Perkins Spending Rules | Origin: LC160
Do you think the spending rules you learned about this module support or hinder Perkins’ goal of more fully developing the academic knowledge and technical and employability skills of secondary and post-secondary students who enroll in CTE programs? Why?
Perkins spending rules definitely support the goal of Perkins to improve CTE programs and ultimately overall student success in CTE.
Perkins spending rules support the goals of Perkin by giving schools money that otherwise would not be available. Without the Perkins money students would not be able to learn the technical skills required for future employment because the schools would not have the equipment to teach those skills.
Yes, I believe the rules and regulations support the goal of Perkins. This is especially true as it pertains to supplanting. This helps protects the Perkins funds to be used specifically for what it is intended for.
No, the rules allow for support of the goals of Perkins Grant.
The rules presented definately support the goals of Perkins by allowing schools to use funds to improve and enhance programs in CTE for students.
Perkins spending rules definitely support the goals of Perkins and help ensure the schools use funds to improve programming for CTE students.
I think Perkins' spending rules support its goals. LEAs need to have a stake in this, and Perkins' supplement rules force LEAs to continue to expand its programs and outreach.
Perkins spending rules suppor the goal of Perkins as pilot programs can be started and supported with evidence needed to continue the funding and scale up of these high quailtiy opportunites.
They both help and hinder the improvement of CTE programs. I agree that the state/local systems should match spending with federal dollars and Perkins funds should only be spent on CTE programs, staff, students, and resources. However, supplanting is ridiculousness. Once the federal dollars have been delegated to the states and the state has delegated the funds to the local systems, then the monies should be usable on any item that is needed to improve/grow the CTE programs of each secondary school system or postsecondary institution as laid out in the comprehensive local needs assessment plan. For example, the state/local systems paid the salary of a CTE staff member the year before, but this year the system needs to move the money around and pay for the CTE staff members salary out of the federal dollars this year, it should not matter which funds are paying for the CTE staff member or be called supplanting, if the state/local system is matching funds.
Perkins funding is spent on access to programs for ALL. The funds are used to support enrollment in CTE. Rules for supplement and supplant can at times be hindering, when funds are matched by the state regardless.
They help programs by providing funds to advance CTE programs, and not simply to fund existing services.
Reply to Letha Bauter's post: Supply versus supplant is a tough call at times when an institution is facing budget cuts. Perkins could help maintain a program. (For example, if a program can only have X number of students per faculty member, Perkins could allow a second faculty member to remain to meet local demand. Yes, programs should be self-supporting after the three years but with COVID or other hiccups, numbers can do down. "Losing" a faculty member during lean times could lead to long term impacts.
The spending rules keep the focus on supplementing, not supplanting needs and focus on ensuring high quality CTE programs.
Similiar to other federal programs, the differentiation between supplmenting and supplanting is important when identifying expenditures for Perkins.
The rules support the reason for the Perkins Grant existence. It is to supplement the education funding for CTE programs, which are usually more costly than other education programs.
It doesn't necessarily hinder it but teachers really need to understand the difference between supplment and supplant when decising what they want to spend the money on.
It supports the mission of Perkins funding which is to supplement CTE student experiences for increased performance. The rebut option provides a way for institutions to make a case for the supplementation when supplant has been presumed. Seems like a lot of work for all involved, but is a good way of accountability to ensure the program funds are used as intended.
Perkins spending rules support the goals of Perkins funding. The bill and its associated dollars are to help support CTE efforts, so I see the rules to ensure supplanting isn't happening as ultimately beneficial to CTE, fiscal responsibility, and the amount that states/national entities need to contribute.
The rules support. It is clear that Perkins is not the only funding for programs.
