$1800/student, district sizes separate governor and House/Senate
By Guy Page
A House and Senate conference committee meets today to work out differences in the H.454, ‘transforming Vermont’s education governance, quality, and finance systems.
Talk around the State House says that Gov. Phil Scott may present to the conference committee a compromise plan that (he hopes) will satisfy the House, Senate and himself.
Without such a compromise, a veto is likely – one that would likely succeed. A GOP amendment to the version of H.454 that passed the Senate Friday night had 13 votes – not enough to pass but more than enough to support a veto, should the governor exercise that power.
Distance between the House and Senate stopped being a significant problem Friday, when Senate Democrat leaders tossed out most of several months of work by the Senate Education Committee and demanded an education funding and governance reform more in sync with the House version of H.454.
State House insiders say Senate Democratic caucus voted down the Senate Ed version of the bill 12-5. Had the vote been held on Senate Ed’s bill, it may well have passed 18-12, with the 13 Republicans on the ‘winning’ side – a situation deemed intolerable by Senate leaders as it creates a new coalition of a GOP/’blue dog’ Democrats.
That late-night vote moved the Senate further away from Scott’s vision for education reform. He and House Republicans see the current version as an inadequate response to voters’ demand last November for more affordable education. Notably, the governor wants per student funding of $13,200, about $1800 less than the House/Senate version.
The version passed by the Senate Friday night, after the GOP amendment failed 13-17, more closely aligns with the House version of the bill. There are some differences – the Senate version has lower targets for class sizes and more latitude for independent schools – but reconciling the two won’t be a big lift for the conference committee.
The real rub is the difference between the final legislative version and what Gov. Scott wants. Here’s a summary of Gov. Scott’s January proposal, and the current House and Senate versions.
Governor’s Original Proposal (January)
- District Consolidation: Reduce from 119 school districts to 5 regional districts
- Per-Student Funding (Foundation Formula): $13,200 per student
- Implementation Start: 2026–27 school year
House and Senate Version, now in conference committee
- District Consolidation: Create multiple consolidated districts, each with a maximum of 8,000 students
- Decision Process: A committee (including school administrators) would propose consolidation plans
- Per-Student Funding (Foundation Formula): $15,033 per student (based on the Kolbe model)
- Implementation Start: 2029
Even if the Legislature adjourns, the governor can call them back into session – in this case, likely a mid-June ‘veto session’. Shortly after the Senate joined hands – or at least pinkies – with the House, Scott issued a statement saying that “we cannot adjourn” without a better plan.
“In January, I proposed a bold plan to reform our public education system, focused on improving quality and opportunities for our kids, stabilizing our funding system, and providing taxpayers with much needed relief.
“I have been clear: we cannot adjourn this legislative session without a bill that sets us on the course to accomplish these goals, and I’ve appreciated the constructive conversations we’ve had with both chambers to date.
“While the Senate moving this bill forward today is an important procedural step, I still cannot accept either the House or Senate versions. I do however remain optimistic about finding a path forward with the committee of conference.
“As I’ve said since the beginning of this process, I will only accept a final product that costs less than it does today, sets us on a clear path to achieve scale, reduces administrative overhead, and eliminates inefficiencies that prevent money from flowing towards more opportunities for students.
“We also need to make this transition as quickly as possible, because as we’ve experienced, the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to implement the changes needed to correct the inefficient, expensive and inequitable system we have today.”