TEA members back reporting all applicable CTE fees; staff to revise guidance and collect narratives

Members of the Technical Education Authority agreed to change guidance so institutions report all applicable Career and Technical Education (CTE) fees from the Board of Regents’ approved list, regardless of whether a student ultimately pays the fee, and asked staff to circulate revised collection instructions before the next meeting.

David, a TEA member, opened the discussion by urging that institutions submit, by program, the current fee, the proposed fee and the difference so the committee can review large discrepancies. “I think we need to see the name of the program, the fees this year, the fees proposed for next year, the difference, and take a look at that way,” David said.

Marlon, an institutional representative from Coffeyville, told the authority that industry, school districts and college foundations often pay fees to remove barriers for students and that legislators benefit from seeing those third-party investments. “I think that is good information, from a legislative standpoint, for them to see that there are other people with skin in the game,” Marlon said.

Nancy Thompson, of Flint Hills Technical College, cautioned that marketing to prospective students differs from internal reporting, noting some scholarships apply only to specific high schools and would not be accurate for all applicants. “So that's where my concern would come into play on that,” Thompson said, explaining why colleges may need narrative context to explain how third-party payments are applied.

Carla, the Garden City institutional representative, described how Garden City posts charges to students’ accounts and then waives those charges when a third party (state CTE/Excel funds or foundations) covers them; she said the institution tracks the receivable to reconcile program costs. “Those charges then go into a receivable,” Carla said.

Committee members discussed practical data elements staff might add: an institutional narrative explaining what fees are commonly covered by foundations or employers, and a simple indicator or column that shows the approximate percentage of each fee the student actually pays. Sharman, a Board of Regents staff member, said staff will modify the guidance to request costs and fees from the approved list and will explore whether the data team can add a column showing the percent the student pays or whether institutions should include that as narrative detail.

There was consensus that the TEA’s data collection should focus on fees required for program completion (not incidental charges such as penalties for damaged property) and that marketing materials and advising will continue to vary by institution.

Why it matters: TEA members said consistent, apples-to-apples reporting will help the Board of Regents, institutions and legislators compare programs and better understand how foundations, employers and state funds reduce out-of-pocket costs for students. Staff said they will circulate revised instructions and a draft data-collection form for review before the next TEA meeting.