CTE directors tell Senate committee they need funding, common standards and more capacity to serve students

Directors of Vermont’s career and technical education centers told the Senate Education Committee on March 20 that proposed governance changes should guarantee stable funding, statewide alignment on graduation requirements and calendars, and money for facility expansion and instructor pay so centers can serve more students.

The testimony came during a committee meeting with multiple CTE directors and center leaders who answered lawmakers’ questions about the ingredients they say are required for successful CTE programs.

The committee heard specific examples of how centers operate and what is at stake. “All students are treated the same in the sense that they’re all just St. Johnsbury Academy students,” Pat Gookin, career tech ed director at St. Johnsbury Academy, said, describing a campus model where technical courses are fully integrated with academics. Gookin highlighted how proximity and scheduling let students participate in both CTE courses and extracurriculars; St. Johnsbury enrolls roughly 950 students and runs a handful of trade-focused programs, he said.

Melissa Connor, director at Stafford Technical Center in Rutland, told senators the centers need clearer statewide rules on credits and schedules. “If high school graduation requirements are the same across the state,” Connor said, “it creates an unnecessary barrier for a lot of our students,” explaining that Stafford serves students from as many as 11 different high schools and often loses instructional time or must administer independent studies to satisfy varying local diploma rules.

Why it matters

Directors warned that without clarity on funding formulas and statewide policy alignment, centers risk losing enrollment, limiting students’ career pathways and weakening ties with regional employers. Stafford’s preliminary modeling shows a proposed $25,000 per‑student tuition ceiling could sound generous but, depending on how state “overhead assistance” and other aid are calculated, centers might still face net revenue losses, Connor said. She described the proposed $25,000 modeling against her center’s proposed FY26 tuition of $22,600 and requested detailed budget scenarios so local leaders can plan.

Capacity and teacher pay

Several directors described full programs and long wait lists. Connor said Stafford received 447 applications for a capacity of 278 seats; most programs there already have wait lists. Jody Emerson of Central Vermont Career Center said her center had about 335 applicants for 240 seats and has seen roughly 16% enrollment growth over three years. River Valley Technical Center superintendent-director Scott Barr said many programs are full or nearly full and emphasized that demand is increasing.

Directors identified instructor recruitment and compensation as persistent problems. “We need a salary schedule that pays our instructors an industry wage,” Connor said, adding she has been unable to hire a second health careers instructor for two years because the center can’t match industry pay. Panelists proposed incentives, better salary steps that recognize industry experience, and grants that would cover required coursework for instructors seeking teacher licensure.

Standards, assessment and credits

Witnesses urged the committee to require recognition of state-recommended credits and common proficiency/assessment approaches. Connor and others said the Vermont Agency of Education (AOE) has established program proficiencies and recommended academic credits, but local high schools remain the final arbiters of whether to award those credits — producing inconsistent outcomes for students who split time between home high schools and CTE centers. Connor recommended a statewide calibration of assessments so proficiency determinations are consistent if a student moves between centers.

Governance options and local identity

Directors expressed no single governance preference but agreed that any new model must preserve CTE identity and offer a CTE‑focused central office with business‑office expertise in CTE funding rules. “What is our goal?” Jody Emerson asked the committee, urging that the committee define whether the purpose is equity of access, consistency of quality, or something else — because different goals imply different governance solutions.

Advisory boards, employer connections and work‑based learning

All panelists stressed the value of local employer advisory boards in shaping programs, providing work‑based learning and advising on labor-market needs. Stafford’s RAB (regional advisory board) has four subcommittees — program, adult education, finance and outreach — and Connor said the board includes employers, postsecondary partners and superintendents. Directors reported high employer engagement: multiple centers said large shares of students participate in work‑based learning and local employers help place students in paid internships.

Other operational issues

Directors also raised a range of operational needs lawmakers could address: coordinated statewide calendars and professional‑development days so teachers can train without pulling students from instruction; use of Perkins and other grant funds to support middle‑school exposure programs and adult education; clearer rules for shared‑time transportation and cross‑state tuition (directors mentioned New Hampshire partner towns and cross‑border tuition complications); and targeted capital support for facility upgrades or expansion that would allow centers to add high‑demand programs.

What the committee heard, in short, was that centers are in high demand but constrained by facility limits, uneven local diploma rules, unclear funding mechanics in the governance proposals, and difficulty recruiting instructors at industry-competitive wages. Directors asked lawmakers for concrete budget models, retained local employer advisory roles, and a CTE‑literate central office to administer funding and compliance so center leaders can focus on instruction and partnerships.

Looking ahead

Panelists did not ask the committee to adopt a specific governance model during the hearing; instead they urged that any change preserve CTE capacity, ensure predictable funding, and build statewide systems for credit recognition and assessment. Connor asked for modeling of multiple governance scenarios so centers can understand fiscal impacts before decisions are finalized. The committee did not take formal action during the session.