|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
The House Education Committee this week approved a sweeping education reform bill that emphasizes shared services and voluntary school district mergers, rejecting proposals for large-scale “mega-districts” and likely forced consolidations envisioned under Act 73.
H.955 now heads to the House Appropriations Committee, where lawmakers will examine its fiscal implications, including potential impacts on property taxes and long-term education spending.
The bill reflects a regional, collaborative approach to reform, centered on the creation of seven Coordinated Education Service Areas (CESAs). These regional entities would provide shared services, technical expertise, and administrative support to school districts.
It also promotes voluntary, strategic mergers among districts where there is clear educational and financial benefit, rather than mandating consolidation statewide.
House Republicans sharply criticized the measure, arguing it falls short of addressing Vermont’s rising education costs and fails to deliver meaningful structural reform.
House Minority Leader Pattie McCoy (R-Poultney) said the bill does not meet the goals lawmakers set out in prior reform efforts.
“This bill does nothing to guarantee long term financial stability for taxpayers, greater equity for students, or deliver on the goals of the bipartisan transformation bill we passed last year,” McCoy said.
She also warned that the proposal could contribute to higher property taxes without resolving underlying issues.
“The solution to Vermont’s affordability, and education quality issues is neither a 7% property tax hike nor a delay in implementing true education reform. Perpetual procrastination is not an option,” McCoy said. “The solution is having the courage to take real action on education reform now.”
Democrats highlight “sustainable” approach
Democratic leaders on the committee defended the bill as a pragmatic and data-driven path forward, tailored to Vermont’s rural character and community-based school systems.
House Education Committee Chair Peter Conlon said the legislation reflects extensive research and public input, including feedback from more than 5,000 Vermonters and findings from the state’s Redistricting Task Force.
“The Vermont House Education Committee today advanced legislation focused on long-term, sustainable improvements to the state’s education system,” Conlon said.
Conlon emphasized that reforms must be implemented carefully to avoid unintended harm to students and communities.
“Our students, teachers, and school leaders are not a line that can be moved on a map or column that can be eliminated in a spreadsheet,” he said.
Regional model and expanded opportunities
At the core of the bill is the creation of CESAs, which lawmakers say would help streamline services and address major cost drivers by encouraging collaboration across districts.
The measure also envisions expanded educational opportunities through regional coordination, including access to advanced coursework, technical education, world languages, mental health services, and extracurricular programs—particularly in smaller or rural schools that struggle to offer such resources independently.
Supporters say the approach mirrors regional strategies being explored in Vermont’s health care system to control costs while maintaining access.
Next steps
The bill now moves to the House Appropriations Committee, where lawmakers will focus on education funding and the potential financial impact of the proposed changes before it can advance further in the legislative process.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Education, Legislation
So you are proposing to add ANOTHER layer of organization and bureaucracy – CSEAs – and leave the difficult stuff to regional study groups that will explore and consider “voluntary” reorganization. Excellent. Just exactly what we need. A few more bureaucratic deck chairs placed on the Titanic’s deck, and some study groups to lounge in them. Without question this will dramatically improve learning outcomes and greatly reduce costs and taxes. Magnificent work.
Chaunce, as a lifelong educator, you lived through the decline of education quality, the ballooning of special education for “learning disabled” (improperly taught) students and the Artemis-like rise in the cost for Vermont’s property tax payers. I sense a bit of frustration in your post. If it was up to you how would you go about putting Vermont back on track?
Similar examples of CSEA’s only worked because States like New York pumped State money into them to make them attractive at no cost to school districts, not because of the type of voluntary consolidation planned here. We have 52 Supervisory Unions serving a ever decreasing student population currently around 75,000 K-12 students.
Changing out the 52 existing Supervisory Unions for 11 or so CSEA’s a makes sense and will save around 300 million each year; but it needs to be mandatory.
Copied “Democrats highlight “sustainable” approach” These people don’t have a clue as to what’s going on and how to correct their sorry undertakings They don’t read and if they did, they can’t comprehend. The sorriest bunch in government, destroying people’s lives.
A three page article (I copied) about the sorry educational system with relevant material presenting facts.
Study Undercuts Claim That More School Spending Helps Student Achievement
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/study-undercuts-claim-that-more-school-spending-helps-student-achievement
You are absolutely correct, Tom. These people have an agenda that probably will not even come close to educating kids. Just look back through time and the hatching of Act 60….. A supposed piece of work that will kill educatiion problems forever. those of us who were following that piece know that some towns were sent to near insolvency, while others flourished, with other towns’ money. One of the prime movers in that fiasco commented “It is time Rutland Town paid up”.
The next change came, and what problems were solved here? And, how many were created , and how many people added to payroll statewide?
The real kicker here is a comment the Education Committee Chair made and is in today’s Rutland Herald : Quoting,” We are serious about long term solutions ……we must remember that systems are made up of real people”.
Now I ask everyone who is a taxpaying voter: why would he need to say anything like that? The answer is, because they are admitting collossal failure on the Democrats’ plans going back farther than Act 60. The tactic of keeping the voters out of the committee rooms when the education eggs are being hatched is now coming home to roost. You can trust these people now, or not. Track records and past practices certainly give me some clues, I would not trust any Democrat on these reorganization plans going forward.
Well how about this! Steve Thurston, with whom I worked 40 years ago. Served his local school and community for the one paramount reason: the well being of kids and the quality of their learning!
Yes, Steve, more than a bit frustrated. We have so many assets with which to work….abundant knowledge and talent, generous resources, the genuine interest and good will of Vermont’s citizenry. And we have a huge mess on our hands.
It has been especially pathetic and sad to watch and hear the fear-mongering that has come about in response to the Secretary of Education’s work and Act 73…that we will “lose community” etc. etc. etc. Vermont parents, caregivers and communities, in my experience, will always do everything they can to support their local schools – and then some. No matter what the “administrative unit” or governance setup that oversees their schools. No matter if their school is reorganized together with another one, to make a new school. See Mettawee as a wonderful example. There are many otjhers.
The current leglslature’s work on this issue has been painful to watch.
For the House Education Committee to have taken seriously – at any level – the disgraceful result of the Redistricting Task Force’s calculated political stunt – is a total affront.
And, to cite the “5,000 people” who provided input…safe to say, likely 3/4 of these folks were whipped into a frenzy by political activism. So a question for Rep. Conlon and his colleagues remains: What about the other tens of thousands of people who voted for the legislature and governor that enacted Act 73 and its planned reforms? Their input??
Foremost, from my perspective, it is especially hard to think of the people stuck in the morass – youth and families, teachers and staff – who deserve so much better. So, how about this list to start?
1) Establish five to seven administrative units, just about like the Secretary of Education’s plan. Align this configuration with one for comprehensive high schools that include vocational / technical education services. Form a work group of top flight school business administrators, and people from Vermont’s business community, to establish standards of operational excellence for the administrative units, and requite the standards to be put to work. Emphasize the use of information technologies including AI in all areas.
2) Phase out the local education property tax and move education funding to a state level. Keep in place the planned transition to a weighted foundation formula.
2) Phase out schools serving less than 200 students, except for schools – substantiated through the meeting of strict criteria – that have unique geographical or demographic challenges.
3) Right-size school-level personnel number. One administrator for every 200 students (or, even more). Same for guidance. Average class sizes of 15 – 20 for k – grade 5, and 20 – 25 for grades 5 – 12. This is difficult in high schools in some subject fields, but generally – strive for this standard…perhaps apply this average in just the “core” subjects.
4) One statewide contract including all compensation, service standards and work rules for all personnel. Teachers, paraeducators, administrators, support staff. Do not allow this to be – simply – raising all to Chittenden County levels. Find a means to establish what are reasonable and proper levels of compensation for the people who teach, care for and serve our children.
5) Rethink what is needed at the state level for policy guidance, so-called accountability and general oversight. The state board of education and agency of education – in tandem with local school boards and the VPA, have become a morass of rules, procedures, “data” etc. How about we have, for example, just one set of statewide policies for school operations, curriculum, students, athletics, etc., administered and overseen by a state policy management entity (but not a “Board”).
6) Completely overhaul curriculum and pedagogy statewide, in reading and literacy. To my mind, adopting pretty much everything Mississippi has done, would be a great move. Require this from stem to stern – entailing a rigorous and singular focus of in-service and administrator professional learning for three to five years; also as a major focus for redesign of teacher and administrator preparation programs.
7) Keep Vermont education dollars in Vermont. Phase out allowing tuition to out of state schools. Designate or assign a 7 – 12 school for every town. Allow public school choice k – 12 for all.
So there you go, Steve. What do you think? My magnificent Vermont schools seven. Now let the critics go to town!
I agree with you Chaunce. A great response to Steve. I’m glad he asked for your opinion. Check out how Mississippi has changed their approach to teaching. In 2013, they were 49th in the country for 4th grade reading scores. By 2024 they improved those scores all the way up to 8th highest in the country. Phonics is the key to improve reading skills and critics in Vermont say the public schools are not doing a good enough job teaching the basics of reading. The status quo is not good enough.