Danville's High-Stakes Vote Exposes State Senator's Conflicts and the Gutting of Public Education
A state senator, who works for a private school, used the uncertainty created by a task force he sits on to pressure a public school to close—a decision that would financially benefit his employer.
Crisis in the Kingdom: Danville Vote Exposes Deep Rifts in Vermont’s Education Future
The small town of Danville is facing an identity crisis, one that will be decided by a town-wide vote on December 6. At issue is a citizen-led petition to close the public high school, ending a long tradition of local education for grades 9 through 12. While the debate is deeply personal for residents, the conflict is not just a local affair. The situation in Danville is a direct consequence of the statewide upheaval caused by Act 73, a sweeping education reform law.
This vote has become a flashpoint, illuminating the intense pressures on Vermont’s rural public schools, the complex role of publicly-funded independent schools, and the profound influence of state politics on local communities. For Vermonters, the Danville dilemma is a case study in the future of public education, raising critical questions about equity, local control, and the state’s obligation to its most vulnerable students.
The Legislative Shadow: How Act 73 Forced a Crisis
The petition to close Danville High School “is the direct result of great uncertainty due to Act 73,” according to a formal letter from the Danville School Board to the state. This uncertainty isn’t a vague feeling; it stems from specific, powerful pressures built into the new law that put small schools like Danville in a precarious position.
Forced Consolidation: Act 73 created a School District Redistricting Task Force charged with redrawing the state’s educational map. According to the legislation, the goal is to merge Vermont’s 119 school districts into 10 to 20 massive new districts, each with 4,000 to 8,000 students. For a small K-12 school like Danville, with only about 344 students total, the prospect of being absorbed into such a large entity is a primary source of anxiety.
Minimum Class Sizes: The law also establishes a new statewide minimum average class size of 18 students for high schools, set to take effect in the 2026-2027 school year. With approximately 70 students across four high school grades, Danville’s average grade size is 17.5, placing it directly on the line of non-compliance and fueling fears of a forced closure by the state.
A Shift in Funding and Control: Act 73 replaces locally-voted school budgets with a statewide “foundation formula.” Critics, including the state teachers’ union Vermont-NEA, argue this move “will dismantle democratic participation in schools by taking away Vermonters’ votes on their school budgets,” according to their public statements. This perceived loss of local control has made the option of closing the high school and simply paying tuition to other schools seem like a rational financial choice to some residents.
These pressures have created an information vacuum. Danville is being forced to make an irreversible decision on December 6, just days after the Task Force is due to release its proposed maps but months before the legislature will vote on them. This has allowed proponents of closure to frame the vote as a “last chance” to secure full school choice before the state imposes a new, more restrictive reality.
The Heart of the Matter: A Tale of Two Systems
At the core of the debate is a contentious disagreement over which type of school is best equipped to serve all students, particularly those with the greatest needs. A look at the data reveals a stark contrast between Danville School and the two large independent schools that stand to gain its students, St. Johnsbury Academy and Lyndon Institute.
Data according to the Vermont Agency of Education, as reported by VTDigger.
The numbers paint a clear picture: Danville School serves a significantly higher concentration of students from low-income families and those with the highest level of special education needs. This reality has been obscured by a confusing debate over what it means to provide special education.
Understanding the Difference: IEP vs. 504 Plan
To understand the conflict, it’s essential to know the difference between two types of support plans—a distinction missing from much of the public discussion.
An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a legally binding document under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). According to Vermont Family Network, it is for students who require specialized instruction to make progress. It comes with rigorous legal protections and is tied to federal funding.
A Section 504 Plan is governed by a federal civil rights law. Its primary purpose is to ensure access to education by providing accommodations, such as extended time on tests. It does not typically include specialized instruction and has less stringent legal requirements.
When the headmaster of St. Johnsbury Academy stated that their low 8.7% IEP rate is a “success story” because they work to shift students to 504 plans, it highlights a crucial point. Moving a student from an IEP to a 504 is fundamentally a change in the school’s legal and financial obligation. While it may indicate progress for some students, it also moves them from a plan requiring costly specialized instruction to one requiring less intensive accommodations.
This context is key. Danville’s educators argue they are creating a supportive “home” for a high-needs population. The data shows they are, in fact, the region’s primary provider for students who legally qualify for the highest level of special education services. The closure of the high school would, as Principal Natalie Conway warned, create a “public high school desert”—not just the absence of a public building, but the removal of a critical safety net for the region’s most vulnerable students.
A Senator, a School, and a Question of Conflict
The pressure on Danville to vote on closure was significantly amplified by the actions of a key state official. According to reporting from VTDigger and Seven Days, State Senator Scott Beck, who represents the area, personally contacted the Danville school board chair with a warning. He suggested the legislature would soon limit school choice for districts that vote to close their high schools and that Danville needed to act before the end of the year to preserve that option.
This “warning” is complicated by Senator Beck’s multiple roles:
He is the Senate Minority Leader, an influential state policymaker.
He is a longtime faculty member at St. Johnsbury Academy, the private school that would directly benefit from Danville’s closure by receiving more tuition students.
He is a member of the School District Redistricting Task Force, the very body created by Act 73 whose pending work is the source of the uncertainty he was leveraging.
This creates a significant appearance of a conflict of interest. A state policymaker, who works for a private school, used the uncertainty created by a task force he sits on to pressure a public school to close—a decision that would financially benefit his employer. Danville’s Board Chair, Clayton Cargill, told VTDigger he felt “misled” by the senator’s advice. This dynamic suggests a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the narrative that small public schools are not viable is advanced by political actors who have a vested interest in that outcome.
What This Means for Vermonters
The Danville story is a preview of a conflict that could play out across the state as Act 73 is implemented. It forces Vermonters to confront difficult questions about the kind of education system they want. Is the goal a streamlined, consolidated system that prioritizes scale and potential cost savings? Or is there still a place for small, community-based public schools that serve as a vital safety net, even if they are more expensive on a per-pupil basis?
For any citizen seeking to make an informed decision, here is what to watch for:
The Task Force Report (December 1): The proposed district maps will reveal the state’s true intentions for the Northeast Kingdom and other rural areas.
The Danville Vote (December 6): The outcome will signal whether the arguments for local control and preserving public infrastructure won out over fears of legislative change and potential tax savings.
The 2026 Legislative Session: Will lawmakers actually pass the school choice limitations that Senator Beck warned of? If not, the entire premise for the urgency in Danville will have been proven false.
The fate of Danville High School is about more than just one building. It’s about whether Vermont’s education future will be decided by communities or for them.