PREPARING THE WORKFORCE OF DCS FUTURE

Toward a Career-Technical Education System for the Capital State of the 21st Century
Office of Career & Technical Education District of Columbia Public Schools Draft, Version 1.5 March 2005

TOPIC
Contents Introduction: Education, the Workforce, and the Future

PAGE

CTE Today & Tomorrow: 21st Century Skills for a 21st Century Economy 10 Education, Workforce, & Economic Development (Diagram) 14 Models of Work-Related Secondary Education (Chart) 17 DCs ChoiceHigh Skills or Low Wages: American Education and the American Dream Solution to a Dual Crisis: High Skills Education CTE: Training of Choice for the Careers of the Future CTE in DCFrom Decline to Rebirth & Reinvention State Appropriations for Secondary CTE, PY 2005 The Gateway AgendaHighways to College & Careers: 1. Universal High Performance Education 2. World Class Learning Standards 3. Comprehensive K-Adult Career Development System 4. Individual Opportunity Plans for All Students 5. Gateway Planning Templates Four Paths to College & Careers (chart) 6. Career Academies: CTE-Based SLCs Industries/Clusters/Academies Crosswalk Matrix 7. College/Tech-Prep Program Majors Approved CTE Program Majors, SY 2006 (table) Pro-Tech Sample Programs of Study 8. DC Regional CTE Delivery System 9. Accelerated Transitions to Postsecondary Education 10. DC State Education Transition Policy 11. New Columbia Gateway Center 12. Jobs for Americas GraduatesDistrict of Columbia 13. DC Consortium for Career-Technical Education 14. Projected Performance Outcomes of CTE Renewal Endnotes Appendix: Selected OCTE Activities, School Year 2003-2004 Colophon 2

18 20 21 26 28

CONTENTS

29 31 31 32 32 36 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 49 50 53 59 64 66

reparing the workforce of the future is one of the most fundamental and essential tasks of any educational systemboth from the individual standpoint, and from the perspective of society as a whole. From the individual standpoint, success in the labor market is usually a necessary (although hardly sufficient) foundation for success in other arenas of adult life. From the perspective of society as a whole, the economic foundations of society must be maintained as each generation transitions to the next; if not, every other value of social life and civilization will soon be compromised.

INTRODUCTION

When the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) set out in 1994 to identify the knowledge and skills that every American must master as prerequisites for success in the 21st Century, they defined 16 universal Equipped for the Future learning standardsorganized, not in terms of academic subject areas, but in terms of three primary roles of adult life: parent/family member, citizen/community member, and worker/workforce member (cf. http://eff.cls.utk.edu/fundamentals/eff_roles.htm). The case can readily be made that success in third role area, the labor market, is an all-but-absolute prerequisite to success in the other two, family and community lifeat least for the majority of ordinary Americans.

From an educational and training standpoint, the labor force can be divided up into ranges of occupations with similar skill prerequisites. Models offering sufficient precision for most planning purposes identify five basic sectors1: The professional sector is made up of careers which typically require a four-year baccalaureate degree or higher as a prerequisite for entry; The technical sector includes careers which typically require a two-year associate degree, a diploma, or other postsecondary certificate; The high skills sector includes careers which require formal on-the-job training but no a postsecondary credential; Semiskilled occupations require only a high school diploma or GED; Unskilled occupations require no more than an eighth grade level of literacy, or less. 3

Around the turn of the 20th Century, when the foundations of the American public high school system were laid, the vast majority of occupations fell into what is now the Unskilled categorythey required no more than an eighth grade education as prerequisite for entry. Today, a century later, completely unskilled occupations represent barely 20% of the labor market. In very round numbers, the five sectors defined above can be treated as roughly equal labor market quintiles. Unskilled and semiskilled occupations account for roughly 40% of all jobs. Professional occupations account for slightly over one in five. Technical and high skills careers make up almost another 40%2.

INTRODUCTION

ntil the passage of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) ten years ago, relatively little public attention was paid to an apparent paradoxat least from the perspective of workforce preparationin the allocation of U.S. educational resources. For the better part of half a century, upwards of 80% of the energy, enthusiasm, and dedication of the mainstream of public education was focused on preparing students for barely 20% of all jobs. In 1957, Harvard President James B. Conant launched a grand crusade to mobilize American education to meet the challenges of the Cold War3. Within a decade, the public schools of the United States had largely become focused on a single, overriding objective: to seek out the best and the brightest among American youth and prepare them to enroll in a four-year, baccalaureate degree program. Today, both individual achievement and school performance are expressed in terms of SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores and AP (Advanced Placement) course takingonly partially supplanted of late by the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) scores of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). A high percentage of College Prep students has been the badge of a quality high school. The percentage of seniors who declare their intention to enter a four-year program has been an index of teacher accomplishment. Guidance counselors have seen their primary role as one of helping students gain admission to the 4-year college of their choice. Students who make other choices are said to have failed to go to collegewith a not-very-subtle emphasis on the word failed. 4

The upside of this postwar focus on preparing students for fouryear colleges and professional careers is obvious. The emphasis on mobilizing the Best and the BrightestConants vision of a kind of warrior meritocracy to mount the ramparts of the Cold Warsuccessfully fostered a significant democratization of higher education in the United States. A much broader section of American society has access to higher education today than was the case at midcentury. In the first half of the 20th century, legacy admissionsthe children of old money alumnidominated enrollments at Ivy League universities and other elite institutions. Today, almost any talented and energetic student, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, can realistically aspire to matriculate at Harvard, Yale, or an equivalent entry portal to what used to be a closed Old Boy network. Until the 1950s, high ability was not a prerequisite to college admission, nor high achievement a universal goal of attendance; the Gentlemans C represented a perfectly acceptable level of performance. Today, American college graduates meet world class levels of performance in virtually all disciplines, and Americas postgraduate institutions have few equals anywhere in the world. Many rapidly growing occupations require a four-year degree, and (except during periods of recession) the real earnings of college graduates have resisted the general decline in living standards since 1973. he downside of the near-exclusive focus on four-year College Prep has been the not-so-benign neglect of what might be called the Forgotten 75%the over three-fourths of our students who do not secure entry into a professional career. At the high school level, most school systems offer students a choice between three different courses of studynominally organized around alternative career objectives. Typically, at least a third of students have been enrolled in College Prep primed to pursue a baccalaureate degree and thence a professional career. Upwards of another third have been enrolled in vocational/career-technical/workforce education preparing for direct entry into a skilled craft occupation, traditionally without the benefit of postsecondary education. The balance have been consigned to the General course of studya watered-down version of the liberal arts curriculum which generally prepares no one for anything in particular. 5

INTRODUCTION

Alternately, learning styles have sometimes been said to be an organizing principle of secondary educationwith abstract, classroom learners assigned to College Prep, applied, shopbased learners assigned to vocational education, and cooperative education reserved for experiential, work-based learners. Even in those terms, the systems priorities have been clear and unmistakable. In the eyes of many teachers and administrators, College Prep students are there to be educated and vocational students are there to be trainedwhile General students are there to be warehoused, neither educated nor trained. But in reality, perceived ability levels, not career perspectives or learning styles, are the true differentiating factoror to put it another way, the three courses of study have come to be treated as tracks. College Prep has become the track for the upper quartile. General educationor more recently, Tech Prephas been defined as the track for the middle 50%. And in recent years, traditional vocational education has often been stigmatized as a refuge for low achievers and special needs students, presumed to represent the bottom 25%. As early as kindergarten, a form of educational triage takes place in many classrooms, as entering students are sorted out into the College Bound and the Not College Material primarily on the basis of teacher assumptions about their inherent, genetically-determined cognitive ability and/or learning style. And not always, but all too often, students judged Not College Materialand the programs designed to serve themare relegated to the margins of the educational enterprise. There is an obvious issue of equity and civil rights posed by ability-based tracking: research suggests that I.Q. as we understand it is fundamentally an artifact of the testing process, and that socioeconomic discrimination in fact underlies the process of grouping students on the basis of teacher-perceived ability4. Middle and upper-middle class students make up the ranks of the College Bound. The children of ordinary working people are usually defined as Not College Material. And the children of the poor are disproportionately categorized as at-risk or special needs students.5 6

INTRODUCTION

ut the larger problem presented by what might be termed the College Prep Hegemony is that it functions as a kind of low performance education system programming the majority of students for low achievement and that it perpetuates an increasingly profound mismatch between the outcomes of education and the needs of a high performance economy.

INTRODUCTION

A national survey released in November 1993 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that almost 85% of high school students surveyed declared an intention to enroll in a four-year college or university program when they graduated from high schoolwith almost 60% intending to pursue a professional career and 25% planning to become independent business managers or entrepreneurs. But just a few months earlier, what is now the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had reported [in Transition From School to Work, September, 1993] that only 15% of entering high school students actually complete a four-year degree within ten years. Many nominally College Prep students never actually matriculate in a four-year institution, and nearly 50% of those who do enroll drop out before graduation. The lower a students family income, the greater the likelihood they will drop out. Beyond that, around 20% of college graduates never secure a professional career (upwards of 40% of technical and community college students have previous college experience; upwards of 15% have already earned a baccalaureate or higher degree). A recent NCES study concluded that 43% of all four-year degree holders were underemployed, and fully 2/3 of those with liberal arts degrees6. The hard fact is that the demand for college graduates is not supply-elastic. The number of jobs which truly demand baccalaureate degrees as a prerequisite for entry is independent of the number of applicants. In job markets with an obvious oversupply of four-year degree holders, many employers start demanding baccalaureate degrees as a qualification for nonprofessional occupations, simply as a way of pre-screening for older, more disciplined applicants. But according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of professional occupations has hovered around 20% for over five decades. BLS projections suggest that, even in the year 2010, less than a fourth of all jobs will require a B.A. or B.S. degree or higher.7 7

Inevitably, when a four-year degree and a professional career is touted as the ultimate objective of American education, but only one in five can ever reach that objective, the morale of the majority of students is underminedparticularly in the context of pervasive ability-based grouping. However it is packaged, the real significance of the rigid system of what has been called tracking American style (or The Great American Sorting Machine8) is not lost on the students and not surprisingly, its effect on the motivation and self-esteem of those deemed Not College Material is often quite catastrophic. Finding themselves predestined to failure in a system whose overriding objective is to prepare students to go on to a fouryear college, the Not College Material react in a variety of ways. Some act out in an unconscious effort to get time off for bad behavior. A few become superachievers, to confound the systems gloomy forecast. Many simply drop out in place and wait until they are old enough to drop out for real. Most students enter public schooling intensely curious and fully motivated, with high self esteem and a love of learning. But all too typically, they exit school twelve years later, if not before, disinterested and poorly motivated, with low self-esteem, low aspirations, and an active dislike of learning. This is the central paradox of ability-based grouping: a classic self-fulfilling prophecy, it functions as a powerful engine of low performance. Although no teacher, no principal, no school board ever set out to achieve this objective, the myth of the best and the brightest relegates everyone else to becoming inferior and dim. ronically, this is, it seems, just what the economy needed at the time. As John Dewey once observed, every society gets the educational system it deserves.

INTRODUCTION

The hidden curriculum of American education for the Not College Material has been high tolerance for boredom, low selfconfidence, fear of tardiness, acceptance of regimentation, lack of curiosity, indifference to quality, and unquestioning acquiescence to rigid external disciplineand these are exactly the workforce survival skills needed in an era of long-run, assembly line, industrial commodity mass production, the characteristic mode of production for most of the 20th Century. 8

The unanticipated but functional side effect of ability-based grouping and the hegemony of four-year College Prep has been, in effect, to numb up and dumb down the Forgotten 75%, so that they could tolerate the dominant industrial regimen of the past six to eight decades. Today, at the dawn of the third millennium, the Cold War is long over. Today, the national interest of America and the human community as a whole requires a different kind of global strugglea struggle against poverty, disease, discrimination, oppression, genocide, terrorism, war, environmental decay. In the global economy, the standard of living and quality of life of all Americans depends upon the labor force as a wholenot just four-year college graduatesmeeting or exceeding world standards. Programming the majority of students for low performanceto follow orders, do the minimum needed to get by, dont ask questions, dont rock the boatmay have been tolerable when the real core curriculum of education for the Not College Material was adapting to the discipline and the tedious routines of the traditional factory. But in a production environment that stresses flexibility instead of docility, creativity instead of conformity, teamwork instead of atomization, communication skills instead of silent acquiescence, imagination instead of blind obedience, technology instead of time-motion studies, active learning instead of rote memorization, we cant afford to undereducate, undermotivate, or underemploy any of our citizens. The human resource potential of everyone, not just professionals, must be realized to the fullest. The entire labor force must be mobilized on a high engagement, high performance basismust become the Best and the Brightest. And to create this new kind of workforce, a new approach to workforce education is required. In 1990, the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, a project of the National Center on Education and the Economy, published a far-reaching reportAmericas Choice: High Skills or Low Wagesthat laid much of the conceptual foundation for just this new iteration of vocational education. The STWOA of 1994, followed by the Carl D. Perkins Act of 1998, have set the stage in Federal statutes and appropriations for a career-technical education for the 21st Century. 9

INTRODUCTION

CTE TODAY & TOMORROW

n implicit underpinning of both the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-329, now sunsetted) and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-332, scheduled for reauthorization this spring) is a comprehensive yet integrated vision of high skills workforce development built upon a foundation of universal high performance education. Enacted on October 31, 1998the latest reauthorization of Federal vocational education legislation dating back to the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917Perkins III represents the fifth major rewrite since the inception of the modern vocational education program in 1963, and the third version to carry the name of the late Representative Carl D. Perkins (D-Kentucky), a stalwart champion of vocational education. The original period of authorization expired June 30, 2004, and the House and the Senate failed to reach a consensus on Perkins IV prior to the 2004 election. However, hearings have been held by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and successful reauthorization is anticipated in the spring of 2005. Pending reauthorization, an automatic extension will maintain the authority of States and the Federal government to continue programming supported under the Perkins Act through June 30, 2006. Under Perkins III, the term vocational and technical education refers to school-based, career-specific workforce education programs: coherent sequences of courses, offered at the secondary, postsecondary, or adult levels, designed to develop the academic and workplace skills specific to a particular occupation or career cluster requiring less than a baccalaureate degree. In many States, including DC, the term vocational education has generally been replaced over the last several years by career and technical education, career and technology education, or simply career-technical educationabbreviated as CTE or career-tech. At the secondary level, career-tech programs are sometimes confused with a variety of other offerings linked to the practical arts tradition in education: broad career exploration programs (career education); nonoccupational family and consumer sciences programs (home economics); technology education programs (industrial arts); and, applied academics (education through occupations). 10

CTE TODAY & TOMORROW

Under earlier reauthorizations of Federal vocational-technical legislation, many programs and activities falling under those headings were potentially eligible for Federal support, but that is not the case with funds appropriated for CTE under Perkins III. Until recently, secondary career-technical education was divided into two basic categories: occupational preparation programs, designed to prepare students for immediate labor market entry, into occupations that dont require postsecondary education as a prerequisite; and, technical preparation programs (Tech-Prep or 2+2), designed to prepare students for enrollment into an associate degree, certificate, or apprenticeship program (at a community or technical college), en route to a technical career. But since the passage of first the STWOA and then Perkins III, Federal policy has assumed that all students should be prepared for both postsecondary education and careers. In practice, occupational prep and technical prep have been converging. In a growing number of States and localities, again including DC, CTE programs have begun rising to meet the standards set by Tech-Prep. From a statutory standpoint, two separate funding streams are authorized under Perkins III: Basic Grants to States under Title I, 8, and Tech-Prep Grants under Title II, 208. But despite formal distinctions between the two funding programs (Basic State Grants are defined under CFDA No 84.048 and Tech-Prep Grants under CFDA No. 84.243), the activities supported under each authorization have become increasingly difficult to differentiate. In recognition of this fact, the House has proposed that Tech-Prep Grants be absorbed into Basic State Grants in the course of the coming reauthorization. A complementary trend that is emerging in the District of Columbia and other States is the involvement of the careertech community in preparing secondary students for entry into both associate degree and baccalaureate degree programs. A number of Statesagain including DChave established rigorous core academic requirements for all CTE programs that satisfy the minimum entry standards of four-year as well as twoyear postsecondary education programs. 11

CTE TODAY & TOMORROW

CTE programs in such States are typically categorized as College/Tech-Prep pathways, and students who complete such programs are identified as dual completersqualified to enter either an AAS degree program at a two-year community or technical college, en route to a technical career, or a BS degree program at a four-year college or university, en route to a professional career. In addition, a growing number of Tech-Prep articulation agreements are being negotiated as open-ended, 2+2+2 agreementssometimes referred to as Pro-Prep (professional preparation) articulationswhich prepare students to pursue baccalaureate degrees and professional careers through associate degree programs and technical education. Moreover, an increasing number of CTE programs have become dual focus programs that simultaneously prepare students to pursue either technical or professional careers in the same career area or industrial sector. As an overall category, these emerging pre-baccalaureate career-tech programs are sometimes categorized as Professional-Technical Education (PTE or Pro-Tech). The Senate proposal for Perkins reauthorization extends explicit formal sanction to these program variants by removing the language in 29 that limits CTE to preparation for occupations that require less than a baccalaureate degree as a prerequisite for entry. In effect, it institutionalizes Pro-Tech.

Underlying Perkins III, three basic themes can be identified: Regardless of career objectives, all students must master the universal, common core knowledge and skills academic, career, and life competenciesrequired for success and self-sufficiency in a global economy; All students should enroll in and successfully complete (without remediation) at least one year of postsecondary education, and be prepared for further education or training and lifelong learning; All students should be prepared for high performance, high productivity employment (in high skills, high wage sectors of a high technology economy) and for openended educational and career advancement. 12

CTE TODAY & TOMORROW

Specific statutory objectives for the use of Perkins III resources include the following (citations are representative, not exhaustive): 1. Ensuring that all career-tech students master Stateestablished academic and skill standards, enroll in and complete postsecondary education (without the need of remediation), and make a successful entry into a high skills, high wage career [113(b)(2)(A)]; 2. Affording equal, nondiscriminatory access to a full range of quality CTE programs for individuals who are members of special populations, and providing the services and supports needed to ensure their success in those programs [122(c)(8)]; 3. Fostering career-tech programs that prepare women for nontraditional training and employment in current and emerging high skills, high wage sectors [134(b)(9)]; 4. Developing, increasing, and expanding the use of state-ofthe-art technology in CTE, and increasing access for CTE students to high tech, high growth industries [124(b)(2)]; 5. Providing comprehensive professional development programs for CTE teachers, designed to ensure they stay current with industry standards and are prepared for Perkins III accountability requirements [135(b)(4)]; 6. Supporting high quality career-tech and career guidance programs for individuals incarcerated in State correctional institutions, including women and young people [122(c)(18)]; 7. Fostering partnerships to support high achievement by CTE studentsamong secondary, postsecondary, and adult education; school-to-work programs; employers and unions; parents and students; elected officials; and members of the community at large [124(b)(6)]. Overall, CTE under the Perkins Act serves as a critical nexus of education and the economy in the 21st century. At one and the same time, it represents: the career-specific component of high performance public education; the school-based, first-chance arm of high-skills workforce development; and, the competency-based, education engine of high wage economic development. 13

CTE TODAY & TOMORROW

Career-Technical Education Nexus of Educational Reform & Economic Development

High Skills Workforce Development

High Performance Education

CTE

High Wage Economic Development

21ST CENTURY SKILLS FOR 21ST CENTURY CAREERS

14

CTE TODAY & TOMORROW

Despite the seeming clarity of CTEs role under the provisions of the Perkins Act, the inherent diversity of career-tech education as an enterprise, in a country which has no formal or coherent national workforce development system, is compounded by an even greater diversity of perceptions of its basic mission and role. The ranks of both advocates and detractors of CTE include many, for example, who understand voc ed at the secondary level as first and foremost a form of work-formatted special educationas a supportive arena for basic skills development and transition assistance for cognitively disabled students. Another widespread vision of secondary CTE is that of a contextual alternative education (and dropout prevention or recovery) program, a learning environment for students who to one degree or another are at risk or alienated from mainstream school structure. This is one way of characterizing the highly successful High Schools That Work (HSTW) model, which was pioneered by Gene Bottoms for the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta and has since attracted affiliates throughout much of the country. The basic thrust of the HSTW approach is to use applied learning in a secondary CTE format to ensure that students defined as career bound meet rigorous core academic standards. Those who tend to see CTE as a form of special education often think in terms of a special work skills curriculum, focused on sheltered work or supported work environments, with minimal academic content. In contrast, those who tend to view CTE as a form of alternative education emphasize universal academic standards, sometimes de-emphasizing or even excluding career-specific skill development. What unites these approaches is the fact that assumptions about the inherent abilities of their target student populations fundamentally define their programs. What might be termed occupational special education is a program for students perceived to have limited cognitive ability (the bottom 25% of the bell-shaped curve). Applied and contextual alternative educationoften referred to as Education Through Occupationsis a program for contextual or hands-on learners. 15

CTE TODAY & TOMORROW

In contrast to both those approaches, proponents of still another model of CTEwhat has been called The New Vocationalismtypically position their vision as a program for all students: they reject organization of schools around teacher perceptions of student abilities or learning styles, but at the same time, they also reject organization of the secondary curriculum around labor market objectives. The New Vocationalism is often taken to mean deferral of all careerspecific skill development to the postsecondary levelwith secondary CTE reduced to broad, sector-independent career preparation, and integrated into all courses of study at the secondary level, regardless of career objectives. In contrast, the model of secondary CTE manifested in Perkins III neither makes assumptions about the ability or learning styles of CTE students nor purports to meet the needs of all students (only the large majority). Both the stereotypical Old Vocationalism (manual arts programs designed to train the Not College Material for entry into low wage, dead end jobs) and the careerindependent, skills-neutral version of New Vocationalism are really outside the frame of reference of Perkins III.

Under Perkins III [3(26) and 3(29)], a career tech program of study is defined in very demanding terms: a coherent, nonduplicative, competency-based sequence of courses, at: either the secondary or the postsecondary level, or both; which integrates both core and higher order academics AND career and workplace basics AND specific occupational/technical skills; and, incorporates work-based learning and entrepreneurship prep where feasible and appropriate [135(c)(3)]; and, prepares students for further education; and, leads to high-wage, high-skill employment, in: career fields that require less than a four-year degree as a prerequisite for entry, in: current or emerging employment sectors.

CTE is not ability defined. To suggest that Career-Tech is, say, the inverse of gifted and talented programming is no more valid than arguing that College Prep is the inverse of compensatory education. Career-Techs core role is that of the first-chance, first-stage workforce development system for the non-baccalaureate labor force. 16

Models of Secondary Work-Related Education in Relation to School & Curriculum Organization Career Dimensions of the Secondary Curriculum:
Career-Themed Instruction Career-Specific Programs

School Organization & Student Grouping:

AspirationsBasedmm

Career Preparation
(Education about Careers Assimilated into Mainstream Education; Broad Career Themes as a Format for Mastery of Core Curricula)

Career-Tech. Ed. (CTE)

(Education for Careers Articulated with Mainstream Education; Career-Specific Content as Value-Added to Mastery of Core Curricula)

AbilityBased

17

Voc. Alternative Ed.

(Education through Occupations Segregated from Mainstream Ed. Applied Academics as a Methodology for Mastery of Core Curricula)

Voc. Special Ed.

(Preparation for Work Subordinated to Mainstream Education; Work-Formatted Learning as an Environment for Mastery of Basic Life & Work Skills)

ive years into the first century of the Third Millennium of the modern era, the schools of the Nations Capital indeed, of the nation as a wholestruggle with a chronic crisis, a crisis whose roots lie deep in the century past.

Ceremonial gatherings were organized in 2003 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the publication of A Nation At Riskan event in 1983 that helped launch the nationwide educational reform movement, a movement today institutionalized as NCLBthe No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. So much has changed since 1983, and yetso much remains the same. A virtual tsunami of reform efforts has washed back and forth across the landscape of American education. Few if any school systems have been unaffected. Many are spending more on education, despite drastic cuts imposed by the recurrent budget crises of the last fifteen years. In general, teachers are better qualified and somewhat better paid than twenty years ago. High school graduation requirements have been strengthened, sometimes dramatically. And yet, for all our efforts, little tangible improvement can be confidently demonstrated. Test scoresthe primary focus of NCLBhave been rising in some States and communities. But no one is sure if the higher scores are a valid and meaningful reflection of increased knowledge and skills, or just an artifact of manipulations of the pool of tested students. Nationwide, upwards of a third of our students drop out without receiving a high school diploma9in DC, many estimates put the dropout level at upwards of 50%and the testing regimen is driving dropout rates (in truth, pushout rates) upward in large parts of the country. Other students hang on for a diploma, but drift through secondary education without any real sense of accomplishment and with poor prospects after graduation. At the postsecondary level, enrollment levels are increasingly threatened by rising tuition and declining student aidwhile remediation rates remain high and completion rates low. Overall, there remains a persistent perception that American education is failing both our youth and our future. Research suggests that the violence and substance abuse that seem endemic in many schools are in key respects a labor market problem: dead-end choices made because no believable future is visible on the life horizons of young people. 18

DCS CHOICE

nner-city children are the coal mine canaries of 21st century America. Their crisis, and the overall crisis of American education, is a not-too-distant early warning of a larger crisis in the American economy and American society as a whole: outside of the schools, our standard of living and quality of life are in serious and growing jeopardy. Technological wizardry has brought wondrous changes to the look and feel of everyday life: personal computers, DVDs, cell phones, digital cameras, the Webthe list of marvels seems endless and endlessly amazing. But meanwhile, as former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and others have emphasized, the real wages of American workers peaked in 1972-73 around the time that President Nixon imposed temporary wage controlsand have since fallen back to the levels of the 1950s.

DCS CHOICE

Family income has so far avoided a fully proportionate fall instead remaining more or less stagnant near the levels of the middle 1970sbut only because of the wholesale entry of women into the labor force. Today, the average family needs two working spouses to support roughly the same standard of living secured by a single breadwinner a generation ago. Today, what the U.S. Education Department refers to informally as a family supporting wage really means 50% of the total income required to support an American family in minimum comfort and security. Five years after the dot.com bubble burst, the stock market appears to have resumed the climb that became the lietmotif of the 1990s. But no corresponding recovery for jobs and incomes seems in the offing. New job creation has finally begun to outpace losses, but the jobs being created are typically at lower income levels than the ones disappearing. Concessionary bargaining and the decline of labor unions in general are only one symptom of the Wal*Marting of the world economy. High-paying jobs are fleeing, not just from the North and the East to the South and the West, as in earlier decades, but from the U.S. to Mexico, Taiwan, Korea, China, Indiaand even from higher-income regions within those countries to lowerwhere they are reborn as low-wage jobs. As income inequality in America reaches levels unknown in modern times, the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing. Not just American education, but the American Dream itself is on the threshold of crisis. 19

hile hardly promising a panacea, a growing body of research and practice suggests strongly that raising the educational and skill levels of the workforce represents one key strategy for resolving the dual crisis of American education and the American Dream. It is a commonplace to complain that international competition bears much of the responsibility for falling real wages. Media attention has highlighted specific industrial sectors that have failed to compete effectively, such as steel. But, as the Americas Choice report pointed out, the problem has never been that American business in general has been losing the global competitive struggle. Rather, Americas Choice argued convincingly that the fall in real wages in the United States has in part been a manifestation of a tendency of American business to meet growing international competition by adopting a low-wage strategy: using out-sourcing, off-shoring, downsizing, take backs, union decertification, plant closures, and part-time and part-year employment to drive wages down toward Third World levels. As an alternative to lower wages, Americas Choice proposed high skills: a strategy based on learning to work better and smarter, not cheaper: a high performance, high quality, high technology, high value-added, high wage strategy. The basic thesis of Americas Choice is that education can foster a high wage business strategy by creating a new type of workforce: a high skills, high productivity workforce that is ready, wiling, and able to staff high performance work organizationsto engage in global competition based on quality, innovation, and flexibilitybased on increasing value, rather than simply cutting costs. The economy of the future is a new technology economy. Today, virtually every dimension of the human experience agriculture and manufacturing, communications and transportation, energy and the environment, housing and community development, art and entertainment, politics and culture, family life and education, health care and warfareis undergoing or on the threshold of a profound transformation wrought by scientific and technological change. By midcentury, the very nature of human life may have evolved well beyond our present imagining. 20

DCS CHOICE

In the long run, the dot-com bust of 2000 and the terrorism crisis that began in 2001 will only accelerate real innovation, not retard it. High tech, high skills, high performance, high valueadded work organizations can serve as a foundation for general prosperity for the America of the 21st century Already, the technical workforce is fast emerging as the dynamic core of this new technology economy. Technicians, technologists, journey workers, and other high skills workers (with associate degrees, diplomas, certificates, and other skill credentials) represent the center of gravity of the 21st Century labor marketupwards of 40% of the workforce, almost twice the percentage of professional workers with four-year degrees or higher.

DCS CHOICE

The recurrent perception of a national skills crisis in the United States is a very concrete and immediate manifestation of the long-term shift toward the technician/technologist sector of the labor market. The various strategies that business leaders and politicians have put forward for addressing the national shortage of IT (information technologyi.e., software) workers attracted considerable publicity in the past several years. Less well known, but equally acute, is the worsening shortage of ET (electronic technologyi.e., hardware) workers. Industry estimates project an annual shortfall of almost one million workers if current trends persist. A broad range of other high skills sectors, from precision metals to construction to health care to manufacturing to biotechnology, are sounding similar alarms in many parts of the countryall this at a time when, as noted earlier, persistent underemployment has reached an historic high of 43% among baccalaureate degree holders as a whole and 67% among liberal arts majors.

areer-technical education is the training of choice for the new high skills, high wage, technical sector. Secondary and postsecondary CTE each have critical, and complementary, roles to play. At the postsecondary level, community and technical colleges are a first line of defense in efforts to overcome the national skills crisis, a first line of offense in the struggle for a world-class workforce. Flexible, adaptable, and customer-driven, with strong ties to business and industry, community colleges are a pillar of the national workforce development system. 21

As Anthony Carnevale and Donna Desrochers put it, technical and community colleges are gradually emerging as the prototypical learning institutions for the new economy.10 Thomas R. Bailey and Irina E. Averianova of the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Columbia University make exactly the same case: A growing number of policy makers and business leaders look to occupational education at the community college as a key site for building the workforce for the next century.11 Recent research by Norton Grubb at the University of California at Berkeley has underscored the fact that technical and community colleges, by creating pools of high skills workers in communities eager for high performance business growth, can serve as powerful engines of economic development.12

DCS CHOICE

In making growth and development decisions, Grubb argues, business leaders and entrepreneurs typically expect to recruit for technologists, technicians, and other high skills workers within a forty-mile radius of their existing or proposed facility. At the same time, they assume that four-year degree holders can easily be recruited from a national pool. Thus, regional concentrations of four-year degree holders are not a factor in business decisionsbut concentrations of technically-trained workers appear as targets of opportunity, as Great Attractors of Economic Growth. At the same time, secondary CTEin the form of Tech-Prep and College/Tech-Prep programs of studyis repositioning itself as a powerful feeder system for postsecondary CTE. The high school diploma or GED is no longer an end in itself, but the doorway to postsecondary education. As the report of the National Commission on the High School Senior Year (Raising Our Sights: No High School Senior Left Behind) concluded, In the emerging 21st century, all Americans will require two additional years of formal education and training at some point after they leave high school. It is quite true, as James Rosenbaum (among others) has argued, that the labor market of the immediate present employs as many unskilled and semiskilled workers as skilled and highly skilled (each sector represents upwards of 40% of the total labor market). In fact, upwards of 20% of all current employment is made up of occupations that dont even require a high school diploma as a prerequisite.13 22

But the low skills sector of the labor market is overwhelmingly dominated by part-time, part-year, minimum wage employmentjobs that offer poor working conditions, no benefits, and no job security. For success and self-sufficiency in the 21st century global economyfor breadwinner employmenteducation and training beyond high school has become, for all practical purposes, a universal prerequisite.14

o open the door to postsecondary education, universal high achievement must become the standard in secondary education. All students must master the common core skills and knowledge of a global economy: reading, writing, and communications; mathematics and problem-solving; scientific understanding and reasoning; family life, civic life, and workplace skills. Recent reports by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), in addition to raising the alarm about the shortage of machinists and other precision manufacturing workers, have reemphasized chronic concerns among employers and postsecondary educators alike about serious deficiencies in reading, writing, mathematics, and other basic skills exhibited by recent high school graduates.15

DCS CHOICE

Until now, very different expectations have been pervasive for students perceived as the College Bound and students defined as Not College Material. There has been a yawning gap in academic achievementan Achievement Gapnot between vocational students and regular students, as sometimes implied, but between all students defined as Not College Material (whether enrolled in career-tech programs or not) and those students identified as College Bound. To close this Achievement Gap, schools must abandon abilitybased segregationmust outlaw the stereotyping of children as Not College Material. As Raising Our Sights recommended, State and Federal policy should prohibit practices that have the explicit or unintended consequence of categorizing students into groups so that offering them a watered-down curriculum can more readily be justified.16 Ability stereotyping must be eradicated at every level. All available data indicates that when we create an expectation of failure, student achievement generally falls to the levels we expect. If we truly expect all students to succeed, they will generally exceed our expectations. 23

The Achievement Gap is sometimes attributed to career-tech education itself. But both national and State and local data indicate strongly that the Gap has deep roots in American schools, tracing back to grade four and below. Career-tech programs, in contrast, rarely begin until grade 11they cant be the source of the problem. Rather, as Ivan Charner and Robin Whites recent research for the National Center for Research in Career and Technical Education has once again attested, quality career-tech programs at the secondary level [particularly those in sharedtime regional technical centers, but even many in larger comprehensive high schools] have always incorporated the related (often higher order) academics needed for successful performance in a high skills occupation.17

DCS CHOICE

Many States and localities have successfully responded to the Perkins requirements for academic integration simply by systematically mapping or inventorying the embedded academic content of ongoing career-tech courses.

eyond reinforcing academic achievement, however, and powerfully promoting high school retention and graduation, CTE at the secondary level plays the role of jump starting the acquisition of the career-specific knowledge and skills that will continue at the postsecondary level. There is no biological or sociological rule that says careerspecific skill development must be postponed arbitrarily until a high school diploma is earned or the age of 18 is reached. On the contrary, the line between secondary and postsecondary CTE is becoming increasingly blurred in schools and community colleges around the nation.

A whole series of secondary/postsecondary linkage initiatives (loosely grouped under the heading of Accelerated Transitions to Postsecondary Education) are being pilot tested and pioneered in many communities: not just advanced TechPrep articulation agreements that award transcripted postsecondary credit to high school CTE program completers, but also dual enrollment and simultaneous completion agreements, community college satellites within Early College High Schools, Middle Colleges and Tech-Prep High Schools located on community college campuses, CTE courses taught by community college faculty, and AAS programs offered at secondary CTE centers.18 24

Moreover, as research by Paul Harrington and his colleagues has documented (at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston), career-specific occupational and technical skill development reaps substantial rewards in the labor market at every educational levelfrom high school through doctoral degrees.19 Unfortunately, the capability of individual high schools, colleges, communities and States to offer advanced secondary career-tech programs of study varies widely across the country. The latest NAVE report (the 2004 National Assessment of Vocational Education,20 mandated under 114(c)(3) of Perkins III) surprised many by highlighting the continuing high numbers of students who participate in CTE courses at the secondary level and even enroll in and complete CTE programs of study. Over 90% of high schools in the U.S. are identified as comprehensive; they offer students at least one course which they identify as vocational, and over 90% of their students take at least one such course. But many of the vocational courses at comprehensive high schools are actually focused on basic workplace or life skills (keyboarding, technology education, family and consumer education, general business or agriculture, or shop). Only 75% of high schools offer even one coherent sequence of courses that meets the demanding Perkins Act criteria for a CTE program, and many of the nominal CTE programs that are offered by comprehensive high schools are in fact quite basic or general. Only a relative handful of comprehensive high schools offer a broad range of quality, higher level programs; according to a 1993 OVAE study, fewer than 5% support more than six distinct programs. On the other hand, most States also support area skill development centers, which do in fact offer a broad range of advanced, high quality career-tech programs to high school students (and adults), on a regional basis. According to a recent study by Richard Lynch of the University of Georgia,21 approximately 1,100 area career-tech centers are in operation around the country; each accepts students from all the sending high schools in a service region, on a sharedtime basis. In addition, there are also roughly 250 full-time, diploma-granting, regional CTE high schools. 25

DCS CHOICE

In Maine, for example, a State which concentrates all secondary CTE in regional career-tech centers, fully seventy different programs are offered among 26 centers, ranging from aquaculture to precision manufacturing to computer networking to entrepreneurship, from law enforcement to multimedia to biotechnology to pre-health studies. Many of Maines secondary CTE programs compare favorably in technical rigor to the state-of-the-art associate degree offerings of the Maine Community College System-a fact which has sometimes made secondary-postsecondary articulation agreements more difficult, rather than easier. Similarly, Californias statewide network of Regional Occupational Centers (ROCs) not only operates advanced area workforce education centers, it also outplaces selected high level regional career tech programs into large comprehensive high schools. One of the painful paradoxes of the evolution of CTE in the 1990s was a trend in some States away from regionalized CTE delivery systems like area career-tech centers, despite substantial evidence that the economies of scale offered by regional centers (with respect to both resources and students) make implementing a broad range of advanced and high tech programs of study much more affordable.

DCS CHOICE

DC

in fact represents a worst-case scenario (a proverbial poster child) for the dissolution of area CTE centers and the devolution of both secondary and postsecondary career-tech programming in general. Barely a decade ago, the students and employers of the District of Columbia enjoyed a secondary career/vocational/ technical education system that compared very favorably with advanced workforce education programs in Oklahoma, Maine, Delaware, Massachusetts, and other CTE strongholds throughout the nation. Although repeated data housecleanings (at both the Federal and District levels) have erased most detailed records of DC vocational education in the 20th century, enough documentation remains to paint a vivid picture of how much the young people and the economy of the District have lost in just the last few years.21 26

As recently as the 1992-1993 school year, for example, DCPS invested nearly $22 million in State/local 1992 dollars directly in CTE. The ratio of District support to Federal support was approximately 5-to-1. In contrast, the total 2004 resource base for CTE in DC just slightly exceeded $5 million in 2004 dollars, of which barely $485,000 represented State/local dollarsa District-to-Federal ratio of approximately 1-to-10. (For comparison, the State of Maine, whose school year 20032004 Carl D. Perkins Basic State Grant was less than $6 million, appropriated over $15 million for secondary CTE. Illinois invested $31 million State dollars during that same year. Oklahoma, with a Perkins grant of only $17 million, committed almost $125 million. See next page for data on additional States.)

DCS CHOICE

In 1990-91, approximately 3,000 DCPS students were identified as enrolled in vocational education programs of study, and enrollment was projected to increase by 5% per year.23 In contrast, for the 2004 school year no standard CTE student count existed, and (given certain assumptions) less than 75 CTE concentrators could be identified for Federal reporting purposes.24 In the 1990s, DCPS supported a citywide network of seven regional CTE centers (termed career-focused high schools and vocational centers), achieving the concentrations of resources and students needed to support high level technical education programs. Program development was proceeding in cutting edge career areas such as emergency medical technology, paralegal technology, law enforcement, and veterinary technology. By the 2003-04 program year, all but one center had been shut down, their programs dispersedand in large part dissipated among comprehensive high schools around the city. Undermaintained for years, the last remaining career high school, M.M. Washington, is slated to lose that status at the end of this year. At one time, entrepreneurship preparation and work-based learning pervaded CTE programming. DCPS student-run enterprises included a restaurant in Adams-Morgan, a downtown department store, and an auto reconditioning center and used car dealership. Today, no trace of these exemplary learning opportunities remains. For so many of our students and neighborhoods, DCs choice is starkly posed: high skills or low wages. A 21st century CTE system must be rebuilt and reinvented to secure our future prosperity. 27

STATE CTE FUNDS PY 05

State Appropriations for Secondary Career-Technical Education, PY 2005

STATE
Alabama Arizona Arkansas Colorado District of Columbia Georgia Idaho Illinois Iowa Kentucky Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia West Virginia Wyoming

SECONDARY CTE FUNDS

$177,529,091 11,185,400 14,778,683 19,959,556 535,000 188,168,106 7,929,340 31,000,000 2,936,904 41,625,181 15,2000,000 29,000,000 109,100,000 31,363,935 715,000 730,050 362,620 16,012,074 3,107,472 3,569,202 6,800,000 123,887,358 45,000,000 12,767,549 118,146,927 695,742,065 97,555,445 30,569,167 8,870,317 648,792

Source: National Association of State Directors of CareerTechnical Education Consortium Listserv Survey, February, 2005 28

GATEWAY AGENDA

n the spring of 2002, the appointment of Dr. Arthur L. Curry as State Director of Career and Technical Education marked a new beginning for CTE in DCPS. OCTE has been charged with both renewing CTE and helping spearhead the reform of public high schools throughout the District. The core strategy proposed for both efforts involves restructuring the secondary curriculum around clearly defined Postsecondary Gateways, Career Academies, and Program Majors. The defining themes and elements of a Gateway Agenda for high school reinvention and career-tech renewalfor the creation of a comprehensive, accelerated School-To-Collegeand-Careers Transition Systeminclude the following: 1. Universal High Performance Education

In the global economy of the 21st Century, all students should be prepared for postsecondary education.25 For the first threequarters of the 20th Century, rising real wages brought a middle-class life style within reach of Americans with no more formal education than a high school diploma. But real wages have been declining or stagnant since 1973. Today, in the words of Anthony Carnevale of the Educational Testing Service, economic restructuring has made postsecondary education or training the threshold requirement for good jobs. According to U.S. Census Data, young high school graduates earn barely $2,000 per year more than high school dropouts. In contrast, associate degree holders earn $6,000 per year more than high school graduates, and baccalaureate degree recipients earn almost $20,000 more. The minimum premium for postsecondary education is 62%26. The U.S. Department of Education has identified a two-year postsecondary degree or certificate as the minimum credential for a family-supporting career.27 The characteristic economic mode of the 20th century was long run, commodity, mass productionan assembly line environment that demanded little in the way of academic skills and required high tolerance for boredom and regimentation. But todays economy needs a highly educated, highly skilled workforceliterate, engaged, self-motivated and selfdisciplined, flexible, adaptive, inventive, skilled at problem solving. Not only are postsecondary credentials a threshold to careers in high-tech sectors, but studies have also shown that being able to read well, communicate effectively, and use mathematical and scientific reasoning has become essential for entry and success at virtually every level of the labor market. 29

GATEWAY AGENDA

If we fail to ensure that all our students can read, write, and compute at world-standard levels, we are dooming them to a life at the economic margins. A prerequisite to preparing all students for both postsecondary education and careers must be the abolition of ability-based tracking28the segregation of our students, from kindergarten on, into the College Bound and the Not College Material. The near-exclusive focus of American education since the 1950s on the best and the brightest led to the creation of a secondtier, second-rate academic curriculum: the General Course of Study, a watered down, dumbed down caricature of traditional liberal arts offerings that failed to prepare students for either college, careers, or life. In many communities (including DC at one time), quality vocational and career-technical education programs have continued to offer students rigorous, career-specific knowledge and skill development. But CTE programs typically represent only four credits out of 24 required for high school graduation. They can hardly substitute for the equally rigorous academic knowledge that has been denied the Not College Material. Worse, the emphasis on programs for the College Bound has gradually eroded CTE in many Statesagain including DC. The overwhelming majority of students (over 97% in recent surveys) realize that postsecondary education has become a prerequisite to self-sufficiency and prosperity in contemporary America. But only a small minority are actually prepared for success at the postsecondary level. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, less than 2/3rds of high school students complete the minimum coursework required for postsecondary education at the associate degree level (4 credits in English, 3 each in Math, Science, and Social Studies the New Basics). Less than 30% meet the typical entrance requirements for four-year college programs (the same 13 credits plus two credits in a foreign language). Upwards of 50% of low-income and minority students never complete high school; many never even try. Barely 2/3rds of high school graduates ever enroll in college. Of those, less than half earn a degree or certificate; required in great numbers to take noncredit, remedial courses, many never even enter a degree program. Of those who do attain a credential (on average, less than one in four; in many communities, barely one in six), a growing number are saddled with crushing debt. 30

GATEWAY AGENDA

This is a formula for widespread poverty, struggling families, declining communities, income inequality, and economic stagnation. In place of tracking, we must establish universal high performance education. Instead of stigmatizing the majority of students as predestined to failure, we must internalize an expectation that all our students will succeed, and provide all the support necessary to ensure that they do.29 2. World Class Learning Standards The foundation of a universal high performance education system must be tested, proven, world-class standards of learning: objective, reality-based statements of the essential knowledge and skills students must master to pass through the gateways to success in postsecondary education and 21st century careers. Keyed directly to those real world, world-class standards must be an authentic, performance-based accountability system: valid and reliable assessments of student, teacher, and school achievement. Keyed directly to those authentic assessments must be core curriculum frameworks for all educational levels and every content area, and research-based, nationally-validated instructional strategies, adaptable and scalable to meet the needs of various sizes and types of schools and different student populations. Other essential elements include: a dynamic professional development system, aligned with the core curriculum and instructional strategies; supplementary educational services, to meet the unique and specific needs of both high performing and struggling students; and, prevention and intervention programs, to provide support and backup to anyone at-risk of failing to meet standards or dropping out of school. 3. Comprehensive, K-Adult Career Development System To empower students to make meaningful educational, career, and life choicesto take advantage of the opportunities and rise to the challenges of a universal high performance educational systema comprehensive, K-adult, career awareness, exploration, decisionmaking, and guidance and counseling system must be put in place in every school, featuring the internationally tested and proven Real Game. 31

4. Individualized Education/Graduation/Career Plans for All

GATEWAY AGENDA

A centerpiece of the DCPS Comprehensive Career Development System must be the development of an individual education/graduation/career plan (Individual Opportunity PlanIOPor Individual Graduation Plan) for each studenta plan that sets forth a clearly defined and realistic path through high school into postsecondary education and the labor market. Each students plan should be developed by the end of the 8th grade, and revisited by the end of the 10th, as well as at other times as needed. 5. IOP Planning Templates: Gateways to College and Careers As a framework for the development of IOPs, students should be offered up to four Postsecondary Gateways college and careers planning templates: a. College/Tech-Prep (CTE-Dual Path, or Career-Tech), to serve students heading for either technical or professional careers; b. Professional-Technical Prep (CTE-B.S., or Pro-Tech), to serve students focused exclusively on professional careers; c. Liberal Studies (Pre-B.A.), to serve students explicitly committed to a classic liberal arts curriculum; and, d. International Baccalaureate (IB), to serve students headed for professional careers through IB, an internationally standardized liberal arts program. Each Gateway would subsume one or more coherent programs of study, or Program Majors: organized sequences of courses leading to defined educational and career objectives. Student decisions about which Gateway template and Program Major to use as a basis for the development of their IOP should be based upon their educational and career objectives, not teacher, parent, or personal perceptions of their inherent ability or learning style. IOPs should be planned backward from a desired point of entry into the labor market; to plan forward from stereotypes about student abilities is a form of tracking, prejudicial to equality of opportunity and a violation of civil rights. 32

GATEWAY AGENDA

Out of a possible 28 Carnegie Units (CUs)assuming four years of study at the secondary level and a seven-period school dayfully 22.5 should be allocated to a universal core curriculum common to all four Gateways. Unique to each Gateway would be career or theme-specific course sequences totalling 4.5 CUs. In addition, one CU would be available for a pure elective.

DCPS already has adopted total minimum credit requirements

for graduation that equal or exceed those of many States. But a growing body of research [for a summary, see Ready or Not; Creating a High School Diploma that Counts, The American Diploma Project, 2004] has made it clear that opening the doors to college and careers for all will demand course requirements and achievement standards, not just seat time.

To begin with, a rigorous, 4x4 academic curriculum should constitute the foundation of every program of study in every Gateway4 CUs each in: a. English Language Arts (I, II, III, and IV); b. Math: Algebra I; Geometry; Algebra II; and, Trigonometry or Calculus; c. Science: Biology; Chemistry; Physics; and, Environmental Science; and, d. Social Studies: U.S. History; World History; U.S. and DC Government; and Geography and Economics (.5 CUs each).

As detailed in a just completed analysis by Achieve, Inc. ( The Expectations Gap, A 50-State Review of High School Graduation Requirements), this level of rigor would well exceed existing minimum graduation requirements in all but a handful of States. 33

GATEWAY AGENDA

A large majority of States do require students to successfully complete at least four courses in English Language Arts, although the content of those courses is rarely specified or standardized. But only five States currently require four math credits for high school graduation. Twenty-two fail to specify which math courses are necessary, and an additional nine (including DC at the present time) specify only Algebra I. Only three States require Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. Moreover, only one State currently requires four physical science credits for graduation. Almost half (including DC at the present time) fail to specify which science courses are required, and most of those who do specify only Biology and General Science. Similarly, the New Basics core curriculum model that emerged from the first round of high school reforms in the 1980sthe standard adopted by the successful High Schools That Work whole school reform programdemands four credits in English language Arts, but only 3 each in Math, Science, and Social Studies. But the reality is that graduation requirements have become a lagging indicator. They have institutionalized the perfor-mance expectations and labor market demands of an earlier era. To make matters worse, almost twenty States still support a twotiered (or more) secondary curriculum: one set of requirements and expectations for the College Bound, another less rigorous, second-class set for the Not College Material. In contrast, the 4x4 universal core curriculum and course and sequence requirements represent an intentionally leading edge modeldesigned to prepare the overwhelming majority of students (with the sole exception of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities) for both postsecondary education and careers. A strong, often compelling rationale exists for each course and sequence requirement. Algebra II, for a notable example, is widely recognized as a critical gatekeeper to both postsecondary education and high skill careers;30 Algebra II completers are three times more likely to earn four-year degrees than students who complete only Algebra I and geometry. Calculus-taking is a similar predictor of postsecondary success.31 34

GATEWAY AGENDA

The science sequence of biology, chemistry, and physics is a formal requirement of the U.S. Department of Educations State Scholars Initiative (SSI) academic recognition and scholarship program. The Center for State Scholars (CSS) which administers SSIand includes a bibliography of research on academic and graduation requirements on its website (cf. http:// www.centerforstatescholars.org/scholars_course_of_study.php) also requires 3.5 credits in social studies, including economics.

In addition to the universal core academic requirements, all four Gateways should also expect students to earn 6.5 CUs in universal supplementary academic areas:
a. 2 CUs in a World Language; b. 1 CU each in Art and Music; c. .5 CUs each in introductory and advanced Computer Applications; and, d. 1.5 CUs in Health and Physical Education. Altogether, the universal core and supplementary academic requirements, common to all four Gateways, would represent 22.5 CUs, and ensure that all Gateway program major completers meet the minimum entry requirements of postsecondary education. In fact, all Gateway completers would not only meet, but actually exceed, the challenging standards for State Scholars set by the U.S. DOE and the CSS. Implementation of the proposed Gateway credit and course requirements would set the stage for DC joining the nationwide State Scholars Initiative as a new SSI State Partner, since all Gateway program completers would qualify for recognition as a District of Columbia State Scholar. On the following page is a chart of the proposed Gateway Planning Templates which illustrates how those 22.5 CUs can be earned and the course and sequence requirements be met over the course of four years. Assuming that up to 28 CUs can be earned each academic year, 4.5 CUs can be committed to sequential, career-specific preparation and still allow each student to devote one Carnegie Unit to a purely elective offering. Alternately, students weak in a particular academic area could allocate this time to ramp-up and remedial services. 35

Gateway Planning Templates: 4 Paths to College & Careers

Gateway/Component Core Academics (16 CUs) 9th Grade English I Algebra I Biology DC History/Geography World Language I Art Computer Apps. (.5 CU) Health/Phys. Ed. (.5) 7 10th Grade English II Geometry Chemistry World History World Language II Music Computer Apps. (.5 CU) Health/Phys. Ed. (.5) 7 Health/Phys. Ed. (.5) 4.5 Elective (.5) Career-Tech I Career-Tech II Pro-Tech I Pro-Tech II English Literature Junior Seminar World Language III Theory of Knowledge 7 7 7 4 Elective (.5) Career-Tech III Career-Tech IV Internship (.5) Pro-Tech III Pro-Tech IV Internship (.5) Creative Writing Senior Seminar Senior Thesis (.5) World Language IV Creativity, Action, Serv. Senior Thesis (.5) 7 11th Grade English III Algebra II Physics U.S. History 12th Grade English IV Trigonometry or Calculus Environmental Science U.S. Government/Economics

Supplemen. Acad. (5)

Other (1.5) Total Core CUs (22.5)

36

Elective (1 CU) College/Tech Prep (CTE-Dual Path) (4.5 CUs) Professional-Technical Prep (CTE-B.S.) (4.5 CUs) Liberal Studies (Pre-B.A.) (4.5 CUs) International Baccalaureate (4.5 CUs) Total CUs: 28

GATEWAY AGENDA

Each of the four proposed Gateway templates thus incorporates 4.5 CUs that are Gateway-specificuniquely appropriate to the educational and labor market strategies and objectives characteristic of each Gateway. The 22.5 universal CUs plus the 4.5 Gateway-specific CUs add up to a minimum credit requirement for completion of a Program Major of 27 CUs; this level would be 3.5 CUs greater than the current DC graduation requirement, but still one CU less than the nominal maximum of 28.
In sum, all four Gateways represent academically rigorous, content-rich, open-ended paths to college and careers: the same 4x4 academic core, the same supplementary and related academic requirements, the same graduation requirements, only 4.5 CUs that are pathway-specific. Almost 85% of the credit and course requirements are universal, spanning all four Gateways.

Conceptually, two different CTE Gateways can be defined, although the differences would be transparent to students. The existing College/Tech-Prep Gateway is made up of pretechnical programs of study, designed to prepare graduates to enter two-year, associate degree programs, en route to a career in the technical sector of the labor market. Since all completers are equally prepared to enter four-year programs, College/Tech-Prep represents what many States term a Dual Path, equipping students to enter either AAS or BS programs.
Since all program majors should share a universal academic core, all students who successfully complete College/TechPrep programs of study will also, as just noted, meet the minimum entry requirements of four-year college programs. But in addition, open-ended 2+2+2 articulation agreements should be negotiated for all College/Tech-Prep programs, so that two-year program graduates retain the option of transferring into a four-year program at the junior year level pursuing a baccalaureate degree and a professional career through an associate degree and a technical foundation. Furthermore, certain CTE programs of study are Dual Focus they encompass both pre-technical and pre-professional content, preparing students for either career objective at the same time. The Project Lead the Way (PLTW) curriculum, for example, simultaneously prepares students to pursue careers in either Engineering Technology or Engineering Scienceas either engineering techs or professional engineers. 37

GATEWAY AGENDA

The Transportation Engineering (TRAC) curriculum offers similar dual-focus preparation, preparing students to enter careers in the transportation industry in either civil engineering or civil engineering technology.

Beyond Dual Path and Dual Focus program majors, CTEbased programs of study could potentially be identified that could best be described as explicitly pre-professional: designed to prepare graduates to enter four-year, baccalaureate degree programs, en route to a career in the professional sector.
These program majors would be structurally identical to those of the College/Tech-Prep Gateway; both pre-technical and preprofessional Program Majors would incorporate both a sequence of 4 high-level, career-specific, competency-based CTE courses and the equivalent of at least .5 CUs of structured, high quality work-based learning opportunities. But based on their distinct educational and labor market objectives, the pre-professional programs could be characterized as a separate Gateway, Professional-Technical Preparation (Pro-Tech, or CTE-B.S.). However, Perkins III does not provide a clear mandate to offer pre-baccalaureate programming under a CTE umbrella although the Senate has proposed to make such authorization explicit under Perkins IV. For the time being, OCTE has elected not to actively pursue this option, pending clarification of the statutory environment during reauthorization. Renewed career-technical education should meet the career goals of upwards of 80% of students. But to meet the needs of parents who are averse to any form of career-related programming at the secondary level, either pre-technical or pre-professional, a Liberal Studies (Pre-B.A.) Gateway should be offered to students who are fully committed to entering a fouryear liberal arts program at a competitive private college or university. In terms of course requirements, the Liberal Studies Gateway would simply substitute four liberal arts courses for the four CTE CUs (English literature, philosophy, and junior and senior seminars might be most appropriate, relative to the expectations of college admissions officers), and a .5 CU Senior Thesis for the .5 CU internship. In addition, highly motivated students should also have access to the International Baccalaureate program, an internationally-standardized liberal arts curriculum that opens doors to many prestigious colleges and universities. 38

GATEWAY AGENDA

The 22.5 CU core and supplementary academic requirements proposed above for all CTE program majors would already meet most IB standards; to establish a distinct International Baccalaureate Gateway, four unique IB offeringsTheory of Knowledge, Creativity, Action, and Service, and two more world language creditswould simply substitute for the four career-tech/pro-tech CUs, while a .5 Senior Thesis substitutes for the .5 Internship. An additional, non-postsecondary GatewayOccupational Special Educationshould be established to meet the needs of students the U.S. Department of Education characterizes as students with the most significant cognitive disabilities students who, as specified by valid, negotiated Individual Education Plans (IEPs): a. are not candidates for mainstreaming into approved CTE programs, even with substantial support; b. are not preparing to graduate from high school (much less enroll in an associate degree or certificate program at the postsecondary level); and, c. are planning to make an initial entry into the labor market via a sheltered or supported employment environment. Under the authority of the DCPS Office of Special Education, not OCTE, and supported with funds made available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), not Perkins III, OSE programs would not meet minimum Perkins standards. But they would be employment-oriented and transition-focused, designed to ensure that members of special populations who are not candidates for entry into mainstream CTE Program Majors nevertheless make a successful and sustained entry into the labor marketinto sheltered, supported, or competitive employment, as appropriate. Fundamental life and employment skills would be a major feature of all OSE programs, and occupations that do not require mastery of Algebra and other advanced academic topics would be the primary career targets. Examples of the types of programs which might make up an Occupational Special Education Gateway include: Groundskeeping; Photocopy Machine Operation; Shampooing; Construction Labor; Home Health Assisting; Housekeeping; Hall/Cafeteria Monitoring; and, Automobile Detailing. 39

6. Career Academies: CTE Smaller Learning Communities

GATEWAY AGENDA

CTE Program Majors in DC are grouped into 12 Career Academies: CTE-based smaller learning communities planned to meet the standards of Title V, Part D, Subpart 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. IX. X. XI. XII. Agribusiness & Natural Resources; Arts, Media & Communications; Business Administration & Finance; Sales & Personal Services; Construction & Design; Health & Medical Sciences; Hospitality & Tourism; Law, Public Safety & Security; Information Technology; Engineering & Manufacturing; and, Transportation.

VIII. Human Services, Education & Training;

Derived from the 16 Career Clusters originally defined by OVAE, the 12 Career Academies are custom tailored to fit the specific labor market and economic development priorities of DC (based on labor market data,32 employer surveys, and input from the Workforce Investment Council). Each Academy represents a broad, industry-based cluster of occupations, together with the programs of study that prepare students for careers in those occupational areas. Together, the 12 Academies encompass the entire labor market; all 20 sectors of the Census Bureaus North American Industry Classification System (NAICS, the standard national taxonomy of industries) are subsumed within one or another Academy. On the following page is a chart that crosswalks the DCPS Career Academies with the 16 OVAE Clusters, the 15 Industry Sectors defined by the National Skill Standards Board (the source model for the OVAE taxonomy), the 20 NAICS sectors (the original point of departure for the NSSB sectors), and the ten topical specializations defined by NCES for the Special Labor Market Preparation arena (i.e., CTE). The NCES specializations evolved out of the traditional vocational education program clusters (Agribusiness Education, Business & Office Education, Marketing & Distributive Education, Health Occupations Education, Occupational Home Economics, and Trade & Industrial Education). 40

Industries, Sectors, Career Clusters & AcademiesCrosswalk Matrix

NCES Specializations
Agriculture & Renewable Resources [Communications] Business [& Finance] Marketing & Distribution Personal & Other Serv. [Construction] Heath Care [Human Services] Child Care & Education Food Service & Hospitality Public & Protective Services Technology Trade & Industry [Transportation]
41

NAICS Industries
11 Agriculture 21 Mining 22 Utilities 71 Arts & Entertainment 55 Company Management 56 Admin. Support 52 Finance & Insurance 44 Retail Trade 53 Real Estate 81 Other services 23 Construction 62 Health Care & Social Assistance 61 Educational Services 72 Accomoda./Food Serv. 92 Public Administration 51 Information 31 Manufacturing 54 Prof./Sci./Tech. Serv. 48 Transportation

NSSB Sectors
Agriculture Mining Utilities & Environment [Arts & Entertainment] Business & Administrative Services Finance & Insurance Retail/Wholesale/ Real Estate/ Personal Services Construction Health & Human Services Education & Training Hospitality & Tourism Public Administration/ Legal/Protective Services Telecomm./Information Manufacturing Scientific & Tech. Services Transportation

OVAE Career Clusters Agriculture &

Natural Resources/ [Utilities] Communications

DCPS Academies
I. Agribusiness & Nat. Resources Arts, Media & Communications Business Admin. & Finance Sales & Personal Services Construction & Design

Arts/AV Technology/ Business &

II. III.

Administration Finance [& Insurance]

Retail/Wholesale/

[Real Estate/ Personal Services] Construction

IV.

Architecture and Health Science Human Services Education & Training Hospitality & Tourism Governmt./Public Admin. Law & Public Safety Information Technology Manufacturing
Sci. Res. & Engineering Transportation

V.

VI. Health & Med. Sci. VII. Human Services, Ed. & Training VIII. Hospital. & Tourism IX. X. XI. Law, Public Safety & Security Information Tech. Engineering & Manufacturing

VII. Transportation

7. College/Tech-Prep Program Majors

GATEWAY AGENDA

OCTEs strategy for DC CTE renewal presently incorporates a roster of 40 State-approved CTE Program Majors that constitute the College/Tech-Prep Gateway, opening the doors to technical education at the two-year, associate degree level, and high skill, high wage careers in the technical sector. A current roster of CTE Program Majors, organized by Career Academy, is included at the end of this section. Another 12 to 15 programs of study might easily be visualized as constituting the Pro-Tech Gateway, opening the doors to professional education at the baccalaureate degree level and high skill, high wage careers in the professional sector. A draft roster of sample Pro-Tech programs of study, for illustration only, is also included at the end of this section. The primary drivers in the planning and State approval of Career Academies and CTE Program Majors must be the explicit and implicit quality standards of the Carl D. Perkins Act, reinforced by the planning guidelines of the National Academy Foundation (NAF). As a starting point, to win a place on the State roster of approved Program Majors, and to be eligible for implementation with Perkins funding at a specific public or charter high school, CTE Program Majors must be geared toward preparing students for both postsecondary education and high skills, high wage employment, in career areas with documented employment opportunities in the DC metropolitan region. In addition, all State-approved, Perkins-eligible CTE Program Majors must: a. provide students with both core academic and advanced technical knowledge and skills; b. meet State and national academic standards; c. ensure comprehensive understanding of all aspects of the industry students are preparing to enter; d. utilize state-of-art and research-based educational technology and techniques; e. foster parent, community, and industry involvement; f. afford full and equal access to members of special populations; g. promote preparation for nontraditional training and employment; and, h. create seamless linkages between secondary and postsecondary education. 42

GATEWAY AGENDA

OCTE quality standards also propose that each CTE Program Major should be characterized by: National and local industry or trade association partners, in addition to the Industry Advisory Committees organized to provide guidance and support to each of the Career Academies; Nationally-validated, competency-based curricula, standards, and skill assessments; Industry-backed, individualized certificates of skill mastery for all completers; and, Participation in the National Career-Technical Honor Society.

a.

b.

c.

d.

In addition, OCTE anticipates that each Academy and Program Major will support, as an integral component of its curriculum, active participation in the appropriate career and technical student leadership organization (CTSO): a. FFA (formerly Future Farmers of America), for the Agribusiness & Natural Resources Academy; FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) for the Business and Finance Academy; DECA (Distributive Education Clubs of America) for the Marketing and Personal Services Academy; HOSA (Health Occupations Students of America) for the Health & Medical Sciences Academy; FCCLA (Family, Career and Community Leaders of Americaformerly FHA-HERO, Future Homemakers of AmericaHome Economics Related Organizations) for the Human Services and Hospitality & Tourism Academies; and, SkillsUSA (formerly VICA, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America) for all the others.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Completion of two out of four CUs in a sequence constitutes the threshold level of CTE concentration for the purposes of Perkins III, 113, while completion of all four will be the criterion for completer status. 43

CTE PROGRAM MAJORS

Academies
I. II. Agribusiness & Natural Resources Arts, Media & Communications

Program Majors
Horticulture (CIP 01.0601) Biotechnology (CIP 26.1201) Television & Video Production (CIP 09.0701) Radio Broadcasting Technology (CIP 10.0202) Printing Technology (CIP 10.0301) Graphic Design (CIP 50.0409) Technical Theatre (CIP 50.0502) Business Administration (52.0201) Accounting & Finance (CIP 52.0304) Marketing & Entrepreneurship (CIP 52.0701) Cosmetology (CIP 12.0401) Barbering (CIP 12.0402) Architecture & Design (CIP 15.1303) Carpentry (CIP 46.0201) Electricity (CIP 46.0302) Plumbing Technology (CIP 46.0503) HVACR (CIP 47.0201) Dentistry (CIP 51.0601) Emergency Medical Services (CIP 51.0904) Nursing (CIP 51.1614) Culinary Arts (CIP 12.0503) Food Service Management (CIP 12.0507) Hospitality (CIP 52.0901) Travel & Tourism (CIP 52.0903)

III. IV.

Business Admin. & Finance Sales & Personal Services Construction & Design

V.

VI.

Health & Medical Sciences Hospitality & Tourism

VII.

VIII. Human Services, Early Childhood Education (CIP 19.0709) Education & Training Education Paraprofessional (CIP 13.0100) IX. X. Law, Public Safety & Security Information Technology Law Enforcement (CIP 43.0107) Protective & Security Services (CIP 43.0109) Interactive Media (CIP 10.0304) Web Development (CIP 11.0801) Networking & Telecommunications (CIP 11.0901) Support & Services (CIP 47.0104) Programming & Software Developmt. (CIP 15.1204) Engineering/PLTW (CIP 15.0000) Electronics & Robotics Technology (CIP 15.0405) Manufacturing Technology (CIP 14.3601) Planning, Operations & Logistics (15.0202) Auto Body Collision Repair Technology (CIP 47.0603) Automobile Service Technology (CIP 47.0604) Aerospace & Aviation Technology (CIP 49.0101)

XI.

Engineering & Manufacturing

XII. Transportation

44

GATEWAY AGENDA

PRO-TECH (CTE-B.S.): SAMPLE PROGRAMS OF STUDY

I. II. III. Agribusiness & Natural Resources Academy: Marine Science (CIP 26.1302) Arts, Media & Communications Academy: Communications & Media Studies (CIP 09.0100) Business Administration & Finance Academy: Business/Managerial Economics (CIP 52.0601)

IV. Sales & Personal Services Academy: Personal Services Management (CIP 12.0412) V. Construction & Design Academy: Environmental & Architectural Design (CIP 04.0401)

VI. Health & Medical Sciences Academy: Medical Science (CIP 51.1401) VII. Hospitality & Tourism Academy: Hospitality Administration (CIP 52.0901) VIII. Human Services, Education & Training Academy: Teacher & Counselor Education (CIP 13.0100) IX. X. XI. Law, Public Safety, & Security Academy: Law & Public Policy (CIP 22.0001) Information Technology Academy: Computer Science (CIP 11.0701) Engineering & Manufacturing Academy: Engineering Science/PLTW (CIP 14.1301)

XII. Transportation Academy: Transportation Engineering/TRAC (CIP 14.0804)

45

8. District of Columbia Regional CTE Delivery System

GATEWAY AGENDA

The potential closure of M.M. Washington Career Senior High School, the last remaining member of the once exemplary network of regional career-tech high schools in DC, further underlines the challenges faced by OCTE in rebuilding a stateof-the-art CTE system in DC. To realize economies of scale in terms of students and resources, CTE delivery in DC must be organized on a District-wide basis. No attempt to replicate every Program Major in every high school would be remotely credible. But at the same time, resources are also lacking to rebuildbasically from scratcha citywide network of standalone CTE centers. Instead, OCTE has evolved a novel strategy to renew DC CTE by creating a virtual regional CTE center serving the entire Districtto rebuild a full-scale, DC State CTE delivery system in the form of a District-wide network. Using Carl D. Perkins Act resources, OCTE has begun establishingon a systematic, highly selective and targeted basisindividual flagship CTE programs in participating high schools and charter schools, and then empowering them to recruit interested students on a citywide basis. For planning purposes, OCTE has grouped the public and charter high schools of the District into four regional categories: Northern, Central, Southern, and Citywide. As a precondition for receipt of Perkins fundswhich are being employed proactively to leverage the creation of the regional CTE systemevery high school has been invited to reorganize itself, around Career Academies and Program Majors. The goal is to ensure that all twelve Academies and a broad range of Program Majors are represented within each region, while at the same time ensuring that all CTE Program Majors are accessible to the students in every region. OCTE began the process of high school reinvention and CTE renewal with an inventory of the legacy CTE course offerings which remained in place following the decentralizing (and downsizing) of CTE during the 1990s. The purpose of the inventory was to assess the equipment and staff resources already on hand at each site. A variety of legacy CTE courses are being phased out or relocated as the Academies framework is implemented, again with an eye to realizing economies of scale by concentrating students and resources on a regional basis. 46

GATEWAY AGENDA

The current roster of proposed Program Majors is by no means intended to be exhaustive or closed. The standard national taxonomy of educational programs, the CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs), defines literally hundreds of programs of study that could potentially be approved for implementation as a State Program Major. Formal launch of selected Fast Track Career Academies and Program Majors is scheduled for Spring, 2005, with citywide implementation of the Academy framework planned for next fall. Development of new and refined Program Majors will be a process of continuous improvement, as the needs of students, employers, and the economy as a whole evolve and grow. 9. Accelerated Transitions to Postsecondary Education In collaboration with the University of the District of Columbia, the new, regionalized CTE system will also serve as a platform for a variety of initiatives to speed the establishment of a seamless pre-K to 16 educational system. Until the 1990s, DC was distinguished by strong CTE systems at both the secondary and postsecondary levels: the District-wide network of career-tech high schools, operated by DCPS at the secondary level, was complemented by a broad range of AASdegree technical education programs, offered by UDC at the postsecondary level. The University was originally constituted in 1977 through the consolidation of the District of Columbia Teachers College, the Federal City College, and the Washington Technical Institutecombining, in a single historically black institution, the features and functions of an urban land grant teachers college, a city community college, and a State technical college. But over the course of the 1990s, even as the CTE high school system was gradually dismantled, UDCs focus shifted heavily toward its four-year mission, to the point that UDC today isnt really positioned to play the role of the community and technical college system of DC. Although it remains designated, for the purposes of the Perkins Act, as the sole State-authorized provider of postsecondary CTE, UDC currently offers only a handful of AAS degree programs. The postsecondary Perkins allocation under 132 has actually been used to support a well-run but relatively modest adult basic and occupational skills program at the Ferebee-Hope Center in Southeast DC. 47

GATEWAY AGENDA

These developments in DC stand in sharp contrast to those in States where CTE has played the most powerful and costeffective role in workforce and economic developmentStates like Maine, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Arizona, to name just a few, where a strong statewide network of state-ofthe-art regional CTE centers at the secondary level works in partnership with an equally strong network of technical and community colleges at the postsecondary level. The full promise of CTE in the District of Columbia wont be restored and realized until both secondary and postsecondary CTE programming have been reestablished at a state-of-the-art level. In a growing number of States and communities innovative partnerships between secondary CTE centers and technical and community colleges have generated Tech-Prep articulation agreements, advanced credit and dual enrollment programs, and other increasingly seamless secondarypostsecondary linkageseven simultaneous completion options, which enable students to earn a high school diploma and an AAS degree at the same time. A simple first step in this direction is already underway here: negotiations between UDC and DCPS have begun to develop and implement a whole series of programs and policies designed to ease and accelerate the transition from secondary to postsecondary educationincluding: formal College/Tech-Prep articulation agreements; Advanced Credit, Dual Enrollment, and Dual Completion options33; and, Early College High School programs.34 The groundwork has already been laid for both the newlyopened McKinley Technology High School (the Districts High Tech High) and Friendship Edison Collegiate Academy becoming Early College High Schools, following the model fostered by Jobs For the Future (JFF). OCTE proposes to extend this model over time to all DCPS high schools. DCPS has also engaged UDC in a dialog about an even more significant step toward throwing open the gateways to postsecondary education and high skills careers: the establishment, within McKinley Tech, under UDC auspices, of the nucleus of a full-fledged Community College of the District of Columbia (CCDC), dedicated to advanced technical education in sectors in high demand for DC economic development.35 48

10.

DC State Education Transition Policy for Grades 9-16

GATEWAY AGENDA

Beyond those specific initiatives, OCTE has proposed the development of a State education policy for grades 9-16an overarching policy that formally institutionalizes gateways to the future through postsecondary education. As Marc Tucker has recently argued (in High School and Beyond: The System is the Problemand the Solution), the U.S. economy is weakened by the absence of a comprehensive, 916 workforce development systeman academic, technical, and employment development system that can foster and support the creation of the high skills, high performance, high productivity workforce that both our students and our employers need, and our economic future requires. A precondition for the creation of such a system would be mutual and informed agreement, among all the participants, about the academic and technical knowledge and skills demanded for entry and successful performance at each level of the system. Until very recently, the overwhelming emphasis of mainstream education was on preparing students to enter four-year college programs and pursue traditional professional careers (representing barely 20% of the labor market). Now, under No Child Left Behind, overwhelming emphasis is being placed on standardized testing almost as an end in itself. Neither approach fully addresses the need for a system to bring the entire labor force up to world class performance, or for a coherent secondary/postsecondary curriculum tied to realworld standards and authentic assessments. What OCTE would like to propose is a partnership between DCPS and UDC to define mutually-ratified sets of academic and technical knowledge and skill standards, representing formal gateways into postsecondary education and a high skills workforce. First, a set of standards should be negotiated, and formally adopted as a matter of DC State policy, codifying the essential academic and life skills (reading, writing, mathematical problem solving, scientific reasoning, and SCANS skills) necessary for success in postsecondary education, at either the associate degree or baccalaureate degree levels. 49

GATEWAY AGENDA

As soon as agreement on these core standards for a DC Postsecondary Gateway Policy has been reached, assessments could be adopted that offer an authentic and valid measurement of student mastery of the standards. Certificates of Core Mastery could be offered to students who demonstrate mastery of the core standards, designed to ensure admission to either advanced academic and technical programs at the secondary level or directly into associate degree programs at UDC. A second set of formal, State-ratified, Gateway standards could be developed to specify the essential academic and technical skills needed to transfer upward, with no loss of credit, from an AAS degree to the junior year of a 4-year, baccalaureate degree program. Finally, industry-validated academic and technical standards should be developed for every AAS degree program, certifying the knowledge and skill set needed for a successful transition to a high performance career. As a venue for development of these Postsecondary Gateway standards, OCTE proposes that the existing memoranda of understanding between DCPS and UDC be expanded to include creation of a Gateway Standards Task Force. 11. New Columbia Gateway Center

The spring 2002 closure of Phelps Career High School created an additional opportunity to rethink the entire question of how best to organize and deliver high quality career-technical education and workforce development services to DC students. When the decision was made to close Phelps, DC set aside approximately $20 million to underwrite retrofitting and reopening of the school. In August of 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared specifications for renovating the school facilities within the framework of the existing building, without consideration of any larger changes to the school environs. As an alternative, OCTE and the DCPS Office of Facilities Management commissioned the A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Michigan to develop an outside the box strategic plan for revitalization of the entire area that surrounds Phelps High Schooland to weave into that plan a contribution to revitalizing the entire secondary/ postsecondary CTE system of DC. 50

GATEWAY AGENDA

The historic Phelps building is situated at the highest point of the Hilltop Campus: a beautiful, 40-acre site in Ward 5 (Northeast DC), overlooking the Langston Golf Course (overseen by the National Park Service), with ready access to the National Arboretum, the Anacostia River, and the Stadium-Armory Metro Station. A neighborhood of public housing units adjacent to the campus is scheduled for large-scale renovation. Four DCPS facilities are already located on the campusYoung Elementary School, Browne Junior High School, and Spingarn Senior High School, in addition to Phelpsplus a Sports Field. The total site is more than twice as large as Bostons Harvard Yard. The research team of Michigans New American School Design Project (NASDP), including both faculty members and graduate assistants, conducted both a literature search and extensive fieldwork on the campus, spanning multiple visits in 2003 and 2004. They also interviewed a broad range of current and potential partners and stakeholders of a Hilltop academic and physical revitalization projectincluding teachers, students, public and private nonprofit agency representatives, business and community leaders, and residents of public and private housing units in the adjacent neighborhoods. Well into the third phase of a four-phase research and design study, what is emerging is the outlines of a project that could become a beacon for educational, community, and economic development throughout the District: a multiagency, Federal-State, public-private partnership to transform the campus into a multiuse, pre-K-14, educational and cultural center. OCTE has suggested that the heart of the campus, incorporating the Phelps and Spingarn buildings, could be devoted to a highly advanced secondary/postsecondary career-technical education centera leading-edge facility that seamlessly integrates both a citywide regional CTE high school, serving students from throughout DC, another campus of the proposed Community College of the District of Columbia, and perhaps even a new headquarters building for DCPS itself. Career Academies and Program Majors would be factored in to the design of both the physical plant and the curriculum of the educational components of what might be called the New Columbia Gateway Center. 51

GATEWAY AGENDA

The NASDP Phase II report suggested an initial focus on Transportation (automotive service technology), Construction and Design, and Agribusiness and Natural Resources (horticulture and landscapei.e., golf coursedesign). But ample, flexible space could be built in to the facility to accommodate swift growth and diversification. A regional CTE center would allow many CTE programs that require heavy infrastructure and equipment investments (particularly those serving industries and career fields characterized by rapid technological change and equipment turnover) be gradually regrouped to Hilltop from the comprehensive high schools. Entirely new program majors might also be considered, in the context of this state-of-the-art facility. For example, in partnership with WMATA a Railroad Maintenance and Repair Technology program might be developed (CIP Code 47.0617, say) to train METRO mechanicswhich might later encompass MARC, VRE, and AMTRAK mechanic and repairer programs. Inauguration of a full-fledged technical and community college on the Hilltop campus would represent a major boost for technical education and economic development in DC. Based at the Hilltop Campus, the new CCDC could also outplace satellite programs at business sites and training centers throughout DC. But the ground-breaking format for the CTE center, seamlessly integrating secondary and postsecondary offerings through a DCPS/UDC partnership that is transparent to the student, would open many new horizons and options for DC students. Any student who has mastered the core academic and technical standards making up the DC Gateway to Postsecondary Education would be eligible to go on immediately to college, regardless of age or grade in school or to complete high school and earn an associate degree at the same time. Just as the Career Academies meet the standards of both the National Academy Foundation and the Gates Foundation High Schools for the New Millennium program, the Hilltop secondary/postsecondary career-tech center would also qualify as either a JFF Early College or a Middle College/TechPrep Demonstration Program (TPDP) site under Perkins III, 207. 52

GATEWAY AGENDA

The primary roadblock to further exploration of the Hilltop Campus concept has been a sense that the total cost (perhaps approaching $500 million, similar to the planned Washington Nationals Stadium) is out of reach in the face of the massive challenges facing DC public schools and the present climate of budget austerity. If progress is to be made, a broad coalition of agencies and organizationsDCPS Office of Facilities Management, UDC, the Workforce Investment Council, DC employment services, economic development, and public housing authorities, the City Council, and many otherswill need to be constituted to spearhead the development of a New Columbia Gateway Center as Phases III and IV of the NASDP study are completed. 12. Jobs for Americas GraduatesDistrict of Columbia

Organization of DC public high schools around Career Academies and Program Majors will pose a critical question: Large numbers of students currently enter ninth grade at very low levels of achievement; how will they fare in this highly stimulating but also very challenging new environment? There is a clear and present danger that the short-term impact of increased academic rigor and graduation requirements could be increased dropout rateswhich are already rising rapidly throughout the country, partly in response to the No Child Left Behind standardized testing regimen. For that matter, there is a very real risk that many DCPS students may never reach the high school Career Academies in the first place instead dropping out of school at the end of the eighth grade. Implementing a comprehensive, standards-based literacy and numeracy system must of necessity be the highest single priority of DC Public Schools; world-standard levels of reading and mathematical competency are a fundamental precondition to high performance in every dimension of learning. A close second priority must be the District-wide programs of high school reform and career-tech renewalessential keys to opening the doors to success for all in postsecondary education and high skill, high wage careers. But an equally urgent priority is the development and implementation of a powerful engine of school reengagement and retention: a comprehensive, middle-school-to-adult dropout prevention and recovery system. 53

GATEWAY AGENDA

If students have walked away from the system, in-school performance gains, no matter how dramatic, will not matter. A systemic, system-wide approach to dropout prevention must be adopted, based upon tested and proven national models, if we are to ensure that every DCPS student has equal access to, and full participation in, the high performance schools of the new millennium we are striving to build. To stem and then reverse the rising tide of school dropouts in the District of Columbia, OCTE has proposed establishment of a Jobs for Americas GraduatesDistrict of Columbia program (JAGDC)a comprehensive dropout prevention/ student reconnection/academic achievement/school-tocollege-and-careers program, and an intensive support system for low-achieving and at-risk middle and high school students, affiliated with the nationwide Jobs for Americas Graduates (JAG) network. The nationwide JAG network is arguably the most well established and most successful youth employment development program in the country, with a documented, quarter-century record of unparalleled achievement. Initiated in the late 1970s in Delaware by then Governor Pete du Pont, JAG is operating today in 26 States, backed by stringent performance standards and with the strong and active support, at both the State and national levels, of Governors, legislators, and leaders of the educational and business communities. Over 450,000 young people have participated in a JAG model program over the last twenty-five years; over 1,000 high schools and middle schools host one or more sites today, serving over 60,000 students each year. The original program, Jobs for Delaware Graduates (JDG), was pioneered by members of the Delaware career-tech community, and broadly modeled after the strong career-tech student leadership programs in the State. It was initially targeted toward seniors who had missed enrollment in careertech and were at risk of not graduating and of becoming unemployed when they left school. Today, with roughly half of the States participating in the JAG network (there are even pilot programs operating in other countries, such as Great Britain), the model has been repeatedly expanded and diversified, to serve a broader and broader range of students. 54

Four distinct models can be observed across the network:

GATEWAY AGENDA

The School-To-College-and-Careers Transition (Senior Year) model was the first to be developed, focused on ensuring that students in grade 12 graduate and make a successful transition to postsecondary education and careers; A Career Preparation (Multi-Year) model (often called Opportunity Awareness) was added in 1988, focused on reducing the dropout rate beginning in grades 9 and 10; A Dropout Recovery (Out-of-School) model (sometimes called STEPSStudents Taking Educational Pathways to Success) was adopted in 1995, focused on reintegrating young dropouts and alternative education students into the educational system, and assisting them to achieve both a high school diploma or GED and career-specific skills; Most recently, the JAG affiliate in the State of Maine, Jobs for Maines Graduates (JMG), developed a fourth application called Project Reach: an Early Intervention (Middle School) dropout prevention and academic achievement model, focused on reconnecting at-risk students in grades 7-8 and ensuring they make a successful transition to high school. Common to all four modules are intensive and individualized academic, career, and employability services for each participantprovided by a Job Specialist, Career Specialist, or REACH Specialistcombined with membership in a student-led youth leadership organization (Career Association or REACH Council) and community service activities. The School-To-College-and-Careers Transition (STCCT) and Dropout Recovery models both feature 12 months of follow-up services after school completion, including intensive and individualized placement assistance for postsecondary education and employment. Key performance metrics include a 90% graduation rate, an 80% postsecondary education and employment placement rate, and a 30% increase in employment compared to nonparticipants. Complete details are available from the Jobs for Americas Graduates (http://www.jag.org/model.htm) and Jobs for Maines Graduates (http://www.jmg.org/overview.htm) websites. 55

GATEWAY AGENDA

The JAG models seem ideally suited to combat some of the most intractable problems of DC schoolsnot only the high dropout rates, but also the low levels of academic achievement, low rates of successful transition to postsecondary education and employment, and high youth (and adult) underemployment and unemploymentnot to mention the pervasive sense of disconnection and disaffection that fosters violence, truancy, and school failure. At the present time, DCPS operates 12 conventional comprehensive high schools that would be likely candidates for JAGDC career preparation and school-to-college-andcareers sites, plus the McKinley Technical High School, the Ellington fine arts magnet school, and one remaining career high school (M.M. Washington). At least half a dozen public charter high schools might also be interested. In addition, there are 20 middle schools and junior high schools that are likely candidates for a DC implementation of the Early Intervention JAG/JMG program. Finally, there are three inschool dropout recovery centers (the STAY schools), one alternative education center serving high school students, and one youth correctional facilityall of which could be strong candidates for a STEPS dropout recovery program. Of the four program models, the senior-year STCCT program requires the least implementation time, since that model needs relatively little customization to fit special circumstances in each State. At the same time, the more complex Early Intervention middle school model has the potential to impact the largest number of students in the long run, since it is designed to reach a grade 7 or 8 cohort that would otherwise be sharply diminished in size by the time it reaches grades 11-12. The REACH experience in Maine suggests that only a minority of students who enroll in the early-intervention program in middle school need continued participation through graduation; rather, Maines experience has been that many REACH participants react so positively that they no longer meet atrisk targeting criteria when they enter high school. Similarly, implementation of a grade 9-10 program typically reduces enrollment in the model serving seniors and juniors, since a significant percentage of Opportunity Awareness participants achieve such gains in grades 9-10 that they no longer need STCCT participation in the later grades. 56

GATEWAY AGENDA

With the endorsement of Superintendent Janey, OCTE has proposed to launch a comprehensive Jobs for Americas GraduatesDC program with a first year pilot test involving 16 sites at 12 schools and three of the four national program models: eight Senior Year School-To-College-and-Careers sites; four Multi-Year Grades 9-11 Career Preparation sites; and, four Grades 7-8 Early Intervention sites (DC REACH). For the purposes of the pilot test, OCTE has suggested that one Career Preparation site and one STCCT site be implemented at each of DCs four Transformation high schools: Anacostia, Ballou, Eastern, and Woodson. All four high schools are also implementing the Springboard College Board curriculum, and two (Ballou and Eastern) are also Smaller Learning Communities/PLATO sites. Four additional School-To-Careers sites could be located at the other Springboard high schools: Coolidge, Dunbar, Spingarn, and M.M. Washington. Dunbar is also an SLC/PLATO site. The Early Intervention sites could be located at Ron Brown, Kelly Miller, Kramer, and Sousa middle schools. All four are Transformation schools that are Springboard participants and send students to the Transformation high schools. An alternate approach with two more schools and one more program model, but the same number of sites, would involve only four STC sites but include four Dropout Recovery sitesone at each of the three STAY schools (Ballou, Roosevelt, and Spingarn), and one at the Luke C. Moore Academy (an alternative education center). Following a precedent set in other States, the STCT model would be defined as a CTE Program Major: Core Academic and Employment Skills, CIP 32.0101. A nonprofit organizationJobs for Americas Graduates District of Columbia, Inc. (JAGDC)or alternately, Jobs for District of Columbia Graduates, Inc. (JDCG), or District of Columbia Jobs for Americas Graduates, Inc. (DCJAG)would be created to operate the program, led by private sector representatives but initially cochaired by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Honorable Anthony Williams, and the Superintendent of DC Public Schools, Dr. Clifford B. Janey. 57

GATEWAY AGENDA

With its JAG affiliation, JAGDC would be assured of immediate endorsements from political leaders in both major parties and from leading educators, Governors, and other State officials (Delaware Senator Tom Carper has already sent a letter of support for the JAGDC concept). The JAG national office is prepared to provide comprehensive assistance with establishment of the JAGDC operational structure and the implementation of the STCCT module. Development of a strategic plan, the organization of a nonprofit corporation, recruitment of project leadership, site selection, on-site training of Job/Career Specialists, curriculum materials and administrative and operational manuals, and accountability and accreditation systems are all included in the technical assistance that JAG provides, on a near turnkey basis, to new affiliates. A formal memorandum of understanding, termed an Affiliation Agreement, would structure the partnership between Jobs for Americas Graduates, Inc. and DCPS. In addition, Jobs for Maines Graduates, Inc. would be prepared to enter into a partnership with DCPS to provide assistance with the implementation of the DC REACH Early Intervention dropout prevention/academic achievement/ student reengagement/transition to high school program. Key elements of the proven REACH model include: intensive, individualized services to each participant, provided by a REACH Specialist (120-150 contact hours per year per student); academic support, catch-up services, and tutoring; a competency-based curriculum focused on personal, career, and leadership skills; active membership in a REACH Council student organization; community service, adventure-based learning, summer activities, and mentoring; and, high school readiness and transition preparation. Potential sources of support for start-up and first-year operation of a JAG-DC pilot include the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, middle and high school Transformation funds, and Federal dropout prevention funds. Moving to full-scale and sustained operation would involve mobilization of a diversified base of fiscal support, potentially including Workforce Investment Act (WIA) support, significant private sector contributions, and even a Congressional earmark. 58

13. District of Columbia Consortium for Career-Tech Education

GATEWAY AGENDA

The total amounts appropriated for each title of Perkins III are allocated among the States on a formula basis [as set forth in 111(a)(2)], tied to each States relative share of the population in specified age groups, with certain minimum allotment levels established for States with very low relative populations. Three separate annual State appropriations are authorized under Perkins III: Basic State Grants under Title I, 8 (CFDA 84.048); Tech-Prep Education Grants under Title II, 203 (CFDA 84.243); Occupational and Employment Information State Grants under 118 (CFDA 84.346). Different rules govern the relative proportions of each grant that must be expended at the State and local levels: The 118 funds are reserved for expenditure entirely at the State level, to support the career, occupational, and employment information system activities of the Americas Career Resource Network (ACRN) throughout the State. Of the funds made available under Title II, U.S. DOE guidelines permit a reasonable and necessary amount (generally understood to be not more than 9%, and preferably 5%) to be reserved for grant administration at the State level, including indirect costs. But the balance of each States allocation under Title II must be expended entirely at the local level, through the medium of competitive or formula-based grants to local TechPrep Consortia, established under 204(a)(1). Finally, the funds made available to each State under Title I are split between the State and local levels, with 15% earmarked for the State level, 85% for the local. At the State level, 5% or $250,000 (whichever is greater) must be committed to the State Plan Administration and Accountability activities spelled out in sections 112(3) and 113. A dollar-for-dollar State match of the State Administration funds is required. In addition, not more than 10% may be budgeted for State Leadership program improvement and accessibility support activities spelled out in 124including not more than 1% for services for individuals in State-operated institutions, and not less than $60,000 nor more than $150,000 for services that prepare individuals for training and employment that is nontraditional for their gender. At the local level, within the 85% portionreserved for distribu59

GATEWAY AGENDA

tion to local eligible agencies (for secondary CTE programs under 131) or eligible institutions (for postsecondary programs under 132)the relative allocations for secondary and postsecondary programs (usually referred to as the secondary/ postsecondary split) are left completely to State discretion. No minimum allocation for either level is specified in Perkins III. The only requirement [under 122(e)(3)] is that, in the determination of the split, the Perkins Eligible Agency must consult with both the State agency responsible for postsecondary technical education and the State agency responsible for secondary CTE. In almost all States, of course, the Eligible Agency is in fact one or the other of those two agencies. In addition to permitting the allocation of Title II funds among Tech-Prep Consortia using a State-derived formula [under 204(a)(1)], Perkins III mandates a formula-driven process for the allocation of funds under 131 and 132: a. Under 131(b), funds for secondary school CTE programs are to be allocated among eligible LEAs (or consortia) in proportion to their relative shares of certain population groupsyoung people living in poverty and total young people (the specific data referenced in the statute has never actually been published by the Census Bureau, but OVAE has identified proxy data that is available). b. Under 132(a), funds for postsecondary CTE programs are to be allocated among eligible institutions in proportion to their relative numbers of Pell Grant (and Bureau of Indian Affairs assistance) recipients. Under the unique circumstances of the District of Columbia, however, it is impossible to implement formula-driven allocations for either 131, 132, or 204 resource distributions. To begin with, the University of the District of Columbia is the only authorized CTE provider at the postsecondary level. As a result, it must necessarily be allocated 100% of funds made available under 132. Secondlyagain since there is only one authorized postsecondary career-tech provideronly one Tech-Prep Consortium can be formed, on a statewide basis; all Title II funds must necessarily be allocated to this single consortium, and then be made available for distribution among the consortium members. But more than that, in DC all Local Education Agencies serve 60

GATEWAY AGENDA

the same geographic area. As a result, the Census-data driven formula in 131(b) cant be used as a basis for allocation. The Districts long-suffering campaign to become the 51st State remains stalled in the U.S. Congress. But from the standpoint of Federal education policy, DC has already attained State status. Section 3(24) of Perkins III, for example, declares unambiguously that The term State, unless otherwise specified, means each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia [emphasis added], the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each outlying area. This designation invests the DC Board of Education (DCBOE) with a dual role that has no precise precedent elsewhere in North America.36 On the one hand, it constitutes a State Education Agency (SEA)one of 54, ranging from Guam in the far Pacific West to Maine in the extreme Atlantic East. At the same time, DCBOE also constitutes a Local Education Agency (LEA)and a statewide LEA at that, since its boundaries coincide with the boundaries of the SEA. For the specific purposes of the Perkins Act, DCBOE serves as both a State eligible agency as defined in 3(9)The term eligible agency means a State board designated or created consistent with State law as the sole State agency responsible for the administration or supervision of vocational and technical education in the Stateand a local eligible recipient as defined in 3(11)The term eligible recipient means: (A) a local educational agency, an area vocational and technical education schoolor a consortium, eligible to receive assistance under 131; or (B) an eligible [postsecondary] institution or consortium of eligible institutions, eligible to receive assistance under 132. Until recently, DCBOE not only represented a statewide LEA, it also represented a sole State LEA. Under these circumstances, DCBOE-the-State-Eligible-Agency necessarily distributed 100% of the funds made available under 131 to DCBOE-the-soleLocal-Eligible-Recipient (i.e., itself). But under the terms of the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995, each Public Charter School (PCS) constitutes a separate LEA. Thus, charter high schools authorized to offer CTE programs meeting Perkins and State standards are also eligible for Perkins support. DCBOE-the-State-Eligible-Agency now has the responsibility to 61

GATEWAY AGENDA

appropriately allocate 131 funds not only to itself, DCBOE-theLocal-Eligible-Recipient, but also to all public charter high schools offering approved CTE programs of study. But since charter schools are all able to recruit on a citywide basis, they all represent statewide LEAs, just like DCBOE/DCPS which means that the Census-based formula set forth in 131(b) cant be employed to allocate Perkins funds for secondary career-technical education in the District of Columbia. The fact that the statutory allocation formulas of Perkins III are moot in the context of the city-State of Washington, DC creates a unique window of opportunity for DCBOE as the State eligible agency: an opportunity to play a proactive, forceful leadership role in high school reform and career-tech renewalusing Perkins funds to leverage a statewide, seamless, state-of-the-art, secondary-postsecondary, career-technical/ professional-technical educational system. The Office of Career and Technical Education seeks to engage in an active partnership with all interested and qualified high schools in the Districtpublic high schools and public charter high schools alike, as well as with UDCto craft a CTE/PTE system that is: academically world class; industry-certified and nationally validated; technologically cutting-edge; appropriate to the needs and aspirations of our students; responsive to labor market demands and economic development priorities; balanced across the city; and, cost-efficient, cost-effective, and scrupulous in the use of public resources. Consistent with the revised DC State Plan approved by OVAE in June of this year (Gateways to DCs Future: Program Year 20042005 Revisions to the District of Columbia State Plan for CareerTechnical Education Under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998), OCTE has adopted a fundamental new strategy for Perkins administration. The basic driver of this new strategy is the reconstitution of the several statewide local eligible recipients and institutions into an integrated, secondary/postsecondary CTE consortiuma District-wide consortium that is virtual in formal terms but unified and cohesive from a program and policy standpoint. 62

GATEWAY AGENDA

The basic protocols of DCs proactive grants strategy for career-tech renewal and reinvention are the following: a. All participating CTE providers at the secondary level will constitute members of a statewide secondary career-tech consortium, organized under the provisions of 131(g); b. All participating CTE providers (both secondary and postsecondary) will constitute members of a statewide Tech-Prep consortium, organized under the provisions of 204(a); c. In practice, the two, 131(g) and 204(a) consortia will constitute a single, unified, virtual consortium for CTE program development, implementation, and improvement; d. Serving as the staff of the consortium, OCTE will proactively seek out potential CTE provider/partners at the secondary levelproviders with the capacity and commitment to successfully implement or refine career-tech/pro-tech programs of study congruent with an emerging citywide CTE delivery system, and consistent with DC Standards of Program Quality, Services to Special Populations, and Performance37; e. In lieu of formula-driven allocations, 131 and 204 awards will be made competitively, for programs rather than among institutions. Determinations of how much support will be awarded to each institution, for what purposes, will be based upon impartial and objective judgments about need, capability, and quality. Current and projected enrollments in CTE programs will be factored into all funding determinations, but not in isolation from overall levels of occupational supply and demand. f. Awards of Perkins funds under either 131 or 204, for programs and activities required or permitted under either 135 or 204, respectively, will be made to participating high schools, DCPS and PCS alike, on equal terms, subject to the same requirements, stipulations, and size, scope, and quality standards;

63

GATEWAY AGENDA

g. Postsecondary funds reserved under 132 will continue to be awarded to the University of the District of Columbia, but in the framework of an expanded and deepened partnership between UDC and DCPS/OCTEdedicated to the creation of a full-fledged Community College of the District of Columbia (CCDC) under UDC auspices, and to establishing articulation agreements, Early College dual enrollment/completion options, and other seamless pathways from secondary into postsecondary education (what OVAE terms College and Career Transitions38) for every program of study and every student in DC.

14. Projected Performance Outcomes of CTE Renewal The Office of Career and Technical Education projects the following outcomes and performance impacts from the reinvention of high schools and renewal of career-technical education in the District of Columbia: Reduced dropout rates in middle school and high school. Increased enrollment in rigorous core academic courses. Increased numbers of students completing advanced CTE programs. Increased numbers of students participating in community service and high quality, paid and unpaid, workplace learning opportunities and internships. Increased attendance rates. Increased graduation rates. Increased numbers of dropouts returning for an adult diploma or a GED. Increased numbers of students graduating prepared for both postsecondary education and high skills, high wage careers. Increased numbers of students graduating with certificates of employability and skill mastery, transcripted college credit, advanced placement, or guaranteed admission to postsecondary education. 64

GATEWAY AGENDA

Increased numbers of students and graduates enrolling in apprenticeship, associate degree, or baccalaureate degree programs. Reduced remediation and increased completion rates at the postsecondary level. Expanded partnerships between DCPS, UDC, business and labor, and the community at large. Reduced unemployment and underemployment in lowincome neighborhoods and improved economic development. Improved balance between Federal and State funding for CTE and compliance with maintenance of effort, matching, and supplanting requirements.

65

1. For more detailed analyses, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics breaks out occupational employment into eleven education and training categories; see, for example, Classification by postsecondary education or training obtained, Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 47:4, Winter 2003-04, pp. 7-8 ( http:// www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2003/winter/art02.pdf) or D.C. Department of Employment Services, Office of Labor Market Research and Information, Occupational Skill Levels, Employment Projections by Industry and Occupation 2000-2010 in the Washington Metropolitan Area and the District of Columbia, June 2003, pp. 29-31; http://www.does.dc.gov/does/ frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/info/Industry_Occupation.pdf. 2. Cf. Occupational employment by education or training category, Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 39:4, Winter 199596, pp. 34-40, and Table 15 - Employment and Growth by Education and Training Category, Employment Projections by Industry and Occupation 2000-2010 in the Washington Metropolitan Area and the District of Columbia, June 2003, pp. 34. 3. Cf. James G. Hershberg, James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age , Knopf, 1994. 4. Cf. Oakes, Jeannie, Keeping Track, How Schools Structure Inequality, Yale University Press, 1985. 5. See also: Marc S. Tucker & Judy B. Codding, The Tragedy of Low Expectations, Standards for Our Schools, Jossey-Bass, 1998, pp. 32-35. 6. Cf. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education, Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study First Follow-up (1996) and Second Follow-up (2000). 7. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Monthly Labor Review, November 2001. In DC, the percentage of professional occupations in the year 2010 is projected to be 40%, almost double the national share, reflecting the unusually large number of lawyers, medical doctors and scientists, and professional-level government employees. 8. National Commission on the High School Senior Year, Raising Our Sights: No High School Senior Left Behind, Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey, 2001, p. 29; http://www.woodrow.org/CommissionOnTheSeniorYear/ Report/FINAL_PDF_REPORT.pdf. 66

ENDNOTES

9. Cf. Walt Haney et al., The Educational Pipeline in the United States, 1970-2000, National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, Boston College, 2004. 10. Anthony Carnevale and Donna Desrochers, Help Wanted...Credentials Required: Community Colleges in the Knowledge Economy, American Association of Community Colleges, 2001; http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ Template.cfm?Section=All_Books&Template=/Ecommerce/ ProductDisplay.cfm&ProductID=343. 11. Thomas R. Bailey and Irina E. Averlanova, Multiple Missions of Community Colleges: Conflicting or Complementary?, Community College Research Center, Columbia University, 1999; http://www.tc.columbia.edu/ccrc/PAPERS/Briefs/ Brief01.htm. 12. W. Norton Grubb et al., Workforce, Economic, and Community Development: The Changing Landscape of the Entrepreneurial Community College, League for Innovation in the Community College/National Center for Research In Vocational Education/National Council on Occupational Education, California, 1997. 13. James Rosenbaum, Beyond College for All: Career Paths for the Forgotten Half, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2001. 14. National Commission on the High School Senior Year, Raising Our Sights: No High School Senior Left Behind, Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey, 2001, p. 16-17; http://www.woodrow.org/ CommissionOnTheSeniorYear/Report/FINAL_PDF_REPORT.pdf.1 15. Cf. National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), The Skills Gap 2001: Manufacturers Confront Persistent Skills Shortage in an Uncertain Economy, Washington, DC, 2001; and, Phyllis H. Eisen, editor, NAM Center for Workplace Success and the Manufacturing Institute, Keeping America Competitive: How a Talent Shortage Threatens U.S. Manufacturing, 2003; http://www.nam.org/s_nam/ bin.asp?CID=201721&DID=226411&DOC=FILE.PDF. 16. National Commission on the High School Senior Year, Raising Our Sights: No High School Senior Left Behind, Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey, 2001, p. 29; http://www.woodrow.org/ CommissionOnTheSeniorYear/Report/FINAL_PDF_REPORT.pdf. 67

ENDNOTES

17. Ivan Charner and Robin White, Curriculum Integration: Does it Matter Whos in the Drivers Seat?, webcast, National Research Center for Career and Technical Education and Academy for Educational Development/National Institute for Work and Learning, Ohio State University, November 15, 2001; http://www.nccte.org/webcasts/description.asp?wc=74. 18. The U.S. Office of Vocational and Adult Education has posted a web page on Accelerated Transitions under the heading of The Secretary [of Education]s High School Initiative (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hsinit/trans.html) and another under the heading Accelerating Transitions through Credit-Based Programs (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ovae/pi/cclo/accel.html). For an analysis of recent initiatives, see: Thomas Bailey and Melinda Mechur Karp, Promoting College Access and Success: A Review of Credit-Based Transition Programs, OVAE, 2003; (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/ pi/cclo/crdbase.pdf). Also, under the auspices of Jobs for the Futures Double the Numbers initiative, JFFs Hilary Pennington has published an interesting proposal for systematizing accelerated transitions to postsecondary education: Fast Track to College: Increasing Postsecondary Success for All Students, Boston, 2004; http://www.jff.org/jff/PDFDocuments/FastTrack.pdf. 19. Cf. Neeta P. Fogg, Paul E. Harrington, Thomas F. Harrington, College Majors Handbook with Real Career Paths and Payoffs: The Actual Jobs, Earnings, and Trends for Graduates of Sixty College Majors (Second Edition), JIST Publishing; Indianapolis, 2004. 20. United State Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress, 2004; http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nave/navefinal.pdf. 21. Richard L. Lynch, High School Career and Technical Education for the First Decade of the 21st Century, Journal of Vocational Education Research, vol. 25:2 , 2000; http:// scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVER/v25n2/lynch.html. 22. See also: Separate and Unequal: The State of the District of Columbia Public Schools Fifty Years After Brown and Bolling, Parents United for the D.C. Public Schools and Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, 2005, p. 3: Vocational education is a shadow of its former self at all levels. 23. District of Columbia Public Schools, State Office of Voca68

ENDNOTES

tional and Adult Education, Three-Year State Plan for Vocational and Applied Technology Education in the District of Columbia, Fiscal Years 1992-1994. 24. District of Columbia Public Schools, State Office of Career and Technical Education, Consolidated Annual Performance, Accountability, & Financial Status Report for State-Administered Career-Technical Education Programs Under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-332), Program Year 2003-2004. 25. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, The Economic Imperative for Improving Education, Washington, DC, 2003, p. 1; http://www.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ovae/pi/hsinit/papers/econimp.pdf. 26. Anthony P. Carnevale and Donna M. Desrochers, Standards for What? The Economic Roots of K-16 Reform, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 2003, p. 2; http:// www.ets.org/research/dload/standards_for_what.pdf. 27. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Charting a New Course for Career and Technical Education, Washington, DC, 2003, p. 1; http:// www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hsinit/papers/cte.pdf. 28. CF. Maureen T. Hallinan, Ability Grouping and Student Learning [The American High School Today, Brookings Education Policy Conference Papers, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2002] and The Detracking Movement [Education Next, Fall 2004; http://www.educationnext.org/20044/72.html). 29. Cf. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, High Schools with High Expectations for All , Washington, DC, 2003; http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ovae/pi/hsinit/papers/highex.pdf. 30. Anthony P. Carnevale and Donna M. Desrochers, Connecting Education Standards and Employment: Course-taking Patterns of Young Workers, American Diploma Project/Achieve, Inc., Washington, DC, 2002, p. 7. 31. C. Adelman, Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns and Bachelors Degree Attainment, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 1999, p.vii. 32. D.C. Department of Employment Services, Office of Labor 69

ENDNOTES

Market Research and Information, Employment Projections by Industry and Occupation 2000-2010 in the Washington Metropolitan Area and the District of Columbia, June 2003, pp. 29-31; http://www.does.dc.gov/does/frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/ does/info/Industry_Occupation.pdf. 33. Cf. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Dual Enrollment: Accelerating the Transition to College, High School Initiative Issue Paper, Washington, DC, 2003; http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hsinit/ papers/dual.pdf. 34. Early College High School Initiative Core Principles, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation/Jobs for the Future, Boston, Massachusetts, 2004; http://www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/ CorePrinciples.pdf. Also, Imagine... Welcome to the promise of the Early College High School [brochure], 2004; http:// www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/ECHSbrochure.pdf. 35. Support for the establishment of a full-fledged community college system for the District of Columbia is also incorporated in the Vision for Growing an Inclusive City published in July 2004 by Mayor Anthony A. Williams and the District of Columbia Council (p. 43). 36. Cf. District of Columbia Public Schools, State Office of Career and Technical Education, Notes on the Possible Roles of the District of Columbia State Board of Education [Discussion Document], Washington, DC, 01/10/05. 37. District of Columbia Public Schools, State Office of Career and Technical Education, DC State Criteria of Career-Technical Education Program Quality, Standards of Service for Students with Special Needs, and Standards of Program Performance, Gateways to DCs Future: Program Year 2004-2005 Revisions to the District of Columbia State Plan for CareerTechnical Education Under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-332), Appendixes A, B, & C, Washington, DC, 2004. 38. CCTI College and Career Transitions Initiative, Leave for Innovation in the Community College/U.S. Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Phoenix, Arizona, 2003; http:// www.league.org/league/projects/ccti/forum/files/14/ ccti_brochure.pdf. 70

ENDNOTES

PREPARING THE WORKFORCE OF DCS FUTURE APPENDIX

Selected OCTE Activities, SY 2004

71

OCTE ACTIVITIES SY 04

ithin the framework of its overall strategy for high school reinvention and CTE renewal, the Office of Career and Technical Education carried out a broad range of activities during the 2003-2004 program year. Selected highlights of those activities include the following: Career Academy/Program Major Development: Established a task force (including representatives from the University of Maryland, DCPS Guidance and Counseling, the Office of Academic Services, the Program Development Coordinator, and a vocational assessment specialist) to develop a comprehensive career development, guidance, and counseling system. Developed and refined Career Academy Flowcharts, each providing a clearly articulated, coherent sequence of courses to prepare students for both postsecondary education and career opportunities. Planned and initiated curriculum development for 40 distinct Program Majors, each leading through two-year or four-year programs at the postsecondary level to high skills, high wage careers. Selected ten DCPS high schools for Fast Track implementation of Career Academies and Program Majors. Awarded Perkins support to three public charter high schools for implementation of Career Academies and CTE program improvement. Launched major facilities improvement projects, designed to accommodate the new Career Academies and Program Majors, at Fast Track high schools. Textbook Selection and Supplementary Instructional Services: Solicited, reviewed, and approved textbooks and materials of instruction keyed to each individual course of each Program Major in each Academy. Secured $1.2 million grant from OVAE to support Smaller Learning Communities development and academic catch-up programs in reading/language arts and mathematics at the four largest DCPS high schools (Ballou, Dunbar, Eastern, and Wilson). Collaborated with the DC Department of Employment Services (DOES) on a 2004 Summer Bridge internship program serving almost 150 high school students (primarily CTE participants). Assisted by three roving job coaches, students were placed at 36 worksites offering quality workbased learning and career development opportunities. 72

OCTE ACTIVITIES SY 04

Prevention and Intervention Programs: In collaboration with the Office of Special Education, began discussion of new support systems for developmentally disabled and low-achieving students, to ensure access and success for all students in the Career Academies environment. Developed plans for a public/private partnership and a nonprofit corporation to pilot test a comprehensive, middleschool-to-adult, dropout prevention and recovery, student reengagement, academic remediation, school-to-collegeand-careers transition program (Jobs for Americas GraduatesDistrict of Columbia), affiliated with the nationwide Jobs for Americas Graduates network. Professional Development and Technical Assistance: Conducted a July, 2003, High School Improvement Institute at Gallaudet University, featuring experts and specialists from around the country experienced in implementing smaller learning communities. Conducted nearly 20 technical assistance site visits to public and public charter high schools, to assess scope of programs and identify delivery gaps. Sponsored fifty teachers and central office staff at the National Academy Foundation National Conference (July 2003) and NAF Academy Leadership Summit (November 2003). Sponsored teachers and central office staff participation in a High Schools That Work Conference in July 2003. Sponsored IC3 (Internet Core Computing Competencies) and MOS (Microsoft Office Specialist ) training for CTE staff (July August 2003). Carried out a comprehensive review of CTE teacher certification requirements around the country, in preparation for the promulgation of new certification standards appropriate to high school reinvention and career-tech renewal. Planning, Evaluation, and Accountability: Negotiated a one-year extension (through September 30, 2004) of the DC School-To-Careers grant under the sunsetted School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, to ensure orderly execution of STC-funded projects already underway. Received OVAE approval for DCs CAR Performance Report for SY 2002-2003, and release of Perkins funds for SY 2003-2004. 73

OCTE ACTIVITIES SY 04

Negotiated a new Memorandum of Understanding with the University of the District of Columbia, to ensure continuation of adult CTE programming at the Ferebee-Hope Center in Southeast Washington, and set the stage for a broad new CTE partnership between OCTE and UDC. Reallocated State and local roles and responsibilities within the CTE office to conform to funding streams and satisfy concerns of the OVAE monitoring team. Developed a new strategy for civil rights Methods of Administration (MOA) under the Perkins Act, emphasizing partnerships between all DCPS offices and units with relevant responsibilities. Conducted on-site MOA reviews at selected high schools offering CTE and receiving Federal support, identified based on U.S. Office of Civil Rights targeting criteria, issued Letters of Findings, and negotiated Voluntary Compliance Plans. Launched the DCPS High School Graduate Follow-up Survey, in collaboration with Maryland CTE Data Center staff, designed to gather comprehensive and reliable data on the educational and employment placement of CTE completer/graduates. Developed a new methodology for calculation of maintenance of effort under the Perkins Act, to satisfy concerns of the OVAE monitoring team. Preparedin satisfaction of all the findings of the OVAE site visit in February, 2003a Year VI revision of DCs Five Year State Plan for CTE, incorporating new annual performance targets (FAUPLsFinal Agreed-Upon Performance Levels) for the 2005-2006 program year. Replaced automatic, weighted student formula Perkins allocations with a proactive approach, using competitive grants (to members of a District-wide secondary/ postsecondary CTE consortium) to leverage creation of a regionally-coherent, state-of-the-art CTE delivery system District-wide. Issued Uniform Guidelines for Local Applications for Perkins Assistance to Eligible Recipients, intended primarily as an RFP to public charter high schools interested in offering CTE programs as a member of a DC-wide Consortium for Career-Technical Education.

Outreach and Student Recruitment: Published two issues of a CTE student magazine, Choices, and began development of a comprehensive media/ outreach program. 74

OCTE ACTIVITIES SY 04

Public/Private, Business-Education-Community Partnerships: Represented DCPS on the DC Apprenticeship Council, ACE Mentoring Program Board of Directors, Workforce Investment Council (WIC) and Youth Investment Council (YIC), and Chamber of Commerce Education Committee. Conducted briefings for representatives from the business community to develop partnerships with Career Academies and internship and employment opportunities for DCPS students. Targeted approximately 400 businesses and agencies to identify representatives to serve on the twelve Industry Advisory Committees (IACs). Collaborated with representatives from business and industry to assist in curriculum development and design of facilities. Represented DCPS on several workforce development symposiums to discuss employment needs in the region.

For additional information on CTE in the District of Columbia, please contact: Office of Career and Technical Education (OCTE) District of Columbia Public Schools 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., 8th Floor Washington, DC 20002 202-442-5062

75

Developed and designed in Century Gothic using Adobe PageMaker 7.0. 100% Federally funded under Title I of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational & Technical Education Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-332). In accordance with the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, D.C. Official Code, 2-1401.01, et seq. (the Act), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq. (Title IX), and its implementing regulation, 34 CFR Part 106, the District of Columbia Public Schools does not discriminate on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, disability, source of income, place of residence or business, or limited English proficiency. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, which is prohibited by the Act and Title IX. In addition, harassment based on any of the above-protected categories is prohibited by the Act, and may be prohibited by Title IX. Discrimination in violation of the Act and/or Title IX will not be tolerated. Violators will be subject to disciplinary action. The following office has been designated to handle inquiries regarding nondiscrimination policies related to employment: Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) District of Columbia Public Schools 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., 6th Floor Washington, DC 20002 202-442-5424 The following office has been designated as Title IX Coordinator and will handle inquiries regarding nondiscrimination policies related to students and student activities: Office of Student and School Support Services (OSSSS) District of Columbia Public Schools 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., 8th Floor Washington, DC 20002 202-442-5200 For further information regarding compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act, or other Federal or District of Columbia antidiscrimination laws, or concerning other issues of equity and discrimination, please contact the EEO and Title IX Offices. 76

COLOPHON