Career Technical Education: Creating Options for High School Success

C T E : AREER ECHNICAL DUCATION CREATING OPTIONS FOR HIGH SCHOOL SUCCESS LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION November 2007 State of California L I T T L E H O O V E R C O M M I S S I O N November 15, 2007 The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor of California The Honorable Don Perata The Honorable Dick Ackerman President pro Tempore of the Senate Senate Minority Leader and members of the Senate The Honorable Fabian Núñez The Honorable Michael Villines Speaker of the Assembly Assembly Minority Leader and members of the Assembly Dear Governor and Members of the Legislature: California is struggling to keep more students in school long enough to graduate and, at the same time, ensure that California’s students have achieved sufficient academic proficiency so that they are ready for college, postgraduate training or work. An estimated 30 percent of California’s entering ninth graders do not finish high school, an estimate because the state does not collect the data needed for an exact number. In Los Angeles County, home of the state’s largest school district, the dropout rate, estimated at 55 percent, is higher than the graduation rate. And every year, the demands of an increasingly global economy require Californians to know more, understand more. The current focus on career technical education – which accounts for less than 3 percent of the state’s annual K-12 spending – is a measure of the intensity of the search for solutions. Educators and parents, business owners and labor leaders see in CTE – with its real world relevance and project-based learning – a way to engage students in education that is different than a purely academic approach. Newly available money for CTE creates the opportunity to invest in CTE strategies that work, as well as the responsibility to determine why some districts’ programs are successful, so that other districts can benefit from sharing of best practices. The bulk of the nearly $400 million in new funding is one-time money, putting a premium on ensuring the money is spent on investments that can pay continuing dividends. Another $500 million in bond money is planned for CTE infrastructure. In its study of career technical education, the Little Hoover Commission found encouraging evidence that CTE – in its modern, academically demanding form – can deliver an alternative approach to learning that can keep students engaged, help improve grade point averages and prepare students for both the work world and higher education. In their visits to career-oriented high schools in Sacramento and San Diego, Commissioners saw the new CTE at its best, academically demanding, rigorous and relevant, clearly engaging students who may, in other settings, have been at risk for dropping out. The research, though encouraging, is not comprehensive. Far more is needed to determine what works in CTE classrooms to boost student outcomes, including proficiency on California’s achievement tests. Evaluation should be a condition of receiving any new CTE money. Lack of data is a problem not limited to CTE, however. The state’s entire education system is hobbled by the dearth of real time information that can be used to measure performance of individual students, schools, districts and curriculum. California must find the money in its $67 billion in annual education spending to fully implement the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). Any talk of reform is empty without a way to track long- term performance and measure results. Likewise, the problems of teacher credentialing and overly complex funding streams are not unique to CTE but burden the entire education system. But credentialing and funding can be addressed on their own terms immediately and should not have to wait for reform of the state’s entire system. CTE is not a panacea for all of California’s education woes. But the research that exists, together with examples of how well it can work when done right, make it essential that CTE be preserved and promoted as an important option. An approach that combines rigor and relevance has lessons for the broader education system as well. The Commission’s recommendations are aimed at taking advantage of the current focus on CTE to take steps that will keep CTE viable and effective and ensure that the state’s new investment in CTE pays lasting dividends. California needs to create and implement a strategy for CTE, one that: (cid:131) In the short term, evaluates, expands and replicates proven programs in districts that demonstrate they can support them; then, once more research is in hand, use it to build a long-term, evidence-based strategy that fully integrates academically rigorous career technical education into general education programs. As the state invests more in CTE, it also must measure the outcomes of CTE programs to ensure best practices are replicated statewide. The new specific funding should be used to expand CTE curriculum that meets the high standards the state has adopted. Course sequencing from high schools to community colleges or other post-secondary education must be enhanced so that all CTE students can progress along an established path. And while the new categorical funding can improve and expand CTE, the state should simplify and integrate CTE funding. A data system to measure student participation and performance in CTE programs and determine whether CTE participation increases academic proficiency must be developed. (cid:131) Is built on partnerships between education and workforce development. Partnerships of local and regional education, workforce development and economic development leaders have proven to be essential parts of any successful CTE program, connecting current education to future workforce demands. Local districts that seek new money for their CTE programs should be required to demonstrate that they have built strong and active partnerships with the outside community so that what is taught in the classroom is relevant to what is happening in the economy and so that students have the connections with outside employers for learning in a work environment. (cid:131) Expands the qualified CTE teacher workforce. The state must address the need for teachers qualified to teach the new, more academically demanding CTE, a need that will grow with retirements. California must find a way to tap the wave of retiring baby boomers who could bring their professional experiences to the classroom. Barriers must be removed that hinder hiring more teachers, principals and counselors who will be central to preserving CTE as an option and ensuring that it can produce positive student outcomes. The Commission commends the bi-partisan support that you have shown in the past several years by enacting laws and providing funding to improve CTE, but the Commission believes more must be done, particularly in measuring returns on the state’s investment. The Commission urges you to move forward to implement its recommendations to continue expanding and improving CTE and stands ready to assist you. Sincerely, Daniel W. Hancock Chairman C T E : AREER ECHNICAL DUCATION CREATING OPTIONS FOR HIGH SCHOOL SUCCESS Table of Contents Executive Summary……………..……….…………………………………………………………… i Background……………………..……………………………………………………………………… 1 Creating a System for CTE………………………………………………………………………….. 17 Missing Connections…………………………………………………………………………………. 33 Building Capacity: Teachers Needed…………………………………………………………….. 41 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 The Commission’s Study Process…………………………………………………………………. 55 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 57 Appendix A: Public Hearing Witnesses……………………………………………………………………… 59 Appendix B: Advisory Committee Members……………………………………………………………….. 61 Appendix C: CTE Industry Sectors and Career Pathways………………………………………………… 63 Appendix D: CTE Issues in Nursing………………………………………………………………………….. 65 Appendix E: Prior Recommendations: Linking Education and Workforce and Economic Development……………………………………………………………………………………… 67 Appendix F: Framework for Workforce Development…………………………………………………… 69 Appendix G: Opportunities to Connect Partners………………………………………………………….. 71 Notes…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 75 Table of Sidebars & Charts New Money for CTE………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Dropouts Costly, Add to Shortage of Skilled Workers……………………………………….. 2 High School Career Technical Education Declining………………………………………….. 3 Breakdown of Ongoing State (2006-07) and Federal (FY 2006) Categorical Funding for CTE………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Lead Agencies and Student Populations for CTE Categorical Programs…………………. 6 CPA and California 12th-Grade Graduation Rates By Race/Ethnicity…………………….. 8 Other CTE Models……………………………………………………………………………………. 10 Gain in GPA from Grade 10 to Grade 12 by Comparison Group and ROCP Students. 11 Required A-G Courses for CSU and UC…………………………………………………………. 15 Income and Educational Attainment……………………………………………………………... 15 A Comparison of Course Requirements………………………………………………………….. 16 Elements of a Successful CTE Program…………………………………………………………… 19 Standards, Framework and Curriculum Defined………………………………………………. 20 Project Lead The Way………………………………………………………………………………... 21 The Issue of Concurrent Enrollment……………………………………………………………… 24 New Developments – CTE and the Academic Performance Index………………………… 29 CTE and the School Accountability Report Card………………………………………………. 30 Labor Shortages in High-Demand Fields…………………………………………………………. 33 Top-Down Efforts Difficult to Sustain……………………………………………………………. 35 East San Gabriel Valley ROP & Tech Center……………………………………………………. 36 Linking Education and Economic Development……………………………………………….. 37 CTE Teachers…………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Educator Training at High Tech High…………………………………………………………….. 45 Focus of This Study: CTE in High Schools……………………………………………………….. 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary A s California grapples with high dropout rates and low proficiency scores, career technical education has entered the reform debate as one approach to keeping more students engaged in school and giving them the skills needed to succeed in a fast-changing economy. CTE, formerly known as vocational education, is a new term that can mean vastly different things to different people. Although this has complicated the debate, it does not have to. The California Department of Education has issued CTE standards that make it clear that the content of CTE courses must be as rigorous as the content standards for high school academic courses. From the state’s perspective, the definition is clear: CTE means education that combines academic rigor and real world relevance. In many schools, however, CTE has all but disappeared. Where CTE survives, few courses meet the state’s new CTE content standards. The state is about to invest nearly $400 million in CTE programs, much of it one time money. California voters have approved $500 million more in bond money for CTE infrastructure. The challenge the state faces in investing this money wisely is that it lacks a statewide strategy to integrate CTE into high school education, and it lacks a large body of conclusive research about what kinds of CTE programs produce improved student outcomes such as higher graduation rates, higher grades and greater academic proficiency. Over the course of this study, the Commission found compelling evidence that academically rigorous career technical education could improve outcomes – compelling but not comprehensive or conclusive. The Commission found that the state’s system for governing and funding CTE mirrors the state’s overall fragmented governance structure for its education system. Within CTE, governance and funding straddle three levels of government and two state departments. While these systems can and do work in concert, there also is discord and dysfunction. The fragmentation sometimes creates artificial barriers that limit access to CTE. In terms of accountability, the fragmentation makes it difficult to understand how much or how well money is spent on CTE. i LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION It is clear that the present educational system is failing many. Roughly 30 percent of all ninth graders who enter high school disappear from the system before earning a diploma. In Los Angeles, home of the state’s largest school district, the situation is even bleaker, with more than half of all high school students leaving before graduation. This, at a time when experts assert there is a shortage of workers needed for California’s economy, both skilled technicians and college graduates. The state cannot continue this failure without serious consequences. The state’s economic well-being is at risk, as is the social fabric stretched by the growing number of Californians trapped in low-skilled jobs. The Commission embarked on this study to better understand the research and issues so that it could make recommendations for how the state could best invest the new money available for CTE. The research, which suggests that CTE programs can keep students in school and help them learn skills required for future employment, is encouraging, but more evidence is required.1 The state lacks data to track and measure outcomes of student participation in CTE. It needs to ramp up its data capacity – particularly the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), its unique student identifier system – to enable policy-makers and educators to understand what is working. Available research indicates that programs that combine career-themed coursework with rigorous academics are having a positive impact on students. Students participating in some of the state’s CTE programs that have been evaluated are staying in school and graduating at rates higher than their peers. They are more likely to pass the high school exit exam; they are more likely to earn higher wages in jobs after high school; and, they are at least as likely to go on to postsecondary educational programs. Some studies show that those students at highest risk of dropping out benefit most from CTE participation. Other studies indicate certain subgroups of students who participate in CTE, including African Americans and Latinos, outperform their peers at even greater rates than CTE students overall. Given the promising results, experts told the Commission that the state’s schools need to make more academically rigorous CTE courses available to more students. It will not be the whole solution. But blending CTE into the state’s overarching education strategy has the potential to improve outcomes for many – particularly those that are at greatest risk of dropping out. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CTE – From the Margin to the Mainstream California must develop a strategy for integrating CTE into more schools across the state so that rigorous and relevant CTE courses can be an option for more students. Career-themed high schools with programs touted as models have sprung up across California, but there is no process for measuring programs and ensuring effective programs are implemented statewide. The state has made a sound investment developing and adopting CTE standards and a framework, but schools lack the matching curriculum. The state also lacks any sort of mechanism to ensure that CTE content standards are embedded in CTE curriculum. A few districts and schools have developed curriculum that meets the state standards, embedding statistics in classes on public health risks and high-level math to teach construction technology. The Commission found others have adopted nationally-acclaimed curriculum that meets state standards. But these represent only a small portion of the CTE courses taught statewide. The state must do a better job assisting local districts in developing and implementing successful CTE curriculum and program models. New money has specifically targeted improving course progressions between high schools, Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROCPs) and community colleges so that students can progress along an established path that connects what they have learned from one course to the next. Still, there are exemplary programs at high schools and ROCPs with no corresponding linkage to community colleges. Likewise, there are outstanding community college programs with no feeder schools. The governor and the Legislature have dedicated $400 million over the next seven years to expand and improve CTE programs. The state has an opportunity with this cash infusion to make a difference for students and to improve California’s economy by expanding its educated workforce. iii LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Recommendation 1: California must develop a strategy to, in the short term, evaluate, expand and replicate proven programs in districts that demonstrate they can support them. The state must use research results from its short-term strategy to create a long- term, evidence-based strategy to fully integrate academically rigorous career technical education into general education programs. Specifically, the state should: (cid:137) Expand and replicate successful career-themed high schools and effective CTE programs. Through the Governor’s CTE Initiative grant program, the state should provide grant money to schools or districts that demonstrate they are implementing proven career-themed education models. The state should require those receiving grant money to track and report student performance. The state should provide technical assistance to help local districts identify and replicate academically rigorous CTE programs. (cid:137) Expand the availability of academically rigorous CTE curriculum. The state should specifically target a portion of its new CTE grants to expand academically rigorous CTE curriculum that meets state CTE standards. CTE grant recipients should be required to consult with business and industry in CTE curriculum development. Additionally, the state should provide grants for professional development to ensure that teachers are qualified to teach the new CTE standards. (cid:137) Improve the process for qualifying CTE courses for the A-G requirements. The state should require that all new CTE courses developed with CTE grant funding meet the California CTE standards and be rigorous enough to qualify for A-G credit. The University of California should be required to work with the Department of Education and local educational agencies to ensure rapid and consistent approvals of academically rich CTE courses so that more CTE classes meet the approval of the UC for its A-G requirements, particularly in core academic subject areas. (cid:137) Align CTE courses into streamlined sequences. The state should require all grant recipients to align their CTE courses and programs with course sequences in partner community colleges and ROCPs. Such partnerships should include regional employers to help establish smooth paths for students in career-themed educational programs, as well as help them earn priority placement in postsecondary education programs that continue their career paths. The state should continue to evaluate the progress of the alignment effort and use evidence to further guide and improve course sequences. (cid:137) Align funding. The state should consolidate state CTE funding into one specific funding source to better coordinate and track CTE spending. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cid:137) Measure results. The state should fully implement the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System so that it can accurately measure dropout rates, graduation rates and the effectiveness of various educational programs, including CTE programs. The state should require local educational agencies to provide accurate data for CALPADS and provide funding to do so. The state also should further develop a data system to combine K-12, postsecondary and employment data information to measure post- high school outcomes. Connecting for CTE Success The state lacks a strategy for connecting education with workforce development and economic development. Previous efforts showed early signs of success, only to fall by the wayside when leadership changed or when funding disappeared. Efforts at the local level have shown mixed results. As a result, California has not been able to sustain a state-level strategy for connecting education and workforce and economic development, and at the regional and local levels, many CTE programs lack the links that could align coursework with local economic conditions, enhancing connections and course sequences from high school to ROCP and community college programs. Such linkages are crucial to creating the work-based learning opportunities – such as job shadows, mentorships and internships – that both groups of stakeholders say they want. Leaders from several model collaborative efforts described partnerships where high schools, districts, regional occupational centers, county offices of education and colleges had forged relationships with businesses, labor and local workforce investment boards. They used these partnerships to link curriculum and educational programs with state, regional and local workforce demands. The state, as it works to reinvigorate the California Workforce Investment Board, should focus on bottom-up efforts at the regional and local level. Recommendation 2: To remain economically viable in the global economy and to ensure that education programs match workforce needs, California must better align its education, workforce development and economic strategies. Specifically, the state should: (cid:137) Use existing money for incentives to develop and expand strong, high- level regional business and education partnerships. The state should commit part of existing CTE funding, including discretionary federal v LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION money, to local county offices of education or community colleges to develop or expand regional partnerships that have demonstrated the capacity to produce measurable outcomes, such as creation of internships, job placement, successful CTE teacher recruitment or creation of a locally based CTE teacher credentialing program. These partnerships should work to advance integrated workforce development throughout the state. Local partners should include top local leaders, including superintendents from school districts and county offices of education; chancellors from local community colleges; presidents of local CSU, UC and private colleges, where applicable; leaders from the local workforce investment board; chief executive officers from local employers; and, county CalWORKs administrators. The regional partnerships should: (cid:57) Ensure CTE courses and sequences offered match high- demand jobs of the region and the state. (cid:57) Ensure that CTE curriculum and course sequences meet industry standards. (cid:57) Leverage local employers for work-based learning opportunities, such as job shadows and internships. Building Capacity The lack of educators qualified to teach to the state’s new rigorous CTE standards is a major hurdle to sustaining and expanding CTE programs. The number of CTE course enrollments has declined 33 percent from 1987 to 2005, while the number of full-time equivalent CTE teachers has fallen 29 percent during the same period.2 If schools are to upgrade their CTE curriculum to meet state CTE standards, they will need more teachers, and more teachers with better training. Experienced professionals find barriers that prevent them from easily moving into a teaching career. In addition, career-themed schools require a new breed of leaders with different training and skill sets. Today’s school leaders are accountable for improving academic proficiency, managing staff and students and forging partnerships with businesses, non-profit organizations and other educational institutions. A shortage of qualified counselors to guide students on career and college options also poses a barrier to expanding CTE. The CTE credentialing process is a major barrier to increasing the number of teachers needed to expand CTE and upgrade programs with new curriculum that meets the state’s CTE standards. The CTE credentialing system needs to be streamlined, aligning it with CTE vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY industry sectors to increase flexibility. Legislation to address this was passed in September 2007, and the California Teacher Credentialing Commission has formed an advisory committee to review this. Broader reform is needed. Artificial barriers, such as job-history requirements, prevent qualified professionals as well as teachers with previous industry experience from entering the CTE teacher workforce. The Commission heard concerns that the state’s primary training ground for new teachers, the CSU system, is not nimble enough to quickly adapt to the new standards. Most districts, however, lack training programs to help teachers upgrade their skills to teach more demanding CTE curriculum. The state can address these issues by tapping county offices of education and local districts to develop and implement new training programs, pushing for a rapid overhaul of the credentialing process and removing barriers for qualified professionals. New money has been allocated for hiring more counselors. Some of it should be directed to developing CTE-specific counselors who can take the lead in working with a school’s business community partners to create internships and other work- related learning opportunities. Recommendation 3: In order to improve student outcomes, the state must implement policies and remove barriers to expand the educational workforce, including teachers, administrators and counselors. Specifically, the state should: (cid:137) Update and streamline the credentialing process. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing should complete within two years its update of the CTE credentialing process, including aligning the CTE credential with the industry clusters established in the state board-adopted CTE standards and framework and eliminating barriers that make it difficult for industry professionals to enter the teacher workforce. Specifically, the commission should: (cid:57) Revise the recent work history requirement. (cid:57) Allow newly credentialed CTE teachers to participate in the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction Program. (cid:137) Require ongoing staff development. The state should require all Governor’s CTE Initiative grant recipients to expand time for rigorous and structured staff development on blended CTE and academic curriculum. Specifically, the state should: (cid:57) Require credentialing and other related education programs for principals to include training on developing and implementing CTE programs that meet the state’s CTE standards. vii LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION (cid:57) Provide incentives to local districts and schools to develop and expand their own credentialing programs to provide teacher certification for rigorous CTE courses. The state should provide incentives for districts and schools, where appropriate, to replicate successful district-based credentialing. (cid:57) Require CSU to assess teacher training and implement necessary changes to ensure new teachers are qualified to teach the rigorous CTE coursework based on the state’s CTE standards. (cid:137) Provide incentives for professionals to teach. The state should implement programs and incentives to encourage mid-career and retiring professionals to enter the CTE teacher workforce. Specifically, the state should: (cid:57) Provide incentives for team teaching approaches. (cid:57) Consider tax incentives for businesses to loan professionals to schools. (cid:57) Expand opportunities for summer externships so teachers get a better sense of the business world. (cid:57) Lobby policy-makers at the federal level to eliminate the Social Security disincentive. (cid:137) Expand the number and role of counselors. The state should use previously approved money for local districts to expand the number of counselors trained in providing career advice, including postsecondary training and education options. CTE counselors funded with this money should take the lead role in outreach, serving as the main resource for generating internships and other job-based learning opportunities. The state should require Governor’s CTE Initiative grant recipients to provide additional training for counselors about CTE programs and career options for students. viii BACKGROUND Background N early 2 million students are enrolled in California’s public high schools, but only 71 percent of students who enter ninth grade will graduate.3 Though California’s overall graduation rate has edged slightly higher, graduation rates at individual schools and certain school districts within California – particularly those with high concentrations of minority and low-income students – are depressingly low. The graduation rate in the Los Angeles Unified School District, the state’s largest school district, is just 45 percent.4 Across California, the graduation rate for African American students is 57 percent, 60 percent for Latinos.5 California students who remain in school post test scores that lag far behind the rest of the nation. In the 2007 National Educational Assessment of Progress (NAEP) for math and reading, California comes in near the bottom of all states. Only three states score lower on the fourth grade assessment of math skills, and only four states score lower on the eighth grade assessment of math skills. For fourth grade reading, only two states score lower than California, and for eighth grade reading, only Mississippi scored lower.6 Many other students graduate but flounder for years in low-paying, dead-end jobs. Meanwhile, California industries are struggling to find workers to fill high-wage, high-demand jobs. New Money for CTE As California’s leaders debate how to tackle these On top of $20 million a year over the next seven issues, career technical education has come to the years, the governor has targeted $260 million for forefront of this conversation as part of a solution CTE, one outcome of a 2006 legal settlement reached by the California Teachers Association and for both of these challenges. This conversation has the governor. a new context: New money is available for CTE, nearly $400 million over the next seven years. In addition, the 2006-07 budget included $80 million in one-time funding for CTE equipment and materials, split equally between public schools Debates about the role of career-based learning in and community colleges. And in November 2006, high school education go back more than a century. California voters passed Proposition 1D, a public Changes in the economy, technology and education education facilities bond act, which earmarks $500 have introduced new issues and realigned million for CTE facilities. stakeholders, but the debate remains, embedded in the broader questions about the purpose of high 1 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION school: Should high schools be expected to prepare students for college? Specific jobs? The work world in general? Or should high schools simply prepare students to meet agreed-upon standards of proficiency? In the early 1900s, vocational education, as it was known then, rose with the Dropouts Costly, Add to Shortage of Skilled industrialization of the U.S. economy. The Workers earliest infusion of job-oriented training The dropout cost is more than just missed opportunities. into the public education system began According to one University of California expert, the with Congress and the Vocational approximately 66,000 students who drop out in any Education Act of 1917, which provided given year will cost the state $14 billion in lost wages. money to states to prepare youth for jobs. And high school dropouts are far more likely to go to prison and rely more heavily on government programs, In the early part of the last century, when such as welfare, public health care, food stamps and 90 percent of youth left school by age 14, it housing subsidies, over the course of their lives. was hoped that job-oriented training would Longstanding support for CTE also comes from those keep more students enrolled and better who believe that a career-based approach to education prepare them for work in the factories, can better prepare more students for jobs in a farms and homes of the era. competitive economy. Business and labor leaders agree that California’s continued economic success hinges on This 90-year old federal policy required maintaining a high quality workforce. These leaders that states establish a separate board for assert that California is in danger of losing its workforce advantage as highly skilled baby boomers retire and the vocational education and established next generation of workers – needed to maintain “separate funds, separate teacher California’s competitiveness and to fund expanding baby preparation and certification, separate boomer retirement costs – are less educated and less students, and separate and segregated skilled than their predecessors. Experts say that curriculum.”7 This deliberate separation California will have to increase the number of college lasted for most of the 20th century, shaped graduates as well as high school students with the necessary skills to enter the workforce and to pursue many of the early job-specific vocational advanced education and training throughout their lives. programs and helped establish the perception that work-related course Sources: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. March 2005. “Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in California.” Citing Russell content is for those who are not college- Rumberger, Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. bound. Also, Lynn Olson. June 22, 2006. “The Down Staircase.” Education Week. Also, Hans P. Johnson and Deborah Reed. Public Policy Institute of California. May 2007. “Can California Import Enough In the 1980s, career technical education College Graduates to Meet Workforce Needs?” Also, California Postsecondary Education Commission. December 2006. “The Nexus emerged in the place of vocational Between Postsecondary Education and Workforce Development: A education, a reflection of the new skills Workforce and Employer Perspective.” students needed to thrive in a new economy. Many continued to view CTE as inferior to a traditional academic path. Previously, students who were not succeeding in academic coursework or were perceived to not be college material were steered to the vocational track. High achievers or those who aspired to higher education were directed to college preparation programs. More often than not, low- income and minority students were put on the vocational track.8 Among many minority adults, CTE still retains its stigma from those days. 2 BACKGROUND In 1984, Congress passed the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education and Applied Technology Act, which required states to improve vocational education programs. The presence of CTE in high schools, however, continued to erode over the next two decades, in part because of changes in the economy, but to a High School Career Technical Education Declining greater degree, a shift in the broader educational environment.9 8,000 1,000,000 7,000 900,000 The 1983 report “A Nation at 800,000 6,000 700,000 Risk: The Imperative for 5,000 600,000 Educational Reform,” which 1987-88 4,000 500,000 2004-05 warned that the nation’s 3,000 29% decline 400,000 33% decline educational system was 300,000 2,000 failing, marked the start of a 200,000 1,000 100,000 fundamental shift in education 0 0 reform.10 The report set in Full Time Equivalent Total Course motion the accountability Teachers Enrollment movement that led to academic standards reform in Source: Dorothy Rothrock, Vice President, Government Relations, California Manufacturers California in the late 1990s & Technology Association, and Christopher J. Walker, Legislative Advocate, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot, LLP. Get R.E.A.L. (Relevance in Education and Learning). March and, at the federal level, the 22, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. California school districts, aiming to raise student proficiency to meet the new standards, put the focus on academics, and as budgets tightened, CTE classes started to disappear. Though a small number of CTE programs have bolstered their courses to make them more academically rigorous, many of the state’s existing CTE programs have been slow to upgrade their curriculum. The California Department of Education made its direction clear with its release, in 2005, of new, rigorous CTE content standards that matched the state’s ambitious academic standards, followed up by a framework for those standards in 2007. That made moot many of the arguments about what CTE should be. The state has set the bar: To meet the standards, CTE must be academically rigorous and offer real world relevance. It is not known how many CTE courses currently taught meet state CTE standards, but another measure gives a sense of scope. The 5,614 courses that the UC has approved as meeting A-G requirements account for about 20 percent of all CTE courses.11 3 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION CTE Funding Sources Varied Career technical education is only a small part of how California educates its students. In 2006-07, the budget for K-12 schools, including adult education, totaled approximately $67.1 billion. CTE spending, categorical and discretionary, represented about 2.5 percent of the total K-12 budget. 12 CTE funding is spread across three layers of government: federal, state and local; two state departments: the California Department of Education and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office; and, several categorical programs as well as philanthropic organizations and foundations. The varied sources and the use of General Fund money for CTE at the district level make it difficult for the state to determine exactly how much money California spends on high school CTE each year. Much of the state CTE money and all federal CTE money is in the form of specified funding that is isolated from general education spending. This pattern of funding perpetuates the separation of CTE and academic core courses. While experts told the Commission that the fragmentation of funding sources was a hurdle in many respects, it also may have prevented CTE programs from shrinking even further over the past two decades. Experts told the Commission that without dedicated money for specific categories of spending, CTE programs would be at risk of losing out to other priorities. The varied list of specific state-funded programs includes the Regional Occupational Centers and Programs, partnership academies, agricultural vocational education, the apprenticeship program, the Governor’s CTE Initiative, the vocational component of adult education, the community colleges’ economic development program and nursing programs. The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act is the biggest federal source of money for specified spending, providing approximately $140 million annually for CTE through two programs: Basic Grants to States and Tech-Prep Education. Perkins Act basic grant money flows to secondary schools, community colleges, ROCPs, adult education agencies and state institutions. Secondary and postsecondary education agencies receive 85 percent of the grant amount. Of that amount, about 44 percent is allocated to secondary schools.13 The following chart provides a breakdown of these federal and state categorical program funds for 2006-07, totaling nearly $875 million and representing just over 1 percent of the budget for K-12 and community 4 BACKGROUND college education.14 The figures shown in the chart are inputs, representing separate categorical funding sources for CTE. Some of these funding sources are then blended as expenditures, i.e., there is a separate categorical funding source for ROCPs, but ROCPs can receive money from more than one categorical. Breakdown of Ongoing State (2006-07) and Federal (FY 2006) Categorical Funding for CTE Dollars in Millions – Total: $873.65 million Perkins, Adult Education $141.18, (Vocational State Funding 16% Component), $117.35, Blended Funding Economic 13% Federal Funding Development Program at CCC, $46.79, 5% Nursing, $28.39, 3% Academies, ROCPs, $23.49, $457.61, 53% 3% Agriculture, $5, Governor's CTE 1% Initiative, $20, 2% Smaller Learning Apprenticeship, Communities, $18.26, $15.58, 2% 2% Sources: California Department of Finance. “SDE/CCC Job Training and Nursing Investments in California.” Also, California Department of Finance. January 10, 2007. “Entire Education Budget - Categorical Programs, Proposition 98.” Page 10-11. Accessed at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/GovernorsBudget/6000.pdf. Also, U.S. Department of Education. “Grant Award Totals by CFDA Subprogram for Fiscal Year 2006.” Accessed at http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/rpt_gatcs.cfm. The programs have different lead agencies and are stretched across various populations. The chart on the following page shows the mix of agencies and populations served. 15 Local school and community college districts can use their discretionary money to fund CTE classes and leverage categorical contributions. Using apportionment amounts from 2002-03, the Department of Finance estimates that local school districts spent nearly $900 million and community college districts spent approximately $655 million in non- categorical funding on vocational and career technical education in 2006-07, for a total of approximately $1.55 billion.16 5 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Lead Agencies and Student Populations for CTE Categorical Programs Smaller Governor’s Adult Econ. ROCPs Academies Ag Apprenticeship Nursing Perkins Learning CTE Ed. Dev. Communities Lead CDE X X X X X X X Agency CCC X X X X Student High X (pre- X X X X X X X X Population School apprenticeship) CCC X X X X X X Other X X X X Adults CDE – California Department of Education CCC – California Community Colleges Finally, many local districts also apply for and receive philanthropic and foundation grants, which further leverage public money. Organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation and others have played significant roles in guiding the creation of CTE programs through their research, technical assistance and this type of grant funding. What Research Reveals About CTE In Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state has a leader who has experienced a career-oriented education first hand and wants to expand opportunities for California’s students. The governor’s support has drawn attention to an emerging body of evidence that suggests that career technical education can play an important role in keeping students engaged and attending high school and also improving their options after high school. However, hard evidence to support this – like much of the education data in California – is limited. Because so few students have an opportunity to enroll in academically rich CTE courses, there are few students to study. Many of these academically challenging courses only recently have been developed and only have begun to spread into classrooms. Additionally, California’s assessment measurements also are fairly new, and most agree they lack a critical component – the ability to assess individual student progress. Many of the studies that have occurred have been funded by foundations as the state has been reluctant to invest in a better data system or require outcome measures for CTE programs. 6 BACKGROUND The state does not know whether an algebra class that engages students with real-world examples linked to career interests will make kids learn better than a traditional algebra class. But we do know the status quo is not working for too many kids, particularly minority and low-income students. Despite the shortage and the shortcomings of available data on CTE, witnesses at the Commission’s public hearings and participants in the Commission’s advisory committee meetings pointed to emerging research showing that academically infused CTE holds promise in keeping students in school and improving their academic performance. Research the Commission reviewed indicates that students who enroll in CTE courses have higher attendance rates, are more likely to pass the high school exit exam, are more likely to graduate and improve their grade point averages (GPAs) at greater rates than comparable students who do not enroll in CTE courses. And the data show those in CTE are equally likely to participate in postsecondary education. Most compelling in some of these studies is evidence that some ethnic subgroups, including African American and Latino students, achieve even greater gains than the average CTE student. Research also has shown that some of the CTE programs that were evaluated provide the greatest benefit to those students who are most at risk of dropping out – those who have been chronically absent, have failed courses or have been held back. California Partnership Academies Target At-Risk Students California Partnership Academies have been studied more than any other type of CTE program in California, largely because they have generated more than two decades’ worth of data, and the programs, because of their student body requirements, drew the attention of national researchers. Designed to engage at-risk students, partnership academies on 208 California high school campuses – sometimes more than one at a given school – function as a school-within-a-school with a broad career theme and related academic courses for students in grades 10-12. Each academy partners with businesses whose representatives provide oversight and input on curriculum and work-based learning opportunities. At least half of all students in each partnership academy must meet three of four eligibility criteria: prior irregular attendance; a record of under achievement; low motivation or disinterest in the regular academic program; and, economic hardship.17 A 2007 review of California’s 290 high school partnership academies by ConnectEd showed promising results. The assessment found that tenth grade students enrolled in partnership academies had higher passage 7 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION rates on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) than did their peers who were not enrolled in academies, with 84 percent passing the English language arts test, compared to 76 percent statewide, and 80 percent passing the mathematics test, compared to 74 percent statewide. The most significant contrast in the data appears when scores are sorted by student ethnicity. Native American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander and African American students enrolled in partnership academies passed both exams at substantially higher rates – from 10 to 17 percentage points higher – than did students of the same ethnic groups statewide. In only one area did a group of students statewide outperform academy students – 92 percent of Asian students statewide passed the math exam compared to 88 percent of Asians enrolled in academies. Graduation rates are another gauge of success identified in the ConnectEd report. Graduation rates of academy seniors were higher than those of seniors statewide – 96 percent as compared to 84 percent. As with the CAHSEE results, certain ethnicities, including Native American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander and African American students, had graduation rates 10 to 15 percent higher than did their peers who were not participating in academies. CPA AND CALIFORNIA 12TH-GRADE GRADUATION RATES BY RACE/ETHNICITY 97% White 90% 95% Hispanic/Latino 83% CPA State 99% Asian 93% 96% African American 81% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Graduation rate Source: Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career, and Charles Dayton, Coordinator, Career Academy Support Network, University of California, Berkeley. March 2007. “A Profile of the California Partnership Academies 2004-05.” Page 19. 8 BACKGROUND Additionally, 50 percent of academy graduates met the college A-G requirements, compared with a statewide rate of 35 percent. Seventy percent of academy seniors reported that they planned to pursue a college degree immediately after high school.18 Despite these and other positive outcomes highlighted in the report, including high attendance and course completion rates, the overall average Academic Performance Index (API), a key state measurement based primarily on academic testing, on average was lower for academies than traditional high schools. Academies have a higher representation in low API schools and lower than average representation among top API schools. Given that at least half of the students admitted to the academies are at-risk – in part defined as a history of poor attendance and low academic performance – experts assert that it is not surprising that average APIs for academies are lower than many schools where half the population is not at-risk.19 The ConnectEd study also included key caveats. First, all of the data in the review were self-reported by the academies, and though highly structured with substantial student performance data, accuracy was not guaranteed. Additionally, not enough information was available regarding academy student selection processes to confirm whether the academies consistently met the program’s at-risk requirements. Additionally, the quality of the partnership academy programs varied across the state.20 Another national study, considered a model evaluation because of its rigor and random sampling design, documented positive outcomes for students who attended career academies. Since 1993, researchers at the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) have tracked the outcomes of students enrolled in nine career academies across the United States, including four in California, as well as a comparison group. The MDRC studies are based on student records, student surveys during high school and follow-up surveys after high school. In its 2000 report on students’ engagement and performance in high school, MDRC found that career academies substantially improved high school outcomes among students at high risk of dropping out.21 For those students, career academy participation significantly cut dropout rates and increased attendance rates, credits earned toward graduation and preparation for post-secondary education. Among the students least likely to drop out of high school, the career academies increased the likelihood of graduating on time. Despite these positive outcomes, the study revealed the career academies had little or no impact on student scores on standardized math and reading tests.22 Later studies of these students showed that career academies had 9 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION substantial positive impacts on employment and earnings after high school, particularly for young men and those who were considered high risk for dropping out.23 Another national study found that students who add a career concentration to a strong core of academic subjects had test scores that were equal to or exceeded those of college-preparatory students, had a higher grade point average in college, were more likely to remain in college and had better employment and earnings outcomes. This study also found that high-risk students were eight to 10 times less likely to drop out in 11th and 12th grades if they enrolled in a CTE program rather than a general program.24 Regional Occupational Centers and Programs Initiated in 1967, California’s 74 Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROCPs) provide career preparation courses that teach both technical and academic skills to high school and adult students. Approximately 75 percent or 375,000 of the 497,000 students served annually are high school students. Some programs are held on high school campuses while others use regional locations that draw students from multiple high schools. Other CTE Models A 2006 study by researchers at the University of California, Riverside, compared a sample of In addition to the previously described California current ROCP students and recent graduates Partnership Academies and Regional Occupational to a peer group with similar academic and Centers and Programs, the state offers other demographic characteristics. The study found established CTE models, such as its agricultural programs and “Tech-Prep” programs. that the tenth grade academic achievement of Approximately 50,000 high school students each the ROCP student group – the grade at which year are enrolled in the state’s agricultural education most students begin ROCP coursework – was programs, which combine academic coursework significantly lower than the peer group, a with the technical training needed to be successful possible indication that high schools use in the agricultural field. Tech-Prep Programs, ROCPs to meet the needs of more at-risk funded through federal Perkins grants, typically take the form of 2+2 programs offered through a students. Additionally, ROCP students were collaboration between high schools and community slightly more likely to qualify for a free or colleges that combine two-year high school reduced price lunch and also were more likely programs with two-year college programs that lead to be English language learners than the peer to a certificate or a degree. group. Sources: California Department of Education. January 2000. “Agricultural Education: State Program Enrollment Data Report Summary 1999-00.” Sacramento, CA. Accessed at Academically, students enrolled in the ROCP www.calaged.org. Also, California Department of Education. courses raised their GPAs by more than the “Agriculture Education.” Accessed at peer group. The ROCP students had an http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/ae/. Also, U.S. Department of Education. October 13, 2006. “Tech-Prep Education.” Accessed average tenth grade GPA of 2.7 which at http://www.ed.gov/programs/techprep/index.html. increased to 3.0 by twelfth grade, a 0.3 increase. The peer group had a higher tenth 10 BACKGROUND grade GPA, 3.1, but rose only 0.2 points to 3.3. This study found that some of the greatest gains were made by student subgroups, including African Americans, who as a group increased GPAs by 0.57, and Hispanics, who increased GPAs by 0.34.25 The report emphasized that the gains by the ROCP students were statistically too large to be accounted for by ROCP gains alone and reflected improvement in other coursework. The increases in GPAs were more significant than those in a similar study of ROCP students in 2004. The UC Riverside study suggested that the increase in academically infused CTE coursework might be the underlying reason, although it cautioned that more research was needed to prove this correlation.26 Gain in GPA from Grade 10 to Grade 12 by Comparison Group and ROCP Students 0.60 0.50 0.40 Comparison 0.30 ROCP 0.20 0.10 0.00 African Asian Hispanic White Other Unknown American Comparison 0.04 0.44 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.28 ROCP 0.26 0.57 0.34 0.25 0.18 0.20 Source: Laurel Adler, Superintendent, East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program and Technical Center. April 26, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. An examination of ROCP student performance on the state’s STAR academic achievement tests, however, revealed mixed results. The comparison group had higher math and reading scores in tenth and eleventh grade, though progress was flat. The ROCP students had significantly lower reading and math scores than the comparison group in both grades but improved their reading test scores modestly, while math scores fell slightly. Another methodology showed slight declines for ROCP students in both reading and math scores. The transcript data and follow-up surveys included in the study revealed positive outcomes when compared to the peer group. The ROCP students enrolled in postsecondary education at an equal rate as the peer group, earned higher wages upon graduation, had more success in securing raises and 11 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION promotions and expressed higher satisfaction with the high school coursework.27 The ROCP students said they had less enthusiasm for other high school academic, fine arts and physical education courses and reported that “only a few” of the general high school classes were relevant to getting jobs or preparing them for other aspects of adult life.28 Other Promising Models Beyond reviewing the research, the Commission also visited high schools that offered students both an academically rigorous schedule and an approach to learning built around real-world relevance. At each school, Commissioners met and talked with principals, teachers and students. Recent data on results from two of these schools, Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School in Sacramento and the Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy in San Diego, are provided below. Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School. Nestled between an industrial complex and one of Sacramento’s largest public housing projects, Health Professions High (HPH) draws students from the local neighborhood and other areas in the Sacramento City Unified School District as well as students from outside the district. Students dress in scrubs at this small health career-themed high school, conduct lab experiments in science that help them understand how germs are spread and learn percentages in Algebra by calculating prescription doses. The student population is 38 percent African American, 31 percent Latino, 19 percent white, with the remaining 12 percent comprised of various ethnicities. Approximately 58 percent of HPH students qualify for free or reduced price lunch.29 As of 2007, the school was in its third year of operation and had approximately 375 students, with plans to grow to a maximum of 500 in 2008. Because the school is so new, its first ninth-grade class has yet to graduate. However, data show that so far the school has a dropout rate of approximately 2 percent. Students showed significant gains in the first two years of operation as far as the percentage achieving proficiency in math based on academic testing, while proficiency based on English language arts tests did not change significantly. On another measure, the CAHSEE, 76 percent of tenth grade students tested passed the math portion, the same percentage that passed statewide, while 82 percent passed the English language arts portion, 5 percent more than the statewide average. Ethnic subgroups at HPH showed significantly higher passing rates than similar ethnic subgroups statewide. Results showed that 64 percent of African American students passed the math test, and 72 percent passed the English language arts test, above the statewide 12 BACKGROUND averages for African American students of 58 percent and 66 percent. For Latino students, 75 percent passed the math and 87 percent passed the English language arts, compared to 66 percent for both those tests statewide.30 The Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy. The Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy (CTA) opened in 2002 as a school-within-a- school at the Kearny High Educational Complex, formerly a comprehensive urban school in San Diego. With outside grant funding, CTA and 13 other San Diego schools became autonomous in 2004. CTA focuses on engineering, architecture and construction trades. Students use computer-automated programs to design everything from robots to a model for a redesigned San Diego International Airport. CTA’s student body of 430 students reflects the ethnic diversity of the surrounding neighborhoods it draws from: 51 percent Latino, 20 percent white, 16 percent African American with the remaining 13 percent encompassing various other ethnicities. Two-thirds of the students participate in the free or reduced price lunch program.31 CTA is one of just four high schools in the city of San Diego where 100 percent of students graduating in 2006 passed the CAHSEE.32 In 2006, 100 percent of CTA graduates were planning to participate in postsecondary training, including 27 percent who said they would attend a four-year university; 48 percent who expected to attend community college; 21 percent who planned to participate in an apprenticeship program; and, 4 percent who indicated they planned to join the military. In 2007, the average percentage of entering tenth graders passing the CAHSEE from CTA was slightly below the statewide average for the English language arts test and significantly lower, 11 percentage points, for the math test. African American and Latino students significantly outperformed their ethnic counterparts statewide on the English language arts tests, though passed at rates of one to two percentage points below statewide averages on the math test.33 Data from the 2007 API (Average Performance Index) and AYP (Average Yearly Progress) revealed that after early gains when the school was first established, performance on academic tests recently has declined. Since its inception, CTA’s API rose from 621 in 2002 to a peak of 714 in the 2005 school year and then declined to 658 in 2007.34 The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level has declined from 44 percent on English language arts and 43 percent on math in 2005 to 28 percent and 40 percent proficiency, respectively, in 2007. The school’s student demographics shifted considerably during the same time frame. In the 2004-05 school year, 49 percent of CTA students 13 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION participated in the free or reduced price lunch program, growing to 66 percent in 2006-07. Additionally, English learners made up just 9 percent of the CTA student population in 2004-05, and one-third were proficient on the English language arts test. By 2006-07, English learners made up 21 percent of the CTA student population, and only 5 percent of this larger group of students was proficient on the English language arts test.35 The school’s principal attributes the decline in test scores primarily to the large increase in English language learners. He added that the percentage of English language learners is increasing because the students are drawn to the construction theme.36 This analysis of existing data sources reveals how complicated it can be to understand either progress or declines in progress based on aggregate test scores, the only data currently available at the state level in California. The state’s inability to track progress at the individual level points to the weakness of aggregated data for groups undergoing demographic change during a set period of time. Taken in isolation, much of the research on CTE cited above might reinforce the idea that a career-oriented approach to education is only for high-risk students or students from low socio-economic backgrounds, underscoring the image for tracking that CTE has fought to escape over the years. But many of these programs, such as the career academies, were set up in part to help these students stay in school and were designed with evaluation in mind. The dearth of other, broader CTE research may reflect both an overall lack of relevant and comparable data and CTE’s relatively small slice of education spending. Keeping Options for College Open The state, in 2005, signaled its policy that CTE courses must meet state standards. State Superintendent for Public Instruction Jack O’Connell told the Commission that the new standards are “being used widely throughout the state by districts and ROCPs to re-examine CTE course content and align the content to the higher expectations set forth in the standards.” The standards are organized into 15 industry sectors of interrelated occupations and industries and 58 career pathways. The industry sectors and career pathways are detailed in a chart in Appendix C. Most districts, however, are just beginning to align their schools’ CTE curriculum with the new standards. 14 BACKGROUND Some districts, however, already Required A-G Courses for CSU and UC have been increasing the rigor of A. History/Social Science – 2 years required their CTE courses to meet another B. English – 4 years required bar, the University of California’s A- C. Mathematics – 3 years required, 4 G admissions requirements, now recommended also used by the California State D. Laboratory Science – 2 years required, 3 University System. recommended E. Language other than English – 2 years required, 3 recommended Yesterday’s wood shop might now F. Visual and Performing Arts – 1 year required take the form of architectural G. College Preparatory Electives – 1 year required engineering, with algebra and (one year, in addition to those required in A-F geometry built into the lesson plan. chosen from visual and performing arts, history, Health courses might include social science, English, advanced mathematics, anatomy and physiology or forensic lab science and language other than English) biology, leading to careers as Source: University of California. diverse as phlebotomy, crime scene http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_ adm/freshman/subject_reqs.html. Web site accessed March 1, 2007. investigations or medicine. Today, approximately 20 percent of the state’s CTE classes meet A-G requirements, which is increasingly important to retaining CTE as part of a general high school education. For many students, keeping college options open means giving first priority to classes that meet A-G requirements, and CTE classes that do not meet the A-G requirements often are left out of crowded student schedules. To apply to the UC or CSU system, California students must take a minimum of 15 A-G college preparatory courses. The University of California recommends 18 courses. In the competition to get admitted, many students take more: Most students who gained entry into the UC system in 2006 had taken 23 A-G courses.37 Despite the emphasis on college Income and Educational Attainment preparatory courses at many high schools and California’s overall need for more California is expected to have a shortfall of college graduates as well as skilled workers, and research college graduates, only two of 10 freshmen shows that college graduates fare better overall. By who enter high school go on to earn a four- attending college, even without earning a degree, year degree. Only a third of the students students improve their potential income growth. On who graduate from high school have average, just having some college adds 25 percent to completed the minimum 15 A-G lifetime earnings. Compared to students with a high requirements.38 school education only, students who earn associate degrees increase their income by 47 percent, while a bachelor’s degree increases income by 108 percent. In hearings and in advisory committee meetings, the Commission heard that the Source: California Postsecondary Education Commission. June 2007. “Public Higher Education Performance Accountability A-G requirements are an unnecessary Framework Report: Goal – Contributions to Economic, Civic, and hurdle to creating more time for CTE Social Development, Measure: Per Capita Income by Educational Attainment.” Page 1. 15 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION classes and are not germane to high school students who do not plan to attend four-year universities. This should not be considered a barrier, given that CTE curriculum should be in the process of being upgraded statewide to meet the new CTE standards. Moreover, compared to other states, California’s A-G requirements are no more academically challenging than what is required simply for high school graduation elsewhere. While California has just 13 course requirements for graduation, the average for other states is more than 20 courses.39 A Comparison of Course Requirements Course Requirements A-G Course Course Requirements for Graduation in Requirements for Graduation in the California Average State English/Language Arts 3 4 3.9 3 required, 4 Mathematics 2 2.7 recommended 2 required, 3 Science 2 2.5 recommended History/Social Studies 3 2 2.7 4 required, 5 Other Credits 3 8.3 recommended 15 required, 18 Total 13 20.4* recommended *Does not accurately reflect column total due to being the average of states’ total course requirements, not the total of the average requirements for individual subjects. Sources: Education Week. 2007. “California: Ready for What?: Preparing Students for College, Careers, and Life After High School.” Page 2. Bethesda, MD. Also, University of California. “Subject Requirement (‘A-G’ Coursework).” Accessed at: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/subject_reqs.html. 16 CREATING A SYSTEM FOR CTE Creating a System for CTE Although the governor and the Legislature have shown significant support for expanding CTE, California lacks a strategy to ensure that high school students who have an interest in CTE have access to academically rigorous career technical education programs. This in part is due to the state’s inability to comprehensively evaluate the various CTE programs statewide. Inconsistency in funding also has played a role. Beyond the steady funding the state provides to the Regional Occupational Centers and Programs and California Partnership Academies and the federal Perkins money, support for CTE – until recently – has been on the decline for more than a decade. Now that the state has decided to dedicate a significant infusion of money to CTE through various grant programs funneled through the community college system, it also should evaluate CTE programs to ensure the money is spent on expanding and replicating those programs that have demonstrated they can improve outcomes for California students. The state should take the opportunity also to track districts’ progress in adopting or developing curriculum that meets California’s new CTE standards. Challenges To Taking the Next Steps Emerging evidence described in the background shows that rigorous CTE programs are showing promise in improving graduation rates, grade point averages and post-high school employment outcomes. At the same time, academically rigorous CTE courses do not limit options for college and, for some students, even enhance their options. But these more rigorous CTE programs are the exception, not the norm. Given that the status quo is not working for at least 30 percent of students, as seen in the dropout rate, the Commission supports the state’s renewed investment in CTE as a valuable option for students. But the lack of an evidence-based strategy imperils the state’s ability to most effectively use its resources to expand proven CTE programs and help districts upgrade existing programs where interest and need is high. 17 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Both the California Department of Education and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office recognize the need for a plan. These two entities are developing jointly a California State Plan for Career Technical Education, to be adopted in 2008 by the State Board of Education and the Community College Board of Governors. While driven by the federal Perkins grant requirement that states must develop a CTE plan, the current effort goes beyond the Perkins requirement in an attempt to “lay the foundation for a broader ‘master plan’ that will weave...funding streams and programs together into a fully articulated and integrated CTE system.”40 The draft state plan, informed by an advisory committee and public hearing process, identifies many of the same challenges the Commission found through its public hearing and advisory committee process. Discussions with the Commission, advisory committee members, school districts and other education experts surfaced five key barriers that California must overcome to create a strategy for career technical education in California: (cid:131) Career-themed high schools with model CTE programs are scattered across the state, but there is no process to measure the outcomes of these models and ensure effective models are replicated statewide. (cid:131) The state has developed model standards and a framework for CTE curriculum, but many local districts lack curriculum that meets the new standards. (cid:131) Course sequencing from high schools to community colleges or other post-secondary education that would allow students to progress along an established path has not been fully implemented. (cid:131) Funding comes from a range of state, federal and sometimes private sources, making it difficult to determine how much and how well money is spent on CTE programs. (cid:131) The state lacks data to measure student participation and performance in CTE programs or to determine whether CTE participation increases academic proficiency. Moving Beyond “Islands of Excellence” Currently, the state has a patchwork of CTE programs and career- themed high schools scattered across the state. Jack O’Connell, California’s superintendent of public instruction, described these schools as “islands of excellence,” where rigorous career-themed coursework is delivered to engaged students and where those students out-perform 18 CREATING A SYSTEM FOR CTE their peers in areas such as attendance, enrollment and post-high school success.41 California Department of Education data indicate that about one-third of all public high school students enroll in a CTE course at some point in time.42 However, it is estimated that only 10 percent of the state’s public high school students have access to academically rigorous CTE classes or career-themed high schools.43 The state has encouraged the establishment of 290 California Partnership Academies, which serve about 2 to 3 percent of all high school students and are aimed at students identified as being at risk of dropping out. While the state can encourage districts to expand academically rigorous CTE courses, ultimately the decision whether to offer CTE education to students is up to local districts, not all of which want CTE programs. The Commission had the opportunity to visit several of these “islands of excellence” and talk to students, teachers and administrators at San Diego’s Construction Tech Academy and at Sacramento’s Health Professions High School. The Commission also visited San Diego’s High Tech High School, a successful charter school model where there is “no distinction between college preparation and technical education.”44 In each setting, the high school is led by a dynamic principal. Teachers make clear their expectations that all students will perform at a high level. In at least two of the three settings, the schools would not have been possible without motivated district staff who sought out partners in the business community and foundations for money and guidance. By their own admission, most of the students had enrolled there because their parents had learned Elements of a Successful CTE Program about the schools and were attracted to the small size of the learning community or the career- Research has shown that there are six key themed approach. elements to a successful CTE Program. They are: (cid:57) Curricular integration. While different in design – enabling them to serve (cid:57) Industry partnerships. differing local needs – each school shares elements (cid:57) System coherence. (cid:57) Personalization, career guidance and student common to the best models, among them, greater services. student-faculty interaction, built-in time for (cid:57) Availability of skilled faculty, professional teacher collaboration, flexible block scheduling development and faculty collaboration. and well-defined partnerships with business and (cid:57) Continuous improvement and sustainability. industry. Source: WestEd. December 2006. “A Statewide Assessment of California’s Career Technical Education System.” 19 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION CTE Curriculum Needs to Meet State Standards California’s State Board of Education adopted CTE standards in 2005 and, in 2007, adopted a framework for CTE curriculum that requires career-oriented content to be rigorous enough to meet the state’s academic standards. This is an area in which experts say the state clearly has succeeded. Experts assert that “California’s standards set a high bar for CTE courses and are generally viewed as an international model for rigor and for including academic content.”45 Standards, Framework and Curriculum The harder work is just beginning: “Now that we Defined have the best CTE standards and curriculum framework in the country, it must be integrated Standards: What students need to know and into the school system. Every district and CTE be able to do. Standards are designed to guide teacher needs to understand and align their local districts and educators in designing curriculum and instruction to the standards,” specific curricular and instructional strategies. Superintendent O’Connell told the Commission.46 Framework: The context for the content in the standards. The framework serves as a blueprint To date, however, the state lacks a mechanism to for educators to implement the standards. track how many of the 24,580 high school CTE Curriculum: The instructional content, classes are integrating new curriculum to meet materials and resources taught to students. the new standards.47 The state’s model standards identify 15 industry sectors. Some sectors, such as agriculture, have a greater amount of well-developed curriculum, in part reflecting the benefit of longstanding categorical funding. A growing number of high schools and districts are implementing nationally-developed curriculum, such as the engineering curriculum designed by Project Lead The Way, that also meets the state’s standards. In addition, districts are drawing on community resources to develop their own academically demanding curriculum that both meets state standards and fits their own new approaches to learning. The Sacramento City Unified School District is one example, which with help from Linking Education and Economic Development, or LEED, a consortium of top education officials and business leaders, implemented a strategy to open small, independent career-themed high schools throughout the district. Sacramento’s Health Professions High developed academically rigorous curriculum infused with real world scenarios from health care. In a math unit called “Risky Business,” students learn probability and statistics by seeing how risky behaviors – laid out in actuarial tables – influence insurance premiums. The school offers an “early college” 20 CREATING A SYSTEM FOR CTE model course load, one that goes beyond the A-G requirements, and introduces college-level curriculum during high school. The school also has begun to implement CTE courses developed by Project Lead The Way.48 Project Lead The Way Well-developed curriculum for engineering and engineering technology is in place across the country. Project Lead The Way, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit national organization started in 1997, has created two programs for this industry sector that act as delivery models for both career technical and college- preparatory education. The first, “Gateway to Technology,” consists of five stand-alone units for middle school students, including Design and Modeling, The Magic of Electrons, Automation and Robotics, Flight and Space and The Science of Technology. The second, “Pathway to Engineering,” is a four-year, eight-course program for high school students that offers a progression through three levels of courses from Principles of Engineering and Introduction to Engineering Design to specialized courses, such as civil engineering and architecture. The capstone course is engineering design and development. Both programs are taught in conjunction with rigorous academic courses that are aligned with national standards for math, science, technology and English. The high school sequence, along with college- preparatory classes, is intended to prepare students for postsecondary education in engineering and other high-tech, high-wage career paths by using hands-on activities, projects and problem-based learning. As of 2007, Project Lead The Way courses are being taught in 2,300 schools across 49 states and the District of Columbia. As of 2006, 21 affiliate colleges and universities were providing the required curriculum training to middle and high school teachers. Several of those institutions also offer credit to students who meet grade and end-of-course exam score requirements. In addition, teachers can access professional development materials at the on-line Project Lead The Way Virtual Academy. In fall of 2007, California will have 107 schools implementing Project Lead The Way curriculum, up by 40 from 2006. Additional schools can access the curriculum through an annual registration process. Currently, four California high schools are certified, and more can be as they implement the full course sequence; train teachers and counselors; acquire and update necessary technology, software and equipment; and, fulfill the other requirements outlined in their agreements with Project Lead The Way. According to the data available in 2004-05, approximately 80 percent of Project Lead The Way seniors planned to attend two-year or four-year colleges upon their graduations, while the national average for college attendance directly after high school is 65 percent. Sources: Project Lead The Way. 2006. “Research of Project Lead The Way (PLTW) Curricula, Pedagogy, and Professional Development.” Accessed at http://www.pltw.org/Research_Report_PLTW_6-1-06.doc. Also, Project Lead The Way. “General FAQ’s” and “The PLTW Network in California.” Accessed at http://www.pltw.org/faqs/faqs.html and http://www.pltw.org/schoollist- new.asp?toSelect=CA. Also, Judith D’Amico, Director of State and Corporate Relations, Western Region, Project Lead The Way, Inc. August 21, 2007. Personal communication. At many schools, educators are making the extra effort to get more CTE curriculum certified as meeting the A-G requirements for entrance into the UC and CSU systems. The effort pays off in two ways: Increased rigor can improve student proficiency, and A-G status makes it easier for CTE courses to compete for the limited number of class hours that students have in their schedules. More CTE programs, however, need to adopt curriculum that meets California’s rigorous standards. 21 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In the past six years, the number of CTE courses offered in California that meet the A-G requirements has grown substantially – to 5,614 from 300.49 Despite the progress, as of 2006, the higher figure represented about 20 percent of all CTE courses in the state. The majority of those classes are in the “F” and “G” categories – visual and performing arts and college preparatory electives, not the core academic categories.50 Building on its well-regarded CTE standards and framework, the state can take the next step: connecting local districts with existing rigorous and relevant CTE curriculum. As part of a strategy, the state should provide financial incentives to districts who have demonstrated a commitment to CTE to help them develop new standards-based CTE curriculum so that the upgraded courses are available in the industry sectors most important to their programs. Districts and CTE teachers will need time and resources to develop and align curriculum to the state’s CTE standards. According to Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, “This will require system-wide professional development over the next five years to ensure the standards are embedded throughout the system.”51 Though some CTE courses will not and should not be approved as A-G, experts agree that the UC system could be doing more to work with the Department of Education and school districts to approve more CTE curriculum and to approve more courses in the academic categories.52 Experts told the Commission that the state needs a mechanism to ensure rapid, consistent approval of qualifying high school courses for A- G credit.53 Creating a Path for Students To help their students get the most out of their CTE experience, some districts have established sequenced programs where courses progress along a well-defined path from high school classes to classes taught at Regional Occupational Centers and Programs and community colleges. Witnesses and members of the Commission’s advisory committee said the state has not yet achieved a coherent strategy for connecting CTE courses in a progression of learning from one setting to the next, what educators call “articulation.” It requires school districts and ROCPs and community colleges to coordinate schedules, course content and to ensure the appropriate feeder courses are in place. 22 CREATING A SYSTEM FOR CTE When articulation works correctly, students can take exploratory career- oriented courses in ninth and tenth grade, enroll in more advanced courses at an ROCP or concurrently enroll in community college courses in eleventh and twelfth grades and then go on to more advanced coursework upon high school graduation. That step can be a combination of an apprenticeship program, community college program, four-year university or other postsecondary education option. Such alignment, however, is not consistent across the state. In many of the proposals submitted for grants from the Governor’s CTE Initiative, educators cited a lack of coordination between high schools and community colleges. A Legislative Analyst’s Office analysis of the grant applications indicated that sometimes a high school and ROCP had exemplary CTE programs, but there were no follow-on community college programs to build on a student’s CTE skills gained in secondary school. In other cases, community colleges offered high-level CTE programs but lacked secondary-school feeder programs from high schools and ROCPs.54 Additionally, state policies on concurrent enrollment at high schools and community colleges create barriers that can limit, instead of promote, opportunities for students. The challenges in meeting the state’s nursing shortage reveal many of the systemic challenges of providing a seamless sequence of courses for a high-demand, high-wage occupation. A discussion of CTE issues in nursing is included in Appendix D. Communication and coordination are essential components to making articulation work. The Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy at the Kearny High Educational Complex in San Diego, for example, maintains an advisory committee and board of directors with representatives from businesses; industry organizations, such as dry- wall or plumbing contractors’ groups; unions; and, educational institutions. Students can shadow someone on the job, hear a guest speaker, go on field trips to various job sites or participate in mentorships with industry professionals. They also can enroll at neighboring Mesa College and receive priority for apprenticeships. Many have gone on to San Diego State University’s College of Construction Management and Engineering. The best partnerships ensure that course and content development is guided by local, regional and state business and industry leaders. High schools, school districts, county offices of education, ROCPs, local community colleges, community college districts, four-year colleges and business and industry work together to provide seamless course sequences and course articulation. 23 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Advisory panel members suggested that all CTE programs could be more efficient and effective if they are better aligned between high schools, ROCPs and community colleges. Grants from the Governor’s CTE Initiative are a start but are not the equivalent of a statewide strategy. Making such interaction a requirement of receiving grant money, however, would encourage local efforts to coordinate more. This kind of coordination should be embedded into a state strategy. The Issue of Concurrent Enrollment Concurrently enrolling high school students in community college classes provides potential for expanded and advanced CTE course and sequence options. Students who are able to complete high school graduation requirements and move on to more advanced career education at community colleges will be more prepared to enter high-paying, high-skilled jobs. But barriers limit concurrent enrollment opportunities. According to the Education Code, concurrent enrollment is designed “to provide educational enrichment opportunities for a limited number of eligible pupils, rather than to reduce current course requirements of elementary and secondary schools.”* School district governing boards make determinations about which students would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work. High school students must receive their principal’s recommendation and have parental permission in order to attend community college courses. Additionally, the number of students a principal is allowed to recommend in any particular grade level for community college summer session is capped at 5 percent, unless the student is enrolled in certain courses, including college-level occupational courses that are part of a sequence leading to a degree or certificate. Also, high school students are assigned a low enrollment priority. Further limits on concurrent enrollment were added in 2003 by SB 338 (Scott) because of abuses by the community colleges. Starting in December 2002, articles in the Orange County Register reported that students were unknowingly enrolled in courses; instructors were paid twice for the same course; and, state apportionments for the same courses were paid to both K-12 schools and community colleges, which were using summer sports camps to inflate enrollment. SB 338 changed concurrent enrollment rules and added public notice and availability requirements. It also set caps on funding and the number of high school students enrolled in community college physical education courses. Legislation to address some of the barriers that existed before SB 338 was considered in the 2007-2008 legislative session in AB 1409 (Portantino), but the law failed to pass. AB 1409 proposed eliminating the school board determination authority, deleting the requirement for a principal recommendation during the school year and expanding the type of courses students can take beyond advanced. It also would have phased in a removal of the cap on the number of high school students principals can recommend for summer session and removed the low priority designation for high school students. The bill also would have prohibited community colleges from being paid for a high school student’s summer session if it was paid for at the K-12 school district. *California Education Code section 48800. Sources: SB 338 (Scott), Chapter 786, Statutes of 2003. Bill text and analyses. Also, AB 1409 (Portantino), 2007. Bill text and analyses. 24 CREATING A SYSTEM FOR CTE Fragmented Funding Hinders Systematic Approach In 2006-07, the budget for K-12 schools, including adult education, totaled approximately $67.1 billion. CTE spending, categorical and discretionary, represented about 2.5 percent of the total K-12 budget.55 CTE funding is spread across three layers of government: federal, state and local; two state departments: the California Department of Education and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office; and, several categorical programs as well as philanthropic organizations and foundations. The varied sources and the use of general fund money for CTE at the district level make it difficult for the state to determine exactly how much money California spends on high school CTE each year. Non-specific funding for CTE is not tracked in any organized way, so state education officials are not able to give an exact figure for how much is spent on CTE education in California. CTE advocates suggest that spending on CTE had declined until recent infusions. Department of Finance officials, when asked, indicated it was not possible to determine a trend over time in spending since so much about CTE spending is unknown.56 New CTE Money State funding for CTE has increased over the past two years and will increase further. New money has specifically targeted developing seamless course sequences between educational entities. For each of the past two years, the governor and the Legislature have included $20 million for CTE, a boost designated by SB 70 (Scott, 2005) and known as the Governor’s CTE Initiative. The new money from SB 70 initially provided competitive grants through the community college system to improve linkages and CTE pathways between middle schools, high schools, ROCPs and community colleges.57 An additional $260 million has been targeted for the Governor’s CTE Initiative over the next seven years as a result of a legal settlement between the governor and the California Teachers Association (CTA). The CTA sued the governor alleging that the state did not fully fund the Proposition 98 requirements. A settlement totaling $3 billion was reached in 2006, and the resulting legislation targeted $32 million for CTE programs in the 2007-08 budget and $38 million for CTE each year from 2008-09 through 2013-14.58 The Governor’s CTE Initiative has provided a boost to a CTE system weakened by years of neglect, educators told the Commission. But more 25 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION could be done to ensure that a greater share of the grant money makes its way to the classroom. According to a Legislative Analyst’s Office analysis of the first year of the program, most of the grants were awarded to address a lack of communication and coordination between the many local interests involved in CTE. As the grants were awarded on a competitive basis, not all communities received the money.59 Analyzing the 2006-07 grants and the proposed grants for 2007-08, the LAO concluded that the program may be attempting to provide money for too many types of activities and said the state lacked a long-term plan for the revitalization of the state’s CTE programs. Other experts have recommended that new funding be used to expand effective models and develop curriculum. And they recommended that this money, through project and formula grants, be made available to all districts across the state, awarded through community colleges as well as through county offices of education.60 The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, with input from the Department of Education, already has developed a five-year expenditure plan, from 2007-08 through 2011-12, for the Governor’s CTE Initiative, although it may be altered. Each year, the plan must be approved by the Department of Finance. The expenditure plan includes efforts to increase enrollments, expand business partnerships, develop and implement curriculum and build staff capacity.61 Over five years, almost $100 million will be used to support the development of programs to strengthen or re-establish CTE and ROCPs in industry sectors identified by the Department of Education. Under the plan, the money will be used to develop model projects, articulate course paths and align curriculum with model curriculum standards. It also will be spent for planning and implementing new career academies; providing leadership; and, developing advisory councils to link education with labor, business and industry.62 The plan includes an evaluation component to assess the overall effectiveness of the grant program. An earlier version of the five-year plan also included funding for a longitudinal study to track and analyze data on CTE students to better understand academic performance and post-high school outcomes. In the final plan, the research component was eliminated. 63 This research component, however, is essential to measuring outcomes. Without knowing what approaches help students improve their academic performance and seeing how CTE influences post-graduation success, the state loses the valuable opportunity to learn more about what works. This is of particular importance considering that the long-awaited 26 CREATING A SYSTEM FOR CTE CALPADS system (discussed more fully below) will not be designed to gather data on post-high school outcomes. Given the limited resources available to CTE, the state cannot afford to spend money or resources on programs that do not work. The grant evaluation requirement is a good start, but it will not be sufficient if it allows the state to continue to spend money on programs that do not improve outcomes. With approximately $400 million in new funding dedicated to CTE over the next seven years, the state has an excellent opportunity to implement and monitor CTE programs across California, building the capacity that could improve outcomes for years to come. The state should ensure the one-time funding from the settlement is invested in measurable capacity – specifically CTE curriculum development and professional development – that will continue to deliver dividends when the funding stops. The state should simplify CTE funding by consolidating all of its state CTE money and, to the extent possible, federal CTE money into a single funding pool. Such consolidation would allow state officials to take a more strategic approach to CTE spending and better track spending, which can then be more easily linked to outcome measurements. In the longer term, once the state has more research on what works, it may want to consolidate state and federal funding, which likely would require a federal waiver, to direct spending more efficiently. Given its short history of commitment to CTE funding, however, the state first will need to build up a track record of smart spending decisions. The Legislature also should consider directing some of the money available through the Governor’s CTE Initiative to county offices of education to bolster CTE development from the ground up. The Commission remains skeptical of the community college system as the appropriate vehicle for allocating money to high schools and ROCPs. County offices then could direct money to districts to improve existing CTE programs and career-themed high schools. The money also should be used to develop and implement CTE curriculum that meets the state’s standards and teacher training to prepare educators to teach rigorous CTE curriculum. Without System-wide Data, The State Cannot Measure or Compare California’s successful high school CTE programs are reporting positive results. However, without more formal research, their success is difficult to replicate. The state simply lacks the data from local districts that could allow it to see California’s high school CTE effort as a whole. 27 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Currently, the state collects a wealth of data on test score results, but only aggregate data by school or data by ethnicity. As student populations shift from year to year, it is impossible to clearly assess advances or regressions on test score results. The current system does not track progress of individual students – what courses they took, how much they improved or regressed individually on academic proficiency tests – so it is not possible at this point to know, based on proficiency data, what is working to improve student outcomes. A critical shortcoming of the state’s data gathering is the lack of a unique student identification system, which would shed light on dropout and graduation rates and also give the state the ability to track progress by student. Such a system, used in other states, would allow California to measure effectiveness by linking individual student course participation to their individual outcomes. Many CTE programs serve high-risk students – students who enter their programs with a history of low academic performance and high absenteeism – yet show improved outcomes. The stories of their individual “islands of excellence,” however, do not tell much about the broader picture of California’s CTE programs or where these schools fit in that picture. As one high school leader told the Commission, “policy should not be built by anecdotes.”64 CALPADS State officials have been recommending a unique student identification system since the early 1990s.65 In 2001, the federal No Child Left Behind Act added a requirement to track and report graduation data, and as a result, the state enacted SB 1453 (Alpert) in 2002, launching the development of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). The CALPADS legislation stated that the system should: (cid:57) Provide school districts and the CDE access to data necessary to comply with federal reporting requirements. (cid:57) Provide a better means of evaluating educational progress and investments over time. (cid:57) Provide local educational agencies information that can be used to improve pupil achievement. (cid:57) Provide an efficient, flexible and secure means of maintaining longitudinal statewide pupil level data.66 28 CREATING A SYSTEM FOR CTE Five years later, the system is still not completely up and running. In the fall of 2006, local educational agencies provided the first full-year enrollment data. In fall 2007, local districts will report on one-year changes in enrollment by student, with up to 28 different possible codes for reasons why a student is no longer enrolled. The California Department of Education expects that it will roll out a pilot program in 2008-09, with full implementation in 2009-10.67 Critics assert that the delay is the result of reticence by the Legislature and the Department of Finance to fully fund the effort. In September 2007 testimony to the Commission, former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin speculated that the data will reveal just how bad the education system is, and elected officials do not want the evidence revealed on their watch.68 Concerns remain about the quality of the data provided by the local districts. The state has relied primarily on federal money to pay for the development of the state data system. At the insistence of the Department of Finance, the CALPADS is designed to focus on data elements required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act to avoid an unfunded state mandate on local districts.69 However, a Department of Education official has said that it might be possible to require local agencies to provide additional data if it meant eliminating a requirement for them to provide the New Developments – CTE and the same or similar data through a different system Academic Performance Index already in place.70 The state uses the Academic Performance Index (API) to evaluate school performance To date, the state has not been willing to provide based on achievement test results. financial incentives to ensure the quality of the data Currently, school API scores are based from local districts. Superintendent of Public solely on test results, though this was not Instruction Jack O’Connell and the Department of the intent of the original legislation. As Education have advocated for money to provide originally designed, the API would combine assistance to local educational agencies to ensure multiple measures, including attendance and graduation rates, and test scores would data quality. The governor included $65 million in constitute 60 percent of the index. the administration’s 2007 May budget revision for this Legislation passed in 2007 would have purpose, but the Legislature deleted the funding for provided a timeline to add graduation data the 2007-08 budget. to the API and added new components, including A-G and CTE course completion Once in place, CALPADS could be tapped to report data. However, the governor vetoed the legislation stating that the API should outcomes beyond the requirements of No Child Left continue to be based on objective, reliable, Behind, linking individual student outcomes with valid and consistent statistical courses taken. This would allow policy-makers to measurements. make informed decisions on CTE and allow policy- Sources: AB 400 (Nunez, et al), 2007. Bill text and makers and educators to replicate effective programs. analyses. Also, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Additionally, the Commission heard repeatedly that October 14, 2007. AB 400 Veto Message. the state needs to understand what happens after a 29 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION student leaves high school – such as CTE and the School Accountability Report Card whether a student enters the military, attends college, enters an apprenticeship The state recently has made efforts to better track program program, secures a job or participates in availability and student enrollment in CTE courses as part of the School Accountability Report Card (SARC). The other possible post-high school activities. SARC originally was mandated by voters in Proposition 98. A secondary step beyond CALPADS would In 2005, SARC requirements were expanded through be to link CDE data with other state data legislation (SB 687, Simitian) to include, among many other systems, including post-secondary things, various measures on CTE programs, including: education data systems and Employment (cid:57) Programs offered by the school district that are Development Department data systems, aligned with state CTE standards and program creating the potential for this kind of sequences offered by the district. analysis. (cid:57) CTE advisory committee members, including the primary representatives from the school district and The state has taken the lead in developing from businesses. standards for CTE that meet the state’s (cid:57) Number of students participating in CTE. high standards for academics. It has (cid:57) Percentage of students that complete a CTE program followed up with a framework for those and earn a high school diploma. standards. It now needs to take the next steps: (cid:57) Percentage of CTE courses that are sequenced from a high school to a community college or other (cid:131) Helping districts adopt rigorous postsecondary education institution. CTE curriculum that meets the A cursory review of SARC reports made available by state’s standards and developing individual school districts linked through a CDE Web page the teaching capacity that goes with reveals that most schools and districts are complying with it, and the new SARC requirements. While this information provides helpful insight for parents and students making (cid:131) Implementing a data collection decisions about where to attend high school and sheds system that will allow the state, as light on CTE program and sequence availability in well as schools, to track individual individual schools, it was not designed to paint a statewide students and programs over time to picture or inform policy-makers on whether or not CTE programs are improving academic proficiency and assess the results of CTE programs achieving other positive outcomes. on such outcomes as academic proficiency, graduation rates and Sources: SB 687 (Simitian), Chapter 358, Statutes of 2005. Bill text and analyses. Also, California Department of Education. Link to School post-high school success. Accountability Report Card Web site. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/ap/sarclink1.asp. Accessed October 4, 2007. Until the state has built a bigger body of knowledge so that it knows what kinds of programs produce the best outcomes, it should focus on a strategy that builds California’s CTE programs from the bottom up. Such a strategy means directing money to existing CTE programs that have demonstrated the desire, the need and the capacity to invest new CTE money in ways that will improve student outcomes. CTE programs that receive this new money should be required to track those outcomes so that, ultimately, the state can make evidence-based investments in successful CTE models. 30 CREATING A SYSTEM FOR CTE Recommendation 1: California must develop a strategy to, in the short term, evaluate, expand and replicate proven programs in districts that demonstrate they can support them. The state must use research results from its short-term strategy to create a long- term, evidence-based strategy to fully integrate academically rigorous career technical education into general education programs. Specifically, the state should: (cid:137) Expand and replicate successful career-themed high schools and effective CTE programs. Through the Governor’s CTE Initiative grant program, the state should provide grant money to schools or districts that demonstrate they are implementing proven career-themed education models. The state should require those receiving grant money to track and report student performance. The state should provide technical assistance to help local districts identify and replicate academically rigorous CTE programs. (cid:137) Expand the availability of academically rigorous CTE curriculum. The state should specifically target a portion of its new CTE grants to expand academically rigorous CTE curriculum that meets state CTE standards. CTE grant recipients should be required to consult with business and industry in CTE curriculum development. Additionally, the state should provide grants for professional development to ensure that teachers are qualified to teach the new CTE standards. (cid:137) Improve the process for qualifying CTE courses for the A-G requirements. The state should require that all new CTE courses developed with CTE grant funding meet the California CTE standards and be rigorous enough to qualify for A-G credit. The University of California should be required to work with the Department of Education and local educational agencies to ensure rapid and consistent approvals of academically rich CTE courses so that more CTE classes meet the approval of the UC for its A-G requirements, particularly in core academic subject areas. (cid:137) Align CTE courses into streamlined sequences. The state should require all grant recipients to align their CTE courses and programs with course sequences in partner community colleges and ROCPs. Such partnerships should include regional employers to help establish smooth paths for students in career-themed educational programs, as well as help them earn priority placement in postsecondary education programs that continue their career paths. The state should continue to evaluate the progress of the alignment effort and use evidence to further guide and improve course sequences. (cid:137) Align funding. The state should consolidate state CTE funding into one specific funding source to better coordinate and track CTE spending. 31 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION (cid:137) Measure results. The state should fully implement the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System so that it can accurately measure dropout rates, graduation rates and the effectiveness of various educational programs, including CTE programs. The state should require local educational agencies to provide accurate data for CALPADS and provide funding to do so. The state also should further develop a data system to combine K-12, postsecondary and employment data information to measure post- high school outcomes. 32 MISSING CONNECTIONS Missing Connections California lacks a recognizable, defined strategy to connect education, workforce development and economic development. This deficit impedes collaboration across agencies and departments, at both the state and local level, to align education and workforce needs, which is particularly critical for CTE programs. Connecting education, particularly CTE, to workforce needs occurs only when determined innovators at the regional and Labor Shortages in High-Demand Fields local level take the lead. Business and industry advocates report critical shortages of California is experiencing a shortage of workers in high-demand, high-wage jobs. The following skilled labor in virtually every sector of the data underscore the workforce concerns of several key industries: economy.71 While high-paying jobs go unfilled, thousands of California youth who Health Care. The California Employment Development could fill the ranks are missing the Department forecasts a need for an additional 109,000 registered nurses by 2010. However, the California Board of connection to the workforce and either Registered Nursing reports that California is graduating only dropping out or floundering for years after about 6,000 nursing students each year – about the same high school in low-wage, low-skill jobs. CTE number that are retiring. Hospitals, clinics and doctors courses, particularly those with work-based report difficulty hiring and retaining skilled workers. learning opportunities, can help students Manufacturing. A 2006 survey of California manufacturers make the connection between school and found that the single most important business challenge work.72 Both employers and educators have employers reported was “sustaining and/or acquiring a roles in ensuring CTE courses meet skilled workforce.” workforce demands and in creating Service Industry. Business and workforce development awareness about the value of rigorous CTE officials project increased growth in service and programs. management occupations. Service jobs increasingly are requiring workers with higher level skills as more and more Collaborative Efforts at the technology is integrated into job functions. State Level Construction. Between 2003 and 2005, 27 percent of all new jobs in California were in construction. According to the Association of General Contractors, far more skilled Numerous agencies and departments are workers are leaving the workforce than schools and colleges tasked with work-related education and are preparing for construction work. In response, employers training programs in California. Major are recruiting skilled workers from outside the state and outsourcing assembly projects to other places. Though the players at the state level include the state’s residential real estate market has weakened, more Department of Education, the state’s three workers will be needed in the future to take the place of college systems and various departments retirees as well as to fill construction jobs created by the within the Labor and Workforce state infrastructure bonds. Development Agency and the Health and Source: California’s EDGE Campaign. “California’s EDGE: Keeping Human Services Agency. Additionally, the California Competitive, Creating Opportunity.” Accessed at http://www.californiaedgecampaign.org/. 33 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Business, Transportation and Housing Agency houses the lead programs for economic development. Attempts have been made in the past to bring the top leaders of some of these bureaucracies together to forge a unified strategy for education and workforce development. But many of these groups cannot sustain their momentum, particularly when administrations change or new, competing programs are initiated. Appendix E lists some prior recommendations to link education with workforce and economic development. One notable effort was the 1997 Regional Workforce Preparation and Economic Development Act, which brought education, workforce preparation and economic development partners together at the state and regional level to develop an improved workforce development system through integration, collaboration and combination of resources. State partners included the leaders of the California Department of Education, the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges, the Health and Human Services Agency and the now defunct California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency. With the help of an extensive advisory committee, the partnership developed a framework for workforce development and assisted the proliferation of six regional partnerships, though the state-level partnership ultimately disintegrated.73 Key recommendations from the framework are summarized in Appendix F. With the election of a new governor, the appointees who had participated in the development and preliminary implementation of the state program were replaced with a new set of appointees who had different missions and priorities.74 The new priorities were influenced by the 1998 federal Workforce Investment Act, which led to the creation of the California Workforce Investment Board. Through the California Workforce Investment Board, the state set up 50 local workforce investment boards as well as 150 “one-stop shops.” The effectiveness of the local boards has been uneven across the state. In some areas, local boards have either provided the leadership for or served as a key player in regional and local collaborative efforts. The East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program, for example, not only partners with its local Workforce Investment Board but houses a one-stop shop on one of its campuses. This kind of success, however, hinges on the personalities of the local leaders, the Commission was told. In other areas, local boards have been reluctant to share dwindling resources to help forge critical partnerships with local educational agencies. 34 MISSING CONNECTIONS Top-Down Efforts Difficult to Sustain California has seen several efforts to develop robust partnerships among leaders of state agencies responsible for education and workforce and economic development. These attempts to build a statewide strategy have been hampered by a lack of consistent vision and sustainability. Year What Who Funding What Happened $130 million in The act expired in 1999. It did • K-12 Schools federal money over not exist long enough for Federal • ROCPs six years. A $7.2 rigorous, conclusive evaluation, School-to-Work 1994 million federal though it did seed CTE programs Opportunities • Community supplement at high schools, ROCPs and Act Colleges extended activities community colleges that still • Labor Groups in 2000. exist today. $4 million a year for The state partnership California • CDE 3 years. The state disintegrated with a change in Regional did not fund the administration and priorities, • CCC Workforce collaborative effort, though it was successful in Chancellor’s 1997 Preparation and and money for developing a framework for Office Economic regional grants workforce development. The act Development • CTTCA came from the was eclipsed in part by the 1998 Act budgets of the state Federal Workforce Investment • HHSA participants. Act. $378 million in federal money for • CalWIB Results have been uneven at the 2007. Federal local board level. Federal • 50 Local Workforce funding is diminishing. Weak 1998 WIBs 85% to local WIBs. Investment Act direction at the state level (WIA) • 150 Local One- spurred the 2006 California 15% to state for Stop Shops Workforce Training Act. discretionary spending. The act requires the CalWIB to • CalWIB No additional fiscal create a state strategic plan, effect as act which is intended to serve as a • CDE incorporates framework for the WIA strategic California • CCC provisions of the two-year plan; for the 1998 WIA and its development of workforce policy 2006 Workforce Chancellor’s reauthorization and and fiscal investment; and, for Training Act Office provides guidance the operation of California’s • Local WIBs for state labor exchange, workforce implementation of education and training programs. • Other State the WIA. The final strategic plan is slated Agencies for adoption in February 2008. CDE – California Department of Education HHSA – Health and Human Services Agency CCC – California Community Colleges CalWIB – California Workforce Investment Board CTTCA – California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency WIB – Workforce Investment Board Sources: David Neumark. Public Policy Institute of California 2004. “The Effects of School-to-Career Programs on Postsecondary Enrollment and Employment.” Also, Ed Source. June 2005. “The Evolution of Career Technical Education in California.” Also, Berkeley Policy Associates. June 28, 2002. “Evaluation of the Regional Workforce Preparation and Economic Development Act – Final Report.” Page 69. Also, Legislative Analyst Office. February 16, 1999. Analysis of the Budget Bill. Also, Little Hoover Commission. April 2002. “Only a Beginning: The Proposed Labor and Workforce Development Agency.” Also, Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 4 on State Administration. May 23, 2007. Meeting agenda. http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/committee/c22/hearing/may%2023%20%202007%20part%20i%20public.cm.doc. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. Also, SB 293 (Ducheny), Chapter 630, Statutes of 2006. Bill text. Also, California Workforce Investment Board. “SB 293.” http://www.calwia.org/sb293/index.cfm. Accessed November 1, 2007. Also, California Workforce Investment Board. “Updated SB 293 Strategic Planning Road Map.” http://www.calwia.org/doc_files/Updated%20SB%20293%20Road%20Map%20(2).pdf. Accessed November 1, 2007. 35 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In response to the shortcomings of the East San Gabriel Valley ROP & Tech Center state-level board and in an effort to get the state board to fulfill its mission, the The East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Legislature clarified the board’s role in Program and Technical Center provides a model for collaborative efforts between these programs and school developing a workforce strategy in districts, community colleges and workforce investment 2006.75 The result was the Workforce boards. The program, overseen by a joint powers Training Act.76 The law requires “the agreement among seven local school districts, serves California Workforce Investment Board, 7,000 students from 12 comprehensive high schools and in collaboration with state and local seven continuation high schools. Approximately 87 partners, including the Chancellor of the percent of the students in the program are from high schools; the rest are adult students. High school students California Community Colleges, the take ROP courses on their own campus or at three California Department of Education, regional centers. other appropriate state agencies and Local businesses and industries partner with the program local workforce investment boards, to to provide job shadowing, mentoring and interning develop a strategic workforce plan to opportunities. The program also collaborates with local serve as a framework for the community colleges to streamline course sequences from development of public policy, fiscal high school to college. The ROP collaborates with the investment, and operation of all state local workforce investment board and offers a mini labor exchange, workforce education and Workforce Investment Act-funded “One-Stop” career center. training programs.”77 The current board also includes four appointed legislators More than a model for regional collaboration, the East San and more than two dozen leaders from Gabriel Valley program also has more than a decade of experience integrating academics into CTE courses. In business and labor. 1994, the program was awarded a competitive grant from the U.S. Department of Education to integrate academics With the new mandate for the California into vocational coursework. This year, the program is Workforce Investment Board (CalWIB) to part of a non-profit foundation project to demonstrate partner with educational agencies to how to tie work-based learning to academic standards as develop a strategic workforce investment a model for other California ROCPs. plan, the board has the potential to Source: Laurel Adler, Superintendent, East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program and Tech Center. March 27, 2007. Personal fulfill the role initially envisioned for it. communication. Experts, however, suggest the sheer size of the board will make it difficult to accomplish its mission. Additionally, there is no representation from the CSU or UC systems or the state’s private colleges on the CalWIB. The CalWIB’s Special Committee on Lifelong Learning has shown promise but is not charged with developing a statewide strategy to link education with workforce and economic development and does not include the top officials from other key agencies. Rather than developing an additional top-level effort, the state could more effectively direct resources and attention to regional and local boards, where the desire to make the connections is strong. Business and industry representatives repeatedly told the Commission that they would like to partner with schools and community colleges to help guide CTE coursework and to provide job shadows and other work-based 36 MISSING CONNECTIONS learning opportunities. The Commission Linking Education and Economic saw compelling examples of how such Development partnerships could work in Sacramento’s Many successful regional and local partnerships across LEED and its work with the Sacramento the state were inspired and developed by local leaders, City Unified School District, in the East San often relying on grants from non-profit foundations or Gabriel Valley ROP and Tech Center and in donations from business community partners. In the six- San Diego’s Construction Tech Academy. county Sacramento-area region, a non-profit corporation, Linking Education and Economic Development (LEED), Each is an example of bottom-up efforts to has brought the region’s top leaders to develop partnerships between employers, educators and civic link stakeholders, and each has a concrete interests to align educational resources to meet strategy to link students and schools to workforce needs and economic demands. Its board of their local economies and to link the local directors includes a cadre of the region’s key leaders, economy’s needs to classroom content. including the top executives from UC Davis, CSU Sacramento and the Los Rios Community College Schools recognize the value of the District as well as six superintendents from K-12 districts and county offices of education, executives representing partnerships, though they often find it key regional industries, labor, workforce investment difficult to pursue them. Principals from boards and the California Department of Education. career-themed high schools told the For the past five years, LEED has served as the key link Commission they struggle to find time to in implementing philanthropic grants that the both be a good hands-on school principal Sacramento City Unified School District has used for and manage relationships with local high school redesign. LEED recently revised its focus to employers, philanthropic organizations and look more closely at workforce, educational and student other partners. development. Current initiatives include a regional workforce study and work with employers and educators Specifically, the Commission consistently to implement the nationally acclaimed pre-engineering curriculum, Project Lead The Way, at 13 school sites in heard that connecting with local employers the region. to set up student internships and other work-based learning opportunities is In written testimony to the Commission, the chief executive officer of LEED stated that “objectives and virtually a full-time job. Employers, too, strategies to align education to meet workforce needs told the Commission that it is time- can be developed more effectively and efficiently at the consuming to establish relationships with regional level than at the state or federal levels.” He individual high schools, particularly in suggested LEED could be used as a model other regions urban regions where there are dozens of could replicate and that the state could organize schools and numerous districts.78 regional councils to assist regional collaboratives in developing common objectives and by providing resources. At Sacramento’s Health Professions High Source: David N. Butler, Executive Director and Chief Executive School, the principal and vice principal split Officer, LEED. April 26, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. the burden of coordinating with 300 business partners, setting up 250 intern placements and organizing 35 field trips and 50 guest speakers a year. Principal Matt Perry said the school continues to look for money for a full-time coordinator. In the meantime, Perry said, “We’re getting better at telling students that it would be okay if you place yourself.”79 37 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Making Connections To ensure that the California education system provides a workforce that is properly trained and educated to meet occupational demands, business and industry, workforce development entities and education institutions must work in concert. These entities must partner together to ensure that CTE program development is informed by the workforce demands of the California economy. Partnerships between these entities must be developed and nurtured over time, with particular attention to regional and local efforts. The state has money available through the 15 percent of the federal Workforce Investment Act funds it is allowed to use for discretionary spending. Local workforce investment boards that receive this discretionary WIA money first should be required to demonstrate that they have an established history of regular meetings, established goals – that include participating in local or regional education and workforce development partnerships – as well as a plan for meeting and measuring progress toward those goals. These partnerships should include top leaders from local educational agencies, local workforce investment boards, business and industry and labor. Their mission should be to ensure that CTE curriculum and course sequences match workforce needs and industry standards and to expand work-based learning opportunities. Such support should not, however, preclude state financial assistance to other regional and local efforts. In order to receive state support, however, these efforts need to demonstrate they are structured and organized in such a way that they produce demonstrable results for students, such as internships, class-industry learning partnerships, worksite-based learning opportunities and better coordinated dual- enrollment at community colleges. Regional and local efforts should take priority over state-level efforts. Experts told the Commission that a partnership made up of the key players, including the superintendent of public instruction; chancellor of the community college system; secretary of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency; secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; and, senior representatives from the CSU and UC systems, could more rapidly develop a strategy for integrating education and workforce and economic development. 38 MISSING CONNECTIONS During this study, the Commission also identified specific opportunities for employers to team with public agencies, such as Web sites to promote careers and college. These opportunities are described in Appendix G. Recommendation 2: To remain economically viable in the global economy and to ensure that education programs match workforce needs, California must better align its education, workforce development and economic strategies. Specifically, the state should: (cid:137) Use existing money for incentives to develop and expand strong, high- level regional business and education partnerships. The state should commit part of existing CTE funding, including discretionary federal money, to local county offices of education or community colleges to develop or expand regional partnerships that have demonstrated the capacity to produce measurable outcomes, such as creation of internships, job placement, successful CTE teacher recruitment or creation of a local CTE teacher credentialing program. These partnerships should work to advance integrated workforce development throughout the state. Local partners should include top local leaders, including superintendents from school districts and county offices of education; chancellors from local community colleges; presidents of local CSU, UC and private colleges, where applicable; leaders from the local workforce investment board; chief executive officers from local employers; and, county CalWORKs administrators. The regional partnerships should: (cid:57) Ensure CTE courses and sequences offered match high- demand jobs of the region and the state. (cid:57) Ensure that CTE curriculum and course sequences meet industry standards. (cid:57) Leverage local employers for work-based learning opportunities, such as job shadows and internships. 39 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 40 BUILDING CAPACITY: TEACHERS NEEDED Building Capacity: Teachers Needed A key constraint to expanding CTE in California is the shortage of educators qualified to teach the expanding array of rigorous CTE courses. The lack of qualified educators diminishes the state’s ability to make CTE courses available to interested students. Like most states, California has struggled to maintain and expand its overall teacher workforce. Factors that erode the overall teacher workforce thin CTE teacher ranks as well and, in some cases, more severely. Many school administrators – principals and superintendents – may lack the necessary skills to lead the new generation of high schools that are melding academic rigor and career-themed instruction. And while schools face a shortage of counselors in general, CTE programs specifically are hampered by a dearth of counselors with the training and the time to provide helpful career guidance. State and federal policies that placed more emphasis on core academic subjects reduced the time available for CTE courses and, consequently, the need for CTE teachers. The number of credentialed full- and part- time CTE teachers has declined by nearly 1,200 to 7,794 since 2000. Currently, fewer than 3 percent of California instructors teach CTE.80 Year CTE Teachers* Total Teachers 2000 – 2001 8,992 327,369 2001 – 2002 9,014 333,478 2002 – 2003 9,427 338,281 2003 – 2004 8,213 331,221 2004 – 2005 7,978 332,007 2005 – 2006 7,794 333,964 * Full- and part-time teachers are included in this count. Source: California Department of Education, Demographics Office. 2000 – 2006. To retain its current CTE teacher workforce and bring more working professionals into teaching, the state needs to assess and refine its current policies, including its policies for credentialing and teacher training. The state also needs to advocate for changes in certain federal Social Security policies that pose a significant barrier to mid-level professionals who want to enter the teaching profession. 41 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION CTE Credentialing The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing establishes various teaching credentials. The CTE credentialing process was most recently revised in 1993 and included 175 occupation-specific subject areas from accounting to welding. Legislation passed unanimously by the Legislature and signed by the governor calls for updating CTE credentialing and aligning credentials to match the 15 industry sectors identified in the state’s CTE content standards and framework.81 There are two types of CTE credentials: one which encourages working professionals to enter the teacher workforce – the Designated Subjects Credential; and, one which requires a bachelor’s degree in a specialized subject – the CTE Single Subject Credential. Designated Subjects Credential. For a Preliminary Designated Subjects Credential, the state requires five years of work experience, a high school diploma or the equivalent and a general understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, two years of postsecondary vocational training can be substituted for two years of work.82 Prospective CTE teachers also must have recent work experience in the CTE credential area for which they are applying. Specifically, the prospective teacher must have worked full-time during one of the three prior years. For the most part, the preliminary credential is valid for five years. To become fully-credentialed, a teacher must have a valid preliminary credential, have successfully taught a minimum of one course for four terms within a five-year period, have completed an approved personalized teacher preparation program and have completed a unit in health education. A separate credential exists for part-time CTE instruction. Career Technical Education Single Subject Credential. Single Subject Credentials are issued in all academic and five career technical subject areas: agriculture, business, home economics, health science and industrial and technology education. To obtain a Single Subject Credential, prospective teachers must hold a bachelor’s or other advanced degree, pass the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST), verify subject matter competence and complete a commission- accredited single subject teacher preparation program.83 Of the more than 28,000 CTE teachers who received credentials in the past 10 years, 88 percent have a Designated Subjects Credential, and 12 percent have a Single Subject Credential. Although a college degree is not required for a Designated Subjects Credential, 58 percent of teachers with this credential have a bachelor’s degree or higher.84 42 BUILDING CAPACITY: TEACHERS NEEDED The federal No Child Left Behind Act requires that educators teaching core academic subjects and all instructing in schools that receive Title I funds must be “highly qualified.” In California, this means that teachers must have a bachelor’s degree; must have a state credential, intern certificate or currently be enrolled in an approved program; and, must demonstrate core academic subject matter competence.85 By establishing the types of credentials as well as requirements for earning various credentials, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing drives the design of the educator preparation programs. In California, the CSU system prepares the majority of educators. Private colleges, the UC system and other institutions, including individual school districts and county offices of education, prepare the rest. Credentialing Confusion Experts describe the credentialing process as complex, confusing and bureaucratic, with certain elements that pose barriers for prospective teachers.86 For example, while it is important for CTE teachers to have recent and relevant work experience, the requirement that prospective teachers must have worked full-time during one of the three years prior to applying for a credential poses a barrier for someone who has worked part-time or who has been in a different but related part of the workforce.87 At the Commission’s public hearings, witnesses provided vivid examples of how the recent employment skills requirement thwarts credentialing of professionals who attempt to get a CTE credential. For example, someone who worked as a mechanical engineer for 20 years and then taught English for five years, under the current system, could not qualify for a CTE credential in mechanical engineering. Another example would be a veteran auto mechanic who decides to work part-time while attending college to get a bachelor’s degree and teaching credential. After working part-time and attending school for four years, the mechanic could not qualify for a CTE teaching credential in auto mechanics.88 The Commission also heard that industry professionals who enter the CTE teacher workforce with a Designated Subjects Credential might be most in need of added support to adjust to working with teenagers. But Designated Subjects Credential holders do not qualify for the state’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction Program. Begun by legislation in 1992 and refined in 1997, the BTSA program makes state funding available to local educational agencies to support new teachers but only those with a Single or Multiple Subject Credential.89 43 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION With the infusion of academic rigor into CTE curriculum and the infusion of applied concepts into academics, some experts have questioned whether or not two distinct types of CTE credentials are warranted. CTE instructors who are teaching academically rigorous CTE courses that count as academic core subjects must meet the “highly qualified” federal teacher requirements – meaning, they must have a bachelor’s degree and expertise in that core subject. Given these requirements and the new CTE standards for curriculum, experts suggest that the state should reassess its credentialing requirements. Beyond streamlining and updating the CTE credentialing process, experts say the biggest challenge to expanding the CTE workforce will be ensuring that CTE teachers – current teachers as well as those entering the profession – are prepared to teach an increasingly rigorous CTE curriculum. As CTE curriculum evolves to become more rigorous and more districts replicate and implement successful career-themed programs, the education workforce also must evolve to meet the needs of the 21st century classroom. Experts say that the current teaching workforce is “not well prepared to teach CTE as it has been newly envisioned…It is unrealistic to assume that schools can improve simply because they want to or state officials say they should. The changes that need to occur will require a significant investment in professional development for teachers and principals.”90 The overhaul has started. In addition to the 2007 legislation realigning the CTE credentialing system, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing has established a CTE credentialing advisory committee to come up with a proposal to revamp the CTE credential process to make it easier for working professionals to enter the teacher workforce. Expanding CTE Professional Development & Training While the state has adopted standards and a framework for rigorous CTE curriculum, the state also needs to provide resources and incentives for professional development in order for teachers to learn the new curriculum. So far, there is no mechanism to ensure that the state’s four-year institutions are training new teachers to meet the new CTE standards. David W. Gordon, former superintendent of the Elk Grove Unified School District, one of the fastest-growing districts in California, and current superintendent of the Sacramento County Office of Education, told the Commission that in order for the state to ramp up the number of instructors qualified to teach to the new CTE standards, the state should 44 BUILDING CAPACITY: TEACHERS NEEDED encourage pilot training programs with districts and counties. He said that Educator Training at High Tech High implementing swift changes in the state’s High Tech High (HTH) operates its own teacher university teacher preparation programs would intern program, which was approved by the be difficult; local entities could much more California Commission on Teacher Credentialing quickly adapt training to the new CTE in 2004. Through the program, HTH can certify standards.91 teachers in math, science, English, history/social studies, Spanish, Mandarin and art. HTH partners with the University of San Diego School High Tech High School, a charter school in of Leadership and Education Sciences in order to San Diego County, is the only individual high offer what equates to a 120-hour pre-service school with a professional preparation program and 600 hours of training and practice program accredited by the Commission on over two academic years. Interns in the program Teacher Credentialing. The school provides a also are employed as classroom teachers and earn full-time salaries and benefits. model for locally-based teacher training. When the Little Hoover Commission visited The intern program aims to train teachers to High Tech High, the chief executive officer combine components of technical and academic education in their classrooms. In June 2007, the described its training program as a way for the first six interns finished the program and earned a high school to develop staff that would be preliminary license. As of fall 2007, there will be effective in the school’s unique and rigorous 28 interns participating in the program. HTH “hands-on” teaching approach. In fall of 2007, also is launching a graduate school of education High Tech High began offering a master’s in September 2007, which will confer master of degree program to train teachers as well as education degrees in teacher leadership and school leadership. Both venues stress clinical school leaders.92 experience and practice, while still providing classes on theory. Federal Policies Penalize Career Sources: Erik W. Robelen. July 17, 2007. “Learning Where Changers They Teach.” Education Week. Also, High Tech High. “Educator Training.” Accessed at http://www.hightechhigh.org/about/educator_training.php. Additional impediments to expanding teacher ranks are federal Social Security rules that reduce benefits for mid-career professionals who enter the teaching workforce in California. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congress passed two amendments to the Social Security Act as part of a larger reform effort to shore up the financing of the Social Security system. The Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who worked in jobs not covered by Social Security, such as teachers, firefighters and peace officers, but who also worked in other jobs where they paid Social Security taxes long enough to qualify for retirement benefits. This provision reduces Social Security benefits for these workers by more than $4,000 per year. The Government Pension Offset reduces or, in some cases, eliminates spousal or survivor Social Security benefits for these workers.93 Recognizing the barriers that the Social Security Act amendments create, California Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced S206, and California Congressman Howard Berman has introduced HR 82, both titled the 45 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Social Security Fairness Act of 2007, to repeal the pension offset and eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision. As of August 2007, Senator Feinstein had 33 and Congressman Berman had 322 bipartisan co- sponsors for the bills, approximately two-thirds of all members of Congress. Californians and their lawmakers should advocate for federal lawmakers to enact this legislation and eliminate this barrier to mid-level professionals and retirees becoming teachers.94 Other Options to Expand Teacher Ranks In addition to reducing and eliminating barriers that prevent private sector workers from entering the teaching workforce, experts suggested other opportunities to tap private sector experience in the classroom. Team Teaching. The Commission on Teacher Credentialing advisory committee members suggested that opportunities exist to team teach through partnering working professionals with credentialed teachers. Other states use this approach for some CTE subjects, and California could develop models based on the experience of other states as well as models in the California Community College system. In testimony before the Little Hoover Commission, the dean of Cabrillo Community College described how the college has partnered with local hospitals to provide classroom space and to tap the expertise of working professionals for various health care courses.95 While high school campuses pose different challenges, the partner approach provides an opportunity to tap into applied knowledge. Such team-teaching partnerships require time and resources to plan and implement. Some experts suggested that the state could provide tax breaks or other incentives to employers willing to loan professionals to high schools for team teaching. Another opportunity is for districts to work with employers and industry to provide externships and other opportunities for teachers to spend summers or other down time from school at job sites to improve applied teaching approaches. Tapping Retirees. Another opportunity exists in tapping the retiring baby boomer workforce, as many retirees may be looking to use their retirement to enter new careers or otherwise find ways to use their time productively. To address the shortage of qualified math, science and technology teachers in California, the governor launched a public-private partnership called EnCorps, designed to work with businesses to encourage retirees to join the teaching workforce in math, science and career technical education. The goal of the program is to bring retirees into classrooms by partnering with private companies to recruit, train and place employees who want to become teachers after retirement. 46 BUILDING CAPACITY: TEACHERS NEEDED Several corporations, including Qualcomm, IBM, Edison International, Chevron, Ares Management, City National Bank and East West Bank, already are involved. The governor included $10 million in the May 2007 budget revision for the program, but the money was not included in the final budget act. Despite the lack of state funding, the program will continue as a non-profit organization.96 A New Breed of Administrator In addition to requiring instructors who can adapt to the new CTE curriculum models, schools also will require a different breed of principal. At each of the successful career-themed high schools that the Commission visited as part of this study, the principals are skilled entrepreneurs, as adept at applying for grants, partnering with employers and community colleges and designing and implementing flexible block schedules as they are at the more traditional role of leading teachers and interacting with students. While these administrators provide effective models for what the state’s innovative and career- integrated high schools need, their effectiveness is, at least in part, a product of their own personal leadership qualities. To replicate the success of these high schools, the state has to find a way to provide professional development for existing administrators and revise its traditional approach to training. Again, local pilot programs have the potential to provide a swift transition to a new administrator paradigm. Career Counseling: Expanding Capacity In addition to appropriately trained teachers and principals, the state lacks school counseling capacity. As of 2004-05, California public high schools had the highest student-to-school counselor ratio in the nation – 471 students per counselor. The American School Counselor Association recommends a ratio of 250-to-1.97 To respond to the shortage, California lawmakers initiated, in 2006-07, a $200 million proposal to expand the number of school counselors for students in 7th through 12th grades. It is estimated that schools will be able to hire an additional 3,000 school counselors statewide with this money, reducing the ratio in high schools to 300-to-1.98 The new funding gives priority to counseling services for students who are failing or at risk of failing to pass the high school exit exam.99 Legislation enacted in 2007 expands the requirement of the new counseling funding to require counselors at schools that receive the money to review students’ career goals and the availability of academic and CTE opportunities.100 Across the state, high school counselors have enormous caseloads and must provide psychological counseling as well as college and career 47 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION counseling. In addition to being overloaded, many also may be under- prepared to provide career advice. Of 16 required courses for a school counseling degree, the state requires only one course that focuses on career exploration.101 It is unrealistic to expect already overburdened high school counselors to take on the specialized task of providing guidance to CTE students. A more effective approach would be to use some of the new CTE money as well as a portion of the new counseling money for counselors specifically trained to work with CTE high school students. These CTE counselors, where possible trained by their own districts, could enhance their role by taking the lead in working with their school’s outside partners. This would both make them better able to provide guidance and create the link for internships, site visits, workplace learning and jobs. Stakeholders agree that the state needs to do more to encourage more Californians to become trained and credentialed CTE teachers. The state also must do more to ensure that current teachers are provided opportunities for professional development so that they can teach to the new CTE standards. For the immediate future, the two track credentialing process for CTE teachers should be retained. The state cannot afford to eliminate the pathway that has provided 88 percent of California’s CTE teachers over the past decade. The state can help these teachers meet more demanding requirements by allowing them to take advantage of training through the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction Program. Districts cannot wait for the California State University system to produce sufficient numbers of graduates who can qualify for the Single Subject Credential and teach more academically rigorous CTE. As the Commission on Teacher Credentialing proceeds with its overhaul, the state should encourage districts and county offices of education to take the lead of Elk Grove Unified School District and San Diego’s High Tech High and establish teacher credentialing programs of their own. Additionally, the state can do more to recruit and train dynamic administrators to lead 21st century high schools. The state also must do more to recruit and train CTE-specific counselors and to provide opportunities for further professional development to train existing counselors to be able to provide timely and accurate career guidance. One way to do this would be to encourage districts with existing credentialing programs to expand their scope to include counseling. 48 BUILDING CAPACITY: TEACHERS NEEDED Recommendation 3: In order to improve student outcomes, the state must implement policies and remove barriers to expand the educational workforce, including teachers, administrators and counselors. Specifically, the state should: (cid:137) Update and streamline the credentialing process. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing should complete within two years its update of the CTE credentialing process, including aligning the CTE credential with the industry clusters established in the state board-adopted CTE standards and framework and eliminating barriers that make it difficult for industry professionals to enter the teacher workforce. Specifically, the commission should: (cid:57) Revise the recent work history requirement. (cid:57) Allow newly credentialed CTE teachers to participate in the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction Program. (cid:137) Require ongoing staff development. The state should require all Governor’s CTE Initiative grant recipients to expand time for rigorous and structured staff development on blended CTE and academic curriculum. Specifically, the state should: (cid:57) Require credentialing and other related education programs for principals to include training on developing and implementing CTE programs that meet the state’s CTE standards. (cid:57) Provide incentives to local districts and schools to develop and expand their own credentialing programs to provide teacher certification for rigorous CTE courses. The state should provide incentives for districts and schools, where appropriate, to replicate successful district-based credentialing. (cid:57) Require CSU to assess teacher training and implement necessary changes to ensure new teachers are qualified to teach the rigorous CTE coursework based on the state’s CTE standards. (cid:137) Provide incentives for professionals to teach. The state should implement programs and incentives to encourage mid-career and retiring professionals to enter the CTE teacher workforce. Specifically, the state should: (cid:57) Provide incentives for team teaching approaches. (cid:57) Consider tax incentives for businesses to loan professionals to schools. (cid:57) Expand opportunities for summer externships so teachers get a better sense of the business world. (cid:57) Lobby policy-makers at the federal level to eliminate the Social Security disincentive. 49 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION (cid:137) Expand the number and role of counselors. The state should use previously approved money for local districts to expand the number of counselors trained in providing career advice, including postsecondary training and education options. CTE counselors funded with this money should take the lead role in outreach, serving as the main resource for generating internships and other job-based learning opportunities. The state should require Governor’s CTE Initiative grant recipients to provide additional training for counselors about CTE programs and career options for students. 50 CONCLUSION Conclusion T he Commission began this study with the broad goal of improving educational outcomes by increasing the effectiveness of career technical education programs. The Commission found the state’s abysmal high school dropout rate – particularly among minority and low- income students – stunning. The Commission also was concerned about the shortcomings of the education system to prepare students for life after high school. The Commission was concerned too about the impact of dropouts and under-achieving high school graduates on the state’s workforce and, ultimately, the state’s economy. In this study and others, the Commission has seen a government culture that focuses on inputs and gauges success in terms of increasing inputs. All too often, the bulk of those inputs are dollars, which are limited in supply. California must move to a government culture that focuses on outcomes. The state must develop policy around defining the right outcomes, creating the right path to producing those outcomes and measuring progress in achieving them. In this process, by no means an easy one, a key input is creativity. It is difficult to overstate the value of the outcomes of a successful CTE policy: more Californians getting a high school education that prepares them to be successful adults and contributing members of our society. The results can be measured in a number of ways, through improved proficiency scores, higher grades and higher graduation rates. Important measures that could track how students do after high school will have to wait, but they are critical to knowing whether the state is pursuing the right policies to get the right results. Californians – students, parents, voters, taxpayers – have the right to expect results from the state’s investments in CTE. They have a right to expect accountability from the process as well. For too long, the state has spent money without making its priorities clear, without expecting results and without measuring outcomes. The result is that unproductive programs roll on and on, wasting money that could be put to better use on programs that have demonstrated they improve student outcomes. The state cannot continue to reward failure. Resources are scarce, and the stakes are too high. 51 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION When the Commission began this study, career technical education – in California and nationally – was emerging as an option for keeping students in school and improving post-high school outcomes. California had just adopted rigorous standards and a framework for CTE, important steps for improving outcomes and accountability. Lawmakers had dedicated new funding to expand and improve CTE programs. The Commission found promising but not conclusive evidence that CTE is improving outcomes. Because many of the newly rigorous CTE programs are only beginning to reach the classroom and are available to so few students, there is not a wealth of data on CTE. The most extensive data available come from studies focused on California Partnership Academies, which have been around since the 1980s, and Regional Occupational Centers and Programs, which have been around since the late 1960s. Several studies of both of these career-themed programs revealed that students who participate are more likely to graduate, to pass the high school exit exam, to improve their GPAs and to earn higher wages after graduating from high school than their peers who do not participate in a CTE program. Students from these two types of programs are as equally likely to attend college as their peers. However, on another outcome measure – academic test scores – students in career-themed high schools do not yet appear to be gaining ground. Flaws in the state’s current data system make it impossible to know on a statewide basis how individual students are performing in CTE or any other educational program. The state is moving forward on implementing a unique student identification system, which will allow it to better measure and understand outcomes, but policy-makers have been slow to provide the resources required to fully implement the system. When Commissioners visited model career-themed high schools, students told the Commissioners that their CTE coursework helped keep them interested in school and that their coursework was harder than their counterparts’ coursework at traditional high schools. Although few students leave the program at Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High in Sacramento, one student who did told the Commission that she left the school in her freshman year only to find that she had advanced academically beyond what was being taught at her new high school. Fortunately, she said, she was allowed to return to Health Professions High.102 While improvements in individual lives are hard to measure and replicate, the examples of academically challenging career-themed high schools, combined with the existing data on CTE, support the state’s plan to expand and improve CTE programs. 52 CONCLUSION The state has committed approximately $400 million to improve CTE over the next seven years. The Commission, in this report, recommends that the state ensure that one-time funding is used to expand rigorous CTE curriculum; streamline programs; provide professional development for teachers, principals and counselors; and, at each step, measure the outcomes of its investments. The state has taken steps to strengthen the California Workforce Investment Board. If the legislative reforms work, this board has an immense opportunity to create an integrated education and workforce development strategy. Given the past performance of such boards, the state should not rely on high-level boards for concrete outcomes. The Commission recommends that the state guide and support similar efforts at the regional and local levels to ensure educational programs – and CTE programs in particular – are aligned with current and future workforce needs. The most critical key to expanding CTE lies in the state’s ability to expand its CTE teacher workforce. Lawmakers and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing have already begun to re-assess and reform the confusing CTE credentialing process. This work needs to continue to remove unnecessary barriers that make it difficult for mid- career workers and the rapidly growing population of retiring baby boomers to enter the teacher workforce. California has made progress in restoring money and enacting laws to align and refine CTE programs. But the state must measure CTE student outcomes so that proven programs can be expanded and replicated and so that many students – not just a few – have the opportunity to participate in high-quality CTE programs. 53 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 54 THE COMMISSION’S STUDY PROCESS The Commission’s Study Process O ver the past two decades, the Commission has assessed various aspects of the state’s education system more than a dozen times. Previous studies have focused on school facilities and construction, budget and finance issues, teacher preparation and credentialing and community college programs. The Commission initiated this study to assess ways the state could expand and improve California’s career technical education programs. The Commission was assisted by many individuals who helped guide its review, identifying model high schools, programs and curriculum as well as obstacles to expanding CTE. These experts also provided suggestions on opportunities for improving CTE. As part of the study, the Commission convened two public hearings. Hearing witnesses are listed in Appendix A. The Commission also convened an expert advisory committee that met two times. Advisory committee members are listed in Appendix B. Additionally, the Commission visited three high school sites to see first-hand CTE Focus of This Study: courses being taught and to talk with school CTE in High Schools principals, teachers and, most importantly, The primary focus of this study is CTE programs students. for California high school students. During the course of the study, the Commission heard about Commission staff attended and were informed the need for better linkages between high school by discussions at meetings of the Career CTE programs and advanced CTE coursework Technical Education Resource Group offered at the state’s community colleges and convened to advise the California Department public universities. While this report discusses the need for continued improvement in of Education and the California Community developing course sequences across systems, the Colleges Chancellor’s Office on their joint Commission did not assess post-secondary CTE effort to develop a statewide plan for CTE as programs. The Commission also heard about the part of the federal Perkins Act requirement. importance of adult education and its role in Staff also attended hearings of the Assembly educating youth no longer attending high school Education Committee’s CTE work group. as well as older adults; however, the focus of this study did not include adult education. Additionally, experts told the Commission about All written testimony submitted electronically the critical role middle schools play in for each of the hearings and this report are introducing young students to careers and high available online at the Commission Web site, school CTE courses; however, the Commission www.lhc.ca.gov. did not review middle school programs as part of this study. 55 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 56 APPENDICES & NOTES Appendices & Notes (cid:57) Public Hearing Witnesses (cid:57) Advisory Committee Members (cid:57) CTE Industry Sectors and Career Pathways (cid:57) CTE Issues in Nursing (cid:57) Prior Recommendations: Linking Education and Workforce and Economic Development (cid:57) Framework for Workforce Development (cid:57) Opportunities to Connect Partners (cid:57) Notes 57 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 58 APPENDICES & NOTES Appendix A Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing Witnesses Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing on Career Technical Education, March 22, 2007 Scott Himelstein, Acting Secretary of Dorothy Rothrock, Vice President, Education Government Relations, California Manufacturers & Technology Association Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Christopher J. Walker, Legislative Advocate, Career Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing on Career Technical Education, April 26, 2007 Laurel Adler, Superintendent, East San José Millan, Vice Chancellor, Economic and Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Workforce Preparation Division, California Program and Technical Center Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Victoria L. Bradshaw, Secretary, Labor & Mike Patterson, Career Technical Education Workforce Development Agency Teacher and Representative of the California Teachers Association, South David N. Butler, Executive Director and Tahoe High School and Central Sierra Chief Executive Officer, Linking Education Regional Occupational Program I and Economic Development (LEED) Sacramento Rock Pfotenhauer, Dean of Career Education and Economic Development, David W. Gordon, Sacramento County Cabrillo College Superintendent of Schools, Sacramento County Office of Education Paul Watters, President, California Association of Regional Occupational Helen Hawley-Kelley, Education Centers and Programs Consultant, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing 59 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 60 APPENDICES & NOTES Appendix B Little Hoover Commission Advisory Committee on Career Technical Education Patrick Ainsworth; Assistant Helen Hawley-Kelley, Education Superintendent and Director; Secondary, Consultant, California Commission on Postsecondary and Adult Leadership Teacher Credentialing Division; California Department of Education Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The Center for College and Career Rebecca Baumann, Legislative Aide, Office of Assemblymember Loni Hancock John Hooper, Policy Advocate, California Chamber of Commerce Gary Borden, Deputy Executive Director, California State Board of Education Karen Humphrey, Program Administrator, California Postsecondary Education Mike Brunelle, Director, Career and Commission Technical Preparation, Sacramento City Unified School District Fred Jones, Attorney, Law Offices of Fred Jones Teri Burns, Director of Legislative Advocacy, School Innovations & Advocacy Rick Larkey, Director, Workforce Training, Northstate Building Industry Association Charlsey Cartwright, Executive Director, California Career Resource Network Roger Mackensen, Policy Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus Svetlana Darche, Director, Career Education, WestEd Lloyd McCabe; Policy Consultant; Office of the Director; Secondary, Postsecondary and Patricia de Cos, Senior Research Policy Adult Leadership Division; California Analyst, California Research Bureau Department of Education Tom Gerin, Teacher, ISO Program, Peter McNamee, Assistant Director, Foothill High School California Postsecondary Education Commission David W. Gordon, Sacramento County Superintendent of Schools, Sacramento Gil Montano, Superintendent, Southeast County Office of Education Regional Occupational Program Paul Gussman; Administrator; Curriculum Jeannie Oakes, Presidential Professor and and Instruction Branch; Secondary, Director, Urban Schooling, UCLA Graduate Postsecondary and Adult Leadership School of Education and Information Division; High School Initiatives and Career Studies Education; California Department of Education Nona Olsen, Director, (ROP) CTE, Mendocino County Office of Education Jay Hansen, Legislative Director, State Building & Construction Trades Council Dale D. Peterson, Assistant Business of California Manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers L.U. 302 61 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Lee Angela Reid, Consultant, Senate Office Jason Spencer, Legislative Aide, Office of of Research Senator Tom Torlakson Dorothy Rothrock, Vice President, Jane Thompson, Legislative Chair, Government Relations, California California Business Education Association Manufacturers & Technology Association Christopher J. Walker; Legislative Advocate; Diana Schneider, Senior Director, Central Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot, LLP County Regional Occupational Program Paul Watters, President, California Ron Selge, Dean of Career Technical Association of Regional Occupational Education, California Community Colleges Centers and Programs Chancellor’s Office Susan White, Manager, California Business Ernie Silva; Legislative Advocate; Murdoch, Education Association Walrath & Holmes Chuck Wiseley, Career Technical Education Diane Siri, Executive Director, Alliance for Specialist, California Community Colleges Regional Collaboratives to Heighten Chancellor’s Office Educational Success (ARCHES) 62 APPENDICES & NOTES Appendix C CTE Industry Sectors and Career Pathways Industry Sector Career Pathways Industry Sector Career Pathways Agriculture • Agricultural Business Finance and • Accounting Services and Natural • Agricultural Mechanics Business • Banking and Related Resources • Agriscience Services • Animal Science • Business Financial • Forestry and Natural Management Resources Health Science • Biotechnology Research and • Ornamental Horticulture and Medical Development • Plant and Soil Science Technology • Diagnostic Services Arts, Media • Media and Design Arts • Health Informatics and • Performing Arts • Support Services Entertainment • Production and Managerial • Therapeutic Services Arts Building • Cabinetmaking and Wood Hospitality, • Food Science, Dietetics and Trades and Products Tourism and Nutrition Construction • Engineering and Heavy Recreation • Food Service and Construction Hospitality • Mechanical Construction • Hospitality, Tourism and • Residential and Commercial Recreation Construction Information • Information Support and Education, • Child Development Technology Services Child • Consumer Services • Media Support and Services Development • Education • Network Communications and Family • Family and Human Services • Programming and Systems Services Development Energy and • Electromechanical Manufacturing • Graphic Arts Technology Utilities Installation and and Product • Integrated Graphics Maintenance Development Technology • Energy and Environmental • Machine and Forming Technology Technology • Public Utilities • Welding Technology • Residential and Commercial Marketing, • E-Commerce Energy and Utilities Sales and • Entrepreneurship Engineering • Architectural and Structural Service • International Trade and Design Engineering • Professional Sales and • Computer Hardware, Marketing Electrical and Networking Public Services • Human Services Engineering • Legal and Government • Engineering Design Services • Engineering Technology • Protective Services • Environmental and Natural Science Engineering Transportation • Aviation and Aerospace Transportation Services Fashion and • Fashion Design, • Collision Repair and Interior Design Manufacturing and Refinishing Merchandising • Vehicle Maintenance, • Interior Design, Furnishings Service and Repair and Maintenance Source: California Department of Education. 2006. “California Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards.” 63 Page vi-vii. Sacramento, CA. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 64 APPENDICES & NOTES Appendix D CTE Issues in Nursing California’s difficulties addressing the state’s nursing shortage reveal many of the systemic challenges of providing a seamless sequence of courses for a high-demand, high-wage occupation. California is facing a crisis-level nursing shortage. There are approximately 200,000 full-time equivalent registered nurses working in the state. The California Employment Development Department and the U.S. Bureau of Health Professions both estimate that California will need about 240,000 nurses by 2014. The University of California, San Francisco, produced a study for the California Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) in 2005, which projected a need of between 241,000 and 257,000 nurses by 2014. In short, assuming these projections are correct, California will need at least 40,000 more nurses by 2014 in order to meet health care demands. Although nursing education programs are boosting their enrollment capacity, the increasing supply of nurses will not meet the growing demand. The enlarged enrollment capacity also falls short of demand among applicants to nursing schools, including associate, bachelor’s and entry-level master’s degree programs in nursing. In the 2005-06 school year, nursing programs in the state received a total of 28,410 eligible applications for 11,000 first-year slots. Factors affecting the ability of institutions to increase capacity include the cost of delivering nursing programs and lack of resources, specifically qualified teachers. The California Nurse Education Initiative 2006 annual report points out California community colleges “receive $7,000 per student for two years of instruction, while it costs on average $20,000 to educate a nursing student for two years.”103 Attrition rates also remain high, especially at the community college level. In 2002-03, about 6,000 students were enrolled in community college nursing programs, and approximately half of those students graduated on time. The other students were split, with a quarter graduating late and a quarter not graduating at all. The attrition rate for the CSU and UC nursing programs is approximately 7 percent. Critics contend that the high dropout rate is due to the non-merit based or only partially merit based admissions processes. Community colleges moved to these processes in the early 1990’s because of a lawsuit threatened by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) regarding the disproportionate lack of admission of minority students. The lawsuit was avoided when the California Community Colleges Board of Governors agreed to come up with admissions requirements that were proved to be relevant to future performance. The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office was able to research and, in 2002, find four predictors of student success that community college districts could use as admissions criteria. However, in order for the districts to use the criteria, they also have to conduct their own research. Because of the barriers, most community colleges still use lottery and wait-list systems for nursing program admissions. By spring 2008, all community colleges that receive grants from the Chancellor’s Office must move to a merit based process. 65 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In order to deal with the challenges posed by the non-merit based admissions processes, SB 1309 (Scott) became law in 2006. The legislation, among other provisions, established the Nursing Enrollment Growth and Retention program with the purpose of providing grants to certain community college nursing programs to expand enrollment, provide diagnostic assessments and develop and offer pre-entry coursework to prospective nursing students and diagnostic assessments and supportive services to enrolled nursing students. Signed in 2007, SB 139 (Scott), in part, allows community college districts to use multi-criteria screening measures for their nursing program admissions, and AB 1559 (Berryhill) puts into place a particular process and criteria for community colleges that choose to use multiple criteria in their admissions process. SB 1309 also created the Health Science and Medical Technology Project to provide grants to middle and high schools to expand or start health career pathway programs that prepare students for the rigor of nursing and other health careers. One option for grant funding is to articulate programs in grades 7 through 14. This effort may help programs, such as Arthur A. Benjamin Health Profession High School in Sacramento, connect with community colleges and send prepared students to participate and succeed in nursing or other health career programs. With students having focused educations and making smooth transitions to community college, nursing programs can focus on graduating as many nurses as possible to reduce the statewide shortage.104 66 APPENDICES & NOTES Appendix E Prior Recommendations: Linking Education and Workforce and Economic Development Linking education with workforce and economic development has been recommended previously. • In 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Performance Review (CPR) identified the need to align education with workforce preparation. It found that “the state’s education system can serve its workforce preparation function more effectively if it is synchronized with the state’s economic growth and labor market trends.” The CPR recommended establishing an education and workforce council, made up of education leaders and the secretary of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and charged the council with developing a biennial blueprint on how California should synchronize its education system with economic development plans to improve the supply of an “appropriately skilled, educated workforce.”105 • The 2002 California Master Plan for Education found value in linking education and workforce and economic development. It recommended that the “K-12, regional occupation centers and programs, adult schools, and community college workforce preparation systems should be linked to state job training agencies and employers through one-stop career centers and other venues and through their inclusion in an expanded workforce report card.”106 • The Little Hoover Commission, in its 2002 analysis of the Governor’s Reorganization Plan creating the cabinet-level Department of Labor and Workforce Development, identified the fragmentation of workforce training programs across multiple departments and agencies as problematic for both workers and employers. During evaluation of the plan, witnesses described the need for aligning workforce and economic development and education. In its report, the Commission recommended better integration of workforce development and economic development.107 67 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 68 APPENDICES & NOTES Appendix F Framework for Workforce Development In 1998, legislation was enacted that required the secretary of the Health and Welfare Agency, the secretary of the Trade and Commerce Agency, the chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the superintendent of public instruction to develop, through a collaborative process, a state workforce development plan. In 2000, they published a framework that includes the following key recommendations: (cid:137) Expand the partnership required by the Regional Workforce Preparation and Economic Development Act to reflect the full scope of workforce development, including the UC and CSU systems, and provide sufficient management and staff to meet state partnership commitments. (cid:137) Sustain and expand collaboration among workforce development policy bodies and service providers, including social support services. (cid:137) Engage the private sector as a full partner in every aspect of workforce policy and systems development, program operations and delivery of services. (cid:137) Incorporate a “move up” strategy within all segments of the workforce development system to continuously improve the knowledge and skills of every person in the labor force and ensure opportunities for career development and increased earnings. (cid:137) Support local development of regional boundaries for workforce development systems and service delivery methods. (cid:137) Remove fiscal, eligibility and other regulatory requirements that create barriers to accessing services. (cid:137) Expand accountability for program results and systemwide outcomes to ensure continuous improvement in service delivery. (cid:137) Continue and expand existing systems development initiatives as the foundation for regional and statewide systems.108 69 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 70 APPENDICES & NOTES Appendix G Opportunities to Connect Partners Specific opportunities exist for employers to team with public agencies and tackle specific barriers that hamper the expansion of CTE programs. The state has made a start through its various Web sites that promote careers and college, though they could be better coordinated, better linked and better promoted. By partnering with business and industry and by involving youth in the Web site design, the state could do a much better job of promoting, enhancing and expanding the information available on these Web sites for students seeking information on work-based learning opportunities, careers and college options. Instead of competing for attention with MySpace, YouTube and other sites where students spend time, the state could leverage private partners and students creatively to link to or advertise on these sites. Legislation to make the California Department of Education responsible for the development of Web site pages to provide comprehensive information about CTE opportunities and programs available in the state was adopted unanimously by the Legislature and signed by the governor in 2007. A unique feature of this legislation is that it provides an opportunity for CTE students in a Web design class to create and implement the Web site.109 Additionally, employers could assist the state in establishing and locating work-based learning opportunities for students by providing regional or statewide internship openings via the Internet. Given the flexibility the Web offers and the combination of Web reliance and facility shown by the target audience, there should be no need for a separate connection to be made by every high school, every district and every employer interested in providing work-based learning opportunities. Resources On the Web Several state Web sites provide information to parents and students to help guide choices for careers and college, while others provide helpful information on occupational trends and career options but are geared more toward the general population than high school students.110 (cid:131) California Career Resource Network – The California Career Resource Network (CalCRN), funded by federal Perkins money, provides interactive career assessments and tools to engage students in learning more about career opportunities. CalCRN also has developed a standards-based career exploration curriculum, based on a model taught to 85 percent of Canadian students, which is used in some California middle and high schools to help students in making career decisions and understanding the relevance of school.111 www.californiacareers.info (cid:131) California Postsecondary Education Commission – The California Postsecondary Education Commission Web site includes a “Schools to Employment Pathways” guide. 71 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Students can view career choices, find the level of education required and view colleges in California that offer coursework in various fields of study.112 www.cpec.ca.gov/Accountability/Steps.asp (cid:131) California Education Round Table – The California Education Round Table (CERT) includes representatives from the three California public college systems, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the California Department of Education. CERT provides a Web site that helps students explore all the colleges in California and includes admissions and financial aid information.113 www.californiacolleges.edu Promoting High-Wage, High-Demand Careers Online Models for promoting high-wage, high-demand professions to youth and young adults via the Web have been developed by private foundations and industry associations. Both of the campaigns described below included various advertising promotions to direct youth to their Web sites. (cid:131) Make It In Scrubs. The California Wellness Foundation provided a grant to Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide to design and promote a comprehensive Web site encouraging youths to explore paths to employment in health care. The Web site, www.makeitinscrubs.com, provides detailed information in a user-friendly format on more than 100 jobs and careers in health care, including educational requirements, financial aid and other resources. The site includes video clips from various health professions. The Web site is part of the Wellness Foundation’s campaign to increase diversity in the health care profession.114 (cid:131) Dream It. Do It. To address the growing shortage of skilled manufacturing employees, the National Association of Manufacturers led an effort to develop a promotional campaign and Web site to introduce youth to manufacturing jobs and training opportunities. The Web site, www.dreamit-doit.com, provides an opportunity for young people to explore manufacturing careers and includes career exploratory games and quizzes, video profiles of careers in manufacturing and a job bank that links to job opportunities via a Web site powered by Monster.com. The Dream It. Do It. campaign initially was launched in Kansas City but has since expanded to a growing number of communities across the nation.115 Employability Skills Employers have indicated in national surveys that high school graduates frequently lack basic employability skills. A 2007 survey of more than 1,300 California business executives found they felt that high schools currently are not doing a very good job of educating students or preparing them adequately for the workforce. In national surveys, employers have indicated that beyond academics, students also need to learn the importance of showing up on time, working as a team and being respectful.116 72 APPENDICES & NOTES Over the course of the study, the Commission was told repeatedly by representatives from business and industry of the need for high school students to graduate with these basic skills. In a 1991 effort led by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) published a report that many experts consider to be the benchmark for the employability skills students need to succeed after high school. The commission found that less than half of young people possess the competence and foundation of skills and personal qualities necessary to succeed in life after high school. SCANS was tasked with identifying skills needed for employment; proposing proficiency levels; recommending ways to assess proficiency; and, creating a strategy for reaching out to schools, businesses and homes. SCANS defines necessary employability skills as “workplace know- how” with five competencies and a three-part foundation of skills: (cid:131) Workplace Competencies – Effective workers should know how to productively use: (cid:57) Resources: They know how to identify; organize; plan; and, allocate time, money, materials, space and staff. (cid:57) Interpersonal skills: They know how to work on teams, teach others, serve customers, lead others, negotiate and work well with culturally diverse people. (cid:57) Information: They know how to acquire and evaluate, organize and maintain, interpret and communicate and use computers to process information. (cid:57) Systems: They know how to understand systems, such as social, organizational and technological systems; monitor and correct performance; and, design or improve systems. (cid:57) Technology: They know how to select technology, apply technology to a task and maintain and troubleshoot equipment. (cid:131) Foundation Skills – Competent workers in the high-performance workplace need: (cid:57) Basic Skills: They know how to read, write, perform mathematical operations, speak and listen. (cid:57) Thinking Skills: They know how to learn, reason, think creatively, make decisions, solve problems and visualize. (cid:57) Personal Qualities: They know how to demonstrate responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, self-management, integrity and honesty.117 While some states make competency in these skills part of their requirements for graduation, California does not. Even with national standards and available curriculum, the attitudes toward these “soft” skills and the lack of teacher time and training act as barriers in California. By expanding partnerships with employers to provide more work-based learning opportunities, more students could learn these basic employability skills.118 73 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 74 APPENDICES & NOTES Notes 1. The following reports show promising results in career academies, school-to-work programs and other types of CTE programs. Several reference multiple other studies: Lehr, et al. University of Minnesota. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. May 2004. “Essential Tools. Increasing Rates of School Completion: Moving from Policy and Research to Practice, A Manual for Policymakers, Administrators and Educators.” Becky Jon Hayward and G. Kasten Tallmadge. Office of the Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Education. June 1995. “Strategies for Keeping Kids in School: Evaluation of Dropout Prevention and Reentry Projects in Vocational Education. Final Report.” Washington, D.C. Marie Cohen and Douglas J. Besharov. May 2004. “The Important Role of Career and Technical Education: Implications for Federal Policy.” Citing David Stern, et al., Winter 1989. “Benefits and Costs of Dropout Prevention in a High School Program Combining Academic and Vocational Education: Third-Year Results from Replications of the California Peninsula Academies.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. James J. Kemple, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. March 2004. “Summary of Career Academies: Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes and Educational Attainment.” Michael A. Stoll. Department of Public Policy, UCLA School of Public Affairs. December 2006. “The Changing Workplace and Schooling: Implications for High School Reform.” Multiple Perspectives on Multiple Pathways: Preparing California’s Youth for College, Career and Civic Responsibility. (Stoll cites six additional studies on page 21 of his report.) David Neumark, Public Policy Institute of California. 2004. “The Effects of School-to- Career Programs on Postsecondary Enrollment and Employment.” Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career, and Charles Dayton, Coordinator, Career Academy Support Network, University of California, Berkeley. March 2007. “A Profile of the California Partnership Academies 2004-05.” Southern Regional Education Board. “Facts About High School Career/Technical Studies.” http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/career/Facts_About_HS_Career.pdf. Web site accessed August 15, 2007. Douglas E. Mitchell, School Improvement Research Group, University of California, Riverside. October 2006. “California Regional Occupational Centers and Programs 2006 Longitudinal Study Technical Report.” 2. Dorothy Rothrock, Vice President, Government Relations, California Manufacturers & Technology Association, and Christopher J. Walker, Legislative Advocate, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot, LLP. Get R.E.A.L. (Relevance in Education and Learning). March 22, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. 3. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. March 2005. “Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in California.” Citing Paul E. Barton. Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service. February 2005. “One Third of the Nation: Rising Dropout Rates and Declining Opportunities.” Also, Christopher B. Swanson. The Urban Institute. 2003. 75 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION “Keeping Count and Losing Count: Calculating Graduation Rates for All Students Under NCLB Accountability.” 4. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Citing Julie Mendoza, University of California/All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity (UC/ACCORD). See endnote 3. 5. Christopher B. Swanson. See endnote 3. 6. U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. September 25, 2007. “Mathematics and Reading Report Cards.” http://nationsreportcard.gov/. Web site accessed October 1, 2007. 7. Michael E. Wonacott. 2003. “History and Evolution of Vocational and Career-Technical Education. A Compilation.” Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, Ohio State University. Citing R. L. Lynch. 2000. “New Directions for High School Career and Technical Education in the 21st Century.” Information Series No. 384. Columbus. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Ohio State University. 8. EdSource. June 2005. “The Evolution of Career and Technical Education in California.” Also, Jeannie Oakes and Marisa Saunders. University of California, Los Angeles. 2007. “Multiple Pathways: High School Reform that Promises to Prepare All Students for College, Career, and Civic Responsibility.” 9. Dorothy Rothrock, Vice President, Government Relations, California Manufacturers & Technology Association, and Christopher J. Walker, Legislative Advocate, Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott, LLP. See endnote 2. 10. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Reform.” Washington, D. C. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html. Web site accessed September 13, 2007. 11. Paul Gussman, Administrator, California Department of Education. November 7, 2007. Personal communication. Also, Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. March 22, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. 12. California Department of Finance. “SDE/CCC Job Training and Nursing Investments in California.” Also, California Department of Finance. July 2006. “State Budget Highlights 2006-07.” Accessed at http://www.dof.ca.gov/Budget/Budget_2006- 07/documents/EnactedBudget2006-07/StateBudgetHighlights2006-07.pdf. 13. Patrick Ainsworth, Assistant Superintendent and Director, Secondary, Postsecondary, and Adult Leadership Division, California Department of Education. Sacramento, CA. January 18, 2006. Senate Education Committee. Committee hearing. Note: Another 14 percent of the grant goes to the state for leadership and administration activities, and 1 percent goes to state institutions. 14. California Department of Finance. See endnote 12. 15. California Department of Finance. See endnote 12. 16. California Department of Finance. “SDE/CCC Job Training and Nursing Investments in California.” See endnote 12. 17. Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career, and Charles Dayton, Coordinator, Career Academy Support Network, University of California, Berkeley. See endnote 1. 18. Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career, and Charles Dayton, Coordinator, Career Academy Support Network, University of California, Berkeley. See endnote 1. 76 APPENDICES & NOTES 19. Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career, and Charles Dayton, Coordinator, Career Academy Support Network, University of California, Berkeley. See endnote 1. 20. Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career, and Charles Dayton, Coordinator, Career Academy Support Network, University of California, Berkeley. See endnote 1. 21. James J. Kemple and Jason C. Snipes. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. March 2000. “Career Academies: Impacts on Students’ Engagement and Performance in High School.” Also, James J. Kemple. See endnote 1. 22. James J. Kemple and Jason C. Snipes. See endnote 21. 23. James J. Kemple. See endnote 1. Also, David Stern and Jean Yonemura Wing. Career Academy Support Network, University of California, Berkeley. January 24, 2004. “Is There Solid Evidence of Positive Effects for High School Students?” 24. Southern Regional Education Board. See endnote 1. 25. Laurel Adler, Superintendent, East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program and Technical Center. April 26, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. 26. Douglas E. Mitchell, School Improvement Research Group, University of California, Riverside. See endnote 1. 27. Laurel Adler, Superintendent, East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program and Technical Center. See endnote 25. Also, Douglas E. Mitchell, School Improvement Research Group, University of California, Riverside. See endnote 1. 28. Douglas E. Mitchell, School Improvement Research Group, University of California, Riverside. See endnote 1. 29. California Department of Education. July 2007. “2006-07 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR).” 30. California Department of Education. July 26, 2007. “California High School Exit Exam Results for Mathematics and English Language Arts by Gender and Ethnic Designation for Grade 10, Health Professions High.” 31. California Department of Education. August 31, 2007. “2006-07 Growth Academic Performance Index Chart: School Demographic Characteristics, Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy.” 32. San Diego City Schools. Class of 2006 or Earlier CAHSEE Status Report. Cumulative results as of February 2006. 33. San Diego City Schools. June 2006. “Where Are the First CTA Graduates Going?” 34. California Department of Education. See endnote 31. Also, Little Hoover Commission. May 8, 2007. San Diego, CA. Site visit to Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy. Kearny CTA A.P.I. Scores – written communication provided at the event. 35. California Department of Education. August 31, 2007. “2006-07 Accountability Progress Reporting: School Demographic Characteristics, Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy.” Also, California Department of Education. December 21, 2006. “2005 Accountability Progress Report: Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy.” Also, California Department of Education. See endnote 31. Also, California Department of Education. December 21, 2006. “2005 Accountability Progress Report: School Report – Demographic Characteristics: Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy.” 36. Glenn Hillegas, Principal, Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy. October 13, 2007. Written communication. 77 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 37. Jeannie Oakes, et al. University of California/All Campus Consortium for Research Diversity (UC/ACCORD) and University of California, Los Angeles, Institute for Democracy, Education and Access (UCLA/IDEA). November 2006. “Removing the Roadblocks: Fair College Opportunities for All California Students.” 38. Kenneth C. Gray. 2006. “Other Ways to Win: Creating Alternatives for High School Graduates, Third Edition.” Corwin Press. Thousand Oaks, CA. Also, EdSource. May 2007. “Levers for Change: Opportunities to Strengthen California’s High School Curriculum.” 39. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. June 12, 2007. “Ready for What? Preparing Students for College, Careers, and Life After High School.” Diplomas Count: The Graduation Project 2007. Education Week. 40. California Department of Education and California Community Colleges. August 21, 2007. Draft CTE State Plan for Career Technical Education. 41. Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. March 22, 2007. Testimony to the Commission. 42. California Department of Education. September 12, 2007. School Information Form Data: Classified Staff, Selected Courses, CTE. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/filessifae.asp. 43. Gary Hoachlander, President, ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career. March 22, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. Page 4. 44. High Tech High School Web site. http://www.hightechhigh.org/about/design- principles.php. Web site accessed September 17, 2007. 45. EdSource. See endnote 38. 46. Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. See endnote 11. 47. California Department of Education. California Basic Educational Data System. Accessed at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/. 48. ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career. “Demonstration Sites.” Page 2. Also, Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School. “Home” and “Sponsors & Partners.” Accessed at http://www.healthyjaguars.org/default.asp and http://www.healthyjaguars.org/sponsors_partners.asp. Also, Little Hoover Commission. May 23, 2007. Sacramento, CA. Site visit to Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School. 49. Paul Gussman, Administrator, California Department of Education. See endnote 11. Also, Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. See endnote 11. 50. Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. See endnote 11. 51. Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. See endnote 11. 52. EdSource. See endnote 38. Also, David W. Gordon, Sacramento County Superintendent of Schools, Sacramento County Office of Education. April 26, 2007. Testimony to the Commission. 53. David W. Gordon, Sacramento County Superintendent of Schools, Sacramento County Office of Education. April 26, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. 54. Legislative Analyst’s Office. February 21, 2007. “Analysis of the Budget Bill 2007-08.” Crosscutting Issues: Career Technical Education. Page E-55. 55. California Department of Finance. See endnote 12. 78 APPENDICES & NOTES 56. Jeannie Oropeza, Program Budget Manager, Education, and Thomas Todd, Principal Program Budget Analyst, California Department of Finance. March 29, 2007. Personal communication. 57. SB 70 (Scott), Chapter 352, Statutes of 2005. 58. Note: According to the August 30, 2006 Senate Floor Analysis of SB 1133 (Torlakson), the superintendent of public instruction and the California Teachers Association filed a lawsuit against Governor Schwarzenegger in August 2005, arguing that he did not fully fund Proposition 98 in accordance with his agreement with the education community. Both parties agreed to settle the lawsuit in May 2006. The settlement agreement provided that approximately $3 billion was in dispute. The parties agreed to the following process for paying the outstanding balance: $300 million for the FY 2007-08 and $450 million in FY 2008-09 and each succeeding FY until the entire minimum funding obligation is paid off. Further, the parties agreed to propose and support legislation necessary to implement the settlement agreement. 59. Legislative Analyst’s Office. Page E-54. See endnote 54. 60. W. Norton Grubb and David Stern. March 9, 2007. “Making the Most of Career- Technical Education: Options for California.” 61. “The Plan for Implementing the Governor’s Career Technical Education Initiative.” October 4, 2007. Written document provided to the Commission by the California Department of Education. 62. “The Plan for Implementing the Governor’s Career Technical Education Initiative.” See endnote 61. 63. Board of Governors, California Community Colleges. March 5-6, 2007. “2007-08 Career Technical Education and Economic Development Pathways Initiative Expenditure Plan.” Also, “The Plan for Implementing the Governor’s Career Technical Education Initiative.” See endnote 61. 64. Larry Rosenstock, Founding Principal and Chief Executive Officer, High Tech High School. San Diego, CA. June 5, 2007. Little Hoover Commission. Discussion during site visit to High Tech High School. 65. Delaine Eastin, former State Superintendent of Public Instruction and former Assemblymember. September 27, 2007. Testimony to the Commission. 66. SB 1453 (Alpert), Chapter 1002, Statutes of 2002. Bill analysis. August 28, 2002. 67. Keric Ashley, Director, Data Management Division, California Department of Education. July 30, 2007. Personal communication. 68. Delaine Eastin, former State Superintendent of Public Instruction and former Assemblymember. See endnote 65. 69. Janet S. Hansen, Senior Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation and author, “Education Data in California: Availability and Transparency,” November 2006. (Prepared as part of “Getting Down to Facts: A Research Project Examining California’s School Governance and Finance Systems.”) http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm. Web site accessed October 11, 2007. 70. Keric Ashley, Director, Data Management Division, California Department of Education. See endnote 67. 71. Dorothy Rothrock, Vice President, Government Relations, California Manufacturers & Technology Association, and Christopher J. Walker, Legislative Advocate, Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott, LLP. See endnote 2. 79 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 72. Katherine L. Hughes, Thomas R. Bailey & Melinda J. Mechur. Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University. 2001. “School-to-Work: Making a Difference in Education.” http://www.tc.columbia.edu/iee/PAPERS/Stw.pdf. Web site accessed August 30, 2007. (This report synthesizes the work of more than 130 sources.) 73. Note: Some of the six regional collaboratives that were developed through the state’s grants under the Regional Workforce Preparation and Economic Development Act morphed into other regional entities that still support the strategic workforce development activities authorized by the program. The Los Angeles County Workforce Preparation and Economic Development Collaborative, for example, brought together multiple local educational agencies and community college districts, eight local workforce investment boards, local CalWORKs agencies and several industry associations. Despite the loss of state funding, the partners continue to meet, although less frequently, to sustain some of the activities as well as a Web site. Berkeley Policy Associates. June 28, 2002. “Evaluation of the Regional Workforce Preparation and Economic Development Act – Final Report.” 74. Berkeley Policy Associates. See endnote 73. 75. SB 293 (Ducheny), Chapter 630, Statutes of 2006. Bill text. Also, Little Hoover Commission. April 2002. “Only a Beginning: The Proposed Labor and Workforce Development Agency.” 76. SB 293 (Ducheny), Chapter 630, Statutes of 2006. See endnote 75. 77. SB 293 (Ducheny), Chapter 630, Statutes of 2006. See endnote 75. 78. Rick Larkey, Director, Workforce Training, North State Building Industry Association. March 16, 2007. Personal communication. 79. Matt Perry, Principal, Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School. Sacramento, CA. May 23, 2007. Little Hoover Commission. Site visit to Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School. 80. California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office. August 2005-06. http://www.ed.data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp% 3Flevel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. 81. SB 52 (Scott), Chapter 520, Statutes of 2007. 82. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. “Designated Subjects Vocational Education Teaching Credentials.” http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl698a.pdf Web site accessed September 14, 2007. 83. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. “Single Subject Teaching Credential.” http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/secondary-teaching.html. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. 84. ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career. June 8, 2007. Sacramento, CA. “Preparing High School Students for College and Career” Brown Bag Lunch Dialogue. Written information provided at the event. 85. California Department of Education. “NCLB Teachers & Paraprofessionals Requirements Data.” http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. 86. EdSource. See endnote 38. 87. Helen Hawley-Kelley, Education Consultant, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. April 26, 2007. Testimony to the Commission. 88. Helen Hawley-Kelley, Education Consultant, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. See endnote 87. Also, Mike Patterson, Career Technical Education 80 APPENDICES & NOTES Teacher, South Tahoe High School and Central Sierra Regional Occupational Program I. April 26, 2007. Testimony to the Commission. 89. Helen Hawley-Kelley, Education Consultant, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. See endnote 87. 90. EdSource. See endnote 38. 91. David W. Gordon, Sacramento County Superintendent of Schools, Sacramento County Office of Education. See endnote 52. 92. Larry Rosenstock, Founding Principal and Chief Executive Officer, High Tech High School. See endnote 64. 93. National Education Association. 2007. “Social Security.” Accessed at http://www.nea.org/socialsecurity/index.html. Also, Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein. January 8, 2007. Press release. “Senators Feinstein, Collins Introduce Measure to Protect Retirement Benefits for Public Employees.” 94. National Education Association. See endnote 93. Also, Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein. See endnote 93. 95. Rock Pfotenhauer, Dean of Career Education and Economic Development, Cabrillo College. April 26, 2007. Written testimony to the Commission. 96. Office of the Governor. June 8, 2007. Press release. “Governor Schwarzenegger Announces Launch of Encorps Teachers Program.” Also, Governor’s 2007-08 Budget Revision. May 2007. Also, Laura Brown, Director, Sherry Lansing Foundation and Vice President of Strategic Partnerships, Encorps. Note: The Encorps program was incubated by the Sherry Lansing Foundation. When the proposed state funding was not included in the 2007-08 budget, the Sherry Lansing Foundation began efforts to establish Encorps as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. 97. American School Counselor Association. http://www.schoolcounselor.org/files/HSratio04-05.pdf. Web site accessed August 1, 2007. 98. California Association of School Counselors. July 27, 2006. Press release. “School Counselor Funding to Dramatically Increase.” 99. AB 1802 (Budget Committee), Chapter 79, Statutes of 2006. 100. SB 405 (Steinberg), Chapter 732, Statutes of 2007. 101. CTE Resource Group Committee (an advisory committee to the Joint Advisory Committee for Career Technical Education). May 30-31, 2007. Informal meeting discussion. Also, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. “Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Pupil Personnel Services Credentials.” http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator- prep/standards/pps.pdf. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. 102. Little Hoover Commission. May 23, 2007. Sacramento, CA. Discussion with students during site visit to Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School. 103. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. September 2006. “California Nurse Education Initiative Annual Report.” Page 3. Sacramento, CA. Accessed at http://www.labor.ca.gov/CNEIAnnualReport100406.pdf. 104. Legislative Analyst’s Office. May 2007. “Ensuring an Adequate Health Workforce: Improving State Nursing Programs.” Sacramento, CA. Accessed at http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/nursing/nursing_052907.pdf. Also, California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. See endnote 103. Also, SB 1309 (Scott), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2006. Bill text and analyses. Also, SB 139 (Scott), Chapter 522, Statutes of 81 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 2007. Bill text and analyses. Also, AB 1559 (Berryhill), Chapter 712, Statutes of 2007. Bill text and analyses. 105. California Performance Review. August 3, 2004. “A Government for the People for a Change: Issues and Recommendations.” Pages 510-511. 106. Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education. September 2002. “The California Master Plan for Education.” Recommendation 11.7. 107. Little Hoover Commission. See endnote 75. 108. Delaine Eastin, Lon Hatamiya, Grantland Johnson and Thomas J. Nussbaum. 2000. “California Workforce Development: A Policy Framework for Economic Growth.” 109. AB 597 (Assembly Education Committee), Chapter 529, Statutes of 2007. Bill analysis. July 5, 2007. 110. California Employment Development Department Web site. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/career/?PAGEID=3. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. 111. Charlsey Cartwright, Executive Director, California Career Resource Network. August 2, 2007. Personal communication. Also, see the CalCRN Web site: http://www.californiacareers.info/. Also, affiliated Web site: http://www.cacareerzone.org/index.html. Web sites accessed September 14, 2007. 112. California Postsecondary Education Commission Web site. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/Accountability/Steps.asp. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. 113. California Education Round Table Web site. http://www.californiacolleges.edu/default.asp. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. 114. The California Wellness Foundation. Make it in Scrubs Web site. http://www.makeitinscrubs.com. Web site accessed August 20, 2007. 115. Dream It. Do It. Web site. http://www.dreamit-doit.com. Web site accessed August 20, 2007. 116. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. March 12, 2007. “Survey Results on Education Among California Business Leaders.” 117. U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration. The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. June 1991. “What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000.” http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.pdf. Web site accessed September 14, 2007. Also, U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration. The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. April 1992. “Learning a Living: A Blueprint for High Performance: A SCANS Report for America 2000.” Accessed at http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/lal/lal.pdf. 118. Little Hoover Commission. May 23, 2007. Sacramento, CA. Career Technical Education Advisory Committee meeting discussion. 82