As part of Gov. Phil Scott’s wide-ranging proposal for change in public education, he suggested transferring rulemaking authority from the State Board of Education to the Vermont Agency of Education. 

At a Monday morning special meeting, members of the state board bristled at the idea they should lose one of their principal powers, grilling Education Secretary Zoie Saunders about how such a move would benefit the state’s schools.

Some questioned whether the Agency of Education even has the capacity for more work. 

“How is it that we move forward with making sure that the field has the support it needs to teach children — help them learn — because that hasn’t been happening,” Tammy Kolbe, the board’s vice chair, asked Saunders.

The State Board of Education — composed of 11 members who are appointed by the governor — leads education rulemaking, approves private schools and helps select education secretary candidates when there’s a vacancy. 

But the board was once far more powerful. Prior to 2012, when the state’s Agency of Education was only a department, the board selected Vermont’s top education official and directed the work of the department itself. 

Now, Scott’s proposed education reform package would remove responsibilities from an already diminished state board. 

Since first teasing the legislation in a speech last month, Scott and his top education officials have gradually unveiled more and more details of what they’ve coined the “education transformation” plan. Among the biggest changes, the proposal would pay for education differently and consolidate the more than 100 existing school districts into just five. 

Last week, Saunders rolled out the numbers behind the administration’s proposed education funding formula, which, if implemented, would lead the state to spend about $180 million less than it currently does on public education. 

This week, the education secretary is expected to release more details on the plan’s changes to education governance. Part of those changes would entail the Agency of Education taking over rulemaking.

Saunders told the state board Monday that the move is a “practical consideration” necessary for the state to make swift changes on such a large scale. 

But some state board members argued the change is far more significant than just practicality, especially given rulemaking is one of the few responsibilities of the education board. 

Board member Kim Gleason doubted the agency’s ability to take on the creation of rules because she said it was already behind on enforcing existing ones, specifically those governing independent schools. 

“I would be incredibly grateful to see the agency doing the work of oversight on the rules that are important that have been established by the State Board of Ed,” she said. “I simply do not see the part that’s supposed to be happening, happening.”

Saunders, in response, said she has always been transparent about the fact that she “inherited an agency with many issues.”

Some state board members rejected the idea they should lose authority as a matter of democratic principle. 

Grey Fearon, a board member, suggested the agency’s power would become unchecked if the state board’s role was diminished any further. 

“I’m really concerned about the checks and balances,” Fearon said.

But Saunders called the idea of checks and balances a “false narrative” because the state board, like the Agency of Education, is part of the executive branch.

As she continued to field more and more concerned questions from board members, Saunders questioned whether they weren’t all missing the point of the proposed rulemaking change.

“(The agency is) building a path forward to strengthen our public education system,” she told board members. “What’s concerning is that this conversation doesn’t feel like we’re all in partnership to getting there.”