Vo-tech votes about the long-term direction of the program
The following is in response to two recent “Our Opinion” editorials that appeared in the Butler Eagle in March and April, respectively: “After votes against vo-tech, what’s next?” and “Schools should work out their issues with the vocational-technical school.”
What those opinions did not fully address was the Butler Eagle’s own reporting on March 4 (“Vo-tech funding questions linger at Seneca Valley”), which accurately noted that Seneca Valley voiced concerns about the long-term direction and operational efficiency of the vo-tech’s programs.
Specifically, we have asked that each program be thoroughly evaluated to ensure that space, staff and resources are being used effectively, with a focus on prioritizing programs that align with the greatest student interest and future workforce demands.
This is not a new concern. It is the second consecutive year we’ve made this request — and we’ve done so to ensure no student is turned away from the most in-demand vocational programs. Unfortunately, that may now be happening, as we have been informed students will be turned away.
We’ve also raised concerns about what we see as duplicate offerings. For example, enrollment in the Protective Services Program has dropped significantly, yet the vo-tech continues to run three sections of the program across seven school districts with relatively small numbers (22 students in the first session, nine in the second, and just seven in the third). Meanwhile, similar protective service opportunities are available across several county municipalities and offer flexible alternatives for students pursuing careers in these fields.
We believe streamlining and consolidating under-enrolled programs would increase operational efficiency, reduce redundancy and allow for meaningful reinvestment in high-demand areas like welding and cosmetology — where student interest is strong and workforce needs are pressing.
Welding, for example, currently enrolls 146 students and is bursting at the seams, with 55 in the first session, 44 in the second and 47 in the third. And we anticipate a 20% increase in enrollment next year, just from Seneca Valley alone. Cosmetology tells a similar story, with projected student interest expected to grow by 40%.
It would be unfortunate for students to miss out — especially on opportunities like the recent visit from Iron Workers Local Union 3, who shared job openings and trade information. They’ll also offer free on-site testing and certification during vo-tech program sessions.
Our “no” votes were never a rejection of career and technical education, nor a rejection of increasing costs. In fact, during budget development discussions with the vo-tech, Seneca Valley School Board representatives on the Joint Operating Committee fully committed to paying the district’s full share — regardless of the final decision of the budget proposal. We remain committed to working collaboratively with the vo-tech and our fellow districts to craft a forward-looking, student-centered strategy.
Put simply, we voted “no” because the cost of staying the course is too high. Without such planning, we risk investing in yesterday’s jobs instead of preparing students for tomorrow’s opportunities.
This opinion column is from Seneca Valley School board of directors Eric DiTullio, president; Jeff Widdowson, vice president; and members Leslie Bredl, Nick Brower, Mike Jacobs, Susan Harrison, Tim Hester, Fred Peterson and Kari Zimmer.
