Vermont Education Secretary Zoie Saunders on Thursday finally offered a first look at the numbers behind Gov. Phil Scott’s sweeping education funding reform idea.
The bottom line: based on today’s enrollment figures, the governor’s proposed formula would send an estimated $2.14 billion to Vermont’s schools. That’s about $184 million less than current spending levels.
Scott has made clear for weeks that he’d like to flip how Vermont pays for schools on its head. But until now, it was unknown how much money the governor’s proposed formula would actually generate for Vermont’s schools.
Currently, local school boards, in concert with their voters, decide their district’s budget for the upcoming year. Whatever local voters approve, the state pays. The Republican governor has said he wants to transition to what’s often referred to as a “foundation formula,” a common system across the U.S. whereby the state decides how much schools should spend — and then sends that cash to districts in grant form.
More from Vermont Public: How does Vermont pay for schools? A video explainer and glossary of terms
According to the formula outlined Thursday before the Senate’s Finance and Education committees, school districts would receive a base grant of $13,200 per student. There would be adjustments based on student circumstances — at-risk students would receive an extra $9,900, for example, and English language learners would get another $19,800.
The intention of this proposal was to provide a very robust and rich resource base for schools.Amanda Brown of APA Consulting, working with the Agency of Education
Despite the topline savings, Saunders and consultants with the Agency of Education argued that the proposed amounts would still result in Vermont offering one of the most generous foundation formulas in the country.
“The intention of this proposal was to provide a very robust and rich resource base for schools,” Amanda Brown, the president of APA Consulting, told lawmakers.
But Sen. Ruth Hardy, an Addison County Democrat, told administration officials she was skeptical of their numbers. They were predicated on assumptions — including certain class sizes — that bore little resemblance to the reality on the ground.
“What you're doing is you're saying: This is what we'd like. So let's, let's base our estimates on what we'd like — and then let's plop it on top of what we have,” Hardy said.

Changing the funding formula before tackling the actual operations of schools would just “vastly underfund the current system,” she said.
Saunders acknowledged that realizing the savings contemplated by the formula would require “a shift to school operations and to school staffing,” and noted that officials were contemplating a two-year transition period.
That time would allow for work “identifying where there may need to be some accelerated planning to get to that optimal scale,” Saunders added.
“A two year on-ramp to a change this large is unreasonable,” Hardy replied.
The figures also drew immediate pushback from the Vermont-NEA, the state’s teachers union.
“Something doesn’t add up,” said Darren Allen, a spokesperson for the union. “We heard for the last week and a half or so about building a world-class public education system. And today, we learned they want to slash nearly $184 million out of that system. It's apparent to us that the only way to achieve that kind of radical, risky savings is mass layoffs of people who teach and support our children every day.”
Districts would be allowed to raise additional funding to supplement their foundation grants. Administration officials have said there would be guardrails around how much extra cash districts could raise, and certain equalizing measures put in place to guard against wealthy areas increasing spending much more easily than less affluent regions. But details around how this would work haven’t yet been released.
Have questions, comments or tips? Send us a message.
_