The Windham School District Board (Abigail Pelton, Kate Fellows, and Dan Roth) recently sent this letter to state officials and lawmakers, as well as to the media. (Editor’s note: We have very lightly formatted and copy edited the text for readability.)
To our elected officials,
In the town of Windham on March 3, 2026, the below articles passed unanimously at the Annual Town Meeting:
• Article 7: Shall the Town of Windham declare that the current statewide education funding system has failed the people of Windham and is no longer capable of providing the equitable and convenient education guaranteed under the Vermont Constitution, and that repeated legislative inaction, including the flawed implementation of Act 73, has produced unsustainable property tax burdens that disproportionately harm small rural towns?”
• Article 8: Shall the Town direct the Schoolboard to formally communicate this position to the Vermont Legislature and to notify state officials that Windham is prepared to explore all available legal and political avenues to protect its taxpayers and students unless meaningful, structural reform is enacted during the current legislative session?
We, the Windham District School Board, formally decided in an open meeting on March 23 to send the following information to the Vermont State House and beyond.
This vote asked the question: “Is Vermont’s system of education funding, including Act 73, working for the children and families of Windham?”
Our collective view concerns whether our kids can get to school safely, have real choices, and learn in a fair system, as the Vermont Constitution promises.
In Brigham v. State, the Vermont Supreme Court found that our education funding system was unconstitutional. Why? Because it lets children’s opportunities depend on how wealthy their town is.
The court said education must be equitable and accessible. Nearly 30 years later, Vermont spends some of the highest per-student amounts in the nation. Enrollment is down, student performance is slipping fast, and property taxes keep climbing.
Higher spending should mean better outcomes and stable taxes. We in Windham have not seen this to be the case.
* * *
Windham is not a typical district.
Our district does not operate an elementary school; we tuition students elsewhere. Our middle and high schools are governed by the West River Education District.
We run our own school bus because the Windham Central Supervisory Union contractor will not serve our town due to geographic challenges.
Our student population is small with a quarter growth compared to prior year. About half of our elementary students go to Townshend or Chester public schools, and half go to The Mountain School at Winhall, an independent school.
On average, Windham residents, as a district, face some of the largest property tax increases in Vermont, despite being efficient and tuitioning.
The statewide funding formula simply has not been effective for our town.
* * *
Act 73 promised to set a foundation funding formula, consolidate districts, reduce fragmentation, and control long-term costs.
What Windham has observed:
• Redistricting maps do not account for geography.
• Consolidation plans are still unclear.
• Current tax relief depends on temporary surpluses, not real reform.
• Major costs, such as health insurance, transportation, and special education, are still unaddressed.
For Windham, consolidation will:
• End elementary school tuition choice.
• Threaten our school bus service.
• Move governance to a multi-town board where Windham has little or no voice.
Equity is not abstract — meaning kids can get to school. Right now, Windham School district guarantees transportation. Larger districts may not have the same luxury.
* * *
Currently, there are two proposals: the House of Representatives’ 27-District Map and the Senate’s Voluntary/Multi-Stage Plan.
The House plan would collapse 119 districts into 27. Decisions would be made by a large, multi-town board. Windham would lose elementary choice and transportation, with no guaranteed tax relief.
The Senate plan starts with voluntary mergers, eventually forming 11 large districts. Autonomy would only be temporary, and transportation is still at risk.
Neither plan protects local choice, or transportation. Neither plan supports local governance nor offers real, sustainable tax relief. Both plans threaten to shift governance away from local decision-making.
* * *
What our district would like to communicate to legislators:
• We are required to provide equity and access. Transportation is essential. Without it, equity fails.
• We value choice and community: Families need public and independent school options that work. Current consolidation proposals prioritize large cookie-cutter districts over local needs, which would remove choice and force families to send students to far-flung schools in other towns.
• Case law has provided for constitutional guarantees. Brigham v. State promised real, enforceable equity. Neither plan safeguards it for Windham.
• We must convey to our elected officials our frustrations. Act 73, as it stands, continues to tax out local property owners and continues to cause harm to Windham and Vermonters.
* * *
Our recent vote on both articles signals an intention to:
• Declare the current system has failed Windham.
• Demand real equity, accountability, and reform.
• Protect school choice, transportation, governance, and fair taxes.
It does not withdraw Windham from the system or cancel funding. We would like to call for meaningful reform.
Our board intends to contact our state representatives and senators advocating for:
• School choice for all of Windham’s students, Pre-K through 12.
• Real equity in funding.
• Guaranteed transportation and school choice.
• Tax relief tied to real structural reform, not temporary fixes.
We are asking for real accountability, fairness, and a future where Windham has a voice.
We look forward to future discussions on how legislative actions will align with our community’s values and support our students.
This Voices Primary Sources was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.