Vermont committee reviews Perkins V funding, considers single statewide CTE district

The Vermont House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development heard detailed briefings Wednesday on career and technical education (CTE) governance, federal Perkins V funding and options for creating a single statewide CTE district.

Agency of Education CTE lead Jen (Agency of Education staff) told the committee that Vermont’s Perkins V allocation is about $5 million this fiscal year and that federal rules require the state to retain 15% for administration and statewide leadership while roughly 85% must be granted to eligible recipients. “Perkins really focuses on special populations,” Jen said, describing federal priorities that include individuals with disabilities, students from low-income families, English learners and others.

The Committee’s discussion centered on two policy threads: how Perkins dollars are currently distributed to 17 regional CTE centers and Community College of Vermont (CCV), and how a single statewide CTE district might change governance, reporting and program alignment.

Under current federal requirements summarized for the committee, 15% of Vermont’s Perkins allocation is retained by the Agency of Education (AOE) for grant administration and statewide leadership; a designated reserve (described in testimony as $650,000) supports statewide professional development, teacher preparation, dual-enrollment costs and shared curricula. The remainder is distributed by federal formula to regional CTE centers (a formula that weights secondary population and poverty measures) and to CCV (testimony said CCV receives 22% of the distributed funds). Jen said some small centers receive under $90,000 annually while larger centers receive several hundred thousand dollars, creating wide variation in per-center Perkins resources.

Jen explained Perkins eligibility and program requirements that affect funding: to receive Perkins funds, a center must offer at least three state-approved CTE programs across at least three career clusters, with minimum concentrator counts per program (testimony gave the example that Canaan does not currently meet that eligibility threshold and therefore does not receive Perkins funding). She described the comprehensive local needs assessment (CLNA) that each eligible institution must complete at least once every two years and the nine performance indicators Perkins requires, including graduation rate, academic proficiency (measured in Vermont by WorkKeys and other assessments), postprogram placement, credential attainment and work-based learning participation.

AOE staff described progress under Perkins V since 2020: credential attainment rose to about 65% of CTE students earning a postsecondary credential and roughly 45% earning college credits, up from roughly 20% pre-2020. Staff also stressed that Perkins funding is narrowly targeted and does not cover the bulk of CTE centers’ operating budgets; one presenter estimated statewide CTE budgets near $53 million while Perkins contributed roughly $5 million.

Committee members asked how a single CTE district would affect Perkins filings and local access. Jen said a single CTE district would require the AOE to draft a new Perkins state plan, a process that requires stakeholder engagement and public comment and could take a year or more. “The state plan would address how the CLNA would be conducted and how performance targets would be set for the single district and then for each CTE center,” Jen said.

Supporters of a statewide governance model, including Justin (consultant/finance lead on the reform work), argued it could reduce variation in student opportunities, enable systemic planning for program distribution and transportation, and create centralized capacity for curriculum specialists and program improvement. “Having one voice that can really work with the different higher-education agencies and the workforce agency is important,” Justin said, describing wide variation in per-pupil spending and services across the existing centers.

AOE and other staff also described implementation challenges: the CLNA and Perkins application process are time-consuming for centers and for agency reviewers; agency staff capacity has declined from earlier staffing levels and the AOE expects to add positions but still needs more content-area expertise to support rapid curricular and program changes. Doug Webster, identified in testimony as the AOE’s CTE federal grants program specialist, was cited as the AOE reviewer who reads and evaluates each CLNA and Perkins application.

Committee members raised equity concerns: some high-demand programs have wait lists while other centers have unused capacity, and admissions practices vary by center. AOE staff described a new CTE application and admissions work group convened this year to identify best practices and to consider whether a single district could set more equitable application and admissions processes and address capacity through after-school or adult programs.

On adult and professional education, AOE staff framed “phase 2” reforms to strengthen adult CTE delivery through tech centers, noting current underfunding and fragmented coordination. Staff said the state provides modest grants to centers for adult coordinator positions and that a sustained, well-funded approach would be necessary for long-term adult-program expansion.

What’s next: AOE staff advised that drafting and negotiating a new Perkins state plan to reflect any governance changes would require stakeholder sessions, a public comment period and at least a year to complete. AEO staff and technical partners told the committee they will continue to model staffing needs and district governance options and provide follow-up materials comparing single-district and multi-district scenarios.

Ending: Committee members thanked presenters and said they will continue hearings and stakeholder outreach in coming weeks as they weigh statutory changes and budgetary trade-offs. The AOE committed to sharing additional materials and models for staffing and funding under alternative governance structures.