ANGELO LYNN

Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth’s decision Tuesday night to pull the school reform bill, H.454, from a scheduled Wednesday floor vote speaks volumes about a bill that is largely seen as a lose-lose proposition for schools, students and parents, while not doing enough to help taxpayers who need it most.

Left undecided by Senate leaders at what Vermont Public reporter Lola Duffort described as “a remarkably candid — and public — airing of ambivalence, anger, and anxiety” about their version of H.454 at Tuesday’s caucus, is whether to attempt to salvage reform talks through Senate amendments to the House bill or move on to other measures before adjournment.

Baruth said he made the decision to pull the bill because, as Duffort reported, “most Democrats in the Senate appeared to oppose the bill, and that passage would have relied largely on Republican votes.”

While some amendments to the House bill were discussed, others were wary about proposing amendments without ample due diligence, particularly on issues as complex as financing education reform. While sympathizing with that concern, Baruth reminded senators that Gov. Scott had warned he would call the legislature back for a special session if they didn’t propose some reform to reduce school costs.

While the House version of H.454 has garnered more support among Democrats and had the support of the associations representing the school boards and school administrators, it has also come under attack for spending more money in the initial years, creating higher taxes for the least privileged communities, while dumbing down offerings in higher-spending districts. The bill also cuts voters out of the equation. The foundation formula depends on top-down decision-making, with the state setting a per pupil spending cap that the state would use to set a base amount per district. Middlebury’s ACSD would see school spending cut by $7.77 million, or 19.4%, with a modest decline in taxes. But managing to that spending amount would likely mean severe cuts to current programming.

Most schools in Addison County would see much the same impact, according to a May 2 analysis by the Joint Fiscal Office. Addison NWSD would get $3.91 million less, or a cut of 16.8%; Mt. Abraham USD would lose $2.04 million, or 7.2%; and Lincoln would lose $666,677 or 15.1%. The Granville-Hancock Unified District would gain $103,270 or 5.6%, but taxes are forecast to jump to pay for the increase in spending. The rule of thumb, statewide, is those school districts that have been spending more to maintain higher quality would lose funding (with modest tax decreases), while those towns spending less would see higher taxes mandated on them.

TAKING A STEP BACK

With so many negatives associated with H.454, it’s worthwhile to retrace the legislation’s brief history. The high school tax increases of 2024, which averaged about 13%, led to the defeat of about a third of the state’s school budgets and was the impetus for reform. A summer study committee was formed, and Gov. Scott and Sec. of Education Zoe Sanders led off this year’s session with a proposal to consolidate the state’s 119 school districts into five large districts and to adopt a revived form of school funding — the foundation formula. H.454 was hatched in the House Education Committee, which embraced the governor’s proposed change in funding, but rejected his five mega-districts and instead set up a reasonable process for the districts to be decided, along with much more in the 160-page bill.

When the bill passed out of the House, it did so with very little enthusiasm and much hesitation. Once in the Senate, numerous changes were made, for the worse many say, and most Democrats are now opposed to the Senate version. (Sen. Ruth Hardy’s legislative report in today’s issue on Page 16A addresses the issue.)

At this point in the session, perhaps an abbreviated, less comprehensive proposal is needed.

What’s true at this point is that legislators and the governor agree on two significant points: that Vermont’s 119 current school districts could use some consolidation to reduce spending and create efficiencies; and that a change in the way schools are funded (to the foundation formula) be adopted.

Burlington Superintendent Tom Flanagan picked up on that point and, in a May 16 letter he sent to the Senate and House leadership, made a suggestion. Noting that H.454 would mean the loss of “many millions of dollars” under the new foundation formula and would have a “devastating impact” on his school, he suggested the legislature focus on forming the new school districts first, then tackle the question of funding.

“Without stable governance structures in place and a clear picture of district boundaries,” he wrote in his letter, “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.”

THE POLITICS

Democrats are right to be worried that Scott and fellow Republicans will use any lack of progress on school reform to challenge their majority in 2026, but Democrats also have a clear story to tell. They’ve spent the majority of the session on the legislation, and will pass some measures of reform, but don’t want to make mistakes by rushing into a funding equation that makes outcomes for all communities, and schools, worse.

Significant progress can still be made this session, while allowing for more creative thinking and just maybe, even consider adding parts to the legislation that would improve educational outcomes.

Here’s a striking comment Mountain Times reporter Polly Mikula got when she asked Windsor County Superintendent Sherry Sousa, if there were any provisions in H.454 to improve educational quality: “No, none,” Sousa responded, then added: “We have 20 different towns sending their kids here because of the high-quality experience. How will we maintain that when we have to cut those courses back? That’s what I’m most concerned about for our region… our community people are going to leave. They’re going to go to New Hampshire, they’re going to go to private schools… They will take their money and go. We’ve maintained our enrollment in the district because of the high-quality education our students receive, both in elementary, middle school, and high school. If we cut those programs — all of our AP classes, our electives, our after-school programming — we know what’s going to happen to our student enrollment, and when we cut down our enrollment numbers, we significantly impact our tax burden.”

Suffice it to say, it’s complicated enough to allow for two sessions to get it right — and a bigger part of getting it right should address how the legislation is improving the outcomes for students.

Angelo Lynn