Agency of Education and consultant present enhanced evidence‑based school‑funding model; committee asks JFO for full modeling

On May 1, 2025, Secretary of Education Zoe Sonder and consultant Amanda Brown of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates presented an "enhanced evidence‑based" school‑funding model to the Education Committee, describing adjustments to base funding, student weights and transition financing intended to support a state move to a single foundation formula.

"What we're bringing forward today is an enhanced evidence‑based model," Secretary Zoe Sonder told the committee, framing the proposal as a refinement of an evidence‑based approach the agency has developed with outside consultants and field input. Amanda Brown said the evidence‑based approach builds on decades of national research and a general‑assembly commissioned study and that the enhanced model layers Vermont‑specific adjustments on top of that research.

Key elements presented included an enhanced per‑pupil base amount and stacked weights for student needs. The presentation said the enhanced evidence‑based base would be $14,683 per pupil and that, under the model and the assumptions used for this memo, the resulting foundation formula payment would total about $1.77 billion — roughly 6% less than the FY2025 education payment when measured in the presenter’s comparison. Brown described the model as "stacked weights" meaning students eligible for multiple weights (for example, economically disadvantaged plus English learner plus small‑school adjustments) would receive each applicable weight.

The enhanced model included several substantive policy and cost adjustments the agency said address feedback from superintendents and sprint teams: a 10% increase in average instructional salaries used in modeling; smaller assumed class sizes; funding to support multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS) including assessment coordination and interventionists; funding to cover all full‑time preschool students; and an adjustment for "necessarily small schools" with an efficiency floor lowered to 300 students. The modeling also eliminated a separate district sparsity adjustment under the assumption of larger district scale and included a college and career readiness (CCR) weight for middle and high school students.

On student weights, the presenters said they reduced the English Learner weight to 1.4 but applied it to a higher base, and reduced the CTE center weight to 1 while adding a separate CCR weight for middle and high school; economically disadvantaged students would retain a 0.75 weight under the enhanced model. Brown said the base increase and weight structure together yield higher per‑student funding in many instances even where some weights are numerically lower than in other proposals.

The presenters proposed folding several existing categorical grants into the foundation formula — specifically technical education/CTE grants, flexible pathways, English learner services and the small‑school grant — on the grounds the base and weights would generate funding for those services. They recommended holding constant current appropriations for state‑placed students, PCB remediation, pensions, and universal school meals, while increasing other targeted appropriations.

Notably, the presenters proposed increasing special education funding from about $265 million in FY25 to roughly $372 million to reflect districts’ current special education expenditures and recommended increasing transportation appropriations (the memo models roughly doubling current transportation appropriation so reimbursement would cover a substantially higher share of costs than the current up‑to‑50% level).

To reduce abrupt budget impacts, the memo proposed a four‑year phased transition for districts: districts that would receive less under the new formula would receive 80% of the difference in year one, then 60%, 40% and 20% in subsequent years; districts that would receive more would receive 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of the increase, with the fifth year at full implementation. The memo estimated first‑year transition costs of about $5 million and described the overall approach as yielding system costs roughly 1% below current total education appropriations when including the recommended categorical changes and additional appropriations for special education and transportation.

Committee members asked about model assumptions tied to governance and district scale. The presenters said the enhanced model assumes movement toward larger district scale (the modeling uses a 3,900‑student district efficiency floor in some scenarios) and, where modeling assumed VSBA‑region scale proxies, an 11‑district structure was used for some comparisons. They cautioned that if Vermont retains the current district structure, some model assumptions — particularly about efficiencies tied to scale — would need revisiting.

Joint Fiscal Office analyst Julia Richter told the committee JFO had not yet received the enhanced model’s data files and asked that the agency and consultant share the full modeling files and any draft bill language so JFO could run independent analyses. The committee directed staff to share the underlying spreadsheets and legislative language; presenters said fuller policy briefs and modeling files would be provided for follow‑up work.

The committee did not take formal votes on the model during the session. Members requested additional documentation from the agency, APA and JFO and signaled intent to reconvene quickly to compare the enhanced evidence‑based proposal with other funding approaches under consideration.