Rep. Herb Olsen introduces H.180 to set standards, process for closing elementary schools

Representative Herb Olsen introduced H.180, “An act relating to the closure of an elementary school,” to the House Education Committee on Feb. 18, 2025. Olsen told the committee the bill is intended to require fair standards and a transparent process before an elementary school is closed.

"Our children's education is the highest priority of a decent, hopeful society," Olsen said, framing the bill as an effort to balance financial pressures against local educational and community impacts. Olsen, who said he represents the towns of Bristol, Lincoln, Moncton and Starksburg in Addison County, emphasized that "not all schools are the same" and argued for case-by-case review rather than a single enrollment threshold.

The bill, walked through line by line by legislative counsel St. James of the Office of Legislative Council, would add a new section to chapter 11, title 16 of Vermont law governing union school districts. St. James read the bill's statement of intent: "It is the intent of the General Assembly that communities and their community elementary schools should be afforded due process on a case by case basis before an elementary school is closed." The counsel noted the proposed section defines “closing an elementary school” and sets procedural requirements for districts that propose closure.

Key requirements in H.180 as explained to the committee: - Notice and report timing: a district must provide public notice at least nine months before issuing an elementary school closure report, and must publish the closure report not later than 90 days before making a final decision. - Evidence standards: the report must show, using credible data and competent, independent analysis, whether closure would affect student outcomes (including proficiency, social-emotional health and impacts on historically marginalized, low-income, and ethnically or linguistically diverse students) and whether financial savings credibly attributed to closure exceed alternative savings. - Financial alternatives: districts must consider alternatives such as reducing central-office staffing, consolidating administrative functions with neighboring districts, and collaboration between high schools and technical centers. - Transportation: the report must provide specific transport-time estimates for each pick-up and drop-off location (not averages), the district’s standard for measuring whether those times are reasonable, and consideration of road conditions, inclement weather, student age/grade, and students with special needs. If transport times are not reasonable, families may attend a public elementary school outside the district at the original district’s tuition expense. - Building reuse and local votes: the district must describe plans for the closed school building regardless of whether the municipality accepts ownership. If a district’s articles of agreement require an affirmative vote of the town where the school is located, the district may not close the school without that town vote; otherwise the select board may hold an advisory vote. - State Board review and appeals: the district’s decision, the report and any town advisory vote would be transmitted to the State Board of Education. The State Board would hold an administrative hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act and may not order closure unless it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the closure is just, reasonable and supported by the facts and law. The State Board’s closure decision may be appealed to the Washington County Superior Court, which would review the record de novo. A State Board decision to keep a school open would not be appealable.

During the committee exchange, members asked for clarifications about several terms in the draft. St. James noted the bill’s subsection-level definition of "elementary school" in this section includes any configuration of prekindergarten through grade 8, and observed that this differs from the agency’s ordinary statutory definition (which the counsel said is typically pre-K, K and grades 1–6). St. James also said she had not located state standards for transport times and therefore the bill references such standards but does not make them determinative.

Olsen offered a list of potential witnesses and experts for the committee, including national researcher Mara Tika and local officials such as Jean Albert and John Castle, and said he would make contact information available to the committee. No committee vote was taken on H.180 during the Feb. 18 meeting; the bill was introduced for committee consideration.

The bill sets an effective date of July 1, 2025. The committee may take up the bill in later meetings and accept testimony from the sponsor’s suggested witnesses and from district representatives and community members.