Ways & Means hears updated foundation estimate: $15,033 base proposed, weights for poverty, English learners and special education

The Vermont House Ways & Means Committee heard an updated cost study April 3 that estimated a fiscal‑year 2025 foundation (base) amount of $15,033 per pupil and recommended accompanying cost adjustments and student weights for a student‑based funding formula.

The analysis was presented by Tammy Colby, an education finance expert, who said the figure reflects updated models run on 2019–2024 school‑year data and inflated to FY25 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index. "That number is $15,033," Colby told the committee, which also received framing remarks from Julia Richter of the Joint Fiscal Office.

The foundation amount matters because it defines the state’s adequacy obligation under a student‑based (foundation) formula: it is the baseline per‑pupil spending the state would need to provide so students can reach Vermont’s proficiency targets. Colby said the committee must also decide how to count pupils and how to treat additional needs through weights or categorical grants.

Key details from the presentation

- Base amount and indexing: Colby presented a single base estimate of $15,033 per pupil in FY25 dollars, derived from updated pupil‑cost models and inflated with the BLS Employment Cost Index (ECI) so the number is comparable with other FY25 proposals. Richter and Colby discussed choices for escalation in later years and other possible inflation indices used by statute.

- Three high‑level policy choices for structuring the formula: (1) a single base plus student weights; (2) a simple variable base (different bases for small and/or sparse schools) with corresponding weights; or (3) a single base with categorical grants outside the formula for small or sparse schools. Colby explained tradeoffs: variable bases require multiple weight sets and add complexity; categorical grants preserve a single weight structure but operate outside the base.

- Student‑need and school‑context adjustments (dollars and weights): The updated analysis estimated additive cost adjustments (dollars above the base) that produce the following example weights relative to the $15,033 base: - Students experiencing economic disadvantage: state share weight 1.02 (Colby noted that if federal consolidated funds were removed the equivalent state weight would rise to ~1.22). - English learners (average): weight 1.39; Colby also presented a refined set tied to WIDA proficiency levels (Level 1 weight ~2.11; levels through 5–6 down near 0.12) and an additional "newcomer/SLIFE" adjustment of $6,329 (weight ~0.42). - School enrollment under 100 students: cost adjustment $3,157 (weight ~0.21). - Population density under 55 persons per sq. mile: cost adjustment $1,906 (weight ~0.13). - Combined small + sparse example: additive adjustment $5,063 above the base for a very small, sparse school.

Colby emphasized the distinction between the state share of costs and total costs when federal funds are involved: for example, she gave an illustrative total additional spending for a student experiencing economic disadvantage of about $18,000, of which roughly $3,000 is federal; the weight reported to the committee (1.02) reflects the state share under current federal funding.

- English learner detail: Colby presented both an average weight (1.39) and a more refined approach by WIDA proficiency levels because per‑pupil costs vary widely across proficiency levels (examples given ranged from roughly $31,657 for Level 1 to $1,795 for students near exiting EL status). She told the committee the Agency of Education collects WIDA data and could support implementation of level‑based weights.

- Special education: Colby explained why special education is handled differently. Because special education funding must reflect the dollars required to implement a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), the committee was shown three options: 1) A single special‑education weight (Ohio‑based estimate shown at 1.97 relative to the $15,033 base); 2) Multiple weights by disability category (used by several states); 3) Grouped cost‑tier weights (low/medium/high cost tiers). Using Ohio and national Special Education Expenditure Project (SEAP) benchmarks, Colby showed illustrative tier weights (low ~0.79, medium ~1.35, high ~2.49) and noted large dollar variation across disabilities (examples: specific learning disability ≈ $9,721; some high‑need categories approaching $59,000 in the Ohio figures). She described high‑cost‑student programs (an insurance policy used by many states) as a likely complement for extraordinary placements.

What was discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: The committee questioned indexing choices (Colby and Richter described the choice of ECI because wages and benefits dominate education spending), the effect of federal funds on state weights, the mechanics of variable bases versus categorical grants, and how special‑education costs should be measured and managed. Multiple representatives raised concerns about scale, staffing, out‑of‑district placements and whether districts can or should raise additional local revenue above a foundation amount. Colby repeatedly framed her work as cost estimates, not policy decisions: "This is what you have to spend. This is not current spending," she said, describing the estimate as the dollars necessary to meet state standards based on modeled relationships between spending and outcomes.

- Direction / next steps (discussion recorded in the meeting): Committee members asked for further district‑level modeling and clarification from Agency of Education staff on WIDA administration, newcomer definitions, and how federal Title III and consolidated funding are being treated. Colby and JFO provided a slide deck on the committee page and noted that JFO is compiling district‑level comparisons.

No formal votes or final decisions on a statutory formula were taken during the portion of the hearing in the transcript.

Why this matters locally

A foundation formula and its base and weight structure determine the state’s adequacy obligation, how much money districts would receive from the state, and what level of local levying or additional programs districts may need. The choices the committee makes about a single base, variable bases or categorical grants, and how to count students (long‑term average membership vs. other counts) will affect rural and small schools, districts with higher concentrations of students in poverty, English learners, and districts serving large numbers of students with intensive special education needs.

What's next

Colby and Richter directed members to the Joint Fiscal Office slide deck posted under the presenters’ names. Multiple members asked for follow‑up analysis at the district level and for Agency of Education staff to return with programmatic details about WIDA administration, newcomer supports and special‑education placements. The committee paused the hearing for a brief break following the presentation.