Vermont, a traditionally liberal state, has a moderate (non-MAGA) Republican governor, Phil Scott, and a Democratic-controlled legislature. Governor Scott appointed Zoie Saunders as Education Secretary. When the U.S. Department of Education recently directed every state to certify that it had banned DEI programs (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs, Saunders asked the state’s districts to comply. Instead, she faced a widespread revolt by the state’s education organizations, and she issued a new directive, revoking her earlier request for compliance.

Ethan Weinstein of the VtDigger reported:

But just three days later, after initially defending and clarifying the decision in the face of public backlash, Education Secretary Zoie Saunders backtracked late Monday afternoon, informing superintendents the state would instead send a single statewide certification. 

“To be clear, the Agency of Education and the Attorney General’s Office continue to support diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in our schools. Our communication on Friday was intended to make you aware of the directive from the U.S. Department of Education regarding Title VI,” Saunders wrote Monday afternoon, “and to reinforce that diversity, equity, and inclusion practices are lawful and supported in Vermont. In no way, did AOE direct schools to ban DEI.”

So why all the confusion? 

On Friday, Saunders told school district leaders they had 10 days to submit their certification, but also said the agency believed certification required only that districts “reaffirm … compliance with existing law.”

That communication came in response to President Donald Trump and his administration, who have threatened to withhold funding to public schools that fail to comply with the expansive directive. 

A letter dated April 3 from the U.S. Department of Education said noncompliance with the diversity programming ban could result in schools losing a crucial stream of money meant to support economically disadvantaged students, known as Title I, among other sources of federal dollars. The letter cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in schools based on “race, color or national origin,” and also cited a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court Case against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that restricted affirmative action. 

Saunders, in the letter to district leaders, wrote that the federal restriction includes “policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races.”

Programs highlighting specific cultures or heritages “would not in and of themselves” violate federal regulations, the letter said. “We do not view this Certification to be announcing any new interpretation of Title VI,” Saunders wrote, adding that the agency’s “initial legal review” determined the federal letter only required the state to “reaffirm our compliance with existing law.”

But guidance from the federal education department cited by Saunders seems to restrict a variety of practices, arguing that school districts have “veil(ed) discriminatory policies” under initiatives like diversity programming, “social-emotional learning” and “culturally responsive” teaching. 

Following news of the agency’s letter to districts, Saunders released an initial public statement around 3 p.m. on Monday saying the federal demands would not require Vermont’s schools to change practices. And in that communication, Vermont’s top education official gave no indication the agency would alter its request for districts to confirm their compliance with Trump’s directive.

“The political rhetoric around this federal directive is designed to create outrage in our communities, confusion in our schools, and self-censorship in our policy making. But we are not going to allow the chaos to control how we feel, or how we respond,” Saunders said in the statement. “Our priority is to protect Vermont’s values, preserve essential federal funding, and support schools in creating positive school environments free from the type of bullying and manipulation we see in our national politics today.” 

In the same press release, Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark said Vermont was in compliance with federal law.

“We will continue to protect Vermonters against any unlawful actions by the federal government,” Clark said.

One neighboring state, meanwhile, took a different tack. Soon after the Trump administration sent states last week’s letter, New York announced it would not comply. 

Vermont and other states’ responses to the federal government are due April 14, and the state agency said last week that its response was supposed to include school districts’ “compliance issues” and “the Agency’s proposed enforcement plans” for those districts. 

Before Saunders, in consultation with Clark, decided to rescind the state’s request for districts’ certifications, the Agency of Education’s actions drew criticism from the public education community. 

Representatives from the Vermont School Boards Association, Vermont Principals’ Association, Vermont Superintendents Association and Vermont-NEA, the state teachers’ union, met with state leaders Monday. They later penned a letter to Saunders and Clark calling Vermont’s approach to the federal directive “not workable.”

“Expecting individual superintendents to certify compliance based on a cover letter (that they have not yet seen) that clarifies the legal boundaries of their certification will lead to a patchwork of responses that could put Vermont and local school districts at risk,” the organizations wrote. 

The coalition urged Vermont to follow New York’s lead and reject the certification process. That strong approach, they wrote, “would also send a powerful message to students and families across the state.”

Hours later, the Agency of Education appeared to heed their advice. In her late afternoon message to superintendents, Saunders wrote that “AOE has received feedback throughout the day regarding the need for clarity on the intent of the certification and the state’s specific response.”

“We understand that many in the community are concerned because of the political rhetoric surrounding DEI,” she added. 

News of Saunders’ initial Friday letter spread quickly on social media over the weekend. Already, plans for a Wednesday protest had circulated online.  

At least one district, Winooski, said it wouldn’t comply with the certification.

“I notified the Secretary that I will not be signing anything,” Wilmer Chavarria, the district’s superintendent, wrote in an email to staff shared with VTDigger. “I also requested that the state grow some courage and stop complying so quickly and without hesitation to the politically-driven threats of the executive.”

Winooski’s school board will address the compliance certification at a regularly scheduled board meeting Wednesday, according to Chavarria’s message. 

In Vermont, ethnic studies have been a larger part of the education landscape since the passage of Act 1 in 2019. The law, which the Legislature approved unanimously and Gov. Phil Scott signed, required public schools to incorporate ethnic studies into their curricula. The legislation charged a panel with making suggestions for better including the history and contributions of underrepresented groups in Vermont’s classrooms.

Correction: A previous version of this story attributed a quote directly to Charity Clark that was in fact a statement released by the Vermont Agency of Education and Vermont Attorney General’s Office.

Following a federal directive that schools ban “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion-related programs, the Vermont Agency of Education last Friday asked school districts to submit compliance certifications. 

Our nonprofit newsroom depends on community support — not corporate owners or investors — to keep investigative reporting strong in Vermont. If you value independent journalism that holds power to account, please make a donation today.

Neal Goswami, Acting Editor-in-Chief, VTDigger

Ethan Weinstein

VTDigger’s state government and politics reporter. More by Ethan Weinstein