Members of the Vermont Senate Committee on Education on the markup of draft amendment H.454 agreed to remove an "intent" subsection that spelled out actions the Legislature would take in 2026 and spent extensive time debating how school district consolidation should be framed. The committee said consolidation language should be tied explicitly to student outcomes and possible cost savings, and discussed preserving community input in decisions about school closures and boundary changes.

The committee reviewed draft 4.1 of the Senate proposal, which largely tracked the House language. Several senators said they were uncomfortable using session law to lock the next Legislature to a course of action. One senator said that provisions describing what the Legislature will do in 2026 read like a "to‑do list" and proposed deleting the timeline text. Committee staff reported a "consensus to cross out starting from page 2, line 12, through page 3" of that intent text; the committee proceeded on that basis.

Lawmakers repeatedly returned to the standards that should guide any consolidation policy. Members said consolidation should be authorized only where it produces savings and improves student opportunities, not as an end in itself. Committee members questioned the phrase "substantially equal educational opportunities," suggesting a preference for wording that emphasizes "excellent educational opportunities for all students," and discussed whether measures of property wealth or the foundation funding formula should be used to avoid recreating inequity.

The committee also debated how to ensure local community voice in decisions about school closures. Several members proposed removing a clause that singled out "certified elementary school" and instead said the process should allow the community to participate in decisions regardless of school type. Committee counsel said wording such as "served by" was intended to tie community voice to the community served by a school rather than the whole supervisory union.

The committee discussed specific dates in the draft. A deadline previously set at August 15 for some commission activities drew criticism as too early; members suggested September 30 (one speaker mistakenly said "September 31" and the clerk corrected it to September 30) or October 15 as more realistic timing for work that requires stakeholders to be present.

Where the draft referred to "raising teacher salaries," one senator suggested a small grammatical edit to make the phrase read "raising teacher salaries." Another lawmaker cautioned that higher pay does not, by itself, guarantee higher quality and urged care with language that could be seen as patronizing.

The committee said it would continue to refine the bill language and return to remaining sections at a later meeting. No formal final amendment or enactment votes were taken during the session; the committee made drafting decisions and recorded consensus on deletion of the specific intent subsection.