Education groups tell Senate committee consolidation, funding and governance changes risk harm without more analysis

Representatives of Vermont school governance organizations told the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 28 that Governor Scott’s education transformation proposal raises serious questions about local control, funding sufficiency and the state’s capacity to implement large-scale governance changes.

Sue Slawski, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, told the committee that the plan’s governance piece “decreases the number of school districts from 109 to 5,” and would reduce statewide school board service from about 900 members to 25, a change she said would “politicize school boards” and make service accessible only to those who can afford part‑time public service. “These highly competitive races will introduce money into public education governance in a manner never before seen in our state,” Slawski said.

The Vermont Principals Association’s executive director, Jay Nichols, cautioned lawmakers to “first, do no harm,” urging the Legislature not to rush fiscal changes without modeling unintended consequences. Nichols said a foundation formula layered on the current system without governance or scale changes could result in net cuts to student services. He also flagged disparities in teacher compensation across the state and said consolidation into very large districts would complicate contract harmonization and local decision‑making.

Dr. Phil Gore, chief learning officer for the Idaho School Boards Association and a former director of board services for the Vermont School Boards Association, cited national research including the Iowa “Lighthouse” studies and a Center on Public Education meta‑analysis to argue that effective school boards and community engagement are associated with better district performance. “The closer governance is to the schools and students, the more likely that the governance is representing the vision and values that the local community has for its schools,” Gore said, while acknowledging there is “room for a balance between community representation and efficiencies of scale.”

Nut graf: The witnesses — speaking for two statewide associations and bringing national research — recommended a cautious, evidence‑based approach. They urged the committee to require more modeling of funding impacts, to clarify the chain of authority if new local advisory bodies are established, and to preserve or strengthen the independence and capacity of the State Board of Education rather than concentrating rulemaking in the Agency of Education.

Discussion and concerns raised

- Governance scale and local control: Witnesses objected to the magnitude of the proposed consolidation (testimony referenced shrinking district counts to five statewide) and to shrinking elected board membership. Slawski said 5 statewide boards “would not have a meaningful connection to local communities’ visions and values.” Nichols recommended legislative parameters and local decision authority for future district reorganization rather than a single statewide redraw.

- Funding sufficiency and cost drivers: Slawski and Nichols said more modeling is needed on the proposed foundation formula and its base education amount. Slawski warned that rising employee health insurance costs are squeezing district budgets, saying the cost of public school employees’ health insurance “exceeds $300,000,000 per year” and increased 16% in FY25 and 12% in FY26 in testimony to the committee. Nichols warned a one‑time formula change without addressing underlying cost drivers and contract differences could harm student services.

- Role of State Board of Education and Agency of Education: VSBA testimony opposed moving rulemaking authority entirely to the Agency of Education and instead urged revitalizing the State Board of Education with the independence and resources to meet statutory obligations. Slawski wrote that concentrating more authority in an agency “that is unable to do the work it is currently responsible for is ill advised.”

- School advisory committees (SACs): Slawski and Gore described SACs as a long‑established model (Philadelphia’s 2016 policy was offered as an example) but noted practical challenges: recruitment of family members, clarity in bylaws, principal workload and the need for central office resources to support SACs. Gore and Slawski said bylaws would need to define membership, selection, duties and whether meetings are subject to Vermont’s open‑meeting laws.

- Class size and district size tradeoffs: Nichols recommended K–3 class averages near 15 students where possible, grades 4–8 around 20, and high school classes near 25. On district size, Gore suggested an empirical “sweet spot” likely smaller than very large consolidated systems and said economies and diseconomies of scale appear in different ranges; Nichols suggested a practical range of a few thousand to perhaps up to 10,000 students depending on geography and function.

- Teacher evaluation and personnel protections: Nichols and others urged clearer, statewide evaluation practices and consistent records so underperforming staff could not simply move between employers without accountability. Nichols described statutory probationary evaluation requirements for early‑career teachers and called for better implementation of evaluations after the probationary years.

What the witnesses asked the committee to do

- Require additional data, modeling and financial analysis of any formula or governance change before enactment. - Preserve or restore an independent State Board of Education with resources and capacity to lead rulemaking and oversight. - Clarify the chain of authority and accountability if school advisory bodies are created and require bylaws, training and central support. - Use legislative parameters and local decision processes rather than imposing a single statewide district map.

Ending: No formal action was taken at the Feb. 28 hearing; testimony continued the committee’s review of the governor’s education transformation proposal and called for further hearings and data before the Legislature considers statutory changes.

Speakers quoted in this article: Sue Slawski (executive director, Vermont School Boards Association); Dr. Phil Gore (chief learning officer, Idaho School Boards Association; former director of board services, Vermont School Boards Association); Jay Nichols (executive director, Vermont Principals Association).