By Bryce Sammel
Editor’s note: Bryce Sammel, of Barnard, previously served on and chaired both the Barnard Academy and Mountain Views school boards.
Vermonters are rightly worried about taxes. With rising costs across the board, including property taxes, health care and energy bills, many residents, especially those without school-aged children, are asking a fair question: Why are we spending so much on education, and are we getting our money’s worth?
If you care about taxes, you deserve to know the truth: closing schools and cutting programs doesn’t automatically lower your property taxes. It can raise them.
When schools close, or programs are gutted, young families leave. That shrinks the full-time population and weakens the local economy and the residential tax base. Empty homes get snapped up by second-homeowners, inflating local property values and the Grand List, creating the tax increases we’re seeing today in communities across Vermont.
At the same time, Vermont’s aging population means we need younger families more than ever. Not just to fill classrooms but to power our economy and support essential services. Strong public schools are a magnet for those families, and they’re also where we prepare students to become skilled workers in trades, healthcare, agriculture, small business and other critical sectors.
If those students leave for better opportunities elsewhere or can’t afford to live here as adults, the cycle worsens. That’s why we must invest wisely in education and keep taxes manageable so that working families and young Vermonters can afford to stay.
The current proposals in Montpelier, including H.454, claim to answer that question by cutting costs through school consolidation and funding reform. But these proposals don’t appear to fix what’s broken. They shift the costs in ways that may backfire on communities, taxpayers and the economy.
In addition, forcing expensive transitions like merging mega-districts, laying off staff or overhauling infrastructure without support creates short-term costs that outweigh any long-term savings. Taxpayers will end up footing the bill for poorly planned reforms that don’t deliver results.
There is a better way. A more innovative approach to education reform could stabilize taxes and improve efficiency without destabilizing our communities.
Instead of extreme mandates, we should focus on voluntary consolidation and shared services, offering increased per-pupil funding or targeted grants for districts that work together to reduce overhead. A high school that serves 450 students or a classroom with 15 kids may make fiscal sense without sacrificing educational outcomes. Rewarding schools that hit those marks is smarter than punishing those that don’t.
We could also set a realistic goal of reducing the number of school districts, not to five, as some have proposed, but perhaps by half. That alone could cut administrative costs and save taxpayers money while preserving local control.
Some other ideas the governor has proposed would also help facilitate easier consolidation in the near future.
A unified school calendar is a practical way to promote cost savings and future flexibility. If all Vermont schools operated on the same schedule, it would eliminate one of the barriers to collaboration and future district mergers as well as making it much easier for students in different schools to access career and technical education centers without as much of a disruptive impact on the rest of their high school schedule.
Setting universal minimum graduation requirements would establish a clear statewide standard for earning a diploma, ensuring every Vermont graduate meets a baseline level of preparation. If, in the future, schools or districts merged, there would be no risk of it affecting students’ outcomes because they would already be aligned. At the same time, individual schools could add additional requirements for advanced programs, CTE tracks or academic pathways, allowing for local innovation and higher achievement.
When it comes to school infrastructure, delaying repairs only makes them more expensive later. If we want to reduce costs long-term, we need to invest in energy-efficient, right-sized school buildings today. Let’s raise the state match for projects meeting new enrollment benchmarks and sustainability standards. The cost would pay off quickly through efficiency of scale, reduced heating bills and lower maintenance.
Most importantly, we need a funding formula that reflects the real costs of running schools in Vermont.
Short-term grants, limited use of surplus or reserve funds, or revenue adjustments could ease the transition and help districts adjust without sudden tax spikes. This way, we can start today while continuing to discuss the needed broader tax reform.
It’s not about protecting the status quo or pretending everything’s fine. Vermont’s education system needs to evolve. But let’s not fall for proposals that sound good on paper and cost us more in practice.
Want lower taxes? Then, support a reform strategy that incentivizes smart decisions, doesn’t force bad ones and avoids short-term chaos that leads to long-term costs. Let’s fix what’s broken without bulldozing what works.
Let your representatives know that real reform balances cost savings with common sense. It rewards efficient schools and academic achievement, encourages collaboration and respects all Vermont taxpayers.
