Scott’s ed plan gets pushback at Future of Ed Commission meeting

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2025 Telegraph Publishing LLC

Zoie Saunders has had some bumpy days since moving to Vermont from Florida to take over the state’s Agency of Education. And Monday will go down as yet another one.

During meetings of the State Board of Education and the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont, members of those boards and members of the public pushed back — at times sharply — on aspects of the Scott administration’s proposal to radically transform Vermont’s education system.

The governor’s plan would be a major shift in how education is accomplished in Vermont by changing the funding formula, consolidating the state’s 119 school districts and 52 supervisory unions into five school districts and putting much of the decision-making now done at a local level in the hands of the Agency of Education.

The Vermont Board of Education’s regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 19, but Monday the commission was meeting especially to hear the administration’s proposal and also to decide whether to establish a committee on legislation. (The Telegraph will have another article on that meeting in the next day or so. For now, we’re continuing to concentrate on the commission.)

The commission meeting was to concentrate on establishing a work plan for the rest of its existence — it’s scheduled to end in December — and to hear a presentation from the newly hired engagement consultant, Afton Partners of Evanston, Ill.

Before the work got started however, two people made the following comments.

David Schoals of Brattleboro challenged the validity of the “Listen and Learn” data collected by Saunders and the AOE in a tour around the state. That information has been cited as part of the basis for the administration’s education proposal.

Schoals said that the view of the education system “falls far short of an accurate view of how Vermonters feel, or what they want from their schools.” He called the samples of feedback “tiny” and asserted that many of the respondents have a “deep stake” in keeping the system in a way that supports them and that students who responded in such sessions were “hand-picked by principals.”

“Teachers and staff overwhelmingly do not feel safe confiding their concerns in a public meeting,” said Schoals, who went on to read quotes from teachers expressing their frustration with the number of children in need of help and roles that teachers must fill — social worker, mental health worker — that take them away from teaching. He said that teaching no longer seems like a desirable job to have and that many are leaving the profession.

Schoals encouraged the commission to go much deeper with its consultant “than the agency did.” He suggested using a survey to ask the same set of questions to every student and teacher in the state and to “use valid samples.”

Graham Rae of Derby said that Vermont “has relied on out-of-staters to come in and tell us what to do.” “This is  a state with a lot of bright, hardworking people who are working on the solutions,” said Rae. He then spoke directly to Saunders: “You’ve never taught at one school, you’ve never been a principal or superintendent. You do not have the support of the state legislature. What gives you the right to come here and present an educational plan which makes no sense when you consider the demographics and geography of this state?”

“Five districts don’t work,” Rae concluded.

It was not just those speaking during public comment who were pushing back on Gov. Phil Scott’s proposal. Commission member John Castle of Vermont Rural Education Collaborative, said he saw the plan as unworkable, and believed there was an unspoken agenda behind it. “I worry that it is part of a state agenda to further discredit, de-fund and dismantle public education to increase toward its privatization,” said Castle.

“It may not be implicit in this plan, but if you look at national models, it is clearly following that model,” Castle said adding that  the commission needs to “continue to move forward, listening to” educators and administrators, “listening to our public and coming up with reasonable solutions that are going to support efficient, economic and equitable education for our children.”

In the face of such criticism, Saunders said that the proposal had come with a call to action — to collaborate. She called it a partnership and said they must work together. Saunders said that this situation is not “the administration vs. the commission” and that they need to talk like they are collaborating.

Castle responded that he felt he had to reinforce the concept of the commission’s independence from the AOE.

“We do work in collaboration with the agency and we rely on it for data and support … however I worry about being co-opted by the administration,” said Castle pointing to the previous meeting that he said was dominated by the AOE. He also suggested that now there is a proposal from the administration whether there is a perceived conflict of interest in its participation in the commission.

While members discussed what areas they should focus on given the short time they have to work on them, commission member Oliver Olsen suggested that the group takes a long view to focus on what they can accomplish.

Engagement consultant trips while coming on board

The long search and contracting process to find a PR consultant brought Afton Partners to the table. Representatives presented a slideshow on how Afton intends to get up to speed to help the commission get the word out about what it is doing. This  included monthly press releases and identifying “key reporters who are trusted.”  The goal is to help the commission craft and disseminate a message that will reach a wide and diverse audience.

In asking for ideas on this, the group hit a major snag that could have cost money for those attending remotely. As a tool to offer people a way to get their ideas seen by the commission, an Afton representative showed a slide with a QR code that was supposed to take users to a collaboration app called Padlet. Several attempts by The Telegraph gave the same results: A blank screen with the “Commission on the Future of Vermont Public Education” at the top and, at the very bottom, a “Start” or “Continue” button for that is in reality a Google ad. The button on one occasion yielded a request for credit card information to begin a free trial for a sports app.

The link to Padlet remained broken as of Tuesday night.

The Telegraph attempted to call Afton, but could not find a working phone number. After filling out a contact form on Afton’s website, The Telegraph received an email asking us to confirm that we want to subscribe to the Afton newsletter. We replied that we were looking for a comment from the company, but at publication time, no response has been received.

Public engagement sessions far between; Tax commish leaves board

Commission member and state Rep. Peter Conlon said that while the Northeast Kingdom has often felt ignored, there are towns in rural southern Vermont that also feel left out of the conversation.

That was evident in the calendar published recently by the AOE for commission meetings that would also include public engagement sessions. It was noteworthy in light of Conlon’s comment that the engagement session for Windsor and Windham counties are in White River Junction and Whitingham respectively. These are extreme corners of each county and long drives from the rural communities in southern Windsor and northern Windham counties.

It may be a reaction to the extra workload of tax season and the legislative session, but the departure of Tax Commissioner Craig Bolio from the commission is likely to be seen as a sign of the administration dismissing the value of its work. Bolio assigned Deputy Commissioner Rebecca Sameroff to pinch hit for him.