Testimony of Michael Mulgrew before the NYS Education Department On Development of Career and Technical Education Programs: Nov. 6, 2007
Nov 6, 2007 3:04 PM
Good afternoon. My name is Michael Mulgrew, and I am the United Federation of Teachers Vice President for Career and Technical Education. On behalf of our president, Randi Weingarten, I’d like to thank you for this opportunity to address this critical issue.
One of the best and most productive things the state can do for the expansion of CTE programs is ensure that all funding is earmarked for the purpose for which it was intended. Currently in New York City only federal Perkins funding is a line item earmarked funding line, leaving all other CTE funding as part of a bulk allotment, which is troubling at the school level
Beyond earmarking, there are four major areas of concern regarding the growth of CTE programs:
The first is capacity. In terms of educational subject areas, CTE is the number one teacher shortage area statewide, more than even math and science, which tend to get the most attention from the news media. But even though CTE is the number one teacher shortage area, no one is doing anything about it. We recommend that the state embark upon a campaign to attract teachers to the field through the transitional certification process and go beyond that to also develop stronger programs at the higher education level. Perhaps the state should consider as a model the Success Via Apprenticeship program that has been extremely successful in New York City as the main conduit for CTE teachers.
As we develop additional and more diverse CTE programs, it is obvious to anyone that teaches in the field that the state’s certification titles do not align with the needs of the program instructors. For example, we have history teachers with law degrees who are not allowed to teach law programs because they don’t have a teaching certificate in law, and that’s because such a certificate doesn’t exist.
Another example of the problem is finding qualified instructors for certain disciplines. Consider graphic arts as an example. The industry council tells us that teachers with fine arts degrees have the right training for teaching certain graphic arts programs, but the State Education Department won’t acknowledge this, so the program can’t be certified and these teachers cannot utilize their skills and training for the benefit of interested students. Better alignment between course requirements and instructor qualifications would abate such problems.
A second area that concerns us is information. The CTE requirement that programs have industry partners is crucial not only to certify a program but also to keep it vigorous and up to date. These relationships also steer us toward new and different programs. Strengthening of the advisory board role would greatly enhance the ability of CTE to develop new programs and also engage the business community to a greater degree, making them vested partners in both the schools and the process.
Our third area of concern is assessments. We believe strongly that all CTE programs must have rigorous assessments. However, in the current process many assessments are rejected, stopping programs from being certified because they’re not linked to a particular testing entity that SED is comfortable with. Assessments are supposed to measure what a student has learned from his or her curriculum. When we use assessment exams that don’t match the curriculum just to meet certification requirements, we are playing a game that helps no one. It’s a real disservice to students and teachers, and we need a more flexible review process for assessments in order to address this issue.
Finally, regarding the matter of articulation, there needs to be a systematic approach that will encourage more meaningful partnerships between schools and institutions of higher education. For example, the Borough of Manhattan Community College developed a construction management training program because of a need from the industry for more construction managers. In turn, BMCC is now communicating with schools that have construction programs because it is a natural linkage. This is one type of model we should be considering, and we should also keep in mind that these developing relationships must be authentic in order for the programs to survive and thrive.
If the SED can meaningfully address the areas of concern I’ve raised here today, it will go a long way toward advancing the growth and quality of CTE programs here in New York City and around the state. I and the UFT are extremely dedicated to this cause and we offer our assistance in any of these matters.
Thank you.
