CTE directors urge caution on fast ESA rollout, call for rule updates and clearer funding

Eric Remmers, representing the Vermont Association of Career and Technical Education Directors (VACTED), told the Vermont House committee on Commerce & Economic Development that any move to a new Educational Service Agency (ESA) must be paired with clear accountability, updated rules, and fiscal modeling to avoid destabilizing high-cost technical programs.

Remmers said the committee should not rush structural governance changes without first defining who would employ CTE staff, who would negotiate collective bargaining agreements, and how directors would be evaluated and disputes resolved. "Accountability must accompany authority," he said, adding that statewide implementation and alignment functions would help resolve recurring barriers and support consistent practice across regions.

Jody Emerson, superintendent/director of the Central Vermont Career Center and past VACTED president, told the committee that access — not governance — is the core problem in her region. "Nearly half of the students who want to enroll in CTE in Central Vermont are not [able to] due to capacity limits," Emerson said, and urged updating state board rules, statutory credit protections, and a funding formula that reflects staffing, facilities and equipment costs.

Legislative Counsel summarized current statute in Title 16, Chapter 37 (section 1545), saying that "credits earned for CTE shall be honored by any public or independent school within Vermont," but noted local school boards retain discretion over applying those credits toward graduation requirements, and that proficiency-based systems vary across districts.

Nicole McTavish, superintendent/director of the Patricia A. Hannaford Regional Technical School District, gave a detailed critique of bill 260768, which she described as creating an ESA that would be authorized by the Agency of Education, overseen by a five-member gubernatorial board, and charged with running statewide CTE functions currently split among districts and the AOE. She summarized key concerns about the bill's scope and timeline: hiring an executive director in 2027, convening statewide advisory boards within months, hiring a full ESA staff, standing up business/HR/IT/ curriculum functions, and going live within 12 months of the director's hire.

McTavish said the bill's fiscal assumptions need more transparency. She quoted the proposal as describing "about $70–$75 million" to be appropriated from the state's education fund to support the ESA but said directors "have not been provided the origin of the numbers." She also warned that the bill ties funding increases to NIPA, a national economic accounting measure, which she said does not reflect local Vermont labor, retirement and health-care cost drivers.

On specific center impacts, McTavish said her center's budget is about $6,000,000 and that the proposal would cut transportation and salary reimbursements her district currently receives — a loss she estimated at roughly $205,000 for her center. She urged sequencing: update rules and funding models first, then consider structural change.

Committee members asked about rule updates, credit recognition and how often rules should be revisited; Remmers recommended periodic review (about every five years) to match federal Perkins cycles and to reduce inconsistent credit application between sending and receiving schools. The committee agreed to continue hearings — the chair said the committee will hear from Secretary Sanders tomorrow and reconvened briefly at 10:30 to take further testimony on pending amendments.

The panel left unresolved the central policy choices: whether to move forward quickly on the ESA model or first adopt clarified rules and fiscal mechanisms to protect program integrity and ensure equitable access.