This commentary is by William J. Mathis, who is the managing director of the National Education Policy Center, a former school superintendent and a member of the Vermont State Board of Education. The views expressed are his own.
[T]he new school governance law (Act 46) is simply the most recent wave in almost two centuries of contentious school consolidation debates. Amazingly, the claims, disagreements and philosophical differences remain unchanged.
The primary conflict is between advocates marching under the flag of local democracy, closely tied to the community and the people, versus those with a particular reform agenda. The latter contend the current system is antiquated, inefficient and unresponsive to population changes and financial limitations. The tides affecting these contending forces include at least three historic enrollment recessions, the economy, the national consolidation movements, and changes in educational philosophy. Plain political power disputes came into kaleidoscopic display as state politicians and vested interest groups seek centralized powers while locals resist such “usurpations.”
Beginning in pre-revolution Bennington (1763), towns opened and paid for schools on their own. Schools were primarily available to the more affluent but a glimmer of democratic opportunity was reflected in the Constitution of 1777 which required each town to build – and pay for — at least one school (Thus, the “unfunded mandate” was born). Just a few years later (1797), independent elected school boards were established with their own governance structure.
The Common School Movement — From 1800 to 1850, the condition of Vermont schools could be summarized with one word — neglect. To remedy this problem, fees (1810) and the statewide property tax (1825) were established along with a school tax fund. (Ironically, 175 years later, a statewide property tax and education fund were widely and roundly excoriated as state piracy by opponents of Act 60).
Seeking to repair years of accumulated neglect, the first statewide consolidation and centralization effort was enacted. The state board was established in 1827 and it had the temerity to set forth the required coursework and textbooks. This brought a backlash which resulted in the elimination of the state board in 1833.
Yet, the echoes of the national movement for universal and free public education reverberated across the state. Union schools (where two or more towns established a common board and school) were established in 1841, and the next centralization effort came in 1845 with state controlled teacher supervision, county superintendents, and a freshly minted state superintendent who reported to the Legislature. But this was far too much change! The county superintendents were eliminated in 1849. In a matter of years, the state superintendent was abolished (1856) and a newly appointed state board elected their secretary who served as the chief state school officer.
For the most part, education grew out of religious institutions and now a non-compulsory, public education would be available to all. At the time, a set of private religious academies educated a privileged 10 percent of the students, public schools taught about 40 percent, and half the population was unschooled. Such economic segregation practices were to reverberate across the years.
In a pattern to be repeated in the 20th century, the 1860s and 1870s saw repeated calls for modernization and consolidation of school governance. The Civil War had been fought, industrialization and manufacturing had ascended and the world was in transition. Local districts were not seen as suitably responsive to the times. Towns often had multiple school boards (the schools of which are plotted on the 1870 Beers town maps of Vermont). Secretary French called for the consolidation of these multiple boards into one town board. Permissive legislation was passed which was met with local disinterest. The Legislature backed away after only two years (1872). The state board was abolished again (1874) as they were seen as “somewhat aggressive and officious for men who possessed mere academic knowledge.” The state superintendent was reinstalled.
These were difficult times. A major population decline occurred and the assault on multiple town school districts continued across the 1880s. Town superintendents and school districts were replaced with another round of county superintendents (and county boards) that lasted only two years (1890). Like 2015, the state offered state aid in such a way as to encourage consolidation.
The Progressive Era – From 1890 until 1920, the progressive era brought a new emphasis on practical knowledge. Industrialization, the assembly line, and manufacturing took center stage and a new call for “modern” school organization took place. This led to the “Vicious Act of 1892” wherein local towns were forced to consolidate their 2,500 boards into 279 town and incorporated boards. Almost 100 very small schools were closed, the statewide property tax increased from five to eight cents, and a state curriculum was mandated. High schools were required for all larger towns. This was, indeed, a time of massive change — and centralization had won the day.
In 1906, supervisory unions were formed with the state board approving the appointment of local superintendents. This provided a workable compromise for providing teacher supervision and sound practice while protecting the closely guarded autonomy of local electorates.
By the time the 20th century ended, 20 major task forces had issued reports. Yet in 2006, apart from union high schools, the governance structure looked very much like it did in 1906.
Yet, the defining event of the progressive era was the Carnegie Commission (1912-1915). The aim was, among other things, to depoliticize and professionalize education. This was the zenith of a growing state system with a re-established independent state board (with an “eye single” to educational quality), a commissioner, local superintendents appointed and paid by the state, school evaluations, and new qualifications for high school teachers. A state with highly localized government was thus transformed into a state controlled system. Mason Stone, the state commissioner, resigned in disgust, proclaiming, “The legitimate child of centralization is paternalism which is an illegitimate feature of a republican form of government.”
Milo Hilegas followed Stone. He got out his map, redrew supervisory union lines, hired superintendents, and pushed for consolidation. All of this was a step too far. The outcry resulted in the collapse of the administrative system in 1923. The state board resigned en masse, superintendent hiring was returned to local districts, the requirement for a supervisory union was eliminated and, if the locals so chose, they could dispense with superintendents entirely. Nevertheless, local districts slowly reformed their own supervisory unions. Following Herculean cajoling by Commissioner Bailey, locals reformed into 62 supervisory unions. The Depression, a declining population, an eroded tax base and the Second World War intervened.
In post-war Vermont, Commissioner John Holden told the local districts to work it out on their own as state consolidation mandates were neither effective nor lasting. Meanwhile, a national consolidation movement led by James Conant and fueled by fears of the Soviet Union took root. High school attendance was increasing, cash-strapped schools saw new federal monies, a state construction bond was issued, the union school law was refurbished, department of education support staff increased, and the state board offered itself as a resource. Under these supportive circumstances, union high schools increased from two to 34. While Holden later confessed to doubts about bigness, this movement was undoubtedly the most successful and lasting consolidation effort undertaken in the state.
But the tide crested. Five commissioners and five major studies fruitlessly recommended further consolidation between 1965 and 1975. Side-stepping a legislative committee, Commissioner Richard Gibboney used a 4-3 state board vote to attempt implementing a model reorganization plan in 1966 which had Addison County combined into one high school, three middle schools, and an unspecified number of elementary schools under a single board. In the ensuing firestorm, the state board asked for and received Gibboney’s resignation.
The Contemporary Era — The unending stream of task forces and reports continued to accumulate and weigh down shelves. Three regional intermediate units had a short life, county systems were built and abolished, and school consolidation plans came and went while the system remained virtually unchanged. By the time the 20th century ended, 20 major task forces had issued reports. Yet in 2006, apart from union high schools, the governance structure looked very much like it did in 1906.
Meanwhile a major enrollment decline was affecting schools across the state. Regional education districts (REDs) were authorized in 2010 in Act 153. The aim was to modernize, streamline and consolidate supervisory unions into districts. This reorganization required all towns to have a positive vote. Thus, if one town voted against the RED, the effort would fail. This proved a high barrier and undoubtedly inhibited many proponents. The grand total of successful RED formations is, to date, one.
Seeing the RED avenue as providing little success, Act 156 was passed in 2012 which allowed regionalization to occur for the districts who voted to merge but did not require that all the districts in the supervisory union join in. Known by the acronym MUDs for modified unified union school districts, only one had formed by 2015. By then, attention turned toward the Legislature which was roaring toward the mandatory central office consolidation known as Act 46.
History and Vermont’s new law – Since the early 19th century, a pattern was established; state level actors would cite costs, educational quality and efficiency to declare a need for consolidation of school governance. The overwhelming majority of these efforts led to little more than a task force report. Nevertheless, nine noteworthy mandated consolidations occurred (1827, 1845, 1892, 1915, 1936, the 1950s, 2010, 2012 and 2015). Six of these had little effect or were rapidly swept out by the resulting political reaction.
Seeking to avoid a heavy state hammer, three voluntary (rather than mandated) consolidations were enacted in 1872, 2010 and 2012. None of the three resulted in widespread changes.
There are three clear cases where school consolidation was successful and sustained; elimination of multiple town boards in 1892, the re-emergence of supervisory unions in 1936 and the union high school movement of the 1950s and 1960s. (While districts were reduced in 1892, the overall set of broad progressive reforms collapsed in 1923).
What does this history tell us?
• Consolidation is extremely controversial and the results have been mixed.
• Successful reforms were strongly supported by financial allocations and by state government actors over a long period of time. In both cases, more than ten years were required.
Unique applications in the case of Act 46:
• Sold on the promise of educational quality and efficiency, state and local implementers must definitively document these promises to avoid political backlash.
• The number of elected board members will be dramatically reduced. Unless mechanisms for legitimate, on-going and responsive public and parental input are provided, public and political support for the system is threatened.
• Equity and equality may be constitutionally disturbed if local merger plans discriminate by socio-economic status, race, gender or any other classification. This represents a danger to society and democracy.
• The protection of existing town level school choice in the law may prevent the law from being successfully implemented. This structure could potentially freeze 90 towns and lock out many alternative arrangements. Given that choice schemes cause segregation, the potential for harm to equality of opportunity exists.
• The state must provide sufficient, long-term and highly qualified staff to assist local districts in coming to democratic and broadly embraced decisions.
• Staff must be provided to the state board to carry out the responsibilities required under the new law. Otherwise, the consolidation plan review and approval system cannot function.
Primary Sources:
Cross, Michelle. (1992). Public School Education in Vermont. The Myth of Local Control. Norwich University.
Mathis, William. (1996). Accelerating Change: Vermont Education: 1965-1995. Vermont State Government. 1965-1995. Center on Research on Vermont.
Richardson, Bruce (1994). Education Governance Studies in Vermont: The Search for the Ever Elusive Silver Bullet of School Reform. University of Vermont.
Stone, Mason. (1935).History of Education of the State of Vermont. Capital City Press. Montpelier.
