Vermont Senate panel reviews proposal to consolidate 119 school districts into five regional districts

The Vermont Senate Education Committee on Feb. 7 heard Agency of Education officials lay out a governance plan that would replace the state’s supervisory union structure and 119 school districts with five operating regional districts and new statewide guardrails for school budgets, school choice and accountability. “This proposal is designed to strengthen our public education system,” Secretary of Education Zoe Sonder said.

Committee members were told the changes are intended to create scale to preserve program offerings, expand access to specialized services, and make funding more equitable across communities. Agency officials said the proposal pairs a foundation-style funding model with new governance, school advisory committees at every school, and standards for any public or approved choice school that receives public tuition.

Sonder and Jill Brooks Campbell, interim deputy secretary of education, described the rationale: Vermont’s enrollment has fallen more than 21% over the past two decades; the state has about one school board member for every 75 students; and the current system contributes to widely varying local capacity and program offerings. The administration argues larger regional districts would allow more centralized staff expertise, pooled resources for special education and career and technical education, and reduced administrative duplication.

Under the plan, each of the five regional districts would be an operating district with attendance zones so every student is assigned a public school nearest to them. Officials said the proposal would continue Vermont’s tradition of allowing independent or historic academies to apply to be “choice” schools that admit outside students by lottery subject to defined preference rules. “An independent school would need to be approved to receive public tuition,” Brooks Campbell said, adding that the state would set eligibility criteria that both independent and public choice schools must meet.

Officials emphasized one commonly raised point: the plan’s moratorium is on public tuition going to new independent schools, not on the private formation of schools. “It’s a moratorium on tuition,” Sonder said. The administration also flagged a small number of exceptions it would need to address—interstate districts such as Rivendell/Norwich‑Hanover and very remote border communities—during the transition.

The committee discussion touched on several operational details that are not yet decided. Transportation policy—whether the state would guarantee transit to a student’s assigned or choice school—would be a later policy decision; the administration said its funding model assumes additional transportation funding but that detailed modeling is still required. Officials also proposed a role for education service agencies (sometimes called BOCES) to provide regionwide or statewide specialized services, and they cited Act 168 as existing legislation that may need revisiting to align with the new structure.

Committee members raised concerns about loss of local control and representation, especially in the Champlain Valley region, which would be larger than other regions. Officials said district voting‑ward maps would be part of a parallel process, and larger districts could have more school‑board seats to preserve representation; they also said the administration’s proposed configuration reduces property‑wealth disparities across districts (the report cited an 11× range under current structure reduced to roughly 2× under the five‑district model).

The proposal would also require every school to have a school advisory committee composed of students, staff, parents and community partners to advise on school improvement plans and an advisory set‑aside within school budgets. Agency officials described those advisory committees as distinct from PTAs and said the committees would provide local strategic input rather than run fundraising or event activities.

On special education, officials told the committee Vermont’s use of separate therapeutic schools is higher than in many states and that any reconsideration of moratoria for therapeutic providers should be part of a broader review of how the state delivers special education. “Any consideration of therapeutic schools should bring in our special‑education experts,” Sonder said; the plan as presented does not carve out a separate exception for therapeutic schools from the tuition moratorium.

Committee members pressed for clear guardrails and transparent criteria for decisions such as school consolidation or closure, and for measures that would show whether any change improves students’ opportunities. Officials said those criteria and transition plans remain policy choices to be developed during implementation. No votes or formal decisions were taken at the hearing.

The panel will continue the governance conversation at a follow‑up meeting; agency staff said they plan to present maps, budgets and additional modeling as the discussion proceeds.