Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Thursday, 04/16/2026 at 10:20 in the morning. We've just been conducting a nice hearing on Tourism Day, and back in committee with me now to have further discussions on S-three 13, which is Peer Technical Education bill. Our legislative council with us, had the same thing. Was, Good morning, Beth. How are you this fine morning?

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll see that for off work. Do have this nice sticker on my water bottle. It is a dumpster fire. Everything is under control, so don't worry. Under control.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: Do you have the pen?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It's my life that have accessories for a long person.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: My computer is not letting me sign it. I'm here, but I'm not open there.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: Just remote to that, the finest steel is forged in the dumpster fire.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: That is true.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Like a J. R. R. Tolkien thing?

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Did you not read the thing?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I don't recall, obviously, your being with a different plan.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: And I didn't mean to add this is more just like, this is not a comment on any of

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: your policy choices or your homework.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: This is more just I'm very tired. Have to make sure.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: It's okay. I will say

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: that it's about our policy choices.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: I realized that that was perhaps not the most professional sticker to highlight. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: They're there. Do grow up.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: Filter is gone.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Can go off eventually. As

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: a contributor to your stress, I

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: Nope, I love all my people.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Some of them are in a secure old range, but Okay.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: I do have a few drafts for you today. Assume that's what we're walking through.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Two to one.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: Is the draft one?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: No, I said two one.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: Two one, yes, 2.1. Okay,

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: so draft 2.1 of your

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: strike all amendment to S313. The first change you will see from

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: draft Are you able to share?

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, of course. Thank you.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: First change you will see So changes are highlighted in yellow. I did not highlight everything in section one in yellow because that, I think, would give me a headache. So I've just highlighted the section heading. And you'll see that I have inserted the findings and the intent language from S313 as passed by the Senate. We've made no changes.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: As we develop section three, we'll have to, I think, walk through those again to make sure they reflect what we're doing in the rest of the bill.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: Absolutely. So section three is only highlighted because it used to be section one. And I do not make any changes to the rulemaking section. I've added a new section here, section four. And I think this could definitely use some work. So agency of education recommendations, licensing of CTE educators, enforcement intervention pathway report. So on or before January 15, the agency in collaboration with the Standards Board for Professional Educators shall submit a written report to the House Committees on Commerce and Economic Development and on Education, the Senate Committees on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs and on Education with recommendations for the following: CTE educator endorsement requirements that will balance the need for increased access to CTE educators with industry expertise and experience with the need for ensuring CTE educators are qualified to provide education in their specialty fields. Such recommendations shall include both necessary statutory changes, as well as recommended changes to applicable state board education rules. Is that what you were hoping for? Okay. Then the second piece of this report is requiring recommendations for a pre enforcement intervention pathway that is responsible for supporting the interpretation and implementation of CTE rules and statute, providing early state mediation between CTE centers and sending districts, documenting patterns of noncompliance or systemic barriers and escalating unresolved or repeated issues for formal enforcement. So this is all coming back to you next year's recommendations. Section five is the requirement that the CTE goals are updated, are reviewed and updated not less than every five years. No changes there. Section six, I did make one change here. This is the definition for comprehensive high school. This language used to say that a comprehensive high school would be a school that fully integrates the vision of CTE with the provision of interpretation in one school building or on one school campus with a single funding source is what I had in there. And that felt dangerous upon further reflection because you've got lots of different funding sources. You've got federal funding and that's going to be different for CTE and general education, etcetera. So we're just going to go with single budget.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: No

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: change to the legacy comprehensive high school language. No change to Section eight requiring school districts to honor the credits students earn from the CTE program. And then some changes to your legislative working group. So membership has not changed. What the working group is supposed to be issuing recommendations on through the form of legislation. So the first subdivision was about a transition plan. And so we want that transition plan. We also want on lines fifteen and sixteen of page 11, if there is a recommendation to change the governance models during that transition, what are the costs and sources of funding associated with such a transition? Then asking for recommendations on how to fund and integrate adult career technical education into the education system in a way that allows for robust programmatic offerings open to all adults. This was a typo previously, said learning names, so now to learn nurse without a high school diploma. And I've added JFO to the group of legislative offices that would provide this working group with assistance. And no other changes. Section 10 is just highlighted because I moved all of the section numbers down.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Questions for that at this point? As you're talking about just the highlighted changes, did transition and transportation get fixed? No, no. It's a good call. Page five, line one.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: There's a Gremlin that's going to change it back, I'm pretty sure, but I will. I'll try. I don't know how else to explain. Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I did have one question on the bottom of page six. When we're talking about the endorsement requirements to balance the need for CTE educators, I have concerns that the language will be interpreted as making it more stringent. And I wanna make sure that we have something in there that it may not be more stringent than what we have today. And so something about, we have found the need for increased access. I don't know if there's something more that we can put in there.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: I think this language could definitely be used for shopping. I literally came up with this on my own. So I think you've identified a great place to spend some time to get the language right.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: And

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm happy to do that either in committee or offline.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Because you have nothing else going on today. Do it offline?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Again, we'll schedule some time with you, see what we can do, and then turn it back to the committee. Other questions from that at this point? We will let you go to I'm sure somebody's looking for you by this time.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Thanks, Ben. Thank you very much, Ben. If anything comes up and the further testimony you're taking and you'd like me to review the testimony and make changes, please just let me know. Happy to do that.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great. Thank you

[Unidentified Committee Member]: for You're welcome.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Provide you with a fire extinguisher. Eric. Good morning. How's everyone? Good and you? Good, thanks.

[Eric (CTE Directors’ representative, VACTED)]: I can talk later. It's fine.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It's all in there, Ed. It's all fine. Yeah. That's good. Thank you.

[Eric (CTE Directors’ representative, VACTED)]: So I I don't bring any formal testimony here. I I want to just say that I appreciate the direction of the bill and how it's been how it's moved forward, particularly on the focus on strengthening our current systems through rulemaking while taking time to thoughtfully consider longer term governance. You know, in the end, our goal is to expand access while maintaining the quality, safety and breadth of CTE programs across the state. You know, as we are in this sort of transitional period between where we are now and where system wants to go eventually. So I'm here today to engage in conversation around S313, answer questions in relation to as a practitioner in relation to the bill itself and go from there.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. I guess, you know what, I think what we'd like to know from the director's perspective is, are we on the right track? Are there things that are missing within the language that we need to add in or clarify? I think those are the types of things that that Yeah. We're probably looking for from you all.

[Eric (CTE Directors’ representative, VACTED)]: Sure. Sure. Know, I I can I can kinda walk through, you know, what I see in the bill right now, and And I'm sure there are others that are willing to jump in here? Know I see the SBA is here with us. So first of all, we really appreciate the piece about rural modernization. The areas that have been outlined in terms of rural modernization are the areas that has identified as places that could improve our operations across the state. We're talking about program definitions, credentials, embedded academics, of those things are important areas to be modernized. Obviously, we want to be a part of that conversation at the state board level. The directors would want to be there as well as representatives potentially from the school board association and the superintendent association to make sure that we're all on the same page. But I think that section works really well. In terms of credit recognition, this is a large conversation around the state right now in terms of CTE credits towards graduation, particularly embedded academic credits are valued and are then are transcripted by transcripted by sending schools. There are instances around the state where there is some significant pushback as to whether an embedded CTE math credit is accepted by sending school towards their own graduation requirements. I think this helps make that clear that it needs to be. But there's also, I think, continued work that needs to be done that we are willing to engage with the agency in terms of articulating what proficiencies, math standards or English standards or what have you, are explicitly being taught in our programs statewide. So, you know, we've got these statewide graduation requirements that are at the state right now. We feel as though we can continue to gauge in ongoing conversation at that level about being able to articulate clear proficiencies and standards for our CTE programs so that there isn't maybe as much hesitation coming from sending schools around whether or not they feel as though the embedded math credits are reflective of true math learning in their facilities. In the end, you know, we are, as CTE directors in schools, we are accredited bodies and institutions. We are licensed teachers and directors and that sort of thing and feel as though that, you know, when we say that we have gone through our syllabus and program of studies for our programs, that we are confident that we are giving students the skills that they need, academic or otherwise, towards graduation. But we also understand that, you know, perhaps more articulation across the board might be necessary, and that's work that we're continuing and willing to do. So the credit recognition piece is really supportive. The idea that the bill reflects our system quality through flexibility, meaning that we have different models that operate across the state based on the circumstances of our regions is important to articulate, and this bill has done that. So we appreciate that. I think the place where our organization, and I literally just got out of our directors association meeting to come to this and there was some question and this bill doesn't necessarily say that we appreciate the definition of a comprehensive high school in the bill. I think that the signal that this is a direction that's being explored is important, not necessarily a decision right now that's being made. Because the CTE directors really want to be a part of the conversation as this definition of what a comprehensive high school is, is explored over time. We recognize that comprehensive high schools are part of the discussion across the legislature right now when it comes to education. And, you know, I think the directors would ask, you know, what problem are we attempting to solve through comprehensive high schools? So there I think there's a lot more thought that needs to go into what a comprehensive high school does. Is a comprehensive high school different than a comprehensive technical high school, which is some of the modeling that, you know, you may hear coming out of places like Massachusetts where it is far more specifically tailored STEM based sort of model. But the more we're part of that conversation to ask questions and flesh out the idea of what these high schools, these regional high schools would look like, I think is important. So we just ask to continue to be at the table and a part of that conversation. Just as much as we'd want to be continue to be a part of the governance working group as ideas are kicked out around what model we are moving towards, whether it be that regional comprehensive high school or something different. The places that, and I'm working off of the bill that was introduced last week, the new language that came out today we can also talk about. But one thing that I didn't we have not seen in this bill is funding solutions. And we get that, you know, this is probably not the time for us to get to a really critical shift in funding. The foundation formula is likely going to be pushed back out a little bit and not really implemented until 3031 based on some of the numbers in H955. You know, but there are a couple of or at least one simple win that I would advocate for in terms of our current funding model, wouldn't shift drastically. Right now, the formula for how Career and Technical Education receives state grant funding to operate our schools is based on what's known as a six semester rolling average. So we identify the FTEs in our centers as that average of six semesters over the last three years, which softens our enrollment ebbs and flows so that we don't have drastic changes or reductions in the amount of state aid coming to our centers, which offsets tuition that we bill to schools. And it's that tuition that we bill to schools that ends up being that point of contention as sometimes that tuition is kind of a bitter pill to swallow. So the one thing that we would recommend in that space is to keep the sixth semester average, but make it the sixth semester average or current enrollment, whichever is higher. And that, I think, would help buffer some of the continue to buffer the changes in enrollments that sometimes we see in certain centers. And then outside of that, I just obviously was listening as Beth St. James talked a little bit about the new language that's in this version of the bill, specifically thinking about the licensure piece. And you know, I'm just curious myself in speaking with the committee here as to what problems in terms of licensure that language is intended to solve. I kind of want to get a better sense of if there's anecdotal sort of evidence of teachers that are not or instructors that are not being licensed right now that this is intended to help cure?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think it's intended to help you all be able to find the instructors that you need to Absolutely. Teach the kids. So that's that's that's the purpose of us putting that issue. Take a look at that and how do we do that.

[Eric (CTE Directors’ representative, VACTED)]: And I and and I appreciate that. Right now, our instructors not all instructors have to have things like a bachelor's degree in order to teach in our programs. There's only certain programs that require that right now.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And

[Eric (CTE Directors’ representative, VACTED)]: I would say one of the bigger barriers towards getting and luring folks out of industry into our programs is salary more so than anything. But I absolutely appreciate the support in terms of the licensing piece and willing to engage with you further in that conversation.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. So I guess, you know, I think take a look at the language there and see if there's things that we're missing in there or different ways that we can engage. And also, when we're looking at sections one and two of the findings and should be legislative intent, I think we need to narrow it down so it follows this bill. And if that's something you could, you know, the fact that can take a look at and make recommendations to us, would that be helpful?

[Eric (CTE Directors’ representative, VACTED)]: Absolutely.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great. Any questions for Eric? We have Jay that has a hard stop at eleven. So no questions. Jay will take you, and then Chelsea will have you after Jay. Thank you, Eric. Sure thing. Morning, Jay. Good morning.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: Jay Ramsey, director of workforce development at the Department of Labor. Thanks for letting me go next. I was able to follow along with legislative council's review of the bill. I think I would make on behalf of the Department of Labor a couple of comments. We appreciate seeing that adult CTE is mentioned in here as an important part of the system that we need to attend to kind of collectively. As I followed along and I read along, there are a couple of places where it seems like the Department of Labor could be mentioned as an important partner or participant in whatever these processes are as it relates to the State Board of Education updating rules or as it relates to the work that the General Assembly and the Agency of Education are going to take on. So I just want to make sure that we have a role to play. We have a perspective. CTE is a bridge between the education system and the public workforce development system and employment. And we want to make sure that there's some awareness and alignment with both systems and not just primarily with the education system, though that is important. We need to get students to graduate high school and enter the workforce. So I just wanna make sure there's a a little bit of a balance there. The other maybe substantive thing that I would say is about the order of operations. So as I read through the language, it seems to be directing the State Board of Education to take on this rulemaking to essentially change the system while at the same time directing the agency of education and working with the general assembly to also take on a big effort to change the system. And I found myself wondering whether it made sense to have the State Board of Education engage in some tactical rule changes. The directors have signaled a number of things that could be remedied relatively easily that would address some of their concerns. I'm saying this just recognizing that the members of the State Board of Education are citizens, they're serving their terms, and if they're going to engage in an entire rule rewrite and then in a couple of years, someone else is going to need to do something similar. Is that the the best use of those volunteer board members essentially. And so just a suggestion to have the state board of education do some tactical rule changes that address the concerns of CTE directors around transportation and some of the other things in your intent language while the agency and the general assembly are working through the broader processes. And then I'm gonna go to specifically on page five there under section three related to the rulemaking that while, yes, I'm here talking to you about workforce development, but the Department of Labor has other regulatory roles that I think need to be involved in this process, specifically, and our wage and hour division around some of the child labor laws. So when I think when the rules were originally written, there was a committee that involved the Department of Labor and Industry and the Department of Education working through what some of those rules are about what we can what the federal and state laws allow children to do. So there's a little bit of a partnership role there where the the Department of Labor would need to advise on whatever the rules end up being. Right. And I think that I'm sorry. The last remark that I would make is in section four with the intent to examine the CTE educator licensing process. We're using registered apprenticeship to prepare teachers in other academic areas. It is possible to use registered apprenticeship to prepare CTE teachers. It would be inappropriate model, especially as we're trying to make sure teachers understand how registered apprenticeship works. So I would just suggest that there might be some language that could be added to explore the use of apprenticeship as a preparatory method for CTE teachers.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. I think I believe in the section three, the changing of those, looking at those rules were, those are recommendations that were brought to us by BACTIV. I think they're not, I don't think it's a full deep dive into the rule changes yet. I think this is what they see as their needs for immediate consideration that will help them while we still continue to figure out what the system's going to be. So that our intent is not to put more strain on the board at this point. But I think what we heard what we've heard from from Baghdad is that these are these are changes that will help them immediately and and down the road, whatever changes need to be made. I think, you know, we agree with your your assessment that we don't wanna do a really deep dive into rule changing changes yet until we have an idea of what the system is going to be.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: Okay. Maybe just one word change there would address it in the section three a. It says the State Board of Education shall engage in a comprehensive update. And maybe if you change it from comprehensive to tactical or some word that is saying it's a limited set of areas that they're supposed to be looking at Okay. That that would probably communicate desire to not change the whole system.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Makes sense. And we'll certainly add Department of Labor. We agree beside you and I think the committee will too, Department of Labor needs to be part of that discussion as well.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Any questions for Jay?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just one, I appreciate the call out on the apprenticeship program to get CTE instructors. Are there any today? Is that a pathway that we have today? Or would this be a new opportunity?

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: I think the existing pathway could be slightly modified to have it be registered with us. It has all of the components of a registered apprenticeship. Just does not the technical education teacher as an occupation has not been registered with us. That's something we can work with the agency of education on. But it's it's the apprenticeship program is tied to specific kinds of teachers and specific roles. So technical education is one. The way that I've understood the teacher prep path for CTE teachers kind of checks all the boxes. So it it could be I won't commit to the word easily, but it is relatively simple for us to register that as an occupation and then have it work in a similar way to the existing teacher apprenticeship programs.

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Anything else for Jay?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I do have one. So when we're talking about adult tech, I understand that some of those adults are still minors, right, because of the way the language works. But once they are adults in adult tech, they have different rules that they can follow, have to follow. And is this something that the state board makes rules on both of those categories? How complex is that?

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: They're putting on a previous hat that I used to wear.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: There are no maybe I should say there are a limited set, maybe four specific rules from the state board that guide the adult technical education program. It's generally intended and there's a couple of areas in statute in title 16. It is generally intended for people who have graduated high school and who are trying to upscale or reskill, and it's intended to be a system that's driven by business need and industry need in the area that the tech centers serve. The system, as we've been discussing for the last couple of years, has not been well supported from a financial standpoint and therefore doesn't function the same way in all areas of the of the state just due to capacity and due to the way the the funding for that position works. So many of those coordinators split split their time between secondary students and the adults, but the the needs are greater in the secondary system, and so they spend most of their time in that area. The the other component of this is that the adult CTE programs are, from our perspective at the Department of Labor training programs, training providers. And so there, we are we, the department, the public workforce system are sending individuals to participate in the courses, the trainings that are offered, we are vouchering people and the tuition that that they need to pay. So if you are an adult CTE program and you're offering manufacturing training and you have 10 seats, one of those seats might be a voucher, two of those seats might be paid by the business that you're working with, and the rest might be paid for by VSAC grant or a scholarship or the person is paying for it themselves. And so you can hear from that mix that it's very challenging to figure out how to fund that in a sustainable way. So those are some of the challenges. There's not a lot of rules, just back to your question, there are not a lot of rules that govern the adult CTE part of the tech centers.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And should therapy? Like, that's really where I struggle.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: I think there should be more rules than there are. But I would worry about over regulating that part of the system where we want it to be nimble and flexible, and it needs to be predictable, at least from the perspective of the public workforce system. And so it's how to find that balance. And with that balance comes what is the state's commitment to the system going to be? And how are we going to ensure sustainable funding in an equitable way across the state? And is it 17 centers having an adult CTE coordinator, or is it some other structure that recognizes adults will travel to training? And I think the staffing of the system is a place for us to start the stability conversation.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. So the Department of Labor's input into rulemaking is around not adult tech and around the rules for child labor and things like that, which you already mentioned. I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on Yes. That's helpful. Thank you.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Any other questions for Jay? Great. Thank you, Jay.

[Jay Ramsey (Director of Workforce Development, VT Department of Labor)]: Thank you all. Have a good day.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Chelsea, you too. Good morning.

[Chelsea Myers (Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association)]: Good morning. My name is Chelsea Myers. I'm the executive director of the Vermont Superintendent's Association. I do apologize in advance. As soon as I am done with my testimony and the questions, I'll have to run to a meeting on Medicaid. So totally different subject, but also important. So thank you for your work on this this draft. I understand the purpose of the amendment is to keep the intent reflected in s three thirteen as passed by the Senate while incorporating some of the priorities brought forth by VACTED. As you know, the challenges facing public education are increasingly complex. VSA does have a strong interest in the vitality and viability of career and technical education as a core component of Vermont's education system. The work underway to better integrate CTE into the broader delivery system, advancing effectiveness, efficiency and equity is both important and timely. As the general assembly, state agencies and school districts consider broader systems changes, it is essential that CTE is fully included in this work, as you all know very well. With respect to draft 2.1, section one and two, VSA supports the intent expressed by the Senate as indicated in the Senate passed version of S313. Though we do have questions about how to operationalize each piece within the education transformation environment at an efficient and affordable cost for monitors. And the comments by the chair resonated with me specifically that potentially kind of narrowing down the intent and scope of this work to align with what you are effectively doing in the rest of the proposed legislation, I think, is a great idea. Section three, the VSA supports directing the State Board of Education to undertake comprehensive update of the agency of education's rules with a focus on the areas identified in the draft. This work addresses critical issues that VACTED have been asking asking for for quite some time. And as a reminder, there are a number of VACTED members that are also our members. We also export support the explicit inclusion of VACDAT and VSA as collaborating organizations. And in addition, we support requiring that proposed rules be shared with the relevant legislative committees prior to filing. This is a prudent step that allows for alignment with legislative intent, given the importance of this work. I think that also speaks to what Jay was just talking about, is that check back might be particularly helpful around the rulemaking to make it sure it aligns with the movement that is happening in the General Assembly. Section four, we support requesting a report from the Agency of Education and the Standards Board for Professional Educators on the licensing of CTE educators. Again, agree wholeheartedly with Eric's comments that what we're hearing is a lot of it has to do with salary, but also something that I had a conversation with a couple of tech directors the other day was about the pipeline and potentially having further conversations with higher education on how they might support that the workforce development in that arena. I don't know that that's anything that the general assembly needs to act on, but I personally will be trying to work with my membership and bring VACTED in to have conversations with higher ed to see if there's a space for that work. We acknowledge that the topic of pre enforcement interventions in section four is an area of interest, but don't understand why it is in the section connected to the standards boards and educator licensing. It likely should not live with that particular group. And so I don't, I would recommend moving that either to a different section or to clarify the intent of who is going to take on investigating pre enforcement interventions and who's responsible for that. Section five, requiring the state board to review and update CTE rules every five years is reasonable, but it might be helpful to clarify in statute that updates are not required if upon review the rules remain current and effective. As you know, rulemaking is a very lengthy process. And if they review and decide, determine that they are in alignment, probably no reason or cause to update them. Section six, regarding the proposed changes to the definition of comprehensive high schools, we have a lot of questions about that, but they very much echo what Eric said in his testimony. I would just add that the other complexity around comprehensive high schools is how they would be funded within the foundation formula. So more generally, what is the current view of how comprehensive high schools function now and what is the desired future state? And then within that context, we would be happy to help inform our feedback or happy to inform the definition based on the answers to what the context is within the broader reform efforts. Section eight, VSA understands and supports the intent to require sending high schools to award credit for student learning in state board approved CTE programs, it is very important to align this work with the state board's ongoing work on statewide graduation requirements. In recent testimony to the State Board of Education Subcommittee, we noted that there was a need for stronger alignment with best practices and greater continuity of learning for CTE students. Eric summarized our comments on that pretty nicely. The proficiency conversation and the competencies that are achieved that align with credits is a larger one and not exclusive to CTEs. And we're very supportive of continuing that conversation in the state board work. And my members are particularly enthusiastic of the potential that that conversation is going to have for the delivery system and the quality of education for our state. And then section nine, and so I guess the only recommended recommendation there is to allow for the state board to kinda do its work on that. I think they're gonna take a very comprehensive approach to looking at kind of the alignment of proficiencies and defining proficiencies and what they mean when thinking about our current credit. Current definition of credit and then section nine, we support the establishment of the governance study committee and the change the charge to develop recommendations to transform Vermont CTE governance system. And then more generally, just thankful for the committee's work on this and happy to be helpful in any way that we can moving forward. That was a lot, very fast. I apologize, but you do have it in writing too, so.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great. Any questions for Chelsea?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just have one quick thing. When we talk about credits or proficiencies, I just I I will go back through our bill and make sure that we use those words together each time, because I know that in some, you know, I don't know how the new requirements for graduation are going to actually sugar out, but I know that there are a lot of schools that have modified their graduation requirements to proficiencies that work really well for those schools and students. And I would hate to lose something that is so effective. And so I just want to make sure that that's what you were saying and not

[Chelsea Myers (Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association)]: Yes, we're very supportive if you would adjust that language. And really what this boils down to is assigning meaning to what people, what kids are learning. And so being a little bit more broad to ensure that that work can be comprehensive and future focused and aligned with our current policy environment, that would be really useful. So thank you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Chelsea. Chelsea, I know Jay had mentioned that, you know, in section three, calling it a comprehensive update and maybe changing that to a tactical update. But I guess the way I'm looking at it is that we're looking for a comprehensive update of of the eight the seven parts of the rules that we wanna see taken care of. It's not we're not asking for a full comprehensive update of all the rules, but just the ones that we're providing here. So I'm not sure that I tend to agree, I don't what are your thought?

[Chelsea Myers (Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association)]: I would definitely defer to Eric on this. Generally speaking, I know it's been an area that VACTED and the members that I serve that serve CTE centers have been particularly interested in. And so I would hate to delay any effort to modernize those rules. So I'll let Eric determine what the appropriate word might be for that. But we are very supportive of making sure that those rules are updated because this the larger the broader transformation efforts are gonna take some time, and we're we're far overdue for this this work. So Right. I'll defer to Eric, though, on the particular word choice.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. Any other questions for Chelsea? Thank you for joining us this morning.

[Chelsea Myers (Executive Director, Vermont Superintendents Association)]: Thank you. Appreciate it. Happy to help in future drafts as well.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you. We appreciate that. Chair Samuelson. Good morning.

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: Good morning, everyone.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think this is the first time I think we've had anyone from the State Board of Education testify in our committee.

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: It is, and I apologize too that I'm not there in person. I was up in Burlington yesterday because we had our monthly State Board of Ed meeting, and I've got a bunch of appointments today, so I was happy I could, jam this one in, although I did I didn't realize that 10:15 wasn't exactly 10:15, so I did have to cancel an appointment. Lesson learned. But I'm happy to be with you all today. The record, Jennifer Doug Samuelson. I'm the chair of the, Vermont State Board of Education. And, at the meeting yesterday, I had, shared with my fellow board members, Beth St. James version 1.1, and just asked for board member feedback. So I'm happy to share that with you if that would be helpful. Yes. Great. So basically, Jay Ramsey had pointed to one of these things. We have some practical realities with the State Board of Ed that kind of frame our approach to the work that we are asked to do. So I just want to share that with you. One is, as Jay noted, we are essentially volunteers. We all have day jobs and we fit State Board of Ed work in around that. So what that means is we need to be careful with our time. It also you know, when we're thinking about rulemaking, as the committee knows, once we officially open a rule and engage in formal APA rulemaking, we only have eight months. So what we have done in the past with, EQS and 2,200, which are the rules governing independent schools, is we've done a lot of pre work before we officially open the rule. And so this has been a period of a few months where we meet with stakeholders, and really try to understand the issues and then have a pretty good draft prepared before we officially open the rule, which just makes that eight month time frame a little bit more streamlined, I guess, is the best way to think about it. It would be really, really challenging to open a rule, write the rule in live time, get feedback from the public, incorporate those changes, and get before LCAR within that eight month period, particularly when you're dealing with a rule series that is as voluminous as the CTE rules. So that's another practical reality. A third one is that rulemaking is expensive. Up until this year, we did not have counsel counsel on retainer. And so, in fact, I stood up a CTE rule update committee last year, and attempted to put it out to bid to have counsel help us because up until this current session, we did not have an attorney on retainer. My request to have someone have an attorney was actually denied because we didn't have money in the budget. So I tried to put together a rulemaking update committee and that committee still exists, but we don't have the funding to support that work. As you all probably know, we now do have counsel on retainer and we do have money in the budget, but the money that has been given to the board has been given for very discrete purposes. So Act 73 has charged the board with updating its roles and responsibilities. So we have counsel assisting us with that. She's also assisting us with updates, to both EQS and 2,200 that are going to incorporate class size minimums as well as graduation requirements that will be incorporated into EQS, which is to say, first of all, if we were to open CTE, which I agree is a really good idea, we would need to have funding to allow that work to happen. And the second thing is that if we open up CTE, we do have a bit of a capacity issue because, again, we're volunteers and we already are looking at opening EQS and 2,200 and also dividing up roles and responsibilities. So not to negate the importance of CTE because I will be the first to admit those rules are dreadfully outdated. We would probably need some guidance from the general assembly as to the order in which we should be doing this work because, it's a lot of work. And I you know, it would just be helpful to have that feedback. I'm just trying to think of making sure I I have captured many of the comments that I received from other board members. There are a lot of changes that need to be made to, the CTE rule series. For starters, we still want to open it up, and this was what I was trying to get funding or to get approval to do last year, to incorporate the goals and principles of act one that we have brought into both EQS and 2200. We want to also bring those into the CTE rules so that they are consistent and they're parallel requirements because that seems very important to the board. So there is a lot of work that needs to be done and all of that and and, I mean, the board has been aware that the the general assembly has been debating updates to CTE rules for the past couple of years. There was the, the APA report. We were kind of waiting for that to help guide our work. And so we want to be really efficient about the work that we're doing, and it it is challenging to open a rule series and then reopen the rule series. So we've we've really tried to save our energy so that we're getting the most bang for the buck and, you know, that we have if we have counsel assisting us, that we are not paying twice to open up a rule series. So I just share all of that with you because these are kind of the realities that we're operating under. So I think if we were to reopen the rule series, we would wanna make sure that our work is efficient. We would need assistance from the general assembly to help us prioritize this work in addition to all of the other work that we've been asked to do, and we would need funding to support the work. It costs about 50 to $60,000 to update a rule series. And currently, we don't have that in our budget. So if we were to do this, it would be critical for us to get the funding to support that. I will pause there. I I I did have a question about, and and, again, I I'm looking at the older version from last Thursday from Beth St. James. But, the idea about having the board start to work on updates to the rules, but then come back to this committee with those updates and then make updates in live time. I wasn't sure if the the committee was thinking about this in terms of this being part of the pre filing process or if the committee is contemplating that we would be in the middle of this eight month APA rulemaking process, we're suddenly we're coming back to the legislature for feedback in the middle of that eight month period. And I I do have concerns about that, which I can get into, but I wasn't sure if I was interpreting this intent correctly.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think the the intent is to make sure that make sure that the rules that are contemplated or the changes that are made conform to what we were asking for?

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: So I think, you know, the the way the board has received directives from the general assembly and other situations is, I'm just trying to think of a good example, with act one, or or with class size minimums. I mean, that that's a pretty recent example, where act 73, had class size minimums really written into the language of the act itself. And then it's incumbent upon the board to take that language and translate it into rules. And so there's a pretty clear directive. And I would say, my understanding of the way rule making works is that you guys are the legislative body. You delegate to the state board as an executive body to engage in that rule making. But once you give us that delegation, I have concerns about separation of powers of having us come back to the legislature sort of live stream. And I would say, we do have to go back before LCAR at the end of this. And if we haven't gotten a right, I think we would know that. It also seems a little inefficient to me to consider that the board would be making updates over the next several months and then have to come back to the committee. Then and I'm also aware that there's this working group, and the working group might change the very work that we've been tasked to do. That doesn't feel like the best use of the State Board of Ed's time and resources, if I'm being honest. What I might suggest is if we have the funding to support this work, it might make sense for the board to engage in sort of the pre work in terms of, like, let's bring over the principles and goals of act one. Let's meet with stakeholders to sort of think about the changes that need to be made while the working group is doing its work. And then when the working group is concluded, then the State Board of Ed can incorporate those recommendations into its pre filing work. And then we open the rule one time that incorporates both the work that we were contemplating doing as well as any changes that are going to be made by the working group.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just want to take this a little bit of a different direction, And I'm wondering how this works because it appears that sometimes your rules, some parts of them are modified and others are not. But you mentioned that you open rules and update all of them together. And so I'm wondering if we're looking at a tactical update or a small update in the meantime that would allow our tech centers to have more clarity, but wanna hold on a larger update? How does that work?

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: Well, so and I'm I'm trying to think, for instance, when we reopen 2200, and we've opened 2200 twice in the last four years probably. We only updated the rules that pertain to K-twelve. We didn't look at adult education. We didn't look at pre K, in part because that wasn't part of the charge that was given to us. Also because we didn't receive any public comment on it. So, like once a rule series is open, the rule series is open. But again, given that very short eight month timeline, it really requires us to be very efficient and not if no one is asking us to update pre k rules and that wasn't part of our charge, then that wasn't going to get folded into the work that we did. So to the question about, could we do two rounds of CTE updates, one to respond to the CTE center concerns and then do it again conceptually. I mean, I think my concern again is that we volunteer board and I would wanna make sure that we have the capacity to do that. And I would also wanna make sure that we have the funding to open the rule series up twice.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So it would be it would be opening up the rule series more than once to do that's that's how it would be done. Well, that's what

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: I mean, I think that's what I'm understanding you to say that we would open it now to sort of address the current issues, and then we would have to open it again to respond to the working group or, you know, anything else that might happen in the next legislative session.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. So in the past, you don't provide guidance on updates for things that need, I guess, modification without opening a whole rule series. That's really what I'm trying to understand.

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: And I'm sorry, can you ask that again? Because I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're

[Unidentified Committee Member]: asking. I'll be super specific. What we're hearing from the tech centers is that the way that some of there is not clarity in some parts of the rules that are making it very difficult for them to serve students across the state or to understand how to support students across different sending to sending areas. And so what we're wondering is, is there a way to do an update in a very specific area that doesn't require you to open the whole rule series at this time? And have you done that in the past?

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: No, and I mean, I think once we open a rule series, we're opening the rule series. So, if we are opening the rules to respond to very specific requests from the CTE centers, which I definitely empathize with that. I mean, the rules have not been updated in ten years. They're out of date. But I don't think we can strategically open the rule. If we open the rule, we are subject to APA you know, as it's set forth in statute. So it would be us opening the rule, and then if there were other changes, we'd be opening the rule a second time. So every time there are changes that are being requested, that requires us to open the rule.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's federal statute or state statute?

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: It's state statute. It's So we can change that. I think it's three VSA chapter 25, if I'm remembering that correctly. Okay. I mean, but let me let me go back to this whole idea about the State Board of Ed doing pre work before we officially open a rule. What I'm wondering is could the State Board of Ed, with funding meet with the CTE centers to receive that feedback and the recommendations and then incorporate that into a draft? And then, you know, once those changes have been incorporated, then we officially open the rule, which then starts that eight month period. Instead of us opening the rule and, you know, trying to do it and then having to check-in to see if we got it right, it just what we've done in the past is we meet with stakeholders before we open the rule and say, where are the concerns? What are your recommendations? How does this hit you? And then once we have met with many stakeholders and feel pretty comfortable about the updates, then we open the rule. And then, you know, we have to go through, you know, with the with the, formal rulemaking, we have at least one public hearing. I know with 2,200 in EQS, we had, I think, at least three per rule series. So there are lots of opportunities for members of the public beyond the stakeholders, to provide feedback. And then we have adjusted the rules in response to that public comment.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thanks very much, chair. So totally appreciate the challenges that you talked about. My sense is that a lot of those challenges have to do with sort of a structure of how you operate and the statutes under which you operate. You got your charge, you got your budget, AOEs over there. And I'm just, it's a little frustrating to, it's not you, I'm not frustrated with you, but it's a little frustrating for legislators because we know, you know, there's some issues that people are telling us need attention right now. And so we're trying to respond to that. And I'm just wondering if there are some ways to get the work done so that I can, you know, responding to what I think are legitimate issues and concerns while addressing some of the challenges that you talked about. I'm thinking, you know, I heard authority, I heard money, and I heard time. Authority, I think is the simplest one. If there's something in the statute that doesn't authorize you to retain counsel, except for specific issues, so, I mean, that's something that we could think about. In terms of money, that's an issue, obviously. Whether it's your resources or transfer from AOE, I think you could talk about, we could think about that. The time, I'm not sure how to deal with. I appreciate your, I'm sorry.

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: Well, and actually, as you were speaking, I failed to mention, and I do think this is critical and it does go to the time and capacity. When we were talking a year ago about opening up the CTE rules, and again, didn't have the money to do it. At that point, the agency had offered to do the first pass on drafting proposed updates to the rules and then handing that off to the board to help really streamline the board's work. And my understanding is that that offer is still on the table. So we would just need to ask the agency to help us with that and then pass it over to us.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I actually was thinking of some sort of arrangement like that, I appreciate the volunteer board and limited time, but you work with A2E quite a bit, so I could see some collaboration here that might help you.

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, just stop. Thank you very much.

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: Sure. And I guess the bottom line is I am sensitive to the CTE centers who are being stuck and I'm sensitive to your interest in helping them get unstuck. But we are running into for us to change the rules, we do have to open them. And that is just guided by APA. So, I I don't see any way around that. I don't think we could

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Magic words.

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: Update the rules without opening the rule series. I I you know, bottom line is we'd have to open the rule series. It's just a question of how many times are we gonna open the rule series. And I think trying to be as efficient about it as possible would be my goal.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I appreciate the efficiency issue, for sure. In terms of technically, whether you have to open, have to consider everything in the rural or specific areas. I'm certainly familiar with, giving guidance around from the legislature, this is all you need to do. And I would think that might go a long way towards dealing at least with some of those issues that you have.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Jonathan, do you have a question? Okay. Any more questions for the chair? Thank you. It's enlightening for us because we generally don't deal with the state board and not a lot with AOE except for a CPE. But of course, it's not just not just the issues that the CTE centers are bringing to us. It's the issue of students not being able to receive the the instructions that they need. And so I think first and foremost, that's what we're thinking about. How do we make sure that we get more students through CTE and CTE directors have brought this to us as a way of making their life easier to get those students in there. But but we understand the issues that you're you're running into as well. And I think you gave us some good ideas that that we can think about. And as we go along, we'll continue to make sure that you're made aware of what we're doing and invite you to come in and talk to us again, any new drafts that we put forward.

[Jennifer Samuelson (Chair, Vermont State Board of Education)]: Thank you. Yeah. And we do share your concerns. I want I I I hope that message was also communicated. You know, we do recognize that these rules need to be updated and the sooner we can get to that, the better. So look forward to working with you guys on that to of land the plane well, I guess, is the goal. So thank you guys.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's just where we wanna go to. Thank you. Alright. And so we have Michelle Fouts with us. She's the executive director of Northeast Kingdom Learning Services, and also, Megan's here representing the other agencies. There's apparently become an issue when we change graduation requirements, especially for kids that drop out of high school, going, trying to get their diplomas or DEDs through our adult learning services, and their eligibility to go to the careers. And so Michelle brought this to me and I think we need to have a discussion about that and see if we can do anything in this world to put any language in there to fix that issue, to make sure those kids can get into CT. So Michelle, thank you for joining us on the road.

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Thanks. Thank you, Mike and and committee. So yes, I'm Michelle Faust. I'm resident of Irisburg, executive director of Northeast Kingdom Learning Services. One of the four adult ed providers of the state. And so our organization Northeast Kingdom Learning Services covers the Essex, Orleans and Caledonia Counties. And my colleagues cover the tutorial center and Central Vermont Adult Education and Vermont Adult Learning cover the remaining counties in the state. And so the issue that we're concerned about and that we've been raising with the agency of education for well over a year now has to do with the fact that under the high school completion program, our students that were seeking a diploma through the high school completion program were able to access the daytime CTE classes when space permitted, and it was paid for through the sending school district. And when the high school completion program went away and the adult diploma pilot program came into play, our students were no longer able to access those classes. And for us, it doesn't make any sense because nothing else changed. Our funding hasn't changed at all, and what we're being told is that they can't do it anymore because it's like double dipping now. And what it is, is our funding is still we only receive 26% of the base education rate. And that's the same funding that we received back under high school completion program as we receive under the adult diploma program. So, funding hasn't changed at all. The And sending schools, of course, all of our students that have an adult diploma program plan have signed with the sending school. And so we've submitted some suggested language for providing basically clarification because we feel like it's an interpretation, a change in interpretation that has really created this lack of access when nothing else has changed. And I know that we've submitted, you know, some information to Michael Marcotte before, which I'm sure has been shared out. If not, I can make sure I can send that again. And of course, whoever is in the room there can also, you know, share information as well. And I'm more than happy to try to answer any can that you might have.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Just to confirm, this is Emily Carris, Wilmington, Windham, Halifax. Did the source of the funds change at all?

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: No, no. We're still funded through the general fund and the Ed fund, but the overall way those funds come into the system is 26% of the base education rate is the overall funding pot, and that hasn't changed.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: And how long has that changed?

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Years.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Years. Okay. Right here.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I guess I'm not sure I fully understand what we're being asked. I think I need more.

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Yeah, basically what we're being asked is to have the same access that our students had under the high school completion program returned under the adult diploma program. That student the students access the daytime CTE classes when space is permitted, and that it's paid for through the spending school.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And nothing changed in the law, but there is an interpretation?

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Yeah. Nothing else changed. And so, you know, and and we don't understand why when nothing else changed, why these students cannot access it anymore.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. And that you have language from the agency of education that said to you that this is no longer a path for the students?

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: They have cited 16 VSA S1522.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Fifteen twenty two.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Exit the traffic circle. Go ahead, Meg.

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Yeah, I can move back in a

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: favor with you too.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: For the record.

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Otherwise, with Meg Boutin's protection circles, Nothing has changed in statute around this issue, but there is what the guidance that appeared in a policy guidance document of the agency. And that is what we are trying to address because there's new guidance that did not exist when we don't see a change in statute. There is a memo here. There's two paragraphs that might be helpful for me to just read that really concisely Yeah,

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: you can also send that to us.

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Yeah, absolutely.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you want to come to the table?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, absolutely. We can hear from both of you. Yep.

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: So, again, my folks back in circles, even the chair. So, we'll be sure to send this around but some of you around when we did do the original transition from high school completion to the adult. That was a good thing that we did that the providers like. But this is a bit of a hiccup that was is an unintended consequence from perspective. Here's what that says that I think.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Michelle, you might want to mute.

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Yeah, I'm trying to mute

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: it here.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: So, Act 113 appealed the high school completion program and updated Vermont law to support the adult diploma program under 16 BSA section nine forty five. The statute now provides that eligible residents who are at least 16 years old have not received a high school diploma and are not enrolled in a public or approved independent school made on the diploma through the Adult Diploma Program in partnership with participating schools. The change followed the work of the adult education and literacy student access committee, which studied access to adult education and recommended updates. Both the formal high school completion program updated Vermont law to support the adult diploma program. I'm sorry, this sentence I think is not, does not make sense. The statute now provides that eligible residences who are at least 16 years old have not received a high school diploma and have not enrolled in the public or approved independent school. The legislative change followed Oh, I'm sorry. This is the same paragraph twice. That's why I'm so confused. I will remove that with the duplication before we send this memo. That was just the same paragraph. A key operational change has emerged as a result of this transition. High school aged adult education students can no longer access regional secondary career technical education programs. Under the former high school completion program, school age adult education students were explicitly permitted to enroll in daytime CTE programs at their regional technical centers with tuition paid by their district of residence. This created a pathway for students to combine academic completion with hands on technical training within the CTE system. However, under the adult diploma program, the agency of education new guidance has interpreted enrollment rules in a way that excludes these students from participating in CTE. Because enrollment in a regional high school CTE program requires a student to be tuitioned as a base school student by a district, Those students are now considered enrolled in the district and therefore ineligible for adult education and literacy services, including the adult diploma program. In addition, statute defines an adult student in secondary CTE as someone who has already completed high school although reinforcing that ADP students do not fit within the CTE eligible explained book. This change in access applies specifically to high school age low notes seeking to participate in secondary CTE. It was not specified in the legislation that sunset the high school completion program and created the adult diploma program. The limitation is therefore not driven by federal requirements under WIOA, but rather by the current interpretation of enrollment rules at the state level. Vermont's core AEL providers believe this interpretation was counter to the intent of AEL programming, which is to expand, not restrict pathways for students to gain a diploma in workforce skills. So, will send this, but basically under the old program, they were entitled to CTE programs for their school aged adult learners at adult education centers. And that's a very formal partnership between the adult education provider and the school district of the anyone who's over 16 but does not continue their education in the public school system. And we're just looking for basically looking to actually consult what has been the status quo by up to new agency guidance that now prevents them from accessing CTE while they're at an adult education center.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: AOV doesn't cite a specific statute where they interpret this change?

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: They cite the legislation where we

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: But where don't say where in the legislation that they specifically are getting this idea that districts don't provide for CTE?

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Well, won't speak for the agency, but

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: I But

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: they haven't cited anything to you specifically so that you so the so the learning centers can actually understand what they're saying.

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Go ahead. Based on law

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: or based on what's it based on? Perpetition. That's a good name for the work, there's like a working person to me that you

[Unidentified Committee Member]: cited there.

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Can you tell me the name of that? Yes, and that was two summons ago, we did the Adult Education and Literacy Student Access Study Committee. I can send you that report that they so we that report can include all the information from the study committee. And again, that is what created the transition from high school completion to adult diploma program, which everyone liked. But this was not an issue that was going up in study.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I thought that the work of that committee had used whatever thing it was that is No. All right,

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: so The work of that committee is what sunset the high school completion and set up this new

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: development. And

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: there was a very specific goal of that, which was accomplished, then this sort of what was expected plan.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay, thank you. Just to be really clear, the work of that committee did have a change to our law. Yes. And what was that change? Where can I find that?

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Yeah, so I can send you all the report of that study committee, as well as the legislation that was produced. Change was the sunset of the high school completion program and the creation of an adult diploma program. The adult diploma program is largely the same program as high school completion, but it was set up as an entirely new program to get away from these really midget testing requirements. You guys might remember hearing about the TABE testing. That was actually the primary goal for providers in that study committee, to eliminate TABE testing as a mechanism for funding, to set up a new funding system. And that's what the study committee report is focused on entirely. So that is, I can, yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, but yeah, I think the language that was the new act, right? That is what we really need to understand. And we need to be able to look at that and figure out if that language can be, should be, needs to be modified, Which means or is it just an interpretation, in which case we might still have to change the law?

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: Yeah, it's a bit confusing. I do know the providers met with Legislative Council and the Chair. It was a little confusing because we did get confirmation from Legislative Counsel that there's nothing in statute that would create this change in statute of not allowing the EL students to access Open. So it is entirely based on this one bullet point that's in the policy guidance documents at the agency. Okay.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So, I know that Beth is working. She hasn't been able to touch base yet with AOE, find out why their interpretation has changed and why they're putting that guidance out. And we're trying to she has talked to JFO as well. So we'll be we'll continue to work to see if we need to create a fix for this, or if the AOE can just fix it by changing their guidance. So but think If we'd understand why

[Megan (Adult Education Providers’ representative)]: they just spoke that from the guidance, we do think that would address the problem.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I mean, that's the core. What does that statute say? And so, it's a change based on statute, in which case we know Or it's going to if it's just based on an interpretation, in which case it might be

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: a good idea to hear from whoever at AOE. Can provide guidance to AOE. Right. Right? Okay. So I know that's time. It's kinda short this week, but we'll be working with her next week. More on 03:13, and we'll continue to have discussions and figure out where we can go with this and what's what the fix is for. So Anything else you wanted to add, Michelle?

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Mike, can you hear me?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Okay. Yeah, actually I will forward to the committee the information that I had sent to Beth St. James, which is the actual guidance that shows exactly where the AOE has cited the guidance around why our students are not eligible. They actually mentioned the S1522 rule and also the other information which could just kind of also give some context behind that.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You can send that to Megan Canela. Our legislative staff person is out. Yeah. I think he'll be back next week, but if you can send that to Megan and Megan can get it to us.

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Okay. That sounds good.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Thank you very much, everyone. I appreciate your time.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thanks Michelle.

[Michelle Faust (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Learning Services)]: Okay, bye bye.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Bye.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We were supposed to hear from the agency in May.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Secretary Saunders cannot make it. We some things to think about. Think we had an interesting conversation with the chair of the state board of education, which I've never heard from before, but new for us, or most of us. I understand their issues, I think we have to talk to Beth and see what our best pathway is around the rule making. I think it's imperative that we get something within the next year so that our CTE centers can function while we're trying to prepare for whatever's coming next. We've gone long enough, and I think it's longer than ten years since the rules have been updated. It's more like twenty or thirty years ago. It they're well overdue. And if we need to put notwithstanding language in to allow for these seven pieces to be done, I think that we also can create this pre draft, and I know that AOV has already offered that. Secretary brought that to us in their rendition of the SF. That was part of that too. Were doing the pre drafting. So we may write this so that they do the pre drafting with VACTEV and also with the Superintendents Association, and then present it to it. I feel more comfortable, I guess, if we do it that way, I don't think we need to have the rules to come back to us before they're adopted. I think they will go to Elkhart, if they adopt the rules, has its pre draft went, we will get information back from back to the superintendents whether or not scope of the work is satisfactory to help CTs, then I think Elkhart can deal with that. Of course, that comes back to the chairs of the committees as well. So they have to sign off on that. If they see something in here that's not appropriate, then they'll let Elkhart know that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And I think the retain counsel issues can be should be fairly simple to address those ones too.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: But they already have counsel now.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. But I take it they don't have the authority and they say they don't have the money. It seems to

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: be why we pose a question we can ask for creation as well.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Or hate to ask legged AOE, but there could be some sharing there too. There

[Unidentified Committee Member]: were some millions in education transformation

[Beth St. James (Legislative Counsel)]: set aside for the agency. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So I think they could cobble up 50 to 60,000. Yeah. Do this. Okay. Anything else? Alright. We're on the floor at the. I don't anticipate us being off. Come back to committee to look at the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: yeah. $1.73. $1.73.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's I know. Scout it. Unless we're done by we're on the floor, we won't come back in. But It's more morning. That's what don't. Tomorrow morning at nine, we'll be we'll be going through one seventy three to see if we can move that or not with with. So with that, I think we can go off live, and we'll be