By Rep. Peter Conlon and Rep. Charlie Kimbell
Editor’s note: Rep. Peter Conlon, Cornwall, is the chair of the House Education Committee and Rep. Charlie Kimbell, Woodstock, is the ranking member of the House Ways & Means Committee.
On Friday, March 28, Vermont’s House Committee on Education voted out its much anticipated “Education Transformation” bill, echoing but not copying many of the shared goals with Gov. Scott. The proposals contained in the bill are potentially sweeping changes to our current school system to be enacted on a deliberate and sustainable pace. It is a responsible and realistic plan.
Unfortunately, Gov. Scott has already criticized the plan as being just another study, despite the many shared goals and concepts. It is so much more than that.
Change can be exciting and stoke the imagination. Change can also be chaotic and destructive, confusing motion with accomplishment. The House proposal embraces change and transformation but at a pace that can actually be achieved without crippling our public school system and leaving kids behind. It is hard work that needs to be done carefully and methodically.
New district boundaries
First, instead of the five huge school districts proposed by the governor, the House plan empowers a group of retired school superintendents and business managers with broad knowledge of Vermont’s current system to propose new school districts. The five-member panel will review the existing structure, the historical development of those districts as well as the geographic and programmatic needs, and recommend three versions for the Legislature to consider in 2026 with a minimum of 4,000 students in each district.
Class sizes
Second, the plan proposes to achieve cost efficiencies and improved student experiences by establishing class size minimums for public and approved independent schools that are supported by research and that fit the Vermont scale. While Gov. Scott’s proposal looks at student teacher ratios of 25:1, the House proposal seeks class size minimums of 12-18, depending on grade.
Updating buildings
Third, several sections of the bill address facility needs by resurrecting state aid for school construction. Many bond votes to build new schools have failed in recent years due to the high costs and the lack of state aid. The proposal establishes a process to prioritize projects to receive aid, extending 20% towards annual debt service payments and another 20% if the project helps achieve the “newer and fewer” idea to achieve the efficiencies mentioned above. Now we just need to come up with the millions to make it a reality. Achieving school-size scale would be hard without funding the program.
Prioritizing public schools
Fourth, the proposal changes the landscape for towns that pay tuition to other public or approved independent schools, prioritizing public schools in Vermont and abutting states and limiting independent schools to ones that have traditionally served in place of public schools, such as the four historic academies. This keeps tax dollars in Vermont and concentrates those dollars on the schools that mainly serve public school students.
Uniform policies
Lastly, the proposal seeks to improve statewide systems and governance, such as establishing a uniform school calendar and graduation requirements, as well as uniform data systems. But it also reaffirms the role of the State Board of Education as an independent, rule-making organization for public education and the duties of the Agency of Education to execute the policies.
Any one of these changes would be huge on its own. That is why the House Committee on Education put into place realistic expectations of what could be achieved, particularly after taking testimony from the people who would have to enact the changes. Some parts of the proposal will be controversial as is natural with any sweeping change. The bill will now go to the money committees for the crucial funding piece to support these policies.
There will likely be additions and changes along the way, but this is a great start.
