How Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Washington offer replicable CTE policy frameworks—and why Perkins V reauthorization matters now
Demand for career and technical education is climbing faster than the money to fund it. Between 2022 and 2024, K-12 CTE enrollment surged 10%, yet federal appropriations failed to keep pace with inflation, opening a $230 million funding gap that states must now absorb or ignore.1 For public administrators and policy professionals, this mismatch represents a governance failure with direct workforce consequences.
CTE policy sits squarely within public administration and public policy scope: it involves intergovernmental fiscal transfers, labor market alignment, data system integration, and equity-driven program design. The federal Perkins V framework structures how dollars flow, but state-level decisions in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Washington demonstrate what effective implementation looks like.
With Perkins V reauthorization approaching, administrators face a strategic window to address educator shortages, modernize curricula, and close outcome gaps before the next funding cycle locks in priorities. Those weighing graduate credentials to lead this work will find that understanding the difference between public administration and public policy sharpens how they position themselves across education and labor agencies.
What is Perkins V, and how does federal money actually reach the students enrolled in welding, nursing assistant, or cybersecurity programs at high schools and community colleges? The Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, commonly known as Perkins V, is the 2018 reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, the primary federal funding stream for CTE programs across all states. Perkins V replaced Perkins IV with updated accountability requirements, more state and local flexibility in program design, and an emphasis on alignment between secondary and postsecondary CTE pathways. For public administrators managing career pathways, Perkins V is the policy spine connecting K-12 districts, community colleges, and regional employers through competitive-grant and formula-funded program supports.
Perkins V distributes funding to states through a formula based on population and per-capita income.1 Each state receives a minimum of 0.5 percent of the total annual appropriation, and a foundational grant rule prevents any state from receiving less than its FY2018 allocation unless the national appropriation is insufficient to maintain that floor.1 In FY2025, Congress appropriated approximately 1.44 billion dollars for Basic State Grants under Perkins V, out of a total Perkins appropriation of 1.45 billion dollars.2 FY2026 remained level funded, with the Basic State Grant holding at approximately 1.4 billion dollars.3
Once a state receives its allocation, it must distribute at least 85 percent to eligible local recipients: secondary schools, community colleges, and area career centers. These local recipients access funds through a competitive or formula subgrant process and must complete a Comprehensive Local Needs Assessment every two years. That assessment requires data on student performance, labor-market demand, equity gaps, and program quality. The needs assessment feeds into a four-year local application that aligns CTE offerings with state-approved programs of study and regional workforce priorities.
Perkins V established five core performance indicators: four-year graduation rate, academic proficiency in reading and math, postsecondary placement, program quality (non-traditional concentration and credential attainment), and effectiveness in serving special populations. These indicators overlap with the accountability framework of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which governs broader K-12 performance standards. For public administration professionals and policy analysts, this intersection means CTE data flows into state ESSA dashboards, and underperforming CTE programs can trigger improvement plans that affect both CTE and general education funding streams. In late 2024, the Department of Education also proposed significant changes to state-plan and reporting requirements under Perkins V, signaling continued federal interest in refining program accountability.4
Despite modest proposed increases, Perkins V appropriations have remained effectively flat since FY2018, creating a 230 million dollar purchasing power shortfall due to inflation.1 The FY2025 proposed increase of 10 million dollars did little to close that gap,5 and FY2026 funding remained level.3 As a result, states are serving 10 percent more CTE enrollees with stagnant federal support, forcing difficult triage decisions at the local level. Understanding how federal-state partnership accountability tools operate is essential context for administrators navigating these resource constraints.
Most states and the federal government use the term Career and Technical Education (CTE). Georgia brands its system as Career, Technical, and Agricultural Education (CTAE) to emphasize the state's agricultural economy and the inclusion of agriscience pathways. The distinction is semantic for policy purposes: both fall under Perkins V, and both use the same federal accountability metrics. Public administrators working across state lines should be aware of the labeling difference but recognize that program structures and funding mechanisms remain consistent.
Federal investment in career and technical education has failed to keep pace with both inflation and surging demand. Between 2022 and 2024, K-12 CTE enrollment grew by 10%, yet Congress did not adjust appropriations to match rising costs or rising participation. The result is a widening gap between what states need and what Washington provides, with direct consequences for program quality, teacher recruitment, and student outcomes.
Colorado invested $31 million in state CTE funding for the 2025-26 year against a reported program cost of roughly $130 million,1 producing a state share of about 53.7 percent2 and a mixed funding model that leans on local districts, federal Perkins dollars, and industry co-investment to close the remainder. That single ratio is worth pausing on: it tells administrators in other states that a credible state CTE system does not require the state to shoulder every dollar, but it does require the state to shoulder enough to signal seriousness and to condition how the rest of the money behaves.
Colorado's distinguishing feature is the Big Three outcomes model,3 which for FY 2026-27 allocates roughly 40 percent of formula weight to industry-recognized credentials, 35 percent to work-based learning, and 20 percent to postsecondary credits earned in high school. Governance runs through three named bodies working in concert: the State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education (SBCCOE), the Colorado Community College System (CCCS), and the Colorado Department of Education (CDE).4 Employer engagement is channeled through the SPARC Workforce Development Program,5 which functions as the connective tissue between secondary CTE, community colleges, and regional employers.
Reported outcomes for 2024-25 are strong: a 98 percent graduation rate for CTE concentrators, a 98 percent post-completion placement rate, 97 percent placement into further postsecondary credentials, and 55 percent of completers working.6 These figures come from state fact-sheet reporting and should be read as program-defined measures rather than independent audit results, but the direction of travel is clear. Administrators interested in online MPP programs in Colorado will find that the state's policy environment reflects this same commitment to outcomes-based design.
Pennsylvania runs a categorical CTE subsidy on top of its Basic Education Funding formula, which effectively guarantees that CTE dollars cannot be quietly absorbed into general operating budgets. The state's 84 area career and technical centers, governed by joint operating committees drawn from sending districts, act as regional intermediaries between K-12 systems, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and industry advisory committees required for each approved program of study.7 The lesson for administrators: separating CTE from general education funding lines protects the investment, but only if paired with an intermediary structure that actually convenes employers.
Washington uses an enhanced CTE apportionment rate, meaning districts receive a higher per-pupil allocation for students enrolled in approved CTE courses than for students in standard coursework.7 Program approval flows through the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction with mandatory industry advisory involvement, and Skills Centers serve as regional shared-service hubs for high-cost programs. Practitioners pursuing online MPA programs in Washington will recognize this layered governance logic from their own public administration coursework.
Three structural features recur across all three models:
An administrator in a fourth state adapting these frameworks should start with the funding-stream question, because governance and intermediary design tend to organize themselves around whichever dollar the legislature is willing to protect. Understanding how public policy can boost hiring is equally important context when making the case to legislators for protecting those dedicated CTE funding lines.
Per-student CTE investment is overwhelmingly a state story, not a federal one. Federal Perkins V dollars average roughly $77 per CTE student nationally, while state appropriations average $1,152 per student, meaning federal funds account for only about 6 percent of total CTE spending per pupil.1 That ratio should reframe how public administrators think about scale: federal policy sets the guardrails, but state budget decisions determine whether a CTE program has updated welding equipment, a full-time counselor, or an industry-credentialed instructor.
The following comparison uses the most recent verified figures from Advance CTE's State of CTE Funding data1 and CareerTech's state-by-state funding table2 (2022, the latest year with complete cross-state reporting).
Texas sits roughly 52 percent above the national per-student total, driven almost entirely by state appropriations rather than federal formula dollars. Verified per-student figures for Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, California, Ohio, and Florida were not available at the level of confidence required for a direct comparison here, and we would rather leave the table short than publish numbers we cannot stand behind. State education agency budget documents and the Advance CTE report cited above remain the authoritative places to pull current figures for those states.
Three factors explain most of the variation administrators will encounter when benchmarking their own state:
The practical implication for policy staff: closing the $230 million federal funding gap identified in the Center for American Progress report matters, but what is public policy and how it is structured at the state formula level is where the largest per-student gains are won or lost.
Career and technical education programs face three critical, interconnected challenges that undermine their ability to deliver workforce-ready outcomes: a persistent shortage of qualified instructors, curricula that lag behind industry standards, and data systems too fragmented to guide policy reform. For public administrators tasked with strengthening state workforce pipelines, these barriers represent urgent pressure points where targeted intervention can unlock broader system performance.
Recruitment and retention of qualified CTE instructors remain the most acute operational constraint reported by state education agencies. Unlike traditional K-12 teachers, CTE instructors are drawn from industry backgrounds where private-sector compensation often exceeds public school salaries by substantial margins. This wage gap creates a structural disadvantage: professionals with current industry credentials face strong financial disincentives to transition into teaching roles.
The shortage is not uniform across all program areas. High-demand fields such as advanced manufacturing, information technology, healthcare, and cybersecurity experience the most acute vacancies because industry compensation in these sectors is highest and labor markets are tightest. Rural and under-resourced districts face compounded challenges, often unable to compete for credentialed instructors even when urban centers succeed.
State policy responses have coalesced around three primary strategies. Alternative certification pathways allow industry professionals to enter teaching without completing traditional teacher preparation programs, accelerating the pipeline. Industry wage parity initiatives provide salary supplements or bonuses to CTE instructors in high-need fields, narrowing the compensation gap. public sector pay transparency measures can further support equity by making salary structures visible to prospective instructors weighing public versus private employment. Grow-your-own programs recruit paraprofessionals, former students, and mid-career professionals already embedded in local communities, building pathways from within.
Even when qualified instructors are in place, many CTE programs operate with curricula that have not been updated to reflect current workplace technologies, certifications, or employer expectations. Equipment purchases lag behind industry adoption cycles, leaving students trained on obsolete machinery or software platforms no longer used in professional settings. The result is a credential mismatch: students complete programs and earn certificates that employers do not recognize as evidence of job readiness.
Effective curriculum modernization requires sustained partnership between education agencies, industry advisory boards, and postsecondary institutions. Broader questions about what public policy schools should teach are directly relevant here, as the same feedback-loop problem applies when academic curricula drift from practitioner realities. States that mandate regular program review cycles and tie funding to demonstrated industry alignment report stronger employer satisfaction and higher graduate employment rates. Without these feedback loops, CTE programs risk becoming credentialing mills that satisfy compliance requirements but fail to deliver labor market value.
Perhaps the most pervasive barrier is the absence of integrated data systems that connect K-12 CTE enrollment, credential attainment, postsecondary transitions, and labor market outcomes. Most states operate siloed databases managed by separate agencies, with no common identifiers linking student records across education and workforce systems. This fragmentation makes it nearly impossible to measure return on investment, identify which programs produce the strongest earnings gains, or allocate resources based on empirical performance.
Public administrators seeking to improve CTE systems face a data desert. Without longitudinal tracking, states cannot answer fundamental questions about which pathways deliver value, which populations are underserved, or whether policy interventions produce measurable change. Building integrated data infrastructure is resource-intensive and politically complex, requiring agreements across education, labor, and higher education agencies that often guard data as proprietary. Federal administration best practices frameworks consistently identify cross-agency data sharing as a prerequisite for evidence-based governance, yet without this foundation, CTE policy remains reactive rather than strategic, driven by anecdote rather than evidence.
Understanding whether career and technical education programs deliver on their promise requires rigorous outcome measurement. For public administrators weighing workforce development investments, the evidence base has grown substantially stronger since 2023, with several states now producing longitudinal analyses that track CTE completers over years and even decades. The findings reveal both significant gains and important caveats that should inform policy design.
North Carolina provides some of the most robust long-term data available. A 2026 analysis tracking the Class of 2014 found that CTE concentrators achieved a 71 percent employment rate ten years after graduation, with median annual wages reaching $40,342.1 These figures vary meaningfully by pathway: Human Services CTE concentrators reached a 75 percent employment rate at the ten-year mark, illustrating how program area shapes outcomes.
Shorter-term data from Nevada's 2025 longitudinal study shows that secondary CTE participants earned $807 more than non-CTE peers in their first year after high school, with that advantage growing to $1,721 by year two.2 In North Carolina, CTE pathway students earned a median of $28,181 annually compared to $25,497 for non-CTE comparison students, representing a wage premium of 10 to 11 percent.3
Notably, CTE benefits extend to underserved populations. North Carolina data from 2023 found that CTE concentrators with disabilities earned $971 more than their non-CTE peers in the first year after high school, with that advantage widening to $2,809 by year four.4
States and researchers typically calculate CTE return on investment by comparing per-completer program costs against projected lifetime earnings gains. According to CTE return on investment analysis from the Association for Career and Technical Education, CTE programs nationally demonstrate a cost-benefit ratio of approximately 1:5.37, meaning every dollar invested generates over five dollars in economic returns.5
Certificate program outcomes vary dramatically by state. Vermont CTE certificate holders earned a mean annual wage of $36,800 in 2024, while North Dakota completers earned $21,700 and Minnesota completers earned $16,500.6 These differences reflect both regional labor market conditions and the mix of credentials offered.
The return profiles differ significantly across CTE pathways, and administrators should resist treating CTE as monolithic. California data from the Public Policy Institute shows community college CTE health credentials generating wage premiums of approximately 70 percent, while non-health CTE certificates produce more modest premiums of 5 to 10 percent.6 Texas high school students holding industry credentials earn roughly 9 percent more than peers without such credentials.7
Nationally, CTE certificates and associate degrees produce wage premiums ranging from 12 to 23 percent, but this aggregate figure masks substantial variation. High-demand fields like information technology and healthcare consistently outperform areas with lower labor market demand. Professionals weighing a public administration salary trajectory may find these credential premiums directly relevant to advising constituents on workforce pathways.
Despite these promising findings, few states can currently replicate North Carolina's longitudinal analyses. The data fragmentation problem discussed earlier in this article means most state education agencies cannot link K-12 CTE participation records to postsecondary enrollment data and unemployment insurance wage records. Without this integrated infrastructure, administrators cannot calculate meaningful ROI figures or identify which local programs deliver strongest outcomes.
The available evidence strongly suggests CTE generates positive employment and earnings outcomes, but policymakers should recognize that state-specific analysis remains the exception rather than the rule. Building the data systems necessary for routine outcome measurement represents an essential prerequisite for introduction to public policy reform at the state and federal levels.
Research consistently shows that students who complete career and technical education programs experience stronger labor market outcomes than their non-CTE peers. These advantages manifest in both higher employment rates and elevated earnings, particularly in high-demand fields. The following comparison illustrates how CTE completion translates into measurable economic benefits across key time horizons after graduation.
As career and technical education expands across the country, uneven access and outcomes along lines of race, gender, disability, and geography remain a persistent challenge for public administrators. Closing these gaps requires reliable data and intentional coordination across education, labor, and workforce development agencies.
The U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) provides the most comprehensive school-level look at CTE participation and discipline broken down by race, ethnicity, gender, and disability status. Public administrators can use CRDC to assess whether certain student groups are overrepresented in lower-wage CTE pathways or disproportionately excluded from advanced credentialing programs. Each state's Perkins V State Plan, published by the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), outlines the equity strategies that states have committed to pursuing. These plans detail how states intend to identify and close participation gaps, often including goals for increasing access among underrepresented populations and improving completion rates for students with disabilities.
Understanding whether CTE programs actually lead to improved employment for all students requires looking beyond graduation rates. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics offers local area unemployment data that can help policy analysts compare labor market conditions across communities. Many state labor market information offices publish CTE program graduate employment rates, sometimes disaggregated by demographic group or region. When these data are not readily available, administrators can request custom analyses from their state agencies or build partnerships with university researchers to link CTE participant data with wage records. Several states have begun to publicly report employment and earnings outcomes by race and gender in their Perkins V state-determined performance level reports, offering a window into which programs are delivering equitable results.
The alignment between the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and CTE systems is critical for connecting high school programs to postsecondary credentials and jobs. State WIOA Combined State Plans, typically posted on state employment department websites, outline how workforce development boards and CTE agencies coordinate services. Local workforce plans often contain detail on how CTE pathways are integrated into career services for youth and adults, including targeted strategies for individuals with barriers to employment. University-local government partnership models track and share best practices for this alignment, making them a useful starting point for administrators looking to strengthen cross-agency collaboration.
Professional associations like the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) and the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) regularly publish reports on equity interventions, including programs that have successfully increased participation among students of color, females in nontraditional fields, and learners in rural areas. For administrators needing to understand rural/urban divides, the National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data provides school location and demographic context. Combining these tools with local program audits can reveal whether transportation barriers, counseling biases, or limited course availability are driving unequal outcomes, giving leaders the evidence they need to redesign pathways and funding models. Those interested in advancing this work through graduate study may also explore careers in public policy to understand the professional roles most directly responsible for shaping equitable CTE systems.
Perkins V, formally the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, is the federal law that channels roughly $1.4 billion annually to states for CTE programs. Its next reauthorization cycle opens a rare legislative window in which Congress can adjust funding formulas, accountability metrics, and alignment requirements before the law is locked in for another six-year cycle. For public service leadership case studies professionals, this is the moment to translate state-level evidence into federal statute.
The Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Washington case studies point toward concrete legislative levers that reauthorization should pull.
Reauthorization should also require joint CTE plans between state workforce boards (operating under WIOA) and state education agencies. Today, these systems often duplicate labor market analysis, credential inventories, and employer outreach. Co-developed plans with shared performance metrics would reduce administrative overhead and improve referral pathways between secondary CTE, adult education, and workforce training. Genuine reform requires education, labor, and economic development agencies to operate from shared data, shared goals, and shared budget authority where feasible. Administrators who want to understand how policy adjacent careers intersect with workforce development will find this cross-agency coordination especially relevant to their professional positioning.
Before reauthorization advances, administrators in state and local roles can: convene an internal audit of Perkins fund flows and outcome metrics in their jurisdiction; draft comment letters through their state CTE director to the House Education and Workforce Committee; pilot data-sharing memoranda between education and labor agencies that could later scale under new federal authority; and identify one equity gap in local CTE access that a revised formula could address. These preparatory steps position agencies to move quickly once new statutory authority arrives. For those still building the credentials to lead this work, exploring public administration certifications can sharpen the technical policy skills that reauthorization efforts demand.
Career and technical education policy sits at the intersection of education governance, workforce development, and equity. These frequently asked questions address the core concepts public administrators and policy professionals need to understand as federal reauthorization discussions gain momentum in 2026.
