U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98-782 PDF 2005

H.R. 366, THE VOCATIONAL AND 

TECHNICAL EDUCATION FOR 

THE FUTURE ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

February 15, 2005

Serial No. 109-1

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thelma D. Drake, Virginia 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

George Miller, California 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

John Barrow, Georgia

Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman

Tom Osborne, Nebraska, Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

John A. Boehner, Ohio, ex officio 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Susan A. Davis, California 

George Miller, California, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on February 15, 2005 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Castle, Hon. Michael N., Chairman, Subcommittee on Education Reform, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce .............................................. 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Education 

Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Statement of Witnesses: 

Ainsworth, Dr. Patrick, Assistant Superintendent and Director, Secondary, Postsecondary and Adult Leadership Division, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA .................................................... 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

Atkinson, Dr. Lewis L., III, Associate Secretary of Education, Adult Education & Workforce Development, Delaware Department of Education, 

Dover, DE ...................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Kister, Dr. Joanna, Educational Consultant, Columbus, OH ....................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Moore, Russ, Chief Executive Officer, Central Educational Center, 

Newnan, GA .................................................................................................. 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

Appendix A ................................................................................................ 46

Appendix B ................................................................................................ 50

Appendix C ................................................................................................ 61

Simons, Emily, Vocational and Technical Education Student, Eastern 

Technical School, Baltimore, MD ................................................................ 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

(1)

H.R. 366, THE VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL 

EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE ACT 

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Education Reform 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Castle [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Castle, Osborne, Biggert, Woolsey, Andrews, Scott, Hinojosa and Davis of California. 

Staff Present: Jennifer Daniels, Communications Staff Assistant; 

Amanda Farris, Professional Staff Member; Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Jessica Gross, Legislative Assistant; Joshua 

Holly, Director of Media Affairs; Sally Lovejoy, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Alexa Marrero, Press Secretary; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of Education and Human 

Resources Policy; Whitney Rhoades, Professional Staff Member; 

Deborah L. Emerson Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Brad Thomas, Legislative Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Lloyd Horwich, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; 

Ricardo Martinez, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Joe 

Novotny, Minority Legislative Assistant/Education; and Mark 

Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel. 

Chairman CASTLE. Good afternoon, everybody. The quorum being 

present, the Subcommittee on Education Reform and the Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

We are meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act. Under Committee Rule 12(b) opening statements are limited to the Chairman 

and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee; therefore, further members who have statements, they may be included in the 

hearing record. For that I ask unanimous consent that the hearing 

record remain open 14 days to allow members’ statements and 

2

other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Thank you for joining us here today to hear testimony on 

H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education For the Future 

Act which I introduced a few weeks ago. This is our first hearing 

this year on this bill to authorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 

and Technical Education Act this Congress. We held three hearings 

on vocational and technical education during the 108th Congress—

this is the 109th Congress, for those who don’t know it—and have 

enjoyed learning about and discussing the Perkins program. 

H.R. 366 is largely based on the provisions in H.R. 4496, the 

Perkins reauthorization bill that I introduced last Congress, and 

which was reported out of Subcommittee and Committee by voice 

vote. We continue to support the reforms contained in both bills, 

and we look forward to getting feedback from the education and 

Perkins communities on the major provisions in the legislation 

today. 

The Perkins Act aims to prepare youth and adults for the future 

by building their academic and technical skills in preparation for 

postsecondary education and/or employment. The bill we are examining today enhances Perkins by ensuring both secondary and postsecondary students receiving assistance through the program are 

acquiring rigorous academic and technical skills and will have the 

opportunity to transition into further education and/or successful 

employment. 

H.R. 366 strengthens accountability by requiring that locals establish adjusted levels of performance to complement the State-adjusted levels of performance already in current law. The State 

agency will evaluate annually whether the local recipient is making 

substantial progress in achieving the local-adjusted levels of performance. Our goal is not to penalize those local areas facing difficulty in achieving high quality outcomes for their students, but to 

create a structure that includes technical assistance, opportunities 

for program improvement, and sanctions only as a last resort. 

H.R. 366 also folds the separate Tech Prep program activities 

and funding into the larger State grant. Under the bill, States will 

be expected to spend the same amount of money on Tech Prep activities as they did under the former stand-alone program. Through 

this reauthorization we want to ensure that all State programs incorporate important lessons learned from the former separate grant 

program, and strengthen the ties between secondary and postsecondary education. Consortia that would receive funding under the 

State grant for Tech Prep activities must be effective programs 

that ensure the transfer of credits from secondary to postsecondary 

education and provide nonduplicative, academic and vocational and 

technical education. 

The bill also requires States to establish model sequences of 

courses to emphasize further student academic and vocational and 

technical achievement. Sequences of courses will incorporate a nonduplicative progression of both secondary and postsecondary elements which would include both academic and vocational and technical content. Local recipients at both the secondary and postsecondary level would adopt at least one model sequence of courses as 

developed by the State. I believe this also will help drive program 

3

improvements by ensuring that States clarify the progression of 

academic and vocational and technical courses needed for the postsecondary education and training or employment of a student’s 

choice. 

As a result of the changes in the bill, I believe that H.R. 366 

would help States, community colleges and other postsecondary 

education institutions and local educational agencies better utilize 

funds for vocational and technical education programs, increase accountability, emphasize student achievement, and strengthen opportunities for coordination. 

We welcome the testimony of our witnesses as we seek to ensure 

that the reauthorization of the Perkins Act achieves these goals. 

Our panel today represents State and local educators and a student 

who will share with us the experiences in operating and participating in vocational and technical education programs. We thank 

you for joining us today, and appreciate your insights. 

And I will now yield to Congresswoman Woolsey for any opening 

statements she may have. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Castle follows:]

Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us today to hear testimony on H.R. 366, 

the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, which I introduced a 

few weeks ago. This is our first hearing on this bill to reauthorize the Carl. D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act this Congress. We held three hearings 

on vocational and technical education during the 108th Congress and have enjoyed 

learning about and discussing the Perkins program. H.R 366 is largely based on the 

provisions in H.R. 4496, the Perkins reauthorization bill that I introduced last Congress, and which was reported out of Subcommittee and Committee by voice vote. 

We continue to support the reforms contained in both bills and we look forward to 

getting feedback from the education and Perkins communities on the major provisions in the legislation today. 

The Perkins Act aims to prepare youth and adults for the future by building their 

academic and technical skills in preparation for postsecondary education and/or employment. The bill we are examining today enhances Perkins by ensuring both secondary and postsecondary students receiving assistance through the program are 

acquiring rigorous academic and technical skills and will have the opportunity to 

transition into further education and/or successful employment. 

H.R. 366 strengthens accountability by requiring that locals establish adjusted 

levels of performance to complement the state adjusted levels of performance already in current law. The state agency will evaluate annually whether the local recipient is making substantial progress in achieving the local adjusted levels of performance. Our goal is not to penalize those local areas facing difficulty in achieving 

high quality outcomes for their students, but to create a structure that includes 

technical assistance, opportunities for program improvement, and sanctions only as 

a last resort. 

H.R. 366 also folds the separate Tech–Prep program activities and funding into 

the larger state grant. Under the bill, states still will be expected to spend the same 

amount of money on tech-prep activities as they did under the former stand-alone 

program. Through this reauthorization, we want to ensure that all state programs 

incorporate important lessons learned from the former separate grant program and 

strengthen the ties between secondary and postsecondary education. Consortia that 

would receive funding under the state grant for tech-prep activities must be effective programs that ensure the transfer of credits from secondary to postsecondary 

education and provide non-duplicative, academic and vocational and technical education. 

The bill also requires states to establish model sequences of courses to emphasize 

further student academic and vocational and technical achievement. Sequences of 

courses will incorporate a non-duplicative progression of both secondary and postsecondary elements, which would include both academic and vocational and technical 

content. Local recipients at both the secondary and postsecondary level would adopt 

4

at least one model sequence of courses as developed by the state. I believe this also 

will help drive program improvements by ensuring that states clarify the progression of academic and vocational and technical courses needed for the postsecondary 

education and training or employment of a student’s choice. 

As a result of the changes in the bill, I believe that H.R. 366 would help states, 

community colleges and other postsecondary education institutions, and local educational agencies better utilize funds for vocational and technical education programs, increase accountability, emphasize student achievement, and strengthen opportunities for coordination. 

We welcome the testimony of our witnesses as we seek to ensure that the reauthorization of the Perkins Act achieves these goals. Our panel today represents state 

and local educators and a student who will share with us their experiences in operating and participating in vocational and technical education programs. We thank 

you for joining us today and appreciate your insights. 

I will now yield to Congresswoman Woolsey for any opening statement she may 

have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate 

your holding this hearing on H.R. 366, because it demonstrates our 

ongoing commitment to the bipartisan process that enabled our 

Subcommittee and Full Committee last year to approve this bill by 

voice vote. 

And as an aside to our witnesses, do not think because these 

chairs are not full that other members are not interested in your 

testimony. This is a travel day. We do not start voting until 6:30 

tonight. People will be coming in as their planes land and they get 

to Washington. 

I am especially pleased that we are picking up from where we 

left off last year, particularly since the President’s recent proposal 

is to eliminate the Perkins program. We need to address that because I believe it would make what we have done to date moot, and 

we have to step up to that issue. 

And as we heard from our witnesses, Mr. Chairman, last year, 

and we will hear today, vocational and technical education works; 

it works for students who want to go immediately from high school 

to college, and it works for students who plan first to go into the 

workforce. Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. 

I think one of the strengths of H.R. 366 is that it continues the 

integration of academics into Perkins programs without losing the 

traditional focus on vocation, because some students may need to 

learn math to get a job, and others may need to learn it because 

they are going on to college, but all students need to learn math. 

Although H.R. 366 does not restore pre–1998 set-asides for special populations and nontraditional fields, I am pleased that as a 

result of last year’s negotiations, it makes participation in nontraditional fields a core performance indicator for secondary 

schools, and also requires local programs to help prepare special 

populations for high-skill occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency. 

While I still have some concerns with the bill, for example, that 

it reduces funds for State administration, I appreciate your efforts, 

Mr. Chairman, to address the concerns of all the members of this 

5

Subcommittee; but I must say I noticed that in their written testimony, the witness from your state of Delaware, Mr. Chairman, and 

the witness from Ohio, the home State of our Full Committee 

Chairman, both oppose reducing State administrative funds. I hope 

that is a good sign, and I hope that we can reach agreement on 

that issue this year as well. 

In any event, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, we 

have got a great panel, and continuing to work with you to make 

this the best bill we can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]

Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your holding this hearing on H.R. 366. It demonstrates our ongoing 

commitment to the bipartisan process that enabled our Subcommittee and full Committee to approve this bill by voice vote last year. 

I am especially pleased that we are picking up from where we left off last year, 

given the President’s recent proposal to eliminate the Perkins program, which would 

make all our work to date moot. 

As we heard from witnesses last year and will hear today, vocational and technical education works. It works for students who want to go immediately from high 

school to college and it works for students who plan first to go into the workforce. 

Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. 

I think one of the strengths of H.R. 366 is that it continues the integration of academics into Perkins programs without losing the traditional focus on vocations. Because, some students may need to learn math to get a job and others may need to 

learn it because they are going on to college, but they all need to learn math. 

Although H.R. 366 does not restore pre–1998 set-asides for special populations 

and non-traditional fields, I am pleased that as a result of last year’s negotiations, 

it makes participation in non-traditional fields a core performance indicator for secondary schools and also requires local programs to help prepare special populations 

for high skill occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency. 

While I still have some concerns with the bill, for example, that it reduces funds 

for state administration, I appreciate your efforts to address the concerns of all the 

members of this Subcommittee. 

In fact, I noticed that in their written testimony, the witness from your state of 

Delaware, Mr. Chairman, and the witness from Ohio, the home state of our full 

Committee Chairman, opposed reducing state administrative funds. 

I hope that is a good sign and that we can reach agreement on that issue, as well. 

In any event, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to continuing to 

work with you on H.R. 366 as we begin the 109th Congress. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Well, thank you, Ms. Woolsey. I guess based 

on that Dr. Atkinson will not be testifying today, you are disinvited 

from this hearing. We appreciate your pointing that out, before he 

said anything, in the opening of the Committee. 

We do have a distinguished panel of witnesses, and Dr. Atkinson 

is a friend, and he is the Associate Secretary for Adult Education 

and Workforce Development with the Department of Education. 

His responsibilities include oversight of State-approved vocational 

and technical education programs, as well as supervision of prison 

education, associated compensation for professional development, 

score climbing and discipline, and alternative schools. 

Prior to this position Dr. Atkinson served in the Delaware Department of Education as the State director of vocational and technical education, and as an educational associate responsible for 

curriculum in the Office of Vocational Programs. Prior to joining 

the department, Dr. Atkinson served in numerous positions over 

6

the course of 15 years at the Delaware Technical Community College’s Terry campus. 

The second witness will be Dr. Joanna Kister. Dr. Kister is a consultant for education and workforce development issues, focusing 

on vocational and technical education policy, curriculum, instruction and assessment, high school improvement, and career and 

themed academies. She has authored a number of reports dealing 

with different aspects of vocational and technical education, and 

working with numerous State departments of education, businesses 

and national and international associations, all projects related to 

vocational and technical education. Dr. Kister is an adjunct faculty 

member at The Ohio State University and was formerly the State 

director for the Office of Career and Technical Education in the 

Ohio Department of Education. 

And I understand you would like to introduce the next witness; 

is that correct, Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. If I may. 

Chairman CASTLE. You certainly may. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

I am pleased to introduce Dr. Patrick Ainsworth, who is the assistant superintendent and director of the Secondary, Postsecondary and Adult Leadership Division of the California Department of Education. 

Dr. Ainsworth oversees secondary education, alternative education, adult education, college and postsecondary relations, career 

and technical education, school to career, workforce preparation 

programs and educational equity, and that is in a State that has 

over 35 million people, the size of a country. I do not know how 

you do it, Dr. Ainsworth. 

Prior to joining the California Department of Education, he 

worked for the Riverside County Office of Education where he 

served as the administrator of a countywide consortium devoted to 

educating and training disadvantaged and at-risk youth. 

During his long career Dr. Ainsworth also has been a teacher, a 

counselor and a principal. So, given his experience and dedication 

at all levels of education, I think we are fortunate to have Dr. 

Ainsworth here with us today to discuss H.R. 366. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. And welcome to Dr. 

Ainsworth as well. 

Our next witness will be Ms. Emily Simons. Ms. Simons is currently a senior at Eastern Technical School in Baltimore County, 

Maryland. She is enrolled in the allied health program at Eastern, 

and is interested in pursuing a career in the medical field. In addition to her regular academic courses, Emily is taking a sequence 

of courses in the allied health program that have earned her community college credit and are preparing her to pursue the allied 

health field at the postsecondary level. Emily, we welcome you, too. 

And our final witness today will be Mr. Russ Moore. Mr. Moore 

is a CEO of the Central Educational Center, or CEC, in Newnan, 

Georgia. The CEC is a publicly funded charter school serving students in grades 9 through 12, and has been recognized by the Department of Education and numerous industry and professional associations for its excellence in combining academics with vocational 

7

and technical education. Prior to serving in this role, Mr. Moore 

held several marketing and communications positions in business 

and education. 

Welcome, Mr. Moore. 

Before the witnesses begin to testify, I would like to remind the 

members that we will be asking questions after the entire panel 

has testified. 

In addition, Committee Rule 2 imposes a 5-minute limit on all 

questions, that includes questions and answers, and also 5 minutes 

as far as the witnesses are concerned. You will have a green light 

for 4, a yellow for 1, and then it goes red; and after that a whole 

lot of fireworks go off, and all kinds of problems happen. We will 

try to hear you out as thoroughly as we can because we really appreciate you being here; some of you have traveled a long ways. 

And believe me, this is very helpful to all of us. 

I will just expand a little bit on what Ms. Woolsey said. We will 

have members coming in and out, but just remember all the staff 

takes all this and parses it all very carefully, so your testimony is 

seen by a lot of eyes before it is all said and done. So, not to put 

too much pressure on you, but we just thought we would let you 

know that. 

And with that, we will start with Dr. Atkinson. 

STATEMENT OF LEWIS L. ATKINSON, III, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ADULT EDUCATION & WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

DOVER, DE 

Dr. ATKINSON. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Castle, 

Congresswoman Woolsey, and members of the Subcommittee, for 

the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 366, the Vocational and 

Technical Education for the Future Act, and to share the perspectives and needs of the State of Delaware. 

I am especially honored to appear before you, Chairman Castle, 

as you continue to distinguish yourself by your leadership and public service. We are fortunate to have you working to secure better 

opportunities and Federal policy for the residents of Delaware and 

our Nation. 

The legislation before this Committee is vital to Delaware. The 

funding is critical to our State, for it is transformational funding, 

funding that we use to lead innovation and ensure currency of programs. It is the funding we use to provide professional development 

to our teachers, purchase modern equipment for classrooms and 

laboratories, and support our career and technical organizations. 

I believe that H.R. 366 includes many policy advancements that 

will support our work in Delaware. The goals of emphasizing academic and technical achievement, improved accountability, promoting model sequences of courses and aligning existing Federal 

investments are strong legislative concepts that will do much to ensure technical education is meeting the needs of today’s economy 

and workplace. This afternoon I will focus my comments on accountability and the funding for State administration. 

Accountability. The transformation of Delaware’s career and 

technical educational system began during Chairman Castle’s tenure as Delaware’s Governor. And the central component to DelaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:53 Apr 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\98782 EDU1 PsN: NNIXON
8

ware’s ongoing improvement of career and technical education is 

the use of data to drive program decisions, including what professional development should be offered, how we spend our State resources, and what programs we will approve for funding. Our existing high school reform initiatives rely heavily on data and accountability as a management tool, and if we know anything in Delaware, we know that accountability-driven reform works. 

The provisions in H.R. 366 will help make these data come alive; 

it will ensure that the Perkins accountability requirements are 

more than just reports to complete. However, requiring negotiation 

of performance measures with local recipients will be a significant 

increase in the administrative responsibilities of the State, but it 

is worth the effort. When local recipients go through the process of 

setting performance goals, they have to seriously review the story 

the data tells, what areas require attention, what interventions are 

necessary to improve performance. This process is critical to establishing a culture of high expectations and performance and will 

focus attention and resources on student success. 

Now let me address State administration funds. 

In Delaware we receive the minimum allocation of $250,000 in 

State administration funds. This provision has not changed since 

1990, and it is not recommended to change in H.R. 366. Since 

1990, inflation has reduced the buying power of this $250,000 by 

43 percent. This means that the $250,000 of State administration 

that we had at our disposal in 1990—or excuse me, in 2004 terms, 

really has a buying power of only $142,500. 

H.R. 366 requires that State administration funds be used to develop the State plan, review local plans, monitor and evaluate program effectiveness, assure compliance with all applicable Federal 

laws and provide technical assistance. These current requirements 

alone easily consume the full State administration funds. Considering H.R. 366’s more aggressive accountability requirements, including the mandatory provision of technical assistance to local 

programs not meeting performance expectations, this level of funding is simply insufficient to carry out our responsibilities. 

My colleagues across the country and I are concerned about 

H.R. 366’s proposed reduction of State administration funds from 

5 percent to 2 percent, or $250,000, whichever is greater. I urge 

you to restore the State administration funds to 5 percent for larger States, and raise the minimum for State administration for 

small States to at least $500,000. This action will ensure that 

States can be good stewards of Federal funds, while also providing 

high-quality technical assistance that is mandated in H.R. 366. 

In conclusion, again, thank you for this opportunity. I sincerely 

appreciate Congress’ efforts to reauthorize the Perkins legislation, 

thus maintaining the critical Federal investment in technical and 

career education. I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have, elaborate on my portion of the testimony, and offer my support in completing the work on H.R. 366. Thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Dr. Atkinson. We appreciate it, 

and we will come back to you, obviously, for questions when we are 

done hearing from everybody. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Atkinson follows:]

9

Statement of Dr. Lewis L. Atkinson, Associate Secretary of Education, 

Delaware Department of Education 

Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Castle, Congresswoman Woolsey and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, and to share the perspectives 

and needs of the state of Delaware. I am especially honored to appear before you 

Chairman Castle, as you continue to distinguish yourself by your leadership and 

public service. We are fortunate to have you working to secure better opportunities 

and federal policy for the residents of Delaware and our nation. 

In my role as Assistant Secretary of Education at the Delaware Department of 

Education, I manage the Adult Education and Workforce Development Branch of 

the Department. This branch manages and funds career technical programs at the 

secondary level, adult education programs in our community centers and adult prisons that range from basic literacy to the completion of the James H. Groves Adult 

High School, the Delaware Center for Educational Technology, and the Delaware 

Interscholastic Athletic Association. In career technical education in Delaware, we 

serve nearly 17,000 secondary students concentrating in career technical education 

through secondary programs in all of our middle and high schools. Further, we support post secondary programs at the four Delaware Technical and Community Colleges and in the adult programs at our three comprehensive vocational technical 

high schools districts. 

Support for spirit and intent of H.R. 366

The legislation before this committee is vital to Delaware. We receive approxi- mately $4.8 million dollars each year, slightly above the minimum allocation of Perkins funding. This funding is critical to our state, as it is transformational funding—funding that we use to lead innovation and ensure currency of programs. It 

is the funding we use to provide professional development to our teachers, purchase 

modern equipment for classrooms and laboratories, and support our career technical 

student organizations. This investment helps create opportunities for youth and 

adults and helps to ensure that we are meeting our employer’s needs so that our 

economy is vibrant. 

I believe H.R. 366 includes many policy advancements that will support our work 

in Delaware. The goals of emphasizing academic and technical achievement, improved accountability, promoting model sequences of courses and aligning existing 

federal investments are strong legislative concepts that will do much to ensure that 

career technical education is meeting the needs of today’s economy and workforce 

and is prepared and able to adapt to future demands. 

Evolution of Delaware’s CTE system—It works! 

Across the state of Delaware, our system of career technical education has undergone a transformation that was supported in part by Perkins funding. As we know, 

students vote with their feet and through the 1980’s we experienced a decade of declining enrollments in career and technical education, especially in our vocational 

technical school districts. Not only were enrollments declining, but student assessment performance was low, and our career technical programs were out of step with 

the needs of business and industry. Through our partnership with High Schools 

That Work and aggressive local and state leadership, our career technical programs 

underwent a serious review and major changes were made. In a painful but necessary process, some programs were shut down and others completely rebuilt. A 

wonderful example of this transformation is Sussex Technical High School, whose 

former principal, Ms. Walls–Culotta, appeared before this committee at your first 

hearing on the reauthorization of Perkins. 

Part of Sussex Tech’s success, and the success of career technical education across 

our state, is the development of challenging programs of study that integrate and 

blend academic and career technical instruction, as well the delivery of career technical education organized around what you refer to in H.R. 366 as model sequences 

of courses. Model sequences of courses are the future framework of quality career 

technical education. They establish shared responsibility for student success between academic and career technical education. Model sequences of courses ensure 

a sequencing of course work that promotes advanced or dual credit, as well as the 

important connection to the needs of employers and the workforce. The inclusion of 

this provision in H.R. 366 will expedite the transition and transformation of programs across the country so that we have more successes like Sussex Tech. 

Focus on accountability 

Another essential component to Delaware’s ongoing transformation is the use of 

data to drive program decisions, including what professional development should be 

10

1 Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. 

2 H.R. 366 proposed to reduce state administration from 5% to 2% but retains the provision 

that the minimum amount of state administration funding a state may receive is $250,000. 

offered, how we spend our state resources and what programs we will approve for 

funding. Our existing high school reform initiatives rely heavily on data and accountability as a management tool. We know accountability-driven reform works. 

Across our state, test scores for career and technical students in our comprehensive 

vocational technical high schools on the Delaware Student Testing Program are 

equal or better than all students in Reading and Math. The drop out rate for career 

technical students is half of that of all high school students. 

The provisions in H.R. 366 will help make the data come alive, as it will ensure 

that the Perkins accountability requirements are more than just reports to complete. Requiring negotiation of performance measures with local recipients will be 

a significant increase in the administrative responsibilities of the state, but it is 

worth the effort. When local recipients go through the process of setting performance goals, they have to seriously review what story the data tells now, what areas 

require attention and what interventions are necessary to improve performance. 

This process is critical to establishing a culture of high expectations and performance and will focus attention and resources on student success. H.R. 366 will help 

build a bridge between the accountability provisions to the local and state plans, as 

well as the mandatory and permissive uses of funds. This connection is important 

and will help strengthen the relationship between states and locals, making us partners in ensuring success rather than pen pals sharing reports and regulations. It 

will also ensure that we are able to be more nimble and responsive in determining 

what works and what doesn’t work and redirecting efforts and resources to meet 

identified needs. 

Small State Minimum 

In Delaware, we receive minimal allocation of $250,000 in state administration 

funds. This provision has not changed since 1990 and is not recommended to change 

in H.R. 366. Since 1990, inflation has reduced the buying power of this $250,000 

by 43%. This means that the $250,000 state administration dollars really only had 

the value of $142,500 in 2004. 1

H.R. 366 requires that state administration funds be used to: 

• Develop the state plan; 

• Review local plans; 

• Monitor and evaluate program effectiveness; 

• Assure compliance with all applicable Federal laws; and 

• Provide technical assistance. 

These current requirements alone easily consume the full state administration 

funds. Considering H.R. 366’s more aggressive accountability requirements, including the mandatory provision of technical assistance to local programs not meeting 

performance expectations, this level of funding is simply insufficient to carry out our 

responsibilities in an effective, efficient and thorough manner. 

My colleagues across the country and I are concerned about H.R. 366’s proposed 

reduction of state administration funds from 5% to 2% or $250,000, whichever is 

greater. 2 I urge you to restore the state administration funds to 5% for the larger 

states and raise the minimum for state administration for small states to at least 

$500,000. This action will ensure that states can be good stewards of the federal 

funds, while also providing the high-quality technical assistance mandated in H.R. 

366. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for this opportunity. I sincerely appreciate the Congress’ efforts to reauthorize the Perkins legislation, thus maintaining the crucial federal investment 

in career technical education. I am happy to answer any questions you may have, 

elaborate on any portion of my testimony and offer my support in completing work 

on H.R. 366 expeditiously. 

Chairman CASTLE. Dr. Kister. 

11

STATEMENT OF DR. JOANNA KISTER, EDUCATIONAL 

CONSULTANT, COLUMBUS, OH 

Dr. KISTER. Good afternoon, Chairman Castle, Congresswoman 

Woolsey, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 366. 

I have worked in all levels of education in almost every State. 

Currently I am providing technical assistance to local districts to 

improve high schools and career technical programs. I work with 

teachers to incorporate the belief that all students can learn, and 

it is my job to see that they do. 

I firmly believe that H.R. 366 is sound Federal policy, and I will 

speak to three progressive components in the bill, increased accountability, simplification of funding streams, model sequences of 

courses, and will stress the criticality of the State role to support 

local program quality. 

I do technical assistance business for High Schools at Work, the 

Nation’s largest high school improvement initiative, that includes 

a focus on rigorous career technical studies. We analyze performance of subgroups and make recommendations through a process 

we call closing the gaps. As I worked in the past year in schools 

in New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Arkansas, no matter how big 

or small the State, data is a powerful motivator and driver for 

change, but we need good data. I encourage you to consider establishing an assessment fund that would support the creation of technical assessments, aligned to the model sequences of courses. 

I served on the National Assessment of Vocational Education, the 

NAVE panel, and technical assessments is a very strong recommendation from that report. Technical assessments would inform employers, postsecondary institutions, and would provide an 

accountability and a program improvement measure for career tech 

programs. 

I am supportive of the integration of the successful features of 

the Basic State Grant and Tech Prep programs, as proposed. As I 

work in schools, I have seen Tech Prep in some cases become a silo 

within career tech. In some States it has not been well defined; in 

other States it has become a sorting and tracking mechanism that 

creates an elite program at the expense of career technical education. When I interviewed students in one school, they actually 

identified themselves—they almost labeled themselves as, I am career tech, I am college Tech Prep. In some cases Tech Prep students have different academic requirements for graduation; they 

are taken on tours of college campuses and given class time to complete college applications, while that is not true for non-Tech Prep 

students. 

Federal policy should support the elimination of barriers to postsecondary education and not create them; we should not be about 

predicting the stopping-off points for students. 

Tech Prep funding was established as seed money to spark 

change. In Ohio and across the Nation, this funding was used to 

encourage collaboration between secondary and postsecondary education, and that has probably been its most visible success, particularly in the form of articulation agreements. Yet, NAVE found that 

relatively few Tech Prep students take advantage of the articulated 

credit they receive. 

12

The goals of Tech Prep are still important today, aligning secondary and postsecondary instruction and preparing students for 

postsecondary education; but those goals should be shared by the 

entire career technical community, not just a segment. 

While I am supportive of the proposed restructuring of the funding streams, I am concerned, and we are concerned, that there is 

not a loss of funding. Perkins funds have not kept pace with inflation or demand. I understand that funding is not the jurisdiction 

of this Committee, but in light of the current conservative fiscal environment and the President’s recent budget, anything this Committee can do to ensure that the Federal investment in career technical education is, at a minimum, maintained, but, more preferably, increased, would be appreciated. 

As I work across the country, I am seeing programs such as biotechnology, the teaching professions, Project Lead the Way, pre-engineering, logistics, interactive media that blend the lines between 

academic and technical instruction. We need support to continue to 

develop model sequences of courses and cutting-edge programs. 

There is one area that I would like to recommend change: to restore the 5 percent of funds set aside for State administration. 

When I was State director, my comments would have been perceived as self-serving, but now I am working with local schools, and 

I can tell you that they want, they need, they seek support from 

States. A local school in one State in which I worked that has significantly reduced State staff said, ‘‘When I call, there is no one 

there.’’ In a field that changes as rapidly as career tech, teachers 

seek help with program design, standards, curriculum, assessment, 

professional development. The success of High Schools that Work 

in 32 States is attributed to its use of State leadership. 

More important than the technical assistance role that States 

play is leadership for change. Most States are in front of local districts on leadership for the very initiatives that you stress in this 

bill. As I travel the country, I can state unequivocally where there 

is strong State leadership, quality programs exist in greater numbers, test scores are higher, and student options are greater. Cutting the States’ administrative funds by 60 percent is not only 

counterproductive, but undermines the positive changes in the legislation. Thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Dr. Kister. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kister follows:]

Statement of Dr. Joanna Kister, Educational Consultant, Columbus, OH 

Good afternoon Chairman Castle, Congresswoman Woolsey, and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective on career 

technical education (CTE), and to specifically comment on H.R. 366—The Vocational 

and Technical Education for the Future Act. My remarks today are guided by over 

30 years of working in the field of career technical education and my experiences 

as: Ohio’s State Director for Career Technical Education, a member of the Independent Advisory Panel for the most recent National Assessment of Vocational Education, a classroom teacher, university faculty and most recently as an educational 

consultant. My current work focuses on providing technical assistance and leadership to schools in pursuit of closing their achievement gaps and improving the quality of their career technical programs. The goal of my work is help transform these 

schools into high performing educational entities that prepare students for success 

in both work and post secondary education. 

13

Supporting the goals of H.R. 366

Based on my work at the state and local levels, I firmly believe that H.R. 366 

is sound federal policy that will benefit and advance career technical education. 

H.R.366 will increase options for students and ensure that the United States is able 

to meet the needs of its employers and economy. I support H.R. 366’s goals to more 

fully develop academic, technical, and employability skills of students; the promotion of rigorous course-taking; and increased linkages between secondary and 

post secondary education. My remarks focus on and express my support for what 

I believe are the most progressive components of the bill: increased accountability, 

the simplification of funding streams, the establishment of model sequences of 

courses, and an expanded state role to support local program quality. 

Accountability requirements 

My work in local schools has reinforced my strong belief that good data is an integral part of a high performing school system. Many schools are doing what they believe is right and is working. Their eyes are opened when first look at performance 

data. And when they see the gaps in student performance in the disaggregated data, 

the reality sets in. I have worked in schools in Ohio, Arkansas, California, New 

York or Texas; no matter how big or small the state or school is, no matter how 

urban or rural the setting, the data is a powerful motivator and driver of change. 

The accountability provisions in H.R. 366 will arm local programs with information necessary to make sound data-driven decisions. This data will identify areas 

of strength and weakness, thus allowing a continuous improvement plan based on 

fact rather than emotion or perception. These provisions will have lasting and deep 

impact in improving career technical education programs. 

Technical assessments 

The first step to making good data-driven decisions is to have the data. The second step is to have good data. One of the biggest challenges in career technical education is measuring technical competency. The breadth of careers makes it difficult 

to synthesize the critical knowledge of all professions into a single test, as we do 

in academics. 

Curriculum aligned with assessment and professional development is the equation 

to quality career technical education. Today, we do not have one of these critical 

components—quality, consistent and comprehensive technical assessments for all 

major industry areas. We also do not have a consistent way to measure technical 

competency, within or among states, nor can we effectively measure the contribution 

that career technical education has in supporting academic attainment. The development of quality technical assessments is a key to measuring our progress toward 

closing our nation’s skills gap. I encourage you to consider establishing an assessment fund in H.R. 366 that would support the creation of technical assessments 

aligned to the model sequences of courses. 

Simplification of Funding Streams 

I am supportive of the integration of the successful features of the Basic State 

Grant and Tech Prep programs, as proposed in H.R. 366, into a more efficient, 

streamlined funding structure. As I work in schools across the country, I have seen 

Tech Prep become a silo within career technical education. It establishes the boundaries of the elite, defining those career technical students who are ‘‘the ones’’ going 

to college. In some cases, Tech Prep is even called College Tech Prep. These students have different academic requirements for graduation than regular career technical education students. In working with one school in Ohio, I found that Tech 

Prep students were taken on tours of college campuses and given guidance and class 

time to complete college applications, while non–Tech Prep career technical students 

were not given that opportunity. Federal policy should support the elimination of 

barriers to post secondary education, not create them. 

The changing labor market dictates that if we are to prepare all students for future success, they must be prepared for both post secondary education and the 

workforce. In the past, the paths to preparation for post secondary education and 

work were different. The American Diploma Project recently found that in fact these 

paths have converged and that college and work readiness are one in the same. H.R. 

366 will support states’ progress is ensuring student success for both work and college. 

Tech Prep funding was established as seed money to spark change. In Ohio and 

across the nation, this funding was used to encourage conversation and collaboration between secondary and post secondary education, with the goal of increased 

student participation and success in college. Conversation among systems was initiated through Tech Prep funding and is probably its most visible success. This conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:53 Apr 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\98782 EDU1 PsN: NNIXON
14

1Silverberg, M. Warner, E., Fong, M., & Goodwin, D. 2004. National Assessment of Vocational 

Education: Final Report to Congress. Washington D.C: United States Department of Education, 

Office of the Undersecretary of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service. Page 185. 2 Ibid, page 194. 

versation is reflected in the form of articulation agreements. Unfortunately, articulation agreements vary widely in their value and utilization. The National Assessment of Vocational Education found that relatively few Tech Prep students take advantage of the Tech Prep articulated credit they receive. 1 Tech Prep also has failed 

in its goal to get more students to college. Again, according to the National Assessment of Vocational Education, Tech Prep students attend college at roughly the 

same rates as other career technical education students. 2

While there are certainly Tech Prep successes can point to, its impact on systemic 

change has been limited. We should learn from our experiences and not perpetuate 

mediocre policy. The concepts that Tech Prep attempted to address are still important today—aligning secondary and post secondary instruction and preparing more 

students for successful post secondary education. These goals should be shared by 

the entire career technical education community and not just one segment. H.R. 

366’s integration of funding streams will not dilute the focus on or support for these 

goals, but instead will promote the alignment of the federal investment to a common 

vision of success for all. 

While I am supportive of the proposed restructuring of the funding streams within 

Perkins, I am concerned that there is not a loss of funding. Perkins funds have not 

kept pace with inflation or demand. I understand funding is not the jurisdiction of 

this Committee, but in light of the current conservative fiscal environment, the 

President’s recent budget proposal and the pressures to reduce domestic spending, 

anything this Committee can do to ensure that the federal investment in career 

technical education is, at a minimum, maintained but more preferably increased, 

would be appreciated. 

Model Sequences of Courses 

H.R. 366 will help improve and advance career technical education programs 

through implementation of model sequences of courses. As a framework for instruction, model sequences of courses can improve transitions between secondary and 

post secondary education by aligning coursework and reducing remediation. They 

will support the more comprehensive integration of academic and career technical 

studies and help broaden career awareness. Model sequences of courses can help 

educators establish consistent expectations for student performance and connect 

classroom experiences to student goals. The application and relevance of academic 

knowledge becomes apparent through model sequences of courses, and students become more engaged learners. Finally, model sequences of courses can reinforce the 

historic federal role of driving innovation, program improvement and quality in career technical education. 

As I have worked with schools across the country, the transition from narrow-job 

specific vocational programs to programs that reflect the modern workplace is occurring. These new programs like biotechnology, teaching professions, and logistics 

blend the lines between academic and technical instruction. These new programs 

prepare students with a broader, more durable and portable set of skills and knowledge. These programs often provide dual credit, thus supporting an effective transition between secondary and post secondary education. While there are many programs across the country that already meet these high expectations, all of career 

technical education should be embracing these goals. The requirements for model 

sequences of courses will help to expedite the transformation of more career technical education programs and thus will ensure that we are truly preparing all students for successful futures. 

The Importance of the State Role in Local Program Quality 

There is one area in H.R. 366 that I would like to recommend a change—the 

amount of funds set aside for state administration. When I was State Director, my 

remarks on this issue would have been no surprise, as the restoration of state administration funding to 5% would have been perceived as self-preservation. However, my recent work with local programs confirms the valuable role that states 

have in driving innovation, ensuring quality programs, supporting local program improvement and the absolute necessity to fund these activities adequately. 

Local career technical administrators view their state agency as their partners in 

ensuring quality programs. They rely on the state for the provision of many supports that they could not afford otherwise. For example, states ensure an efficiency 

in scale through the development and implementation of curriculum, new programs, 

15

assessments, technical assistance, professional development, etc. Quality in each of 

these areas would suffer if local programs had to develop and pay for these services 

independently, thus further promoting disparities in quality within states (urban, 

rural, and suburban and well as areas of wealth and poverty). 

H.R. 366 provides states with more opportunities to exercise leadership to ensure 

the quality of career technical education programs. States are instructional leaders, 

as well as lead the charge to more systemically connect career technical education 

with workforce development, economic development and education reform. As I travel the country, where there is strong state leadership, quality programs exist in 

greater numbers, test scores are higher and student options are greater. 

H.R. 366 requires states to provide technical assistance to low performing schools. 

This is an important state role. My work with schools has proven the power of technical assistance. It ignites the reform process by spotlighting the weaknesses and 

providing the support to remedy these challenges. Technical assistance works. However, if you require states to provide technical assistance with a 60% reduction in 

administrative funds, you create an unattainable mandate. Worse yet, you hold out 

false hope to schools who need support. If the Congress is serious about closing 

achievement gaps, cutting the states administrative funds by 60% - the funds that 

will be used to provide technical assistance - is not only counterproductive, but seriously undermines the positive changes H.R. 366 proposes to strengthen accountability provisions. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I applaud your leadership to develop legislation that supports a 

separate federal investment in career technical education. H.R. 366 builds on current successes, while also encouraging innovation in career technical education. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you. I am happy to respond to any 

questions you might have and look forward to working with you to complete work 

on this important piece of legislation. Thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Dr. Ainsworth. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT AND DIRECTOR, SECONDARY, POSTSECONDARY 

AND ADULT LEADERSHIP DIVISION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SACRAMENTO, CA 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Well, good afternoon. And thank you, Chairman 

Castle, Congresswoman Woolsey, members of the Committee, for 

asking me here to share some perspectives from California, and to 

support H.R. 366. 

I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the 

Committee, for your expressions recently of keeping this as a separate Federal investment. It is very important to all us of. 

Perkins is a crucial resource to California, promoting innovation 

in education, and supporting our State’s economic development. 

California’s Perkins funds serve more than 3 million students and 

663 local and State education agencies and 109 community colleges. 

At the secondary level, Perkins has been the main vehicle for increasing the academic content and technical rigor of career tech ed 

courses and has supported statewide efforts to restructure high 

schools to improve student achievement. 

Now, at the postsecondary level Perkins has facilitated instructional innovation and development of programs in high-demand 

and emerging technologies. 

I am going to concentrate my comments in four specific areas; 

first, this issue of integrating academics and technical instruction. 

Perkins, of course, has had that as an emphasis for some time, and 

I am proud to say that we have made considerable progress in this 

area. Over 8,000 high school courses and career tech ed courses are 

16

qualified for academic graduation credit, and 3,300 career tech ed 

courses meet the entrance criteria for entrance into the University 

of California. 

In 2002, the California Legislature required the development of 

Career Tech Ed Model Curriculum Standards mirroring the intent 

of Perkins. These standards defined the technical skills students 

enrolled in these programs should achieve and are specifically designed to support, reinforce and provide opportunities for integrating academic skills. We do not envision all career tech ed 

courses morphing into academic courses; rather, the vision is for 

schools to offer high-level career technical education courses that 

provide students a context for learning academics, and inspire 

them to stay in the high school and continue their learning. 

H.R. 366’s model sequence of courses promotes the work we are 

doing, and we are in total agreement with that concept. 

State administration is area number 2. As you can imagine, and 

it has been articulately said by the previous 2 testifiers, that we 

just think that this proposed reduction in administration will derail 

the policy intent expressed in H.R. 366. Cutting 60 percent of the 

administrative funding will result in significant loss of direct support to California schools and students. 

As you have heard, this adds much in the way of accountability 

and monitoring responsibilities for the State. We calculate that this 

would add another 5- to 6,000 separate negotiations that we will 

have to make with our locals, which will certainly be on top of everything else that is required in the bill. This reduction, we believe, 

is illogical and impractical. State administration must remain at 5 

percent. 

We also believe that we need help in the large States with maintenance of effort. We would like to see a flexibility added in the 

maintenance of effort area in most of the large States that experience across-the-board State funding reductions which puts those 

States in jeopardy for losing the entire Perkins grant. We think 

that this is a crucial educational reform strategy, and we do not 

want to lose it because of a simple technical issue in the bill. 

Now, on diversity. I would like to talk—say that our State has 

a long-held tradition of deliberately serving special populations; in 

fact, in California’s Perkins-funded programs, approximately 80 

percent of all career tech ed students are defined in one or more 

special populations categorically. We annually set aside allotments 

from Perkins leadership funds for programs providing staff development and technical assistance related to special populations. In 

addition, our local planning process encourages local districts to 

use these funds to support the special populations. 

We believe that it is just very important that we keep this focus 

in the Perkins legislation, which would promote student’s pursuing 

nontraditional careers, and we believe it is an important economic 

self-sufficiency and wise economic strategy. 

Tech Prep. We would again mirror the comments of the previous 

2 in saying it is an important strategy in California, with 80 consortia, 109 community colleges, and 1,063 high schools engaged in 

this process. This is where collaboration occurs in California, and 

we really believe that whatever happens in this bill, we believe 

17

those principles underlying the Tech Prep concept need to be preserved and mainstreamed within the whole of the Perkins Act. 

So in conclusion, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before 

your Committee, and I look forward to providing any additional information you may need, and answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Dr. Ainsworth. We appreciate 

that. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ainsworth follows:]

Statement of Dr. Patrick Ainsworth, Assistant Superintendent and Director 

of the Secondary, Postsecondary, and Adult Leadership Division, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA 

Thank you Chairman Castle, Congresswoman Woolsey and members of the committee for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding H.R. 366, the Vocational and 

Technical Education for the Future Act, and to share the perspectives and needs of 

California. I am Patrick Ainsworth, Assistant Superintendent and Director of the 

Secondary, Postsecondary, and Adult Leadership Division, of the California Department of Education. Among my responsibilities, I am also designated as the State 

Director for Career Technical Education. California receives approximately $140 

million annually from the Perkins Act, serving 3,245,443 total students in 663 local 

and state educational agencies, and 109 community colleges. 

Chairman Castle and members of the committee, we also appreciate your recent 

comments supporting a continued, separate federal investment in career technical 

education. Perkins funding has been an important resource for improving career 

technical education. At the secondary level, Perkins funding has been a main vehicle 

for increasing the academic content and technical rigor of career technical education 

courses and has supported statewide efforts to restructure high schools to improve 

student achievement. At the postsecondary level, Perkins has facilitated instructional innovation and development of programs in high demand and emerging technologies. Perkins has proven to be an indispensable resource for improving career 

technical programs and supporting the economic development of our state. We believe that it is essential to retain Perkins’ focus on improving career technical program performance and student outcomes and recommend that funding not be reduced, but increased over the next six years to foster higher student outcomes and 

increased economic development. 

My comments focus on four specific areas: (1) integrating academics and technical 

instruction, (2) preserving state administrative funds, (3) meeting the needs of a diverse population, and (4) Tech Prep. 

Integrating Academics and Technical Instruction 

In the information and knowledge-based economy, it simply must be recognized 

that a strong academic foundation is necessary for all students emerging from high 

school. The skills necessary for entering postsecondary education are virtually the 

same skills necessary for success in the modern workplace. For example, students 

entering construction-related apprenticeship programs must have algebra, geometry 

and trigonometry skills, which are also requirements for entry into California’s university systems. Career technical education, as with all segments of the educational 

system, must support student academic achievement. 

California has made considerable progress in fostering academic integration. Over 

8,225 high school career technical education courses are qualified for academic graduation credit, and 3,336 career technical education courses met the entrance criteria 

for admission to the University of California. California has established over 290 career academies that by design require academic integration. In addition, numerous 

small learning communities, thematic, and charter high schools, have formed in recent years that are organized around the concept of integrating career technical education and academics to increase the rigor and relevance of instruction. 

In 2002, the California Legislature required the California State Superintendent 

of Public Instruction to develop Career Technical Education Model Curriculum 

Standards. California’s career technical education standards define the technical 

skills students enrolled in career technical education programs should achieve. The 

standards are specifically designed to support, reinforce, and provide opportunities 

for integrating academic skills. The standards do not envision all career technical 

education courses morphing into academic courses; rather, the vision is for schools 

18

1 Chutes and Ladders: The Search for Solid Ground for Women in the Workforce, Women 

Work! February, 2005

to offer high-level career technical education courses that provide students a context 

for learning academics and the inspiration for continued learning. 

We believe that the legislation should promote academic integration, but not displace the primary role of career technical education to develop students’ technical 

skills. H.R. 366’s proposed model sequences of courses will promote more effective 

integration, as well as, improve the articulation between secondary and postsecondary education. 

The new legislation should support career technical education teachers whose 

courses are qualified for academic graduation credit or university entrance requirements. Agricultural Science, Engineering, and Health Professions teachers often 

have the equivalent knowledge and degrees of academic teachers, yet are typically 

considered unqualified under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Highly Qualified 

Teacher provisions. Through 2005, existing CTE teachers are being evaluated and 

qualified to deliver academic instruction under the High Objective Uniform State 

Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) provisions of NCLB. We recommend that the 

new legislation allow new career technical education teachers, many coming from 

business and industry, to take advantage of the NCLB HOUSSE provisions on an 

on-going basis. This approach would be similar to the provision in the recently 

passed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

State Administration 

The proposed reduction in state administration from 5% to 2% will derail the policy intent expressed in H.R. 366. Cutting 60% of the funding will result in a significant loss of direct support to California’s schools and students. H.R. 366 proposes 

an expanded state role in accountability and related technical assistance, including 

negotiating outcomes, monitoring local improvement plans, and holding additional 

hearings for low performing districts. We are supportive of these policy recommendations as they reflect a maturation of the accountability system, however, 

these activities are very staff intensive. For example, the proposed negotiation of 

performance measures with each local recipient equates to approximately 5,400 separate negotiations every two years. We will be hampered in our ability to effectively 

carry out these new responsibilities if state administration funds are reduced. If this 

cut is enacted, California will only have enough capacity to distribute funds, collect 

data, and produce the required federal reports. This reduction is illogical and impractical. State administration funding must remain at five percent. 

Where we need help administratively is in adding flexibility within Perkins for 

meeting the annual Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements. Most of the large 

states have experienced across the board state funding reductions, which puts states 

in jeopardy for losing the entire Perkins grant. We request that Perkins be brought 

in line with the flexible maintenance of effort provisions within No Child Left Behind, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Adult and Family Education Literacy Act, to allow a ten percent variation. 

Diverse Populations 

California has an incredible diversity of ethnicities, languages, and economic levels among its people. One in four children are limited English proficient and almost 

half of California’s working families fell below the Federal Poverty Level in 2002. 

According to a report to be released this week by Women Work!, California’s single 

mother population has increased by 90% in the last decade, escalating the need for 

women to access quality career technical education programs that lead to high wage 

occupations.1 Within California’s Perkins funded programs, approximately eighty 

percent of all career technical students are identified within one or more special 

populations categories. It is clear that Perkins is a vital resource in helping to serve 

these often disadvantaged populations within our secondary, adult, and community 

college systems. 

California has a long held tradition of deliberately serving special populations. We 

annually set aside an allotment from our Perkins leadership funds for programs providing staff development and technical assistance related to special populations. In 

addition, our local planning process encourages locals to use funds to support the 

success of special population students. As partners with the community colleges, we 

have established the California Joint Special Populations Advisory Committee to 

guide these efforts. 

In particular, we strongly support the efforts to increase the numbers of students 

enrolled in nontraditional occupations. Promoting students in pursuit of nontraditional careers is an important economic self-sufficiency strategy for the students of 

19

California, and a wise economic development strategy. Many employers in California 

have corporate diversity policies and goals that have led them to develop strong 

partnerships with local Career Technical Education programs to support the success 

of nontraditional students pursuing careers in their industry. They know that having access to a larger workforce pool is good business and we know it is good education. 

Additionally, investing state and federal career technical education funds in the 

educational attainment of single parents benefits families and local communities. 

Assisting low-income women to obtain job skills through career and technical education has a significant impact not only on their own well-being, but also on that 

of their children and other family members. Children whose mothers go back to 

school have higher aspirations, take education more seriously and work harder in 

school. And, when low-income mothers secure employment offering higher wages 

and better benefits as a result of their education, child poverty levels decrease. 

From that point of view, it is important to keep the current minimum special populations investments and the data elements contained within the current Perkins 

Act, and to provide state and local agencies with incentives to increase the investments that boost student outcomes within the special populations groups. 

Tech Prep 

California has established 80 Tech Prep consortia encompassing the 109 community colleges, 1063 high schools, 73 Regional Occupational Centers and Programs, 

and 352 adult education schools. Tech Prep has helped foster collaboration among 

agencies with the goal of increased student transitions to postsecondary education. 

Currently 338,429 secondary and postsecondary students participate in Tech Prep 

and 678 career pathways, institutionalizing course sequencing and 2+2 articulation, 

have been established within the statewide consortia. This system building approach provides students with career guidance, training, and transition assistance 

to help them reach their career goals. Interestingly, the articulation model is 

spreading beyond career technical education into academic subjects. 

We believe the principles underlying the Tech Prep concept need to be preserved 

and mainstreamed within the whole of the Perkins Act. Course sequencing within 

and among the education systems allows students to make the transition necessary 

for success. 

Conclusion 

I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to testify before your committee. We stand 

ready to assist you in crafting reasonable legislative language that increases accountability, provides for local and state flexibility, and helps bolster our nation’s 

economy into the future. 

Chairman CASTLE. And, Ms. Simons, it is your turn. 

STATEMENT OF EMILY SIMONS, VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL 

EDUCATION STUDENT, EASTERN TECHNICAL SCHOOL, BALTIMORE, MD 

Ms. SIMONS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman 

Woolsey, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share my positive experiences with career technical 

education in my high school program, and to express support for 

continued Federal support for such programs across the country. 

I am a senior in the allied health program at Eastern Technical 

High School in Baltimore County. Many Baltimore County high 

schools are organized as magnet schools, allowing students the 

choice of which school to attend, depending on their area of interest. 

You may ask, why choose to attend a technical school? Many people have a perception of career technical education that is for those 

students that are not interested in college or those who are not 

academically inclined, or even that it eliminates the options. These 

perceptions are wrong. I hope that by sharing my comments today 

will help change these perceptions and let others know how imporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:53 Apr 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\98782 EDU1 PsN: NNIXON
20

tant career technical education programs are, and that they create 

opportunities and options, not limit them. 

I chose to attend Eastern because of my interest in the medical 

field. I knew that if I attended Eastern, what I was learning would 

give me a leg up on the career I wanted to pursue, and that the 

school would be fun because I was actually learning something that 

interested me. I actually enjoy getting up each day and going to 

school. My dreams of working with children or children in rehabilitation have been confirmed, and I am eager to begin my collegiate 

studies in health sciences. 

My allied health program is similar to what H.R. 366 calls a 

model sequence of courses. It is an organized set of classes that 

progressively connect and build upon one another. I understand the 

interrelatedness of academic and technical classes, and how what 

I am learning will be applied in the real world. For example, my 

English coursework helped me with medical terminology. Given all 

the Latin medical terms we have to learn, my grasp of prefixes and 

suffixes helped me dissect words. Knowledge of the human body, 

which I learned in my 9th-grade anatomy and physiology class, 

along with other things that I learned and skills that I developed 

in my allied health courses, helped me obtain my CPR certification 

in the 11th grade. This certification is a valuable and necessary 

credential for anyone in the health profession. 

The allied health program has also helped with my study habits. 

I study not only to pass a test, but because there is information I 

would have to have readily accessible to treat patients. 

I understand the application of math because I know just how 

many and how important mental calculations are that professionals 

in the medical field have to make every day. These are decisions 

that people’s lives depend on. 

One class in the allied health sequence of courses was even 

taught by a professor from a nearby community college. The professor came to Eastern to teach the course, which will be recognized for a credit at the postsecondary level. I will definitely have 

an advantage over the other students because I will not need to 

take this course in college, and it will save my family tuition. 

When I finish my allied health program and graduate, I will 

have completed a career technical program of study, one of the 

pathways a high school student can take to obtain a Maryland high 

school diploma. In addition, I will have successfully completed the 

required course to meet the university system of Maryland entrance requirements. And for the past 2 years, all of my classes 

have been Advanced Placement, which will be helpful in my college 

selection and admission. 

I have already been admitted to James Madison University and 

to Towson University, and am waiting to hear about the University 

of Maryland, College Park. I know I am fortunate to have the opportunities I have had at Eastern. I am better prepared for postsecondary education in the world of work, and as such, my studies and 

my career technical education program will have a lasting impact 

on my future. I have options and the confidence that I will be successful. 

While I am not an astute legislative analyst, what I understand 

of H.R. 366 is that it is a good policy that will dramatically inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:53 Apr 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\98782 EDU1 PsN: NNIXON
21

crease the availability of high-quality career technical programs 

like the one I am in. The model sequences of courses concept is a 

good one, as it embodies all the elements of a quality career technical education program, again, just like the one I am in. This concept model sequences of courses will give more students access to 

quality career technical education, and quality career technical 

education will help prepare more students for success in college, careers and life. 

I have always thought the Federal Government’s role is to enact 

policy that creates opportunities and eliminates barriers to success. 

In education, the Federal Government’s role has been to ensure 

equal access to quality education. This piece of legislation achieves 

these laudable goals. 

In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

behalf of career technical education. The opportunities I have been 

provided through the career technical education program at Eastern have definitely given me greater options for my future career. 

The opportunities for students in career technical education provided by Perkins can really make a difference in a young person’s 

life. Specifically, model sequences of courses better prepare students for further learning and careers. 

Thank you for your continued support of career technical education. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Simons. That was excellent 

testimony. We appreciate you being here. You did a good job. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Simons follows:]

Statement of Emily Simons, Vocational and Technical Education Student, 

Eastern Technical School, Baltimore, MD 

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Woolsey, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share my positive experiences with career technical education in my high school program and to express support for continued federal support for such programs across the country. 

I am a senior in the Allied Health program at Eastern Technical High School in 

Baltimore County Maryland. Baltimore County’s high schools are organized as magnet schools, allowing students the choice of which school to attend depending on 

their area of interest. You may ask, why choose to attend a technical school? Many 

people have a perception of career technical education—that it is for those students 

not interested in college or those who are not academically inclined or even that it 

eliminates options. These perceptions are wrong. I hope that sharing my comments 

today will help change these perceptions and let others know how important career 

technical education programs are and that they create opportunities and options, 

not limit them. 

I chose to attend Eastern because of my interest in the medical field. I knew that 

if I attended Eastern, what I was learning would give me a leg up on the career 

I wanted to pursue and that school would be fun because I was learning something 

that interested me. I actually enjoy getting up each day and going to school! My 

dreams of working with children or children in rehabilitation have been confirmed 

and maybe one day I’ll even become a doctor or a physician’s assistant. 

My Allied Health program is similar to what H.R. 366 calls a model sequence of 

courses. It is an organized set of classes that progressively connect and build on one 

another. I understand the inter-relatedness of academic and technical classes and 

how what I am learning will be applied in the real world. For example, my English 

coursework helped me with medical terminology. Given all the Latin medical terms 

we have to learn, my grasp of prefixes and suffixes helped me dissect words. Knowledge of the human body, which I learned in my 10th grade Anatomy and Physiology 

class, along with things I learned and skills I developed in my Allied Health 

courses, helped me attain my CPR certification in the 11th grade. This certification 

is a valuable and necessary credential for anyone in the health professions. 

The Allied Health program has also helped with my study habits. I study not only 

to pass a test, but because there is information I have to have readily accessible 

22

to help my patients. I understand the application of math because I know just how 

many and how important mental calculations are that professionals in the medical 

field have to make every day—these are decisions that people’s lives depend on. 

One class in the Allied Health sequence of courses was even taught by a professor 

from the nearby community college. The professor came to Eastern to teach the 

course, which will be recognized for credit at the post secondary level. I will definitely have an advantage over other students because I won’t need to take this 

course in college and it will save my family tuition. 

When I finish my Allied Health program and graduate, I will have completed a 

career technical program of study, one of the pathways a high school student can 

take to obtain a Maryland high school diploma. In addition, I have will have successfully completed the required courses to meet the University System of Maryland 

entrance requirements. And for the past two years, all of my classes have been Advanced Placement, which will be helpful in my college selection and admission. I 

have already been admitted to James Madison University and to Towson University 

and am waiting to hear about the University of Maryland in College Park. 

I know I am fortunate to have the opportunities I have had at Eastern. I am better prepared for post secondary education and the world of work and as such, my 

studies and my career technical education program will have a lasting impact on 

my future. I have options and the confidence that I will be successful. 

While I am not an astute legislative analyst, what I understand of H.R. 366 is 

that it is good policy that will dramatically increase the availability of high quality 

career technical programs, like the one I am in. The model sequences of courses concept is a good one, as it embodies all the elements of a quality career technical education program—again just like the one I am in. This concept, model sequences of 

courses, will give more students access to quality career technical education; and 

quality career technical education will help prepare more students for success in college, careers and life. 

I have always thought the federal government’s role is to enact policy that creates 

opportunities and eliminates barriers to success. In education, the federal government’s role has been to ensure equal access to quality education. This piece of legislation achieves these laudable goals. 

In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of career 

technical education. The opportunities I have been provided through the career technical program at Eastern have definitely given me greater options for my future career. The opportunities for students in career technical education provided by Perkins can really make a difference in a young person’s life. Specifically, model sequences of courses better prepare students for further learning and careers. Thank 

you for your continued support of career technical education. 

Chairman CASTLE. I will now call on Mr. Moore. Perhaps Mr. 

Osborne can assume the Chair for a moment; I have to do a radio 

talk show and defend myself against all these attacks on things 

that we are doing. 

Mr. Moore, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RUSS MOORE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL CENTER, NEWNAN, GA 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Chairman Castle, Ranking Member 

Woolsey, and members of the Committee. Thank you for providing 

me the honor of testifying. 

My name is Russ Moore, and I am the CEO of Central Educational Center, a charter school in Newnan, Coweta County, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta. 

My remarks will focus on the accountability provisions of 

H.R. 366, increased academic and technical rigor, and increased coordination between secondary and postsecondary education, all of 

which I believe our school is a model for. 

CEC and Coweta County are small; yet not unlike a mouse that 

roared, we have had an idea so tremendous, so powerfully different 

that the fruit of our 9 years of labor has brought CEC to your atVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:53 Apr 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\98782 EDU1 PsN: NNIXON
23

tention. Of critical importance to that model is the existence of vocational education, which I call career technical education, or CTE. 

The administration has caused quite a discussion, to put it mildly, with its recent call for the elimination of Federal funding for vocational education, which the Program Assessment Rating Tool has 

rated ineffective for the last three budget proposals. As a businessman I identify with the desire to show results for tax dollars spent; 

however, in my experience CTE, properly supported, administered 

and taught, is the most effective tool in our country’s arsenal to 

help our children learn and to help our workforce compete in the 

global economy. 

Central Educational Center uses CTE and other programs, and 

is in a position to serve as a model, and a need for models is proposed in H.R. 366. We know that 60 percent of the new jobs in the 

21st century require postsecondary education currently held by 

only one-third of America’s workforce. This fact presents a real 

challenge to the Nation. 

My school was created around the beliefs, supported by data, 

that CTE is core to achieving academic and economic improvement. 

Further, CEC’s founders were sure that the best way to increase 

the numbers of trained workers is to make sure they are trained 

at the postsecondary level earlier, preferably while in high school, 

through partnership programs with businesses and colleges. 

CEC’s mission may be unique among public schools. It is simply 

to ensure a viable 21st century workforce. We opened in 2000 after 

4 years of study and design by a publicly appointed steering committee. That committee performed a needs assessment of local business and industry and designed our school in response to the data. 

The committee recommended that a seamless educational solution 

be provided to break down silos between academics and CTE, between high school and college, and between education and business. West Central Technical College has been an enthusiastic 

partner from the beginning, as has the Newnan-Coweta Chamber 

of Commerce and the Coweta County School System. The committee recommended the school be a charter school, since that 

seemed to be the only legal and practical way to blend these entities into a single school with adequate flexibility and accountability. 

Today CEC has served nearly 5,000 team members, which is 

what we call students, who are pursuing high school diplomas and 

GEDs, technical college certificates of credit and associate degrees, 

continuing education, and customized corporate training. 

CEC is committed to continuous improvement. 

We use—and now that we are replicating, we teach—the design 

process described in Dr. Joe Harless’ book, The Eden Conspiracy: 

Educating for Accomplished Citizenship. 

Today the results from our school are dramatic and significant. 

Last year the International Center for Leadership in Education 

and other educational organizations recognized CEC as a national 

model high school for our academic rigor and relevance. 

CEC can improve academic performance. Our team members 

passed Georgia’s five academic graduation tests at the first sitting 

as often or more often than their peers who do not attend CEC. In 

addition, CEC’s economically disadvantaged team members have a 

24

first-time pass rate better than their peers by between 4 percent 

and 19 percent on the same 5 tests. The 19 percent was on the 

science test. At the time these results were generated, CEC did not 

offer core academic science classes. Our team members and their 

peers all took academic science classes at their base schools. But 

the CEC team members passed the science test at much higher levels. 

What was the difference? Well, there are many, and not just in 

science. CEC members take CTE and academic classes that impart 

academic content in an applied way. This is why in surveys students tell us they appreciate the relevance of their classes at CEC 

to their career paths. 

CEC offers dual enrollment with the technical college so high 

school students may earn simultaneous credit toward a high school 

diploma and college certificates and/or associate degree credit. The 

University of Georgia found that at least 98 percent of high school 

students who dual-enroll also graduate from high school, 98 percent. Further, 100 percent of those graduates either find a job for 

which they are trained or go on to additional postsecondary education within 6 months, 100 percent. We call that No Child Left 

Behind. 

One local accountability aspect of CEC’s program is our work 

ethic assessment policy. Every team member at CEC earns two 

grades in every class, a work ethic grade and a course grade. 

CEC follows the progress of our alumni through research performed by Florida State University. Those studies and other data 

indicate that CEC is preparing students equally well for the workplace or additional college. 

And I would be remiss if I did not also mention that businesses 

partner with CEC. Our Work-Based Learning Program has 185 

business partners who provide job shadowing, internships and apprenticeships to high school students. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you especially for your support of CTE for our students. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

Statement of Russ Moore, Chief Executive Officer, Central Educational 

Center, Newnan, GA 

Chairman Castle, Ranking Member Woolsey, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the honor of testifying before you today on ‘‘H.R. 366, the Vocational 

and Technical Education for the Future Act.’’ 

My name is Russ Moore, and I am the CEO of Central Educational Center, a 

charter school in Newnan, Coweta County, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta. It occurred 

to me as I was reviewing the witness list that, with the obvious exception of Emily, 

I am probably the only witness today who has never had budget authority of more 

than $5 million or supervision of more than 100 people, and yet I am talking to a 

committee that will vote on a program that costs our country between $1 billion and 

$1.3 billion annually. I run a facility that some would characterize as just a small 

high school in a small county in between the massive urban center of Atlanta and 

the slumbering lowlands of Georgia’s rural Piedmont. 

The truth is that Central Educational Center and Coweta County are small; yet, 

not unlike a mouse that roared, we have had an idea so tremendous, so powerfully 

different—and we worked so hard for nine years now to make it real—that the fruit 

of our labor has brought CEC to your attention. We are grateful for your time and 

interest in our model. Of critical importance to that model is the existence of Vocational Education, which I call ‘‘Career and Technical Education’’ or ‘‘CTE.’’ 

The administration has caused quite a discussion, to put it mildly, with its recent 

call for the elimination of federal funding for ‘‘Vocational Education,’’ which the ProVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:53 Apr 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\98782 EDU1 PsN: NNIXON
25

gram Assessment Rating Tool has rated ‘‘Ineffective’’ for the last three budget proposals. As a businessman, I identify with the desire to show results for tax dollars 

spent, and I sympathize with the position to cut or reduce funding to poorly performing programs. However, in my experience, CTE—properly supported, administered and taught—is the most effective and necessary tool in our country’s arsenal 

to help our children learn and to help our workforce compete in the global economy. 

Along those lines, Central Educational Center is doing many things with its CTE 

and other programs and is in a position to serve as a model—and a need for models 

is proposed in H.R. 366. 

A call for increased emphasis on academics is emphasized in H.R. 366, with its 

provision for ‘‘rigorous and challenging’’ academic and technical education and 

‘‘model sequences of courses’’ to further enhance coordination between secondary 

and post-secondary education. H.R. 366 clearly relates academic enhancement as 

being part of an ongoing effort to improve CTE. 

This Committee has called for greater state and local accountability and flexibility, but with this new accountability comes greater expense. I am in favor of increasing the administrative portion of state grant funds back to five percent. I believe this increased funding will help states better communicate program options, 

which the bill correctly identifies as being lacking. 

The publication, ‘‘Educating America: The President’s Initiatives for High School, 

Higher Education, and Job Training’’ states, ‘‘Sixty percent of the new jobs of the 

21st century require postsecondary education held by one-third of America’s workforce.’’ This fact presents a real challenge to CTE teachers and administrative supervisors nationally. My school was created around the belief, supported by data, 

that CTE is core to achieving academic and economic improvement. Further, CEC’s 

founders were sure that the best way to increase the numbers of trained workers 

is to make sure they are trained at the post-secondary level earlier, preferably while 

in high school, through partnership programs with businesses and colleges. They 

felt that since data clearly shows that the majority of jobs in our economy require 

training beyond high school but still less than a full four-year degree, providing that 

training by the age of 18 through CTE, dual-enrollment with the technical college 

and work-based learning with local business partners would be an ideal solution. 

I started with CEC as a business volunteer in 2001, then served as a member 

of its board of directors, and now I am CEO. Consistently, I have seen with my own 

eyes, and will document for you, that students in CEC’s primarily CTE program find 

the curriculum to be relevant, and even though it is more rigorous than other options they could take, they voluntarily enroll at CEC because they like our program 

of study better. Our students make better grades at CEC, and they have better results on statewide, standardized academic tests than their peers who don’t attend 

CEC. 

As for who may attend CEC, the answer is anyone in the Coweta County School 

System who registers to take core academic or elective CTE courses there. The academics are also offered at one of three ‘‘base’’ high schools, but the CTE classes, by 

and large, are only offered centrally at CEC. For a more complete discussion of how 

CEC was started, I refer you to Appendix A. 

CEC’s mission may be unique among public schools. It is simply, ‘‘to ensure a viable 21st century workforce.’’ We opened in 2000 after four years of study and design 

by a public steering committee authorized by our school superintendent and school 

board. That committee worked for three years under the leadership of its chair, Dr. 

Joe Harless, and together they performed a needs assessment of local business and 

industry and proposed a school in response to the data. 

The data showed that our public schools were providing inadequate preparation 

in academics and work ethic ‘‘soft skills.’’ The data also ranked local professions 

most in need of skilled workers. The committee recommended that a seamless educational solution be provided to break down ‘‘silos’’ between academics and CTE, between high school and college, and between education and business. The local technical college (West Central Technical College) was an enthusiastic partner from the 

beginning, as was the Newnan–Coweta Chamber of Commerce and the Coweta 

County School System. The final decision reached by the committee was to make 

the school a charter school, since that seemed to be the only legal and practical way 

to blend the entities into a single school with adequate flexibility and accountability. 

Since receiving the charter in 1999 and opening in 2000, CEC has served nearly 

5,000 ‘‘team members’’ (students) who are pursuing high school diplomas, technical 

college certificates of credit, credit toward technical college associate degrees, GEDs, 

continuing education, or customized corporate training. 

CEC is committed to continuous improvement. We use (and now that we’re replicating, we teach) the design process described in Dr. Harless’ book, The Eden Conspiracy: Educating for Accomplished Citizenship (1998), which can be described by 

26

the acronym ‘‘ADDIE’’ which stands for ‘‘Analyze, Design, Development, Implement, 

and Evaluate.’’ A key component of that process is that it begins by defining the 

‘‘end’’ desired (in our case, employable high school or college completers) and designing backwards to determine what content is to be taught and how it is to be taught. 

Today, the results from this school are dramatic and significant, so much so that 

the International Center for Leadership in Education (ICLE), creators and co-sponsors of the Model Schools Conference, recognized CEC last year as a national model 

high school for our adherence to rigor and relevance and ‘‘Quadrant D’’ instruction 

(See Appendix B). This conference and dissemination of the model school studies are 

partially funded by The Gates Foundation. 

Now into our fifth year of instruction, CEC can make a fairly astonishing statement: Our team members, many of whom are on track for tech-prep diplomas (as 

opposed to college prep) pass Georgia’s five academic graduation tests at the first 

sitting as often or more often their peers who do not attend CEC. In addition, CEC’s 

economically disadvantaged team members (defined by free/reduced lunch status) 

have a first-time pass rate better their peers by between 4% and 22% on the same 

five tests. A 21% differential was realized on the science test, the passing of which 

our governor and state school superintendent have just made into a centerpiece of 

the state’s new education reform initiative. 

At the time these results were generated (2003), CEC did not offer core academic 

science classes in biology, chemistry or physics. CEC’s team members and their 

peers both took academic science classes at their ‘‘base schools,’’ but only the CEC 

team members excelled in passing the science test. What was the difference? The 

CEC team members also took CTE classes like health occupations, welding, machine 

tool technology, computer aided drafting, environmental science, horticulture, electronics, and broadcast video—all of which impart academic content related to 

science in an applied way, which research shows tends to ‘‘stick’’ better with students—something we call ‘‘transfer.’’ The first-time pass rates on Georgia’s High 

School Graduation Tests of CEC’s team members are below:

The performance of CEC’s team members on these tests is local proof that CTE 

curricula can enhance academic performance. In surveys, students also tell us they 

appreciate the relevance of their classes at CEC to their career paths. Another possible impact on academic scores is the fact that CEC’s ‘‘directors’’ (teachers) actively 

seek ways to teach using applied academics over general—another characteristic of 

CTE education. 

CEC offers dual-enrollment with the technical college, so high school students who 

are at least 16 years old may earn simultaneous credit toward a high school diploma 


98782.001
27

and college certificates and/or associate degree credit. High school students also benefit from Tech Prep articulation agreements with the college. The University of 

Georgia found that at least 98% of high school students who dual-enroll also graduate from high school. Further, 100% of those graduates either find a job for which 

they are trained and/or go on to additional post-secondary education within four 

months (See Appendix C). 

CEC may be unique among high schools in that we follow the progress of our ‘‘cohorts’’ (graduating classes). Florida State University has published research papers 

tracking the first two cohorts, and a third will be published soon (See Appendices 

D and E). Those studies and other data indicate that CEC’s curricula and culture 

are preparing students equally well for the workplace or additional college. I encourage schools and school systems to take advantage of H.R. 366’s provision for local 

accountability to add some kind of follow up to their local performance plans. 

Another local accountability aspect of CEC’s program is our ‘‘work ethic assessment’’ policy (See Appendix F). Every team member at CEC earns two grades in 

every class: a course grade and a work ethic grade. The work ethic grade is based 

on a rubric of the following ten characteristics provided by the technical college.

CEC Work Ethic Rubric (Characteristics):

• Attendance 

• Character 

• Teamwork 

• Appearance 

• Attitude 

• Productivity 

• Organizational skills 

• Communication 

• Cooperation 

• Respect 

A climate of academic rigor is enhanced by linking attendance to final course 

grades, per our work ethic assessment policy. Absences above five per term count 

two points off the final grade, and tardies above two per term count off one point 

each. 

The higher expectations created by the above policy have a positive impact on academic performance. Following another principle of our precision design, that we 

should INspect for what we EXpect, CEC’s goal is for 80% of all students in all 

courses to make a B or higher (our ‘‘80/80 rule’’). This level is far higher than routine expectations found in the classic ‘‘Bell curve,’’ in which a C is average. 

As a charter school, CEC is, by Georgia law, also a non-profit corporation. Simply, 

we are a business, and our business is education. We are not in business to make 

money, but rather to enrich the learning experiences of our students and to be an 

economic engine of our community. The National Institute for Work and Learning 

(NIWL) of the Academy for Educational Development (AED)—which testified before 

this Committee last year—has studied CEC and published a paper entitled ‘‘Reconceptualizing Education as an Engine for Economic Development’’ (see Appendix 

G). In that paper, AED describes one local company that made a decision to stay 

in our county, expand, and hire 300 additional workers (causing a minimum local 

impact of $75 million) because of the proximity and access to Central Educational 

Center and its training and retraining programs. 

Businesses also partner with CEC in much higher than usual numbers. Currently, we have 185 local business partners in our Work–Based Learning Program, 

providing job shadowing, internships, and/or apprenticeships to high school students. These team members always earn credit toward their high school diplomas, 

and some are also paid an hourly wage. To date, 470 team members have benefited 

from the internships and apprenticeships offered by CEC. 

Perhaps the most telling data about the relevance of CTE at CEC is the voluntarily reported satisfaction ratings of team members and their parents in different 

surveys. The 2004 National Study of School Evaluation reported that CEC’s team 

members ranked CEC 4.19 on a scale of 5 for student satisfaction with their high 

school experience, compared to a 3.36 score identified by high school students who 

did not attend CEC. That is a 25% differential. I’m sure that you as elected officials 

would consider a 25% campaign margin to be a significant victory. 

In addition, Georgia’s state school superintendent just released the results of a 

statewide survey of charter school parents. 70% of the voluntary respondents rated 

CEC as earning an A or an A+ for performance. 94% rated CEC a B or higher. 

I mention all these cultural and programmatic aspects of CEC because they are 

integral to how we teach Career and Technical Education, and without CTE, there 

would be no CEC. Without CTE, our students would not experience rigorous and 

28

relevant learning, or the opportunities that exist for them beyond high school in any 

number of post-secondary settings or in the workforce. Also of critical importance, 

H.R. 366 supports the professional development our teachers want and need to 

maximize the classroom experience for our students. 

My recommendation and request is that the committee continue to support CTE—

properly funded, administered, designed, and taught. Support CTE taught by teachers who are properly trained, with schools that can afford the right equipment and 

that develop business partnerships. Academic performance, secondary and post-secondary connections, and model sequences of courses will prosper—as will national 

educational innovation that benefits students and American competitiveness in the 

global economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you especially for your support of CTE for our students. 

[Attachments to Mr. Moore’s statement are located at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. OSBORNE. [Presiding.] Thank you, members of the panel, for 

the excellent testimony. And I will now yield myself 5 minutes for 

some questions. 

And I guess I would like to start with a general question here 

to start with. I would assume that many people here are very supportive of Perkins or they would not be here. And I would appreciate your comments on what effect you believe elimination of the 

Perkins grant program would have on our schools and our workforce. 

And I guess I will start with Dr. Atkinson, and anybody that has 

a thought, but let’s move on down the line here, because naturally 

this is kind of on the front burner of this idea of whether we are 

going to maintain the program or not. 

Dr. ATKINSON. Well, just a thought; but if we eliminate Perkins 

and take those dollars and put those dollars in a different reform 

effort, a high school reform effort, I think what we lose is this: We 

lose a balance in high schools that we have now. 

We have high schools in Delaware, in attempting to come to 

grips with math scores and reading scores and writing scores, are 

trying to find ways to give students a double dose of math during 

the course of the day. And what happens when you do that is you 

start to lose the context within which we need to do that. I believe 

that when you start to take Perkins off the table and take career 

and technical education off the table, what you lose is a context for 

a lot of students that helps them understand where they use those 

academic requirements. 

So I keep telling our teachers that if you want to—if you want 

that principal to support you in that building, show that there is 

good language arts in your classroom, there is good math in your 

classroom, there is good science in your classroom, and what you 

become is the extra time program during the course of the day, and 

I think we would lose that. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Dr. Kister. 

Dr. KISTER. Thank you. I think that Perkins has provided research and development monies to improve the quality of career 

technical programs. While they might exist, I think they would not 

exist in the quality that we have now. We know that there is a 

strong return on investment for career technical education. We 

have worked, and I am seeing it happen across the country, to see 

29

integrated academics. I think career technical education teaches in 

ways that students learn best. 

We are having a great deal of concern about the drop-out problem now. There is strong empirical data that there is a relationship 

between students who enroll in career technical education and 

those who graduate. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. I will approach it from a slightly different angle. 

In California our ed code says that high schools have two purposes; one, to prepare students for high education and training, 

and to prepare them for careers. It doesn’t say either/or; it is and. 

And from that perspective Perkins has just been an invaluable resource, because when we look at high school achievement, high 

school achievement is down in California. There is no doubt about 

it. And as we have been talking with schools and working with 

them, we see them reforming into smaller learning groups, smaller 

learning communities, thematic high schools. And when we look at 

them, they have typically organized around a career-oriented 

theme. And Perkins has been this resource, kind of this glue in the 

middle, which has brought together the academics and the career 

to provide that context and that application, and it has really provided that reform steam that is behind our reform efforts in California. 

So taking the money from Perkins and putting it into high school 

reform doesn’t help us at all. We would certainly welcome both, but 

we do not see that hurting Perkins and hurting career technical 

education is the way to improve high schools at all. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Ms. Simons. 

Ms. SIMONS. Well, even though I do not know the full logistics 

of the Perkins program, from a student’s perspective I feel like it 

is beneficial for every student to experience this technical atmosphere. I mean, it gives the students a chance to decide whether 

they want to pursue what they are studying or not, and it provides 

it at no cost, it saves their family and themselves from wasting—

well, wasting money in college because they are trying to decide 

what major to study. 

Mr. OSBORNE. I think that is a very good point. 

Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you. 

I think Perkins is critical to the success of career and technical 

education in our country. I think without CEC there would not 

be—in our case a CEC—I think our team members would have a 

much more difficult time being fully able to experience rigorous 

and relevant learning. I think professional development for our 

teachers, which is critical to the classroom experience, would be severely limited. 

And there has been an assumption that I have noticed in statements, recent statements, because of the budget proposal that I am 

not totally—I am not sure where it comes from, and I am not 

sure—I am sure I disagree with it. It seems to be an assumption 

that because of perceived ineffectiveness of CTE, that their answer 

is to teach more academics in CTE. And my thought to that, as an 

administrator that runs a school that is mostly centered around 

those elective programs, I think CTE is a better way to teach acaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:53 Apr 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\98782 EDU1 PsN: NNIXON
30

demics, not the other way around, and that is my opinion. And that 

is one reason Perkins is so important. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. 

Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Simons, you are great. You might not be a legislative analyst; but neither are any of us, so do not kid yourself. You are the 

perfect example of what we are talking about today, and every one 

of the panelists knows this, and so do we. 

So I am going to ask the other four panelists a question, and the 

question is if the State administrative funds are cut by 60 percent, 

what will happen to the program that has made this outstanding 

young woman able to come here and speak her mind so positively 

to us today? And you do not need to just talk about her programs, 

but programs in your own areas. 

Let’s start with you, Dr. Atkinson. 

Dr. ATKINSON. I came to the Department of Education in Delaware in 1990, November 1st. Our staff was a director, eight professionals and support staff. Today we have a director, four professionals and the support staff that goes with that. 

I believe in doing more with less, but there is only so lean that 

you can get. And if you want us to interact with the field by e-mail 

and telephone and superficially, then cut our administration budget. But if you want rich, meaningful discussions with those programs so that we end up with wonderful testimony like we had 

today, then we need to have the State administration funds to accomplish that. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Dr. KISTER.I gave the example that schools are telling me, when 

I call, no one is there. I was doing a technical assessment visit in 

a local school, and I was asking the teachers, you know, what they 

had in the way of recent professional development, were they 

aware that there were new certifications in their area, and they 

said, well, it used to be that the State provided regular in-services; 

you know, we had a consultant, and that person isn’t there anymore. 

The other point that I would make is that 2 percent does not 

even pay for the mandated activities and the oversight that is required, let alone the fact that we believe we should be doing much 

more in the field of technical assessments. You have to have a technical assessment system and a way to administer that at the State 

level. That can’t happen with 2 percent. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. According to our analysis, if administrative 

funds are cut 60 percent, that we will end up with a bare-bones administration that only has the capacity to distribute the forms, to 

electronically collect the data and to produce a required Federal report. And that leaves out all technical assistance, all of the local 

monitoring, all of the things envisioned in this bill to improve the 

quality of career technical education across this country. 

And so we just think it is vital, that 5 percent; we believe that 

is the right number. Our agency has shrunk in career technical ed 

from 140 staff to 50. Now, that is a pretty remarkable reduction. 

And so cutting it again obviously reduces our capacity, so—thank 

you. 

31

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. I agree with the other witnesses. Tech Prep is very 

important. We are organized by consortia in our State, and I am 

in the unique position of having our Tech Prep coordinator for the 

State also be one of my parents. In fact, she moved to our community so that she could have her son attend our school, for which I 

am very flattered—you may perceive that as a conflict of interest, 

then, as I answer the question. 

However, it is very important, for Tech Prep to succeed, that it 

have adequate funding for two things that I consider to be critical 

for what we use it for and what to do better, frankly doing, and 

that is marketing and increased accountability. And the accountability is so critical. And I am very pleased to see that emphasized 

in the legislation as well. I think seriously doing that at the State 

level will be hard to do with less money. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. I am not going to go into another 

question because we are going to run out of time. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank all of you 

for your testimony. 

In a former life I was on a school board in Illinois, and we had 

a very vivacious voc ed program, but this is quite a while ago, so 

I am not sure how this has changed. So I am wondering—because 

I am going out to visit several of these places over our break this 

month. But the way that it worked was to have several schools 

that were separate, you know, so that we could have the equipment 

and all the—the technology and state-of-the-art at that time that 

was needed to train our high school kids. And so they would have 

to take off, you know, from the schools, and some were quite a distance. And I am wondering if that is still true, that the way that 

you function, like in Georgia or in California. 

And also, you talk about the modeling consequence and trying 

to—we also have very rigorous academic programs, and I am wondering how students like Ms. Simons can fit all of that into 1 day, 

to be able to get the tech training as well as the core academics. 

Maybe, Dr. Atkinson, let me start with that. 

Dr. ATKINSON. In 1990, in Delaware, we went away from that 

model. One of the things we found was that it was impossible to 

coordinate the academics with the career technical program, and 

that our students that were going to those centers back at their 

home high school were getting the lowest diet, the lowest-level 

courses and the fewest number of academic courses. So we went to 

an integrated comprehensive vocational high school. Now that high 

school is responsible for its own academics, and they can’t push it 

off on anyone else. So that is how we have solved that problem. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What about, then, all the—if you need high-tech 

equipment, and how hard it is to keep up with that. 

Dr. ATKINSON. That is precisely why we can’t let this legislation 

get away from us. These are the funds that we use to keep those 

programs current ad expand those programs. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Now, in California we do just about everything; 

we have some centers, we have regional programs, and then we 

have school-based models. 

32

We really see that, in the modern economy, that the skills needed to enter postsecondary training and the skills needed in the 

modern workplace are pretty close together. And we believe that it 

is important for all students to raise their vocation—or their academic level. And career technical ed is a great context for doing 

that, mining it forward. But how we do it, we leave it up to each 

district. And we have tried it all different ways. We are seeing 

some really interesting models evolving, as I mentioned before, in 

the smaller high schools, a redesigned model, rethinking what the 

modern high school is and bringing it into the 21st century. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So the sequence of classes would really involve 

both the academic and technical; it wouldn’t just be a program that 

they are working for a career. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Many people say there isn’t enough time in the 

high school curriculum to do this and to do college prep. At the 

same time they complain that the senior year is a waste. Now 

those two things don’t reconcile in my book. In fact, if we have time 

and if we bring in our post secondary ed partners and we work on 

different ways of organizing time in high school, I believe you can 

do both. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Ms. Simons, you managed to take AP courses as 

well as your——

Ms. SIMONS. Yes, I have. And I know our school has done a very 

effective job on implementing academic courses as well as your 

technical training. Our classes are 45 minutes long, it is a sevenperiod day. My Allied Health program is a two-period class. 

What Dr. Ainsworth said about senior year being a waste, our 

school has actually implemented that every student takes 4 years 

of math, 4 years of science, 4 years of English, whereas the county 

rules state that you only need 3 years English, three maths and 

three sciences. Along with all of our other credits, we have to do 

a year-long senior independent project, which is based on our career major, or our technical program. It is also a graduation requirement for our school, and it is a year-long process, which we 

have to extend our career-related knowledge into our thesis, designed for application in the community. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So you have kind of like, three class, four, so there 

would be four periods. 

Ms. SIMONS. Of academic classes? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Three periods of academics. 

Ms. SIMONS. Would be five classes of academics, because it is a 

seven-period day with two periods designated for——

Mrs. BIGGERT. So the other would be P.E.? 

Ms. SIMONS. Well, no, you don’t have to take physical education. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. You don’t have to take that. I don’t see how you 

would have time, but thank you. 

Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you for the question. We have done a slightly 

different model than Dr. Atkinson. Again, it works because we are 

a smaller system, perhaps, and a system instead of a state. We 

have a block schedule. We share our students with the base high 

schools, we have three of those high schools in our county. We 

therefore do have to get our students to the school and get them 

back. We at least offer that possibility through public transporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:53 Apr 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\98782 EDU1 PsN: NNIXON
33

tation. They also most of them drive, about 85 percent. It works 

pretty well actually with our schedule. 

I mention we are on a block schedule, four blocks per day. We 

do mix academics with career and technical education. We provide 

some core academic classes, including this year for the first time 

in recent memory an AP class in chemistry. 

We also have all the work base learning for the community at 

our school. We don’t have early release any more in our county. We 

have—we connected electives, so they have taken an elective to 

learn how to do the job, and then we connect them with the job and 

for the upper level internships and apprenticeships in those jobs 

they get paid. Plus we have the benefit of the feedback from the 

business community about how well they did, and that goes into 

their grade. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So do you have any trouble with the equipment 

too? I mean, is it mostly because they are off campus then, would 

they need that type of training? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, part of the strength of this model is with a 

centralized program you can save money by only having to buy 

once the equipment you need for all the students in the district. We 

have definitely realized savings and therefore the equipment is 

somewhat more modern. 

Also, that has helped very much by the interest and involvement 

of the business community, which, as I mention in my testimony, 

is participating at the level of 185 businesses. They don’t just work 

with our students, they sometimes provide equipment and funds. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CASTLE. [Presiding] Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. Mr. 

Scott is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Kister, you said something about stopping off points. I assume that means kind of reaching a dead-end in a program. In 

light of the fact that jobs in the future will be jobs in the information and technology area and in light of the fact that people, young 

people, would be expected to change jobs five or seven times during 

their career and in light of the fact that some students just wake 

up and do more than they thought they could do, can you say a 

word about the importance of emphasizing basic education in the 

vocational education program and not having stopping off points 

where they kind of reach that dead-end? 

Dr. KISTER. Yes, Mr. Scott. My remarks were in relation to in 

some States that have created a distinction between tech prep and 

career tech, and it is a distinction at the expense of career tech. 

I strongly believe that tech prep is the model that we should follow 

in preparing students for a seamless transition from secondary to 

post secondary education. The principles of tech prep are right on. 

The problem is when you define some students as tech prep and 

other students as not. You are predicting the stopping off points 

and saying, you know, we are not going to prepare you to go on 

to post secondary. That was my point. 

Mr. SCOTT. And obviously that is not a good idea, relegating 

them to what is obviously a barrier to getting a college education 

if they happen to wake up later and find out they want to do that? 

34

Dr. KISTER. Right. And I should say that not all States perhaps 

have created that much of a distinction, but the fact that we have 

to track tech prep students means that there is a distinction that 

has to be created. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Ainsworth, can you give us some examples of some of the 

programs and say how do you decide which programs you are going 

to have? Ms. Simons obviously figured out that Allied Health was 

a good area to go into. How do you know that you are not having 

to set up programs for careers that don’t offer a lot of potential and 

that you are training people for jobs that exist somewhere in the 

community? 

Dr. AINSWORTH. The way we are set up in California is that 

those decisions are made locally. Local school districts, regional occupation programs and others are required to have business advisory committees locally. Those business advisory committees are 

designed to keep those programs fresh to make sure that they are 

meeting the needs of the local economy. 

At the State level, our State plan and our State policies really 

focus investment and incentives on those new and emerging technologies in high demand areas. Our new career tech ed standards 

are designed in 15 industry sectors that have been studied as the 

areas that will grow over the next 20 years. So everything we do 

looks at that point. 

We do not want to create a whole new group of people that know 

how to repair Atari machines, you know. Those days are long gone. 

Those programs don’t need to exist. What we need now are people 

with very flexible skills in information technology and healthcare, 

those sorts of areas that can move and change with that evolving 

economy. So that is how we do it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that process required under law, or you do that but 

others don’t? 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Frankly, I don’t know about the others. I know 

that we do it because it is the right thing to do, and in California 

that has certainly been the focus of our policy. Within the former 

Perkins Act, it asks us to look at those sorts of programs that were 

emerging and met some sort of labor demand. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Dr. Atkinson, I think you mentioned that 

vocational education students in fact do better than regular education students. Could you say a little bit more about that and why 

that is so? 

Dr. ATKINSON. Excuse me. The Delaware student testing program is the program that we are using, we use as our benchmark 

within Delaware, to assure that students are meeting our academic 

standards. What we have been able to do is to tease out the career 

and technical students and be able to compare their ability to meet 

our standards against all other students. In every case that we 

have teased them out, and that is in reading and in math and in 

science, they have done as well or better than the general population. When we talk about the general population, that doesn’t include these students. They have been pulled out. So we are comparing this separate group of students with these. 

So it gets back to what we were talking about earlier, and that 

is these schools own their own academic programs. So that building 

35

principle is responsible for the academic rigor of those courses. 

Once you put the responsibilities there, you are going to get results. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Andrews is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the witnesses for their participation today, and Ms. Simons in particular, you did a great job. I want to associate myself with Ms. 

Woolsey’s comments. I know how hard it is to sit and testify like 

this. You were flawless and did a great job for your school. If I 

were the admissions people at the University of Maryland College 

Park, I think I would get that acceptance letter in the mail pretty 

quickly. 

The panel is, I think in many ways, preaching to the choir here. 

We believe in the Perkins program. We believe in you and in your 

students and in what you have achieved. But the reality is that we 

have a burden of proof to meet, or else there is not going to be a 

Perkins program this time next year. 

The President has proposed that the program be eliminated and 

folded into a sort of block grant, part of which would go to this expansion of the No Child Left Behind Act to high schools. The administration’s budget document, I am going to read from it, says 

under the administration’s program assessment rating tool, called 

APART, vocational education was rated ineffective because it has 

produced little or no evidence of improved outcomes for students 

despite decades of increasing Federal investment. 

It is our burden to dispute that assertion. I do not believe it, but 

I would like any of you on the panel to point us toward a body of 

evidence that would help us refute it. It is a little bit of a straw 

man they have set up here, because how can you measure what 

would have happened without Perkins when we had Perkins for 

the last several decades. 

But what—if you had to boil down your response to that argument in a sentence or two, I would like to hear each one of you tell 

me what that sentence would be. Maybe, Mr. Moore, you could 

start. 

Mr. MOORE. I would be glad to. Ask me that last little bit one 

more time if you will, the sentence. 

Mr. ANDREWS. If you had to boil down your response to the passage that I read that said that vocational education is ineffective. 

In effect, it doesn’t make any difference whether we spend money 

on it or not, that the results are not altered. What’s the answer? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, clearly the results at my school, and I have the 

advantage of being over a school and being very focused on the results of that school, which I do focus on like a laser, I can tell you 

that our results are outstanding, and those results are very directly 

related to the support that we have received as a community 

through the Perkins funding. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Specifically, what was happening to the student 

population before you were here in 1999? 

Mr. MOORE. Right. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I think when you got started. What has happened 

since then? 

36

Mr. MOORE. Great question. SAT scores have gone up. The dropout rate has fallen 42 percent in our community—county. We have 

blended academics and by offering college instruction at the high 

school level we have raised the academic bar. And we find, among 

the test scores, which are traditional measures, and again in my 

testimony, I referenced graduation test scores that are higher in 

some cases, significantly higher. 

Mr. ANDREWS. What about job placement? Those are all very 

meaningful. What about job placement? 

Mr. MOORE. That is the measure I like the best, job placement. 

We are finding that students in our work based learning program 

are being offered jobs by the people for whom they have worked 

while they have been in high school. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Ms. Simon, or Simons. I am sorry. 

Ms. SIMONS. It is Simons. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Ms. Simons, I think your presence here is pretty 

good argument against those assertions, but do you have anything 

you want to add to that? 

Ms. SIMONS. Well, I just want to say that I completely disagree 

with President Bush’s statement. I don’t see any validity behind it, 

and I think if you look around you see the percentage of test scores 

have increased, and as a student I feel more focused. 

Mr. ANDREWS. This is a great country, isn’t it? Keep going, I 

think you are doing great. 

Ms. SIMONS. And as a student I feel more focused than compared 

to other students who don’t participate in a career technical program. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Great. 

Ms. SIMONS. I know what I want to do and I know how to do it. 

So. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Pretty good answer. 

Dr. Ainsworth. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Well, first of all, we don’t agree with the numbers the President presented, the numbers that were collected before the 1998 act even went into effect. I think you have to take 

fresh numbers, you have to get recent numbers. You have to measure the effect that has occurred since then. And since 1998, you 

know, somebody has described changing education like moving a 

graveyard. It is very difficult to move entire systems. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Very unfortunate. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Yes, you know—can I take that, retract that? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, let us do a better one than that. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. But it is very, very difficult. Change occurs over 

a longer period of time with sustained efforts. We have had that 

sustained effort, and we are starting to see that benefit. So why, 

why move out of that? Why not continue that? 

Mr. ANDREWS. My time is exhausted, but I would just ask our 

other two witnesses briefly if they could cite us to a source of evidence or supplement the record in writing with data that would refute that claim. 

Dr. Kister. 

Dr. KISTER. Yes, I would cite the High School Work Assessment, 

which is about 54,000. It is a robust data base that shows where 

there are quality career technical programs there are increased 

37

academics on the part of the students. Also, in Arizona, the career 

technical students actually outperformed the regular students on 

the Ames test, on their State test. 

Mr. ANDREWS. What about job placement? 

Dr. KISTER. I think the States collect data on job placement. It 

is clearly greater. Also John Bishop’s study from Cornell University 

shows a 20 percent return for investment for labor market. 

Mr. ANDREWS. You picked my alma mater, you picked the right 

school. Dr. Atkinson. 

Dr. ATKINSON. The one-liner would be that we found in Delaware 

when we tease out dropout data on career and technical students, 

they drop out at half the rate of the normal population. You have 

to be in school to learn. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I am going to conclude, but I—you know, one of 

the other things the President said in the State of the Union address quite admirably, he will ask the First Lady to lead an antigang initiative. I would argue Perkins is an anti-gang initiative. If 

you are reducing drop-out rates, you are certainly reducing gang 

membership and gang violence. 

Thank you very much to the panel. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. 

Mrs. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you to all of you and, Ms. Simons, I enjoyed your testimony 

as well. 

I wonder if we could follow up on Mr. Andrews’ questioning as 

well. I happened to serve on a school board many years ago, San 

Diego Unified. Actually at that time we did cut out some of the programs, some of the magnet programs that were much more in that 

time considered voc ed or less career than programs are today. But 

I know that they are looking to really increase the number of programs in that area, and they have been very successful in terms 

of the partnerships with the community, which is another aspect 

that is very important. 

But where do you think that Perkins has fallen down in terms 

of evaluations? Where—in some ways, you know, what is the President focusing on in terms of these numbers? What kinds of numbers, what kinds of evaluations? Would it have made our case a little bit better? 

The other question would be about disaggregating the data, because my understanding is that the bill would improve on that 

disaggregation, and part of my question is why weren’t we doing 

that? And what do you think that that would add to the discussion 

and strengthen our hand in preserving the programs? 

Dr. KISTER. I think that what is really needed is a system of 

technical assessments. That is the data that we don’t have. The 

NAVE panel highly recommended that for the next round so that 

we have some benchmarks to know how students are doing. 

There was another—I wanted to add to my answer on the research. There is a very strong piece of research by Stephen Planck 

with the National Center for Career Technical Research that shows 

that the lowest rate of dropping out occurs when students complete 

three units of career tech for every four units of academic subjects. 

38

It was a very rigorous study, which supports at risk—the value of 

vocational education to at-risk students. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. OK. 

Dr. ATKINSON. It is difficult to answer the question why haven’t 

we done something, you know. If we could go back in time, I think 

we would do a couple of things. It took us a long time to just get 

data comparable State to State, just definitions comparable State 

to State. 

At one time in my State if you took a course you were in the pot, 

you were a vocational student and it took us a while to get to the 

point of where a vocational concentrator was, that they are taking 

a series of courses that is making sense, that is leading in a direction that the academics can play off of. Unfortunately, it is difficult 

for us to go back and say why didn’t we see that earlier. 

Now we have what is in front of us, and I think we need to move 

forward but I think we need to work off of what Dr. Ainsworth 

said. We need current data. Let us not do this with data that was 

in the last decade. So we do need to get our act together a little 

bit better as to how we define and to make our data comparable. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. I certainly appreciate 

that. We always wish that we had the hindsight at the time. 

But when you are speaking to the data that we need available 

to us, you know, where is that? Why aren’t we tapping into that 

then, and how can we do a better job with it? I am a little perplexed as to why it is such old data. 

Dr. KISTER. Perhaps I could add to the statement on technical assessments. There are some States that are doing a very good job 

with a statewide system of technical assessments, but they have 

funded that themselves from the State. New York, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia are States that require students to have either an industry certification or pass a nationally recognized employer exam or 

an exam that has been verified as employer competencies. There 

are some States that have their own State systems. Ohio, Oklahoma, North Carolina would be examples, but they are not necessarily nationally a benchmark. But it is very expensive, I think, 

to make that happen. 

But the other point I would make is that your legislation is suggesting a model sequence of courses, and that that really is meaningless unless you have the assessment piece for that. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. One of the important issues in California is that 

we have difficulty tracking students from secondary into post secondary education, because of the restrictions in FEPRA, Family 

Education Privacy Rights Act. Taking data and comparing Social 

Security numbers with our base wage file over time, we just are 

not allowed to do that in California. Privacy is just an important 

issue, especially at the secondary level. That has proven to be a 

tough one to get around. If this law said you are allowed to do that, 

that would give us a new source of data that would allow us to 

track students and find out what their outcomes were without violating their privacy. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Disaggregating the data so that we 

know how different groups perform? 

Dr. AINSWORTH. I think we would have a, you know, much more 

rich data base. We would be able to look across the board and have 

39

statistics that disaggregate that and show what these student outcomes are 5 and 10 years after the fact. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Davis. I will yield 5 minutes 

to myself. I missed my turn first time around. I wasn’t going to ask 

this, but I am sort of interested in the technical assessments, because maybe I don’t quite know what a technical assessment is I 

have decided after hearing this discussion. But I assume it is some 

sort of assessment of technical education. 

I mean, I know, Dr. Atkinson, in Delaware, for example, we have 

a lot of credit card companies and some of the schools have aligned 

themselves with that in terms of their computer training and education. I go to these schools, and I see a whole variety of different 

things that they are doing. Some of it is rather interesting and innovative and not what I might have expected to see. It is not just 

putting together engines or whatever it may be in motors and a lot 

of other stuff. 

So I understand they—and I am big on standardized testing. I 

understand NAVE testing in terms of traditional English, math, 

science, history type thing. But when you get into technical assessments, Dr. Kister, can you do that on a nationwide basis, or can 

you only do it pertinent to a certain geographic region or part of 

a State or full State or something of that nature? Can you really 

develop something that would be truly meaningful? I mean, I like 

the idea of doing it, but I just see the complexity of doing it. 

Dr. KISTER. I would give examples that almost every State uses 

the ASE, the automotive test for students, because an automotive 

technician in Ohio is pretty much the same in California, I think, 

Dr. Ainsworth. There are a lot of tests, for example. 

Chairman CASTLE. Drive a lot of convertibles in California. 

Dr. KISTER. Microsoft Office Specialist, you know, the industry 

certifications, you know, those are portable from State to State, 

which is an advantage of that. 

Chairman CASTLE. There are some specialized things. My point 

is there are specialized vocational activities going on out there, 

more so than an academic, at least from what I see, pertinent to 

the area. 

Dr. KISTER. Well, I think there are ways you can modularize if 

there are some differences, because I work in, you know, urban 

areas, rural areas across the country. So for the most part at the 

assessment level, I really do believe that you could have a national 

benchmark assessments that may have some modifications. 

The National Occupational Competency Testing Institute are the 

tests that are used in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. They 

basically supplement where there is not an industry certification. 

There are some differences. Like in criminal justice there are some 

State license rules that——

Chairman CASTLE. You know, not to cut you off, that is my sort 

of concern too. I mean, you know, you do these differently in different States. You may deliver healthcare differently. You may deliver cafeteria food differently. You may do computer work differently depending on the economics of your State or whatever. 

That is why—I am not fighting you because I think it is a good 

idea. I just am not 100 percent confident——

40

Dr. KISTER. The other thing, I believe you are aware of the 16 

career clusters that we have been organizing over the past few 

years, and we have been doing a lot of developmental work on 

knowledge and skills statements. But we also hope to be able to 

have assessments at the cluster level, which I think would address 

your issue. 

Chairman CASTLE. Let me move on to something else. 

I would like to ask, if I could, where you all are on this particular 

legislation. These kinds of hearings that we are having basically 

are in preparation for marking up and considering legislation on 

the floor. So I am very interested in your thoughts on the legislation itself. I don’t need to hear about the state of administration 

too much. I think I have pretty well heard of about that. Although 

I will say looking at these percentages in certain other areas in recent reauthorizations, Title I is 1 percent reading for State grants; 

2 percent State grants for improving teacher quality; 1 percent, 

Title II education technology; 3 percent, safe and drug free schools. 

So they are different for different areas. And, you know, chances 

are you will get some of it restored anyhow. But at some point—

but the point I am making is I understand your point with respect 

to that. 

The other thing I sort of gleaned from all of this is this whole 

business of tech prep, which we are sort of merging in here. My 

sense is that tech prep has some positives, you all said, a couple 

of you said, the principles of tech prep are good. Didn’t exactly say 

tech prep is off the wall good but the principles of it were good. So 

my sense of it was that is not something that you think is working 

perfectly. 

My question is, is there anything else in 366 that is either in or 

not in that you think we should be paying some attention to as we 

go through a markup? What will happen is we will mark it up, I 

guess in the Subcommittee, then the Full Committee, and then it 

will go to the floor of the House, same thing will happen in the 

Senate, as it goes forward as we expect. So we need to get that 

input sooner rather than later. I am just throwing it out, any suggestions you either didn’t want to mention or emphasize first time 

around. 

Dr. ATKINSON. Well, it is an area we haven’t spoken to—and that 

is in the last reorganization we had a set-aside for corrections, it 

was a 1 percent set-aside. In Delaware that is $48,000. It is not 

worth cutting the check. We either have to have flexibility to be 

able to expand that out or we need a set-aside. We need a set-aside 

that is meaningful. Now, I know you don’t like set-asides. I can understand that. I wouldn’t want——

Chairman CASTLE. But I would like small State minimums. You 

would understand that. 

Dr. ATKINSON. Small state minimums are good. When you look 

at the money that we have there, 1 percent, it is almost—it is difficult to do anything meaningful with it. If we are going to have 

set-asides, let us have set-asides with a little oomph to them would 

be my suggestion. 

Chairman CASTLE. Other comments based on the legislation 

itself? Anybody have any thoughts or suggestions on that? 

41

I assume you are familiar with it and you are pretty supportive 

of it. There might be little things you would differ with but you are 

pretty supportive of it. Is that basically correct? 

By the way, feel free to contact us after the hearing if you need 

a little more time to review that. Mr. Moore wanted to say something. 

Mr. MOORE. I would say it is very difficult to legislate the interest and involvement of the business community. I think the legislative language that is used in H.R. 366 is appropriate, and I support it wholeheartedly, that clearly would create a situation that 

businesses would be encouraged to get involved and stay involved. 

That is one of the things that we have found is just critical to the 

way our school is run. It is a partnership. It has to be there. The 

funding that is provided through the Perkins takes care of some 

problems and some things we need to take care of that make us 

good enough in a way that the businesses are more interested. It 

is very helpful. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you. 

At this time I am going to turn to—Ms. Woolsey had a further 

question or two to ask. I think Mr. Scott might want to ask a question or two. We will see if anyone else does and we will wrap it 

up after this round. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I don’t remember which one of you said that this 

Committee could not spend the money. And, we can’t. But the 

truth of it is we authorize, and if it isn’t in our authorization it 

isn’t going to be there. We can authorize the 5 percent, which we 

ought to. If it doesn’t get to be 5 percent in appropriations, then 

we have to fight them for that, but it won’t get there at all if we 

don’t say so. 

So I wanted to say that. Then I have another question about diversity and special populations. What are you seeing in these good 

programs? Are we seeing a good mix of male/female, ethnicity, economic backgrounds? What are you seeing? In your school, Emily, 

how many females are in your program? Is it pretty even? 

Ms. SIMONS. Well, in the Allied Health program, there are a lot 

more girls than there are guys. But there are some guys, I think 

about five. But that is just—but the students choose before they go 

into it what they wanted to do. So I don’t think it was unfair. I 

just think that is the way it happened. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, that would say, good, they are not eliminating females. But are there other programs that are pretty balanced? That is what I want to know from all of you. Mr. Moore, 

your program? 

Chairman CASTLE. Ms. Woolsey is fighting for male equality. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I actually have a bill called Go Girl to help girls 

stay more interested in science, math and technology. 

Mr. Moore, how about your school? 

Mr. MOORE. In my written testimony, if I may refer you to a 

chart, on page 7, we have broken down, this is statewide graduation tests, these are academic tests, and we are talking about academic tests taken by students who are attending a school that is 

predominantly—in terms of the pure number of courses taught, 

predominantly CTE focused. 

42

Now, that is not a characterization of what we care about. We 

care about the blending of academics with CTE. But you can see—

and it talks about gender and it talks about race, it talks about 

economically disadvantaged. That is probably the one I am the 

most proud of, is the significantly higher performance on these academic tests of economically disadvantaged students. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Good, thank you. 

Dr. Ainsworth. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. As I look around our State and look at our numbers, certainly the vast majority of our students fall into a special 

population. The Category 1 study that was completed on a regional 

occupational centers programs showed that oftentimes those students enrolled in those programs start at a lower level academically, but by the time they graduate end up at a commensurate 

level with a control group of the general population. 

We really try and focus on this area. But in the area of nontraditional jobs it is something you have to work at. As I look around 

the State, if we don’t keep the pressure on our programs to really 

consider nontraditional occupations, suddenly we have no girls in 

automotive programs and the boys aren’t going to some other traditional female programs in nursing and those sorts of things. 

It is something where we deliberately work on this. We hold 

statewide staff development. We have joint efforts with our community college system, materials produced. It is some—you get what 

you invest in. We think it is an important thing to continue our investment in California. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Dr. KISTER. I would just say that I am going to come back to 

State role and technical assistance. I think that is the way we 

maintain that, to monitor and track and keep it on the table. 

Dr. ATKINSON. I would just say our schools are diverse but some 

of our programs struggle. Construction is an extremely tough sell 

to many of our women. Some of the very traditional—what have 

been traditional female roles have been tough sells to the guys. It 

is a matter of being eternally vigilant. We have to be in there all 

the time. That is where State leadership comes in, as Joanna said, 

and where State administration comes in. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. 

Mr. Hinojosa has returned, and perhaps before Mr. Scott’s questions we could go to Mr. Hinojosa’s first round of questions. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask Dr. Lewis Atkinson of Delaware a question. 

In your testimony you mentioned that the dropout rate for career 

and technical students is half of that of all high school students. 

What I have seen is that we have about 30 percent that has been 

dropping out of high schools and yours must be 15. 

What are some of the strategies employed at the technical high 

schools that account for that difference? 

Dr. ATKINSON. I think the major connection there is that a student is connected with something day in and day out that is important to them, and it is a career and technical program. I mean, 

they have chosen that program. They have chosen to be in that 

43

school for that program, and that is the glue that holds their day 

together. 

I would argue that all students and all high schools should have 

some kind of a major. Maybe it is not career and technical, maybe 

it is fine arts, maybe it is humanities, but there should be some 

reason, some glue that holds those children to that school every 

day. 

Most high schools, you take seven—at Eastern it is a seven-period day, you take seven disparate courses. What is the glue that 

holds me together here? I just go in and check off a box each period 

and off I go. So I think what has really helped us in our career and 

technical areas is that there is a focus every day. Again, I would 

argue it doesn’t have to be a career and technical focus to hold students, to have holding power over students. It could be a humanities focus, but this career and technical program is a focus that 

has holding power. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

My next question is to Dr. Ainsworth, California. Dr. Ainsworth, 

please tell us a little bit about the work of the Joint Special Populations Advisory Committee. In particular, could you share recommendations that have been implemented for our limited English 

proficient or migrant student populations? 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Yes, our joint committee has been fairly unique, 

I think. We formed this in response to the elimination of the setaside in the previous act because we wanted to keep a focus on 

this, and we wanted to do it system-wide from 9 through at least 

the community college. That committee was expected by some to 

just wither up after a couple of years, but in fact the opposite has 

happened. It has become kind of a silent force in California. 

This past week we had a conference with some 400 people there 

on this issue. In tough budget times, with all of the other things 

going on in education, it amazed me that many people would come 

to Sacramento and participate. 

The focus of that session was on understanding immigrant populations, the needs of immigrant populations, and the kinds of strategies that work with immigrants, both the language strategies as 

well as the other strategies, the attitudinal issues with the staff. 

It is growing to understand the cultural issues in these schools. 

English learners is a big problem in California—big issue—I 

shouldn’t say a problem—it is a great opportunity for California. 

One in four students are English learners. 

In fact, we have intervention programs in academics, and in the 

career technical area, we are looking at what kinds of interventions 

can we provide there. So vocational ESL is one of those strategies 

where we are actually taking those skills. We are learning in 

English, learner specialties and pairing them with vocational and 

having the students learn their English within that vocational construct. 

I think that is really an interesting way to hook people into 

something, gives them a horizon that they can look forward to and 

gives them a real tangible way to apply their language skills. 

So we really believe that committee is central in California. We 

are very proud of it, and we would welcome sharing any more information with you. 

44

Mr. HINOJOSA. Well, you obviously have a lot of hope that it can 

work. 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Can you tell me if they have any dual language 

programs in conjunction with these vocational programs? 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Right off the top of my head, I couldn’t answer 

that. I don’t know for sure. I will tell you this, that our recent language tests came out, and there was a substantial gain in our 

State’s performance among English language learners in moving to 

higher proficiency levels in English, which I think is a concerted 

effort on behalf of all of the education systems. 

In terms of dual language programs in the vocational area, I 

would have to get back to you on that one. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Last, can you tell me if they are being tested only 

in English, or do they have testing tools that are also in Spanish? 

Dr. AINSWORTH. Our State test is an English test. It is specifically designed to look at their English skills, so they are tested in 

English and not in Spanish. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I return the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. You had no balance 

of your time, sir. 

Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had one additional 

question, in light of the President’s proposal. I am not sure any of 

the witnesses would have an answer to either of them. But if we 

eliminated the Perkins program for high school students and melded it into the No Child Left Behind, what effect would that have 

on economically disadvantaged students and what would it do to 

figuring out what a qualified teacher is? 

Dr. AINSWORTH. You know, there is a lot of pressure in this high 

stakes accountability world upon school districts to meet the numbers. Certainly that has resulted in the closure of career technical 

education programs. There is no doubt about it. 

If you are facing a situation where you have got a high cost program and you have a number of students that aren’t proficient in 

English or testing at a low level, school districts have been forced 

to make tough choices. Shifting this money over there really intensifies that issue, because right now this money does provide that 

balance. It does provide us a resource to develop new ways of getting to academic proficiency. 

Shifting it over essentially says career technical ed has no value 

in improving academic achievement. In fact, we are finding that it 

does have quite a bit of value, and you have heard from this panel 

that it is central to the way we improve schools. 

So at this point we think we need to do work on both sides of 

the house and moving it over just doesn’t make a bit of sense to 

us. 

Dr. ATKINSON. And let me follow up on that, if I may, that we 

just spoke a few minutes ago on holding power and what is it that 

helps to keep students in school, what is it that helps to reduce the 

dropout rate. And while at first blush, putting more money into 

high schools to do remediation in math and science makes a certain 

amount of sense, because what schools are telling us is we don’t 

45

have enough funding to do double doses of math and those kinds 

of things. Well, does it? At first blush it would be interesting to 

trace and see just what it will do to our dropout rate when what 

we are doing is putting all of our money into math and all of our 

money in science and English language arts and no money into a 

balanced program in a school day and no money into programs that 

provide a context for those academic areas. I sound like a broken 

record, but it is a context that for a lot of our students makes math 

come alive. 

I don’t know how many people have looked to me and said, do 

you remember your algebra course, and their eyes just get this big. 

Because it was disconnected. It had no meaning to them. You just 

simply went through the math. Not being able to connect that 

math to a context, we lose a great deal when we do that. 

Dr. KISTER. I would like to speak to the economically disadvantaged that you spoke to. A high risk student, according to a national research study fairly recently, a high risk student with no 

career tech courses was about four times as likely to drop out as 

a high risk student with three career tech courses. So my first answer to you is they would drop out. 

A couple other issues would be that if you eliminate career technical education you would eliminate dual credit articulation agreements, therefore making going to college much more difficult. Also, 

it provides a lot of career development and career expectation opportunities for students. We know that students with a career focus 

and a career maturity are much more likely to succeed. 

Ms. SIMONS. This program provides opportunity for all levels of 

socioeconomic status. It does not discriminate between your family’s income or if your family doesn’t have an income. Without this 

it would discourage the less fortunate from school and ultimately 

discourage their own explorations because they feel intimidated by 

the monetary values or monetary figures of post secondary education. 

Mr. MOORE. If I may, I referenced already the academic performance on a standardized test of economically disadvantaged students 

at our particular school with that CTE focus. Some other data that 

is so relevant, one of the nicest things we can do is ask our students, and their parents, what they think, what they think about 

their school and their experience in a CTE-based program. We did 

that last year with a national assessment, and we found that if you 

compared the students who attended our program versus their 

peers who did not the satisfaction level with their high school experience on our side was 25 percent greater. 

Now, I know you are all running for office. If you won a campaign by 25 percent, you would think you had done very well. The 

parents’ satisfaction is even more impressive. Ninety-four percent 

of the parents of our students said this school gets an A or a B in 

my book. 

We are very pleased to get that kind of feedback. To me it speaks 

to the relevance of the content of what they are learning. It is more 

focused on what they want for a career path development. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

46

I think we have reached the end of our questioning here. So I 

will just close for a moment, and if Ms. Woolsey wishes to she is 

certainly welcome to as well. 

I certainly thank each and every one of you for being here. I realize it is a little bit of a hardship to get all the testimony prepared 

and be here. Obviously we appreciate you being here. Most of us 

never thought of doing something like this. We are at least twice 

as old as you are, maybe three times as old. You did a wonderful 

job, as did all the others, as a matter of fact. 

We are trying to progress with this legislation. So if you do have 

comments about it—I send that out even to the general audience—

we are interested in hearing the comments. We want to make it 

as good as we can. It will still be perfected through the waters of 

the House and Senate, but we will try to do the best we can. As 

early as you can. So that is something we are trying to do, but your 

testimony is certainly very helpful to us and we will certainly take 

it into account as we consider this in vocational education in general. 

Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I echo everything my Chairman said, and I will 

just save us time by saying that, but thank you very, very much. 

Chairman CASTLE. With that we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

Attachments Provided by Russ Moore, Chief Executive Officer, Central 

Educational Center, Newnan, GA, Submitted for the Record 

Appendix A 

CEC article—Part 1 

June, 2001

by Russ Moore

This article is part 1 of a 2-part series about Coweta County’s new Central Educational Center. 

To quote Governor Roy Barnes, ‘‘the world has changed.’’

In 1968, 20% of the available jobs required a four year college degree, 15% of jobs 

required a high school diploma plus some kind of technical training, and Central 

High School in Newnan was Coweta’s ‘‘black’’ high school, just a stone’s throw from 

integration. 

Today, while still only 20% of jobs still require a four year college degree, 70% 

of jobs now require a high school diploma plus technical training. That’s one major 

reason that the former Central High School is now the Central Educational Center–

a one-of-a-kind model for seamless education that’s turning heads around the country. 

The change has been a long time in coming. While technology since the ‘60’s has 

morphed from black & white TV to color, broadcast to cable, VHS to DVD, and 

dialup to broadband, public education is only just beginning to change in ways just 

as fundamental and dramatic. The good news is that Coweta County is leading the 

way. 

‘‘To my knowledge, no other community in Georgia has figured out how to build 

a partnership with the business leadership of the community and the education system like we have here,’’ says state representative Lynn Smith. ‘‘To make Central 

happen, government and educational bureaucracies had to erase their traditional 

boundaries and not worry about funding–which is hard for government to do–all for 

the greater good of doing something new and making it work.’’

In 1997, a group of local leaders in business, education and government convened 

to examine the issues of education and workforce development for Newnan and 

Coweta County. This was not just another committee. The group was chaired by Joe 

Harless, an internationally-respected expert in human performance technology and 

a Newnan resident. Harless has twice won the Outstanding Instructional Communication award from the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI), 

47

most recently for his book The Eden Conspiracy: Educating for Accomplished Citizenship. The group worked for three years, studying educational programs across 

the country, and their eventual proposal found favor with U.S. Congressman Mac 

Collins and Governor Roy Barnes. A central tenet of the committee’s blueprint is 

that educational curriculum and performance must be accomplishment-based. 

Barnes provided $7 million in state funds to bring the vision to reality, and the Central Educational Center opened last summer. 

Central is not a school in the traditional sense. It will never have a football team, 

a gym, a Beta club, school colors, or a mascot. Its top administrator is a not a principal, but a CEO. Many of its instructors come from industry, not education school. 

Those who attend classes there are called ‘‘team members’’ instead of students. Central has a board, not a PTO. And in addition to the school superintendent, the Governor of Georgia spoke at its groundbreaking. 

Perhaps the best answer of what Central is comes from the man at the helm, 

CEO Mark Whitlock. ‘‘Central is a lifelong learning center,’’ he says. ‘‘Coweta County residents can receive instruction here for life. We provide evening technical school 

and high school classes, we provide adult education to receive a GED, and we train 

workers for local business and industry. But we’re probably best known for the charter school that offers dual credit in high school and technical college.’’

Indeed, being a charter school–and therefore free from many of the rules and regulations that dictate the vast majority of public education–has opened a Pandora’s 

box of progress that may sweep the state and the nation. It attracted Whitlock from 

the private sector, after serving 18 years for Bank of America and its predecessor 

banks, including 9 years in international banking. He sees a significant parallel between Central and the training his overseas competitors received. 

‘‘I have an MBA, and some of my toughest competitors were European managers 

whose high school diploma, received at age 18, was the equivalent of an American 

associate technical college degree plus two years of apprenticeship.’’ Central presents a European model of education, mixed with Harless’ emphasis on performance 

technology. ‘‘Governor Barnes has embraced Central as his model for seamless education, in which people are trained better and earlier, focusing at an earlier age on 

the jobs of the future.’’ Whitlock adds, ‘‘When a student leaves Central at age 18, 

he or she can have a high school diploma, a two-year technical college degree, and 

walk straight into a job paying as much as $32,000 a year. Since the average technical school student today in America is 27 years old, we’re closing a 9-year gap. 

That has a tremendous impact on economic development in communities.’’

As the chief executive of the state with the lowest SAT scores in the nation, Governor Barnes is emphatic that the Central model should be introduced statewide. 

In his dedication speech last June, he said that ‘‘Georgia is in the throes of an education revolution. Students are frustrated that they aren’t properly prepared to find 

jobs even after 12 years of school. The problem is the world has changed, but our 

schools haven’t.’’

To answer the question of how to educate students in the 21st century, Central 

offers four career tracks: Business and Computer Information Systems, Technical 

and Engineering, Health and Medical, and Services. The classes were recommended 

by a professional needs assessment and echoed by Central’s technical school partner, Carrollton-based West Central Technical College. ‘‘This is what makes education that involves Central ‘seamless’,’’ said Whitlock. ‘‘We cut out the lack of connectedness that’s been a problem in the past. We provide the training we know businesses need, and our students are also prepared for what WCTC expects from them, 

because that’s what we expect too.’’

Barnes is impressed. ‘‘It’s a model I’d like to see replicated across the state. It’s 

using technical schools to educate high school students, and that makes perfect 

sense. We must educate our children for the technical jobs that have come to dominate the new economy.’’

Doing so will make quite a difference. Last month Central held its first ‘‘graduation’’ ceremony. While students receive their actual diplomas from one of the county’s three high schools, and they receive degrees from WCTC, the Central graduation marked the completion of their first full year of study at what has become a 

landmark institution. 107 ‘‘team members’’ received technical school certificates of 

credit for specialized coursework that night, and enrollment for the fall will likely 

exceed expectations. If this model is truly introduced to the rest of the state, says 

Whitlock, ‘‘you would reach 145,000 high school students, and Georgia’s technical 

school enrollment would increase by 150%.’’

A Georgia Tech study shows that companies considering a move to Georgia have 

two things at the top of their list: first, local education, followed closely by the quality of the workforce ‘‘With Central, we’re killing two birds with one stone,’’ says Representative Smith. 

48

Perhaps the biggest advantage Central has is as a charter school. Freed from 

some of the rules of ‘‘normal’’ public schools, it shows decidedly entrepreneurial 

leanings. Among the several courses to be added in the fall is a series on broadcast 

TV and video production, taught by Teacher of the Year nominee Kevin Pullen. 

‘‘Central has an entrepreneurial spirit. That’s one reason I’m here.’’ Pullen was 

hired away from industry to teach graphic arts, and now he’s overseeing the installation of a $100,000+ TV studio and video editing facility. As was done with the genesis of Central, he turned to industry experts for advice. 

‘‘We identified local people who have real experience in this area and have made 

their living in it for some time. We asked their advice on how to spend our grant 

money–what equipment to buy, how best to use it for instruction and practical 

learning–and now they’re helping us develop the curriculum. This program is a perfect example of how Central is more than just a school–it’s a resource for the community.’’

Students who enroll in the video classes will have a chance to produce programming that may be seen on local cable, and the training they receive will make them 

marketable in video production hotbeds like Atlanta and Savannah. ‘‘We’re not just 

training them on how to use this particular equipment,’’ says Pullen. ‘‘Our advisers 

said if we want our students to be able to work anywhere, we should teach them 

about production processes and challenges that transcend equipment, and that’s 

what we’re doing.’’

That is perhaps the most important contribution of Central Educational Center–

creating an environment in which the classes that are taught are the classes that 

need to be taught. And Governor Barnes’ highest praise centered on what impressed 

him most. ‘‘Central is all about the most important thing of all,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s about 

providing a better future for Georgia’s children.’’

CEC article—Part 2 

August, 2001

by Russ Moore

This article is part 2 of a 2-part series about Coweta County’s new Central Educational Center. 

Last year, Central CEO Mark Whitlock was conducting a tour, escorting one of 

a seemingly never-ending stream of visitors from other school systems curious to 

learn what is so special about Coweta’s newest educational jewel—and why Governor Barnes would spend $7.5 million on it. 

Toby Hughes was standing nearby, listening. Hughes is 18 years old, the son of 

a minister. Two years ago, as a high school junior, he had been considering what 

to do with a senior year that would only require him to earn one credit to graduate. 

A counselor told him about the new Central Educational Center that was opening, 

and he enrolled, taking Graphic Arts, Computer Repair, Pre–Engineering, a Cisco 

Certified Network Associate (CCNA) course, advanced Calculus and English. 

Hughes recalls that Whitlock’s visitor thanked him for the tour and said, ‘‘I’m 

glad you’re doing something for those types of students’’—expressing the bias many 

school systems have that places ‘‘college prep’’ as the top priority and provides technical training as a bone thrown to those not smart enough to go to college. 

‘‘Her attitude really got to me,’’ Hughes said. ‘‘I graduated in June with high honors, and I spent my whole senior year at Central because it offered me the chance 

to be the best I can be. Now, every chance I get, I help with tours so I can tell people why I came to Central and took a job with Computrac over a chance to go to 

Georgia Tech. Central is not an alternative school—it’s the new mainstream. For 

people going to college, for people going to technical school, and for people just going 

to work—Central works for everybody.’’

This summer, Hughes is sitting for A Plus, Net Plus, and CCNA certifications. 

He is already making more money than most new bachelor’s graduates, and with 

his certifications, he can increase his already impressive salary by another 35%. 

Computrac works for Central’s newest national corporate partner, 3M Corporation. 

3M is providing fiber optic cable connections to every desktop computer in the facility—the equivalent of every student in a driving class having a Jaguar–and Hughes 

is the project manager. 

While Hughes’ example is exceptional, he is by no means alone in his praise and 

enthusiasm for Coweta’s Central Educational Center. From his fellow ‘‘team members’’ (Central-ese for ‘‘students’’), to local businesses, the local Board of Education, 

the Governor’s office, the boardrooms of national partners, and even the U.S. Congress, Central is a model that people say should be replicated all over the nation. 

But why are so many people in so many places so impressed? What does the Central Educational Center do for our community that makes it unique in Georgia and 

beyond? 

49

To answer that question, one must first appreciate the genesis of CEC. Richard 

Brooks is Superintendent of Coweta County Schools. Before he was a school teacher 

and administrator, he was a regional manager in the private sector with Firestone. 

He also served as president of the Newnan–Coweta Chamber of Commerce, and his 

experience and community involvement with business and industry attuned him to 

the employment needs of the community. 

‘‘By 1998,’’ he said, ‘‘I had heard enough from local CEOs about the lack of qualified workers coming out of our school system that I knew we had to do something. 

I heard a lot about work ethic—basic things like getting to work on time, everyday—and the ability to work with teams, plus the need for specific technical skills.’’

Mike Sumner, chairman of the Coweta County Board of Education, said, ‘‘Like 

most school systems, our curriculum is geared towards college prep. But we did a 

study of our graduates, and we found that less than 40% of our high school graduates were going to college. Of that number, half of them were dropping out of college—so we had a net only about 20% of our high school graduates receiving college 

degrees. We also had a significant percentage of high school students dropping out 

to support their families. So we had a tremendous group of potential employees who 

didn’t equate earning a diploma with getting a job.’’

The consensus was that the community wanted and needed an education system 

more in tune with the challenges faced by the majority of its own students and the 

needs of employers. Brooks first broached the idea of creating a program of technical 

training at one location that would serve all three of the county’s high schools. That 

was an efficient and inspired idea, one that was improved greatly by a combination 

of good timing and the hard work of many dedicated people. 

Joe Harless had recently retired as head of an international network of organizations that used his concepts to improve the performance of employees. He had also 

just finished writing his 14th book, The Eden Conspiracy: Educating for Accomplished Citizenship, in which he postulated that education reform must be community-driven and accomplishment-based. He read in the Newnan paper about the 

school system’s deliberations and realized the opportunity for creating a real-life 

model of his vision. He called Brooks and volunteered to be a resource. Brooks immediately convened a group of concerned business leaders and invited Harless to address them. ‘‘Before I knew it,’’ said Harless, ‘‘there was a steering committee and 

I was the chairman.’’ The steering committee was made up of representatives from 

Carroll Tech (now West Central Technical College), the local business community, 

and the county school system. 

Harless and Carroll Tech President Janet Ayers collaborated to develop a Needs 

Assessment instrument. It was sent out to 500 local businesses, and the responses 

became the basis for two years of planning that resulted in today’s Central. 

Sumner said, ‘‘Richard and the school board had the wisdom to step back and let 

the committee develop the focus. And those people worked like Trojans.’’ Harless introduced the idea of developing seamless curricula to provide dual credit toward 

high school and technical college degrees, thus dramatically lessening the years of 

training necessary to turn out productive workers. The committee also came up with 

the idea of forming a charter school. 

On the point of dual curricula and credit, everyone thought it was a great idea, 

but no one knew exactly how to make it happen. ‘‘This was very difficult because 

local school systems and VoTech schools each have their own independent budgets 

and accountability standards,’’ said committee member Don Moore of Bonnell, Inc. 

‘‘What we were proposing had never been done before in Georgia.’’ Harless kept the 

committee focused by hammering, ‘‘This is what industry wants,’’ and the bureaucratic roadblocks were overcome. 

The county agreed to provide $7 million and the facility and land around what 

was then Central Middle School, but the project still needed at least a matching 

amount of funding and approval from the state. 

Brooks, Sumner, and Harless all spoke to U.S. Congressman Mac Collins in early 

1999, who was impressed enough with the plan to arrange a critical meeting with 

newly inaugurated Governor Roy Barnes and Collins, Brooks, Harless, State Representatives Lynn Smith and Lyn Westmoreland, and Chamber of Commerce representative Leah Sumner. By all accounts, the meeting was a roaring success. ‘‘We 

pushed all his buttons,’’ said Harless. ‘‘Education reform, accomplishment-based 

training, seamless education. He started off non-committal, but by the end was very 

interested.’’

What had been scheduled as a 15-minute meeting extended to most of an hour, 

during which the governor called Dr. Ken Breeden, Commissioner of the Department of Technical and Adult Education (which oversees all Georgia’s technical colleges) and encouraged him to do whatever he could to help the Coweta planners. 

Later, Barnes was also supportive with funding, recommending that $7.5 million be 

50

appropriated. During the 2000 legislative session, Rep. Smith, Newnan–Coweta 

Chamber President Greg Wright, and a hired lobbyist worked yeoman hours keeping the issue before legislators and in the appropriations bill, and the bill passed 

and was signed by the Governor. Ground was broken on June 2nd last year, and 

last month two new wings opened providing 65,000 square feet of additional classroom and lab space. 

The hook that landed money and influence and makes Central unique is community involvement. Said Harless, ‘‘We are changing what is taught by looking at the 

performance desired by the community and working backwards.’’ Don Moore of 

Bonnell: ‘‘Business, education and government got together to solve a problem, and 

we’ve gotten stronger by doing it.’’ Chairman Sumner: ‘‘Once the community bought 

into the idea and got behind it, it became their program.’’ President Ayers: ‘‘With 

all these groups involved, we keep waiting for someone to have an argument, and 

it hasn’t happened!’’ 

Perhaps the biggest problem Central faces is meeting demand. With all the attention focused on Central, rightly so, far more students are applying to enroll than 

can be accommodated. But all parties agree if you have to have a problem, that’s 

a good problem to have. 

And perhaps Toby Hughes and CEO Whitlock will have another visitor soon; the 

education advisor to the king of Spain has read Harless’ book and wants to know 

more about Central. ‘‘It’s a new world,’’ says Harless, and perhaps a good idea from 

the New World, starting in Coweta County, might someday have an impact on the 

whole world. 

Appendix B 

Central Educational Center 

Newnan, Georgia 

Prepared by International Center for Leadership in Education 

Executive Summary 

The Coweta County School System is perhaps one of the fastest growing school 

systems in the nation, recording a growth rate of between six and eight percent each 

year over the past four years. The school system’s 17,500 students are enrolled in 

27 schools across the county. Central Educational Center (CEC) is one of the newest 

schools and represents the county’s flagship for educational renewal and innovation, 

student graduation success, and teacher satisfaction. The total grade 9–12 enrollment at the center is 1,123 students, with 174 of the students being dual-enrolled 

in both high school and technical college classes held at the center. 

CEC was created in response to needs expressed by local business and industry 

leaders who believed that area high school graduates were not adequately prepared 

for the Atlanta-area high tech labor market. In 1997, a group of leaders in business, 

industry, education, and government convened to examine educational and work 

force issues. After three years of work, the county received a charter to open the 

center to educate high school students with a goal being that each would achieve 

one or more technical college certificates of credit (TCCs), or one or more industry 

recognized certificates, in addition to the high school diploma. These certificates 

were part of career exploration and training in: agriculture and natural resources; 

business and information management; health science technology; technology and 

engineering; arts and communication; architecture and construction; hospitality and 

tourism; information technology; and engineering/manufacturing. 

Any Coweta County high school student may choose to attend CEC as part of the 

regular high school program. Students register through their base high schools to 

attend CEC as an extension of the high school program. Students are accepted into 

special CEC programs, like work-based leaning, after completing an application, 

participating in an interview, and outlining career aspirations. For dual-enrolled 

CEC students (high school students in technical college classes), appropriate COMPASS or ASSET test (with SAT or ACT as substitutes) scores are required for admission. All CEC students are given connecting opportunities to ‘‘earn’’ their way 

into special program acceptance. For example, special remediation is provided for 

those who must then re-take the COMPASS or ASSET test. Over the past four 

years, 559 students have earned 657 technical college certificates of credit, as well 

as their high school diplomas. Students attend the center for one or more block periods, and return to their base high school for many academic courses and for extracurricular activities like sports or band. In this regard, the center is not a traditional high school. As a charter school, the administrators and teachers have more 

flexibility in operating the school, selecting courses, and developing curriculum. The 

51

instructional staff is divided between Coweta County employees and employees of 

the West Central Technical College (WCTC). 

The center’s culture reflects six major characteristics: setting high expectations; 

fostering a work ethic; maintaining business and industry relationships; developing 

a business environment at the school; establishing a seamless approach to careerpath education; and setting a macro objective of giving students the skills and 

knowledge necessary to function successfully in a technological society. 

The leadership is collaborative, student-centered, and supportive of faculty and 

business environments. The building-level leader is called a CEO, and he describes 

his role as ‘‘servant leader.’’ Students are called ‘‘team members,’’ and teachers are 

known as ‘‘directors,’’ reflecting the business setting fostered at the school. The organizational structure of CEC reflects its charter school designation, which continues 

to encourage trust, teamwork, and communication among staff. This provides a 

great deal of flexibility in the structure, management, and instructional practices of 

the center. 

The curriculum is based on the job competencies related to each of the certificate 

programs. Career exploration work also includes job shadowing, internships, and 

youth apprenticeships. The emphasis in courses is on project-based learning and accomplishment-driven competencies. Visitors are aware of the clean and well-ordered 

environment within the building. The teachers demonstrate a sense of purpose, 

pride, and dedication when discussing students. Professional development is a daily 

occurrence in that all staff members have a common planning period as a result of 

the block scheduling. The staff takes pride in demonstrating the technology available for use in instruction. Local business and industry leaders continue to support 

the center with donations of equipment, advice, and grants. 

CEC operates effectively in support of its macro objective to prepare its students 

with entry-level technical skills that will serve them well as they attend college or 

enter the Atlanta-area labor market. The center represents a rigorous and relevant 

training model for career preparation. 

I. Demographics/Profile/Performance Data 

Central Educational Center is a collaboration of the business community, WCTC, 

and the Coweta County School System. The school system enrolls 17,500 students 

in 27 schools. It is one of the faster growing school systems in the nation with a 

six to eight percent growth rate each year. Located southwest of Atlanta in Newnan, 

Georgia, CEC draws students from the three base high schools in Coweta County—

Newnan, East Coweta, and Northgate. The school’s enrollment mirrors that of the 

county with about 28% of the students identifying themselves as minority students. 

Total enrollment is 1,123 high school students including 174 students who are dualenrolled in the technical college’s classes. In its first three full years of operation, 

CEC served 2,861 students during the traditional four-block day schedule, with 895 

students attending for more than one year, and 159 students attending all three 

years. Since CEC opened in 2000, 559 students have earned 657 technical college 

certificates of credit. 

The origin of CEC is unique in that it is a response to the needs of local business 

and industry. In 1997, a group of local leaders in business, industry, education, and 

government convened to examine issues of education and workforce development for 

Newnan and Coweta County. The group worked for three years, studying educational programs across the country, and canvassing Coweta County’s business and 

industry leaders. Over 40% of Coweta’s business and industry leaders responded to 

a needs assessment survey. Among that response rate overall, 80% of the manufacturing and technical jobs in the county were represented. Critical employee concerns 

included life skills, work ethic, and basic math and reading skills. In response to 

the concerns of the county leaders and business representatives, CEC was established ‘‘to ensure a viable workforce for the 21st Century based on targeted needs 

within the community.’’ The goal of the center is: ‘‘To create synergy among the educational, business, industrial, and governmental entities that will favorably impact 

and enhance economic development and the quality of life in the region.’’

CEC is a school of choice for students who wish to add technical electives to their 

high school programs of study, and/or add a Technology/Career Seal of Endorsement 

to their high school diploma. In collaboration with WCTC, students may complete 

postsecondary courses and programs while at CEC, and earn dual credit in the high 

school and the technical college. 

CEC is not a school in the traditional sense. It is a start-up charter school that 

gives school planners and administrators considerable, but not unlimited, flexibility. 

Students are still enrolled in their base high schools, but spend half, or in some 

cases, all of the school day at CEC. Students are called team members rather than 

students; their teachers are called directors, and the head administrator is a CEO, 

52

rather than a principal. A board of directors has replaced the PTO. Perhaps the best 

descriptor of the center comes from its board chair and former CEO, Mark Whitlock 

who said, ‘‘Central is a lifelong learning center. Coweta County residents can receive 

instruction here for life.’’

The school presents, perhaps, a more–European model of education with a heavy 

emphasis on an educational curriculum that is accomplishment-based. Georgia’s 

former Governor Barnes embraced CEC as a model for seamless education, in which 

people are trained better and earlier, focusing at an earlier age on the jobs of the 

future. The Governor and state legislature provided $7 million in state funds to 

bring the vision of CEC to reality. More than 20 business partners have also provided financial support. 

II. Culture 

The four-year period of the school’s operation was preceded by three years of openended problem solving and needs assessment that set the culture of the school. The 

center maintains a unique quality in its adherence to a seamless approach to careerpath education and accomplishment-based instruction. The curriculum is derived 

from an analysis of post-education performance of students, and the instruction reflects a seamless match with the desired post-education competencies. The instructional staff works to build trust, work ethic, and responsibility in the students. To 

emphasize the use of a business and industry model, CEO Russ Moore brings a wide 

and diverse business background to the center, which operates under a charter 

agreement with the Georgia Department of Education. 

The center’s culture is reflected in six major characteristics: 

1. The establishment and maintenance of high expectations by students and faculty related to class work and accomplishments. 

2. The fostering of a work ethic that is measured, graded, and reported as part 

of the grading system. 

3. The maintenance of a business and industry environment within the center, 

and the availability of on-the-job experiences for students. 

4. The generation of a working partnership among businesses, WCTC, Coweta 

County’s Chamber of Commerce, and the Coweta County School System. 

5. A seamless approach to career-path education, which mixes high school students with adult learners seeking job skills, and adults employed in industry 

who are improving job skills as part of their employment. Many of the high 

school students have dual enrollment seeking both high school and college 

credit. The instructional program is based on the competencies required within 

the job market, creating a highly relevant, seamless approach for students. 

6. As a charter school, the center uses certain exemptions to achieve the macro 

objective of ‘‘giving students the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to 

become accomplished family members, society members, workers, and citizens.’’ 

Many of the teachers come from a business background, and have extensive onthe-job experience to model for students. 

A group of business leaders initially approached the school superintendent with 

a concern that students were not prepared either academically or attitudinally for 

the available jobs in the county. Out of that request grew a working partnership 

that opened a discussion about what can and should be done to improve the economic and work conditions within the county and the state. The work group created 

a needs assessment instrument to identify on-the-job needs, and a concept of education that would support seamless career-path instruction. An application for charter school status was supported by funding from the State of Georgia, Coweta County, WCTC, and the Coweta County School System. Much of the conceptual base for 

CEC is summarized in the publication The Eden Conspiracy: Educating for Accomplished Citizenship, written by Dr. Joe Harless, chairperson of the work group. 

The work group prepared a mission statement, purpose statement, and a goal for 

CEC based upon responses to the needs assessment survey from over 40% of Coweta 

County’s business and industry leaders. The school’s mission is ‘‘To ensure a viable 

workforce for the 21st Century based on targeted needs within our community.’’ Its 

purpose is ‘‘To develop, implement, and offer innovative learning opportunities for 

residents of Coweta and surrounding counties to achieve economic and personal 

goals.’’ Its goal is ‘‘To create synergy among the educational, business, industrial 

and governmental entities that will favorably impact and enhance economic development and the quality of life in this region.’’

The staff endeavors to treat students respectfully as adults, but it also emphasizes 

the responsibilities that each student must assume through a policy descriptive of 

a desirable work ethic. Visitors to the building quickly sense the importance placed 

on work responsibilities such as respect, attendance, and teamwork. Each student 

is evaluated on 22 characteristics for work ethic using a rubric adapted by the staff 

53

from work done over a decade by Georgia’s technical colleges. The melding of the 

partnerships also represents a unique contribution to the culture of CEC. Both 

school system staff and WCTC staff were selected based on their ability to contribute to the mission and goal of the center. School and college staff members are 

working partners with the business and industry representatives whose needs and 

support guide the development of instruction. The culture within the building is reflected in the statement that, ‘‘Every person is a leader in this building.’’

III. Leadership 

The vision, mission, and goals of CEC are realized through a collaborative leadership effort. All stakeholders contribute to and support the center’s mission, with a 

goal to have ‘‘95% of graduates in related career or related education within 90 days 

of graduation.’’ The Coweta County School Superintendent and the Coweta County 

Board of Education oversee and support the efforts of the center. The school system’s Director of the High School Program and Business–Community Director work 

collaboratively with CEC to ensure appropriate bridging of programs and activities 

from the three high schools sending students to the center, and to ensure that the 

programs and operations of CEC meet the school’s mission. 

Business and industry partners, the core founders of the center, continue to provide leadership and direction on employment trends, industry needs, up-to-date curricular components, and state-of-the-art equipment and technology needed in the 

classroom to ensure workforce readiness. The WCTC Board and the Director of College Operations work closely with the Technical College Directors at the center to 

provide leadership in the curricular components of the dual-enrollment program. 

This collaborative ensures that the technical college’s certificate programs provided 

for team members at the center are comparable to those provided for technical college students throughout Georgia. (Georgia’s technical colleges, like technical colleges and community colleges nationwide, generally host enrollees whose average 

age is 27. CEC is part of a strategic effort on the part of Georgia’s technical colleges 

to reach a younger population to ensure the State’s workforce needs are met.) To 

sustain parental involvement and support, six members of the Board of Directors 

of CEC are parents. This ensures parental input when setting school policy. Clearly, 

leadership extends beyond CEO Moore to include all groups who have stakeholder 

status in the center. These groups sustain CEC’s mission, and help it move forward. 

The building-level leadership consists of a CEO and the directors of the high 

school program, technical and career education (now Business–Community Director), and college operations. The titles of CEO and directors are reflective of the 

business-like culture that characterizes the school. The CEO reports to the board 

of directors as outlined in the school’s charter. The flexibility of a charter school enables CEC to have a businessperson with real-world experience administer the 

school. The CEO with a business background brings a new perspective, and helps 

to link public education and the private sector. The primary responsibilities of the 

CEO are to reinforce the vision and mission of the school, stay close to the people 

in the school, keep in touch with the outside community, and pursue ‘‘the continuous improvement of the partnership.’’ The original concept of the role of the CEO 

was a ‘‘bridge’’ to connect the various partners in the project, and that concept remains the key to the entire role. 

The founding CEO of the school describes the leadership of CEC as ‘‘servant leader.’’ It is a situation in which there is power without power. The CEO has little direct control over those he manages. CEC has little budget of its own, but largely 

depends on its partners, particularly the Coweta County Schools and WCTC, for the 

funds it has. Faculty are employed by one of those two partners. There is no CEC 

diploma, nor is there a CEC school in the eyes of the state. CEC is seen at the state 

level as an extension of the three Coweta County public high schools and as a satellite campus location for WCTC. The CEO connects partners, promotes efficiencies, 

and encourages partners to pursue continuous change and improvement. He promotes a shared environment for education and business, and he is responsible for 

oversight and integration of high school, technical and career education, and college 

operations. He acts as a facilitator, building and strengthening relationships among 

all the partners including business, the school district, the college, parents, state 

and local elected officials, and the community at large. 

The center’s leadership model values trusting, teamwork, and communication 

among team members and directors. The model describes leadership as: 

•Communicating an exciting vision of the future to team members and directors. 

• Initiating action to bring about continuous improvement. 

• Acting as mentor, developer, and facilitator. 

• Using strong influencing and negotiating skills. 

• Making the complex simple. 

54

• Making fact-based arguments. • Planning strategically for change in the program. • Ensuring that team members understand career goals. •Attracting and retaining team members whose career goals match the program. 

Management’s philosophy was identified and developed by the first CEO Mark 

Whitlock, who outlined four challenging yet simple directives: 

1. Hire GREAT people. 

2. Provide clear goals. 

3. Expect and support continuous improvement. 

4. Build a culture of continuous change. 

Within this philosophy, personal goals for directors are identified as: gain nationwide respect for your CEC work, and have more fun than you have ever had in your 

career. The leadership focuses on mission and values. With successful ‘‘bridging’’ of 

all the partners, setting clear goals and high expectations, and trusting, respecting 

and empowering directors as true professionals, effective leadership is a large part 

of the explanation of CEC’s success. 

IV. Organizational Structure 

Central to the organizational structure of CEC is its charter school status, which 

allows a great degree of flexibility in structure, management, and instructional practice. This flexibility is considerable, yet the school is held accountable to certain 

state and school district parameters, and is obligated to report to the school superintendent. As a charter school, CEC functions as a pilot school, trying out some 

things that may eventually become part of the traditional school organization. A 

board of directors that includes parents, educators, and industry representatives 

governs the school. The board meets bi-monthly to conduct strategic planning and 

reflect on progress. It considers and advises on issues such as student attendance, 

busing schedules, tracking outcomes, resource acquisition and distribution, communications, and marketing. The CEO reports to the board as defined in the school’s 

charter. 

CEC represents an application in the educational arena of the Accomplishment 

Based Curriculum Development System (ABCD) of Dr. Joe Harless, a performance 

technology model used in private industry. Detailed in his book, The Eden Conspiracy, the ABCD system differs primarily from the traditional subject matterbased curriculum in that its educational goals are clearly defined and measured in 

the accomplishments of students. The ABCD system begins with a needs assessment 

that identifies both present and future needs. These needs become tangible outcomes from which the educational model is designed. Students are empowered and 

taught to perform tasks that apply the knowledge and skills identified in the original needs assessment, ensuring that the needs of business and students are met. 

The process for establishing a CEC-like educational institution is defined by Dr. 

Joe Harless in the following four phases. 

Phase 1: Needs Assessment and Planning 

• Form a task force composed of representatives of principal stakeholder segments. 

• Survey area employers to determine current and expected employment needs. 

• Determine employer expectations regarding technical skills, knowledge, and 

work ethic. 

Phase 2: Design 

• Determine major curriculum paths. 

• Determine courses, articulations, and dual-enrollment opportunities. 

• Determine facilities, equipment, and staff required. 

• Develop research protocol to assess results. 

Phase 3: Implementation 

• Select CEO, faculty, and staff. 

• Conduct faculty training in performance-based instruction. 

• Deliver courses. 

Phase 4: Evaluation 

• Continuously monitor instructional effectiveness and relevancy of content. 

• Perform follow-up of students to determine placement, and transfer of skills and 

knowledge. 

The organizational structure of CEC is also defined by its partnership that brings 

high schools, businesses, and a technical college together to provide students with 

an opportunity to engage in a seamless program of study that integrates secondary 

and postsecondary education. Following a needs assessment and the development 

work of a 26-member steering committee representative of all the partners, WCTC 

collaborated with the Coweta County School System, local government, other educational agencies, and the business community to create a new program to meet the 

55

needs identified by potential students, residents, and business owners in the county. 

One tangible result of the committee’s work was the writing of a charter that was 

approved by the local and state boards of education in 1999. 

The center has become the most innovative technical education program in Georgia. One student described CEC as a ‘‘full-service educational hub.’’ Five groups of 

students attend CEC: college-level students, high school students, dual-credit students, adult learners in GED and literacy programs, and local employees undergoing 

custom training. The school operates on a schedule with four blocks per day with 

10% of the students attending CEC all day, and most students attending for onehalf day. Students may attend classes for the first block only; the first and second 

blocks; the third and fourth blocks; or for all four blocks. In addition, some high 

school, college, adult, and training programs operate in the evenings until 10pm. 

CEC serves students in both a high school and a technical college housed within 

the same physical structure. In addition, adult students prepare for the GED in 

evening courses, and high school students in need of remediation and course makeup attend evening high school sessions. (Counting these additional students yields 

typical total enrollment for the entire program of CEC at approximately 1500 students.) Because the college and secondary school’s career and technical education 

programs are housed in the same facility, students can earn technical college certificates while still in high school and have an opportunity to get a head start on the 

next phase of life, regardless of whether it involves a four-year college or university, 

further technical training, technical or community college, or the workplace. Upwards of 80% of dual-enrolled high school students pursue additional postsecondary 

education and training, which is double the local average. 

As a result of the strong business and industry partnerships, CEC is a showcase 

for state-of-the-art technology and technological equipment used in the workplace. 

These resources enable CEC to offer local employers the opportunity for off-site 

training. While CEC provides the instructional capacity to deliver (connected as it 

is to Georgia’s award-winning QuickStart and other technical college programs) the 

training, business and industry provide the necessary resources to create a training 

environment that truly represents the world of work. From this unique organizational structure and with the flexibility of its charter status, CEC gives high school 

and adult students the opportunity to prepare for the world after school, and to stay 

current in work-based competencies requiring new technology, processes, and procedures. In this model, adults and high school students learn side-by-side in the same 

learning environment. 

V. Curriculum/Assessment 

Under the Harless ABCD system, educational goals are defined by the expectations learners have upon graduation as they fulfill their primary roles as society 

members, family members, workers, and individuals. The instructional design is 

based on five tenets, which characterize instruction at CEC: 

1. All students can learn (and most to a high level). 

2. Teachers must respond to student differences. 

3. Good instruction is key to good learning. 

4. The design and delivery of instruction is critical. 

5. ‘‘What’’ is being taught largely determines ‘‘how’’ it will be taught. 

Relevance of the curriculum to the identified expectations of students is also a 

critical component in how courses are designed and delivered. CEC introduced 

project-based instruction and work ethic as fundamental teaching tenets to be emphasized across all instructional programs. The CEC curriculum has been identified 

and developed by two primary sources: the technical college system and the original 

needs assessment conducted by the steering committee that initiated the school. 

Academic courses required by the Coweta County School System are also taught as 

part of the core requirements. (Interestingly, the needs assessment yielded the notion that employers now require a combination of technical and academic skills thus 

also supporting the coupling of the technical with the academic.) Course offerings 

and certificate programs at CEC fall under the following career and technical education clusters: 

• Agriculture and Natural Resources 

• Business and Information Management 

• Health Science Technology 

• Technology and Engineering 

• Arts and Communication 

• Architecture and Construction 

• Hospitality and Tourism 

• Information Technology 

• Engineering/Manufacturing 

56

According to the Director of the High School Program, ‘‘Every course in the curriculum responds to needs in the local labor market.’’ Students can choose from programs that range from high tech (e.g., computer repair, computer networking, and 

CAD), to construction and production (e.g., certified manufacturing specialist, machine tool technology, and metal joining), to health care (e.g., dental assisting and 

patient care assisting), travel and tourism, and broadcasting. 

Curriculum development involves not only teachers and central office curriculum 

developers, but also representatives from business who serve as subject matter experts (SMEs) who work with educators to identify skills, knowledge, attitudes, and 

behaviors needed in the workplace. The curriculum is designed around these parameters. Business representatives inform, design, and help deliver the curriculum. 

Through communication networks with the community and through the SMEs, business and industry have an opportunity to influence curriculum development. For example, if a program no longer aligns with labor market demands and does not have 

minimal placement, retention, or graduation rates, that program can be eliminated. 

The curriculum is primarily self-directed and self-paced, which reinforces the need 

for self-discipline, and which enables a student to finish ahead of schedule. Another 

important aspect of the curriculum is its project-based relevancy. The relevancy of 

the curriculum to the desired accomplishments desired from the students is the core 

to the Harless accomplishment-based curriculum development system. The projectbased component was added by the initial steering committee. Each program area 

at CEC provides an opportunity for students to participate in work-based learning. 

Each job site has to be approved, and students have defined competencies to learn. 

Students may participate in work-based learning in the following ways: 

• Job shadowing—students report to a job site to explore opportunities in that 

field of study. 

• Internship—students work either paid or unpaid at a job site that is in their 

field of study. 

• Cooperative Education—students are enrolled in a cooperative class and work 

one or two class periods. 

• Youth Apprenticeship—students may work as many as three blocks in their 

field of study. Students commit to 2,000 hours of on-the-job training, are paid 

using a progressive pay scale, and must attend postsecondary education. 

In addition to academic grades, students receive a work ethic grade comprised of 

scores related to ten work ethic areas that are rotated for instructional emphasis 

on a weekly basis. All teachers are expected to integrate the ethic areas in instruction. Students enrolled in the certification programs in conjunction with the technical college are assessed through certification tests developed and administered by 

the related technical business and industry program. State standards-based assessments are administered at the base high schools. However, instructors at CEC are 

aware of state standards, and introduce, reinforce, or bring students to competency 

in these standards through their technical programs. 

The emphasis on project-based learning and accomplishment-driven competency 

puts assessment in a high performance mode. Students are expected to demonstrate 

what they know, and as team members in a business-like environment, they are expected to produce quality and quantity expected in the real world business situation. 

Product and performance are key components of the assessment system. As former 

CEO Mark Whitlock states: ‘‘The true goal of education is the application of knowledge.’’ Students are expected to not only attain high levels of cognitive skill development; but also be able to apply those skills to real-world business and industry situations. The project and performance-based relevancy of the curriculum is one of the 

primary components of CEC’s effectiveness. 

VI. Extracurricular and Co-curricular Activities 

Students enrolled at the center participate in one or more of the four time blocks 

each day. Approximately 10% of the students attend CEC all day. Some students 

also enroll in the evening session to participate in programs that they cannot fit into 

their day schedule. Because of the arrangements between the center and the three 

base high schools in the district, the center does not attempt to provide duplicate 

extracurricular opportunities for their students. Students are encouraged to participate fully in the academic and social life of their base high schools. The present 

CEO commented that, ‘‘This is not a school in the common sense. We will never 

have a football team, a gym or a mascot.’’

One of the extracurricular opportunities at the center is the Youth Leadership 

Council. Students may nominate themselves or others to meet with the faculty representative for the purpose of discussing school operations, improvements, and activities. In addition, many programs at the center as a part of Career and Technical 

Education Youth Leadership Activities have regional and statewide competitions 

57

built into the syllabus. Several programs list students who were successful in competitions such as tool casing, landscaping, job interviewing, and construction. Other 

programs emphasize service projects that engage students in community projects. 

The construction program uses students’ skills in the ‘‘Habitat for Humanity Program,’’ while the Health Science Programs place students in volunteer positions in 

hospitals, nursing homes, and dental offices. 

The programs and the personal attention shown by the faculty often result in students developing special interests related to their course of study. One student described his newfound interest in writing based on his work in Arts and Communication. A second student outlined her interest in floral display that she pursued as 

a part-time job and a possible entrepreneurial opportunity in the future because of 

the extra work and attention from a teacher at the center. Students also expressed 

a desire to have more opportunities for social activities, and for developing individual skills and interests. During the second instructional block, announcements 

are made at the center about base high school activities and information. The students feel that their additional travel time between schools and their study requirements prohibit their participation in many extracurricular activities at their base 

high school. 

In general, the traditional importance of extracurricular activities in high school 

takes on a different role at the center. The college atmosphere for both adults and 

high school students provides opportunities to develop personal skills and interests 

through job competencies and the variety of career- path explorations. However, students at the center are often more interested in accumulating credits toward multiple certificates than participating in additional clubs. For others, the base high 

schools offer a wide range of extracurricular opportunities for the students attending 

the two educational facilities. 

VII. Use of Data 

The center’s use of data is influenced by its operation as a charter school focusing 

on vocational and technical training. Student achievement data are collected by the 

base high schools; competency data are collected by the technical college for adults 

and dual-enrolled students; and data on attendance, grades, work ethic, earned certificates, job placements, and postsecondary enrollments are collected by the center. 

Assessments from employers about the job performances of graduates provide a 

major source of data for the assessing achievement of the center’s mission 

The technical college reports a 93% increase in the number of dual-enrolled team 

members (from 90 in 2001 to today’s 174) and a 128% increase in the number of 

certificates earned each year, from 2000–01 (96), 2001–02 (163), 2002–03 (186) and 

2003–04 (219). In CEC’s first year, seven programs had students completing the requirements for certificates, compared to 16 programs listing successful completions 

in 2003–04. Equally impressive are the data that 41 students in 2003–04 completed 

two certification programs, compared to six in the first year and twelve in the second year of the center’s existence. The staff continues to encourage students to explore more than one career when they apply to the center without a clear career 

path in mind. 

The rigor and relevance of the center’s instructional program is measured by test 

scores and other business-related performance data. Student achievement scores of 

those enrolled at the center were isolated from scores of their base high schools. Despite the fact that a significant percentage of the school system’s traditional ‘‘college 

bound’’ students do not attend CEC (though that percentage is increasing), students 

at the center match or slightly exceed the averages for Coweta County School System students in English language arts, math, science, and social studies, and are 

only slightly lower than the county’s average scores in writing for the past three 

years on Georgia’s High School Graduation Test. Scores for economically disadvantaged students (who make up 11% of the center’s enrollment) are vastly superior 

on all five state tests, with an average improvement of 12% over the county average. 

While the center provides no instruction in core sciences (biology, chemistry, or 

physics), perhaps as a result of the applied versions of those sciences covered in 

courses like health occupations, welding and pre-engineering, the center’s students 

score highest above the county average in science. 

Though test data are measured and tracked, the center also evaluates rigor and 

relevance using other key indicators identified in its charter and strategic plan; specifically, dropout rates, graduation rates, and placement rates. Since the center 

opened in 2000, Coweta County’s dropout rate has fallen 3.6 percentage points, improving 42% from 8.6 to 5.0. A study by the University of Georgia revealed that the 

graduation rate of the center’s dual enrollment programs was 98%–which is more 

than 20% better than the county’s general high school graduation rate. Further, 

58

100% of those graduates were placed in jobs or additional post-secondary education 

within two months of graduation. 

These data are shared with the faculty and discussed at their weekly team meetings. The guidance counselor tracks the academic performance and the grades in 

work ethic to ensure that those students are making adequate progress. When students experience difficulty, remediation is required. In addition, attendance remains 

a pivotal indicator of work ethic and acceptance of responsibility. Students who have 

six unexcused absences or more during a semester have points taken off their course 

grades. 

Students are accepted into the center after an enrollment process, structured 

interview about their career aspirations, and a review of attendance and school attitudes. When accepted, student data are used to informally construct a plan of study 

at the center and at the base high schools. As students begin each course, the instructor provides a syllabus that details the competencies to be learned, topics that 

will be covered, and testing dates leading to completion of one of the fourteen certificates awarded through the WCTC under a dual-enrollment arrangement. 

The use of needs assessment surveys with businesses, students, and parents represents one of the most discussed and influential data sources employed by the center’s staff. The original needs assessment survey for business and industry was completed in 1999 to establish job-training areas for the center. A revised survey will 

be re-administered this summer. The new survey seeks to determine growth in the 

skill level of graduates, to re-assess needs of the local labor market, and to identify 

new training areas in business, which may be related to the aviation industry in 

the general Atlanta region. In general, the staff’s attitude of continuous improvement means that ways can be found to increase the use of data to ensure relevance 

of the curriculum as viewed by business, parents, and students; and to ensure the 

rigor of the curriculum in light of the job competencies in a highly technological 

work environment. 

VIII. Parent/Community Involvement 

CEC had its genesis in community involvement that continues today. Business 

leaders concerned about the region’s economy enlisted the support and involvement 

of education agencies to investigate root causes of a mismatch between the knowledge and skills of school graduates, and the needs of the labor market in Coweta 

County. After several years of brainstorming, investigating, and designing curriculum, the concept of the center emerged. The original committee pursued charter 

school status to allow implementation of several unique approaches to curriculum, 

dual enrollment and governance. 

CEC is operated under the direction of a CEO charged with the responsibility of 

melding partnerships among parents, business, community, and educational agencies (Coweta County School System and WCTC). The board of directors required by 

the school’s charter has representation from business leaders, parents, and school 

personnel. Efforts are made to involve community and parents to determine the success of the center’s activities, and to identify future needs. 

Business representatives acknowledge the importance of the center to the economic vitality of the region through donations of machinery and technology, personnel to assist the school, and use of the center to train business personnel along 

side of the center’s students. Industry leaders encourage acceptance of apprentices, 

job shadowing, and internship students at their work sites. Parents receive information on academic progress of the students as well as telephone calls concerning student achievement or discipline issues. Open house opportunities exist for parents, 

as well as an open invitation to visit the school. Expanded communication opportunities in the form of newsletters and parent organizations are anticipated for next 

year. The WCTC operates with a policy that each of its programs must have an advisory committee to meet regularly to evaluate program objectives and competencies 

as a means of keeping the program relevant to business and technology needs. 

CEC’s secondary programs have embraced this model and have advisory committees 

made up of representatives from business and industry that meet quarterly. 

Anthony Chow from Florida State University conducted a three-part research 

study on CEC. Part two of the study described a parent and graduate survey. Since 

the study was done in the second year of the center’s existence, a small number of 

parents and graduates participated in the survey. Those that did respond were positive in evaluating the center’s ability to address its mission and goals. The final portion of the study, now under development, reports a significant increase in respondents, and a continuing positive impression of the center. In summary, parent and 

community involvement is an intrinsic component of the culture and mission of the 

center. This involvement has grown over time, and serves as a model for what is 

possible in career training when partnerships are developed and nurtured. 

59

IX. Safe/Orderly School 

Visitors to the center are immediately aware of the clean and orderly environment 

of the building. The center occupies a main building that was a middle school prior 

to being occupied by the CEC. It was expanded during its first year of charter operation to accommodate industrial, pre-engineering, construction, health sciences, dental assisting, and horticulture labs and work centers. The faculty was consulted and 

involved in designing the functional expansion of the building. The wide corridors 

encourage team meetings and a college atmosphere at the school. Few students are 

seen in the halls during the instructional blocks because they tend to work in teams 

on projects moving to a level of competency in their courses. Since the day is organized around four instructional blocks, time is provided to socialize, travel to base 

schools, and consult with teachers during an extended time period between blocks. 

The school strives to provide a safe and secure environment with doors locked except for the front door, which is visible from the main office. A majority of students 

drive their cars to the school rather than take buses. Most students attend the center for one or two blocks and attend their base high school for the remainder of their 

instructional day. Directors and administrators are in the halls, are outside the 

building, and are in the parking lots during the break between blocks. The wellmaintained atmosphere within the building is reflected in the individual classrooms 

where each instructor insists that the room be maintained to business or industrial 

standards as a matter of course. The work areas are maintained to the same standard as those where students intern as part of their work-based program. The influence of the work ethic curriculum with 22 characteristics measured in ten traits can 

be observed in the maintenance of the learning space. 

The center is a safe and well-organized building as a result of teachers’ attitudes, 

the business curriculum, and student behavior. Several students commented that 

the center serves their needs for a more relevant and rigorous curriculum that will 

allow them to function well in the technology-rich business environment. As one student said, ‘‘It is an honor to be here since we are treated like adults, and we are 

given a great education to prepare us for the job market.’’

X. Professional Development 

The center recognizes the need to build staff’s capacity and capabilities continuously. Professional development is a daily occurrence within the benefit of a common 

core planning period for all staff. School breaks between the morning and afternoon 

blocks give staff opportunities to collaborate on instructional practices. Staff are encouraged to share their most successful instructional strategies in what are called 

‘‘best practices sessions’’ that are held once a week. The staff from the technical college is required to complete 60 hours of professional development each year. 

During the first year of the center’s operation, all staff received 40 hours of training by Dr. Harless in his ABCD system of educational design. These faculty development seminars helped to ensure that the philosophy and goals of the center became 

a part of the instructional approach. Many staff have accomplishment-based course 

outlines, and most of the work students engage in is project-based or performancebased. Directors share what they do with one another, and when possible and appropriate, reinforce and connect learning from one discipline to another. Staff also attends professional conferences and workshops. Many staff members bring business 

and industry experience to the teaching profession, helping enrich the instruction 

of all staff. 

The business and industry partnership also makes it possible for staff to use other 

resources in the community for assistance with instructional content and delivery. 

Advisory boards play an active role in identifying curricular content, and assist with 

training to help develop the intellectual capacity needed to use the technology inherent in program. 

XI. Technology 

CEC is a showcase of technology. Team members have an opportunity to gain 

hands-on experience using state-of-the-art technical equipment, both in school and 

as a part of their work experience programs. Technology is integrated across almost 

the entire curriculum, with a focus on experiential, hands-on, work-based learning. 

Technology becomes the means to accomplish products and performances, and it is 

integrated within the instruction. 

During the initial planning stages of the CEC design, customized job training 

with a fluid or seamless credentialing process was a goal promised to business and 

industry. To make this possible and enhance the economic development of the community, business partners donated equipment for work simulations and laboratories. Business, industry, government, and community stakeholders came forward 

with financial and equipment investments in CEC to ensure students were prepared 

60

for work in the global marketplace. Georgia’s former Governor Barnes and Georgia’s 

Legislature provided $7 million as an incentive grant, and the Coweta County Board 

of Education provided $7 million in an existing middle-school facility and surrounding acreage for the initiation of the center. The Coweta County Board of Education, Georgia’s Department of Technical and Adult Education, and businesses contributed some $3 million in funds and equipment to develop the technical labs. 

Coweta County provided some $2 million from an Education Local Option Sales Tax 

to support the renovation of the original building. Various levels of leaders, local 

and statewide, believed in the advantages of the center’s workforce development 

model with its seamless approach to secondary and postsecondary education. 

CEC persuaded Yamaha to remain in the community since CEC delivers technical 

training for its future workers in a technology lab installed at the school with a 

major donation from the company. Business partners such as 3M Corporation provided thousands of dollars of fiber-optic material and labor for the schools’ 800 computers, and Lab–Volt of New Jersey donated its newly developed state-of-the-art information technology program. 

Business representatives as subject matter experts (SMEs) often advise staff on 

equipment. The SMEs help to ensure that classrooms are adequately equipped by 

identifying and acquiring state-of-the-art equipment and technology. In some cases, 

staff has learned from their business partners that the important thing students 

need to know is the ‘‘how.’’ The ‘‘right’’ tools may not have to be the most expensive 

ones. One of the school’s challenges is to keep the technology current. Active advisory committees work closely with staff to make this happen. 

XII. Lessons Learned 

The following factors have been most significant in the school’s success. 

• The leadership within this school enables the student to learn through a first 

rate curriculum, with a first rate faculty, and with the support of the business 

community. Leaders within and outside the school have focused the energies of 

the center on the need to educate students to meet the demands of a technological society. 

• The partnerships among business, college, community, parents, and school systems began the venture of creating the center, and now maintain the focus on 

the center’s mission and goals. 

• The use of work ethic as a curriculum component allows the school to address 

a stated need in the business community. 

• The flexibility in hiring, curriculum offerings, student choice, and building operation exists at the center because of its status as a charter school. 

• The ability to provide instruction in the same classroom for high school students, adults seeking employment, and adults seeking to upgrade skills for their 

present job is unique. The existence of the technical college staff instructing 

adults and dual-enrolled high school students provides a basis for competency 

education through the 14 certificate programs as part of the seamless education. 

• Classroom instructors have high expectations for learning within their areas, 

and the students have high expectations for their ability to learn. Staff members view themselves as coaches more than teachers, where demonstrating and 

modeling are more important than simply telling. 

• An attitude permeates the center that students should be treated as adults, 

with high expectations for learning. It is also expected that students accept personal responsibility for their learning, attendance, and attitudes. 

• The staff created a curriculum that is both relevant to the students’ lives after 

schooling, and rigorous so those students will be well served when entering the 

labor market. The staff seeks to maintain a cutting-edge technology represented 

in the businesses and industries within the region through the operation of 

working partnerships. 

The staff and administration of CEC identified challenges that remain: 

• Increase communication with parents. 

• Re-define better procedures to provide communication between base high 

schools and the center. 

• Increase efforts to track the success of graduates in their careers and in postsecondary institutions. 

• Address ways to continue to improve the state test scores of students enrolled 

in the center. 

• Organize a formal orientation program for new employees to ensure an understanding of the center’s mission, goals, and expectations. 

• Integrate core academic areas into the technical program. 

• Graduate students with more than one certification. 

• Keep the state-of-the-art technology current. 

61

XIII. Principal’s (CEO’s) List of Five Greatest Strengths 

When asked to name the five greatest strengths of the Central Educational Center, CEO Moore provided the following list. 

1. Relevant Performance-based Curriculum and Instruction. CEC can speak directly to the post-school success of each student. We excel in areas traditionally 

separated as ‘‘academic’’ and ‘‘technical’’ education. Research suggests that the 

employment community (to which most students will one day belong) demands 

a whole person capable of performing and managing. This relevant, contextual 

curriculum and instruction provides great ‘‘value-added’’ learning experiences 

that build towards higher levels of compensation and complexity. Our US economy is shedding unskilled jobs, and our workforce must be provided the opportunity to achieve higher standards in more complex, demanding jobs. CEC is 

a major cog in the educational machine that is responsive to this need. 

2. Joint Venturing. In the business world, partners give up control in order to 

achieve higher levels of performance for the organization. In joint ventures, the 

organization’s success is valued above the standard operating procedures of the 

individual partners. This is very difficult to achieve in education, in particular. 

At CEC, our joint venture partnership has broken that mold. We allow the 

practical transition of high school students into technical college (dual enrollment) with all its strengths. Though these first joint venturing steps have been 

sometimes tentative, the fact that we have opened the door to this higher level 

of partnership is a radical and necessary change. All the partners (the school 

system, technical college, business community) have given up certain controls 

in order to achieve at higher levels as a joint venture. In addition, the state’s 

charter school law has been a critical piece of the infrastructure necessary to 

make this joint venture operational. While, in theory, the joint venture could 

be achieved without charter school status, the flexibilities inherent in the charter school concept pave the way for new ventures. 

3. Work Ethic. In education today, we hear much about ‘‘character education’’ or 

‘‘values education.’’ At CEC, we have placed these ideas in context, and because 

we have done so, our students see the relevance of good character and good 

values. We have taken the higher road at CEC with the emphasis on work 

ethic by tying their experience to relevant future experiences. 

4. Data-driven Management. CEC was designed from data derived from community surveys. We measure its performance from various data collected. We 

drive its improvement by holding certain measurements as being ‘‘more’’ or 

‘‘less’’ important. CEC is not about the ‘‘opinion’’ of certain content-driven curriculum groups. It is, rather, about the data that specifies how learning best 

occurs. Data continues to change what is taught. Holding true to this strength 

will promote continuous improvement in CEC’s future. 

5. Post-secondary Environment and Organization. To achieve each of the first 

four strengths, it is necessary to develop an environment that facilitates the 

development of such strengths. We at CEC believe that this cannot be done in 

the traditional high school. As Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Susan 

Sclafani discussed in a recent visit to CEC, ‘‘The American high school must 

be re-invented and re-organized.’’ Leadership at CEC is organized around function rather than rank. Directors have replaced teachers. Team members have 

replaced students. Choice, rather than compulsion, is the method by which students connect to CEC. The organizational structure is flattened and eliminated, 

in order to achieve the original design. Our team members have consistently 

rated CEC’s environment as attractive, and so have our directors. In fact, recent school system climate surveys reinforced this concept in relationship to 

other high schools. More importantly, CEC’s organizational design and implementation provide students with a glimpse of the postsecondary world in which 

they will live. As a result, CEC is more relevant to business organizations of 

today than are traditional high schools. 

Appendix C 

Collaborative Study: 

Final Report 

Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education

Prepared by: 

Carl Vinson Institute of Government 

University of Georgia 

Athens, Georgia 

January, 2002

62

Introduction 

In recent years the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of 

Georgia has conducted numerous survey research projects for the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education. Most of these survey projects have measured the level of satisfaction of graduates with their technical college education. One 

important population of technical college graduates not included in past studies is 

graduates who were dually enrolled in high school and a Technical Certificate of 

Credit program at a technical college. The pilot Collaborative Study used a mail survey to measure the satisfaction of these graduates. This report summarizes the overall findings of the pilot Collaborative Study. 

Response Rate 

Overall, 454 surveys were mailed, with 44 being returned as undeliverable. Of the 

410 graduates who received surveys, 87 replied, for a response rate of 21 percent. 

(Note: all percentages are rounded to the whole number.) Graduates from five technical colleges participated in the pilot study [with the number of respondents in parentheses]: Coosa Valley Technical College (9), North Georgia Technical College (26), 

Sandersville Technical College (11), Valdosta Technical College (9), and West Central Technical College (32). 

Respondents are evenly split by gender (54% female and 46% male). Over threefourths of respondents are white (77%) and 21 percent are African–American. Asian, 

Other, and Hispanic descent were chosen by only one respondent each. 

Survey Findings 

Survey findings are presented in the order that the questions appear on the survey. (See Appendix A for a copy of the survey instrument.) 

• Question 1. Which high school did you attend? 

Respondents represent a total of 29 high schools. Listed below are the nineteen 

high schools attended by two or more respondents [the number of respondents in 

parentheses]. 

Coosa Valley: Cedar Town (5); Model (3) 

North Georgia: Habersham Central (2); Lumpkin (2); Stephens (4); Towns (5); 

Union (5); White (2) 

Sandersville: Brentwood (2); Hancock Central (5); Washington (3) 

Valdosta: Cook (2); Lowndes (2); Valdosta (4) 

West Central: Douglas (4); East Coweta (3); Lithia Springs (2); Newman (15); 

Northgate (7) 

• Question 2. Which track were you on in high school? 

Fifty-nine percent of respondents were on a college-preparatory track in high 

school, while 67 percent were on a vocational track. Twenty-three respondents (26%) 

indicated that they were on both tracks. 

• Question 3. When did you graduate from high school? 

Since one of the main goals of collaborative programs is to help reduce the high 

school dropout rate in Georgia, it is significant that 98 percent of respondents graduated from high school. (Note: The other two respondents are still in high school; 

no respondents indicated that they ‘‘do not expect to graduate.’’) Respondents finished high school in the following years: 1998 (7%), 1999 (15%), 2000 (18%), 2001 

(39%), and 2002 (21%). 

• Question 4. How did you find out about the technical college programs available 

through your high school? 

Respondents initially learned about the technical college programs available 

through their high school from the following sources: a high school counselor (61%), 

a representative from a technical college (44%), a teacher (44%), and a friend/peer 

(28%). Examples of other sources of information about collaborative programs are 

school field trips to technical colleges and announcements made by the high school 

principal. 

• Question 5. What year in high school were you in when you started the technical college program? 

Sixty-five percent of respondents started their technical college program during 

their senior year of high school and 35 percent started in their junior year. Two additional respondents wrote on their surveys that they began the technical college 

program in their freshman year. 

• Question 6. When did you finish your technical college program? 

Eighty-five percent of respondents completed their technical college programs. 

These respondents graduated in the following years: 1998 (4%), 1999 (9%), 2000 

(14%), 2001 (59%), and 2002 (13%). 

63

Of those that graduated from both their high school and their technical college 

programs, 57 percent graduated from the two schools in the same year and 84 percent graduated from both within one year of each other. • Question 6a. If you did not graduate from your technical program, how many 

courses did you complete? 

No data can be reported for this question due to the low number of respondents 

who did not graduate, and because few respondents correctly answered the question. 

For example, some provided the number of semesters completed while others left 

the space blank. Consequently, this question should be reformatted or deleted altogether in future studies. • Question 7. Since completing high school, have you... 

Since completing high school, all of the respondents have found a job, continued 

their education, or both. Most respondents either have entered the workforce (78%) 

or are continuing their education (66%). More specifically, 30 percent entered another technical college program, 37 percent enrolled at another college or university, 

and 3 percent have either not found work or have become unemployed (but are continuing their education). Respondents could choose more than one option, so the following are the most common combinations of post-high school activity: • 30 percent entered the workforce • 21 percent entered the workforce and entered another technical college 

program • 22 percent entered the workforce and enrolled at another college or university • 13 percent enrolled at another college or university • 5 percent entered another technical college program • Question 8. What is your job? • Question 9. Your current position is... (Related/Not Related to your previous 

technical training) 

Almost fifty percent of respondents who entered the workforce are in a position 

that is related to their previous technical training. Examples of jobs that are related 

to the student’s program are web designer, flexograph press operator, cosmetologist, 

customer service representative, fork lift operator, veterinarian’s assistant, intern 

architect, carpenter, welder, and physical therapy technician. • Question 10. Are you currently employed... 

Seventy-five percent of those who entered the workforce are currently employed 

full-time (40 hours per week), while 25 percent work part-time. • Question 11. What technical college do you currently attend? 

Seventy percent of those who entered another technical college program did so at 

the same technical college where they participated in the collaborative program. • Question 12. What is the name of your program? 

Question 13. Your current program is... (Related/Not Related to your previous 

technical training) 

Seventy-four percent of respondents who entered another technical college program are in a program that is related to their previous technical training. Examples 

of related programs are Welding and Joining Technology, Accounting, Business Office Technology, CIS–Networking, Industrial Electrical Technology, CISCO Networking, and Medical Assistant. 

• Question 14. Which college or university do you currently attend? 

Respondents are currently attending sixteen different colleges and universities, 

fourteen of which are in Georgia. The most common responses were for Georgia 

Southern (2), Georgia State (5), Catawba College (2), and West Georgia (6). 

• Question 15. What is your major/program of study? 

• Question 16. Your major/program of study... (Related/Not Related to your previous technical training) 

Fifty-nine percent of respondents who enrolled at another college or university are 

in a major/program of study that is related to their previous technical training. Examples of related majors are Pre–Veterinarian/Medical, Telecommunications, Computer Sciences, Nursing, Pre–Engineering, Pre–Medical, Architecture, and Pre–Physician’s Assistant. 

• Question 17. Would you recommend attending a technical college? 

Consistent with previous studies, an overwhelming majority of respondents (98%) 

would recommend attending a technical college. 

• Question 18. How satisfied are you with your technical college experience? 

Similarly, 90 percent of respondents are either satisfied (39%) or very satisfied 

(51%) with their technical college experience. 

• Comments. 

Space was provided at the end of the survey for the respondents to explain or expound upon their answers. Selected representative comments are: 

64

• The technical skills I received during school are very useful in the workforce. 

• The technical college experience...allows the student and teacher to have oneon-one contact. 

• Attending a technical college gave me the hands-on experience that most jobs 

are looking for. It was also a great challenge. 

• This program gave me the basic skills of the career of my choice. It helped me 

to grasp new and better ways of self-discipline. 

• I think that technical colleges are the best way to get the skills, experience, and 

confidence to enter the workplace and succeed. 

• I think that the benefits of taking technical college courses while in high school 

are gaining experience, being able to stand out among the crowd, and becoming 

more versatile in the job market right out of high school.’’

Findings by College 

Overall, it is clear that the collaborative programs provide a tangible incentive for 

high school students to stay in school and earn their diploma. The relatively low 

number of responses from each college, however, precludes valid analysis of the data 

on a school-by-school basis. One interesting observation, however, is that the only 

two respondents who have not yet graduated from high school are both from the 

same technical college, and are both still in high school. This suggests that the high 

school completion rate for dual enrollees may actually be 100 percent. 

Conclusion 

Five important conclusions can be drawn from the collaborative program pilot survey. 

• First, consistent with the satisfaction rate of graduates found in previous studies, graduates of the collaborative programs are overwhelmingly satisfied with 

their technical college experience. 

• Second, in light of current concerns regarding Georgia’s high school students, 

the findings indicate that these programs provide an additional incentive for 

high school students to stay in school and earn a diploma. Indeed, the statewide 

completion rate for the high school class of 2001 was only 71 percent, compared 

to 98 percent of those in a technical certificate of credit collaborative program. 

• Third, the placement rate for graduates is 100%, as all of the respondents have 

either found work or are continuing their education. 

• Fourth, graduates of these programs that stay in the DTAE system after graduation tend to re-enroll in programs that build on their previous training. 

• Last, these overwhelmingly positive results seem to justify a statewide analysis 

of graduates of collaborative programs in order to document thoroughly this 

unique approach to improving the quality and diversity of educational opportunities in Georgia. 

[Additional attachments to Mr. Moore’s statement have been retained in the Committee’s official files.]

Æ