Lawmakers hear tech-center leaders’ concerns as committee reviews CTE governance

Helen Art Graves, a legislative intern, presented a report on career and technical education (CTE) governance to the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee on March 21, outlining how four independent career-tech centers run their boards and operations and summarizing superintendents’ reactions to the governor’s K–12 and CTE reform proposals.

The report compiled interviews with superintendents and directors at multiple regional tech centers, including Southwest Tech, River Valley Tech Center, Central Vermont Career Center (CVCC) and the Patricia A. Hanover Career Center (PAHCC). Graves told the committee that each superintendent she spoke with “would much prefer that CTE governance be determined after they have been able to see what public education reform looks like in general,” and that many favored preserving local autonomy.

Why this matters: Center leaders said autonomy allows faster decisions on programming and funding and reduces bureaucracy, while the governor’s proposal — which some superintendents described as creating a supervisory role for the Agency of Education — could change how funds and authority flow to CTE programs.

Leaders’ concerns and capacity

Superintendents reported enrollment growth at several centers and uneven capacity across the state. River Valley Tech Center was described as “already ahead of last year's enrollment by 50%” during recruitment season, Graves told the committee; Central Vermont Career Center was said to be facing excess demand. PAHCC and Southwest Tech reported differing demand profiles: PAHCC was not described as overcapacity, while Southwest Tech reported no immediate demand concerns but emphasized the value of autonomy.

Funding and staffing

Speakers cautioned that recent and proposed funding changes are stressing programs. Graves summarized comments that the governor’s proposal would lower per‑student payments in a way that disadvantages CTE: “each school district receive 13,000 in funding if a student attends a regular public school, but only 5,000 if that student attends a CTE center,” a funding differential several directors said has created an adversarial relationship between sending districts and CTE centers. Committee testimony also reported that one superintendent said base funding decreased roughly 3% last year and that centers have already reduced staff; further cuts, directors warned, would likely force program reductions.

Operational issues and graduation requirements

Directors raised operational questions tied to consolidation and labor costs: Meg Hansinger (Southwest Tech) asked the committee to consider implications for medical insurance, collective bargaining and salaries if the state consolidated tech centers into a single district. Jody Emerson said differing graduation requirements among sending schools complicate students’ ability to access CTE; she suggested either CTE‑specific graduation rules or statewide graduation requirements so students can complete both graduation and CTE requirements.

Next steps and committee context

Graves told the committee directors have been meeting weekly and said they intend to send a letter to legislators with feedback on the proposal. Committee members said they had limited time for questions. The CTE discussion concluded before the committee moved to an amendment on a separate data-privacy bill; the committee planned further language review later in the day.

Ending

No formal policy vote was recorded during the session on March 21; the presentation served as informational input for committee members as they continue to consider K–12 and CTE reforms.