Rural school leaders urge Vermont committee to protect supervisory unions, resist one-size consolidation

Members of Vermont’s rural school community told the House Education Committee on March 26 that proposed, large‑scale consolidation measures in H.454 risk damaging local governance and student supports and urged lawmakers to expand a proposed subcommittee and base any recommendations on Vermont‑specific evidence.

The testimony came from Cheryl Charles, chair of the Westminster Town School Board and chair of the Windham Northeast Supervisory Union, Elaine Collins, superintendent of the North Country Supervisory Union, and Jamie Kanarme, superintendent of the White River Valley Supervisory Union, among others. The witnesses said they support creating a subcommittee of the Vermont Commission on the Future of Public Education but asked the committee to make that panel larger and to include local school board members and other rural voices.

“We also want to, urge you to be explicit in your support for the concept of supervisory unions in addition to supervisory districts,” Cheryl Charles said, describing the recently formed Vermont Rural Schools Community Alliance and urging that any subcommittee reflect Vermont’s rural nature. Charles said the alliance has 82 members representing 74 towns and that the group’s analysis shows supervisory unions with fund gains can be more cost‑effective than consolidated supervisory districts.

Why it matters: Witnesses said local governance shapes daily school operations and student supports, and they warned that top‑down mandates could close small town schools, increase transportation times and erode local democratic control.

Charles and other witnesses asked the committee to require data‑driven recommendations. Charles pointed lawmakers to research led by University of Vermont scholar Daniela Hall Sutherland and work by Jeanne Albert, saying “there’s no empirical consensus that consolidation results in reduced educational costs in rural areas.” She urged the panel to verify datasets such as the Vermont Center for Geographic Information’s Vermont School Explorer before using them for statewide planning.

Elaine Collins described how her North Country Supervisory Union operates and why she sees value in a nearby central office. “We have 12 operating educational sites, as well as 2 non operating districts and have a comprehensive pre K–12 system that serves about 2,700 students,” Collins said. Collins told the committee the SU central office runs roughly $22,800,000 annually, assesses about $8,800,000 back to schools and supports 66.2 full‑time equivalents. She cautioned that very large districts could reduce the capacity of superintendents and principals to respond to daily crises, listing recent incidents — a weapons violation, an online threat, staff‑on‑student allegations and multiple disciplinary hearings — as examples showing why local responsiveness matters. “I worry about who takes those calls from principals,” Collins said.

Jamie Kanarme told the committee the White River Valley Supervisory Union serves about 1,700 students across 10 towns and three counties and cautioned that consolidation can increase transportation times. “What family chooses to move to a town that requires a 6 year old to be placed on a bus for more than 75 minutes?” she asked, noting that some proposed structures would force elementary consolidations that could produce one‑way bus rides of 75 to 90 minutes.

Witnesses suggested a set of concrete steps: expand the proposed subcommittee (Charles asked the panel to increase membership from five toward nine), explicitly support both supervisory unions and supervisory districts where appropriate, require cost‑of‑transition estimates for any consolidation plan, and make any standards contingent on Vermont‑specific evidence rather than national generalizations.

Committee chair Rep. Eric Conlon thanked witnesses and noted that written testimony had been submitted. No formal action or votes were taken during the hearing segment recorded in the transcript.