Op-Ed: Why we can’t ignore healthcare in the education funding discussion

February 19, 2025  |  By Rep. Kate McCann

As a member of the House Education Committee – and as a teacher, a mother, and a patient – I have listened with interest to Education Secretary Zoie Saunders. Recently, the secretary was in the hot seat trying to explain to a joint meeting of House Education and House Ways and Means committees the governor’s state-determined funding formula and his plan to reduce the number of school districts to five. 

The governor’s proposal suggests it can “deliver a robust education that is generous compared to other state funding models” while slashing education funding by nearly $184 million.  However, the plan is light on details – except one, which calls for ending a program that ensures all children are fed breakfast and lunch during the school day. This cynical move flies in the face of research that shows universal meals can reduce hunger, lower child obesity rates, improve academic performance and increase school attendance. 

But what is missing is far more impactful to the bottom line: ever-increasing healthcare and hospital costs.   

The governor’s new plan suggests that local communities are to blame for soaring property taxes despite many other factors over which local school boards have little control. Even with moving healthcare bargaining to the state level nearly a decade ago – at the governor’s insistence – costs haven’t gone down. In fact, we know now that plan didn’t cut healthcare costs – it merely shifted who pays for them. Premiums have skyrocketed over that time, as they have for all Vermonters, with no end in sight. Teachers, staff and administrators continue to pay 20% of those premiums, keeping in mind that 20% of more is…more. We have a staffing shortage now in our schools and eroding healthcare benefits would exacerbate the problems of recruitment and retention. It’s a vicious cycle that doesn’t serve students, educators, or taxpayers. 

So what can we do to support and strengthen our public school system at a price working Vermonters can afford? 

First, Vermont has been short on leadership from the Agency of Education for the last seven years or so. To enhance accountability and transparency, improve operational efficiency, and strengthen public confidence in Vermont’s education governance, we should transition from an Agency of Education to a Department of Education with a Commissioner of Education that reports directly to a neutral State Board of Education as it was for decades prior to 2012. Next, there needs to be some consolidation. We know that compared to neighboring states we spend more in administration costs, money that could and should go to student-facing programs.

One option might be the creation of districts around our career and technical schools. In Central Vermont alone, I could envision the consolidation of Barre, Montpelier-Roxbury and U-32 into one district, with one central office. We could continue to operate most of our small elementary schools while moving them closer to the community schools model. We could offer every 8th grader a choice among three public high schools, a career and technical education center, a liberal arts high school, and a science, technology, arts and math high school while remaining flexible enough in the curriculum so that a 9th or 10th grader who wants to switch gears could do so. 

Next, we need to address the 2024 estimated $57 million in taxpayer-funded vouchers flowing to private and religious schools. We know that if we don’t act, that figure will only grow over time. 

Finally, it’s high time the state moves to reference-based pricing to curb the ever-rising costs of hospital care for all Vermonters. Costs for professional medical services are higher in Vermont than the national average which translates to the highest health insurance premiums in the nation for workers and employers. Indeed, why does it cost $6,596 for an MRI at UVM Medical Center and only $3,610 at a community hospital when they are using the same technology? It seems to me outrageous that our biggest hospital network charges educators nearly three times what they charge Medicare. 

Under reference-based pricing, a recent study showed that in 2022 just for public schools, taxpayers could realize savings of $49 million a year, and I know it would be even more now. Put another way, had reference-based pricing been in place over the last five years, we could have saved $230 million – that’s real money that is better spent on students than on overpriced hospital care. 

So as we explore the merits of consolidation, ending the siphoning of public dollars for private schools, a state-controlled funding scheme, and Montpelier-driven education decisions, let’s not forget healthcare. Because even if we reduce administrative staff and restrict public funding to public schools, if we don’t tackle healthcare and hospital costs, those potential savings will be gobbled up by the state’s largest hospital network, leaving students, educators, parents and taxpayers to foot the bill.  

State Rep. Kate McCann, D-Montpelier, is a member of the House Education Committee.