MONTPELIER – Education reform is once again front and center at the statehouse. Behind closed doors, as well as in public hearings, there is significant debate about what path Vermont should take.
I voted against the House reform bill. Why? The bill, H 955, would not reduce property taxes until 2030. We cannot wait that long for tax relief. The bill ultimately passed the House, and I expect to vote on a new proposal in the weeks ahead.
Additionally, at the heart of the conversation is a fundamental disagreement over how to control costs while preserving strong local schools.
On one side, Governor Phil Scott has made it clear he is prepared to veto the state budget if the legislature does not adopt a system of forced school district mergers. The administration argues that larger districts will produce efficiencies through economies of scale: fewer administrators, streamlined services, and ultimately lower costs for taxpayers. While such warnings underscore the seriousness of the problem, they also reflect the high stakes and tension surrounding this debate.
On the other side, the House has taken a different approach. Their proposal focuses on voluntary mergers, paired with the creation of regional cooperative structures, sometimes referred to as “educational service areas,” designed to encourage shared services and cost savings without mandating consolidation. Meanwhile, the Senate appears to be moving in a similar direction, favoring voluntary mergers over mandates.
This debate is not happening in a vacuum. Vermont has already been down this road once before with Act 46. That law required many districts to merge, with the promise that doing so would reduce costs. While it reshaped the governance of our school system, it did not deliver the amount of savings hoped for. That experience is weighing heavily on many legislators as we consider whether to repeat a similar approach.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that, so far, neither the administration nor the Vermont Agency of Education has provided detailed data demonstrating that forced mergers, on their own, will produce meaningful savings.
At the same time, this debate over governance is intersecting with another major policy shift: changes to the education funding system itself. Much of the discussion centers on the education foundation’s formula method for determining the funding schools receive and how that funding is shared statewide.
Moving toward a more state-controlled formula would represent a significant shift away from Vermont’s current system, which is heavily influenced by local spending decisions. While a foundation formula could bring more predictability and equity, there is still no clear consensus on who will benefit, who may lose, or how it will reshape educational opportunities across the state.
What is clear is this: the decisions made in the coming weeks will have long-lasting impacts on our schools, our communities, and our property taxes.
As legislators, we are working to balance competing goals: cost containment, educational quality, and local control. Those goals do not always align neatly, and that is why the debate has been both challenging and, at times, contentious.
These are not easy decisions, and they will shape Vermont’s education system for years to come. I will continue to keep you informed as these proposals evolve, and I encourage you to share your thoughts as we work toward the best path forward for our students and taxpayers.
David Yacavone represents Lamoille-Washington in the Vermont Legislature, including Elmore, Morristown, Woodbury, Worcester and Stowe.
