By Maggie Lenz and Nick Charyk on behalf of Atlas Government Affairs consultants
Education reform in Montpelier is finally starting to take shape. After months of plans, counterplans, and more questions than answers, lawmakers have their hands in the clay. Governor Scott’s sweeping January proposal set the wheel in motion, calling for major district consolidation, a statewide school choice lottery, and a new funding formula. Since then, the House and Senate have each worked their own approach, and they are not exactly aligned with each other, or with the administration.
That raises the very real possibility of a contentious conference committee in the near future. And without a Democratic supermajority, there will be three parties at the table this time, not two. The House and Senate will have to hash out their differences while keeping an eye on whether the governor will sign or veto whatever deal they are able to land on.
Still, the work is moving.
In the House, the Education Committee is now focused on a proposal to create a School District Boundaries Subcommittee under the Commission on the Future of Public Education. They want a deliberate process, using data and community engagement to come up with recommendations by the end of this year. Alongside that, they are working on proposals for minimum class sizes and debating whether private schools receiving public dollars should have to follow the same rules as public schools. They are not drawing maps yet, but they are setting the groundwork.
Down the spiral staircase in the Senate Education Committee, Senator Seth Bongartz (D-Bennington) is still semi-pushing a proposal that would consolidate Vermont’s school districts down to nine. The plan notably preserves tuitioning regions served by Burr and Burton Academy, Lyndon Institute, St. Johnsbury Academy, and Thetford Academy. Bongartz served on the Burr and Burton board for nearly two decades. He has framed the plan as a necessary response to rising costs and financial pressures on the system.
Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D-Chittenden Southeast) raised strong concerns in Senate Education last week that rushed consolidation could deepen inequities between districts. As a reminder, she was the sole vote on her committee against confirming Secretary of Education Zoie Saunders earlier this month, a signal of her skepticism about the broader direction of the Scott Administration’s proposals for education reform.
Discussions on Thursday, March 20, in Senate Education got prickly during testimony by the Vermont Superintendents Association (VSA). Senator David Weeks (R-Rutland) pushed back on the VSA referring to “private schools” rather than using the term “independent schools,” as the schools themselves prefer. It was one of several tense moments in a conversation that felt like a proxy for a deeper disagreement over the VSA’s position that any school receiving public funds should be held to the same standards and accountability as public schools.
The VSA has offered an alternative approach: a phased, research-based plan that would finalize district boundaries in 2026, with full implementation by 2029. Their plan includes statewide collective bargaining, school designation reforms, and a clear definition of “small by necessity” to clarify exemptions. It calls for accountability for and oversight of private schools taking public dollars. It appears to have traction in the House and among some members of the Senate, though Bongartz continues to pull up his redrawn district map during their discussion. His proposal is still on the table, and he is presenting it as some sort of middle ground between the governor and Democrats.
Meanwhile up on the second floor, the House Commerce Committee took the week to consider whether to create a single statewide Tech Center, or CTE district. There was agreement that any changes to CTE governance need to align with the larger governance reforms, and that local high school coordination and transportation funding must be addressed.
Buying down property tax increase to 1%
While the structural debates continue, lawmakers on the third floor of the State House in the House Ways and Means Committee have been scrambling to manage property taxes for the current year. On Friday, March 21, the committee advanced its version of the Yield Bill, which sets the key tax rates that determine how much Vermont property owners pay in school property taxes each year. They are using $77 million in one-time money to buy down what was expected to be a 6% property tax increase. If all goes according to plan, the average increase should land closer to 1%.
The vote was not unanimous, though. Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (D-Norwich) voted “No,” warning that the buy-down amounts to putting property taxes on a credit card without addressing the underlying cost drivers. Rep. Jim Masland (D-Thetford) also voted “No,” citing long-term sustainability concerns. Reps. Marty Feltus (R-Lyndon) and Bridget Burkhardt (D-South Burlington) voted “Yes,” but expressed deep reservations and called on their colleagues to focus on lasting reforms.
Senate President pro tem Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden Central) has promised that the Senate will do its part to protect taxpayers this year, but Senate Finance Chair Ann Cummings (D-Washington) has cautioned that the scope of any buy-down may be limited by federal uncertainties.
Which brings us to the grand finale. The federal picture is bleak and not making things easier. President Trump’s executive order to begin dismantling the U.S. Department of Education has sparked anxiety about the future of federal education funding. With staff already being cut and responsibilities shifting, Vermont lawmakers are keeping a close eye on Washington. If federal funds dry up, the state’s budget challenges will only get much much harder.
So. Three proposals. One veto pen. And a shrinking pool of federal support. This session doesn’t need to end with a grand bargain. But it does need to end with some direction.
