CTE directors tell House committee moratorium, governance plan could limit access to career and technical programs

Jody Emerson, superintendent director of the Central Vermont Career Center in Barre and president of the Vermont Association of Career and Technical Education (VACTED), told the House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development on March 19, 2025, that a draft bill’s moratorium on new centers and unclear governance language could reduce student access to career and technical education (CTE).

The directors’ testimony came as committee members discussed multiple governance models — single statewide CTE district, regional districts that include host high schools, or an educational service agency/BOCES-style model — and as staff and directors raised concerns about program access, professional development, and funding alignment.

Why it matters: Directors said the draft bill’s moratorium (language discussed in the hearing would pause new centers or programs from 07/01/2025 to 07/01/2028 as written) could directly block projects that are already in design and on local bond timelines, and that governance choices without parallel changes to funding and supervisory structure could add administrative cost rather than save it.

Emerson said Vermont’s CTE centers are operationally intertwined with their host high schools — sharing phone systems, emergency plans, cameras, utilities and schedules — and that splitting CTE governance from the broader K–12 system risks weakening those relationships. “Our priority is making sure that there's access,” Emerson said, adding that centers and host schools routinely coordinate emergency drills, event schedules and instructional calendars. She noted Vermont has 17 CTE centers and described a mix of host-site and independent governance arrangements across the state.

Emerson raised a specific concern about draft language she read as imposing a three‑year moratorium on new centers and programs. “The moratorium on new CTE centers and programs feels very directed at my center because we are in progress of looking to build and go to bond this fall, and this would say we can't,” she said, adding that the text she read originally conflated centers and programs and that the distinction matters for access. She asked the committee to clarify whether the moratorium would block new facilities, new programs, or both.

Directors also pressed the committee on professional development (PD) language in the draft. Emerson said her center currently controls 10 days of PD locally and benefits from two statewide collaborative days provided by the Agency of Education; she worried the bill’s language could be read to centralize all PD at the Agency and limit locally run, program-specific training. “I also would still want some in-house opportunities to work with staff on our own culture, climate, and instructional practices,” Emerson said.

Funding and timing were central themes. Eric Remmers, director at Green Mountain Technology and Career Center in Hyde Park and vice president of VACTED, said directors are “concerned around timelines and how quickly this seems to be moving.” Remmers urged that changes to CTE governance be coordinated with broader state decisions about the foundation formula and supervisory districts so that CTE does not end up adding an extra layer of cost. “If those [funding and supervisory] changes aren't happening right off, then if we go to one district we are going to be adding expense to the entire system, not taking expense away,” he said.

Directors described other barriers to expanded access: equipment and consumable costs (Emerson noted a Perkins-funded brake lathe cost about $21,000), aging facilities (she said at least 10 of the 17 centers appeared on a 1999 renovation list), and workforce for instruction (industry-experienced instructors often take pay cuts to teach). Emerson said many centers face capacity limits and that an abrupt moratorium could prevent planned expansions that would otherwise increase student seats. She reported that some programs are oversubscribed and that centers often must direct students to other regional centers.

Operational details and local governance varied by center. Emerson described Central Vermont Career Center as a district representing 18 towns and six sending school districts; she said the center’s board includes appointed and elected members so that all sending districts have representation. Remmers described Green Mountain Tech as serving five high schools across roughly a dozen towns, with an advisory (RAB) board that includes superintendents and industry representatives, and a full‑day model that embeds academics in the technical program.

Transportation and scheduling were noted as practical constraints: one director estimated some students face up to an hour each way to reach a center, and directors described a mix of half‑day and full‑day models (Emerson defined a full day at her center as roughly 08:30–12:30; Remmers reported his center’s schedule runs about 08:15–14:00). Directors said calendar and period alignment with sending schools is a recurring negotiation.

Committee members and directors repeatedly asked the committee staff to clarify goals (for example whether the state is aiming toward “technical high schools” with embedded academics and facilities or other models) and to define statutory terms carefully; a committee member warned that the phrase “comprehensive high school” has a legal definition in state statute that differs from the way some witnesses used it.

No formal vote or decision was taken; committee members said the discussion is an early step and that further testimony and drafting will follow.

The committee scheduled additional witnesses and signaled it will use the testimony to refine the draft language and clarify the moratorium, professional development provisions and how any new governance model would align with statewide funding changes.