by Steve Thurston

The intersection of pedagogical theory, systemic governance, and social engineering in Vermont public education has reached a critical flashpoint. Over the last decade, the state has grappled with a dual crisis: a well-documented slide in foundational literacy and math proficiency—exacerbated by decades of flawed instructional methodologies like Whole Language and the “Three-Cueing” system—and a concurrent legislative drive to embed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) frameworks into the state’s regulatory DNA. 

At the center of this storm sits Act 1 of 2019, a landmark piece of legislation that mandated a comprehensive overhaul of Vermont’s Education Quality Standards (EQS) to reflect ethnic and social equity. What began as a legislative directive to modernize curricula has evolved into an institutional quagmire, exposing deep philosophical rifts over the primary purpose of public schooling. 

As Vermont navigates the complex rollout of these new standards, the impending vote on  Proposal 4—a proposed state constitutional amendment to guarantee rights to certain subjective groups, instead of relying on the protections of the individual already guaranteed by the US and Vermont Constitutions —threatens to fundamentally shift the battlefield, transforming what has historically been an administrative rules amendment process at the State Board of Education and legislative levels, into a high-stakes arena for protracted constitutional litigation.

The History and Pedagogical Backdrop

To understand the friction generated by Act 1, one must first look at the academic terrain upon which it was dropped. For more than twenty years, Vermont’s public schools operated under the heavy influence of progressive educational philosophies, most notably “Whole Language” and its operational offshoot, the Three-Cueing system. This approach minimized systematic phonics instruction in favor of an immersive reading environment, instructing children to guess unfamiliar words based on contextual, syntactic, or visual cues. By the late 2010s, cognitive scientists and reading experts had definitively exposed the flaws of this methodology, demonstrating that it actively subverted the decoding skills required for adequate literacy.

As a result, Vermont entered 2019 facing a quiet literacy crisis. State test scores were declining, achievement gaps between demographic groups were widening, and third- and fourth-grade students were hitting a “reading cliff” as illustrations vanished from textbooks and guessing strategies failed. It was precisely at this moment of structural vulnerability that the Vermont Legislature sought to address a different type of systemic failure: the cultural isolation and disparate disciplinary outcomes experienced by marginalized students in one of the nation’s most racially homogenous states.

The Evolution and Implementation of Act 1

Introduced as H.3 and signed into law by Governor Phil Scott on March 29, 2019, Act 1 did not immediately alter what was taught in the classroom. Instead, it created the 23 member Ethnic and Social Equity Standards Advisory Working Group, half comprised of people of color from various racial and ethnic groups, anti-poverty, disability rights advocates, and LGBTQIA advocates and half comprised of education establishment stakeholders. The group was charged with a monumental task: reviewing Vermont’s existing Education Quality Standards—the baseline rules governing all public schools—and recommending amendments to the State Board of Education that would integrate anti-racist, culturally responsive, and inclusive philosophies across all subject matters and school operations.

The implementation process was slow, bureaucratic, and highly contentious. Over several years, the working group drafted sweeping revisions to the State Board of Education Rule 2000 Series (EQS). Adopted into formal state regulations, these updated standards re-defined the obligations of Vermont school districts. They mandated that curricula explicitly reflect the history and contributions of marginalized racial, ethnic, and social groups. Furthermore, they required districts to systematically track demographic data concerning school discipline and to train teachers in recognizing implicit bias.  These measures require a trade-off with core competency instruction time. 

The Problem of Concurrent Mandates

The central problem with the implementation of Act 1 lies in the finite nature of school resources, instructional minutes, and teacher load-carrying ability. Critics argue that the law created an “impossible situation” by imposing complex, ideologically driven curriculum mandates at the exact moment schools were desperately unequipped to handle them.

From this perspective, the law introduced a competing set of professional priorities. Shortly after Act 1 took effect, the extent of the state’s literacy crisis forced the legislature to pass Act 28 of 2021 and eventually Act 139 of 2024, which explicitly mandated a statewide pivot toward the “Science of Reading” and sought to purge Three-Cueing from classrooms. Consequently, teachers found themselves caught between two massive, simultaneous retraining initiatives: they were required to learn the complex mechanics of structured literacy and phonetic decoding while concurrently digesting abstract sociological frameworks regarding implicit bias and systemic privilege.

Furthermore, opponents argue that the focus on equity standards created an emotional and cognitive burden for students already suffering from the academic stigma of reading failure. Layering discussions of systemic bias onto students who had not yet mastered the alphabet was seen by critics as a profound diversion from “time on task.” Conversely, proponents countered that equity standards were not an additional subject but a necessary prerequisite—a structural 

tool designed to eliminate high suspension rates among minority students and foster an inclusive environment where learning could actually take place. However, the qualitative narrative of “belonging” offered by supporters did little to calm communities experiencing intense polarization at local school board meetings over the shifting definitions of public education, especially in the vast majority of Vermont schools with homogeneous white populations and little evidence of discriminatory behavior.  

In the very few schools where issues of discrimination rose to the level of litigation and parents were successful in having courts award them with six-figure settlements, those financial punishments were enough to force schools to improve their in-house handling of student to student conflicts, and these cases were the subject of state wide school board agendas and policy updates.  There is little evidence that adding a DEI framework to Education Quality Standards is either necessary or able to implemented successfully.  

Proposal 4 and the Shift to Legal Warfare

As the implementation of Act 1 continues to trigger administrative and localized resistance, a new legislative vehicle threatens to permanently change how educational policy is contested in Vermont. Proposal 4, an initiative to amend the Vermont Constitution, seeks to enshrine an explicit right to high-quality public education into the state’s foundational legal document.

Historically, updates to the Education Quality Standards have been treated as administrative rules amendments. When the State Board of Education revises the Rule 2000 Series, the changes are debated in public forums, adjusted through working groups, and finalized by bureaucratic entities. If a local district struggles with implementation, the resolution is sought through state agency oversight, technical assistance, or local electoral accountability.

If Proposal 4 is ratified, however, the enforcement of these standards will shift from the state bureaucracy to the judiciary. By elevating the right to education to a constitutional mandate that allows historically discriminated groups to receive preferential treatment Proposal 4 opens the door for individual citizens, advocacy organizations, or coalition groups to sue the state or specific school districts over perceived failures in curriculum delivery.

Under a constitutionalized education framework, any perceived divergence from the EQS could instantly become a civil rights violation. For instance, if a school district fails to adequately integrate the anti-racist and inclusive curricula mandated by the Act 1 updates due to a lack of resources or local political resistance, advocacy groups could file constitutional lawsuits seeking court orders to compel compliance. Conversely, parent groups or taxpayers could leverage a constitutional right to education to sue districts whose falling reading scores demonstrate a failure to provide the promised “high-quality” instruction, arguing that the prioritization of equity frameworks over core competencies violates their children’s constitutional rights.  In short, Proposal 4 does not define what a high-quality curriculum looks like. Rather, it acts as a legal hammer, giving advocacy groups and families the constitutional standing to sue any school board that fails to deliver an equal, top-tier educational experience to every student. 

Conclusion

Vermont’s educational system stands at a critical crossroads where the legacy of failed progressive literacy strategies collides with modern equity mandates. Act 1 of 2019 succeeded 

in its goal of embedding social equity into the state’s regulatory framework, but its implementation has occurred within a strained system facing deep academic declines and fracturing community consensus. The introduction of Proposal 4 ensures that these debates will no longer be confined to legislative committee rooms or local school board meetings. By transforming policy disputes into constitutional mandates, Vermont is moving toward a future where the definition of a proper education will be litigated in a courtroom, turning the evolution of the classroom into an enduring legal battleground.

Just as the 90’s Brigham activist lawsuit and Supreme Court decision lead to Act 60 and state control of education funding, but no measurable improvement in all important literacy outcomes,  Prop 4 will likely stymie the much-needed focus on literacy and basic skills proficiency while creating a quagmire of competing interest groups demanding in court that perceived historic discriminations be resolved to their satisfaction.