This commentary is by Laura Cannon, of Hardwick. Laura is a parent of two preschoolers, a speech-language pathologist and a member of the Rural School Community Alliance.
We won’t always agree with every decision our school boards make — but we should all agree on this: They must exist. Without them, we lose local democracy, community involvement and taxpayer oversight.
Whether you’re from Hardwick, Newport, Wells, Brattleboro or Grand Isle, one thing is clear: Our communities value taking local responsibility for education, community-based schooling and school board representation. We care deeply about where and how our kids learn — and we want a say in it.
The Rural Schools Community Alliance — a coalition of community and municipal groups, school boards, and educators — has fought hard to preserve these values in the current legislation. Thanks to their efforts, the new law Act 73 recognizes supervisory unions in addition to supervisory districts, giving rural voices a chance to be heard. But the Rural Schools Community Alliance cannot do this alone. Now it’s our turn.
So, what’s at stake?
If existing school districts are eliminated and replaced by a large supervisory district — as favored by Gov. Phil Scott and Agency of Education — our local school boards would vanish. Existing articles of agreement would be dissolved. Decision-making power would shift to a distant, centralized board overseeing 4,000 to 8000 students. Town-level representation would disappear. Budget decisions and school closures would happen without a vote of the town.
Under a supervisory union structure, by contrast, existing school boards would continue as would existing articles of agreement. Although this may entail boundary shifts and much larger supervisory unions than we are used to, we would keep a seat at the table. We would continue to have a meaningful voice in decisions made. We would keep our say.
Some advocacy groups argue that supervisory unions open the door to privatization. That’s a distraction. The real threat is centralized power in sprawling districts, where communities lose influence. Supervisory unions allow for shared efficiencies, collaboration and cost-effective shared services, without silencing community voices. That’s the balance Vermont needs.
Act 73 established a redistricting committee that has been appointed and is already beginning their work, with up to three proposals due in December and a vote by the Legislature to approve one in January.
We must act now to influence the outcome. We are not powerless, and there are knowledgeable members on this committee who understand rural concerns. Talk to your school board. Call your legislators. Let them know that we want to stay in a supervisory union. We value local decision making.
Much of Vermont is rural. Our education system should reflect that and be accessible for rural families.
Without community-based schooling, transportation challenges and long bus rides may force young families like mine to leave Vermont’s small towns at a faster rate than they already are, further accelerating small-town economic decline.
Consolidation of school governance means disappearing civic engagement and a diminished ability to influence important decisions about education in the future — that’s what we risk if we let our school boards go.
This is a fight for more than education. It’s a fight for our communities. It’s a fight for democracy. It’s a fight for rural Vermont.
