11 Comments
Trackbacks
- Large high school district adopts A-G | Thoughts on Public Education
- Large high school district adopts A-G | Reflections of a Math Teacher Candidate
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
Making Investing In Education Easy
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
In theory, Linked Learning Programs sound great, and in a few, isolated examples (Partnership Academies), some have shown promise. However, we know that PA’s are very expensive and difficult to set-up/maintain, requiring the “buy-in” from the faculty of all academic and vocational departments, the site’s administration, and large investment by private industry. Is the LLP vision scaleable statewide, given our state’s fiscal constraints? If this is a long-term agenda, what shall we do in the short-term, as Career Technical Education prgrams are being shuttered at historic rates throughout the state (in 1987, three-quarters of high school students were enrolled in campus-based CTE coursework; last year, that number was down to 29%, and the drop continues unabated)? Nobody can argue that high schools have become less relevant to the lives of the students they serve, but we have to be REAListic about reform agendas; students need access to CTE programs now, not just college preparatory coursework or core academic remediatial courses.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The great news is that many schools are reallocating resources and are proving they can implement Linked Learning on the same budget as their peer schools. In fact, nine districts have committed to developing districtwide systems of Linked Learning—and this during the state’s worst fiscal crisis in history. This shows that effective Linked Learning schools can actually thrive regardless of these budget times. And in fact, if we look to spending per outcome—and the study Dollars and Sense proved—students in themed-small schools and career academies can actually cost less per graduate. The recent MDRC research of Linked Learning type themed small schools in New York City showed students graduate at higher rates. With this in mind, Linked Learning becomes even more important to scaling success in these difficult economic times. And as for student access to Career and Technical Education (CTE), as more Linked Learning pathways are implemented, the number of CTE courses available should increase since taking three or more technical courses is a core component of the Linked Learning approach.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Partnership academies (i.e. Linked Learning systems) are great but they are not a replacement for bona fide career and technical education in our middle and high schools. Unfortunately, some special interests in Sacramento are advocating for the death of CTE in our public schools unless the curriculum is provided exclusively through a “Linked Learning” model. The tragedy is these groups and their consultants are using disingenuous and racially charged arguments to advance their own agenda and restrict student access to CTE unless it is provided through their trademarked delivery model. This positioning is not only harmful to the public discourse on this issue, it is a disaster for our students, our society and our economy.
Partnership academies are not new, they are simply being re-branded in 2010 by ConnectEd as “Linked Learning” programs. The reason partnership academies haven’t materially expanded beyond the current numbers is because they are EXPENSIVE to operate. This is a fact not a supposition. They require additional state and local funds in addition to private industry contributions (above traditional ADA) to be successful.
The tragedy is the James Irvine Foundation and other advocacy groups seeking to influence education policy in Sacramento are attempting to replace rigorous and relevant CTE as an option for ALL of our students with an option for only SOME of our students. This is wrong, blatantly discriminatory and harmful to California.
If we can all agree that the revitalization of rigorous and relevant CTE programs in our public K-12 system is essential to improving student success and California’s ability to compete in the global economy — why is it that some think we can afford to wait another decade or two for the restructuring of all of our high schools to occur before we can offer rigorous and relevant CTE to more than a handful of our students?
Hoachlander and his employers argue that Linked Learning is about “Fundamentally changing high schools and . . . reorganizing academics and CTE around a specific industry focus.” Hoachlander expects with the proper funding and support that perhaps enough public high schools will fundamentally reorganize themselves so that up to half of our students will have access to a specific pathway by 2020. In education circles, the extreme boldness of this vision is not lost (i.e. never gonna happen). But for purposes of argument, let’s say it does — then ONLY half of our students would have access to CTE after 2020.
The kicker here is that while we are waiting optimistically 10+ years for this expensive ‘vision’ to become reality — nothing else happens. That’s right, neither Hoachlander nor the James Irvine Foundation will support the expansion of rigorous and relevant CTE in our high schools unless it is delivered through their model.
Anybody else see the problem here? Existing efforts in Sacramento to expand student access to CTE in all of our public schools has been safely sequestered for a decade or more. Some special interest groups competing for attention and resources in Sacramento may be relieved that the CTE discussion has been deferred indefinitely. However, the net effect of this policy sequestration by groups like ConnectEd is that real students are being denied access to rigorous and relevant CTE programs, their futures dulled, and our state’s economic engine remains in ‘idle’ as the world passes us by.
I respectfully submit that we need excellent CTE in all forms in our schools NOT just one. And, we need these programs NOW. To predicate the expansion of rigorous and relevant CTE in our public schools upon an expensive and bold vision becoming reality in the next two decades is a gamble we simply cannot afford.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In response to Chris Walker’s comment, I want to stress that Career and Technical Education is a vital and essential component of every Linked Learning pathway. Implemented to our standards, every pathway would enable participating high school students to take at least four CTE courses in high school—one course or more in each of grades 9, 10, 11, and 12.
We certainly agree that CTE has inherent value that does not depend on being part of a Linked Learning approach. We have never suggested that CTE should only be offered in conjunction with Linked Learning. However, we do believe (and the evidence is compelling) that students will benefit more, both academically and technically, when CTE and core academic subjects are joined in comprehensive, coherent programs of study. These can take many forms, including California Partnership Academies, other forms of career academies, industry-themed high schools, career-focused small learning communities, and innovative ROP/C programs such as the Center for Advanced Research and Technology jointly operated by Fresno and Clovis Unified School Districts.
With respect to cost, Linked Learning is first and foremost about using differently whatever resources are available to support secondary education. There is no better example of this than the nine districts that, in these times of unprecedented cuts in spending, are nevertheless pressing forward with Linked Learning as their primary strategy for high school improvement. That said, Linked Learning, like all high school improvement strategies including CTE, would definitely benefit from additional dollars.
As one who has devoted a thirty-year career to promoting access to high quality CTE, I do not need to be persuaded of its value or the need to reverse the decline of CTE in California’s high schools. Linked Learning offers an innovative strategy for doing just that. It promises to make CTE a central and integrated component of students’ larger high school experience.
We are most gratified that hundreds of organizations and individuals agree with us that Linked Learning is a key strategy for improving our high schools. Visit the Linked Learning Alliance website to view the members—including major state agencies such as the California Department of Education, school districts, business and industry, community and advocacy organizations, research and policy groups, and many others—who believe that students should be prepared for both college and career, not just one or the other.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mr. Rattray’s assertion that “schools are reallocating resources” and are “proving they can implement Linked Learning on the same budget as their peer schools” is not supported by the facts. Each of the nine districts he cites actually received $150,000 in grants from the Irvine Foundation to pay for the costs of just planning for Linked Learning transitions.
For those wondering what the total extra costs of Linked Learning will be, read the AB 2648 report done by CDE. It will take an additional $4,500 per student – $1,500 in new state dollars, $1,500 in local LEA funds, and matches of $1,500 from industry partners – to fully implement Linked Learning. It is dangerous to pursue this experiment knowing that the money is not there, and knowing that every day students continue to drop out, CTE is disappearing, and students are not prepared for the future. If only Irvine Foundation put as much effort into the urgent and real crisis today as they devote to their fantasy solution for tomorrow, real progress might be possible.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
(submitted on behalf of David Plank)
Ms. Rothrock would do well to follow her own advice and read the AB2648 report on Linked Learning programs. On p. 182 of the report the authors state that “the total cost per student [of implementing Linked Learning programs at seven sites] ranged from $1,111 to $2,436, with a median cost of approximately $1,500 per student.” The same point is made on p. 188. Multiplying this cost estimate by three is Ms. Rothrock’s own idea—the number she cites does not appear anywhere in the AB2648 report, nor in the PACE research on which it is based.
It is also important to be clear about how California school districts are dealing with the cost of implementing Linked Learning programs. They are not lining up for additional state support. Instead, as the AB2648 report illustrates, they are reallocating resources from other uses, inspiring the contribution of time from district staff and business partners, and seeking out grant support from the federal government and local foundations. Facing the same budget cuts as other California school districts they are focusing the resources they have on implementing Linked Learning programs that promise a brighter future for their students.
David N. Plank, Executive Director
Policy Analysis for California Education, 3651 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1670
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Professor Plank’s assertion about the “low” costs of Linked Learning programs is incorrect.
In fact, the authors of the AB 2648 report have publicly admitted that the figures cited on p. 182 and p.188 reflect only the “state’s 1/3 share” of the Partnership Academy funding model in place at these school sites. The actual costs per pupil enrolled in these programs is on average $4,500 — once you add-in the local and industry contributions.
If the state is to fund and implement these programs they need to assume they will be carrying the full freight. Again, a signifiacnt reason PAs or Linked Learning programs have not multiplied is because of the high costs associated with maintaining these programs.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Posted on behalf of David Plank:
A few points in reply to Mr. Walker:
1) As he acknowledges, the AB2648 report says exactly what I reported and not what Ms. Rothrock claimed: “the total cost per student [of implementing Linked Learning programs at seven sites] ranged from $1,111 to $2,436, with a median cost of approximately $1,500 per student.”
2) California school districts are bearing most of this cost within their current budgets, by reallocating expenditures to support Linked Learning programs. Like other California school districts in these tough budget times, they are also seeking help from other sources, including community and industry partners.
3) By far the largest share of local and industry contributions to Linked Learning programs are in-kind and not in cash. These include the time of employees who participate in mentoring and job-shadowing programs, and who supervise work-based learning placements, along with contributions of equipment and material to support specific programs. They also include the time of community members who participate in planning and monitoring the implementation of Linked Learning programs.
4) Some contributions from local and industry partners are in cash. Districts also obtain funds to support Linked Learning programs from private and community foundations, and from state and federal grants.
5) To the extent that Linked Learning programs receive resources from local communities and industry partners, these contributions are voluntary. Businesses and communities invest in Linked Learning programs because they anticipate benefits for themselves and the local economy.
David N. Plank
Executive Director
Policy Analysis for California Education
3651 Tolman Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-1670
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
awesome vid! thanks
http://freemoviedownloads.isgreat.org/
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity