Vermont education leaders outline funding formula, five‑district plan and next steps for governor’s overhaul

Secretary of Education Zoe Saunders told a joint hearing of the Vermont House Education Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee that the governor’s education transformation proposal centers on a new foundation funding formula, changes to school governance that would move the state toward five districts, and targeted investments in student supports and teacher pay.

“This proposal is really at its core about education quality,” Saunders said, and she added the plan pairs that focus with a funding approach intended to be “fair, and more transparent, and predictable.” The Agency of Education (AOE) expects to publish a comprehensive report on the base funding amount, included categorical aid and modeling next week and to circulate draft legislative language the week of Feb. 3, Saunders told lawmakers.

The nut of the proposal, as Saunders described it, is a foundation formula that includes a generous base amount plus additional weights for students with higher needs — for example, students in poverty and English‑language learners — and explicit funding to expand early childhood education, after‑school and summer programs, career and technical pathways, music and arts, and school‑based mental health services. Saunders said the model was adjusted for Vermont with consultant support; the AOE has shared its modeling with the Joint Fiscal Office for independent analysis.

Agency officials and lawmakers discussed several policy and implementation questions raised during the hearing. Those included: how the new formula will change district and school budgets in the near term; what the transition timeline will be for governance changes and “school scale” (the plan envisions an aggressive timeline for governance but a longer horizon for school consolidation and construction); and how the state will support districts that need immediate stabilization resources.

“We approached this work to ensure that funding decisions were really aligned to ensuring educational quality and equity across the state, and that this was done in a way that can be sustainable over time,” Saunders said. She said the agency is standing up policy “sprint” teams to work with subject‑matter experts and field partners on topics including pre‑K, educator workforce, governance and structure, timeline, accountability and education quality.

Interim Deputy Secretary Jill Briggs Campbell said those sprint teams will be tasked with documenting the policy choices baked into the funding model and the considerations that informed them — material the AOE expects to bring back to the legislature. “These teams are coming together and saying these are the policy choices that are built into this funding. What are the considerations that we need to bring in to the discussion,” Campbell said.

Lawmakers pressed on specifics the report and subsequent materials are expected to address. Several members asked whether the plan reduces local control, how collective bargaining would be handled across larger districts, whether the proposal risks centralizing rulemaking authority at the AOE, and how school construction and facilities investments would be timed and funded. Saunders and Campbell said the proposal is intended to strengthen public education and the AOE will be explicit about policy choices and implementation sequencing so legislators and communities can evaluate tradeoffs.

On timelines and next steps, the agency committed to provide: a detailed funding report next week showing the base amount and weights, assumptions and modeling; maps and overlays showing how the proposed five districts would relate to current supervisory unions and schools; a legislative text draft the week of Feb. 3; and the launch of sprint teams to advise on particulars. Saunders said the AOE has provided its analysis to the Joint Fiscal Office and will continue to coordinate with the fiscal office and other state partners.

Lawmakers also raised concerns about capacity in both the education and health systems to absorb new responsibilities — especially the expanded mental health services the plan proposes. Several representatives pressed whether the plan specifies the types of school mental‑health staffing (for example, counselors versus clinicians) and how the proposal aligns with the Department for Children and Families and the broader health system; the AOE said details on roles and potential delivery models will be included in forthcoming materials and in sprint team work.

Throughout the hearing lawmakers urged clarity about process and public engagement. Multiple members requested clear channels for submitting questions and feedback; Saunders said the AOE will share an email contact (AOE at info) and will analyze submitted questions thematically to inform follow‑up materials.

The hearing produced no formal votes. Instead the meeting ended with commitments from the agency to produce the funding model and draft legislative language on an accelerated schedule, to continue coordination with the Joint Fiscal Office, and to convene expert sprint teams to flesh out policy and implementation details. The agencies and legislators agreed to reconvene as those materials become available.