Decline in Reading, Math, and Science: New Vermont Data Intensifies Push for Regional Districts Despite Doubts on Effectiveness

Vermont taxpayers are caught between two major education funding reforms happening simultaneously.

The Vermont Agency of Education’s release of its 2024-2025 Annual Snapshot this week provides the most comprehensive picture yet of Vermont’s declining student achievement—a decline that state officials say justifies a dramatic overhaul of how schools are governed and funded.

The Snapshot, which evaluates every Vermont school across five performance domains, shows English Language Arts, Math, and Science all declining and rated as only “Approaching” target levels. Graduation rates, while meeting targets, are not improving. The report also identifies twelve schools newly requiring state intervention due to persistently low performance.

But as state leaders push to consolidate over 100 school districts into roughly a dozen regional units by 2028, a fundamental disagreement has emerged about what actually drives student success. Is Vermont’s educational decline a governance problem requiring larger districts and centralized control? Or is it an instructional quality problem that consolidation won’t solve?

As Secretary of Education Zoie Saunders has argued, public education functions as “the pathway out of poverty and the engine that fuels our economy.” The question facing Vermont taxpayers is whether the state’s proposed reforms will strengthen that pathway—or whether they’re treating symptoms rather than causes.

Vermont’s Declining National Standing: The Numbers

Twenty years ago, Vermont was a national leader in student achievement. That’s no longer true.

The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—often called “The Nation’s Report Card”—shows Vermont 4th graders’ average reading score dropped from 229 in 2002 to 216 in 2024. For the first time in over two decades, Vermont’s 4th-grade reading performance is no better than the national average.

Vermont 8th graders now score 261 in reading (down from 272 in 2002) and 276 in mathematics. Meanwhile, states with fewer resources like Mississippi and Louisiana have made significant gains, narrowing or reversing historical gaps with Vermont.

Why Affluence Hides the Problem

State education officials acknowledge that Vermont’s relative wealth has masked deeper failures. While average scores look respectable, when researchers adjust for family income, Vermont performs worse than nearly every other state in 4th-grade reading. Translation: Vermont has been less successful than most states at helping economically disadvantaged students succeed.

On Vermont’s own assessments, the 2024-2025 results show a system that’s plateaued rather than recovering from pandemic learning loss. Particularly troubling: student growth scores drop most sharply between 8th and 9th grade, suggesting middle schools aren’t adequately preparing students for high school.

Only 65% of Vermont graduates enroll in college or career training within 16 months of graduation—well below the state’s 75% goal.

The Consolidation Push: From 119 Districts to 12

The state’s answer to these challenges is Act 73, which mandates consolidating Vermont’s current 119 school districts into approximately a dozen regional units serving 4,000 to 8,000 students each. The law emerged after voters rejected a record number of school budgets in 2024.

The theory: larger districts will be more efficient, reduce administrative costs, provide better programs, and help control property taxes.

The Task Force Controversy

A state-appointed task force has spent months trying to draw new district boundaries, but the process has been contentious. Task force members Kim Gleason and Dr. Jay Badams said proposed maps maintained inequitable access to private schools and lacked evidence that forced mergers would save money. Governor Scott criticized the panel for insufficient boldness.

Local Resistance

School boards, superintendents, and teachers are pushing back hard. A September 2025 Vermont School Boards Association survey found 97% of boards had discussed redistricting, with overwhelming concerns about losing local control and community identity. Board members cited significant distrust from past forced mergers under Act 46 and feared larger districts would make students “just numbers.”

Notably, those same board chairs identified housing shortages—not governance structures—as the biggest barrier to stable enrollment and teacher recruitment. Yet housing receives minimal attention in the consolidation debate.

The Tax Question: What’s Really Driving Increases?

The Scott Administration frames projected property tax increases as a crisis that consolidation will solve. But the Burlington School Board argues the math doesn’t support that narrative.

According to Burlington’s analysis, only 6% of projected tax increases stem from local school spending decisions. The real drivers:

• Healthcare premium spikes (up to 25% in some districts)

• Loss of federal pandemic relief funds

• New state-mandated programs like the childcare payroll tax

These are state-level cost drivers that consolidating districts won’t address. Critics argue the Administration is using tax concerns to justify removing local budget control without demonstrating consolidation will actually reduce costs.

Two Funding Systems Colliding

Vermont taxpayers are caught between two major education funding reforms happening simultaneously.

Act 127: Shifting Money to High-Need Students

Implemented this school year, Act 127 changed how the state distributes money, sending more resources to students in poverty, English learners, and those in small rural schools. While this improves equity, it created immediate pain for some districts.

Addison Central School District lost 12% of its state funding, forcing staff cuts and property tax increases. The state provided temporary relief, but these districts must eventually reduce spending to match new funding levels.

Act 73: The State Takes Control

Act 73 proposes replacing the entire current system with a “foundation formula” by 2028. Under this model, the state gives each district a set amount per student. Districts could spend more with voter approval, but that extra spending would be capped at 20% initially, dropping to 10% over time.

Critics say this flips the script: from a system where 94% of decisions were local to one where 90% are made by the state. There are also concerns that if the state sets the “foundation” amount too low, it will force districts to cut programs or rely heavily on supplemental spending—the very thing being limited.

Special Education: A Window Into Bigger Problems

A September 2025 special education report reveals how Vermont’s approach to struggling students reflects broader educational quality issues.

Vermont serves about 18% of students through special education (slightly above the national average). But the state shows a distinctive pattern: Vermont is highly inclusive for most special education students but sends kids to separate schools at double the national rate when needs are more complex.

This “Missing Middle” suggests local districts lack the specialized staffing and programs to support students who need more than inclusion but less than separate placement. The costs are significant: extraordinary cost reimbursements represent roughly 10% of total special education spending but account for about 50% of recent spending growth.

The Classroom Connection

The report’s most important finding: Vermont relies too heavily on paraeducators (non-certified support staff) rather than highly trained teachers. Many students with special needs sit in regular classrooms but primarily work with paraeducators, not certified teachers.

The report concludes that “inclusion alone is not enough”—it only works when the quality of regular classroom instruction is strong. This points to a core tension: maybe the problem isn’t district size, but what’s actually happening in classrooms every day.

The Literacy Response: Science-Based Reading Instruction

Responding to reading score declines, the state launched “Read Vermont,” a major initiative based on scientific research about how children learn to read.

The program requires:

• Screening all K-3 students three times yearly for reading difficulties

• Evidence-based foundational reading instruction in all elementary schools

• Mandatory professional training for K-3 teachers (started October 2024)

• Parent notification when students fall behind

Act 72 extended this approach to struggling readers in grades 4-12, recognizing the literacy crisis isn’t just an early childhood problem. Current data shows 64% of Vermont 4th graders and 69% of 8th graders aren’t proficient readers.

The initiative’s success depends on adequate support for teachers implementing new methods. Questions remain about whether districts receive promised coaching or whether this becomes another unfunded mandate.

Questions Vermont Taxpayers Should Ask

As consolidation plans move forward and the 2026 legislative session begins, several critical questions deserve answers:

Will Larger Districts Actually Improve Learning?

Research on district size and student achievement is mixed at best. There’s no clear evidence that forcing 12 mega-districts will improve test scores or close achievement gaps.

Ask your legislators: What specific programs will be added to my local school through consolidation? What evidence shows district size—rather than teacher quality and classroom instruction—drives student success?

Will Consolidation Actually Lower Property Taxes?

If the main tax drivers are healthcare costs, lost federal funding, and state-mandated programs, consolidation may not deliver promised savings.

Ask your legislators: How much of my school board’s budget represents genuine inefficiency versus costs beyond local control? Will the foundation formula reduce my tax bill or just shift who makes spending decisions?

What About What Happens in Classrooms?

Both the special education report and literacy initiative point to classroom instruction quality as the key factor in student outcomes. Governance debates may distract from harder work improving teaching.

Ask your legislators: How will redistricting improve daily instruction? Are we investing adequately in teacher training and literacy coaching? What happens to Read Vermont and special education capacity-building during governance upheaval?

What Happens to Local Voice?

Past consolidations under Act 46 created community tensions and reduced local participation. Larger districts mean fewer board seats per capita and more distance between decision-makers and families.

Ask your legislators: How will regional districts preserve meaningful community input? How will rural communities ensure their needs aren’t dominated by population centers?

What Happens Next

The timeline is aggressive:

By End of January 2026: The legislature must decide on a process for enacting redistricting maps if the task force doesn’t produce a consensus plan.

By 2028: Full transition to the foundation formula and new regional districts.

Between now and then:

• The legislature will debate whether to adopt, modify, or reject proposed district maps

• The state must establish the per-pupil “foundation” funding amount

• Read Vermont enters its second year of required teacher training

• Special education capacity-building continues regardless of district configuration

• Local boards and communities will continue advocating through the legislative process and annual budget votes

The Core Choice

Vermont’s education challenges are real. Declining test scores, rising costs, and persistent achievement gaps demand serious response. The debate centers on diagnosis: is this primarily a governance problem or an instructional quality problem?

Secretary Saunders’ framing—that public education serves as the pathway out of poverty and the engine of Vermont’s economy—suggests the stakes transcend property tax rates or administrative charts. The question is whether Vermont’s transformation will strengthen that pathway through evidence-based teaching improvements and equitable resources, or whether consolidation focuses on structure while the real problems persist in classrooms.

The newly released Annual Snapshot provides data that can support different interpretations depending on which variables you consider most important. As this transformation unfolds over the next two years, Vermont taxpayers should look beyond “crisis” rhetoric to examine evidence about what actually improves student learning.

The decisions made now will shape educational opportunities for Vermont children for decades.

---

Compass Vermont will continue following developments in school redistricting, funding reform, and instructional improvement as the 2026 legislative session progresses.