Vermont adult‑education providers press House Education to back compromise funding language

Catherine Kaukstein, executive director of Central Vermont Adult Education, and Brian Kravis, director of outreach and workforce development at Central Vermont Adult Education, told the Vermont House Committee on Education on May 6 that a recent Agency of Education request for proposals (RFP) shifts how state adult‑education funds are allocated and would sharply reduce funding for providers in more rural counties.

Kaukstein said the RFP “completely replaced the state board funding formula with the 26 percent two‑year average” and that the agency’s per‑pupil allocation in the RFP “has become … the sum total of the allocation.” She told the committee the change would cause significant cuts in some regions: “Northeast Kingdom will lose over $500,000 in funding,” she said.

The audience heard that while the statewide appropriation for adult education was not reduced this budget cycle, the agency’s approach to distributing that appropriation—moving from the long‑standing State Board formula to a per‑student allocation—was not the process the study committee recommended. Kaukstein said providers had agreed the funding formula needed modernization but that the study committee expected an inclusive process that “includes provider expertise.”

Under the State Board distribution, per‑student funding varied widely; testimony referenced a historical range of about $2,700 to $6,000 per student. The Agency of Education’s per‑student figure cited in testimony was $3,294. Providers representing 11 of Vermont’s 14 counties—Central Vermont Adult Education, the Tutorial Center (TTC), and Vermont Adult Learning—said they support a per‑student funding basis over time but asked for a transition period to blunt large short‑term cuts to the Northeast Kingdom Learning Services (NEKLS).

Kaukstein described a compromise the adult‑education providers drafted: an interim allocation that is an average of the old state board formula and the two‑year student average the AOE used in the RFP. She said the compromise was intended “only for FY26–FY28 to reduce the cut to NEKLS while we work with the Agency of Education and the Agency of Administration on a long‑term equitable solution around how we allocate the funding.”

Committee members asked clarifying questions about which language currently sits in the conference committee’s versions of the budget and whether the proposed compromise appears in either the House or Senate language. Witnesses urged the committee to recommend that legislative counsel draft the compromise language for the budget conference committee; the witnesses also urged that the current RFP not be rescinded and that existing proposals submitted under the April 25 deadline remain valid, because providers had invested many staff hours preparing 60‑page proposals for a three‑year contract term.

No formal committee motion to adopt the providers’ language is recorded in the transcript. Committee members expressed differing views in discussion: some favored preserving the status quo until a fuller study is complete, while others said a glide‑path compromise would reduce disruption to providers and staff. Several members noted that the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) and the Agency of Education would need to be involved in any longer‑term solution.

Providers asked the committee to forward the compromise language to the conference committee and to have legislative counsel draft it, but the transcript does not record a formal vote on that request. Committee deliberations closed with members agreeing to prepare guidance language to send to the conference committee and to continue discussions with affected agencies and providers.

Kaukstein and Kravis represented the provider perspective and provided the committee with the funding‑distribution memo and charts that the committee referenced in its questions. The committee said it would consider the providers’ input when advising the House and Senate appropriations conferees.