Call to action: Veteran teacher says let’s be honest about ed spending
March 5, 2025 | By Tommy Young Since the new Vermont legislative session began in January, I’ve been meeting with local legislators, attending public forums, and leading discussions about education funding in Vermont. It’s clear that the cost of maintaining our Education Fund is becoming unsustainable. People on both sides of the political aisle agree: we cannot continue to pay for everything. And I must say, I wholeheartedly agree.
Vermont’s Education Fund is facing a major issue—but it’s not about spending on education itself. The real problem is how the fund has been used as a political dumping ground, with continuous unfunded mandates piling up. When state leaders can’t find a way to pay for a program, they seem to shift the cost onto taxpayers, hiding the burden in the Education Fund and blaming it on the cost of educating our students.
Vermont’s compulsory education law requires enrollment in formal schooling for children between the ages of 6 and 16. But what does that spending truly look like? Not one elected official has presented a clear picture of the actual cost of complying with this statute. What would our education spending look like if we focused strictly on this law, as written?
Let’s consider what would happen if these unfunded mandates were removed from the education fund:
Early College Enrollment: This mandate allows students to unenroll from their local high schools and take college courses “for free.” However, what many don't realize is that the high school loses enrollment funding due to the loss of Average Daily Membership numbers, while the cost of the college courses comes out of the Education Fund.
New Vermont Special Education Regulations: As of July 1, 2023, new regulations expanded eligibility for students presenting deficits in functional skills. This change was made because the state did not have the necessary resources (facilities, medical professionals, or funding) to provide adequate mental health services. So, they created new special education rules that place the financial burden on schools and the Education Fund. One behavior interventionist can cost a school between $80,000 and $100,000 annually (before any potential Medicaid reimbursement).
Universal Pre-K Programs: These programs serve children ages 3-5, well below the age range specified in the compulsory education statute (6-16). The Education Fund is currently responsible for covering $3,884 per child for 10 hours of pre-kindergarten education.
Universal Meals for Students: After the COVID-19 pandemic, state leaders voted to continue providing free meals for all students. This program is currently costing the Education Fund $18.5 million in 2024.
I want to be clear: I believe these programs are valuable and I support them. However, they do not belong in the Education Fund. Before we make drastic cuts to our school systems, public education, and local control, I urge us all to take a hard look at how much of our education funding is going to unfunded mandates—and what our property taxes would look like without them.
Let’s put these costs back in the General Fund, the Health and Human Services Fund, or wherever else they belong.
My call to all Vermonters is this: let’s hold our leaders accountable. Let’s urge them to ensure the Education Fund is used for what it was originally intended—for the education of our students—not to cover unfunded mandates.
If they can’t support this, then why should we continue to support them?
Duxbury resident Tommy Young is a 28-year veteran teacher, 26 of those years with the HUUSD school system.