Communicate effectively and show appreciation

Show employers how they can gain from participation

Write thank you notes to generate good will, while building students’ skills

Acknowledge employers’ contributions publicly System coherence

In order to support the academic and career technical achievement of students in CTE programs, it is essential that the components of the entire system link together effectively. This section discusses the findings from both the survey and the focus groups about several topics regarding system coherence, including:

Sequencing, which comprises both course sequences and curricular pathways

Articulation and course alignment from secondary to postsecondary institutions

Coordination among education and workforce development initiatives

System flexibility in response to changes in the workplace

Multiple entry and exit options for students

Size, scope, and quality of CTE programs Sequencing and pathways

CTE course sequences allow for progressive skill development within a specific career area. The term is used here to describe sequences within a single institution. The term career pathway is used here to refer generally to CTE course sequences that are embedded in a structure that includes other “academic”/non-CTE courses or coursework, applied learning opportunities, career exploration, and experience in the workplace, to provide a comprehensive learning experience in a given career area.⁴⁸

48 Note that, in the previous sections of this report, “CTE in California” and the “Literature Review,” pathways were also described, on the one hand, as systems of workforce preparation that include the education, workforce

development and economic development sectors all focused on a high-demand career or occupational area in a particular region for workers throughout the age span, and, on the other hand, as one of several specific focus areas

Extent of sequences and pathways

Surveys for administrators, CTE instructors, and counselors/advisors asked whether course sequences have been defined for guidance staff to use in helping students make relevant course selections based on their career interests. In each case, a large majority of respondents responded

“yes” — 83% of administrators, 79% of CTE instructors, and 74% of counselors/advisors. A majority of administrators (73%) and CTE instructors (67%) indicated that at the secondary level, course sequences resulted in students receiving skill certificates. (This question was not posed to other categories of survey respondents.)

When queried about career pathways, a majority of administrators (77%), CTE instructors (76%), and counselors/advisors (51%) noted that their institutions had formal career pathways that result in the attainment of specific occupational knowledge and skills, as compared to 35%

of academic/non-CTE instructors that indicated this response (community-based counselors/advisors were not asked this question).

Challenges to course sequencing and pathways

The following presents both the survey as well as focus group responses regarding the challenges to course sequencing and pathways identified by the various participants in this research.

Survey responses regarding challenges. When asked to identify the challenges that instructors face in creating course sequences, the response selected most frequently by all three respondent groups is “challenges with master scheduling” (55% of administrators; 68% of CTE instructors;

63% of counselors/advisors). Other substantial challenges include “insufficient enrollment due to other course requirements at the school” (54%, 48%, and 49%, respectively), and “lack of time to plan/coordinate with other staff” (38%, 33%, and 49%). Other challenges, such as “lack of resources for facilities or equipment for courses,” were cited as important to some respondents (41% of CTE instructors), but were notably less important for other groups.

The challenges noted in creating career pathways echo the concerns noted for creating course sequences. As before, “master scheduling issues” is a major common concern (noted by 70% of administrators, 68% of CTE instructors, 80% of counselors/advisors, and 70% of academic/non-CTE instructors), followed closely by “lack of time to plan/coordinate with other staff” (68%, 65%, 66%, and 63%, respectively), and “insufficient enrollment for a full sequence due to competing course requirements at the school” (65%, 62%, 75%, and 60%). Academic/non-CTE instructors differed from other survey respondents for some items; for example, the biggest challenge they reported in creating pathways was “lack of resources for facilities or equipment for classes” (77%), and the second-biggest challenge was “lack of time to engage employers”

(73%).

Focus group comments about challenges to creating course sequences and pathways. The focus groups noted other challenges to course sequences and pathways. For example, low enrollments

of study within an industry cluster as defined by the California Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards for grades seven through twelve. These paradigms are not inconsistent with one another, but rather can be

for certain CTE courses may lead to course cancellation, thus disrupting students’ opportunities to complete a sequence in the order that was originally intended. Members of the focus group of secondary CTE instructors emphasized that this was a serious problem, and indicated that

students who leave the course sequence may not choose to or be able to subsequently re-enter the sequence. This disruption may ultimately lead to lower completion rates among CTE students.

Other focus group participants (particularly within the focus group of CTE counselors) said that even when well-designed pathways exist, students may be taken out of those sequences during the process of implementing master scheduling.

Addressing the challenges to the creation of course sequences and pathways

One approach to addressing the challenge of lack of full course sequences (identified in focus group discussions) is differentiated instruction. However, differentiated instruction within a course was noted as desirable in some, but not all, contexts. For example, one secondary CTE instructor noted that “we take the student[s] where they are at, and then we tailor the program to meet their needs. This approach works well because of the effort put in by the teacher, but we don’t get much administrative support.” Another instructor in the same focus group added, “We do try to differentiate the classes, but that is not preferred … we find that the more we

differentiate the courses, the harder it is for the education to be of the highest quality.”

CTE counselors also noted that “sheer knowledge of the system is what facilitates enrollment — counselors and teachers often don’t understand that sequences exist.” Another participant in that focus group added that “sequencing is often misunderstood by students, in addition to counselors and teachers. We need to share this type of information with parents and administrators…we need to develop ways to get information to kids.” Yet another participant acknowledged that her school’s “Pathway Day” event was one way in which such information was being disseminated successfully, although other participants cautioned that “we just don’t have good data” on how well students and staff understand the details and intent of course sequences, so it is premature to draw definitive conclusions about strategies to improve participation in course sequences.

Members of several focus groups reported that both formal and informal recruitment efforts were necessary to generating sufficient levels of interest among students to enter and complete course sequences to sustain adequate levels of enrollment in CTE programs. This was corroborated by parents and students who described in detail how teachers reached out and recruited students into pathways. Despite the effectiveness of personal outreach by teachers to students, focus group members stressed the importance of more systematically disseminated information.

Articulation and course alignment

Articulation of courses or programs refers to the alignment of course or program content from secondary to postsecondary educational institutions such that students can receive credit for a course at the postsecondary level that he/she took at the secondary level. Course alignment refers to the larger issue of course content and skill standards aligning “vertically” from one institution to another, allowing for students to move progressively from one skill level to another without facing institutional barriers.

Extent of articulation

Both administrators and CTE instructors were asked about articulation, with a substantial majority of each group (74% and 75%, respectively) indicating that their institution’s courses were aligned/articulated with feeder schools or postsecondary institutions. Eighty percent of administrators and 71% of CTE instructors reported that formal articulation agreements exist between the local high schools and community college(s).

Benefits of articulating courses and programs

Participants in the focus groups had a variety of positive comments about the benefits of

articulation agreements. For example, one college instructor noted that “the 2+2 agreements have been a good opportunity to get together with [secondary school] teachers.” Another added that student leadership activities held on campus attracted the interest and participation of local high school students, thus boosting their participation in articulation agreements at that college. A counselor in a different focus group echoed a similar viewpoint, adding that “it helps to have the community college instructors talk to the high school students and tell them about the

opportunities we have.”

Challenges to the implementation of articulation agreements

The following presents the survey and focus group responses relating to participants’

identification of the challenges to implementing articulation agreements.

Survey responses regarding challenges to articulation. Although articulation is clearly in widespread use, challenges remain in developing and implementing these agreements. The most common challenge noted by survey respondents is “lack of time to coordinate” (64% of

administrators, 72% of CTE instructors); the second most frequently cited challenge for each group was “differing course content at different feeder schools” (58% and 53%). “Concerns with high school articulation interfering with CCC to CSU and UC articulations” was noted by about half of each group (47% and 50%). The remaining “challenges to articulation” were noted almost as often, with each identified by between 35% to 50% of administrators and CTE instructors.

These included: difficulty working with advanced or feeder programs; lack of coherent course sequences at the feeder or advanced level that courses could articulate with; finding staff receptive and committed to coordination and/or articulation; pace of change in skill

requirements; and identifying high school students who have completed articulated courses.

Focus group responses regarding challenges to articulation. Articulation was discussed at length in three of the focus groups. One overriding theme in these discussions was the disparity between concept and practice in the creation and implementation of articulation agreements. As one CTE counselor admitted, “It’s not too difficult to get articulation agreements signed — but it’s hard to use them smoothly once intact.” In the postsecondary instructor focus group, some participants went even further. “We have had as many as 70 agreements going at one time, we shared information [across institutions] … but implementation of the agreements is really difficult: not too many students take advantage of those agreements.” Another concurred, adding, “Teachers can do the pathways and articulation, but we are not getting the students on board.”

In practice, articulation agreements may reveal challenges not immediately apparent during the design phase; one secondary CTE instructor cautioned that “the politics of articulation can make the whole process harder, especially problems with politics at the administrative level of the community college … I have been the victim of turf wars between different community colleges, about articulation. It can be problematic when students are allowed to articulate at one

community college but not at another; it can be limiting for them.” Echoing this, a different instructor acknowledged, “I feel that sometimes articulation can be a liability.”

Addressing the challenges to implementing articulation agreements

Survey and focus group responses to the issues of addressing the challenges associated with the implementation of articulation agreements are summarized in the following section.

Survey responses. Two groups of survey respondents — administrators and CTE instructors — were asked to provide open-ended responses regarding “factors that they [perceived had]

facilitated successful coordination and articulation.” The analysis of write-in responses yielded three predominant factors that contribute to successful coordination and articulation: 1) ongoing, in-depth opportunities for communication; 2) motivation and commitment on the part of staff and faculty in all participating institutions; and 3) the availability of a dedicated staff-person for handling logistics (setting meetings, attending to administrative issues, etc.). Other representative responses included: “lack of territorial attitudes”; “[having] enough time for adequate planning”;

and “taking personal time to visit schools and make friends with the instructors I articulate with.”

Focus group responses. Focus group responses corroborated the surveys. Across the board, many focus group participants placed great weight on the importance of consistent

communication as fundamental to ensuring smooth coordination among programs and initiatives;

almost without exception, focus group members cautioned that building good communication requires consistent effort over an extended period of time.

Faculty support was also cited as an important underpinning to the successful implementation of articulation agreements; one college instructor emphasized, “We need to focus on what’s needed to build articulation agreements. Inclusion on advisory committees — both ways — builds bridges and communication.”

Coordination with other educational and workforce and economic development initiatives Coordination with other educational initiatives refers to CTE’s involvement with other education reform efforts that may be occurring on campuses, such as learning communities or the

formation of academies. Coordination with workforce development refers to CTE’s involvement with WIA-funded programs in the community and with economic development activities,

primarily as reflected in the responsiveness of CTE programs to the needs of industry.

Extent of coordination with other educational initiatives

To gauge the level of coordination with other related educational initiatives, survey respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they work with academies or small learning communities at their school or college, if they had them. (Only 7% of administrators, 10% of CTE instructors, and 11% of counselors/advisors reported that they did not have either academies or small

learning communities in their institution.) Seventy-five percent of administrators reported working with academies and small learning communities at least to a minimal extent (split almost equally among “to a minimal extent,” “to some extent,” and “to a great extent”). About 68% of CTE instructors and 69% of counselors/advisors reported doing the same; however, for these groups, about 18% of instructors and 16% of counselors noted that they were involved to a great extent. The percent of respondents reporting no involvement with academies or small learning communities ranged from a low of 11% (counselors/advisors) to a high of 23% (CTE instructors).

Extent of coordination with workforce development initiatives

Educators were also asked in the surveys about their coordination with local Workforce Investment Boards, Youth Councils and One Stop Career Centers. The findings show that coordination with these workforce initiatives is moderate, at best. For example, 51% of CTE instructors noted that they did not coordinate “at all” with their local Workforce Investment Board, Youth Council, or One Stop Career Center, as did 26% of administrators, and 40% of counselors/advisors. It was far less common for respondents to indicate that they coordinated “to a great extent” with these initiatives: the proportions ranged from 19% of administrators to only 6% of CTE instructors.

Types of coordination with workforce development efforts

With respect to specific workforce development efforts, One Stop Career Centers were

reportedly used to some degree for career exploration and job searches (43% of administrators, 38% of counselors/advisors, and 26% of CTE instructors). Though the response rate was very small for this group, a greater proportion of community-based counselors/advisors (7 out of 10) used these community-based services, as might be expected. Four out of 10 community-based counselors/advisors and 38% of administrators reported that their staff participate on the Workforce Investment Board (as compared to 11% of CTE instructors and 15% of

counselors/advisors). Staff participation on the Youth Council was indicated by 3 out of 10 community-based counselors/advisors, 26% of administrators, 5% of CTE instructors, and 10%

of counselors/advisors. Reported student participation in WIA-funded programs vary widely, ranging from a low of 15% for CTE instructors to 7 out of 10 for community-based

counselors/advisors (with 30% of counselors/advisors and 43% of administrators indicating this type of participation).

Successful strategies to foster coordination of education with workforce and economic development

Two focus groups addressed the issue of coordination with workforce and economic

development: the Business and Economic/Workforce Development group, and Adult Education administrators. In the first group, business representatives and economic development staff highlighted the use of intermediary organizations, such as industry associations, P-16 councils, and regional economic development organizations, to facilitate coordination efforts. There was acknowledgement that successful use of intermediaries requires “hard outcome-process work” by all parties involved. One participant suggested that “regional economic development [agencies might serve as] better intermediaries [since they are] not competing with what the colleges are trying to do,” but focus group members seemed to agree that the question of “What does an intermediary really do?” needed more careful examination.

One Adult Education administrator reported keeping in touch with the local labor market through regular participation in both the local chamber of commerce and the regional “workforce

development summit.” She then reports back to staff so that they can continuously update their courses. This would be consistent with the role that adult education plays in the overall

workforce development system — that of ensuring that adults are prepared for entry-level employment.

Program flexibility

The corollary to coordination with workforce and economic development is the need for education to be able to respond flexibly to the changing needs of the workplace. Participants from a variety of different focus groups seemed to concur that flexibility in program design and in curriculum approaches is central to helping CTE programs keep pace with the evolving needs of industry and the economy. “Industry is changing fast,” declared one secondary CTE

instructor. “Students need to know what jobs are out there … they need to know the skills.” His colleague concurred, adding, “We need to keep current the emerging skills that are required by industry, especially the skills that are required now but may not have been required as of ten years ago; otherwise, we’re teaching kids info that’s become obsolete.”

One participant in the economic development focus group, with whom others agreed, stressed the importance of skill mastery over “seat time.” He suggested that educators are “locked into the old school, ‘3-unit course, 3 times week for a semester’ way of thinking” and proposed instead a “focus on acquiring skill sets, not semester-long courses for the sake of semester-long courses.” He further proposed “efforts to create flexible courses that generate FTEs (based on industry standards). [We need something] almost like supervised independent study. Open entry, open exit, stay however long you need in order to master skills.”

Other participants echoed the need for “flexibility in curriculum approach,” including

“performance-based instructional design for developing a skills program.” One noted that corporate colleges already use performance-based instructional design and suggested that community colleges should emulate this approach.

According to respondents, this approach requires a “closer working relationship with business and industry,” including responsiveness to the input of advisory committees, and the use of intermediaries as appropriate to facilitate the process.

While all participants in this group agreed with the need for responsiveness and flexibility, one highlighting the “many mechanisms” available to community colleges to customize onsite training in response to business and industry, participants cited the need to eliminate “barriers”

While all participants in this group agreed with the need for responsiveness and flexibility, one highlighting the “many mechanisms” available to community colleges to customize onsite training in response to business and industry, participants cited the need to eliminate “barriers”