Education Reform and Act 73 School Redistricting

Education Reform and Act 73 School Redistricting

Vermont is confronting a set of structural challenges in its public education system: declining enrollment, rising costs, persistent inequities in access to programs, and a governance structure that makes regional coordination difficult. Act 73 was passed to respond to these pressures, directing the School District Redistricting Task Force to examine statewide consolidation options and propose new district configurations intended to improve equity, quality, and fiscal sustainability.  Vermont’s school buildings are the second oldest in the nation.  In addition, Vermont funds services out of its public education fund that in other states are funded by non-education revenue sources. 

Over four months, the Task Force conducted a rigorous, data-driven review of Vermont’s educational landscape, drawing on statewide fiscal and enrollment data, research from comparable rural states, public input from more than 5,000 Vermonters, and extensive deliberation among members. The Task Force did not find evidence that mergers of the scale contemplated in Act 73 would reliably lower costs, improve educational outcomes, or expand equity. Instead, the evidence pointed toward targeted, regional approaches that strengthen opportunity while respecting Vermont’s rural geography, community identity, and limited statewide capacity for major structural change.

To follow the evidence and meet the intent of Act 73 the Task Force recommends a phased roadmap that advances three complementary strategies:

  1. Cooperative Education Service Areas (CESAs)

Regional shared-service structures for special education, transportation coordination, staffing, purchasing, data systems, and other high-cost, low-scale areas that small districts cannot efficiently manage alone. Research from states with similar geography shows that cooperative services improve access and reduce duplication far more effectively than consolidation.

  1. Strategic Voluntary Mergers

Mergers pursued only where communities identify a shared educational purpose and where feasibility studies show clear value. This approach avoids arbitrary size targets (e.g., 4,000–8,000 ADM) and instead emphasizes educational benefit, community priorities, and fiscal sustainability.

  1. Comprehensive Regional High Schools

Regionally governed high schools designed to expand student opportunity—advanced coursework, world languages, technical education, mental health services, and extracurricular access—especially in small or rural districts that cannot sustainably provide these offerings alone.

The data reviewed by the Task Force consistently showed that Vermont’s largest education cost drivers—health care, administering of special education, facilities, transportation, and agency capacity—are not solved by district size. Regional coordination, shared staffing, and well-planned high school collaborations address these drivers more effectively than mandated structural change.

Public input underscored this conclusion. Vermonters expressed strong concerns about student wellbeing, loss of local control, transportation burdens, rural equity, and a process perceived as rushed or unclear. At the same time, they showed broad support for improving quality and expanding equitable access through collaboration rather than state-directed mergers.

The roadmap recommended by the Task Force provides:

  • Immediate gains through shared services
  • Long-term improvements through voluntary, community-driven mergers and regional high schools
  • Protection of local identity alongside improved statewide coherence
  • A feasible implementation path aligned with Vermont’s geography, capacity, and public sentiment

This approach aligns with the intent of Act 73 — it advances them in a way that is realistic, evidence-based, and responsive to the voices of Vermont communities.

Resources: 

School District Redistricting Task Force – Committee Materials

School District Redistricting Task Force – Main Page

Press and Editorials:

VT Digger

Seven Days

Saint Albans Messenger – Emerson Lynn

Bennington Banner – Jack Hoffman

Addison Independent – Angelo Lynn

Campaign for Vermont – Ben Kinsley

Rural School Alliance in VT Digger

Why I voted “no” on H.454

There are many reasons why I voted “no” on this bill. In general, I don’t believe that sweeping education reform should be the job of the legislature, and especially not in the course of a few months. Community members and education experts should drive reform of this magnitude, not the highly politicized environment of Montpelier.

Here are some of the specifics:

  1. The drawing of the new district boundaries is going to be critical. The final “report” that we voted on moved away from a “redistricting task force” of field experts to an 11-member task force, dominated by legislators. They will recommend new larger school districts and will be allowed to structure the districts in a way that accommodates the current system of private school vouchers. They will also be able to maintain inequitable and inefficient governance structures, like supervisory unions. 
  2. After years of working on school construction, I am glad that the bill creates a structure for a state-level school construction program and fund, but the final version of the bill removed the modest funding source that was available to seed the new school construction fund. Those monies will now be used to buy down taxes. 
  3. This bill will limit the number of private schools that will receive public dollars, but it does not limit the amount of students who will attend those existing schools. In fact, it likely increases that number. In the Senate bill there was a provision that said when a public school closes those students shall attend another public school. This provision was removed from the final version. As local public schools close, it is easy to imagine an area of the state where a prominent private school will absorb those students. In this bill we allow two large private schools that are also technical centers to set their own tuition. If those private schools set their tuition at double the cost of a typical student, where is the savings? In fact this could be a windfall for those schools. The bill also allows other private schools to get an extra 5% above the base amount for each student. 
  4. The final version of the bill shortened the implementation timeline, a move I believe will create chaos across the education system. 
  5. The process was deeply flawed, and we have lost the trust of the education community. You can read my opinion piece here: vtdigger.org
  6. I heard from hundreds of constituents, and they all asked me to vote “no” on this bill. 

There are many outstanding questions that remain, and add to my concern about this work. 

  • How will outstanding capital debt be handled? As you may recall, Burlington High School students were asked to not return to their school when PCBs were found, triggering construction of a new high school and technical center. The debt incurred by this new construction is now part of the Burlington School District’s education spending. How will that be handled? Will the state provide categorical grants? Will there be a weight for capital debt? This unknown is very unsettling for any district working to fix infrastructure needs. 
  • The Agency of Education has a new inexperienced Secretary, and it is widely believed to be an under-resourced agency. How will the AOE be able to do the immense amount of work needed to achieve results? Will they contract with out of state consultants? If so, what will the cost be? One third to one half of AOE employees are paid for by the federal government. What will happen if those employees are cut? 
  • How will we ensure that we properly fund the “foundation formula” that will now be responsible for our education system? A foundation formula allows political will to determine school spending, more so than our current system. It just shifts that power to the legislature and away from local voters.

For more information:

Summary of H.454 by the Joint Fiscal Office

Seven Days

VT Public

VT Digger

The House education bill, H.454, was passed out of the House and is now in Senate Education. Last week that committee made substantial changes to the governance portion of the bill. In short, their changes contemplate going from a thoughtfully crafted “school district boundary subcommittee” within the Commission on the Future of Public Education to a 6-person School District Boundary Task Force made up of 3 Senators and 3 Representatives and it contemplates enacting the new districts in January of 2026.
The Senate’s version of the task force would be extremely political, would lack expertise and would rush extremely complex work that should have input from a wide array of stakeholders. There are many issues with the Senate version of the bill, but the redistricting process is possibly the most troubling.
I believe it is crucial that we support the foundation formula in the House version of the bill and not the governor’s proposed “evidence-based” model which would underfund the system. I also believe we should stick to the House timeline and not rush this incredibly complex and far-reaching reimagining of our education system.
Ultimately, Senate Finance did pass the Senate Education Committee’s version of H.454 with Senator Hardy and I voting no. The bill did not have the support of the Senate, so Senator Hardy worked on an amendment that was ultimately passed out of the Senate. The House did not concur with the changes and the bill is now in a conference committee that did not produce an agreement in a timely fashion. The Senate and House adjourned until June 16, while the conference committee continues to work on finding agreement on H.454.
Resources: