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?
Spending rules under the Perkins Act can sometimes hinder the goal of fully developing academic and technical skills in CTE students, as certain restrictions can limit flexibility in how funds are used, potentially preventing schools from addressing specific needs and tailoring programs to local industry demands; however, when designed effectively, spending rules can support this goal by ensuring funds are directed towards high-quality CTE programs and initiatives that prioritize both academic and technical skills development. If rules too tightly define how funds must be spent, it can prevent schools from utilizing resources in the most effective way to address unique challenges in their local area. By requiring states to identify high-demand occupations and align CTE programs accordingly, spending rules can ensure students are being prepared for relevant career pathways. Overall, the effectiveness of Perkins spending rules in achieving its goal depends on how well they are designed to balance flexibility with accountability, ensuring that funds are used strategically to support comprehensive CTE programs that develop both academic and technical skills in students.
The rules support the Perkins mission, but can also be a barrier. It's difficult for all the CTE teachers when part of one teacher is funded out of Perkins (in order to add new sections to the schedule) as that reduces the amount of money for other CTE programs at the school. I believe that example is supporting and not supplanting as the sections did not exist prior to the Perkins funding.
Perkins funds were created for specific purposes and some may try to use it to pay for things that other state and federal money can and should be used for. So this idea of supplanting helps to keep districts in line with using Perkins funds as intended and not to use it to replace other funding sources.
The rules support the idea that Perkins funding is for the extra - routine items should be budgeted as part of the regular school budget cycle or purchased from a sponsor rather than the grant.
Overall, I believe the rules support the goal. Funds should be used to support and grow CTE programming, however, if the funds are allocated to a local entity and are being used for CTE in some form, it should not matter that some of those things were funded in other ways the previous years. It seems to me as long as the local entity had methods of sustaining a program without Perkins funds in future years that the current year should be more flexible.
I think the rules support Perkins funding making it very clear what they can and cannot be used for.
I believe the rules definitely support the goals of Perkins. They provide clarity and focus for administrators and accounting staff to ensure proper stewardship of funds.
The spending rules support the goals to implement, strengthen, and grow CTE programs while providing the framework of compliance outlined in the Pekins legislation.
The rules are clear and support Perkins's funding. I believe it also allows us to ensure that spending is going towards CTE areas.
It definitely supports the goals, however, there are cases where it will hinder especially in post-secondary CTE regarding resources to support our special populations. In rural areas where services and financial supports are limited, there are barriers to offering all the supports to special populations. Opening up a grant for LEA's to apply for would be beneficial in these situations.
The supports it! The rules make sure it is spent where its suppose to
I feel like the funding rules are very specific.
The rules support. It is clear that Perkins is not the only funding for programs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similiar to other federal programs, the differentiation between supplmenting and supplanting is important when identifying expenditures for Perkins.
The spending rules keep the focus on supplementing, not supplanting needs and focus on ensuring high quality CTE programs.