LETTER: CESAs and the Foundation Formula

Good Morning Chair Conlon and Members of the House Education Committee,

CESAs, or some variation of them, are clearly the most pragmatic and viable solution on the table today when it comes to structural forms of our education delivery system.

Why is this the case?

1. They have proven to reduce cost both here in Vermont and elsewhere.
2. They can be implemented quickly and at a lower up-front cost than district consolidation.
3. They increase the long term viability of small-medium sized districts by allowing them to share administrative overhead.
4. They have the potential to expand programming for students whereas the current fiscal constraints are doing the opposite in many areas.

We believe that these CESAs should be tied to CTE centers. We had proposed 15 of them, following the existing lines of CTE regions. We believe this is important for creating vertical alignment between our K-12 system and career pathways and breaking down the current silos that exist. This achieves a much greater level of scale for shared services than our current SU’s are able to provide but also keeps the regions at a manageable size in terms of geographic footprint, number of districts, number of schools, and number of students.

There is a risk that going too big too fast might have negative consequences and introduce its own inefficiencies. It would be prudent to start at a modest scale and regions could always be combined in future iterations if additional efficiencies could be identified. It would be easier to do this than try to unwind CESAs that were too large to be manageable out of the gate.

Finally, there has been some discussion about the impact on the foundation formula if districts are left at their current size. To be clear, we are one of the groups that believes the foundation formula is the single most impactful policy change we can make. Vermont education spending has grown at nearly three times the rate of the national average since Act 60 passed. If our growth had kept pace with the nation as a whole, we would be spending over $9,000 less per student.

We also believe that a foundation formula CAN work in Vermont without large-scale consolidation. This is particularly true if CESAs are implemented alongside the foundation formula. We know this because several predominantly rural states with very small average school district sizes (including Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming) rely on a foundation-style school funding system with an equalization mechanism to ensure that students are not disadvantaged by geography or local property wealth. While each state’s formula differs, the common principle is clear: establishing a baseline level of support and then adjust for local fiscal capacity and the added costs associated with sparsity, transportation, and other factors.

These states offer a useful point of comparison for Vermont. Their experience suggests that even states with a significant number of small districts can create a workable foundation formula. We believe this effort moves us towards a more transparent, predictable, and responsive education funding system. The other useful point of comparison for Vermont? All five of these states have Education Service Agency structures to support those rural districts. And, they all spend significantly less than Vermont on a per student basis.

Thanks for your consideration,

Ben Kinsley Executive Director Campaign for Vermont

CFV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization comprised of over 20,000 Vermonters and dedicated to the vision of a more prosperous Vermont and growing middle class. We seek to accomplish these goals by reconnecting Vermonters to their government and advocating for more transparent and accountable policymaking.