As Vermont rethinks its K-12 education system, legislators face a pivotal choice: expand opportunity for students or further limit it through centralized reform. Their decisions will directly affect not only how schools are funded and governed, but also how well they serve Vermont’s students and families. Expanding education freedom should be the central priority in this process. In a state defined by rural geography, declining enrollment, and rising costs, a more flexible and responsive education system is essential to meeting the diverse needs of students across different communities.
Vermont has historically operated under a unique “town tuitioning” system because of the geographical needs of the state. Town tuitioning allowed children who did not have a functioning public school in their district to use funds allocated for their education to attend another public or private school that fit their needs (both educational and geographical). However, due to declining population across the state, rising district-by-district property tax rates as communities attempt to keep up with unpredictable school budgeting and spending, the legislature was understandably compelled to pursue structural reforms to the education system to confront these issues.
The resulting proposal requires larger school districts, a weighted student funding formula, and a statewide education property tax rate all aimed at addressing these challenges. While these goals are laudable, the law also contains revised criteria for independent schools to receive public funding, including geographic limitations and enrollment requirements. This is a major setback for education freedom in Vermont. By restricting the types of schools that can receive funding from the state (such as private schools operating within the borders of a school district that offers K–12 or private schools with less than 25% of their student bodies consisting of publicly funded students) funding can no longer follow the child to many private schools, particularly outside rural areas. Students who previously would have had access to a range of public and private schools are now increasingly limited to public school assignments based on geography, leaving families with fewer choices and more barriers. Many families, especially in rural areas, have limited or no access to alternative education options.
Though the controlling costs through more consistent district enrollment and a statewide education property tax may sound promising, it does not fully account for the individual learner. Education is not one-size-fits-all. Students have different learning styles, strengths, and challenges, and schools vary in their ability to meet those needs. A more centrally controlled school system may be appealing to the bureaucracy, but it can limit the ability of families to find the right fit for each child. Expanding education options encourages environments where students are more likely to succeed. Restricting those options can reduce flexibility, dampen innovation, and potentially increase costs without delivering meaningful improvements in outcomes.
Vermont spends nearly $27,000 per student in public schools (among the highest in the nation), yet student performance has been regressing towards the national average on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In contrast, research across multiple states suggests that increased competition through school choice can lead to improved outcomes. One study from the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise found “strikingly large test score gains for states that have adopted voucher programs and/or Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), swamping the effect of per-pupil K–12 spending on test scores.”
The test score gains were not a direct result of injecting money into education, but instead from a shift in the environment toward choice and competition. The benefits reflect core free-market principles: when schools must compete for students, they are incentivized to innovate, improve, and respond to the needs of families. Rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all system, this approach allows schools to develop models that work best for their specific communities. Parents, in turn, act as decision-makers, directing resources toward schools that deliver results. States should give their students the best opportunity for success by establishing a framework that rewards effective schools and pushes others to adapt and improve.
Knowing that increased competition and choice lead to lower costs and better student outcomes, restricting the role of independent schools in Vermont instead of increasing access to choice is not a wise move. The better option? Expanding school choice through Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). ESAs empower families, serve students instead of systems, and ensure greater flexibility and accountability by allowing parents to use the funds allocated for their child’s education at whatever school best suits their child’s needs. There have been proposals in the legislature this year to establish open enrollment through a unified statewide school system to give families greater flexibility, as well as proposals to establish Education Savings Accounts to allow the ultimate education freedom where education funding follows the child. These proposals would preserve local control and community engagement, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of educational services by aligning resources and accountability, and empower parents with the freedom to make the best choices for their children’s education, regardless of income or zip code.
These improvements address both structural and educational challenges. They respond to declining population pressures and rising property taxes while giving families greater ability to choose schools that fit their children’s needs. By strengthening the link between family choice and school performance, they have the potential to improve outcomes across the system. Education freedom would be a win for parents, children, and taxpayers, while helping to control costs over time.
