Search Results . . .

Upcoming Webinar: Badging 101

August 25th, 2014

badge1Sometimes called “the next disrupter” in education, open badges offer an innovative platform for recognizing and displaying a students’ competency demonstrated either inside or outside the traditional classroom. Yet questions remain about how badges work at the institution and state level, how they can be folded into existing education systems, and what it takes to ensure their quality, reliability and validity.

On Tuesday October 7 @ 1 pm ET, join NASDCTEc and NOCTI for Badging 101: The What, The Why & The How, which will dig into some of these tough questions and explore open badges from national, state and local perspectives.

Speakers include:

  • Jade Forester, Marketing & Community Manager, Badge Alliance
  • John Foster, CEO, NOCTI and NBS
  • Marie Perotti, Project Coordinator CTE TEACH, Colton, Redlands, Yucaipa Regional Occupational Program
  • Russ Weikle, State CTE Director, California Department of Education

Register here today!

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

Council of State Governments’ National Conference

August 15th, 2014

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to attend The Council of State Governments’ (CSG)  annual national conference as a member of the National Task Force on Workforce Development and Education, which is part of their “State Pathways to Prosperity initiative.”  With members representing all three branches of state government, CSG brought a broad set of perspectives together to discuss the key challenges and opportunities in developing a strong education and workforce pipeline.  The final Task Force framework and recommendations will be further developed and released in the coming months.

In addition to the Task Force meeting, I also had the opportunity to attend a policy academy where I learned about an array of  impressive state- and business-led efforts to support students’ career readiness and U.S. competitiveness. One such example is the MC2 STEM High School, developed through a partnership between the Cleveland Metropolitan School District and GE Lighting.  Students attend school on the GE campus during their sophomore year, where they engage in a year-long project that culminates in a presentation to GE leaders, and then spend their junior and senior years at Cleveland State University. All students complete at least one internship, have a GE “buddy” and must demonstrate 90 percent “proficiency” to earn credits. Since the school opened in 2008, nearly 100 percent of MC2 STEM students have graduated, and 84 percent of the graduates have matriculated into college.

Another fascinating model shared was the Automotive Manufacturers Technical Education Collaborative (AMTEC), or the National Center for Excellence in Advanced Automotive Manufacturing. AMTEC is an effort supported by the major automotive manufacturers – Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. – to develop a set of common expectations to anchor training programs for multi-skilled employees. AMTEC provides industry-developed and verified curriculum and assessments to its member community colleges, companies and high schools, as well as professional development and other resources.

Alaska 1And did I mention the meeting was in Anchorage, Alaska as a bonus? As evidence, here’s a picture of me…and a picture of a moose. 

Alaska 2

 
Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

 

The Common Career Technical Core, Programs of Study & Industry-Based Standards

July 30th, 2014

Yesterday, NASDCTEc released a new paper - The Common Career Technical Core, Programs of Study & Industry-Based Standards – during a webinar. Leveraging the methodology used to compare over 45 states’ CTE standards to the Common Career Technical Core (CCTC) last year for The State of Career Technical Education: An Analysis of State CTE Standards, this new paper examines how a set of 18 industry-based standards match up to the CCTC, with deep implications for state and local development of standards-based programs of study.

Critically, as we state in the paper, “The intent of this analysis is not to judge any industry-based standards…rather the intent is provide actionable information to state and local CTE leaders as think through how they use industry-based standards within the context of a program of study.”

What Did We Find?

For one, the industry-based standards, on average, were not particularly well aligned with the CCTC. However, this was largely as expected based on scope and design of the CCTC compared to most industry-based standards. The CCTC are benchmark standards that identify what a student should know and be able to do after completing a program of study. As “benchmark standards,” the CCTC are intentionally broad; as “end of program of study standards,” the CCTC cover the full range of knowledge and skills to be imparted over a sequence of courses, from the broadest career exploration to the more occupationally-specific skills. Alternatively, most industry-based standards focus squarely on those occupationally-specific skills, leading to a disconnect between them and the CCTC.

We also found that the majority of industry-based standards did not, on average, address the 12 Career Ready Practices, which are the cross-cutting skills and dispositions necessary for any individual in the workplace. Perhaps the most surprising finding was that less than half of the industry-based standards fully aligned to such Practices as “communicate clearly, effectively and with reason” and “work productively in teams while using cultural/global competence,” which are so highly demanded in today’s economy.

However, the analysis showed that many of the industry-based standards reviewed did align well with the Career Pathway-level standards, which are the most specific standards within the CCTC. Additionally, industry-based standards developed by consortia, such as the National Council for Agriculture Education and the Manufacturing Skill Standards Council, were much  more likely to address both the Career Cluster and Career Pathway-level standards.

What Are the Implications?

The bottom line is that industry-based standards play an important role in preparing students for careers, but that they cannot alone make up a program of study as they often fail to address the broader career exploration skills, as well as those key cross-cutting or “employability” skills that have utility in any career. As state leaders and other stakeholders develop, review and/or approve programs of study, they must:

  • Ensure the standards not only address the key occupationally-specific skills, but also those addressed at the Career Cluster level, as well as the Career Ready Practices, and
  • Provide guidance to local leaders and educators on how to implement the various sets of state and industry-based standards available and build out a coherent sequence of courses and learning experiences aligned to those different standards.

Read the full report here, watch the webinar recording or download the webinar PPT.

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director, NASDCTEc

Upcoming Webinar: The Common Career Technical Core, Programs of Study & Industry-Based Standards

July 8th, 2014

In 2012, NASDCTEc released the Common Career Technical Core, a set of standards developed by states, that lay out what a student should know and be able to do upon completion of a program of study. Since the Common Career Technical Core (CCTC) were released, a common question asked is how do the CCTC relate to industry-based standards?

Join NASDCTEc on a webinar on July 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm ET to discuss our new report, The Common Career Technical Core, Programs of Study & Industry-Based Standards, which analyzed a range of industry-based standards to help clarify how they might fit into a program of study undergirded by the CCTC, the methodology used, and its implications for the field.

Register here!

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

NASDCTEc in Taipei

April 29th, 2014

Delegates

Last week, I had the honor as serving as a delegate at a conference held by the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperative (APEC) Alliance for Technical and Vocational Education and Training in Taipei, Taiwan. Along with education and government leaders from Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. This event was co-hosted by Taiwan’s Ministries of Labor and Education and Taipei Tech University.

One thing that struck me was the similarity in our challenges and the goals of our CTE/vocational education and training systems. Nearly every leader spoke of high youth/young adult unemployment, an aging population, the disconnect between what students are learning in school and the skills demanded in the workforce, and the need to upskill our systems. Other countries are also struggling with raising the image of CTE – the representative from Thailand, for example, noted that they refer to this challenge as “3D” in that the jobs are considered “dangerous, difficult and dirty.” While the language and solutions might vary across countries, the role of CTE as a driver of economic development and vitality was something we all had in common.

CVTCOn the second day of my trip, I had the opportunity to visit two models of technical institutions, the Chinese Culture and Social Welfare Foundation Vocational Training Center (CVTC) and Chung Gang University of Science and Technology (CGUST). CVTC is a privately-run, publicly-subsidized institution that provides training (ranging from 300-900 hours) to unemployed individuals in areas such as culinary arts, gardening/landscaping, webpage design and computer maintenance.  CVTC is one of 13 public training centers in Taiwan – and was the first training center established over 50 years ago. Like most other training centers in Taiwan and the other Asian countries represented at this conference, CVTC provides on-site certifications. (See a map of their campus to the right)

Chang Gung 2CGUST, on the other hand, is a private four-year institution that provides training for health care professionals through its College of Nursing and College of Human Ecology. This campus features state-of-the-art simulation equipment, an on-site kindergarten class run by students and staffed by nurses (who also happen to be instructors), and one of the highest placement rates for its graduates.  All students participate in professional internships during summer breaks and about 87% pass their professional certification, which is twice Taiwan’s national average.

All in all, the trip was an eye-opening experience that brought our own CTE system – and its strengths and ongoing challenges – into focus.

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

Spring Meeting Recap: CTE a Growing Priority for State Associations

April 9th, 2014

Leaders from three major education associations – representing key state policymakers and education leaders – discussed their growing interest and key initiatives related to CTE on Wednesday April 3 at NASDCTEc’s Spring meeting. The overarching theme from the National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE): while CTE hasn’t necessarily been a key area of focus in the past, it certainly is going to be moving forward.

Kristen Amundson, Executive Director of NASBE, noted that given the lack of movement at the federal level on any education policies, including Perkins, the real leverage point is the states. She mentioned some emerging work of NASBE to convene a career council and a tech council, which will pull together state board of education members, CTE educators and leaders, and representatives from business/industry to identify how to best structure state-level CTE policies. She laid out some common challenges with CTE policy – how to measure career readiness, how to break down the “academic” and “CTE” worlds – and that NASBE would also focus on identifying innovative programs and practices to share with their network.

Next, Steven Bowen, Strategic Initiative Director for Innovation at CCSSO, announced a new Career Readiness Task Force being launched this month. This task force – largely instigated by CCSSO’s current chair, Terry Holliday the State Superintendent of Kentucky – will meet over six months to develop a set of recommendations for state CTE policy and touch on Perkins as well. Early areas of focus include standards, secondary-postsecondary alignment, assessing career readiness and addressing barriers to access. Kim Green, NASDCTEc’s executive director, will serve on this task force, along with NASDCTEc’s President John Fischer and Vice President Scott Stump.

Finally, Stephen Parker the NGA’s Legislative Director shared the governors’ perspective on CTE. First he noted that CTE and workforce development were among the most common education priorities identified in the 2014 State of the State addresses (see here and here for NASDCTEc’s take on these addresses). While many governors are exploring state-level policies and levers to support CTE, they have also encouraged the NGA to develop principles for Perkins reauthorization. Last week, coinciding with the Spring meeting, the NGA held conference calls with many State CTE Directors participating to open dialogue. Parker noted that some of the emerging priorities include more state-level flexibility in supporting innovation, a clearer and stronger gubernatorial role, the removal of red tape and the need to address maintenance of effort.

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

Breaking our Baccalaureate Addiction

April 8th, 2014

It’s not that kids aren’t “college material,” but that the bachelor’s degree is increasingly immaterial

Recently, Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute kicked up a lot of attention with his piece on why we should be telling more kids that they aren’t college material.

Central to his argument was that career technical education (CTE) – or teaching and learning that provides students with the academic, technical and employability skills they need to access the careers of their choice – is a more viable option than a four-year degree for many, and one in which we should be counseling more students.

On this point, I agree with Petrilli 100 percent. CTE is one of the best kept secrets out there. Students taking CTE sequences are more likely to graduate high school (at rates upward of 90%, well above the national average) because they find value in the authenticity and relevance CTE brings to their learning.

CTE students are also more likely to go on to “college,” with 75% of graduates who took at least three CTE courses enrolling in postsecondary education within two years. They have the added advantages of real-world experience from work-based learning and career exploration opportunities, and have unique access to mentors and resources to help them chart their future beyond the traditional college prep counseling.

On top of that, completers of CTE postsecondary programs are more likely to be employed than those completing an academic-focused program. Eighty-six percent of postsecondary students completing an associate’s degree in a CTE field of study, for example, are still employed five years later, compared to 78.6 percent of those completing an associate’s degree in an academic field of study.  They are filling the skills mismatch, and not fast enough for many employers in the health services, manufacturing and IT sectors.

To summarize, CTE keeps students in school and puts them on a pathway to success. Yay CTE! CTE for all!

So, what’s the problem?

My problem is this: While I appreciate positive attention for CTE, I believe Petrilli did CTE a major disservice with his piece. By setting up CTE as the option for students who are not “college material” he ultimately undermined the value CTE has for all students. And, perhaps more importantly, he reinforced the image problem the CTE community has to deal with every day: CTE remains the place you put kids who just can’t make it to college.

As long as CTE is framed as the non-college option, rather than a pathway to a broader set of college options, we are perpetuating CTE as an inferior, rather than an equally viable (and more reliable), choice.

Despite a decade of efforts to raise the rigor and quality of CTE programs by anchoring them in 21st century knowledge and skills and building stronger linkages between secondary and postsecondary programs through dual/concurrent enrollment, early college programs and other mechanisms, CTE is still not something many parents want for their kids. The stigma of old-school “voc-ed” is a hard one to shake.

So allow me to reframe the discussion. Instead of talking about CTE as being solely for those who can’t be successful in four-year programs, let’s talk about how we can break our country’s addiction to (and reverence for) the bachelor’s degree.

As Petrilli clearly lays out, the notion that a four-year degree is the only option is at best outdated and at worst sets up false expectations for too many students (as evidenced by high remediation, low degree completion and increasing debt). It no longer makes sense to put all of our eggs in the four-year basket. There are many other postsecondary pathways that lead to a family-sustaining wage, job security and mobility that are not being presented as a realistic option to enough of today’s students, and therefore, not being taken advantage of enough.

It is incumbent upon us to encourage more students to engage in these opportunities. And when I say more students, I don’t just mean poor or minority students, but also suburban or higher-income students who go on to a four-year degree because that’s just how it’s done in their communities, regardless of their actual career interests. We need to redefine college so technical colleges, community colleges and the other postsecondary institutions don’t continue to get the short shrift in the minds of parents, students and policymakers.

Finally, we need to flip the system so “career” comes before “college.” Students’ career aspirations should dictate their postsecondary pathways rather than the other way around. It’s not easy, it’s not clean – in fact, it’s a paradigm shift – but it’s what it’s going to take to get our economy back on track and all students their shot at the American dream.

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

 

Spring Meeting Recap: Beyond Perkins

April 7th, 2014

Our final panel discussion on the morning of Tuesday April 1, 2014, was on other major federal policies and initiatives that impact – or have the potential to impact – Career Technical Education (CTE). David Blaime, Senior Vice President at the American Association of Community Colleges, opened the panel by discussing some of the major provisions he believes will be addressed in future reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which won’t likely occur before 2015. He identified three themes emerging from the current discussions: reducing complexity in student lending (in terms of regulation and the number of programs), accountability tied to the quality of postsecondary institutions, and a potential shift to outcome-based accreditation, as well as how the U.S. Department of Education oversees accrediting bodies.

Angela Hanks, Policy Analyst from the New Skills Coalition next gave an update on the current state of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which has been due up for reauthorization since 2001. In the last year, the House and the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee each passed an updated WIA bill. While these two bills were developed and passed largely along party lines, last week the leadership from both the House and Senate met in conference to discuss opportunities for a new WIA. NASDCTEc will keep everyone informed as details emerge from those discussions.

Finally, Dr. Johan Uvin, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education at the U.S. Department of Education, shared some of the Administration’s major initiatives to support CTE and workforce development aligned to President Obama’s goal of ensuring every American has at least one year of postsecondary education or training. Specifically, he mentioned the $100 million in Youth Career Connect grants and the Performance Partnership pilots, which will allow a state, region, locality, or Federally-recognized tribe to pool a portion of discretionary funds they receive from multiple federal agencies while measuring and tracking specific cross-program outcomes, to facilitate better coordination and reduce redundancies. He also highlighted a number of new items put in the 2015 budget including $150 million for competitive high school redesign grants, $110 million for STEM innovation networks and $75 million for accelerated pathways.

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

CTE Research Review, Community College Edition

February 24th, 2014

Research Image_6.2013The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) released “Where Value Meets Values: The Economic Impact of Community Colleges,” quantifying the value of community colleges in terms of economic impact (i.e., to the national economy) and return on investment (i.e., to individuals and society).

Specifically, AACC found that, in 2012 alone, former American community college students generated $806.4 billion in added income, based on increased productivity and wages. Foreign community college graduates added another $1.5 billion in new income. AACC also found a 4.8 benefit-cost ratio for students based on the return to their investment into the community colleges (or $4.8 dollars in higher future wages for every dollar invested in their education). In total, AACC estimates $371.8 billion as the net present value of community colleges in terms of increased wages for individuals, after accounting for the money invested in the education.

At the societal level, AACC finds a benefit-cost ratio of 25.9 and a net present value at nearly $1.2 trillion, based on added income and social savings (i.e., lower health care costs, reduced crime rates, etc.) which are associated with more education and employment.

In addition to the report, AACC has created four fact sheets breaking down the data.

The Community College Research Center (CCRC) released a two-page policy brief on “Performance Funding: Impacts, Obstacles, and Other Intended Outcomes.” To date, 32 states have implemented some form of performance funding, with mixed results. The brief delineates performance funding 1.0 (where institutions receive a bonus over and above regular state funding) and performance funding 2.0 (where performance is built into the state allocations for institutions), and provides an overview of research-based lessons learned about performance 1.0. The CCRC is currently exploring the 2.0 model, as discussed in this working paper, “The Political Origins of Performance Funding 2.0 in Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee: Theoretical Perspectives and Comparisons with Performance Funding 1.0,” also released this month.

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

CTE Research Review

January 15th, 2014

Research Image_6.2013In case you missed it….

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recently released Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002): A First Look at 2002 High School Sophomores 10 Years Later,  a report  literally ten years in the making. The ELS:2002 followed a cohort of sophomores over the last decade, out of high school and into their next steps. The report has some fascinating findings, largely around post-high school outcomes. A third of students earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (33 percent), 9 percent earned an associate’s degree, 10 percent a postsecondary certificate, and another third (32 percent) had or were still enrolled in postsecondary without having earned a credential. The remaining students either only had a high school diploma or equivalent (13 percent) or less (3 percent).

What’s truly striking is the impact of enrolling immediately in postsecondary education had on completion: among those who began their postsecondary education within 3 months of graduating, 53 percent had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher by 2012. Comparatively, among those who began their postsecondary education 13 or more months after graduating, only 7 percent had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, although students did become more likely to earn a certificate or accrue postecondary credits without a degree or certificate.

Another, not-very-surprising, but disheartening piece of data from the report is the attainment gap between income-levels. Over 70 percent of students from the highest income quartile had a postsecondary certificate or more by 2012 compared to just 35.5 percent of students from the lowest income quartile.

Finally, the report reinforces the concern over high unemployment for young adults – as well as the notion that education and training beyond high school is critical for career success. While about 18 percent of 26-year olds are unemployed or out-of-the labor force, this figure jumps to 37 percent for individuals with less than a high school diploma and 24 percent for high school graduates, compared to 11 percent for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher, 14.6 percent for those with an associate’s degree and 18 percent for those with a postsecondary certificate. For this cohort, more education does equate to greater job stability.

This report offers a wealth of self-reported data on job conditions and benefits, debt and aspirations and is well worth a read.

MDRC released Beyond the GED: Promising Models for Moving High School Dropouts to College  this month, a review of research-based strategies for increasingly GED test-taking and success for the millions of Americans without a high school diploma. Specifically, the report focuses on three types of reforms: (1) efforts to increase the rigor of adult education instruction and the standards for achieving a credential; (2) GED-to-college “bridge” programs, which integrate academic preparation with increased supports for students’ transition to college; and (3) interventions that allow students to enroll in college while studying to earn a high school credential. Indiana and Washington are two states highlighted for their comprehensive approaches to adult education and training.

Finally, Education Commission of States has a new brief – Career/Technical Education, Not Your Father’s Vocational Education – which explores  some state approaches to increasing career readiness, including offering CTE endorsements, tying scholarships to career assessments, building career readiness into accountability systems,  integrating academics and CTE content, and increasing dual enrollment. However, much of the discussion around scholarships, endorsements and accountability is limited to the use of WorkKeys, which only measures a slice of a students’ career readiness.

Kate Blosveren, Associate Executive Director

 

 

Series

Archives

1