Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators hear that four competing foundation formulas for Vermont schools aren’t directly comparable
Summary
Fiscal analysts told a Vermont Senate committee that four foundation-formula proposals use different bases and assumptions — making direct comparisons misleading — and urged clearer common definitions before lawmakers pick a model that will affect school funding and property-tax pressure.
Members of a Vermont Senate committee were told that four competing “foundation formula” proposals for school funding cannot be compared directly because each uses different bases, district constructs and assumptions, a complication that could materially change how much money districts receive and how the state’s school tax rate is affected.
The memo and presentations came from fiscal office staff and outside reports during a committee hearing where Julia Richter, Joint Fiscal Office, and Ezra Holden, Fiscal Office, described differences among an adjusted evidence‑based model promoted by the administration, an enhanced evidence‑based variant, a cost‑function model used in the House (H.454), and a Senate education proposal that holds FY2025 spending steady.
The distinction matters because the same weight or label in different proposals can produce different dollar amounts depending on the base used and whether the modeling assumes consolidated districts or today’s governance structure. “The base spending amounts are not directly comparable because they are assuming different things and reflecting different assumptions,” Julia Richter said.
Fiscal staff walked the committee through the four approaches. The administration’s adjusted evidence‑based model uses a prototypical consolidated district of about 3,900 students and produced a base roughly described in committee materials as $13,200 per weighted pupil (modelers also proposed an adjusted total long‑term weighted ADM and a funding total near $1.664 billion in one presentation). The House approach (H.454), based on a Colby and Baker cost‑function analysis that assumes current‑law districts and scale, used a base of about $15,033 and — in the House Ways and Means presentation — produced roughly $1.914 billion in funding (the House model delivered some supports as grants rather than weights and did not include some special‑education detail in public modeling). An “enhanced” evidence‑based model introduced later by the administration produced a base around $14,900 and adjusted weights (for example, grade bands and a revised CTE weight). The Senate education proposal derived a base of about $14,870 by solving for weights that would hold total education payments at the FY2025 level of about $1.88 billion.
Ezra Holden, Fiscal Office, framed the difference this way: the administration’s evidence‑based numbers are derived from prototypical, consolidated districts (a “future state”) while the cost‑function work estimates spending needed to deliver an adequate education in Vermont’s current district structure. “They’re reflecting different assumptions in different context. They’re not directly comparable,” Holden said.
Committee members pressed how specific policy choices outside the base and weights would affect results: transportation reimbursements, whether small‑school supports are delivered as weights or grants, special‑education funding mechanics (census block grants vs. weights) and how consolidation, if pursued, would change transportation and other costs. Several senators noted that proposed increases in categorical reimbursements (for example, higher transportation reimbursement rates if enacted) would raise total spending and influence the property‑tax rate even if they do not change the foundation base directly.
Senators also discussed “bending the curve” — efforts to contain or slow growth in education spending — and whether mechanisms such as class‑size minima or governance changes (consolidation) should be included in any formula lawmakers adopt. Committee members said they expect further technical work and additional briefings (for example, from the Agency of Education and the Vermont Association of School Business Officials) to clarify cost drivers, implementation pathways and transition mechanics.
The committee did not adopt a policy decision at the hearing; staff urged lawmakers to be explicit about which assumptions they want tested and to ask for apples‑to‑apples comparisons whenever possible before negotiating a final package in a committee of conference.
The committee’s next steps include further briefings and requests for standardized side‑by‑side tables from JFO and Agency of Education staff so that members can see how identical weights applied to different bases change the dollar amounts districts would receive.
