Conference committee pulls back proposed tuition and weight changes, orders study of education formula

Members of the conference committee on the state’s education funding bill agreed during a meeting to withdraw several late-added provisions affecting weights and tuition for independent schools and to request further modeling and a formal study before making those changes.

The move came after multiple committee members said the language was new, had not been vetted by either chamber and had prompted alarm among school leaders and caucus members who saw draft spreadsheets projecting steep tax increases. Speaker 2, a committee member, said, "we had not intended for that to be the shock that it came across as being." Speaker 1, a committee member, warned: "I'm concerned that passing a completely unvetted proposal will also cause significant damage to people's property tax rates and trust in government and schools."

Committee members described the contested language as part of a broader shift toward a foundation formula and a related recalibration of "weights"—adjustments to funding tied to student needs and program types. Several participants said the current draft assumed a K–12 district funding model in which money is more fungible, while many receiving schools—such as standalone academies and career and technical education (CTE) centers—operate on a different grade- or mission-specific basis.

The committee discussed a short-term proposal to preserve the status quo for schools that currently set their own tuition while a weight study and additional mapping are completed. "What we would propose is that rather than do everything that was there, is just to simply say that the high schools ... just continue to do so under this without a drop," Speaker 2 said, describing an intent to delay implementation for independent schools until the study is finished.

Lawmakers repeatedly raised the need for more modeling. Multiple members said they had seen spreadsheets—shared within caucuses or with towns—suggesting severe impacts, including one cited claim that certain localities could face as much as a 30% tax increase or steep spending reductions under the proposed changes. "We've got caucus members ... whose towns have seen that spreadsheet that says if we put these base and weights in place today, you're gonna see a 30% tax increase," Speaker 3 said. Committee members asked for analysis from staff and the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) and for the Agency of Education (AOE) to be engaged to map impacts district by district where possible.

Participants also discussed other related provisions in the bill, including an "underspending" mechanism, a proposed homestead exemption, and phased implementation or allowable-growth provisions intended to soften impacts. Several members said these mitigation measures exist in the bill but have not yet been fully analyzed for their combined effect. "We need to study this because we have a few years in front of us and make sure that the math works so that we won't wind up with a ... failed education fund," Speaker 1 said.

No formal roll-call vote was recorded on the proposals during the session. Instead, the committee signaled a political decision to remove or pause the weight- and date-related language that had been added late in negotiations and to pursue targeted study and modeling. Speaker 4 confirmed that other items on the table—such as allowable-growth language and certain underspending provisions—remained under consideration.

Committee members said they want any eventual changes to reflect differences between K–12 districts and mission-specific or grade-specific independent schools, including standalone academies and CTE providers. Several speakers urged that the weight study explicitly examine those schools so the final formula accounts for their cost structures.

The committee planned a break to allow members to seek additional analysis and to reconvene with modeling and suggestions for less disruptive approaches. Speaker 3 asked colleagues to "think of other ways to solve it that are less dramatic than this," and Speaker 2 said the group would return with calculations and proposals after further work.

Looking ahead, the committee left the record that weight-related changes to independent-school tuition and the new dates/rate language were being pulled back pending study and further mapping; other bill elements remained active for additional negotiation.