Campaign for Vermont proposes 15 ESAs built around CTEs, projects roughly $300M in annual savings

Ben Kinsley, executive director of Campaign for Vermont, told the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 6 that his group's updated 2024 analysis found "no statistically significant relationship between size of the school district and cost per student" at the district level but a stronger relationship at the supervisory‑union (SU) level. Using Agency of Education (AOE) FY23 data, Kinsley said the team’s regression work attributes about 16% of spending variation to SU size versus roughly 4% at the district level.

Kinsley recommended replacing the state's 52 supervisory unions with 15 ESAs roughly mapped to existing career and technical education (CTE) center regions. He said ESAs could consolidate administrative and financial services—payroll, benefits administration, special‑education coordination and contracted services—while preserving local district boards for school‑level decisions. "We actually, worked on a report we put out in 2014... and we updated it in 2024," Kinsley said when introducing the analysis underlying the proposal.

Why it matters: Campaign for Vermont presented two independent savings models. One extrapolated savings observed in ESAs/BOCES-like structures in other states; the other applied category‑specific savings reported in prior work by Grace Miller. Depending on assumptions, the group presented an annual savings range of roughly $291 million to $350 million (all figures expressed in early‑2020s dollars) and highlighted a central estimate of about $303 million per year once services were phased in. Kinsley cautioned those figures would phase in over several years and depend on how many services are shifted to the ESA level.

Key caveats: Kinsley and committee members discussed several implementation risks. He warned that district consolidations can trigger mandatory salary equalizations and transportation changes—what he called a "level up" effect—that in past mergers increased salary and transportation costs and could offset governance savings. The Campaign’s models therefore assume large administrative and contracted‑service savings can be captured without full salary equalization across member districts.

Governance and local control: Under the proposal ESA boards would mirror current SU practice, with member district boards appointing representatives to ESA boards. Kinsley said ESA superintendents would operate as chief executives for service delivery, while local school boards would retain spending and school‑leadership decisions. The plan emphasizes keeping local districts intact where they produce good outcomes; Kinsley said a combination of a foundation funding formula and performance indicators could prompt community‑driven mergers where districts fail to meet fiscal or outcome thresholds.

Next steps and committee concerns: Senators pressed on mapping, election methods and the size of ESA regions; Kinsley said he has a starter map based on CTE regions and was open to governance committee work to refine election and representation models. He also urged that foundation formula reform—addressing the state funding structure for schools—be treated as a complementary priority to stabilize costs over the long term.

Provenance: The report and charts Kinsley referenced use AOE FY23 data and the Campaign’s 2024 update of a 2014 regression study; Kinsley also cited the findings of a Grace Miller analysis of Act 46 mergers when discussing cost offsets and historic salary effects.

What’s next: The presenter agreed to return for follow‑up and the committee indicated staff work and additional hearings would be needed to evaluate mapping, governance models and the fiscal assumptions underpinning the savings estimates.