Zoe Saunders, secretary of education, told the Vermont Senate Education Committee that "There is a consensus around the intent to move to an evidence based foundation formula that is supportive of high quality education equity." The committee spent more than an hour probing the proposal's timeline, fiscal bridge plans and implications for small schools and special programs.

Saunders and agency staff said the governor's plan would move Vermont from a tax‑capacity approach to an evidence‑based foundation formula, with a multiyear transition and a planning/bridge period. "The governor's proposal does not set minimum enrollment for elementary schools," Saunders said, adding the administration used 450 students as a point of efficiency in modeling but did not intend that figure to be a required minimum.

Committee members and agency leaders identified three core policy levers that link funding to outcomes: funding formula design, governance and district size, and measures of education quality. The administration said its model carries the existing school portfolio in year one, applies size adjustments (in the presentation, school‑size adjustments were modeled from the 450 efficiency point down to enrollments as low as 50), and accounts for preschool and career‑technical education in the cost base.

Lawmakers pressed three recurring concerns: (1) the short‑term fiscal burden and how to pay for a transition if federal revenues decline; (2) whether accelerating district consolidation and governance change can be accomplished practically; and (3) the effect on individual districts and small schools. Senators repeatedly asked for side‑by‑side, district‑level impact modeling comparing the governor's timeline and the House bill.

On financing and timing, agency staff said the governor's plan contemplated a two‑year planning period before implementing the foundation formula and a bridge year using current spending levels with adjustments for inflation and special considerations. The House proposal the committee discussed would lengthen the governance transition and stage movement to an evidence‑based model over several additional years (committee discussion described a later move "into the 30s"). The agency requested $4,000,000 in its budget submission to help build capacity for the transformation and to triage immediate needs in districts during the transition.

Several senators warned of a growing fiscal strain if the state continues to use one‑time general‑fund buys to lower local tax rates; one member said the state used about $77,000,000 this year to buy down tax rates and questioned the sustainability of repeating that approach. Agency staff noted an existing statewide gap in per‑pupil state funding (the presentation cited roughly a $2,000 per‑student difference in state funding that many districts offset with federal dollars), and said a reduction in federal funding would disproportionately affect lower‑resourced communities.

On governance, the discussion returned repeatedly to the link between a foundation formula and district size. The administration said the evidence‑based formula is intertwined with governance choices because size affects service specialization and efficiency; several senators urged more clarity about the timetable for district reorganizations and recommended producing Gantt‑style timelines comparing the governor's schedule and the House plan so districts can align facilities and staffing decisions.

Committee members raised program‑specific questions about special education, transportation, preschool expansion, and career and technical education (CTE). Staff said the House bill contained significant revisions in special education funding and that the agency had not yet completed deeper modeling with the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO); the agency plans further review and a return with more detailed analysis.

No formal vote or motion was recorded in the transcript. The committee asked the agency to provide additional, section‑by‑section detail and clearer timelines and to reconvene with more granular district‑level impact modeling and subject‑matter expert input for special education, preschool, and CTE.

The agency and several senators framed the debate as balancing urgency with prudence: the agency emphasized risk management and preserving educational opportunities for students during the transition, while senators voiced differing views on whether the situation constituted an immediate crisis or an urgent, unsustainable fiscal trajectory. The committee agreed to continue the work, request more modeling and hold additional briefings before taking formal action.