|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Chaunce Benedict
Whether one thinks school district consolidations or mergers would be beneficial for Vermont, or not, is immaterial in regard to the fundamental issue raised by the Vermont School Redistricting Task Force’s move to thwart the intent and requirements of Vermont law concerning the future of our pre-k – 12 schools.
The Task Force has grossly abused its privilege as an appointed policy group by deciding to, essentially, disobey the law and thwart the process that our elected representatives designed for school reform. They created no “maps” as requested by the law, instead choosing to create a dense, wonkish 170 page tome – unreadable for the everyday Vermonter – making a fancy argument for a 1970s-style BOCES model, and a further try at voluntary district merging, the instances of which under Act 46 have reduced little if any cost; to be put in place over TEN YEARS.
Our elected legislature and governor, with much research and then debate, set a policy direction for Vermont school governance, operations and finance. It is not in any way, the prerogative of this small group to take it upon themselves to thwart the process set forth in law, for reorganizing our educational system.
The “thousands” of people who came forth to voice concern or opposition to the law, is transparently the result of organized, concerted political activism. While it is important to listen to and respect voices of concern, there is no reason per se to think that this is a “ground swell” representing the overall will of Vermonters as a whole. In fact, our 2025 Vermont legislature and governor duly elected by Vermont citizens, set this policy into law.
The Task Force, as well as “anti-merger” activists, have generated through their actions an undue, large amount of worry, fear, and anxiety over the idea of school district reconfiguring, and a demonstrated enormous insolence in gaslighting Vermonters by suggesting its plan will improve student learning and save much cost. In all, a stunning failure and lack of respect for the will of Vermonters who have said that the status quo of our schools – educationally and financially is no longer working and needs dramatic change, very soon.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The ‘failure’ rests with those who complain and still offer no tangible solutions for consideration. While not saying so directly, Mr. Benedict, it appears you are a ‘pro-merger’ activist. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Otherwise, would it not be the ultimate “respect for the will of Vermonters who have said that the status quo of our schools – educationally and financially is no longer working and needs dramatic change’ to take charge of their own fate? After all, Vermont’s, oldest-in-the-nation, school choice tuitioning program is proven, over and again, to be the most successful school governance in the State’s history. What do you think about making school choice available to all Vermont families? Shouldn’t the legislature, finally, step aside from its on-going failures and let parents choose the education programs (public, independent and/or home school) they believe best meets the needs of their children?
Mr. Eshelman thank you for the constructive reply. I believe that the “voluntary merger” process legislated under Act 46 was largely an effort by the powers-that-be to preserve the status quo governance-wise and administratively, resulted in a messy mish-mas of governance and educational models, and did next to nothing to reduce cost or constrain cost growth, in fact increased costs in many locales. I believe that the concepts for reorganization proposed by the Education Secretary and enacted into law – Act 73 – by the Legislature and Governor hold promise for reducing cost, streamlining governance and adminstration and improving student opportunities, and therefore deserve a try in some form – thus, a reorganization / consolidation as proposed in the law. To my view, the current opposition to mandated consolidation proposed voluntary mergers and a warmed-over BOCES model, is largely a function of the same status-quo bunch who balked at Act 46. I was a Vermont school superintendent for 14 years and principal for other schools for 9 years, in districts that had lots of choice for high schools aged students as well as plenty of homeschooling, which in my view served the children and families extremely well. I would support school choice pre K – 12 for all Vermont kids and families, with the stipulation that there needs to be some kind of process for ensuring “choice” schools – public or independent/private – meet a minimum set of standards for education, safety, services. Thank you for your questions.
Thank you for engaging in this most important discussion.
Re: “…the stipulation that there needs to be some kind of process for ensuring “choice” schools – public or independent/private – meet a minimum set of standards for education, safety, services.”
Is this not the proverbial Catch 22? What better ‘process’ can there be than that of an educational free market? After all:
“… if an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.” – Milton Friedman
I write as a father of a child in a rural Vermont school, a taxpayer, a community member, and someone who hopes one day—after enough years of showing up and contributing—to earn the honor of being considered a Vermonter. I am responding to Chaunce Benedict’s recent opinion claiming that the Vermont School Redistricting Task Force “failed” because it did not impose forced statewide school district mergers, and further asserting that consolidation is necessary, financially prudent, and reflective of the will of Vermonters. With respect, the evidence does not support that conclusion, nor does the characterization of the thousands of Vermonters who participated in the process as merely “organized activism.” That phrase is a dysphemism—substituting a negative label for something legitimate in order to undermine it. What Mr. Benedict calls activism is, in truth, the people: parents, teachers, children, taxpayers, grandparents, uncles, aunts, neighbors, and the surrogate older family members who raise and support Vermont’s children. These are not operatives; they are the citizens who hold the community together.
Act 73 directed the Task Force to study options for governance and cost efficiency, including—but not limited to—consolidation. They fulfilled that mandate by recommending voluntary mergers and regional shared-service partnerships that are already producing measurable cost savings in parts of Vermont. They did so without dismantling small rural schools or stripping towns of democratic agency. Calling that result “failure” misrepresents both the law and the work. What the Task Force delivered is analogous to a merger-of-equals strategy in finance—collaborative integration designed to produce real efficiencies in the areas that actually drive cost: special education, transportation, central administration, facilities, etc. In corporate finance, it is well-known that hostile takeovers destroy value far more often than they create it. Reckless restructuring may produce dramatic headlines and short-term excitement, but rarely results in stability or financial strength. The same is true in car racing, where the surest path to disaster is a late-brake dive into a crowded corner, and in seamanship, where no competent captain orders flank speed into heavy seas just because a chart suggests a straight line. Disciplined pacing and coordinated decision-making win races and protect ships. That is what the Task Force did: they chose prudence over spectacle.
The belief that forced consolidation reliably reduces costs or improves academic performance is contradicted by research and practice. A national review in 2021 found no conclusive evidence of academic improvement from district mergers. A major Arkansas study documented null or marginal gains. A Danish national study found a 5.9% decline in student performance in the years immediately following reorganization. Meanwhile, mid-sized and large consolidated systems frequently produce larger bureaucracies and higher central administrative costs, offsetting or eliminating anticipated savings. The real-world outcomes show that communities that lose schools see property values fall, families leave, volunteerism collapse, small businesses close, and tax bases shrink—leading not to lower taxes, but higher ones. This is why states including Maine, New York, and Illinois reversed their consolidation initiatives after the promised savings failed to materialize and the harm to local communities proved severe. If we are serious about fiscal responsibility, then real data—not theoretical spreadsheets—must guide us. Economies of scale should never be applied to children.
The current distraction is the deeply flawed foundational formula being advanced, which would centralize control and erode community representation. Governance is not a red herring; it is the core issue. Ronald Reagan once warned that the most dangerous words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” And the late David Dellinger reminded us that democracy is built from the ground up, not imposed from the top down. Protecting local control while pursuing efficiency is not obstruction—it is responsible stewardship. The trade-offs are significant, and the foundation formula shifts power away from local voters and toward distant state decision-makers. A system built on a state-set base per pupil amount, a statewide property tax, and strict caps on supplemental local spending effectively strips towns of their ability to decide what their children need. It replaces community judgment with bureaucratic uniformity and punishes independent thinking. In its design and intent, it resembles the very groupthink and top-down command culture Americans have always rejected. Centralized control imposed from above is not democracy — it is the opposite of what this country stands for. Act 73, as currently advanced, feels less like collaborative reform and more like DFA — Death From Above — a policy airstrike dropped from 10,000 feet with no regard for the people, towns, and children living on the ground beneath it.
If Governor Scott and supporters of forced consolidation remain convinced that the surest way to save money is to slam the throttle and hope the hull holds, then perhaps the most worthwhile next step is to revisit basic accounting and Economics 101. They might discover that reckless acceleration and centralized control are rarely winning strategies—in racing, in seamanship, in finance, or in the stewardship of a public education system that depends on trust, stability, and community partnership. When leadership becomes about speed or spectacle, it ceases to be leadership.
Governor Scott and proponents of Act 73 should step back from the late-brake dive-bomb approach and return to disciplined racecraft, rather than gambling the entire field on a risky maneuver destined to produce smoke and flames on the front page and put every car into the wall. Governor Scott, pump the brakes. This is not Thunder Road. These are our children. It is my son in our public school. And as a fiscal conservative, I understand full well the tax bill that will arrive if we learn too late that what looked efficient in theory was catastrophic in practice. You gave the Task Force its mandate. They delivered. Let them do their jobs. Micromanagement will wreck the race. Let the driver drive.
Respectfully,
Eric C. Pomeroy
Father, taxpayer, rural community member
Peacham, Vermont
The end of taxpayer funding using your private property.
I agree, Mr. Day. But when one finds oneself knee deep in the middle of a swamp, it’s rather hard to click the heels of one’s ruby slippers together and expect to find themselves elsewhere. You will have to change the Vermont Constitution to eliminate property tax. So, your point is noted. But good luck with that.
My school choice proposal simply offers an alternative to the Vermont Public School monopoly. If anything is unconstitutional, it’s Vermont’s current legislation allowing parents in certain districts to have school choice while preventing parents in other districts the same courtesy. And the Governor and the Legislature know this.
Which is why Act 73 expressly seeks to take Vermont’s existing school choice program away from everyone. The equal sharing of misery, as it were. Without any alternatives, how does an indoctrinated electorate ever know the difference.
There are legal remedies that I believe are pending litigation as I write. For example, a legal challenge to Vermont’s public school system as an unconstitutional “monopoly” under equal protection principles is viable in theory, particularly through the lens of the Vermont Constitution’s Common Benefits Clause (Chapter I, Article 7), which requires that government benefits be provided equally for the “common benefit, protection and security of the people… and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons.” But there are hurdles, not the least of which being a ‘captured’ judiciary.
But, in the final analysis, it is the Vermont electorate that holds the key. And simply pointing out that each parent should be able to choose the educational program they believe best meets the needs of their children is as benign a request as there can be. Further, the denial of those requests exemplifies the tyranny of the majority in any direct democracy – e.g., two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
“…the status quo of our schools – educationally and financially is no longer working and needs dramatic change, very soon.” Yes! The government’s efforts to run schooling businesses have failed. We have a cadre of experienced teachers presently indentured to these floundering businesses. Unleash them. Privatize the schooling marketplace. Return the collected monies to families. Let them do business directly with these newly emancipated teachers for the curriculum and services they want for their kids. Transform the accountability for these efforts. The dependent [outcome] variables of interest are parent satisfaction and the gain difference in knowledge/skill students evidence before and after taking a “course”.
Benedict does not get it. He does not understsnd that the voters back home in reality always have the last word. Let us hope that this concept remains in place. Here again there will be efforts to get rid of that “Will of the people input” which is very, very prominent and long standing throughout most of New England, and certainly Vermont.
Jim Hall
Mr. Hall, respectfully, thank you, and I GET IT. I worked in Vermont public schools for 37 years. Thing is…..the voters back home all over Vermont elected representatives and a governor who together have said: we are going to make a change, please prepare for us up to three maps for reorganizing how we do school. Simple. The will of the voters was / is: change things. The redistricting task force said to the Legislatureb and Governor simply: your ideas do not please us, so we – about a dozen people – will decide what to propose.
No, MR Benedict, you do NOT get it. The school system in Vermont is so overwhelmingly complicated, bloated with employees, with programs that are constantly running out of money, performance records of students in the ditch, with no plans to remedy at the lower echelons of command. Voters are sick and tired of this continuing record of failure all because people at the top know not where the goal post is. This law the governor signed that brought about a summer’s worth of effort was doomed from the start. Rob Roper hit the nail on the head back in early summer I believe about this very subject. I would highly recommend you look at that
piece he wrote.
A comprehensive audit needs to be done of where and how much the money needs are, the numbers of students, demographics of taxpaying public, why so many of these folks are moving out of state, only to be replaced by many homeless people, many of whom are thugs from wherever, who will NOT be paying any taxes whatsoever. They will be fighting tooth and nail either in or out of jail, competeing for the same funds that should be educating our kids.
The money issues need to be tackled first, and the ability to pay collectively has to be
done. (Maps mean absolutely nothing or have no value if the funding cannot support them).
Then all the other pieces will fall into place, or not depending on the taxable potential.
Fortunately, we have a few very high performing good public schools in VT.
Some of these have been listed as potential for closing. How stupid can this be?
There should be bean counters all over these success records, to find out what is working and why. where these schools are, their size all of things that have not been covered because “there wasn’t time”. Why was there not time to do the job right?
Because the whole charade was by design, and the voters saw right through this like it was window glass. And then they turned out in droves, to tell the people at the top”
you have this wrong , we do not want any part of it”.
Jim Hall
The DECLARATION OF RIGHTS IN THE VERMONT CONSTITUTION do not include the right to government run education or health care. There was no constitution amendment to make them a right. Do the research, there is no common benefit under chapter 1 article 7. Now, this is the big question as how do you fund your education and local other local government operations without using the property tax??????? The property tax increases the cost of all goods and products. Beware of more and higher inflation that will drive up your property tax bill. Comment from Richard Day.
you need to read Emily Peyton’s Substack Truth Rises from yesterday… she answers all your questions.
The issue is not school choice or any of the other “solutions” that one might propose. The issue here is simply that a committee was organized by law and entrusted with a specific mission. The majority of that committee flat out refused to carry out the mission they were sworn to accomplish. The members of that majority should never be entrusted with any task in government, ever again.
If public school system administrators, be they reform committee members, legislators, the Governor, school boards or Agency of Education members, “… refused to carry out the mission they were sworn to accomplish’, and neither the legal system nor the electorate holds them accountable, what other remedy do parents have, other than to choose to use an alternative education provider?
If you’re proposing a specific corrective process, I didn’t see it.
School Choice may not be the specific issue in this case, but School Choice has proven, over and again, to the best alternative most parents have to remedy the dysfunction. And while many wealthy parents can afford to take that action, the majority of Vermont students are ‘captured’ victims of what for them is a public-school monopoly.
Thank you Mr. Benedict for this piece. I would be interested if you think the following would save money while focusing time and energy on the most important things children and the communities that support them
1.) Reduce the number of Supervisory Union from 52 to roughly 15 alligned with the Career and Technical Centers. Supervisory Unions now cost around 2 million dollars each and this would result in significant savings if done correctly.
2. In order not to just hire more Assistant Superintendents, reduce their work load by:
A. Having many policies be adopted on a Statewide basis.
B. Having a statewide teacher and staff contract similar to how state employees contracts are handled. Distrect contract negotiations are extremely time consuming and divisive taking up valuable time of administrators, teachers and school boards that would best be used focused on childrens education.
3. Keep our rural elementary schools. It is critical for our youngest students not to spend hours a day on buses. It is critical to have parent and community support and engagement with our elementary students. It is more important to have this direct involvement and connection with students than the size of the school or number of courses. Multi grade classrooms at this age level can reduce the number of teachers needed. No closure of an elementary school without a vote in favor by that community.
4. Consolidation of middle and high schools should be considered as student by this age are more mature and having a larger group of stundents with which to interact is often beneficial.
5. Give more authority to Principals and then hold them accountable.
6. Have educational property taxes go only to Pre-K to 12 education. Other programs over the years have been slipped into the Ed Fund but the only way people can respond to high education property taxes is by voting down school budgets.
7. A hard look at our busing situation which is mired in the big bus mind set of the past. Creative use combining with public transportation and use of smaller buses or vans should be considered.
Sorry this is so long. I worked as Facilities Manager at the Newton Elementary School for 34 years. One of my mentors was Principal Bob Murray. He and I continued to talk much about education over the years and I beleive he mentioned you more than once. While Bob was still alive, he and former Principals Shawn Pickett and Bob Grey and myself would get together for breakfast every now and then. All great educational leaders.
Mr. Freitag, I remember Bob Murray so well….indeed a wonderful educator. Also Bob Gray…great educator. Congratulations on your many years’ service to the children of South Strafford. I worked in that Su for two years when beginning my admin career. That part of Vermont and its people are so special! As to your thoughts and questions…
Reducing the number of supervisory / administrative units to somewhere between 10-15 seems about right in looking to gain cost efficiency and better coordination and use of all resources. Alignment with the Tech Ed Centers would likely increase collaboration and coordination between all of pre K – 12 and Tech Ed, which would serve students very well in connecting their education to work and career.
The inefficiencies, bureaucracy and costs involved in having scores of local master contracts and policies, are very wasteful. One statewide contract makes sense in order to provide equitable compensation. Policies are so fundamental and what is desirable and works in Bennington – common sense – is also desirable and works in Newport. Do not need to be duplicated two hundred times over.
Rural elementary schools are amazing places of nurturance and learning for kids, as well as prime places of rural commmunity cohesion and strength. When they get so small in student enrollment as in many places nowadays, it makes sense for educational and financial reasons to look at combining them with other schools. I have been involved in this twice – once in particular with Pawlet and Rupert which resulted in Metawee School, an outstanding pre K – 6 school which has maintained community identity and cohesion in a rural context for children and families. It can be done well! And it can be done in large administrative units. Large administrative units do not need to necessarily mean – can’t mean in our state – – the end of rural community schools. But the tiny student population sizes are definitely a concern when it comes to cost and student opportunity.
Principals need as much authority, accountability and genuine support as we can give them. A challenging and crucial job worth their weight in gold if done well.
The Education Fund. Uggh. I looked at the budget draft of one Vermont school district recently – less than a thousand students – that budgets six social workers pre K – 12, along with home-school coordinators, and numerous guidance counselors. I understand the social needs and issues children and families face, however think there has been way too much burden and financial responsibility placed upon their schools, for response to these needs. Rethinking how we support kids and families socially, related to schooling, is sorely needed.
Buses. Really appreciate your thoughts. Anywhere you go, you can see buses running half to 3/4 empty many days. Alternatives such as you suggest should be looked into.
Mr. Freitag, thank you again and although I have been likely too lengthy here, I wanted to respectfully respond to your questions and ideas. Let’s hope and advocate for the best!
Mr. Benedict,
Your response brightened my morning. Thank you. I miss having Bob Murray around to bounce ideas off of. He was always a straight shooter and never hesitated to tell me when I was going in the wrong direction. I understand while he spoke of you with respect.
One of my side jobs for over 30 years is covering the Strafford news for the White River Valley Herald. I have written stories about both Bob Murray and Bob Grey that might amuse you. I aslo have an Op-Ed about the current Ed Reform I could share.
My email is jfreitag7@live.com if you are interested.
Also if you ever get over to Central Vermont, I would be glad to buy you breakfast at the Tunbridge General Store. Bob Grey’s retirement job is managing the Tunbridge Fair Grounds and I could see if he could join us.
Isn’t it interesting that, in all of these comments, after which I’ve proposed School Choice as a solution for our educational dystopia, including a rationale for my assertions, that no one will acknowledge, let alone analyze, the proposition?
Dare I say it, while the need for change is a universally acknowledged precept….no one on this thread at least gets it. Either that or they refuse to discuss it. Certainly, those who have been immersed in Horace Mann’s 19th century educational dogma their entire lives, don’t seem to get it. They don’t think outside the box because the inside of the box is all they know.
Mr. Eschelman, I replied to your comment about school choice. The topic more than deserves discussion. As noted above, I served as an administrator in many Vermont locations that had and still have school choice, and to my view it served children and families very well. You commented after that with concern about minimum standards, invoking Milton Friedman’s theories and arguments. I am not suggesting the kinds of standards we have had, but rather some minimum safety, health and curricular standards to backstop things. A good analogy might be the airlines – society allows free choice to fly on whatever airline one desires, however also provides standards related to health, safety, etc. so that people do not get harmed or killed by the choices they make, and have a reasonable experience of customer service when flying. There are many such analogies wherein public policy endeavors to facilitate commerce, business, etc. while at the same time promoting life safety, health, etc. to the public good and interest. Where our school systems (and other “instittions” as well – health care, for example) have gone astray over the past two to three decades, to my view, is in installing layer after layer after layer of mandates, rules, so-called quality standards etc. almost ad-infinitum. With which have come a proliferation of administrative roles and rules, bureaucracy, skyrocketing costs. And not coincidentally, a big slide down in student learning. Again, appreciate the choice discussion.
Mr. Benedict: I agree with your observation that “…our school systems (and other “institutions” as well – health care, for example) have gone astray over the past two to three decades, … in installing layer after layer after layer of mandates, rules, so-called quality standards etc., almost ad-infinitum.”
But still, you haven’t addressed the crux of my query to you; that your “… stipulation that there needs to be some kind of process for ensuring “choice” schools – public or independent/private – meet a minimum set of standards for education, safety, services” is the proverbial Catch 22?
Again, what better ‘process’ can there be to ensure any necessary standards than that of an educational free market?
I understand and appreciate your perspective. In our current system of government, too often “standards” and “standards-making” have manipulated by so-called special interests in ways simply meant to wield power, or to preserve the status quo, or to promote financial and money-making interests, and etc.
I wonder if there has been a state or city where the educational free market – not including standards – has been tried out / tested, and what the results have been?
Good point: But it’s a false dichotomy to assume that an educational free market doesn’t include standards. Again, in fact, I asked “what better ‘process’ can there be to ensure any necessary standards than that of an educational free market?”