Senate Finance hears national school‑funding expert on foundation/weighted student formulas; committee also approves two insurance bills and a gubernatorial app

Rebecca Sebelius, executive director of the nonprofit Ed Fund, told the Vermont Senate Finance Committee on Feb. 6 that a move to a “foundation” or more traditional weighted student funding formula would align Vermont with reforms other states have adopted and could improve equity and student outcomes.

Sebelius summarized decades of school‑finance litigation and reform and described research suggesting that how money is distributed matters as much as how much is spent. “There’s gotta be a better way to do this,” she said of existing school funding systems, and she urged lawmakers to use research that answers “for whom, under what circumstances, and from where school money should come.”

The expert framed the issue historically, citing U.S. Supreme Court and state court cases that shifted responsibility for public education funding to states and prompted state‑level litigation and reform: San Antonio v. Rodriguez, Milliken v. Bradley, Serrano v. Priest and Rose v. Council for a Better Education. She said those rulings helped produce the two persistent tensions policy makers now balance: equity (equalizing resources across districts) and adequacy (ensuring sufficient total resources statewide).

Sebelius described the model the administration and many states call a foundation formula — also known elsewhere as a weighted student formula — in which the state calculates a base amount per pupil and adds “weights” for student needs such as low income or English‑language learners. She cited recent research on California and Tennessee after those states moved from resource‑ or input‑based formulas to student‑based formulas. In Tennessee, Sebelius said, the adoption of a student‑based formula was associated with roughly 0.1 standard deviation gains in both math and reading in the districts that implemented the change; she contrasted that with typical “money matters” estimates that show smaller average effects from simply increasing spending.

On the question of whether a weighted student formula makes private school choice or universal education savings accounts (ESAs) more likely, Sebelius said there is no clear correlation between how states fund public schools and the prevalence of ESAs. “There is really no correlation between the way that states fund schools and how widespread their choice is,” she said, and offered a map showing examples of states with and without ESAs alongside their funding models.

Committee members asked for concrete examples and follow‑up materials. Sebelius offered state examples for different elements of a formula and for capital funding options: direct state bonding, credit‑enhancement programs (state backing to lower local borrowing costs) and state revolving or direct loan funds from operating budgets. She said research linking targeted capital improvements (HVAC, water systems) with achievement is emerging and offered to provide the committee links and reports, including Ed Fund’s state comparison tools (edbuild.org).

Committee discussion and follow‑up directions

Committee members asked several clarifying questions during and after the presentation. Senator Delmaraj Gulick asked whether any of the funding models under discussion would be more conducive to a universal voucher or choice system; Sebelius replied that the correlation is weak and pointed to mixed examples nationally. Senator Everett asked Sebelius to identify which approach would be “best for Vermont.” Sebelius said there is no single model that is best on every metric; she recommended tools that outline “silver, gold and moonshot” options for different elements such as special education weighting and local contributions. A committee member who identified herself as Sandra asked whether the Department of Defense (DoD) school model offered lessons; Sebelius said the DoD system lacks local taxation and that makes statewide policy changes easier to implement.

Votes at a glance (recorded later in the same session)

- S.30 — “An act relating to updating and reorganizing the health insurance statutes in 8 V.S.A. chapter 107.” Motion to approve carried 7–0. The committee reported the bill out with a favorable vote.

- H.35 — “An act calculating and merging the individual and small‑group health insurance markets.” Motion to approve carried 7–0. The committee reported the bill out with a favorable vote.

- Gubernatorial appointment — The committee voted 7–0 to approve a gubernatorial appointment to serve as commissioner of the Department of Public Service; the transcript identifies the nominee as Karen Johnson but later records a different first‑name variant (“Derek Johnson”). The committee said the administration had provided standard due‑diligence materials including criminal background checks and conflict‑of‑interest inquiries.

Why this matters

A shift to a more traditional foundation or weighted student formula would change how the state calculates the expected local contribution and how additional needs (special education, poverty, English‑language learners) are weighted. That, in turn, would affect district budgets, local tax expectations and the distribution of state aid. The committee asked for state examples and follow‑up materials; Sebelius said she will provide links and reports the committee can use to compare options and elements.

What the record does not show

The committee did not adopt any changes to Vermont law at the hearing; the presentation was advisory and the committee requested follow‑up materials. No final policy decision on a new formula was made at the Feb. 6 session.