<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:94193.wais]
H.R. 4496, THE VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE ACT
=======================================================================
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
__________
June 15, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-62
__________
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
94-193 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 June 15, 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
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Education
Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce........... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Lufkin, Mimi, Executive Director, National Alliance for
Partnerships in Equity, Cochranville, Pennsylvania......... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Oliver, Katharine, Assistant State Superintendent, Career,
Technology and Adult Learning, Maryland State Department of
Education, Baltimore, Maryland............................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Sommers, Dr. Robert D., CEO, Butler Technology and Career
Development Schools, Fairfield Township, Ohio.............. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
White, Robin, Senior Program and Policy Director, Academy for
Educational Development, National Institute for Work and
Learning, Washington, DC................................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Additional materials supplied:
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Statement submitted for
the Record................................................. 46
United Tribes Technical College, Statement submitted for the
Record..................................................... 41
H.R. 4496, THE VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE ACT
----------
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael N.
Castle [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Castle, Biggert, Woolsey, Davis,
and Van Hollen.
Ex officio present: Representative Boehner.
Staff present: Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member;
Alexa Marrero, Press Secretary; Whitney Rhoades, Professional
Staff Member; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern
Coordinator; and Lynda Theil, Minority Legislative Associate,
Education.
Chairman Castle. 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 H.R. 4496, the
Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, and the
Committee will recall, only statements are limited to the
Chairman and the rights and minority member of the Subcommittee
who is on her way here right now.
Therefore, if other members have statements, they may be
included in the hearing record. With that, I ask you now to
consent that the hearing record remain open fourteen days to
allow member statements and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 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
Good afternoon to everybody here. Thank you for joining us
today to hear testimony on H.R. 4496, the Vocational and
Technical Education for the Future Act, which I introduced 2
weeks ago. This is our third hearing on the vocational and
technical education, and first on this bill to re-authorize the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act.
We look forward today to getting feedback from the
education and Perkins community on the major provisions in the
legislation.
The Perkins Act aims to prepare youth and adults for the
future by building their academic and technical skills in
preparation for post-secondary education and/or employment.
The bill we are examining today enhances Perkins by
ensuring both secondary and post-secondary students receiving
assistance through the program are acquiring rigorous academic
and technical skills, and will have the opportunity to
transition into further education and/or successful employment.
H.R. 4496 strengthens accountability by requiring that
locals establish adjusted levels of performance to complement
the state-adjusted levels of performance already in current
law.
The state agency will evaluate annually whether the local
recipient is making substantial progress in achieving the local
adjusted levels of performance. Our goal is not to penalize
those local areas facing difficulty in achieving high-quality
outcome for their students, but to create a structure that
includes technical assistance, opportunities for program
improvement, and sanctions only as a last resort.
H.R. 4496 also folds a separate tech prep program
activities and funding into the larger state grant. Under the
bill, states will be expected to spend the same amount of money
on tech prep activities as they did under the former stand-
alone program. Through this re-authorization, we want to ensure
that all state programs incorporate important lessons learned
from the former separate grant program, and strengthen the ties
between secondary and post-secondary education. Consortia that
would receive funding under the state grant for tech prep
activities must be effective programs that ensure that transfer
of credits from secondary to post-secondary education, and
provide non-duplicative academic and vocational and technical
education.
The bill also requires states to establish model sequences
of courses to emphasize further student academic and vocational
and technical achievement. Sequences of courses will
incorporate a non-duplicative progression of both secondary and
post-secondary elements, which would include both academic and
vocational and technical content.
Local recipients at both the secondary and post-secondary
level would adopt at least one model sequence of courses as
developed by the state. I believe this also will help drive
program improvements by ensuring that states clarify the
progression of academic and vocational and technical courses
needed for the post-secondary education and training or
employment of a student's choice.
As a result of the changes in the bill, I believe that H.R.
4496 would help states, community colleges, and other post-
secondary education institutions and local educational agencies
better utilize funds for vocational and technical education
programs, increase accountability, emphasize student
achievement, and strengthen opportunities for coordination.
We welcome the testimony of our witnesses as we seek to
ensure that the re-authorization of the Perkins Act achieves
those goals.
Our panel today represents state and local educators and a
researcher, who will share with us their experiences at
operating and evaluating vocational and technical education
programs. And we do thank you for joining us today, and we do
appreciate hearing their insights.
In just a moment, we will begin with the introductions, but
first I will yield to the ranking member, Ms. Woolsey, for any
statements she may wish to make.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Castle follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Michael N. Castle, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us today to hear testimony on
H.R. 4496, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act,
which I introduced two weeks ago. This is our third hearing on
vocational and technical education and first on this bill to
reauthorize the Carl. D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Act. We look forward today to getting feedback from the education and
Perkins community on the major provisions in the legislation.
The Perkins Act aims to prepare youth and adults for the future by
building their academic and technical skills in preparation for
postsecondary education and/or employment. The bill we are examining
today enhances Perkins by ensuring both secondary and postsecondary
students receiving assistance through the program are acquiring
rigorous academic and technical skills and will have the opportunity to
transition into further education and/or successful employment.
H.R. 4496 strengthens accountability by requiring that locals
establish adjusted levels of performance, to complement the state
adjusted levels of performance already in current law. The state agency
will evaluate annually whether the local recipient is making
substantial progress in achieving the local adjusted levels of
performance. Our goal is not to penalize those local areas facing
difficulty in achieving high quality outcomes for their students, but
to create a structure that includes technical assistance, opportunities
for program improvement, and sanctions only as a last resort.
H.R. 4496 also folds the separate Tech-Prep program activities and
funding into the larger state grant. Under the bill, states still will
be expected to spend the same amount of money on tech-prep activities
as they did under the former stand-alone program. Through this
reauthorization, we want to ensure that all state programs incorporate
important lessons learned from the former separate grant program and
strengthen the ties between secondary and postsecondary education.
Consortia that would receive funding under the state grant for tech-
prep activities must be effective programs that ensure the transfer of
credits from secondary to postsecondary education and provide non-
duplicative, academic and vocational and technical education.
The bill also requires states to establish model sequences of
courses to emphasize further student academic and vocational and
technical achievement. Sequences of courses will incorporate a non-
duplicative progression of both secondary and postsecondary elements,
which would include both academic and vocational and technical content.
Local recipients at both the secondary and postsecondary level would
adopt at least one model sequence of courses as developed by the state.
I believe this also will help drive program improvements by ensuring
that states clarify the progression of academic and vocational and
technical courses needed for the postsecondary education and training
or employment of a student's choice.
As a result of the changes in the bill, I believe that H.R. 4496
would help states, community colleges and other postsecondary education
institutions, and local educational agencies better utilize funds for
vocational and technical education programs, increase accountability,
emphasize student achievement, and strengthen opportunities for
coordination.
We welcome the testimony of our witnesses as we seek to ensure that
the reauthorization of the Perkins Act achieves these goals. Our panel
today represents state and local educators and a researcher who will
share with us their experiences in operating and evaluating vocational
and technical education programs. We thank you for joining us today and
appreciate your insights.
I will now yield to Congresswoman Woolsey for any opening statement
she may have.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN WOOLSEY, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late. I appreciate that we are having this hearing, but I wish
we had had a little more time to review the bill before it was
introduced. I do believe, though, that we have heard from your
staff and from you that there is still time to make some
changes in it, and that, from the testimony we hear today, we
may craft an even better bill.
Chairman Castle. Yes. Sorry.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Chairman Castle. That was my cue.
Ms. Woolsey. That was your cue. I am particularly pleased
to have Mimi Lufkin as one of our witnesses. Mimi has been
working tirelessly for years on one of the issues that is most
important to me as we re-authorize the Perkins Act, and that's
the Access for Special Populations Vocational and Technical
Training, particularly for women in non-traditional careers.
Mimi is the national leader on these issues and, not
coincidentally, she is a product of Sonoma County, which is one
of my counties, and a product of our great schools up there.
And her parents still live there, and welcome, Mimi.
I'm very glad that H.R. 4496 uses current law as its
foundation. I've been very concerned by proposals made by this
administration to turn the Federal Vocational and Technical
Education programs into post-secondary programs only. While I'm
fully aware that many, many occupations these days require some
post-secondary education--in fact, the great majority--we must
not lose sight of the important role that Perkins funding has
and will play in helping to prepare students for jobs following
their graduation from high school.
Not every high school student is ready to go directly on to
higher education following graduation. Many who want to simply
don't have the money to do so, and career training can prepare
them for jobs that earn good salaries in order to finance
further learning down the road. So we don't want to cut them
short by not giving them that extra help.
Some students are just not ready to spend additional time
in a post-secondary school and, again, good career training
ensures that we don't lose these students completely while they
take a breath and get their bearings as an independent adult,
and learn how important it is to get a higher education.
You can be fairly sure, Mr. Chairman, that young people who
get started on a decent job, a job that leads to a career, will
return to school at some point during their lives, usually
because they want to, and/or because their career demands it.
So I want to make sure that any re-authorization of the
Perkins Act clearly allows funding of good vocational and
technical education programs, even if they do not necessarily
provide a degree, and that Perkins funds can be used for
counseling and educational materials for high school students
for careers following high school.
I also have a number of concerns, as I said earlier. One,
about increasing access and support for special populations,
and also for training women for non-traditional occupations. I
saw that the accountability measure, which requires states to
report on the success in preparing students for non-traditional
occupations, is not in this bill. But I understand that it will
be put back in by the time we come up to mark-up. I think
that's very important. It's important to me because it also is
the very least of what we should be doing to improve career
choices and earnings for women. More than half of the workforce
are female. Many of them--many, many of them--supporting
families. And it only makes good sense to ensure that they are
being prepared to earn a wage and receive benefits that keep
their families independent of Federal subsidies.
So I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, and
to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, so that we can
report a re-authorization bill out of this wonderful
Subcommittee that really meets the needs of all of our
vocational and technical education students.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, for your nice
words. Hopefully we can still say nice words when we get all
this said and done here in a few weeks or months or whatever it
takes.
We do indeed have a very distinguished panel of witnesses,
as we mentioned, and we do thank each of you for coming today.
And, at this time, I will introduce and welcome the Chairman of
the full Committee of Education and Workforce, the gentleman
from Ohio, Chairman Boehner, to introduce our first witness.
Mr. Boehner. Thank you, Chairman Castle. It's my pleasure
to welcome all of you on the witness panel, but, specifically,
to introduce Dr. Bob Sommers. Dr. Sommers is the CEO of Butler
Technology and Career Development Schools in Butler County,
Ohio, and has been since 2001. And in this capacity, Dr.
Sommers is directly responsible for leadership of a school with
more than 6700 high school students and more than 7800 adult
students annually.
Major accomplishments of the district under Dr. Sommers'
leadership include improvements in student and organizational
performance, program expansion in high-end career technical
programs, including teacher education and biotechnology, as
well as a growth of enrollment in both the high school and
adult programs.
Prior to this position, Dr. Sommers was the associate
director in the Office of Career Technical and Adult Education
for the Ohio Department of Education. And, as I said before,
Butler Tech is located in my home county, and I certainly
appreciate the great work that Dr. Sommers is doing with
vocational and technical education in southwest Ohio.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Chairman Boehner, and welcome,
Dr. Sommers, pleased to have you here.
Our second witness will be Mrs. Katherine Oliver, and she,
Mrs. Oliver, is the Assistant State Superintendent for Career,
Technology and Adult Learning. She leads the division of the
Maryland State Department of Education dedicated to excellence
and innovation in career and technology education and adult
education. Mrs. Oliver serves on a variety of local, state and
national advisory boards relating to education, and workforce
development and participates in numerous professional
organizations associated with career and technology education
and adult learning.
Ms. Mimi Lufkin has already been mentioned by the ranking
member. Actually, you were identified as a product of Sonoma
County--I thought you were some kind of wine there for a
minute. I wasn't sure what we were dealing with.
Ms. Lufkin. Oh, gee.
Chairman Castle. But she is currently the Executive
Director for the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity,
with the acronym NAPE. The organization is a consortium of
state agencies providing national leadership and equity in
education and workforce development. As the Executive Director
for the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, Ms.
Lufkin manages the organization's activities, publishes an
electronic newsletter and website, plans an annual professional
development institute, and presents at other national
organization conferences.
And our clean-up hitter will be Ms. Robin White, who has
worked on the design, implementation, and evaluation of
education requirement improvement efforts for almost 20 years.
As Senior Program and Policy Director for the Academy for
Educational Development, the National Institute for Work and
Learning, Ms. White specializes in program evaluation as well
as technical assistance and capacity building relating to
research evaluation and performance measurement. From 2000 to
2004, Ms. White served as co-director and lead author of the
National Assessment of Vocational Educational Funding and
Accountability Study. Prior to joining AED, Ms. White designed
and directed school reform efforts in urban high schools and
middle schools, and led state-wide school reform efforts
through positions with the Connecticut Business for Education
Coalition and the Commission on Educational Excellence for
Connecticut.
And we welcome and thank all of you again for being here.
Before the witnesses begin to testify, I would like to
remind the members that we will be asking questions after the
entire panel has testified. In addition, Committee Rule 2
imposes a 5-minute limit on all questions. And I think you have
had the rules explained to you as well. You have 5 minutes, you
have little lights there, green for four, yellow for one, red--
until it all stops somehow or another.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Castle. And we really do appreciate your being
here. After that, we will go back and forth and take turns
asking questions. And we look forward to your testimony.
And Dr. Sommers, we're going to start off with you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. SOMMERS, CEO, BUTLER TECHNOLOGY AND
CAREER DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS, FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP, OHIO
Dr. Sommers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Woolsey,
and Representative Boehner. I appreciate the introduction. And
also, the other members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of House Rule, or House
Resolution 4496.
I share my remarks on behalf of the Butler Tech Board of
Education and the nearly 15,000 students who participate in our
high school and adult education programs. H.R. 4496 is critical
to America's continued global competitiveness. The Act builds
on the academic foundation established by the No Child Left
Behind Act, and provides our nation's youth and adults with the
opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills essential to their
economic productivity.
The Act recognizes the importance of rigorous academics and
the importance of technical skills on our future generation's
success. Butler Tech students receive a college prep plus
curriculum, a combination of rigorous academics plus rigorous
career technical education, thus preparing them to be lifelong
learners and economically productive citizens.
H.R. 4496 is a catalyst for assuring students receive
rigorous, challenging academic and technical instruction. The
proposed changes embodied in H.R. 4496 are consistent with our
business and education communities' request. The following are
important, are improvements that we strongly endorse.
The first is the inclusion of ``rigorous and challenging''
in the purpose statement, two, including baccalaureate degree-
based programs in the vocational definition, eliminating the
separate tech prep provisions and blending these concepts into
all programs, establishing consequences for institutions
showing poor student performance, requiring the establishment
of local accountability targets, and continued support of
career information, so that we can assure youth and adults
choose their careers based on good information, and not on the
latest television series.
While the proposed re-authorization is a great start, there
are some minor adjustments that would further improve it. I
share these points in my written testimony.
I would also encourage you to consider several breakthrough
provisions that could move career technical education forward
more quickly. I outline several in my written testimony, but
one is worth noting here.
Student performance is very important, but the next
generation of performance measures will have to include
measures of program efficiency. Cost per pupil is no longer a
meaningful measure. Reporting the cost of performance more
accurately measures the efficiency by linking expenditures to
student performance. This concept is too new to incorporate
into current reporting systems, but we would call for voluntary
involvement in the creation of what Butler Tech refers to as
the Kalmus Ratio. The Kalmus Ratio is the intersect between
student performance and expenditures.
The quality and completeness of accountability issues is
the most important issue facing Congress. If you get the
accountability system right, everything else will occur
naturally. Performance measures are the new leadership tool for
Congress. If you provide clear performance expectations, local
flexibility in program design, educators, parents, and business
leaders will create outstanding educational experiences.
Overall, the proposed accountability system is on target,
and an improvement over the Perkins Act version. Some areas
needing additional attention include the following: most of the
measures are results-oriented, but the one asking us to report
college credit earned by high school students is not. Research
shows that college credit acquisition at the high school level
is highly correlated to college attendance, and therefore that
credit measure is redundant to the higher education attendance
rate measure.
Keep your focus on the higher attendance rate, and we'll
make sure that programs are designed to seek not only college
credit, but many other activities that are highly correlated
with higher education attendance.
The current Perkins legislation supports secondary schools
serving high school students, adult workforce education, and
also community colleges. The performance measures adequately
address secondary and credit-based programming, but they fail
to fully address customized training or short-term skill
upgrade programs.
And, finally, the state and local negotiations regarding
performance levels should be changed to an every-other-year
process. As a local education leader, I strongly endorse the
provisions requiring locals to establish performance
improvement goals, but I think an every-other-year process
would be better.
Finally, I'd ask, as you craft this legislation, you
remember some key things. First, stay the course on the
accountability system. Let the states build on what they've
worked on in Perkins, and advance into the future. Be sure the
accountability system maintains a strong career technical
component. No Child Left Behind addresses academics, let this
legislation add career technical competence to the public
education agenda. After all, rigorous and challenging academics
are necessary but no longer sufficient for citizens to be
productive.
Demand more from American education by expecting rigorous
and challenging academics for all students, and high-quality
career technical education for those who choose to participate.
Support strong state leadership, and, finally, provide help for
creating a new generation of career technical education
assessments that are valid, reliable, rigorous, and highly
correlated with needs.
If you do all those things, we'll have a good piece of
legislation that will advance not only career technical
education, but the citizens of this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sommers follows:]
Statement of Dr. Robert D. Sommers, CEO, Butler Technology and Career
Development Schools, Fairfield Township, Ohio
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.004
------
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Sommers.
Mrs. Oliver.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE M. OLIVER, ASSISTANT STATE
SUPERINTENDENT, CAREER, TECHNOLOGY AND ADULT LEARNING, MARYLAND
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Ms. Oliver. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
Woolsey, and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for this opportunity to highlight successes in
Maryland's career and technology education system, and to
express my support specifically for the model sequences of
courses as proposed in H.R. 4496.
You've heard about what my responsibilities are in
Maryland, but, in addition, I'm also a member of the
Independent Advisory Panel for the National Assessment of
Vocational Education, and serve on the board of directors of
the National Association of the State Directors of Career
Technology Education Consortium.
My colleagues around the country and I commend you for the
introduction of H.R. 4496, and support many of its recommended
provisions. We believe the bill will ensure that our country
can meet the needs of our education and economic systems by
encouraging program improvement and innovation in career and
technology education, while building on the successes of the
current law.
Specifically, we applaud the updated definition of
vocational-technical education as it better reflects today's
CTE program, the strength and accountability provisions, and
the alignment of tech prep under the basic state grant. We also
strongly support the model sequence of courses as outlined in
the bill. This will be the focus of my testimony today.
H.R. 4496 seeks to more fully develop the academic
technical and employability skills of students, to promote
rigorous course-taking and to increase linkages between
secondary and post-secondary education. Model sequences of
courses will help achieve these goals. Model sequences help
students navigate the world of opportunity. They're like road
maps that display the various routes for the journey to one's
destination. They outline the classes necessary for high school
graduation, and highlight the additional academic and CTE
courses, as well as recommend other experiences, such as
internships, that supplement classroom learning.
Model sequences of courses help students investigate a
variety of career options, while developing the academic and
technical knowledge required for post-high school success. In
Maryland, students are required to develop a 4-year high school
plan of study, that includes the steps to prepare for careers
that are appropriate to individual interests and experiences.
Model sequences of courses help students as they develop
this plan. They become a tool for parents to quickly and easily
help their children make confident and informed decisions, and
they serve as a tool, much like a compass, to make sure that
students are headed in the right direction to achieve their
goals.
Maryland has a long and successful history with career and
technology education programs of study. The inclusion of model
sequences in Federal legislation will allow us to take this
initiative to scale. In 1989, the Maryland Commission on
Vocational-Technical Education called for a new model of CTE
that prepared students for both employment and further
education.
Maryland has developed policies and procedures for state
approval of local CTE programs. Only state-approved programs
are eligible for state and Federal funding. This came about
over a decade ago, when the Maryland State Board of Education
identified the completion of an approved sequence of CTE
courses as one of the capstone requirements to obtaining a
Maryland high school diploma, placing it on a par with
completion of the admission requirements for entry into the
state university system.
This designation has sent a very clear signal that state-
approved CTE programs must be of sufficient academic rigor to
prepare students for success in post-secondary education in the
contemporary workplace. Our Maryland Higher Education
Commission imposes a similar approval requirement for post-
secondary CTE programs.
Project Lead the Way, pre-engineering program, is an
instructional pathway that prepares students for further
education and careers in engineering and engineering
technology. It includes a model course matrix, including the
required CTE courses, and the recommended academic and elective
courses to complete a student's educational experience. It's
provided in my written testimony.
A key factor in ensuring a quality CTE system is the
important balance between state-approved programs of study and
local control over the delivery and innovations of that
program. In Maryland, a visionary panel for better schools
recommended a voluntary state curriculum to guide local school
system academic courses of development. Likewise, model
sequence of courses can provide a framework for local CTE
program development as well.
While the state directors of CTE and I are generally
supportive of H.R. 4496, we do not and cannot support the
proposed 60 percent cut in state and local administration
funds. This cut is especially troublesome in light of increased
responsibilities assigned to the state under the bill.
In conclusion, H.R. 4496 enables states to advance progress
started under Perkins III, while promoting new innovations such
as these model sequence of courses. These changes will drive
improvement in CTE, and we think these model sequences will
focus the Federal investment on effective programs that meet
the needs of our students and economy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Oliver follows:]
Statement of Katharine Oliver, Assistant State Superintendent, Career,
Technology and Adult Learning, Maryland State Department of Education,
Baltimore, Maryland
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.009
------
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Oliver. We appreciate
that.
Ms. Lufkin?
STATEMENT OF MIMI LUFKIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ALLIANCE
FOR PARTNERSHIPS IN EQUITY, COCHRANVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Lufkin. Good afternoon, Chairman Castle, Congresswoman
Woolsey, and other Committee members. Thank you for the
invitation to appear before you today.
I bring you the perspective of someone who has been
involved in vocational education since the late 1970's at the
local, state and national level, as a high school agriculture
teacher, a teacher educator, a state educational agency staff
member and, for the past 10 years, as the Executive Director of
the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity.
I will focus my testimony on issues in H.R. 4496 that
impact the participation and success of special population
students in career and technical education. I compliment the
Subcommittee on its use of current law as the basis for the
development of H.R. 4496. By starting from current law, the
Committee has the opportunity to continue the field's efforts
in improving the quality and effectiveness of CTE, which
started in 1988, while making the appropriate changes to re-
focus these efforts in a way that prepares all students for the
future.
H.R. 4496 substantially increases the role and
responsibility of states while decreasing the amount of state
administration funding by 60 percent. To expect states and
locals to do more with less is unrealistic. The elimination of
the requirements that a state's equity coordinator in 1998
illustrates the fact that these kinds of cuts can have
devastating effect on states' ability to provide leadership. No
state continues to have a full-time person in this position. It
is certain that asking states to do more with less resources
will continue to negatively impact their ability to focus on
their responsibility of ensuring the success of special
population students in CTE. We urge the Subcommittee to restore
the amount of funding for state and local administration and
the maintenance of overt language to current law.
Throughout H.R. 4496, language is consistently added to
emphasize the transition of secondary students to post-
secondary education. At least 82 percent of high school
graduates either work exclusively or work while attending
college. We must give students more options, not less. We urge
the Committee to strengthen language throughout the bill to
include employment upon graduation from high school as a
positive outcome for secondary CTE students.
The bill does little to address the needs of adults re-
entering the workforce or in need of skill upgrading for career
advancement. Post-secondary CTE plays a vital role in the
nation's economic and workforce development system, and is the
most reliable way out of poverty for many adults. We urge the
Committee to include programs for single parents, displaced
homemakers, to attain marketable skills for high-wage, high-
skill occupations, leading to self-sufficiency as a required
use of local funds.
H.R. 4496 makes substantial changes to the accountability
system. While separating secondary and post-secondary
accountability measures is a positive step, the elimination of
the indicator related to participation and completion of CTE
programs that lead to non-traditional careers at the secondary
level is a serious mistake. Fortunately, the Subcommittee has
indicated its reconsideration of this decision and the
likelihood that the indicator will be reinstated.
Sex segregation in CTE programs continues to be an issue
across the nation. These stark patterns are not the product of
independent choices made by young men and women alone. The data
show that schools have not adequately fulfilled their
responsibilities to monitor and address the various forms of
discrimination that can limit girls' and boys' access to non-
traditional CTE programs.
Ultimately, this results in substantial disparities in wage
earnings, starting females on the pathway to economic
disadvantage. We cannot ignore 50 percent of the potential
workforce of our nation's economy if this nation is to remain
globally competitive.
We urge the Committee to reinstate participation and
completion of CTE programs that lead to non-traditional careers
as a performance measure for secondary programs, to include
support services for students pursuing non-track careers as a
required use of local funds, to include provisions in Section
118, Occupational and Employment Information, that ensure
unbiased career guidance and academic counseling, and to
include provisions in national activities that support research
and dissemination on the participation and outcomes of students
in CTE, and the identification of model programs and practices
that eliminate sex bias and stereotyping.
H.R. 4496 retains the current provisions in the Perkins Act
for special population students but makes no additions for
improving the ability of states and locals to ensure their
success. States are required to report on the performance of
special population students on the core indicators, but are not
held accountable for their improvement. As a result, data is
not systematically used to drive program improvement efforts.
We recommend that the Committee include language in Section
113 requiring states and locals to disaggregate student
performance data and to make continuous and substantial
improvement in the performance of special population students,
to also include provisions in the incentive grants to give
special consideration for awarding grants for those locals and
states that effectively close performance gaps of special
populations, and make programs for special populations a
required use of local funds.
In closing, let me again thank you for the opportunity to
share my thoughts that will help ensure success of all students
in career and technical education. This legislation has the
opportunity to help fulfill the mission of the Federal role in
education, which is to assure access to equal educational
opportunity for every individual. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lufkin follows:]
Statement of Mimi Lufkin, Executive Director, National Alliance for
Partnerships in Equity, Cochranville, Pennsylvania
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.013
------
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Lufkin.
And Ms. White.
Ms. White. Thank you. Good afternoon, Congressman Woolsey--
excuse me, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Woolsey, and other
Committee members. It's not on? Oh, thank you. Can we start
again?
STATEMENT OF ROBIN WHITE, SENIOR PROGRAM AND POLICY DIRECTOR,
ACADEMY FOR EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
WORK AND LEARNING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. White. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
Woolsey, and other Committee members.
As noted by Chairman Castle, I am here today to provide
testimony on Tech-Prep research conducted as part of the NAVE
funding and accountability study. This evaluation, conducted
with colleagues, AED and Westat, included written surveys of
state vocational education and Tech-Prep administrators,
telephone interviews with state vocational administrators, and
case studies at the state and local levels.
The evaluation focused primarily on implementation of the
new Perkins Funding and Accountability Provisions. However, my
colleagues and I expanded the scope of our study at the request
of NAVE staff to take a broader look at how Tech-Prep
definitions and implementation strategies relate to
measurements of participation and outcome. More detailed
information will be available in our forthcoming report, The
Structure and Challenges of Vocational Funding and
Accountability Systems.
I'm honored to be here today to describe the findings of
this study and possible implications for policy, specifically,
the re-authorization of the Perkins legislation.
Our survey results focused primarily on state mechanisms
for allocating Tech-Prep funds and definitions of Tech-Prep
programs and students. Case studies and telephone interviews
offered opportunities to explore how Tech-Prep was actually
implemented in specific states and consortia, and how
implementation was affected by the Perkins III funding and
accountability provisions.
Taken together, these data suggest that Tech-Prep is
essentially a catch-all term, used to describe a wide array of
activities, initiatives and efforts, most of which appear to
fall considerably short in one or more respects of the
statutory definition of a Tech-Prep program. We found that
Tech-Prep programs that followed a distinct cohort of students
through a four- or 6-year sequence of instruction were scarce.
The absence of viable mechanisms for tracking high school Tech-
Prep students into community colleges by area of vocational
study was a major impediment to defining a seamless two plus
two career pathway, and therefore to documenting student
outcomes. A majority of state survey respondents indicated that
they required local consortia to use specific approaches and
definitions that should result in well-defined Tech-Prep
sequences, but site visits and interviews produced few examples
where this actually occurred.
Tech-Prep reporting was generally inadequate at both the
secondary and post-secondary levels. Although states typically
defined secondary Tech-Prep students in terms of enrollment in
or completion of articulated vocational courses or program
sequences, many still struggled with the concept of what
exactly constitutes a post-secondary Tech-Prep student. Even
where definitions were in place at both levels, many consortia
were unable to count the number of students who met the
definition.
Although most states supported having a definition of a
Tech-Prep student, the study team found little evidence to
support the widespread use of these definitions or alignment of
these definitions with statutory intent. Definitions of what it
meant to participate in Tech-Prep appeared to vary within
states and even within consortia, and the applications of
definitions sometimes failed to distinguish Tech-Prep students
from other vocational students.
In states with loose definitions of Tech-Prep, high schools
sometimes identified 60-100 percent of their vocational
students as Tech-Prep participants, regardless of whether they
were enrolled in programs with articulation agreements.
In survey responses, nineteen states reported that students
who took or completed one or more vocational courses, whether
articulated or not, met the criteria for Tech-Prep
classification. Another eight states reported that all
vocational students were considered Tech-Prep, while one state
indicated that all secondary students who had not chosen
college prep were considered Tech-Prep. Two states avoided the
issue entirely by counting all secondary students as Tech-Prep.
The number of Tech-Prep students who actually received
articulated credit at the post-secondary level appears to be
quite low. The reasons given for this included requirements
that a student complete additional courses or score at a
certain level on placement tests, the length of time elapsed
between high school completion and college enrollment, and
policies that required the students to identify the collegiate
courses they had taken and make four more requests for credit.
Because the two plus two and two plus four programs of
study were scarce, Tech-Prep efforts frequently overlapped
those of regular vocational education. Study team found that
many states have worked to develop articulated course sequences
for vocational education outside the context of Tech-Prep. It
was noted previously, state and local reporting on Tech-Prep
participation and outcome frequently fail to distinguish Tech-
Prep students from others.
Finally, the reported uses of Tech-Prep funds typically for
equipment, supplies, salaries, and the startup of new programs
were quite similar to those reported for Perkins Title I basic
grants.
In conclusion, I want to give you the recommendations that
our forthcoming report includes concerning Tech-Prep. We
suggested three options that Federal policymakers might want to
consider. Requiring states and consortia to document rates of
student completion of four- and 6-year Tech-Prep sequences;
investing in the development of software and other mechanisms
to facilitate tracking secondary Tech-Prep students into post-
secondary institutions; and eliminating Tech-Prep as a separate
title and re-allocating Tech-Prep funding to a wider range of
vocational education reform initiatives at the state and local
levels. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:]
Statement of Robin White, Senior Program and Policy Director, Academy
for Educational Development, National Institute for Work and Learning,
Washington, DC
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.017
------
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. White, and thank you for
sort of rushing through there at the end.
We appreciate the information all of you gave. Actually,
there's a lot included in that 20 minutes of testimony that you
gave us, and I'm sure staff is going to have a field day trying
to go over it all and trying to figure it all out. But I'm
going to keep my question a little more general. I'm going to
try to take another 45 seconds for this question, and give you
each a minute, and I'm going to ask you about 10 minutes' worth
of question here, so be careful.
I think, Mrs. Oliver, you mentioned parents, but I want to
make sure, you know, legislation, that we are not doing
anything that would--well, not only would harm having the
parental involvement, but also would encourage parental
involvement, and also the early choice of children. I very
often worry about that in terms of some of our vocational
education, enforcing early choices and where we're going with
it. I want to make sure that we're not doing anything to harm
that legislation or comments you have on that in general.
I'm also concerned about the academic versus the vocational
side of all this. I just noticed that, in my judgment, the
state of Delaware, the educational side, the academic side of
vocational side has just improved dramatically in recent years,
which I think is great. But I also realize, in terms of jobs,
that young people have to be trained for, in some cases,
economically more advantageous, and if some went to college,
there's some argument for that, and I'm trying to make sure
that we're not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I
don't think every vocational school in the United States needs
to become Harvard, and I am concerned about anything our
legislation may have that impacts that.
And the other question may not be directly related to our
legislation, but, in commenting on your own schools, I
mentioned on, and always on the subject on full-time versus
part-time, in vocational education schools, if you have
comments on that, I would appreciate it. I'm going to try to go
down the row, you've got about a minute each, so answer what
you will, in that minute. Dr. Sommers.
Dr. Sommers. Yes. First of all, parents are always
involved. If you think about it, all of programs are choice. If
we don't connect with parents and students, we're not going to
have students enrolled. And so that one's solved. Too early a
choice, we actually think the greatest challenge is that
students don't think about careers soon enough. Most of our
students don't choose specific careers. We work in broad career
clusters.
We've never had any complaints from parents that kids are
going to work too quickly and being productive. We have noticed
that a lot of parents complained about what they call NIKEs, No
Income Kids with an Education. So we've really pushed career
development early on, not as a forced issue, but as a choice
that they make.
By the way, we don't seem to have any trouble at all
forcing kids to make a single path choice of college prep,
which only has a single mode of operation that's successful,
and that's to succeed in college. We prefer the college prep
plus, where we have more options when they leave, including
college.
The academics, we don't have too much focus on academics,
we have too much focus on academic classes. Lowell Milken put
out, at the Milken Institute, that the NAPE assessment has been
virtually unchanged over the last fifteen years, while, at the
same time, we've had dramatic increases in the number of
academic courses taken. I think we've made a tremendous error
in equating course-taking with academic prowess, and that
career technical education captures the excitement of a
student's mind, and engages them so that academics come
naturally. So if we can get those two together, and quit
looking at them as either-or, and make them integrated, we'll
be in good shape.
Chairman Castle. Thank you. Mrs. Oliver.
Ms. Oliver. My comments indicated, I think it's important
that parents are a part of their children's educational
programs. We--it is one of our goals at the Maryland State
Department of Education to ensure that there are strategies for
parental involvement. We can do that at the policy level by
helping that they, ensuring that they help us develop our
programs and are knowledgeable of what, what is there to be
offered there for their students and that they visit their
schools on a regular basis and sign off on those students'
programs of study. We do that in our high schools at work
sites, and it's a very effective practice.
In terms of early choice, I prefer us to look at it as
focus, helping students focus and see relevance on what study,
in terms of academics and technical subjects, is all about,
helping them see that high school is a means to an end, not an
end in itself, and that their future is not just getting into a
college, but it's getting into a college to do this. So I would
look at meeting to ensure we have lots of flexibility for our
students to make a variety of choices, but to help them focus.
I don't think it's academic versus technical education. I
beg to differ with you. I think that--
Chairman Castle. Hey, you're not differing with me, I was
just asking a question.
Ms. Oliver.--that in today's world, our employers are
telling us that for us to be a force for their employees to be
successful that our graduates need to come to the workplace
with a new set of academic skills. Basic math is not
computation, basic math is far more sophisticated than that,
and every student deserves to have the opportunity to match--
Chairman Castle. Integration for the workplace, basically.
Ms. Oliver. Integration. And, last, full-time versus part-
time. In Maryland, we deliver career and technology education
in a variety of settings. Some of them are full-time career
technical high schools, others are shared-time facilities. Both
can work, and both just need to be--we need to exploit--
Chairman Castle. Is one better?
Ms. Oliver. I--it's easier for me to have performance data
from the full-time, so I tend to like that.
Chairman Castle. OK.
Ms. Oliver. But I think that if we--
Chairman Castle. Dr. Sommers is shaking his head. One is
not better than the other, so--
Ms. Oliver. If we ensure--
Chairman Castle. I don't want to start a debate there,
but--
Ms. Oliver. If we ensure that our systems in place work for
our students, then it doesn't make a difference whether it's
full-time or shared-time.
Chairman Castle. Thank you.
Ms. Oliver. As long as the process fits the student.
Chairman Castle. Thank you. Ms. Lufkin, Ms. White, I'm
going to have to ask you to be relatively brief, since I'm sort
of out of time here.
Ms. Lufkin. OK. Well, I'll just say that everything that my
former colleagues have mentioned I would support whole-
heartedly, and want to sort of focus a little bit on the
parental issue, because, when it comes to the selection of non-
traditional careers or looking at career option, the parents
are very important, and having them involved is one of the key
elements that we've discovered in terms of looking at this
issue.
The other thing is about what we would like to see is
students to have more choices and to explore careers in a
broader range for themselves, and all of those, I think, are
supported within the bill, especially the strengthening of
language in the career guidance and counseling section.
Chairman Castle. Good, thank you. Ms. White.
Ms. White. Yes, thank you. Since our study did not look at
parental involvement, I will save you some time on that one,
Mr. Chairman.
With regard to the early choice issue, I would just like to
underscore our concern about the choices made by students who
enter Tech-Prep with the goal of entering post-secondary ed
with advanced standing. As I indicated in my very rushed
testimony, we found that very few students actually appeared to
gain those credits when they entered post-secondary education.
Chairman Castle. Thank you. Thank you all very much, and
we'll turn to Ms. Woolsey now.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Van Hollen has--would like
to say something about Mrs. Oliver, and then he has to leave.
Mr. Van Hollen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms.
Woolsey, and thank you for holding this third in a series of
hearings on this important issue. I want to thank all of the
witnesses.
I just wanted to especially thank Mrs. Kathy Oliver from
the state of Maryland for being here, and I appreciate all the
work that you've done with our office and your input on many
issues, including what you've talked about at the hearing. But
I just wanted to welcome you and thank you for the work you've
done in our state on these important issues. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen. Ms. Woolsey, do
you want to go now, or should I go to Mr. Osborne and come back
to you?
Ms. Woolsey. I prefer you go to Mr. Osborne.
Chairman Castle. OK. Mr. Osborne, are you prepared, sir?
Mr. Osborne. I'm sort of prepared.
Chairman Castle. Well, I knew you were prepared, but I
didn't know if you were prepared to go at that moment.
Mr. Osborne. I don't have a game plan, so thanks for
asking. Thank you for being here today and, I guess, Ms.
Lufkin, I would just, it seemed like you had--I think I counted
25 recommendations. And so, I guess, my thought is, do you like
the basic bill, or do you think we ought to start over? This is
not a facetious question. I mean, it did seem like you had a
lot of objections, and also I'm a little bit concerned about
what the cost of your--have you added up what it might cost to
implement some of these recommendations?
Ms. Lufkin. First let me say that I think--I complimented
the Subcommittee on starting from current law, because I think
the current law has some very strong provisions in it regarding
support for special population students. Most of the
suggestions that I made are minor language tweaks in the law
which basically just continue to emphasize issues around
serving special population students and the inclusion of
language that encourages locals to provide programs for them.
The accountability system in current law and in the bill
that you are offering basically requires that there's a
disconnect with the language in the accountability system and
the local uses of funds.
So the suggestion in terms of providing required uses of
fund language around supporting special population students and
providing programs for students pursuing non-traditional
careers really is supported in the accountability section.
As far as the amount of money it would take to do any of
these programs, I wouldn't expect that it would shift resources
in any other way, other than to emphasize recruitment
activities and support services for students already in career
technical education that need those additional supports to be
successful.
Mr. Osborne. OK, well, I'm not conversant enough with the
bill to separate out minor technical changes from what was made
here, so I assumed that you were looking at quite a few changes
that were fairly significant.
One other question, and this would be for Dr. Sommers and
Mrs. Oliver. What do you feel accountability looks like for
vocational and technical education? I mean, I understand what
accountability looks like under No Child Left Behind, you know,
grades three through eight, but I'm not totally very
understanding of what this might mean for vocational and
technical education, and I know you both mentioned that it's
desirable, but how do we achieve it?
Dr. Sommers. The question of what it looks like is very
similar to No Child Left Behind except that we focus on career
technical education. Career technical is a body of knowledge
just like math, science, English. It requires a certain amount
of programming and success on the student's part to acquire
that knowledge and information and skill sets.
And so, to the extent that we can develop high-quality
career technical assessments, either performance or written, to
the extent that we can clearly identify that as an objective in
the legislation, which it does, you can drive us to design
curriculum program services and everything else to make that
successful for all the students that enroll and choose to.
The actual performance measures are the key indicator of
whether we're making progress. And actually I encourage any
kind of parts of the legislation kind of focus on that, but
actually leave lots of flexibility at the local level, because
if I can deliver it in many different ways--for example, full-
time and part-time.
I actually run a full-time campus where full-time students
are engaged in lots of programs including high-end academics.
I've got a whole cadre of faculty that teach in part-time
programs. They both meet a unique student population that, if
you forced us to do one or the other, we would fail miserably
at. So the performance measures actually drive what we do.
You just build them right on top of the academics and No
Child Left Behind and we'll be very successful.
Mr. Osborne. But these would be formulated by you folks, is
that correct?
Dr. Sommers. Actually, in most cases, we would coordinate
that with the state and the local. I strongly encourage some
specificity in the performance measures which allows for
national comparability and for us to have the opportunity to
find first-class programs.
Ms. Osborne. Again I don't know enough about it to ask an
intelligent question, but do you have a corresponding test of
some type that would correspond with the NAPE, or would you be
involved with the NAPE test at the high school level at all?
Ms. Oliver. In Maryland, we have aligned our career and
technology education accountability system with our K-12
accountability system, so that it is in lock-step with that.
Our approach to program improvement with our local recipients
at both the secondary and post-secondary level mirrors--has
those systems determining every year what their improvement
will look like, and how they will be using their Perkins
dollars, their local dollars, their state dollars, to support
the strategies to increase that improvement.
Right now, the NAPE is not available to us in terms of, in
our state, for twelfth-grade students in career and technology
education programs. However, we are a member of The High
Schools that Work initiative, where we do use a NAPE-like
assessment that measures twelfth-grade achievement in reading,
math and science, and that is a very valuable tool for career
and technology education as we look to improving academic
performance, because we are able then to--we assess these
students in the January of their senior year, and it provides
us, in addition to teacher surveys and student surveys and
transcript surveys, an opportunity to really dig into the data
that will direct the strategies that need to be put into place
to improve student achievement.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lufkin and all of
you, really. I want to know how students are advised in these
programs. I mean, how do they influence--how do you know there
is going to be a job there after they go in a particular
direction? Are you doing outreach with your communities? I'll
start with you, Mimi.
Ms. Lufkin. Certainly. I think you're talking about sort of
the career guidance and counseling procedures that occur and
how students make decisions regarding their career choices. And
I think if you were to go across the country and walk into any
secondary school or post-secondary institution, you would see
something potentially different. And some of them are more
successful than others, and I think those who target resources
toward these efforts are more successful.
Dr. Sommers and Mrs. Oliver both mentioned workplace
learning as part of an effective CTE program, and we also
believe that students having access to job shadowing
experiences, mentoring activities, role models, the real world,
is really very important.
I don't know that I would say that that's happening in
every career and technical education program across the
country, but the kinds of language that's been included in this
bill certainly would continue to drive those kinds of positive
efforts. It's very, very important, because what typically
happens in a lot of situations is that students will choose a
career based on peer pressure or on media pressure, and not
necessarily on informed decisionmaking. And that's something
that is very important to us, particularly as it revolves
around access to careers that could lead to economic self-
sufficiency and students making decisions that are long-term
decisions about their own future. And oftentimes that kind of
information is not available.
Ms. Woolsey. Ms. White?
Ms. White. Yes, thank you. OK, one of the things that
concerned us, particularly as we looked at Tech-Prep in
implementation across the country, was the inability to get a
clear picture of the outcome achieved by these programs. By
statute, Tech-Prep programs are supposed to lead to high-skill,
high-wage employment or further education. Since so many states
and consortia were unable to determine who was participating in
a Tech-Prep program, it was very hard to track whether they
actually got a job, much less one that would be meeting the
statutory requirements.
Ms. Woolsey. Is part of that requirement that there are
actual jobs in the community?
Ms. White. They are supposed to develop the articulation
agreement and the programs--the consortia are supposed to
develop these programs by looking at the labor market area.
Originally, in the Perkins II legislation, Tech-Prep programs
focused primarily on technical education programs. More
recently, they have expanded into a much broader array of
vocational offering child care, human resources, fashion and
interior design, for example.
Ms. Woolsey. Dr. Sommers?
Dr. Sommers. Yes.
Ms. Woolsey. When you are answering, I also want to know
if, for example, if there's a shortage of auto repair people
that know anything about technology. I mean, that's a big--is
that--tell me if that's what we're talking about.
Dr. Sommers. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, I can answer the
question pretty simply, because I'm at the local level and we
deliver this, so I'm going to tell you, we start with a career
development program, we invest about 350,000 a year in K-8 for
career exploration, career information, not to force kids into
a career, but to make sure they understand the full array.
Literally, the best program enrollments are the where the
TV shows are, and we're trying to correct that. I mean, I've
got forensics and biotechnology out my ears because of CSI. So
we've got to put real clear performance measures--when we beat
those odds, then we're in good shape.
Career development then leads into programming. We know
well in advance what the students' interests are and also we
have business advisory councils both at the program level and
at the broad-based level. We actually hire labor market
analysts that constantly measures labor markets, not only the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, but also our internal community
operations. And so we adapt programs to high-demand, high-wage
jobs. And also in demand, sometimes they're not high-wage.
We've got teacher education academies, after all, but we look
for places where we have needs and services, and we try to
match those two up.
We see career development as the single most important
factor in meeting the non-traditional enrollment problem. We've
made progress in that at Butler Tech. In fact, in our adult
enrollments, we've got some of the highest percentages of non-
traditional in the state, and we're proud of that. So all those
fit together. Good career development, high quality programs
that are tailored to long-term needs, and finally the labor
market analysts guiding us. In all of those, we try to do our
best to make sure that students have choices of college and
careers in the local regional areas.
Ms. Woolsey. Can Mrs. Oliver answer that? Thanks.
Ms. Oliver. In order for a CTE program to be approved in
our state, labor market demand has to be documented. We work
collaboratively with our Department of Labor Licensing and
Regulation and our Department of Business and Economic
Development, as well as our business communities, to help us
further refine and identify the specifics of that demand. In
addition, we are now in Maryland working with industry shortage
areas. We had a health care summit last year. We're working on
aerospace, on manufacturing, other key areas that are of
importance to Maryland's economy and to the opportunities that
are available for its citizens.
We are--students are advised in a variety of ways. We have
a career development model that provides outcomes for our
school systems to work with to ensure that students understand
who they are, what their interests are, how to explore career
opportunities. We also promote teacher advisor programs,
because clearly there are just not enough guidance counselors
to go around.
So we have many of our high schools that are working on
improvement opportunities, converting to teacher advisors,
where teachers work with a group of students beginning in the
ninth grade and all the way through their twelfth-grade
experience, to advise students on all aspects of their high
school program, but career development in particular.
Ms. Woolsey. So I'm sure you're all going to say yes. Part
of this is, like, you can encourage a kid to learn to be a
technician knowing that they really in the long run want to be
an engineer, but they could be the Tech-Prep at the lower level
and then go on? I mean, it's not an end in and of itself.
Dr. Sommers. Fifty-four percent of all the students that
are completers in our programs attend higher ed. They're there
9 months later, compared to our high schools in the area, we're
the second highest, if you compare their actual attendance, not
what they say they're going to do, but actual attendance. So
we're very pleased at the choices they have. By the way, the
majority of them are employed at the same time, because they
have to pay for the process.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. Now, let me just
ask a follow-up question or two. And that is, about the
testing. I just want to make sure I understand the testing. I
assume that--and it was actually Mrs. Oliver answering this
question--but I assume that your students participate in the
NAPE testing as it is applicable in the sampling that's done
for the NAPE in your various jurisdictions. And I assume on No
Child Left Behind that most of it is not applicable, because of
the age related, because of the testing in grade three through
eight, but that as it is applicable in high school, that you,
again, you would participate and be graded on that basis for
that. Is that also correct?
Are there are other, are there specialized, first of all,
are there any specialized tests on a national level that you
take that would be similar to NAPE or No Child Left Behind for
vocational education in particular?
Dr. Sommers. Actually, there's a whole series--NAPE, of
course, has a very finite set of courses--math, science,
English, that sort of thing. Career technical tends to be a
little more diverse, and so you have a variety, but we rely
heavily on the industry credentialling. We also have
standardized career technical assessments in the state of Ohio
that have been developed by the state. We think that one of the
things this piece of legislation could do is push for some kind
of voluntary national career technical assessment that actually
is lined out by Jean Bottoms and some communications with you.
Chairman Castle. Is there anything like that now?
Dr. Sommers. There's no across the board, and I think that
would be an excellent first step to kind of get at those
things. We also--by the way, the No Child Left Behind
requirements, OGT, are not sufficient for our programs. We have
to rely on ACT and Compass for academics, because most of the
graduation tests that comply with No Child Left Behind are
actually at about the tenth or eleventh grade, to give them
time to assess, and our programs tend to be at the tenth,
eleventh and twelfth grade.
Chairman Castle. Mm-hmm. Very good.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I have one more question. The Perkins
Act--how much of the funding goes to adult education? I mean,
once, a re-entry, a woman.
Ms. Oliver. In our state, funding is not designated by--our
funding goes to both post-secondary and to secondary, and
that's how the funding is split. Adult students can participate
in either a program at the secondary or post-secondary level. I
wouldn't have data on what is exactly spent on adults.
Ms. Woolsey. But it is available?
Ms. Oliver. It could be available.
Ms. Woolsey. What does that mean?
Ms. Oliver. Well, it would, we would have to--it depends
upon the definition of an adult. I mean, in general, all of our
post-secondary programs do serve adults, but we do not have
adult programs like Ohio has, that is a, really a third system
in terms of CTE or a third delivery mechanism. In Maryland,
it's through one of two deliveries, but adults are welcomed in
both areas. It would be difficult for me to be able to
disaggregate spending on adult learners.
Dr. Sommers. Yes. Actually, in the state of Ohio, it's
about 85, 80-85 percent secondary, 15 percent split between
community colleges and adult workforce. We actually serve more
adults in the adult workforce than the community colleges do in
our state.
As I recall, you tend to vary in the west. They tend to be
much more on the post-secondary side; in the east, it tends to
be more on the secondary, most because of population densities.
It's harder to do career technical in very small schools. So,
actually adult workforce works very closely with community
colleges in the state of Ohio and as long as you provide
flexibility in the formula as it is now, it will be adaptable.
Ms. Lufkin. I can talk to California, the way California
does it. And that is, it sounds to me like it's fairly similar
to Ohio. When the Perkins Fund comes to California, it's split
50-50 between the State Department of Education and the
California community college chancellor's office. There are in
secondary schools, adult education programs that are available
for adults to participate in career and technical education on
secondary school campuses, typically, and in regional
occupational programs throughout California.
As far as the post-secondary component, then those, the 50
percent of the funds then go to community colleges. As far as
adult re-entry programs or re-entry programs for women, for
example, many of those programs typically are found at the
community college campuses. And I think that's probably more
likely true across the country. And also, at the secondary
level, you would more likely see teen parent programs with--in
terms of trying to access career and technical education. And
oftentimes when those programs are held at alternative
education sites, those students do not have access to quality
career and technical education, which is an issue, especially
for young parents.
But in terms of the resources being available, they are
available for adult women typically in the community college
system.
Ms. White. Our forthcoming NAPE report includes a chart
that indicates the split between secondary and post-secondary
Perkins expenditures in each of the states and territories. I
don't remember the exact breakdown. I do not have that chapter
with me. But more states spent the majority of their money at
the secondary level. If you would like, I can send that chart
to you.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, that's good information. OK. I'd like to
have that. Thank you. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. And let me thank
the panel.
I think we've run out of members and questions at this
point, so we'll bring this to a close. We are going to be
voting actually fairly soon on the floor. Again, your original
testimony was chock-full of all kinds of information that we
will take under consideration as we continue to review the
legislation. As Ms. Woolsey has indicated, this is, even though
we've introduced it, we're still in the stage where we can
refine it, if you will. And we are going to be working on that.
So your testimony is very valuable in helping with that.
We do appreciate each of you being here today. We stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of United Tribes Technical College, Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.022
______
Statement of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Submitted for the
Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4193.023
<all>