Seize the opportunity for a second chance on school reform

The Act 73 Redistricting Task Force wrapped up their work today, and they’ve given the state a chance to rethink the course of education reform it has been pursuing for the last decade. Vermont communities, as well as elected leaders, should seize this opportunity to get us out of the ditch we’ve been in and refocus on what should be our priority: ensuring our kids have what they need to thrive.

The 168-page draft proposal from the November 10^th meeting of the Task Force had a lot to digest. And it requires close reading because the proposal offers much more nuanced analyses of problems confronting the education system than we’ve seen from the administration or the Legislature in recent years. The Task Force also put out a more streamlined draft report today along with an explanation of the changes.

One of the group’s most important recommendations is to stop further forced consolidation of school districts, which fits with one of the Task Force’s guiding principles: Do no harm.  It’s not that the committee opposes mergers. It recommends voluntary consolidation for some districts in certain circumstances, which was the state’s policy before passage of Act 46 a decade ago.

Like all recent education reform plans, the Redistricting Task Force focused on costs. But it didn’t offer the usual we-have-to-do-something-about-Vermont’s-skyrocketing-education-spending refrain, which has pitted the administration and the Legislature against local school officials for too long. Instead of demanding that school districts curb their spending, the Task Force suggested a process in which districts collaborate, with lots of support and help from the Agency of Education, to find ways to save money.

The report includes examples of potential cost savings, and none of them appear to require an overhaul of the education financing system. For example, the Task Force pointed to areas where public schools have seen a rise in per pupil spending because they’ve lost students to independent schools. (School taxes are tied to per-pupil costs, so a decline in students can drive up taxes.) Fixing this would require changes to how we pay for tuition students, which is not addressed in Act 73.

The proposal also pushed back against some of the conventional wisdom that has grown up around Vermont’s education system, like the idea that larger schools are more efficient and produce better outcomes than smaller ones, or that small schools need to close because it’s the small communities that are losing students.

The report referenced other cost drivers, but not in much detail because they were beyond the scope of the committee’s mission. They deserve mention, though, because they go to the heart of perhaps the most consistent complaint about Vermont’s funding system: per pupil spending.

Vermont spends more than most other states and has for a long time. In recent years, the cost of health care—especially mental health care—has been a big factor. But that’s a problem for many businesses and individuals in Vermont, not the fault of the school funding system. The Task Force also noted that Vermont spends a bigger share of its education budget on social services than neighboring states. That’s in part because other states pay for services through the general state budget—and perhaps through county budgets in some cases—that Vermont covers through the Education Fund. Moving costs from the Education Fund to the General Fund wouldn’t eliminate them, but it would relieve pressure on education property taxes—and lower Vermont’s average per pupil spending.

Vermont saw an unusual jump in education spending and school taxes in fiscal 2025, which set off the current scramble to remake the state’s education funding system. But some homeowners are getting hit with tax increases not tied to spending increases. There are ways to address those jumps and make the tax system fairer without the disruption of more consolidation or upending the entire system.  But that, too, was beyond the scope of the Task Force’s mission and can be addressed separately.

What the Redistricting Task Force has laid out is a more nuanced approach that has a better chance of gaining public acceptance than something imposed by Montpelier. It will require addressing a lot of specific problems rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. And it offers greater opportunity for local community engagement, which is critical to making any change work. At a time when democracy is under threat across the country, it makes sense to protect and preserve it here at home—for our communities and our kids.