Dear Senate Education Committee,

Thank you for expressing a commitment to solving the issues with our career and technical education (CTE) system that have persisted for decades. We believe that this system will be critical to the success of our workforce in the 21^st century.

Dear House Commerce Committee,

Thank you for taking on Career and Technical Education (CTE) reform this year. This is such an important topic for the future of our state and our workforce. Campaign for Vermont has long supported efforts to put these resources front and center in our education system.

A counterproposal for 2025 education reform focused on the learnings from Act 46 and recognizing Vermonter’s preference towards local control of schools.

Executive Summary

It is now quite clear to most close observers that Vermont’s education system is unsustainable. School spending has increased 42% since 2014 while our student population has shrunk. This has pushed the state to the second highest cost per student in the country. At the same time student performance has declined.

Governor Scott and Secretary Saunders have proposed a bold plan to change the trajectory of our education system and re-imagine what education in Vermont will look like in the years to come. We appreciate the audacity of the plan they put forward. There are some things that make a lot of sense like the new foundation formula and the increased focus on oversight and accountability. There are also things that miss the mark, like unwieldly regional school districts.

After more than a decade working on education reform in Vermont, we know what is likely to work and what is not. We pointed out many of the pitfalls of Act 46 before the bill even passed the legislature. The current plan repeats some of these mistakes.

Our largest concern with the five-district model is that it eviscerates local control. Vermont’s schools are more than just buildings where we educate students, they serve as de-facto community centers. This is not unique to Vermont, I just read a report last week from MassInc talking about the importance of school-centered neighborhood vitality. If we move the responsibility for a school many miles away, we risk losing the connection to their community.

The tragedy is that we don’t have to. School districts, at their core, really only require a volunteer school board to operate. There are no meaningful cost savings to be had there. The major opportunity is our 52 supervisory unions. Currently they are the impediment to larger economies of scale as most of our overhead has already been moved up to that level. We get into details with our proposal below, but consolidating these structures makes much more sense than taking away local school boards and severing the connection between schools and their communities.

I hope to work with legislators and the administration to Vermont-size our education delivery system and to re-align our current incentive structure to achieve better outcomes for students, more engagement from communities, and stable and predictable costs for taxpayers.

On behalf of Vermonters,

Chelsea Myers (Associate Executive Director of the Vermont Superintendents Association) testified in the House Education Committee on Wednesday concerning S.304, which deals Career and Technical Education. She noted that VSA had two stakeholder feedback meetings in late 2023.  Several core themes emerged from the first meeting including:

Chairman Conlon noted for the House Education Committee that the testimony they had received to date on S.304 was concerning to him, particularly with regards to unfunded mandates and transportation to stand-alone schools. He noted that the APA report (Study on the Funding and Governance of Career and Technical Education in Vermont) focused on funding and governance and S.304 does neither. He added that time was not on their side at this point in the session, and he was not sure what he could get done.

Senator Weeks presented the bill, S.304, to the House Education Committee on Wednesday morning. To introduce the topic, he showed them a picture of a cruiser.  He said that while he served as a U.S. Naval Captain, 90% of the crew did not have any post-secondary degrees.  They were technicians, electricians, etc.  But many of them did take advantage of CTE and GED programs to better prepare themselves for the future.  Weeks noted he had a great deal of respect for them.  He noted that there was a wide range of ages among the sailors who wanted to get their GET and CTE certificates.

Senator Weeks offered an amendment to S.304 on the Senate Floor Friday on behalf of the Committee on Education. The amendment was a strike-all which would provide students in grade six through eight with career enrichment and exposure to their regional Career and Technical Education (CTE) Center. The bill also provides students enrolled in grades nine and ten a genuine opportunity to participate fully in pre-tch and exploratory career and technical courses.

On Thursday, Gus Seelig (Executive Director, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board) talked to the House Commerce Committee about his annual report and the pictures and write-ups of all the projects they have been involved in throughout the State. But today they are focusing on housing and workforce development. Seelig mentioned that the Chair had asked him to work with the Career Technical Centers to focus on housing and workforce development in the construction/developer careers. He noted that he and Will Belongia (Executive Director, Vermont Community Loan Fund) had talked to CTE Directors throughout the state to find out what is needed. They said they need more students interested in the construction/housing field.

Heather Bouchey (Interim Secretary, Agency of Education) appeared before Senate Education to discuss S.304 – CTE Opportunities for Grades Six through Ten.  Consensus on the bill could not be reached by all interested parties in Senate Education Committee.  Chairman Campion asked that Bouchey return with a consensus bill that parties could all agree on so the bill could be voted on and passed out before cross-over.