Lawyer briefs senators on supervisory unions, school districts, BOCES and special-education funding

Elizabeth “Beth” St. James, an attorney with the Office of Legislative Council, told members of a legislative education briefing on Jan. 23, 2025, that state law currently vests certain administrative and funding responsibilities with supervisory unions and school districts and that recent and proposed changes — including a new BOCES structure and a 5‑district proposal floated by the administration — raise multiple legal and operational questions.

The presentation, described by St. James as “Governance 101,” explained that supervisory unions are administrative and planning units created by the State Board of Education that may encompass multiple school districts or a single district organized as a supervisory district. “Supervisory unions are the educational agency in the state that receives and disperses federal and state funds distributed by AOE,” St. James said. She listed supervisory-union duties in statute (for example, 16 V.S.A. §261a), including establishing union-wide curriculum, professional development, special-education services, procurement and construction management.

St. James emphasized differences between supervisory unions and school districts: school districts are municipal entities governed by elected boards that set district educational policy, manage district property, adopt budgets and may exercise taxing authority. “A school district has a similar ... ability to create taxing capacity as a municipality has,” she said, adding that “supervisory unions do not.” That distinction is central to conversations about proposals to move to a small number of larger school districts, she said.

Why it matters: The committee and other lawmakers are considering an administration proposal to consolidate governance into five larger districts. The legal status of existing duties (especially special-education responsibilities and funding), statutory changes needed, and practical details — how budgets, voter approval and taxing authority would work under a new structure — remain unresolved and were central themes of the briefing.

St. James reviewed practical examples from Vermont that lawmakers can use when weighing reform. She walked through supervisory unions and union/unified union school districts in regions including Rutland Northeast and Southwest Vermont, and explained common variations: some districts operate their own schools, some tuition students to other districts, and some districts operate only part of the grade span and send students elsewhere for other grades.

On special education, St. James said federal law requires assigning responsibility for services to a Local Education Agency (LEA). Under current Vermont law the supervisory union typically functions as the LEA and remains “on the hook for making sure special-education services are provided.” She noted Act 173 (2018) reformed special-education funding, moving from a reimbursement model toward a census-based block grant; the on-ramp to the final funding model is ongoing and intended to be fully in place by 2027, St. James said. She warned legislators that any governance redesign must account for who will be the LEA and how special-education funding will be administered under a new structure.

St. James also described BOCES (Boards of Cooperative Educational Services), a chapter newly added to Title 16 effective July 1, 2024, that enables supervisory unions to form cooperative service entities. The law requires supervisory unions to consider forming or joining a BOCES by a statutory date and directs the Agency of Education to survey BOCES activity and report back to the legislature. She said there is no statutory requirement to join a BOCES but there is a requirement to discuss the option.

On prekindergarten and tuitioning, St. James summarized Act 166 benefits and mechanics: a state-provided benefit of 10 hours per week for roughly 35 weeks is available for eligible pre-K students; families may use the benefit in public or approved private providers. She described that some districts operate pre-K programs while others tuition pre-K students to neighboring districts or approved providers, and she said the per-child Act 166 payment amount varies year to year (characterized in the briefing as “somewhere under $4,000 this year” and “$3,000‑some odd dollars” in the current on‑ramp context).

Throughout the briefing St. James stressed that many of the choices implied by a governance overhaul are policy decisions for the legislature and that her office can draft statutory language but cannot resolve practical implementation trade-offs by itself. She urged early coordination among the Senate Education Committee, House Education and Senate Finance to align policy and fiscal analysis, and suggested the Education Commission of the States as a resource for 50-state comparisons.

The session included questions from senators and committee members about budget apportionment, voter processes for school budgets under different municipal structures, tuition rates and where students in tuitioning towns attend school. St. James repeatedly noted state law often leaves operational details — for example, how districts draw attendance boundaries — to local school-district policy.

Ending: St. James said she is prepared to continue working with the committees to translate policy choices into statutory language and to analyze constitutional and statutory implications, but she also cautioned that the Office of Legislative Council has limited time and that early direction and lead time from lawmakers will be important if they seek draft language and legal analysis.