House lawmakers narrowly approved an education reform proposal Friday, advancing legislation destined for more political wrangling that could stretch well into the summer.
Democrats touted the legislation, H.955, as balancing the twin goals of tamping down the cost of education and expanding access to educational opportunities. Critics, however, said it’s unlikely the legislation will lead to the cost savings envisioned under last year’s wide-ranging reform package, Act 73.
Rep. Charlie Kimbell, D-Woodstock, a ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, said on the House floor that the plan “is not what the governor requested last January, nor is this plan reflective of the bill, Act 73, that we passed last year.”
“Frankly, it’s better than both,” he said.
But there was clear unease among House Democrats during hours of deliberations on the floor Thursday, leading to a narrow vote of 79-62. Republican lawmakers largely voted against the bill, as did about 10 Democrats — though for different reasons.
H.955 offers a process far different than the forced consolidation envisioned in Act 73, last year’s education law. After months of gridlock in the House Education Committee, lawmakers said they lacked the political consensus to move forward on any form of forced mergers.
Instead, lawmakers pivoted to a proposal allowing for voluntary mergers. Rep. Peter Conlon, D-Cornwall, the House Education Committee chair, said Thursday that districts will likely decide to merge in preparation for the new education funding formula, which will provide each school district with a set amount of money based on the number of students enrolled.
Gov. Phil Scott has made it clear the proposal is unacceptable. School districts are expected to receive less money under the foundation formula. Without consolidated school districts, the new foundation formula would “punish” smaller or more rural districts that lack room in their budgets to adjust, he said earlier this month.
The Senate, while working on its own proposal, appears more sympathetic to Scott’s vision and will likely make significant changes to the House’s bill.
Instead of forced consolidation of the state’s 119 school districts, the House bill would overlay seven regional entities, called cooperative education service agencies, or CESAs, over existing school districts.
Those regional entities, already in use in southeastern Vermont, would then facilitate the sharing of services in special education, professional development, human resources and other areas for member school districts.
Study committees would then be formed within each of those CESAs to work toward a voluntary merger process for member districts.
All member school districts would be required to participate in the committees. But “merging itself is not mandatory, it is a local choice,” Conlon said on the floor Thursday. If a study committee decided not to move forward, the merger process would end there.
Conlon described the proposal as a “plan that can save money (and) provide more for students in a cost effective way” that “respects the local voice and the many differences across our state.”
House Republicans opposed the bill en masse, balking at suggestions it would save money. Many cast doubts over the proposal’s ability to facilitate school district mergers.
Rep. Rob North, R-Ferrisburgh, said the bill was “flawed at its core” and unable to achieve the goals set out in Act 73.
Rep. Pattie McCoy, R-Poultney, the House minority leader, said the bill was unlikely to see any merging of districts since there are no incentives to do so.
She lambasted fellow lawmakers for not following through with Act 73, saying they were instead “kicking the can down the road, again.”
“No matter how bad the test scores get, or how many kids have to go without art, music, sports, foreign languages, (career and technical education) or other student programs, the status quo will remain, and real change is left for another day,” she said. “No matter how high the yield rate, or how many Vermonters cannot afford to pay their property taxes, our failed system remains.”
Some House Democrats, too, appeared hesitant to move forward with the legislation. Several amendments floated Thursday highlighted those broader concerns.
Two amendments, which both garnered a little more than 20 votes on the House floor, would have set additional parameters around a school district’s ability to close a school and would have required voter approval to close a school.
“Community schools, especially small schools in rural towns, are the lifeblood of their community,” said Rep. Herb Olson, D-Starksboro, the lead sponsor of the two amendments. Without those schools, “Vermont as a whole is a much diminished society.”
Other failed amendments would have suspended the state’s excess spending threshold, which financially penalizes districts for spending above certain amounts, for fiscal years 2028 and 2029, while another would have required all approved independent schools to follow the same education quality standards set for the state’s public schools.
Several Democrats went against their party’s proposal, including Rep. Dave Yacavone of Morristown, Rep. Monique Priestley of Bradford and Rep. Saudia LaMont of Morristown, among others.
Still, other Democrats lauded the proposal as preserving local voice.
Rep. Leanne Harple, D-Glover, who helped shape the proposal in the House Education Committee, said the plan “answers the call Vermonters have been making loud and clear about affordability” while preserving local decision making.
“In this plan, we don’t have to choose between local control and cost savings, because we can deliver both,” she said.
