Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cte Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal would direct more CTE funding to centers and create statewide BOCES for career-technical governance
Summary
APA consultants recommended sending a larger share of CTE funding directly to career centers and argued for a statewide BOCES to consolidate shared services and improve program quality; presenters estimated each CTE center student would generate about $30,000 in total funding, with most directed to the centers.
Consultants told the Senate Education Committee the proposal would change how career-technical education (CTE) is funded and governed. APA—s analysis recommends channeling a larger share of CTE funding directly to CTE centers and creating a statewide Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) to provide shared services, quality assurance and budgeting support for centers.
Justin Silverstein described the payment flow under the model: each CTE center student generates the regular foundation base that stays with the home district plus an additional center weight. APA presented figures showing a CTE center-based student would generate roughly $30,000 in total funding under the proposal, with approximately $25,000 directed to the CTE center for program operations and roughly $5,000 retained by the home district to support the student—s diploma pathway and counseling.
Why it matters: presenters said Vermont has many relatively small CTE centers (17 were cited) that replicate administrative tasks such as professional development and grant administration. A statewide BOCES, they argued, would centralize those functions, reduce duplication, and standardize program quality across centers. Consultants cautioned that precise BOCES design language remains under development but said the legislature passed enabling BOCES language last year to allow shared services.
Questions from senators focused on whether districts would be required to join a BOCES or would opt in, how the on-behalf payments would be structured, and how governance would align with the proposed five-district model. Presenters said the funding model assumes services could be available through existing funding and that opt-in details would be part of subsequent design work.
Ending: consultants signaled they will return with additional governance details and recommended language; committee members requested more specifics about opt-in rules and implementation timelines.
