Editor’s note: today’s post has been updated with more information about differences between House roll call vote and an earlier ‘division’ vote.
By Guy Page
Yesterday, June 16, the Vermont House and the Vermont Senate passed the final version of H.454, the education transformation bill, and then adjourned.
As adopted by a conference committee last week, the bill – which will be signed into law by Gov. Phil Scott – establishes:
- Per-pupil ‘foundation’ spending of $15,033.
- Minimum class sizes.
- New, super-sized school districts. Boundaries to be determined next year. Existing, local school districts will not be voting on school budgets.
- Some independent schools will receive tuition, others will not. Emphasis is on schools that currently serve in effect as the local high school, in absence of a public school.
In the Senate, both support and opposition were bi-partisan.
At about 7:20 PM, inn the House, most Republicans and many Democrats voted yes 96-45 in a roll call vote in response to to the question, “Shall the bill be delivered to the Governor forthwith?”
It is unclear how accurately the roll call reflects the true support for the H.454. Earlier on Monday, the House voted 113-26 by ‘division’ to accept the conference committee report.
In a division vote, lawmakers stand up to vote. The individual votes are not recorded. However, the yes and no votes are more discernable to onlookers than a voice vote. Given the difference between the June 16 role call and the division votes, it is clear some House members voted differently in the roll call and division votes.
The two votes and their varying results explain why some legislators claimed (accurately) to have voted against H.454 – they did so in the division question – and then voted Yes to send it to the governor. And likely vice-versa.
Teachers’ unions and professional educators’ advocacy groups expressed dissatisfaction with minimum class sizes, the likelihood of school consolidation, and the inclusion of some independent schools (where teachers are not unionized).
An unusually high number of senators chose to explain their votes. Although the legislative website has not yet published the House or Senate journals from yesterday, roll calls from both chambers are available on the legislative website and are published below. Senators’ comments are republished from the unofficial transcript published on GoldenDomeVT, an AI-assisted, speech-to-text website developed by Tom Evslin of Stowe to communicate transcripts, clips, and summaries of all House and Senate meetings.
Sam Douglass, R-Orleans – Yes
I’m voting yes, not to stand with my colleagues or even the governor, but in support of the spirit of reform that I was elected in part to address. Without such a reform to remain where we are, I have failed my voters. We will see a continued onslaught of tax increases in a system that continues to grow beyond reason. I have had many concerns and nonnegotiables as this bill progressed. And in one way or another, they’ve all been addressed.
I’ve gone back and forth in the last twenty four hours to the chagrin of many. But the final reason I settled here are the guardrails in place to bring us back next year to address concerns that still bother me. And I know one thing for certain, with the information I’ve been given in the last twenty, forty eight hours, I am not voting to raise property taxes.
Steve Heffernan, R-Addison – Yes
I voted yes because I was brought here by my constituents to make changes in education. It’s not just about what our property tax amount is. Education definitely rules that, but….we need to start some change, and this is a step forward in that change. We have a long ways to go. If we can’t decide on districts, this all might be for naught. But I need to vote yes to show that I’m ready for change in education and law.
Russ Ingalls, R-Essex – No
I vote no not because I don’t believe that we need to do better. I vote no because the initial first look raises taxes too high in too many of my towns, the poorest region of the state. I’m in sincere hopes that as we work on H.454, we can make it the law that puts kids first in education. I also hope that the first look that raises taxes on my towns levels out and that this bill does what we all hope that public education should do in Vermont, give Vermont kids the best education in the world.
Chris Mattos, R-Chittenden North – Yes
Today I vote yes on H.454 as a first step in the process, not the last. H.454 will begin the work to create a more equitable education system for all of Vermont’s children. I look forward to continuing this work in January. Make no mistake, as the work continues, if it does not work for the school staff, the taxpayers, and most importantly, the children of the communities I serve, I will have to get off the bus at that time.
Terry Williams, R-Rutland – Yes
Vermont is a unique place, it’s the only state that has a constitutional requirement that we educate our children. The Brigham decision said, yes, we have to educate them and we have to pay for it and fund it equitably, but they did not say we had to do it with property taxes. But that’s for another fight for another session.
So the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one. H.454, although not perfect, is intended to deal with the problem which began with act 60 back in 1997. This bill is a plan to validate the education vision to make Vermont education a world class endeavor. And it will become just that if all stakeholders get on board with it and make it happen.
Alison Clarkson, D-Windsor – No
Ruth Bader Ginsburg said fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you. And I think the reason I, in part, voted no on this is that I do not think we brought the Vermont education community, our parents, our teachers, our superintendents, a lot of our education community and our constituents were not brought along, and that’s partly timing.
One of our jobs is to bring people along. Lead them to a place where we can get to. Yes, education transformation has to happen. There is no question. But getting there is critically important.
Meaningful transformation needed more time and more buy in. Public education deserves more care, more listening, more respect. We cannot afford to compromise the integrity of one of the key foundations of our democracy.
Ruth Hardy, D Addison – No
We come back next session, and there are so many decisions that have to be made about how do we do districts, what do we do about special education, how do we fund career and technical education, What do we do about pre-k? Is this the right foundation formula? There are so many decisions still to be made, and what people saw last week was that this chamber, this body did not have their back.
Over the weekend, I heard from hundreds of people. I think I made fifty phone calls just myself yesterday to check-in with people. They repeatedly told me, we don’t trust the Senate, and that made me really sad. So I have put so much of myself into this bill, and there is a lot that I like. The tax stuff is excellent. Some of the education stuff is very good, but it is resting on the ability of our body to do right by public education in the future, and we lost their trust last week when people saw the performance of the committee on conference, as they colored outside the lines.
I wrestled with it until late last night, but I cannot support this bill because I think it is too risky given the performance of the conference committee and what that will mean in the future.
Martine Gulick, D-Chittenden Central – No
[Some supporters] refuse to see that public education is a tenet of democratic values and should be supported and encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The entitlement programs that allow these Vermonters to send their child to a ski school at a reduced cost are more important than fighting for statewide reform.
If we believe a public education system is a common good, this bill does not underscore that belief, and in fact it opens up the very real possibility that we someday face litigation that could lead to universal choice and the privatization of education — expensive propositions that favor the elite. [Excerpted from her commentary on VTDigger]
H.454 roll calls of the House and Senate appear below.
| Senate Roll Call, 4:28 PM June 16, 2025 | |||||
| H.454 An act relating to transforming Vermont’s education governance, quality, and finance systems | |||||
| Question | Shall the Senate accept and adopt the report of the Commttee of Conference? | ||||
| Total Yes | 17 | ||||
| Total No | 12 | ||||
| Total Absent | 1 | ||||
| Pass/Fail | Pass | ||||
| Journal Page | 6/16/2025 SJ 94 P. 0 | ||||
| Baruth of Chittenden-Central District | Yea | ||||
| Beck of Caledonia District | Yea | ||||
| Bongartz of Bennington District | Yea | ||||
| Brennan of Grand Isle District | Yea | ||||
| Brock of Franklin District | Yea | ||||
| Chittenden of Chittenden-Southeast District | Nay | ||||
| Clarkson of Windsor District | Nay | ||||
| Collamore of Rutland District | Yea | ||||
| Cummings of Washington District | Yea | ||||
| Douglass of Orleans District | Yea* | ||||
| Gulick of Chittenden-Central District | Nay | ||||
| Hardy of Addison District | Nay | ||||
| Harrison of Windham District | Yea | ||||
| Hart of Orange District | Yea | ||||
| Hashim of Windham District | Nay | ||||
| Heffernan of Addison District | Yea* | ||||
| Ingalls of Essex District | Nay* | ||||
| Lyons of Chittenden-Southeast District | Yea | ||||
| Major of Windsor District | Nay | ||||
| Mattos of Chittenden-North District | Yea* | ||||
| Norris of Franklin District | Absent | ||||
| Perchlik of Washington District | Nay | ||||
| Plunkett of Bennington District | Yea | ||||
| Ram Hinsdale of Chittenden-Southeast District | Yea | ||||
| Vyhovsky of Chittenden-Central District | Nay | ||||
| Watson of Washington District | Nay | ||||
| Weeks of Rutland District | Yea | ||||
| Westman of Lamoille District | Nay | ||||
| White of Windsor District | Nay | ||||
| Williams of Rutland District | Yea* | ||||
| House Roll Call, 7:21 PM, June 16 | |||||
| H.454 An act relating to transforming Vermont’s education governance, quality, and finance systems | |||||
| Question | Shall H.454 be delivred to the Governor forthwith? | ||||
| Total Yes | 96 | ||||
| Total No | 45 | ||||
| Total Absent | 8 | ||||
| Pass/Fail | Pass | ||||
| Journal Page | 6/16/2025 HJ 89 P. 0 | ||||
| Member | Vote | ||||
| Pinsonault of Dorset | Yea* | ||||
| Pritchard of Pawlet | Yea* | ||||
| Walker of Swanton | Yea* | ||||
| Austin of Colchester | Yea | ||||
| Bailey of Hyde Park | Yea | ||||
| Bartley of Fairfax | Yea | ||||
| Birong of Vergennes | Yea | ||||
| Bishop of Colchester | Yea | ||||
| Black of Essex | Yea | ||||
| Bluemle of Burlington | Yea | ||||
| Bosch of Clarendon | Yea | ||||
| Boutin of Barre City | Yea | ||||
| Branagan of Georgia | Yea | ||||
| Burditt of West Rutland | Yea | ||||
| Canfield of Fair Haven | Yea | ||||
| Casey of Hubbardton | Yea | ||||
| Charlton of Chester | Yea | ||||
| Coffin of Cavendish | Yea | ||||
| Conlon of Cornwall | Yea | ||||
| Cooper of Pownal | Yea | ||||
| Corcoran of Bennington | Yea | ||||
| Critchlow of Colchester | Yea | ||||
| Demar of Enosburgh | Yea | ||||
| Dickinson of St. Albans Town | Yea | ||||
| Dobrovich of Williamstown | Yea | ||||
| Dodge of Essex | Yea | ||||
| Dolan of Essex Junction | Yea | ||||
| Dolgin of St. Johnsbury | Yea | ||||
| Donahue of Northfield | Yea | ||||
| Duke of Burlington | Yea | ||||
| Durfee of Shaftsbury | Yea | ||||
| Eastes of Guilford | Yea | ||||
| Emmons of Springfield | Yea | ||||
| Feltus of Lyndon | Yea | ||||
| Galfetti of Barre Town | Yea | ||||
| Garofano of Essex | Yea | ||||
| Goldman of Rockingham | Yea | ||||
| Goodnow of Brattleboro | Yea | ||||
| Goslant of Northfield | Yea | ||||
| Hango of Berkshire | Yea | ||||
| Harrison of Chittenden | Yea | ||||
| Harvey of Castleton | Yea | ||||
| Higley of Lowell | Yea | ||||
| Hooper of Burlington | Yea | ||||
| Houghton of Essex Junction | Yea | ||||
| Howland of Rutland Town | Yea | ||||
| Hunter of Manchester | Yea | ||||
| James of Manchester | Yea | ||||
| Kascenska of Burke | Yea | ||||
| Keyser of Rutland City | Yea | ||||
| Kimbell of Woodstock | Yea | ||||
| Kornheiser of Brattleboro | Yea | ||||
| Labor of Morgan | Yea | ||||
| Lalley of Shelburne | Yea | ||||
| LaLonde of South Burlington | Yea | ||||
| Laroche of Franklin | Yea | ||||
| Luneau of St. Albans City | Yea | ||||
| Maguire of Rutland City | Yea | ||||
| Malay of Pittsford | Yea | ||||
| Marcotte of Coventry | Yea | ||||
| Masland of Thetford | Yea | ||||
| McCoy of Poultney | Yea | ||||
| McFaun of Barre Town | Yea | ||||
| Micklus of Milton | Yea | ||||
| Mihaly of Calais | Yea | ||||
| Morgan of Milton | Yea | ||||
| Morgan of Milton | Yea | ||||
| Morris of Springfield | Yea | ||||
| Morrissey of Bennington | Yea | ||||
| Morrow of Weston | Yea | ||||
| Mrowicki of Putney | Yea | ||||
| Nielsen of Brandon | Yea | ||||
| Nigro of Bennington | Yea | ||||
| North of Ferrisburgh | Yea | ||||
| Noyes of Wolcott | Yea | ||||
| Nugent of South Burlington | Yea | ||||
| Ode of Burlington | Yea | ||||
| Oliver of Sheldon | Yea | ||||
| Page of Newport City | Yea | ||||
| Pezzo of Colchester | Yea | ||||
| Pouech of Hinesburg | Yea | ||||
| Powers of Waterford | Yea | ||||
| Quimby of Lyndon | Yea | ||||
| Satcowitz of Randolph | Yea | ||||
| Scheu of Middlebury | Yea | ||||
| Sheldon of Middlebury | Yea | ||||
| Sibilia of Dover | Yea | ||||
| Southworth of Walden | Yea | ||||
| Steady of Milton | Yea | ||||
| Tagliavia of Corinth | Yea | ||||
| Taylor of Milton | Yea | ||||
| Toof of St. Albans Town | Yea | ||||
| Waszazak of Barre City | Yea | ||||
| White of Waitsfield | Yea | ||||
| Winter of Ludlow | Yea | ||||
| Wood of Waterbury | Yea | ||||
| Krowinski of Burlington | Not Voting | ||||
| Harple of Glover | Nay* | ||||
| Headrick of Burlington | Nay* | ||||
| Kleppner of Burlington | Nay* | ||||
| McCann of Montpelier | Nay* | ||||
| McGill of Bridport | Nay* | ||||
| Olson of Starksboro | Nay* | ||||
| Priestley of Bradford | Nay* | ||||
| Surprenant of Barnard | Nay* | ||||
| Tomlinson of Winooski | Nay* | ||||
| Arsenault of Williston | Nay | ||||
| Bos-Lun of Westminster | Nay | ||||
| Boyden of Cambridge | Nay | ||||
| Brady of Williston | Nay | ||||
| Brown of Richmond | Nay | ||||
| Burke of Brattleboro | Nay | ||||
| Burkhardt of South Burlington | Nay | ||||
| Burrows of West Windsor | Nay | ||||
| Carris-Duncan of Whitingham | Nay | ||||
| Casey of Montpelier | Nay | ||||
| Chapin of East Montpelier | Nay | ||||
| Christie of Hartford | Nay | ||||
| Cina of Burlington | Nay | ||||
| Cole of Hartford | Nay | ||||
| Cordes of Bristol | Nay | ||||
| Graning of Jericho | Nay | ||||
| Greer of Bennington | Nay | ||||
| Holcombe of Norwich | Nay | ||||
| Hooper of Randolph | Nay | ||||
| Howard of Rutland City | Nay | ||||
| Krasnow of South Burlington | Nay | ||||
| Lipsky of Stowe | Nay | ||||
| Logan of Burlington | Nay | ||||
| Long of Newfane | Nay | ||||
| Minier of South Burlington | Nay | ||||
| Nelson of Derby | Nay | ||||
| O’Brien of Tunbridge | Nay | ||||
| Rachelson of Burlington | Nay | ||||
| Stevens of Waterbury | Nay | ||||
| Stone of Burlington | Nay | ||||
| Sweeney of Shelburne | Nay | ||||
| Torre of Moretown | Nay | ||||
| Waters Evans of Charlotte | Nay | ||||
| Wells of Brownington | Nay | ||||
| White of Bethel | Nay | ||||
| Yacovone of Morristown | Nay | ||||
| Bartholomew of Hartland | Absent | ||||
| Berbeco of Winooski | Absent | ||||
| Burtt of Cabot | Absent | ||||
| Campbell of St. Johnsbury | Absent | ||||
| Gregoire of Fairfield | Absent | ||||
| LaMont of Morristown | Absent | ||||
| Parsons of Newbury | Absent | ||||
| Squirrell of Underhill | Absent |