Conference committee narrows H.454 tuition language; accepts 5% supplemental charge, flags CTE funding gap

Conference committee members reviewing H.454 focused this session on how public tuition would follow students, how independent schools qualify to receive that tuition, and how career and technical education (CTE) programs would be funded under the proposal.

St. James, an Office of Legislative Council staff member sharing the draft, summarized the package and walked members through the sections. St. James said the senate proposal would “keep their proposal of require[ing] that approved independent schools have at least 25% of their Vermont resident student enrollment composed of publicly funded tuitioning students,” and explained changes to the tuition calculation provisions in section 27 of the bill.

Under the senate counterproposal discussed by the committee, subsection a would preserve the principle that “tuition follows the student” and that the base and weights follow the student. The draft adds subsection b, which would allow a receiving school to charge, and require a sending district to pay, an additional fee equal to the product of the base amount and up to 5% for each student in grades 9–12 only if the electorate of a sending district voting on that question approves the additional district spending. The draft would explicitly exclude approved independent schools that are functioning as area career and technical centers from the definition of a receiving school for the subsection b supplemental charge.

A new subsection c would preserve current law that a district must pay the full tuition charge for students attending an approved independent school functioning as an approved area career and technical center, while the committee discussion described the draft’s “notwithstanding” language as new drafting to make that rule clear under the bill.

Committee members also discussed section 45a of the draft, which would have the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) contract for a foundation-formula study addressing whether it costs more to educate a secondary (grades 9–12) student than an elementary student and, if so, what the appropriate secondary weight would be and how to account for CTE within the foundation formula. The senate proposal would make many foundation-formula changes contingent on several conditions: new school districts being operational, receipt of the section 45a report, and the Legislature having had an opportunity to consider and act on that report. The senate staff pointed to a contingent effective date of July 1, 2028 for some provisions if those conditions are met.

Committee debate centered on the practical effects of the 5% supplemental allowance and on an unresolved shortfall for CTEs. One committee member noted that “if current tuition at the independent schools, CTE is $24,000 a year, and the base funding that a district gets is significantly less than that,” the difference could leave nonoperating districts without a way to fund the gap. The same member said the committee’s proposal “accepted the 5%” as a compromise while acknowledging the committee believed the real cost gap was substantially larger.

Several members raised equity concerns tied to the electorate-approval mechanism. As discussed, a small sending district with a single student could, by voting not to approve the supplemental spending, prevent other districts’ students from accessing a receiving independent high school. One member summarized the risk: in configurations where a tiny town represents a small fraction of students, “the way this is written, the 1% votes no not to spend the supplemental on their 3 students. That would prevent all the other students from having access to a high school, essentially.”

Committee members repeatedly noted that some elements would not take effect until the JFO study and any further legislation resolved outstanding questions about the secondary weight and how CTEs are funded. Multiple speakers characterized the 5% figure as a negotiated concession and said present law would remain the default for CTE tuition until the committee or a future legislative action sets a different mechanism.

No formal votes or final actions were recorded during the discussion. Members agreed to continue work on the bill and tentatively scheduled another meeting later that day.

Ending: The committee left open multiple issues — how new district voting will be structured, whether the JFO study will recommend a secondary weight, and how the state will address the apparent funding gap for CTE programs — and planned to reconvene to try to resolve them.