Career and Technical Education Collaboration Task Force
May 3, 2010
Oregon Department of Education – Room 251B (2nd Floor, Public Service Building)
255 Capitol Street NE, Salem
Approved May 27, 2010
Task Force Members Present: / Senator Diane Rosenbaum, Representative Michael Dembrow, Deborah Barnes, Carolyn Becic, Dennis Boyd, Barney O’Donnell, Drew Park, Laura RoachTask Force Members Absent: / Tim Mosterdyke, Cynthia Risan, Stephen Simms
Staff: / Adrienne Sexton
Guests: / Elise Brown
Chair Barnes convened the meeting at 8:35 a.m.
Review agenda; revise as needed: No changes were made to the printed agenda.
Approve minutes of March 29, 2010: Motion by O’Donnell to approve minutes as printed. Without objection, the motion passed.
Overview of recent legislation matrix: With a PowerPoint presentation, Roach described various organizations, committees and coordinating groups that are involved in partnerships throughout the state, and outlined initiatives that affect CTE including the new diploma requirements, pathways at community colleges, Perkins-funded programs of study, applied academics, CTE secondary teacher licensure, mentoring, and national common core academic standards in development.
She continued with statistics on the number of students taking at least ½ credit of CTE, the number and type of schools and regional technical centers, and apprenticeship programs. A description of the Perkins-funded CTE programs followed, which involve 240 high schools, 17 community colleges, and 800 secondary programs matched with 600 community college programs. She pointed out that a community college cannot have a program approved by the State Board of Education unless it can be proved there is a regional need and it is a high-need, high-wage job.
Statistics on test results for secondary and post-secondary CTE students and the number of dual-credits (4,500) earned in CTE courses, which show alignment and articulation, and other programs such as Expanded Options, were described.
Review of Carl D. Perkins funding stream: Roach described the funding mechanism, financial cycle, distribution, and allowed uses. Distribution to secondary schools is based on census and to community colleges the base is the number of Pell grants. If a secondary school would receive less than $15,000 the school must join a consortium.
She said that factors that affect the future of CTE programs are old paradigms, those of the 1950s, rather than looking forward to looking at CTE for exceptional students, and for all students to show rigor, relevance, and relationships. Other issues are the lack of CTE teacher preparation programs and funding and resources.
Responding to Boyd, Roach said that the CTE leaders’ network is made up of secondary and post-secondary people that work with regional coordinators, many of whom are hired by an ESD or community college to manage Perkins fund s and develop a regional strategic plan, which meets monthly. Boyd commented there doesn’t seem to be trades involvement. Roach noted that every high school and community college program that is approved has to have an advisory committee that is made up of workforce partners. She also clarified that the apprenticeship programs are not funded with Perkins federal funds but are part of the larger CTE picture in terms of who is providing services in the state.
Rep. Dembrow asked whether there is data about how students are moving through the programs, for instance from CTE programs in high school to community college or an apprenticeship program. Roach indicated it is available to some degree but we cannot match student progress because we do not have the social security number, and the Employment Department can only match with the social security number.
Barnes noted the outcomes for students in her program and the low level of funding for her program. It is necessary to write grants and seek local participation to keep it functioning. Roach also advised that CTE programs are moving to standards-based instruction, and from the federal government, internationally benchmarked technical skills assessment.
In response to O’Donnell’s concerns about the need for remediation, Roach said that Oregon piloted allowing students to receive credit for proficiency which will take a number of years to take effect statewide, and that the ESEA (No Child Left Behind) funding will be targeted at the secondary level instead of elementary. Barnes described how CTE teachers incorporate concepts from core subjects into the CTE elements in order to give students help with what they are lacking in language arts, math, history and science.
Sen. Rosenbaum asked for clarification of the upcoming Perkins funding. Roach responded that there will be a change because funding streams will be merged. Oregon may receive $100,000 less in 2010-11; other states may receive more.
Boyd commented on the relative graduation rates between CTE students and others and where the return on investment is. Roach mentioned that a model is being developed at the national level that would allow ROI information to be developed at the state level. Rep. Dembrow noted that part of what makes CTE successful is that students choose it and that attitude needs to be developed.
Park recapped the activities of the Workforce Investment Board committees. Rep. Dembrow spoke of the new diploma requirements for reading and math and the issue of how schools will get there.
Advisory committee collaboration and partnerships: Barnes described the membership of her advisory committee which meets three times a year, one of which is to serve as judges for the seniors’ capstone projects. She said she relies on the professionals on the committee to keep her up to date on what is current in the industry. Her school is also piloting a proposal to determine whether the capstone project could be a technical skills assessment. She would like to see this be applied statewide and thinks part of the task force charge is to find more business and industry people to connect with CTE programs. Many schools outside the Portland region may need more volunteers to augment their advisory committee membership.
When asked by Becic whether Barnes’ program can create a nationally-normed and validated program, Barnes indicated yes and that with more expert participants per program the curriculum gets richer. Becic noted there are a hundred mentoring programs across the state to recruit people to work with children and youth. Oregon Volunteers, the statewide organization, would be a good resource to identify who and what businesses they have in place. She pointed out that technology may be important if there are not experts in a location, so that geography doesn’t matter. Barnes would like a database at ODE so that regardless of location, a teacher has access to the names of expert volunteers, and to those that have apprenticeship programs, internships, and job shadow opportunities available.
Responding to Rep. Dembrow, Roach explained the requirement for local advisory committees in relation to obtaining secondary program approval from the ODE and post-secondary program approval from the State Board of Education. Until there are regional or statewide programs of study, the work will be done by the local committees. She pointed out that the secondary programs may not always align with a community college program because at the community college level it is not economically feasible to offer.
Becic said that last year Portland Business Alliance employed one person to scan the business community for volunteers both to work directly with youth or with something like this. It might be worth talking with them to find out how current it is, what resources it takes and who is responsible to update it. Park said that a 2-year, $140,000 grant was used, and PBA is now trying to figure how to fund it or whether to continue.
Rep. Dembrow commented there are three things needed: 1) how to recruit for advisory committees; 2) how to make it sustainable; and 3) ensure the advisory committees are doing something, a way to measure the effectiveness and usefulness. Park said he is on an advisory committee but sees it as a rubber-stamp regarding equipment, but has no input on curriculum. Barnes indicated that may depend on how the instructor sets it up and how important the advisory committee is to them. She sees this as important for having an avenue for them to reach someone for an advisory committee.
Becic brought up the issue of capital investment for equipment, using the example of KGW’s broadcast facility in Pioneer Courthouse Square that is empty much of the day. She said it needs to be recognized that the discussion is not beauty school, it is high tech jobs and secondary education cannot make the capital investment. The need is to talk about those strategic partnerships so that we are not continually reinvesting capital in a lab to learn a job in the community. Boyd advised that is what the ACE Academy collaboration provides, by investing in the equipment.
There was discussion of whether equipment used at the secondary level needs to be current, or whether the importance of that is in the community college and apprenticeship venue.
Becic asked whether the task force charge is to improve existing CTE and building partnerships that make sense, or is it about increasing access. Roach pointed out that as academic standards are being increased more academic classes are offered, which makes access to CTE an issue. She suggested that until there is research available to show that that this is an effective methodology, and to identify the cost of CTE, it will be difficult to make changes. Access is probably adequate in some areas, and not others.
Among issues members discussed were: funding for CTE, which is not categorical, how school administrators choose to spend the State School Fund dollars for core academic courses over CTE programs, and the relative outcomes; programs that have successfully integrated business involved are generally regional programs; relationship between community colleges and trade union apprenticeship programs or trade programs generally; and desire by industry to create shorter-duration programs that do not necessarily lead to union jobs;.
Focus on task force charge/establish work plan: Chair Barnes asked the task force members to focus on the task force charge in order to establish a work plan. She asked staff to identify where in the process the task force is and where it should be. Sexton noted this is the second meeting, and the final report is due October 1. She posed the question: has the task force reached a consensus of what will be the outcome, so that the information can be driven in order to have a written draft report by September 1.
Park asked whether this task force can use the most recent report and recommend that the work has already been done and something should be done with it. Barnes restated the charge of this task force is to find ways to have better partnerships among high schools, community colleges and apprenticeship programs. The last task force and its report gave answers about funding. She commented that part of the new report should include the key elements of that report as well as what this task force finds.
Roach referred to the compiled document )Recent Legislation Addressing Career and Technical Education) that shows the tasks, recommendations and related activities coming out of the 2008 task force, saying that one recommendation was for a funding pilot project but that was not accomplished. She reported that there may be more federal money for community colleges, but is uncertain whether it would stay with education or go to the Department of Labor, and there are other unknowns around funding.
Rep. Dembrow asked whether the states with targeted funding do better with CTE than other states. Barnes responded that Washington is a good model with regional skill centers, students staying in school, and high test scores. She referred to Kansas and Arkansas, and described California’s addition of state funding for regional centers, equipment and teachers even during the current budget problems.
Senator Rosenbaum commented that if the task force answer is just more money as a measure of success, that will not go anywhere. Boyd responded that it is a matter of money better spent than where it is currently spent. Rep. Dembrow agreed. Roach pointed out that Oregon is a local control state so it is difficult to compare CTE across the state. Barnes said that one idea for regional centers that was piloted is to focus on what each area needs, such as health care studies, so that students can stay in their area for employment later.
O’Donnell asked whether the CTE curriculum is audited because often apprentices are not spending the required amount of time in the classroom. There was discussion of the role of ODE to set academic standards, and BOLI to manage the apprenticeship programs. Rep.
Dembrow indicated that he heard it may be more of a problem in non-trade union apprenticeship programs.
Barnes asked each member to identify his/her goal for the task force:
O’Donnell would like to see apprenticeship programs be real programs, so that he can bring in high school students and give them some of the real work, on the job training. Under existing limited energy statutes, anyone who touches a wire has to be licensed.
Rep. Dembrow would like to create more opportunities for people in industry to be mentors. Although he hears that there are a lot of opportunities out there, he doesn’t know of them. He would also like a way for regional centers to be a vehicle for bringing together community colleges and trade unions in true partnerships.
Park would like this task force to send a message to stop creating task forces if the work is not going to be followed through on; the report needs to include that. He agrees with the concept of regional centers, and one should be highlighted as to what works and how it works, including results for the investment. Need also to distinguish between city and rural districts’ demands and capacity.
Senator Rosenbaum would like to have a video conference hearing of the task force to bring in the rural perspective. She would like to see a focus on better use of existing resources and some connection between the programs and the real needs for occupations in the future. Without that we are preparing people for something that may or may not materialize.
Becic commented on local control as a barrier because if a recommendation is to have funds directed to CTE in the state budget and that is not possible, that should come off the table. She likes Outdoor School offered to middle school students because it gives them some exposure to CTE. She agreed there is an issue that colleges and the trades are not working together and that needs more exploration.
Boyd would like to see better use of the resources. He sees the CTE programs as engaging students even if they do not go on to employment; the way the subjects are taught could increase graduation rates. He also identified: a) a regional center with an advisory committee and a social feeder aspect for diversity; b) use of outside facilities; c) intern opportunities; d) middle school or freshman outdoor experience; e) college credit for classes; and f) industry mentors, as components for a successful program.
Roach asks how we find a venue where you can share what you would like to offer to a region, how we support that conversation. It may be as simple as meeting with ODE’s CTE coordinators and CTE deans of the community colleges to say we are in your region and this is what I have to offer. In that case you can say I have a mentor partner from across the state, how can you use it? She does not think it would be a state-mandated process but there could be ways we help get that message out.
She continued with a review of the new national agenda for CTE with five new core principles and activities. When that is rolled out across the state, business and industry partners and this group need to be part of that conversation. Rep. Dembrow suggested those principles should be incorporated into what the task force is doing.
Barnes hopes for a database developed by working with the regional coordinators to identify where the high-demand and high-wage jobs are located so that CTE can get focused on them. She wants more CTE programs and adequate funding for them so that students learn by doing, get connected and stay in school; there needs to be a better weighting of the importance of CTE and paper/pencil education.
Set next meeting date:
Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.
HVAC and Metals Institute
2379 – NE 178th
Portland, OR 97230
Members may take a tour of the facility with Dennis Boyd, beginning at noon. Official meeting of the task force will convene at 1:00 p.m.
Adjourned at 11:48 a.m.
Career and Technical EducationPage 1 of 6May 3, 2010
Collaboration Task Force