Vermont Brigham decision requires state to ensure substantially equal educational opportunity, Ways & Means counsel tells committee

John Grama, of the Office of Legislative Counsel, told the House Ways & Means Committee on Jan. 16 that the Vermont Supreme Court's Brigham decision requires the state to ensure "substantial equality of educational opportunity" across school districts, because a system that relies heavily on local property taxes produces wide disparities in revenues available to districts.

The court, Grama said, found that the Act 84 foundation plan in place since the late 1980s set a single foundation tax rate and a separate foundation cost; where the single rate left property-poor districts short of the foundation cost, the state provided aid to make up the difference. But the record showed wealthier districts could (and did) raise revenues above the foundation amount, producing large spending disparities that the state conceded deny students in property-poor districts "the same educational opportunities" available elsewhere.

That is the significance of Brigham, Grama told the committee: the Vermont Constitution recognizes a right to education and a common-benefits obligation that bars a system in which "educational opportunity is necessarily a function of district wealth." The court rejected the argument that achieving a minimally adequate education everywhere is, by itself, constitutionally sufficient. At the same time, the court did not require absolute equality of per-pupil spending and left the particular funding method to the legislature.

Why it matters: Brigham places the constitutional burden on the state rather than on towns. Grama summarized the court's key points: Vermont students are entitled to substantially equal educational opportunities; financial resources are a meaningful variable that the state can and may equalize; discrimination in distributing educational opportunity cannot be excused simply because a minimal level is provided to all; and the legislature retains discretion to choose funding mechanisms.

Grama described how the Act 84 structure worked: the foundation tax rate applied equally to all districts while the foundation cost represented the amount needed for a minimally adequate program. Property-wealthy districts could raise revenues above the foundation cost at that uniform rate while property-poor districts could not, creating the funding gap that state aid attempted to fill. The court's factual finding included evidence that higher local property wealth generally correlated with higher district spending.

Committee members asked practical and doctrinal questions. Representative O'Dea asked for clarification of the court's language; Representative Holcomb asked whether the ruling addressed outcomes as opposed to opportunities. Grama responded that Brigham speaks to opportunities rather than specific educational outcomes and that the decision did not detail what precise program mix satisfies the constitutional command. He noted that the case recognizes money as "one variable affecting opportunity" and that misuse of funds by a district (for example, spending that does not produce educational benefit) could itself raise constitutional concerns under a different claim.

Several members raised policy options and broader questions about funding design. Representative Branigan said land is no longer a reliable measure of wealth and urged consideration of income-based approaches discussed in past study committees. Grama reiterated that while Brigham identifies the state's duty, it does not prescribe a single legislative solution and that different means of delivering educational opportunity can lawfully exist in different districts so long as the state meets its constitutional obligation.

The Ways & Means Committee did not take any formal action at the Jan. 16 session; members said they would continue discussing Brigham and related funding approaches in future hearings. Grama and committee members indicated the judiciary committee and Ways & Means will revisit the decision as they consider statutory changes and funding proposals this session.

Ending: The committee paused its meeting to resume further consideration at a later hearing. Grama urged lawmakers to rely on the text of Brigham rather than speculation while crafting legislation to respond to the court's holding.