by Anne Galloway vtdigger.org As the Vermont House put the finishing touches on a plan to mandate school district mergers over a six-year period on Wednesday, the Senate Education Committee passed a separate piece of legislation that would create supervisory union efficiencies. Lawmakers passed H.883 in the House, 76-60, on the third reading with several new requirements, including a Joint Fiscal Office review of unfunded school mandates, a provision that will allow districts to work with private preschools, and an analysis of three groups of school districts that are going through the voluntary merger process.
The narrow vote in the House reflected the ambivalence many lawmakers felt about the impact of consolidation on their local districts. The change proposed in H.883 is dramatic. It would reduce the number of school district boards from 270 to as few as 45 over a six-year period with public input and guidance from an appointed design team.
Politically, the vote was difficult for many in the House. Lawmakers, especially those in rural areas, understand their constituents oppose the consolidation of school boards and the voting authority of local districts for budget decisions.
The floor debate on Wednesday that went on for more than two hours was a continuation of the three-hour discussion that began on Tuesday night.
Lawmakers who opposed the plan pointed up flaws, while supporters staunchly defended the notion that though it’s not perfect, something has to be done.
Rep. Susan Davis, P-West Topsham, said lawmakers must “stop looking at local schools as a liability and start looking at them as an asset.” Consolidating districts, she said, could hurt the community spirit and the culture of Vermont’s rural towns.
There is nothing of real substance in the bill, Davis said, to fix the problem of higher taxes because leveling up teacher salaries from one district to another could cause property taxes to rise.
Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, a possible Republican candidate for governor and a resident of Stowe, which saw a dramatic increase in tax liability after the passage of Act 60, the statewide property tax law, has long proposed changes to the funding formula. On Wednesday, Scheuermann said as taxpayers face increases of 5 cents to 7 cents a year for a three-year period, “they are looking for education funding reform and tax relief. This bill does neither of those things.”
“Meaningful education transformation must be comprehensive, it must include funding reform, the funding system is what is so broken and that is what is causing taxes to skyrocket,” Scheuermann said.
Rep. Dave Sharpe, D-Bristol, said he long opposed consolidation of districts until recently when he realized that the unionized high school system has a track record of success that can serve as a template for district mergers.
“We need to change the structure of our schools,” Sharpe said. “Is this the perfect bill? No, but it sets up a lengthy process with local input.”
House Speaker Shap Smith said the House Education, Ways and Means and Appropriations committees worked hard to to create a “responsible bill that moves toward a system that will give more opportunities for students, flexibility in staffing and operating efficiencies.”
“I know it was a tough vote for a lot of people,” Smith said. “But it gives us an opportunity to fulfill the promise we made when we passed Act 60. It standardizes what we offer in districts and provides better opportunities for equity.”
The Senate is expected to take up a much less ambitious plan that does not merge districts and does not change the governance structure of school boards. Instead, the plan, embedded in H.876, the miscellaneous education bill, consolidates the business administration and contracts of existing supervisory unions.
Read the bill, starting on page 17.
In the intent language of H.876, the Senate committee says the legislation attempts to “maintain the careful balance previously struck between local control and management efficiency.” The bill does so by strengthening existing statutes. The legislation requires supervisory unions to negotiate certain contracts for districts, coordinate curriculum for schools, professional development for teachers and policies for school boards, manage business functions, federal grants and construction projects across districts. It also allows the Secretary of Education to form supervisory union service regions for purchasing goods and services. There are penalties for districts that do not comply with the supervisory union changes.
H.876 also provides more incentives for districts that wish to merge voluntarily through the existing Regional Education District process outlined in Act 153.
Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, chair of Senate Education, has said he is “agnostic” about the question of whether districts should be merged, “but that’s not a reason to stop it in its tracks.” He is not convinced that consolidation will save money or achieve higher academic outcomes for students.
McCormack took up the Senate provision, which was drafted by the Shumlin administration and Senate Finance several weeks ago, on Tuesday. McCormack and Sen. Don Collins, D-Franklin, both skeptics of the House proposal, have repeatedly said they had hours to take up a bill that needed vetting for a period of weeks, if not months. Initial discussions between House and Senate Education committees began shortly after Town Meeting Day when 36 school district budgets were rejected by voters.
“First do no harm,” McCormack said. “It would have been irresponsible to take up the House bill — not to slight the work of the House, not to say they took too long, it takes time. The House gave it four months, probably because it takes that long. That would imply we should not get something so major through in a week.”
For that reason, he said, the Senate proposal is dramatically different from H.883.
“This is not an ambitious bill, it doesn’t pretend to be an ambitious bill,” McCormack said. “This is what we could do responsibly in the time we have. It’s voluntary. It relies on incentives, not sticks, and ultimately it allows for local control.”
The state’s voluntary program for the formation of Regional Education Districts has largely failed. Only one RED has been formed and the savings have been modest.
Governor Peter Shumlin supports voluntary consolidation, and his administration has been pressing for education cost containment proposals.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Shumlin said he is listening to the House and the Senate “very carefully” in order to “bring the two bodies together so we can get out of here with a bill.”
“There’s no bill that can solve all our problems but if we don’t get a good start toward helping our communities in partnership to find a better way to deliver top quality education in a system that is right-sized, that is literally educating just in the last few years 20,000 fewer students, property taxpayers are going to continue to be burdened,” Shumlin said.
“I’m not going to takes sides on what incentives we should provide. We have a few days or weeks left, we’ve got a big problem, Vermonters cannot continue to afford property tax increases going up higher than their incomes,” he said. “Let’s get out of here with a bill that moves the ball down the field toward an education system that is less administrative burden, less administrative waste and expensive administration that we cannot afford.”
Those who voted yes on H.883 in the House:
Ancel of Calais Bissonnette of Winooski Botzow of Pownal Brennan of Colchester Buxton of Tunbridge Carr of Brandon Christie of Hartford * Clarkson of Woodstock Cole of Burlington Condon of Colchester Consejo of Sheldon * Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford
Corcoran of Bennington Cupoli of Rutland City Deen of Westminster Dickinson of St. Albans Town Donovan of Burlington Ellis of Waterbury Emmons of Springfield Evans of Essex Fagan of Rutland City Fisher of Lincoln Frank of Underhill Gage of Rutland City Head of South Burlington Heath of Westford Jerman of Essex Jewett of Ripton
Johnson of South Hero Juskiewicz of Cambridge Keenan of St. Albans City Kitzmiller of Montpelier Koch of Barre Town Krowinski of Burlington Kupersmith of South Burlington Lanpher of Vergennes Lenes of Shelburne Lewis of Berlin Lippert of Hinesburg Macaig of Williston Masland of Thetford McCarthy of St. Albans City McCormack of Burlington McCullough of Williston McFaun of Barre Town Michelsen of Hardwick Mitchell of Fairfax Myers of Essex Nuovo of Middlebury O’Brien of Richmond Peltz of Woodbury * Pugh of South Burlington Rachelson of Burlington Ralston of Middlebury Ram of Burlington Russell of Rutland City Ryerson of Randolph Savage of Swanton Sharpe of Bristol Spengler of Colchester Stevens of Waterbury Stuart of Brattleboro Sweaney of Windsor Till of Jericho Townsend of South Burlington
Turner of Milton Vowinkel of Hartford Waite-Simpson of Essex Walz of Barre City Webb of Shelburne Weed of Enosburgh Wilson of Manchester Winters of Williamstown Wizowaty of Burlington Wright of Burlington Yantachka of Charlotte
Those who voted against H.883:
Bartholomew of Hartland Batchelor of Derby * Beyor of Highgate Bouchard of Colchester Branagan of Georgia Browning of Arlington Burditt of West Rutland Burke of Brattleboro Campion of Bennington Canfield of Fair Haven Connor of Fairfield Conquest of Newbury Cross of Winooski Dakin of Chester Davis of Washington * Devereux of Mount Holly Donaghy of Poultney Donahue of Northfield Fay of St. Johnsbury Feltus of Lyndon French of Randolph Goodwin of Weston Grad of Moretown Greshin of Warren Haas of Rochester Hebert of Vernon Helm of Fair Haven Higley of Lowell Hooper of Montpelier Huntley of Cavendish Johnson of Canaan Kilmartin of Newport City Komline of Dorset Krebs of South Hero Larocque of Barnet Lawrence of Lyndon Malcolm of Pawlet Manwaring of Wilmington Marcotte of Coventry Martin of Springfield Mook of Bennington Moran of Wardsboro Morrissey of Bennington Pearce of Richford Pearson of Burlington Poirier of Barre City Potter of Clarendon Quimby of Concord Scheuermann of Stowe * Shaw of Pittsford Shaw of Derby Smith of New Haven Stevens of Shoreham Strong of Albany Terenzini of Rutland Town Toleno of Brattleboro Toll of Danville Van Wyck of Ferrisburgh Young of Glover Zagar of Barnard
Those who were absent for the vote:
Gallivan of Chittenden Hoyt of Norwich Hubert of Milton Klein of East Montpelier Marek of Newfane Martin of Wolcott Miller of Shaftsbury Mrowicki of Putney O’Sullivan of Burlington Partridge of Windham South of St. Johnsbury Trieber of Rockingham Woodward of Johnson