Senate Finance hears national options for a K‑12 foundation formula; experts urge statute-level guarantees and follow-up research

Joel Moore, director of state relations for the Education Commission of the States, and Chris Duncombe, policy principal for school funding at the Education Commission of the States (ECS), briefed the Vermont Senate Finance Committee on Feb. 12 on how other states structure K‑12 “foundation” or student‑based funding models and the policy choices those designs require.

Nut graf: The presentation laid out common elements of student‑based funding — a base dollar per student, supplemental weights for student needs and separate treatment of capital — and highlighted tradeoffs Vermont will face if it moves from its locally driven, equalized system toward a statewide foundation model. Committee members asked ECS for detailed follow‑ups on hybrid formulas, limits on local spending above any foundation, career and technical education weights and school construction approaches.

Moore opened the session by describing ECS and its resources: “we were created about 60 years ago through the interstate compact for education as a national nonpartisan and non advocacy education policy center,” and he emphasized ECS’s 50‑state comparisons and information requests available to legislators. Duncombe said ECS completed a 50‑state K‑12 funding comparison in 2024 and used it to map states’ choices on base amounts, pupil counting methods and weights for student types.

Duncombe told the committee that states generally fall into three broad categories: student‑based formulas that guarantee a dollar per pupil, resource‑based formulas that guarantee staffing or positions, and hybrid or “other” approaches. ‘‘You may notice that Vermont is unique in that you do not fit into either of these buckets,’’ Duncombe said, describing Vermont’s locally adopted budgets and equalized pupil counts.

He summarized recent state shifts toward student‑based models and centralization of funding. Examples cited in the presentation included Nevada’s 2019 pupil‑centered funding plan, Maryland’s 2020 Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, Tennessee’s 2022 Tennessee Investment and Student Achievement Act and more recent changes in Mississippi and Colorado. Duncombe also described the appeal of student‑based models for transparency and adjusting resources by student need while noting a common challenge: ‘‘states can have less oversight of spending decisions’’ unless reporting or other accountability requirements are added.

The committee pressed several practical design choices: whether the base should be a fixed single amount or vary by grade or district size; how to calculate and size weights for English learners, students from low‑income backgrounds and special education; whether the base should include an automatic inflationary adjustment; and how states treat construction funding (usually outside of the operating formula, via separate grants or financing programs).

On guarantees, Duncombe responded to a committee question that the most durable statutory language is stronger than budgetary language and that ‘‘the guarantee exists in statute or the budget, which means that it’s guaranteed until it’s changed.’’ He noted constitutional provisions can be stronger than statutes and recommended putting a foundation amount and directions for calculation in statute rather than only in a budget.

Committee members repeatedly asked how other states handle the ability of local districts or towns to spend above a state foundation amount. Duncombe said most states allow communities to raise additional local revenue without an overall statutory ceiling, and where states constrain local revenue they tend to do so through property tax rate or growth limits rather than per‑pupil spending caps. He also noted some states set a required local share using a measure of property wealth per pupil.

Several members framed Vermont’s political and legal context into the discussion. Senators referenced Act 60 and Vermont Supreme Court precedent (the Brigham/Brigham‑type decisions referenced in the meeting) that shape the state’s equalization/Brigham framework and limit how the state can treat local taxing capacity. Committee members expressed the political desire to preserve features of Vermont’s current system that equalize taxpayer burden while correcting perceived inequities in student funding.

Duncombe and Moore agreed to follow up with materials the committee requested: a scan of hybrid models and statutory language, examples of caps or limits on local levies (if any), examples and calculations for career and technical education (CTE) weights, and the ECS 50‑state comparison on school construction funding. Moore said he would provide ECS’s state profiles and memos and noted ECS’s ability to prepare written information requests.

Ending: The committee did not take any votes at this hearing. Members asked ECS to return with targeted materials; Senators and staff indicated further briefings would be scheduled as the legislature considers draft bills and proposals.