Rising education costs, growing taxpayer frustration, and recurring clashes with teachers’ unions have set the stage for Vermont’s latest budget fight. For decades, residents have seen school-funding debates intensify as expenses climbed and local control diminished. Now policymakers are asking whether a different approach could simplify the system, reduce pressure on taxpayers, and deliver clearer benefits for both students and teachers. This report examines the options on the table and what they could mean for Vermont’s education future.

The Vermont Constitution and Education: A Mandate for Equity

The Vermont Constitution, in Chapter II, Section 68, states that “a competent number of schools ought to be maintained in each town unless the General Assembly permits other provisions for the convenient instruction of youth.” Although the Constitution does not spell out a detailed funding system, the Vermont Supreme Court has interpreted this language as placing an affirmative obligation on the Legislature to ensure all students receive equitable educational opportunities. This interpretation formed the foundation of the Brigham decision and the funding reforms that followed.

Since then, the system has evolved into a complex, costly machine where resources are often diverted away from direct student support. The question remains: Is the current model fulfilling the Vermont Constitution’s vision, or is there a better way to achieve true educational equity?

A Brief History: Brigham, Act 60, and Act 68

The story begins in 1997 with the Brigham v. State of Vermont decision. At the time, Vermont funded its schools primarily through local property taxes, creating wide disparities between wealthy and poorer towns. The Vermont Supreme Court found that this system violated the state constitution’s guarantee of equal educational opportunity, setting the stage for sweeping changes.

Enter Act 60, passed in 1997, which introduced a statewide property tax to equalize funding across Vermont. Wealthy towns contributed to a central education fund, which was redistributed to ensure a basic level of funding for all schools. While well-intentioned, Act 60 led to a sharp increase in costs, administrative complexity, and tax burdens, particularly in wealthier towns. Act 68, passed in 2003, aimed to refine the funding formula, but it only layered more complexity onto an already overloaded system.

The result? A constant stream of rising costs, driven by increased administrative needs, endless compliance reports, and mounting property taxes. Vermont’s high per-pupil spending became a hallmark of its education system, but educational outcomes didn’t necessarily follow suit. The gap between funding and student success was widening, leaving taxpayers to wonder if there might be a simpler, more effective solution.

The Explosion in Education Costs

Since Act 60, Vermont’s education spending has soared, with much of the budget growth going toward administration rather than the classroom. The funding model demanded rigorous compliance reporting, audits, and management—all of which required more administrators. Supervisory unions grew in size and scope, district-level offices swelled, and a significant portion of taxpayer dollars was redirected away from direct educational support and into bureaucratic overhead.

Meanwhile, teacher salaries and classroom budgets didn’t experience the same boost. Teachers’ unions argued for higher pay, but with so much money tied up in administrative costs, the budget for competitive salaries lagged. And while Vermont has some of the highest per-pupil spending in the country, supplies in classrooms still fell short, leaving some teachers to fill in the gaps from their own pockets. For taxpayers, it was a bitter pill to swallow: despite footing ever-larger tax bills, the direct benefits to students and teachers seemed limited.

An Alternative Solution: The Annual Education Grant

Now, imagine an alternative that could simplify the process, reduce costs, and bring control back to local communities. Picture this: an annual education grant given to each county based on the number of pupils, ensuring a baseline level of funding for all students. Here’s how it could work:

1. Annual Education Grant: The state sets a fixed, equitable per-pupil funding amount that guarantees a basic level of support for all Vermont students, fulfilling the constitutional mandate of educational equity. This baseline would cover essential needs and could be adjusted based on factors like cost of living and specific student needs.
2. Reduced Reporting and Administration: With a simpler funding model, the need for extensive reporting and compliance checks would shrink. Districts would need fewer administrative staff, meaning more resources could be funneled back into classrooms.
3. Local Flexibility for Additional Funding: Communities could choose to increase funding based on local priorities, allowing towns to enhance their budgets without relying on a centralized tax pool. This option would give local taxpayers a clearer view of how their money is spent.
4. Outcome Metrics and Accountability: Simple, meaningful metrics would measure success and adjust funding over time, ensuring that funds are used effectively to improve student outcomes.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Reality Check: Legislators and the Endless Spring of Taxpayer Dollars

But implementing a simpler system requires something that often feels elusive in politics: honesty. Legislators would need to confront the reality that education budgets aren’t an endless spring of taxpayer dollars. They’d need to be upfront with Vermonters about the cost of high per-pupil spending and the importance of efficiency. Gone would be the days of assuming that every funding increase automatically translates to better education. Instead, accountability and cost-effectiveness would take center stage, helping to create a more sustainable model.

The Possibility of a Union Showdown

Now, imagine the drama: the Vermont-NEA (representing teachers) and the Vermont Administrators’ Association in a head-to-head showdown over the new funding structure. Teachers, understandably, would likely welcome a model that prioritizes classroom resources and competitive salaries. The VT-NEA might even push for a cut in administrative costs, arguing that the money would be better spent on direct education.

On the other side, the administrators’ union would likely defend the current system, emphasizing the importance of “accountability” and the compliance measures that support it. They might argue that adequate oversight ensures quality, even if it comes at a high administrative cost. The clash would spotlight a long-standing issue: while teachers and students are the face of education, the growing administrative network often holds the reins.

The Net Effect on Taxpayers, Teachers, and—Most Importantly—Students

So, what could this alternative approach actually mean? For taxpayers, a simpler funding model could mean relief from spiraling property taxes and a clearer understanding of where their money goes. No more “blank check” mentality; taxpayers could feel confident that funds were going directly toward improving educational outcomes.

For teachers, the change could bring long-overdue pay increases and more support in the classroom. They could see real benefits in terms of resources, reducing the need for out-of-pocket expenses and allowing them to focus on teaching.

And for students, the most important stakeholders, a streamlined funding approach could mean smaller class sizes, better resources, and a more engaged teaching staff. With resources channeled directly into classrooms, students could enjoy a more enriching educational experience, free from the administrative red tape that often slows innovation and support.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook

#fyivt #VermontEducationReform #SchoolFundingMatters #EducationEquity

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!