BRATTLEBORO-When the Vermont Legislature adjourned on June 16, it had run more than a month longer than expected. The reason was the controversial and complex reform bill that will, as written, drastically change the way education is delivered in Vermont.
Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, who many would say instigated the changes by presenting his own more-drastic educational reforms before the session began, signed the bill into law on July 1.
The final 155-page bill, H.454, does two major things: It transitions Vermont to a foundation formula, through which the state - not local voters - controls school spending per pupil. And it paves the way for wide-scale consolidation of Vermont's current supervisory unions.
Among other things, the bill could:
• Get new money by raising the property taxes on second homes.
• Put a new emphasis on education quality standards.
• Set class size minimums, which may lead to closing rural schools with fewer students.
• Give a discount on the value of their homes for people who make less than $110,000 a year, thus lowering their property taxes.
• Create regional assessment districts to give more consistency in how properties are reappraised around the state.
The law remains controversial. The teachers union, the Vermont-National Education Association (NEA), is against it, and so are many other educators. So H.454 did not pass unanimously.
Votes were split. For example, one Windham County senator voted for the bill, the other voted against it.
At the center of the session-long work on the bill was Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, D-Windham 7, who is chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. She supports the final bill that passed.
"We knew we had to take action," Kornheiser told The Commons a few weeks ago. "The issue felt more urgent. More people were interested. But the issues around the need for equity and consistency have been issues that we've been working on for quite a few years."
Voting for the bill
Rep. Mike Mrowicki, D-Windham-4, said his "pro" vote was a way to bow to political realities.
"Voters spoke loudly last November that they can't afford to pay any higher property taxes," Mrowicki said. "Finding a balance between a quality education at a cost Vermonters can afford became more difficult. I voted to start that process and work to get the best deal we could, given the political reality of voters strengthening the governor's hand."
Scott's initial plan was to consolidate the state's 119 school districts to five. The final bill proposes 13 districts, to be created this summer by a committee and voted upon when the Legislature returns to the State House in January.
"The governor wanted it done as fast as possible," Mrowicki said. "We were able to get an agreement to greatly expand the number of districts [he] would agree to and slow the process down."
Mrowicki hopes that as the process unfolds, "we can bring some more moderation to where we end up."
"The politics of it sure got clouded up, though, with what I can only describe as chaos in the Senate," he continued. "Their position on this bill kept changing. It made it harder for the House to have to deal with both a stronger governor, and Senate positions that kept moving the goalposts."
Sen. Wendy Harrison, D-Windham, voted for the bill not because it was the best bill, in her opinion, but because it had more positive benefits than negative ones for Windham County.
For one thing, Harrison liked the fact that the bill does not support public money going to private schools, something she is against.
"Effective July 1, 2025, the bill reduces the number of tuition-eligible independent schools from 51 to less than 20, stops support to out-of-state private schools, and requires that independent schools accept the same tuition amount as public schools," she said.
This week, Harrison was appointed to the School District Redistricting Task Force. She said redistricting makes sense, but not at the scale proposed by the governor.
"In the bill, the [Task Force] is charged to come up with three alternatives for the Legislature to consider in January 2026," Harrison said. "The governor proposed five districts, which were much too large, and the bill was changed to districts of 4,000 to 8,000 students, which is still a large number. I advocated successfully for supervisory unions so that smaller districts could exist within the larger boundaries."
Harrison supports the introduction of the foundation formula, a base amount per student with significant weightings for poverty, English learners, and special education. The funding follows the student.
She was happy also about "a provision that could help our local schools with annual grants for small schools, less than 100 students, or sparse towns, with less than 55 people per square mile."
Harrison was also pleased with the idea of a new category in the tax code for second homes, "so they can be fairly taxed," she said, and with state assistance for construction funding "important for aging schools."
She noted that she remains concerned about class-size minimums, "which the Legislature increased from the governor's proposal [by] adding an appeal process before any enforcement."
The potential closure of small schools was also worrisome, Harrison said, "but this should be less likely because the Legislature removed the governor's minimum school size requirements. The small school grants I mentioned also provide needed resources to small schools so that they can be successful."
She remains concerned about reduced local control because the revenue is centralized at the state level.
"I am committed to addressing those concerns as we work during the next few years to turn the adopted framework into a detailed implementation plan," Harrison said. "Many checks and guardrails were added to the bill to make sure that the changes improve outcomes for the students."
Rep. Zon Eastes, D-Windham-1, voted for the bill as a way to start the ball rolling on education reform.
"I could go on for some time about complexities, about reasonable steps forward, and about cost-sharing," Eastes said. "But Vermont's current education system is not sustainable. Yes, the bill before us is a complicated bill that, by its nature, still cannot address every concern. But, with its carefully construed timelines, contingencies, and reports, I gain confidence in the processes the bill sets forth. May we hold our young people and communities uppermost."
Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Windham 2, was thrilled that the Legislature had passed any education reform bill at all.
"I am pretty blown away by the fact that a broad cross-section of people came together to pass legislation that starts us on a comprehensive reform of our public education system," she said.
"We may never be able to get the whole thing done, but it's very broad and very comprehensive," Sibilia continued. "One of the things that is always challenging about education reform is that it does not break in predictable ways along party lines, or urban and rural. It's really all over the place."
Sibilia, an independent, praised the fact that Democrats and Republicans worked together on the bill.
"I'm going to give credit to the speaker and the governor, and I'm going to give credit to Emilie Kornheiser for the work that all of them did to move something forward that, as I said, is comprehensive," Sibilia said. "It really has a series of gates. We may never make it all the way through them, but we decided together, as a majority of legislators, along with the governor, to start and to try. I'm really proud of that."
Leslie Goldman, one of two Windham-3 representatives, also voted "yes" on H.454 even though the process was flawed.
"I voted yes so the work can go forward rather than start from scratch," Goldman, a Democrat, said. "If there is anything I have learned in my five years serving in the Legislature, it is that all laws can be amended, including the Constitution."
Voting against the bill
Voting against the bill was difficult, many legislators said.
Sen. Nader Hashim, D-Windham, voted no for several reasons.
"The process in which the bill was developed, at least on the Senate side, was highly problematic," Hashim said. "The bill will likely lead to greater consolidation, an elimination of local control, and less dollars for public schools depending on the district. Despite that, there were some good tax policies in the bill which I appreciated."
Rep. Mollie Burke, D-Windham-8, said voting against the bill was emotional for her.
"I was very conflicted about how to vote as I entered the State House on the morning of the vote," Burke said. "I spent time during the day talking with various people, pro and con. I recognized all the good work of my Brattleboro colleague, Rep. Kornheiser, in negotiating the bill with the Senate and getting much of what the House wanted. But in the end, I voted no."
Burke had several reasons for dissenting. For one thing, a number of her constituents urged her to vote against the bill. For another, the NEA opposed the bill.
"I also have concerns about mandated consolidation of districts and the impact on staffing levels and local involvement," Burke said. "The governor drove the conversation with his proposal of only a handful of school districts. That seemed to put us in a box that was hard to escape from."
She said she was "also wary of the accelerated timeline and the fact that the bill doesn't address the cost drivers of education - health care, mental health needs, and the crumbling infrastructure in our school buildings."
"Conversations about the bill make the assumption that we can spend less while delivering an excellent education for all Vermont students," Burke said. "I was skeptical of this and would have liked to see more examples of how that would happen."
Democrat Michelle Bos-Lun, the other Windham-3 representative, called H.454 "the most difficult legislative issue of the year." She finally voted against the bill because of her concerns for the welfare of rural schools.
"I believe that neither the initial House version of H.454 nor the final version - which passed with more Republican support than Democratic after a Committee of Conference - met the needs of rural communities, nor was it clear that costs for taxpayers would be reduced," Bos-Lun said.
"The policy in H.454 would be very disruptive and destructive to small rural schools which are the heart of many small towns around our state and would result in a loss of local control and engagement - as happened with forced mergers in my community previously," she added.
Emily Carris Duncan, D-Windham-6, voted no because she also wanted to see more protections for public schools.
"There is the potential for added average spending," Carris Duncan explained. "Independent or private schools are able to add 5% over the standard cost, which is unfair to our public schools, who are already struggling. I think it's demoralizing to our public schools."
Carris Duncan said she was "very concerned about the issues of school buildings and the funding that goes along to maintaining those buildings," which is a problem in her district.
"I think the community needs to have more of a conversation," Carris Duncan said. "And we need to have a strong pot of money if we're going to make any of the transformations. I also am concerned about getting the resources we need from the state, particularly for this region."
Much work remains to be done on education reform, however, and Carris Duncan said she is happy to be part of that process.
"I'm excited to be on the ground doing that work and representing the community," she said. "I'm excited to be helping craft the policy that will be created as time goes on."
This News item by Joyce Marcel was written for The Commons.