Vermont’s Education Secretary Zoie Saunders says the state is “really on the cusp of something very special,” as lawmakers gear up for what will be a critical legislative session in determining the future of public education reform.

In an interview with VTDigger, Saunders acknowledged the difficulties ahead. Act 73, a law passed this year, sets in motion generational change to how local education is governed and funded in Vermont.

A key part of that reform, however, depends on lawmakers agreeing on a plan to consolidate the state’s 119 school districts when the session begins in January. Without an agreed upon plan, the reform envisioned in Act 73 is uncertain.

Saunders urged lawmakers and residents of the state to “stay the course.”

“There’s no doubt that our lack of scale and our challenges with funding are creating obstacles for us to deliver on our statutory responsibility to our students of providing them a world class education,” she said.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

VTDigger: I’d like to start by just asking where we go from here. You and the governor both criticized the task force for failing to come up with a map that adheres to Act 73. Now we’re in this period of uncertainty without an agreed upon map. Is your office working on a map to put forward? 

Zoie Saunders: I think the characterization of being critical of the task force is really misapplied. The feedback was that the task force did not deliver on the charge, which was to put forward district maps. So, that does create additional work for the Legislature this session.

Act 73 always required the General Assembly to select the maps. The redistricting task force was created to provide an opportunity for the separate body to review and put forward recommendations, but that vote was always going to be the responsibility of the General Assembly. So, we’re moving into the legislative session without the Redistricting Task Force putting forward maps. That means the General Assembly will need to spend the time putting forward a map that they can vote on to move forward Act 73.

My role as the secretary of education is to provide input and subject matter expertise on the policy considerations. And ultimately, my role is implementing law established by the General Assembly. So, we have provided input all along the way, and really that input has built upon the educational priorities expressed by the General Assembly in law and has built upon the studies that the General Assembly has done.

VTD: How do you plan on being on the front foot come Jan. 6 when the legislative session starts? What role does the Agency of Education have in moving this forward?

ZS: I think it’s important to provide context to understand how Act 73 came into being, and the level of bipartisanship and data-driven decision making that has been part of this process all along the way.

So, if we recall, the General Assembly actually first commissioned a study to evaluate the need to move towards a more efficient system that would produce greater quality, and that was through the Picus and Odden study, using an evidence-based model. The leadership of the General Assembly asked the governor to bring forward a plan to help address the systemic issues in our education system and ensure that we could also bend the cost curve as we are delivering higher quality.

(The study) also evaluated the express priorities that have been codified into law over the last 15 years, but we have struggled to implement (them) well because of issues with scale and resourcing. Those included expanding access to pre-kindergarten, expanding access to career and technical education, providing wraparound support for students, ensuring that we could increase teacher pay, particularly in our rural and high-needs communities, where teachers are paid considerably less than their counterparts in more affluent parts of the state.

That resulted in Act 73, and the role that we played as an agency is the role that we continue to play. We are the subject matter experts in education matters statewide.

We consistently said throughout the process, you have to focus on funding, governance and quality together. That’s really what makes Act 73 different from any prior education reform efforts.

The singular focus on redistricting really belies the complexity and the intent of this law, which is saying we need to keep all those pieces together.

VTD: If lawmakers were to move forward with the task force’s proposal, does that present problems in implementing Act 73, given its emphasis on voluntary mergers?

ZS: The plan put forward by the task force does not represent anything new. Districts have always had the ability to voluntarily merge. Districts have always had the ability to share services.

In fact, the model that continues to be referenced for (Boards of Cooperative Educational Services) began prior to the BOCES law being established, because school boards within their current purview are able to establish shared resources and to enter into contracts collaboratively to deliver on the needs of their students.

So what’s put forward does not represent anything new, other than it provides some additional requirements to add another layer of complexity on top of the existing status quo. And what I mean by that is it’s adding another layer that they’re calling a cooperative education services area that would need to have additional staffing and another board, which creates an additional governance complexity, which is what we’re actually trying to avoid.

When we were contemplating the original proposal, we identified that larger districts are able to ensure that the dollars go further for students, that they can help to provide the specialized resources that are needed, and to realign funding in a way that is going to be in the best interest of student learning.

If you ask any superintendent or principal or educator in our state, they will share the challenges of providing educational quality because we don’t have scale. When we talk about moving towards statewide graduation requirements, which is part of Act 73, we are moving in that direction because we know that there is such great variability when it relates to educational rigor across our state. And that’s not to say we don’t have bright spots — there are great districts and schools and students that are achieving academically.

But what we’re talking about with Act 73 is that there is such tremendous variability and inconsistency, and because of that, we are not giving every student a fair shot to achieve academically and to pursue their passions and be ready for success after high school graduation.

So it’s really important that we think about scale in relation to delivering quality, to ensure that students gain access to those important inputs. I’m talking about access to academic courses, access to enrichment opportunities, access to after school clubs and sporting opportunities. It also means that they have access to a high quality teacher, and we know a part of that is dependent on teachers getting compensated at appropriate levels and getting the support that they need.

Scale is really critical when we talk about the ability to actually deliver on education quality objectives that are set forward within Act 73, and we’ve had a number of focus groups with students — what we hear students asking for is meaningful opportunities to deepen their learning.

It’s really profound that we’re hearing that pretty consistently from students across the state. 

VTD: Why does the foundation funding formula hinge on consolidation. Why can’t we apply that formula onto existing governance structures?

ZS: Our existing governance structures have great variability when we describe the number of students served, so that can be either from as small as 100 students to as large as 2,000 students. Each of those districts is required to deliver on some pretty onerous compliance requirements to operate a district and operate a school, and many of the expenses need to go to overseeing that.

And so when you think about the need for that level of administrative compliance, there’s great duplication across systems, and it also limits our smaller districts and having the resources to bring on content experts and reading coaches and curriculum experts who can really support with the design delivery and continuous improvement of teaching and learning.

There are opportunity costs that come with keeping our current system, and that results in short changing our smaller districts by not enabling them to take advantage of additional resources.

VTD: When you unveiled your first proposal last January, your estimate was that the state would save around $180 million annually. Is that still the current estimate, or are there updated estimates on the expected cost savings?

ZS: Ultimately, the final cost of the foundation formula will depend on decisions that the General Assembly makes.

Act 73 calls for a larger study to finalize the base and the weight amount included in (the foundation formula), so some of those decisions continue to be outstanding. But what is really clear, and what we see consistently in other states that implement a foundation formula, is it creates a way for us to be really transparent around how we fund education.

It is predictable year over year, and it comes with policy choices. There is cost modeling based on the funding put forward in Act 73 that shows considerable savings year over year compared to our existing trajectory.

So, yes, there has been cost modeling at every iteration of the foundation formula that’s been contemplated that proves a cost savings for taxpayers. As the formula is finalized in the Legislature, there will be more details around how that translates into budgeting. We have already, as an agency, built sample budgets to show how those dollars can be applied and represent a very generous amount when compared to other states.

VTD: I’ve heard a lot of fears that consolidation could be really disruptive to educators’ lives. Is there a potential for consolidation to result in job losses at school districts? What sort of impact could we see?

ZS: I think the fears that you’re describing are fears that community members have now within our current system. Despite the increase in cost and the increase to property taxes, districts across Vermont are having to cut staff. They’re having to cut programs, and that’s being done in a haphazardness way, and is not resulting in ensuring more equitable opportunities for students.

As we talk about the next phase of planning — you mentioned disruption — there’s a tremendous amount of disruption currently in our system because of the fact that it’s quite unpredictable, and there are system challenges that our superintendents and our school boards cannot overcome because of the way that we’re organized and structured.

Moving into larger districts, moving towards a foundation formula, is important to ensuring that we can actually deliver on those education quality objectives. There does need to be a process in place to ensure that that transition does not result in the disruption that you’re describing.

VTD: Vermont consistently ranks as one of the highest spending states on public education. Why?

ZS: I think our lack of scale does contribute to the cost. We also have a very unique funding formula, and that results in tremendous variability in per pupil spending across our state. That gap in per pupil spending is as wide as being as low as $9,000 per student to as high as $18,000 per student, so there’s tremendous variability.

The way that our funding system is structured, it is designed to promote taxpayer equity. However, in practice, what we’re seeing is that our highest need communities and lower income communities tend to spend less per pupil than our more affluent communities.

So, even communities that are making budgeting decisions to cut their budgets or hold their budgets steady, those community members could still see an increase in their property taxes because of decisions that are made in other communities across the state of Vermont. So it creates a lot of instability. 

When you think about specific cost and how lack of scale contributes to cost, that comes in the form of challenges with recruiting teachers and sometimes having to contract for services that might cost three times the amount that it would (cost) to actually hire a qualified educator to deliver special education services, for example.

We talk to a lot of districts that are larger and are able to better create a continuum of support for their students, because they can pool their resources in ways to be more targeted with how they help to deliver special education services, for example. So our lack of scale contributes to higher cost, but that doesn’t translate necessarily into higher quality opportunities.

VTD: You’ve taken on a difficult task in going against this idea of local control. Vermont has a very unique culture in that regard. Has that been difficult to navigate for you? Has that made for tough conversations?

ZS: We must acknowledge that we are contemplating a large-scale change in Vermont, and any time a state is endeavoring to do this level of transformation, there should be tough conversations. We should be engaged in debate. We should be in dialogue. Vermonters do have many questions. Educators have questions, and it’s important that we’re noting those questions, that we’re responding to them and continuing to have that dialogue.

I understood that I would need to facilitate many challenging conversations, and when you enter difficult conversations, it’s important to always assume positive intent, to also focus on the facts and to identify and name where there’s agreement, and sometimes name where there’s disagreement, so that gives us a path forward to continue the conversation and move in a way that will be productive for the state.

While there’s been a lot of hard conversations, what I have found in my engagement in Vermont is that there is a shared sense of responsibility and a shared focus on doing whatever is right for kids and for our students.

VTD: What is your inspiration here? What or who do you look toward? Is there a model of public education or a model of public education reform that you look to? Or is there a leader or expert in education you’ve taken your cues from?

ZS: It’s an interesting question. Everybody who goes through their education training learns about John Dewey. He’s really the grandfather of public education and is from Vermont. I always think about education being a debt due to future generations, and that’s part of the service of being an educator, and certainly being in this role as a secretary of education is really ensuring that we’re making the right decisions to support and prepare the next generation.

I think when states often face a financial crisis, or they face, you know, a challenge with their education and performance, they pretty consistently diverted dollars away from public education, and we’re taking the opposite approach in Vermont. We are doubling down on public education as the great equalizer.

VTD: There are a lot of feelings right now in public education, from general uncertainty, to fear, to a sense of optimism. How are you feeling about the future of this effort to reform public education? And what would your message be to those in public education who are feeling that uncertainty or fear?

ZS: My role as secretary of education is to ensure that every child has access to a substantially equal education. And leading the Agency of Education, I am committed to that mission every single day, which is why you see that we have made some really meaningful changes in how we are prioritizing our work at the agency and how we are organizing our teams.

We know that some of the barriers to our success are some of the systemic challenges that we face, including lack of scale, variability of funding, the inability of certain districts to offer the array of programming that we expect in our education quality standards. So, while it’s challenging to move forward with Act 73, because it represents a significant amount of change, and change can be hard, it is really of paramount importance that we stay the course. That’s going to help us ensure that we can meet our statutory obligation to all students.

I would encourage Vermonters to stay engaged, to stay engaged in the dialogue, to stay focused on the opportunities ahead of what we can do for our students, because I think we’re really on the cusp of something very special in the state of Vermont.

I think we’re in a unique position because of our size, because of the community connections. We can be more agile than other states, we can be more responsive to the needs of our students and the needs of our community, and we’ve outlined a plan forward to achieve that. 

And while change is hard, there’s also a lot in this work that’s very inspiring and motivating, because it’s going to set us up to ensure that every single student in our state can take advantage of an excellent education that prepares them to be successful after high school. And that’s where we’re headed.

Federal officials announced Wednesday that the suspect accused of causing a massive fatal pileup in Tennessee last week was an illegal immigrant who obtained a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in the “sanctuary state” of New York.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) said the suspect, 54-year-old Yisong Huang, illegally entered the country from Mexico in 2023. Officials added that Huang, who reportedly could not speak English, was released under the Biden administration and provided work authorization papers.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who has previously warned that illegal immigrants are obtaining commercial driver’s licenses (CDL), said this incident represents yet another example.

“It’s not just that Joe Biden let millions of migrants flood into our country illegally,” Duffy said in a statement Wednesday. “His administration doled out the documentation these unqualified foreign drivers needed to obtain trucking licenses and operate 40-ton missiles on the highway. The fact that this individual failed a basic English test also calls into question how he even got the license in the first place.”

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CAUGHT DRIVING COMMERCIAL TRUCK WITH VALID NEW YORK CDL AT CALIFORNIA CHECKPOINT

Investigators reported that, on Dec. 9, Huang was driving an empty bus on a major highway when he became “distracted by a video on his phone.” 

The New York Post reported Huang was operating a tour bus. He allegedly rear-ended a tractor-trailer and triggered a chain-reaction crash that led to two injuries and the death of one American citizen, Kerry Smith, according to officials. 

Huang was later arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter, according to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office.  

Huang entered the U.S. illegally two years ago, according to the DHS. Officials said he admitted to Border Patrol agents that he was a Chinese national but was later released and given work authorization papers and a Social Security card. This allowed Huang to get a Class B CDL, a process that ultimately led to the deadly multi-vehicle crash, the agency alleges.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TRUCK DRIVER IN FATAL CALIFORNIA CRASH SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAD LICENSE: DOT REPORT  

The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles told Fox News Digital Wednesday that Huang’s license was issued on April 11, 2025, and that he presented all the proper federal documents to obtain one. His papers established a “lawful presence” until July 15, 2029, the agency said. 

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement on Tuesday, “Far too many innocent Americans have been killed by illegal aliens driving semitrucks and big rigs. And yet, sanctuary states around the country have been issuing illegal aliens commercial driver’s licenses. The Trump Administration is ending the chaos. The brave men and women of ICE are working nonstop to get criminal illegal aliens out of our communities and off our roads.”

Duffy announced Friday that a nationwide audit found more than 50% of New York’s non-domiciled trucking licenses — commercial licenses issued to non-legal residents of the state — were issued illegally.

According to Duffy, the state DMV “has been routinely issuing CDLs to foreign drivers illegally. The federal audit exposed a shocking 53% failure rate in the records sampled, indicating a total collapse in the administration of New York’s CDL program.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In response, New York State DMV spokesperson Walter McClure said Friday, “Secretary Duffy is lying about New York State once again in a desperate attempt to distract from the failing, chaotic administration he represents. 

“Here is the truth: Commercial drivers Licenses are regulated by the Federal Government, and New York State DMV has, and will continue to, comply with federal rules.  Every CDL we issue is subject to verification of an applicant’s lawful status through federally-issued documents reviewed in accordance with federal regulations. This is just another stunt from Secretary Duffy, and it does nothing to keep our roads safer. We will review USDOT’s letter and respond accordingly.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office, Tennessee Highway Patrol and the Tennessee DOT for more information.

This is also an economic issue. Toxic blooms from stormwater runoff recently threatened the Head of the Charles Regatta, and such conditions will imperil other landmark events and economic development if the MWRA compounds the runoff issue by maintaining its current course on CSOs.

We’ve been here before: When Conservation Law Foundation brought its lawsuit to force the cleanup of Boston Harbor, some members of the media called it a waste of billions of dollars. That faulty notion is reprised in the editorial. Yet today the harbor’s revival proves that clean water investments yield extraordinary returns to our economy, such as a value of ecosystem services estimated between $30 billion and $100 billion.

This is also a matter of the rule of law. MWRA deserves credit for magnificent achievements in cleaning up the harbor over decades. From my experience having enforced the federal Clean Water Act throughout those same decades, I would argue that MWRA’s current approach to CSOs violates both the letter and spirit of the law.

Brad Campbell

President and CEO

Conservation Law Foundation

Boston

The writer is former regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s mid-Atlantic region and former commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Your recent editorial on the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s updated CSO control plan resonated because it recognized what’s driving so much of the public’s emotion: a sincere, shared hope for cleaner, healthier rivers. Those of us who work in water and wastewater feel that same pull. Combined sewer overflows should continue to decline, and this plan was always meant to evolve. The goal — for advocates, MWRA, and our communities — is the same: real improvements in water quality.

The challenge, as your editorial noted, is that progress now requires confronting difficult tradeoffs. After 40 years of major gains, the remaining decisions are more complex — and far more costly. MWRA was created to lead the region’s environmental turnaround, and the MWRA Advisory Board was established alongside it to ensure that those decisions kept affordability in mind — not to block investment but rather to make sure families and communities could sustain it.

When tradeoffs fall directly on households, people deserve clarity about what each dollar accomplishes. MWRA is funded entirely by its communities, which means every dollar becomes a higher sewer bill for the residents who cherish these rivers.

Massachusetts has some of the most engaged, informed residents anywhere. Let’s give them the full story in the formal comment process and trust them to help shape the path forward.

Matthew A. Romero

Executive director

MWRA Advisory Board

Chelsea

The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent those of the full advisory board.

The editorial “The MWRA’s tricky balancing act” regurgitates MWRA’s misleading argument for dumping sewage in the Charles River while it misses the heart of the public’s concerns. The agency’s proposal to reclassify the river is no meaningless thing; it’s a permanent concession to have sewage discharged into the Charles forever. The proposal would not only remove any accountability for MWRA to end its discharges. It would actually increase the amount of sewage entering the river in the future as storms worsen. It would be a drastic step backward for a mainstay of Greater Boston that’s taken us decades to bring back to life.

There was no misunderstanding about MWRA, Cambridge, and Somerville’s proposal that has to be “explained” to its critics. The authority faced justified alarm from outraged residents legitimately questioning why we would abandon past cleanup efforts and increase sewage discharges to the river.

The editorial paints solutions as impossible and unrealistic. But the Boston Harbor cleanup — also dismissed as too hard at the time — is now one of metro Boston’s greatest economic wins. Clean water is an investment that pays off.

A sewage-free river is not a pipe dream. It’s what we deserve and what MWRA must deliver.

Emily Norton

Executive director

Charles River Watershed Association

Boston

The proposals on the table from MWRA, Cambridge, and Somerville addressing combined sewer overflows would not get us closer to a swimmable or boatable Charles or Mystic River.

For instance, the proposal does not promise to “eliminate CSOs in the Alewife Brook entirely,” as your editorial claims. It predicts only that there would be no CSOs in a “typical” year of rainfall. So the current proposal essentially guarantees continued releases of CSOs in the Alewife Brook, the Mystic, and the Charles, and probably at an even greater level than now.

As environmental advocates, we understand that costs must be weighed against benefits. But the current proposals provide minimal (and yet to be known) benefits, far less than the editorial asserts.

Massachusetts residents deserve more information and a transparent public process where they can weigh in on whether the costs are worth the benefits for treasured public resources.

The headline that appeared over your editorial online asks: “Is making the Charles swimmable worth the cost?”

For our part, the question is: Is freeing our rivers from sewage worth the cost? Our answer remains a resounding yes.

Patrick Herron

Executive director

Mystic River Watershed Association

Arlington