Op-Ed: Reasons for voting ‘no’ on the Harwood budget

February 27, 2026  |  By Steven Martin

Nearly everyone agrees that “affordability” is one of the most serious problems facing Vermonters. The price of housing, homelessness, healthcare, drug addiction, childcare and education all continue to spiral further out of control. 

What do these things have in common? Our Vermont legislators decided that they could make better decisions and regulate all of these things better than individual Vermonters making their own choices. Largely, those decisions involve taking more taxpayer money to throw at an increasing pool of “victims.” 

You have seen the results – throwing more and more of the productive citizens’ hard-earned incomes and/or savings at these problems. Instead of rationally viewing empirical results of these choices, they assess how people “feel” about their efforts and continue spending increases well beyond the income increases of the shrinking population supporting them. New taxes, higher taxes, increased fees, etc. are always the answer.

A few observations about the Harwood Unified Union School District and the proposed FY27 education budget:

By coupling district-level budget approval with state-level funding, in essence we ask local districts to hold down spending, while the statewide funding system literally encourages districts to spend more. You can consider my thinking in my 2/6/2026 Waterbury Roundabout opinion post “COMMENTARY: Harwood’s FY27 budget incentive to spend.”

During his Feb. 24 Vermont Viewpoint program on WDEV, at about 50:35 in the broadcast recording, Rob Roper observed that prior to the passage of Act 60 in 1997, Vermont students typically performed in the top 3-5 states, while per pupil spending was about “middle of the pack.” However, over the past 10 years, Roper reports, Vermont schools have shown the fastest-dropping education scores in the country, even though we are currently the second-highest spending state, at around $30,000 per student. My perspective is that the real HUUSD FY27 requested spending is $29,035 per pupil, not $16,229 as the state requires HUUSD to report it. My reasoning was in my Feb. 20 Waterbury Roundabout opinion post “LETTER: Taking a close look at cost per-pupil in Harwood’s budget.” 

At the Feb. 11 Harwood School Board meeting, they discussed chronic student absenteeism (defined as missing an average of two or more days per month). While doing notably better than the average in Vermont (reported as 30% in 2023), last year the rate at HUUSD was 13% (more than 1 in 9 students). With 1,787 students enrolled, 13% would be 232 HUUSD students missing two or more days each month.

I attended the Feb. 11 Harwood School Board meeting, where the board appointed a temporary new member, Macon Phillips, representing Warren. There were two candidates. The board voted in their selection by a vote of 9 to 1. The recorded meeting is available on the district’s YouTube page. 

Here are two quotes from the interview with the newly appointed board member that caught my attention. “If you're talking to me about education reform and all you want to talk about is property tax, don't talk to me about education reform.”  Later, he offered: “So, for me, the big picture is to say, as a school board, how can we paint a picture of the Harwood district, or whatever it becomes, that’s exciting to the people who live here? It makes people want to be part of it. And then we’ll figure out how to pay for it.” 

In our personal lives, our starting point is usually how much can we afford, followed by discussions of maximizing the benefits that we can derive from this amount. Apparently, in already unaffordable Vermont, the thought of fiscal responsibility is not applicable to our schools, and they are immune to any such constraints.

Regarding the unsustainable nature of where we are, using the HUUSD school year FY24 budget as the base, here are some financial facts. Starting with FY24 and moving to the FY27 HUUSD budget (if approved), here are some comparisons of changes over three years:

Vermont seniors’ Social Security cost-of-living increases are 8.7%. HUUSD school budget increases (if voters approve the proposed FY27) are up 14.2%. My personal (projected) Waterbury education property tax increases (per the Feb. 17 HUUSD estimate) will total 26.1%.

I have lived my entire 71 years in Waterbury and hope this is where I eventually leave this earth. That is becoming increasingly less likely for many longtime Vermonters. Many have already left their homes, friends and family because they can no longer afford to live here.

I don't understand how school spending increases (in the past three years) that are 63% higher than increases in seniors’ incomes, and property tax increases that are 84% higher than school spending increases, can possibly make rational sense, regardless of how it may make one “feel.” As a rational human being, I cannot support spending one more dollar to prop up this train wreck. 

I am a NO on the school budget.

Steven Martin lives in Waterbury.