State study recommends $25,000 per CTE student; lawmakers and workforce officials flag timeline, ownership and adult-training questions

The Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on Feb. 27 heard a detailed financial analysis recommending a single state funding weight of $25,000 per career and technical education (CTE) full‑time equivalent student and an implementation plan that would route most funds through BOCES regional structures.

The recommendation came from the study team presenting to the committee. Justin, a study presenter, said the team “believe[s] that's the right way to do it,” explaining the figure is based on a multi‑year review of program expenditures and excludes federal funds when calculating the state contribution.

The report team examined program codes associated with CTE in the Agency of Education finance system (program codes 31 and 32) across the 15 public regional centers, reviewing three fiscal years of spending. The presenters reported median operational expenditures (all sources) of about $23,000 in fiscal 2021 and a little over $25,000 in fiscal 2023; excluding federal funds the median was roughly $20,000 in FY2021 and $23,303 in FY2023. The team said medians were used because per‑student spending varies widely across centers and programs.

The proposal would keep the funding flow linked to the foundation formula and to regional governance: a sending district would pay an $8,000 “on‑behalf” amount from its base, and a separate $17,000 weight would flow to the BOCES to reach the $25,000 state weight. Part‑time students would be paid on a half‑FTE basis (a half‑time student would generate $12,500 under the single weight). Presenters also noted the total cost for a student across the system—accounting for sending‑district responsibilities and services—was closer to $30,000 when all program supports are included.

The study team said debt service and capital outlays were intended to be removed from the operational analysis and that the $25,000 figure reflects operating expenditures, not building debt. Justin told the committee the team’s “goal was to remove debt service and capital” because capital creates great variability between centers.

Agency of Education staff described supports the agency would provide during a proposed transformation period. Ruth (Agency of Education staff) said the state already uses Perkins V reporting and other data to track program quality and offered that “we have better data than we've ever had before, and we use it more robustly than we've ever used it before.” The agency said it envisions a two‑year timeline for a first phase of transformation and a deliberate, center‑by‑center approach to ensure consistent program quality while preserving appropriate local customization.

Committee members and agency staff raised operational questions that the presenters said require follow‑up. Those included whether the median‑based figure reflects what centers actually need versus what sending communities can/will pay; whether the $25,000 weight should vary by program type or quality measures; and whether the study sufficiently accounted for capital and debt obligations. Presenters acknowledged variation in costs by center (from roughly $12,000–$14,000 per FTE at the low end to more than $30,000 at the high end) and said the median produced a figure that many centers met while still achieving strong outcomes.

Officials also flagged governance and implementation issues. The legislative language accompanying an earlier proposal (introduced by Representative Tuff) outlines ownership transitions and governance changes; presenters said they will review and clarify building ownership and equipment inventory questions because ownership structures differ across centers. Agency staff noted long‑standing federal inventory rules that treat equipment purchased with CTE funds as property of the regional center and not easily transferrable.

Labor‑workforce officials urged alignment between the proposed K‑12 CTE changes and the adult and workforce systems. Kendall Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the Vermont Department of Labor, described CTE as “a linchpin” between education and workforce and highlighted placement data: in 2024 there were 1,728 CTE concentrator graduates, approximately 20–25 percent of Vermont high school graduates; of those, roughly 52 percent went to employment and 44 percent to postsecondary education. Jay Ramsey, director of workforce development at the Department of Labor, said the department supports efforts to reduce complexity for employers and to better align training with regional labor market needs.

Labor officials suggested adult CTE and community training are logical next steps after the K‑12 transformation. They described the adult CTE funding currently in the Department of Labor’s base budget—about $360,000–$400,000 total, distributed at roughly $20,000 per center—and urged that a separate phase address adult programs, credential stacking, and links to postsecondary degrees and apprenticeships.

Committee members pressed on timing and legal/contractual constraints. Several lawmakers warned a two‑year statutory timeline to complete the transformation may be optimistic given collective bargaining agreements, existing contracts, and the complexity of transferring ownership or changing governance. Presenters acknowledged the schedule is accelerated and said they will identify areas that need more runway and additional statutory clarity.

No formal committee votes were recorded during the hearing. Presenters and agency staff collected committee follow‑up questions and committed to returning with more detailed analyses on program quality measures, fiscal impacts tied to the legislative recommendations, capital and debt accounting, and ownership/asset questions.

A set of follow‑up items the presenters and agencies agreed to include: clarifying whether capital/debt were fully excluded from the $25,000 operational figure; providing additional breakdowns by program quality and by full‑ vs. part‑time enrollment; mapping the 10 recommendations in the APA legislative report to the final plan; and returning with a clearer timeline and statutory changes needed to implement the proposal.

If enacted as described, the proposal would shift responsibilities and funding flows statewide, keep much operational funding at the regional BOCES level, and aim to standardize program quality across Vermont’s CTE centers. Department of Labor leaders urged the committee to treat adult CTE and workforce alignment as a second phase of work so that the K‑12 changes do not foreclose future expansion of adult training and apprenticeship pathways.

The committee paused the hearing for lunch and planned to reconvene to continue drafting a letter to appropriations and to follow up on the questions collected during the session.