Below is a revised (shortened) discussion paper that I have submitted to our local representatives as well as a number of those in charge of education reform. Montpelier has focused on cost (tax) savings in education, but there’s a lot at stake here. The quality of our current CTE programs must be considered and attempts to reduce their costs must be reconciled with their successes.

Dear concerned representative:

With cost-cutting “front and center,” I ask you to carefully consider the role of CTEs in addressing the needs of Vermonters and the pivotal role that these centers play in preparing our kids for the future.

Consideration of quality and costs and value of CTEs in Vermont.

How do we measure quality? Is it in how many kids graduate high school/go to college? Is it in how many kids do well on standardized tests? Or can it be in how well a high school prepares its students for their future?

For a CTE, the answer is simple. It lies in how well students are prepared for their future after graduation.

• In Vermont, just over half of high school graduates go on to college (53%). This leaves almost half of our students needing to prepare for the “real world” as soon as they graduate, or be faced with a low-wage job. For high school students, CTEs provide training and exposure to a broad base of career options, commonly graduating with industry credentials or certificates, college credit, and often a job offer on graduation.
• CTEs have higher graduation rates than regular high schools even though over 40% of CTE students are on Individualized Education Plans.
• More kids go to college after graduating CTE than regular high schools

How can we maintain quality while lowering costs? Are CTEs that costly?

The all-in budget for our local CTE (Patricia A. Hannaford Career Center) is just over 4% of that of the total schools budgets for the county, yet it currently serves 1 in 3 high school kids, and should be working with almost half of the kids in Addison County. Is this a bad deal?

Full enrollment of CTEs will reduce per-student costs.

Costs per student go down when more students attend CTEs. This should not be difficult. As noted above, almost half our graduates don’t go on to post-secondary education, yet only about 30% of high school students attend CTE at any time during their high school tenure. This leaves about 20% of high school graduates without job training or further education. High schools in Vermont need to step up their ability to help all their students find their way after graduation. Getting these kids enrolled in CTEs answers two shortcomings: it provides career training and lowers per-student costs. Let’s design consolidation of school districts so that catchment levels provide for all our students and optimize CTE enrollment so that all students who wish to attend can attend.

Eliminate the competitive funding model.

Sending schools are required to support 60-70% of a student’s tuition, which can put a school into a conflict of interest when a student wants to sample or experiment with CTE classes. There should be no conflict of interest in deciding what is best for the student.

Finally, a significant percentage of student tuition is for infrastructure improvement (bond debt). Why is this left up to the local taxpayers? Vermont needs to step up and support infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure improvement is not optional when you are trying to maintain quality.

Consequences? You can’t maintain quality and breadth of training while cutting costs.

Trimming expenses by reducing staff and classes leads CTEs into a “death spiral” of losing students and losing even more revenue. Then what? It also leads us to ask: what programs should be cut? Forestry? Automotive? Diesel technology? Focus areas for training at CTEs haven’t been randomly chosen, but are based on employment needs and opportunities determined from research in local towns (for reference see: mcclurevt.org/most-promising-jobs).

Bottom line: The issues are complex and fluid, and the chaos in Washington leaves us with more nausea and less certainty. Too many states have shown us how not to run our schools. Let’s not join them in our haste. Taxpayers clearly are anxious about rising taxes, but they also look for wise, well-thought-out decisions that put their kids first. Reversing bad decisions is not easy or cheap.

Good luck and thank you for your consideration.

Dan Rossignol, Ph.D.

Patricia A Hannaford Career Center Board Member

Addison