BRATTLEBORO-Vermont lawmakers and community members gathered April 25 at Brattleboro Union High School to discuss a sweeping education reform proposal that could significantly reshape how schools are funded and governed across the state.
The discussion took place during an informational meeting hosted by the Windham Southeast School District (WSESD) and Windham Southeast Supervisory Union (WSESU) that drew an audience seeking clarity on what could become one of the most consequential education reforms in Vermont in recent years.
The bill under discussion, known as H.955, would move Vermont away from controversial forced school district mergers under Act 73 and instead require all districts to join regional Collaborative Service Agencies (CSAs), also called Cooperative Education Service Agencies (CESAs).
These entities would allow districts to share services such as special education, mental health support, transportation, and administrative functions, with the goal of reducing costs and improving efficiency.
Supporters say the proposal reflects a broader effort to address longstanding inequities in both educational opportunities and property tax burdens.
State Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, D-Brattleboro, said the bill has been a "multiyear legislative priority," despite generating "really hot headlines" and being "quite politically divisive."
It originated in a legislative sesson "that was also filled with conversations about education reform and the need for change within the state, both to our property tax system and educational opportunities for kids," she told attendees, calling the process to date "thoughtful and deliberate."
Political divide emerges
Despite broad interest in reform, lawmakers acknowledged a growing divide between state leaders.
The House has passed a version of the bill centered on voluntary, locally driven collaboration. Meanwhile, the Senate is weighing a plan that would allow voluntary efforts initially but could impose mergers after two years.
Adding to the tension, Gov. Phil Scott has threatened to veto state budget and property tax legislation if it does not include a forced merger provision.
Legislators at the meeting warned that such a move could trigger a government shutdown and harm the state's financial standing.
The Vermont School District Redistricting Task Force reports show "forced mergers in rural areas do not lead to the outcomes or the cost savings that is being alleged by the administration," said state Sen. Nader Hashim, D-Windham.
"The timing of this forum is really interesting to me because, over the next two weeks, a lot of things may change and the decisions that are made in the Senate over the next few weeks are really going to impact how this bill moves forward," said Hashim, who also supports the CSA concept.
Shift in how schools are funded
At the heart of H.955 is a proposed foundation formula that would shift key budget decisions from local voters to the state. Under this model, the state would determine a per-pupil funding level based on student needs.
Local school boards would still decide how to spend that money, but voters would weigh in only if districts seek to exceed the state's spending level - capped at 5% above the base amount.
Lawmakers said the change is designed to create more consistency and equity across districts while maintaining some degree of local control.
The legislation also proposes a multiyear overhaul of Vermont's property tax system. A central feature is the creation of a new tax category for second homes, with revenue intended to reduce homestead property taxes.
Officials said the broader reform targets key cost drivers in the education system, including health care, special education, mental health services, facilities, and class sizes.
Concerns about local impact
Community members raised concerns about how the changes could affect school choice, teacher contracts, and local school culture.
Under the proposal, public funding for school choice would be limited to Vermont-based schools that meet certain size requirements.
While current students would be allowed to remain in their chosen schools through graduation, future options could be restricted, particularly in smaller towns such as Vernon.
There were also questions about how communities would navigate the transition period, with some residents worried that students could lose opportunities before the long-term goals of greater equity are realized.
The discussion also turned to concerns about hazing, harassment, and bullying in schools, with advocates describing the issue as widespread and serious.
Lawmakers suggested that larger, more collaborative systems could help create safer and more inclusive environments by increasing diversity and improving access to staff training and resources.
However, they emphasized that local school boards would retain immediate responsibility for ensuring student safety.
Balancing efficiency and local control
While H.955 promotes shared services and regional coordination, it does not mandate district mergers. Instead, communities would be encouraged to explore governance changes through local study committees, with final decisions left to voters.
Still, tensions remain over how to balance efficiency with local autonomy. Lawmakers stressed the importance of accountability and long-term evaluation to ensure the reforms deliver on their promises.
During discussion, opposition to Act 73 dominated and criticism focused on lack of evidence, loss of local control, and how poorly it would fit rural Vermont.
Supportive arguments were more indirect, emphasizing equity, efficiency, and expanded opportunities - goals that some believe mergers could help achieve, but others think can be reached through collaboration instead.
Arguments against Act 73 included a lack of evidence that they work in rural areas. The only cited success cases were in large urban settings - for example, in Philadelphia.
Opponents also cited the risk to local control and community voice, saying forced mergers take decision-making away from local voters and school boards.
A preference was expressed for voluntary, locally driven governance decisions rather than state-imposed structures. Also noted were that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't fit Vermont and that consolidation could undermine small schools that serve as community anchors.
Finally, concerns were raised about instability during transition periods and uncertainty about outcomes with skepticism that mergers would actually address core issues, including costs, equity, or student experience.
Fewer speakers explicitly endorsed forced mergers outright, but several raised points that align with arguments often used in favor of consolidation, i.e., concerns about not merging.
They included the need for greater scale to expand opportunities and, notably, more programs that smaller districts may struggle to offer independently. They included career and technical education (CTE), extracurriculars and athletics, and broader academic options.
A central theme was that Vermont currently has unequal access to resources and programs depending on location and that larger or more unified systems could help ensure more consistent educational quality statewide.
High-cost areas such as special education and health care were highlighted, and some suggested larger systems may better manage shared costs.
Finally, some mused that larger, more diverse student populations could reduce social isolation for minority students and improve school climate and inclusivity.
A multi-year process
"This legislation is step three in a multi-year process," Kornheiser wrote in a recent press release. "And frankly, that is hard to do in a biennial legislature with a divided government."
The bill is currently in the Senate, and legislators anticipate negotiations with the governor.
"This legislation is complex by necessity: We are addressing a wide range of large and small details here," Kornheiser said. "I encourage you to ask questions if you have any concerns about how it might impact your family or our community."
This News item by Virginia Ray was written for The Commons.