Education Reform Must Start Where Costs Are Growing

The following is from Cavendish resident Denise Hughes

As Vermont debates education reform under Act 73, communities face tough questions about school size, consolidation, and sustainability. These are conversations that demand honesty, transparency, and a clear understanding of what drives costs.

In the Two-Rivers Supervisory Union, recent budget data across multiple fiscal years tells a consistent story: school-level budgets have remained relatively constrained, while overall education costs have risen sharply. The primary driver is not classrooms or instructional programs, but central office and district-level costs that are not directly voted on by local communities.

From FY23 to FY26, GMUSD and LMHUSD budgets rose over 30%, while non-tax revenues fell 36%, widening the taxpayer gap. FY26 shows the sharpest budget hike and revenue drop.

At the school level, spending patterns are mixed but largely explainable, reflecting enrollment changes, special education needs, and staffing realities. Central Office costs dominate. In GMUSD, they equal half of school spending; in LMHUSD it’s 1.6 times school operating costs.

This disparity cannot be explained as simply inefficiency at the school level. It reflects how supervisory union costs are structured and allocated, particularly disadvantaging small two-district model within it that lack economies of scale. When viewed holistically, these allocation methods make our small districts appear “expensive” when, in fact, the underlying issue is structural – specifically at the Central Office level. In FY26, TRSU central office personnel costs, especially benefits, rose roughly 25%, far outpacing salaries growth. This unexplained trend raises questions about sustainability.

Act 73 is often framed as a mandate to close or merge schools. But focusing reform solely on school buildings risks missing the core objectives of the reform intent. Focusing on the closing of a school does not automatically reduce superintendent costs, business office expenses, special education coordination, compliance staffing, or governance overhead. Those costs tend to persist, being absorbed and redistributed across the districts and with possibly fewer students.

Concentrating on school closures won’t deliver savings, yet this is the Superintendent’s approach, consuming public meetings without clear outcomes. Without corresponding reductions in central administration, closures can increase per-pupil costs while eroding trust and destabilizing our communities.

True reform must begin where growth is occurring.

A “central office first” approach does not oppose Act 73, it strengthens it. Before recommending school closures or mergers, TRSU should be required to present a clear, time-bound plan showing how administrative staffing, benefits, and governance will scale proportionally with consolidation. The elected board members should be demanding this approach. If schools within TRSU are being asked to change, TRSU Central Office administration must change as well.

Reform should also distinguish compliance from leadership. Waiting for state-imposed solutions risk harsher outcomes and less local control. I cannot support the Superintendent’s “wait for the state.” School boards that act proactively, with transparency and intention, preserve more agency and public trust. Now is the time to be true leaders for our education community.

Equity matters. Cost allocation methods should be reviewed so smaller districts aren’t unfairly burdened by centralized costs beyond their control. Without this acknowledgment, the current approach of the Superintendent risks deepening divisions rather than resolving them.

This ask is not anti-reform. It is not anti-administration. And it certainly is not anti-education. This is a simple request for structural honesty: an approach in our district region where costs align with classrooms, where savings are real and verifiable, and where reform improves outcomes rather than displacing costs.

Vermonters want lasting reform that prioritizes students and quality, and so should we. For that reform to take hold, it must start upstream, where costs are growing, accountability is opaque, and public visibility is lowest. This is where real reform begins.

-Denise Reilly-Hughes

Cavendish resident

Former CTES School Board Member

Parent to 4 students