Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Educators urge caution on Vermont foundation-formula draft, cite missing numbers and special-education gaps
Summary
School leaders, superintendents and board members told the Ways & Means Committee the draft foundation formula lacks concrete base amounts and clear special-education funding, warning the gaps could reduce resources for high-need districts and complicate implementation.
Testimony to the Ways & Means Committee on the draft foundation formula centered on one immediate concern: the bill does not specify the base education amount or the weights used to allocate additional funding, and that absence could materially change district funding.
Nicole Mace, a Winooski school board member and the VSBA representative to the Commission on the Future of Public Education, told the committee, "My first point I wanna raise is just that numbers matters." Mace said it is unclear whether the bill’s numbers would be set by a cost-based or evidence-based model and urged the committee to convene Vermont educators to ground any model in local realities. She cited a recent PICUS report that would reduce the multilingual-learner weight in her district from 2.49 to 0.44 — "an 82% reduction," she said — and warned that steep drops in the base amount and weights could amount to a "double hit" for districts such as Winooski.
The Vermont Principals Association and superintendents’ groups echoed the request for concrete modeling. Jay Nichols, executive director of the Vermont Principals Association, warned against designing a formula that starts by reducing funding: "less is not more, less is less." He and other witnesses urged protections for districts already at scale and recommended phased, gradual implementation.
Heather Bushey, president of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, said roughly "80% of district operating funds are allocated to salaries and benefits," and noted that the governor’s modeling used lower average salaries and a benefit rate that differed from district budgets. Bushey cited a VASBO survey that put the FY26 benefit rate closer to 41%, higher than the model’s 36.1% assumption, and asked how the formula would account for local contract and liability realities.
Multiple witnesses raised implementation questions the bill does not resolve: how transportation and special-education costs would be handled during redistricting or expanded choice; whether there will be caps on local "excess spending" and how the proposed tie between excess spending and school construction aid would work; and how the Agency of Education will supply timely, accurate figures for budget planning, including the December 1 figures referenced in the draft. Mace said the Agency provided "multiple conflicting numbers for our long term weighted ADM," complicating local budget decisions.
Special education emerged as a major unresolved item. Witnesses told the committee the draft understates special-education costs. Bushey and superintendents said the state needs a clear plan to fund both extraordinary high-cost cases and the broader population of students with IEPs. As one participant summarized, the foundation formula as drafted "does not fix any of the significant challenges around implementation or extraordinary special education costs." Several witnesses suggested making special education a weight within the formula rather than a block grant, but they cautioned that further study is required before enacting such a change.
Witnesses also urged that governance and finance changes be paced to allow districts time to adjust. Mace suggested professional judgment panels and population-specific panels for rural communities and multilingual learners to ensure weights reflect Vermont needs. Panelists repeatedly urged phased implementation aligned with school budgeting cycles so local boards can plan contract renewals and staffing changes.
Other cost drivers flagged by witnesses included rising health insurance and facility needs. VASBO testimony highlighted health-insurance increases of 16.4% in FY25 and a projected 11.9% in FY26 and warned that inaccurate benefit-rate assumptions would produce an unrealistically low foundation amount.
Committee members and witnesses agreed on next steps: further modeling, clearer timelines and milestones, and more detailed proposals on special education funding and the mechanics of excess spending. Several witnesses offered to provide follow-up suggestions, model assumptions, and additional testimony.
Ending
Committee members closed the panel by asking for additional data and recommended follow-up meetings; no formal action or votes were taken on the draft statute during this session.
