Vermont officials and consultants outline foundation-formula options to rework school funding

Justin Silverstein, co‑chief executive officer of APA Consulting, told a joint meeting of the House Education, Senate Education, House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees on Oct. 12, 2025, that “36 of the 50 states use a foundation formula” as a starting point for allocating K‑12 funding.

The presentation and extended question‑and‑answer session framed a foundation formula as two linked problems: (1) defining the resources a district needs to give students comparable educational opportunity, and (2) deciding how the state and local taxpayers will pay for that package. The Agency of Education said the work is meant to strengthen public education, not privatize it; Zoe Saunders, Vermont secretary of education, told lawmakers, “I want to be very clear that that is not what this is. We are bringing forward, an idea for a foundation formula that is about strengthening our public education system.”

Why it matters: presenters and committee members tied the conversation to the Brigham decision, which the administration called a legal floor for any formula change, and to long‑standing goals of educational equity, predictability and fiscal sustainability. A foundation formula would change how Vermont calculates per‑pupil allocations and could alter the budget timeline and the extent of local discretion over spending.

Key details

- Definition and purpose: APA described a foundation (or student‑based) formula as a system that sets a base per‑pupil amount, applies weights for student needs (special education, economically disadvantaged, English learners) and makes district adjustments (for small or high‑cost districts). The firm emphasized aims of vertical equity (more resources for higher‑need students), fiscal neutrality (weak link between local property wealth and student resources) and adequacy (resources needed to meet state standards).

- Weights and Vermont’s starting point: presenters noted Vermont’s Act 127 already contains student weights but said those weights are not currently calculated on top of a defined base amount. APA cited Act 127 example weights mentioned in the meeting — a 1.03 weight for free/reduced‑price lunch eligibility and 2.49 for English learners — and urged first setting a base and then calibrating weights to that base.

- Approaches to set the base: APA described common methods: evidence‑based (building inputs from recommended staffing and services), professional‑judgment (panels of in‑state practitioners reviewing inputs), cost‑function and successful‑schools approaches. APA said Vermont has an evidence‑based study already done by a contractor referenced in the discussion and recommended reconciling multiple approaches when appropriate.

- Payment and local capacity: presenters distinguished the formula’s sizing from the revenue decision. They said states vary in how much local property tax remains available beyond the foundation allocation, and noted options to cap or equalize locally raised additional funding. APA pointed to states that constrain local add‑ons or backfill local effort to limit inequities.

- Implementation mechanics and governance: Maryland, Nevada, Tennessee and other recent adopters were discussed as models for implementation governance, recalibration committees and oversight bodies. APA and Agency staff described options such as annual CPI adjustments to the base, periodic recosting of the formula, implementation boards and phased rollouts to maintain fidelity.

- Capital and facilities: consultants told the committee most states do not include large capital projects in the foundation base; school construction is usually handled separately through state aid, local bonds or matches. The Agency of Education highlighted Vermont’s deferred‑maintenance problem — it said the state’s building portfolio is among the oldest in the nation and that an estimated $7,000,000,000 in deferred maintenance remains — and said maintenance and operations funding levels (the national standard cited was about 3% of budgets) should be considered in any redesign.

- Use of funds: discussion covered whether student‑weighted dollars should be directed to the school level and whether states should create guardrails or categorical requirements. Nevada and Maryland were cited as having models that require a portion of targeted funding reach schools and that place some restrictions on permitted uses.

Questions from lawmakers and staff

Lawmakers pressed on legal risk, weighting methodology, annual adjustments, statewide salary schedules, protections for the funding base against future budget cuts, school governance, capital funding, and whether a foundation formula would reduce overall spending. APA and Agency staff repeatedly emphasized that (a) the formula determines need and design choices remain policy decisions, and (b) implementation options — caps on local add‑ons, periodic recalibration, or an implementation board — can be used to preserve equity and predictability.

Quotes from the meeting

“I want to be very clear that that is not what this is. We are bringing forward, an idea for a foundation formula that is about strengthening our public education system,” — Zoe Saunders, secretary of education.

“36 of the 50 states use a foundation formula,” — Justin Silverstein, co‑CEO, APA Consulting.

What was not decided

The committee heard options and models but took no formal votes and did not adopt a specific formula, base amount, weight schedule, revenue mix or implementation timeline. Lawmakers asked for follow‑up materials and more detailed modeling, including comparative weight schedules, recalibration processes and Colorado’s two‑study reconciliation that APA referenced.

Next steps mentioned by staff included additional analysis of state models, reconciling prior Vermont studies with new modeling, and further stakeholder engagement before any statutory proposal would be drafted.