CTE directors tell House commerce committee current funding model forces competition and limits access

Directors of Vermont career and technical education (CTE) centers told the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on Feb. 19 that the state’s tuition-based funding and local governance arrangements put high schools and regional career centers in competition for scarce dollars, limiting student access, complicating hiring and magnifying inequities.

The discussion centered on several near-term policy questions: whether to move to noncompetitive, per‑student funding routed off the Education Fund; how to address persistent enrollment waiting lists; how collective bargaining and inconsistent school calendars affect staffing and program delivery; and how recent facility closures tied to PCB testing have reduced classroom capacity.

Why it matters: CTE programs are a primary pathway into skilled trades and health-care fields that Vermont employers are seeking. Directors said funding and governance choices under consideration — including a proposal circulated in early discussions that would route roughly $17,000 per CTE FTE to an oversight district or service agency plus an additional roughly $8,000 previously retained by sending schools — would materially change center budgets, staffing and the way local schools account for students.

Jay Nichols, executive director of the Vermont Principals' Association, told the committee the “current tuition funding model puts high schools and CTE centers in a position where they're competing for limited dollars.” He said that competition can leave students in small high schools with fewer options and that popular CTE programs commonly have waiting lists, leaving some interested students unable to enroll.

Erica Schneider, director of the Hartford Area Career and Technology Center, described the program-level effects. Schneider said her half‑day center enrolls 330 students, roughly half from New Hampshire and half from Vermont, and operates on 2 hours and 15 minutes per student in its half‑day model. She recounted a recent graduate who discovered a pathway to Vermont State University through the center’s building trades program and said centers help retain trained workers in Vermont.

Jody Emerson, superintendent director at the Central Vermont Career Center and president of the Vermont Association of Career and Technical Education Directors, summarized a proposal she had been shown during policy discussions that “we would get $17,000 per FTE student to the BOCES or Education Service agency for CTE, and then … we would get $8,000 of that… So $25,000 as a base amount for a CTE student,” she said. Emerson and other directors described the proposal as an operational shift that would also move human‑resources and payroll responsibilities to a single oversight entity in some models, with implications for collective bargaining and local control.

Directors emphasized capacity gaps. Emerson said Central Vermont had 335 applicants for 240 seats next year, with more than 60 students applying for 16 plumbing or electrical seats and more than 50 competing for 16 welding/building trades seats. Schneider and Emerson both noted that centers frequently run waiting lists for popular programs and that those lists disproportionately affect students who may benefit most from CTE instruction.

Multiple witnesses called for noncompetitive funding so centers are not competing with host high schools for the same dollars. Emerson said earlier pilots and white papers, including an APA study referenced by the committee, have proposed direct funding models; she and others urged using those analyses as the session’s policy work continues.

Teachers and recruitment were another recurring topic. Nichols and Emerson described how industry wages affect the ability to recruit credentialed instructors. Nichols said districts struggle to hire trades instructors because industry pay is often significantly higher than school pay scales; Emerson noted some districts recognize industry experience on salary scales but said practices vary and that a single oversight district would have to address pay and credentialing consistently.

Directors also urged a more consistent statewide calendar so CTE students do not miss blocks of instruction because sending schools have different vacation or exam schedules. Nichols and Emerson argued a common calendar would make it easier to schedule professional development for CTE instructors and reduce disruptions to program delivery.

Facility constraints and environmental testing were also raised. Schneider explained that PCB testing returned results above state limits for some spaces at her center, forcing three classrooms to close temporarily and necessitating repurposing other spaces; that loss of classroom footprint prevented planned program expansion. Emerson said the legislature’s revolving loan fund for building trades helped centers expand programming in the past but cautioned that equipment and construction costs remain substantial.

Directors flagged adult CTE as an under‑addressed area. Emerson said adult workforce training is “a whole different animal,” noting limited state oversight and inconsistent funding for evening and adult programs. She said some centers offer evening apprenticeship and certification courses but that funding structures and statutory limits on dual‑enrollment credits complicate partnerships with higher‑education institutions.

Several directors asked the committee to wait for the forthcoming APA report and agency recommendations before settling on detailed policy language. The committee and witnesses said the next APA deliverable, scheduled for the coming week, and ongoing discussions with the Agency of Education will shape specifics about governance models (single CTE district vs. multiple regional oversight entities), funding flows and the treatment of sending‑school FTE counts.

What wasn’t decided: Committee members did not vote on any bills or motions during the hearing. Witnesses described proposals and policy options under discussion; several participants asked for clearer, written proposals from the Agency of Education and APA before legislation is drafted.

Directors asked lawmakers to prioritize (1) moving toward noncompetitive funding that preserves or increases opportunities for students; (2) addressing collective‑bargaining and salary structures so centers can recruit industry‑experienced instructors; (3) aligning calendars to protect instructional time; (4) funding to address facility needs and PCB remediation; and (5) clearer treatment of adult CTE and dual‑enrollment pathways.

The committee scheduled continued review of CTE policy materials and expected to hear additional recommendations next week from the APA study and Agency of Education staff.