Vermont education officials outline plan to cut 119 districts to five, add school advisory councils and statewide choice schools

Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education, told the House Committee on Education on Feb. 6 that the administration’s governance proposal for Gov. Scott’s education transformation would eliminate the current supervisory-union structure and move the state from 119 school districts to five regional districts to increase scale, equity and specialized capacity.

The proposal, Saunders said, would replace dozens of local central offices with five larger district central offices that could hire specialists in curriculum, pre-K, facilities, special education and professional development and that would be governed by elected part-time boards. “So today we’re pleased to share more information around the governance component of the governor’s plan,” Saunders said in opening testimony. Jill Bridal Campbell, interim deputy secretary, described the plan’s use of an Education Services Agency (often referred to in testimony as a BOCES) to deliver services at scale and to increase coherence and equitable delivery of supports such as special education and career and technical education.

Why it matters: presenters said the changes are intended to address what they described as a fragmented, top-heavy system whose small, local districts lack scale and consistent access to specialized staff and programs. Saunders said the state’s funding picture and persistent enrollment declines have left some high-needs communities dependent on federal funds and without similar access to courses and services available elsewhere in Vermont.

What the plan would change: among the central elements described in the presentation and the companion report are: - A five-district model that “eliminates the supervisory union structure,” consolidating the current 119 districts into five regional districts, each with an elected board and a central office. The plan notes exceptions for interstate tuitioning arrangements and remote out‑of‑state tuition needs. - School boards for the new districts would be elected and represent smaller geographic wards within each large district; presenters suggested roughly five board members per district (with room for exceptions in larger regions such as the Champlain Valley). - Mandatory school advisory committees at every school, distinct from parent-teacher organizations. Presenters said advisory committees would provide input on equitable budgeting parameters, develop required school improvement plans and advise on a designated discretionary set‑aside of school budget dollars. Membership would include students, parents/caregivers, educators and community members. - A statewide “school choice” framework: districts would draw attendance zones assigning every child to a public elementary, middle and high school, while also designating at least one school in the district as a “school choice” school. Choice schools (public or independent) would apply under state criteria and enroll by lottery; districts would approve applications and the State Board of Education would hear appeals. - An Education Services Agency/BOCES concept to provide services at scale (special education was cited as a key example). Testimony referenced Act 168 and the LOSIS work as precedent for cross-district arrangements, and noted the administration will propose rules and possible statutory changes to align responsibilities.

Items presenters said remain to be defined or are contingent on future work: detailed legislative language, the mechanics of district and board budgets (including compensation for part‑time elected board members), precise eligibility thresholds and seat counts for school choice approvals, school construction and facilities decisions, and implementation timelines and exceptions for remote or sparsely populated areas. Saunders said the companion report includes appendices listing schools by the proposed districts and that the administration plans two years of transition and additional modeling for budget/staffing choices.

Committee concerns and clarifications: lawmakers asked who would decide actual attendance assignments and how exceptions for remote areas would be handled. Saunders and Bridal said districts would organize attendance zones and “feeding patterns” (elementary → middle → high) with community input and district planning during a multi‑year transition; they said exceptions for sparsity and interstate tuition arrangements would be contemplated. Lawmakers also pressed on whether independent academies could be designated as choice schools; presenters said independent schools can apply and would be held to the same shared-quality and financial criteria, with appeal to the State Board of Education if a district denies approval.

Budget and governance questions remained unresolved: presenters said the cost assumptions for elected board stipends or part‑time salaries were not yet specified and that district board pay would come from district funds, not the per‑student base. They also said school advisory councils were not assumed to be paid. Bridal Campbell said the administration would return with more concrete legislative language and budget modeling.

Legal and oversight roles: testimony described a realignment of functions between the Agency of Education (AOE) and the State Board of Education. The AOE would remain the single state agency accountable for federal programs and increase supports and targeted resources to districts; the State Board would retain or assume board-level oversight tasks (for example, appeals for school choice approvals and review of board governance in district quality standards).

No formal action recorded: the hearing was a presentation and Q&A; no motions or votes on statutory language were recorded in the transcript.

What’s next: presenters said legislative-language work was underway and that companion briefings on pre-K, CTE and funding modeling will follow. The administration signaled readiness to return for further questions and to provide more detailed budget and statutory proposals.