MONTPELIER — The Vermont Senate Education Committee pressed the Agency of Education on the timeline, funding assumptions and district-size rationale behind the governor’s education transformation plan at a March 20 committee meeting.

“For the record, I’m Zoe Saunders, secretary of education,” Saunders said, and described agency commitments to support lawmakers as they consider changes to district governance and a new foundation funding formula.

The committee sought clarity on sequencing and funding. Saunders said the administration’s proposal and the bill contain a phased approach to transition, and that the plan assumes a buy-down of property taxes in fiscal year 2026 of $77,000,000, a block-grant approach for fiscal year 2027, and that fiscal year 2028 would be the first year using the proposed foundation funding formula. Saunders described the transition as phased and said the agency would provide written timelines and additional materials on request.

Why it matters: committee members said districts are already cutting services under current budgets. The committee wants clear, short documents that show timing and budget effects so local boards, superintendents and business managers can plan for changes in governance or funding.

Saunders said the administration built the funding approach on an evidence-based model and on feedback from Vermont stakeholders. She noted the model assumes a district-size “floor” of 3,900 students to achieve certain efficiencies. “That evidence based model assumes that, 3,900 students is the floor,” Saunders said. She added that research on a maximum useful district size is less conclusive but that measurable benefits taper off above about 55,000 students.

Committee members described competing testimony: witnesses and the superintendents’ association offered different minimums, with some testimony citing minimums between about 2,000 and 4,000 students. Saunders and the agency stressed the distinction between district-size research (which often focuses on minimum sizes) and the specific assumptions used to develop a foundation formula.

On implementation capacity, Saunders said the governor’s proposal includes $4,000,000 to support the Agency of Education through the transformation and that the agency plans to add five permanent positions to help with district support, data integration and operations during the transition. Saunders identified a data-integration support specialist and business/operations support roles that would inventory districts’ disparate systems, estimate costs and report back to the legislature.

Committee members asked for clearer mappings from the funding model to the services students would receive. Saunders said the agency has prototypical budgets that illustrate possible staffing and programs under the model — examples included additional counselors, social workers, interventionists, expanded after-school and summer programs, instructional coaches, and expanded college- and career-readiness pathways — and offered to walk committee members through those sample budgets.

Several senators urged stronger engagement with local superintendents, principals and business managers. Senator Hinsdale encouraged the superintendents and principals to propose district configurations that reflect local practice; Saunders said the agency had established policy “sprint” teams that included field representation and that the sprint teams have completed a first phase of work and could reengage to refine details.

The committee requested accessible, one-page timelines and links to the research and reports underlying the evidence-based model; Saunders said the agency would provide those materials and research links. Saunders also said the agency has interim tools that can pull and clean data from disparate student information systems while a longer-term statewide systems strategy is designed.

No formal votes were taken at the March 20 session; the meeting was a briefing and Q&A between the committee and the Agency of Education.

The committee indicated it plans continued oversight and follow-up requests for written timelines, sample budgets mapped to guaranteed opportunities, and the agency’s cost estimates for data and system changes.