by Rep. Anne Donahue

The Education funding reform bill passed after split votes in both House and Senate on Monday, with lots of angst even among those voting yes. That brought an end to this year’s extended session.

For many years, I’ve believed that “local control” over education funds has been a façade, given the actual funding mechanism. I believe that a state obligation for a crucial statewide system should have funds raised and budgeted at the state level equally for all students across the state. Setting a path for that shift is the only thing this bill actually does, and I supported it.

Contrary to discussions or opinions:

1. It does not save money. 

It spends more for transition needs, and could theoretically save money in the future. It could just as theoretically spend more. The difference will be that it will be in the hands of the legislature, accountable to voters, instead of in the hands of local towns: statewide spending, thus state budgeted spending… like roads, social services, court systems and the rest.

There are built-in new costs, such as re-starting school construction aid (and assuming the need for new construction for regional needs.) The new cut in property taxes for lower-income homeowners may cost more than the current income sensitivity system. Future consolidation may save some money, but not enough to offset new costs. Increasing class sizes will save some money, but the required increases are minimal. (At least 10 students for first grade; 12 for 2nd-5th; 15 for 6th-8th; 18 for high school.)

2. It does not close small rural schools.

There are multiple exemptions for size to meet needs; the decision-making process for closure is yet to be defined. I think upper grades need and benefit from larger regional schools, but not elementary schools.

3. It does not mean teachers will be laid off. 

Again, class minimums requirements remain low; at most, there could be reductions achieved through attrition. There is a timeline for any changes, and a soft-touch consequence for not meeting them.  

4. It is not happening too fast for good decisions.

Almost every aspect is yet to be determined over the next several years after more work by sub-groups that include professionals. If those steps aren’t achieved (after being fought over in future legislative sessions), the process ends. A map for proposed larger districts will be the first test for whether consensus will be possible for moving forward.

Note that even pieces that are “established” in this year’s bill don’t take place immediately, which means they can be changed if new information demonstrates the direction should change. 

5. It does not “privatize” education and place the public system at risk.

It actually cuts back on some access to independent schools. Yes, in theory it could make it easier in the future to expand a private school voucher system, but that would still require a whole, new, controversial change in law. 

6. It does not penalize thrifty towns with big tax increases, or force cuts.

Sorting out the issue of addressing changes from current local tax rates or budgets is one of the many work areas yet to be resolved. If it does have unfair results, the opportunity will be there to say, stop; this doesn’t work. 

7. It does not ignore the major cost drivers in school budgets.

Some of those drivers, such as special education, are elements that are part of the further work outline in the bill. Others are not addressed because they are not direct education system issues. Health care’s staggering cost increases are a separate problem for all of our budgets. Yes, it helps drive school budgets in a big way, but that is a component that will now be a shared problem for the state to address in funding, rather than for each town to react to by rejecting a local budget that has soared upwards because of health care costs.

What was I happy to see in the final version of the bill that came forward? 

Two things:

First, an intent to try for a faster timeline: 3 years instead of 4 to start actual changes. It is unlikely to meet the timeline because there is so much work and so many decisions yet to be made. We will be likely to vote on time extensions, something we do often. But dragging out change can be a detriment; I think a goal to move decisions forward as soon as reasonably possible is good.

Secondly, it was the first time a transparent statement was made in the bill that clarifies that there is not necessarily even an intent to reduce the taxes needed to support our schools. The intent is to reduce the increases in the property tax, which is being perceived as the main thing taxpayers are upset about: increased property taxes, not taxes overall.

The bill now states that within the intent to prevent property tax increases, if need be, we will transfer current spending into other budgets that have other revenue sources (income tax, sales tax… anything other than property tax.) Some of these could be very appropriate. Are school lunches or mental health supports a part of education, or are they social services that should be in our social services budget? But the outcome will be more pressure and increases to those other budgets. It shifts funding to other tax categories.

Speaking of mental health support – which a majority believe are a critical need in our schools – that is one of the clear examples of how inequitable the current system is within the state. Schools must pay the matching funds for the federal Medicaid support for having mental health clinicians. Many of our schools, in communities that don’t believe it’s affordable for their town, don’t have those services. These supports should not be dependent upon where you live.

If one wants to consider whether our current convoluted system of education spending represents equal tax burdens for equal education support across the state, one need only consider the Northfield budget over the past two years.

In 2024, Northfield tightened its belt compared to many other districts in the state. Northfield spends less than the statewide average per pupil. Yet in the final outcome, the average property tax rate increase across the state was 14%. In Northfield, it was 18%. This year, Northfield (or, the full district) tried to catch up on some pressing needs. The budget increase was 14%. Yet the tax rate will only increase by 2% to meet that increase.

This is why I term “local control” a façade under the current funding structure.

While many folks are scared about potential implications, the bottom line is that this bill, this year, only begins a process for a statewide system of equal taxing for equal resources for the opportunities for each student. And it uses the same system that the majority of states use for education funding. But no part is locked in yet. This bill is about intent and doing important and necessary groundwork to address the many complex issues.

Most of the big decisions are ahead of us and will present major challenges to resolve.

The author is the longtime House member for Northfield and Berlin. Once a Republican, she was re-elected last year as an independent.