Vermont school associations urge lawmakers to fix funding predictability, health‑care bargaining and school construction aid

Representatives of Vermont’s main K‑12 governance groups told the House Education Committee on Jan. 16 they want lawmakers to prioritize predictable education funding, changes to the statewide bargaining process for employee health benefits, and renewed, stable school construction aid.

"Public education is not a political enterprise," said Laura Diaz Smith, president of the Vermont School Boards Association, describing the association’s view that education is essential to democracy and must remain equitable and accessible. Sue Zaglowski, executive director and general counsel for the VSBA, summarized the group’s legislative platform and cost‑driver concerns.

The associations said the current education funding conversation must center on student outcomes, predictability for district budgeting, and careful modeling of any proposed changes. Zaglowski told the committee the VSBA wants lawmakers to "focus on students by providing sufficient funds to support equitable, sustainable, and high quality education," to provide time for districts to adjust to changes, and to "provide data and modeling to show the impact on districts over time." The VSBA noted that some laws and regulatory requirements were implemented without matching resources and asked that existing responsibilities be funded.

A central revenue issue raised repeatedly was employee health benefits. The VSBA and superintendents said statewide bargaining over school employees' health care has contributed to rising local costs; the VSBA urged the legislature to consider revising the statewide bargaining process. Committee member questions established that teachers currently pay 20% of health‑insurance premiums under the statewide arbitrator’s decision; Zaglowski said those premiums "have increased every year." She added negotiations are scheduled to restart next April and that districts recently agreed to a two‑year extension of the existing contract.

Facility needs and capital funding were also high priorities. The VSBA noted a moratorium on state aid for school construction since 2008 and urged predictable, stable state school construction aid for capital expenses. Superintendents and the Vermont NEA described widespread deferred maintenance and estimated long‑run costs in the billions for statewide facility modernization. Several presenters asked the legislature to fully fund testing and remediation for schools identified with elevated PCB levels.

Mental‑health supports in schools were identified as a growing cost driver. Speakers said schools have taken on more behavioral and mental‑health services in recent years and asked the legislature to clarify funding responsibilities between education and human services so those costs do not fall entirely on local taxpayers.

On governance, both the VSBA and superintendents’ association asked the committee to consider reforms to statewide oversight structures. The VSBA cited its task force recommendation to improve the capacity of the Agency of Education and to examine the State Board of Education’s structure; the superintendents said any changes must avoid unintended consequences and should be modeled for fiscal impact.

Why it matters: The groups represent elected local board members, superintendents and central office leaders who prepare district budgets, raise local revenues and oversee daily operations. Changes to statewide bargaining, the education funding formula, or capital aid rules would affect property tax bills, district budgets and facility projects across Vermont.

Committee members asked for additional data and modeling, and presenters offered to provide documents and recordings to help legislators evaluate proposals. No formal committee action was taken during the session.