A massive education reform bill advanced out of a key tax-writing Senate committee Thursday and is poised to receive a floor vote early next week. Lawmakers who voted against the bill said it would be 鈥渄evastating鈥� to public education and argued it had been developed in a 鈥渟lipshod manner.鈥�
But remarkably, even those who voted to advance the legislation expressed significant ambivalence about the effort.
鈥淚 can鈥檛 ever remember feeling as bad about a vote as I do on this one,鈥� Sen. Ann Cummings, the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, told her colleagues after voting yes. 鈥淏ut it will move us forward.鈥�
Senate Democrats are not unified in their position on the bill. Some support it. Some, like Sen. Ruth Hardy and Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick, who voted no Thursday in committee, hate it, and argue that it does not deliver necessary structural reforms, risks raising taxes and would distribute money in an arbitrary manner. Others, like Sen. Thomas Chittenden, who voted yes in committee but said he might yet vote no on the floor, have expressed discomfort with the bill鈥檚 accelerated timeline and the amount of power it wrestles away from local voters.
And Cummings, who has repeatedly complained about having too little time with the legislation, suggested that her support for the legislation was less about its specifics than the fact that lawmakers could not give up on reform.
Basically all of the decisions made by her committee, Cummings said, could change before implementation, which would not begin until 2027 at the earliest.
鈥淵ou just don't make this kind of change and say, 鈥楾his is it, it sits in stone. We'll just move on,鈥欌�� she said.
Her sentiments were echoed across the aisle on Thursday.
Despite uneasiness about this reform, 鈥渄oing nothing is even a worse option,鈥� Sen. Randy Brock, a Franklin County Republican, told his Senate Finance Committee colleagues.
Republicans are generally more comfortable with the Senate鈥檚 iteration of H.454 than what passed out of the House. Both versions would set Vermont on the path to a foundation formula, where Montpelier, not local voters, would control the bulk of school spending. But the House鈥檚 version would spend more, and the Senate鈥檚 version would spend less. The Senate鈥檚 version is also much friendlier to private schools, and a lot less prescriptive about how schools should consolidate.
But the GOP still has its qualms about the bill. Chief among them, according to Senate Minority Leader Scott Beck, is that whether lawmakers pick the Senate or the House鈥檚 foundation formula, they run into the same problem. The legislation risks substantially raising taxes in the very communities 鈥� many of which are economically disadvantaged 鈥� that are most sensitive to tax hikes.
That鈥檚 because a foundation formula would create near-uniform spending and tax rates across Vermont. For currently low-spending towns, where taxes are relatively low, . (Currently high-spending towns, on the other hand, would see tax decreases.)
鈥淚 don't think anybody heard from their constituents last November that they wanted their taxes to increase,鈥� Beck said. 鈥淎dmittedly, with that tax increase would come an increased amount of money. But still 鈥� it's a tax increase.鈥�
Happy in the end?
Republicans and Democrats think tax hikes can be mitigated, albeit in different ways. Certain Democrats hope that a second home tax, which this reform bill paves the way for, might inject enough money into the system to offset the need for such increases. Beck, on the other hand, believes organic grand list growth, coupled with the spending control inherent in a foundation formula, will take care of the problem.
He thinks low-spending towns looking at very preliminary modeling showing tax hikes now will 鈥渂e happy in the end.鈥�
鈥淏ut for them to be a little nervous and a little cautious right now 鈥� I completely understand where that comes from,鈥� he said.
Beck supported H.454 as it left the Senate Finance Committee, and thinks its kinks can be worked out before full implementation. For him, it 鈥渃hecks all the boxes.鈥� It moves more quickly than the House bill, which would have begun implementation two years later, it creates 鈥渁 transparent, understandable funding system,鈥� and 鈥済uarantees that the resources are going to be there for kids to get an excellent education.鈥�
What superintendents and other school officials think
While the House-passed version of H.454 is not universally beloved in the education world, it does have the support of several major players. Small school advocates panned it, particularly for its inclusion of class size minimums, which would likely shutter many rural schools. But the associations representing superintendents, school boards and principals had all lined up in support of the House bill 鈥� and now strongly oppose the Senate鈥檚 updates.
While both the House and Senate bills envision spending largely controlled in Montpelier and school and district consolidation, the House version places a much greater emphasis on governance and operational changes, and the Senate version places a greater emphasis on spending controls.
The House vision of reform sets much stricter limits on how small schools and districts could be, and believes that these changes will allow Montpelier to spend less over time without creating damaging disruptions. The Senate鈥檚 bill takes the opposite position, and assumes that with stricter spending limits from the outset, local communities will organically close schools where necessary.
For the groups representing superintendents, school boards and principals, the House鈥檚 approach is best. The Senate鈥檚 changes, on the other hand, 鈥渁ppear to prioritize political compromise over structural reform and may unintentionally preserve the very inefficiencies the bill was meant to address,鈥� those associations .
In Burlington 鈥� home to both Senate leader Phil Baruth and House Speaker Jill Krowinski 鈥� school superintendent Tom Flanagan wrote to legislative leaders Friday to complain that the Senate鈥檚 bill would have a 鈥渄evastating impact on our school district and others who serve large populations of English Learners.鈥�
鈥淚nstead of rushing to finalize a funding formula this session, I respectfully ask that the remaining time be used to create a clear plan for studying governance, district lines, and scale,鈥� Flanagan wrote.
H.454 is set for a floor vote in the full Senate next week. Afterward, the House and Senate will have to negotiate a final deal.
