A Private School Money Grab Could Sink an Education Reform Focused on Public School Equity

A 5% bump on private school tuition creates a pathway for public tax dollars to subsidize higher costs at private institutions, a privilege not afforded to public schools.

The abrupt resignations last week of two key members from the Commission on the Future of Public Education, including its chair, sent a clear signal of distress from those tasked with envisioning the path forward for Vermont's schools. But the frustration that boiled over in their departure was not a sudden development. It was the culmination of a legislative session where a methodical, state-sanctioned study of education reform collided with the fast-moving realities of political power and special interests.

Meagan Roy, the commission's chair, and Nicole Mace, a respected voice from the Vermont School Boards Association, both concluded they could no longer dedicate their energy to a body they felt was rendered toothless. Their letters spoke of a process "undercut" from the start and of "last-minute deals based on political expediency."

To understand how they reached this point, one must look beyond the resignations themselves and examine what was happening in the Statehouse while the commission was still trying to find its footing.

A Mandate Derailed

The commission was born from Act 183 in 2024, a law passed in response to the property tax crisis fueled by soaring education costs. Its mandate was broad and vital: to study the entire system and deliver recommendations to make it more equitable, effective, and affordable. From its early meetings, the 13-member body, chaired by Roy, began the painstaking work of planning public engagement and analyzing the complex web of school governance and finance.

But in January 2025, that deliberate process was effectively sidelined. Governor Phil Scott, seizing the initiative, unveiled his own sweeping proposal to consolidate Vermont's 119 school districts into as few as five regional entities. The governor’s aggressive plan immediately shifted the center of political gravity. The Legislature, now faced with a bold executive proposal, pivoted its full attention to crafting a response, transforming the session into a high-stakes negotiation over consolidation and funding.

The commission, which was supposed to inform that debate with a comprehensive report due in December, suddenly found itself on the periphery, its long-term study outpaced by short-term political maneuvering. The very work it was created to do was being done without it, in the chambers of the Golden Dome.

The Closed Doors of the Conference Committee

The vehicle for this transformation became H.454, a landmark bill that promised to reshape Vermont education for a generation. After contentious debates in both the House and Senate, the final, critical details were hammered out behind the closed doors of a six-member conference committee. It was here, in the final days of the session, that the concerns of the resigning commissioners about "carve-outs for powerful interests" took concrete shape.

A review of the committee's work and its members reveals a telling focus. While public school advocates felt their voices were marginalized, the interests of Vermont's historic independent academies were meticulously protected. Of the three senators appointed to the powerful conference committee, two have deep, long-standing ties to major independent schools that receive public tuition dollars: Sen. Seth Bongartz, whose district includes Burr and Burton Academy, and Sen. Scott Beck of St. Johnsbury, whose district is home to St. Johnsbury Academy.

The influence of this dynamic was not lost on observers or other lawmakers. Sen. Alison Clarkson of Windsor publicly called it a "bad look," noting the widespread impression that independent schools had become the committee's top priority. The Winooski School District, in a sharp rebuke of the final bill, stated the legislation "undermines the entire public education system in favor of a few private schools."

A Special Advantage Written into Law

The most tangible result of this focus is a provision that gives certain independent schools a distinct financial advantage over their public counterparts. The core of H.454 is a shift to a "foundation formula," a model used in many states to provide a base per-pupil funding amount, adjusted for student needs, to create a more equitable system.

However, the Vermont version contains a crucial exception. While public schools must operate within the budget set by the foundation formula, the bill allows designated independent schools to charge tuition that is higher than the state-determined base amount. Public funds, drawn from the statewide education fund, can be used to pay this higher tuition, up to 105% of the foundation level.

This 5% bump effectively creates a pathway for public tax dollars to subsidize higher costs at private institutions, a privilege not afforded to public schools. It directly contradicts the bill's stated goal of creating a single, equitable funding system for all students receiving public money.

A Good Idea, A Flawed Execution

The irony is that the foundational concept of H.454 is sound. Education finance experts agree that foundation formulas, when designed and funded properly, are one of the most effective tools for ensuring students in property-poor towns have the same educational resources as those in wealthier communities. Dozens of states use this model to drive equity.

What is highly unusual, however, is building in special financial advantages for private institutions. A review of foundation formulas nationwide shows that while states grapple with how to fund charter schools or voucher programs, a direct, preferential funding stream for independent schools within a statewide public formula is an anomaly.

The journey of education reform in Vermont this year began with a promise of equity and sustainability. The idea of a foundation formula was a potent one, holding the potential to fix a system everyone agreed was broken. But as the process unfolded, the clear goal of systemic reform became blurred by political compromises. The final version of H.454, shaped by influential lobbying in the session's final hours, is not the clean reform many had hoped for.

For the commissioners who walked away, the bill was evidence that their work was not truly valued. For the rest of Vermont, it leaves a troubling question: Was this a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix public education, or a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a few well-positioned interests to secure their own future?