Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We're live.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the the White House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Thursday, 03/26/2026 at 11:05 in the morning. We're back from a short break, and we're now going to continue our discussions on career technical education. And we have Secretary Saunders with us. Secretary, thank you for joining us.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Thank you for having me. Good morning. For the record, I'm Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education. Delighted to join you again today. I really appreciate the ongoing engagement around expanding career technical education. We made note of the questions that we raised the last estimate organized this presentation to respond to those primary areas of inquiry and really put additional details more around each operation of what this would look like. So within the testimony that we uploaded, we continue to ground our work and the goals and the benefits of the proposal. Just briefly reflecting on that, this proposal is intended to ensure universal access to career and technical education, and also to create earlier exposure to CTE in middle school as well. And all of this is part of our overall effort as we are elevating the rigor and the access to opportunities for students across the state to be engaged in these hands on industry aligned learning experiences that all start to just become the way that we deliver education, as opposed to being second. In terms of the goals of moving to one single education service agency, we have enumerated here five primary goals. So, the movement to one governance entity, which we are referring to as an education service agency, would include oversight of the 15 CTE centers, allowing for a more effective and efficient CTE system that will be aligned to both student and statewide workforce development needs. The ESA will be tasked with aligning programming to best serve students, including increasing capacity in programs with large waitlists or areas needed for workforce development. The ESA will align quality and cost structures of programs to ensure common educational experiences for students across the state. A main theme that we consistently reveal when we look at our education system is variable. There's a lot of variability in fragmentation. So, moving to one government decision for CTE would allow for that alignment and ensuring consistency around quality.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Do you see also flexibility? So, when we talk about areas needed for workforce development, there could be different things going on in the kingdom compared to what's going on in Brattleboro.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Absolutely. Yes. So we're moving to one governance unit, this proposal, and giving a statewide view. So that does not preclude the engagement that's needed at the local level and understanding some of the industry demands. So, we would expect that programming statewide is preparing students for the major industries of Vermont. And then in certain segments of our state, in the Northeast Kingdom, they raise more specialized programming for the jobs that are really relevant and needed and high demand in that part of our state. And that we would continue with the comprehensive needs assessment and there would be engagement with the sending districts along with local communities or local employers as part of this work.

[Speaker 0]: Just to confirm, the ESA would do comprehensive local needs assessment.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: The ESA would facilitate a statewide comprehensive needs assessment, but it's the building of the center of leaders would still be involved in that and also the local civic districts. So, would orchestrate the process and ensuring that we're being holistic with our approach and that we're engaging our local communities effectively to lift up any unique considerations for those communities. So, it's the framework that they are creating. In terms of the of CTE programming for all high school students with a target of every student taking at least one CTE course during high school. I would note that on this point, we have to make sure that there's clear alignment with the statewide graduation requirements and our education quality standards, but this is a direction that is put in statutes. Point three is related to earlier exposure, I'm gonna expand CT exposure for middle school students, ensuring that every middle school student in the state has that common curriculum and professional development experience that their teachers benefit from a common and consistent support. So we do see across the state that there are some tech centers that provide a lot of support for middle schools, but it is not consistent when we look at our middle school exploration participation rates, and some of this would allow us to ensure that there's consistent curriculum and that the teachers would benefit from the training for the education service agency. Is early access so charged by this federal government as far

[Speaker 0]: as additional Perkins dollars or anything like

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: that? The budgets that are proposed related to Perkins are flat, so we're not seeing that there's, there certainly is, I would say, a client's priority. We're really thinking about it being infused within our overall educational system, and really seeing CTE as something that is evolving. And I think some of the shifts at the double level are kind of harkening back to a formal model of CTE, and so I would just name there to be a little bit of a disconnect sometimes as we're talking about the patient.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, and then also having it nestled, I guess, into the other academic side, is, I guess I'm just wondering if there is any kind of additional support with early exposure to the community that you see anywhere from

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: the total. In terms of maybe new grant making programs, I am not aware. I mean, I would say that there's a push also for the free apprenticeship. And so there's some efforts there that dovetail and we have joined Department of Labor and pursuing some funding available for that. So yes, I think there could be the potential to leave that in. But we're not expecting a windfall. I would be delighted. I wouldn't imagine. And then the fourth goal is to have statewide leadership for the CTE through the ESA. And so we've talked about this in terms of making sure that there's a strong focus and having that consistency in terms of training and support and collaboration with the ESA leadership. We've talked already about the role of applicants in local needs assessment that would continue, but it would be really thought through statewide. What's the benefit of that? We can identify that there may be certain leaders that there's a center that would need some additional support in offering a program because it's a need and those decisions could be strategically prioritized if we're taking a statewide lens. The leadership would also oversee all the substantive change requests, new program approval requests to the AOB, again having that other appeal of that alignment to the primary state workforce needs kind of the local context. You'd see overseeing all program decisions in accordance with a policy that will be adopted by the ESA government for them for being at AOD, so really shifting toward the ESA to be responsible for the quality of delivery of CTE. Finally and importantly, this would coincide with a funding system that would request quality for CTE while allowing for those adjustments as coverage changes are fully implemented. We'll talk a little bit about that in terms of the timeline, but as the state, I think we all share a goal to expand the community, but that's not reflected currently in the way that we fund this community. Part of the Hill's approach is ensuring it truly is funded as a priority that is global pedestrian. In terms of the timeline, the 2026 would be the focus on ESA implementation planning, and then the 2028 would actually be putting this into effect for the twenty eight-twenty nine school year. That aligns with the current timeline in Act 73 of when the new larger districts would be in place. In terms of staffing, this was an area that I think underwent a lot of questions, so when we look at this, I want to note that this is a personnel budget that is in the model, but that this can be adjusted depending on decisions and needs of the entire system. So, intent of The USA is that they would oversee all 15 CTE centers. However, I want to note that there will be limited and practical exceptions to that and we can talk through that in terms of the particular role of our independent schools, so those CTD centers. And there could be the ability for them to opt in for different types of services and support, I think there's a fuller conversation around that. The ESA staffing provides professional development, curriculum, and other technical assistance to the centers, and they provide a deposit. This would be a sample of how we could organize the staffing model with there'd be an executive director, but then recognizing that since there's statewide oversight, there would benefit from having regional leadership in place as well. This model that we're putting forward is very similar to how the state of Connecticut organizes their CTE delivery, and they do have a statewide approach. Our CTE director has actually visited Connecticut, has worked with their team and sees some real value in the way that they're organized. So, is an example building off of some of the structure that they've observed in Connecticut. But again, these could be shifted depending on the need. The way that it's organized here, it would be regional, but then also each of the regional directors would have an area of specialization. So, you could have a regional director that's focused, for example, on the Chittenden and Franklin area, and they have a specialization in looking at some of the construction needs or needs of labs, for example, statewide. So, they have that expertise versus a regional director in the North potentially that would have the expertise around curriculum development, for example. So, the way that we've seen this be effective is that there's that regional oversight of ensuring that operational success of those systems, a lot like having a specialized area of focus. And then what we think of as some of the back office support would shift to the ESA as opposed to being replicated within each of the tech centers, and so that's looking at one unified approach as we work with the director, Perkins grant manager. We also recognize that there's coordination between middle schools, the middle school coordinator and the high school coordinator. Again, based on the needs, the executive director made some shifts here and determined that there needs to be more than one individual for a medical more than one for a medical school, but this is just a simple table to find. And then in this next table, we're outlining the group of Americans at clicker site for each of these major roles. So the executive director would have to say the system budget management of the regional directors, they'll be the liaison for the workforce system and higher education partners. They'll be involved in driving the strategic planning and resource allocation along with partnership. I'm going to mention that even though the executive director is involved in partnership and community outreach, there are roles still within the tech centers that would be engaged in identifying partners for work based learning. So it's not only situated within the responsibility of the executive director, there are some shared roles.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Do you have you so I'm seeing three regions. So do you have, like, a map of where your cutoffs are? I can see you have Franklin, Chittenden, so that's easy to understand. But then you have the North, so where's the cutoff? The North and then cutoff to the South. We have, you know, tech centers in the center. We had multi you know, there's multiple tech centers in the North, multiple in the South. And then they'll be looking at CPE directors in individual tech centers as well?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yes, yes, we would they would

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: be underneath the regional director?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Correct. So we're putting this forward as an example of how it would be structured. I don't think that the agency of education or the legislature would need to define how many regions or how they're organized. That would really be the executive director's responsibility in consultation with director, CT directors. What we'd want them to do is make decisions that are practical and implementable, so I wouldn't want to force a boundary on them, that may not make sense because it really is a statewide responsibility, they're gonna need to think intentionally around how to structure, but this is an example to just give visibility to a model that we have found to be viable in other states. That structure is all one initiative but also connected with the same kind of structure? I have to go back and look at it. I know we've provided you analysis of the different funding. I'll have to look back in terms of that's perfectly laid out in a presentation. So the regional directors, as I mentioned, the idea would be in addition to overseeing the operations for those parts of the state, that they would have an area of specialization, and so we named really three areas of specialization, that could change too depending on the needs, one being a focus on facilities, second on curriculum and professional development, and three, on transportation. Again, this could shift, but just to give you a sense of how that might be organized. The director of student services would have statewide coordination of student services, such as special education, five zero four plans, multi lingual learners, equitable attendance across systems, human resource director, their normal job function in terms of hiring all HR decisions. One of the things we talk about with the CTE directors is they will be involved in those hiring decisions just as they are now, that would be an important part of this process, so that wouldn't shift. The middle school coordinator would be intentional around creating that alignment and the coherence across our six-twelve system, and supporting our middle school educators. Then the high school coordinator would also really help to think through the pre tech and non CTE center for ninth and tenth grade. So, this would be, I can make a note here in addition to high school coordinators that would be situated at the tech center, this is really thinking about that earlier exposure in like the tenth grade, so these roles are really an expansion of what we're doing, ensuring that we have staff that are focused on the work of extending the opportunities earlier on.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: What would be guidance counselor, how do we make sure that high school guidance counselors are coordinated with CTEs as well?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yes, so I think the relationship between the sending districts and the CTE ESA would still need to be nurtured and I think there's many examples of where those relationships have been affected and we would want to build upon. In addition to that, we're putting forward in Act 73 some consistency in areas where there were barriers. So statewide graduation requirements and then the subsequent rule changes or CTE would provide clearer expectations and consistency around what that relationship looks like between the sending district and the tech center. Also within F-seventy three, we're moving towards a statewide calendar. So, some of the challenges that are negotiated with scheduling would be addressed there. And then there would be a consistent way to manage other operational things like attendance and so forth, enrollment. So, there would be the level of negotiation that has to happen right now between sending schools and the tech centers because within the CTESA, there would be established some common and standard procedures that would be consistent across the state of Vermont. But there's still the relationship that would be there, we would want to, and we are being intentional around identifying what some of the barriers have been, many of those barriers are because there's been a lack of clarity, or there's been an ability to make different choices that can sometimes conflict when you have different schools sending to a tech center. So, the intent of this is to move beyond those challenges because on those four areas we would have more standardization.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: But even if the CTE center is housed at a high school, they're still technically ascending into that. And so is there I think we need to make sure there's coordination even in the high school that's sitting with a tech center with guidance counselors because we've been hearing that constantly that there's not alignment with And I think do the tech centers have guidance counselors as well?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yeah, so we discussed that that came up when we're meeting with that, importance of guidance counselors. So this would be an area that as we identify from our CT directors what's really critical, that needs to be built in to how we're staffing. And I think there's considerations here around what the staffing needs to look like from the ESA level, but equally important as we're looking at within the building and ensuring that there's the right staffing. There's great variability right now, and when you look at the tech centers in terms of how they staff, and also if you know the program cost, and we're also finding that higher cost is not translating into higher quality across the state. So, part of this work is really evaluating what are some of those protocols that we're thinking about, the guidelines for assumptions built into funding for a number of students, for example, per class to be at capacity, knowing that there's going to be decisions that are made maybe for having a smaller class, but then you're going have to have a larger class in another area. But again, having that clarity around those expectations and understanding those really drive the assumptions and the modeling. Yeah,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: thanks very much, sorry to be late, and you may have mentioned something, but I'm looking at the financing part that you got there.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: I'm not there yet. You're just me.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Oh, wait. Why don't you go ahead now?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Be helpful to know your question and I Okay.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So, yeah, the the modeling is is I think really important. And it might have come out you might have presented the modeling at some point, but I don't remember when. Because I think the model you know, financing is big piece of this. And I'd like to understand the assumptions behind the modeling. And for example, I think you mentioned that past in different centers are pretty different. And I think you alluded to, maybe there's not total rationality in some of that, but sometimes depending on the programs they offer, there are. So I'd be interested in knowing how the modeling works for, I guess, a particular center.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Yeah, So I can share the modeling that we've done on our team and the assumptions that were built into that. But then I also want to name the study that the Joint Fiscal Office is reviewing is what will finalize the funding. Within the early modeling that we did, we evaluated the program costs, we actually compared those as like programs as well. And through that, we're able to determine what the funding would be for a system when there's more consistency in terms of programming and meeting certain capacity expectations. So that was part of the most recent study and report that we provided and I can share that again. We looked at every single program at every single tech center in terms of the cost and the staffing, and also related that to

[Unidentified Member (addressing Chair "Michael")]: That measures of

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: would be good, I might need reminding you that. So I need to look at that again, because I particularly would be interested in that modeling and how it triggers out there, as well as the assumptions that are ongoing. That's right. If you could get it to me or just identify where it came in.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: So I'll share, there was a shift last year, right? So the governor's original proposal was based on a methodology for a foundation formal that was different than what was ultimately adopted in Act 73. However, as part of that, when the legislature made that shift to move to a different methodology, the agency worked very closely with the Joint Fiscal Office to ensure that that methodology accounted for the full cost of career and technical education. And so, what is included right now in Act 73, we have been given assurance that it is fully accounted for the cost of CTE. And then in practice, moving to an ESA, we're talking about it being a line item that the ESA would receive. This will be consistent within our future state, every district will also have a line item for how they're paid out from the state based on the foundation formula. The questions that we've put forward and options we've put forward are, using a methodology that's based on a per student versus an appropriation. We've come back this session with an appropriation for a couple of different reasons. One, I think it's important to make sure that we're paying out CTE first and that there's clarity around the funding that's being covered. We also recognize that the cost of the current system within CTE has what I would call some give. So there's within the funding, there's still a room for additional students to be involved in certain programs for not going to add capacity. So moving forward with that funding with some realignment around how the staffing works, and also thinking about different programs, maybe expanding or closing, we would be able to operate with some of those capacity assumptions.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Can I just follow-up? So yeah, if I could be reminded of what that modeling was with the exceptions, probably you might have been granted by a student's period somewhere. And then I just also stress that I think the JFO study with the was very important. And we still don't have that information. It's tough to make some of these decisions without knowing what those folks are thinking about.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Absolutely, mean, was our hope and our goal last session that we'd be able to end the session with clarity around the funding, the governments and all the quality indicators, and we saw two outstanding mutual funding. So it has impacted timing for the field to be able to actually make decisions and move in this direction because they don't know exactly the final budget or not, they'll report.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Just one for Al Grecia, it's just tough to make decisions on governance when you don't know what the financing is gonna have financing.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: I would say, yes, I hear you on that, but that's part of the reason that last session when that shift was being made, that we were really clear from an agency of him in new marketing the assumptions, That's why within Act 73, there's really clear and specific parameters around how the new districts should be organized in order to deliver on those funding expectations. Thank you. Kirk?

[Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: I have two questions, I think. One of them, and both of them relate to the broader education transformation for the K-twelve. So one is, like, how do you see this set of staffing, including maybe especially like regional directors and those kind of people interfacing with what the anticipated outcome of vaccinations, direction would be. And then my other piece is, you you talked about with your timing line and it it looks like there's some question about whether or not the legislature is gonna get through that section of of setting up the the districts and stuff. How would that affect this, or would it affect this timeline for the patient of the SA for a CT?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: So, moving towards larger districts with our pre day trialing system supports improved efficiency that benefits the entire delivery of education. Even if that isn't enacted as we would hope, moving with one single CTE district would allow us to move towards quality and consistency. There would need to be some intentionality and thought around how the staffing works to ensure the level of coordination, because you're coordinating with many many more districts. So the overall system will be improved if we reduce that complexity. I have heard from CTE directors that are concerned with CTE moving forward with all of these changes and the rest of the system not moving, and I think that's a valid concern. I think the whole system will be strengthened if we're moving in lockstep and in alignment at the same time. Then again, would not want to delay some of the modernization and improvements in CTE that are built on pretty extensive studies. I think it's an area that, as a state, we've really explored and are clear around how some of these shifts could really help to achieve our goals. But we would, where we continue to reinforce the need for larger districts and the grade 12 space, because it allows us to be more efficient, it allows our dollars to go further in supporting students, and it supports this type of coordination in a way that will be more impactful. So, that would be our hope, is that our goal is to move forward as we take you back something through.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We're hoping that something develops, but I think for us, looking at this, because I think we need to understand the financing, and we need to understand what the cost is to implement the ESA just for implementation. And then there's a lot of questions on the facilities, the leasing facilities, we want to make sure that there's enough money in the end to pay for kids to go to the society. Right, absolutely.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: I think that's what's plaguing us right now, is trying on how we move forward without knowing how we're funding it. Right. So I think what we're naming here is, even though we've done modeling around this, JFO is doing separate study. So, in order to, I think, answer your question and give assurances going forward, that coordination with JFO will be important. We have shared with JFO, our overall modeling. I think there can be some additional focus on CTE over the next couple of weeks to hopefully have some coordination. Their study and their findings will not be available until December. So, you will have some early indication around some of those considerations and questions around the bottom up, but based on Act 73, you won't receive that this session. So, anything that would be passed would need to connect back to the findings of the final study. I would note, however, that within Act 73, there's clarity around the parameters for that funding system. Those parameters are also part of the scope work in which general consultants are operating in, So, I think it's being really clear and explicit around those assumptions that have been identified within Act 73, and that overall we look at this as a comprehensive system, that's something that the agency has been really consistent about. We can't continue to have an additive approach, where we continue to have the highest spending in the country and then we add on additional cost or additional programming. The shift in Act 73 is changing the way we deliver education so that our dollars can be more impactful. And so I would encourage you within any legislation and even seeing what we proposed, that there's very clear and specific language around how the bill would connect with the findings from the study and it not being additive, but being considered as part of the overall cost of the system.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We want to make sure we're not creating a big bureaucracy that's further separating us away from K through 12, that we're

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: And the bridge, right? Mean, what are thinking about this being a multi year transition? I'll be really clear around what that looks like and the transition.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Right, and then how do we move away from ESA if and when, and hopefully we do, get to these regional integrated systems, and then how do we move away from ESA model when those come online? That's right.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Within the new funding formula, there would be the expectation that on a regular basis, I believe it's five years, there's an evaluation around that funding formula and delivering on the intended outcomes. That should be part of our process in our review. I would suggest that the evaluation of the CTE ESA be included as part of that evaluation. If it continues to serve the goals of the state in terms of its CTE, then you may not want to make any changes. However, if there is a thought around that being better served within the larger districts that are now established and we have our regional high schools starting to come into play, then that's where we can make that transition. Absolutely. So I'm curious, and I'm sure you've explained this before, but I think I did it again. How does the ESA interact with the school's strengths? So the ESA would be responsible for the delivery of career and technical education, so they're expected to ensure that there's a high quality of CTE. Because that is structured within statute, the districts and the ESAs are naturally coordinating, and part of the way we're organizing the staffing is clarifying the ways in which that engagement is happening. For those programs that are operated at the Texas Center, the ESA is overseeing them, and we've noted within the staffing model they're still receiving their district from the sending school. And then in terms of expanding some of these opportunities further, there's the expectation that middle school is participating in early exposure, there's the expectation that those districts are coordinating with CTE around the alignment of the programming and the quality of the training, and that the ESA staff to provide both that curriculum and the training support. So, becomes an expectation for how we're delivering our overall education system. We can review specifically if there may need to be some updates to our education quality standards to further clarify that, and I do think some of the modernization of the rule making would help to make even more explicit what that relationship

[Unidentified Member (addressing Chair "Michael")]: would say. Michael. I'm going to go rogue, and I'm going throw it out, so I appreciate leeway. I'm just going to throw it into the ethosphere so it's there. I think that we should take high schools nine through 12, merge them all into one district with the CTEs, allow the ESAs to control that and leave the smaller schools alone and implement a foundation formula and then remove all the articles of agreement and have a set articles of agreement that AOE sets up and then they can all merge. I've thrown it out there and I just feel really good about that. Shove it off my chest. You can agree with me because I'm

[Speaker 0]: right and I know. It. Or you can let it lie because it wasn't a question.

[Unidentified Member (addressing Chair "Michael")]: Correct. But

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I will I will

[Unidentified Member (addressing Chair "Michael")]: back it up. What do you think about that?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: So initially, I think the continuum is really important. So we're trying to create a coordinated pre K-twelve system and ensuring that we're strategically aligning and establishing those stackable credentials and expectations throughout the system. What we find right now is given that there is variability with those expectations within our K-twelve system, some students are entering the CTE center not ready, or they haven't established the prerequisites. And we hear that from CTE directors that they can tell from which programs or schools students are coming from the tech center because of the level of time they need. So, would want to ensure, and that happens for high school and elementary to middle school. And so, as we're thinking about strengthening our overall system, we are looking for that full continuum. So separating high school and career technical from the Pre K-eight system would give me pause in ensuring that we can have the alignment. And then there's all sorts of other questions just around aggregate thinking through the different. Ultimately, how the funding works is important. There are very specific assumptions built into the funding model based on evidence and data that would need to be explored if there's a need for shift in how we're doing the modeling. The modeling is assuming operating districts from 3K-twelve.

[Unidentified Member (addressing Chair "Michael")]: Would a standardized curriculum set by AOE help that transition from the different schools?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Certainly governance is not the solution for all of governance is not alone, fully strengthen our system. Governance is really a way for us to best resource the system and support coherence. But there's other clear expectations and support that comes from the state to ensure that there's that continuity. And if the legislature is interested in exploring different mechanisms for the agency to review and to curriculum that that's a different direction than we've been on as a state, that's largely been a local decision. However, I would say some of the movement with Act 139 around letter C is getting real clarity around peer reviews and you have to use screeners and those screeners have to meet this criteria and the agency is the responsible party for evaluating that criteria and publishing what is approved. So, we're moving in that direction as a state of having much clearer expectations. And you'll see from the agency in the next few weeks, really sharing some of the review and vetting that we've done for curriculum and high quality instructional material, to make sure that it's evidence based and aligned with the intent of certain laws in Vermont around elevating performance. And I was at a state chief's conference earlier, this is kind of like a shift in the country, do you allow that all to be localized, do you allow that all to be more standardized at the state level, and the pendulum has swung back and forth. So anything that I would put forward always has to be pragmatic, and so we believe that it is well served for the agency to be that arm of doing the review and evaluation, because we should be staffed and resourced to do that, it's a critical function. We also need to build in a process for the field to identify and request that certain other reviews happen, I've identified this curriculum that I think would be really valuable for my students, can this be reviewed as part of the agency's process? Because the question is, lot of states are relying on research partners that are national and putting this forward, and there's always that question that they get around, right? And so, this isn't a one and done ever, when we are recommending curriculum and high quality instruction materials, we see this as really something to evolve. So we are going be putting forward some clear expectations, and then we're going to evaluate how the implementation of that curriculum and high quality instruction materials is yielding the desired improvement, and if it's not, then we have to ask questions around the stability implementation issue, or is it an issue that maybe this really isn't aligned with the best practices that we've outlined and we need to review something further. So I get excited about this work, and it is actually core to where we're headed as a state and really having this partnership, and just speaks to the fact that when we're talking about education transformation, it continues to do about quality funding and governance altogether.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, so I'm gonna get to the much narrower issue than the big ones. Sure. Okay, and it seems to be that one of the things that might be, you could do quickly as opposed to, you know, some of these other things that might get bigger and might take a little more time is to deal with some of the issues around waiting lists and capacities in other other centers. So I don't know whether you have any specific recommendations around that, but it just seems to be kind of a low hanging fruit in order to try to gain access for students who like to pursue CTE, so I'd be interested in knowing what we can do now to deal with that issue. Right.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: This was a question that came up last legislative session, and there was some movement that the general assembly made to strengthening some practices of sharing student information across the tech center so that that part is not a barrier. I think there's also the question around early exposure. Are students aware of these opportunities? And then there is a question around quality. Students and parents are enrolling in programs that they perceive to be high quality. So as we think about the overall system, there's opportunity to evaluate where are students not enrolling, what are some opportunities where we can strengthen those programs, and sometimes it's actually strengthening the program quality, and sometimes it's around communication around what the program actually entails. So I would say that that's something that tech centers and the AAE can be doing now, to really critically examine where we have under involvement, and we need to be asking those questions around those the right programs to offer. Are those programs appealing to students so that they are

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, I'd want to zero in maybe just to flag for your attention that some of the issues that have come up have to do with how to get students from one place to another. If you have a a center that has waiting lists, which kinda end of capacity, but there's someone next. There's a center up the road that that has plenty of capacity. There seems to be some friction between different entities that might not be a magic solution, but certainly would help. If those frictions were resolved, it would help more students get access to CTE. So I would love to see some thought and suggestions about how do we solve that problem this year, if possible.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: And are your thoughts in terms of barriers largely around transportation or around differences in cost of systems?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I can't tell you that I know all the I think transportation has come up. I think also communications and collaboration issues have been raised at time and how do you need those things? That's why I'm passing it.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: And I would also share, Ruth Durkey was unable to in this as a state director of CTE, I can relay that question back to her around the efforts that are already under the aid to strengthen, along with other members of our team. And you're raising a good point, right? When we're talking about these policies changes, they take time in order to really achieve the intended outcome, and we recognize that there are immediate and pressing challenges that we have to respond to and be agile to within our current circumstances. We also, as part of our strategic planning process, have identified college and career readiness as a pillar, and we have the steering committee that's working with us to really define the goals within those areas, and as part of defining the goals, really challenging ourselves to identify what the problem is. So within that problem statement, we're looking at what's not working well in the system, along with where are we seeing things working very well that we have to amplify. So, we in this effort do need to have partnership with the field, defining the problems and the solutions. And within our strategic planning process, we're saying we have to toggle between a long term plan, three to five years out, and really being immediate around what are some things that can actually be coming close now. So, the work around that, I'm really excited to be involved in that, I helped to facilitate that particular standard group earlier this week, And that's helping us to be more refined, and that I believe that there's some really specific activities that my team can share more about that's underway now.

[Speaker 0]: Don't think that my question has an answer today. So this is the

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: food for thought. Appreciate that about your questions. When

[Speaker 0]: in my mind I have this idea of fixing CTE so that we have better access, it includes adult CTE. And I'm wondering, it doesn't have a home. It doesn't have a home yet in this plan. And I'm wondering if there has been where it does get the outflows. So like I said, not an answer for today,

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: but just food for thought. I do think it's an area we should have further exploration. Would say, in coordinating with the Vermont Department of Labor, we do see adult CTE fitting within the ESA, and having a home in the ESA. I think the more pointed question is around the funding and the different opportunities to support with expanding adult participation beyond the existing scholarships that are available, and Department of Labor can explain more on that.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's going to be the interesting, how do we make sure each CTE center has an adult director? Because I think we found that the CTE centers now that have adult directors are doing much better than the CTE centers that don't have one or a prior time. So how can we provide that within the context of the ESA?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Right. And in my experience, I'm familiar with different models where it's actually co located, where adults and high school students are starting courses together, then in some cases, program may be offered after hours or weekends, an alternate schedule because of work demands. So you're right, that coordination is really important, so you're understanding the needs of the adults you're serving and that the programming is flexible enough to address those needs. And some of

[Speaker 0]: our adults are 16, 17, 18, 19, right?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And there's some adults that really shouldn't be with students either. Any other questions?

[Speaker 0]: Emily? I was curious about the You were talking about the rigor, and I was curious about the course completion rates. I also heard reports of students entering into CTE programs not completely changed the goal that the system and the programs have for them. I

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: don't have that data with me today. I can take that as a follow-up. We did provide a recent report around completion rates for other flexible pathways including dual enrollment, early college and fast forward. So fast forward is actually a program that is coordinated with CTE, so there's some interesting data there for you. What we are seeing is there's greater health parity in terms of participation rates for our students that are economically disadvantaged in the Fast Forward program. So, we did touch a little bit on inflation rates, but that's a subset. And I think your question to all of them have to go back. But yeah, completion rates are important, right? So when we talk about access, we also want to make sure that they're ready to partake in the course and to do well in the course, right? So I really value bringing that up.

[Speaker 0]: And the other question in relationship to that is if a student does go into a program and finding that it's not working out, are we thinking about building a moveability for them to be able to, I mean, we don't want them to happen all over everywhere.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: So one of the things we've talked about within our graduation requirements is really ensuring that there's consistency of rigor and equity across the state, and really leaning into Act 77 and allowing for that deepening of learning. And so, there's a lot of thought around what does that look like in terms of students being able to graduate with a seal of area of specialization, for example. And that might involve taking a compilation of different classes, AP classes that are special, right, altogether. So, I think that's a movement that we're headed in, which allows for that flexibility, because there are students that are interested in multi faceted, and we want them, we want to encourage them to be able to take academic courses as well, and be interdisciplinary.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Questions? Thank you, Zoe. Thank you for having me. I see our next discussion. We'll invite JFO in to have those preliminary discussions on funding, which can help us decide what direction we're gonna go.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: I'll make sure I'm supporting my team that's working closely with General to debrief them on this conversation that we've had, what we've looked at to date, recognizing that they are doing separate modeling. It would be important for us to close looking to understand.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Maybe when we invite them, we invite your

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: We'd be happy to.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: As well so that we can

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: You need to all stay informed.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yes. Absolutely. Okay. We'll see what their timeline is and when they'd be ready to give us something, and then we'll invite you back and have those discussions. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Erin?

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: You're welcome.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you. Erin, did you wanna weigh in on anything? Hi, Erin.

[Erin (organization unspecified)]: Hold on one second. My camera's not coming on. I I honestly first, I I, you know, I appreciate secretary Saunders' level of detail here. There are some components here that it was helpful to hear, And I'm looking forward to parsing through the testimony a little bit as it adds context to some of the discussion that's already been had. Think the thing that I will say on behalf of at the moment is that we continue to be aligned on many of the goals that the agency has in terms of expanding access and opportunity for our students. We are invested in finding the right pathways for those things to happen. We do as an organization have a level of caution around major governance changes right now. That's not to say that we are fully against it in the future. But I think having more conversation around this as these levels as this detail kinda gets flushed out is really helpful. And we're we're open to the continued conversation. So that's outside of of your own questions. I I'm that's all I have.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great. Thank

[Speaker 0]: you you. For your leadership.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We'll continue to have discussions, continue to invite back then when we're having these discussions as well as AOE and when we get JFO in here, Eric, we'll invite you as well. Great.

[Erin (organization unspecified)]: Thank you.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And I'll be on the same page. Great.

[Zoe Saunders, Secretary of Education]: Thank you so much.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you. Well, committee, I think that's it for our day. We're on Floor 1. Have a wonderful day on the floor today.

[Speaker 0]: Good Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well, right now, Ann has us getting done at seven, so let's hope she's correct. Yes. Yes. Yes. So with that, if there's some questions, committee,