ANGELO LYNN

As Vermont tackles education reform, two visions have emerged: a radical consolidation of the current 52 school districts to 5 large regional districts as proposed by Gov. Scott and Education Secretary Zoie Sanders, or a more cautious step-by-step process outlined by two legislative committees that will be rolled out over the next four years.

The differences in the plans are significant, yet the goals are similar and both sides agree to a new concept of school funding: moving to a foundation formula.

While Scott has labeled his plan a “bold” proposal, Rep. Peter Conlon, D-Cornwall, chair of the House Education Committee, said his committee’s approach “embraces change and transformation, but at a pace that can actually be achieved without crippling our public school system and leaving kids behind. It is hard work that needs to be done carefully and methodically.”

In light of the chaos Trump and his team have wrought on the global economy with his inexplicable tariffs that has put the country and world on the brink of a self-inflicted recession, something less than a chaotic change in how Vermont manages its complex educational system seems prudent.

We’re also suspect of the Scott administration’s sudden rollout of a plan that still lacks detail. Also, a bit of context:  For the past eight years he’s failed to propose any comprehensive changes to the state’s education system for legislative review. Yet this year, with a new Education Secretary from Florida, who just barely has had any opportunity to understand the state’s ethos let alone the history and underpinnings of the state’s school system, he rushes out a simplified plan that would radically change the state’s educational system in two quick years.

The House Education Committee’s approach, on the other hand, charts a saner path.

First, rather than picking the number of districts randomly or perhaps by what looked geographically symmetrical on a map, the legislature will appoint a five-member panel of retired Vermont school superintendents and business managers “with a broad knowledge of Vermont’s current school system” to propose new districts. The panel will present the Legislature with three scenarios in 2026 with a minimum of 4,000 students in each district. (Gov. Scott’s proposal, by comparison, had Chittenden-Franklin-Addison counties all in one district of 34,000 students.)

Second, class size minimums under the committee’s proposal would increase to 12-18 pupils per class, depending on the grade, rather than the governor’s proposal of a pupil-per-teacher ratio of 25-1 — a standard that would force mergers and consolidation in almost every school in the state.

The House Education Committee’s approach also takes a stricter view of funding private schools with public dollars, going only to those current schools in the state (such as the four academies) that serve as public schools. “This keeps tax dollars in Vermont and concentrates those dollars on the schools that mainly fund public school students,” Conlon said.

Weighing in on the Education Committee’s work, this week the House Ways and Means Committee approved funding by a foundation formula in H.454, which would be implemented in 2029, two years later than Scott’s proposal. While the committee’s plan factors in $200 million annually in higher costs until the transformation is complete, the committee suggests Scott’s plan left out “significant costs” that would likely hike the price of his proposal.

Gov. Scott and several state Republican legislators were, unfortunately, quick to pan the Committee’s proposal, calling it too cautious and exclaiming the need for reform was paramount.

Their claims, however, ring hollow. After years of doing next to nothing, Scott apparently hoped to ride public outrage over the 2024 surge in school taxes to force a radical reduction in school spending — without ensuring the damage to public schools was minimized.

The Legislature’s plan is the better model, and if it takes two more years to get there, that’s far superior to blowing up the current system with a radical plan that would likely create chaos in our schools and hamper educational outcomes for two, three or more years.

That sentiment was expressed by the head of the state teacher’s union.

“(The governor’s) risky proposal is big on rhetoric but short on the details. And the details matter — a lot,” Don Tinney, the union’s president, said in a statement. “It doesn’t explain how these changes would be better for students. It doesn’t simplify an overly complex school funding system. And it doesn’t provide immediate and on-going property tax relief for middle-class Vermonters.”

Given adequate time, the Democrat’s plan should be able to check off some of those concerns, plus create a better way for Vermonters to finance its schools. Hopefully, the governor and his team will agree to work with the Legislature’s initiatives and move forward with reasonable changes that will stand the test of time.

Angelo Lynn