Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Instructional Scale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont education leaders tell Senate committee scaling choices affect costs, quality and rural access
Summary
Superintendents and the Vermont Superintendents Association told the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 11 that district consolidation, school size and minimum class sizes present trade-offs for student outcomes, costs and community identity; they urged clearer staffing data, targeted investments and a state-level process for reconfiguration.
Get email alerts on the Education Instructional Scale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CHELSEA MYERS, executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association, and Beau Kimball, superintendent of Maple Run School District, told the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 11 that decisions about district size, school size and class-size minimums must balance cost, instructional quality and Vermont’s rural geography.
They emphasized that research offers guidance but that implementation requires investment and attention to local conditions. "That first 1, teacher quality, is, most correlated with student outcomes," Myers told the committee, arguing that scale decisions should not substitute for investments in teacher quality and supports.
Research and a range of recommendations
Myers summarized research showing an apparent "sweet spot" for district size and cautioned against simple consolidation without considering geography and service needs. She cited a literature review finding an "optimal district size for minimizing cost per pupil while maintaining educational quality appears to be in the 2,000 to 4,000 student range" and that "diseconomies of scale may begin for districts above 15,000" (some studies show earlier effects around 10,000).
At the same time, superintendents proposed policy changes for Vermont’s system. Myers said the superintendent association’s policy recommendations include setting district-quality standards with a minimum district size (she stated "a minimum district size of between 6,000"), and reconfiguring supervisory unions into single school districts — a change that, in the association’s modeling, would reduce Vermont to about 56 districts.
Governing complexity and practical examples
Witnesses described Vermont’s unusually layered governance: supervisory unions that can contain multiple school boards and dozens of board members, and a board-member-to-student ratio the presenters said averages about one board member per 75 students. Committee members were told that the multiplicity of boards can demand substantial administrative time and resources that, they argued, could otherwise support instruction.
Beau Kimball used Maple Run as an example of scale enabling new local programming: "At 13 students, we break even with the cost for tuition amount, and we can pull 20 to 22 students in this therapeutic setting that we've created ourselves," Kimball said, describing a recently opened alternative program that reclaimed students previously sent to external therapeutic schools. He described Maple Run as serving about 2,700 students in five schools, and said the district’s size made some programmatic and staffing solutions more feasible.
School size and student opportunity
Myers reviewed literature on school size, noting studies that suggest different optimal sizes for elementary and secondary schools (examples cited included recommended ranges such as about 500 for elementary and 1,000 for secondary, with smaller targets in higher-poverty settings). Presenters and senators agreed that school-size effects depend heavily on how buildings are used, the configuration of grade spans, and available program staff.
Kimball said school structure matters for staffing patterns and instructional collaboration: when a grade has multiple teachers, "you can really get some teaming and teachers using the collaboration to really serve the students the best." He also contrasted the curricular opportunities available in larger secondary schools with those in smaller high schools.
Class size proposal, reporting and implementation limits
On class size, the Vermont Superintendents Association recommended requiring minimum average class sizes through the Education Quality Standards (EQS) and local board policies. Myers described the association’s recommended minimums as: kindergarten 12; grades 1–5, 15; grades 6–12, 18, with exceptions for specialized or CTE courses. She told the committee that 45 superintendents discussed these targets and that the group also recommended the Agency of Education (AOE) "clearly define staffing reporting definitions by 12/01/2025" so policymakers can compare staffing consistently across districts before setting further targets.
Myers cautioned that research on class size shows mixed academic gains and that very small classes can limit instructional options and raise costs. "Reducing class size has significantly increased costs without corresponding gains in student achievement in most cases," she said, summarizing research findings and urging that resources might sometimes be better used for targeted interventions, professional learning, or expanded services.
Political and logistical constraints
Speakers repeatedly warned that consolidation and reconfiguration are politically fraught. Kimball and Myers both referred to the contested experience around Act 46 and urged a deliberative state-level process if policy changes proceed. Kimball said local decisions required many meetings and community work, and both presenters suggested a state commission or similar body would be necessary to coordinate mapping, facilities assessment and community engagement.
What the committee heard and next steps
Committee members asked for more detail on maximum sizes and trade-offs; presenters said the research provides ranges but that Vermont’s rural geography, facility condition and transportation implications mean the state cannot adopt one-size-fits-all caps without targeted study and funding. Myers recommended embedding aspirational targets in district-quality standards and establishing a body to conduct local feasibility work, while noting that much of the change would require capital and operational investments that are not addressed by scale policy alone.
There were no formal votes at the Feb. 11 hearing. Senators and the association’s representatives said they would continue the discussion, request more granular modeling and staffing definitions from the AOE, and consider legislative steps to create a state-level process for evaluating and supporting district and school reconfiguration.

