Senate hands out bigger carrots for school district consolidation, strengthens supervisory union authority

Few people at the beginning of the legislative session believed that support could be galvanized to change the structure of public education in Vermont.

After Town Meeting Day when 36 school districts rejected budgets, lawmakers in the House and Senate and the Shumlin administration were spurred to do something to address rising school costs in the context of a system that has seen a 20 percent decline in school enrollments over a 15-year period.

Right up until the waning days of adjournment, school governance and the role of the state in managing the direction of public education have been the subject of dueling reform bills in the House and Senate.

The Senate rejected the House proposal to require the consolidation of the state’s 270-plus school district boards into roughly 50 new supervisory district boards over a six-year period. That bill, H.883, was sent to the Senate Rules Committee, where it is unlikely to budge.

Instead, the Senate Education and Finance committees created a package of more enticing incentives for school districts that want to voluntarily merge under Act 153. The legislation, H.876, the miscellaneous education bill, also gives supervisory unions more authority to coordinate building maintenance, purchasing and business services among school districts. There is a 1 percent tax penalty for any school district that refuses to participate in the coordinated efforts.

The more moderate approach generated a great deal of angst in the Senate on Thursday night and Friday. Many senators adamantly oppose school district consolidation of any kind, and at a caucus they remained uncomfortable with the legislation and the possibility that if the Senate passed the miscellaneous education bill, the House would tack a version of H.883 onto the legislation.

Debate on the floor, which lasted more than three hours on Friday centered on whether the incentive plan would ultimately lead to school district consolidation and whether the Legislature had spent enough time seeking public input.

But attempts to scuttle the bill failed, and a proposal to strike the incentive program and substitute it with a statewide public hearing process also was rejected. Budget-writers were concerned about the $250,000 pricetag for the hearings, which would be led by the Council on Rural Development. Other senators didn’t like the idea of replacing the incentives and changes to supervisory unions with the public hearings.

Sen. Anthony Pollina, P/D-Washington, led the effort to press for more public participation in the discussion around school district consolidation. Under his proposal, the state would spend $250,000 on a series of community meetings led by the Council on Rural Development. The process would conclude with a stakeholder meeting and recommendations to the Legislature.

Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, and the chair of the Senate Education Committee, supported the amendment. “Reforms, if they happen at all, happen better with public buy-in,” McCormack said.

But the money immediately became an issue, as did the idea that the Legislature would be outsourcing the public hearing process to a third party.

Sen. Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia, chair of Senate Appropriations, said the $250,000 is not in the Senate-passed budget bill and she didn’t think local school districts had the money to cover the cost.

Kitchel said she was also concerned that the proposal could create a “top-down structure for local conversations.” Her committee then voted the amendment down 6-1.

Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, argued that public hearings are among lawmakers’ core responsibilities. “It sends out a surrogate to do what we need to do, and it’s an excellent surrogate, but it’s still something we need to do,” MacDonald said.

Pollina eventually withdrew the amendment after extended debate.

In the end, H.876 passed, largely unchanged, but not without a few amendments, including the proposal to implement a statewide hearing process (minus the appropriation).

S.91, the so-called school “flipping” bill, was also attached to the bill. The legislation, which would put a two-year moratorium on the privatization of public schools, had been ordered to lie in the House after a controversial debate.

The House did not concur with the Senate bill last night.

The legislation gives supervisory unions the authority to do the following:

  • Adopt supervisory union-wide curriculum
  • Set uniform policies for truancy and other protocols across school districts
  • Create unified data management for school districts
  • Facilitate shared services for school personnel, including teachers and administrators
  • Consolidate business administration across school districts
  • Provide supervisory-union wide professional development
  • Manage school building maintenance and construction
  • Procure goods and services across districts

Supervisory-union wide transportation and special education services were required under previous legislation to go into effect July 1, 2014.

Under H.876, supervisory unions must also establish service regions that coordinate transportation, purchasing and professional development between supervisory unions.

Before April 1, 2015, supervisory unions must explore the possibility of a merger with at least one other neighboring supervisory union and present the Secretary of the Agency of Education with a plan for implementation or an explanation of why a merger would inhibit educational quality or efficient use of financial resources.

The voluntary school district merger incentive program gives school districts that choose to consolidate between $150,000 to $700,000.

Editor’s note: Morgan True contributed to this report.

CORRECTION: The House did not concur with the Senate on H.876.

Anne Galloway

Leave a Reply

11 Comments on "Senate hands out bigger carrots for school district consolidation, strengthens supervisory union authority"


Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Janice Prindle
2 years 8 months ago

The Senate approach of helping schools coordinate business services and purchasing makes a lot of sense compared to consolidation, which would replace elected unpaid public servants, responsive to their communities, with well-paid, state-appointed professional bureaucrats and a host of salaried administrators, with no need to be responsive to the communities they oversee–under the guise of “saving money.” Hah.

John Freitag
2 years 8 months ago
The challenge we all face is how do we keep the best of Vermont’s past while meeting the needs of the future. Many thanks to the Vermont Senate for putting the brakes on a hastily put together school consolidation bill. As a School Facilities Manager for the last 31 years, I look forward to seeing the details of the passed legislation and how it might be best implemented in a way that uses local and regional resources most effectively. It should be noted that much work, that many legislators may not be aware, has already been done. This includes a… Read more »
Don Webster
2 years 8 months ago

Thanks for your reporting on this important story about what happened with school consolidation, but I think it omits what I believe is the key difference between the House and Senate versions. The House would eliminate the existence of local school boards. The Senate version, which prevailed, would preserve them.

My thank you to the Senate and those in the House who put up a good fight for local leadership in our schools.

Shayne Spence
2 years 8 months ago

In the article, you say “Late last night, the House concurred with H. 876.” I am unable to find any record of this in yesterday’s Journal, and H. 876 is currently on today’s Notice Calendar. Are you sure it actually passed the House?

victor ialeggio
2 years 8 months ago
“Kitchel said she was also concerned that the proposal could create a “top-down structure for local conversations.” So, better to have no conversation at all and establish new guidelines by diktat. Although not a single legislator ran on the idea of consolidation in the last election. There will hell to pay over the summer and next autumn for those legislators who don’t think the input of their constituents concerning education policy is of any importance. S91 remains a sharp stick in the eye of any district sick tired of waiting for something, for anything, of imaginative substance to come out… Read more »
Dave Bellini
2 years 8 months ago

“…There will hell to pay over the summer and next autumn for those legislators…”
Vermonters usually vote for the incumbent regardless of party or policy. I think some legislators were getting nervous so they backed off forcing consolidation, at least until a non-election year.

Howard Ires
2 years 8 months ago
The state can’t seem to do anything except pass the buck and re-arrange the deck chairs. Watch what happens now. Who’s going to pay for all these new duties the Superintendents office’s will acquire with the passage of this bill? Curriculum. Technology. Manage construction. Purchase supplies? As the supervisory unions merge and grow bigger these tasks will only get more difficult and expensive. This is classic buck passing by Montpelier. If there is really going to be any savings these tasks need to be managed on a state wide basis. Why isn’t there a state wide curriculum? Why not a… Read more »
Peter Berger
2 years 8 months ago
I’m pretty sure, based on the school boards I know and have worked for, that in addition to crafting their school’s budget, which they see as their responsibility, and hiring the best staff, both powers they would have lost under this term’s education bills, they very much want to deal with their school’s curriculum and the instructional aspects of their children’s education. The staff, teachers, and principal who deliver that instruction can best respond to and be best superintended by citizens with a real interest in the education of their town’s children. The only thing worse than exporting more of… Read more »
Howard Ires
2 years 8 months ago
I am not advocating for a MANDATORY state curriculum, just a state curriculum. Creating a good curriculum is a lot of work, it takes a lot of time. and effort. If there was a good state wide curriculum local boards could modify and improve on it if they wished, but if it was good I suspect most districts and teachers would accept it. If they didn’t that would be a different problem for a different time. Right now the current “crises” is that education costs are too high – which is a phony crises because public education is still running… Read more »
Peter Berger
2 years 8 months ago
I appreciate that you’re not advocating a mandatory statewide curricula. We’ve already had, though, and continue to live under a succession of what amount to statewide curricula, including the 1990s Vermont Common Core of Learning, the Vermont State Standards, the Grade Level Expectations (GLEs), which were rechristened with fanfare the Grade Expectations (GEs) for reasons that have always escaped me, and now Bill Gates’s Common Core. All include some common sense but are generously corrupted by the irrelevant, the unrealistic, and the arbitrary. The supervisory union where I’m employed ran for a decade or so without a superintendent. Each town’s… Read more »
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Senate hands out bigger carrots for school district consolidation, st..."