<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:93569.wais]
STRENGTHENING VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 4, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-569 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Cass Ballenger, North Carolina Major R. Owens, New York
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Sam Johnson, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Fred Upton, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan David Wu, Oregon
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Susan A. Davis, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Ed Case, Hawaii
Ric Keller, Florida Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Tim Ryan, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Timothy H. Bishop, New York
John Kline, Minnesota
John R. Carter, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Max Burns, Georgia
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman
Tom Osborne, Nebraska, Vice Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Chairman Susan A. Davis, California
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Fred Upton, Michigan Ed Case, Hawaii
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Judy Biggert, Illinois Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Ric Keller, Florida Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina George Miller, California, ex
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado officio
John A. Boehner, Ohio, ex officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 4, 2004...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Castle, Hon. Michael N., Chairman, Subcommittee on Education
Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce........... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin............................................... 3
New York Times Article, ``U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in
the Sciences,'' submitted for the record............... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Brand, Betsy, Co-Director, American Youth Policy Forum,
Washington, DC............................................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Dunkel, Sandy, Division Administrator, Career Development
Division, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield,
Illinois................................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Ihlenfeldt, Dr. Bill A., President, Chippewa Valley Technical
College, Eau Claire, Wisconsin............................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Quinn, Brenda, Chief Executive Officer, Intelitek, Inc.,
Manchester, New Hampshire.................................. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Stevens, Jean C., Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Curriculum & Instructional Support, New York State
Department of Education, Albany, New York.................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
STRENGTHENING VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
----------
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Castle
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] Presiding.
Present: Representatives Castle, Biggert, Davis of
California, Kind, and Van Hollen.
Staff Present: Stephanie Milburn, Professional Staff
Member; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Alanna Porter, Legislative Assistant; Deborah
Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Jo-Marie St.
Martin, General Counsel; Dennis Forte, Minority Legislative
Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Minority Legislative
Assistant/Education; and Lynda Theil, Legislative Associate/
Education.
Chairman Castle. Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. A
quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Education Reform of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to
order.
We are meeting today to hear testimony on strengthening
vocational education. Under Committee rule 12(B), opening
statements are limited to the Chairman and the ranking minority
member of the Subcommittee. Therefore, if other members have
statements, they may be included in the hearing record.
With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record
to remain open 14 days to allow member statements and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted to the official hearing record.
Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Thank you all--I mean, everybody here for joining us today
to hear testimony on State and national efforts to implement
Federal vocational and technical education programs under the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. Today's
hearing will provide the opportunity to examine the
implementation of the reforms from the 1998 reauthorization and
will also provide insight on how these programs could be
improved to better serve students. This is our second and final
hearing on vocational and technical education as we look toward
reauthorization of the Perkins Act.
The Perkins program aims to prepare youth and adults for
the future by building their academic and technical skills and
ensuring they are equipped to proceed with postsecondary
education or pursue other postsecondary opportunities. This
program represents one of the largest Federal investments in
our Nation's high schools and is a key component of our
secondary and postsecondary education systems. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics, 66 percent of all
public secondary schools have one or more vocational or
technical education programs with approximately 96 percent of
high school students taking at least one vocational and
technical course during their secondary studies.
Vocational and technical education is an important
postsecondary option as well. Over 2,600 postsecondary sub-
baccalaureate institutions, such as community colleges,
technical institutes, skill centers and other public and
private colleges also offer vocational and technical education.
Reforms made to the Perkins Act in 1998 increase the focus on
ensuring that participating students at both the secondary and
postsecondary levels acquire academic and technical skills as
well as complete their respective programs and transition into
further education and successful employment.
Some progress has been made in States that have created an
initial performance accountability system, and the focus on
academic performance among students participating in vocational
and technical education courses has been strengthened. However,
technology and economic competition are combining in ways that
are changing the nature of work and are redefining the American
workplace. The need for higher literacy, numeracy,
communication and interpersonal skills in the workplace has
grown over the past decade and will continue to be an important
factor in the workplace in the future.
The skills needed to be successful in postsecondary
education are similar to the skills that are required by
employers. The need for a strong academic and technical
background makes it imperative that the current vocational and
technical education system adapt in order to provide the
knowledge and skills needed to succeed.
Today, we will hear from individuals who play a role in
strengthening vocational and technical education. We will get
an overview of the current environment surrounding vocational
and technical education. Additionally, two State directors will
inform us how State leadership efforts can ensure quality,
relevant and rigorous vocational and technical education. In
addition, we will hear from a community college to learn how
these institutions serve as a vital link between secondary
schools and 4-year postsecondary institutions to improve
technical education and training. And finally we will hear from
a business representative to learn more about what is required
to succeed in today's workplace.
During the upcoming Perkins reauthorization, our challenge
is to examine the current program to ensure that all vocational
and technical education students have access to programs that
are sufficiently rigorous in both their academic and technical
content as well as provide clear connections with the education
and training beyond high school that most Americans need for
continued workplace success. We hope to learn from our panel of
witnesses the recommendations regarding suggested changes to
further improve Perkins; and we thank them and all of you for
joining us.
And I will yield to Congressman Kind for any opening
statement he may have.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Castle follows:]
Statement of Hon. Mike Castle, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education
Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.001
------
STATEMENT OF HON. RON KIND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do commend you for
your leadership on this issue.
I thank the panelists for your presence and anticipated
testimony today on the very important goal of reauthorizing the
Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act in this
session of Congress. It has been kind of a heavy agenda for
this committee, trying to reauthorize the higher education bill
generally as well as the Workforce Investment Act, but I think
vocational education is one of the more important investments
that we have to make in the country to deal with the workforce
development issues that we are facing.
And I welcome all the panelists. I am especially pleased to
have one of my own, the President of Chippewa Valley Technical
College, Dr. Ihlenfeldt, joining us here today.
This is a very important piece of legislation, especially
when you take a look at the trends happening on a global scale.
Other countries are getting it. There are major country
infrastructure investments taking place right in China, India
and many other parts of the world. And there are studies coming
out, reports being submitted, that unless we are careful, we
are going to start losing our ranking as one of the most
innovative and creative countries when it comes to science
degrees, engineering degrees, workforce development issues
generally.
In fact, I don't know how many of you noticed the New York
Times article that was published in yesterday's paper, entitled
U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences. And we are seeing
more and more of that occurring.
Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to submit
this article for the record at this time.
Chairman Castle. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance In the Sciences
By William J. Broad
May 3, 2004
The United States has started to lose its worldwide dominance in
critical areas of science and innovation, according to federal and
private experts who point to strong evidence like prizes awarded to
Americans and the number of papers in major professional journals.
Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even exceed
America's, apparently with little public awareness of the trend or its
implications for jobs, industry, national security or the vigor of the
nation's intellectual and cultural life.
``The rest of the world is catching up,'' said John E. Jankowski, a
senior analyst at the National Science Foundation, the federal agency
that tracks science trends. ``Science excellence is no longer the
domain of just the U.S.''
Even analysts worried by the trend concede that an expansion of the
world's brain trust, with new approaches, could invigorate the fight
against disease, develop new sources of energy and wrestle with knotty
environmental problems. But profits from the breakthroughs are likely
to stay overseas, and this country will face competition for things
like hiring scientific talent and getting space to showcase its work in
top journals.
One area of international competition involves patents. Americans
still win large numbers of them, but the percentage is falling as
foreigners, especially Asians, have become more active and in some
fields have seized the innovation lead. The United States' share of its
own industrial patents has fallen steadily over the decades and now
stands at 52 percent.
A more concrete decline can be seen in published research. Physical
Review, a series of top physics journals, recently tracked a reversal
in which American papers, in two decades, fell from the most to a
minority. Last year the total was just 29 percent, down from 61 percent
in 1983.
China, said Martin Blume, the journals' editor, has surged ahead by
submitting more than 1,000 papers a year. ``Other scientific publishers
are seeing the same kind of thing,'' he added.
Another downturn centers on the Nobel Prizes, an icon of scientific
excellence. Traditionally, the United States, powered by heavy federal
investments in basic research, the kind that pursues fundamental
questions of nature, dominated the awards.
But the American share, after peaking from the 1960's through the
1990's, has fallen in the 2000's to about half, 51 percent. The rest
went to Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and New
Zealand.
``We are in a new world, and it's increasingly going to be
dominated by countries other than the United States,'' Denis Simon,
dean of management and technology at the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, recently said at a scientific meeting in Washington.
Europe and Asia are ascendant, analysts say, even if their
achievements go unnoticed in the United States. In March, for example,
European scientists announced that one of their planetary probes had
detected methane in the atmosphere of Mars--a possible sign that alien
microbes live beneath the planet's surface. The finding made headlines
from Paris to Melbourne. But most Americans, bombarded with images from
America's own rovers successfully exploring the red planet, missed the
foreign news.
More aggressively, Europe is seeking to dominate particle physics
by building the world's most powerful atom smasher, set for its debut
in 2007. Its circular tunnel is 17 miles around.
Science analysts say Asia's push for excellence promises to be even
more challenging.
``It's unbelievable,'' Diana Hicks, chairwoman of the school of
public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said of Asia's
growth in science and technical innovation. ``It's amazing to see these
output numbers of papers and patents going up so fast.''
Analysts say comparative American declines are an inevitable result
of rising standards of living around the globe.
``It's all in the ebb and flow of globalization,'' said Jack Fritz,
a senior officer at the National Academy of Engineering, an advisory
body to the federal government. He called the declines ``the next big
thing we will have to adjust to.''
The rapidly changing American status has not gone unnoticed by
politicians, with Democrats on the attack and the White House on the
defensive.
``We stand at a pivotal moment,'' Tom Daschle, the Senate
Democratic leader, recently said at a policy forum in Washington at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's top
general science group. ``For all our past successes, there are
disturbing signs that America's dominant position in the scientific
world is being shaken.''
Mr. Daschle accused the Bush administration of weakening the
nation's science base by failing to provide enough money for cutting-
edge research.
The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, who
attended the forum, strongly denied that charge, saying in an interview
that overall research budgets during the Bush administration have
soared to record highs and that the science establishment is strong.
``The sky is not falling on science,'' Dr. Marburger said. ``Maybe
there are some clouds--no, things that need attention.'' Any problems,
he added, are within the power of the United States to deal with in a
way that maintains the vitality of the research enterprise.
Analysts say Mr. Daschle and Dr. Marburger can both supply data
that supports their positions.
A major question, they add, is whether big spending automatically
translates into big rewards, as it did in the past. During the cold
war, the government pumped more than $1 trillion into research, with a
wealth of benefits including lasers, longer life expectancies, men on
the Moon and the prestige of many Nobel Prizes.
Today, federal research budgets are still at record highs; this
year more than $126 billion has been allocated to research. Moreover,
American industry makes extensive use of federal research in producing
its innovations and adds its own vast sums of money, the combination
dwarfing that of any other nation or bloc.
But the edifice is less formidable than it seems, in part because
of the nation's costly and unique military role. This year, financing
for military research hit $66 billion, higher in fixed dollars than in
the cold war and far higher than in any other country.
For all the spending, the United States began to experience a
number of scientific declines in the 1990's, boom years for the
nation's overall economy.
For instance, scientific papers by Americans peaked in 1992 and
then fell roughly 10 percent, the National Science Foundation reports.
Why? Many analysts point to rising foreign competition, as does the
European Commission, which also monitors global science trends. In a
study last year, the commission said Europe surpassed the United States
in the mid-1990's as the world's largest producer of scientific
literature.
Dr. Hicks of Georgia Tech said that American scientists, when top
journals reject their papers, usually have no idea that rising foreign
competition may be to blame.
On another front, the numbers of new doctorates in the sciences
peaked in 1998 and then fell 5 percent the next year, a loss of more
than 1,300 new scientists, according to the foundation.
A minor exodus also hit one of the hidden strengths of American
science: vast ranks of bright foreigners. In a significant shift of
demographics, they began to leave in what experts call a reverse brain
drain. After peaking in the mid-1990's, the number of doctoral students
from China, India and Taiwan with plans to stay in the United States
began to fall by the hundreds, according to the foundation.
These declines are important, analysts say, because new scientific
knowledge is an engine of the American economy and technical
innovation, its influence evident in everything from potent drugs to
fast computer chips.
Patents are a main way that companies and inventors reap commercial
rewards from their ideas and stay competitive in the marketplace while
improving the lives of millions.
Foreigners outside the United States are playing an increasingly
important role in these expressions of industrial creativity. In a
recent study, CHI Research, a consulting firm in Haddon Heights, N.J.,
found that researchers in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea now account for
more than a quarter of all United States industrial patents awarded
each year, generating revenue for their own countries and limiting it
in the United States.
Moreover, their growth rates are rapid. Between 1980 and 2003,
South Korea went from 0 to 2 percent of the total, Taiwan from 0 to 3
percent and Japan from 12 to 21 percent.
``It's not just lots of patents,'' Francis Narin, CHI's president,
said of the Asian rise. ``It's lots of good patents that have a high
impact,'' as measured by how often subsequent patents cite them.
Recently, Dr. Narin added, both Taiwan and Singapore surged ahead
of the United States in the overall number of citations. Singapore's
patents include ones in chemicals, semiconductors, electronics and
industrial tools.
China represents the next wave, experts agree, its scientific rise
still too fresh to show up in most statistics but already apparent. Dr.
Simon of Rensselaer said that about 400 foreign companies had recently
set up research centers in China, with General Electric, for instance,
doing important work there on medical scanners, which means fewer
skilled jobs in America.
Ross Armbrecht, president of the Industrial Research Institute, a
nonprofit group in Washington that represents large American companies,
said businesses were going to China not just because of low costs but
to take advantage of China's growing scientific excellence.
``It's frightening,'' Dr. Armbrecht said. ``But you've got to go
where the horses are.'' An eventual danger, he added, is the slow loss
of intellectual property as local professionals start their own
businesses with what they have learned from American companies.
For the United States, future trends look challenging, many
analysts say.
In a report last month, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science said the Bush administration, to live up to its
pledge to halve the nation's budget deficit in the next five years,
would cut research financing at 21 of 24 federal agencies--all those
that do or finance science except those involved in space and national
and domestic security.
More troubling to some experts is the likelihood of an accelerating
loss of quality scientists. Applications from foreign graduate students
to research universities are down by a quarter, experts say, partly
because of the federal government's tightening of visas after the 2001
terrorist attacks.
Shirley Ann Jackson, president of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, told the recent forum audience that the drop in
foreign students, the apparently declining interest of young Americans
in science careers and the aging of the technical work force were,
taken together, a perilous combination of developments.
``Who,'' she asked, ``will do the science of this millennium?''
Several private groups, including the Council on Competitiveness,
an organization in Washington that seeks policies to promote industrial
vigor, have begun to agitate for wide debate and action.
``Many other countries have realized that science and technology
are key to economic growth and prosperity,'' said Jennifer Bond, the
council's vice president for international affairs. ``They're catching
up to us,'' she said, warning Americans not to ``rest on our laurels.''
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
______
Mr. Kind. That is why I think today's hearing is important:
to talk about where we are going with vocational education, the
funding; what changes need to be occurring within the program
dealing with the challenges of the 21st century; a global
marketplace and where our students and workers are going to be
able to find their roles and the jobs in which to compete on a
global basis.
There are many aspects of the act we have to delve into:
the accountability provisions; finding out whether it has
become too cumbersome, whether there are opportunities of
streamlining that; the gender equity issues again; addressing
the aging population and the fact that we have close to 80
million baby boomers rapidly approaching retirement, and what
this is going to mean to the workforce of this country; and how
the community and technical colleges throughout the Nation are
going to be playing a crucial role, I believe, in dealing with
all of that. Some big issues.
I am glad to see we have a distinguished panel to speak on
those issues; and just to indulge me, a couple of remarks about
Dr. Ihlenfeldt.
He has been the President of CVTC since 1994, and he has
been doing incredible things to bring the technical school in
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the heart of my congressional district,
as well as the technical school system in Wisconsin into
position for the challenges of the 21st century. A lot of
innovative programs: the Health Academy partnering with high
schools and students, trying to deal with the shortage of
health care providers in the Chippewa Valley area; a recent
announcement on moving forward on a nanotechnology; very
involved in a host of economic development issues. I have been
very impressed with his willingness to try form these public-
private partnerships and what we need to do, working together,
to deal with the challenges that all of us are facing in
creating jobs and keeping good-paying jobs in our own
community. And I am looking forward to working with him on a
host of other issues as we proceed.
In fact, most recently, unfortunately, the Chippewa Valley
area had back-to-back-to-back announcements of companies
closing up shop, affecting close to 600 workers and jobs. It
was Dr. Ihlenfeldt, along with a host of other local community
leaders, that formed a rapid response team in order to deal
with the needs of those workers and their families; and a lot
of it is going to be reintegrating education and job training
programs in order to find them a place to land in a very
turbulent and difficult economic environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing. I thank
the witnesses and look forward to their testimony and yield
back my time.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kind. We appreciate your
statement and look forward to going through some questions and
answers with the witnesses.
Let me try to explain to everybody in the room what we are
doing. We are talking about a reauthorization process. About
every 5 or 6 years, generally, for most pieces of legislation,
we review them and go through what is called a reauthorization
process in which we update them. It is our hope that we can
work it out in a bipartisan way. Sometimes we can't; sometimes
there are small issues that prevent that. But I think we are
relatively close on vocational education, and it is hopefully
something we can do in the next month or so and take it to the
floor of the House of Representatives. That remains to be seen.
We had, as I indicated, one other panel--last week, I
believe--and this panel today. The testimony of the witnesses
is vitally important, the written testimony, because all of the
various staff will look at that and analyze it in terms of
adding to what we are doing.
The testimony today is important. The witnesses will have 5
minutes, after which I start banging on the gavel. And we have
thrown the gavel here--no, just kidding about that. Hopefully,
you can keep your testimony to 5 minutes, and then we will have
some Q&A. It may seem short to you, but believe me, we do parse
pretty carefully the testimony you have submitted, so you don't
have to read it into the record. And we have tried, and I think
we have in this case gotten--obtained a balanced panel that
represents different components and interests of vocational
education outcomes, all the way from the education system to
the community college system to the employment base. So that is
the thrust of what we are doing.
The methodology we will follow is, I am going to read
introductions of several of you. Mrs. Biggert will introduce a
witness and Mr. Kind has already spoken about Dr. Ihlenfeldt
and may again for a moment or so; and then you will have 5
minutes to make your presentation. And we will go from Ms.
Brand to Ms. Quinn, and then we will each take 5 minutes for
questions and answers. So that is basically how we will proceed
with the rest of the day.
With that, I will go through some of the introductions, and
we will start with Ms. Betsy Brand, who has been the Co-
Director of the American Youth Policy Forum since 1998. In this
capacity, Ms. Brand organizes a portion of the speaker forums,
field trips and special meetings to bring policymakers together
on issues that affect youth. Previously, she served as a
Minority Legislative Associate for the House Committee on
Education and Labor, and subsequently served with Senator Dan
Quayle as a professional staff member on the Senate Labor and
Human Resources Committee.
In 1989, Ms. Brand was appointed Assistant Secretary For
Vocational and Adult Education at the U.S. Department of
Education. From 1993 to 1998, Ms. Brand operated a consulting
firm, Workforce Futures, Inc., focusing on policy and best
practices affecting education and workforce preparation.
Our second witness will be Mrs. Jean Stevens, who currently
serves as the Assistant Commissioner of Curriculum and
Instructional Support for the New York State Education
Department. Her responsibilities include leadership and
oversight of all curriculum areas, summer institutes,
technology policy and math and science partnerships. Mrs.
Stevens is also responsible for policy and program development
for adult education, adult and secondary career and technical
education, Tech Prep and High Schools That Work. She serves on
the department's School Leadership Implementation Group and is
on the agency steering committee for the implementation of the
No Child Left Behind legislation.
And I call on Mrs. Biggert, who will now introduce.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I always say my colleagues can learn from what we are doing
back in Illinois. I say it so often that they really get tired,
I think, but it is true.
I am very proud today to introduce a fellow Illinoian,
Sandy Dunkel. Ms. Dunkel is the Division Administrator of
Career Development for the Illinois State Board of Education
where she serves as the State Director of Career and Technical
Education. In this position, she oversees all State and Federal
programs designed to prepare students for the challenges of
higher education and the workplace.
She currently serves on the board of the National
Association of State Directors of Career and Technical
Education and many other State and Federal committees.
Ms. Dunkel has been with ISBC for 24 years. In her time
there, she has served in a number of positions working with
such programs as gender equity, workforce preparation, Tech
Prep, Perkins and the Jobs For Illinois Graduates program.
Prior to joining the State agency, she taught junior high home
economics for 4 years in Illinois and Florida.
She holds a Bachelor's degree in Home Economics Education
from Eastern and a Master's degree in Vocational Education
Administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. So she has a wealth of experience.
Thank you very much for joining us. I look forward to your
testimony, as do the rest of my colleagues.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert, and we welcome
you, too.
And let me turn to Mr. Kind to see if there is anything
further he wants to say about Dr. Ihlenfeldt.
Mr. Kind. I think I embarrassed him good enough today.
Chairman Castle. And finally--our final witness will be Ms.
Brenda Quinn. She has 20 years of senior level managerial
experience with high technology, engineering and manufacturing
companies. She provides hands-on leadership and direction for
corporate and business development, marketing sales, human
resources, financial management and strategic development.
During her career at Intelitek, she has focused on
aggressive scheduling and financial objectives to support
international operations that are effective in managing
multiple sites and staffs that are culturally and functionally
diverse.
And I have already given the other instructions, so we are
ready to go. Ms. Brand, we will turn to you for your lead-off
testimony.
STATEMENT OF BETSY BRAND, CO-DIRECTOR, AMERICAN YOUTH POLICY
FORUM
Ms. Brand. Thank you, Chairman Castle, Congressman Kind and
members of the Subcommittee; thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify on the subject of strengthening
vocational education.
As you said, Chairman Castle, the need for higher literacy,
numeracy, communication and interpersonal skills in the
workplace has grown over the past decade and will continue to
grow. New evidence demonstrates that the English and math
skills that high school graduates must master for success in
postsecondary education are the same as those needed in high-
performance careers. Also, more jobs require postsecondary
education and the labor market rewards those who take four or
more occupational courses in high school.
There are many high schools not preparing our youth well
for their careers and livelihoods. Problems at the secondary
school level have been chronicled in a number of reports that
focus on dropout rates in large urban high schools as high as
60 percent; poor student performance in math, science and
English; the structure and culture of many high schools that
allows too many students to fall through the cracks or get by
with low-level courses; unmotivated students because they fail
to see the relevance of what they are learning; and the lack of
clear pathways to postsecondary education and careers.
Current high school reform efforts to improve student
outcomes share several common themes and these are themes that
Federal investment strategy and career and technical education
can easily support and contribute to. These strategies include
smaller, personalized student-focused learning, rigorous
integrated curriculum linked to standards, finding ways to
connect youths with adults in a meaningful, supportive manner;
supports for students, including college and career exploration
and counseling; making learning relevant by linking it to
careers; using the community for learning; and helping students
advance more smoothly from secondary to postsecondary
education.
As a strategy to help improve positive CTE, in Rigor and
Relevance, which I believe was distributed to many of your
offices recently, I recommend a strategy for Federal funding,
that funding be used to develop and build the capacity of
States, school districts and schools to offer and support high-
quality CTE programs of study.
A program of study is defined as a multiyear, grades 9-
through-14 or 9-through-16 sequence of courses that integrates
core academic knowledge with technical and occupational
knowledge leading to an industry certificate or an Associate's
or Bachelor's degree. In grades 9 and 10, courses would focus
primarily on academic foundations, using the context of careers
to make core curriculum relevant and meaningful. In grades 11
and 12, students would continue to take core required
curriculum as well as technical electives and integrated course
work in their chosen career field.
The pathways between high school and postsecondary
education with options for dual enrollment would exist;
internships in the work-based learning would be provided; early
and ongoing college and career counseling and exploration would
be available; and students in schools would be held to the high
standards consistent with No Child Left Behind, as well as
measuring labor market outcomes.
The main difference between this concept of a program of
study and what is currently authorized under the Perkins Act is
that a program of study is a comprehensive, well-thought-out,
rigorous and articulated program that begins in the 9th grade,
and it ends with the attainment of certification or degrees.
The bulk of the funds in a program-of-study approach would
be used to support rigorous and integrated teaching and
learning and for professional development for both academic and
CTE teachers at the secondary and postsecondary levels.
Let me provide a few more specific recommendations for
reauthorization. First, it is clear that high school students
need more than pure academic preparation, and preparation for
careers is an important goal. The Perkins Act has a critical
role to play in preparing our youth for a changing economy,
which means both academic and occupational skills. Also, it is
very important for students to understand how their studies are
relevant and linked to their future, and CTE can help make this
connection. We need continued support for career and technical
education.
Second, I would suggest eliminating the statutory
restriction that funding can only be used for CTE programs that
lead to less than a baccalaureate degree. This current law
provision creates an artificial barrier between 2- and 4-year
colleges and limits learning for students. Perhaps at one
point, this barrier made sense, but in today's economy, we
should encourage students to pursue the highest degree
possible.
Third, create and support academically rigorous programs of
study that are comprehensive and span grades 9 through 14 or
16, as I just described. Federal funds should be used to
support these programs that allow freedom of design at the
State and local level. As you do that, I believe you can build
on Tech Prep, career academies, Career Clusters and early
college-high school models that are in the development of
programs of study. These models already possess many of the
elements of a program of study and they can be made more
comprehensive and rigorous.
Lastly, I would suggest changing from entitlement funding
to a competitive grant at the local level. In my experience of
visiting hundreds of high schools and CTE programs over many
years, one thing has consistently troubled me. It is that many
schools look at the Perkins Act as an entitlement which they
will receive regardless of their efforts in helping students
and whether those students learn and succeed.
I believe that by changing the grant from an entitlement to
a competitive one, schools will be forced to reexamine their
programs in much greater detail and will be forced to improve
much more quickly.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be
happy to respond to questions.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Brand.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brand follows:]
Statement of Betsy Brand, Co-Director, American Youth Policy Forum,
Washington, DC
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.007
------
Chairman Castle. Mrs. Stevens.
STATEMENT OF JEAN STEVENS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT, NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Ms. Stevens. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kind and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you to share the successes in New York State's current
technical education system, as well as to offer recommendations
on how to improve and expand the Federal investment through
Perkins.
As the Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Curriculum
and Instructional Support at the New York State Education
Department, I am responsible for current educational--adult
education in all curriculum areas. I also serve on the board of
directors of the National Association of State Directors and
Career Technical Education Consortium.
As Assistant Commissioner, I coordinate both secondary and
postsecondary career technical educational programs. We serve
over 272,000 secondary students, 129,000 postsecondary students
and 16,000 adult learners. Thirty-two percent of New York's
secondary students are enrolled in career technical educational
courses; and 259,000 students participate in work-based
learning experiences orchestrated in cooperation with 36,000
New York State employers.
Our students are doing well. Ninety-six percent of career
technical education concentrators receive a high school
diploma, and almost 94 percent of our secondary career
concentrators are employed in the military or pursuing
postsecondary education shortly after graduation.
There are many successes I would like to share, but my
remarks today will highlight the critical role of effective
State leadership as it has in ensuring quality in career
technical education by leading innovation and ensuring
accountability.
New York State leadership efforts focus on ensuring
quality, relevant and rigorous career technical education. Most
recently, we established an approval process that directly
impacts the academic and technical performance of our students.
To participate, each local educational agency or our regional
career tech centers must develop a cohesive program of courses
with a direct path to college or the beginning of a career.
Each approved program must meet all requirements of program
quality, including, but not limited to, appropriate
certification of all program teachers, sequential curriculum
that addresses our Career Development and Occupational Studies
Learning Standards, core academic learning standards at the
commencement of high school level, current business/industry
skills standards, postsecondary articulation, and the
availability of work-based learning experiences. Also, each
approved program must have a technical assessment based on
industry standards, if available, and increased availability
for college credit through articulated courses.
The program approval process has done much to improve the
transition between secondary and postsecondary education by
ensuring student competencies, skills and knowledge through
meaningful integration of academic and technical education. A
key component of our program approval process is the alignment
to industry standards and certifications.
Unfortunately, not all programs or career areas have
standards, certifications or assessments. This is one of our
biggest challenges in measuring technical competency. I believe
Congress should establish an assessment fund that could support
the creation of technical assessments by the 16 Career
Clusters.
Career Clusters are a response by the career technical
education community to establish common expectations in
language between education, both secondary and postsecondary,
and the workforce. It is for these reasons I believe specific
support for Career Clusters and related technical assessments
would assist States and locals in better meeting labor market
needs in achieving the goals and improve integration and
transition.
Accountability is another important State leadership
responsibility critical to ensuring quality. In New York, we
have made progress, but we must continue to work to make data
real, connecting what happens in the classroom every single
day. Data cannot solely consist of filling out a report; it
must be a connected learning and performance management tool.
Strengthened provisions in Perkins can improve the connection
between the uses of funds and accountability requirements.
Using accountability data in a responsible and meaningful way
will result in the identification of strengths and weaknesses
in specific programs and in career technical education as a
whole.
In New York, we work with our schools that are struggling
to meet performance goals by working on improvement programs
which include additional technical assistance and professional
development. In order to use Perkins accountability to drive
change, States need additional legislative authority to be able
to redirect or withhold funds from local programs that do not
meet performance expectations where, despite intervention,
improvement does not occur.
My final recommendation is that the new law require a
single, comprehensive State career technical education plan.
This will help align the current separate investments supported
under the Perkins Act--the Basic State Grant, Tech Prep and
Section 118--to better meet the needs of our students. A single
plan will reduce administrative costs, ensure nonduplication of
efforts and, most importantly, align and enhance the
complementary nature of these sections. Integration of funding
streams through a single, comprehensive State plan does not
mean a dilution of focus or support, but instead an alignment
of effective programs and practices to a common vision.
New York State's accomplishments are the result of strong
State administration and leadership. State leadership is about
leading change, facilitating partnerships, ensuring economy of
scale, leveraging multiple resources and accountability, all of
which support quality career technical education.
My colleagues around the country and I strongly encourage
Congress to support State's rights by continuing Perkins
provisions that allow States to select their sole State agency
and determine the appropriate split of funds between secondary
and postsecondary. Further, we recommend the level of funding
reserved to the State level be maintained so innovation such as
those I outlined today can continue.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these successes and
recommendations. I look forward to working with you as you
develop new legislation that builds on and expands on our
current successes and promotes innovation in our Nation's
career technical education system.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Stevens.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Stevens follows:]
Statement of Jean C. Stevens, Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Curriculum & Instructional Support, New York State Education
Department, Albany, New York
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.010
------
Chairman Castle. Ms. Dunkel.
STATEMENT OF SANDRA DUNKEL, DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, CAREER
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Ms. Dunkel. Chairman Castle, Congressman Kind and other
Subcommittee members, I just have to tell you, this is my first
time ever presenting testimony and it is an awesome experience.
I have two teenage boys at home, so that is exactly what they
would say.
While preparing my testimony, there were many issues in the
Federal legislation that came to mind that I would like to
address, if only I had more time. For example, the continuing
need for State leadership, the importance of integrating
academic and technical skills, the transition of students from
secondary to postsecondary education, the important role that
career and technical ed plays in economic development in
preparing a skilled workforce, and the successes and challenges
we have faced in developing an effective accountability system.
While all of these issues are important to us in Illinois,
I am going to focus my comments on the issue of engaging and
enabling every student to identify a career path and to give
them the tools to follow that path.
Career technical education plays a key role in ensuring
that no child is left behind in our system. Throughout the
Nation, the implementation of Career Clusters is helping
schools expand their vision for career and technical ed by
aligning the needs of the economy. This broadened focus ensures
that students have the opportunity to learn about an array of
careers rather than just specific jobs.
Career Clusters help to align and integrate academic,
technical and employability skills and serve an important role
in career guidance and counseling. Clusters can also be a
valuable tool in breaking down gender stereotypes, because
students are exposed to numerous professions in that career
area, not just one.
The reauthorization of Perkins in 1998 eliminated the $1
million set aside for gender equity and programs for single
parents and displaced homemakers, the requirement for a State
equity coordinator and the emphasis on services for special
populations. These provisions were replaced with an
accountability measure for participation and completion of
students pursuing nontraditional careers, and the State
leadership set aside between $60- and $150,000.
A national study of the results of this policy shift after
only 1 year of implementation of Perkins III resulted in over
50 percent of programs reporting a decrease in funding and over
70 percent reporting services to students significantly
decreased. In Illinois, prior to 1998, 50 programs assisted
over 78,000 single parents and displaced homemakers and
individuals pursuing nontraditional employment to enable them
to become economically self-sufficient. In addition, 30 gender
equity projects were working to eliminate sex bias and sexual
stereotyping and to increase nontraditional enrollments.
Illinois no longer has a full-time equity coordinator and,
at the State level, most of the programs and services have not
continued.
While it may seem I am painting a fairly grim picture here,
we have some glowing numbers perking in Illinois. The
accountability measure for nontraditional participation and
completion of students in career and tech ed programs has given
the motivation to continue to focus on this issue in new and
different ways. We continue to use State leadership funds to
provide technical assistance and professional development to
schools and colleges and to help improve the performance of
special population students.
As we build a history of accountability in nontraditional
programs, we have the opportunity to provide State leadership
to encourage schools and community colleges to implement
strategies to improve their performance. For example, in the
Joliet area, females aged 14 through 18 can attend the High
Tech Summer Camp where they are able to experience high-skill,
high-wage occupations firsthand.
Kenwood High School in Chicago will implement Project Lead
the Way this fall, a pre-engineering curriculum with a goal to
increase the number of students prepared to enter engineering-
related occupations, particularly for minorities and females.
Illinois is committed to continuing to ensure that no child
or adult is left behind in career and technical education, and
encourages you to consider the following recommendations to
improve the ability of States and locals to fulfill this goal.
No. 1, support State leadership to assist locals in
eliminating any and all barriers faced by students in pursuing
a career of their choice;
Two, continue to support the Perkins accountability system
to measure the success of every student, including special
populations and students pursuing nontraditional careers;
Next, create a direct connection between accountability and
how local funds are being used in order to drive program
improvement; and
Finally, support continued expansion and implementation of
Career Clusters at the State and local levels.
I want to thank you for this opportunity.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Dunkel. You did very well
on your first try here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunkel follows:]
Statement of Sandy Dunkel, Division Administrator, Career Development
Division, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, Illinois
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.012
------
Chairman Castle. Dr. Ihlenfeldt.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. IHLENFELDT, PRESIDENT, CHIPPEWA VALLEY
TECHNICAL COLLEGE DISTRICT, EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN
Dr. Ihlenfeldt. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. It is an honor for me to testify before you
today as one representative of the Nation's technical and
community colleges. I am also pleased to testify before our
Member of Congress, Representative Ron Kind.
CVTC is one of 16 technical colleges of the Wisconsin
Technical College System. Our vision is to be a dynamic
community partner dedicated to adding value through learning
and student success. The college operates on a business model,
emphasizing career-centered, public-private sector
partnerships. That model stimulates innovation and allows rapid
response to the businesses and industries and communities we
serve.
The most recent example is a partnership between the
University of Wisconsin, Marquette University and CVTC to
provide team-based medical training for family practice
residents, dental residents and students in our 14 allied
health and nursing programs at the college. This rapid-response
model is addressing the medical practitioner shortage in the
region.
Community colleges provide the gateway to this Nation's
workforce by serving as the vital linkage between the secondary
schools and the senior postsecondary institutions to expedite
technical education and training. Chippewa Valley Technical
College, for example, serves over 850 high school students
annually who receive dual credit in Associate degree programs.
Perhaps the best illustration that I can give of this
partnership is CVTC's Health Academy that prepares high school
youth to become registered nurses, graduating from high school
after having completed 1 year of their postsecondary technical
education. This unique program, by the way, is funded through
the Perkins Tech Prep demonstration program.
At the same time, the college has articulated agreements
with all major universities in the State that allow hundreds of
students and graduates to transfer each year. It has been
demonstrated that community college graduates are better
prepared to meet the rigors of this country's universities when
their careers necessitate that advanced degree. Unique pathways
like inverted degrees fill that career objective without
repeating competencies already in place for the job market.
This Nation depends on community college graduates to fill
about 80 percent of the jobs, ranking from health care to the
automation of our industries, to the security and protection we
need in these very, very difficult times. Employers today, to
be successful, need a continuous and rapid flow of graduates
and continuous training. In the majority of the Nation's high
schools, the technical training necessary to prepare students
for this type of rigor is not and will not be possible. Many,
especially in our district, are too small, lacking in budgets
and sophisticated technical equipment to educate students for
the advanced technology of today. This is where creative
partnerships with local community colleges can fill the needs
and do it cost effectively.
Many community college students are place or situation
bound. They look to the local community college as their only
hope for the future. If they are to move into a career and
become productive members of our communities, then community
colleges like CVTC have to provide them with the opportunities,
and the support many times, to make that a reality.
Services at our community colleges are designed for a wide
variety of students, a wide range of students. They include
those who have not succeeded in high school, those who have
been out of school for a long period of time and need a career
change, and those who are interested in new high-technology
careers like nanotechnology. Imagine the support systems that
are necessary for that range of preparation. That is why
Perkins funding is critical at the community college level. No,
it is critical for the future of the economy of the United
States to keep that funding available for the students at our
Nation's community colleges.
Last year, the Wisconsin Technical College System enrolled
128,000 special population students. The State grant provided
direct services for many of them, including career guidance,
academic support, remediation and internships. That is putting
our dollars to work, that is putting America to work, and it is
doing it in a cost-effective manner. No other system in this
country can provide that direct impact on our workforce and do
it as rapidly as the community college system. Your community
colleges are the glue between the systems that get people into
the workforce.
Perkins is the only continuing Federal commitment to
technical education. The elimination or reduction of this
program would be disastrous at a time when our economy needs
extensive revitalization.
Your community colleges are making the United States work,
and with your help through Perkins we will succeed. We will be
the liaison that brings the three systems of education together
to confirm our status as the economic power of this globe.
Thank you for your time and commitment to the future of the
community colleges of this Nation. We will not let you down.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Ihlenfeldt. Almost sounded
like a political campaign.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ihlenfeldt follows:]
Statement of Dr. Bill A. Ihlenfeldt, President, Chippewa Valley
Technical College, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.013
------
Chairman Castle. Ms. Quinn.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA QUINN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTELITEK
Ms. Quinn. I would like to thank you, Chairman Castle and
Representative Kind and members of the Education Reform
Subcommittee for inviting me to appear before you today. I will
be discussing the personnel needs of high tech companies and
the role of career and technology education.
When Congress passed the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, one of
its intentions was to move the U.S. from an agrarian to a
manufacturing community. To make that transition, Smith-Hughes
established Federal support in the education and training of
citizens. Its focus was on people.
To be successful as an economy, CTE was established as a
way of keeping people up to date. In my opinion, that is still
CTE's mission today. Perkins is still in the business of
keeping students up to date, but to update to serve a highly
technical economy in order to satisfy the mission.
Intelitek is part of the new high tech economy. We look for
employees with new and broader knowledge and skills than the
economy of the past. Intelitek produces Computer Numerically
Controlled bench-top machines, Computer Integrated
Manufacturing Systems and CAD/CAM software. Our customers, in
greater than 100 Fortune 500 companies, as well as 5,000
domestic and worldwide corporations, are using our machines in
high-volume production, graphic electrode machining, mold
making, rapid prototyping and high-precision machining.
We are also a leading developer, producer and supplier of
comprehensive solutions for training and engineering, automated
production and manufacturing. We design and produce automated
workcells for training anywhere from small-scale, flexible
manufacturing systems to complete Computer Integrated
Manufacturing Systems. These training systems have been
installed in over 20,000 businesses, colleges, universities and
schools, both domestic and worldwide.
I am sure that all sounds very high tech, and indeed it is.
It would have sounded even more high tech if I had used the
acronyms that I usually would use such as CAD, CAM, CIM and
CNC.
The people who work in my industry have titles such as
robotic technicians, CAD designers, industrial and automation
engineers. Each of these people requires education and training
beyond high school. The technology they employ is central to
American advances in productivity. But in the end, it isn't the
technology that is important; it is the people. Our people have
the knowledge and ability to stay up to date, and that is the
mission of career technical education.
Intelitek employs just under 50 employees; 27, which is
greater than 50 percent, come from career technical education
backgrounds and moved through the 2-year community college
system and/or the 4-year engineering degrees, and those are
very powerful numbers.
There are at least three things I look for in an employee.
One is a solid grounding in academics. At Intelitek, we expect
our employees and the people who design, build, service and
maintain our machines and software to have a working knowledge
of math, that is, from basic math, algebra, trigonometry,
science and language skills.
Second, I am looking for technical skills. Our employees
must have above-average computer skills, understand the
principles of hydraulics, pneumatic, programmable logic
controls, sensors, process control, mechanisms, electronics,
vision and mechanical measurement systems, quality control
systems, robotics, CAD/CAM, CNC and automation; the technology
of how all of these things work together.
Too often, however, people believe that academic
achievement is a replacement for technical skills. It isn't.
Successful employees must be able to apply their knowledge
consistently for my company to succeed, and those technical
skills are learned from hands-on application, not through
theory alone.
To me, that is the genius behind CTE. It teaches academics
through application. It teaches the theoretical and the
application. Both are essential. That is one reason why
Intelitek is signatory to the National Association of State
Directors of CTE Consortium in support of career technical
education.
Third, I look for what people call ``soft skills'' and some
others call ``employability skills.'' These are the goal-
setting, resource management and communication skills. One of
the most important skills in the high tech industry is
teamwork. It is not academics, but real people skills. High
tech industries don't have individuals manufacturing parts. We
have teams managing processes. Every team member has to do his
or her part for the team to be successful. These skills are
taught in CTE by student organizations, such as SkillsUSA, an
association that Intelitek has supported for many years.
I have worked for 12 years with SkillsUSA, one of the
student organizations authorized for funding under Perkins. I
serve on the board of SkillsUSA Youth Development Foundation
and on the contest technical committees for Automated
Manufacturing Technology and Robotics and Automation
Technology. All 77 of the SkillsUSA Championships contests are
run using industry standards for entry-level employment, and
they are updated regularly to keep the competitions current
with industry needs and practices. Both of the contests
Intelitek supports are team contests to parallel practice in
industry.
I am going to close with three recommendations to the
Committee regarding the Perkins Act. I look forward to
amplifying these points during this hearing.
First, stay the course. As Congress intended, the Perkins
Act has already had an impact on the academic achievement of
students and articulation between high schools and
postsecondary instruction. Both were needed and both need to
continue.
Second, increase funding for CTE. I ask our government to
continue to invest with me. Small employers have historically
counted upon CTE as a source of training for their new hires
more than any other source. Some smaller States, such as New
Hampshire, rely heavily on Federal support to maintain their
CTE programs.
Furthermore, the instructional facilities are used by
industry to update training for their employees. I have
invested in employee training to ensure my organization's
survival. As an employee benefit, I offer tuition reimbursement
as well as internal corporate training programs. I do this to
remain competitive in a global industrial market. I need the
competitive advantage that career technical education provides
my organization, because now I must do it quicker, smarter and
at less cost than ever before.
Third, integrate industry standards and certification such
as NIMS, the National Institute of Metalworking Skills into CTE
high school and postsecondary instructional programs. These are
industry led and defined to ensure that education and industry
communicate with one another to provide the most proficient
technical skills required for success and full employment in
the workforce.
In conclusion, Chairman Castle and members of this
committee, I wish to thank you once again for asking me to
appear before you today, along with this distinguished panel. I
would like to conclude by commending you, the members of the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce, for your
continuing and farsighted work to keep today's students and
tomorrow's future workforce up to date and prepared to support
America's industry.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Quinn follows:]
Statement of Brenda Quinn, Chief Executive Officer, Intelitek, Inc.,
Manchester, New Hampshire
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3569.015
------
Chairman Castle. We thank each of the witnesses here today.
What I gather from what you all said is that the programs
that we have in place now, even at the Federal level, are
working reasonably well; perhaps a little tightening here and
there and perhaps more dollars would be helpful, which is
basically positive. We don't always--sometimes these programs
are ripped apart, and I didn't get that sense at all.
I also believe that the handoff and the coordination from
our vocational secondary to postsecondary to the employer
market is starting to work better perhaps than it did before,
and we appreciate that.
With that, we will go to questions by members, and I will
yield to myself first for 5 minutes to ask a few questions. And
I want to set a basis on what others have said.
For instance, Ms. Quinn, who talked about the workplace and
Dr. Ihlenfeldt has a very clear calling for what they are
looking for and what they need to do at the community college
level, and something that Ms. Dunkel actually said, which is
the Career Clusters.
But I want to ask Ms. Brand and Mrs. Stevens, based on
their backgrounds--I see this a little bit in Delaware--but I
worry that vocational schools are trying to pigeonhole students
when I don't think they necessarily should be, both in terms of
the academic courses, but in addition to having the broad
skills to go out in the workplace. I think the old days of
training people as pure plumbers and carpenters may be behind
us. And I would be interested in your thoughts on that, since
Mrs. Stevens is in the field and Ms. Brand oversees some of
these things, your thoughts on what I just stated.
Mrs. Stevens. It seems to be changing. Is it changing
rapidly enough? If not, is there something we should be doing
in this reauthorization to deal with that particular issue?
Because, to me, the greatest problem we have in vocational
education is staying up with the changes that are happening out
there. It is a very fast-changing world, and are we doing the
right things? We only look at this every 5 or 6 years, so this
is our opportunity to look at this for the next 5 or 6 years.
Ms. Brand. I think for too long children and youth have
been pigeonholed into lower-track courses and to low
expectations. And thanks to No Child Left Behind and some of
the other reform efforts that have been put into place, I think
that is changing, but we still have a lot attitudes that need
to be changed at the school level.
Teachers, in particular, need to understand that students
can achieve much harder and much greater work if they are given
the support and the expectations for them are high. So it is a
cultural and attitudinal change that needs to catch up across
all of career technical education. It is happening in many
places, but that is not always the case.
Career guidance and counseling is a large part of what
needs to happen, as well as individual support for students, so
that they understand that they have many options ahead of them.
Career guidance and counseling is in pretty poor shape in most
high schools. Guidance counselors are overwhelmed. I think the
numbers in California are a thousand students to one. And in
most urban high schools, guidance counselors have to deal with
4- to 600 kids. It is impossible for them to deal with the
kinds of aspirational things that they need to deal with them
on.
Early guidance and counseling, both focused on pathways
connecting them to postsecondary education, making it easy for
them to move through that system, I think are changes that need
to be considered by the committee.
Chairman Castle. Mrs. Stevens, I will use myself as an
example. I graduated from high school and had no idea what I
wanted to do, so I went to a liberal arts school and graduated
from there and had no idea what I wanted to do. And went to law
school and still wasn't sure what I wanted to do. And yet I
know there are 9th graders who are being told, you should make
a choice; and it doesn't seem to resonate with the workplace
today in terms of the broader skills that children need.
I was impressed by your testimony in this area, but I was
wondering, how are you adjusting that part of it and should we
be adjusting it?
Ms. Stevens. I think there are a couple of things I would
like to speak to.
As part of the effort we have with career guidance in
partnership with our New York State Department of Labor, we
have developed what is called Career Zone. It is an Internet
career guidance tool, if you will. And what that has done--it
has been built with the New York State learning standards, our
Career Clusters. It was designed with New York State students
that helped create that, and we have in a year over a half a
million hits.
One hundred ninety thousand of our students have created
career portfolios that are password protected. Students spend
as much as, on average, about 77 minutes each time they are
into the site and much of that is after school. That site can
help them drill down and look at what is really available in
the broad array of clusters rather than a narrow view.
So that partnership has been very, very successful and we
continue to work on that. I can speak on that more
specifically.
In our approval process, in getting that, where students
can make choices, we have tried to put assurances in to get an
approved program. The locals are required to do a self-study.
They are required to have external members of business and
industry review it, and ultimately, we review it. We look at
that as an opportunity for students, but we also look at the
alignment with our graduation requirements, all students taking
and passing five State assessments.
Students who go through our approval process and pass the
technical assessment get something added. They get a career and
technical endorsement on their diploma. And we have seen an
interesting phenomenon that we are going to track. We have had
a 7.4 percent increase in our career technical education for
secondary students. This is important because we think students
are voting with their feet for quality.
And to your point, Mr. Chairman, we are also finding, as we
work with our locals, that students can be in a particular
program and working with their counselors and teachers. If they
find they want to make a switch in choice, they often have
opportunities within that career technical center. We want to
be sure that all students have an idea of the broad array of
careers, what it takes and where the path will lead in their
postsecondary experiences.
And my last point is, in order for us to really provide for
our Board of Regents where we are with this policy, we have
contracted with an independent evaluator to look at the
implementation of the policy across--to look at our strengths
and weaknesses and review the policy.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Stevens.
Mr. Kind.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony and the
particular insight that you bring to this important subject
matter.
As I look at the community college system across the
country and the unique system that we have in Wisconsin, I view
some great challenges coming up in future years. But where
there are some challenges, there are also some great
opportunities. Where there is some risk as we go forward with
maybe some of the changes that are being proposed, I think
there are going to be some great rewards in the system.
And among the big challenges--and there are many that I
have been focusing on--is the funding issue, access and
affordability. We can't take our eye off the ball when it comes
to making sure that the students have the ability and the
financial means to be able to access these colleges as we go
forward, and yet the trend lines are not encouraging on this
front. As you look at the difficult economic times that are
coming out of the State budget cuts and the impact that is
having on a lot of colleges, it is going to be important for
the Committee to recognize that as we move forward.
Another challenge is obviously the competition in the
global marketplace today that students are facing themselves,
that the current workforce is finding themselves in, and the
ability to upgrade their skills to these changing conditions.
And then, finally, it is an aging workforce, too, that we
know is coming and is going to pose huge challenges in a lot of
careers and professions and how we are going to be able to feed
a demographic time bomb, retirement that is about to go off and
the unique role that community colleges are going to play.
Let me just ask the panel generally, with the President's
budget proposal, calling for approximately 300 million-plus in
cuts in the Perkins funding program, but also simultaneously
talking about a new $250 million program, whether any of you
had a chance to look at that and think about it, decipher it at
all, whether that makes sense.
I know there is not a lot of meat on the bones just yet,
but the President is continuing to talk about this as he goes
out in the countryside and visits many of our communities. If
you could touch upon the impact that a lot of the cutbacks at
the State level have had on the community college system and
what challenges that has posed and the importance then of this
reauthorization process, especially the funding level for the
Perkins program.
Dr. Ihlenfeldt. I will speak to Wisconsin first of all.
We have had significant cutbacks at the State level over
the past years in terms of our State funding. We have had
restrictions on our property tax, which provides the second leg
of that stool. And obviously, as you point out, you can charge
students just so much. Access--our tuition equates to access at
a technical college and the higher we raise tuition, the
further we cut back on the number of students that have the
ability to take advantage of technical education.
As you look at Perkins funding, it provides us with many of
the support activities that are necessary for the programs that
we have and the wide range of students that we need to serve at
the college. Without that funding, we would be in a very
difficult situation--at least in Wisconsin, I suspect with most
colleges around the country--to handle the wide variety of
students that we deal with.
That money brings in about--almost a million dollars to my
college for the support services that are necessary; and with
any cutback in that, we would not be able to provide a lot of
the opportunities that we do to students.
I think, as we move forward, it is going to become more
critical as we move into the advanced manufacturing
technologies that are going to be necessary to keep this
country afloat to make it competitive as a global market. We
are going to have to work closely with the K-12 system and the
university systems in the country to make that a reality. And
dollars at the Federal level are going to be essential if we
are going to do those types of things because of the high price
tag of many of those.
Mr. Kind. Let me stay with you and open it up to the other
witnesses. In regards to the Tech Prep demonstration grant
money--and you referenced the Health Academy--there has been an
idea about the possibility of eliminating the separate funding
stream for the Tech Prep program and just absorbing it into the
Perkins Act generally. Do you have any thoughts in that regard
or any recommendations?
Dr. Ihlenfeldt. The Tech Prep has served a vital role. It
has exposed students at K-12 level to technical education. We
have had an uphill battle in getting students comfortable with
technical education, maybe getting their parents comfortable
with technical education; and demonstration projects through
Tech Prep have led to providing those types of opportunities.
As the Chairman indicated, it may look like we are
categorizing students or forcing them into a particular track,
but let me give you examples.
We have students that have gone through the Health Academy
and have decided that--our objective obviously was to get them
into nursing, but they went through it because they want to go
into pre-med. What better way at the high school level to move
into a program than to go through there? It gave them the
exposure that they need. That particular part of the funding is
critical.
I think we need to spend more dollars on exposing students
to advanced technologies that are coming down. That is going to
be critical, and so that focuses on a particular need in our
region at least.
Mr. Kind. Ms. Brand.
Ms. Brand. Two points: First of all, with regard to the
issue of helping students access postsecondary education, I
think one of the promising models that Congress needs to look
at is the dual enrollment, the concurrent enrollment that
allows high school students to take college credit and
basically save on the cost of college tuition. And there is
enough evidence that those have promoted access and success in
postsecondary education. So I think, given the experience that
we have had with Tech Prep, both the regular Tech Prep program
and the demonstration program, I think you can build on that.
Secondly, with regard to Tech Prep, my approach has been
that it is time to let the demonstration go and to basically
turn the Basic State Grant education or the basic funding for
career technical education into something that looks a lot more
like Tech Prep, which is the program of study that I described
in my testimony; that there is no reason why all of career
technical education shouldn't look a lot more like what Tech
Prep is doing with some add-ons, with some amendments and
improvements. But I believe that it is time to move that on, to
take a hard stand and just say that this is what we think
current technical education should look like, and it is time to
drive that down through the system.
Ms. Stevens. Congressman Kind, on your point about funding
for community colleges, in New York State we, like many other
States, continue to be challenged. But I can tell you from our
community college universe, that they are very much in support
of continued Perkins funding. We made strides in that seamless
transition, and I would agree with the dual enrollment and
those opportunities. So there is really strong feeling.
Mrs. Stevens. I, again, think in terms of what I have told
our wonderful Tech Prep community that they are likely to be
the mothers and fathers of the new legislation because they
really have shown the way in the way those connections need to
be made.
We might offer a suggestion in the new legislation that
there may be a set-aside for competitive innovation. Tech Prep
really has laid the foundation for what I believe will be the
future act.
Ms. Dunkel. In Illinois, if we saw a 25 percent reduction
in what we currently receive for our Perkins base State grant,
it would mean almost a $12 million reduction in our grant. So,
yes, it would have a major impact on the programs we have in
place.
I feel that in Illinois we have established an extremely
strong secondary/postsecondary link at the State level as well
as many, many programs at the local level. It hasn't always
been easy, but we have worked through those collaborative
efforts, and I think we are very, very strong in that area.
I also agree with the thinking of Ms. Brand on Tech Prep.
To me, Tech Prep is quality, clear and technical education.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Chairman Castle. Mrs. Biggert is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dunkel, in your testimony you describe Career Clusters
as a way of providing a broad focus allowing students to learn
about an array of careers rather than specific jobs; and you
also suggest that Career Clusters ensure alignment and
integration of academic, technical and employable skills. Could
you elaborate on that last point?
Ms. Dunkel. I guess the easiest way to describe that for me
is to almost think about a wheel with spokes. If you look at
the very basis of that wheel, it is a foundation; and that
foundation for a career cluster--let's just give an example of
agriculture and natural sciences--would include the key
academic skills, knowledge, and abilities that any occupation
in that entire cluster would have aligned with.
Then at the very middle of that wheel would be the core
competencies that would go across any occupations within that
cluster. There are also pathways that are included. And then on
the very outside of that wheel would be very specific
occupations that students probably would not experience until
late high school or postsecondary education. So all through the
implementation of the Career Clusters, the academic and
technical and employability skills are aligned with each other.
Mrs. Biggert. So these technical classes really would
reflect and incorporate the academics--
Ms. Dunkel. Absolutely.
Mrs. Biggert. --that students learn in math, science,
English whatever. Then you have recommended that the
reauthorization process create a direct connection between
accountability and local use of funds to drive program
improvement, suggesting that locals must be required to spend
funds on activities to improve their performance. And could you
expand on that also?
Ms. Dunkel. Yes. Actually, if we look at our core
indicators with Perkins, the four core indicators really are
identifying key areas in which schools and community colleges
should be making progress and performing at a particular level.
If, for example, a school in Illinois or anywhere were not
able to meet their performance target in the non-traditional
completion goal, then at the State level we would work with
that local entity to identify some strategies that they could
particularly use funds on and implement at that level to
address that lack of performance. It is really taking how we
are using the funds and directly connecting it to performance
on the core indicators and hoping to improve that performance.
Mrs. Biggert. Well, what should locals be required to do?
We worry about the word ``required'' or ``mandate'' or anything
like that.
Ms. Dunkel. Each year the locals have to submit an
application to the State agency for review and approval, and in
Illinois the local application actually asks the schools to
show their performance against the State's goal and against
their own annual adjusted goal at the local level. If they are
not meeting that performance target, then they have to identify
within their plan very specific activities that they will use
their Perkins funds on to address that performance goal.
I know many other States have started to do that with their
local planning process, but it is not required.
Mrs. Biggert. Ms. Quinn, in your testimony you said that
your business looks for employees with new and broader
knowledge and skills than was necessary in the past. How do you
ensure that your incoming employees have strong math, science
and language skills? Do you test them?
Ms. Quinn. No, we don't actually test them. But in the
interview process not only are they interviewed by an H.R.
Person, but we get our engineering staff involved. So we can
screen out a basic level of knowledge. And we also rely heavily
upon our community college system. We are familiar with the
output and have been very pleased and happy with that output.
So we rely very heavily upon the criteria that they impose and
then take the process one step further when they come through
the interview process.
Mrs. Biggert. There was an article in the New York Times
yesterday which I am very disturbed about and that was saying
that the U.S. is really falling behind in science--research and
development and science and that other countries are getting
ahead of us. I think we are a very competitive Nation. I don't
like to see that happen, particularly in this climate where we
do need new and creative ideas.
I just wondered if you really think that the students that
are coming out really have the basic skills that they need so
that we ensure that we are going to be the country that still
has their future in the science.
Ms. Quinn. I would say that they have the basic skills, but
they don't have all of the necessary skills. It typically takes
about 2 to 3 years of continued training within the
organization to bring an employee to the full potential for
what we are looking for. So we invest very heavily in
additional training either by sending them to additional
outside courses and/or internal training that we offer.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Castle. Sort of ironic because Mr. Kind had cited
the exact same article from the New York Times and had it
submitted for the record. I happened to use it yesterday in
talking about the stem cells on a radio interview. The article
seems to be the most quoted article of the week as far as I can
ascertain.
Mrs. Davis is recognized.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here.
Ms. Brand, I want to go back to one of the things that you
said about trying to have Perkins Act funding be on a grant
basis rather than an entitlement. I was wondering what criteria
you thought should be established if it switched over in that
way.
Ms. Brand. Thank you. The State would be involved in
setting some of the standards for making those competitive
grants, and in the report that we released that includes this
recommendation for competitive grants we do lay out some ideas
of what States would look at as they develop the criteria. We
would want to ensure that they have the main elements of the
program of studies that I described, which include the rigorous
integrated curriculum, strong teachers, and the links to
postsecondary education involvement with employers' guidance
and counseling. So there are some core elements that would need
to be part of the grant application.
Then the State can also look at accountability measures
that they have in place. But we would leave that up to the
State and not--we certainly--I would not dictate from a Federal
level that you would put those kinds of requirements in the
law. Continue to allow States the flexibility to work, as I
think you have heard from the two State directors here. They
are already doing similar work right now, and they have their
priorities and they have their system in place. So we would
recommend that the States would be in charge of detailing the
exact requirements.
Mrs. Davis. Would there be any loss, then, to communities
that perhaps weren't getting their act together? How would we
reconcile that?
Ms. Brand. The whole issue of moving to competitive grant
is somewhat controversial. You would be taking money away from
certain communities that are getting it right now. That is the
challenge of moving toward something like this. But I think it
is worth looking at in terms of promoting a real stimulus to
communities to very intensively look at improvement of their
career and technical education programs for a concentrated
period of time and to get them kind of up to speed as opposed
to just kind of little by little hoping that changes filter
down.
My experience with the past reauthorizations from the
Perkins Act are that it takes 5 to 6 years for them to filter
down to the local level, and I think we just may need to
consider some ways to make that happen more quickly.
Mrs. Davis. One of the issues, of course, is in trying to
make certain that vocational education, whatever teachers who
are working in this field with young people, that they stay
current. Programs that suffer through cuts and others, teacher
training fads, we might say, how does that affect people who
really--we are hoping that at least they are staying very
current and they are interacting particularly with the clusters
in their own communities to have the highest and I guess best
use of knowledge that is being demonstrated within the country
today. How do you think we need to deal with that?
Ms. Dunkel. One of the probable uses of Perkins funds that
our regional delivery systems in Illinois use is for
professional development of teachers; and it is critical,
especially in the career and tech ed areas. Many times, schools
are not able to find a teacher with a teacher preparation
background. The particular area of health occupations is a good
example. So they have to depend upon people who have
appropriate work experience to teach those courses. So for them
to be involved at a very in-depth level in professional
development is very, very critical.
Mrs. Davis. But within the climate that we have now with
the number of budget cuts do you see that as one of the
compromises that school districts are making? Is it as high a
priority? And what role would you hope that the businesses in
the local community are playing? I know there are a lot of
wonderful players that are out there that are trying to do
this, but I think the reality is that we really don't have the
access to a lot of that new technology for our teachers,
structures that we need to have. What will change that?
Mrs. Stevens. I think one of the things that is evolving in
New York State is there have been real challenges in getting
the right kind of professional development, sustained,
continuous over time, not one-shots either. As we have moved
along in this integrated model for program approval--we have
been at this about 3 years--we have seen an interesting thing
emerge at the local level. As the academic and current
technical teachers meet to look at student performance and
really where the gaps and strengths are, they have developed
some professional development targeted to that. They have also
engaged some of the businesses and industries in those various
programs.
So we see some partnerships emerging because there is
mutual need in having students be successful in moving out of
secondary school into most secondary experiences and work
sometimes together. So we are seeing those emerge.
All of our districts are required to have a professional
development plan for all of their teachers. As of February 1,
any new teachers into the New York State teacher certification
system are required to complete 175 hours of professional
development each 5 years; and we see this as a real positive
thing as the systems change across there. But professional
development, to have highly qualified teachers, the best
teachers in the classroom, whether it is academic or current
technical education, is a priority and is a challenge for all
of us.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
One quick question I guess to Ms. Quinn and others, I
remember many years ago we talked about students having their
grades essentially checked by the companies that they were
going to for jobs, very much the way college transcripts would
be used. Do you see very much of that? Are students feeling
that their grades really do matter as they go out into the
business community?
Ms. Quinn. Yes, I think to the students and to the future
employers it does matter. Excellence has value.
Mrs. Davis. Or they ask for them--I guess that is my
question--as you work with employers?
Ms. Quinn. Often times the technical-type employee comes
with a portfolio today. So when they walk into the interview
process we have transcripts, we have maybe like design projects
that they have worked on. So you can get a very good sense of
what their background has been, whether they are coming right
from the high school level and/or the community college or even
the 4-year engineering degree school.
Mrs. Stevens. I would like to just share in New York State
as an example we have seen some interesting things happen
regionally where businesses have joined together in working
with one of our urban school districts, have agreed on like a
work skills certificate so students who have a certain
attendance, a certain grade point average are often hired at a
little bit more hourly wage, and the businesses agree to really
support the students and make sure they are at school and not
working too many hours. So we see some very interesting mutual-
need partnership connecting it.
I would also add as part of our approval program each
student has to develop their own employability work skill
profile. When they apply for even part time work in high
school, they often take that with them to demonstrate what they
have done not only academically but in their technical
programs.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Castle. I have another question I would like to
ask, so we are going to have a limited second round here,
hopefully won't take the full time, but we will still set the
clocks just in case. My question may be something you can't
answer, so don't strive too hard if you don't really know the
answer.
The question is, if you know it--I realize you are not
drafters of legislation. You may not be that familiar with the
intricacies of the law. I have heard your testimony on the
dollar part of all of this loud and clear, though I am
perfectly willing to hear comments on that. What specific
recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in the Perkins
Reauthorization Act that we are about to undertake here in the
next few weeks? You don't have to do it by citing a statute. If
there are certain areas that you think need to be changed or
emphasized, that would be sufficient. If you don't know the
particular act that well, then your testimony will certainly
stand in for you what you want to get done. I didn't want to go
away from the hearing without seeing if you have any specific
thoughts or recommendations. Anybody?
Ms. Dunkel. One of the areas I would like for you to take a
close look at are those that deal with fiscal requirements.
Perkins does have the maintenance of effort requirement, which
is pretty much an all-or-nothing requirement, as well as the
State administrative match and the hold harmless for State
administration. It is becoming more and more difficult for
States, as our State budgets are in deficit and we have seen
impacts at the State level, to maintain those requirements with
Perkins. So I would just recommend taking a close look at those
requirements.
Chairman Castle. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Dr. Ihlenfeldt. I guess I would encourage you to look at
the occupational areas, driving the occupational areas that are
going to fuel the economy of this Nation as we move forward in
whatever way you can in the grant. I think too many times we
have heard it with the science and math, we accept the status
quo.
One of the challenges we have, at least at the community
college level, is gearing up for the new technologies that are
coming on board. Anything that can be done in terms of teacher
preparation I would also encourage you to drive that through
partnerships, because it can't occur in and by itself in any
one system, albeit, a secondary system, or a postsecondary
system.
And I would encourage you, as you revitalize Perkins, to
target some criteria that encourages the development of
partnerships between the systems and with the business
community as well. Because that is the only way that things
like teacher preparation, getting students ready and interested
and targeted into those occupations can occur.
Mrs. Stevens. I would also encourage as you draft the
legislation that we look at some common definitions of what a
current technical education student is. As we look at the
performance measures I think we need to look at secondary and
postsecondary so that the picture and the story can be told and
I think in a clearer way perhaps. So I think there is some
tweaking that ought to happen in that area.
Ms. Brand. Just briefly, as Congress considers education
legislation I think one of the things that you need to keep in
the forefront is the move toward creating K through 16 systems,
and I think across all the legislative vehicles that you have
there should be a review of how those connections can be made
more strongly. I don't have any specifics right at the moment,
but I think that, regardless of which piece of legislation, it
is that kind of underlying theme that needs to run through a
lot of the changes to make sure that 5 years from now we are
not coming back saying this barrier exists and this barrier
exists, and to look at it with that perspective.
Dr. Ihlenfeldt. I would encourage you not to saddle us with
a lot of new accountability factors. I think that many times
that causes us a great deal of staff time and paperwork, if you
will, to make things happen. I think there are enough
accountability measures already in place by accrediting bodies
and data that is collected on the State level that could be
utilized, as opposed to creating new accountability measures
that take away from the dollars that are available to us.
Chairman Castle. We are pretty good at demanding
accountability. We are probably not as good at understanding
what it does when the rubber hits the road.
I think your comments are not only well directed toward
this bill but a lot of other particularly education legislation
that we handle. But I tell what you is helpful, and that is
feedback from all of you in very specific terms. I tell my
educators that back in Delaware.
You complain about Federal requirements, et cetera, a lot
of them are State requirements, but, whatever, they are
complaining about the requirements. Give me specifically what
it is that you are complaining about, what is the regulation,
what is the statute, what does it cause you to do, so that we
can understand that and make recommendations for changes.
I think we pass a lot of laws very generically and
generally without understanding the ramifications of what we do
further down the line. It is really helpful to specifically see
what that is. If you are spending 50 hours of staff time
preparing what seems to be some simple request, that is the
kind of thing we should know. Sort of using you as an example
for almost everything we seem to do in Congress and
particularly even in this committee.
Dr. Ihlenfeldt. That is not a statement against
accountability. I think we all need to be accountable. But
there are efficient and effective ways of doing it.
Chairman Castle. Mr. Kind.
Mr. Kind. One follow-up question, but I want to echo the
Chairman's sentiments in terms of the feedback. It is crucial.
You are aware of where the rubber meets the road and how it
works in the real-world type of thing. It is helpful to us to
get this feedback not just in the formal hearing process but
throughout the reauthorization process.
I know, Mr. Chairman, during the IDEA reauthorization
markup you had created a Web site encouraging that type of
feedback for IDEA instructors and parents and anyone involved.
I was wondering if you did do the same thing for Carl Perkins
or is there an opportunity for people to--
Chairman Castle. We had so many complaints about how much
time it took to do the Web site.
Mr. Kind. Staff is cringing behind us.
Chairman Castle. We have not done it, but it is certainly
something we will take under rapid advisement.
Mr. Kind. Let me get back to my last question here. I would
be remiss, as one of the leaders of the Rural Education Caucus
here in the House, not to ask about what we are trying to
attempt in the reauthorization bill. That is that local reserve
fund for servicing rural areas.
Now in my congressional district we have four technical
colleges, a couple of community colleges, a host of satellite
campuses, too, many of them servicing rural areas. If any of
you have any specifics on how this local rural reserve fund has
worked or is not working, we would be interested in hearing
about that today.
Have you had any direct knowledge of this reserve fund that
was established, Dr. Ihlenfeldt?
Dr. Ihlenfeldt. No, I haven't.
Mr. Kind. Does anyone?
We will have to delve into that a little bit further.
Ms. Dunkel. In Illinois, we chose not to request the
reserve percentage because we have a regional delivery system.
We have 60 regions in the State, and their responsibility is to
work with all of the schools that offer career and tech ed.
Mrs. Stevens. Our experience in New York was similar. We
have 38 regions, so we made sure we touch the rural areas.
Mr. Kind. Thank you all again. We appreciate your
testimony. It was a very helpful, very productive hearing.
Chairman Castle. Let me thank the panel. They were very
thoughtful, very helpful in our deliberations on this. We
appreciate it. You are always welcome to follow up if you have
other thoughts when you get away from here in the form of a
letter or whatever. Because we truly are interested in getting
your thoughts. We are just trying to write legislation, and you
are more in the field than we are. So that makes a difference.
We thank you.
If there is nothing further, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
<all>