Arkansas Administrative Code › Agency 172 - Department of Career Education › Rule 172.00.08-001 - State Plan for Career & Technical Education

Current through Register Vol. 49, No. 6, June, 2024
ARKANSAS STATE FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR THE CARL D. PERKINS CAREER AND
	 TECHNICAL EDUCATION - JULY 1, 2008, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2013
Overview of Administration of Perkins in Arkansas
The Arkansas State Board of Workforce Education and Career
	 Opportunities (SBWECO) is the sole state agency responsible for Carl D. Perkins
	 Career and Technical Education Act funds. SBWECO, through the Arkansas
	 Department of Workforce Education (DWE), oversees secondary career and
	 technical education in the public school system and technical education in two
	 public postsecondary technical institutes and one institution that is located
	 within the Arkansas prison system. The director of DWE, who is employed by
	 SBWECO and serves at the pleasure of the governor, is a member of the Arkansas
	 Workforce Investment Board.
Since 1991, SBWECO has delegated responsibility for the administration
	 and leadership of Perkins activities in institutions of higher education to the
	 Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board through a memorandum of
	 understanding with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE). In
	 addition to responsibility for the higher education institutions, ADHE oversees
	 the Perkins program in the two public technical institutes. The director of
	 ADHE is also a member of the Arkansas Workforce Investment Board.
The administration and leadership funds that are available to the state
	 are split between the Department of Workforce Education and Department of
	 Higher Education through the memorandum of understanding. The staffs of the two
	 departments work closely together to ensure coordination with regard to Perkins
	 between the secondary and postsecondary programs.
There were 245 public school districts in the state eligible for
	 Perkins funding during 2007-08. Of these, 101 received less than the $15,000
	 minimum required. However, of the 151 eligible to keep their own funds and
	 manage their own Perkins programs, only 64 did so. The remaining districts
	 joined one of 15 secondary consortia. Therefore, there were a total of 79
	 secondary recipients (including consortia) in 2007-08.
Students enrolled in for-credit CTE programs at the postsecondary level
	 may receive a certificate of proficiency, a technical certificate, or an
	 associate of applied science award. In Arkansas, there are eight four-year
	 universities, 22 two-year colleges, and two technical institutes offering these
	 programs that receive Perkins funding. Five universities, five colleges, and
	 the two technical institutes are members of consortia. Three universities in
	 Arkansas do not participate in Perkins programs.
I.
PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND
  COLLABORATION -
1. Public Hearings
A series of three public hearings were held in the state between
	 February 25 and March 14, 2008:
Pulaski Technical College in North Little Rock on February 26 with 32
	 in attendance
Great Rivers Educational Cooperative in Helena on March 4 with 6 in
	 attendance
North Arkansas College in Harrison on March 11 with 15 in
	 attendance
The public hearings were jointly planned and conducted by staff members
	 from DWE and DHE. Two hearings were hosted by postsecondary institutions and
	 one by a secondary educational cooperative. Prior to the public hearings, the
	 draft State Plan was published on the Department's home page and a summary of
	 major points was sent to all secondary and postsecondary school administrators
	 and Perkins coordinators. In addition, the public hearing information was
	 posted on the secondary CTE teacher list servs in the state. A legal notice was
	 published in the state's major newspaper as required by the Arkansas
	 Administrative Procedures Act. The State Plan was also reviewed by the
	 Administrative Rules and Regulations Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative
	 Council.
2. Recommendations
  from Public Hearings and Agency Response
Comment
: $600,000 for the secondary reserve
	 fund may not be sufficient.
Response
: Although 10% of the local funds are
	 allowed to be set aside by the state for the reserve fund, in 2007-08 the
	 Department chose to set aside $600,000 (or about 7%) of the secondary
	 allocation. In the 2008-09 fiscal year, secondary will again set aside $600,000
	 (which is almost 8%) of the local allocation into the reserve fund. The
	 percentage increased (although the amount did not) because the overall state
	 grant was less than the previous year. Postsecondary chose not to use the
	 reserve in 2007-08 or in 2008-09. The State Plan allows the state to review
	 funding levels and to reserve up to the full 10% each year as appropriate. No
	 change in the State Plan is required.
Comment
: Successful strategies employed by
	 various districts should be shared with all recipients.
Response
: DWE has already taken steps to
	 ensure that information on successful projects is made available to all
	 recipients. In addition, the evaluation criteria used by Department staff to
	 approved projects will be more fully communicated at the Perkins workshop in
	 April. This is a specific inservice training need and does not require any
	 change in the State Plan.
Comment
: The actual number of students in
	 disaggregated data for special population groups may be too small to be
	 significant.
Response
: Secondary districts should use the
	 same criteria as used by the state's NCLB plan for public reporting
	 requirements. Postsecondary institutions should use the reporting policies they
	 have in place to protect individual student identity. The following statement
	 has been added to the Accountability and Evaluation section of the State Plan:
	 "As required by the Act, local recipients must report performance results to
	 the public in a variety of methods including electronically. However, all
	 reports of performance should follow established guidelines that protect
	 individual student identity."
Comment
: Small districts are restricted by the
	 high wage, high demand, and high skill requirement for program
	 improvement.
Response
: Perkins funds can be used to improve
	 the performance of students in any program of study or support course (such as
	 JAG or Internship). No change in the State Plan is recommended.
Comment
: Give serious consideration to the
	 types of programs that promote the most universally applicable skills and
	 knowledge and that will help workers to better transition into new technologies
	 and jobs. Focus on life-long learning skills and occupational areas that best
	 fit this model and less on a narrow range of specific occupations.
Response
: Perkins IV (and this state plan)
	 does push the state toward broader career preparation through the career
	 cluster model. The section of this state plan describing the programs that will
	 be developed and improved discusses this movement and model. No change in the
	 State Plan is required.
3.
  Consultations with academic and CTE teachers, faculty, and administrators;
  career guidance and academic counselors; eligible recipients; charter school
  authorizers and organizers consistent with State law; parents and students;
  institutions of higher education; entities participating in activities
  described in section 111 or Public
		  Law 105-220; interested community members (including parents and community
  organizations); representatives of special populations; representatives of
  business and industry (including representatives of small business); and
  representatives of labor organizations in the State.
Multiple work sessions and meetings were held with the secondary and
	 postsecondary eligible recipients during the transition year as the state plan
	 was written. Representatives from the recipients included secondary and
	 postsecondary administrators and CTE teachers. Several consultations were held
	 with various specialists from the Department of Education (K-12 general
	 education) who work with special population students and teachers, who plan the
	 professional development for academic teachers, and who direct the literacy and
	 math specialists in the secondary schools. The chief academic officers from the
	 colleges and universities were consulted as were the presidents and
	 chancellors.
A meeting was held with the Small Business Administration to explain
	 the act and get input early in the plan development. The members of the
	 Workforce Investment Board represent many business and industry sectors as well
	 as labor organizations. A summary of the state plan was provided with the
	 invitation to attend the public hearings to the WIA Board.
The Arkansas Administrative Procedures Act (described below) requires
	 legislative review. The legislators on the review committee also represent
	 several of the groups listed above.
4. Consultation with the Governor with
  respect to development of the State plan.
The DWE director consulted with the Governor and his staff regarding
	 the policies contained in the plan - particularly changes that affect secondary
	 and postsecondary institutions as the state plan is implemented at the local
	 level. The Governor stated his approval of the State Plan on Monday, March 31,
	 2008.
5. Effective
  activities and procedures to allow individuals and entities listed in 3 and 4
  above to participate in state and local decisions that relate to the
  development of the State plan.
DWE followed the requirements of the state's Administrative Procedures
	 Act. A legal notice of 30 days of public review was placed in a newspaper with
	 statewide circulation for a minimum of 3 days. The 30 days of public review
	 began following the legal notice. A notice announcing the public review along
	 with a brief summary of the issues addressed in the state plan was sent (via
	 email or hard copy) to many of the groups listed in paragraph 3 above. The
	 notice contained information on the four public hearings that were held around
	 the state. In addition to the notices that were mailed, information on the
	 public hearings was placed on the various listservs for the CTE teachers. The
	 draft of the state plan was placed on the DWE and DHE websites during the 30
	 days of public review. Information on how to comment was included in the
	 notices. All oral comments presented at the public hearings as well as all
	 written comments submitted were considered in the final development of the
	 state plan.
6. Consultation
  with State Agency for Community, Two-Year, and Technical Colleges The
  Department of Higher Education was a partner in developing the state plan and
  wrote the sections of the plan that pertain specifically to institutions of
  higher education. Staff from DHE participated as discussion leaders in the
  public hearings along with staff from DWE. Staff from DHE worked with the
  higher education institutions to develop the postsecondary performance
  definitions and targets contained in the state plan.