Revising California’s CTE Standards
The last 2 months have had so much work, that I have not had a chance to post. But amongst all the craziness, I had the honor to be invited to be a member of the California Statewide Career Technical Review Team, which was tasked with helping to change the California Standards for Career and Technical Education.
And while I feel very honored to be a part of the committee, and I think we did the best we could within the framework and time we had, the event was much as I had expected, with a lot of decisions by compromise, with a lack of framework to build comprehensive thinking.
The problem is that we don’t have enough comprehensive research about what we need. We have some studies by O*Net and other others, but for the most part, research is done through the non-randomized groups of experts being given only a short period of time to come up with ideas. And I was one of those, but even though I try to have a broad view, I don’t believe that I have or possibly can have, a broad enough view from personal experience to be sure that my input is even broad enough.
So if personal experience can not give us a broad enough view, and it often leads to conflicting viewpoints, because of definitions and understanding of mental models, how is is it even possible to understand the “big picture” sufficiently to hope that education is teaching to what is relevant?
I believe in CTE, the first research that must be done is qualitative. We have better methods now to take vast sums of words, like in job want ad postings, and to have an algorithm help place them in bins of things that are somewhat distinct.
After using these qualitative methods to help build the categorizations, then they can be filled in by using more word analysis, combined with surveying. And from this, a good broad framework can be built which then the expert committees can take and hone it further. I think it is this methodology that we need if we really want to have standards that are the best that they can be.
Although, until I or someone else can do the research, I’ll keep trying to get on committees that affect the standards, because I think at least I have a few more things I know that are important that are missing.
Jacob's Journal 
Jacob,
Thank you so much for your post. I was not able to attend this week’s important meeting due to a conflict in schedule; but I was able to recruite 6 good people to review the Finance & Business Pathway standards. From what I see, they did a fine job given the time restraints — which I agree were very, very tight.
Some of the research you suggest is needed for this work is actually available. I have had conversations with Monster.com about this very data. They have, or can produce, much of this timely information. Not only do they know what jobs are hot in what areas, they can cross-reference job descriptions with applications to see gaps that CTE can, and should, fill.
Unfortunately, my budget does not allow for the 20K+ cost of analysing each pathway in just my sector, Finance & Business. I have shared is information with my CDE supervisor and others at the state level who show interest in the prospect of Monster.com partnering in this research. However, state money is just not there, and Perkins is being cut further.
Another resouce I am using is “Marketing, Business Administration Research” (MBAResearch.org) a nonprofit busines education association who develops standards-based and DECA materials. CDE has a membership with this organization that gives us access to updated industry-based research. The challenge is that materials developed from this group is based on the States’ Career Clusters, not California’s Industry Sectors. We did recently do a crosswalk with our standards so at least teachers can use their resources.
This is an important conversation to have. Please keep posting,
Sheryl Ryder
CA Business Education Leadership Project
Sheryl Ryder
May 20, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I am glad to find another advocate for more objective standards. Gary Page also shared with me about the possibility of looking at Monster data, and I am interested in their info, although I am a little concerned that their may be some bias in the data, because I suspect certain industries would likely use Monster more or less than others, etc. Although, some of that bias might be able to be able to be normalized out by using some more objective data like O*Net, and the data would nearly assuredly be more objective than our current methodology which is highly spotty, and not generally in an objective context. Also, possibly using multiple job posting sites, or meta-sites like Indeed, could help reduce bias.
I think the research cost doesn’t need to be $20k. First, I would be willing to do much of the initial work as part of my doctoral degree for a dissertation, if I could get a university to give me a fellowship to do this type of work (just so I don’t have to have out of pocket expenses). I also think that there should be a doctoral degree program specifically for educational content, which could help to do a lot of this valuable research, and lower the cost. Also, because much of the data exists, and just requires analysis, the expensive labor intensive portion of data collection generally doesn’t have to happen. Also, there are becoming some very good automated techniques of qualitative and word analysis, which can reduce the cost of research.
Of those things that I believe we need more of, it is having more time and having decision makers understanding the need for objective methodologies. My frustration, is that it is hard to get many people to understand how important statistical and scientific methodologies to determining what really should be taught. Also, while I agree that in the end the standards need to be at the right level for the teacher and the student, that shouldn’t be the starting point, as it is clear to me it is now. CTE (and in my opinion education in general) should be about what reality is first, then what subset of that reality is able to be taught.
Jacob J. Walker
May 20, 2011 at 11:44 pm
I’m so glad you were on the IT team – they need your insights. Were the WOW & Cisco guys at your table?
I shared the Monster.com info with Gary, who also has had contact with them. Unfortunately, he has no more $ than my Leadership Project to draw from. If you do choose to collect the necessary data to drive educational decisions toward efficiency, CA CTE would benefit greatly! I do not have those connections at the University level, but will surely keep you in mind if I see an open door.
Although MBAResearch does not serve the ICT sector, it does much of the research you suggest is required to develop effective standards. Their research with employers resulted in a tiered approach to standards, which they call “performance indicators.” Each performance indicator is assigned to one of six curriculum-planning levels that represent a continuum of instruction ranging from simple to complex. The levels can serve as building blocks for curriculum development in that students should know and be able to perform the performance indicators at one level before tackling more complex skills and knowledge at the next level.
Prerequisite Content develops employability and job-survival skills and concepts, including work ethics, personal appearance, and general business behavior. Career-Sustaining Content develops skills and knowledge needed for continued employment in or study of business based on the application of basic academics and business skills. Specialist Content provides in-depth, solid understanding and skill development in all business functions. Supervisor Content provides the same in-depth, solid understanding and skill development in all business functions as in the specialist curriculum, and in addition, incorporates content that addresses the supervision of people. Manager Content develops strategic decision-making skills in all business functions needed to manage a business or department within an organization. Owner (ON) Content develops strategic decision-making skills in all aspects of business that are needed to own and operate a business.
This structure is cumbersome for teachers to use in day-to-day lesson planning. However, these levels can be used as the basis for developing an unduplicated sequence of instruction for articulation between high school and postsecondary business courses. It does have merit in developing Programs of Study, which MBAResearch has done.
I am not suggesting this organization has the answer; I just find it an interesting approach that shows success in other states. Again, CA has a membership with this consortium of 37 states and pays annual dues for its products & services. It just hasn’t been utilized to its full potential.
My role in the Standards Review process so far has focused on Finance & Business sector, but my Business Ed Leadership Project contract with CDE includes the IT, Finance & Business and the Marketing, Sales & Services industry sectors. My job is to share resources with CA teachers in these sectors, mainly 9-12, but I do collaborate with 7-16. Are you willing to share your curriculum with others? I would love to connect.
Sheryl Ryder
May 21, 2011 at 2:26 pm