When the House Education Committee called its first outside witnesses to testify on a major school reform bill in March, the Vermont Superintendents Association was ready to make the most of the moment. The group represents more than 80 education leaders, some of whom could lose their jobs under the school district consolidation proposed by Republican Gov. Phil Scott. The association is one of the most influential lobbies for public education in Vermont.
Three of its representatives sat down before the committee and methodically walked through an alternative plan — one they depicted as a sounder approach to transforming how Vermont governs and finances its education system.
The plan they described was the result of weeks of behind-the-scenes advocacy. Some of the state’s most influential education lobbying groups had joined forces to push back against the administration’s proposal.
Less than a month later, the Vermont House passed a rewritten version of Scott’s proposal — a plan that included many of the changes these lobbying groups advocated.
Education reform, the single biggest issue facing lawmakers this year, offers a window into the perennial influence that lobbyists hold over bills passed in Vermont’s Statehouse. This year, consistent, coordinated advocacy work — both in the public eye and behind the scenes — has built trust and access among key legislators who have, in turn, reshaped the proposed education reforms that are poised to affect every property taxpayer in the state.
The lobbyists’ work also serves as a reminder that these advocates don’t all work for moneyed interests and out-of-state businesses but rather reflect the differing views and interests of grassroots Vermonters.
The multimillion-dollar question before the legislature this session is whose vision of education transformation will prevail. Will it be the sweeping, fast-moving plan proposed by the Scott administration or the more moderate transformation option with a slower implementation timeline favored by the superintendents association and many public school advocates?
Will treasured, small rural schools be forced to close? And how will independent schools, which serve students from communities that lack their own high schools, fare under the changes? Though privately governed, these schools, including Burr & Burton Academy in Manchester and St. Johnsbury Academy, rely heavily on the public education dollars that follow the students to their doors.
There are no definitive answers yet, with several weeks to go in the legislative session. A Senate bill that builds on the House proposal is still taking shape. Before the General Assembly disperses for the summer, not only must the House and Senate reconcile their differences, but Scott and the Democratic-controlled legislature must also reach a compromise on the bill if it is to become law — a goal all parties share.
As differing versions of reform are debated, education lobbyists are competing busily for votes on an issue that rarely falls along partisan lines. Using both public testimony and behind-the-scenes relationships with lawmakers — via text message and in private meetings — lobbyists are making their cases: on behalf of rural schools, independent schools, superintendents, teachers, school boards and others with a vested interest in the future of Vermont education.
Lobbyists are a constant presence under the Statehouse’s golden dome. The more than 500 people registered to lobby outnumber state legislators by nearly three to one.
By and large, they are a respected group of experts who add much-needed bandwidth to an institution facing critical, complex issues. As they seek to influence a legislature with few employees, they are rarely more than a few feet away and ready to assist legislators however they can, whether that be fielding a question at 6 a.m. or drafting the language for a bill.
Testimony to committees is a good way to make public statements, said Don Tinney, a lobbyist and president of the Vermont National Education Association. Often, more nuanced, influential conversations take place privately.
“I don’t want to give anybody the idea it’s the days of the smoke-filled rooms and all of that,” Tinney said. “But it’s important to have one-on-one conversations.”
Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (D-Brattleboro), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said advocates help with minor questions that do not demand the time or expertise of the Statehouse’s Legislative Counsel or Joint Fiscal offices, which are often stretched thin during the session. In one recent exchange, she texted the executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association to find out how many collective bargaining agreements there are in Vermont; she said she was able to get an answer back within a few hours.
“Advocates can provide a much-needed service to an understaffed citizen legislature because they’ve organized the people in the field who have the real expertise and, more importantly, the real experience,” said Rep. Peter Conlon (D-Cornwall), chair of the House Education Committee, which has devoted much of its efforts this session to education governance reform.
As chair, Conlon is largely in charge of who testifies before the committee. Witnesses often include the legislature’s lawyers and fiscal experts — some of the few professional staff available to assist lawmakers — who provide nonpartisan guidance. But committees also call on advocates and lobbyists, many of whom are paid by special interest groups to further a certain point of view.
When it comes to schools, three organizations — the Vermont Principals’ Association, the Vermont Superintendents Association and the Vermont School Boards Association — have such an outsize presence that they have earned a nickname: “the Vs.” While they are far from the most monied lobbying associations in Montpelier, they have led the most effective effort to counter the Scott administration’s plan.
As the administration began discussing potential education reform, the groups voiced concern that the conversation did not focus on the factors driving up the costs of education — especially health care premiums for school employees, which have increased by more than 65 percent since 2020.
Last spring, Vermonters revolted against double-digit property tax increases by rejecting budgets for nearly a third of the state’s school districts. A wave of Republicans flipped House and Senate seats in November, costing Democrats their supermajority. The message was clear: Voters wanted change.
Education Secretary Zoie Saunders presented the administration’s school transformation plan to the General Assembly in late January. She outlined reforms that would establish a single statewide property tax and consolidate 119 existing school districts into five regional ones. The plan would establish a “foundation formula,” a system common in other states that would give more power to the state — and less to local taxpayers — to determine how much money school districts receive. The plan would also expand school choice and set new rules around class size minimums. The changes were immense, but there was little fine print.
“A lot of detail wasn’t coming from the Statehouse out to the public,” said Rep. Chris Taylor (R-Milton), vice chair of the House Education Committee and an original cosponsor of the House bill.
As anxieties mounted about potential school closures, especially in rural areas with smaller schools, a new advocacy group formed to channel that energy into grassroots organizing power: the Rural School Community Alliance. The group quickly gained traction in the Statehouse.
“They absolutely did a great job of making sure that voice was heard and making sure they got in front of the committee or committee members,” Taylor said.
The Rural School Community Alliance caught the attention of legislators in both chambers, who praised the group for its rigorous data and helpful testimony. But long-standing advocacy groups such as the Vs had the advantage of having laid their organizational groundwork years ago, sparing them from having to build an organization from the ground up while proposing policy.
By late winter, the superintendents association was the first among the Vs to develop an alternative timeline and framework to counter elements of the administration’s plan. The Vs eventually adopted this as a shared platform.
While the groups agreed that consolidation could make schools more affordable, they worried that the five-district proposal would lead to school closures, staffing loss, longer bus rides for students and a loss of local control. Instead, they proposed that the legislature establish a working group that would identify new districts, the number of which would be determined, and push this restructuring off until July 2029.
The Vs’ opposition extended to other aspects of the administration’s proposal, such as making every student eligible for school choice through a lottery system, which would expand parents’ ability to use tax dollars to send their children to a public or approved independent school of their choice, such as Vermont’s regional academies. The associations also proposed smaller class size minimums for certain grades and recommended that the State Board of Education retain its rulemaking authority, which the governor’s plan proposed transferring to the executive branch’s Agency of Education.
Vermont School Boards Association president Flor Diaz Smith said the decision to back the superintendents association’s plan was fraught among some of her members. But not participating would have left them out of the conversation and unable to influence the outcome.
“We felt like if we can all be together on this, it’s going to be more powerful than if it’s just all of us divided,” Diaz Smith said.
The advocacy of the Vs occurred in front of the committee, in side conversations, over text messages, in subtle nods to legislators during committee meetings, through outreach to their respective members in email alerts and beyond. The associations communicated closely with their respective members and House leaders, Conlon in particular.
“You bring in people with more information than you have, you listen to all of it, and then you make what you feel is the appropriate decision.” Rep. Peter Conlon
Conlon’s committee heard from the superintendents association and its members repeatedly during the session, as well as from a range of education advocates and experts.
“You bring in people with more information than you have, you listen to all of it, and then you make what you feel is the appropriate decision,” Conlon said.
Taylor, the vice chair of the House Education Committee, said Conlon always sought input on who should testify. Taylor still felt that the committee would have benefited from hearing more from the Agency of Education, which could have addressed aspects of the administration’s original proposal.
“It did seem at times like there was a certain way that the bill was being steered with testimony,” Taylor said.
Sometimes, who is not publicly involved can be just as telling as who is.
The Vermont Independent Schools Association, the primary advocacy group for academies and nonprofit independent schools, was largely absent from Conlon’s and Kornheiser’s committees, aside from providing brief testimony to the House Education Committee on a minor aspect of the bill relating to therapeutic independent schools. Oliver Olsen, a former legislator and current lobbyist for the association, declined to comment when reached by Seven Days.
Taylor, vice chair of House Education, said the association should have had more of a voice in the committee room.
“When you’re doing something as big as education, every voice should be heard, whether it’s a voice that’s a popular voice or not,” Taylor said.
Olsen appears to have chosen to focus his efforts on the Senate Education Committee, where the association was likely to receive a friendlier reception with committee chair Sen. Seth Bongartz (D-Bennington), a defender of independent schools and former board chair of Burr & Burton.
The Vs, meantime, remained closely engaged as the bill made its way out of House Education and through the Ways and Means Committee, which addressed the proposed changes to education finance.
The bill faced a fractious debate on the House floor in mid-April, when members of both parties voiced their concerns about potential rural school closures and resulting longer school bus commutes. It ultimately passed 87-55 on a vote that divided both Democrats and Republicans.
“Education is a different topic than budgets and other things,” Conlon said. “It does not split along party lines. It splits along lines that are impossible to define.”
And while the language in the House bill was not taken directly from the superintendents association, it reflected the draft favored by the Vs. Diaz Smith said the groups played a “critical role” in shaping the House bill. She pointed to the school district study group, revised class minimum requirements and curtailed tuitioning as just a few wins that their advocacy efforts helped make possible.
Now, the bill is before the Senate, where an entirely new set of committee chairs and legislators are reviewing the House’s work and calling on witnesses. The Senate’s plan is shaping up to be markedly different.
Last week, the Senate Education Committee modified the House bill to increase the number of independent schools that would be eligible for public dollars by lowering a key threshold schools must meet to receive taxpayer funding. Senate Education changed the requirement for schools to have 51 percent or more publicly funded students, as outlined by the governor’s proposal, to 25 percent or more publicly funded students.
The committee also stripped class size minimums outlined in the House bill that would have applied to both public and independent schools.
In the past few days, the committee also heard testimony from the Vs, the Agency of Education, and a group of more than 20 students who came to the Statehouse from public and private schools across the state to share their thoughts on the proposed reforms. Bongartz said he will be working to bring in every perspective he can.
As senators finalize their bill and lawmakers try to hammer out a compromise next month to send to Gov. Scott, some interests and points of view will not make it into the final bill. With so much yet to be resolved, the real flurry of lobbying may have only just begun.
The original print version of this article was headlined “The Learning Lobby | As Vermont’s leaders seek to transform education, academies, rural schools and employees all are pressing to be heard”
Related Stories
Vermont’s Independent Schools Discussed at Length in Ed Reform
This article appears in Apr 30 – May 6, 2025.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!