Members of the White River Valley Supervisory Union Board have written a letter to the Vermont School Boards Association (VSBA) and Vermont Superintendents Association (VSA).

The letter outlines the board’s grave concern about the lack of leadership on the part of the VSA and VSBA both to adequately represent the supervisory union structure and to advocate for rural schools.

Dear VSA and VSBA Leadership:

We are writing to once again express the grave concerns noted in our correspondence of Feb. 21, in which we shared our apprehension for your support of state policy that threatens the future of small rural schools while not addressing the cost drivers responsible for Vermont’s educational funding crisis.

Remarkably, the only feedback we received from VSA was an acknowledgment of receipt. The VSBA, in its response on March 3, noted that their position was “not an enthusiastic endorsement of the policy recommendation, but also not a full-throated opposition,” but allows VSBA to work with other industry groups to “develop solutions that genuinely address the needs of our schools, students, and communities.”

Given that response, we were shocked by the VSBA memo to its members of April 9 expressing enthusiastic support for H.454, which includes strict language setting class size minimums and a school district structure that lays the groundwork for the forced closure of our small rural schools without community involvement. As we have heard repeatedly in testimony over the past several weeks, installing large bureaucratic governance structures that close rural schools without addressing underlying cost drivers harms communities and repeats the mistakes of past legislation.

In short, we, along with many of our constituents and colleagues in other rural districts, remain deeply concerned about VSBA and VSA’s support for H.454, which will:

■Force more school mergers without community involvement

■ Eliminate local representation or advocacy for rural communities within larger merged mega-districts

■ Drive the closure of many elementary, middle, and high schools throughout the state.

■ Increase bus rides for our youngest elementary students, exceeding 75 minutes in each direction

■ Decrease student outcomes, and

■ Continue to increase property tax rates in struggling rural towns.

Any one of these outcomes is unacceptable, but to support legislation that encourages all of them calls your values and priorities into question. It is abundantly clear that you are not listening, or responding, to us. To repeat: in advocating for the dissolution of the supervisory union structure in favor of large school districts, you are directly supporting the governor’s approach to depersonalization of our schools and leaving decision-making in the hands of large population areas. Our recommendation has always been to speak to all superintendents and board members throughout the state to gather feedback on models that work.

In VSBA’s March response, you also wrote “We truly understand and respect your concerns, and we value your input as we move forward together.” Given this response, we remain confounded at how thoroughly the concerns of your constituents have been ignored.

Our February concerns remain the same. To repeat verbatim: We recommend the following when considering changes to our current system:

1. Data-driven reform including comprehensive district-level reporting on:

■Academic performance metrics

■ Financial metrics

■ Operational metrics

■ Systems of support

2. A simplified funding system with:

■ Research-based foundation amounts per district

■ Single statewide tax rate

■ Local control over additional spending with a ceiling to comply with the Brigham decision

■ CPI -based increases to prevent tax spikes

■ Considerations of funding mechanisms beyond property values

■ Required data sharing from all schools receiving public funds, including independent schools

■ End to out-of-state/international tuition payments (excluding interstate districts)

Vermonters are asking, simply, for tax relief. We do not understand why the Legislature, the administration, and now the industry organizations representing those of us working directly within communities, refuse to listen to them.

Furthermore, we are astounded that you continue to push this agenda while providing no evidence to support the notion that large consolidations will reduce costs. Once again we ask, where is the data?

Your position reflects a lack of understanding that we find shocking. H.454 is, at best, a watered-down compromise to the Governor’s plan. It does not “genuinely address the needs of our schools, students, and communities,” and, again, fails to address the very real funding issue.

We remain deeply troubled by the decision of VSBA and VSA to support legislation that does such a great disservice to Vermont’s schools, students, and communities. Again, we urge you to withdraw support for this policy and focus your efforts on the actual cost drivers.

Sincerely,

Kathy Galluzzo, Chair, First Branch Unified District, WRVSU Chair

Stacey Peters, Chair, Granville-Hancock Unified District, WRVSU Vice Chair

Will Davis, Chair, Sharon District

Amy Wildt, Chair, Rochester-Stockbridge Unified District

Eric Lopez, Vice Chair, Strafford District

Nancy Pejouhy, Chair, White River Unified District

Jamie Kinnarney, Superintendent of Schools

The White River Valley Supervisory Union comprises 10 towns, ranging from Strafford west to Granville, Vt.