Providers warn state adult-education RFP will shift funds away from rural counties; ask for delay and study

State and local adult-education providers told the Debermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on March 18 that an Agency of Education request for proposals (RFP) implementing a student-based funding formula will shift millions of dollars away from rural counties and recommended the state pull the RFP, extend current contracts one year and convene a study committee to redesign the allocation formula.

The concern centers on proposed language tied to "section 40 11 of title 16," which Beth St. James of the Office of Legislative Council described to the committee as an amendment that would make the appropriation "an amount equal to 26% of the base education amount for each student who completes the diagnostic portions of an adult education and secretary credential program" and direct that allocations to providers follow the State Board of Education adult-education rules (Rule 2410). St. James said the proposed change would leave the appropriation calculation tied to statute while using the State Board rule for distributing funds to local providers.

Why it matters: Providers said the RFP released Feb. 27 applies the enrollment-based approach in statute and abandons the county-based weighting system that, while imperfect, had guaranteed base allocations to counties and recognized regional disparities. Michelle Fost, executive director of Northeast Kingdom Learning Services, told the committee the RFP will reduce funding in nine counties and said the cuts could force closures and program reductions. "AnyCalus alone faces a funding reduction 577,822, leading to severe consequences including NACLS will have to close our full service center located in Hardwick," Fost said. (Transcript language retained; county and provider figures were reported by providers to the committee.)

Providers and network leaders described specific impacts they say the RFP would cause: an estimated reduction of $363,000 in Essex County; a reported reduction of $577,822 for Northeast Kingdom Learning Services; and reported increases for larger counties including Chittenden (+$569,000) and Washington (+$427,000). Catherine Kalkstein, executive director of Southern Vermont Adult Education, said the RFP is a three-year solicitation that would begin July 1, 2025 and run through June 30, 2028; awards are due to be implemented based on allocations that would be announced after the April 25 proposal deadline.

Providers asked the committee to require AOE to: withdraw or pause the current RFP; extend existing contracts for one year while stakeholders and the agency collaborate; and create a legislatively convened study committee with representatives from the Agency of Education, legislators and the Adult Education Literacy Network to develop a modernized, equitable funding formula before issuing a new RFP. "We are asking that the current RFP that is out there be immediately pulled back and then we just move forward for one more year with the current contracts," Kalkstein said.

Agency response: Zoe Saunders, secretary of education, told the committee she had seen the proposed amendment only shortly before the meeting and had not yet consulted agency legal counsel. Saunders said the agency is required to implement the statute as written and described the shift as moving funding from a "census-based funding approach by county" to funding "by students," which the agency says aligns resources with where students enroll. "This program has always been a competitive grant program," Saunders said, adding she would follow up with agency counsel on whether a temporary pause or contract extension would comply with federal requirements under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).

What is unclear or unresolved: Committee members and providers asked whether extending contracts or pausing the RFP would be allowable under federal WIOA rules and whether federal offices such as OCTAE would permit such an extension; Saunders said she would consult counsel and report back. Providers also asked for clarity on how the "base amount" reported in materials relates to county allocations; agency staff described a historical county base allocation (noted in older board rules) but said the current RFP does not include that base in the same way.

The committee did not take formal action at the March 18 meeting. Members directed agency staff to gather legal guidance on whether a pause or extension would be allowed under federal requirements and signaled support for a collaborative study process to redesign the allocation formula.

Ending: Committee members set a short follow-up schedule and asked the agency to return with legal counsel and more detailed analysis in the coming days. Providers emphasized urgency given the April 25 RFP deadline and a July 1 funding start date if awards stand as currently proposed.