Erie superintendent urges Vermont committee to use GIS and data-driven process for school redistricting

Jay Adams, superintendent of SAU 70 (Hanover and Norwich), told the Vermont House Education Committee on Feb. 14 that lawmakers should base any school redistricting or consolidation on detailed, GIS-mapped student and facilities data rather than quick redraws.

Adams, who described leading a yearlong, public redistricting process in Erie, Pennsylvania, said the public will accept difficult decisions if they are grounded in clear data and accompanied by transparent community engagement.

The governor has proposed larger regional districts — including a five-district plan discussed by lawmakers — and Adams framed GIS mapping and multi-step planning as tools to assess where schools should be located, how services could be shared and where consolidation might be unavoidable to sustain educational equity and budgets.

Adams summarized Erie’s fiscal crisis after he became superintendent in 2010: a roughly $26 million cumulative shortfall within a $180 million budget, declining enrollment and structural funding problems that required cutting more than 300 positions. “Seventy percent of your budget is staff. And so we had to eliminate more than 300 positions,” he said, adding that leadership started with central office reductions before classroom cuts.

Adams told the committee he had the district’s students plotted as individual points on a GIS map, with lines showing travel to each school and overlays for facilities condition and enrollment projections. He said such mapping revealed legacy patterns — older schools remaining where industry or neighborhoods once were — and produced “optimum” nodes where a new school could serve a critical mass of students. “Until we do a GIS study and draw those lines for our kids, how do we know that the cheaper solution and the better educational solution isn't a new school located in between a critical mass of kids,” Adams said.

He described the Erie effort as a three-phase project that took about a year from first engagement to initial public presentation, noting the facilities condition assessment was the most time-consuming element. Adams estimated the GIS mapping/data portion could be done quickly if the state’s student-location and enrollment data are compiled, saying theoretically “a month” for mapping once data are ready, while the full planning effort could run a year to 18 months.

Adams recommended pairing mapping with consideration of shared-service models (a BOCES or intermediate unit approach) to realize economies of scale for special education, Medicaid billing, and other administrative services. He described examples where intermediate units staffed specialized classrooms and handled Medicaid reimbursement for smaller districts that could not afford dedicated personnel.

Committee members raised implementation questions Adams acknowledged: who would make final closure or consolidation decisions (school boards made the final calls in Erie after public presentations), whether counties would be a sensible intermediate governance unit, and how to address repurposing closed school buildings. Adams said repurposing examples exist — including conversions to housing — but noted the substantial retrofit costs and environmental issues (he referenced concerns such as PCBs in mid-20th-century buildings) that make private investment and careful planning important.

Adams also touched on equity: small, resource-poor schools can leave students without the same labs, libraries or curricular offerings as better-funded schools, and mapping and transparent planning help quantify those disparities. He recommended producing several options (A, B, C) and showing projections so communities understand tradeoffs.

Committee members asked Adams to follow up with examples, vendor contacts and institutional knowledge; Adams said he would call consultants and collaborators, including Verne McKissett, the architect who led Erie’s study, and that he would share material the committee could use. Committee members said the state’s existing facilities data should be integrated into any mapping effort.

No formal votes or binding decisions were recorded at the Feb. 14 session. The committee indicated interest in pursuing GIS-based mapping and further study as a next step rather than enacting immediate statutory changes.

Adams’s presentation underscored several recurring themes for the committee: the need to ground consolidation proposals in robust, transparent data; the potential to lower per-pupil inequities through different governance and shared-service models; the timeline and cost considerations for mapping and facility assessments; and the political importance of public engagement when proposing school closures or mergers.

The committee did not adopt legislation at the Feb. 14 meeting; members invited Adams to provide follow-up resources and suggested integrating mapping work with the state’s facilities-condition data and enrollment projections.