Commentary: School District Consolidation: The Supreme Managed Benefit State (November, 2013)

by John McClaughry

“For half a century “reformers” have tried again and again to force radical school district John McClaughryconsolidation.  Outgoing Education Secretary Vilaseca argues that  the state needs a hammer – to force its will on its people.”

The front page of the Rutland Herald of June 18, 1975 featured the headline “State Education Plans: Eight School Districts”. The story and accompanying map described the plan discussed at the State Board of Education meeting the previous day.

The mega-district school consolidation plan actually dated to 1964, when Gov. Phil Hoff proposed consolidating to 24 school districts, a proposal that went nowhere in the Republican-controlled legislature.

In 1987 a school governance commission, created by Gov. Madeleine Kunin and co-chaired by the same Phil Hoff, proposed 65 unified school districts. The proposal aroused such an outcry that Gov. Kunin was forced to disavow it a week before it was to be made public. The fact that the report was ridiculously titled “Strengthening Local Control” didn’t improve its reception.

In 2009 the state Board of Education produced a 112-page “Transformation Policy” report that made another run at the consolidation objective. It recommended that “By July 2012, Vermont’s PK-12 public education system is constituted into 12 to 24 education districts. Each education district shall be governed by a single district board.” Then-Commissioner (now Secretary) Armando Vilaseca was an active cheerleader for the report’s recommendations.

The 2010 legislature wrangled at some length over consolidation proposals. Unwilling to supply the Commissioner with the hammer to force consolidation, it finally produced Act 153, providing modest incentives for “voluntary school district mergers”. To date, only one “regional education district” has been formed – Mountain Towns RED (Londonderry, Peru, Landgrove, Weston, Flood Brook).

In a final appearance before the House Education Committee a month ago (he is departing next month), Vilaseca said that pooling resources in newly merged districts (REDs) would give “the biggest bang for the buck” in education spending: “We don’t need 272 school districts. Do we need 63 superintendents in the state of Vermont? Can 24 be the number? Can 22 be the number? That’s where I think we should start.”

A committee member inquired whether Vilaseca thought regionalization ought to legislatively mandated. Vilaseca replied that school board members and superintendents tell him “we’ll never do this ourselves. There has to be some sort of hammer.” After the session Vilaseca told Alicia Freese of Vtdigger that “After seven or eight years, if the districts haven’t joined together, then the state will come in.”

From the context, and from his long support of forceful control from Montpelier, it’s clear that when Vilaseca says “the state will come in”, it does not mean that the State will hand out incentives and hope for the best. It means the Agency of Education will work its will, parents, students, teachers, and school board members will be told to sit down and shut up, and taxpayers will be told to pay.

In a political climate always favorable to more centralization, more (supposed) administrative efficiency, and far greater power for gubernatorial appointees, the legislature is likely to face increasing pressure to comply.

In former days this would have been recognized as the Soviet command-and-control model, a model also currently favored by Gov. Shumlin for his single payer health care system. Such a model can, admittedly, construct the Pyramids, build an atomic bomb, and put a man on the moon. What it can’t do is acceptably direct students, parents, teachers, administrators, and school board members to carry out the Leader’s orders, without crushing Vermont’s tradition of local self-government.

There is an attractive alternative to “One Big School System”. It’s based on parental choice and provider competition, among locally-governed public schools, charter schools, independent schools, and alternative educational programs.

Vermonters in 90 tuition towns have made that alternative work since 1869. There was never a better time to expand it to the others. If we don’t, we’ll get the Supreme Managed Benefit State where, to borrow from the Green Mountain Care law, the Ministry of Education will mandate for all children “the appropriate education at the appropriate time in the appropriate setting.”

- John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute



{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Stuart Lindberg November 23, 2013 at 11:36 pm

Supervisory Union mergers and consolidation do not create savings for the taxpayer.
The old Windsor Southwest Supervisory Union served approximately 1000 students in 2012. After the merger of Windsor South West SU and Rutland Windsor South SU into the new Two Rivers Supervisory Union the student count was approximately 1044 students. WSWSU lost a significant number of students to the Regional Education District which included the towns of the K-8 Flood Brook Union School. The WSWSU regained that student count by merging into the new Two Rivers SU.

The WSWSU budget for 1000 students in 2012 was $1,760,901. The Rutland Windsor South SU had a budget of $711,820 in 2012. The combined budget of these two merged entities should be no more than $2,472,721. This is the budget number if the taxpayers were to break even on this “cost saving” consolidation. The new TRSU budget of 2014 with 44 more students is $2,716,048. This is an increase of $1,055,147 to serve only 44 more students.
Some of this increase is offset by “federal” and “state” funds. Federal money is taxpayer money that has to be paid back. This merger was encouraged strongly (mandated) by the Vermont legislature’s ACT 153. If this is how the state intends to save money by consolidating we all better hang onto our wallets.

These figures can be found on pages 122 and 130 of the 2012 Cavendish Town Report. The figures for Rutland Windsor South Supervisory Union figures can be found on the following website These figures are a matter of public record.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

Tax Plan, Schmax Plan: It’s The Spending, Stupid

by Chris Campion The GOP has recently been working on tax reform, and both the House and Senate have versions of tax reform that are currently being hashed...

Renewable Policies Responsible for GMP’s $80 million rate increase

by Guy Page Green Mountain Power’s proposed 2018 5% rate increase will cost ratepayers $80 million, said November 27. GMP spokesperson Kristen Carlson blames the hike on increased transmission, regional...

Exxon Mobil ‘s “Green Preening”

by John McClaughry Here’s a news item some will find surprising. The American Legislative Exchange Council is a conservative business-oriented association of legislators and corporation interests. Recently it...

New Hampshire Lowers Taxes, Raises Revenue

by Rob Roper The New Hampshire Union Leader recently posted an editorial about their legislature’s 2015 decision to cut taxes on New Hampshire businesses. The tax cuts are...

Survey: Do You Support the ESSEX Carbon Tax Proposal

TAKE THE SURVEY! Do you support the new “ESSEX” Carbon Tax proposal? This would ultimately be a $240 million tax on gasoline (32¢/gal), heating oil and diesel fuel...