School leaders tell committee H.955 risks extra data burdens, questions equity of equal pre‑K payments

Chelsea Myers, executive director of the Vermont Superintendent Association, and Heather Bushy, past president of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, told the House Education Committee on April 9 that they support the bill’s goals but need more time and stakeholder input before finalizing positions on H.955.

Myers opened by saying the associations had not been able to take the accelerated draft back to their boards and offered preliminary feedback. "For the record, I'm Chelsea Myers. I'm the executive director of the Vermont Superintendent Association," she said, adding that associations "have not developed firm positions on the newly added provisions" because of the short timetable.

They raised several detailed concerns that the committee said it would address. On pre‑K funding, Myers flagged section 21’s payment language, saying the draft "supports achieving access for every pre kindergarten child ... with equal payments and equal educational standards for public and private providers" and added: "It is difficult to understand why we are moving towards an equal rather than equitable payment system for prek delivery." She argued districts incur administrative and support-service costs that private providers do not, and that a straight equal payment risks under‑resourcing public-district obligations.

Both witnesses also warned the bill’s proposed data-collection requirements could create substantial new administrative work for local education agencies. "This places an additional administrative burden on LEAs to collect this information," Bushy said, describing the student-profile form (formerly the waiting-categories form) that would ask districts to gather poverty, English‑learner and disability weight categories for tuitioned students, including Act 166 pre‑K students who attend private providers.

Witnesses and committee members discussed whether districts could be given authority to withhold some state dollars until families return required forms to ensure accurate data for weighting tuition students. Witnesses said such authority would help but questioned whether the bill currently grants it.

On rulemaking, witnesses recommended guidance rather than emergency rules in several places (notably intradistrict budgeting and reserve-account standards), asking that superintendents, school boards and business managers be explicitly involved in drafting any new rules. They noted potential conflicts between proposed reserve rules and existing surplus statutes that currently direct surpluses to roll into future budgets and reduce tax rates.

Witnesses also sought clarity on transportation provisions (section 27B), asking the agency to report how students arrive at and leave each school, whether districts provide or reimburse transportation, and for context on bus driver pay and benefits. They argued those data are needed to design transportation grants and to ensure equitable access while managing taxpayer costs.

On school construction and legacy debt, witnesses asked whether new Division positions are contingent on state aid and questioned emergency rule use for construction aid guidance. Staff walked the committee through revised ballot language and a narrowed legacy-debt definition that targets "debt incurred by the district for cost related to facility construction and renovation," and proposed language to show voters the estimated ongoing annual per‑pupil cost of a construction authorization.

Committee members raised broader concerns about fairness and unintended consequences if the state assumes legacy debt for some districts, and whether that could create perceptions of unequal treatment. Members also flagged field-trip and transportation fees charged to parents where public tuition dollars pay for out‑of‑district or independent school placements, urging that the funding design avoid imposing extra burdens on families.

The committee asked staff to incorporate technical edits suggested by the witnesses, to avoid emergency rulemaking where broader stakeholder input is warranted, and to return with revised language. The committee recessed and scheduled a follow-up "big picture" discussion on the foundation-formula contingencies and merger modeling.

The hearing did not include any formal motions or recorded votes.