Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont plan would cut 119 districts to five, expand shared accountability for school choice
Summary
The Agency of Education presented a governance proposal to the House Education Committee that would eliminate supervisory unions, create five operating districts, end tuitioning out of state, and apply shared accountability across public and designated school choice schools.
Montpelier — The Agency of Education on Feb. 12 told the Vermont House Committee on Education it is proposing to eliminate the supervisory union construct and consolidate the state's current 119 school districts into five operating districts to increase funding equity and pool specialized services.
"This proposal recommends eliminating the supervisory union construct and moving from 119 school districts to 5 school districts," said Zoe Saunders, secretary of education, opening the committee's follow-up discussion. The recommendation also would remove non‑operating districts and stop tuitioning students to out‑of‑state private schools, Saunders said.
The plan, described by Saunders and Emily Simmons, general counsel at the Agency of Education, would create larger district central offices able to deliver specialized services (the agency cited career and technical education and special education) and would establish a statewide model for education service agencies similar to BOCES (Boards of Cooperative Educational Services). The agency said it will provide scenario planning later in the week to show staffing and funding options for districts.
Under the proposal, districts would manage a portfolio of schools and could designate some as "school choice" sites. Independent (private) schools could participate as school choice schools only after a pre‑eligibility screening by the State Board of Education and approval by the local district. Enrollment to a school choice school would be handled by lottery when demand exceeds available seats, the agency said. "The very short answer to your question, Representative Long, is no. There's not an upward limit of the number of school choice schools that a district could approve in the proposal," Simmons told the committee.
Agency officials framed the proposal as an effort to balance local access and specialization while holding all participating schools to the same outcome‑based accountability. Saunders said the agency intends to emphasize growth measures rather than relying solely on proficiency scores to evaluate schools. Emily Simmons said the proposal would apply the same due‑process protections in discipline to school choice schools "whether they are public or independent."
The plan would preserve existing public‑school choice within districts, maintain attendance zones for assigned schools, and include an administrative fee for districts that oversee independent school placements to cover oversight responsibilities such as special education compliance. Saunders said the proposal assumes every student would be assigned to an operating district and to a nearby public school on paper, while acknowledging that some geographic outliers and two current interstate district arrangements would require additional exceptions and planning.
Committee members asked about transportation, equity and capacity. Saunders said the funding model includes a preliminary estimate for higher transportation costs and assumes a partial reimbursement rate (discussed at about 50% in the briefing) while seeking efficiencies through shared contracts. On interstate arrangements, the agency said, "We have 2 interstate districts," and that changing those configurations may require federal action.
Law and governance questions drew scrutiny. Representatives asked how a consolidated system would align teacher pay schedules and what powers the new school boards would hold. The agency pointed to existing statutory authority (including current school board powers codified in Title 16) as a starting point and said further statutory language and implementation details would be developed. The agency also told the committee it has capacity, within existing resources and via the State Board rulemaking process, to undertake the likely rulemaking the plan would require.
No formal votes were taken at the Feb. 12 session; the meeting was a staff presentation and Q&A. Agency officials said more detailed modeling, rule proposals and scenario plans will follow as the committee continues its review.
