Committee reviews draft amendment to S.313 to reshape Vermont’s CTE system

The High Committee on Commerce & Economic Development reviewed a committee amendment to S.313 on April 9, 2026, advancing broad intent language aimed at transforming Vermont’s career technical education system and directing further rulemaking, study, and a legislative working group.

Committee counsel Bea Jing, legislative counsel, said she had formatted Drop 1.1 of the committee amendment as a strike‑all and walked members through the bill’s purpose and proposed language. The draft centers on legislative findings and intent rather than immediate statutory changes and organizes the proposal into six broad topics—universal access, flexible delivery models, alignment with workforce needs, student‑centered funding, exploring diploma‑conferring CTE centers, and strengthening adult CTE pathways.

Members spent substantial time on rulemaking and implementation. The amendment would require the State Board of Education to update CTE rules (as described in the draft) in collaboration with the Vermont Association of Career and Technical Directors and the Vermont Superintendent Association to reflect the system as of July 1, 2026; proposed updates include revised definitions, credential and competency standards, work‑based learning sequencing, safety standards, and reporting alignment. The draft would also require the board to submit proposed rules to the committee by January of the following year and would bar filing final rules for at least 120 days after that submission or until July 1, 2027, whichever comes first—giving the Legislature time to review proposed regulations.

Transportation emerged as a recurring concern. Committee members said transportation logistics and who bears costs are significant barriers to student access and to resolving wait lists when centers lack capacity. The draft includes a requirement for a report back on transportation information and recommendations, but members noted the language does not yet tie transportation recommendations specifically to CTE access or specify per‑mile cost data in a way that would resolve local tensions over who provides and pays for transport.

Members also debated how to handle teacher certification and licensing. Intern feedback and testimony cited hurdles in qualifying experienced practitioners to teach CTE; committee members discussed whether certification changes belong in the CTE rule series, in the professional standards board rules, or as the subject of a separate study or legislative work group. The committee signaled it will ask the Agency of Education to examine certification pathways and return recommendations.

On credits and graduation, the draft would change the current process so that credits earned at CTE centers must be applied by a student’s sending school toward graduation requirements—addressing testimony that some districts have declined to honor CTE credits in certain cases.

The amendment proposes redefining “comprehensive high school” to describe schools that fully integrate CTE and general education on a single campus with a single budgetary framework. Members raised concerns about which existing schools would qualify under the new definition and the draft therefore includes legacy language to grandfather institutions recognized under the prior definition as of June 30, 2026.

A major structural change in the draft is creation of a legislative Career and Technical Education Governance Working Group composed of four House members and four Senate members (with specified committee representation) to study how to incorporate CTE governance into the larger education governance system, recommend transition plans that avoid disruption to safety and access, propose transition funding and sources, and report proposed legislation by Dec. 15, 2026. The committee discussed whether the Joint Fiscal Office and Ways & Means should be formally tied to the work group to support cost and funding analysis.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized the difference between rulemaking timelines and near‑term operational fixes: rule changes may take a year or more, while mediation, interim implementation pathways, or agency designations could address urgent frictions sooner. Members asked the author’s office and staff to prepare revised language, to pull in JFO for upcoming briefings, and to continue deliberations at future meetings. Committee members confirmed additional sessions next week, with a schedule to hear JFO and other presenters.

The committee did not take a final vote on S.313 at the April 9 meeting; members concluded with drafting notes, requests for clarifying language on transportation and funding, and scheduling next steps.