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

93-569 PDF 2004

STRENGTHENING VOCATIONAL 

AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

May 4, 2004

Serial No. 108-56

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 

Cass Ballenger, North Carolina 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Fred Upton, Michigan 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Jim DeMint, South Carolina 

Johnny Isakson, Georgia 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

John R. Carter, Texas 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee 

Phil Gingrey, Georgia 

Max Burns, Georgia 

George Miller, California 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

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 

Ed Case, Hawaii 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Denise L. Majette, Georgia 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York

Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman

Tom Osborne, Nebraska, Vice Chairman 

James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania 

Fred Upton, Michigan 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Jim DeMint, South Carolina 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

John A. Boehner, Ohio, ex officio 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Ed Case, Hawaii 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Denise L. Majette, Georgia 

George Miller, California, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on May 4, 2004 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

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

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

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

Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin ............................................................................................................. 3

New York Times Article, ‘‘U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the 

Sciences,’’ submitted for the record ...................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brand, Betsy, Co-Director, American Youth Policy Forum, Washington, 

DC .................................................................................................................. 9

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

Dunkel, Sandy, Division Administrator, Career Development Division, 

Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, Illinois .............................. 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Ihlenfeldt, Dr. Bill A., President, Chippewa Valley Technical College, 

Eau Claire, Wisconsin .................................................................................. 26

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Quinn, Brenda, Chief Executive Officer, Intelitek, Inc., Manchester, New 

Hampshire ..................................................................................................... 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Stevens, Jean C., Assistant Commissioner, Office of Curriculum & Instructional Support, New York State Department of Education, Albany, 

New York ....................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20

(1)

STRENGTHENING VOCATIONAL AND 

TECHNICAL EDUCATION 

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

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, Biggert, Davis of California, 

Kind, and Van Hollen. 

Staff Present: Stephanie Milburn, Professional Staff Member; 

Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Alanna Porter, Legislative Assistant; Deborah 

Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Dennis Forte, Minority Legislative Associate/

Education; Joe Novotny, Minority Legislative Assistant/Education; 

and Lynda Theil, Legislative Associate/Education. 

Chairman CASTLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. A 

quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Education Reform of 

the Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

We are meeting today to hear testimony on strengthening vocational education. Under Committee rule 12(B), opening statements 

are limited to the Chairman and the ranking minority member of 

the Subcommittee. Therefore, if other members have statements, 

they may be included in the hearing record. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted to 

the official hearing record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Thank you all—I mean, everybody here for joining us today to 

hear testimony on State and national efforts to implement Federal 

vocational and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. Today’s hearing will 

provide the opportunity to examine the implementation of the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\93569 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
2

forms from the 1998 reauthorization and will also provide insight 

on how these programs could be improved to better serve students. 

This is our second and final hearing on vocational and technical 

education as we look toward reauthorization of the Perkins Act. 

The Perkins program aims to prepare youth and adults for the 

future by building their academic and technical skills and ensuring 

they are equipped to proceed with postsecondary education or pursue other postsecondary opportunities. This program represents 

one of the largest Federal investments in our Nation’s high schools 

and is a key component of our secondary and postsecondary education systems. According to the National Center for Education 

Statistics, 66 percent of all public secondary schools have one or 

more vocational or technical education programs with approximately 96 percent of high school students taking at least one vocational and technical course during their secondary studies. 

Vocational and technical education is an important postsecondary option as well. Over 2,600 postsecondary sub-baccalaureate 

institutions, such as community colleges, technical institutes, skill 

centers and other public and private colleges also offer vocational 

and technical education. Reforms made to the Perkins Act in 1998 

increase the focus on ensuring that participating students at both 

the secondary and postsecondary levels acquire academic and technical skills as well as complete their respective programs and transition into further education and successful employment. 

Some progress has been made in States that have created an initial performance accountability system, and the focus on academic 

performance among students participating in vocational and technical education courses has been strengthened. However, technology and economic competition are combining in ways that are 

changing the nature of work and are redefining the American 

workplace. The need for higher literacy, numeracy, communication 

and interpersonal skills in the workplace has grown over the past 

decade and will continue to be an important factor in the workplace 

in the future. 

The skills needed to be successful in postsecondary education are 

similar to the skills that are required by employers. The need for 

a strong academic and technical background makes it imperative 

that the current vocational and technical education system adapt 

in order to provide the knowledge and skills needed to succeed. 

Today, we will hear from individuals who play a role in strengthening vocational and technical education. We will get an overview 

of the current environment surrounding vocational and technical 

education. Additionally, two State directors will inform us how 

State leadership efforts can ensure quality, relevant and rigorous 

vocational and technical education. In addition, we will hear from 

a community college to learn how these institutions serve as a vital 

link between secondary schools and 4-year postsecondary institutions to improve technical education and training. And finally we 

will hear from a business representative to learn more about what 

is required to succeed in today’s workplace. 

During the upcoming Perkins reauthorization, our challenge is to 

examine the current program to ensure that all vocational and 

technical education students have access to programs that are sufficiently rigorous in both their academic and technical content as 

3

well as provide clear connections with the education and training 

beyond high school that most Americans need for continued workplace success. We hope to learn from our panel of witnesses the 

recommendations regarding suggested changes to further improve 

Perkins; and we thank them and all of you for joining us. 

And I will yield to Congressman Kind for any opening statement 

he may have. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Castle follows:]

Statement of Hon. Mike Castle, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education 

Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce

STATEMENT OF HON. RON KIND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do commend you for 

your leadership on this issue. 

I thank the panelists for your presence and anticipated testimony 

today on the very important goal of reauthorizing the Carl Perkins 

Vocational and Technical Education Act in this session of Congress. 

It has been kind of a heavy agenda for this committee, trying to 

reauthorize the higher education bill generally as well as the Workforce Investment Act, but I think vocational education is one of the 

more important investments that we have to make in the country 

to deal with the workforce development issues that we are facing. 


93569.001
4

And I welcome all the panelists. I am especially pleased to have 

one of my own, the President of Chippewa Valley Technical College, Dr. Ihlenfeldt, joining us here today. 

This is a very important piece of legislation, especially when you 

take a look at the trends happening on a global scale. Other countries are getting it. There are major country infrastructure investments taking place right in China, India and many other parts of 

the world. And there are studies coming out, reports being submitted, that unless we are careful, we are going to start losing our 

ranking as one of the most innovative and creative countries when 

it comes to science degrees, engineering degrees, workforce development issues generally. 

In fact, I don’t know how many of you noticed the New York 

Times article that was published in yesterday’s paper, entitled U.S. 

Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences. And we are seeing more 

and more of that occurring. 

Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to submit this article for the record at this time. 

Chairman CASTLE. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]

U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance In the Sciences 

By William J. Broad 

May 3, 2004

The United States has started to lose its worldwide dominance in critical areas 

of science and innovation, according to federal and private experts who point to 

strong evidence like prizes awarded to Americans and the number of papers in 

major professional journals. 

Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even exceed America’s, apparently with little public awareness of the trend or its implications for jobs, industry, 

national security or the vigor of the nation’s intellectual and cultural life. 

‘‘The rest of the world is catching up,’’ said John E. Jankowski, a senior analyst 

at the National Science Foundation, the federal agency that tracks science trends. 

‘‘Science excellence is no longer the domain of just the U.S.’’

Even analysts worried by the trend concede that an expansion of the world’s brain 

trust, with new approaches, could invigorate the fight against disease, develop new 

sources of energy and wrestle with knotty environmental problems. But profits from 

the breakthroughs are likely to stay overseas, and this country will face competition 

for things like hiring scientific talent and getting space to showcase its work in top 

journals. 

One area of international competition involves patents. Americans still win large 

numbers of them, but the percentage is falling as foreigners, especially Asians, have 

become more active and in some fields have seized the innovation lead. The United 

States’ share of its own industrial patents has fallen steadily over the decades and 

now stands at 52 percent. 

A more concrete decline can be seen in published research. Physical Review, a series of top physics journals, recently tracked a reversal in which American papers, 

in two decades, fell from the most to a minority. Last year the total was just 29 

percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. 

China, said Martin Blume, the journals’ editor, has surged ahead by submitting 

more than 1,000 papers a year. ‘‘Other scientific publishers are seeing the same 

kind of thing,’’ he added. 

Another downturn centers on the Nobel Prizes, an icon of scientific excellence. 

Traditionally, the United States, powered by heavy federal investments in basic research, the kind that pursues fundamental questions of nature, dominated the 

awards. 

But the American share, after peaking from the 1960’s through the 1990’s, has 

fallen in the 2000’s to about half, 51 percent. The rest went to Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand. 

‘‘We are in a new world, and it’s increasingly going to be dominated by countries 

other than the United States,’’ Denis Simon, dean of management and technology 

5

at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, recently said at a scientific meeting in 

Washington. 

Europe and Asia are ascendant, analysts say, even if their achievements go unnoticed in the United States. In March, for example, European scientists announced 

that one of their planetary probes had detected methane in the atmosphere of 

Mars—a possible sign that alien microbes live beneath the planet’s surface. The 

finding made headlines from Paris to Melbourne. But most Americans, bombarded 

with images from America’s own rovers successfully exploring the red planet, missed 

the foreign news. 

More aggressively, Europe is seeking to dominate particle physics by building the 

world’s most powerful atom smasher, set for its debut in 2007. Its circular tunnel 

is 17 miles around. 

Science analysts say Asia’s push for excellence promises to be even more challenging. 

‘‘It’s unbelievable,’’ Diana Hicks, chairwoman of the school of public policy at the 

Georgia Institute of Technology, said of Asia’s growth in science and technical innovation. ‘‘It’s amazing to see these output numbers of papers and patents going up 

so fast.’’

Analysts say comparative American declines are an inevitable result of rising 

standards of living around the globe. 

‘‘It’s all in the ebb and flow of globalization,’’ said Jack Fritz, a senior officer at 

the National Academy of Engineering, an advisory body to the federal government. 

He called the declines ‘‘the next big thing we will have to adjust to.’’

The rapidly changing American status has not gone unnoticed by politicians, with 

Democrats on the attack and the White House on the defensive. 

‘‘We stand at a pivotal moment,’’ Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, recently said at a policy forum in Washington at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation’s top general science group. ‘‘For all our past successes, there are disturbing signs that America’s dominant position in the scientific 

world is being shaken.’’

Mr. Daschle accused the Bush administration of weakening the nation’s science 

base by failing to provide enough money for cutting-edge research. 

The president’s science adviser, John H. Marburger III, who attended the forum, 

strongly denied that charge, saying in an interview that overall research budgets 

during the Bush administration have soared to record highs and that the science 

establishment is strong. 

‘‘The sky is not falling on science,’’ Dr. Marburger said. ‘‘Maybe there are some 

clouds—no, things that need attention.’’ Any problems, he added, are within the 

power of the United States to deal with in a way that maintains the vitality of the 

research enterprise. 

Analysts say Mr. Daschle and Dr. Marburger can both supply data that supports 

their positions. 

A major question, they add, is whether big spending automatically translates into 

big rewards, as it did in the past. During the cold war, the government pumped 

more than $1 trillion into research, with a wealth of benefits including lasers, longer 

life expectancies, men on the Moon and the prestige of many Nobel Prizes. 

Today, federal research budgets are still at record highs; this year more than $126 

billion has been allocated to research. Moreover, American industry makes extensive 

use of federal research in producing its innovations and adds its own vast sums of 

money, the combination dwarfing that of any other nation or bloc. 

But the edifice is less formidable than it seems, in part because of the nation’s 

costly and unique military role. This year, financing for military research hit $66 

billion, higher in fixed dollars than in the cold war and far higher than in any other 

country. 

For all the spending, the United States began to experience a number of scientific 

declines in the 1990’s, boom years for the nation’s overall economy. 

For instance, scientific papers by Americans peaked in 1992 and then fell roughly 

10 percent, the National Science Foundation reports. Why? Many analysts point to 

rising foreign competition, as does the European Commission, which also monitors 

global science trends. In a study last year, the commission said Europe surpassed 

the United States in the mid–1990’s as the world’s largest producer of scientific literature. 

Dr. Hicks of Georgia Tech said that American scientists, when top journals reject 

their papers, usually have no idea that rising foreign competition may be to blame. 

On another front, the numbers of new doctorates in the sciences peaked in 1998 

and then fell 5 percent the next year, a loss of more than 1,300 new scientists, according to the foundation. 

6

A minor exodus also hit one of the hidden strengths of American science: vast 

ranks of bright foreigners. In a significant shift of demographics, they began to leave 

in what experts call a reverse brain drain. After peaking in the mid–1990’s, the 

number of doctoral students from China, India and Taiwan with plans to stay in 

the United States began to fall by the hundreds, according to the foundation. 

These declines are important, analysts say, because new scientific knowledge is 

an engine of the American economy and technical innovation, its influence evident 

in everything from potent drugs to fast computer chips. 

Patents are a main way that companies and inventors reap commercial rewards 

from their ideas and stay competitive in the marketplace while improving the lives 

of millions. 

Foreigners outside the United States are playing an increasingly important role 

in these expressions of industrial creativity. In a recent study, CHI Research, a consulting firm in Haddon Heights, N.J., found that researchers in Japan, Taiwan and 

South Korea now account for more than a quarter of all United States industrial 

patents awarded each year, generating revenue for their own countries and limiting 

it in the United States. 

Moreover, their growth rates are rapid. Between 1980 and 2003, South Korea 

went from 0 to 2 percent of the total, Taiwan from 0 to 3 percent and Japan from 

12 to 21 percent. 

‘‘It’s not just lots of patents,’’ Francis Narin, CHI’s president, said of the Asian 

rise. ‘‘It’s lots of good patents that have a high impact,’’ as measured by how often 

subsequent patents cite them. 

Recently, Dr. Narin added, both Taiwan and Singapore surged ahead of the 

United States in the overall number of citations. Singapore’s patents include ones 

in chemicals, semiconductors, electronics and industrial tools. 

China represents the next wave, experts agree, its scientific rise still too fresh to 

show up in most statistics but already apparent. Dr. Simon of Rensselaer said that 

about 400 foreign companies had recently set up research centers in China, with 

General Electric, for instance, doing important work there on medical scanners, 

which means fewer skilled jobs in America. 

Ross Armbrecht, president of the Industrial Research Institute, a nonprofit group 

in Washington that represents large American companies, said businesses were 

going to China not just because of low costs but to take advantage of China’s growing scientific excellence. 

‘‘It’s frightening,’’ Dr. Armbrecht said. ‘‘But you’ve got to go where the horses are.’’ 

An eventual danger, he added, is the slow loss of intellectual property as local professionals start their own businesses with what they have learned from American 

companies. 

For the United States, future trends look challenging, many analysts say. 

In a report last month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science 

said the Bush administration, to live up to its pledge to halve the nation’s budget 

deficit in the next five years, would cut research financing at 21 of 24 federal agencies—all those that do or finance science except those involved in space and national 

and domestic security. 

More troubling to some experts is the likelihood of an accelerating loss of quality 

scientists. Applications from foreign graduate students to research universities are 

down by a quarter, experts say, partly because of the federal government’s tightening of visas after the 2001 terrorist attacks. 

Shirley Ann Jackson, president of the American Association for the Advancement 

of Science, told the recent forum audience that the drop in foreign students, the apparently declining interest of young Americans in science careers and the aging of 

the technical work force were, taken together, a perilous combination of developments. 

‘‘Who,’’ she asked, ‘‘will do the science of this millennium?’’

Several private groups, including the Council on Competitiveness, an organization 

in Washington that seeks policies to promote industrial vigor, have begun to agitate 

for wide debate and action. 

‘‘Many other countries have realized that science and technology are key to economic growth and prosperity,’’ said Jennifer Bond, the council’s vice president for 

international affairs. ‘‘They’re catching up to us,’’ she said, warning Americans not 

to ‘‘rest on our laurels.’’

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company 

Mr. KIND. That is why I think today’s hearing is important: to 

talk about where we are going with vocational education, the fundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93569 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
7

ing; what changes need to be occurring within the program dealing 

with the challenges of the 21st century; a global marketplace and 

where our students and workers are going to be able to find their 

roles and the jobs in which to compete on a global basis. 

There are many aspects of the act we have to delve into: the accountability provisions; finding out whether it has become too cumbersome, whether there are opportunities of streamlining that; the 

gender equity issues again; addressing the aging population and 

the fact that we have close to 80 million baby boomers rapidly approaching retirement, and what this is going to mean to the workforce of this country; and how the community and technical colleges 

throughout the Nation are going to be playing a crucial role, I believe, in dealing with all of that. Some big issues. 

I am glad to see we have a distinguished panel to speak on those 

issues; and just to indulge me, a couple of remarks about Dr. 

Ihlenfeldt. 

He has been the President of CVTC since 1994, and he has been 

doing incredible things to bring the technical school in Eau Claire, 

Wisconsin, the heart of my congressional district, as well as the 

technical school system in Wisconsin into position for the challenges of the 21st century. A lot of innovative programs: the Health 

Academy partnering with high schools and students, trying to deal 

with the shortage of health care providers in the Chippewa Valley 

area; a recent announcement on moving forward on a 

nanotechnology; very involved in a host of economic development 

issues. I have been very impressed with his willingness to try form 

these public-private partnerships and what we need to do, working 

together, to deal with the challenges that all of us are facing in creating jobs and keeping good-paying jobs in our own community. 

And I am looking forward to working with him on a host of other 

issues as we proceed. 

In fact, most recently, unfortunately, the Chippewa Valley area 

had back-to-back-to-back announcements of companies closing up 

shop, affecting close to 600 workers and jobs. It was Dr. Ihlenfeldt, 

along with a host of other local community leaders, that formed a 

rapid response team in order to deal with the needs of those workers and their families; and a lot of it is going to be reintegrating 

education and job training programs in order to find them a place 

to land in a very turbulent and difficult economic environment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing. I thank the 

witnesses and look forward to their testimony and yield back my 

time. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Kind. We appreciate your 

statement and look forward to going through some questions and 

answers with the witnesses. 

Let me try to explain to everybody in the room what we are 

doing. We are talking about a reauthorization process. About every 

5 or 6 years, generally, for most pieces of legislation, we review 

them and go through what is called a reauthorization process in 

which we update them. It is our hope that we can work it out in 

a bipartisan way. Sometimes we can’t; sometimes there are small 

issues that prevent that. But I think we are relatively close on vocational education, and it is hopefully something we can do in the 

8

next month or so and take it to the floor of the House of Representatives. That remains to be seen. 

We had, as I indicated, one other panel—last week, I believe—

and this panel today. The testimony of the witnesses is vitally important, the written testimony, because all of the various staff will 

look at that and analyze it in terms of adding to what we are 

doing. 

The testimony today is important. The witnesses will have 5 

minutes, after which I start banging on the gavel. And we have 

thrown the gavel here—no, just kidding about that. Hopefully, you 

can keep your testimony to 5 minutes, and then we will have some 

Q&A. It may seem short to you, but believe me, we do parse pretty 

carefully the testimony you have submitted, so you don’t have to 

read it into the record. And we have tried, and I think we have in 

this case gotten—obtained a balanced panel that represents different components and interests of vocational education outcomes, 

all the way from the education system to the community college 

system to the employment base. So that is the thrust of what we 

are doing. 

The methodology we will follow is, I am going to read introductions of several of you. Mrs. Biggert will introduce a witness and 

Mr. Kind has already spoken about Dr. Ihlenfeldt and may again 

for a moment or so; and then you will have 5 minutes to make your 

presentation. And we will go from Ms. Brand to Ms. Quinn, and 

then we will each take 5 minutes for questions and answers. So 

that is basically how we will proceed with the rest of the day. 

With that, I will go through some of the introductions, and we 

will start with Ms. Betsy Brand, who has been the Co-Director of 

the American Youth Policy Forum since 1998. In this capacity, Ms. 

Brand organizes a portion of the speaker forums, field trips and 

special meetings to bring policymakers together on issues that affect youth. Previously, she served as a Minority Legislative Associate for the House Committee on Education and Labor, and subsequently served with Senator Dan Quayle as a professional staff 

member on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. 

In 1989, Ms. Brand was appointed Assistant Secretary For Vocational and Adult Education at the U.S. Department of Education. 

From 1993 to 1998, Ms. Brand operated a consulting firm, Workforce Futures, Inc., focusing on policy and best practices affecting 

education and workforce preparation. 

Our second witness will be Mrs. Jean Stevens, who currently 

serves as the Assistant Commissioner of Curriculum and Instructional Support for the New York State Education Department. Her 

responsibilities include leadership and oversight of all curriculum 

areas, summer institutes, technology policy and math and science 

partnerships. Mrs. Stevens is also responsible for policy and program development for adult education, adult and secondary career 

and technical education, Tech Prep and High Schools That Work. 

She serves on the department’s School Leadership Implementation 

Group and is on the agency steering committee for the implementation of the No Child Left Behind legislation. 

And I call on Mrs. Biggert, who will now introduce. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

9

I always say my colleagues can learn from what we are doing 

back in Illinois. I say it so often that they really get tired, I think, 

but it is true. 

I am very proud today to introduce a fellow Illinoian, Sandy 

Dunkel. Ms. Dunkel is the Division Administrator of Career Development for the Illinois State Board of Education where she serves 

as the State Director of Career and Technical Education. In this 

position, she oversees all State and Federal programs designed to 

prepare students for the challenges of higher education and the 

workplace. 

She currently serves on the board of the National Association of 

State Directors of Career and Technical Education and many other 

State and Federal committees. 

Ms. Dunkel has been with ISBC for 24 years. In her time there, 

she has served in a number of positions working with such programs as gender equity, workforce preparation, Tech Prep, Perkins 

and the Jobs For Illinois Graduates program. Prior to joining the 

State agency, she taught junior high home economics for 4 years 

in Illinois and Florida. 

She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Home Economics Education 

from Eastern and a Master’s degree in Vocational Education Administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

So she has a wealth of experience. 

Thank you very much for joining us. I look forward to your testimony, as do the rest of my colleagues. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert, and we welcome 

you, too. 

And let me turn to Mr. Kind to see if there is anything further 

he wants to say about Dr. Ihlenfeldt. 

Mr. KIND. I think I embarrassed him good enough today. 

Chairman CASTLE. And finally—our final witness will be Ms. 

Brenda Quinn. She has 20 years of senior level managerial experience with high technology, engineering and manufacturing companies. She provides hands-on leadership and direction for corporate 

and business development, marketing sales, human resources, financial management and strategic development. 

During her career at Intelitek, she has focused on aggressive 

scheduling and financial objectives to support international operations that are effective in managing multiple sites and staffs that 

are culturally and functionally diverse. 

And I have already given the other instructions, so we are ready 

to go. Ms. Brand, we will turn to you for your lead-off testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BETSY BRAND, CO-DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 

YOUTH POLICY FORUM 

Ms. BRAND. Thank you, Chairman Castle, Congressman Kind 

and members of the Subcommittee; thank you very much for the 

opportunity to testify on the subject of strengthening vocational 

education. 

As you said, Chairman Castle, the need for higher literacy, 

numeracy, communication and interpersonal skills in the workplace has grown over the past decade and will continue to grow. 

New evidence demonstrates that the English and math skills that 

high school graduates must master for success in postsecondary 

10

education are the same as those needed in high-performance careers. Also, more jobs require postsecondary education and the 

labor market rewards those who take four or more occupational 

courses in high school. 

There are many high schools not preparing our youth well for 

their careers and livelihoods. Problems at the secondary school 

level have been chronicled in a number of reports that focus on 

dropout rates in large urban high schools as high as 60 percent; 

poor student performance in math, science and English; the structure and culture of many high schools that allows too many students to fall through the cracks or get by with low-level courses; 

unmotivated students because they fail to see the relevance of what 

they are learning; and the lack of clear pathways to postsecondary 

education and careers. 

Current high school reform efforts to improve student outcomes 

share several common themes and these are themes that Federal 

investment strategy and career and technical education can easily 

support and contribute to. These strategies include smaller, personalized student-focused learning, rigorous integrated curriculum 

linked to standards, finding ways to connect youths with adults in 

a meaningful, supportive manner; supports for students, including 

college and career exploration and counseling; making learning relevant by linking it to careers; using the community for learning; 

and helping students advance more smoothly from secondary to 

postsecondary education. 

As a strategy to help improve positive CTE, in Rigor and Relevance, which I believe was distributed to many of your offices recently, I recommend a strategy for Federal funding, that funding 

be used to develop and build the capacity of States, school districts 

and schools to offer and support high-quality CTE programs of 

study. 

A program of study is defined as a multiyear, grades 9-through14 or 9-through-16 sequence of courses that integrates core academic knowledge with technical and occupational knowledge leading to an industry certificate or an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree. 

In grades 9 and 10, courses would focus primarily on academic 

foundations, using the context of careers to make core curriculum 

relevant and meaningful. In grades 11 and 12, students would continue to take core required curriculum as well as technical electives 

and integrated course work in their chosen career field. 

The pathways between high school and postsecondary education 

with options for dual enrollment would exist; internships in the 

work-based learning would be provided; early and ongoing college 

and career counseling and exploration would be available; and students in schools would be held to the high standards consistent 

with No Child Left Behind, as well as measuring labor market outcomes. 

The main difference between this concept of a program of study 

and what is currently authorized under the Perkins Act is that a 

program of study is a comprehensive, well-thought-out, rigorous 

and articulated program that begins in the 9th grade, and it ends 

with the attainment of certification or degrees. 

The bulk of the funds in a program-of-study approach would be 

used to support rigorous and integrated teaching and learning and 

11

for professional development for both academic and CTE teachers 

at the secondary and postsecondary levels. 

Let me provide a few more specific recommendations for reauthorization. First, it is clear that high school students need more 

than pure academic preparation, and preparation for careers is an 

important goal. The Perkins Act has a critical role to play in preparing our youth for a changing economy, which means both academic and occupational skills. Also, it is very important for students to understand how their studies are relevant and linked to 

their future, and CTE can help make this connection. We need continued support for career and technical education. 

Second, I would suggest eliminating the statutory restriction that 

funding can only be used for CTE programs that lead to less than 

a baccalaureate degree. This current law provision creates an artificial barrier between 2- and 4-year colleges and limits learning for 

students. Perhaps at one point, this barrier made sense, but in today’s economy, we should encourage students to pursue the highest 

degree possible. 

Third, create and support academically rigorous programs of 

study that are comprehensive and span grades 9 through 14 or 16, 

as I just described. Federal funds should be used to support these 

programs that allow freedom of design at the State and local level. 

As you do that, I believe you can build on Tech Prep, career academies, Career Clusters and early college-high school models that 

are in the development of programs of study. These models already 

possess many of the elements of a program of study and they can 

be made more comprehensive and rigorous. 

Lastly, I would suggest changing from entitlement funding to a 

competitive grant at the local level. In my experience of visiting 

hundreds of high schools and CTE programs over many years, one 

thing has consistently troubled me. It is that many schools look at 

the Perkins Act as an entitlement which they will receive regardless of their efforts in helping students and whether those students 

learn and succeed. 

I believe that by changing the grant from an entitlement to a 

competitive one, schools will be forced to reexamine their programs 

in much greater detail and will be forced to improve much more 

quickly. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy 

to respond to questions. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Brand. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brand follows:]

12

Statement of Betsy Brand, Co-Director, American Youth Policy Forum, 

Washington, DC


93569.002
13


93569.003
14


93569.004
15


93569.005
16


93569.006
17

Chairman CASTLE. Mrs. Stevens. 

STATEMENT OF JEAN STEVENS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, 

OFFICE OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT, 

NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kind and members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you to share the successes in New York State’s current technical 

education system, as well as to offer recommendations on how to 

improve and expand the Federal investment through Perkins. 

As the Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Curriculum and 

Instructional Support at the New York State Education Department, I am responsible for current educational—adult education in 

all curriculum areas. I also serve on the board of directors of the 

National Association of State Directors and Career Technical Education Consortium. 

As Assistant Commissioner, I coordinate both secondary and 

postsecondary career technical educational programs. We serve 

over 272,000 secondary students, 129,000 postsecondary students 

and 16,000 adult learners. Thirty-two percent of New York’s secondary students are enrolled in career technical educational 

courses; and 259,000 students participate in work-based learning 


93569.007
18

experiences orchestrated in cooperation with 36,000 New York 

State employers. 

Our students are doing well. Ninety-six percent of career technical education concentrators receive a high school diploma, and almost 94 percent of our secondary career concentrators are employed in the military or pursuing postsecondary education shortly 

after graduation. 

There are many successes I would like to share, but my remarks 

today will highlight the critical role of effective State leadership as 

it has in ensuring quality in career technical education by leading 

innovation and ensuring accountability. 

New York State leadership efforts focus on ensuring quality, relevant and rigorous career technical education. Most recently, we 

established an approval process that directly impacts the academic 

and technical performance of our students. To participate, each 

local educational agency or our regional career tech centers must 

develop a cohesive program of courses with a direct path to college 

or the beginning of a career. Each approved program must meet all 

requirements of program quality, including, but not limited to, appropriate certification of all program teachers, sequential curriculum that addresses our Career Development and Occupational 

Studies Learning Standards, core academic learning standards at 

the commencement of high school level, current business/industry 

skills standards, postsecondary articulation, and the availability of 

work-based learning experiences. Also, each approved program 

must have a technical assessment based on industry standards, if 

available, and increased availability for college credit through articulated courses. 

The program approval process has done much to improve the 

transition between secondary and postsecondary education by ensuring student competencies, skills and knowledge through meaningful integration of academic and technical education. A key component of our program approval process is the alignment to industry standards and certifications. 

Unfortunately, not all programs or career areas have standards, 

certifications or assessments. This is one of our biggest challenges 

in measuring technical competency. I believe Congress should establish an assessment fund that could support the creation of technical assessments by the 16 Career Clusters. 

Career Clusters are a response by the career technical education 

community to establish common expectations in language between 

education, both secondary and postsecondary, and the workforce. It 

is for these reasons I believe specific support for Career Clusters 

and related technical assessments would assist States and locals in 

better meeting labor market needs in achieving the goals and improve integration and transition. 

Accountability is another important State leadership responsibility critical to ensuring quality. In New York, we have made 

progress, but we must continue to work to make data real, connecting what happens in the classroom every single day. Data cannot solely consist of filling out a report; it must be a connected 

learning and performance management tool. Strengthened provisions in Perkins can improve the connection between the uses of 

funds and accountability requirements. Using accountability data 

19

in a responsible and meaningful way will result in the identification of strengths and weaknesses in specific programs and in career 

technical education as a whole. 

In New York, we work with our schools that are struggling to 

meet performance goals by working on improvement programs 

which include additional technical assistance and professional development. In order to use Perkins accountability to drive change, 

States need additional legislative authority to be able to redirect or 

withhold funds from local programs that do not meet performance 

expectations where, despite intervention, improvement does not 

occur. 

My final recommendation is that the new law require a single, 

comprehensive State career technical education plan. This will help 

align the current separate investments supported under the Perkins Act—the Basic State Grant, Tech Prep and Section 118—to 

better meet the needs of our students. A single plan will reduce administrative costs, ensure nonduplication of efforts and, most importantly, align and enhance the complementary nature of these 

sections. Integration of funding streams through a single, comprehensive State plan does not mean a dilution of focus or support, 

but instead an alignment of effective programs and practices to a 

common vision. 

New York State’s accomplishments are the result of strong State 

administration and leadership. State leadership is about leading 

change, facilitating partnerships, ensuring economy of scale, 

leveraging multiple resources and accountability, all of which support quality career technical education. 

My colleagues around the country and I strongly encourage Congress to support State’s rights by continuing Perkins provisions 

that allow States to select their sole State agency and determine 

the appropriate split of funds between secondary and postsecondary. Further, we recommend the level of funding reserved to 

the State level be maintained so innovation such as those I outlined today can continue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share these successes and recommendations. I look forward to working with you as you develop 

new legislation that builds on and expands on our current successes and promotes innovation in our Nation’s career technical 

education system. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Stevens follows:]

20

Statement of Jean C. Stevens, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Curriculum & Instructional Support, New York State Education Department, 

Albany, New York


93569.008
21


93569.009
22

Chairman CASTLE. Ms. Dunkel. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA DUNKEL, DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, 

CAREER DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, ILLINOIS STATE BOARD 

OF EDUCATION 

Ms. DUNKEL. Chairman Castle, Congressman Kind and other 

Subcommittee members, I just have to tell you, this is my first 

time ever presenting testimony and it is an awesome experience. 

I have two teenage boys at home, so that is exactly what they 

would say. 

While preparing my testimony, there were many issues in the 

Federal legislation that came to mind that I would like to address, 

if only I had more time. For example, the continuing need for State 

leadership, the importance of integrating academic and technical 


93569.010
23

skills, the transition of students from secondary to postsecondary 

education, the important role that career and technical ed plays in 

economic development in preparing a skilled workforce, and the 

successes and challenges we have faced in developing an effective 

accountability system. 

While all of these issues are important to us in Illinois, I am 

going to focus my comments on the issue of engaging and enabling 

every student to identify a career path and to give them the tools 

to follow that path. 

Career technical education plays a key role in ensuring that no 

child is left behind in our system. Throughout the Nation, the implementation of Career Clusters is helping schools expand their vision for career and technical ed by aligning the needs of the economy. This broadened focus ensures that students have the opportunity to learn about an array of careers rather than just specific 

jobs. 

Career Clusters help to align and integrate academic, technical 

and employability skills and serve an important role in career guidance and counseling. Clusters can also be a valuable tool in breaking down gender stereotypes, because students are exposed to numerous professions in that career area, not just one. The reauthorization of Perkins in 1998 eliminated the $1 million 

set aside for gender equity and programs for single parents and 

displaced homemakers, the requirement for a State equity coordinator and the emphasis on services for special populations. These 

provisions were replaced with an accountability measure for participation and completion of students pursuing nontraditional careers, and the State leadership set aside between $60- and 

$150,000. 

A national study of the results of this policy shift after only 1 

year of implementation of Perkins III resulted in over 50 percent 

of programs reporting a decrease in funding and over 70 percent 

reporting services to students significantly decreased. In Illinois, 

prior to 1998, 50 programs assisted over 78,000 single parents and 

displaced homemakers and individuals pursuing nontraditional employment to enable them to become economically self-sufficient. In 

addition, 30 gender equity projects were working to eliminate sex 

bias and sexual stereotyping and to increase nontraditional enrollments. 

Illinois no longer has a full-time equity coordinator and, at the 

State level, most of the programs and services have not continued. 

While it may seem I am painting a fairly grim picture here, we 

have some glowing numbers perking in Illinois. The accountability 

measure for nontraditional participation and completion of students in career and tech ed programs has given the motivation to 

continue to focus on this issue in new and different ways. We continue to use State leadership funds to provide technical assistance 

and professional development to schools and colleges and to help 

improve the performance of special population students. 

As we build a history of accountability in nontraditional programs, we have the opportunity to provide State leadership to encourage schools and community colleges to implement strategies to 

improve their performance. For example, in the Joliet area, females 

aged 14 through 18 can attend the High Tech Summer Camp 

24

where they are able to experience high-skill, high-wage occupations 

firsthand. 

Kenwood High School in Chicago will implement Project Lead 

the Way this fall, a pre-engineering curriculum with a goal to increase the number of students prepared to enter engineering-related occupations, particularly for minorities and females. 

Illinois is committed to continuing to ensure that no child or 

adult is left behind in career and technical education, and encourages you to consider the following recommendations to improve the 

ability of States and locals to fulfill this goal. 

No. 1, support State leadership to assist locals in eliminating any 

and all barriers faced by students in pursuing a career of their 

choice; 

Two, continue to support the Perkins accountability system to 

measure the success of every student, including special populations 

and students pursuing nontraditional careers; 

Next, create a direct connection between accountability and how 

local funds are being used in order to drive program improvement; 

and 

Finally, support continued expansion and implementation of Career Clusters at the State and local levels. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Dunkel. You did very well on 

your first try here. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunkel follows:]

25

Statement of Sandy Dunkel, Division Administrator, Career Development 

Division, Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, Illinois


93569.011
26

Chairman CASTLE. Dr. Ihlenfeldt. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. IHLENFELDT, PRESIDENT, CHIPPEWA VALLEY TECHNICAL COLLEGE DISTRICT, EAU 

CLAIRE, WISCONSIN 

Dr. IHLENFELDT. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. It is an honor for me to testify before you today 

as one representative of the Nation’s technical and community colleges. I am also pleased to testify before our Member of Congress, 

Representative Ron Kind. 

CVTC is one of 16 technical colleges of the Wisconsin Technical 

College System. Our vision is to be a dynamic community partner 

dedicated to adding value through learning and student success. 

The college operates on a business model, emphasizing career-centered, public-private sector partnerships. That model stimulates innovation and allows rapid response to the businesses and industries and communities we serve. 

The most recent example is a partnership between the University of Wisconsin, Marquette University and CVTC to provide 

team-based medical training for family practice residents, dental 

residents and students in our 14 allied health and nursing programs at the college. This rapid-response model is addressing the 

medical practitioner shortage in the region. 

Community colleges provide the gateway to this Nation’s workforce by serving as the vital linkage between the secondary schools 

and the senior postsecondary institutions to expedite technical education and training. Chippewa Valley Technical College, for example, serves over 850 high school students annually who receive dual 

credit in Associate degree programs. Perhaps the best illustration 

that I can give of this partnership is CVTC’s Health Academy that 

prepares high school youth to become registered nurses, graduating 

from high school after having completed 1 year of their postsecondary technical education. This unique program, by the way, is 

funded through the Perkins Tech Prep demonstration program. 

At the same time, the college has articulated agreements with all 

major universities in the State that allow hundreds of students and 

graduates to transfer each year. It has been demonstrated that 

community college graduates are better prepared to meet the rigors 

of this country’s universities when their careers necessitate that 

advanced degree. Unique pathways like inverted degrees fill that 

career objective without repeating competencies already in place for 

the job market. 


93569.012
27

This Nation depends on community college graduates to fill 

about 80 percent of the jobs, ranking from health care to the automation of our industries, to the security and protection we need in 

these very, very difficult times. Employers today, to be successful, 

need a continuous and rapid flow of graduates and continuous 

training. In the majority of the Nation’s high schools, the technical 

training necessary to prepare students for this type of rigor is not 

and will not be possible. Many, especially in our district, are too 

small, lacking in budgets and sophisticated technical equipment to 

educate students for the advanced technology of today. This is 

where creative partnerships with local community colleges can fill 

the needs and do it cost effectively. 

Many community college students are place or situation bound. 

They look to the local community college as their only hope for the 

future. If they are to move into a career and become productive 

members of our communities, then community colleges like CVTC 

have to provide them with the opportunities, and the support many 

times, to make that a reality. 

Services at our community colleges are designed for a wide variety of students, a wide range of students. They include those who 

have not succeeded in high school, those who have been out of 

school for a long period of time and need a career change, and 

those who are interested in new high-technology careers like 

nanotechnology. Imagine the support systems that are necessary 

for that range of preparation. That is why Perkins funding is critical at the community college level. No, it is critical for the future 

of the economy of the United States to keep that funding available 

for the students at our Nation’s community colleges. 

Last year, the Wisconsin Technical College System enrolled 

128,000 special population students. The State grant provided direct services for many of them, including career guidance, academic 

support, remediation and internships. That is putting our dollars 

to work, that is putting America to work, and it is doing it in a 

cost-effective manner. No other system in this country can provide 

that direct impact on our workforce and do it as rapidly as the community college system. Your community colleges are the glue between the systems that get people into the workforce. 

Perkins is the only continuing Federal commitment to technical 

education. The elimination or reduction of this program would be 

disastrous at a time when our economy needs extensive revitalization. 

Your community colleges are making the United States work, 

and with your help through Perkins we will succeed. We will be the 

liaison that brings the three systems of education together to confirm our status as the economic power of this globe. 

Thank you for your time and commitment to the future of the 

community colleges of this Nation. We will not let you down. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Dr. Ihlenfeldt. Almost sounded 

like a political campaign. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ihlenfeldt follows:]

28

Statement of Dr. Bill A. Ihlenfeldt, President, Chippewa Valley Technical 

College, Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Chairman CASTLE. Ms. Quinn. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDA QUINN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INTELITEK 

Ms. QUINN. I would like to thank you, Chairman Castle and Representative Kind and members of the Education Reform Subcommittee for inviting me to appear before you today. I will be discussing the personnel needs of high tech companies and the role of 

career and technology education. 

When Congress passed the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, one of its 

intentions was to move the U.S. from an agrarian to a manufacturing community. To make that transition, Smith-Hughes estabVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93569 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON

93569.013
29

lished Federal support in the education and training of citizens. Its 

focus was on people. 

To be successful as an economy, CTE was established as a way 

of keeping people up to date. In my opinion, that is still CTE’s mission today. Perkins is still in the business of keeping students up 

to date, but to update to serve a highly technical economy in order 

to satisfy the mission. 

Intelitek is part of the new high tech economy. We look for employees with new and broader knowledge and skills than the economy of the past. Intelitek produces Computer Numerically Controlled bench-top machines, Computer Integrated Manufacturing 

Systems and CAD/CAM software. Our customers, in greater than 

100 Fortune 500 companies, as well as 5,000 domestic and worldwide corporations, are using our machines in high-volume production, graphic electrode machining, mold making, rapid prototyping 

and high-precision machining. 

We are also a leading developer, producer and supplier of comprehensive solutions for training and engineering, automated production and manufacturing. We design and produce automated 

workcells for training anywhere from small-scale, flexible manufacturing systems to complete Computer Integrated Manufacturing 

Systems. These training systems have been installed in over 20,000 

businesses, colleges, universities and schools, both domestic and 

worldwide. 

I am sure that all sounds very high tech, and indeed it is. It 

would have sounded even more high tech if I had used the acronyms that I usually would use such as CAD, CAM, CIM and CNC. 

The people who work in my industry have titles such as robotic 

technicians, CAD designers, industrial and automation engineers. 

Each of these people requires education and training beyond high 

school. The technology they employ is central to American advances 

in productivity. But in the end, it isn’t the technology that is important; it is the people. Our people have the knowledge and ability 

to stay up to date, and that is the mission of career technical education. 

Intelitek employs just under 50 employees; 27, which is greater 

than 50 percent, come from career technical education backgrounds 

and moved through the 2-year community college system and/or 

the 4-year engineering degrees, and those are very powerful numbers. 

There are at least three things I look for in an employee. One 

is a solid grounding in academics. At Intelitek, we expect our employees and the people who design, build, service and maintain our 

machines and software to have a working knowledge of math, that 

is, from basic math, algebra, trigonometry, science and language 

skills. 

Second, I am looking for technical skills. Our employees must 

have above-average computer skills, understand the principles of 

hydraulics, pneumatic, programmable logic controls, sensors, process control, mechanisms, electronics, vision and mechanical measurement systems, quality control systems, robotics, CAD/CAM, 

CNC and automation; the technology of how all of these things 

work together. 

30

Too often, however, people believe that academic achievement is 

a replacement for technical skills. It isn’t. Successful employees 

must be able to apply their knowledge consistently for my company 

to succeed, and those technical skills are learned from hands-on application, not through theory alone. 

To me, that is the genius behind CTE. It teaches academics 

through application. It teaches the theoretical and the application. 

Both are essential. That is one reason why Intelitek is signatory 

to the National Association of State Directors of CTE Consortium 

in support of career technical education. 

Third, I look for what people call ‘‘soft skills’’ and some others 

call ‘‘employability skills.’’ These are the goal-setting, resource 

management and communication skills. One of the most important 

skills in the high tech industry is teamwork. It is not academics, 

but real people skills. High tech industries don’t have individuals 

manufacturing parts. We have teams managing processes. Every 

team member has to do his or her part for the team to be successful. These skills are taught in CTE by student organizations, such 

as SkillsUSA, an association that Intelitek has supported for many 

years. 

I have worked for 12 years with SkillsUSA, one of the student 

organizations authorized for funding under Perkins. I serve on the 

board of SkillsUSA Youth Development Foundation and on the contest technical committees for Automated Manufacturing Technology 

and Robotics and Automation Technology. All 77 of the SkillsUSA 

Championships contests are run using industry standards for 

entry-level employment, and they are updated regularly to keep the 

competitions current with industry needs and practices. Both of the 

contests Intelitek supports are team contests to parallel practice in 

industry. 

I am going to close with three recommendations to the Committee regarding the Perkins Act. I look forward to amplifying 

these points during this hearing. 

First, stay the course. As Congress intended, the Perkins Act has 

already had an impact on the academic achievement of students 

and articulation between high schools and postsecondary instruction. Both were needed and both need to continue. 

Second, increase funding for CTE. I ask our government to continue to invest with me. Small employers have historically counted 

upon CTE as a source of training for their new hires more than any 

other source. Some smaller States, such as New Hampshire, rely 

heavily on Federal support to maintain their CTE programs. 

Furthermore, the instructional facilities are used by industry to 

update training for their employees. I have invested in employee 

training to ensure my organization’s survival. As an employee benefit, I offer tuition reimbursement as well as internal corporate 

training programs. I do this to remain competitive in a global industrial market. I need the competitive advantage that career technical education provides my organization, because now I must do 

it quicker, smarter and at less cost than ever before. 

Third, integrate industry standards and certification such as 

NIMS, the National Institute of Metalworking Skills into CTE high 

school and postsecondary instructional programs. These are industry led and defined to ensure that education and industry commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93569 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
31

nicate with one another to provide the most proficient technical 

skills required for success and full employment in the workforce. 

In conclusion, Chairman Castle and members of this committee, 

I wish to thank you once again for asking me to appear before you 

today, along with this distinguished panel. I would like to conclude 

by commending you, the members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, for your continuing and farsighted work 

to keep today’s students and tomorrow’s future workforce up to 

date and prepared to support America’s industry. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Quinn follows:]

32

Statement of Brenda Quinn, Chief Executive Officer, Intelitek, Inc., 

Manchester, New Hampshire


93569.014
33

Chairman CASTLE. We thank each of the witnesses here today. 

What I gather from what you all said is that the programs that 

we have in place now, even at the Federal level, are working reasonably well; perhaps a little tightening here and there and perhaps more dollars would be helpful, which is basically positive. We 

don’t always—sometimes these programs are ripped apart, and I 

didn’t get that sense at all. 

I also believe that the handoff and the coordination from our vocational secondary to postsecondary to the employer market is 

starting to work better perhaps than it did before, and we appreciate that. 

With that, we will go to questions by members, and I will yield 

to myself first for 5 minutes to ask a few questions. And I want 

to set a basis on what others have said. 

For instance, Ms. Quinn, who talked about the workplace and 

Dr. Ihlenfeldt has a very clear calling for what they are looking for 

and what they need to do at the community college level, and 

something that Ms. Dunkel actually said, which is the Career Clusters. 

But I want to ask Ms. Brand and Mrs. Stevens, based on their 

backgrounds—I see this a little bit in Delaware—but I worry that 

vocational schools are trying to pigeonhole students when I don’t 

think they necessarily should be, both in terms of the academic 

courses, but in addition to having the broad skills to go out in the 

workplace. I think the old days of training people as pure plumbers 

and carpenters may be behind us. And I would be interested in 

your thoughts on that, since Mrs. Stevens is in the field and Ms. 

Brand oversees some of these things, your thoughts on what I just 

stated. 

Mrs. STEVENS. It seems to be changing. Is it changing rapidly 

enough? If not, is there something we should be doing in this reauthorization to deal with that particular issue? Because, to me, the 

greatest problem we have in vocational education is staying up 

with the changes that are happening out there. It is a very fastchanging world, and are we doing the right things? We only look 

at this every 5 or 6 years, so this is our opportunity to look at this 

for the next 5 or 6 years. 


93569.015
34

Ms. BRAND. I think for too long children and youth have been pigeonholed into lower-track courses and to low expectations. And 

thanks to No Child Left Behind and some of the other reform efforts that have been put into place, I think that is changing, but 

we still have a lot attitudes that need to be changed at the school 

level. 

Teachers, in particular, need to understand that students can 

achieve much harder and much greater work if they are given the 

support and the expectations for them are high. So it is a cultural 

and attitudinal change that needs to catch up across all of career 

technical education. It is happening in many places, but that is not 

always the case. 

Career guidance and counseling is a large part of what needs to 

happen, as well as individual support for students, so that they understand that they have many options ahead of them. Career guidance and counseling is in pretty poor shape in most high schools. 

Guidance counselors are overwhelmed. I think the numbers in California are a thousand students to one. And in most urban high 

schools, guidance counselors have to deal with 4- to 600 kids. It is 

impossible for them to deal with the kinds of aspirational things 

that they need to deal with them on. 

Early guidance and counseling, both focused on pathways connecting them to postsecondary education, making it easy for them 

to move through that system, I think are changes that need to be 

considered by the committee. 

Chairman CASTLE. Mrs. Stevens, I will use myself as an example. I graduated from high school and had no idea what I wanted 

to do, so I went to a liberal arts school and graduated from there 

and had no idea what I wanted to do. And went to law school and 

still wasn’t sure what I wanted to do. And yet I know there are 9th 

graders who are being told, you should make a choice; and it 

doesn’t seem to resonate with the workplace today in terms of the 

broader skills that children need. 

I was impressed by your testimony in this area, but I was wondering, how are you adjusting that part of it and should we be adjusting it? 

Ms. STEVENS. I think there are a couple of things I would like 

to speak to. 

As part of the effort we have with career guidance in partnership 

with our New York State Department of Labor, we have developed 

what is called Career Zone. It is an Internet career guidance tool, 

if you will. And what that has done—it has been built with the 

New York State learning standards, our Career Clusters. It was designed with New York State students that helped create that, and 

we have in a year over a half a million hits. 

One hundred ninety thousand of our students have created career portfolios that are password protected. Students spend as 

much as, on average, about 77 minutes each time they are into the 

site and much of that is after school. That site can help them drill 

down and look at what is really available in the broad array of 

clusters rather than a narrow view. 

So that partnership has been very, very successful and we continue to work on that. I can speak on that more specifically. 

35

In our approval process, in getting that, where students can 

make choices, we have tried to put assurances in to get an approved program. The locals are required to do a self-study. They 

are required to have external members of business and industry review it, and ultimately, we review it. We look at that as an opportunity for students, but we also look at the alignment with our 

graduation requirements, all students taking and passing five 

State assessments. 

Students who go through our approval process and pass the technical assessment get something added. They get a career and technical endorsement on their diploma. And we have seen an interesting phenomenon that we are going to track. We have had a 7.4 

percent increase in our career technical education for secondary 

students. This is important because we think students are voting 

with their feet for quality. 

And to your point, Mr. Chairman, we are also finding, as we 

work with our locals, that students can be in a particular program 

and working with their counselors and teachers. If they find they 

want to make a switch in choice, they often have opportunities 

within that career technical center. We want to be sure that all 

students have an idea of the broad array of careers, what it takes 

and where the path will lead in their postsecondary experiences. 

And my last point is, in order for us to really provide for our 

Board of Regents where we are with this policy, we have contracted 

with an independent evaluator to look at the implementation of the 

policy across—to look at our strengths and weaknesses and review 

the policy. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mrs. Stevens. 

Mr. Kind. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony and the particular insight that you bring to this important subject matter. 

As I look at the community college system across the country and 

the unique system that we have in Wisconsin, I view some great 

challenges coming up in future years. But where there are some 

challenges, there are also some great opportunities. Where there is 

some risk as we go forward with maybe some of the changes that 

are being proposed, I think there are going to be some great rewards in the system. 

And among the big challenges—and there are many that I have 

been focusing on—is the funding issue, access and affordability. We 

can’t take our eye off the ball when it comes to making sure that 

the students have the ability and the financial means to be able 

to access these colleges as we go forward, and yet the trend lines 

are not encouraging on this front. As you look at the difficult economic times that are coming out of the State budget cuts and the 

impact that is having on a lot of colleges, it is going to be important for the Committee to recognize that as we move forward. 

Another challenge is obviously the competition in the global marketplace today that students are facing themselves, that the current workforce is finding themselves in, and the ability to upgrade 

their skills to these changing conditions. 

And then, finally, it is an aging workforce, too, that we know is 

coming and is going to pose huge challenges in a lot of careers and 

36

professions and how we are going to be able to feed a demographic 

time bomb, retirement that is about to go off and the unique role 

that community colleges are going to play. 

Let me just ask the panel generally, with the President’s budget 

proposal, calling for approximately 300 million-plus in cuts in the 

Perkins funding program, but also simultaneously talking about a 

new $250 million program, whether any of you had a chance to 

look at that and think about it, decipher it at all, whether that 

makes sense. 

I know there is not a lot of meat on the bones just yet, but the 

President is continuing to talk about this as he goes out in the 

countryside and visits many of our communities. If you could touch 

upon the impact that a lot of the cutbacks at the State level have 

had on the community college system and what challenges that has 

posed and the importance then of this reauthorization process, especially the funding level for the Perkins program. 

Dr. IHLENFELDT. I will speak to Wisconsin first of all. 

We have had significant cutbacks at the State level over the past 

years in terms of our State funding. We have had restrictions on 

our property tax, which provides the second leg of that stool. And 

obviously, as you point out, you can charge students just so much. 

Access—our tuition equates to access at a technical college and the 

higher we raise tuition, the further we cut back on the number of 

students that have the ability to take advantage of technical education. 

As you look at Perkins funding, it provides us with many of the 

support activities that are necessary for the programs that we have 

and the wide range of students that we need to serve at the college. 

Without that funding, we would be in a very difficult situation—

at least in Wisconsin, I suspect with most colleges around the country—to handle the wide variety of students that we deal with. 

That money brings in about—almost a million dollars to my college for the support services that are necessary; and with any cutback in that, we would not be able to provide a lot of the opportunities that we do to students. 

I think, as we move forward, it is going to become more critical 

as we move into the advanced manufacturing technologies that are 

going to be necessary to keep this country afloat to make it competitive as a global market. We are going to have to work closely 

with the K-12 system and the university systems in the country to 

make that a reality. And dollars at the Federal level are going to 

be essential if we are going to do those types of things because of 

the high price tag of many of those. 

Mr. KIND. Let me stay with you and open it up to the other witnesses. In regards to the Tech Prep demonstration grant money—

and you referenced the Health Academy—there has been an idea 

about the possibility of eliminating the separate funding stream for 

the Tech Prep program and just absorbing it into the Perkins Act 

generally. Do you have any thoughts in that regard or any recommendations? 

Dr. IHLENFELDT. The Tech Prep has served a vital role. It has 

exposed students at K-12 level to technical education. We have had 

an uphill battle in getting students comfortable with technical education, maybe getting their parents comfortable with technical eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93569 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
37

cation; and demonstration projects through Tech Prep have led to 

providing those types of opportunities. 

As the Chairman indicated, it may look like we are categorizing 

students or forcing them into a particular track, but let me give 

you examples. 

We have students that have gone through the Health Academy 

and have decided that—our objective obviously was to get them 

into nursing, but they went through it because they want to go into 

pre-med. What better way at the high school level to move into a 

program than to go through there? It gave them the exposure that 

they need. That particular part of the funding is critical. 

I think we need to spend more dollars on exposing students to 

advanced technologies that are coming down. That is going to be 

critical, and so that focuses on a particular need in our region at 

least. 

Mr. KIND. Ms. Brand. 

Ms. BRAND. Two points: First of all, with regard to the issue of 

helping students access postsecondary education, I think one of the 

promising models that Congress needs to look at is the dual enrollment, the concurrent enrollment that allows high school students 

to take college credit and basically save on the cost of college tuition. And there is enough evidence that those have promoted access 

and success in postsecondary education. So I think, given the experience that we have had with Tech Prep, both the regular Tech 

Prep program and the demonstration program, I think you can 

build on that. 

Secondly, with regard to Tech Prep, my approach has been that 

it is time to let the demonstration go and to basically turn the 

Basic State Grant education or the basic funding for career technical education into something that looks a lot more like Tech 

Prep, which is the program of study that I described in my testimony; that there is no reason why all of career technical education 

shouldn’t look a lot more like what Tech Prep is doing with some 

add-ons, with some amendments and improvements. But I believe 

that it is time to move that on, to take a hard stand and just say 

that this is what we think current technical education should look 

like, and it is time to drive that down through the system. 

Ms. STEVENS. Congressman Kind, on your point about funding 

for community colleges, in New York State we, like many other 

States, continue to be challenged. But I can tell you from our community college universe, that they are very much in support of continued Perkins funding. We made strides in that seamless transition, and I would agree with the dual enrollment and those opportunities. So there is really strong feeling. 

Mrs. STEVENS. I, again, think in terms of what I have told our 

wonderful Tech Prep community that they are likely to be the 

mothers and fathers of the new legislation because they really have 

shown the way in the way those connections need to be made. 

We might offer a suggestion in the new legislation that there 

may be a set-aside for competitive innovation. Tech Prep really has 

laid the foundation for what I believe will be the future act. 

Ms. DUNKEL. In Illinois, if we saw a 25 percent reduction in what 

we currently receive for our Perkins base State grant, it would 

38

mean almost a $12 million reduction in our grant. So, yes, it would 

have a major impact on the programs we have in place. 

I feel that in Illinois we have established an extremely strong 

secondary/postsecondary link at the State level as well as many, 

many programs at the local level. It hasn’t always been easy, but 

we have worked through those collaborative efforts, and I think we 

are very, very strong in that area. 

I also agree with the thinking of Ms. Brand on Tech Prep. To me, 

Tech Prep is quality, clear and technical education. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Chairman CASTLE. Mrs. Biggert is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Dunkel, in your testimony you describe Career Clusters as 

a way of providing a broad focus allowing students to learn about 

an array of careers rather than specific jobs; and you also suggest 

that Career Clusters ensure alignment and integration of academic, 

technical and employable skills. Could you elaborate on that last 

point? 

Ms. DUNKEL. I guess the easiest way to describe that for me is 

to almost think about a wheel with spokes. If you look at the very 

basis of that wheel, it is a foundation; and that foundation for a 

career cluster—let’s just give an example of agriculture and natural 

sciences—would include the key academic skills, knowledge, and 

abilities that any occupation in that entire cluster would have 

aligned with. 

Then at the very middle of that wheel would be the core competencies that would go across any occupations within that cluster. 

There are also pathways that are included. And then on the very 

outside of that wheel would be very specific occupations that students probably would not experience until late high school or postsecondary education. So all through the implementation of the Career Clusters, the academic and technical and employability skills 

are aligned with each other. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So these technical classes really would reflect and 

incorporate the academics— 

Ms. DUNKEL. Absolutely. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. —that students learn in math, science, English 

whatever. Then you have recommended that the reauthorization 

process create a direct connection between accountability and local 

use of funds to drive program improvement, suggesting that locals 

must be required to spend funds on activities to improve their performance. And could you expand on that also? 

Ms. DUNKEL. Yes. Actually, if we look at our core indicators with 

Perkins, the four core indicators really are identifying key areas in 

which schools and community colleges should be making progress 

and performing at a particular level. 

If, for example, a school in Illinois or anywhere were not able to 

meet their performance target in the non-traditional completion 

goal, then at the State level we would work with that local entity 

to identify some strategies that they could particularly use funds 

on and implement at that level to address that lack of performance. 

It is really taking how we are using the funds and directly connecting it to performance on the core indicators and hoping to improve that performance. 

39

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, what should locals be required to do? We 

worry about the word ‘‘required’’ or ‘‘mandate’’ or anything like 

that. 

Ms. DUNKEL. Each year the locals have to submit an application 

to the State agency for review and approval, and in Illinois the 

local application actually asks the schools to show their performance against the State’s goal and against their own annual adjusted goal at the local level. If they are not meeting that performance target, then they have to identify within their plan very specific activities that they will use their Perkins funds on to address 

that performance goal. 

I know many other States have started to do that with their local 

planning process, but it is not required. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Ms. Quinn, in your testimony you said that your 

business looks for employees with new and broader knowledge and 

skills than was necessary in the past. How do you ensure that your 

incoming employees have strong math, science and language skills? 

Do you test them? 

Ms. QUINN. No, we don’t actually test them. But in the interview 

process not only are they interviewed by an H.R. Person, but we 

get our engineering staff involved. So we can screen out a basic 

level of knowledge. And we also rely heavily upon our community 

college system. We are familiar with the output and have been very 

pleased and happy with that output. So we rely very heavily upon 

the criteria that they impose and then take the process one step 

further when they come through the interview process. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. There was an article in the New York Times yesterday which I am very disturbed about and that was saying that 

the U.S. is really falling behind in science—research and development and science and that other countries are getting ahead of us. 

I think we are a very competitive Nation. I don’t like to see that 

happen, particularly in this climate where we do need new and creative ideas. 

I just wondered if you really think that the students that are 

coming out really have the basic skills that they need so that we 

ensure that we are going to be the country that still has their future in the science. 

Ms. QUINN. I would say that they have the basic skills, but they 

don’t have all of the necessary skills. It typically takes about 2 to 

3 years of continued training within the organization to bring an 

employee to the full potential for what we are looking for. So we 

invest very heavily in additional training either by sending them 

to additional outside courses and/or internal training that we offer. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CASTLE. Sort of ironic because Mr. Kind had cited the 

exact same article from the New York Times and had it submitted 

for the record. I happened to use it yesterday in talking about the 

stem cells on a radio interview. The article seems to be the most 

quoted article of the week as far as I can ascertain. 

Mrs. Davis is recognized. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here. 

Ms. Brand, I want to go back to one of the things that you said 

about trying to have Perkins Act funding be on a grant basis rather 

40

than an entitlement. I was wondering what criteria you thought 

should be established if it switched over in that way. 

Ms. BRAND. Thank you. The State would be involved in setting 

some of the standards for making those competitive grants, and in 

the report that we released that includes this recommendation for 

competitive grants we do lay out some ideas of what States would 

look at as they develop the criteria. We would want to ensure that 

they have the main elements of the program of studies that I described, which include the rigorous integrated curriculum, strong 

teachers, and the links to postsecondary education involvement 

with employers’ guidance and counseling. So there are some core 

elements that would need to be part of the grant application. 

Then the State can also look at accountability measures that 

they have in place. But we would leave that up to the State and 

not—we certainly—I would not dictate from a Federal level that 

you would put those kinds of requirements in the law. Continue to 

allow States the flexibility to work, as I think you have heard from 

the two State directors here. They are already doing similar work 

right now, and they have their priorities and they have their system in place. So we would recommend that the States would be in 

charge of detailing the exact requirements. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Would there be any loss, then, to communities that 

perhaps weren’t getting their act together? How would we reconcile 

that? 

Ms. BRAND. The whole issue of moving to competitive grant is 

somewhat controversial. You would be taking money away from 

certain communities that are getting it right now. That is the challenge of moving toward something like this. But I think it is worth 

looking at in terms of promoting a real stimulus to communities to 

very intensively look at improvement of their career and technical 

education programs for a concentrated period of time and to get 

them kind of up to speed as opposed to just kind of little by little 

hoping that changes filter down. 

My experience with the past reauthorizations from the Perkins 

Act are that it takes 5 to 6 years for them to filter down to the 

local level, and I think we just may need to consider some ways to 

make that happen more quickly. 

Mrs. DAVIS. One of the issues, of course, is in trying to make certain that vocational education, whatever teachers who are working 

in this field with young people, that they stay current. Programs 

that suffer through cuts and others, teacher training fads, we 

might say, how does that affect people who really—we are hoping 

that at least they are staying very current and they are interacting 

particularly with the clusters in their own communities to have the 

highest and I guess best use of knowledge that is being demonstrated within the country today. How do you think we need to 

deal with that? 

Ms. DUNKEL. One of the probable uses of Perkins funds that our 

regional delivery systems in Illinois use is for professional development of teachers; and it is critical, especially in the career and tech 

ed areas. Many times, schools are not able to find a teacher with 

a teacher preparation background. The particular area of health occupations is a good example. So they have to depend upon people 

who have appropriate work experience to teach those courses. So 

41

for them to be involved at a very in-depth level in professional development is very, very critical. 

Mrs. DAVIS. But within the climate that we have now with the 

number of budget cuts do you see that as one of the compromises 

that school districts are making? Is it as high a priority? And what 

role would you hope that the businesses in the local community are 

playing? I know there are a lot of wonderful players that are out 

there that are trying to do this, but I think the reality is that we 

really don’t have the access to a lot of that new technology for our 

teachers, structures that we need to have. What will change that? 

Mrs. STEVENS. I think one of the things that is evolving in New 

York State is there have been real challenges in getting the right 

kind of professional development, sustained, continuous over time, 

not one-shots either. As we have moved along in this integrated 

model for program approval—we have been at this about 3 years—

we have seen an interesting thing emerge at the local level. As the 

academic and current technical teachers meet to look at student 

performance and really where the gaps and strengths are, they 

have developed some professional development targeted to that. 

They have also engaged some of the businesses and industries in 

those various programs. 

So we see some partnerships emerging because there is mutual 

need in having students be successful in moving out of secondary 

school into most secondary experiences and work sometimes together. So we are seeing those emerge. 

All of our districts are required to have a professional development plan for all of their teachers. As of February 1, any new 

teachers into the New York State teacher certification system are 

required to complete 175 hours of professional development each 5 

years; and we see this as a real positive thing as the systems 

change across there. But professional development, to have highly 

qualified teachers, the best teachers in the classroom, whether it 

is academic or current technical education, is a priority and is a 

challenge for all of us. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

One quick question I guess to Ms. Quinn and others, I remember 

many years ago we talked about students having their grades essentially checked by the companies that they were going to for jobs, 

very much the way college transcripts would be used. Do you see 

very much of that? Are students feeling that their grades really do 

matter as they go out into the business community? 

Ms. QUINN. Yes, I think to the students and to the future employers it does matter. Excellence has value. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Or they ask for them—I guess that is my question—

as you work with employers? 

Ms. QUINN. Often times the technical-type employee comes with 

a portfolio today. So when they walk into the interview process we 

have transcripts, we have maybe like design projects that they 

have worked on. So you can get a very good sense of what their 

background has been, whether they are coming right from the high 

school level and/or the community college or even the 4-year engineering degree school. 

Mrs. STEVENS. I would like to just share in New York State as 

an example we have seen some interesting things happen regionVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Oct 18, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\93569 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
42

ally where businesses have joined together in working with one of 

our urban school districts, have agreed on like a work skills certificate so students who have a certain attendance, a certain grade 

point average are often hired at a little bit more hourly wage, and 

the businesses agree to really support the students and make sure 

they are at school and not working too many hours. So we see some 

very interesting mutual-need partnership connecting it. 

I would also add as part of our approval program each student 

has to develop their own employability work skill profile. When 

they apply for even part time work in high school, they often take 

that with them to demonstrate what they have done not only academically but in their technical programs. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CASTLE. I have another question I would like to ask, 

so we are going to have a limited second round here, hopefully 

won’t take the full time, but we will still set the clocks just in case. 

My question may be something you can’t answer, so don’t strive too 

hard if you don’t really know the answer. 

The question is, if you know it—I realize you are not drafters of 

legislation. You may not be that familiar with the intricacies of the 

law. I have heard your testimony on the dollar part of all of this 

loud and clear, though I am perfectly willing to hear comments on 

that. What specific recommendations, if any, do you have for 

changes in the Perkins Reauthorization Act that we are about to 

undertake here in the next few weeks? You don’t have to do it by 

citing a statute. If there are certain areas that you think need to 

be changed or emphasized, that would be sufficient. If you don’t 

know the particular act that well, then your testimony will certainly stand in for you what you want to get done. I didn’t want 

to go away from the hearing without seeing if you have any specific 

thoughts or recommendations. Anybody? 

Ms. DUNKEL. One of the areas I would like for you to take a close 

look at are those that deal with fiscal requirements. Perkins does 

have the maintenance of effort requirement, which is pretty much 

an all-or-nothing requirement, as well as the State administrative 

match and the hold harmless for State administration. It is becoming more and more difficult for States, as our State budgets are in 

deficit and we have seen impacts at the State level, to maintain 

those requirements with Perkins. So I would just recommend taking a close look at those requirements. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you. 

Anybody else? 

Dr. IHLENFELDT. I guess I would encourage you to look at the occupational areas, driving the occupational areas that are going to 

fuel the economy of this Nation as we move forward in whatever 

way you can in the grant. I think too many times we have heard 

it with the science and math, we accept the status quo. 

One of the challenges we have, at least at the community college 

level, is gearing up for the new technologies that are coming on 

board. Anything that can be done in terms of teacher preparation 

I would also encourage you to drive that through partnerships, because it can’t occur in and by itself in any one system, albeit, a secondary system, or a postsecondary system. 

43

And I would encourage you, as you revitalize Perkins, to target 

some criteria that encourages the development of partnerships between the systems and with the business community as well. Because that is the only way that things like teacher preparation, getting students ready and interested and targeted into those occupations can occur. 

Mrs. STEVENS. I would also encourage as you draft the legislation 

that we look at some common definitions of what a current technical education student is. As we look at the performance measures 

I think we need to look at secondary and postsecondary so that the 

picture and the story can be told and I think in a clearer way perhaps. So I think there is some tweaking that ought to happen in 

that area. 

Ms. BRAND. Just briefly, as Congress considers education legislation I think one of the things that you need to keep in the forefront 

is the move toward creating K through 16 systems, and I think 

across all the legislative vehicles that you have there should be a 

review of how those connections can be made more strongly. I don’t 

have any specifics right at the moment, but I think that, regardless 

of which piece of legislation, it is that kind of underlying theme 

that needs to run through a lot of the changes to make sure that 

5 years from now we are not coming back saying this barrier exists 

and this barrier exists, and to look at it with that perspective. 

Dr. IHLENFELDT. I would encourage you not to saddle us with a 

lot of new accountability factors. I think that many times that 

causes us a great deal of staff time and paperwork, if you will, to 

make things happen. I think there are enough accountability measures already in place by accrediting bodies and data that is collected on the State level that could be utilized, as opposed to creating new accountability measures that take away from the dollars 

that are available to us. 

Chairman CASTLE. We are pretty good at demanding accountability. We are probably not as good at understanding what it does 

when the rubber hits the road. 

I think your comments are not only well directed toward this bill 

but a lot of other particularly education legislation that we handle. 

But I tell what you is helpful, and that is feedback from all of you 

in very specific terms. I tell my educators that back in Delaware. 

You complain about Federal requirements, et cetera, a lot of 

them are State requirements, but, whatever, they are complaining 

about the requirements. Give me specifically what it is that you are 

complaining about, what is the regulation, what is the statute, 

what does it cause you to do, so that we can understand that and 

make recommendations for changes. 

I think we pass a lot of laws very generically and generally without understanding the ramifications of what we do further down 

the line. It is really helpful to specifically see what that is. If you 

are spending 50 hours of staff time preparing what seems to be 

some simple request, that is the kind of thing we should know. Sort 

of using you as an example for almost everything we seem to do 

in Congress and particularly even in this committee. 

Dr. IHLENFELDT. That is not a statement against accountability. 

I think we all need to be accountable. But there are efficient and 

effective ways of doing it. 

44

Chairman CASTLE. Mr. Kind. 

Mr. KIND. One follow-up question, but I want to echo the Chairman’s sentiments in terms of the feedback. It is crucial. You are 

aware of where the rubber meets the road and how it works in the 

real-world type of thing. It is helpful to us to get this feedback not 

just in the formal hearing process but throughout the reauthorization process. 

I know, Mr. Chairman, during the IDEA reauthorization markup 

you had created a Web site encouraging that type of feedback for 

IDEA instructors and parents and anyone involved. I was wondering if you did do the same thing for Carl Perkins or is there an 

opportunity for people to— 

Chairman CASTLE. We had so many complaints about how much 

time it took to do the Web site. 

Mr. KIND. Staff is cringing behind us. 

Chairman CASTLE. We have not done it, but it is certainly something we will take under rapid advisement. 

Mr. KIND. Let me get back to my last question here. I would be 

remiss, as one of the leaders of the Rural Education Caucus here 

in the House, not to ask about what we are trying to attempt in 

the reauthorization bill. That is that local reserve fund for servicing rural areas. 

Now in my congressional district we have four technical colleges, 

a couple of community colleges, a host of satellite campuses, too, 

many of them servicing rural areas. If any of you have any specifics 

on how this local rural reserve fund has worked or is not working, 

we would be interested in hearing about that today. 

Have you had any direct knowledge of this reserve fund that was 

established, Dr. Ihlenfeldt? 

Dr. IHLENFELDT. No, I haven’t. 

Mr. KIND. Does anyone? 

We will have to delve into that a little bit further. 

Ms. DUNKEL. In Illinois, we chose not to request the reserve percentage because we have a regional delivery system. We have 60 

regions in the State, and their responsibility is to work with all of 

the schools that offer career and tech ed. 

Mrs. STEVENS. Our experience in New York was similar. We 

have 38 regions, so we made sure we touch the rural areas. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you all again. We appreciate your testimony. It 

was a very helpful, very productive hearing. 

Chairman CASTLE. Let me thank the panel. They were very 

thoughtful, very helpful in our deliberations on this. We appreciate 

it. You are always welcome to follow up if you have other thoughts 

when you get away from here in the form of a letter or whatever. 

Because we truly are interested in getting your thoughts. We are 

just trying to write legislation, and you are more in the field than 

we are. So that makes a difference. We thank you. 

If there is nothing further, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ