House and Senate negotiators are meeting in Montpelier this week to find an elusive deal on a major education reform package, but there’s no guarantee that rank-and-file lawmakers will sign off on whatever compromise their leadership delivers.
An informal survey of lawmakers across political and geographical lines reveals deep misgivings with a still-developing reform plan that many say represents the most important vote of their legislative careers.
“This is one of, I think, the most consequential things that the Vermont Legislature has done probably since civil unions, in that it proposes a completely new way of not just funding, but how we govern, in terms of education,” said Barre City Rep. Teddy Waszazak, a Democrat.
After a two-week recess, the House and Senate are scheduled to return to the Statehouse Monday morning to cast a vote on the education bill. Waszazak is among the lawmakers Vermont Public interviewed this week who voted "yes" on the reform plan earlier this year, but are now uncommitted.
“There are so many things still up in the air that I don’t think it’s possible for any of us to really know what we’re going to do until we get that final product from the conference committee,” he said.
Education reform rose to the top of the legislative agenda this year after a voter revolt over property tax increases led to historic Republican gains in the House and Senate. Republican Gov. Phil Scott and Democratic leaders in the Legislature have coalesced around a big-picture consensus. Vermont should consolidate schools and districts, they argue, and shift to a foundation formula, where the state controls the bulk of school spending.
More from Vermont Edition: The story behind the education bill that's divided Vermont's Legislature
But while leadership haggles over the details, support for those basic concepts appears to be waning among some rank-and-file lawmakers.
Sen. Thomas Chittenden, a Chittenden County Democrat, voted to pass the Senate’s version of the bill in May. But he’s since told legislative leaders not to count on his vote — unless the legislation scraps the foundation formula, at least for now.
He thinks the state should have a “more rational” number of school districts. But a funding scheme that risks raising taxes in communities that have historically spent well below the state average while dramatically cutting funding in those that have chosen to spend more is “not what Vermonters asked us to do,” he said.
His concerns are shared across the aisle.
“I’ve been getting emails like you wouldn’t believe,” said Sen. Pat Brennan.
The Grand Isle Republican said his district includes both lower-spending districts that might see tax increases and higher-spending districts that could see their funding slashed — by more than 20% in one instance — under the proposed new foundation formula.
Brennan said the bill needs to meet key benchmarks in order to win his vote: It has to lower people’s property taxes, and it can’t result in the immediate closure of schools in his district. The proposal under construction in a House and Senate conference committee right now, he said, might fall short on both.
“Right now I don’t see myself supporting it, from what I’m hearing,” Brennan said. “But saying that, I don’t know what I’m looking at yet.”
More from Vermont Public: Education reform is on the brink of passage — or collapse
House negotiators say they’ve been at work on modeling that will show their funding formula will generally hold taxpayers harmless. But further discussion on funding and taxes has been derailed for now by a topic that’s been dividing lawmakers for decades: independent schools.
In negotiations, Senate conferees have repeatedly introduced new proposals at the behest of the private schools that take publicly funded students — proposals that weren’t included in the bill the Senate passed in May.
Private school advocates say the formula in that legislation risks putting standalone high schools that aren’t part of a larger district out of business. But public education groups, and many Democrats, have reacted with dismay at what they see as an unfair carve-out.
“I'm afraid they are going to end up killing any bill that could possibly come out of this, because they are arguing for very narrow interests of schools that serve fewer than 5% of the kids in the state,” said Sen. Ruth Hardy, who negotiated an intra-party compromise that allowed Democratic senators to pass a bill in May.
Morrisville Rep. Dave Yacovone, a Democrat, voted "yes" on the House’s version of the education bill in April. While he had deep concerns about what it would mean for the future of small schools, he said he felt obligated to respond to the economic pressure that rising property taxes have placed on so many of his constituents.
As he reviews the product being considered now, he said, he worries some of the more effective tax-relief mechanisms have been stripped from the proposal.
“I could be a 'no' vote just because of the uncertainty,” Yacovone said. “Now, there’s the other side of me that says we need major changes to get to the tax relief, and this is but a step.”
A step, however, that might still take many years to deliver the tax relief voters are clamoring for. The latest iteration of the bill wouldn’t change education funding or governance until at least July 2028.
“Our conferees are saying, you know, we need three to four years to get to the other side. To which I say, ‘If I don’t have significant tax relief for voters within three or four years, there will be many new faces in the Legislature,” Yacovone said.
For Rep. Rebecca Holcombe, a Norwich Democrat, the legislative debate has ignored what’s chiefly responsible for rising costs in education — namely, health care and special education.
The former state secretary of education also believes pursuing more wide-scale consolidation is misguided, particularly with no construction funding available to help build larger campuses, and a national political climate that threatens to destabilize schools.
“I'm really worried we're going to turn our towns and our communities upside down right now, just as the Trump administration is about to take a two-by-four to public education in its budget,” she said.
The urgency for a reform package has pushed lawmakers well into overtime this year. But not everybody thinks the rush is advised. The governor has said he’ll keep calling lawmakers back to Montpelier until they get an education bill passed, and legislative leaders have also committed to getting something done in 2025.
Windsor County Sen. Alison Clarkson, a Democrat, said elected officials might be better served by taking more time to arrive at a plan that has broader buy-in from voters.
“This is part of the challenge, that we’re making this incredibly consequential decision, (and) we don’t have enough time to necessarily fully understand it,” Clarkson said. “This is one of the biggest decisions we will make in our lifetime in the Legislature. … We need to bring people along with it, so that as many people as possible are on the same page.”
Franklin County Sen. Randy Brock, a Republican, said lawmakers have deliberated long enough. He said it’s been more than a decade since elected officials realized Vermont needed a new education funding system.
“We need to make decisions,” Brock said.
The tortuous process of getting to a final decision, however, doesn’t give Brock much confidence that 2025 will go down as the year lawmakers finally delivered education reform.
“The bickering that’s gone on during the conference committee process is indicative of the fact that we have people approaching this in a very fixed and doctrinaire (way),” he said. “I’m not tremendously hopeful. And if we do come up with a compromise, I’m not convinced the compromise will be the right one.”
Vermont Public reporter Bob Kinzel contributed to this report.
