Current Issue 3: Vocational Ed Funding

Federal Funding for Vocational Education Continues Lynne Bailey, July 22, 2006 Current Issue Report #3 Article: Deal reached on vocational education law Thursday, July 20, 2006 · Last updated 2:58 p.m. PT Author: BEN FELLER, Education Writer, Associated Press Thursday, July 20, 2006 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Vocational_Education.html and various other publications Summary: This article reports on the House and Senate agreement for an extention of federal funding for vocational training in high schools and college under the Perkins Act through 2012. The bill changes the vocational education title to 'career and technical education' (CTE) to create a fresh perception of this kind of program and reduce any stigma associated with 'voc-ed'. President Bush wanted to eliminate these programs because he feels they are ineffective, but it is a Congressional favorite, and lawmakers are commited to it. $1.3 billion is allocated per year, the most funding for any single federal high school aid program. The deal is expected to be aproved by both houses shortly. This latest extension makes some important changes, requiring states to give students a broad base of academic skills, in addition to technical job training. States will also have to develop model sequences of courses to set a clear path for work training. They will also have to produce more direct evidence of student progress and program results in exchange for funding, reflecting current demands for rigor and resuls. Importance/Relevance of Topic: One of society's mandates for education is to give students the tools and skills to find meaningful work. Approximately 15 million students take vocational courses (high school and college), and though federal money is only a small part of the total funding, many school depend on these funds to offer those courses. So many of NYC high school students drop out and/or do not go to college, and yet the curriculum and objective of almost all of these high schools is centered upon students graduating and continuing their academic studies in college. This is very unrealistic, and more needs to be done to prepare students for work while they are still in high school, as many of them will have to do just that. Reflection: This is a topic near and dear to my heart, and I have participated in the request for CTE funding at our school. NYS has already initiated some of the changes that will be required for these funds. Two-year sequences must be outlined and for most funding some kind of certification needs to be included. Programs are judged by the number of students attaining that certification. There is a three-year development and approval process and statistics comparing students in these classes with other students in the school must be provided to gather clear evidence of the value of these programs. Regents scores, attendance, and drop-out rates are the key comparison factors. New York City does have a CTE office, and numerous high schools in the city have such programs in place. Some are at the few high schools designated "vocational" and training has been offered for teachers to improve the academic rigor of such courses in re-writing lessons that go beyond the standard curriculum to include and designate standards from other subject areas as well. For example, in a welding program students had to produce presentations to decribe the entire process. In auto-tech, activities with historical and scientific contexts might be included. The most burdensome part of this legislation, though, is following up on workplace success. It is very difficult to get post-high school information on students in the program, and there exists no database of post-high school student work and academic activities to compare it with, one of the requirements for continued funding. The only information nominally available is based on student's immediate plans following high school graduation. No extra funding is provided for this, either. It remains unclear how programs wil be able to evidence continued success, and what benchmarks they can use for comparison. Many people agree that participation in these programs does make a difference, but now administrators much quantify how great a difference that makes. Personally, I feel that this requirement, to go beyond the first post-year of high school is so burdensome as to make it virtually impossible. In what ways are students outside of these programs measured, and how can we accurately collect and report data comparing the two? The CTE office is attempting to initiate procedures to obtain follow-up information, but it will be reliant upon student cooperation after-the-fact. There are no incentives, nor can there be, to force cooperation from persons who have completed the requirements and gone on. Administrators can only ask for students to supply the information, they can get it from no other source, and there is no easy way to verify the information, so training programs ask students to mail in a form when they find work, and to include a paystub. This is the most one can do, without obtrusive tracking tactics. Therefore, the evidence required by this legislation, beyond the training itself, will undoubtedly be scant, and very difficult to obtain. It remains to be seen how this will impact continued funding of the program, or if additional funding can be obtained to track graduates.