For years, experts have called for changes in Vermont’s school funding formula.
The current system, experts say, effectively relies on incorrect math — with the end result being that some school districts have access to more money than others.
Now, in a bid to fix the formula, lawmakers are deciding between two competing versions of the same bill — both of which would result in a significant overhaul of the way Vermont funds its schools.
“It’s not that nobody’s got opinions about it,” said Rep. Janet Ancel, D-Calais, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, which is deciding between the bills. “But as a committee, we’ve not made a decision about which direction we want to go.”
Under current law, Vermont’s school funding formula relies on mathematical tools known as “equalized pupils” to determine how much money school districts can raise.
The nigh-impenetrable system attempts to account for the fact that certain categories of student — those who are learning English, living in rural towns, or low-income, for example — cost more to educate than their classmates.
When a school district tallies up its total number of students, a student who falls into one or more of those categories effectively counts for more than a counterpart who does not.
Hence, a district with a high number of English-learning students could have a greater number of “equalized pupils” than a district with only native English speakers — even if both districts contain the same number of students.
Vermont’s local property tax rates are based on a district’s spending per equalized pupil. So the more equalized pupils in a district, the more money the district can raise without hiking its residents’ taxes.
But in 2020, a landmark study conducted by University of Vermont researchers found that the system essentially relied on bad math.
Researchers found that the statistical tools that the state used to calculate the number of equalized pupils were effectively historical artifacts, and had no bearing on the actual costs of educating students.
Now, members of the House committee are deciding how to fix that. They’re deciding between two versions of the same piece of legislation, S.287. One version, which was passed by the Senate last month, would essentially update the existing equalized pupil values.
That bill would essentially give districts with more low-income, rural, or English-learning students additional tax capacity — allowing them to raise more money without hiking taxes.
The other version, which is still being written by the Ways and Means Committee, would create a whole new funding setup, known as the “cost adjustment” model.
Under that proposal, districts would simply receive a certain amount of money from the state’s Education Fund for each student who falls into a series of costly-to-educate categories, such as those who are learning English, living in rural areas, or low-income.
For every student receiving English language learning services, for example, a district would receive $25,335, and for every student whose household income was at or below 185% of the federal poverty level, a district would receive $10,480.
Those amounts would not count toward a district’s tax rate; instead, they would be meant as a cushion that would allow districts to spend more on those students.
“I think the appeal of doing the cost adjustment (model) is the transparency, and the fact that we don’t need to continue to talk about equalized pupils,” Ancel said. “The difficulty with equalized pupils is that everybody in the state gets to vote on school budgets — they don’t all do it, but they can — and that nobody understands what it is.”
She emphasized that the committee has not yet chosen its preferred version of the bill.
But backers of the original bill say that the cost adjustment model would not go far enough to level the educational playing field.
Because that model relies on the statewide average cost of educating rural, low-income, or English-learning students, it fails to account for regional differences, said Marc Schauber, executive director of the Coalition for Vermont Student Equity, a group of 27 school districts and supervisory unions backing the Senate-passed equalized pupil approach.
“One example of that is there are parts of the state where hiring teachers is really difficult,” Schauber said. “They’re out of the way, they’re not close to any city, there’s no industry for a spouse to be able to get a job. Those areas need to pay teachers more.”
The Senate’s legislation, they say, will give districts the flexibility to raise the actual amounts they need to spend.
Vermont Secretary of Education Dan French also gave a slight endorsement of that model, saying it would be easier for districts to put in place amid the many Covid-19-related challenges facing schools.
“I am concerned about school district capacity to implement changes in the funding system, and to explain those changes to local taxpayers,” French wrote in testimony submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. “I think the best solution now would be the simplest one from an implementation standpoint.”
French noted that he is open to both funding models.
But Jeff Fannon, the executive director of the Vermont chapter of the National Education Association, endorsed the cost adjustment model.
That model “is simpler (and) seems to be more transparent, and I think because of that, it’s more understandable to people,” he said. “And I think that’s a good thing for the system as a whole.”
Emilie Kornheiser, D-Brattleboro and the vice chair of the Ways and Means committee, said that lawmakers could also combine aspects of the bills.
“I don’t think that it’s like the House version or the Senate version, that are each sort of do or die,” Kornheiser said. Lawmakers are “looking at all the possible options on the table.”
The question of which funding model to use is at the heart of the committee’s discussion, though lawmakers are also hashing out a number of other issues, including how quickly to phase in the new system and how to measure its success.
But it’s unclear when committee members might conclude their debate and choose a path forward. Asked when her committee might vote on a bill, Ancel said she didn’t know.
“We’re aware that time is running short, and that this is a bill that needs to pass,” she said. “So that’s very much on our mind.”
