Harvest Program shades into these areas of concern, and for that reason has value that budgetary accounting cannot measure.
Count me among those who believe the cuts originally suggested for the Harvest Program would be a travesty. Far better would be to celebrate it as one solution to problems of creating quality education that sometimes seem intractable.
Sincerely,
Ed Barna, OV 1966, Harvard 1970
Comments