The only thing that’s certain about education reform efforts at the Statehouse is what won’t happen.
Senate Democrats met Tuesday evening for a remarkably candid — and public — airing of ambivalence, anger, and anxiety about legislation they had scheduled for a floor vote on Wednesday morning.
At the conclusion of their hour-and-a-half long caucus, lawmakers had decided on little, except that they would not vote the following day on the version of H.454 that their committees had spent the last several weeks crafting. Whether they would attempt to salvage reform talks by coming up with new amendments — or give up entirely and adjourn — remained undecided.
The Senate’s existing version of H. 454 might technically have enough votes to clear the chamber. But Senate president pro tempore Phil Baruth told his colleagues at the beginning of Tuesday’s meeting that most Democrats in the Senate appeared to oppose the bill, and that passage would have relied largely on Republican votes.
“I made a promise to people in the caucus that I wouldn't bring a bill that had a little bit of Democratic support and a lot of Republican support, and currently that's the only way that H.454 would make it through the process,” the Democrat/Progressive from Chittenden County said.
Since most Democratic Senators preferred the House-passed version of H.454 to their own, Baruth said the Senate could adopt that legislation as a starting point, and asked what amendments might get a critical mass of support.
But while a few suggested potential ideas — Chittenden County Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, for example, said lawmakers might explore new ways to adjust property taxes based on income — several others argued that perhaps lawmakers were already out of time this year. (In a typical year, lawmakers adjourn by mid-May, although they can extend the session.)
Windham County Sen. Nader Hashim told his colleagues he got “cold chills” at the thought of making substantial edits to historic legislation via floor amendments, particularly within such a compressed timeline.
“How much due diligence will we be able to provide to all these amendments?” he asked.
Baruth replied that this was “a very fair concern.” But he also reminded Hashim that Scott had vowed to call lawmakers back to Montpelier if they adjourned without a reform package in hand.
“That is something that I take to heart. Honestly, in a certain way, I'm in sympathy with him. I believe this is a fight we need to continue and finish,” Baruth said.
More from Vermont Public: Capitol Recap: Education reform is on the brink of passage — or collapse
Democrats are in a politically difficult spot. They are desperate to show voters they take their affordability concerns seriously, and terrified that Republicans, led by Gov. Phil Scott, will make further gains in 2026 by making the next election about the failure of reform. But putting together a bill that will get enough GOP support to make it over the finish line may also alienate the entire public education establishment, which is now in open revolt against the bill Senators were initially scheduled to vote on Wednesday.
The House-passed version of H.454 was not universally embraced by Vermont’s public schools. But it had the support from several key players, including the associations representing school boards, superintendents, principals and business managers. Those constituencies, however, are now in lockstep against the Senate bill, which they say punts on structural reform, privileges private schools, and risks underfunding public schools.
Freshman Sen. Joe Major, a Windsor County Democrat, said he understood the political stakes. Property taxes simply could not go up again the way they had in the last budget cycle, when they rose on average about 14%.
“Can’t happen again. Otherwise, about half of us will be gone next time,” he said. Still, he complained about the apparently “haphazard” way in which the legislation had been developed. And he argued it wasn’t clear lawmakers had any good ideas about how to balance ensuring kids had a good education and giving taxpayers the relief they want.
“Quite frankly, I don't know if either way that we're talking about it right now will do that,” he said.
Whether in the House, Senate or the governor’s office, most in Montpelier have come to a general consensus that some schools and districts should consolidate and that the state, not local voters, should control the bulk of school spending via a foundation formula. But on all major details, they are at odds.
GOP lawmakers — and some moderate Senate Democrats — balked at the House’s foundation formula, which early modeling suggested could wind up costing a little more money than is currently spent, at least at the outset. Most of the Senate Democratic caucus, however, is opposed to the Senate’s formula, which critics say tamps down spending without being rooted in research.
And whether lawmakers go with the House or the Senate’s bill, they run into the same problem: a foundation formula risks raising taxes in some of the most tax-averse communities in the state. That’s because it would largely equalize spending across Vermont. But with near-uniform spending would come uniform tax rates. That’ll decrease taxes in towns that currently spend above the average — but it’ll likely increase them, perhaps substantially, in low-spending communities.
All modeling done by legislative staff at this point in reform efforts is highly preliminary. But it was evident from a peek at her inbox over the weekend that spreadsheets estimating potential tax and spending implications in each district have created widespread anger and panic, Sen. Ann Cummings told her colleagues.
“I stopped doing emails when I didn't feel I could bleed anymore,” the Washington County Democrat said.
As the meeting wound down, Baruth said he would withdraw the legislation from Wednesday’s floor schedule, and he encouraged his caucus members to reach out to him with ideas. He suggested some might propose amendments aimed at garnering a critical mass of support — while others might insist lawmakers simply go home for the year.
“No matter where you are on the floor, it is always in order to adjourn,” he said. “And the reason for that is the founders thought that you didn't always need to legislate.”
