Commission on the Future of Public Education raises concerns about administration’s foundation-formula proposal

Megan Boy, chair of the Commission on the Future of Public Education, summarized the commission’s Monday meeting for the House Education Committee on Feb. 19, saying members raised substantive concerns about the administration’s proposed transition to a foundation funding formula and its linked governance changes.

The commission told legislators that the administration’s model, as presented, would reduce statewide education funding by almost $200,000,000 and is built on assumptions about district consolidation that have not yet occurred. The commission recommended that any move to a foundation formula first answer how large the base funding amount should be, incorporate multiple methods to set that base and include a built-in inflator to protect future funding levels.

Why it matters: The commission was created by the legislature to advise on governance, funding and quality in Vermont public education. Its members said the administration developed and publicly rolled out its proposal largely outside the commission’s work, leaving commission members with slides after the plan was announced and little time to provide input. That, they said, has complicated the commission’s ability to do the thorough review the legislature intended.

At Monday’s meeting, nine commission members were present, Boy said: Jennifer Dux Danielson, John Castle, Jay Nichols, Jeff Fannin, Elizabeth Jennings, Mike Glicklider, Representative Conlon and Oliver Olsen (who attended part of the meeting), plus Boy. The commission had planned to hear from Dr. Colby on foundation-formula modeling but she was unable to attend; members reviewed her prior testimony and administration materials instead.

Key themes from the commission’s discussion included:

- Base amount and method: Members stressed that the most consequential question for a foundation formula is the size of the base per pupil. They objected to relying solely on the evidence‑based model used by the administration’s consultants and recommended triangulating among three common methods: evidence‑based models, professional‑judgment panels and education cost functions.

- Scale and governance dependencies: The administration’s funding model assumes a five‑district structure and savings tied to consolidation. Commission members said funding reductions should not be implemented before or concurrently with structural changes that produce those savings, arguing that reducing funding first would simply lower resources to students.

- Quality and instructional resources: Commissioners questioned whether the proposed formula’s base and weights would provide the resources necessary for evidence‑based instructional practices. They noted cited studies focused on structure and staffing rather than instructional practice and highlighted Act 173’s unresolved implementation challenges as an example of legislation that has taken years to fully realize.

- Cost drivers and facilities: Members emphasized that underlying cost drivers — including health care, special tuition and mental‑health services — must be addressed. They also noted the proposal does not account for school facilities needs described in prior legislative studies, and that consolidation plans often require facility renovations before schools can merge.

- Messaging and rollout: Several commissioners said the administration’s public framing — that Vermont’s system needs a complete rebuild — risks degrading public confidence in local educators and school leaders. Commissioners expressed frustration that the administration presented its plan outside the commission process and that the presentation lacked sufficient detail for thoughtful review.

Next steps and timing: The commission will meet March 3 at Lamoille South’s People’s Academy and hold a virtual meeting March 17. Boy said the commission plans to continue work within the three statutory areas (governance, finance/funding and quality), to discuss potential revisions to its legislative charge and to advance a revised community‑engagement plan developed with Affton Partners, the commission’s communications and engagement consultant.

Committee reaction: Representatives on the House Education Committee welcomed the update and asked the commission to be specific about the kinds of questions or deliverables it could produce for the legislature. Representative Bridal asked whether the commission’s engagement plan could support map‑based public input if the commission or other entities move forward with redistricting or consolidation proposals; Boy said Affton Partners is designing engagement methods that can be responsive to geographic differences.

The commission did not take a formal position for or against the administration’s proposal at Monday’s meeting, Boy said. Members discussed whether to adopt a formal position but deferred because several members were absent and some administration representatives were not present for that discussion.

The commission plans to continue providing post‑meeting updates to the legislature and may produce issue briefs or recommendations as its work progresses. The commission’s statutory final deliverable is due next year, Boy said, but members indicated they may present interim recommendations to aid legislative review earlier.