{"id":3483,"date":"2025-06-13T10:10:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-13T10:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stand.org\/illinois\/?p=3483"},"modified":"2025-08-08T17:26:55","modified_gmt":"2025-08-08T17:26:55","slug":"fy24-state-cte-disbursement-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stand.org\/illinois\/our-stories\/fy24-state-cte-disbursement-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"FY24 State CTE Disbursement Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>\n\n\n

May 2025<\/span><\/h1><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n

Executive Summary<\/span><\/h3><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

In FY 2024, the ISBE disbursed $44 million in state CTE appropriations to 53 Education for Employment (EFE) districts. FY24 is the \u201cbase year,\u201d with subsequent years phasing in the new formula. This analysis does not include federal Perkins dollars, which are disbursed through a federal formula based on population and poverty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our analysis shows dramatic variance among EFE allocations with little correlation between funding and outcomes in this FY24 \u201cbase year\u201d allocation.<\/em><\/strong> An analysis by CTE participants and concentrators yielded similar disparities in funding across EFE districts.  This strongly supports the transition to the new state CTE funding formula, which is being phased in slowly over time, 25% per year as long as the appropriation increases to ensure that no EFE loses funding over the prior year. The new formula allocated funding based on the funding adequacy of the districts in each region and the number of CTE concentrators, imposing a lens of equity and accountability to a funding structure desperately in need of modernization.<\/p>\n\n\n

Methodology<\/strong><\/span><\/h3><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

To calculate this information, we captured data from ISBE\u2019s Financial Reimbursement Information System (FRIS) of CTE allocations from FY24 by EFE. We sorted each school district into its corresponding EFE and calculated average percentages of adequate funding for each EFE based on its member school districts\u2019 funding ratio average. We also integrated this financial data with Illinois report card data on the numbers of students enrolled, CTE participants, and CTE concentrators. With this integrated data, we were able to run various analyses comparing CTE allocation rates by funding ratio, per student, per CTE student, and per CTE concentrator.<\/p>\n\n\n

State CTE Funding by Student, CTE Participant, and CTE Concentrator<\/strong><\/span><\/h3><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the strongest correlation the analysis found is that EFE districts that had more funding per high school student were more likely to have higher rates of CTE participation and concentration.  Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has the lowest rate of CTE participation (12%) and the lowest amount of funding per high school student ($34). Whiteside Regional Vocational System receives the highest rate per high school student ($383) and a relatively high rate of students participating in CTE (72%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this was certainly not universal. For example, Franklin County Regional Delivery System and Two Rivers Career Education System each receive a relatively low amount of about $50 per high school student, but have about 75% of students participating in CTE. ESL Regional Vocation System receives 83% more per high school student than the average allocation ($137, compared to the average of $75), but has less than the average participation rate (44%, compared to the average of 50%) and concentration rate (concentration rate (concentration rate (7%, compared to 24%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One limitation to this analysis is that school districts<\/em>, not EFEs, report the numbers of students who participate and concentrate in CTE. Thus, if a student receives CTE service through a partnership with the community college or some other program not affiliated with the EFE, it would still look like the EFE is \u201ccredited\u201d with that student\u2019s CTE success. However, the CTE funding per pupil correlates more strongly than how well-funded a region\u2019s schools are under EBF, suggesting that dedicated CTE dollars are more likely to drive CTE expansion than non-directed general funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was There was There was little correlation between CTE allocation and how adequately-funded a region is when averaging the Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) adequacy percentages of each school district in the region. The new formula takes EBF funding adequacy into account when allocating new dollars, but in the base year, there was a very slight trend in the opposite direction, with funds skewing toward better-funded areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


The following table summarizes EFE funds by high school pupil, CTE participants, and CTE concentrators.  See the accompanying spreadsheet, \u201cFY24 State EFE Funding Analysis\u201d for the full breakdown of EFE funds along with the funding quintiles and CTE participation and concentration rates.
<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

FY24 State CTE Funding by EFE<\/strong><\/span><\/h3><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n