Superintendents from across the state are speaking out against the Senate version of an education reform bill, which is slated for a floor vote as soon as Wednesday morning.
School leaders argue that the bill, H.454, would dramatically cut funding for some districts and substantially increase tax rates for others. It has few, if any, provisions that will address the true cost pressures that school districts face, they say. And the legislation calls for using a committee comprised solely of lawmakers to draw new districts, which, school leaders argue, will only politicize the process.
In recent days, school administrators and board members from the Burlington, Champlain Valley, Winooski and South Burlington districts, as well as superintendents in Rutland, Franklin and Washington counties, have written to their communities and legislators to express major reservations with the Senate version of bill, which was changed substantially after being passed by the House. It calls for a new funding system to go into effect on July 1, 2027, two years earlier than the House version.
With Little Enthusiasm, Senate Finance Committee Advances Ed Reform Bill
With Little Enthusiasm, Senate Finance Committee Advances Ed Reform Bill
By Alison Novak
Education
It does not make sense for a new funding formula to be put into statute before new school districts are created, Flanagan wrote. He asked that the remaining time in the legislative session be “used to create a clear plan for studying governance, district lines, and scale.”
“Without stable governance structures in place and a clear picture of district boundaries,” Flanagan wrote, “it is simply not responsible for us to endorse locking in a funding system that could have long-term consequences we cannot yet fully evaluate.”
In an interview on Tuesday, Flanagan said that just a few years ago, his district had advocated for Act 127 — legislation that changed the education funding formula to account for the fact that students living in poverty or learning English cost more educate. He believes H.454 would erode the positive changes that law brought about. Larger districts such as Burlington, which already operate at scale, should not stand to lose so much money under the Senate-proposed foundation formula, he said.
Education Proposal Is Latest Attempt to Address Long-standing Challenges
Education Proposal Is Latest Attempt to Address Long-standing Challenges
By Alison Novak
Education
In a May 19 letter, Champlain Valley superintendent Adam Bunting and school board chair Meghan Metzler wrote that their district, the largest in the state, was poised to lose as much as $10 million under a new foundation formula. That comes after CVSD already cut $9 million — and 82 positions — from its budget in the past 12 months. The loss would be “unworkable” and “significantly reduce opportunities for the students we serve,” they said.
Winooski superintendent Wilmer Chavarria and school board chair Robert Millar also wrote to their community last Friday urging them to contact their local legislators about a bill they characterized as “deeply problematic.” In Winooski, the bill would translate to cuts in services and a significant number of teacher and staff layoffs over the next several years, they said.
Mike Leichliter, superintendent of Harwood Unified Union School District, wrote to staff and families this week that while he was supportive of the ed reform bill the House passed last month, he had “deep concerns” about the Senate version. By July 2027, Harwood would need to reduce spending by $5.4 million, he wrote, which would likely result in “the loss of 50 additional positions, significant reduction in student programming, and/or forced closure of some of our schools.”
Sweeping Education Reform Bill Advances in Vermont House
Sweeping Education Reform Bill Advances in Vermont House
By Alison Novak
Education
Meanwhile, Slate Valley Union School District in Rutland County — one of the lowest spending districts in the state — said that while the Senate’s funding changes would provide more money for the district, they would also lead to a projected property tax increase of up to 22 percent. Under the new foundation formula, voters would no longer have a say in school budgets and the resulting property tax rate.
The spike in property taxes, Slate Valley superintendent Brooke Olsen-Farrell wrote to her local legislators, would be “unsustainable for our communities” and put an “overwhelming burden on taxpayers.”
“Removing the voice of educators and replacing professional expertise with political appointments undermines both the credibility and the effectiveness of this important work,” Olsen-Farrell wrote.
A group of Franklin County superintendents also expressed concern with the redistricting committee proposal.
“The absence of educator voices in this bill draft is a serious concern,” Franklin West superintendent John Tague, Franklin Northeast superintendent Lynn Cota, Maple Run superintendent Bill Kimball, and Missisquoi Valley superintendent Julie Regimbal wrote in an open letter this week. “We must remember that these decisions profoundly affect our children’s education and the overall health of our communities; the perspective and insights of people with educational expertise are essential.”
The Learning Lobby: As Legislators Seek to Transform Education in Vermont, Lobbyists Make the Cases for Schools Public and Private
The Learning Lobby: As Legislators Seek to Transform Education in Vermont, Lobbyists Make the Cases for Schools Public and Private
By Hannah Bassett
Ways and Means
The Franklin County superintendents said that under the Senate-proposed foundation formula, all of their county’s school districts, except Maple Run, would see an increase in education funding. However, residents in those districts would see tax increases between three and 30 percent.
“This approach will force some schools to make deep cuts, eliminating valuable programs for students.” they wrote. “Other communities may benefit from more funding, which will likely be coupled with substantial increases to their tax rates.”
The superintendents acknowledged that reform is needed to make the education system more affordable and equitable. But they argued that the Senate bill doesn’t address the true reasons for rising costs: “the unsustainable burden of healthcare, the ripple effects of housing shortages, the crumbling infrastructure of outdated facilities, and the escalating mental health needs of our students.”
“Until our elected officials demonstrate the courage to confront these fundamental cost drivers and craft equitable solutions, we’re simply rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship,” they wrote. “Our children deserve better than this political charade.”