Senate education panel presses Agency of Education on district size, governance and costs tied to foundation funding plan

Continuing a series of hearings, the Vermont Senate Education Committee on March 28 heard from Zoe Saunders, secretary of education, on why district size and governance must be part of any shift to an evidence‑based foundation funding formula. “I’ve come back today, to really respond to some of the questions, that were asked, in the last meeting to really focus in on the importance of identifying district size as we're contemplating a transition to a foundation funding formula,” Saunders told the committee.

Saunders said the administration’s evidence‑based model ties a base funding amount to specific staffing and program inputs and therefore assumes districts will operate at a certain scale. “However, this plan would not be possible within Vermont's existing structure,” she said, arguing that without changes in governance some districts would be either underfunded for the new standards or the state would face much higher costs to reach parity.

Why it matters: Saunders framed the debate as one about equity and sustainability. The model's goal, she said, is to reduce inequities in per‑pupil spending and ensure that students with similar needs receive similar resources statewide. Committee members pressed the agency on practical consequences, including whether larger districts would actually solve workforce shortages and how facilities, teacher pay and health‑care costs would be managed.

Key points from the agency presentation

- Evidence‑based formula and governance: Saunders described the “evidence‑based” methodology as a theory‑of‑action model that specifies staffing ratios, protected teacher planning time and program inputs. The model assumes operational K‑12 districts and consistent district configuration so that the formula's per‑pupil assumptions are comparable across the state.

- Scale and specialization: Saunders and her staff argued larger districts can more readily employ specialized staff (for example, special education directors or data managers) and regionalize services such as career and technical education. She said Vermont currently operates “at a very thin margin” in staff‑to‑student ratios, and consolidation can create a bench of specialists so that the loss of a single part‑time position does not cripple service delivery.

- Limits of consolidation: Saunders repeatedly distinguished district consolidation (merging district governance) from school consolidation (closing schools). Under the proposal, school closures would occur only if a school could not meet financial viability and the formula's class‑size and quality expectations even after operational changes.

Committee concerns and probing questions

Committee members raised several recurring themes: whether research on district size is conclusive (Saunders said the literature is mixed and dated), how geography and rural travel times factor into a statewide plan, and how a large district would recruit or retain staff. One senator asked how a hypothetical 32,000‑student district would ever staff 250 counselors; Saunders responded that consolidation alone is not a hiring panacea and that workforce pathways and salary adjustments would be needed in parallel.

Members also pressed the agency on facilities: expanding attendance zones and creating larger regional middle and high schools could require targeted school construction and deferred‑maintenance decisions. Saunders said the agency is planning a facilities team and community engagement process to evaluate investments and repurposing options in the period when new districts would be implemented (planned in the proposal for fiscal year 2028, with a two‑year ramp).

Budget and oversight mechanics

Saunders described an equity‑based budgeting approach in which a state guarantee (the foundation formula) would cover core inputs while local voters could approve separate local‑share initiatives and bonds for projects beyond the formula. The proposal would require public hearings on budgets and give the State Board of Education a role in reviewing and approving equity‑based budgets annually to ensure dollars follow weighted student need.

Other technical points

- The agency modeled multiple district configurations (including one‑ and multi‑zone scenarios) using Vermont data, Saunders said, and is prepared to provide links and the underlying district‑level modeling to the committee and Joint Fiscal Office.

- The plan protects 25% of teacher time for planning and assumes some elementary class‑size reductions that increase elementary costs relative to current spending.

- Saunders noted the agency is asking for additional staff positions to support facilities analysis and to create interactive budgeting tools for districts during the planned transition.

Next steps

Saunders offered to share research links, the agency’s modeling files and to return with additional detail; she also said the agency is coordinating with legislative fiscal staff. Committee members asked for legal and historical context on past statutory decisions (including Act 60 and prior arrangements for statewide teacher health‑care negotiation), and requested that agency subject‑matter experts and legal counsel be available to the committee for follow‑up sessions.

No formal votes or final decisions were recorded at the March 28 hearing; the discussion continued as part of ongoing committee work on the governor’s education transformation proposal.