Pupil weighting to help rural schools: Just. Not. Complicated

Photo: Rep. Laura Sibilia (left) discusses broadband for rural towns with Sen. Ann Cummings (D-Washington) and Travels with Charlie host Charlie Papillo in episode 18 of the acclaimed Vermont policy video series. Rep. Sibilia, an independent from the Windham County town of Dover, also is concerned that rural towns receive true educational funding quality.

By Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover

Vermont’s existing education funding formula, Act 60, also known as the Equal Educational Opportunity Act, was signed into law in June of 1997. The Legislature drafted the law in response to a Vermont Supreme Court decision that said Vermont’s existing educational funding system was unconstitutional. The court, in Brigham v. State of Vermont, concluded that the state must provide “substantially equal access” to education for all Vermont students, regardless of where they reside.

In 2018 the Vermont House and Senate, concerned that the existing education funding formula wasn’t effective in equalizing education costs, and by extension, opportunities to learn for students across the state, passed Act 173. The law required the Scott Administration to undertake a study to evaluate whether the current weights for economically-disadvantaged students, English language learners (ELL), and secondary-level students should be modified and if new weights should be incorporated into the equalized pupil calculation.

The concept of evaluating existing student weights had been requested for years by local districts, introduced in numerous legislative sessions, repealed, reintroduced and the subject of a threatened legal enforcement action against the former Secretary of Education by members of the House in 2017.

Under Act 60, tax rates were directly tied to per pupil spending. Act 60 assured that when districts spent the same amount per pupil, residents would have identical tax rates regardless of the town’s property wealth. In other words, a key measure of student equity was and is determined by per pupil spending. The two factors used to determine per pupil spending are the total amount of spending divided by the total number of students.

Weighting of students adjusts for differences in the cost of educating different types of students. Changing the student weights has the effect of changing the overall number of students in the district. Generally, under Act 60, decreasing the number of students increases a district’s cost per pupil and tax rates. Increasing the number of students decreases a district’s cost per pupil and tax rates.

On December 24, 2019, a completed Pupil Weighting Factors Report was sent to the House and Senate Committees on Education, the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance. This report was prepared by educational researchers from the University of Vermont, Rutgers University, American Institutes for Research and American Institutes for Research Constitutional.

The researchers found little empirical evidence for Vermont’s existing weights and recommended dramatic increases in weights for students in poverty and ELL and new weights for middle school students, students in small schools and weights on the basis of population density (rurality).

The report findings indicate that, since Act 60, Vermont has denied rural and poor students access to equitable financial resources and we have financially penalized districts that have tried to spend the resources to meet their poor and rural students needs. At the same time, we incentivized larger wealthier districts to spend more on purchasing student opportunity – without tax penalty – for twenty years. That is an entire generation.

The Pupil Weighting Factors Report is comprehensive, conclusive and clear. Vermont’s Secretary of Education Dan French testified that the report shows “…immediate action by the General Assembly is necessary to address a significant equity concern in the current education funding system…”

The Legislature is not debating the findings of the report we asked for. But the timeline for correcting the weights and the corresponding inequity is being debated. This is difficult for many legislators. Large and wealthy districts whose students have benefited from being able to over access state education property tax funds raised across all of Vermont will need to cut their budgets or raise their taxes when we correct the weights. It is an election year, which could further constrain the courage to do what is right and correct this massive generational injustice perpetuated on Vermont’s poor and rural students and all property taxpayers.

Surely, we do not need the courts to tell us to do the simple and right thing by our students and taxpayers. Vermont has a history of providing leadership to the nation on so many policy areas. Correcting the inequitable weights and addressing the negative effects for districts that have been able to over access state resources is completely doable this year in our very small state’s very large General Assembly.

Vermonters can weigh in on the Pupil Weighting Factors Report Wednesday March 11th at 4 pm in Room 11 of the Vermont Statehouse or by submitting written testimony to

Categories: Education

2 replies »

  1. The solution is not at all simple and will not be simple because education”equity” is an unrealistic objective for the legislature. It is, has been and always will be an unachievable objective because it cannot even be properly defined, let alone decreed. “Fairness” is a similarly pleasing and righteous-sounding and elusive concept. Consider:

    Ms. Sibilia’s paragraph 8 speaks to the essential failure of Act 60, once lauded and perpetually cited as the cure for equitable spending (“equity’) in our schools. She seems to indict Vermont for disavowing the very Vermont law which was intended to satisfy Brigham v Vermont.

    Rural schools and scholars do not suffer from lacking urban advantage; they benefit by not suffering from urban disadvantage.

    Local school taxpayers are ‘disincentivised’ to raise their education standards by raising taxes for local school improvements. That pressure does a disservice to all Vermonters and Learners by diminishing whole-state achievement averages. (Surely the court’s and legislative intent is not to produce equal underachievement?)

    “Weighting” students is highly subjective and speculative. As we assign greater weights to ELL and other special needs learners, it behooves us to assign less than a weight of 1.0 to each overachiever. In fact, gifted students — if we were a truly “fair and equitable” education system — would assign more that 1.0 weight to gifted learners who require greater professional diligence and resources in order to remain challenged.

    In “weighting” educational opportunities for differently-enabled learners, the Profession could (and perhaps should) abandon the complex and arcane heterogeneous grouping designs imposed during the 70s at the behest of “fairness advocates” who argued that placing slower learners in peer groups denied them the advantage of participating with faster learners. Requiring mixed-ability groups in schools has engineered a “social equity of classroom placement,” but it has also disrupted individual learning styles, mandated extraordinary supplemental classroom assistants to accommodate differently-enabled learners and defied human nature: Kids have athletic advantages in sports consistent with body size, creative kids excel in certain areas and rote learners succeed differently, patient kids play better chess and most kids thrive where their academic skills are approximately equitable with their classmates. Ability grouped kids are more nearly equitably treated, yet ability-grouping as a practice has been nearly lost to the Department of Education’s Special Education Division’s mandates and other “reform movements” in recent decades.

    Politicians, courts and the Department of Education have gone a long way to make teaching more difficult and expensive than it once was and some benefits have resulted. Kids are generally more contented and comforted now than in the fifties, for example. Our programmatic overhauls have not generally improved outputs, however, and “equity” of opportunities for learners of varying makeups cannot be fairly determined by decree or funding schemes. Progressive, wholistic education comes from the generous funding of wise and talented educators who freely decide what’s best for their learners. Teachers naturally behave fairly and equitably and require little external force in that regard. Large cadres of administrators and assistants, dutifully complying with Brigham v. Vermont also do very little to sustain equity among school children, though they DO represent substantial sums of legislative funding — unequally, by the way!

Leave a Reply