New education plan patterns the successes of other states.
Vermont Governor Phil Scott’s education reform plan, unveiled in January 2025, aims to overhaul the state’s education system by addressing funding, governance, and accountability.
It proposes consolidating Vermont’s 119 school districts into five regional districts, implementing a foundation formula for funding, and enhancing state oversight to improve equity and affordability.
While the plan is tailored to Vermont’s unique challenges—such as declining enrollment, rising property taxes, and educational inequities—it shares conceptual similarities with reforms in other states. No single state serves as a direct blueprint, and the plan’s performance cannot yet be fully compared to Vermont’s current system since it remains in the proposal stage with implementation targeted for 2028-29.
Similarities to Other States’ Education Reforms
Consolidation of School Districts
Comparison to Other States: Scott’s proposal to reduce Vermont’s school districts to five mirrors efforts in states like Maine and West Virginia, where district consolidation has been used to address inefficiencies and declining student populations. Maine, for instance, passed the 2007 School District Consolidation Law, reducing its 290 districts to about 164 regional units by encouraging voluntary mergers with financial incentives. West Virginia has also consolidated districts over decades, dropping from over 300 in the 1950s to 55 today, often involuntarily, to cut administrative costs and improve resource allocation.
Rationale and Context: Like Vermont, these states faced shrinking rural populations and rising per-student costs. Vermont’s plan, however, is more aggressive in scope, aiming for just five districts compared to Maine’s more gradual approach or West Virginia’s larger final number. Scott’s team argues this will streamline administration and redirect savings to classrooms, a goal echoed in these states’ reforms.
Foundation Formula Funding
Comparison to Other States: The shift to a foundation formula—where the state sets a base per-student funding amount adjusted for student needs—is a widely used model, seen in states like Texas, California, and New Hampshire. Texas’s Foundation School Program, established in 1949 and refined over time, allocates a base amount per student with additional “weights” for factors like poverty or special education, similar to Vermont’s proposed model. California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), implemented in 2013, also uses a weighted system to promote equity, giving extra funds to districts with high-needs students. New Hampshire, Vermont’s neighbor, uses a foundation-like approach with adjustments for poverty and small schools.
Rationale and Context: Vermont’s current system, where local voters set budgets and the state raises funds through property taxes, has led to disparities and unpredictability. The foundation formula aims to standardize funding and enhance equity, much like California’s LCFF sought to address inequities in a larger, more diverse state. Scott’s plan adds a twist with a single statewide property tax rate, differing from states like Texas, where local taxes still vary significantly.
State Oversight and School Choice
Comparison to Other States: The plan’s emphasis on stronger state oversight—shifting rulemaking from an independent board to the Agency of Education—resembles centralized models in states like North Carolina, where the state exercises significant control over standards and closures. The optional school choice lottery within districts also nods to systems in Florida and Arizona, where choice mechanisms (vouchers, charters) are prominent, though Vermont’s version is more limited, focusing on public and some private options without expanding vouchers broadly.
Rationale and Context: Vermont’s small size and decentralized tradition make this centralization bold, differing from larger states where such control is more normalized. The choice element seems inspired by choice-friendly states but is restrained to fit Vermont’s public education focus.
Performance Comparison to Vermont’s Current System
Since Scott’s plan is not yet implemented, direct performance comparisons rely on projections and analogies to other states’ outcomes under similar reforms, juxtaposed against Vermont’s current metrics.
Vermont’s Current Performance:
Vermont spends heavily on education—about $23,000 per student annually, among the highest in the U.S.—yet outcomes are mixed. The 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows Vermont students scoring above the national average in reading and math but with declining trends over two decades, particularly for disadvantaged groups. Teacher pay varies widely (e.g., $50,000-$80,000 annually depending on district wealth), and property taxes have spiked (13.8% in 2024), prompting widespread budget rejections.
Strengths include small class sizes and community engagement, but critics highlight inefficiencies (e.g., 52 supervisory unions for 76,000 students) and inequities between wealthy and poor areas.
Projected Performance Under Scott’s Plan:
Cost and Efficiency: The plan targets $180 million in savings by 2028-29, primarily through administrative consolidation, potentially lowering per-student costs closer to the national average ($14,000). Maine saved $36 million annually post-consolidation, though Vermont’s smaller scale and deeper cuts suggest greater proportional savings if successful.
Equity and Quality: By equalizing funding via the foundation formula, Vermont could reduce disparities, as California’s LCFF did—there, achievement gaps narrowed slightly for low-income students. However, Vermont’s rural sparsity may complicate delivery, unlike California’s urban focus. Teacher pay equity could improve retention, a success seen in centralized states like North Carolina.
Risks and Challenges: Consolidation in West Virginia faced community backlash and didn’t always boost test scores, suggesting Vermont could see similar resistance without guaranteed academic gains. Maine’s voluntary approach left some inequities intact, hinting that Vermont’s mandatory mergers might fare better—or provoke fiercer opposition.
Comparative Insights:
States like Texas and California show foundation formulas can stabilize funding and boost equity, but Vermont’s high baseline spending and small population differ from these larger systems. Maine’s consolidation cut costs but not always quality, while West Virginia’s experience warns of rural community loss—a key concern in Vermont. Vermont’s current system outperforms many states in raw scores but lags in efficiency and equity compared to peers like New Hampshire, which spends less ($19,000 per student) with similar outcomes.
Conclusion
Scott’s plan isn’t a carbon copy of any state’s reform but borrows elements—consolidation from Maine and West Virginia, foundation funding from Texas and California, and hints of choice from Florida—tailored to Vermont’s context. Compared to the current system, it promises cost containment and equity.
If Democrats are really the party of equity - now is their chance to prove it by putting the less fortunate in Vermont first for a change.
Almost none of the savings will come from administrative savings. Like many small districts ours spends very little on administration. Over time these mega districts will find they need deputy assistant superintendents to provide the oversight school boards now do for free. The savings will all come from laying off teachers as class sizes increase. Our teachers say students are still recovering from COVID and need the extra support they can get in small classes.