Vermont’s school district landscape continues to evolve as new regional structures take shape and communities consider potential consolidation. Our Government Affairs Group provides a weekly update on the latest developments and what they may mean for Vermont schools and communities.
Vermont School Consolidation: What’s Happening Now
Update through September 21, 2026
Vermont’s Act 170 process took a significant turn this week. The original legislative merger map has already been redrawn: 119 school districts are now assigned to 18 merger-study committees rather than the 20 contemplated in Act 170, after 13 districts asked to change groups. Meanwhile, the State Board has begun engaging more directly with Act 170, and the Agency of Education has imposed a new superintendent-hiring restriction explicitly tied to the coming consolidation process.
The merger map has officially changed
This is the biggest development since last week.
The Vermont Learning Collaborative (VTLC) released revised merger-study assignments on September 18. Thirteen districts requested reassignment, and the facilitators granted those requests while also making additional adjustments needed to keep groups at or near Act 170’s approximately 2,000-student threshold.
Districts have until September 23 to comment on the revised assignments, and VTLC intends to finalize the merger groups by September 25. First meetings remain due by October 15
VTDigger: School districts assigned to new merger discussion groups
Harwood’s request was granted
One of the most visible reassignment requests came from Harwood, which last week voted to leave its Central Vermont grouping and seek discussions with Mount Mansfield and Champlain Valley.
The revised assignments accommodate that request. VTLC’s general approach, according to Lead Facilitator David Younce, has been to approve district requests unless they conflict with Act 170’s statutory requirements.
Milton is asking the public which merger partners it prefers
Another interesting development comes from Milton.
On September 18, the Milton Town School District launched a public Act 170 Merger Preference Survey. Milton is currently grouped with Colchester and Grand Isle but is explicitly asking residents whether the district should request placement elsewhere before the groupings become final.
Milton School District: Act 170 Merger Preference Survey
This is one of the first examples we’ve found of a district using a direct community survey to help determine who it should explore merging with. That could become a useful model for other districts facing competing geographic or educational relationships.
“Good faith” guidance is finally coming
The undefined requirement that districts participate in merger discussions “in good faith” remains unresolved, but we now have a timetable.
Younce says he is working with attorneys and state officials on a statewide standard and intends to issue public good-faith guidance by the end of September. That is important because a bad-faith determination can have financial consequences for a district.
Districts should make sure the new guidance will establish objective criteria, issue notice before a bad-faith finding, provide an opportunity to cure, and have some mechanism for review.
Another unanswered question: proportional representation
A second statutory ambiguity has now surfaced. Act 170 requires representation on merger committees to be proportional to district enrollment but does not specify exactly how that proportionality should work. Younce says committees will initially begin with one representative from each district and then determine their own approach.
Two likely models are emerging: multiple representatives based upon district enrollment, or one representative per district with votes weighted according to enrollment.
This could become more consequential than it sounds. A committee containing one large district and several small districts could produce very different political dynamics depending upon which model it chooses.
AOE has intervened in superintendent hiring
A surprisingly significant Act 170 development occurred outside the merger committees themselves
Secretary of Education Zoie Saunders has directed districts filling superintendent vacancies to use only one-year interim contracts, citing the uncertainty created by Act 170 consolidation.
Her reasoning is practical: when districts merge, the newly formed district assumes existing contracts. A multi-year superintendent contract could therefore leave a new merged district obligated to pay one or more years of salary after eliminating a superintendent position.
VTDigger: State restricts new superintendent hires to one year
But this raises another policy question: how much authority does AOE have to restrict locally negotiated superintendent contracts in anticipation of mergers that voters have not yet approved?
It also creates a practical problem. Districts may find it harder to recruit strong superintendent candidates when they can offer only one-year interim employment during a period of unusually difficult organizational change.
State Board now has Act 170 directly on its agenda
This is another change from previous weeks.
At its September 16 meeting, the State Board received an Act 170 Quality Framework presentation.
AOE: Act 170 Quality Framework presentation
The Board also received the Orange County Supervisory Union One Board Consolidation Research Report, providing a real-world consolidation case study alongside the statewide Act 170 discussion.
AOE: OCSU One Board Consolidation Research Report
The State Board ultimately has an important role in reviewing merger proposals. We are now beginning to see consolidation move from an occasional State Board agenda item into the Board’s substantive policy work.
Southwest CESA continues meeting
The Southwest Vermont CESA held another board meeting on September 18, and PEGTV has posted the meeting in its school-board archive.
PEGTV school-board and Southwest Vermont CESA meetings
The fact that the CESA has moved from its August organizational meeting to another September meeting is encouraging. It is now worth watching for the first concrete decisions involving executive-director hiring, budgets, member assessments and which services will actually migrate into the CESA.
Otter Valley is putting community engagement ahead of the committee
Rutland Northeast announced two Act 170 community working sessions for September 22 at Otter Valley Union Middle and High School.
Residents will review potential options, identify concerns and contribute ideas about how the district should approach Act 170. A virtual option is also available, with later community readouts planned.
Otter Valley: Act 170 Working Group Sessions
Combined with Milton’s survey, this suggests a potentially important trend: some boards are trying to establish community priorities before formal merger negotiations begin rather than waiting until a merger proposal is already taking shape.
Construction aid remains less certain than it sometimes sounds
AOE’s current construction guidance contains an important caution.
Act 170 expresses legislative intent for up to $50 million annually in additional bonding capacity and substantially enhanced construction assistance for projects aligned with governance consolidation. But the Legislature has not yet selected a funding source or appropriated money for the School Construction Aid Special Fund.
AOE: State Aid for School Construction
AOE also notes that rulemaking is not due until March 1, 2028, immediately before voters consider merger proposals.
So we should all be cautious whenever construction assistance is described locally as guaranteed. The incentive exists in statute, but the money itself still depends on future legislative action.
The next deadlines
| Date | Milestone |
| Sept. 23, 2026 | Boards’ comments on revised merger groups due |
| Sept. 25, 2026 | VTLC target for final merger groupings |
| By end of September | Younce expects statewide “good faith” guidance |
| Oct. 15, 2026 | All merger-study committees must hold first meetings |
| Feb. 1, 2027 | Facilitator progress report |
| Sept. 1, 2027 | Merger committees submit final reports |
| Dec. 15, 2027 | State Board findings on merger proposals |
| March 2028 | Voters consider proposed mergers |
Red flags
The process is changing quickly. District representatives were due September 15. Three days later the state had an entirely new merger map, with only five days for boards to respond and one week before final assignments.
Critical rules are being written after participation has begun. Boards have already appointed representatives, yet the definition of “good faith” and the method for proportional representation are still being developed.
The facilitator role is becoming surprisingly powerful. Act 170 left important ambiguities unresolved, and Younce says conversations with state officials indicate that undefined portions of the law are largely being left to facilitators to interpret.
Superintendent instability could become an unintended consequence. One-year-only contracts may protect future merged districts from legacy employment obligations, but they could also create leadership churn precisely when districts need experienced management.
Construction incentives remain contingent. Communities could make major governance and facilities decisions partly in anticipation of state construction assistance that has not yet been funded.
Open questions
The questions we will carry into next week’s update are now specific:
- What will the final September 25 merger map look like?
- Will additional districts object before September 23?
- What definition of “good faith” will Younce adopt?
- Who reviews or appeals a facilitator’s bad-faith determination?
- Will committees use weighted voting or proportional membership?
- Did every one of Vermont’s 119 districts actually appoint its required representative by September 15?
- How will the one-year superintendent-contract policy affect recruiting and existing searches?
- What did the State Board conclude from its Act 170 Quality Framework discussion?
- When will CESAs begin publishing actual budgets, staffing plans and anticipated savings?
