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

94-193 PDF 2004

H.R. 4496, THE VOCATIONAL 

AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION 

FOR THE FUTURE ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

June 15, 2004

Serial No. 108-62

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 June 15, 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

Woolsey, Hon. Lynn, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce .................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses: 

Lufkin, Mimi, Executive Director, National Alliance for Partnerships in 

Equity, Cochranville, Pennsylvania ............................................................ 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22

Oliver, Katharine, Assistant State Superintendent, Career, Technology 

and Adult Learning, Maryland State Department of Education, Baltimore, Maryland ............................................................................................. 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Sommers, Dr. Robert D., CEO, Butler Technology and Career Development Schools, Fairfield Township, Ohio ..................................................... 6

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

White, Robin, Senior Program and Policy Director, Academy for Educational Development, National Institute for Work and Learning, 

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 26

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

Additional materials supplied: 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Statement submitted for the 

Record ............................................................................................................ 46

United Tribes Technical College, Statement submitted for the Record ....... 41

(1)

H.R. 4496, THE VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL 

EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE ACT 

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Education Reform 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael N. Castle 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Castle, Biggert, Woolsey, Davis, and 

Van Hollen. 

Ex officio present: Representative Boehner. 

Staff present: Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Alexa 

Marrero, Press Secretary; Whitney Rhoades, Professional Staff 

Member; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; and Lynda Theil, Minority Legislative Associate, Education. 

Chairman CASTLE. 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 H.R. 4496, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, and the Committee will recall, only statements are limited to the Chairman and 

the rights and minority member of the Subcommittee who is on her 

way here right now. 

Therefore, if other members have statements, they may be included in the hearing record. With that, I ask you now to consent 

that the hearing record remain open fourteen days to allow member statements and other extraneous material referenced during 

the hearing to be submitted in 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 

Good afternoon to everybody here. Thank you for joining us today 

to hear testimony on H.R. 4496, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, which I introduced 2 weeks ago. This is 

our third hearing on the vocational and technical education, and 

first on this bill to re-authorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 

Technical Education Act. 

2

We look forward today to getting feedback from the education 

and Perkins community on the major provisions in the legislation. 

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

by building their academic and technical skills in preparation for 

post-secondary education and/or employment. 

The bill we are examining today enhances Perkins by ensuring 

both secondary and post-secondary students receiving assistance 

through the program are acquiring rigorous academic and technical 

skills, and will have the opportunity to transition into further education and/or successful employment. 

H.R. 4496 strengthens accountability by requiring that locals establish adjusted levels of performance to complement the state-adjusted levels of performance already in current law. 

The state agency will evaluate annually whether the local recipient is making substantial progress in achieving the local adjusted 

levels of performance. Our goal is not to penalize those local areas 

facing difficulty in achieving high-quality outcome for their students, but to create a structure that includes technical assistance, 

opportunities for program improvement, and sanctions only as a 

last resort. 

H.R. 4496 also folds a separate tech prep program activities and 

funding into the larger state grant. Under the bill, states will be 

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

this re-authorization, we want to ensure that all state programs incorporate important lessons learned from the former separate grant 

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

state grant for tech prep activities must be effective programs that 

ensure that transfer of credits from secondary to post-secondary 

education, and provide non-duplicative academic and vocational 

and technical education. 

The bill also requires states to establish model sequences of 

courses to emphasize further student academic and vocational and 

technical achievement. Sequences of courses will incorporate a nonduplicative progression of both secondary and post-secondary elements, which would include both academic and vocational and 

technical content. 

Local recipients at both the secondary and post-secondary level 

would adopt at least one model sequence of courses as developed 

by the state. I believe this also will help drive program improvements by ensuring that states clarify the progression of academic 

and vocational and technical courses needed for the post-secondary 

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

As a result of the changes in the bill, I believe that H.R. 4496 

would help states, community colleges, and other post-secondary 

education institutions and local educational agencies better utilize 

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

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

that the re-authorization of the Perkins Act achieves those goals. 

Our panel today represents state and local educators and a researcher, who will share with us their experiences at operating and 

3

evaluating vocational and technical education programs. And we do 

thank you for joining us today, and we do appreciate hearing their 

insights. 

In just a moment, we will begin with the introductions, but first 

I will yield to the ranking member, Ms. Woolsey, for any statements she may wish to make. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Castle follows:]

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

Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us today to hear testimony on H.R. 4496, 

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

weeks ago. This is our third hearing on vocational and technical education and first 

on this bill to reauthorize the Carl. D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 

Act. We look forward today to getting feedback from the education and Perkins community on the major provisions in the legislation. 

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

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

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

transition into further education and/or successful employment. 

H.R. 4496 strengthens accountability by requiring that locals establish adjusted 

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

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

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

a last resort. 

H.R. 4496 also folds the separate Tech–Prep program activities and funding into 

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

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

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

incorporate important lessons learned from the former separate grant program and 

strengthen the ties between secondary and postsecondary education. Consortia that 

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

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

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

further student academic and vocational and technical achievement. Sequences of 

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

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

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

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

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

As a result of the changes in the bill, I believe that H.R. 4496 would help states, 

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

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

and local educators and a researcher who will share with us their experiences in 

operating and evaluating vocational and technical education programs. We thank 

you for joining us today and appreciate your insights. 

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

have. 

4

STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN WOOLSEY, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

late. I appreciate that we are having this hearing, but I wish we 

had had a little more time to review the bill before it was introduced. I do believe, though, that we have heard from your staff and 

from you that there is still time to make some changes in it, and 

that, from the testimony we hear today, we may craft an even better bill. 

Chairman CASTLE. Yes. Sorry. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. That was my cue. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. That was your cue. I am particularly pleased to 

have Mimi Lufkin as one of our witnesses. Mimi has been working 

tirelessly for years on one of the issues that is most important to 

me as we re-authorize the Perkins Act, and that’s the Access for 

Special Populations Vocational and Technical Training, particularly 

for women in non-traditional careers. Mimi is the national leader 

on these issues and, not coincidentally, she is a product of Sonoma 

County, which is one of my counties, and a product of our great 

schools up there. And her parents still live there, and welcome, 

Mimi. 

I’m very glad that H.R. 4496 uses current law as its foundation. 

I’ve been very concerned by proposals made by this administration 

to turn the Federal Vocational and Technical Education programs 

into post-secondary programs only. While I’m fully aware that 

many, many occupations these days require some post-secondary 

education—in fact, the great majority—we must not lose sight of 

the important role that Perkins funding has and will play in helping to prepare students for jobs following their graduation from 

high school. 

Not every high school student is ready to go directly on to higher 

education following graduation. Many who want to simply don’t 

have the money to do so, and career training can prepare them for 

jobs that earn good salaries in order to finance further learning 

down the road. So we don’t want to cut them short by not giving 

them that extra help. 

Some students are just not ready to spend additional time in a 

post-secondary school and, again, good career training ensures that 

we don’t lose these students completely while they take a breath 

and get their bearings as an independent adult, and learn how important it is to get a higher education. 

You can be fairly sure, Mr. Chairman, that young people who get 

started on a decent job, a job that leads to a career, will return to 

school at some point during their lives, usually because they want 

to, and/or because their career demands it. 

So I want to make sure that any re-authorization of the Perkins 

Act clearly allows funding of good vocational and technical education programs, even if they do not necessarily provide a degree, 

and that Perkins funds can be used for counseling and educational 

materials for high school students for careers following high school. 

5

I also have a number of concerns, as I said earlier. One, about 

increasing access and support for special populations, and also for 

training women for non-traditional occupations. I saw that the accountability measure, which requires states to report on the success in preparing students for non-traditional occupations, is not in 

this bill. But I understand that it will be put back in by the time 

we come up to mark-up. I think that’s very important. It’s important to me because it also is the very least of what we should be 

doing to improve career choices and earnings for women. More 

than half of the workforce are female. Many of them—many, many 

of them—supporting families. And it only makes good sense to ensure that they are being prepared to earn a wage and receive benefits that keep their families independent of Federal subsidies. 

So I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, and to 

continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, so that we can report 

a re-authorization bill out of this wonderful Subcommittee that 

really meets the needs of all of our vocational and technical education students. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, for your nice words. 

Hopefully we can still say nice words when we get all this said and 

done here in a few weeks or months or whatever it takes. 

We do indeed have a very distinguished panel of witnesses, as we 

mentioned, and we do thank each of you for coming today. And, at 

this time, I will introduce and welcome the Chairman of the full 

Committee of Education and Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio, 

Chairman Boehner, to introduce our first witness. 

Mr. BOEHNER. Thank you, Chairman Castle. It’s my pleasure to 

welcome all of you on the witness panel, but, specifically, to introduce Dr. Bob Sommers. Dr. Sommers is the CEO of Butler Technology and Career Development Schools in Butler County, Ohio, 

and has been since 2001. And in this capacity, Dr. Sommers is directly responsible for leadership of a school with more than 6700 

high school students and more than 7800 adult students annually. 

Major accomplishments of the district under Dr. Sommers’ leadership include improvements in student and organizational performance, program expansion in high-end career technical programs, including teacher education and biotechnology, as well as a 

growth of enrollment in both the high school and adult programs. 

Prior to this position, Dr. Sommers was the associate director in 

the Office of Career Technical and Adult Education for the Ohio 

Department of Education. And, as I said before, Butler Tech is located in my home county, and I certainly appreciate the great work 

that Dr. Sommers is doing with vocational and technical education 

in southwest Ohio. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Chairman Boehner, and welcome, 

Dr. Sommers, pleased to have you here. 

Our second witness will be Mrs. Katherine Oliver, and she, Mrs. 

Oliver, is the Assistant State Superintendent for Career, Technology and Adult Learning. She leads the division of the Maryland 

State Department of Education dedicated to excellence and innovation in career and technology education and adult education. Mrs. 

Oliver serves on a variety of local, state and national advisory 

boards relating to education, and workforce development and parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:39 Oct 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\94193 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
6

ticipates in numerous professional organizations associated with 

career and technology education and adult learning. 

Ms. Mimi Lufkin has already been mentioned by the ranking 

member. Actually, you were identified as a product of Sonoma 

County—I thought you were some kind of wine there for a minute. 

I wasn’t sure what we were dealing with. 

Ms. LUFKIN. Oh, gee. 

Chairman CASTLE. But she is currently the Executive Director 

for the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, with the acronym NAPE. The organization is a consortium of state agencies providing national leadership and equity in education and workforce 

development. As the Executive Director for the National Alliance 

for Partnerships in Equity, Ms. Lufkin manages the organization’s 

activities, publishes an electronic newsletter and website, plans an 

annual professional development institute, and presents at other 

national organization conferences. 

And our clean-up hitter will be Ms. Robin White, who has 

worked on the design, implementation, and evaluation of education 

requirement improvement efforts for almost 20 years. As Senior 

Program and Policy Director for the Academy for Educational Development, the National Institute for Work and Learning, Ms. 

White specializes in program evaluation as well as technical assistance and capacity building relating to research evaluation and performance measurement. From 2000 to 2004, Ms. White served as 

co-director and lead author of the National Assessment of Vocational Educational Funding and Accountability Study. Prior to joining AED, Ms. White designed and directed school reform efforts in 

urban high schools and middle schools, and led state-wide school 

reform efforts through positions with the Connecticut Business for 

Education Coalition and the Commission on Educational Excellence 

for Connecticut. 

And we welcome and thank all of you again for being here. 

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

members that we will be asking questions after the entire panel 

has testified. In addition, Committee Rule 2 imposes a 5-minute 

limit on all questions. And I think you have had the rules explained to you as well. You have 5 minutes, you have little lights 

there, green for four, yellow for one, red—until it all stops somehow 

or another. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman CASTLE. And we really do appreciate your being here. 

After that, we will go back and forth and take turns asking questions. And we look forward to your testimony. 

And Dr. Sommers, we’re going to start off with you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. SOMMERS, CEO, BUTLER TECHNOLOGY AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS, FAIRFIELD 

TOWNSHIP, OHIO 

Dr. SOMMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Woolsey, 

and Representative Boehner. I appreciate the introduction. And 

also, the other members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Rule, or House Resolution 

4496. 

7

I share my remarks on behalf of the Butler Tech Board of Education and the nearly 15,000 students who participate in our high 

school and adult education programs. H.R. 4496 is critical to 

America’s continued global competitiveness. The Act builds on the 

academic foundation established by the No Child Left Behind Act, 

and provides our nation’s youth and adults with the opportunity to 

acquire knowledge and skills essential to their economic productivity. 

The Act recognizes the importance of rigorous academics and the 

importance of technical skills on our future generation’s success. 

Butler Tech students receive a college prep plus curriculum, a combination of rigorous academics plus rigorous career technical education, thus preparing them to be lifelong learners and economically productive citizens. 

H.R. 4496 is a catalyst for assuring students receive rigorous, 

challenging academic and technical instruction. The proposed 

changes embodied in H.R. 4496 are consistent with our business 

and education communities’ request. The following are important, 

are improvements that we strongly endorse. 

The first is the inclusion of ‘‘rigorous and challenging’’ in the purpose statement, two, including baccalaureate degree-based programs in the vocational definition, eliminating the separate tech 

prep provisions and blending these concepts into all programs, establishing consequences for institutions showing poor student performance, requiring the establishment of local accountability targets, and continued support of career information, so that we can 

assure youth and adults choose their careers based on good information, and not on the latest television series. 

While the proposed re-authorization is a great start, there are 

some minor adjustments that would further improve it. I share 

these points in my written testimony. 

I would also encourage you to consider several breakthrough provisions that could move career technical education forward more 

quickly. I outline several in my written testimony, but one is worth 

noting here. 

Student performance is very important, but the next generation 

of performance measures will have to include measures of program 

efficiency. Cost per pupil is no longer a meaningful measure. Reporting the cost of performance more accurately measures the efficiency by linking expenditures to student performance. This concept is too new to incorporate into current reporting systems, but 

we would call for voluntary involvement in the creation of what 

Butler Tech refers to as the Kalmus Ratio. The Kalmus Ratio is the 

intersect between student performance and expenditures. 

The quality and completeness of accountability issues is the most 

important issue facing Congress. If you get the accountability system right, everything else will occur naturally. Performance measures are the new leadership tool for Congress. If you provide clear 

performance expectations, local flexibility in program design, educators, parents, and business leaders will create outstanding educational experiences. 

Overall, the proposed accountability system is on target, and an 

improvement over the Perkins Act version. Some areas needing additional attention include the following: most of the measures are 

8

results-oriented, but the one asking us to report college credit 

earned by high school students is not. Research shows that college 

credit acquisition at the high school level is highly correlated to college attendance, and therefore that credit measure is redundant to 

the higher education attendance rate measure. 

Keep your focus on the higher attendance rate, and we’ll make 

sure that programs are designed to seek not only college credit, but 

many other activities that are highly correlated with higher education attendance. 

The current Perkins legislation supports secondary schools serving high school students, adult workforce education, and also community colleges. The performance measures adequately address 

secondary and credit-based programming, but they fail to fully address customized training or short-term skill upgrade programs. 

And, finally, the state and local negotiations regarding performance levels should be changed to an every-other-year process. As a 

local education leader, I strongly endorse the provisions requiring 

locals to establish performance improvement goals, but I think an 

every-other-year process would be better. 

Finally, I’d ask, as you craft this legislation, you remember some 

key things. First, stay the course on the accountability system. Let 

the states build on what they’ve worked on in Perkins, and advance 

into the future. Be sure the accountability system maintains a 

strong career technical component. No Child Left Behind addresses 

academics, let this legislation add career technical competence to 

the public education agenda. After all, rigorous and challenging 

academics are necessary but no longer sufficient for citizens to be 

productive. 

Demand more from American education by expecting rigorous 

and challenging academics for all students, and high-quality career 

technical education for those who choose to participate. Support 

strong state leadership, and, finally, provide help for creating a 

new generation of career technical education assessments that are 

valid, reliable, rigorous, and highly correlated with needs. 

If you do all those things, we’ll have a good piece of legislation 

that will advance not only career technical education, but the citizens of this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sommers follows:]

9

Statement of Dr. Robert D. Sommers, CEO, Butler Technology and Career 

Development Schools, Fairfield Township, Ohio


94193.001
10


94193.002
11


94193.003
12

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Dr. Sommers. 

Mrs. Oliver. 

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE M. OLIVER, ASSISTANT STATE SUPERINTENDENT, CAREER, TECHNOLOGY AND ADULT 

LEARNING, MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

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

Woolsey, and members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for this opportunity to highlight successes in Maryland’s career and technology education system, and to express my 


94193.004
13

support specifically for the model sequences of courses as proposed 

in H.R. 4496. 

You’ve heard about what my responsibilities are in Maryland, 

but, in addition, I’m also a member of the Independent Advisory 

Panel for the National Assessment of Vocational Education, and 

serve on the board of directors of the National Association of the 

State Directors of Career Technology Education Consortium. 

My colleagues around the country and I commend you for the introduction of H.R. 4496, and support many of its recommended 

provisions. We believe the bill will ensure that our country can 

meet the needs of our education and economic systems by encouraging program improvement and innovation in career and technology education, while building on the successes of the current 

law. 

Specifically, we applaud the updated definition of vocationaltechnical education as it better reflects today’s CTE program, the 

strength and accountability provisions, and the alignment of tech 

prep under the basic state grant. We also strongly support the 

model sequence of courses as outlined in the bill. This will be the 

focus of my testimony today. 

H.R. 4496 seeks to more fully develop the academic technical 

and employability skills of students, to promote rigorous coursetaking and to increase linkages between secondary and post-secondary education. Model sequences of courses will help achieve 

these goals. Model sequences help students navigate the world of 

opportunity. They’re like road maps that display the various routes 

for the journey to one’s destination. They outline the classes necessary for high school graduation, and highlight the additional academic and CTE courses, as well as recommend other experiences, 

such as internships, that supplement classroom learning. 

Model sequences of courses help students investigate a variety of 

career options, while developing the academic and technical knowledge required for post-high school success. In Maryland, students 

are required to develop a 4-year high school plan of study, that includes the steps to prepare for careers that are appropriate to individual interests and experiences. 

Model sequences of courses help students as they develop this 

plan. They become a tool for parents to quickly and easily help 

their children make confident and informed decisions, and they 

serve as a tool, much like a compass, to make sure that students 

are headed in the right direction to achieve their goals. 

Maryland has a long and successful history with career and technology education programs of study. The inclusion of model sequences in Federal legislation will allow us to take this initiative 

to scale. In 1989, the Maryland Commission on Vocational-Technical Education called for a new model of CTE that prepared students for both employment and further education. 

Maryland has developed policies and procedures for state approval of local CTE programs. Only state-approved programs are 

eligible for state and Federal funding. This came about over a decade ago, when the Maryland State Board of Education identified 

the completion of an approved sequence of CTE courses as one of 

the capstone requirements to obtaining a Maryland high school diVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:39 Oct 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\94193 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
14

ploma, placing it on a par with completion of the admission requirements for entry into the state university system. 

This designation has sent a very clear signal that state-approved 

CTE programs must be of sufficient academic rigor to prepare students for success in post-secondary education in the contemporary 

workplace. Our Maryland Higher Education Commission imposes a 

similar approval requirement for post-secondary CTE programs. 

Project Lead the Way, pre-engineering program, is an instructional pathway that prepares students for further education and 

careers in engineering and engineering technology. It includes a 

model course matrix, including the required CTE courses, and the 

recommended academic and elective courses to complete a student’s 

educational experience. It’s provided in my written testimony. 

A key factor in ensuring a quality CTE system is the important 

balance between state-approved programs of study and local control 

over the delivery and innovations of that program. In Maryland, a 

visionary panel for better schools recommended a voluntary state 

curriculum to guide local school system academic courses of development. Likewise, model sequence of courses can provide a framework for local CTE program development as well. 

While the state directors of CTE and I are generally supportive 

of H.R. 4496, we do not and cannot support the proposed 60 percent cut in state and local administration funds. This cut is especially troublesome in light of increased responsibilities assigned to 

the state under the bill. 

In conclusion, H.R. 4496 enables states to advance progress 

started under Perkins III, while promoting new innovations such 

as these model sequence of courses. These changes will drive improvement in CTE, and we think these model sequences will focus 

the Federal investment on effective programs that meet the needs 

of our students and economy. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oliver follows:]

15

Statement of Katharine Oliver, Assistant State Superintendent, Career, 

Technology and Adult Learning, Maryland State Department of Education, Baltimore, Maryland


94193.005
16


94193.006
17


94193.007
18


94193.008
19


94193.009
20

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mrs. Oliver. We appreciate that. 

Ms. Lufkin? 

STATEMENT OF MIMI LUFKIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PARTNERSHIPS IN EQUITY, 

COCHRANVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. LUFKIN. Good afternoon, Chairman Castle, Congresswoman 

Woolsey, and other Committee members. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. 

I bring you the perspective of someone who has been involved in 

vocational education since the late 1970’s at the local, state and national level, as a high school agriculture teacher, a teacher educator, a state educational agency staff member and, for the past 10 

years, as the Executive Director of the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity. 

I will focus my testimony on issues in H.R. 4496 that impact the 

participation and success of special population students in career 

and technical education. I compliment the Subcommittee on its use 

of current law as the basis for the development of H.R. 4496. By 

starting from current law, the Committee has the opportunity to 

continue the field’s efforts in improving the quality and effectiveness of CTE, which started in 1988, while making the appropriate 

changes to re-focus these efforts in a way that prepares all students for the future. 

H.R. 4496 substantially increases the role and responsibility of 

states while decreasing the amount of state administration funding 

by 60 percent. To expect states and locals to do more with less is 

unrealistic. The elimination of the requirements that a state’s equity coordinator in 1998 illustrates the fact that these kinds of cuts 

can have devastating effect on states’ ability to provide leadership. 

No state continues to have a full-time person in this position. It is 

certain that asking states to do more with less resources will continue to negatively impact their ability to focus on their responsibility of ensuring the success of special population students in CTE. 

We urge the Subcommittee to restore the amount of funding for 

state and local administration and the maintenance of overt language to current law. 

Throughout H.R. 4496, language is consistently added to emphasize the transition of secondary students to post-secondary education. At least 82 percent of high school graduates either work exclusively or work while attending college. We must give students 

more options, not less. We urge the Committee to strengthen language throughout the bill to include employment upon graduation 

from high school as a positive outcome for secondary CTE students. 

The bill does little to address the needs of adults re-entering the 

workforce or in need of skill upgrading for career advancement. 

Post-secondary CTE plays a vital role in the nation’s economic and 

workforce development system, and is the most reliable way out of 

poverty for many adults. We urge the Committee to include programs for single parents, displaced homemakers, to attain marketable skills for high-wage, high-skill occupations, leading to self-sufficiency as a required use of local funds. 

H.R. 4496 makes substantial changes to the accountability system. While separating secondary and post-secondary accountability 

21

measures is a positive step, the elimination of the indicator related 

to participation and completion of CTE programs that lead to nontraditional careers at the secondary level is a serious mistake. Fortunately, the Subcommittee has indicated its reconsideration of this 

decision and the likelihood that the indicator will be reinstated. 

Sex segregation in CTE programs continues to be an issue across 

the nation. These stark patterns are not the product of independent 

choices made by young men and women alone. The data show that 

schools have not adequately fulfilled their responsibilities to monitor and address the various forms of discrimination that can limit 

girls’ and boys’ access to non-traditional CTE programs. 

Ultimately, this results in substantial disparities in wage earnings, starting females on the pathway to economic disadvantage. 

We cannot ignore 50 percent of the potential workforce of our nation’s economy if this nation is to remain globally competitive. 

We urge the Committee to reinstate participation and completion 

of CTE programs that lead to non-traditional careers as a performance measure for secondary programs, to include support services 

for students pursuing non-track careers as a required use of local 

funds, to include provisions in Section 118, Occupational and Employment Information, that ensure unbiased career guidance and 

academic counseling, and to include provisions in national activities that support research and dissemination on the participation 

and outcomes of students in CTE, and the identification of model 

programs and practices that eliminate sex bias and stereotyping. 

H.R. 4496 retains the current provisions in the Perkins Act for 

special population students but makes no additions for improving 

the ability of states and locals to ensure their success. States are 

required to report on the performance of special population students on the core indicators, but are not held accountable for their 

improvement. As a result, data is not systematically used to drive 

program improvement efforts. 

We recommend that the Committee include language in Section 

113 requiring states and locals to disaggregate student performance data and to make continuous and substantial improvement in 

the performance of special population students, to also include provisions in the incentive grants to give special consideration for 

awarding grants for those locals and states that effectively close 

performance gaps of special populations, and make programs for 

special populations a required use of local funds. 

In closing, let me again thank you for the opportunity to share 

my thoughts that will help ensure success of all students in career 

and technical education. This legislation has the opportunity to 

help fulfill the mission of the Federal role in education, which is 

to assure access to equal educational opportunity for every individual. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lufkin follows:]

22

Statement of Mimi Lufkin, Executive Director, National Alliance for 

Partnerships in Equity, Cochranville, Pennsylvania


94193.010
23


94193.011
24


94193.012
25

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Lufkin. 

And Ms. White. 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. Good afternoon, Congressman Woolsey—

excuse me, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Woolsey, and other Committee members. It’s not on? Oh, thank you. Can we start again? 


94193.013
26

STATEMENT OF ROBIN WHITE, SENIOR PROGRAM AND POLICY DIRECTOR, ACADEMY FOR EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR WORK AND LEARNING, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

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

Woolsey, and other Committee members. 

As noted by Chairman Castle, I am here today to provide testimony on Tech-Prep research conducted as part of the NAVE funding and accountability study. This evaluation, conducted with colleagues, AED and Westat, included written surveys of state vocational education and Tech-Prep administrators, telephone interviews with state vocational administrators, and case studies at the 

state and local levels. 

The evaluation focused primarily on implementation of the new 

Perkins Funding and Accountability Provisions. However, my colleagues and I expanded the scope of our study at the request of 

NAVE staff to take a broader look at how Tech-Prep definitions 

and implementation strategies relate to measurements of participation and outcome. More detailed information will be available in 

our forthcoming report, The Structure and Challenges of Vocational 

Funding and Accountability Systems. 

I’m honored to be here today to describe the findings of this 

study and possible implications for policy, specifically, the re-authorization of the Perkins legislation. 

Our survey results focused primarily on state mechanisms for allocating Tech-Prep funds and definitions of Tech-Prep programs 

and students. Case studies and telephone interviews offered opportunities to explore how Tech-Prep was actually implemented in 

specific states and consortia, and how implementation was affected 

by the Perkins III funding and accountability provisions. 

Taken together, these data suggest that Tech-Prep is essentially 

a catch-all term, used to describe a wide array of activities, initiatives and efforts, most of which appear to fall considerably short in 

one or more respects of the statutory definition of a Tech-Prep program. We found that Tech-Prep programs that followed a distinct 

cohort of students through a four- or 6-year sequence of instruction 

were scarce. The absence of viable mechanisms for tracking high 

school Tech-Prep students into community colleges by area of vocational study was a major impediment to defining a seamless two 

plus two career pathway, and therefore to documenting student 

outcomes. A majority of state survey respondents indicated that 

they required local consortia to use specific approaches and definitions that should result in well-defined Tech-Prep sequences, but 

site visits and interviews produced few examples where this actually occurred. 

Tech-Prep reporting was generally inadequate at both the secondary and post-secondary levels. Although states typically defined 

secondary Tech-Prep students in terms of enrollment in or completion of articulated vocational courses or program sequences, many 

still struggled with the concept of what exactly constitutes a postsecondary Tech-Prep student. Even where definitions were in place 

at both levels, many consortia were unable to count the number of 

students who met the definition. 

27

Although most states supported having a definition of a TechPrep student, the study team found little evidence to support the 

widespread use of these definitions or alignment of these definitions with statutory intent. Definitions of what it meant to participate in Tech-Prep appeared to vary within states and even within 

consortia, and the applications of definitions sometimes failed to 

distinguish Tech-Prep students from other vocational students. 

In states with loose definitions of Tech-Prep, high schools sometimes identified 60–100 percent of their vocational students as 

Tech-Prep participants, regardless of whether they were enrolled in 

programs with articulation agreements. 

In survey responses, nineteen states reported that students who 

took or completed one or more vocational courses, whether articulated or not, met the criteria for Tech-Prep classification. Another 

eight states reported that all vocational students were considered 

Tech-Prep, while one state indicated that all secondary students 

who had not chosen college prep were considered Tech-Prep. Two 

states avoided the issue entirely by counting all secondary students 

as Tech-Prep. 

The number of Tech-Prep students who actually received articulated credit at the post-secondary level appears to be quite low. The 

reasons given for this included requirements that a student complete additional courses or score at a certain level on placement 

tests, the length of time elapsed between high school completion 

and college enrollment, and policies that required the students to 

identify the collegiate courses they had taken and make four more 

requests for credit. 

Because the two plus two and two plus four programs of study 

were scarce, Tech-Prep efforts frequently overlapped those of regular vocational education. Study team found that many states have 

worked to develop articulated course sequences for vocational education outside the context of Tech-Prep. It was noted previously, 

state and local reporting on Tech-Prep participation and outcome 

frequently fail to distinguish Tech-Prep students from others. 

Finally, the reported uses of Tech-Prep funds typically for equipment, supplies, salaries, and the startup of new programs were 

quite similar to those reported for Perkins Title I basic grants. 

In conclusion, I want to give you the recommendations that our 

forthcoming report includes concerning Tech-Prep. We suggested 

three options that Federal policymakers might want to consider. 

Requiring states and consortia to document rates of student completion of four- and 6-year Tech-Prep sequences; investing in the 

development of software and other mechanisms to facilitate tracking secondary Tech-Prep students into post-secondary institutions; 

and eliminating Tech-Prep as a separate title and re-allocating 

Tech-Prep funding to a wider range of vocational education reform 

initiatives at the state and local levels. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:]

28

Statement of Robin White, Senior Program and Policy Director, Academy 

for Educational Development, National Institute for Work and Learning, 

Washington, DC


94193.014
29


94193.015
30


94193.016
31

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. White, and thank you for sort 

of rushing through there at the end. 

We appreciate the information all of you gave. Actually, there’s 

a lot included in that 20 minutes of testimony that you gave us, 

and I’m sure staff is going to have a field day trying to go over it 

all and trying to figure it all out. But I’m going to keep my question a little more general. I’m going to try to take another 45 seconds for this question, and give you each a minute, and I’m going 

to ask you about 10 minutes’ worth of question here, so be careful. 

I think, Mrs. Oliver, you mentioned parents, but I want to make 

sure, you know, legislation, that we are not doing anything that 

would—well, not only would harm having the parental involvement, but also would encourage parental involvement, and also the 

early choice of children. I very often worry about that in terms of 

some of our vocational education, enforcing early choices and where 

we’re going with it. I want to make sure that we’re not doing anything to harm that legislation or comments you have on that in 

general. 

I’m also concerned about the academic versus the vocational side 

of all this. I just noticed that, in my judgment, the state of Delaware, the educational side, the academic side of vocational side has 

just improved dramatically in recent years, which I think is great. 

But I also realize, in terms of jobs, that young people have to be 

trained for, in some cases, economically more advantageous, and if 

some went to college, there’s some argument for that, and I’m trying to make sure that we’re not throwing out the baby with the 

bath water. I don’t think every vocational school in the United 

States needs to become Harvard, and I am concerned about anything our legislation may have that impacts that. 

And the other question may not be directly related to our legislation, but, in commenting on your own schools, I mentioned on, and 

always on the subject on full-time versus part-time, in vocational 

education schools, if you have comments on that, I would appreciate it. I’m going to try to go down the row, you’ve got about a 

minute each, so answer what you will, in that minute. Dr. 

Sommers. 

Dr. SOMMERS. Yes. First of all, parents are always involved. If 

you think about it, all of programs are choice. If we don’t connect 

with parents and students, we’re not going to have students enrolled. And so that one’s solved. Too early a choice, we actually 


94193.017
32

think the greatest challenge is that students don’t think about careers soon enough. Most of our students don’t choose specific careers. We work in broad career clusters. 

We’ve never had any complaints from parents that kids are going 

to work too quickly and being productive. We have noticed that a 

lot of parents complained about what they call NIKEs, No Income 

Kids with an Education. So we’ve really pushed career development 

early on, not as a forced issue, but as a choice that they make. 

By the way, we don’t seem to have any trouble at all forcing kids 

to make a single path choice of college prep, which only has a single mode of operation that’s successful, and that’s to succeed in college. We prefer the college prep plus, where we have more options 

when they leave, including college. 

The academics, we don’t have too much focus on academics, we 

have too much focus on academic classes. Lowell Milken put out, 

at the Milken Institute, that the NAPE assessment has been virtually unchanged over the last fifteen years, while, at the same 

time, we’ve had dramatic increases in the number of academic 

courses taken. I think we’ve made a tremendous error in equating 

course-taking with academic prowess, and that career technical 

education captures the excitement of a student’s mind, and engages 

them so that academics come naturally. So if we can get those two 

together, and quit looking at them as either-or, and make them integrated, we’ll be in good shape. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you. Mrs. Oliver. 

Ms. OLIVER. My comments indicated, I think it’s important that 

parents are a part of their children’s educational programs. We—

it is one of our goals at the Maryland State Department of Education to ensure that there are strategies for parental involvement. 

We can do that at the policy level by helping that they, ensuring 

that they help us develop our programs and are knowledgeable of 

what, what is there to be offered there for their students and that 

they visit their schools on a regular basis and sign off on those students’ programs of study. We do that in our high schools at work 

sites, and it’s a very effective practice. 

In terms of early choice, I prefer us to look at it as focus, helping 

students focus and see relevance on what study, in terms of academics and technical subjects, is all about, helping them see that 

high school is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and that 

their future is not just getting into a college, but it’s getting into 

a college to do this. So I would look at meeting to ensure we have 

lots of flexibility for our students to make a variety of choices, but 

to help them focus. 

I don’t think it’s academic versus technical education. I beg to 

differ with you. I think that—

Chairman CASTLE. Hey, you’re not differing with me, I was just 

asking a question. 

Ms. OLIVER.—that in today’s world, our employers are telling us 

that for us to be a force for their employees to be successful that 

our graduates need to come to the workplace with a new set of academic skills. Basic math is not computation, basic math is far more 

sophisticated than that, and every student deserves to have the opportunity to match—

Chairman CASTLE. Integration for the workplace, basically. 

33

Ms. OLIVER. Integration. And, last, full-time versus part-time. In 

Maryland, we deliver career and technology education in a variety 

of settings. Some of them are full-time career technical high 

schools, others are shared-time facilities. Both can work, and both 

just need to be—we need to exploit—

Chairman CASTLE. Is one better? 

Ms. OLIVER. I—it’s easier for me to have performance data from 

the full-time, so I tend to like that. 

Chairman CASTLE. OK. 

Ms. OLIVER. But I think that if we—

Chairman CASTLE. Dr. Sommers is shaking his head. One is not 

better than the other, so—

Ms. OLIVER. If we ensure—

Chairman CASTLE. I don’t want to start a debate there, but—

Ms. OLIVER. If we ensure that our systems in place work for our 

students, then it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s full-time or 

shared-time. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you. 

Ms. OLIVER. As long as the process fits the student. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you. Ms. Lufkin, Ms. White, I’m going 

to have to ask you to be relatively brief, since I’m sort of out of 

time here. 

Ms. LUFKIN. OK. Well, I’ll just say that everything that my 

former colleagues have mentioned I would support whole-heartedly, 

and want to sort of focus a little bit on the parental issue, because, 

when it comes to the selection of non-traditional careers or looking 

at career option, the parents are very important, and having them 

involved is one of the key elements that we’ve discovered in terms 

of looking at this issue. 

The other thing is about what we would like to see is students 

to have more choices and to explore careers in a broader range for 

themselves, and all of those, I think, are supported within the bill, 

especially the strengthening of language in the career guidance and 

counseling section. 

Chairman CASTLE. Good, thank you. Ms. White. 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, thank you. Since our study did not look at parental involvement, I will save you some time on that one, Mr. 

Chairman. 

With regard to the early choice issue, I would just like to underscore our concern about the choices made by students who enter 

Tech-Prep with the goal of entering post-secondary ed with advanced standing. As I indicated in my very rushed testimony, we 

found that very few students actually appeared to gain those credits when they entered post-secondary education. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you. Thank you all very much, and 

we’ll turn to Ms. Woolsey now. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Van Hollen has—would like to 

say something about Mrs. Oliver, and then he has to leave. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Woolsey, and thank you for holding this third in a series of hearings on 

this important issue. I want to thank all of the witnesses. 

I just wanted to especially thank Mrs. Kathy Oliver from the 

state of Maryland for being here, and I appreciate all the work that 

you’ve done with our office and your input on many issues, includVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:39 Oct 26, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\94193 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
34

ing what you’ve talked about at the hearing. But I just wanted to 

welcome you and thank you for the work you’ve done in our state 

on these important issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen. Ms. Woolsey, do 

you want to go now, or should I go to Mr. Osborne and come back 

to you? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I prefer you go to Mr. Osborne. 

Chairman CASTLE. OK. Mr. Osborne, are you prepared, sir? 

Mr. OSBORNE. I’m sort of prepared. 

Chairman CASTLE. Well, I knew you were prepared, but I didn’t 

know if you were prepared to go at that moment. 

Mr. OSBORNE. I don’t have a game plan, so thanks for asking. 

Thank you for being here today and, I guess, Ms. Lufkin, I would 

just, it seemed like you had—I think I counted 25 recommendations. And so, I guess, my thought is, do you like the basic bill, or 

do you think we ought to start over? This is not a facetious question. I mean, it did seem like you had a lot of objections, and also 

I’m a little bit concerned about what the cost of your—have you 

added up what it might cost to implement some of these recommendations? 

Ms. LUFKIN. First let me say that I think—I complimented the 

Subcommittee on starting from current law, because I think the 

current law has some very strong provisions in it regarding support 

for special population students. Most of the suggestions that I 

made are minor language tweaks in the law which basically just 

continue to emphasize issues around serving special population 

students and the inclusion of language that encourages locals to 

provide programs for them. 

The accountability system in current law and in the bill that you 

are offering basically requires that there’s a disconnect with the 

language in the accountability system and the local uses of funds. 

So the suggestion in terms of providing required uses of fund language around supporting special population students and providing 

programs for students pursuing non-traditional careers really is 

supported in the accountability section. 

As far as the amount of money it would take to do any of these 

programs, I wouldn’t expect that it would shift resources in any 

other way, other than to emphasize recruitment activities and support services for students already in career technical education that 

need those additional supports to be successful. 

Mr. OSBORNE. OK, well, I’m not conversant enough with the bill 

to separate out minor technical changes from what was made here, 

so I assumed that you were looking at quite a few changes that 

were fairly significant. 

One other question, and this would be for Dr. Sommers and Mrs. 

Oliver. What do you feel accountability looks like for vocational and 

technical education? I mean, I understand what accountability 

looks like under No Child Left Behind, you know, grades three 

through eight, but I’m not totally very understanding of what this 

might mean for vocational and technical education, and I know you 

both mentioned that it’s desirable, but how do we achieve it? 

Dr. SOMMERS. The question of what it looks like is very similar 

to No Child Left Behind except that we focus on career technical 

education. Career technical is a body of knowledge just like math, 

35

science, English. It requires a certain amount of programming and 

success on the student’s part to acquire that knowledge and information and skill sets. 

And so, to the extent that we can develop high-quality career 

technical assessments, either performance or written, to the extent 

that we can clearly identify that as an objective in the legislation, 

which it does, you can drive us to design curriculum program services and everything else to make that successful for all the students that enroll and choose to. 

The actual performance measures are the key indicator of whether we’re making progress. And actually I encourage any kind of 

parts of the legislation kind of focus on that, but actually leave lots 

of flexibility at the local level, because if I can deliver it in many 

different ways—for example, full-time and part-time. 

I actually run a full-time campus where full-time students are 

engaged in lots of programs including high-end academics. I’ve got 

a whole cadre of faculty that teach in part-time programs. They 

both meet a unique student population that, if you forced us to do 

one or the other, we would fail miserably at. So the performance 

measures actually drive what we do. 

You just build them right on top of the academics and No Child 

Left Behind and we’ll be very successful. 

Mr. OSBORNE. But these would be formulated by you folks, is 

that correct? 

Dr. SOMMERS. Actually, in most cases, we would coordinate that 

with the state and the local. I strongly encourage some specificity 

in the performance measures which allows for national comparability and for us to have the opportunity to find first-class programs. 

Ms. OSBORNE. Again I don’t know enough about it to ask an intelligent question, but do you have a corresponding test of some 

type that would correspond with the NAPE, or would you be involved with the NAPE test at the high school level at all? 

Ms. OLIVER. In Maryland, we have aligned our career and technology education accountability system with our K–12 accountability system, so that it is in lock-step with that. Our approach to 

program improvement with our local recipients at both the secondary and post-secondary level mirrors—has those systems determining every year what their improvement will look like, and how 

they will be using their Perkins dollars, their local dollars, their 

state dollars, to support the strategies to increase that improvement. 

Right now, the NAPE is not available to us in terms of, in our 

state, for twelfth-grade students in career and technology education 

programs. However, we are a member of The High Schools that 

Work initiative, where we do use a NAPE-like assessment that 

measures twelfth-grade achievement in reading, math and science, 

and that is a very valuable tool for career and technology education 

as we look to improving academic performance, because we are able 

then to—we assess these students in the January of their senior 

year, and it provides us, in addition to teacher surveys and student 

surveys and transcript surveys, an opportunity to really dig into 

the data that will direct the strategies that need to be put into 

place to improve student achievement. 

36

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lufkin and all of 

you, really. I want to know how students are advised in these programs. I mean, how do they influence—how do you know there is 

going to be a job there after they go in a particular direction? Are 

you doing outreach with your communities? I’ll start with you, 

Mimi. 

Ms. LUFKIN. Certainly. I think you’re talking about sort of the 

career guidance and counseling procedures that occur and how students make decisions regarding their career choices. And I think if 

you were to go across the country and walk into any secondary 

school or post-secondary institution, you would see something potentially different. And some of them are more successful than others, and I think those who target resources toward these efforts are 

more successful. 

Dr. Sommers and Mrs. Oliver both mentioned workplace learning 

as part of an effective CTE program, and we also believe that students having access to job shadowing experiences, mentoring activities, role models, the real world, is really very important. 

I don’t know that I would say that that’s happening in every career and technical education program across the country, but the 

kinds of language that’s been included in this bill certainly would 

continue to drive those kinds of positive efforts. It’s very, very important, because what typically happens in a lot of situations is 

that students will choose a career based on peer pressure or on 

media pressure, and not necessarily on informed decisionmaking. 

And that’s something that is very important to us, particularly as 

it revolves around access to careers that could lead to economic 

self-sufficiency and students making decisions that are long-term 

decisions about their own future. And oftentimes that kind of information is not available. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Ms. White? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, thank you. OK, one of the things that concerned 

us, particularly as we looked at Tech-Prep in implementation 

across the country, was the inability to get a clear picture of the 

outcome achieved by these programs. By statute, Tech-Prep programs are supposed to lead to high-skill, high-wage employment or 

further education. Since so many states and consortia were unable 

to determine who was participating in a Tech-Prep program, it was 

very hard to track whether they actually got a job, much less one 

that would be meeting the statutory requirements. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Is part of that requirement that there are actual 

jobs in the community? 

Ms. WHITE. They are supposed to develop the articulation agreement and the programs—the consortia are supposed to develop 

these programs by looking at the labor market area. Originally, in 

the Perkins II legislation, Tech-Prep programs focused primarily on 

technical education programs. More recently, they have expanded 

into a much broader array of vocational offering child care, human 

resources, fashion and interior design, for example. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Dr. Sommers? 

Dr. SOMMERS. Yes. 

37

Ms. WOOLSEY. When you are answering, I also want to know if, 

for example, if there’s a shortage of auto repair people that know 

anything about technology. I mean, that’s a big—is that—tell me 

if that’s what we’re talking about. 

Dr. SOMMERS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, I can answer the 

question pretty simply, because I’m at the local level and we deliver this, so I’m going to tell you, we start with a career development program, we invest about 350,000 a year in K–8 for career 

exploration, career information, not to force kids into a career, but 

to make sure they understand the full array. 

Literally, the best program enrollments are the where the TV 

shows are, and we’re trying to correct that. I mean, I’ve got 

forensics and biotechnology out my ears because of CSI. So we’ve 

got to put real clear performance measures—when we beat those 

odds, then we’re in good shape. 

Career development then leads into programming. We know well 

in advance what the students’ interests are and also we have business advisory councils both at the program level and at the broadbased level. We actually hire labor market analysts that constantly 

measures labor markets, not only the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

but also our internal community operations. And so we adapt programs to high-demand, high-wage jobs. And also in demand, sometimes they’re not high-wage. We’ve got teacher education academies, after all, but we look for places where we have needs and 

services, and we try to match those two up. 

We see career development as the single most important factor 

in meeting the non-traditional enrollment problem. We’ve made 

progress in that at Butler Tech. In fact, in our adult enrollments, 

we’ve got some of the highest percentages of non-traditional in the 

state, and we’re proud of that. So all those fit together. Good career 

development, high quality programs that are tailored to long-term 

needs, and finally the labor market analysts guiding us. In all of 

those, we try to do our best to make sure that students have 

choices of college and careers in the local regional areas. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Can Mrs. Oliver answer that? Thanks. 

Ms. OLIVER. In order for a CTE program to be approved in our 

state, labor market demand has to be documented. We work collaboratively with our Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation and our Department of Business and Economic Development, 

as well as our business communities, to help us further refine and 

identify the specifics of that demand. In addition, we are now in 

Maryland working with industry shortage areas. We had a health 

care summit last year. We’re working on aerospace, on manufacturing, other key areas that are of importance to Maryland’s economy and to the opportunities that are available for its citizens. 

We are—students are advised in a variety of ways. We have a 

career development model that provides outcomes for our school 

systems to work with to ensure that students understand who they 

are, what their interests are, how to explore career opportunities. 

We also promote teacher advisor programs, because clearly there 

are just not enough guidance counselors to go around. 

So we have many of our high schools that are working on improvement opportunities, converting to teacher advisors, where 

teachers work with a group of students beginning in the ninth 

38

grade and all the way through their twelfth-grade experience, to 

advise students on all aspects of their high school program, but career development in particular. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So I’m sure you’re all going to say yes. Part of this 

is, like, you can encourage a kid to learn to be a technician knowing that they really in the long run want to be an engineer, but 

they could be the Tech-Prep at the lower level and then go on? I 

mean, it’s not an end in and of itself. 

Dr. SOMMERS. Fifty-four percent of all the students that are 

completers in our programs attend higher ed. They’re there 9 

months later, compared to our high schools in the area, we’re the 

second highest, if you compare their actual attendance, not what 

they say they’re going to do, but actual attendance. So we’re very 

pleased at the choices they have. By the way, the majority of them 

are employed at the same time, because they have to pay for the 

process. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. Now, let me just ask 

a follow-up question or two. And that is, about the testing. I just 

want to make sure I understand the testing. I assume that—and 

it was actually Mrs. Oliver answering this question—but I assume 

that your students participate in the NAPE testing as it is applicable in the sampling that’s done for the NAPE in your various jurisdictions. And I assume on No Child Left Behind that most of it is 

not applicable, because of the age related, because of the testing in 

grade three through eight, but that as it is applicable in high 

school, that you, again, you would participate and be graded on 

that basis for that. Is that also correct? 

Are there are other, are there specialized, first of all, are there 

any specialized tests on a national level that you take that would 

be similar to NAPE or No Child Left Behind for vocational education in particular? 

Dr. SOMMERS. Actually, there’s a whole series—NAPE, of course, 

has a very finite set of courses—math, science, English, that sort 

of thing. Career technical tends to be a little more diverse, and so 

you have a variety, but we rely heavily on the industry 

credentialling. We also have standardized career technical assessments in the state of Ohio that have been developed by the state. 

We think that one of the things this piece of legislation could do 

is push for some kind of voluntary national career technical assessment that actually is lined out by Jean Bottoms and some communications with you. 

Chairman CASTLE. Is there anything like that now? 

Dr. SOMMERS. There’s no across the board, and I think that 

would be an excellent first step to kind of get at those things. We 

also—by the way, the No Child Left Behind requirements, OGT, 

are not sufficient for our programs. We have to rely on ACT and 

Compass for academics, because most of the graduation tests that 

comply with No Child Left Behind are actually at about the tenth 

or eleventh grade, to give them time to assess, and our programs 

tend to be at the tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade. 

Chairman CASTLE. Mm-hmm. Very good. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I have one more question. The Perkins Act—

how much of the funding goes to adult education? I mean, once, a 

re-entry, a woman. 

39

Ms. OLIVER. In our state, funding is not designated by—our funding goes to both post-secondary and to secondary, and that’s how 

the funding is split. Adult students can participate in either a program at the secondary or post-secondary level. I wouldn’t have data 

on what is exactly spent on adults. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. But it is available? 

Ms. OLIVER. It could be available. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. What does that mean? 

Ms. OLIVER. Well, it would, we would have to—it depends upon 

the definition of an adult. I mean, in general, all of our post-secondary programs do serve adults, but we do not have adult programs like Ohio has, that is a, really a third system in terms of 

CTE or a third delivery mechanism. In Maryland, it’s through one 

of two deliveries, but adults are welcomed in both areas. It would 

be difficult for me to be able to disaggregate spending on adult 

learners. 

Dr. SOMMERS. Yes. Actually, in the state of Ohio, it’s about 85, 

80–85 percent secondary, 15 percent split between community colleges and adult workforce. We actually serve more adults in the 

adult workforce than the community colleges do in our state. 

As I recall, you tend to vary in the west. They tend to be much 

more on the post-secondary side; in the east, it tends to be more 

on the secondary, most because of population densities. It’s harder 

to do career technical in very small schools. So, actually adult 

workforce works very closely with community colleges in the state 

of Ohio and as long as you provide flexibility in the formula as it 

is now, it will be adaptable. 

Ms. LUFKIN. I can talk to California, the way California does it. 

And that is, it sounds to me like it’s fairly similar to Ohio. When 

the Perkins Fund comes to California, it’s split 50–50 between the 

State Department of Education and the California community college chancellor’s office. There are in secondary schools, adult education programs that are available for adults to participate in career and technical education on secondary school campuses, typically, and in regional occupational programs throughout California. 

As far as the post-secondary component, then those, the 50 percent of the funds then go to community colleges. As far as adult 

re-entry programs or re-entry programs for women, for example, 

many of those programs typically are found at the community college campuses. And I think that’s probably more likely true across 

the country. And also, at the secondary level, you would more likely see teen parent programs with—in terms of trying to access career and technical education. And oftentimes when those programs 

are held at alternative education sites, those students do not have 

access to quality career and technical education, which is an issue, 

especially for young parents. 

But in terms of the resources being available, they are available 

for adult women typically in the community college system. 

Ms. WHITE. Our forthcoming NAPE report includes a chart that 

indicates the split between secondary and post-secondary Perkins 

expenditures in each of the states and territories. I don’t remember 

the exact breakdown. I do not have that chapter with me. But more 

states spent the majority of their money at the secondary level. If 

you would like, I can send that chart to you. 

40

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, that’s good information. OK. I’d like to have 

that. Thank you. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. And let me thank 

the panel. 

I think we’ve run out of members and questions at this point, so 

we’ll bring this to a close. We are going to be voting actually fairly 

soon on the floor. Again, your original testimony was chock-full of 

all kinds of information that we will take under consideration as 

we continue to review the legislation. As Ms. Woolsey has indicated, this is, even though we’ve introduced it, we’re still in the 

stage where we can refine it, if you will. And we are going to be 

working on that. So your testimony is very valuable in helping with 

that. 

We do appreciate each of you being here today. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

41

Statement of United Tribes Technical College, Submitted for the Record


94193.018
42


94193.019
43


94193.020
44


94193.021
45


94193.022
46

Statement of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Submitted for the 

Record

Æ


94193.023