Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Carryover Reversion And Accounting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations panel probes FY24 carryovers, large state‑placed student reversion and why schools can't track mental‑health costs
Summary
Committee members pressed the Agency of Education for data on FY24 carryovers and reversions — including a $13.6 million reversion on state‑placed students — and discussed limits of the uniform chart of accounts in quantifying mental‑health spending in schools.
The House Appropriations Committee on Jan. 24 reviewed the Agency of Education's FY24 carryover and reversion report and pressed staff for more detailed data on several large balances, most notably a $13.6 million reversion tied to state‑placed students.
Sean Guzman, interim chief financial officer at the Agency of Education, said much of the carryover money is already obligated to contracts and grants but that some large balances remain. "We typically carry it over the balance just in case we needed it," Guzman said, describing the agency's historical carryforward practice. He said the agency will examine whether some funds have been consistently underutilized.
Committee members asked for counts and placement destinations for state‑placed students — children placed by state agencies in residential treatment or other out‑of‑district programs — and whether Vermont is sending students to programs in other states. Representative comments during the meeting asked the agency to provide where placements occur and the number of students involved.
Members also queried flexible pathways and dual‑enrollment lines. The agency reported a carryforward of $1.774 million for flexible pathways obligations and a reversion of about $1.3 million tied largely to the ending of a high‑school‑completion program. Committee members asked for enrollment and utilization data for dual enrollment and early college so they can determine whether current appropriations match demand.
A substantive policy discussion followed about whether the state can quantify how much of school budgets is spent on student mental‑health needs. Guzman and other agency staff said the uniform chart of accounts does not currently permit reliable identification of mental‑health spending. "There really genuinely aren't codes that really help to capture, like, ah, this is a mental health cost," Guzman said. He said some staff categories (for example, "interventionist") combine roles that range from literacy supports to behavioral interventions, making apples‑to‑apples comparisons difficult.
Agency staff and committee members agreed to pursue additional data requests: counts and locations for state‑placed students, trend data for dual enrollment and early college, and a report on whether carryforwards represent committed obligations or surplus funds that could be reverted to the Education Fund for other uses. The committee also asked the agency to consult program staff and other agencies when necessary to produce cross‑agency information on placements and costs.
No formal votes were taken during the hearing; members requested follow‑up briefings and written data.
