Despite opposition from many Democrats and outrage from large swaths of the public education system, legislative leaders summoned enough votes Monday to send a historic education reform package to Gov. Phil Scott鈥檚 desk.
The Republican governor, who leveraged his party鈥檚 sweeping gains in November to demand an overhaul to the state鈥檚 K-12 system this year, said he would sign .
鈥淭his is only the first step, and the work ahead will be just as if not more important than what we've done this session,鈥� Scott said in a speech after lawmakers adjourned. 鈥淏ut good work takes time, and it takes courage. And I appreciate the work that each one of you has done to contribute to this effort.鈥�
The 155-page bill is expansive in scope, but it primarily aims to do two things. It transitions Vermont to a foundation formula, through which the state 鈥� not local voters 鈥� controls the bulk of school spending using a per-pupil grant, and it paves the way for wide-scale consolidation.
The legislation鈥檚 champions say it will stabilize property taxes, redirect spending where it is most needed, and create a more coherent governance system. But its critics are deeply anxious about the implications for local control and rural schools. The bill seeks to establish school districts with at least 4,000 students, and establishes class-size minimums that could close schools.
If fully enacted, the bill may very well be the single most transformational piece of education legislation passed in Vermont in modern times. It would arguably have a bigger impact than Act 60, the landmark tax law passed in the wake of the Brigham v. Vermont state Supreme Court decision in 1997.
One of H.454鈥檚 architects, Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, cast the present day鈥檚 reform as a successor of sorts to Act 60. The nearly three-decade old legislation had at one point 鈥渃reated more opportunity and fairness in our educational system and taxation than almost any other state,鈥� she told her colleagues on the House floor Monday evening. But that fairness had slowly eroded over time, the Brattleboro Democrat said.
鈥淭oday, in 2025, schools and communities across the state are at levels of inequality of opportunity and taxation that are on par with our state before Brigham,鈥� Kornheiser said. 鈥淭his is unacceptable, and that is why we are here today.鈥�
But whether the bill that passed Monday will ever become a reality on the ground remains to be seen.
H. 454 is stuffed with off-ramps, the most important of which is that lawmakers must approve new school district maps before other reforms, including the foundation formula, can come into effect. To meet the timelines set out in the bill, which envision the new funding system beginning to come online in 2028, lawmakers will have to do that highly controversial redistricting work next year 鈥� an election year.
The bill鈥檚 opponents already have their sights set on 2026. The Rural School Community Alliance, for example, an ad-hoc group of rural school officials and residents, had strongly opposed all versions of the legislation throughout the legislative debate this year. But over the weekend, they announced that they would not work against the bill鈥檚 passage this week. If the bill failed now, the group warned, legislative leaders might instead pass legislation with much fewer check-backs.
鈥淚n its current form,鈥� the advocacy group wrote to its members, the bill required additional 鈥渓egislative action on its major components, on which we can continue to assert considerable pressure.鈥�
The bill passed the Senate 17-12. While , a majority of the legislation鈥檚 support came from Republicans. Ten GOP senators voted 鈥榶es鈥� on the bill and two voted 鈥榥o.鈥� Seven Democrats voted in favor of H. 454 and 9 voted 鈥榥o.鈥� The chamber鈥檚 lone Progressive also voted 鈥榥o.鈥�
H. 454鈥檚 support in the House is somewhat more ambiguous. The bill technically passed on a voice vote 鈥� which means that lawmakers did not record how they voted. But in a separate roll call, on whether to send the bill to the governor, the vote was 96-45.
The Vermont-NEA, a union representing educators, and many local school leaders spent the weekend furiously advocating against the bill鈥檚 passage. Superintendents and school board members from across Vermont wrote to their lawmakers to say the bill had been crafted in haste, without a full understanding of its implications, and that it would cut funding to schools without addressing underlying cost-drivers like healthcare.
鈥淗.454 has moved through the legislative process inconsistently, lacking both vision and coherence,鈥� Michael Clark, the superintendent of the Orange Southwest School District, wrote in an open letter to his community. 鈥淢uch like an aircraft that fails to reach takeoff speed, the bill appears to be barreling toward a crash landing, one that could have lasting consequences for Vermont鈥檚 children, communities, and public schools.鈥�
Few communities would be straightforward winners 鈥� or losers 鈥� as a result of the legislation, but most would experience major upheaval. Those districts that currently spend above the state average could see significant reductions in funding, but their taxes are also expected to decrease. Chronically low-spending districts, meanwhile, could see their schools receive significant cash infusions, but their taxes could increase substantially.
Preliminary financial modeling done on earlier versions of the bill created widespread alarm, particularly when lawmakers realized the legislation could raise taxes in communities that are most tax-averse. Since then, lawmakers have kept updated analyses about revised versions of the bill close to the chest.
鈥淲ithout full transparency and comprehensive modeling, we are at risk of pushing communities into extreme funding reductions or unmanageable tax increases, with little opportunity for course correction once the system is in place,鈥� Brooke Olsen-Farrell, a superintendent in the Slate Valley Unified Union School District, wrote to lawmakers over the weekend.
Lawmakers have promised that taxpayers will be held harmless in the end, and the formula included in H.454 is somewhat of a placeholder. The bill commissions a slew of studies and reports, including on the cost of special education, career and technical education, and secondary schools, which will be used to adjust the funding mechanism before implementation.
The legislation may also lead to new revenue streams that might significantly offset the taxes levied on primary homes. It creates a new property tax classification that would allow lawmakers to increase taxes on second homes.
But like many reforms contemplated in H. 454, it鈥檚 all or nothing. That tax change would go away if lawmakers don鈥檛 move forward with new school district maps and then a new formula.
The question of what to do about independent schools, which has dogged education debates in Montpelier for decades, nearly sunk the reform effort. Public education advocates and many Democrats were dismayed at how top senators repeatedly sought to introduce protections for the private schools that receive public money during the final round of negotiations over the bill.
Independent schools did win important concessions 鈥� the bill was stripped of provisions, for example, that would have made it very difficult for school districts to pay for vouchers to private schools in the event of public school closures.
But compared to the present reality, the bill represents significant wins for those who believe public dollars should remain with public schools by significantly curtailing which private schools can get publicly-funded tuition. Families will no longer be allowed to use vouchers at out-of-state schools, for example, nor will they be able to use them at private schools that are located in districts where there is a public alternative.
Rep. Laura Sibilia, a longtime Dover independent, told fellow lawmakers on the House floor Monday evening that she, too, was 鈥渁ppalled鈥� at how certain senators had fought for independent schools. But she also suggested that those who were concerned about private schools getting preferential treatment did not appreciate that the bill was an improvement on the status quo.
鈥淭hose that are the most offended by that, and that are ringing the bell the loudest about that, I want you to think about who stands to benefit if we do nothing?鈥� she said. 鈥淲hose system is working just fine for them right now?鈥�
开云体育 reporter Peter Hirschfeld contributed to this report.
