Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
01/31/2011 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): School Superintendent | |
| Overview(s): Alaska Career and Technical Education Plan | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 2011
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Dick, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Sharon Cissna (via teleconference)
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT
- HEARD
OVERVIEW(S): ALASKA CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION PLAN
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. STEVE ATWATER, Superintendent
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Kenai
Peninsula Borough School District.
GUY BELL, Assistant Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview and answered
questions about the Alaska Career and Technical Education Plan.
FRED VILLA, Associate Vice President
Workforce Programs
Academic Affairs and Research
University of Alaska (UA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview and answered
questions about the Alaska Career and Technical Education Plan.
CYNDY CURRAN, Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview and answered
questions about the Alaska Career and Technical Education Plan.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:56 AM
CHAIR ALAN DICK called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Dick, Pruitt,
Feige, Seaton, Wilson, Kawasaki, and Cissna (via teleconference)
were present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION(S): School Superintendent
PRESENTATION(S): SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT
8:04:06 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the first order of business would be a
presentation by the Superintendent of the Kenai Peninsula School
District.
8:05:46 AM
DR. STEVE ATWATER, Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District, stated that the home school program operated
solely for students within the school district. He reported
that although attendance had decreased to its lowest level ever,
an increase was projected for the following school year. He
opined that the district had the widest array of school types
within Alaska. He noted that the students' scores compared well
with other schools around Alaska, which he attributed to the
experienced teachers and the community support. The community
provided the travel funds for students to compete in music,
sports and other activities throughout the state. He observed
that the teacher evaluation process determined the effectiveness
of the teachers. He expressed the challenges for the district
to be the wide distribution of the schools, the economies of
scale for small schools, and the level of funding. He shared
his goal of moving the school district from "good" to
"excellent." He stressed a need for the schools to more tightly
align their efforts in order to improve. He explained that the
"tight-loose-tight organizational structure" was being
implemented. The initial "tight" would standardize conduct of
business, process of intervention, and purchases, and the final
"tight" would define the outcome and determination of attainment
for the schools and students. He pointed out that, between
these "tight" end points, the "loose" pieces would allow each
school to have its own identity. He offered his belief that
this strategy would allow them to become an excellent school
district.
8:11:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reflected on the student advisor models
that had been voluntarily incorporated into six of the district
high schools, and the corresponding increase in graduation
rates. He asked if the school district planned to implement the
programs in every school.
DR. ATWATER replied that although the advisories were not yet
mandatory, more schools were implementing the model.
8:12:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that the data indicated this was
the most effective statewide program for increasing graduation
rates, and he requested any further analysis of the program. He
asked what would replace the highly successful natural resources
course, and if that replacement curriculum would keep students
as engaged.
DR. ATWATER replied that the district was reducing and planned
to replace the program with basic science courses. He
acknowledged a pressure to replace the program, and that the
district hoped to do so in the future.
8:14:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked about the effects of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) on the school district.
DR. ATWATER confirmed that NCLB focuses on testing, with some
restriction of curriculum; however, he endorsed the benefits for
the expanded use of data analysis. He declined to label NCLB as
"all bad."
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if it had improved the outcome from
the school district.
DR. ATWATER offered his belief that basic skills were attained
at a better rate under NCLB, but that "educating the whole
child" was not so successful.
8:16:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reflected that the "tight-loose-tight"
philosophy allowed more educational latitude, and could be
incorporated as an aspect of NCLB.
DR. ATWATER, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said that
staff motivation was his primary focus. He observed that forced
compliance dulled their motivation and creativity. He expressed
a need to allow teachers the flexibility of teaching to their
strengths and the students interests, while meeting certain
educational targets. He affirmed that his district demographics
were diverse and this was a key to the success of this district.
8:18:56 AM
^OVERVIEW(S): Alaska Career and Technical Education Plan
OVERVIEW(S): Alaska Career and Technical Education Plan
8:19:29 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be an
overview of the Alaska Career and Technical Education Plan
(CTE), presented by the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD), Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), and the University of Alaska (UA).
8:20:58 AM
GUY BELL, Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, pointed to the need
for a seamless transition from school to the labor force. He
addressed the DLWD report, "Nonresidents Working in Alaska,"
which discussed the profile of jobs throughout the state,
stating that the key to filling the jobs by Alaskans was to
prepare the in-state talent.
8:25:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the percentage of decrease.
MR. BELL, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said that,
historically, the percentage of resident to nonresident jobs had
been an up and down curve.
8:26:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE requested a copy of the report, and asked
if there were any differentiation for people hired as Alaska
residents who then moved, and if it addressed the qualifications
for particular jobs.
MR. BELL replied that it was difficult to track people who had
moved, as the report was based on new hire data. He shared that
the required training, certification, or credential for each
occupation was included in the report.
8:27:50 AM
FRED VILLA, Associate Vice President, Workforce Programs,
Academic Affairs and Research, University of Alaska, introduced
the Alaska Career and Technical Education Plan (CTE) [Included
in members' packets]. He expressed agreement with the committee
orientation for reading, writing, arithmetic, and relevance. He
stated that CTE was committed to relevance. He introduced the
members of the CTE plan taskforce.
8:31:00 AM
MR. VILLA gave a brief background for the plan, noting that it
was the product of an educational summit in 2009, and that the
summit outcomes included that Alaska should: have world class
schools; develop the community culture; and maintain a vision
for student health and safety. He referenced the commitment
between EED and DLWD "to work together and lead the development
of a career and technical education plan." He emphasized that
this was a working plan, continually undergoing implementation.
He affirmed that the principles of the plan declared that it be
inclusive and accessible for all students in every area of the
state, and comprehensive for all levels of education and career
opportunities. These principles required a great amount of
coordination, collaboration, and cooperation by the departments.
He declared that six strategies encapsulated the CTE plan.
8:35:30 AM
MR. VILLA directed attention to page 4 of the CTE handout. He
reported that the CTE plan was also available on the EED, DWLD,
and UA websites. He stated Strategy 1: Make transitions
planned and accountable for both successful student progress and
systemic cooperation. He pointed out that transitions for
students were difficult and that available information would
help smooth these transitions. He defined personal learning and
career plans (PLCP) as guides for students, teachers, parents,
and counselors to maintain a vision of relevance for the
student's career path and to help smooth the transitions.
8:39:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the career development test,
WorkKeys, was going to be offered in middle school.
MR. VILLA replied that the WorkKeys assessment was an
occupational indicator relative to a student's academic
development.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked what changes needed to be made at
the schools to ensure the use of PLCPs.
MR. VILLA clarified that WorkKeys was an assessment, whereas the
PLCP was a map of the courses a student would need to attain
their goals. He declared that some schools were already
providing the PLCP on a voluntary basis.
8:42:57 AM
MR. VILLA, in response to Representative P. Wilson, explained
that PLCPs were a tool, a form for a guidance counselor and a
student to use in development and measurement of a plan to
attain goals.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if it would be available to every
school.
MR. VILLA replied that a suggested PLCP template was being
distributed to every district.
8:44:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that Alaska required every 11th
grade student to take the WorkKeys assessment, and that the
score appeared on the student transcripts. He stated that the
WIN (Worldwide Interactive Network) developmental program begins
in middle school, as well as the KeyTrain program to elevate
competencies in relation to WorkKeys. He shared that the
WorkKeys assessment could be repeated in the senior year, to
allow for an improved score to appear on the transcript.
8:47:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if WorkKeys was a test, or a tool
for employment.
CYNDY CURRAN, Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development, replied that
WorkKeys was a tool, which included three subtests: reading for
information, locating information, and math analysis. It aided
in an assessment of progress toward the job profiles in a
student's areas of interest.
8:48:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if there was a standard statewide
assessment of skill strengths to help direct middle school
students.
MR. VILLA, in response, stated that he was not aware of any such
assessment program for career selection. He pointed to the
outreach opportunities offered by a variety of industry sectors.
8:50:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA described a "career ladder" notebook that
was provided to students in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District, which delineated the course studies at each grade
level necessary to accomplish a career interest. It was
comprehensive and included earnings potential, where skill sets
could be learned, and advancement possibilities in a given
field.
MR. VILLA replied that this was one of the models being
incorporated into the CTE plan.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that WorkKeys analyzed jobs and
the necessary skills for entry level into a given position.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that students be assessed for
their natural talents and assisted with a corresponding career.
MR. VILLA replied that career, technical, and student
organizations were a good source for these assessments.
8:59:00 AM
MR. VILLA directed attention back to Strategy 2, page 5 of the
CTE handout, and said that it was necessary to align curricula
to meet the current academic, professional, and technical
industry standards at all training institutions. He declared
that this required an inventory of the programs in Alaska, a
review of the employability standards, and an integration of
academic with career and technical courses. He expressed the
need to align the secondary and post secondary programs for a
seamless transition.
9:00:08 AM
MR. VILLA declared that Strategy 3 identified and promoted the
career and technical education delivery models. He expressed a
need to define the delivery models and the standards. He
explained that the access and scheduling for these delivery
models also needed definition. He endorsed celebration for
effective programs, so they could be replicated for use
elsewhere.
9:01:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how Strategies 2 and 3 would be
implemented in a small school outside the road system.
MR. VILLA replied that it was already being accomplished via
technical preparation courses where high school students
received dual credit for sequential high school and post
secondary coursework that lead to a degree. He noted that
apprenticeship programs were another model.
9:03:02 AM
MR. VILLA reviewed Strategy 4, page 6, which focused on the need
to "recruit, develop, support, and retain high-quality career
and technical education teachers." He reflected on the
contributions of teachers who came from a specific industry. He
declared a need for leadership to promote this integration of
career and technical education. He spoke about Strategy 5,
which detailed the need to maximize the use of public facilities
for training and education of all students. He talked about the
inventory of these facilities, as well as the necessary
standards, maintenance, and funding for each. He moved on to
Strategy 6, page 6, which detailed the need to establish and
maintain sustainable funding. He confirmed the need to
prioritize the available resources.
9:06:21 AM
MR. VILLA, directing attention to page 39 of the handout, stated
that the University of Alaska had provided priorities and
guidelines in career and technical education. He commented that
a Workforce Development priority was for pre-college programs
which connected youth with career pathways, and that UA had more
than 200 credit programs in Workforce Development, with many
more that were non-credited. He pointed out that the National
Association of State Directors of Career and Technical Education
had presented its vision with all the goals being focused on
specific outcomes.
9:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reported on her attendance at the
National Conference of State Legislators, and shared that an
economist had cautioned to not cut funding for education.
CHAIR DICK commented that a fresh approach was necessary. He
opined that the alignment of education and industry was
important and possible, and that the money would be made
available.
9:11:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to Strategy 6.2, read:
"Encouraging CTE providers to take advantage of the State of
Alaska corporate tax credit for contributions to qualified
training programs." He questioned that with the Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District curtailing the natural resources
classes, was it possible for the corporate tax credits to be
directed through school districts for funding at a local level.
MR. BELL replied that the programs were not certified by DLWD;
however, programs such as AVTEC, which qualified for a tax
credit, could receive corporate tax contributions for specific
programs.
9:13:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested a definitive response regarding
the use of corporate tax credits through school districts for
career technical courses which were not certified by DLWD.
9:14:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE, directing attention back to the CTE
program, asked how success and failure would be measured.
MR. VILLA, in response, asked to continue his presentation which
would answer the question. He confirmed that the CTE plan had
been reviewed by hundreds of people, and had received letters of
support for its implementation from EED, DLWD, and University of
Alaska. He listed the various upcoming group meetings for
input, strategies, priorities, and action plans. He stated that
action items within the CTE plan were being defined to measure
outcomes. He presented the goal for a mechanism to sustain and
share current information. He predicted an information sheet
available to every middle and high school student, listing the
available degrees and the necessary coursework, as well as
contacts for more information.
9:20:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that the stakeholders
identify the gaps in the plan.
MR. VILLA concluded by presenting an anecdote of high school
students accessing and sharing information on the computer about
career choices.
9:25:22 AM
MS. CURRAN highlighted the CTE actions being done in conjunction
with UA, EED, and DLWD. She read from pages 13-29 of the CTE
plan, which included: ensuring that every student has a personal
learning and career plan (PLCP); coordinating program
development and delivery among training programs to reduce
duplication of effort and the need for remediation; developing
data-sharing and other processes that provide information on
student progress from one educational level to the next and from
school to career; identifying current CTE programs and curricula
and making the information publicly accessible; identifying
industry standards for statewide priority industries and
incorporating the identified knowledge and skills into aligned
CTE curricula at elementary, secondary, and postsecondary
levels; cataloging and disseminating practices and supporting
materials for integrating academic GLEs into CTE programs and
career applications into academic programs; and, aligning CTE
programs of study that connect secondary academic and CTE
courses with recognized industry and postsecondary standards and
program content. She confirmed that EED was working with the
school districts on strategies to put these into practice.
9:30:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the Perkins federal funds were
limited to certain school districts.
MS. CURRAN replied that not every district had applied for the
funding.
9:31:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the training certificates were
accepted by industry and if those students were prioritized for
employment. He gave an example of a University of Alaska
program for Public Safety Officer training; however, DLWD did
not prioritize these students for hire.
MR. VILLA replied that the CTE plan was for alignment of
curricula to industry standards. He pointed to a variety of
industries which had published standards which could be directly
applied to curricula. He noted that some courses would be
introductory toward a career, but would not apply toward a
certificate.
MR. BELL informed the committee that DLWD did not have a mandate
to certify programs or industry standards. He shared that the
only area of authority to approve programs was under the Alaska
Performance Scholarship program.
9:35:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that it was necessary
for the training certificate to be recognized by the industry as
a priority in the hiring process.
9:36:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if there was value for a statewide
curriculum requirement for an Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) compliant basic safety program.
MR. VILLA expressed his reluctance for course mandates. He
noted that some standards could be implemented in various ways
by the school districts.
MS. CURRAN established that EED and DLWD were in the process of
identifying programs and collecting information to report what
programs currently existed and where they lead. She pointed out
the availability of on-line programs. She moved on to Strategy
4: developing strategies to educate, recruit, and retain
quality CTE teachers, faculty, counselors, and advisors. She
shared that EED was working to allow CTE endorsement for
certified teachers. She reflected on ways for Type M Limited
teaching certificates to be used by an individual in any school
district.
9:42:41 AM
MS. CURRAN explained that a Type M certificate was granted to a
person who had career and technical expertise in an industry,
was a recognized expert in Alaska Native language or culture, or
had a Junior Reserve Officer Training certification from the
armed forces. She clarified that a school district requested
the Type M Limited certification for the individual.
9:44:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if the CTE program addressed semi-
retired or under employed people.
MR. VILLA replied that the CTE plan was inclusive and he
stressed the importance for an inventory of the training
available in a given area.
9:45:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to include the Department of Revenue
on his earlier request for clarification on corporate tax
credits to the school districts. He opined that an integrated
response would make it easier to approach corporations for
support to the CTE programs.
MR. VILLA affirmed that the cooperation between EED, DLWD, and
the University of Alaska while working on this program
demonstrated the commonality of goals.
CHAIR DICK suggested a future re-write of the standards to
include the ideas currently being discussed.
9:49:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA directed attention to Strategy 5, which
called for a distribution of the inventory of the public
facilities and equipment available for training. She suggested
a statewide three week educational seminar for this CTE plan.
MR. VILLA replied that the regional training centers had been
contacted and inventoried, and that this was being distributed.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA applauded the effort by the ACTEP team.
9:51:47 AM
CHAIR DICK thanked the participants, and announced the next
regular meeting of the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Department of Education and Early Development meeting was
adjourned at 9:52 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Career and Technical Education Plan.pdf |
HEDC 1/31/2011 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Kenai Peninsula Borough School District for House Ed 1-11.ppt |
HEDC 1/31/2011 8:00:00 AM |