Vermont school leaders urge caution on proposed foundation formula, flag staffing and special-education gaps

Chelsea Myers, executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association, and Amy Minor, president of the Vermont Superintendents Association, told a joint hearing of the House Education and Ways & Means committees that superintendents support the goals of equity and adequacy in education finance but urged lawmakers not to adopt the governor's proposed foundation formula and five-district consolidation without resolving key delivery and cost-driver questions.

The Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO), represented by Heather Bushey, VASBO president and director of finance for the Essex Westford School District, echoed that call and said business officers need detailed financial modeling to understand how the proposal would affect district budgets and local tax burdens.

The testimony focused on three immediate concerns: assumptions baked into the foundation formula'including staffing tables and a $13,200-per-pupil base figure mentioned in the testimony; the administration's proposed move to five large districts; and how the plan would fund special education, transportation, extracurriculars and school meals. "Any meaningful education reform must be grounded in the principles of equity, quality, and efficiency," Myers said. "Changing the funding system without simultaneously addressing the delivery system could create unintended consequences that undermine education quality."

Nut graf: Lawmakers are considering a major overhaul of how Vermont funds K-12 education. Witnesses who run and finance districts said they are open to a foundation model but warned that the administration's current proposal lacks the district-level detail and transition protections needed to avoid funding shortfalls that would force cuts to programs and staff.

Major details and concerns raised

District consolidation and scale: Witnesses questioned the rationale for using the administration's five-district model as a planning assumption. Myers and others noted the regions used for superintendent meetings are not an evidence-based template for statewide governance. The superintendents recommended considering a target district size of roughly 2,000 to 4,000 students, saying research and Vermont-specific analysis suggest that range balances cost efficiency and educational quality. "We recommend setting a minimum range of 2,000 to 4,000," Myers said; she estimated that range would result in about 40 districts in Vermont.

Staffing and program assumptions: Amy Minor urged caution about adopting staffing tables from outside adequacy studies that do not reflect Vermont's Education Quality Standards and existing requirements such as multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). Minor warned that some lines on the staffing chart group counselors, social workers and mental-health providers together and that following the chart could force reductions in critical student supports: "Students need to be able to learn in the classroom, which means they need to be ready to learn when they enter the classrooms." Minor also questioned whether a staffing base would adequately cover music, art, drama, athletics, instruments, uniforms, officials and site supervision.

Building administration and daily operations: Minor said the recommended administrative staffing (for example, one principal and one assistant for a 600-student high school in the chart) would not be sufficient to fulfill legal and programmatic responsibilities, from Title IX and threat assessments to special-education compliance. "With 600 students, two administrators will not be enough to get to all of those things and to do all of those things very well for students," she said.

Transportation costs: Witnesses challenged the administration's roughly $300-per-student transportation assumption. Minor provided a district example: Colchester runs 20 buses with a per-bus daily contract cost of $427; using her district's enrollment to prorate that number produced a per-student transportation cost of about $690 (noting that her calculation excluded specialized transportation, field trips and co-curricular travel). Bus contracts, specialized vans and McKinney-Vento transportation for homeless students add further cost variability.

Special education and the state's $70 million figure: Testimony repeatedly flagged uncertainty about how special education would be funded under the proposal. Committee members were told the administration's presentation indicates an additional $70 million for special education, but business officials and superintendents said the details of that funding and how it plugs into the foundation model remain unclear and could change the model's impact substantially.

Fiscal pressure and health-care inflation: Heather Bushey said roughly 80% of operating budgets are salaries and benefits and noted recent health-insurance increases: a 16.4% increase in FY25 and an anticipated 11.9% increase in FY26. She said some districts that modeled available information already see significant potential losses under the foundation formula and asked whether the plan would include hold-harmless provisions to phase changes in without abrupt cuts.

School meals and other program trade-offs: Witnesses cautioned against replacing universal school meals with a return to the free-and-reduced-price system without understanding the trade-offs. Bushey and others said the state's earlier estimates for meal costs diverged from later actuals, and that students and families told legislative panels the universal model reduced stigma.

Data, chart of accounts and financial systems: Bushey said districts that use the state-hosted eFinance system make it materially easier for the Agency of Education to pull consistent financial data; she and others recommended wider adoption of a uniform chart of accounts and more uniform finance and student-information systems so the Agency can better analyze cocurricular, maintenance and personnel costs across districts.

Transition, equity and governance questions: Testimony emphasized that a foundation formula and district consolidation are implementation projects as much as policy changes. Witnesses urged lawmakers to first define the desired education system and adequacy standards, then model and cost that system, including transition rules, hold-harmless protections and how spending above the foundation (the administration calls the state guarantee) will operate.

Ending: Committee members thanked witnesses and flagged additional scheduled testimony and modeling work. Several legislators said they plan to request more detailed district-level financial models and follow-up briefings with Agency of Education staff and district leaders before taking policy votes.

Quotes (attributed to listed witnesses): "Any meaningful education reform must be grounded in the principles of equity, quality, and efficiency," Chelsea Myers said. Amy Minor said, "Students need to be able to learn in the classroom, which means they need to be ready to learn when they enter the classrooms." Heather Bushey noted, "We've experienced a 16.4 increase in health insurance in FY '25, and we're facing another 11.9% in FY '26."