Legislators review draft requiring Agency of Education report, strategic plan and oversight panel before shift to weighted special-education funding

Beth St. James, counsel in the Office of Legislative Counsel, walked members of the House Ways & Means and Senate Finance committees through draft bill language that would require the Agency of Education (AOE) to produce an extensive report on special-education delivery and costs, write a three-year strategic plan, create a temporary Special Education Oversight Panel and fund an AOE staff position to implement the plan.

The draft would require AOE to submit a written report by 09/01/2025 documenting trends over the past 10 years (numbers of students with individualized education programs, average per-pupil costs by setting, staffing levels and experience, use of out-of-district specialized placements and extraordinary spending) and to recommend changes needed to manage rising extraordinary special-education costs and to support a possible transition to a weighted funding model.

St. James told the committee, "Okay. So this language starts with 3 sections," and outlined the three parts: the report, a strategic plan, and creation of an oversight panel to review and evaluate the agency's plan and implementation.

Committee members pressed for clarity on the purpose and timing of the work. Representative Holcomb said the committee needs to know how the proposal "sits in the context of the landmark of what this committee hopes to accomplish this biennium," warning against frequent policy churn if the committee adopts changes it may reverse later. Representative Holt added a practical caveat about readiness: "Professor Colby has talked about weights for special education, but the truth here is that there's a practice and delivery side that has to be in place to make those weights work."

The draft lists detailed data AOE would have to provide, including by local education agency and by specialized placement: counts of students with IEPs, average per-pupil costs inclusive of extraordinary spending and any costs above general tuition rates, the average duration of placements outside the general-education classroom, and staffing trends (FTEs, experience, training and tenure).

It also directs AOE to evaluate implementation of Act 173 (the state's prior special-education reforms), identify drivers of accelerating extraordinary costs, and outline options for changes in practice, structure or law to ensure access to the least restrictive environment consistent with federal law (IDEA) and the Vermont Education Quality Standards.

On timelines and oversight, the draft would require AOE to submit a three-year strategic plan by 12/01/2025 and begin providing updates to the oversight panel every six weeks starting 01/15/2026. AOE would also submit written updates to the House and Senate education committees, Ways & Means and Senate Finance on 01/15/2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029.

The proposed Special Education Oversight Panel would be time-limited, begin meeting on 07/15/2025 (first meeting called by the Secretary of Administration), and cease on 07/01/2029. Membership described in the draft includes representatives appointed by the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, the Vermont Council of Special Education Administrators, the Secretary of Education, the State Board of Education, the BEST (Building Effective Supports for Teaching) project hosted at UVM, two parents appointed by family-support organizations, and a Department of Vermont Health Access designee with school-based Medicaid experience. The panel would develop review criteria (to be delivered to AOE by 09/01/2025), evaluate the agency's plan against those criteria, request amendments or recommend approval, and report to the legislature every six months.

The draft also includes two appropriation line items: $50,000 to the Agency of Administration for panel reimbursement, per diem and a consultant (the draft notes this is a placeholder figure and subject to policy decisions) and $150,000 to AOE for a dedicated staff position to support implementation.

Members raised several implementation concerns during discussion: whether AOE has the staff capacity to assemble the requested data and analyses, how the work would align with parallel bills (the draft was discussed in the context of H.454 as introduced), how to define and measure "success" for students with disabilities, and whether drafting assumes a policy decision to adopt a weighted funding model rather than using the report to evaluate whether weights are the right path. St. James said the draft was written on the assumption a weighted model would be considered and that the report is intended to assess readiness for that transition; lawmakers suggested clarifying the draft to avoid imposing a presumption.

No formal vote or motion to adopt the language occurred at the meeting. St. James said she would circulate a revised draft the next day and requested feedback from the House Education Committee before moving the text as an amendment to H.454 or offering it separately.

The discussion combined technical, fiscal and programmatic concerns: lawmakers sought both the data needed to diagnose rising extraordinary costs and safeguards to ensure any funding transition does not reduce access or oversight for vulnerable students.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: counsel will produce a revised draft for circulating to committee members and solicit feedback from the House Education Committee; the oversight-panel start date and appropriations remain policy choices for the committee to finalize.