Even before Monday’s votes on legislation that is expected to radically reshape Vermont’s education landscape, Upper Valley school officials, and a few local lawmakers, were calling for its defeat.

Now that the law, H.454, has been approved, they are settling in for a political battle over its implementation.

“This is a sad day for public education in Vermont and for the values Vermonters expect from its elected officials,” Friends of Vermont Public Education, an organization with Upper Valley roots, said in a statement Tuesday. “We know that when the time comes to vote for our lawmakers again, Vermonters will remember who stood up for public education and who did not.”

But the few Upper Valley lawmakers who backed H.454 said it was important to move forward, and that the bill begins a process that they expect will strengthen education while reducing costs.

“We need to have a deliberate process to determine” what education looks like in Vermont, Rep. Charlie Kimbell, D-Woodstock, who voted in favor of the bill, said Tuesday.

H.454 proposes reorganizing the state into school districts of between 4,000 and 8,000 students, with lines to be drawn by a committee consisting mainly of legislators working under a Dec. 1 deadline.

For a sense of scale, Hartford, the Upper Valley’s largest Vermont district, serving around 1,500 students. Combining it with the neighboring 10-town White River Valley Supervisory Union, which stretches from Strafford and Sharon west to Granville, would create a district containing around 2,900 students.

In addition, the bill would move education funding to a foundation formula, where spending would be determined in Montpelier, rather than by local school boards.

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

“There was no voter mandate to dismantle public education, yet that is what the bill effectively initiates,” officials from Windsor Southeast Supervisory Union, which oversees schools in Hartland, Weathersfield, West Windsor and Windsor, wrote in a letter to residents on Sunday, urging them to contact their legislators.

In rural districts, in particular, school officials see not only education, but community under threat.

“In Vermont’s rural communities, public schools serve as the heart of civic life,” Windsor Southeast SU officials wrote. “This rushed bill risks unraveling the social fabric of our state in ways that extend far beyond the classroom.”

Jamie Kinnarney, superintendent of the White River Valley Supervisory Union, struck a more hopeful note in a statement Tuesday morning.

“I believe that as of today, we still have a path forward that allows us to advance our community public schools, as well as work together in a culture of continuous improvement,” he wrote.

Though he had opposed the bill, amid fears that it would close many of the WRVSU’s small schools, late alterations made it more constructive, he said. Mandates for school sizes were removed, and the final bill showed “increased understanding and appreciation for elementary schools centered in rural communities.” The process to close a school now requires public involvement, he noted.

Rep. Larry Satcowitz, D-Randolph, who voted in favor of the bill, said that the likelihood of schools being forced to close is much lower under the final bill than it was as the bill was first drafted. Small schools have had to close around the state over the past 30 years, as enrollment declined. That process is likely to continue, and small schools would be in danger of closing regardless of H.454.

“I really felt that on balance the bill was going to provide more benefits than problems,” Satcowitz said.

State Rep. Rebecca Holcombe, an educator and former Secretary of Education, explained her negative vote on the bill to her constituents by calling it “a rushed, politicized and inconsistent piece of work that has good elements, but also the potential to do real harm. In our region, it is likely to increase cost and reduce local engagement in our schools, without offering improvements in learning or opportunity,” the Norwich Democrat said in a statement.

Holcombe said she didn’t see how the measure would reduce spending, and that the state doesn’t have the muscle to administer it.

“The Agency of Education will get lots of money for consultants to support mergers, but is still too understaffed to lead improvement of instruction or, as we learned last year, to get the student counts needed to set the tax rate correctly in all districts,” Holcombe said.

The measure also doesn’t hold private schools to the same standards as public schools, and “reduces local voice and engagement in democratic decision-making about our schools,” she said.

In a letter to residents, Mountain Views Supervisory Union Superintendent Sherry Sousa pointed out that key aspects of the legislation apply to public schools, but not to private ones. In addition to large school districts, the law proposes minimum class sizes that would apply only to public schools. “In the last week, what has emerged both in the House and Senate is a very narrow view of what is important to our students, with an over-emphasis on the needs of private schools,” Sousa wrote.

Kimbell, whose district is in Mountain Views, disagreed, saying there will be more restrictions on private schools than there are now. For example, if a district that has school choice, as Hartland currently does for high school, is placed in a district that operates a high school, then its students will attend that high school, Kimbell said. And the bill eliminates the use of public money to go to a private school outside Vermont.

Windsor Southeast SU officials also noted that the new reform “threatens to unravel the progress made under Act 127, a landmark step toward educational equity in Vermont.” Approved in 2022 and currently being phased in, Act 127 provides more money for districts with more children in poverty, learning English as a new language, or in a special education program.

Thus far, Act 127 has enabled districts with a higher proportion of students in poverty and with other learning challenges to access more funding, and districts with few children in poverty, which also tend to be more affluent, have seen tax increases.

Rep. Jim Masland, who represents the same district as Holcombe, comprising the towns of Norwich, Sharon, Strafford and Thetford, voted in favor of the bill, though he expressed some uncertainty about what he called a top-to-bottom restructuring of education. The new law will take years to implement, and there are many junctions at which lawmakers could change course. Masland likened the negotiations to come to a rugby scrum, with the state’s many education interests pushing for advantage.

“So why would the legislature propose to adopt a new education structure that turns the whole thing on its head?” Masland, a Thetford Democrat, said. “What we have now performs well within established norms. The new proposal is dramatic restructuring and hopefully improving public education along the way. But Vermonters have never liked being told what to do.”

The Vermont House approved H.454 by voice vote, but then held a roll call vote on whether to forward the bill to Gov. Phil Scott. The Senate also held a roll call vote. Here’s how Upper Valley representatives voted:

John L. Bartholomew, D-Hartland, ABSENT

Elizabeth Burrows, D-West Windsor, NAY

Kevin “Coach” Christie, D- Hartford, NAY

VL Coffin, R-Cavendish, YEA

Esme Cole, D-Hartford, NAY

Joshua Dobrovich, R-Williamstown, YEA

Jim Harrison, R-N.Chittenden, YEA

Rebecca Holcombe, D-Norwich, NAY

Jay Hooper, D-Randolph, NAY

Charlie Kimbell, D-Woodstock, YEA

James Masland, D-Thetford, YEA

John O’Brien, D-Tunbridge, NAY

Joseph Parsons, R-Newbury, ABSENT

Monique Priestley, D-Bradford, NAY

Larry Satcowitz, D-Randolph, YEA

Heather Surprenant, D-Barnard, NAY

Mike Tagliava, R-Corinth, YEA

Kirk White, D-Bethel, NAY

Senate

Allison Clarkson, D-Woodstock, NAY

Joe Major, D-Hartford, NAY

Rebecca White, D-Hartford, NAY

Larry Hart, R-Topsham, YEA

Alex Hanson can be reached at ahanson@vnews.com or 603-727-3207.