Career and Technical Education Collaboration Task Force
March 29, 2010
Oregon Department of Education – Room 251B (2nd Floor, Public Service Building)
255 Capitol Street NE, Salem
Task Force Members Present: / Senator Diane Rosenbaum, Representative Michael Dembrow, Deborah Barnes, Carolyn Becic, Dennis Boyd, Tim Mosterdyke, Barney O’Donnell, Stephen SimmsTask Force Members Absent: / Cynthia Risan, Laura Roach
Staff: / Adrienne Sexton
Guests: / Drew Park*, Larry Cheyne (CCWD), Mary Bunn (ODE), Krissa Caldwell (CCWD), Elise Brown, Gary Conklin
*Mr. Park has submitted an interest form for a Governor’s appointment to the task force to fill the slot for a member of Oregon Workforce Investment Board.
Rep. Dembrow convened the meeting at 8:35 a.m.
Welcome and Introductions: Rep. Dembrow guided the meeting until the election of a task force chair. Staff, task force members and guests introduced themselves. In the absence of Cynthia Risan and Laura Roach, designated agency staffers were present as observers.
Sexton reviewed task force administrative matters, including that the task force is a public body subject to Oregon open meeting and public records laws. She noted the meetings will be recorded so that accurate minutes can be written, and that the ODE will have a web page for task force materials.
Sen. Rosenbaum suggested the next meeting day be set at this point in the agenda. Members reviewed calendars and agreed to Monday, May 3 at 8:30 a.m.
Review of House Bill 2732 and work to be completed by the task force: Sexton outlined the purpose and tasks of the task force specified by HB 2732 (2009), noting the scope of work specifies K-12 education collaborations and partnerships relating to career and technical education (CTE). Rep. Dembrow explained that the intent is not to extend to education programs for K-6; work should focus on middle and high school in the broader K-12 system.
Review and approve draft task force rules: Sexton reviewed the provisions of the proposed rules. Motion by Becic to adopt the rules as proposed; without objection the rules were adopted.
Nomination and election of task force Chair and Vice-Chair was moved to after the break.
Historical context and review of career and technical education in Oregon: Sexton briefly described CTE-related efforts in Oregon including bills in 2005 and 2007 directing studies, 2009 legislation (HB 2398) creating the Oregon Career Readiness Certification Program, ongoing work of the Workforce Investment Board resulting from federal requirements, and the Governor’s Workforce Policy Cabinet, among others.
Task force members then described their backgrounds in more detail, with their interests in what work this task force might do.
O’Donnell: He said he is a user of CTE programs with apprentices he described as unprepared; the students may have a high school diploma but they lack or cannot apply basic math skills to electrical concepts. He would like to get into curriculum that exposes students to careers.
Becic: She reported that more than 130,000 children in Oregon need more caring adults in their lives; only 35,000 have them. Mentoring programs need more community members to participate, and a 12-month commitment is ideal. Asks what stop-gap measures might be available to increase participation.
Mosterdyke: He described how technical education made learning relevant for him. He is associated with the Architecture Construction Engineering (ACE) Academy Charter School, and assumes they have to offer remediation to students.
Park: He said that what is working in the Portland area is done by private industry. He suggested the task force not try to change CTE across the state at one time, instead see what works and implement that at one school.
Simms: He addressed student engagement and suggested the task force look at models that give meaning to the content with real-world relevance.
Cheyne: He suggested, with regard to math skills, that there needs to be more hand-on engagement with late elementary-age students. He mentioned the indicators of future economic success include algebra, a high school diploma, and real work experience before age 19.
Bunn: She spoke of the school-to-work effort and women in trades. She advised that Oregon is the only state using only Carl Perkins funds for CTE and that when budgets are tight CTE funding decreases.
Brown: She recommended that the task force start small by focusing on one geographic area.
Caldwell: She referred to the Essential Skills adopted by the State Board of Education and recommended that the task force be aware of them.
Boyd: He commented on high school graduation rates and reiterated that the curriculum has to be engaging and considers kinetic learners, as in applied mathematics.
Rosenbaum: She indicated that low-income individuals may be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits while participating in qualified training programs. She recommended that the task force receive a report from the Oregon Employment Department, and commented on the changing nature of the workforce with increasing numbers of women and non-English language speakers.
Barnes: She detailed the Sabin-Schellenberg regional technical program in the North Clackamas School District and pointed out that when funded, the program used distance learning to reach students that otherwise would not have exposure to the same range of career and technical education options. She believes regional programs are the model solution, and that sustainable funding and a paradigm shift at the Oregon Department of Education are needed.
Dembrow: He suggested the task force look at programs that seem to be doing the right thing, such as the Sabin-Schellenberg center and the ACE Academy Charter School and determine the impediments to expanding those models. He also stated the task force should look at how to overcome silos, some of which are union and non-union apprenticeship programs and community college advisory committees. He thinks the task force should consider how to get non-traditional students interested in the trades.
Nomination and election of task force Chair and Vice-Chair: Carolyn Becic and Deborah Barnes expressed interest in serving as chair of the task force and presented information on how they would approach the role. After discussion of the options the item was deferred until later in the meeting.
Discussion: 2005 and 2007 task force work and recommendations, and current environment/ creating a task force work plan: Sexton briefly outlined legislative activity from 2005-2009 and other enterprises such as the Workforce Investment Board and Governor’s Workforce Policy Cabinet.
Barnes highlighted the 2007 report that examined what other states are doing with CTE and identified that Oregon lags in CTE funding. Oregon’s federal Carl Perkins revenue comes to the state and is divided between secondary and post-secondary education. She contrasted Oregon with California and Washington which have separate line-item budgets for CTE and have regional facilities. She said the task force proposal to the legislature was to find something that works in other states and apply it to Oregon to increase access across the state, and recommended stable funding.
Dembrow asked what about CTE creates the higher costs. Barnes explained costs to acquire and maintain technologically current equipment is ongoing and Perkins funds are not enough, and class size may need to be limited for safety. Boyd described the partnerships the labor unions have with ACE Academy, so that the high schools do not need to have their own welding labs, for example. The students go to the union facility and receive math instruction and the welding in the same facility. He indicated that labor is interested in more collaboration and there are multi-million dollar training facilities in the Portland metropolitan area. The ACE Academy leases space from the training center and it leverages the resources.
Mosterdyke asked whether the task force is supposed to compile a list of partnerships like the Sabin center and Northwest College of Construction, determine they are working or not working, and then make recommendations to the legislature. He indicated that what the College of Construction is doing is happening without any participation by the state, and another high school focusing on manufacturing will be opening (Note: This is the Oregon City Clackamas Academy of Industrial Sciences, a charter school.) Regarding information collected by the ODE from regional consortiums on programs, Bunn said that secondary data was posted last Friday (March 26) and community college data will be posted next Friday (May 2).
Park mentioned that OWIB is going down a similar path with the Youth and Education and Manufacturing committees, to identify problems and decide what can be a success. He thinks that the messages of the task force and OWIB should be the same, if there is agreement, in order to get movement. He clarified that OWIB has identified problems in the manufacturing sector, such as public perception of the work as dirty, and what OWIB might be able to change. He thinks that having the task force compile a list of all the programs and partnerships would provide valuable information. Dembrow agrees that will be an important part of the task force work, and to follow up on the recent study by learning what recommendations were implemented.
Mosterdyke asks whether the task force should look at the requirements of the Perkins IV (2006) which include closer ties to post-secondary education. Bunn indicated that Perkins IV set up Programs of Study which mandates that if you are using Perkins funding there must be both secondary and post-secondary elements. The post-secondary component can be community college, private career school, private or public college or university. The goal is that when a student transitions from secondary to post-secondary, the student does not have to retake a lot of coursework.
Bunn responded to Rosenbaum on the Perkins funding mechanism; after some retention for administration the funds are equally split between high schools and community colleges. Funds can go to a direct recipient such as a community college or school district, or in some areas there are consortiums that aggregate funds for more opportunities.
The task force began review and discussion of the 2005 task force recommendations from SB 364, and CTE concepts that are referred to, such as 2+2 and other methods of articulation. Dembrow commented that there could be more collaboration between high school teachers and college teachers, and that is probably a recommendation he will make in this task force process. Barnes referred to the high level of collaboration between her program and Clackamas Community College.
Cheyne referred to SB 342 (2005) that directed all of post-secondary education to do a better job of alignment and articulation. Regarding dual credit, they were directed to develop standards for the dual credit program which are based on national standards, which were adopted by the Joint Boards of Education earlier this year. The approval and application process for dual credit programs will launch this summer.
Dembrow continued with the recommendations document regarding student leadership programs. Barnes said the concerns were lack of money going to these required programs (Future Farmers of American, DECA, etc.) to pay for teachers for after-school activities. She confirmed Perkins funds are used for them, but sometimes there is only enough to keep the program operational.
A 2005 recommendation was to create a four-year Bachelor of Applied Science degree program. Cheyne advised that a task force is looking at models and will make a recommendation to the legislature by October 1. He described the concept generally as a Bachelor of Applied Science degree granted by the 4-year institution but two of the years take place at a community college. It would take a “terminal degree”, an Associate of Applied Science that is intended to prepare someone immediately for the workforce, and stack on it the Bachelor of Applied Science. That model is in place at Southern Oregon University and Oregon Institute of Technology. Dembrow said that other states have models where the degree is granted by the community college, which provides more rural access.
O’Donnell asked whether it is in the scope of this task force to look at incorporating applied math and science concepts in the lower grades at low or no costs. Barnes commented that elementary teachers would likely say there is no time to collaborate with other teachers to adjust curriculum away from a paper and pencil approach, and it requires the administrator’s support.
Simms commented that one of the issues in the current environment, an “elephant in the room”, is that business would like to have applied concepts presented at the high school and middle school levels, but education’s response is that it is not important or there is no time. The result is that more is spent at the community college doing remediation, and that private dollars pay for training centers.
Dembrow indicated that distance education is another point that this task force will need to take up. He next referred to the 2007 study. Rosenbaum said that if the study has a survey of Oregon’s programs the task force can use that. For the next meeting ODE and CCWD will complete the “outcome” portion of the matrix of 2005 and 2007 task force work.
Boyd commented that while there may be funding issues, what he sees missing is the collaboration. He said that apprenticeships have not been collaborated with; ACE Academy exists as it does because the college worked with them and Portland Public Schools was not interested. In the trades area funding goes to community colleges, for new facilities for example, instead of into collaborations.
Simms pointed out that there are about 22 private training centers in the Portland metro area, and a community college in Portland is seeking $2 million in funding to build its own construction training center. He said private industry sees that investment and sees no collaboration coming back. He commented on the 2007 study recommendation for funding to support regional development of CTE Programs of Study and to upgrade and leverage CTE equipment resources, and said that private industry would say they have already made that investment, but the collaboration is not there to make use of it. There is a silo between education institutions and industry and that gap needs to be bridged.
Mosterdyke spoke to the teacher training component with his own example of moving into teaching construction classes from industry, and that there are no current industrial arts teaching programs. There are relatively few formally trained industrial arts teachers who are not able to collaborate among themselves. They are retiring and not being replaced. Barnes agreed that for the long-term, the question is how to have an easy way for good people coming from industry to go through the process to prepare for the classroom. She said it cannot be Portland-centered.