Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foundation Formula topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant Larry Pikes outlines evidence‑based adequacy model, recommends cautious use of foundation approach
Summary
Professor Larry Pikes described the structure and assumptions of an evidence‑based adequacy model and discussed how foundation formulas can equalize school funding but require careful long‑term funding commitments.
Professor Larry Pikes, who said he continues to hold an academic leadership title and consults on school finance, spoke to the joint committees about foundation formula design and the evidence‑based adequacy model his team uses.
Pikes described four parts of an evidence‑based model: staffing for core instruction (teachers, principals), added resources for students who struggle (tutors, extended‑day and summer programs), school‑level noninstructional supports (counseling, nursing, library/media), and central‑office and facilities costs. He said the model estimates the personnel and nonpersonnel resources a prototypical school needs and then applies Vermont‑specific salary and benefit levels to produce dollar estimates.
On foundation formulas, Pikes said such programs can equalize resources effectively but require a long‑term commitment from the state to keep the foundation level current. He told members a foundation program tends to work better where there are fewer, larger districts because extreme differences in per‑pupil property wealth are easier to address when the system aggregates smaller jurisdictions. He also recommended periodic recalibration of adequacy models (some states do this every two to five years) and urged caution about relying on one‑time transfers to manage recurring cost pressures.
Pikes reviewed specific model assumptions used to calculate the study’s base cost: full‑day kindergarten and preschool classrooms (15 students with a teacher and aide for preschool), core K–3 class sizes targeted near 15:1 and 4–12 class sizes near 25:1, one instructional coach per roughly 200 students, counselors and nurses at ratios that the consultant tied to national association guidance, and a special‑education structure that funds severe cases through the state while covering mild and moderate services via district allocations (the model assumes roughly 12% of students are identified for special education and about 2% require severe placements).
On contested items, Pikes said his evidence‑based model has lower per‑school staffing in some areas than the professional‑judgment panel results used by other consultants; he and committee members agreed that Vermont‑specific professional judgment panels and deeper school‑level analysis would be required to reconcile differences (for example, on the number of mental health specialists and school nurses). He also acknowledged post‑COVID tutoring needs and said the evidence supports expanded tutoring/extended‑day programs for struggling students, but that implementation details and scale are policy choices for the legislature.
Ending: Pikes and members agreed that the JFO, the Agency of Education and outside technical consultants should continue to reconcile evidence‑based estimates with professional‑judgment findings and develop town‑level, school‑level and transition cost simulations if the legislature considers foundation or major structural changes. No legislative decisions were taken at the hearing.
