Representative Greer seeks carve-out to preserve North Bennington tuition structures; committee straw poll shows little support

Representative Will Greer urged the House Ways & Means Committee to add an amendment to H.454 that would preserve existing local tuition structures for districts that currently tuition students to locally governed schools, saying the change is needed to protect longstanding arrangements in North Bennington.

Greer told the committee he was proposing edits to the bill’s J1A and to add a new Section 27A to “preserve existing tuition structures” and ask the district-boundary subcommittee to consider those arrangements when reorganization occurs. He said his district includes small and medium independent schools and that his village school — which became independent in 2013 — has a governance and tuition history the amendment would protect.

The amendment seeks to add specific language protecting districts that “provide the education of all resident students in one or more grades” in their current configuration and to recognize unique tuition agreements when consolidations are considered. Greer said the goal was to preserve “creative, unique, vibrant” learning environments at the village school and to avoid dividing communities with long-standing governance arrangements.

Committee members raised procedural and substantive questions. Representative Bradley Lewis asked whether the bill’s references to “grade levels” included high school grades; legislative counsel responded that the statute’s phrase is read in context and applies to whatever grades a district operates (for example K–6, K–8, or K–12). Representative Ridley suggested motions be framed affirmatively if a motion were offered. Representative Holcomb pressed the sponsor on financial impacts, citing Agency of Education figures he said showed the village school had lost students since 2014 and that the district currently spends about $2,000 more per pupil for students who are tuitioned out than when the village school operated as a public school. Holcomb said lowering per-pupil costs requires scale and argued a carve-out that preserves an apparently higher-cost status quo could increase burdens on other taxpayers.

Greer and supporters responded that the amendment was intended to protect local options and to respect how some communities have chosen to organize their schools following prior reorganization efforts, including Act 46. Committee members also noted that adding localized carve-outs broadly could fragment the bill’s statewide reform goals.

The committee conducted an informal straw poll on the amendment. The chair reported minimal support and recorded that at least one member (Representative Higgler) was opposed; multiple members voiced concerns during the debate. The amendment did not advance from the committee in that straw poll.

Greer thanked members for their time; the committee moved on to additional amendments and floor scheduling.