House Education debates class-size minimums, waivers and independent-school rules; no votes taken

The House Education Committee met virtually on March 24, 2025, to continue consideration of class-size minimum language in H.454. "This is a virtual meeting of the committee, during which no votes will be taken," the Committee Chair said at the start.

Committee members focused on how proposed class-size minimums would be enforced, whether geographically isolated schools could receive waivers, and whether independent schools that accept public tuition would be subject to the same requirements. The discussion centered on statutory changes to the Education Quality Standards (Title 16 V.S.A. §165) and on language in H.454 that would create new categories such as "school choice schools." The committee asked legislative staff to draft and return with specific language.

The bill language discussed would add an average class-size minimum to the Education Quality Standards and establish enforcement steps if a school repeatedly fails to meet the minimum. Beth St. James, legislative counsel in the Office of Legislative Council, summarized the enforcement sequence: "If the secretary determines that a school is not meeting class size minimum standards over the course of 2 consecutive years, the secretary shall recommend to the state board 1 or more of the actions listed ..." She listed options already in statute, including technical assistance, an additional review cycle (currently two years), supervisory-union boundary adjustment, the secretary assuming administrative control, state-board-ordered school closure, or required district consolidation. The state board must offer the school board a hearing; its ordered action must be the "least intrusive" consistent with providing students "substantially educational opportunities," and the school board may appeal to superior court.

Committee members asked how much discretion the state would have to exempt isolated schools. St. James said the draft includes a waiver route: "If a school board determines that it operates a school that is unable to comply with the class size minimums due to geographic isolation ... the school board may ask the state board of education to grant a waiver," and the state board would define "geographic isolation." Members discussed the practical effect: the enforcement path is multi-year and could be overtaken by the larger district-restructuring process.

Several members urged safeguards to avoid forcing local taxpayers to shoulder school construction costs before new district boundaries are set. Committee member Emily said rural districts could be compelled to merge schools and take on school-construction bonds to meet the new minimums and argued for protections: "I really deeply think there needs to be a waiver for any requirement for schools to for districts to take on construction bonding, the burden of school construction in order to meet class size minimums," she said, adding that school-construction aid is not currently available.

Members also reported how local districts currently use class-size guidance. Committee member Josh summarized one district's minima: "K–3, we are 13; 4–5 is 13; and then 6–12 is 14 as our minimum. We also put an optimal range ... K–3 is 13 to 18." Other committee members described districts that maintain only maximums or model targets rather than statutory minima; another district cited model minima of K–3 = 13, 4–6 = 15, and 7–12 = 17.

The committee discussed whether approved independent schools that receive public tuition should be subject to class-size minimums. St. James reviewed H.454 language that would replace the "approved independent school" framework with a "school choice school" designation and said the bill contemplates rulemaking: "Compliance with the school choice school requirements of the education quality standards ... would be defined by the secretary through rulemaking," and the state board's 2200-series rules for independent schools could be the vehicle to incorporate applicable requirements.

That topic raised trade-offs committee members flagged: applying the same class-size standards to independent schools could reduce a perverse incentive in which small independent schools draw public tuition while not meeting the same standards as nearby public schools. At the same time, members recognized broader policy choices embedded in the governor's proposal about school choice and specialized programs.

No formal decisions or votes were taken. The committee directed legislative counsel to draft revised statutory language and safeguards and to return with proposed text that: - clarifies waiver language and a geographic-isolation definition; - includes a provision to avoid requiring districts to undertake major construction bonding specifically to meet class-size minimums before new district boundaries or charters are operational; and - outlines options for applying class-size requirements to independent schools via the State Board's 2200-series rulemaking.

The committee agreed to revisit the draft language at a future meeting. Because the discussion was procedural and the statute-change process will involve rulemaking and possible multi-year reviews, committee members noted that some enforcement steps could be rendered moot if new districts and their charters are in place before enforcement actions would be completed.