Posts Tagged ‘Secondary CTE’

Funding Career Technical Education: Using the 2023 State of CTE Funding Report Resources

Thursday, September 21st, 2023

Advance CTE’s newly released 2023 State of CTE: An Analysis of State Secondary CTE Funding Models highlights how states and the District of Columbia provide high-quality Career Technical Education (CTE) through various secondary CTE funding models and approaches. This blog, the second in a series, describes ways to use the website and supporting resources. 

Overview

This resource builds on baseline research conducted in 2014 by RTI International, with the support of Advance CTE, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, and is generously supported by the Walton Family Foundation. Advance CTE is committed to supporting states as they design equitable funding models that direct funding where it is needed most, as described in Without Limits: A Shared Vision for the Future of Career Technical Education (CTE Without Limits). Expanding knowledge about funding models and approaches for state secondary CTE is critical for state leaders to provide high-quality CTE for diverse learners. The website consists of an executive summary, research report and three case studies, interactive national funding landscape map and downloadable state-by-state funding table. Below are tips on using and sharing this research with your colleagues and stakeholders, with links to the resources in each header.

Executive Summary

Read the executive summary to get a background of CTE funding foundational basics, a project overview and recommendations for revising and implementing more equitable funding models. This is a great resource for you to pass along to policymakers, legislative staff, state budget staff, partner agencies or local CTE leaders in your state. Consider adding the summary as a pre-reading assignment or an agenda item during your next meeting about state funding.

Research Report and Case Studies

The research report provides a 50-state landscape of state secondary CTE funding, highlights key trends in state funding models, and provides recommendations to advance equitable, learner-centered funding designs. You can learn about some of the ways states made adjustments to their models in the past decade and read examples of how states have designed elements of their funding models to address CTE program quality, access and completion. Case studies from Massachusetts, North Dakota and Texas showcase how three states implement different categorical funding models. 

These case-use examples provide ideas for you to maximize the website and supporting resources in conversations about CTE funding. 

National Funding Landscape Map

The interactive map provides a comparison of secondary CTE models across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Identify your state’s funding model and then compare it to other states with the same funding model. You can also compare your state’s allocation to other states with similar demographics and CTE learner participation numbers. Use the information for benchmarking purposes when discussing – or advocating for – secondary CTE funding in your state. 

State-by-State Funding Table

The state-by-state funding table provides descriptions of each state’s funding approach, allocations from fiscal year 2022 and sources for legislative and regulatory documents. You have the option of downloading the table for additional analysis. Run keyword searches in the descriptions for “enrollment” or “average daily membership” or “ADM” to identify how states structure funding around learner enrollment. Run a keyword search for “grants” to identify which states are using competitive or one-time grants to support secondary CTE. Compare models and approaches from 2012 and 2022 to identify states that have changed their model and/or approach in the last decade. This is helpful information to reference if your state is considering or is in the process of changing its secondary CTE funding model and/or approach. 

ACTION: Bookmark the website for easier future access, watch the explainer video and share this blog with your colleagues. 

Be sure to read the first blog in this series, Funding Career Technical Education: Secondary CTE Funding Basics, which provides a background on CTE funding and describes various models and approaches states use to fund secondary CTE. In the next blog in this series, we will explore how states have incorporated equity elements into their funding models to address CTE program quality, access and completion.

You can read more about funding in the following Advance CTE resources:

Dr. Laura Maldonado, Senior Research Associate

By Layla Alagic in Public Policy, Research
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Funding Career Technical Education: Secondary CTE Funding Basics

Monday, August 21st, 2023

Providing high-quality Career Technical Education (CTE) requires robust, sustained funding designed to be responsive to the evolving and diverse needs of industry and learners. State leaders make decisions every day on how to direct funding where it is needed most and having knowledge about how other states are funding secondary CTE will help with decision making. Adequate and equitable funding allows learners to engage in a cohesive, flexible and responsive career preparation system as described in Without Limits: A Shared Vision for the Future of Career Technical Eduction (CTE Without Limits). This blog provides a background on CTE funding and describes various models and approaches states use to fund secondary CTE.

States rely on a mix of federal, state and local policies to provide funding sources for secondary CTE.1 The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins V*) is the primary federal investment in secondary and postsecondary CTE. A state’s share of funding is determined by a statutory formula based on the age distribution of the state’s population and its per-capita income. The remaining 15 percent of allocations are used to support state leadership and administration activities.2 States have flexibility in determining how funds are allocated between secondary and postsecondary CTE, with an average of 62 percent of funding going to secondary programs and 38 percent supporting postsecondary programs for fiscal year 2022 (FY22).3

CTE programs can be costly to run because of the need for specialized equipment/facilities, smaller class sizes and additional staffing.4 Federal funding through Perkins V alone cannot meet those costs, so many states make a financial commitment to support CTE. Local and philanthropic partners also support CTE at the district level. Funding at the state level for secondary CTE is varied and complex.

However, there are distinct processes that can be organized into several state models. To categorize state funding models for FY22, Advance CTE used the definitions of foundational and categorical funding and the respective approaches found in State Strategies for Financing Career and Technical Education5; additionally, a new definition of hybrid funding was developed.

Foundational funding finances programs out of general state aid formulas. Local administrators must decide how funds should be distributed across educational priorities (which may or may not include CTE).6

Categorical funding is dedicated funding for CTE programs that is distributed to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to support CTE. These approaches — which may include cost-based, student-based and/or unit-based formulas — typically target state funding for the use of CTE programming.7 There are three approaches to how LEAs receive this funding: 

Hybrid funding is a new funding model formulated by Advance CTE that reflects states that implement components of multiple categorical funding approaches. 

States may also direct funding specifically for area technical centers (ATCs) to deliver CTE programming. This funding is often in addition to one of the previously stated models, which fund secondary CTE programs more broadly across a state. More information about ATCs can be found in Advance CTE’s website: A 50-State Analysis of Area Technical Centers.11

Advance CTE recognizes that state leaders desire more in-depth information about secondary state CTE funding to maximize current models or to pursue reforms towards more effective and equitable funding models. To meet this need, stay tuned for the release of our 2023 State of CTE: An Analysis of State Secondary CTE Funding Models in late August! The research report and accompanying website provide insights into current national trends in state secondary CTE funding and recommendations to enhance equity in the design and delivery of funding. 

*As amended by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act 

Dr. Laura Maldonado, Senior Research Associate

By Layla Alagic in CTE Without Limits
Tags: , , , , ,

Research Round-Up: CTE Concentration Stays Strong Against the Challenges Posed by the COVID-19 Pandemic

Wednesday, March 1st, 2023

Advance CTE’s “Research Round-Up” blog series features summaries of relevant research reports and studies to elevate evidence-backed Career Technical Educational (CTE) policies and practices and topics related to college and career readiness. This month’s blog examines how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted CTE concentration rates. The findings align with Advance CTE’s vision for the future of CTE where each learner has the means to succeed in the career preparation ecosystem.

Due to the specific hands-on delivery and instruction requirements of career and technical education (CTE) courses, the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting online instruction posed new challenges for CTE programs and concentrators. The study, A Multi-State Analysis of Trends in Career and Technical Education, explored the level of impact of the coronavirus pandemic on CTE concentration rates using administrative data across five states: Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Tennessee, and Washington.

Methodology

 

The analysis sample for each state was defined as first-time ninth graders observed consistently over their four years in high school. The population of learners, CTE concentrators, was selected for observation because the definition of a concentrator is more similar across states than the definition for CTE participation. Another reason that the authors chose to observe rates of CTE concentrators rather than completers was that indicators for program completion were not readily available across the state populations.

The following tables share the concentrator definitions used as well as a breakdown by race/ethnicity and geography of the learners observed to aid state CTE leaders in aligning the findings with their own learner populations. 

The study was conducted by researchers Carly Urban, Celeste K. Carruthers, Shaun Dougherty, Thomas Goldring, Daniel Kreisman, and Roddy Theobald and examined the following questions:

  1. Did CTE concentration rates change at the start of the coronavirus pandemic? 
  2. Did gaps in concentration rates change by student race, ethnicity, gender or identified disability status?
  3. What are the differences in concentration rates across rural and urban areas and have these gaps changed over time?
  4. Were CTE concentrators more likely to graduate from high school and did this change at the start of the pandemic? 
  5. Which career clusters have seen the largest changes in participation? 

 

Findings

  1. CTE concentration rates changed minimally in the featured states at the start of the pandemic, with the exception being Tennessee, where the class of 2020 was significantly more likely to concentrate in CTE than the previous cohorts.
  2. The gaps in CTE concentration by gender, race and ethnicity largely did not widen at the start of the pandemic.
  3. The gaps in CTE concentration by identified disability status did not widen in any state for the first cohort impacted by the pandemic (SY16-17). However, one year into the pandemic, concentration rates for students with an identified disability in two states fell compared to students without an identified disability.
  4. In Michigan, Montana, and Tennessee, students in rural areas appeared more likely to concentrate in CTE than students in urban areas post-pandemic. In Massachusetts, CTE concentration was higher in urban than rural areas. While the two groups have virtually no difference in concentration rates in Washington. 
  5. CTE concentrators are more likely to graduate from high school than non-concentrators in all five states both before and after the pandemic.
  6. Changes in CTE clusters were relatively small when comparing the cohorts who were on track to graduate just before and after the pandemic. The fields with the largest positive and negative changes to concentrator rates varied by state.

 

Recommendations for Members

While these findings are descriptive and suggest that CTE concentration rates did not drop at the onset of the pandemic, the researchers have recommendations for state leaders to continue to support the successful coordination of CTE programs.

To learn more about how states can approach continuing to develop effective and accessible CTE data reporting tools to advance this report’s final recommendation, check out Advance CTE’s Beyond the Numbers: Design Principles for CTE Data Reporting. This guide provides state and local leaders with the necessary tools to inform early design and development of CTE data reporting tools or as a checklist to ensure their final reports align with best practices for access and usability.

To read more of Advance CTE’s “Research Round-Up” blog series featuring summaries of relevant research reports and studies click here.

By Jodi Langellotti in Research
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Increased State Investments in CTE Highlighted by Governors

Tuesday, February 7th, 2017

The beginning of the new year means governors are giving their annual state of the state addresses, celebrating accomplishments and outlining priorities in their states for the coming year. Speeches are scheduled to continue over the next few months, but some governors have already made bold statements to advance CTE.

Indiana’s Governor Eric J. Holcomb vowed to re-configure and align existing workforce development programs with new initiatives in order to develop a skilled and ready 21st century workforce. This includes a promise to invest $2 million in a regional “Jobs Ready Grants” program to help current workers complete credentials in high-demand, high-wage fields. Additionally the governor plans to invest $1 million each year to better coordinate STEM education across the state.

In South Dakota, Governor Dennis Daugaard applauded his state’s recent efforts related to CTE and dual enrollment. In 2016 the state awarded workforce education grants to help transform high school CTE programs, which resulted in new auto mechanic, precision agriculture and nursing programs. The state’s postsecondary Build Dakota program provided full-ride scholarships to approximately 300 students for a second year. Students in the program attend a technical institute in a high-need program and promise to work in that field in South Dakota upon graduation. Governor Daugaard celebrated the fact that while enrollment in two-year institutions is down nationally by 17 percent, enrollment in Build Dakota programs has increased by 10 percent.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker discussed multiple workforce development initiatives his state has undertaken in recent years, including investments in the Wisconsin Fast Forward program, a grant program supporting employer-led programs for training workers. The state has also doubled enrollment in the Youth Apprenticeship program. Another investment has been Project SEARCH, which provides students with disabilities with targeted classroom support and internships. There are currently 18 Project SEARCH sites, and the state aims to increase that number to 27 by the next school year. Additionally the state has increased investment in the Wisconsin Technical College System, opening 5,000 more slots for students in high-demand areas. At the secondary level, the state has focused in the last year on investing more in college and career readiness planning and increasing access to dual enrollment options.

Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas made quite a few statements regarding education in his address. Among more general promises to continue to build high-quality CTE programs and improving the state accountability system, he also encouraged the state’s postsecondary institutions to provide bachelor’s degree options for $15,000 or less. Additionally he announced plans to reform the state teacher certification and salary systems to attract more teachers to the state.

In Colorado, Governor John Hickenlooper celebrated programs like Skillful and CareerWise Colorado, which help students develop new skills for new careers and have received over $15 million in grant funding over the last 18 months. He also held up the state’s work specifically in cybersecurity training, and the growing demand for more skills-based training. The state is facing a $170 million drop in education funding from property taxes this summer, which Governor Hickenlooper vowed to address.

Tennessee Promise and Tennessee Reconnect were major features in Governor Bill Haslam’s address. Through Tennessee Promise, students attend community and technical colleges tuition free, and Tennessee Reconnect offers that same opportunity for adults already in the workforce. The governor also addressed plans to fully fund the Basic Education Program, which would provide an additional $15 million for CTE equipment.

Ashleigh McFadden, State Policy Manager

By admin in Public Policy
Tags: , , , , , ,

NASDCTEc Legislative Update: Senate Passes ESEA Rewrite

Friday, July 17th, 2015

United States CapitalYesterday afternoon, the Senate voted 81-17 in favor of the Every Child Achieves Act (S. 1177), the Chamber’s proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). While 14 Republicans and three Democrats voted against ECAA’s passage for dramatically different reasons, the Chamber’s overall support for the bill remained strongly bipartisan and marks a significant step forward in rewriting the nation’s largest K-12 education law which has been due for renewal since 2007.

The effort in the Senate to reauthorize ESEA has been driven by HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) who shepherded the bipartisan bill out of Committee in April. A total of 66 different amendments, including Senator Alexander and Murray’s comprehensive substitute amendment, were passed as part of yesterday’s vote with 13 being rejected.

On the whole, ECAA completely reimagines ESEA’s accountability system, removing No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB) “adequate yearly progress” requirement. It would maintain the law’s annual assessment schedule and would require states to develop “challenging academic standards” for all students. Notably, the bill would require states to report disaggregated data on student subgroups and identify low-performing schools, however it does not place a requirement for state or local intervention if achievement gaps are identified—something that has been a point of strong contention for many civil rights groups and the Obama Administration.

During the five calendar days that the Senate devoted to the bill’s consideration, there were a number of Career Technical Education (CTE) amendments that were adopted before ECAA’s final passage. While the final text of S. 1177 will not be available until sometime next week, here’s a short breakdown of a few of the new additions that found their way into the final bill (a listing of ECAA’s CTE provisions that were already in the bill can be viewed here):

Many other big ticket amendments were considered during the Senate debate. The “A-PLUS” amendment, a proposal that would allow states to block-grant their Title I funding for “any education purpose allowed under state law”, was voted down mainly along party lines. One of Chairman Alexander’s amendments supporting school vouchers for low-income students had a similar fate. Another “opt-out” amendment that would have allowed parents to opt their children out from the bill’s mandated assessments also did not pass. Towards the end of the debate, a significant proposal from Senate Democrats to hold states accountable for their lowest performing schools and achievement gaps within student subgroups did not pass either. A compromise proposal that changes the underlying formula for Title I did pass, however the amendment’s provisions would not kick-in unless Title I is funded at much higher levels than it is currently.

On the whole ECAA rolls back the federal government’s role in K-12 education substantially, leaving many important educational decisions to states and local communities while rectifying many of the most problematic legacies ‘left behind’ by NCLB. Despite the bipartisan nature of the Senate’s process, a pathway forward for full ESEA reauthorization remains highly uncertain. As mentioned above, many Congressional Democrats, civil rights groups, and the White House are strongly opposed to the absence of a stronger accountability system in ECAA. Conversely many Republicans, particularly those in the House, are vehemently opposed to any proposal that does not do more to streamline existing programs and limit the federal role in K-12 education further.

With the Senate and the House’s work on their respective bills complete, it remains to be seen if their proposals can be reconciled via a formal conference or by way of behind-the-scenes negotiations later this year. Nevertheless, crafting a bill that can please each of these groups will prove to be extremely challenging.

Be sure to check back here as the process unfolds later this year. NASDCTEc will be sure to provide more updates and analysis for how these proposals will impact the CTE community as negotiations continue.

Steve Voytek, Government Relations Manager

By Steve Voytek in Legislation, News, Public Policy
Tags: , , ,

 

Series

Archives

1