JFO presents foundation-formula modeling using Colby & Baker weights; three scenarios show different regional winners and losers

The Joint Fiscal Office presented alternative foundation-formula models that apply weights developed by researchers Colby and Baker to Vermont data and to three constrained spending scenarios. JFO framed the exercise as modeling choices rather than a policy recommendation.

"These estimates are only designed to reflect how different base and weight decisions would affect funding if we stuck to that $1.88 billion education payment," Ezra Holden of JFO said during the presentation. Holden said the models assume the committee wants to hold the total education payment at fiscal year 2025 levels while varying how the base and weights allocate those dollars.

Nut graf: the briefing showed how choices about student weights(for poverty, English-language learners, small/sparse schools and secondary grades) shift funding among regions. Holding the total pool constant magnifies distributional effects: increasing one weighting category reduces the money available to others unless the overall pool grows.

What JFO presented:

- Base and weights: the Colby & Baker memo uses an adequacy base of about $15,033 per long-term weighted ADM and additive weights. In the House-passed construct used for comparison, illustrative weights included FPL (students in poverty) 1.02, EL (English learners) 1.39, a small-school weight (under 100 students) 0.21 plus two sparsity tiers; grades 68 and 9—2 were not weighted in the House-passed construct used by Colby & Baker.

- Three scenarios modeled (all constrained to an FY25 education payment of $1.88 billion): • Scenario A: House-passed weights (Colby & Baker) reduced to fit the $1.88B spending target. The base drops from the $15,033 adequacy level to a lower per-pupil base to keep the total constant. • Scenario B1: same as A but with added grade weights (0.08 for grades 68; 0.12 for grades 9—2). Adding grade weights increases weighted pupil counts; to keep total spending fixed the base must fall. • Scenario B2: same as B1, but JFO restricted sparsity eligibility (removing the mid-tier sparsity weight, keeping only the sparsest tier) while preserving small-school weights. Removing a weight increases the base available to other categories; the net effect redistributes dollars across districts.

- Data and limits: JFO used FY25 data and the VSBA (Vermont School Boards Association) 11-region construct as a proxy for larger consolidated districts to estimate distributional effects. JFO did not model a tiered EL weight or special-education weights in this presentation because of data suppression and because the committee's modeling request excluded special-education weights; JFO used a single EL weight (1.39) as a proxy where required.

- Distributional results: with the House-passed weight proportions constrained to $1.88B, some regions would gain while others lose. For example, in the House-proportion scenario Bennington showed an illustrative increase (roughly 18% in JFO's table) while an East-Chittenden aggregate region showed a double-digit decline in the same scenario. JFO emphasized that exact district impacts depend heavily on the district boundary construct used.

Committee discussion focused on data limits, how often weights should be reviewed, whether categorical programs (transportation, universal school meals, census block grants) should remain separate from the foundation base, and whether the VSBA-region proxy meaningfully reflects any final district map. Several members requested more granular modeling tied to existing current-district boundaries, and cautioned against adopting weights or a final base without a fuller review of Colby & Baker's methodology.

Ending: JFO agreed to follow up with additional modeling options and to work with AOE and counsel on data-access and suppression questions; committee members signaled interest in further briefings tying modeling outcomes to specific district-map proposals.