Senate negotiators revise education bill; independent schools warn funding changes could be "existential"

Senate staff and negotiators on June 11 reviewed a revised education bill that would change how Vermont addresses school closures, redraws school-district thresholds, exempt kindergarten from certain class‑size minimums and alter tuition rules for approved independent schools.

The discussion focused on the bill’s foundation-formula components and potential effects on rural Vermont and approved independent schools. Legislative counsel in the Saint James Office read the Senate language and emphasized that some provisions remain contingent on the foundation formula’s effective date and on further fiscal analysis.

The most immediate change flagged by staff would require the commission on the future of public education to recommend “a process for a community served by a school to have a voice in decisions regarding school closures,” and to detail what that process should entail, according to text read aloud by Legislative Counsel (Saint James Office). That differs from the House language, which asked whether such a process should exist.

Negotiators also discussed new thresholds proposed for the school-district redistricting task force: proposed new school districts, supervisory unions or supervisory districts would generally have an average daily membership “of not fewer than 4,000 and not more than 8,000 pre‑K through grade‑12 students,” language staff said was being added to the draft.

On education-quality standards, the Senate draft would remove kindergarten from the statutory list of grades subject to an average class-size minimum. The counsel noted that kindergarten also would be removed from the text listing exempt course types.

Section 21 of the draft would amend the tuition rules for approved independent schools. Under the proposed change, an approved independent school located in Vermont would have to have at least 25% of its Vermont resident enrollment composed of students attending on a district-funded tuition basis to receive public tuition, the counsel said.

The Senate staff also noted deletion of two House provisions (sections 27 and 28 in the House draft). The counsel said that if the legislature took no further action on the bill and the foundation formula became effective without those sections, the town tuition program would remain unchanged under current law.

Several committee participants pressed for additional fiscal work. Staff and negotiators said the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) would need to perform further analysis before final language is settled. One legislator warned that without the prior high-school weight — at one point proposed at 10% — independent schools fear they would “not have enough money to stay afloat” and said the change was being viewed “as an existential threat.”

Speakers debated data about relative costs of educating high‑school versus elementary students. Participants noted an estimate that current spending for high‑school students runs about 12.5% higher than for elementary students; other presenters and staff said peer-reviewed analysis underlying the draft does not show a statistically significant difference once the formula weights are applied. Negotiators said those discrepancies are part of why more JFO analysis is needed.

No formal votes or final actions were recorded in the session excerpt. Staff said some sections — including the prohibition on school closure and transition to paying tuition — are being made contingently effective to align with the foundation formula’s activation conditions in the draft.

Committee members agreed to pause the meeting for a short recess and return later to continue negotiations and incorporate further analysis.

Ending: Senate staff and negotiators said they would refine language after additional fiscal review and further discussion between House and Senate negotiators; at least one committee member urged that any final draft protect current town tuition arrangements unless an acceptable replacement is clearly funded.