Conferees advance plan letting districts vote share of foundation funding, adjust tuition and weights

Montpelier — Conference committee conferees reviewing education policy presented a Senate conferees' proposal on May 30 that would let each Vermont school district vote the percentage of the statewide foundation amount it will receive and would change tuition eligibility, program weights and the timing of a foundation-formula rollout.

The proposal would require districts to approve an "approved percentage" of the foundation amount (described in the draft as a percentage in the 90–100% range) and includes a multi-year transition schedule that lowers the minimum allowed percentage in early rollout years. It also would change how tuition to independent and approved schools is treated, add or revise weights for career and technical education (CTE) and high school students, and establish transitional caps and tax-rate mechanics tied to the votes.

The committee heard a section-by-section reading of the Senate conferees' text. St. James of the Office of Legislative Council opened the presentation by describing the document: "This is the senate conferee's, proposal to the education, policy sections." John Gray, a legislative staff presenter, explained the new voter-choice mechanism and transitional schedule, saying in part that "the approved percentage range was 90 to a 100%."

Under the proposal discussed, the "approved percentage" determines each district's Educational Opportunity Payment (EOP). The draft sets an approved-percentage range with a floor planned lower in initial rollout years (the presenter described the earliest transition year as allowing a lower minimum in the first rollout year, then increasing the minimum by 1 percentage point each year until the floor reaches the long-term minimum). John Gray described the mechanism as a way for districts to "vote down below the foundation amount, down to 90%." The presenters tied the percentage directly to homestead property tax liability: a district voting 90% of the foundation amount would see homestead tax liability scaled to 90% of the statewide uniform homestead rate described in the draft.

The draft uses a base amount of $14,541 that conferees said was the Senate Finance figure. It also introduces or confirms several weights and adjustments: a high school weight (discussed as 0.1), a CTE weight (discussed as 1.0), English-language learner (EL) weights and a small-school weight intended to pick up sparsity concerns. The conferees debated whether to retain a separate sparsity grant versus a small-school weight and whether the proposal reflected Senate or House weight choices; one presenter described a miscommunication about those selections.

On tuition and independent schools, the draft contains multiple changes. One amendment discussed would remove "an independent school meeting education quality standards" as a route for receiving public tuition payments and would require that at least 25% of a Vermont approved independent school's resident enrollment be on a publicly funded basis in order to be eligible. The presenters said the change was intended to prevent independent schools in fully operating districts from using the education-quality-standards process as a separate path to public tuition.

The proposal also contains a provision limiting when a district that closes a geographically isolated public school could use tuitioning as a response. The conferees discussed adding an adjacency/date cutoff (described in the draft as effective "as of July 1, 2025") so a district could not rely on subsequent neighboring-district actions to justify tuitioning arrangements, a change presenters described as intended to prevent a potential domino effect of closures and tuitioning across multiple towns.

On local supplemental spending and tax mechanics, the draft retains a supplemental district spending cap that conferees discussed as 5% of an "unweighted foundation amount" in steady state, with a higher transitional cap beginning at 10% and stepping down by 1 percentage point each year until the 5% cap is reached. The bill language discussed how districts would present a ballot asking voters to approve a percentage of the foundation amount for the coming fiscal year; the presenters emphasized there is "no default to a 100" percent in the general construct and that nonoperating tuition‑towns would be handled differently in the draft.

Conferees also reviewed tax-rate mechanics: the draft ties a district's voted percentage to the calculation of the uniform homestead property tax rate and included technical provisions for interim rates if a district has not voted a budget (draft language discussed an interim default set at 90% of the uniform concept property tax rate until the district completes the process). The committee discussed how the homestead and nonhomestead rates might move relative to each other under the proposal and flagged further work to make the math and the relationship between rates consistent with policy goals.

Special-education funding and other categorical supports were also discussed. The draft did not repeal the federal/state census block grants for special education in the conferees' text shown at the meeting; presenters said that where districts currently cover special-education costs out of education spending rather than block grants, those costs would continue to be reflected in district EOPs under the new construct.

Presenters identified implementation timing as an open area. The draft includes a rollout and transition timetable described by staff as beginning in a later fiscal year (presenters used the term "FY '29" for the beginning of the foundation rollout), and the staff presentation referenced a special election window in "March or April of '27" as a possible mechanism for areas creating new districts under the formula. Conferees repeatedly noted the draft's timing elements and several fiscal calculations would need more work before final agreement.

No formal motions or committee votes were recorded during the session excerpt. Several senators and staff asked for clarifying examples and for the presenters to reconcile weight choices and the draft's arithmetic; presenters acknowledged some items were the result of miscommunication and promised follow-up work. The meeting closed with conferees agreeing to continue drafting and to return with clarified language and calculations rather than taking immediate formal action.

What happens next: committee staff said they will refine the draft language, reconcile differences among House and Senate weight and base choices, and return to the conferees with corrected math, timing and conforming statutory text for additional review. The proposal as discussed would change local budgeting and property-tax ballots, tuition rules for some independent and geographically isolated schools, and the flow of CTE and other weighted funding if enacted.