Dear Editor,
As someone who has spent more than 20 years on a local school board and six years on the State Board of Education during the shaping of Act 46, which was passed in 2015, I’ve been closely following H.955, an act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont’s education system, along with related efforts like S.220, the excess spending threshold bill.
Together, these bills are intended to address two growing concerns in Vermont: rising education costs that are driving higher property tax bills, and uneven educational opportunities across districts. H.955 is designed to explore long-term restructuring of Vermont’s education system through regional collaboration, shared services and changes to how resources are distributed. S.220 focuses more directly on limiting spending growth by placing constraints on districts that exceed a statewide spending threshold.
Based on the documents available, H.955 does not show clear cost savings. The Joint Fiscal Office says the overall fiscal impact is unclear. While ideas such as shared services and regional approaches could lead to efficiencies over time, those outcomes are not defined or guaranteed.
What is somewhat clearer is the focus on students. The bill includes provisions aimed at maintaining access to special education services, which are required by law, encouraging a more equitable distribution of resources within districts, and exploring ways to improve access to programs like career and technical education, programs that are often more costly. These are important goals, particularly for rural communities in Vermont. But we should be asking: Will they actually reduce costs?
At the same time, S.220 takes a different approach by attempting to limit the increase of per-pupil spending through a statewide cap. The intent is to allow lower-spending districts to increase more while constraining higher-spending districts in the name of equity.
But that raises a real question for communities like Bennington: If one district is spending $15,000 per student and another is spending $23,000, how is that equitable to begin with? And how do we ensure that efforts to level spending don’t end up penalizing districts that have been operating more efficiently?
Taken together, these bills highlight the tension we are all feeling between controlling rising costs and providing meaningful, equitable opportunities for students. Right now, we have more questions than answers.
For that reason, I was disappointed to see the House vote down an amendment that would have suspended the excess spending threshold for two years to allow these significant unknowns to be worked out. Moving forward without a clearer understanding of both the financial impact and the real implications for communities is concerning.
It is also worth noting that this is the end of the biennium, with elections in November for all House and Senate members, as well as the governor. These decisions matter. Voters should know how their representatives are voting on issues that will shape both our education system and our property taxes. H.955 is now in the Senate and will likely change further before the end of the session.
We owe it to our students — and to taxpayers — to stay informed, ask hard questions and make sure these changes truly serve Vermont communities.
Sean-Marie Oller
Bennington, Vt.
