Champlain Valley school board raises concerns about governor's proposed five‑district plan and funding formula

Champlain Valley School District board members and staff spent a large portion of their meeting reviewing and responding to a state proposal that would combine Vermont’s more than 100 school districts into a handful of regional districts and change how schools receive state funding.

The proposal presented to the board would place the local district inside a proposed “Champlain Valley” regional district of about 34,000 students, shift funding to a state‑administered education fund using an average daily membership (ADM) formula, and move some categorical funding (for example, special education and transportation) to direct state payments. Board members and staff said their preliminary modeling shows those changes could leave the district with a multimillion‑dollar shortfall compared with current funding.

Board members said the plan, as circulated, raises questions about local control, the role of the State Board of Education and agency rule‑making, and the potential expansion of publicly funded school choice or voucherlike mechanisms.

Why it matters

Board members described the proposal as a major restructuring of governance and finance in Vermont public education. If enacted as written, the plan would eliminate local budget votes, set property tax rates and school budgets through a statewide formula, and concentrate governance in a small number of regional elected boards. Board members said that combination would substantially change how local voters and locally elected board members influence staffing, programs and school priorities.

Key points and local analysis

- Scale and governance: The administration’s map groups many existing districts into five very large regions. Presenters said the draft used existing superintendent association regions as a geographic starting point rather than a new policy design. The Champlain Valley region shown on the map would include roughly 34,000 students and be governed by a part‑time elected board of about five to seven members.

- Funding formula: The proposal would shift the state back to an average daily membership (ADM)–based foundation formula, with additional categorical weights for English‑learner services, economic disadvantage, technical education and sparsity. Presenters told the board they modeled the proposal and — under the assumption that special education and transportation would be funded 100% by the state — still saw a shortfall in the district’s funding that they estimated would shrink but still be meaningful (the presenters described an initial estimated gap on the order of tens of millions before that assumption and a lower gap once fully funded by the state).

- Local revenue and voting: Under the draft plan, local towns would no longer vote on base school budgets. Any request to raise additional local funds for a smaller set of schools would likely require a vote by the much larger regional district, board members said, making locally targeted additional revenues more difficult to secure.

- Rules and oversight: The draft would move rule‑making authority from the State Board of Education to the Agency of Education, according to the materials shared with the board. Several members expressed concern that giving a single executive agency more rule‑making power and implementation authority could politicize standards and oversight.

- Student services and inclusion: Some board members and staff warned that proposed centralized ‘‘BOCES’’‑style or therapeutic centers referenced in the plan could have the effect of separating students with disabilities rather than supporting inclusive local placements. Board members flagged potential civil‑rights and legal risks and noted the risk of litigation if the state’s approach reduced inclusion.

Board posture and next steps

Board members said they want to be part of a constructive conversation with legislators and state education officials and do not intend to be purely obstructive. At the same time, they said any final solution must preserve local ties between elected local officials and students, maintain adequate funding for current programs and protect student supports.

Presenters urged board members and community members to contact state legislators who serve on key committees — including education and ways & means — and to track multiple legislative models that are being developed. Board members said Ways & Means staff are modeling alternatives that use 12 regions as one starting point, and noted that the governor’s draft is likely to change as it moves through the legislative process.

Provenance

The board’s discussion and the staff presentation began when staff introduced slides on the governor’s plan and concluded after members debated funding, governance and student inclusion. The presentation and discussion are recorded in the meeting transcript starting with the staff introduction of the governor’s proposal and continuing through multiple board comments and questions.

Ending

Board members did not take a formal vote on a statement at the meeting but asked staff to continue modeling outcomes, to share the board’s perspective with legislators and to remain engaged as the draft proposal becomes legislation.