Public Assets Institute The Committee of Conference voted out a report Friday afternoon. An up-or-down vote on the bill in the full legislature is likely on Monday, June 16th.
Unfortunately, the committee’s report fails to fix the existing problems and raises significant additional concerns.
The report:
- States that the goal of reform is to spend less on schools through: state-imposed consolidation; cutting educator jobs; reducing spending on Pre-K and special education services; shifting critical services to the General Fund without ensuring they’ll be funded; and other unproven strategies
- Includes an option for high schools that receive tuitioned students to charge 5 percent above the foundation amount at the request of independent schools
- Accelerates the timeline for implementation by one year, beginning with setting new district boundaries by July 1, 2026
And retains many of the problems from prior versions:
- Doesn’t address the cost drivers outside of districts’ control like health insurance costs and kids’ increasing mental health needs
- Makes major changes without analysis of the projected impacts or evaluation of actual outcomes like we saw with recent education reforms such as Act 46
- Moves to a one-size-fits-all foundation amount that will require some districts to spend less, raise some towns’ taxes, and make it easier for lawmakers to cut school funding
- Is anti-democratic because it takes decision-making on school budgets away from communities
- Imposes school consolidation, from 119 school districts to between 10-20, harming communities and kids and eliminating many school boards
- Cuts educator jobs by imposing class size minimums
- Potentially reinforces barriers for kids with disabilities
- Likely to require new school buildings and infrastructure
- Likely to result in additional public money going to private schools
Legislature, governor reach agreement on education transformation, property tax relief
This year’s education transformation bill seems to reflect the same untested belief that has plagued previous reforms, including Act 46—that by spending less, we can deliver more for our kids. Like these previous attempts at reform, this proposal moves forward without meaningful evaluation of whether earlier changes delivered on their promises or a process to evaluate the outcomes of this latest overhaul.
As our Senior Policy Analyst Jack Hoffman wrote last week, there is no reason for the legislature to rush this latest proposal through. It is not focused on what Vermont kids need to succeed and it fails to provide the timely tax relief that Vermonters asked for.
Visit our education funding hub for more information, and publicschoolsvt.org for ways to get involved.
Copyright (C) 2025 Public Assets Institute. All rights reserved. www.publicassets.org