Superintendents, CFOs warn Vermont funding overhaul could shrink budgets, force staff cuts without clear transition plan

The Senate Finance Committee heard detailed testimony Feb. 21 from superintendents, a school district chief financial officer and the Vermont Superintendents Association about the administration's proposed education funding and governance changes, including a new foundation formula and consolidation of districts.

"Any numbers that are being put out there are numbers that would... be in effect in 2028," Chelsea Meyer, executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association, told the committee, arguing that many published figures describe a future system after consolidations and do not map directly onto today's districts.

The concern from multiple presenters was that the administration's spreadsheets and the two-page summary the committee received this week do not show a realistic path from the current system to the proposed one.

"The shortfall is close to $7,000,000. Even if we eliminated all expenses associated with the district office ... the shortfall would still be $3,000,000 for Milton schools, approximately 45 positions," Amy Rex, superintendent of the Milton Town School District, said in testimony. Rex said her district modeled the proposal against local FY26 budget factors and then removed central-office expenses and still faced a multimillion-dollar gap. She described which programs and staff she would have to cut to close the gap, including interventionists, counselors and specialist teachers, and noted that special-education costs were not included in her shortfall calculation.

Mike Glicklider, superintendent of the Arlington-Quechee (Arlington Quiet Union) School District, told senators his district's initial modeling showed a roughly $6.3 million loss under the proposed numbers and said achieving the scale the plan contemplates would require substantial school construction. "In order to realize savings ... we would spend in the neighborhood of $40 to $80 million in construction to be able to consolidate," Glicklider said, and he urged the committee to account for debt service and capital costs in any model.

Morgan Davell, past president of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials (FASBO) and chief financial officer of the Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union, told the committee the timeline for standing up new districts is unrealistic and that the justification for five consolidated districts remains unclear. "The decisions need to be data driven," Davell said, and he urged more transparency in the calculations behind the administration's base-amount proposal.

Committee members pressed witnesses about several recurring issues: whether the administration's modeling accounts for existing debt and bonded capital projects; where proposed savings would come from (central office consolidation versus frontline classroom positions); the treatment of paraeducators and other non-teacher staff; and how collective-bargaining agreements and differing teacher contract terms would be reconciled if staffing expectations change.

Several witnesses said the state's evidence-based staffing model used in the administration's calculations (referred to in testimony as PICUS/Pikes-related modeling) does not reflect current Vermont statutes and operational requirements, including nonexclusionary discipline, required behavior teams and other compliance-driven positions. Amy Rex highlighted that her district's contract gives teachers substantially more planning time than the model assumes and that local staffing decisions—particularly for interventionists and intensive-support assistants tied to IEPs—could not be absorbed simply through vacancy savings.

Witnesses also described wide variation between districts. Rex gave enrollment and demographic details for Milton (pre-K 165; K–4 about 470; grades 5–8 about 420; grades 9–12 about 427; poverty rate about 43.4%; 21% of students on IEPs) and said those local factors materially affect budgeting and staffing needs. Davell and Glicklider both said many districts would need years of planning, new construction and coordinated bonding to reach the larger school configurations that underpin the administration's claimed savings.

Committee chair Senator Cummings said the panel is likely to pursue a foundation formula and governance discussion but emphasized the need to see modeling applied to real districts and to understand transition costs. Several senators asked the administration to return with district-level examples showing how the plan would affect actual schools.

No formal votes or committee directives were recorded during this hearing. Witnesses said they would submit written testimony and district-specific modeling to the committee.

Why this matters: the committee must eventually adopt spending figures and any statutory changes that would implement a new foundation formula or governance structure. Presenters warned that without clearer transition plans, districts could face steep near-term cuts to programming, staff and services that support vulnerable students.

The Finance Committee scheduled follow-up briefings and asked for more detailed, district-level modeling from the administration and said it would call back association leaders and business officers to review those numbers.