Officials show how foundation formula and district maps change winners and losers in school funding model

State education analysts told the Senate Finance Committee on Jan. 27 that the administration’s proposed foundation amount and the way school districts are configured can produce materially different distributional outcomes for education funding.

“Using all of the same underlying information, the same FY '25 spending, the same foundation amount, and the same state or pupil counts and weights, we see that there are relative differences, distinct in the current law and distinct in Bongard’s [map],” a presentation to the committee summarized.

Why it matters: The committee is weighing a large policy change — moving to a statewide foundation formula and possibly reducing the number of districts and supervisory unions. The combination of what the foundation covers and how students are grouped determines which districts gain or lose relative resources.

Presenters walked the committee through maps of supervisory districts and supervisory unions proposed by Senator Bongard’s office and associated demographic and spending models. They compared FY 2025 education spending to the administration’s proposed foundation amount while holding pupil counts and weights constant. The presenters showed that, under the proposed foundation and Bongard’s configurations, “none of these 10 or 11 districts would have a higher sum education spending compared to the foundation amount and all would have a relative decrease,” whereas under current law some smaller districts could show both large increases and large decreases.

Committee members focused on three policy questions: whether the foundation permits local spending above the foundation amount; how above‑foundation spending would be raised and equalized across districts; and where the model’s projected savings would come from.

On above‑foundation spending, analysts described two broad approaches: a state equalization mechanism (similar to a statewide guarantee or education fund match) or a recapture/recirculation mechanism where wealthy districts contribute a portion of locally raised money to a shared pool. The current draft discussed at the meeting includes an “excess spending” mechanism that benchmarks districts to the lowest grand list per pupil and applies an assessment on excess local revenue.

Senators repeatedly pressed for clarity about the sources and scale of any projected savings. One senator said, “I’m not comfortable at this point saying we’re going to save a lot of money,” noting the administration had not yet identified which positions and dollar lines would be eliminated to reach the proposed foundation amount. Analysts said they were modeling FY25 spending versus the proposed foundation but did not control for unspecified programmatic reductions the administration might assume in future years.

Lawmakers also emphasized the need to get the foundation formula and district configuration right before adopting structural change. If the foundation is insufficient or district lines are poorly drawn, they warned, the state could harm education outcomes or face legal challenges.

Ending: The committee asked staff for additional detail on the administration’s assumptions about workforce reductions and other savings, the mechanics of the excess‑spending assessment, and comparative modeling across alternative district configurations. No formal committee votes were taken on the foundation or district maps at this meeting.