Vermont education leaders back updated Education Quality Standards but warn implementation will take time and resources

The Vermont Senate and House Education Committees heard on Jan. 22, 2025, that the newly revised Education Quality Standards, adopted by the State Board of Education and ready for use in 2025, provide a statewide vision for what students should learn — but that translating the document into classroom practice will require time, funding and coordinated supports.

The standards update, speakers said, builds on prior revisions in 2014 and the state’s 2014 Act 77 flexible-pathways work, adds an explicit focus on transferable skills and reflects input gathered under 2019’s Act 1 working group. "The education quality standards answers that question" of what students should learn, Mike McCray, associate executive director of the Vermont Principals Association, told the joint hearing. He and other presenters urged policymakers to align agency guidance, continuous improvement plans and accountability tools around the updated rules to help schools implement them.

Committee members and presenters spent much of the hearing focused on practical follow-through. Dr. Andrew Jones, assistant superintendent for Mount Mansfield School District, said the document is not entirely new to educators but that "there's still kind of a pretty big gap between where many schools are at and, seeing that vision to fruition." Jones pointed to instructional strategies in section 2120.1 as a critical classroom-level element and quoted the language that many districts find important: "Educators shall be supported in" implementing those strategies.

Presenters reviewed the EQS update’s history and key components. Mike McCray traced Vermont standards from early 20th-century debates through the 1970s basic competencies, the standards-and-learning-opportunities framework around 2000, the Common Core adoption in about 2010 and a major EQS overhaul adopted in 2013–14. The 2014 update added transferable skills — communication, problem solving and critical thinking — and helped spur interest in proficiency-based learning. The most recent revisions incorporate recommendations from an Act 1 working group and a broader public comment process, McCray said.

Several implementation challenges emerged in discussion. Presenters and committee members noted that the 2014 EQS did not see uniform, statewide implementation; much work remained localized. Schools vary in capacity, and COVID interrupted many supports. Dr. Jones explained that integrated field reviews — peer-led on-site reviews that provided practitioner feedback — have not been conducted since the pandemic and called for updated field-review rubrics tied to the revised EQS. He also described changes to continuous improvement plans (CIPs): the federal-linked process has been redesigned to shift planning from district (LEA) level to the school level this year, which presenters said should make plans more responsive to school-specific needs while continuing to tie Title I and Title II funding to identified goals.

The hearing also touched on IRIS (an ethnic-studies framework referenced in the EQS companion material) and how communities may react to parts of the guidance. McCray and Jones said the IRIS companion document has not completed the State Board subcommittee process and emphasized that districts will need to "find a growth edge" — choosing goals that build on local strengths rather than trying to implement every element statewide on July 1, 2025. Both presenters emphasized the role of local control and the expectation that implementation will look different across districts.

Presenters made several recommendations to support implementation: tie the EQS explicitly into CIPs and federal spending plans, restore integrated field reviews with updated rubrics, align licensing and independent-school oversight to the updated rules, and invest in sustained, job-embedded professional learning (for example, instructional coaches) rather than one-off workshops. Jones said the CIP revisions that move goal-setting to the school level should help target Title I and Title II funds where they are needed, citing examples of title funds used for literacy interventionists and instructional coaches.

Committee members asked about enforcement and accountability. Presenters noted there is not, in practice, a single prescriptive enforcement mechanism for the EQS; rather, districts are expected to set goals, report through CIPs and use federal funds consistent with identified needs. McCray said the State Board also revised rule language for independent schools (rule 22100) alongside the public-school rules (rule 2000 series) and that the Agency of Education’s backlog on independent-school oversight remains a concern.

The hearing ended with presenters urging lawmakers to align state supports and agency investments with the EQS revisions so schools can move from document to practice. Without sustained, resourced attention, presenters warned, some elements risk becoming aspirational rather than operational across Vermont’s districts.