Agency presents foundation-funding prototype; consultant says plan can expand services while trimming some costs

Secretary of Education Zoe Saunders briefed four joint legislative committees on a prototype budgeting exercise showing how the governor’s proposed foundation funding formula could translate into district budgets, and consultant Nate Levinson told lawmakers the formula could fund more student supports and higher teacher pay while producing savings from shared services and reduced central-office costs.

The presentation mattered because the governor’s transformation proposal would change how Vermont funds and governs public schools statewide; Levinson walked lawmakers through a hypothetical 12,000‑student district built to match statewide demographics and said the proposed funding level would allow significant new investments in intervention, mental‑health supports and teacher compensation while leaving room for local choices about staffing and school structure.

Levinson, a consultant with New Solutions K–12 who has advised districts nationally and in Vermont, said he used the “adjusted EB model” (the evidence‑based adjustments that underpin the foundation formula) to calculate available funding for a prototypical district. Using those assumptions, he said the sample district would have roughly $237 million to spend and that consolidating central offices and sharing staff across schools could free “about $7 million” to reinvest in classrooms. Levinson also said his plan could support a $10,000 pay increase per teacher in the early years (he noted the adjusted EB model anticipates a $5,000 increase and said his allocation used the formula’s salary assumptions), expand intervention and mental‑health staffing beyond the EB model, and fund two in‑district K–12 magnet pathways.

Levinson described four levers that enabled the result: changed governance that eases district‑wide decisionmaking; smaller and more specialized central offices that exploit economies of scale; systematic staff sharing to reduce “rounding up” in fractional full‑time equivalents (FTEs); and moving toward more typical class sizes. He said the example district kept many small elementary schools open but staffed them differently (for example, multi‑age classrooms with staggered schedules for math and virtual or shared specialists for services) and added district curriculum leaders and directors for literacy, math and mental health.

During a roughly 90‑minute question period, lawmakers pressed Levinson and Saunders on details and limits of the prototype. Representative Conlon asked where salary schedules came from; Levinson said they were the inflation‑adjusted state averages used in the adjusted EB model. Several lawmakers asked about district size assumptions. Levinson said he modeled a district that resembles one of the four proposed regional districts and that his design intentionally kept the state’s distribution of small schools, while allowing some secondary‑level consolidation where appropriate. He said, from his experience, districts in the 10,000–15,000‑student range tend to balance scale and manageability, but acknowledged Vermont superintendents have recommended smaller sizes and that local geography and rurality affect optimal structure.

On staffing and hiring, lawmakers asked whether reducing rounding up and relying on many part‑time or shared positions would work in Vermont. Levinson said making schools “part‑time friendly” (coordinated schedules, predictable meeting times and remote work options for some specialists) can expand the pool of candidates (retirees, parents, part‑time professionals). He cautioned the change would take time and added contingencies to his model to cover transitional costs.

Lawmakers also sought clarity on what the foundation formula does and does not pay for. Levinson and Secretary Saunders said certain items are funded outside the foundation formula as categorical grants — most notably special education and transportation — and that their prototype treated those categories as separately funded (the prototype included only central special‑education leadership paid from the foundation amount). Saunders pointed legislators to the education funding brief and other materials that outline which expenditures the foundation formula covers and which remain categorical.

Levinson offered several specific staffing numbers from his prototype: a central office he described as roughly “50% less expensive” than the sum of many small central offices; about 24 behavior specialists and roughly 60 behavior technicians (non‑certified staff working under certified staff); and a design goal that one in three students receive small‑group intervention from a certified teacher. He said he assumed modest contingencies — for example, an extra $1 million for magnet‑school transportation and additional reserves for potential first‑year special‑education costs as general‑education supports ramp up.

Senators and representatives also raised facilities, construction and the timeline for change. Levinson said routine maintenance should stay in operating budgets and pointed legislators toward examples (including the Massachusetts School Building Authority) of state‑level capital guidance and reimbursement models for new construction. On timing, he said major change requires sustained agency leadership and technical assistance; he cited uneven progress on Act 173 (special‑education reform) as a cautionary example and recommended a multi‑year, hands‑on rollout with transition support for scheduling, staffing and bargaining.

Secretary Saunders said the Agency plans to take budgeting tools and examples “on the road” to regional superintendents and business managers so districts see concrete local models. She also reiterated that the adjusted EB model’s assumptions informed the prototype and that the agency would provide more granular regional data as work continues.

The committees did not take formal votes during the hearing. Lawmakers signaled continued interest in follow‑up data on school‑level class sizes, the detailed treatment of categorical grants (special education and transportation), and the operational supports (technical assistance, scheduling templates and model central‑office job descriptions) Levinson said districts would need to implement the changes.

The Agency of Education and Levinson briefed lawmakers on a policy that would alter budgeting and governance statewide; they left the committees with a set of implementation concerns — timelines, bargaining impacts, transport and capital costs, and the mechanics of sharing staff — that legislators said they expect to see addressed in subsequent materials and regional briefings.

The transcript of the hearing and the prototype spreadsheets referenced in Levinson’s presentation were cited repeatedly; Secretary Saunders and Levinson offered to provide additional detailed district‑level examples and to meet regionally to work through transition planning.