 Thank you and welcome. This is the Education Committee and the Vermont Health of Representatives as well as the Commerce and Economic Development Community in the House of Representatives. And we are meeting here on Thursday, February 17th, and are delighted to have representatives from the Education Commission of the states who are going to be helping us a little bit to understand how other states are addressing their career and tech governance and funding. So with that, Representative Marcot, you can just wave your hand so they'll see you. We are each going to be watching for questions within our rooms and we'll let you know. So with that, I'd like to welcome Tom Kelly and Aaron Piquini, and I guess we're going to start with Tom. So for the record, could you introduce yourself? Thank you, Chair Webb. Tom and Kylie Education Commission of the states based in Denver, Colorado. Wonderful. And thank you, Chair Webb, and thank you, Chair Mascot, for the invitation to join you this morning. Members of the committee, I'm happy to be with you. My name is Tom Piley. As I said, I'm from the Education Commission of the states based in Denver, Colorado. This afternoon, I will share information on state approaches to funding career and technical education. So, as the chair mentioned, I'm joined this morning by my colleague Aaron Mulwini. Aaron is the state relations director at Education Commission of the states and serves as the liaison to Vermont and it can be a great point of contact for any questions you may have after our session today or in the future as you think of education policy questions that come up in your work. So, before I dive into the content of the presentation, I'd like to share a roadmap for where, for the information I'll share with you over the next 15 minutes or so. Today's presentation is intended to provide a broad overview of the topic of funding secondary career and technical education. There's considerable nuance when examining funding models for CTE in the state. This presentation will provide a high level overview of the topic across all 50 states. I will share briefly an introduction of the Education Commission of the states and how we support education policy makers. I will start by briefly introducing us as an organization. I'll follow that by briefly talking about how states are offering CT instruction across the states. Next, I'll share some high level information on the approaches states take to fund secondary CTE as well as some advantages and challenges with those models. Lastly, and at the chair's discretion, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have based on what we share. And also, we're always happy to dig deeper into questions, provide additional research that supports you in your work as you think about CTE funding and other education policy issues. So Education Commission of the states is a nonpartisan organization that supports education policy makers on issues granted from pre-K through post-secondary workforce development. We provide unbiased information and nonpartisan information through a series of services, including research and reports and counsel like the presentation I'm giving today and through our convenience where we bring education policy makers together to learn with and from each other. We are here to support you in your work and provide unbiased and nonpartisan information that can help you make informed education policy decisions. Before I share information of different funding approaches for CTE, it's important to note where CTE instruction is offered in states. When considering funding models, there are a range of considerations and implications, including the method and location of delivery of CTE instruction. Generally speaking, there are three educational settings where CTE is offered to students in high schools, post-secondary institutions, and area CTE centers. Many states use a combination of these settings to provide CTE instruction for secondary students. As such, states may draw on and use a range of funding sources and mechanisms to support delivery across instructional setting. So when you think of area CTE centers across the states, there are at least 34 states that operate CTE centers. Often, CTE centers offer instruction to high school students, in some cases adults, and post-secondary students. In many states, area CTE centers are part of a system of CTE instruction. Often, state CTE centers offer instruction at CTE centers, but also in other settings such as high school and post-secondary institutions. Given the type of instruction and students served, states may draw on different funding sources and take different approaches to funding the centers in their state. Now that we have a general sense of where secondary CTE is delivered in states, I'd like to provide a brief overview of state approaches for funding secondary CTE. This overview will provide some broad classifications. Tom, I just, you're on your PowerPoint as well here. Right, so I'm on the question. Can you turn up this volume just a little bit? Can we turn up the volume? Please, yeah. Yeah, my apologies, I've been having some microphones and video issues. So is that sound any better? Yes, that's good. And yes, I'm on the green slide, which I think has like a little peg with books on it. Yes. As we transition out, just moving from the map that had the orange color, or excuse me, purple colored states, which represent area CTE centers. So as we go through some of these approaches, I'll share some advantages and challenges for your consideration as well. These advantages and challenges are drawn on research on various K-12 funding approaches and are documented and known advantages and challenges within the research space for K-12 funding. It should be noted that the broad classification shared involves significant nuance in how they play out with state CTE funding models. The classifications are intended to provide a basic frame of how states approach funding CTE instruction for secondary students. Following the presentation, we'd be happy to provide additional information on the models as well as state examples as it's helpful to your work here in Vermont. So transitioning now, you should see a slide with our Mardi Gras colors of orange, green, purple and gray before you, that says secondary CTE funding approaches. So in 2019, ECS conducted an analysis of secondary CTE policy across all 50 states. As part of that analysis, we looked at how states provide funds to schools and districts for secondary CTE instruction. Based on our analysis, we identified four general approaches, unit-based, student-based, cost-based, and funding for CTE centers. It is also important to note that there are a few states that fall outside of these general classifications. Those are represented and noted in light gray on the map before you. As you can see in the map, the approaches range across the states. There are a range of factors that may influence and direct the approach that states take to fund CTE. Next, I'll provide some descriptions of each approach as well as some advantages and challenges. So the student-based funding approach. So turning now to the green, left-hand side green slide with a little student on the left. The student-based funding approach is where states distribute funds to districts based on the number of CTE students enrolled in a local education agency. The calculation for the number of CTE students enrolled may vary. In some instances, this is based on the average daily membership calculation as defined in the state school funding formula. The student-based approach has at least three notable advantages, first of which is transparency. The approach may provide an optimal funding system that has clear and easily understood rules for where, how, and why dollars flow. Another notable advantage is flexibility. Districts have autonomy in spending choices. In the student-based model, funds are allocated based on the number of CTE students, not on the resources provided or resources necessary to provide that instruction. This allows districts to choose where to invest those funds as opposed to being directed on the expenditure necessary. And the last advantage being portability. Money flows based on the number of students. In the student-based model, funding increases and decreases as students enroll. Student CTE enrollment changes over time. A notable challenge of the student-based approach is oversight. So oversight meaning that there may be a need to establish processes to ensure funds are used appropriately. In the student-based model, state may develop reporting or accountability measures to ensure funds are used appropriately since the local districts have spending autonomy under this model. A unit-based approach, so turning to our orange slides. A unit-based approach is one where the state distributes funds based on a set of educational inputs used to deliver CTE instruction. Educational inputs can include the number of instructors or administrators employed by a local agency or the equipment used to provide CTE instruction. There are two notable advantages with a unit-based approach. The first of which is oversight. In a resource-based model, the state can direct resources for established policy goals such as staffing levels or equipment necessary to provide instruction. The second of which is uniformity. So the resource-based model focuses on providing consistency in staffing and resources across schools and districts. A notable challenge with the unit-based model is rigidity. The model may create rigidity or less flexibility at the local level. These models can restrict local spending decisions and schools in different geographic areas of the state may require different services or have different costs such as recruitment and retention of teachers or transportation costs. Turning now to our gray slide of cost-based. So cost-based approach is one where the state distributes funds to districts for the cost of providing CTE services. Often states cap or limit the rate of reimbursement, meaning that only a portion of the local education agency's expenditures may be covered. There are two notable advantages to this model. The model can provide an opportunity for financial tracking. Expenses are reported by the district to the state. This allows greater level of financial tracking at the state level. Second, the model can protect districts against significant cost liabilities. The state can assist districts in providing for excess costs for programs and CTE instruction. There are also two notable challenges. The model may introduce some administrative complexity. The process of reporting costs can be time-consuming for both the state and the local administrators. Further, the model may necessitate spending limits. States may reimburse a portion of the expenses, cap the spending at certain levels, or appropriate funds if appropriate levels are insufficient. And lastly, turning. Was there a question? This is the bucket that you put Vermont fell into this bucket. Correct. Correct. As a primary source for CTE centers given the structure within your state. So turning to our purple slides on funding for CTE centers. Funding for CTE centers is where states distribute funds to districts to use to support CTE centers. In this approach, there is generally some determined tuition cost, tuition or cost for instruction at the CTE center. And the districts use the state and in some cases local funds to pay the tuition and other costs for the student from their district. CTE centers may have separate appropriations through the state budget to support administrative costs and other costs of running a centralized center. With the funding for CTE centers approach, there are a few advantages. So economies of scale can be created for the use of funding for CTE centers approach. Centers can draw from multiple districts, which make offering CTE more cost efficient. Through this model school districts consolidate similar courses and related facilities and equipment costs in one location. An additional benefit is related to sharing costs for staffing. Centers allow participating districts to share the cost of providing specialized instruction for specific services and types of programs. For example, CTE centers may offer say welding courses or advanced manufacturing courses that appeal to a limited number of students and have notable shortages in terms of instructors. By drawing across districts, CTE centers can pool students and instructors to provide specialized coursework more efficiently. There are also a couple of potential challenges with this model. One of it is one of which is logistic complexities. One of which is transportation, which may deter districts from participating in CTE centers and may require additional state and local appropriations. There may be also issues associated with cost sharing. Participating schools or districts may need to negotiate cost sharing agreements. Volunteer agreements, where a key contributor withdrawals can threaten the long term financial viability of CTE center. Turning now to a green slide that says additional funding sources for secondary CTE. While these models are used across the states to distribute funds for CTE instruction, there are a range of other funding sources that states may use to support secondary CTE in their state. Notably, federal Perkins funds are granted from the state to districts to support CTE instruction at the secondary level as well as other types. As I'm sure you well know, states also consider grants to support the expansion and development of CTE programs in their state. These funds may help offset costs for developing instruction and providing that instruction to students. There are also local funds that districts may draw on to support CTE instruction in their district. And lastly, some states are making appropriations outside of the general school funding process to address specific costs of offering CTE. Some common areas where we see states concentrating these funds and appropriations is around supporting transportation, CTE teacher training, and CTE teacher recruitment and retention. To conclude the presentation, so turning to an orange slide with a person with a thought bubble about them. To conclude the presentation, I'd like to share some general thoughts for your consideration around funding CTE in your state. These considerations can be applied to CTE but also apply more broadly to K-12 funding. These considerations are drawn from review of research on K-12 finance in the United States. So turning now to student and school attributes. School finance systems typically account for variance in geographic factors and student demographics across districts in the state. All states have differing numbers of rural and urban districts, wealthy and low income districts, concentrations of English language learners or special education students or CTE students. When designing school finance systems, states may allocate additional funds to account for the differences in costs for specific student populations. For example, districts with a high concentration of multiple types of special student populations like CTE students or English language learners would likely require additional state support to provide an education aligned to the state's definition and standards. States face ongoing challenges to determine and fund the appropriate adjustments for different student populations and other factors that go into providing education, especially as the needs of students and education goals evolve within states, schools and districts. And lastly turning to cost factors. There are many cost factors related to education funding including school personnel, facilities, maintenance and operation, administration, transportation, instructional materials and technology. Not all cost factors are accounted for in the state aid for schools. States may have different funding systems or revenue streams for expenditures such as capital outlays or transportation. And as our time together years and end, we'd like to thank you again for the opportunity to present this information to you this morning. And as I mentioned throughout, we'd be happy to provide additional information and detailed examples in written response for you and for your review. Erin's contact information as well as mine is provided on the thank you slide in your slide deck. And at the chair's discretion, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. I just have one question first from me and that is in relation to other states experiencing declining enrollment. Is that something that we are not, are we the only state that's struggling with this or how prevalent is that for other CTE centers? Thank you for the question. And no, I don't think you're unique in that, you know, declining enrollments. I think that's something we've seen across states. And I think it's also an issue within funding systems that some of our staff are really looking into in terms of how does that impact state funding for schools and students, you know, at the local level. So we're happy to provide additional information on that kind of of how states are addressing that following the presentation. But to answer your question, no, I don't think that's necessarily unique to Vermont. Representative James has a question for you. I have three questions at a time, one at a time. Okay, this is probably a simple question. Can you help me understand why we're not a student based system since we pay, we pay the CTE centers tuition based on enrollment. So I think that's actually going out a really important nuance within the models that I presented. So multiple approaches can go. I think the way we classified things in our research was on the end output. So yes, you're correct in Vermont. That is exactly how it happens. And that's that also transpires in other states. So kind of to my point about states using different models and different approaches. I think that is common right across all 50 states where we see combinations of these classifications. And I think the, you know, what I was hoping to provide through the classifications was kind of a very base primary funding mechanism or approach. That also incorporates other pieces. So yes, along with saying yes, that's correct. And yes, that is common across states as well. Just just to follow up. So I'm sure I'm understanding this first question. So you said we kind of have a combo system, but you classified us based on sort of the final outcome. Could you just explain what you meant by that? Yeah, so in, so just kind of for context around how we often conduct our 50 state comparisons is we try to distill things to, you know, comparable identifiers. So I think that's why we have Vermont as funding for CT centers because it's a primary base for your instruction as well. So I think that's why we identified Vermont that way, that yes, there is nuance under that as well, which is also correct. But that's, you know, our determination within our research approach and our methodology for that research. You had more. More questions. Right. Well, I don't want to follow that. I'm sure there are other questions. I'm looking just to say, Chair Markot, just if you have anybody in your room before we go back to our room. Representative Roche has a question. Just just following up on the questions that we just asked. So could you give us any idea what the criteria in the model is that would cause Vermont to be classified in the group that it's in? Certainly. So I think it was in that in the instance of states that have CT centered when we made determinations of the model identifier. It was informed by the primary basis of instruction as well. So kind of that first section I walked through at the different places where instructions is provided. We pulled that information in to inform our ultimate end decision. So that I hope that answers your question in terms of our methodology of how we got to that final identifier. Representative Brady in our room has a question. Thank you. So if Vermont is sort of a hybrid of the student based and the cost based. The challenge I think we're really seeking to address is that our system does not. It creates a disincentive for schools to send students to CTE because it has our schools sort of competing against each other for funds in a sense. And I don't see that necessarily as a disadvantage of either of those. So I'm trying to understand how that challenge we have fits into this model you for this paradigm is provided. And what some of the solutions might be or some of the ways that other states do things so that it isn't a kind of a disincentive to send a student to a CTE. Yes, I think that's an interesting point you raise. When thinking about it too. So in the kind of advantages slide I talked about the cost sharing some of the cost sharing challenges associated with funding for CTE centers regardless of how the money gets there. But for funding CTE centers and instruction through that some states have approached that through cost sharing agreements and the structure of those. So how that's so maybe providing less friction to get to the the entry or support up right to not disincentivizing sending students. And then also to I think there's other costs associated with sending a student to such as transportation materials and how that impacts both the sending district and the CTE center. I think is also another consideration to keep in mind and I think some states have either done that through adjusting appropriations through the mechanisms they have to distribute funds. Or through additional appropriations for you know I think on that green slide talking about transportation or costs for instructional services like teacher salaries etc at the centers to support them. And I think also to think of CT centers the many different sources of funds both state and federal that can be used to support CT centers given the diversity of the instruction that's provided at them. So kind of addressing some of those administrative costs or instructional costs by bringing in those additional funding sources. Are there states that you would identify as doing a particularly good job in terms of their successes with career and tech. So I think those questions are you know we're always happy to provide state examples of states but I think you know when we think about offering CT instruction there's a multitude of inputs that different states have so I think kind of as a foundational piece understanding kind of the goals purpose and intentions behind CTE in Vermont and we're working from there to provide funding sources to support those you know it's kind of a starting point because you know as we look at it we can look at different models and see different outcomes. But often oftentimes there's inputs within the state so you know thinking of folks at your State Department of Ed and those that are administrating CT programs through the centers may provide deeper insight into kind of those answers which then may. Provide us with the opportunity then to provide examples to you all of states that have similar inputs and we can provide kind of different information on that but I. I hesitate to say that you know one state is doing it better than another because of the range of inputs that go into providing CT instruction in states and then the mechanisms that states have at their disposal to fund those those goals and purposes of CT instruction in their state. And the comment. Just two things that first of all when it comes to trying to categorize us with funding it's very challenging in that we've got three different CTE types we've got a private public independent and then those whose budgets are wholly within their home school district. And then but then receive tuition money from sending high school so it's very hard I think to really say it is this model versus another. I think you've done your best the best you could with what we have to work with. But awful funny I guess it could you talk about sort of the comparison I know some states have full CTE high schools whereas Vermont is it's really a separate and apart from the high school education and advantages disadvantages there. Absolutely sorry my mouse was elusive at the moment. And I think you raise a very good point about you know the broad classifications again. You know multiple classifications going to support in CT in many states and one state that comes to mind kind of around the CT kind of high school model or collection of districts is in Ohio so Ohio has a system set up where multiple districts function pool resources support CT specific high school which you know technically is classified as a CT center. So they have a model of that and they also most were cost sharing associated with that so where there's the pooling of funds to support that so that's one state that has kind of a CT center ish model right they also have instruction at CT at high schools and CT and they also rely on post secondary institutions to provide that. Some CT instruction through dual enrollment, but they are one state where the funding mechanism helps support the pooling of funds and kind of really thinking of those economies and I raised about economies of scale is one state that really has done that through their CT construction and then also supported that through their funding approach. Representative Mulvaney. Representative Mulvaney Stanek has a question. Thank you representative Mark. I'm curious if because it seems in that the map of how the different configurations other states have done I'm particularly curious for like, like structured states and the sense that we're very rural we have a small population and the trends we have some just curious if there seems to be we have a similar model at least not by your map to New York and California. There are also a couple other ones but I look to me and I look to Montana. In terms of size scale that would have transportation issues, you know the cost to operate CT ease with small population, etc. So I'm just wondering if you cross cross cut the data and that kind of way in any in any way shift or form and looked at more of like what do rural states tend to do. And I guess my follow would be are any other rule states also looking at this currently, and thinking about a new way of going about it who have again similar demographic loss, you know in terms of our, our population. Absolutely. And thank you for the question. And I think, yes, so we have, you know, kind of thought about that on the back end right of looking at the spectrum of our, our information that we gathered. And I think it may be interesting to look at New Hampshire and main in your instance of kind of the rural states kind of northeast. I think there may be doing a similar demographic concerns as well, and ways to kind of support students in education and training more broadly through CTE as part of a broader kind of workforce education and training system in our state. So, I think main, you know, there's some information that we've gotten that they're considering their funding approaches for CTE and their structure and how to maximize that as part of kind of this broader workforce education and training system. I'm sure having a similar model Massachusetts could also be an interesting state. You know, not necessarily from the rural aspect but kind of the structure of your urban versus rural comparisons there. But we'd be happy to provide some follow up on kind of any particular states or states that we kind of identify as having larger rural population and breaking down some of that information of structure in terms of where CTE is offered but also how they're funding and using different funding models and approaches to support those rural students. I think transportation is a common theme that we hear in states with high concentration of rural schools and districts. So we'd be happy to even provide some information on how transportation is considered in that or not considered in those calculations representative James scenario. Yeah, it's more of a program delivery question so I'm not sure that's outside the scope of our conversation today. Yeah. Okay, so one of the things that we're considering or that has been proposed is a pilot program whereby students enrolled at one of our regional CTE centers would take their non CTE classwork, you know, their quote unquote academic classes online through an organization we have called the Vermont Virtual Learning Cooperative Collaborative Cooperative. And I was just wondering if you know of any other states that have a model like that and and how it's working. It's a very good question. I don't have any states off the top of my head, but I'm happy to follow up with some examples because, you know, within the space I've heard conversations about those approaches but I don't have any specific states right off the top of my head. So, but we're happy to follow up and provide some information on that. Thank you. One of the things that we've looked at is is opening up our CTEs to younger students, for example, access in middle schools and other states that are using such an approach. Yes, I think there's a lot of states that are considering CTE, you know, in middle school and kind of also considering like, what are some kind of career based models that help support students kind of throughout K-12 education, you know, and transitioning into post-secondary education or specific job training and support. It's an interesting state to look at considering some of their work around like a career continuum that they've approached and how they're thinking about that through CTE and work-based learning starting in middle school. And they even have some pieces that are thinking about how the state is supporting literacy and math development in the K-12 grades and how that translates and support students into that transition into CTE and exploration through work-based learning at CTE courses. So, Maryland could be an interesting state to look at around that model and approach. And also are thinking about some innovative ways to fund that model too. Representative Jerome has a question. Thank you, Tom. My question is sort of on the other end of that. We've also had conversations about a PG year or a post-grad year spent at a CTE center for students who perhaps were a little bit later on taking up the opportunities at a CTE center or for students who have not yet decided on what their path is going to be post-grad, post-graduation. And what thoughts do you have about that particular plan or model or idea? Thank you. And thanks for the question and raising that point. I think there is kind of an emerging conversation around, you know, what some are calling like a 13th year, you know, kind of that transition year. I think there are some states that are putting policy into place. I don't have any examples at the top of my head, but I'm happy to pull them up because I know I have some colleagues at ECS who are actually looking and working on that. That policy issue and how states are approaching that. So I'm happy to connect with them after this session and provide follow-up on that. Thank you. And a foundational information that may be helpful and informative. Thanks. Representative Austin, do you have a name of a school in Maryland that you, you know, we could go look at their website that is incorporating kind of younger grades in CTE instruction? Or could you get that to us, please? We're happy to provide kind of state level. I'm not sure of any school just then that's kind of more around the scope of our work looks more at the state level activity. So I can certainly provide some follow-up links to the State Department, which may give you some direction on schools. And also, you know, as it's relevant, if we can make any connections to people in Maryland around specific issues, either at the Department of Ed or in their legislature, however that may play out, that's most helpful to you. I'm happy to make connections. As we know those people in Maryland and, you know, kind of where your interests lie, specifically, we're always happy to make those connections. And they may be able to then connect you to schools, you know, where they see it is working well or that are kind of exemplars that they hold up when they support, when the State Department supports other districts in their work. Thank you. Vice Chair Kimball has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, just a question. We've been hearing anecdotal evidence of a situation where some schools are introducing an old-fashioned, say, industrial arts program, or maybe it's a STEM program, their local school, instead of having those students go to the Career and Technical Education Center. So then creating these dual costs and requirements for funding them. Do you see that on a national level, just looking at where CTE funding is and if that funding is also being required or requested for that primary and secondary school? Thank you for the question. I think a lot of states, well, say nationally, so when we look at it, states are organizing and really trying to align career pathways within their state. So I think as states and State Departments support that activity, we see a heavy reliance on those career clusters and then the approval process at CTE programs. So usually that has some place-based determinant, right? So if it's at a high school or, you know, who's actually applying for program approval. So we see a lot of states relying on program approval as a way to organize that and align that within their state. So I don't have any specific examples of states that are doing what you outlined. However, different state approval processes are generally the reliance for that. And then I think also, once the approval process goes through, those are the programs that are funded and supported for quality CTE instruction. So I think as states rely on those systems, they help mitigate some of those other avenues that schools and districts may take within their state. So, you know, I would just encourage the understanding or reliance of the CTE approval process and how that may direct both instruction and then subsequent support and financial resources to support that in the state. So, you know, no concrete examples that I have of the kind of position you outlined, but generally that's what we see in our research and looking at states of how they organize, support, and then fund CTE programs. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. Did you, I'm just curious about adult CTE or, you know, what goes on in the evening weekends and I don't know if you studied that at all. Vermont's funding method is essentially they offer courses taken tuition funding and that's what funds it. Do other states use a completely different model anywhere for the adult CTE programs. So I think that's a common approach for adult CTE. So just for context in the information I provided that analysis solely looked at secondary CTE but we do also track legislation and policy and action around adult CTE which we classify kind of in our workforce development work. But yes, I think CTE, states that have CTE centers leverage those for adult instruction and then tuition support for that. And I also think states are thinking about other resources at their disposal to provide that type of instruction. So support the administration instruction of that in addition to tuition. So if that's going in, you know, workforce and innovation and opportunity to act dollars at the federal level to support that, depending on the type of training that's being provided. Right. So the range of CTE that's being provided if it's CTE specific, or if there's some adult basic education involved in that which includes some CTE instruction. We see states thinking about that and leveraging, you know, CTE centers in some cases or post-secondary institutions, you know, community or technical colleges to support that as well. So I think a long way of saying yes, you know, states are thinking about using leveraging CTE centers for adult CTE instruction, whether they're, you know, and also regarding their, the adult that may arrive there too may have different educational paths, right. You know, seek high school diploma or equivalency as part of that too. I think states have thought about concentrating those types of programs along with career skills as part of adult education and CTE centers as well. So just wanted to add that is just kind of another thought that states are considering leveraging CTE centers to possibly offer that type of instruction. Seeing further questions in our room. I don't see any other questions here either. Okay, thank you. We do have one question because we're, I know that there's that we don't have a budget request at this point from ECS so just wanted to reach out and I've forgotten what it is that you actually look for from states, small states like ours. I can speak to that very quickly. Thank you Madam Chair and Mr chair. So, for those, I, we did send ahead a very brief document called ECS supports and services. So, I won't go into too much detail there but essentially ECS was formed as a compact between all 50 states. In the 1960s to help support states in the face of growing federal legislation around education and education policy and so basically what we are is a membership organization for states to learn from each other. We collaborate and to share. We try to give voice to the diverse interests of the states themselves in the area of education policy and so the way our dues structure works is we're not dependent on federal funds, or any kind of national foundation funds, and it allows us to be non partisan and non biased as Tom mentioned. Vermont is a smaller state based on both its K-12 population and its GDP and that's how the dues are set. So the dues are currently set at 53,100 for the state of Vermont. This enables the state to access the full range of services that ECS provides as well as officially appoint commissioners to the compact itself. As I said, we have never turned a state away as you can tell. Vermont has actually been quite active with ECS in the recent past. In addition to the support we're hoping to lend to you today through our presentation on CTE. We have had engagement with the agency of education in Vermont in three recent technical assistance activities, one on STEAM education, one on P3, STEAM policy, and then a multi-state teacher licensing collaborative. And so basically what ECS is trying to do there with technical assistance is bring states together on these specific topics, learn from each other, talk about challenges, and then have ECS policy experts there to help inform additional models or things like that. And as you notice, Tom is reticent to say who's the best or who's doing the right thing. And that's partly because we do try to be non-biased, non-partisan, but we're always wanting and willing to make connections between states or identify models we think are applicable to the state of Vermont. Another activity that Vermont took advantage of is our support of task forces, so we did support the task force on pupil waiting, and that was just recently, I believe, last year. And so those are some of the other things we do around council activities, so trying to lend our expertise when needed when you have a special topic in mind. So with that, I will pause and see if anyone has any questions about how ECS works or its dues model or its support and services for that matter. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. I just wanted to thank you for sending along the PDF that showed all of the support you provided to Vermont. Just for two back, like five minutes ago, to ask if it's possible to update it with some of the more recent activities. I think the one I have is dated from November. But I just wanted to confirm, I think I'm correct, in that Vermont has been taking advantage of your support and services, but we've either lapsed in our payment or not made it for some number of years. And so I wondered if you could give us a little update on that. I get the feeling we're like the people who listen to NPR and never chip in. I love that reference. So, back in the 60s, all 50 states adopted the compact language into their statutes. Over time with cleanups of statutes and simplification of statutes, some states have repealed language so the state of Vermont repealed the compact language in 1995. And at that point in time stopped paying the dues, I assume, because there was no way to attach a fiscal note or a budget request to something that was no longer in statute. So, essentially, I believe since 1995 I can double check. The state hasn't been paying the dues. Again, we do honor you all as a state of the compact, regardless, but I do think when we're looking at trying to prioritize resources, it is awfully difficult to then have all the states kind of opt out of paying. So, yes, NPR might be a good example. Thank you. Thanks. Look into that. I'm seeing number of questions here. One more question on the same topic. Was it. ECS who provided testimony this summer or fall on the different delivery systems for English as a second language instruction. I'm getting a nod from my fellow committee member on the people waiting task force, but I think it may have even been Tom who delivered that to us. And special ed. So I will have to check with my, my team, I just started in May, so may have preceded me, but we can look into that or I can look to see if it was on the report that we provided representative James. Okay. Thank you. I know we've had a conversation Aaron about the teacher workforce as well. You might want to follow up with you later on that I know that there are some other states are using some innovative approaches. I believe one is paying mortgage mortgages I think one of the states was doing that was just fabulous. I will follow up with you on that. And I think that we're finished at this end. I was going to work out. No other questions madam chair. Okay. Thank you so very much. This has been helpful as we work our way through this. I just want to think are there are there. I always do this I'm sorry as we're about to end I think of my last question. Is there activity going on around the country in the way that people are looking at their CTE centers right now. Is that something that we're seeing some where we have an increased interest in all of a sudden and looking at this. Is this something that other states are looking at right now. Is it is it a common topic of conversation or is it just kind of a little spot around the country. No it's not in pockets I think a lot of states are thinking about CTE and CTE delivery and kind of also thinking about where that fits within a broader kind of concept of workforce and education training as an individual growth throughout their K-12 may interact with the post secondary system or workforce training systems and how CTE aligns to those opportunities and help support students in those growth so I think no you're not alone in Vermont in that way. And it's helpful as it's helpful as you kind of define and kind of set your direction. We're always happy to draw on state examples that maybe considering on you know similar questions or have considered similar questions in the past. And also you know kind of Darren's point we're always happy to connect you with those states, but we're also happy to provide kind of any research kind of top level information as well. So I think that's one of the things that we're going to be looking at in terms of specific states to our current bill will be looking to for someone to help take a really take a look and make recommendations. If you have any, any people around the country that you think might be of help to us. That would be great if you could just email me. Yes, absolutely. We'd be happy to do that. Kind of chair as a follow up to that too. I did write down some of these questions where Tom said we could get back to you and so we will follow up with some written information request responses to you all. Okay, thank you so much. We can end this conversation. We'll be continuing to look at our bill and we'll keep, we'll keep our keep our house. Converse economic development of price to where we are with that bill. Thank you very much. So we can end here. Back on the floor in an hour. Thank you all. Okay, thank you. With this in mind, are there any further thoughts we have about our current bill? We're speaking specifically of the $180,000 study. Okay, right. Exactly. I mean, we've got markup and possible vote scheduled for tomorrow. I feel, I feel good about that. Unless folks are having reservations, I'd love to move that along. Because I think it, I'm sorry, I didn't hear what your markup said. Do they feel like they want to take it? Okay. And then you said then ways and means and then approach. I feel like we need to get this role. I'll get that order sorted out. I think it would be ways and means first and then approach. Okay. They may have additional questions to ask. Either way, three stops. So, yeah, no, two stops. One will just be they can, they can just forget it without, without taking possession of the bill. Okay. So that's where I'm coming from. Okay. So we will plan on just have a moment to take a look at that we'll do one last run through and then we'll vote. Okay. So how high does this bill to advance for month? I mean, in my mind. It's, but yeah. Okay. Advance for month. When I'm going to move that today, that's going to go straight up to commerce and let them deal with it. It just looked like most of the impact was happening more in the Department of Labor. Other than are we providing some statistics seem like it was, they were the ones that would be affected. So, yeah. Okay. Okay. I don't know what the, is it, is it. Perfluous and that it's already covered by DOL. I don't know. So we'll let them sort that out. Anything else. Okay. We can. Break. So there's anything else anybody wanted to bring up. I don't know if we need to be on for this, but it's related to the act one group. Yes. Definitely. It seems clear that we're going to need to put in. Into a bill somewhere in extension. Because they were supposed to be done by the end of FY 22. Right. And they're going to go until December. Right. So their stipends have been pulled back. Right. So a extension of their work until FY 23 so that they can. Until December. Yeah. Okay. So that will go into our letter. Okay. That they can just handle that in the legislative language part. We don't need to. We, we, we can state that. Okay. Why we're doing this. We'll let them know why they need to do that. And then we don't need a separate bill out of committee to do that. And we don't need to stick billing. We did another bill. Because I think we extended it last year. To December 22nd. We just didn't. If I remember correctly. We extended them, but we didn't appropriate funds in the next. But in the next. Budget session. So in going back and forth with Amanda just now. And she copied me on emails. The law states that the one would be concluded by July. 2022. Budget management, not AOA. AOE took the stipend funding out to comply with the law. The way the law is written. Again, this is AOE. I guess you could ask the general. General assembly for a new date for conclusion of the work. Have they written that? Okay. Okay. So we didn't expand. We didn't extend it last year. We just extended it to July. I guess. Okay. Did that go in the budget? That could just go in the budget. It's going to budget. They have a place for language in the budget as well. Because it is also necessary because they're 50,000 for the consultant. Yeah. Is in the RFP process. So we did an extended. We did an extended last year. We just extended it to July. I guess. Okay. Would that go in the budget? Okay. So we're going to continue with the work of the consultant. Yeah. Is in the RFP process. Now it will be well under way. By July, but it may not be done by July. So then they would have a problem finishing the payment. Okay. Let's. You can sort out that what's needed. Yup. And we will talk with the Ledge Council. Okay. So what's the scope of the work of the consultant? The standards, the contents, the. I'm not going to go back to Amanda's testimony, but I think it's to help them parse through. The department of it. I mean, the agency wasn't able to help them with that. I think it was always intended that that would be done with, they would do it and would need. Likely a consultant to help handle it because there's so many standards. And they agreed to be consulted. Yeah. We agreed. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So let's have a conversation about the budget items. Then that we're addressing. Okay. Right now. And then Aaron are taking this on. Big play. Well, representative Conlon is. A bit distracted. By something. I can read it to you. Do you, do you want me to go through the list that we have? We're working off of right now. I was going to just pull up the budget book. But yes, let's. Yeah. Yeah. Most of this is because Robin has already flagged it for us, but we're trying to figure out what else we need to look for. We know the big one from AOE is the justification on positions. There are two new positions from the general fund. Yeah. That they talked about already and that there is some explanation of in the budget books. But there are five other positions being added. And so. Not sure what the budget implication of that would be. And in the chart that Robin somehow got it next to all of those, it says we'll need to increase the cap. I'm not sure what that means either. Thank you. Those are all. So these, let's get these questions organized because the secretary is going to. I'm making a list. Great. And we're getting one of them. Amanda, do we, do we have. You're working on bringing someone into top budget with us. That be. Yes, I am. The secretary or deputy secretary. We are the ones who need to speak to. Is that. So tomorrow we have a secretary French coming in to speak about chapter 11. But next Tuesday I'm working with Maureen and Suzanne from AOE to get someone in to talk to us about the budget. Right. So can I. You want to keep going through the list? Yeah. How do you want to handle this? I'm just. You know, before COVID. I think we had been hearing from schools about lack of professional development training from AOE on proficiency based report cards as well as this year. We heard. From schools, a lack of professional development. On MTSS. And I'm just wondering at those two positions. Like. Has that one. Nothing to do with it. Cause there. Those two positions, the two general fund positions are one, the. Facilities position, which I think we would support. We wanted to do all that facilities work and that presentation we had. There's a real need for that. The second position is a communications team. And sort of a response to. And how much their work has become communications and needing to. Grow the capacity that one may be a more. Also worth remembering that. There are 11 vacant positions, seven of which are under active recruitment. So. Addressing those, they may exist, but don't have. Bodies. Can we ask. Secretary French. When he comes one, maybe we're talking budget. Like. An update on that. Sure. The. Other five positions that are, it says federal funds. But to become permanent. And therefore need to increase the cap. Again, I don't know. What that means. Three or four of them are. Monitoring for special education. Or as I don't, we can ask what those positions entail more. One is a consultant for administering COVID funds and programs that goes away. Yeah. Using COVID funds. I would imagine. Yes. Yeah. I think these are all COVID federal funds. They're using. It's just that they're permanent positions. So. How that fits into the. What they have. That's in the pipeline. So the other positions are for essentially damaging federal funds. More people doing that. So, and so therefore it's funded by those federal funds. I guess I would like to know why we need more people doing that. Is that. We have more federal funds. Non-covid federal funds coming in. Right. And are they permanent positions? Yes. They're permanent positions. And. One is a grants manager. And three are special ed monitoring. So I don't know. If those are. I don't know that those are. Right. So I think that that's where there's. Questions. Yeah. So those are the. Big questions for the AOE. The other question for AOE is there's apparently a. Proposal. To waive licensing fees that come from. OPR for people under 25. I think all licenses, but the way they put it in the governor's recommend has it under. Education. So there's a something, a prop's has to clean up because there's a lot of things that get licensed, but it would include initial teacher licensure. And they have it as a $75,000. Expense. But Robin had some further information. That estimated it would actually be at least double that to. To waive those fees. For a year. And Robin suggested we need more representative. I recommend that we need more information about like, what's the goal here? Is this part of the governor's workforce agenda? Attracting young people. What's the goal? How will we know? Right. Why? Right. We've had. Every year. At least when I was the first, we have a fee bill and. Different agencies. Departments. Put forth fees. So it might be your driver's license. It might be your permitting fee perspective. It might be a. Will Driller. The. All of those things helped to cover that program. But we have not had a fee bill since. Since. Since governor. Scott. Okay. And he sort of has done away with that. So. I don't know. This is an interesting one. So here's one. Or he's getting rid of a thing. I don't know. I don't know if it's related or not. It's just to work for us. But it would. We do need to get that. And you've got this on the list. So that's on the list. Representative shy said that we need to get. A little bit more from the AOE about. In the governor's recommend. There's a big list of one time. Expenses. Expenses. Expenses. Expenses. Expenses. Expenses. Expenses. Oh Lord. Okay. It's a very large list of one time. Expenses. One time expenditure from the general fund and we've got. 675,000. To a town. Or. The nutrition specialist to continue funding for the. Non-specialists, right. And. Grants for school districts to purchase local. For your honor, I'm remembering, frankly, full spell And I think it was meant to be an ongoing position Remember that Must be an ongoing position I don't know look Okay, so what to check that now? So there's that There's this act one date issue And then You'll find out more I'll have a lot of Google Docs for next year. Oh ready for this. Oh And then we have I guess the whole committee might not have heard but Jenna organized a list of Testimony that we need to officially be on the record. We don't have the Vermont State College's budget request in a formal sense apparently for upstairs, but we have not You talk to Peter Peter Did I what about the request? Yeah They presented to approach but not to us yet And Peter sent in some questions and they've they've responded to his questions in email So but we just haven't heard from him yet Is the community College of Vermont fit in there in another monster college they they are that's part of the merging interesting They're still a separate entity CCD, but they're under they're part of the Corporation, yes, that's what you're thinking of Serena the the VSC transformation is going to merge the residential colleges Into Vermont State University CCD is going to stay yep under the corporation, but they're going to continue to function independently and the funding goes to Vermont State Colleges and CCD. Yeah, when we do an appropriation it goes to all of them Thank you Is it just separately? I don't think so because it goes to the corporation. Yeah, and then it's loaded We already got UBMs request so we have that and we know there's a they're asked for a big increase or an increase Amanda's working getting testimony in you to organize that question that we could sit up to them. It'd be great. I Honestly, thank you for this work You so far done away more than I have done so I most appreciate it Oh, it's due Wednesday That's a hard step by another squishy Now we're talking like students do you mean it's doing Those details are part Okay So that's great. Are you just copy? Yeah Copy or you want to be left off? I'm okay So you want me to put the act one like needs into an email that would be great just to you Yeah, yeah into it into a document of some time whether it's email or a word doc. I don't Okay And then when a always and I'll ask them yes as well to go submit that on the wreck some questions to them They have them for that and if we can get that off Before the weekend great Basically, what are we coming down here? We don't have anything left for today Tomorrow look at that sneaky ad for tomorrow. We will look Without the permission of the chair or discussing it with a single member of this committee I have a scheduled testimony on chapter 11 for after lunch at 1 p.m. I just saw that thank you And what we really need to do is just We're really we're very close. Yeah, we just got to deal with the last stuff that we were talking about They they'll have the language by 8 30 in the morning And if you've spoken to To the superintendent school board No, because the superintendents are at a convention And that will still have to look for some testimony next week. Yeah Um Yeah, we got a lot of Budget stuff now. We've got a lot to squeeze together here. That's that one tomorrow. Yes I would like to if we can pull it together together close to pulling together we can What we can we tune To those those slides and that will be a drive-by they do not want possession of that and then we won't send it to the clerk After we have returned is that I can we can either vote it out on Friday You can vote it out next week so that's on the floor on tuesday or we can vote it out Um on friday, so it's a notice on tuesday We're talking following our break. Yeah Let's sort of Um We're not going to be voting anything tomorrow morning That I might miss Well, there is the possibility that we're going to vote out 483. We could That's I'll be here for a bit and then I'll I think it's that's about Okay, I like it I All right