Home















Costing-Out Home | Overview | A Primer | State Fact Sheets | Policy Brief  

Vermont Fact Sheet

Related News

State Funding Context: In 2001-02, Vermont's 359 public schools spent $934 million for 101,179 pre-k-12th grade students.
Study Title:

"Vermont Education Finance Study"

 

Date Completed: January 2004
Calculated Costs:

Successful Schools:

Grade 4 expenditures for schools meeting state English and math standards:

Mean: $8,345 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
Median: $8,102 per pupil (FY 2001-02)

Grade 8 expenditures for schools meeting state English and math standards:

Mean: $8,751 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
Median: $7,733 per pupil (FY 2001-02)

Grade 10 expenditures for schools meeting state English and math standards:

Mean: $7,663 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
Median: $8,035 per pupil (FY 2001-02)

School expenditures for schools meeting AYP:

Mean: $7,970 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
Median: $8009 per pupil (FY 2001-02)

Supervisory Union expenditures for supervisory unions meeting AYP:

Mean: $8,071 per pupil (FY 2001-02
Median: $8,287 per pupil (FY 2001-02)

Professional Judgment:

$9,300 per pupil for elementary schools (FY 2001-02); $8,888 per pupil for middle schools (FY 2001-02), and $9,736 per pupil for high schools (FY 2001-02) - approximately a 19 percent increase.


Major Recommendations: The only major recommendation the study makes is for further study. That is, conducting an "intense" survey of schools and supervisory unions to identify effective programs for at-risk students, in order to estimate additional costs associated with those programs.
Special Features of the Study:

Successful Schools:

The study did not provide a base figure, rather mean and median per pupil costs based on actual expenditures of schools that met specified performance criteria.
For comparison, the study also provided the mean and median costs for schools not meeting the criteria and the average costs for all schools in the state. The estimates showed that the mean expenditures in grades 4 and 8 of schools meeting the criteria were higher than those not meeting the criteria. However, in grade 10, the mean expenditures for schools meeting the criteria were actually lower than those not meeting the criteria.
The study noted that the schools and supervisory unions that met the criteria had a lower percentage of at-risk students. However, the study did not estimate the additional per-pupil cost for at-risk students.

Professional Judgement:

The expert panel did not create prototype elementary, middle, and high schools because Vermont schools are composed with a variety of grades being served.
The study did not provide a base figure, rather the mean per pupil projected cost.
Elementary grades included grades K-5. Pre-kindergarten education costs were not considered.
The panel estimated the percentage of at-risk and special education students, based on 2001-02 state averages. Therefore, the study did not provide a base figure and then additional weights for these additional factors.

Small Schools: The study reviewed and analyzed current practices, spending patterns and performance assessment of small schools in the state to support the argument for consolidation of these schools. Although the study acknowledges that research shows greater gains for at-risk students in smaller schools, and that small schools "have been instrumental in implementing innovative school reforms," it provided data supporting consolidation based on a perceived reduction in higher costs associated with small schools.

Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI): The study attempted to compute the GCEI to account for the differences in cost for providing similar education services across different districts in the state. However, due to the lack of data on teacher education and experience and on cost of living information, the study consultants found that they could not accurately account for variations within the state and therefore declined to release their results.

Implementation: None.

Methodology:

Successful Schools:

The study estimated the mean and median per pupil costs based on "high-performing schools."
Two separate criteria were considered to identify success: (i) schools that achieved a minimum percentage level on state English and math assessments and (ii) schools and supervisory unions meetings that met the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) standards under the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
The criteria in selecting schools were that at least two-thirds of 4th and 8th grade students and at least 60 percent of 10th grade students had to score in the top two quintiles. Only 47 of 232 schools met the 4th grade criteria, 16 of 127 schools met the 8th grade criteria, and 7 out of 62 schools met the 10th grade criteria.
268 out of 307 schools met the AYP standards and 19 out of 60 supervisory unions met the AYP standards.

Professional Judgment:

25 "expert educators" met in focus groups to identify the inputs necessary for a successful school.
The expert educator panel considered expenditures for teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and staff, as well as pupil services, such as after-school programs and summer school. The study did not consider outputs.
The National Conference of State Legislatures then costed out these inputs to determine the mean cost per pupil for elementary, middle, and high school.

Cost Categories: The study did not include consideration of preschool education, transportation, special education reimbursement costs, separate calculation of education for "at risk" children, or facilities.
Public Input: None
Prepared for: Vermont Department of Education
Prepared by: National Conference of State Legislatures