State education officials outline $13,200 foundation proposal and 5‑district governance plan; lawmakers press questions on costs and implementation

Secretary of Education Zoe Saunders and consultants from APA Consulting appeared before a Vermont Senate committee Thursday to outline the administration’s proposed education funding formula, a multi-part plan the presenters said is designed to guarantee a consistent base of resources statewide while targeting extra funding for student need.

"The base per pupil is $13,200," Justin Silverstein of APA Consulting said during the presentation, describing the adjusted evidence‑based model used to estimate a statewide foundation amount. Under the proposal, the base would be supplemented by weighted adjustments for economically disadvantaged students (weight 0.75), English-language learners (weight 1.5), career and technical education (weight 1.3 plus an on‑behalf payment to CTE regional centers), and school- and district-level circumstances such as size and geographic sparsity.

Why it matters: The plan would represent a substantial reworking of how K–12 education is financed in Vermont, moving many current local funding lines into a statewide foundation formula and changing governance assumptions (the administration’s model assumes a five‑district configuration). The proposal is intended to be implemented in multiple years, with presenters saying FY2028 as a target year for the new funding architecture to be in effect.

What the plan includes

- Base and staffing assumptions: The $13,200 base is built from an adjusted evidence‑based (EB) model that assumes nationally recognized staff mixes and student supports — for example, lower K–3 class sizes (the model assumes 15:1 for K–3 and 25:1 for grades 4–12), instructional coaches (one per ~200 students), interventionists, library/media specialists and school counselors (elementary: a counselor at most schools; secondary: roughly one counselor per ~250 students). The EB model also assumes a school nurse ratio the presenters summarized as roughly one nurse per ~750 students.

- Teacher pay and staffing: The model uses statewide average salaries and assumes an increase in average teacher pay; presenters said the intent is not to cut existing contracts and that overall average salaries would rise to reduce regional pay disparities. Committee members pushed back: several senators asked how the model accounts for regional wage differences and warned that Chittenden County’s labor market could create higher costs if regional adjustments are not made.

- Special education, transportation and other categoricals: APA estimated an additional roughly $70 million is needed above federal and existing state categorical funding to cover historic local spending on special education. Presenters also proposed funding transportation at roughly 100% of anticipated costs (the state currently reimburses a share), and moving several services from separate categoricals into the foundation where appropriate.

- School-size adjustment and transition: The proposal creates a continuous size adjustment for schools under 450 students; at very small enrollments the per‑student cost can be substantially higher (presenters noted that a 50‑student school could run roughly 35% more per pupil than the base). Officials repeatedly described the plan as multi‑year and said early implementation would assume a similar school portfolio to today’s, giving districts time to plan and (where needed) right‑size over a transition period.

Questions from lawmakers and limits in the current model

Committee members pressed officials on several subjects. Key points raised:

- Regional labor costs: APA said the current proposal does not include a regional cost‑of‑labor adjustment; consultants noted a minority of states use comparable‑wage indices but the Vermont model does not include one at present. Senators from higher‑wage counties said the absence of an adjustment could leave their districts with substantial net funding reductions relative to current expenditures.

- Paraprofessionals and special‑education staffing: The EB base does not include paraprofessionals; presenters said paraprofessional costs would continue to be supported through special‑education funding where required by IEPs.

- Implementation mechanics and capacity: Secretary Saunders said the Agency of Education (AOE) would scale up support for districts during transition and that the governor’s budget includes a request — described in the hearing as about $4 million — for agency capacity to support the rollout and district planning.

- Capital, debt and existing borrowing: Presenters said the foundation model covers ongoing maintenance and operations (M&O) but does not include capital projects or existing debt service; senators asked for follow‑up modeling showing how existing district debt, bond obligations and reserves would be handled under new governance arrangements.

- Transition and personnel effects: Presenters said efficiency gains are expected largely through rightsizing administrative staffing at the district level, aligning staffing to the modeled class‑size assumptions and capturing vacancy savings and natural attrition; consultants and AOE staff said they did not expect across‑the‑board pay cuts but acknowledged detailed transition plans and negotiations would be required with districts and labor groups.

Data and tools

APA shared two spreadsheet models at the hearing: an "adjusted EB model" explaining how the $13,200 base and school‑level resource assumptions were constructed, and a "streamlined model" that applies the base and weights to current district enrollment counts to compare proposed foundation funding to FY25 education spending (presenters displayed figures in FY25 dollars for comparability). Presenters said the model also includes adjusted categorical lines for special education and transportation and that more granular outputs (district‑level and school‑level) were available.

Next steps and closing

Officials said they would provide further modeling and follow‑up answers to questions raised at the hearing, including more detail on regional wage implications, capital/debt treatment and transition scenarios. No formal votes were taken at Thursday’s hearing; members of the committee asked for additional briefings and said they would circulate follow‑up questions to the AOE and consultants.