Conferees debate independent-school tuition, district consolidation and funding transition

Conferee 3, a member of the legislative conference committee, and colleagues debated changes to Vermont’s education bill that would reshape district boundaries, restrict when independent schools may function as public substitutes and alter how tuition is set as the state moves to a new foundation funding formula.

The discussion focused on three interlocking questions: whether independent schools should qualify as replacements for a public school under a new rule tied to student percentages, how “average announced tuition” and other tuition mechanics would work under a foundation formula, and whether a proposed prohibition on closing public schools and immediately switching students to tuition should be delayed until new districts are formed.

Committee members said the changes matter because they would affect which independent schools remain eligible to serve as public-school substitutes, how much money follows students, and how local voters in larger consolidated districts would approve supplemental spending. “We’re ready to decide on parts that we are not, and parts where we'd have questions still,” Conferee 3 said at the start of the session, summing up the committee’s split positions.

On eligibility thresholds, conferees compared a 51 percent test with language that would allow an independent school to qualify if it served at least 25 percent of its Vermont-resident student enrollment. Conferee 2 said the 25 percent formulation would reduce the count of qualifying schools “to about 19” from “50-something” under a broader threshold. Conferees discussed the intent to preserve independent schools where no public school exists while preventing independent schools from remaining eligible where public options are present.

Conferees also debated a provision that would delay enforcement of a ban on closing a public school and converting to tuition-based service until the new foundation formula and new supervisory districts are in place. When Conferee 3 asked why the committee proposed that delay, Conferee 4 replied, “This would simply, just preserve that for until the new districts are formed,” explaining the change was intended to avoid incentivizing closures before districts consolidate.

Several conferees pressed for more specifics about tuition mechanics under the new system. Independent schools currently are governed by the statutory concept of average announced tuition and, in some cases, allowable tuition; four schools were cited as having exemptions tied to operating rules or CTE status. As one conferee summarized current practice: some receiving public schools set announced tuition levels that form the basis of an average used for independent-school tuition limits, and that averaging method would continue unless districts voted to pay more.

Conferees repeatedly raised practical questions about how voters in larger consolidated districts would approve supplemental spending to cover tuition above the foundation amount or average announced tuition. Under current law, some votes occur at town or district meetings; conferees noted the new structure could require districtwide votes and that the mechanics—timing, ballot procedures and whether such votes would be annual—need to be clarified before removing existing statutory protections. “If your district was to vote to spend more, how would that vote work? And if they did vote to spend more, how would those tax rates…be set or covered?” Conferee 1 asked.

Members also discussed kindergarten and class-size provisions briefly (pages referenced in the committee packet), and the committee reiterated that secondary and Career Technical Education (CTE) funding decisions — including whether there should be separate secondary weights or block grants — were central to whether independent high schools would be disadvantaged by the foundation model. Conferees said the group plans to study whether standalone grades 9–12 cost more to operate and to refine study language to focus on secondary and CTE cost differences.

No formal changes to the bill were recorded in the session. The committee agreed to continue work: Conferee 3 proposed adjourning and “recess[ing] until tomorrow at 10,” a motion seconded and accepted by the group.

Next steps identified by the committee included producing examples of areas where the 25 percent test would or would not work, clarifying how supplemental district spending votes would be structured under consolidated districts, and specifying study language focused on 9–12 and CTE cost differences. Committee members said that until those mechanics are resolved, some statutory provisions in the draft bill should be retained as temporary measures rather than eliminated immediately.