Former Vermont education chief says shift to cabinet secretary reduced State Board independence, strained school supports

Armando Villaseca, Vermont’s former education commissioner and the state’s first secretary of education, told the House Education Committee on Jan. 30 that converting the Department of Education into a cabinet-level agency reduced the State Board of Education’s independence and changed how the department supports local schools.

“Governor Shumlin felt that as one of the largest departments in the state ... he would like a little bit more control,” Villaseca said, describing why the transition to a secretary position occurred. He said the change also allowed governors to appoint a single, cabinet-level education official rather than rely on an independent State Board process.

Villaseca told lawmakers the governance change coincided with staff cuts and a shift toward federal compliance work that squeezed program support for districts. “When I came in right when we had to lay off, like, 40 some odd people,” he said, adding that compliance tied to federal programs such as the No Child Left Behind Act and its accountability requirements consumed agency time and resources.

He described several consequences of the governance change: diminished public visibility of decision-making that the board had previously provided by traveling statewide; fewer board-accessible staff resources after the agency split; and a perception that some day-to-day decisions moved from policy-oriented board deliberations to the governor’s office. “They were used to having a certain level of support and that support dropped dramatically, on purpose,” Villaseca said of the State Board’s access to agency staff after the transition.

On appointments and the selection process, Villaseca said that under the older model the State Board interviewed candidates and forwarded finalists to the governor, whereas the current model gives the governor more direct control over naming a secretary. He also said the State Board previously held meetings in different regions, giving local stakeholders closer access to board deliberations and to the department’s work.

Villaseca urged lawmakers to consider how governance structure affects the department’s capacity to support classroom instruction and district operations. He pointed to long-standing structural issues—he cited roughly 63 school districts and about 46 superintendents in a state with under 100,000 students at the time—as drivers of inefficiency and a rationale for looking at district consolidation or other reorganization options.

He emphasized the political and geographic sensitivity of consolidation: residents resist closures and “somebody’s gonna be a bad guy,” he said, even if officials conclude larger reorganizations could create greater opportunities for students.

The session included questions from committee members about whether the governance change or earlier budgetary reductions were the primary cause of reduced field support; Villaseca said both played roles. He recommended that any restructuring process include broad outreach and careful planning to preserve local input and to ensure continuity for districts and educators.

No formal actions or votes were recorded during the session; the presentation was a legislative briefing and discussion with committee members.