Representative Dobrovich’s Weekly Newsletter

Week of March 25, 2025 - March 28, 2025

Dear Constituents,

As we conclude another week at the State House, I'm pleased to share updates on our legislative activities, focusing on the House Education Committee (it’s a long one this week).

Weekly Recap

House Education Committee

Legislative Proposal for Education Transformation: The Education Committee heard further discussion on the strike-all amendment bill H.454, the legislative proposal for education transformation. The proposal has gone through various drafts this week, and was voted out of committee on Friday along party lines with a 7-4-0 vote.

The Education Committee’s strike-all amendment to H.454, driven by the committee chair and majority party members, jettisons the as-introduced version’s clear, student-driven plan for a convoluted, delayed, and partisan overhaul. Line-by-line edits could have preserved the original’s strengths—five-district consolidation and equitable funding—while fostering bipartisan refinement for students, but the strike-all erased this opportunity, favoring adult-focused priorities under a facade of student benefit. The committee chair and majority party members’ lack of resolve led to the abandonment of a concrete district map structure, replacing it with vague studies (Page 13) instead of supporting a defined funding formula, marking a retreat from student-centered reform. School construction, I believe, was tactically added post-crossover, and the tone pushing out independent schools persists—evident in restrictive tuition rules (Page 43) and Commission scrutiny (Page 12)—despite softened verbiage in Draft 8.1 compared to 5.1. While class size minimums are commendable, the committee chair and majority party members’ last-minute dismissal of bipartisan agreement shifts the focus to adult governance, risking stakeholder backlash and stalling progress for students.

Comparison of Strike-All (Draft 8.1) vs. As-Introduced H.454:

Committee’s Deliberate Avoidance of Line-by-Line Revision

  • Strike-All Approach: The Education Committee, led by the committee chair and majority party members, chose to "strike out all after the enacting clause" (Page 1), replacing the original text entirely rather than refining it through detailed amendments. This wholesale rewrite avoided engaging with the as-introduced provisions point-by-point, signaling a dismissal of its framework.
  • As-Introduced Context: The original outlined specific reforms, such as consolidating into five unified districts by July 1, 2027 (Doc 2, Page 17), with a clear timeline and funding formula ($13,200 base, Doc 1, Page 1). The committee bypassed this precision for a new draft.
  • Why Line-by-Line Edits Mattered: Line-by-line revisions would have allowed the committee to dissect and debate the original’s core components—district consolidation, funding model, quality standards (Doc 1, Page 16)—preserving what worked while addressing flaws collaboratively. This approach fosters transparency by exposing each change to scrutiny, encourages bipartisan input (crucial given the class size consensus), and builds on existing consensus rather than scrapping it. It could have refined the five-district plan, adjusting timelines or boundaries to prioritize student outcomes, and retained the funding formula’s equity focus, tailoring it to students’ practical needs. Instead, the strike-all, driven by the committee chair and majority party members, erased this foundation, replacing it with a top-down, opaque rewrite that sidelined dissenting voices focused on students and feedback embedded in the original. This risks losing student-centered ideas, undermining legislative accountability, and shifting focus to adult interests—administrators and educators—under the guise of student benefit.
  • Implication: By skipping a line-by-line process, the committee discarded a student-driven plan for a vague, process-heavy substitute that caters to adult stakeholders, reducing transparency and dodging rigorous debate to favor the chair and majority party members’ agenda over a balanced, student-focused improvement.

Far Departure from the Original Version

  • Strike-All: Focuses on establishing a Commission on the Future of Public Education (Sec. 2, Pages 4-19) to study and recommend changes by December 2025, with no immediate consolidation or funding overhaul. It emphasizes process (14+ public meetings, Page 9) over structural reform. The funding formula was left to the House Ways and Means Committee where it belongs, but only with district count ranges (e.g., "not more than three" options, Page 17) rather than specific direction on district count and sizes.
  • As-Introduced: Aimed for swift, systemic change—dissolving 119 districts into five by 2027 (Doc 2, Page 17), implementing an evidence-based funding model with a specific $13,200 base per student (Doc 1, Page 1), and enforcing quality standards (Doc 1, Page 16). It was a bold, actionable roadmap with precise district and funding parameters.
  • Departure: The strike-all abandons the five-district plan—where most committee members disagreed, and the committee chair and majority party members lacked the resolve to make this tough call, punting it to a subcommittee for "not more than three" boundary options (Page 17)—and drops the funding formula for abstract studies (Page 13). It shifts from decisive action to tentative planning.
    • Expanded Explanation: The original’s five-district consolidation was a cornerstone, designed to streamline Vermont’s fragmented system (119 districts) with a clear, research-backed structure (Doc 2, Page 17), prioritizing student equity and access. Most committee members diverged on this, but the committee chair and majority party members’ refusal to tackle its complexity—delegating it to a subcommittee with a vague cap of three options—shows a focus on adult convenience (e.g., administrators’ roles) over student needs, despite claims of equity. This punting dilutes the original’s student-centered ambition, leaving district boundaries undefined and subject to delay (Page 17). Similarly, the as-introduced funding formula ($13,200 base, weighted for need, Doc 1, Page 1) was a precise tool to ensure student resources, replacing the property-tax-heavy status quo. Replacing it with "abstract studies" (Page 13) by the Commission—lacking specificity—shifts attention to adult-driven processes, risking inertia while signaling student benefit without substance. This retreat from decisive, student-focused action to tentative, adult-oriented planning undermines the original’s urgency and coherence.
  • Implication: The departure sacrifices a proactive, student-first system for a fragmented, study-laden approach that prioritizes adult stakeholders, weakening the bill’s impact.

Kicking the Can Down the Road

  • Strike-All: Delays major decisions to 2025-2029, relying on Commission reports (e.g., final findings by December 1, 2025, Page 16) and future sessions (e.g., new districts by July 1, 2029, Page 4). Key elements like graduation standards (Page 45) and calendars (Page 45) await 2026-2027.
  • As-Introduced: Established a firm 2027 deadline for unified districts (Doc 2, Page 17) and immediate funding shifts (Doc 1, Page 1), with transitional boards and elections starting in 2026 (Doc 4, Pages 1-3). It prioritized rapid execution for students.
  • Delay Tactics: The strike-all’s multi-year timeline—Commission sunset on December 31, 2025 (Page 16), construction rules by 2026 (Page 42)—pushes accountability beyond the current term, leaving students in uncertainty while the committee chair and majority party members focus on adult-led processes over immediate student benefits.

Targeting Independent Schools

  • Strike-All: Imposes thoughtful restrictions on tuition to independent schools (Sec. 18, Page 43), limiting it to Vermont-based schools approved by July 1, 2025, with 51% publicly funded students and class size compliance (Page 43). It also tasks the Commission with reviewing private school funding (Page 12).
  • As-Introduced: Enhanced independent school accountability (e.g., special education mandates, Doc 2, Page 5) but preserved broader tuition options within a unified system to maintain student choice.
  • Shift: The strike-all narrows choice with a deliberate focus on aligning independent schools with public standards, diverging from the original’s more inclusive, student-centered approach and leaning toward state oversight.
    • Expanded Explanation: Beneath the strike-all’s provisions lies an underlying tone intent on pushing out independent schools, reflecting a preference for a public-dominated system that prioritizes adult control over student options. Sec. 18 (Page 43) sets stringent criteria—Vermont-only, pre-2025 approval, 51% public tuition, and class size compliance—that disproportionately burden smaller or non-traditional independents, effectively sidelining them from public funding unless they conform to adult-driven public norms. The Commission’s mandate to analyze "the legal and financial impact of funding independent schools" (Page 12) further hints at this bias, framing their role as a cost to manage rather than a student-serving asset to embrace. While Draft 8.1 adds verbiage like "to the extent practical, not separate towns" and "consider historic attendance patterns" (Page 18) to soften this push, the intent remains noticeable, cloaked in equity rhetoric that signals student benefit while prioritizing adult governance over diverse student pathways, contrasting with the original’s balance.
  • Implication: This shift risks shrinking Vermont’s school choice tradition, favoring adult-centrism and Education Associations control over student flexibility.

Bowing to Lobbying Education Associations

  • Strike-All: Elevates influence for groups like the Vermont School Boards Association, Vermont Principals’ Association, Vermont Superintendents Association, and Vermont National Education Association with Commission seats (Pages 5-6) and input on governance (Page 10) and finance (Page 13).
  • As-Introduced: Emphasized state-driven consolidation and funding (e.g., Doc 1, Page 1; Doc 2, Page 17), relying on streamlined stakeholder involvement primarily for implementation (e.g., transitional boards, Doc 4, Page 1), keeping the focus on student outcomes rather than adult priorities.
  • Influence: The strike-all’s Commission and educator-centric provisions (e.g., class size minimums, Page 21; construction aid, Page 29) cater to these groups’ adult-focused interests—jobs, resources—over students’ direct needs, diluting the original’s student-first clarity.

Becoming Highly Partisan (Beyond School Construction)

  • Strike-All: Introduces partisan tensions—centralizing State Board appointments (Sec. 23, Page 47 splits power among Governor, Speaker, and Senate), setting class size minimums (Page 21), and restricting school choice (Page 43)—while adding a construction program (Secs. 9-15, Pages 28-41). Notably, class size minimums were a bipartisan achievement until the committee chair and majority party members, at the last minute, disregarded the agreement and charted their own course, fracturing consensus. School Construction, absent from the original, in my opinion, was pushed past crossover and tactically inserted, not due to timing but as a strategy by the committee chair and majority party members to broaden appeal. We had thoroughly discussed this and received testimony on school construction before crossover, and what we needed in the final moments was quickly obtained from the Agency of Education, indicating that the same would have been true before crossover..
  • As-Introduced: Omitted construction—better suited as a separate bill—and focused on consolidation and funding, with minimal partisan leanings beyond funding scale, aiming for student equity. Construction should have been standalone but was bundled into the strike-all post-crossover, in my opinion, reflecting maneuvering by the committee chair and majority party members.
  • Partisan Turn: The strike-all’s governance shifts, choice curbs, and late addition of construction (a bipartisan lure) transform a technical, student-focused bill into one led by the committee chair and majority party members prioritizing adult systems, exacerbated by their abrupt rejection of bipartisan class size consensus, clashing with dissenting views centered on students’ needs.

 Moving forward, the House Education Committee has a chance to bridge these divides, harnessing the strike-all’s groundwork—like class size standards and construction planning—to craft a balanced approach that truly prioritizes students, proving that progress can emerge from this process with renewed collaboration and focus.

 Week in Review

There were also major bills discussed and voted on the floor, including the budget. Some of these included:

  • H.342, an act relating to protecting the personal information of certain public servants. My issue with this is that it was not comprehensive or well thought out enough, was rushed instead of thoughtfully crafted to protect everyone, and most importantly contains a “private right of action”. A private right of action risks overwhelming courts with frivolous lawsuits, burdens defendants with costly defenses, and let’s profit-driven plaintiffs exploit the system, undermining fair and consistent enforcement.
  • H.218, An act relating to fiscal year 2026 appropriations from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund. While I voted no on the amendment for the safe injection site in H.218, believing that the $1.1 million of opioid settlement funds earmarked for the Overdose Prevention Center would be better allocated to harm reduction methods, treatment beds, and transitional housing for true drug addiction recovery, I ultimately supported the overall bill because it funds other critical initiatives to treat those in need.

 Eyes Up: Looking Ahead

Next week, the House Education Committee has not yet put together a comprehensive agenda as we were focused on getting the strike-all amended version of H.454 buttoned up and voted on to get it to the next committee for review. Please pay attention to the committee’s web page for agenda revisions this week.

Stay Engaged

For more detailed information about all things happening in the legislature, please refer to the official Vermont General Assembly website. Here are some helpful links:

Your input is invaluable. Please feel free to reach out with your questions, concerns, or suggestions. Together, we can work towards a better future for our community and state.

Warm regards,
Joshua Dobrovich
jdobrovich@leg.state.vt.us

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Representative Dobrovich’s Newsletter Week of March 23, 2026 Dear Constituents, The land you think is “your land” might well become heavily regulated under the new Act 181 (think Act 250 2.0). This law was enacted over Governor Scott’s veto by the Democratic supermajority in 2024. The time is NOW for you to find out exactly how Act 181 may impact your use of your own land. The Land Use Review Board (LURB), created by Act 181, is currently working through the rule-making process to divide all land in Vermont into designated Tier 1A/1B, Tier 2, and Tier 3 areas. The goal is to encourage development in concentrated downtown areas (Tiers 1A and 1B) while discouraging it in environmentally sensitive zones (Tier 2 and especially Tier 3). The real challenge is striking the right balance between human thriving, affordability, equity, property rights, and environmental stewardship. This is no trivial task. The uncertainty around how Act 181 will be implemented is creating fear across t...
Read more
Representative Dobrovich’s Weekly Newsletter Week of June 16th Dear Constituents, With the legislative session concluding yesterday, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude for the privilege of serving as your representative at the State House. This newsletter (a rather long one), focusing on the pivotal education reform bill, begins my brief review of the session. In the coming days and weeks, I’ll share further updates to reflect on the work done in the legislature. Thank you for your continued trust and support. H.454 Transforming Vermont’s Schools: A Bold Plan for Fair Access and Economic Growth House Bill H.454, titled "An act relating to transforming Vermont’s education governance, quality, and finance systems," is a comprehensive effort to overhaul Vermont’s public education system. It addresses declining enrollment, unequal access to educational opportunities, rising property taxes, and inefficiencies, aiming for a system that ensures fair access to education for all...
Read more
Representative Dobrovich’s Newsletter Week of January 27th Dear Constituents, This week saw increased floor activity, more bill introductions, continued Act 73 discussions in Education, and valuable input from superintendents. Here’s a concise recap to keep you updated. I’ll share more as things progress. Thank you for your continued trust and support. Week in Review 72 new bills were introduced this week, bringing the biennium total to 846. (Full bill texts: https://legislature.vermont.gov — enter the bill number.) The floor picked up with six bills passed over to the Senate for review (possible amendments, then Senate debate/vote; if changed, back to House): H.648 — Banking, insurance, and securities H.516 — Amendments to Town of Essex charter H.270 — Confidentiality in peer support for emergency providers H.532 — Mandatory retirement of college professors H.508 — Amendments to City of Burlington charter H.790 — Budget Adjustment Act (mid-year ...
Read more