Senate Education Committee continues discussion of plan to consolidate districts and set $13,200 base funding

State education officials and outside consultants returned to the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 12 to continue a broad proposal that would remake the state’s K–12 governance and funding structure by replacing supervisory unions and 119 school districts with five regional districts and a new funding model built around a roughly $13,200 per-student base (FY25).

The proposal, presented by Agency of Education staff and consultants, is designed to pool resources across larger districts so central offices can provide specialized services — for example, curriculum specialists, facilities directors and additional special-education staff — that many small districts now lack. ‘‘We are proposing eliminating the supervisory union construct and moving from 119 school districts to 5 school districts,’’ said Zoe Sonder, Secretary of Education, in a recap of the proposal to the committee.

The plan would create five K–12 operating districts, each with a district office and an elected district school board; most districts would have five board members, with a recommendation to add two members in one large region (the Champlain Valley) to address scale. Officials said district central offices would be more robust than many current local offices and could provide pooled services such as early childhood supports, professional development, facility management and special-education expertise.

Why the change matters

Supporters told senators that the current ‘‘hyper-local’’ budgeting system produces wide variability in per-student funding and in available services. The proposal seeks to reduce that variability and to ‘‘ensure students with similar needs receive similar resources,’’ as presenters described it, by using an evidence-based staffing model as the starting point for a new base funding amount and by adding targeted weights for students with higher needs.

Funding and the $13,200 base

Consultants from APA described how the recommended base amount was calculated. Amanda Brown of APA said the team began with an ‘‘evidence-based’’ model that specifies staff and program inputs (classroom teachers, counselors, school nurses, elective teachers, interventionists and so on), adjusted the model for state priorities (for example, additional student mental-health staffing and CTE course offerings), and applied local salary-and-benefit assumptions to arrive at the dollar figure. ‘‘That dollar amount…was $13,200, inflated to FY25,’’ Brown said, adding that the total is ‘‘one of the highest base amounts in any funding system across the country.’’ The consultants also described additional per-school adjustments for small schools that raise the average state per-student base by roughly the equivalent of $700 on average to account for higher per-student fixed costs in very small schools.

Staffing, class size and school prototypical sizes

The funding model assumes prototypical school sizes and class sizes when translating dollars into staff. Officials said the evidence-based prototype used elementary schools of roughly 450 students, middle schools of about 450, and high schools of about 600; the proposal also assumes K–3 class-size ratios near 15:1 and roughly 25:1 for grades 4–12. Presenters noted the model includes adjustments when schools are substantially smaller than the prototype so districts with many small schools receive extra resources.

Governance and local input: school advisory committees

Under the proposal every school would be required to have a school advisory committee with parents, students, staff and community members. These committees would participate in the development of each school’s federally- and state-required school improvement plan and provide input on a set-aside of school improvement funds. Committee members would not replace school boards. Emily Simmons, general counsel at the Agency of Education, summarized the relationship between the advisory committees and school boards: ‘‘It is input. It is feedback,’’ she said, adding that school boards remain the final decision makers on most district-level matters and that existing statutory due-process channels would continue to apply.

Education service agencies (BOCES-like options)

The presenters described optional education service agencies that districts could use to achieve scale for specialized services such as career-and-technical education and some special-education services. Officials said such agencies would be one option for sharing scarce specialized staff across districts, particularly in program areas where statewide or multi-district scale is needed.

Equity and property wealth

The plan’s authors said they considered student need and local property wealth when drawing the five proposed districts; they argued the configuration brings greater parity in property wealth and in concentrations of students in economic disadvantage, moving the new districts to a narrower range of measured economic disadvantage (presenters cited a shift to roughly 36%–55% across the proposed five districts, compared with a current SU/SD range of about 8%–60% in some places).

Transition timeline and accountability

Presenters said the committee should expect an implementation timeline that phases in many elements rather than flipping a switch on a single date. The proposal calls for preparing legislative language and maps, establishing an evaluation and revisit schedule for the funding formula (officials recommended periodic review, commonly every five years), and a transition period during which the Agency of Education would support districts. Officials said the governor’s proposed budget includes funding to increase the Agency’s capacity for that transition. Committee members pressed for clarity on specifics such as attendance zones, how reassignments would work, and what oversight would ensure representation across large districts.

School choice and magnet schools

The proposal would preserve and manage school choice within the public system, designate some public or independent high schools as ‘‘schools of choice’’ (or magnet programs) and require prequalification and ongoing academic and financial accountability for any school designated as a school of choice. Presenters said a moratorium on new independent schools would remain in place while the system is reorganized and that districts would set the number of choice slots available.

Points of contention and committee questions

Committee members raised repeated questions about representation within very large districts (especially the Champlain Valley proposal), how parents or schools might appeal school-board budgeting decisions, the feasibility of staffing advisory committees in rural communities, transportation and reassignment logistics for students who would be served more effectively at another school, and the timing and sequencing of capital projects to achieve desired building-scale configurations.

Next steps

Presenters told the committee they had submitted legislative language and that they will provide detailed maps (proposed district lines layered with town borders and existing districts), additional budget-level modeling, and a more detailed transition plan for a follow-up meeting. Committee members scheduled follow-up briefings and an additional session later in the week to review operational examples and staffing scenarios.

Ending

The meeting closed with senators asking the Agency and consultants to supply maps and timeline details ahead of the committee’s next substantive session. Officials said they would return with the requested materials and more detailed implementation examples.