By Ryan Heraty
Editor’s note: Ryan Heraty is the superintendent of the Lamoille South Supervisory Union and a doctoral student at the University of Vermont, studying education finance and public policy.
Most Vermonters agree our state is facing an affordability crisis, yet few suggest the solution is to raise taxes on low and middle-income Vermonters. Shockingly, all three versions of the latest education reform bill will increase taxes significantly in many of the towns that need relief the most.
As the Superintendent of Lamoille South, I spoke out strongly against the last “reform” (Act 127) that led to a rash of budget failures and taxes skyrocketing across the state. This bill promised more for vulnerable students, yet the resources only reached a handful of districts. Recent data from the Joint Fiscal Office indicate that the law is doing the exact opposite of its intended purpose, diverting money from high-poverty towns to subsidize those that can pass larger budgets. This could have been avoided with careful transition mechanisms and more accountability. Unfortunately, a common-sense approach was ignored, and we are now facing another looming disaster.
There were three versions of bill H.454 — one from Governor Scott, one from the House, and the Senate —but each version will result in more of the same: legislation we didn’t ask for at a cost we can’t afford.
The governor’s proposal moves the state from 119 to five districts. The plan claims to save money by regionalizing central offices and moving to an “evidence-based” model for funding. The problem is that central offices only account for 5% of the total education fund, and the evidence-based model assumes school sizes that don’t exist in Vermont.
Elementary schools of 500 students and large regional high schools would require massive capital investments and long bus rides. The cost of transportation and negotiating new contracts would wash out any savings, and a statewide tax rate would raise taxes in many towns with no guarantee of additional funding.
Most concerning is that the plan ignores the cost drivers (e.g., healthcare) and defers hard decisions to a small board representing a large geographic area. In the Winooski Valley District, a board of five would make decisions for 47 towns, and people would no longer vote on their budgets. The only way this plan saves money is by having this board do the state’s dirty work—firing teachers and closing rural schools.
The House proposal is slightly stronger. It includes a funding formula based on Vermont-specific data and starts to hold independent schools more accountable for public dollars. Unfortunately, it also contains several provisions that make it a dealbreaker. Similar to the governor’s proposal, this plan doesn’t save money. It is marketed as a cost-saver with a minimum district size of 4,000 students, school size minimums of 450, and class size minimums that vary by grade level. Also, like the governor’s plan, it fails to address cost drivers, contract negotiations, and the school construction necessary to make it work.
The funding formula is also built primarily around test scores, which Vermonters have paid little attention to for at least a decade. Without a careful review of current spending, this plan misses an opportunity to make sure public dollars are used wisely.
The Senate’s version of the bill removes the arbitrary district and school size minimums yet also raises several concerns. Like the two versions that preceded it, this bill fails to address cost drivers and includes a statewide tax rate that would increase taxes in many towns. For example, the taxes in Enosburg and Richford would rise by 30%, in Barre by 22%, in Slate Valley by 20%, and in Morrisville by 19%. The promise is that these towns would receive more money in return, but new district lines (drawn by a politicized task force) would eliminate additional revenue by merging the winning and losing districts and keeping the statewide tax rate.
Therefore, a current district that is low-spending yet high-performing would be forced into a higher tax rate in a larger district with less local control. To be clear, this bill penalizes taxpayers in low-spending towns while doing nothing to ensure they would receive additional dollars in return.
It is easy to point out the problems and hard to find better solutions. However, in this case, the Rural School Community Alliance has testified repeatedly on research-based solutions that would save money, stabilize property taxes, and improve education. It is too late in the session to implement most of these recommendations; however, there are still things that can be done.
If the Legislature’s primary goal is to reduce property taxes, it could simply lower the excess spending threshold that is in the current law. If they are working to save money, they should start by analyzing current districts and supporting school boards to find efficiencies. If a foundation formula is the goal, they should ensure non-partisan experts are the ones who develop the base budget for each district. Instead, we are offered three proposals that will significantly disrupt education, raise taxes on those who have been financially responsible, and open up a highly charged political process for drawing new district lines. The right thing to do now is to slow down and make a better plan.
