Governor Scott's Education Reform Plan - Overview & Analysis

After much teasing, Governor Scott's team introduced a comprehensive education reform that is undoubtedly the boldest policy proposal he has put forward during his career in public service. It would make dramatic changes to the way that Vermont's education system looks and functions.

"The lack of scale limits opportunities, creates competition for dollars, and makes Vermont vulnerable to shifts in federal funding and state economic changes. Inequity in terms of students access to robust course lists, electives, Sports, and enrichment opportunities are evident in the system." - Zoie Saunders, Secretary of Education

The Details:

• Vermont's 52 Supervisory Unions would be disbanded.
• The state's 119 school districts would be consolidated into 5 regional "super" districts that would take on most administrative functions.
• Wrap around services (afterschool, mental health, career pathways, etc.) would be prioritized.
• Teacher salaries would be increased to attract better teachers as staffing levels are decreased.
• The funding system would transition to a foundation formula that provides a significant portion of funding from the statewide Education Fund.
  • The base education payment would be $13,200 per student, but this will be further adjusted for the following factors:
    • Economically Disadvantaged Student Count (+ 75%)
    • English Language Learner Count (+ 150%)
    • Career and Technical Education FTE student (+ 130%)
    • Early Childhood Education Count (- 54%)
    • District sparsity weight
    • Size adjustment (applied to each school's enrollment)
    • NOTE: These payments would cover about 92% of current spending levels
  • Categorical aid would still apply on top of this, like it does today for
    • Special Education
    • Transportation
    • State-Placed Students
    • Other Uses
  • Each district could choose to spend more than the base amount (presumably) on their own grand list value. However this would be capped to prevent districts from spending too far above average, creating disparities.
  • The intent is to simplify the funding formula by making it clear where funds come from.
• The 150 year-old town tuitioning program would be disbanded and a new form of school choice would be introduced statewide. Each of the five school districts would be required to designate at least one choice choice school that is an alternative to the public schools that students is assigned to. This choice school could be another public school (like a magnet school) or an independent school that the district designates. If there are capacity limitations at the receiving school, then a lottery system would determine who is allowed to enroll. 
• The existing property tax credit program would be turned into an income-based homestead exemption. The intent is to make the tax impacts of budgets easier to understand and explain. It would also eliminate a lag problem where the property tax credit couldn't be claimed until the following year. This comes into play when there is a large spike in property taxes in one year and taxpayers would wait 18-24 before the credit offsets that increase in property tax bills.

• The Agency of Education would renew focus on oversight and adherence to Education Quality Standards.

Analysis:

Governor Scott's education reform plan aims to address declining student enrollment by consolidating school districts. The plan also seeks to improve educational outcomes by increasing funding for early childhood education and expanding access to vocational and technical training programs. Additionally, it includes measures to support teachers through professional development opportunities and performance-based pay. These are all worthwhile goals, but they come at the cost of eviscerating local control. It doesn't have to be that way.

Local school boards and town meeting debates over school budgets are hallmarks of rural Vermont communities. They offer a way for Vermonters to engage with our school system and take ownership of it. Moving this responsibility to some far off board is a dramatic change and is, quite honestly, unnecessary. We know what the cost drivers are, and they aren't local school boards. They are staff and administrative overhead, which in today's system is largely at the Supervisory Union level.

You could gain most of the savings under the Governor's plan and leave local control intact by consolidating supervisory unions. We could move towards five of those as the Governor has proposed, but we prefer a proposal we suggested in 2014 which would align supervisory unions with our Technical Education Centers in order to strengthen our post-secondary educational opportunities.

The new school choice system is both an opportunity and a potential problem. While potentially expanding choices for parents statewide and providing individual accountability mechanisms, the system could leave students in "public school deserts" stranded without a nearby designated school for them to attend. A few parts of the state that have a strong history of school choice often do not have any public high schools. Much of the Northeast Kingdom and all of Grand Isle County are in this boat. Putting the power to designate schools into the hands of, what are likely to be, highly political regional boards could leave some students assigned to a school over an hour away from their home.

Other aspects of the plan, such as the foundation formula and the increased focus on performance are excellent ideas that deserve consideration by legislators. The foundation formula would make it very clear why property taxes are going up in a given community. For example, if the legislature funds a 3% increase in the base payment (per pupil) to school districts, but local spending increases at 8% per pupil, we know where the problem is. Conversely, if the Legislature chooses to level fund the base payment, then they can be held accountable for shifting inflationary increases onto school districts. This is a level of accountability lacking from our current system.

The other significant advantage of the foundation formula is that it will compress the range of spending we see across our education system. We currently have schools spending $5,520 per student and others spending nearly $27,000. That is not fair or equitable to our students. Some variation should be allowed, but not a 5x difference. The new $13,200 base will greatly reduce the variation in spending and bring the lowest spending districts up to an adequate level without raising their property taxes.

Overall, the funding changes alone would reduce Education Fund spending by $184M according to Secretary Saunders. However, individual school districts could choose to spend back up to current spending levels if they so choose; this would (presumably) be on the local tax base. Saunders argues that the proposed base funding amount would be one of the most generous in the country but we have done no analysis on that claim. That being said, the new formula funds (on average) 92% school's current spending levels. This applies some pressure on school districts for modest savings.

Current Status:

No bill has been introduced (yet) with this proposal. However, the proposal (or elements of it) could be included in the annual education yield bill.

Last updated: 2/14/2025 (included more details regarding the new school choice system)

RED = Recent Updates

DISCLAIMER: Generative AI used to assist in the production of this report.