Appropriations Committee reviews education budget; adult‑ed formula, small‑school grants and UVM funding flagged for follow-up

The Appropriations Committee met April 4 to review education and higher‑education budget items, discussing unresolved technical changes to the adult education funding formula, the future of small‑school merger support grants, English‑learner weighting, a House proposal to restore $18.5 million for universal school meals and a governor‑recommended 3% increase for the University of Vermont.

Committee member 1, an Appropriations Committee member, said the panel would “leave it open” on a line (s.117) where the committee had allocated money and would follow up to clarify whether a proposed staff position belonged to the board or the department. He also described a conflict between the Agency of Education’s predictive formula and the formula used by some stakeholders, saying it had left at least one adult basic education provider with a “significant deficit” (noted as roughly $80,000 in the transcript).

Why it matters: the committee’s decisions will shape per‑pupil funding weights, small‑school subsidies and one‑time higher‑education allocations that affect school districts, adult learners and state colleges across Vermont.

Most important details

- Adult education formula: Committee discussion centered on a change to the funding formula adopted last year and a divergence between the Agency of Education’s (AOE) predictive method and the formula’s original authors. Committee member 1 said the mismatch has left at least one adult basic education provider facing a “significant deficit” (the transcript references about $80,000). The committee did not adopt a fix at the meeting and left the item open for further staff follow‑up and likely testimony from the education committee.

- Small‑school/merger support grants: Members flagged roughly $2,000,000 in ongoing subsidy under the “merger support grants” label (formerly small‑school grants under Act 46). Committee member 2 observed the grants were created to help newly merged districts maintain small schools but said the program may be “inherently contradictory” if districts now have larger tax bases. The group agreed to revisit the policy and consider testimony to reassess the subsidy’s rationale.

- English learners (EL) weighting and per‑pupil calculations: The committee discussed EL weighting (also referred to as multi‑language learners) and how categorical treatments or threshold categories apply when a district has only a few EL students. Members agreed redesign of the foundation formula should address EL weights as part of a broader restructuring.

- Universal school meals: One member said the House had reinserted $18.5 million “back in” to fund universal school meals; the committee suggested leaving that item open for compensation questions and further work.

- Higher education and UVM: The University of Vermont’s request for a 3% increase was discussed. Committee member 1 described the 3% as the governor’s recommendation and said parity with the state college system and support for job creation were part of the justification. The committee did not vote on the line at this meeting.

- VSAC, Vermont State University and one‑time proposals: Members noted several one‑time items routed through VSAC and Vermont State University, including proposals to mirror a CCV tuition initiative for lower‑income families. A committee member said he believed CCV covers tuition for families under about $75,000, but framed that as a recollection rather than a confirmed figure.

- Retirement and pensions: The committee discussed retired teachers’ pension and health‑benefit related lines, and a VPIC request for a $250,000 appropriation to adjust internal service charges across pension accounts. Members left those items open as they planned follow‑up with VPIC staff.

Discussion vs. decisions

- Discussion: Nearly all items above were discussed but not finally adopted. Members repeatedly used phrases such as “leave it open,” “we should revisit,” and “we’ll get testimony,” indicating follow‑up rather than final action.

- Direction/next steps: Committee members asked staff to check which office or board would assume a proposed new position tied to labor relations (uncertain whether it belonged to the board or to the department) and to provide additional JFO (Joint Fiscal Office) or agency analysis on several items, including adult education and merger support grants.

- Formal action: No formal roll‑call votes or final appropriations were recorded in the transcript excerpt provided.

Quotations

“I would probably I'll leave that open now,” Committee member 1 said when discussing a funding line that required clarification.

“There’s a conflict between AOE and how the formula got changed,” Committee member 1 said of the adult education calculation, adding the mismatch had produced a significant deficit for at least one provider.

Ending

Committee members identified multiple lines that require additional analysis or testimony and repeatedly left items open for later action. The Appropriations Committee moved next to other budget sections after concluding the education review.