Both the Vermont and New Hampshire legislatures have identified the high cost of public education as a major budget challenge in the coming year, and both view the consolidation of school districts as a viable solution based on statistical analyses. But given New England’s deep-seated tradition of local control, savings from consolidation is highly unlikely.

It is true that both New Hampshire and Vermont experience higher per pupil costs than other states. The most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics indicates that Vermont spent $28,600 per student, third highest in the nation behind New York and Washington DC. New Hampshire, spending $23,600 per student, ranked 9th in the nation. 

It is also true that both Vermont and New Hampshire have many more districts than other states. Both states are far below the national average of 2,578 students per district, with Vermont having 450 students per district and New Hampshire having 797.

If they had the same ratio of students-to-district as other States, Vermont would have 32 districts and New Hampshire would have 66. Reports in each state recommended an ever lower number of districts. 

Unfortunately, while achieving savings by economizing on administrative costs is appealing and relatively easy to promote politically, the real cost driver in state budgets is not students-per-district, but students-per-school, which ultimately drives the students-per-teacher.

When a state operates many small schools, they need to have more teachers to staff those schools and the cost of those additional teachers increases the state budget far more than the additional administrative overhead associated with operating more districts. 

Both Vermont and New Hampshire have smaller than average school sizes and, consequently, smaller than average pupils per teachers.

The national average of students per school is 498. Vermont averages 274 and New Hampshire averages 336. 

If Vermont had the same number of students-per-teacher as the national average, 2,502 fewer teachers would be needed.

If New Hampshire’s pupil teacher ratio matched the national average, the state would have 3,763 fewer teachers.

To do that, however, both states would need to close or consolidate several small schools, a highly charged political issue.    

Having worked as a consultant on school consolidation and collaboration grants in both states, I do not believe Vermont or New Hampshire taxpayers want to close their small elementary schools or their small high schools to save money.

Their schools are the focal point of community activities and have deep roots and strong sentimental value in the areas they serve. Given that local taxpayers are loathe to have bureaucrats in state capitols, county seats, or superintendent’s offices making decisions to close schools, legislators and policy makers should ask parents and community members how schools might operate differently. 

The existing 180-day-per-year, six-hour-per-day school structure for schools was put in place in the early 1900s when most children lived in two-parent families where the father worked and the mother remained at home. That operational structure is a mismatch for today’s world, where three out of five married-couple families with children under 18 are employed as are seven out of ten unmarried parents.

Because of this mismatch, parents face daunting child care costs and additional stress when a child, parent or extended family member is ill. If legislators asked parents what might help them most, I expect their list would include:

  • Offering full-time pre-school with flexible hours from birth to kindergarten
  • Allowing parents to drop off their school-age children early and pick them up later. 
  • Offering to quarantine and offer medical support to children who are ill 
  • Offering summer and school-break programs 
  • Providing on-site tutorial services, including music lessons and art classes

What if, instead of trying to force school consolidations onto communities that value local control, the states used existing schools to provide pre-school and after school programming?  

CNBC reports that the average cost for infant and pre-school childcare in Vermont is $18,836, and anywhere from $14,437 to $17,364 in New Hampshire. Given these figures, it’s no surprise that for most families where both parents work, child care is the single highest annual expense, exceeding housing, food, and health care costs. 

What if, instead of trying to force school consolidations, Vermont and New Hampshire promoted partnerships between schools and social service agencies and non-profit organizations who served children, partnerships that could consolidate and localize services in a way that assists the working parents in the district. 

Both Vermont and New Hampshire are experiencing a dearth of young families and the legislators in both states are trying to find ways to attract them.

Maybe subsidies for child care offered in the local school, medical and social services conveniently offered in the local school, and or expansive before and after school enrichment programs offered locally would help make Vermont and New Hampshire more affordable for families.

Those politicians who encourage schools to operate-like-a-business do so because they realize that successful businesses today operate differently than they did over a century ago. They used that logic to recommend changes to the organizational structure of the school district.

In the end, though, it may be that changes to the organizational framework of the school itself will bring more parents to their states and, in so doing, provide schools for the 21st century.