Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Wednesday, 02/25/2026 at 09:07 in the morning. We're here to begin our day talking about Career Technical Education Governance and Funding System. And so we have a number of CTE directors with us this morning. So Eric, good morning. Thanks for joining us. Know that Sure thing. Back Ted had sent in a a response to, I think, AOE's proposal, some thoughts that that Back Ted had, and so we wanna hear hear what your thoughts are and and what the association's thoughts are.

[Eric Remmers]: Great. Thank you. Yes. Thank we did send that in. It isn't just a response to the ESA proposal, but just our general priorities as a membership group. So I'll talk through my testimony and then open up for questions. So first I want to thank you all for the opportunity to testify. My name is Eric Remmers and I'm here representing the Vermont Association of Career and Technical Education Directors, or VACDED. Our members lead Vermont's 15 career and technical centers and oversee accredited standards based programs aligned to Vermont's workforce needs. I understand the committee is considering twenty six-seven sixty eight, which proposes creation of a CTE educational service agency and shift to direct state appropriation for CTE funding. VACDA agrees that Vermont should strengthen and expand access to career and technical education. The challenges this proposal seeks to address funding instability, coordination gaps, and uneven access are very real. Rather than respond point by point structural elements of the ESA proposal though, I will frame our perspective through the six principles of act that adopted on February 19, which we believe should guide any CTE reform this session. So first, accountability must accompany authority. If governance authority is consolidated within an ESA, accountability structures must be clearly defined. Who employs CTE staff? Who negotiates collective bargaining agreements? Who evaluates directors? What is the dispute resolution pathway between centers and sending districts? Regardless of governance structure, Vermont's CTE system would benefit from a clearly designated statewide CTE implementation and alignment function. This role would support consistent emissions practices, assist in the development and alignment of regional program advisories, provide technical interpretation of statute and rule, identify recurring systemic barriers, and facilitate early resolution and disputes prior to formal enforcement. The goal is not expanded oversight here, but clear implementation support and system coherence across regions. Secondly, implementation should be sequenced before major structural change. Governance restructuring should not proceed updated state board CTE rules, defined funding alignment, and operational intervention pathway and a transition plan demonstrating no disruption to safety, staffing stability, or programming. Third, CTE must be recognized as a professional accredited standards based system. CTE centers are accredited institutions staffed by licensed educators who intentionally teach academic and technical standards. Policies should affirm CTE centers authority to award academic credit and require consistent application of CTE earned credits towards graduation requirements. Many access concerns can be addressed through credit recognition and rule modernization without immediate structural overhaul. Fourth, access must expand while protecting safety and program integrity. CTE operates in regulated high risk environments with fixed requirements for staffing ratios, space, equipment, and instructional sequencing. Core technical instruction leading to industry recognized credentials must occur in purpose built safety compliant facilities. Universal access should mean every student has a viable pathway into CTE. It cannot eliminate safety readiness standards or capacity constraints. Fifth, Vermont needs consistent standards while preserving regional flexibility. Centers operate under different delivery models, full day and half day structures, embedded or dedicated academics, and regional satellites where appropriate. Consistency of standards does not require uniform structure and one size fits all mandates risk undermining both effectiveness and employer alignment. And finally, sixth, CTE funding must align with student need and system reality. VACDED supports moving CTE funding into a stable, predictable structure aligned with Vermont's broader education funding system. However, funding must reflect real cost drivers, including regulated environments, equipment replacement cycles, concentrations of special education and five zero four students, and enrollment volatility. Without appropriate weighting and modeling, high cost technical programs could be destabilized. At this time, VACDAD is not prepared to support or oppose the ESA structure as drafted. The proposal represents a significant governance and funding transition. Responsible decision making requires operational clarity, fiscal modeling, updated rules, and defined accountability structures before implementation. We stand ready to work collaboratively with this committee and the agency of education to strengthen CTE statewide in a way that expands access while protecting safety, quality, and regional workforce alignment. I thank you and I welcome your questions.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Questions for Eric?

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Hi, Eric. Thanks so much for being here. It's Edye. When you look at the state board rules for CTE, The last time I think they were updated was 'ninety eight, something like that.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Quite a while.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: How much of the issue that we're having with the CTE system that we have today is because those rules have not been updated?

[Eric Remmers]: I think there's a good chunk there. There are areas within the rules that with some simple updating could really help eliminate some access barriers in in places where we are seeing issues in terms of of credits being recognized at sending schools and places like that. While there are rules stating that CTE will have recognition within schools, there is also flexibility on the receiving end from the board perspective around what they will accept as well. We're in the process or the state is in the process under Act 73 of also updating the graduation requirements statewide. And I think it would be critically important that a place like that for CTE that we are if there are our standardized graduation proficiencies, we are aligned to those as well and that there would be no question as to whether or not if we have an embedded math or science or something along those lines, those would be immediately accepted by any sending school given that we're gonna be consistent across the state.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: So then I'm just gonna stick with the rules updates for a minute. Sure. I know it's a while, but superintendents and directors and CTE directors, how involved do they get in these rules updates? Is this a state board? Because I can see it as making it better and also making it worse, and I'm just trying to figure out what the best path forward is in order to do it right now, correctly, and not create more problems.

[Eric Remmers]: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that. I agree with that concern, and that's why we would strongly recommend that at the very least the directors association is involved in that process. So I certainly wasn't even in education the last time the rules were rewritten. So I haven't been through that process. We did several years ago work with the agency to begin looking at those CTE rules in that series and trying to offer some updated language. But there was really no clarity at that time where the system was going. Now that I think that the system, there is some hopefully some projection as to where things are going with the broader education system with Act 73, I think it's important that we open up those rules and then have director voice in drafting language that can be adopted by the state board.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I think director voice without superintendent voice could again create problems. I think this needs to be in tandem productive.

[Eric Remmers]: Absolutely. Yeah, I disagree with that.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Eric, in your professional estimation, how long should the board go before they review the rule again?

[Eric Remmers]: I would say as soon as possible. I mean, if it

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: But but I mean, after if we do this, so if we have rules now, they'd make rules change the rules next year. At what intervals should should we be looking at? Oh, should be at rules to update them as we go along?

[Eric Remmers]: I I would say that at least an analysis of where things stand every five years would be, you know, reasonable. Things are evolving pretty quickly in CTE and Perkins is reviewed every five years as well at the federal level. I mean, I think that sort of timeline would match up.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. I think if, you know, whatever we start drafting, I think we include an analysis every five years after these rules get updated. And I think they need to involve the superintendents and involve the back dead as well. Agreed.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thanks, Eric. I'm not sure if you whether it fits within one of your broad principles kind of thing. But we've heard testimony that there is sometimes a mismatch between some districts that have waiting lists, long waiting lists, and others, you know, that have capacity kind of thing. Is that an issue that would typically, you know, come up in rural or is that something more fundamental?

[Eric Remmers]: I mean, happens across the state. So, you know, I can speak to my center. Each year I have programs that are heavily enrolled and go on wait lists and some that do not. Right now rule and statute at this point allow if a student goes on a wait list, that student can explore options outside of our regional advisory region. So I receive students from the Cold Hollow district, I receive students from the North Country district, receive students from the Central Vermont District. And then I've sent students outside of our district to places like Essex where cosmetology is offered. So this movement does happen when there are wait lists. In our more rural areas, speaking I think for myself as a more rural area, programs that go on wait lists do vary from year to year. In some years, like this upcoming year, our allied health program is we are probably 20 some odd students deep on a wait list right now. But just two years ago, there were only seven students enrolled in that program. So year to year we tend to have waves and it goes sort of across the board. I'll have more enrolled in a computer networking program versus the allied health program and it just sort of fluctuates. Obviously we're constantly working to get all of our programs filled. When we do go on wait lists, and I'm sure my colleagues do the exact same thing, is that we counsel students around opportunities that we might have in other programs that do have openings and that might still align with their interests and future goals. So yes, that does happen. And yes, there is flexibility for students to go to other districts. Thank you.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Any questions for Eric? Eric, something that a few of us have been thinking about is a new definition for comprehensive high schools, where, you know, I think what we're thinking about, and this is aspirational way down the road, you know, it came out of the task forces, One of their recommendations was looking at regional high schools, larger regional high schools. And I think if we, if we look at that, then I think we need to talk about what's, what's a regional integrated high school look like? And what, know, I think we need a definition for that. And to me, it's a regional high school that has CTE embedded in it. And that CTE is just one part of the curriculum that's taught at that school. And so we had one funding source for the whole school, maybe just too simple for me, but that's the way I see it. And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are.

[Eric Remmers]: Yeah. I mean, I I I envision it like models that are in play in places like Massachusetts where there are four year comprehensive technical high schools where students can can navigate through different courses study and get those technical skills at the same time. I think it's a great vision. Think there's a lot of complexity in getting there, but I think that if we can get to that future vision, I don't think you would see a lot of opposition to that because I think that it would offer more robust opportunity for students down the road.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Hold on one second, Beth, a question for you. I think when we were chatting the other day, we were talking about CPEs, the receiving school. They have sending schools that go in. And I think Eric talked about the the issue of the sending school receiving or want of allowing the credits that those students, I think, found something in statute that says those receiving schools are supposed to accept those credits?

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That's the name of the legislative council. Do you want me to testify from here or that happens to

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: you all? It's up to you.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I'll just take that, so it's not the inconvenience I can help. I just want to caveat what I am saying by saying, it's so easy for me to sit here and breathe a black and white law. I am not in the field and so I cannot speak to how the law is being followed or executed in the field. So I think there's two things that as your legislative lawyer and not educational practitioner in the field, I think that is just so important for me to stress that I think is helpful to this conversation. So one, there is a statute in Chapter 37 and Title 16, which is your CTE chapter for everything for CTE lives. There is a statute section fifteen forty five entitled credits and grades earned. It's not a very long statute, but it's not a very short statute. The pertinent piece to this discussion is that there is language that says credits earned for CTE shall be honored by any public or independent school within Vermont. And then credits earned shall be applied toward any school district or independent school graduation requirements exceeding the minimum number of credits required by the state board. The school board of the high school from which the student wishes to graduate shall make a determination to whether the credits shall be applied for a graduation requirement. So there's some discretion there, which could naturally lead to not consistent application. I think the bigger piece I would like to point out is that not every high school uses credits as a system of determining when you meet your graduation requirements. That is under the education quality standards for our public schools, we have something called proficiency based graduation requirements. And I am yet again, an expert on that. But again, inconsistent application across the entire state of who used credits and who doesn't. Is that helpful?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think so. I think that's an area we need to focus on. I think consistency is much needed in the CTE route. Any other questions for Eric? Eric, thank you.

[Eric Remmers]: Absolutely. And and I I appreciate you all, looking at that statute right there. It it it really points directly to that discrepancy and interpretation that we're talking about. And I can tell you, just last week, had a member of VACDED email me with specific examples of some of his sending schools not accepting embedded academic credit or proficiency that students are earning through their programs. So I think that while we're not looking for a big stick approach to this, In fact, we would love to see the state build capacity in having mediation happen where regional schools or sending districts could learn more about CTE rule and policy because we tend to be more our rules tend to be more obscure in the broader system of things. I think misunderstanding leads to conflict in a lot of places. But being clearer in statute and in rule around something as critical as credit recognition, I think is going to be really important going forward. I thank you for pointing that out.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you all. Thank you. Jody, good morning.

[Jody Emerson]: Good morning. I know Nicole is online too, but I'm not sure of the order, so I just figured I'd grab a seat now. Hi. My name is Jody Emerson. I serve as the superintendent director of the Central Vermont Career Center in Barrie, Vermont, and I'm the past immediate past president of VACTED. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on the proposed CTE Education Service Agency. The core issue in Central Vermont is access. And you all know this about my center. I've been here quite a lot. Nearly half of the students who want to enroll in CTE in Central Vermont cannot due to capacity limits. Those who do enroll often lose instructional time because of transportation that requires them to come from their settings full and then go back based on our schedule. These are not governance problems at their core. They are capacity, alignment, and funding problems. My request would be straightforward: ensure equitable access to high quality CTE statewide, supported by funding that reflects the real cost of delivery. CTE operates in regulated high risk environments that require strict staffing ratios, specialized equipment, and facilities, as Eric mentioned, compliance with OSHA and federal regulations and alignment with Perkins V, which is the federal funding that we get, and their comprehensive local needs assessment. We cannot simply add seats without addressing these realities. If the goal is to expand access without destabilizing existing programs, I urge to sequence for approach. First, update state board rules to that question. Some of the things I can think of in state board rules are what credits are recognized in programs are there. Also, the regions, when Act 46 happened, some of the towns shift what district they were in, but the region and state board rules didn't change. And so that has led to some confusion for a few people. Make sure that in that update, there is a clarification of the enforcement of CTE earned academic credit and transcript recognition, which I think, as Eric said, is something that should easily happen with statewide graduation requirements. Modernized definitions to reflect embedded academics, satellite programs, and varied delivery models align the roles with current safety and Perkins V requirements. These changes strengthen accountability without immediate structural disruption. Second, codify credit recognition and graduation protections in statute, including clear inclusion of CTE within Act 73 graduation requirements. CTE earned credits must be consistently honored statewide. I think I'm very lucky in that the director before me at Central Vermont Career Center worked with all of the sending schools, and we have agreement. And so every sending school in my region that sends their kids to me gives their kids the same exact credits or proficiencies as each other. So all of my students get those things. Someone who is from my region and going to another center might not get the same things. Third, align CTE funding within a predictable formula based model that reflects true cost drivers, facilities, equipment cycles, transportation, increasing program capacity, and the supports required for all students to access credential based programming without stable funding wait lists will persist regardless of governance structure. Then and only then could governance restructuring be evaluated. Structural change should follow demonstrated readiness, not preceded. Also, in response to the regional technical high school, while we were looking at, what could the Central Vermont Career Center look like, my staff and I visited several schools in Maine, and the Sanford Maine High School is a really good example. It's a newer school that has, basically hallways that are aligned with a technical pathway, and it has the high school programming academics in those hallways as well. So they're they're together throughout. It was a really cool setup. I think that would be a great model if that's where you're moving to, and you might all want a field trip. So that could happen. Mhmm.

[Beth (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Is there a question? No question? Could you be healthy?

[Jody Emerson]: Yeah. I do have the annual report for the Central Vermont Career Center if anyone wants to see it, how it goes here.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'm hoping that we'll hear from Nicole as well, but trying to see if we can build a collaboration between AOE and Baghdad and this committee on how we move forward while we're waiting for our Ed Committee to make their determinations on the rest of the education rebuild. Nicole, good morning.

[Nicole McTavish]: Good morning. There goes my video. Good morning. I'm talking to you from Oregon this morning. It's very early. So Jody and Eric talked a lot about what the VACTED stance is and what we believe is critical as we move forward. My testimony today is going to be directly about the bill that was put forward, so I'll focus on that and then offer some some positives and questions that we have about that I have about the bill. So good morning. My name is Nicole McTavish. I'm the superintendent and the director of the Patricia A. Hannaford Regional Technical School District. And so I'm speaking today in that capacity. We're one of the four independent regional technical school districts. We operate three campuses. We have two in Middlebury and we have a satellite campus in Virgins, which is right in Virgins High School. We serve about three fifty high school students a year in both pre technical and technical programs and hundreds of adult learners in our evening and our weekend programs, largely through a partnership we have with the University of Vermont Health Network and Porter Hospital. On Thursday, the twenty second, the Secretary of Education briefed a large joint committee on the plan for CTE in the form of written and oral testimony in a PowerPoint presentation, and then that was codified in the bill 20 six-seven 68, an act relating to the transformation of Vermont's career technical education governance and funding systems. So my remarks today are about that bill. So the big takeaways from the bill itself fall into four buckets. One is about the governance. So essentially this bill would set up a new agency for CTE called an educational service agency. This is intended to be an interim solution that moves us from where we are right now to this interim state of an ESA to a future state later on of a comprehensive high school. This is on an unknown known timeline. The CTE centers would no longer be overseen by boards or school districts or supervisory unions or superintendents. Instead, the AOE would authorize this new CTE ESA and the governor would appoint a five member governance board which would oversee that the entity. CTE professionals in the programs would be directly employed by and overseen by this ESA except for the CTEs at independent schools. The ESAs would take on the tasks now required of AOE around except compliance, which AOE would retain. An executive director would be employed to lead and run the ESA through a process that we're not that isn't yet defined. The CTE directors and the staff would then report to the ESA executive director. This ESA would then take on quite a lot of new work, some of it done currently by CTE directors and some of it new to the CTE ecosystem. So this ESA would assume the CTE curriculum and instruction work across the state. It would plan and conduct statewide CTE professional development and would develop and deploy the CTE curriculum. It would coordinate special Ed five zero four and English language learner services. It would run statewide all of our advisory boards for each CTE program, and it would take the role of partnering with colleges and employers on behalf of the CTE centers. It would also maintain CTE facilities, which is in and of itself a heavy lift. It would then expand CTE into middle schools and into early high schools. Some of this is done now, but much of it would be new. So the ESA would come expand CTE into middle schools and would also stand up exploratory program in K-twelve, but the K-twelve programs would be required to pay for this out of their foundation formula funds. The ESA would also then train K-twelve school counselors and career coordinators and would require several new things that they did. The next bucket is paying for the CTE ESA. The bill states that about 7 to 75,000,000 would be taking it out of the state's education fund and would be appropriated directly to this new ESA. The good news would be that districts would no longer have to pay tuition to CTE centers, but the ESA would then determine and implement all the CTE center budgets and would take the Perkins Fund and distribute them amongst the CTE centers. The funding for transportation isn't guaranteed, but instead contemplated and middle school programming, which is now required, would be implemented and planned by the ESA, but would be paid for by K-twelve. I think the other thing to note is the timeline, which is quite aggressive. So in '27, this new ESA director would be hired through a process not yet described. Within three months of that date, the ESA director with no staff would have to convene a statewide program advisory boards for all the programs, validate our standards equipment needs, credentials and sector priorities and launch system design stakeholder engagement and operational planning. Then in the next three to ten months, this new director would have to hire the entire ESA office staff, stand up all of the functions required to do this work, such as a business department, operations, HR, for maybe depending on all that we're not entirely sure who all would be employed by the ESA, but for sure hundreds, maybe even a thousand staff. Risk management liability insurance, there would be negotiated labor agreements between teachers, directors and whatever support staff were included, and determine and build out the functions for IT software, student information, data, and all the reporting required by the state. They'd also have to hire a curricular department, build out and disseminate and implement the curricular resources, professional development and assessment system. They'd have to initiate coordination with the CTE centers. This is the first time that CCE directors are brought into the conversation. They'd have to coordinate ELL, special ed and five zero four and mental health and counseling services, and have to use input from these advisory boards to advise the programs. And then within twelve months of the executive director's hire, the new ESA would go live, the CTE centers would report to the ESA, and the ESA would run CTE in Vermont. That seems like a lot of work on a short timeline for a brand new hire. The positives of the plan is that it repeals the service regions. I think I've spoken to many in this committee already about in our region, as Eric alluded, we're one of the regions where to our North and to our South, because of capacity, really good CTE programs are having to turn around, turn away students and putting them on a wait list. So in our region, to our North and to our South, 141 students were placed on waiting lists at the beginning of this year. Chittenden County to our North has 700 resident high, 7,000 resident high school students and Rutland has 2,000 resident high schools, but Assen County only has 1,200 resident high schools. So as a result, my center has 200 free seats for students that would like to pursue CTE, but there's currently not a guaranteed fluidity between CTE centers, mostly because transportation is a barrier. If we were able to serve even half of the students sitting on waitlist right now, our tuition would decrease by 34% and would be directly in line with other CTE centers. So it really would be a win win for students having access and taxpayers having less tax, less burden. And from our district perspective, the one CTE district is an idea which is intriguing. So the two APA reports that the committee has seen both talked about CTE, the scale in Vermont that CTE best be served by a one CTE district. But both of those reports did recommend a district with all those powers and responsibilities carried by a district. And that idea I think does have merit to be and is intriguing. However, an ESA is not a school district. This bill details an agency without that power or authority of a school district. Questions and concerns we would have in my district and my board are governance. So in this plan, the agency stands up the CSA and then the governor appoints the five member of trustees that oversee it. The timeline appears overly ambitious and runs outside of the larger education reform. We can't change CTE in a vacuum. It really underestimates the cost of CTE in addition. When just running the numbers, we, the CTE directors, have not been provided the origin of the numbers that lead to the 70 to $75,000,000 number. But my center is a, I'd say small to medium sized center and my budget is 6,000,000 alone. There are 17 centers and the math does not add up to 70 to $75,000,000 And then the other piece is this bill ties CTE funding increases to NIPA, and NIPA is problematic for this purpose because it is a national number that tracks gross domestic product, national income, corporate profits, personal income and inflation measures. But labor costs in school districts and retirement costs and healthcare costs are really what drive our increases here in Vermont. If we did a model in my center and my center's fiscal year twenty seven budget would increase by three times that increase predicted by NEPA just because of labor and healthcare costs. This bill also cuts transportation and salary reimbursements. Right now I get reimbursed for transporting students and I have salary assistance for five of my positions. This loss would equal about $205,000 in revenue from my center. So while the bill does have some positives and it does help students by repealing CTE service regions, and it does explore a more statewide approach, I think the timeline cost governance and funding assumptions that are built in here are problematic. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Questions for Nicole? Nicole, can you send us your testimony?

[Nicole McTavish]: I did. I sent it to Jonathan. It was early late last night, though. So it should hopefully pop up in your document. Okay.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We'll get it posted.

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: I really appreciate the detail that you provided for us on the challenges. Some of them were pretty apparent when I read through the bill, and there are many more that you highlighted that I haven't even considered. I just so appreciate the partnerships that we're able to have in having these conversations before we get too far out ahead of our skate. It's the Vermont. Yeah. I don't really have any questions. Just feel like I need to spend a whole lot more time with that

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: whole thought process. Yeah. We'll hear from Secretary Saunders again tomorrow and have more discussions. But I think it's helpful from all three of you coming in this morning to chat with us and give us your perspectives. Think in the end that we can work with the Secretary and everyone together to come up with a good bridge system that will work better for CTEs and works better for our students as well. And in a short timeframe.

[Nicole McTavish]: Exactly. Well, I appreciate the time to speak with you this morning.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you. Think I think for now, it just gives us more information. We'll have more discussions more, I think, with secretary Sanders. So our next piece is an end to end thirty. So we'll take a break now and come back at 10:30 to hear the amendment to h two zero five. We're gonna do 10:30 because so we can't make it to 11:30, so change that. So with that, if there's nothing else, we will be back at 10:30 to look at the amendment, take some testimony. We can go off live.