Some Vermont school districts are finding savings through shared partnerships as officials mull voluntary proposal – VTDigger

Report on Vermont School District Restructuring and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Reforming Education for Sustainable Development

In alignment with Vermont’s Act 73 education reform law, efforts are underway to restructure the state’s public school system. These reforms aim to enhance educational quality, equity, and efficiency, directly contributing to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). A central debate has emerged between two primary models for reform: the establishment of voluntary regional partnerships versus state-mandated district consolidation. This report analyzes a current regional initiative and the conflicting proposals under consideration.

The Regional Cooperative Model: A Case Study in Partnership for the Goals (SDG 17)

The Vermont Learning Collaborative Initiative

A pioneering initiative in Southeast Vermont, the Vermont Learning Collaborative, exemplifies a partnership-based approach to educational reform. Led by the Mountain Views Supervisory Union, this collaborative pools resources among several districts across Windham, Windsor, and Rutland counties. This model serves as a practical application of the principles proposed by the state’s redistricting task force and demonstrates a commitment to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by fostering inter-district cooperation to achieve shared objectives.

Observed Contributions to Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The collaborative has demonstrably improved educational programs. By sharing professional development services, participating districts have enhanced teacher quality and effectiveness, a key component of Target 4.c.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The initiative has significantly improved special education services, leading to a reduction in the number of students requiring placement outside their home districts. This promotes inclusive learning environments and ensures equitable opportunities for all students, in line with Target 10.2.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The model promotes financial sustainability and institutional effectiveness. By sharing services, individual districts achieved an average cost savings of 66% on professional development, demonstrating a more efficient use of public funds to build resilient educational institutions.

State Task Force Proposal: Voluntary Mergers and Cooperative Service Areas

Core Recommendations for Systemic Reform

The state’s redistricting task force has submitted a draft report proposing a statewide structure based on the cooperative model. The recommendations prioritize local participation and collaboration, reflecting key principles of sustainable community governance.

1. Establishment of Cooperative Service Areas: The proposal envisions five regional partnerships, allowing districts to share services at scale to improve efficiency and educational offerings.
2. Emphasis on Voluntary Mergers: Rather than mandating consolidation, the task force recommends incentivizing voluntary mergers, respecting local autonomy and fostering partnerships based on mutual affinity and goals. This aligns with SDG 16.7 (responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making).
3. Strategic Investment in Infrastructure: The plan suggests using state construction aid to encourage the creation of regional high schools, a long-term strategy to upgrade educational facilities and advance Target 4.a (build and upgrade effective learning environments).

Justification in the Context of Sustainable Development

The task force asserts that regional coordination and shared staffing more effectively address primary cost drivers—such as health insurance, special education, and transportation—than mandated structural changes. This approach seeks to build strong, collaborative institutions from the ground up, ensuring that reforms are both effective and democratically supported.

Administrative Counterpoint: A Call for Direct Consolidation

Governor Scott’s Administration’s Position

The Governor’s administration has voiced significant criticism of the task force’s proposal, advocating instead for the direct consolidation of Vermont’s 52 supervisory unions and 119 school districts. The administration argues that the task force failed its mandate to produce new district maps and that its proposal does not go far enough to dismantle inefficient structures.

Concerns Regarding Governance and Efficiency

The administration’s critique focuses on the potential for increased bureaucracy and the preservation of what it terms “legacy inefficiencies.” Key concerns include:

• The proposed regional cooperatives would add another layer of governance, complete with its own board and staff, potentially expanding the administrative footprint rather than reducing it.
• The voluntary model fails to wrest control of local spending from numerous small districts, which the administration views as a barrier to systemic financial reform.
• The proposal is seen as an inversion of the intended reform, maintaining the existing district structure while adding new regional entities on top.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for Sustainable Education in Vermont

The state of Vermont faces a critical decision regarding the future of its public education system. The legislative session will require reconciliation between two divergent philosophies: a bottom-up, partnership-driven approach championed by the task force, which aligns with SDG 16.7 and SDG 17, and a top-down, consolidation-focused model favored by the administration. The outcome of this debate will determine the governance structure for public education and its capacity to deliver equitable, inclusive, and high-quality learning opportunities for all Vermonters, fulfilling the promise of SDG 4.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article’s central theme is the reform of Vermont’s public education system through district collaboration. It explicitly mentions “improvements to educational programs” and better special education services as key outcomes of these partnerships, directly aligning with the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The focus on improving special education services and reducing the need for out-of-district placements for students with special needs addresses the goal of reducing inequalities. The collaboration aims to provide better, more accessible resources for vulnerable students within their local communities.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article details a debate on governance structures for education, involving a state-appointed task force, the governor’s administration, and local school boards. Discussions about voluntary mergers versus mandated consolidation, preserving “a local democratic process,” and creating effective administrative bodies like the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) relate to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The entire initiative described in the article is a model of partnership. The formation of “regional cooperatives to share services,” such as the Vermont Learning Collaborative, exemplifies multi-stakeholder partnerships at a local level to achieve common goals like cost-efficiency and improved educational quality.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article’s focus on “improvements to educational programs” through resource sharing aims to enhance the quality of education for all students in the participating districts.
   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities. The article highlights that the collaboration led to improved “special education services” and a “reduction in the number of students who are placed outside of member districts,” directly supporting equal access for students with disabilities.
   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all. The proposal to use “state construction aid to facilities creating regional high schools” is a direct link to this target.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The improvement of special education services within local districts promotes the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream educational environments.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The debate between the task force’s proposal for cooperative services and the governor’s push for direct consolidation is a discussion about the most effective and accountable governance structure for the state’s education system.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The argument for voluntary mergers to preserve “a local democratic process” and allow districts to “choose our partners” directly reflects the principles of this target.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. The formation of the “Vermont Learning Collaborative” and the state’s legal framework enabling the creation of a “Board of Cooperative Educational Services, or BOCES” are clear examples of promoting effective public partnerships between school districts.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Financial Indicators:
   • The article provides specific quantitative data on cost savings, which can measure the efficiency of the partnerships. Examples include:
     • “saving individual districts an average of 66% on those [professional development] costs.”
     • A potential statewide saving of “$334 million annually if districts share services.”
     • A “$10,000 grant from the state” for the formation of the cooperative, indicating state-level support and investment.
2. Educational Outcome Indicators:
   • Progress in providing equitable and quality education, particularly for vulnerable students, is measured by:
     • The “reduction in the number of students who are placed outside of member districts” for special education services.
     • Qualitative statements about “improvements to educational programs.”
3. Institutional and Partnership Indicators:
   • The formation and strengthening of partnerships and governance structures are indicated by:
     • The official recognition of the Mountain Views Supervisory Union’s collaborative as the first “Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES)” in the state.
     • The number of districts participating in the collaborative (Mountain Views Supervisory Union partnering with “seven nearby districts”).
     • The proposal to create “five regional partnerships envisioned in the task force’s proposal.”

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: vtdigger.org