Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cte Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs separating tuition and transportation funding for CTE programs
Summary
Senate Bill 491 would require clearer, separate calculations for tuition and transportation funding for Career & Technical Education; supporters said separation prevents one line item from ‘‘bleeding’’ into another, while department staff warned of up‑front local project‑management costs and senators asked how proration and federal maintenance‑of‑effort rules might limit increases.
Senator David Waters, sponsor of SB 491, told the committee the bill aims to clarify how tuition and transportation are funded for Career & Technical Education (CTE) programs and to prevent one funding line from cannibalizing the other. "What this bill will do... is allow the department... to calculate the tuition, what's necessary for that, and the transportation, what's necessary for that," Waters said, adding that the change would enable better budget planning and potentially allow an appropriate funding increase in the next budget cycle.
Waters described a roughly $9 million historical funding level used for tuition and transportation combined and told senators that the current formula can produce mismatches that make sending districts hesitant to send students when transportation is prorated. CTE leaders and a retired CTE principal, Steve Rothenberg, urged careful review of who bears the costs, particularly for sending districts that may be required to pay even when families use vouchers: "Sending schools have been downstream for a long time," Rothenberg said, urging sensitivity to those districts’ fiscal constraints.
Mark Manganiello of the Department of Education explained that project management for school building projects (a related prior bill) typically costs about 1–5% of a project — roughly $150,000–$250,000 depending on size — and that there could be local costs associated with early project manager engagement if required at application time.
Committee members asked whether changes would require districts to spend local money up front without a guarantee of state aid and whether the bill’s other sections (on Education Freedom Account access to CTE) should be separated. Waters proposed striking one section and returning with an amendment; the committee closed the hearing after testimony and questions.
