The bill H. 454, “An act relating to transforming Vermont’s education governance, quality, and finance systems,” which recently passed the House, has this vision of transformation: Shut South Royalton Elementary school, shut Bethel Elementary, shut First Branch in Tunbridge and First Branch in Chelsea, too, shut Stockbridge Elementary, shut Rochester Elementary, shut Sharon Elementary, shut Newton School in Strafford, and for good measure, shut White River Valley Middle School in Bethel and White River Valley High School in South Royalton. The White River Valley Supervisory Union? Shutter that too. The bill aims for an ideal: All school districts would have no fewer than 4,000 students and all schools would have no fewer than 400 students.

I am no expert on school funding formulas, but I understand scale, and the vision of H. 454 for rural Vermont is downright frightening. I am a huge fan of our small, rural Vermont schools. How could I not be? I was educated in those schools. I graduated from the Newton School in a class of nine; I graduated from Chelsea High School in a class of 25. And then I went to Harvard. How did I do that? I had some very good teachers along the way and that made all the difference. And good teachers do not necessarily teach at schools of 400 or more students.

I am not alone in predicting H. 454 as an existential threat to our local schools. From the superintendent to school board members to principals and parents, this bill is seen as nothing less than a death sentence for our small community schools. If there was convincing data, or expert testimony, making the case for a transformation to mega-schools to save our education system, many of us in opposition to H. 454 might relent and admit, “Well it stinks, but this bill does save millions and guarantees better academic outcomes.”

But the data doesn’t support that plan.

Let’s use some common sense: The cost per pupil at Randolph High School is about $27,000. At the smaller White River Valley High School in South Royalton, the per pupil cost is $19,000. Smaller isn’t always more expensive.

Busing is expensive. If we close all our local schools and bus all our students, on average 75 minutes, to a mega central campus, it’s hard to see how that saves taxpayer dollars.

If each of our local towns has to pony up for bond funding a new mega-school, it’s hard to see how that saves taxpayer dollars.

An apt analogy would be our state government forcing us to close all our general stores. Look at the price of a gallon of milk. It’s $3 at BJ’s in West Leb. It’s $4 at Dollar General. It’s $5 at Shaw’s and Hannaford. It’s $6 or more at our general stores. High-paid out-of-state consultants would look at the data and say, “We should have five BJ’s around Vermont and close everything else — that would save Vermonters money!”

This analysis ignores the value of community hubs, like our general stores and elementary schools, and crunches data without context. If I drive to West Leb for cheap milk, there’s an environmental cost to that trip; if I shop at the local general store, those dollars stay in town; and most likely $3 a gallon milk is coming from an out-of-state mega dairy farm, undercutting Vermont farmers.

When asked how H. 454 addresses the unsustainable health care costs embedded in our school budgets, the chair of the House Committee on Education answered, “This bill is strictly about education and does not get into the health care debate.”

When asked how many elementary schools would close if H. 454 became law, the Chair of the House Committee on Education said, “The answer is we did not take testimony on that.”

Vermont has a long tradition of local control on education. It’s been methodically eroded over the last half century, and H. 454 champions the extinction of local control. The bill graciously includes language that considers how the state might provide for the possibility of letting local towns vote on the planned closure of their elementary schools.

Voting “no” on H. 454 wasn’t a vote to do nothing. I’m all-in on achieving better results with fewer dollars. But from the data I’ve seen, if a small rural school is meeting academic outcomes and fiscal targets, why close it? To transform Vermont’s education system, the governor and the House are taking their cues from corporate America.

During the debate on the House floor, I thought one of the most interesting things said was from a Rep who was once the secretary of the Agency of Education: “The two most consistent predictors of how well our children do in school are their mother’s level of education and the family’s household income.” Think about that. And consider how those two predictors have nothing to do with school size, or classroom size, or district size, or even per-pupil-spending. To me, that eye-opening data gives the General Assembly and the governor plenty of education policy to aspire to: How do we attract more smart moms to our towns and make sure there are good jobs not too far away?

Rep. John O’Brien, D-Tunbridge, represents Royalton and Tunbridge in the Vermont House.

This column first appeared in the White River Valley Herald.