Commission on the Future of Public Education says it will prioritize foundation-formula and consolidation work, seeks modeling and engagement support

Megan Roy, chair of the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont, told the House Education Committee on Feb. 5 that the commission will prioritize two topics — a possible shift to a foundation funding formula and consolidation of school districts and buildings — but has not made recommendations and needs additional modeling, staffing and public engagement support to evaluate impacts.

Roy said the commission has framed its work around the 29 policy areas enumerated in Act 183 and is trying to prioritize work within that scope. "These are not recommendations," she said, adding that the commission "does not agree that it should be disbanded." Roy told the committee the commission wants to remain neutral and provide a distinct, deliberative perspective separate from administration proposals.

The commission met Feb. 3 and spent the first half of that meeting discussing the two administration-proposed policy areas that are already included in Act 183: "to analyze and recommend the most efficient and effective number and location of school buildings, districts, and supervisory unions, and to explore alternative funding models," Roy said. She described the scope of work as "enormous change" that will require "investigation, modeling, and implication analysis" to determine viability and to avoid disruption to students and educators.

The commission did not take formal action at the recent meeting, Roy said. The group agreed it should continue to examine the 29 areas in Act 183 and that the next commission meetings will center on the foundation formula and consolidation. Roy said the commission will invite subject-matter experts, including "Dr. Colby at minimum," and will connect commission members to testimony the legislature is already receiving so the commission can target future sessions and avoid repetitive testimony.

On public engagement, Roy said the commission has hired Affton Partners as communications and engagement consultants and that some outreach sessions will be targeted while others will be broader. "There's a clear need for ongoing engagement with Vermonters," she said, and the commission wants to hold conversations "outside of a committee room" to increase flexibility and reach.

Roy also flagged operational limitations: the commission was not created as a legislative committee and therefore lacks staffed access to legislative counsel and the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO). She said the commission may need to ask the General Assembly for resources or to state explicitly what modeling or legal support is required. "If we are to decide that we are the body to do the modeling, we would need additional support to do that," she said, adding the commission could also identify gaps in existing agency or JFO modeling and recommend further work.

Committee members raised questions about the commission's authority to redirect its charge. Roy said the commission is receptive to direction from the legislature if the committee or the General Assembly wants to prioritize particular questions. She reiterated that, absent explicit legislative direction, the commission will self-prioritize and plans a steering-group convening to plan upcoming sessions.

Committee discussion also noted timing pressures. Roy observed the commission's statutory timeline and the legislature's faster pace may not align: the commission was tasked in Act 183 with work across 29 areas and with producing draft legislative language as part of its process, which Roy said may require editing of the commission's charge or additional staffing support. She said the law’s public-input requirements affect the timing, and at least one committee member noted the commission was asked to draft legislative language even though it was not established as a staffed legislative committee.

The commission emphasized it will not stop work if the administration issues its own proposals; rather, the commission seeks to provide an independent analysis to inform legislative decisions. Roy closed by asking the committee to consider whether to give the commission narrower, legislatively directed questions or to allow the commission to continue prioritizing autonomously.

Ending: The commission plans to continue regular updates to the House Education Committee, center upcoming meetings on foundation funding and consolidation, and return when it needs resources or formal directions to complete modeling, drafting, or other technical tasks.