Here in Vermont, we value local communities and local connections. Small is valuable, and rural is an asset (not a liability). Yet in education policy, many Vermonters have embraced the assumption that bigger districts are inherently better. The evidence suggests otherwise: Vermont can pursue savings and stronger student outcomes without forcing communities into larger districts and without erasing their local identity.
The data shows that bigger schools and bigger districts do not inherently produce better outcomes for either students or taxpayers. Let me explain.
Despite the rhetoric about economies of scale, statistical analysis shows no meaningful relationship between Vermont district size and per-student cost. Student outcomes also do not improve as districts grow. And these findings are not unique to Vermont.
So, where does this push for consolidation come from? Some of it is well-intentioned, but misguided. It is easy to believe that a larger footprint comes with efficiencies. That is true to a certain degree, but inefficiencies also follow conventional consolidation (like increases in administrative overhead and pay scales).
A second reason consolidation seems attractive is administrative simplicity. Larger, more uniform districts can make it easier to coordinate staffing, move assets, and standardize operations. Those conveniences may be real, but they should not be confused with demonstrated savings or better student outcomes. I worked on the last school consolidation effort, Act 46, and by the end we would joke that it should have been named “The Superintendent’s Relief Act.” Vermont is now weighing another large-scale consolidation effort, but the results of the last one should be analyzed the learnings used to inform the current effort..
Since Act 46 passed in 2015, education spending has increased 67% ($1B) even as enrollment fell. That is average annual growth of more than 5.6% over 12 years, compared with average inflation of about 3.2% (41% compounded). Had spending merely kept pace with inflation, Vermont would be spending nearly $400 million less on education today.
The only independent analysis of Act 46 was done by a researcher at Yale and, meaningfully, examined spending within the same districts both prior to and following consolidation. That analysis showed that spending actually increased slightly following consolidation. There were savings on administrative support and contracted services, but these savings were negated by increases in transportation costs and compensation.
Higher transportation costs are easy to understand; the compensation increases require more explanation. Merging districts means reopening employment contracts, and the tendency is to adopt the most generous package rather than ask any employees to take a pay cut—especially as this would be one of a new (merged) school board’s first acts. I believe this dynamic contributed significantly to Act 46’s failure to deliver its promised savings.
Today there are 52 Supervisory Unions (SUs) overseeing 119 school districts, with an average size of just under 700 students. That is actually above the national median of 586 students. So, if our districts are about the same size as the rest of the country, why are we spending 30% more? There must be more to the story.
Act 170 requires every school district to join an assigned study committee. Facilitators must group generally contiguous districts and, where practical, aim for at least 2,000 students per study group. That target is impractical and unnecessary for Vermont: it exceeds the typical size in most rural states and is more than triple the national median district size.
More specific to this conversation, the law also requires study committees perform a cost/benefit analysis on the educational, financial, operational, and long-term sustainability effects of mergers. This is important because it places a requirement on study committee members to evaluate all the benefits and drawbacks of conventional consolidation. It is important to approach the process with eyes wide open and weigh both sides of the equation.
There will absolutely be places where conventional consolidation makes sense. We saw this during Act 46 as well; the earliest mergers had the most positive outcomes. This was likely because the ones that were achieved early in the process made the most sense. The ones that came later, the ones that were forced, did not produce positive outcomes.
Most districts, however, would benefit from what I call “virtual mergers.” Rather than combine local districts, this model regionalizes business and educational services through Education Service Agencies (the approach behind Act 170’s CESAs). It preserves local control while streamlining administration and reducing costs. Because districts remain intact, Vermont could capture the administrative and contracting savings seen under Act 46 without adding transportation costs or leveling up compensation. Two-thirds of states use this model, and our analysis estimates that full adoption could save Vermont roughly $300 million.
What is incumbent upon the folks serving on these new merger study committees is to determine whether or not the facts support conventional consolidation or whether a virtual merger would be a more viable option.
Conventional consolidation deserves an earnest look where pay scales are similar, operating grades align, and physical assets such as buildings are close together. Where those conditions are absent, a virtual merger will preserve more local control while avoiding the costs created by incompatible operations, distant facilities, and substantially different compensation structures.
Study committees should compare conventional consolidation and virtual mergers against the same test: which option can achieve durable savings and better educational outcomes while meeting the needs of the community and the region? Any savings attributed to a traditional merger should be tested against what shared services could accomplish with less disruption. That comparison is not merely prudent; the law requires study committees to evaluate these available options.
The value of a community school also extends well beyond the cost/benefit analysis. A nearby school makes it easier for parents to participate, helps educators build durable relationships with families, and gives students a stronger connection to the place where they live. In many rural towns, the school is one of the institutions that holds the community together. A merger analysis that overlooks parental involvement, trusted relationships, and community cohesion is not a complete cost-benefit analysis.
This is not an all or nothing decision the way some politicians have framed the issue. There is nuance, and that complexity is important because the nuance we are talking about is our kids. It’s the next generation of Vermonters.
We can both reduce costs for taxpayers and improve outcomes for students, but mass consolidation with blind faith that bigger must be better may very well work against us in those efforts.
 |
Ben Kinsley Executive Director |