Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Class Size Act73 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate education panel hears pleas from rural leaders to delay or drop Act 73 class-size minimums
Summary
School board chairs and a principal told the Senate Education Committee that implementing Act 73's class-size minimums this fall would disrupt small rural schools, force course cuts or consolidations, and not yield promised savings; witnesses urged postponement until the foundation formula and supervisory-union changes are resolved.
A Senate Education Committee hearing on April 10 brought sustained testimony from rural school leaders urging the panel to delay or remove class-size minimums in Act 73, saying an immediate start date would force disruptive schedule and staffing changes in small districts.
Craftsbury Town School Board Chair Casey Allen told senators that Craftsbury's total enrollment is 201 and that proposed Act 73 minimums outstrip local realities: "Act 73 has a class size minimum of 10 in grade one; we currently have 15. For grades 9'12 the minimum is 18 and our current span is 8 to 16," he said, arguing those thresholds were "not developed to be achievable in the near term without very significant changes." Allen recommended delaying or removing the mandate to avoid chaotic reallocations that would not guarantee expense reductions.
Principal Lisa McGarthy described the community consequences of a rushed implementation: she said after-school programs, athletic teams and volunteer-run activities knit the town together and that forcing major changes by September would "put doing what's best for students to the side." McGarthy asked for time to plan staffing and master schedules thoughtfully rather than react under legislative pressure.
Todd Wilkins, Arlington School Board chair, and Chris Holston, chair of the Bellows Falls Union High School Board and a former principal, reinforced the operational concerns. Wilkins said extra time "would be significant" to manage transitions for small districts; Holston warned that rigid class-size mandates could reduce course offerings at the secondary level, noting that virtual options such as the Vermont Virtual Learning Collaborative (VTVLC) do not substitute for in-person classes for all students.
Committee members pressed witnesses on trade-offs and budgets. One senator cited Craftsbury's per-pupil spending as context; McGarthy confirmed a per-pupil figure of $15,923, noting that funding alone will not resolve scheduling and programmatic challenges. Several senators said the larger policy question is how class-size rules should relate to the foundation formula and the proposed supervisory-union (SU) reorganizations; some argued for larger SU footprints (on the order of 2,000'4,000 students) so instructional leaders can make regional choices about program and facilities investments.
The committee heard repeated calls for clarity on implementation details: whether the counts refer to students-per-classroom, students-per-grade, or whether paraprofessionals and co-teachers count toward the minimums. Senators and witnesses agreed many technical questions remain open and that a rushed timetable would produce uncertainty for boards and families.
The most immediate question before the committee is whether to keep the House-start date contained in the House version of the bill or to delay implementation until the foundation formula and reorganization work provide firmer fiscal bearings. Several members signaled openness to postponement or to removing class-size minimums entirely if a workable alternative can be agreed.
The committee paused its budget work to take additional input; members said they would revisit Act 73 details when the House bill and associated fiscal analyses are available.
