Committee debates SB 99 on CTE access and tuition formula, postpones final action for additional study

The House Education Committee on May 20 discussed Senate Bill 99, legislation intended to increase access to Career and Technical Education (CTE) by requiring sending and receiving districts to develop agreements allowing students enrolled in CTE programs to take additional academic courses at receiving comprehensive high schools.

Under the amendment introduced by Rep. Ladd, the sending district would pay the receiving district tuition equal to 0.15 of the receiving comprehensive high school pupil cost for each academic course credit taken by a sending district student. Committee members said the provision mirrors existing treatment for home-education students (RSA 198:38) and is intended to keep billing and accounting consistent with current DOE practice.

Discussion focused on several implementation issues: how to define ‘‘comprehensive high school’’ and ‘‘course credit’’ in mixed scheduling systems (block vs. period schedules), how to accommodate special-education services, how to limit enrollment if receiving schools lack capacity, and how transportation will be handled when CTE buses are unavailable. Several members warned that the 0.15 formula could impose significant unfunded costs on small sending districts, particularly because the Department of Education’s published per–pupil “cost” figure (used as the basis for 0.15) represents a blended expenditure figure and can differ substantially across regions.

Multiple committee members and witnesses urged that regional agreements (regional career-technical education agreements, RCTEA) be used to set calendars, capacity, and tuition reimbursement mechanics rather than attempting to resolve every local scheduling idiosyncrasy in statute. The bill’s sponsor and other supporters said the ‘‘shall develop agreements’’ language is intended to require regional cooperation and ensure sending students are not denied access to required academic courses that conflict with CTE scheduling.

Members noted additional constraints: the state currently allocates about $9 million annually for CTE tuition and transportation reimbursements; districts use different scheduling models (four-block, seven- or eight-period days), and many CTE programs operate as separate centers with varying relationships to receiving high schools (some are integrated into a comprehensive high school, others are stand-alone centers such as Manchester School of Technology). Several members suggested delaying an effective date to give districts time to budget and align schedules; Representative Hill proposed moving a July 1, 2025 effective date to 2026 to allow districts to incorporate changes into next year’s budgeting cycle.

After extended debate, the committee took no final vote on SB 99 on May 20 and scheduled a follow-up work session for 1 p.m. Wednesday, May 28 to continue negotiations and to form a small working group to refine language and cost estimates. Members requested that the sponsor and staff solicit input from CTE directors, superintendents, regional agreements and the Department of Education before the next meeting.