School Board colleagues,
I serve as a member of the CORE 24 Implementation Task Force, a group tasked with advising the State Board of Education on the implementation of the proposed CORE 24 graduation requirements. Part of the responsibility of Task Force members is to communicate with our stakeholder groups, in this case school board members, to get any feedback they have about the issues the Task Force is considering.
The Task Force met April 13 to focus on Career and Technical Education. You can find information on that meeting on the
State Board
of Education Web site, including agendas, materials and summary notes for each of the meetings.
The April 13th meeting began with a panel discussion focusing on interactions among CTE, skills centers and CORE 24 with the panel comprised of skills center and CTE directors. The questions to which the panel responded included:
- How CORE 24 "works" for CTE or skills center students;
- Concerns about the impact of CORE 24 on CTE or skills center students;
- What could be done in schools/districts to make CORE 24 work better for them;
- What could the State Board do to make CORE 24 work better for them; and
- Which components of the current occupational education requirement are critical to include in the 3-credit career concentration requirement of CORE 24?
The panel’s responses to these questions can be found in the notes from the meeting.
After the panel presentation the Task Force members broke into small groups to respond to two different tasks. The first task was to suggest different ways to define the "career concentration" requirement. At the end of small and large-group dialogue, there was general consensus around the following definition:
Career concentration.
Fulfill three (3) credits of career concentration courses by taking:
CTE courses; credited, work-based learning experiences; approved independent study, and/or general education courses that prepare students for postsecondary education based on their identified program of study in their high school and beyond plan. One of the three credits should meet the standards of an exploratory CTE course.
Task Force members emphasized flexibility for students to allow for the possibility that students change their mind about their interests, and underscored the importance of connecting the decision-making about course selection to the high school and beyond plan.
The second task was to consider a suggestion to enhance flexibility around CORE 24 to allow students who take a CTE equivalent class to earn one credit for the course, but to satisfy two requirements. In other words, a student who takes a CTE-equivalent science class might record the science credit on his/her transcript, but "check off" that a CTE requirement (in the case of CORE 24, a career concentration requirement) has been met.
Currently, students satisfy only one requirement when they take an equivalent course. For example, suppose that Health Occupations has been determined by the local district to be equivalent to Anatomy and Physiology (lab science). The student elects to take the course as equivalent to Anatomy and Physiology, and it is recorded on the student’s transcript as an Anatomy and Physiology lab science. Conversely, the student might elect to take the course as an occupational education credit. In that case, the course would be recorded on the student’s transcript as Health Occupations.
The Task Force members worked in small groups to identify the pros and cons of a "two for one" (credit plus) policy.
The following pros were identified of a two for one/credit plus policy:
Greater flexibility—would open up elective opportunities, and enable students to take courses they need for extra support
Easier for students at skills centers
The process of establishing equivalencies might contribute to professional learning communities among teachers
The following cons were identified:
Would need clear state parameters to increase consistency of interpretation (limits on number of opportunities for "two for one" credit—perhaps only one credit of "double dipping" permitted; circumstances under which the policy could be invoked—only a CTE requirement could be "checked off", districts have to have established clear course equivalencies, etc.)
Might be challenging to transfer credits across schools—inconsistencies due to local control
Would need to work with standardized transcript or it will be difficult to track graduation requirements
Please contact me with any concerns or suggestions you have regarding how Career and Technical Education will be impacted by the implementation of CORE 24. The recommendations of the Task Force will not be final until the last meeting of the Task Force and so input is always welcome and timely.
There was also a May 18 meeting, which I was unable to attend, which focused on "competency-based approaches"; the relationship of Washington districts’ schedules and credit requirements; states’ approaches to defining credit; and recommendations about Washington’s current credit definitions. I will send a message to this listserv as soon as the notes from that meeting are available.
Email or call with any suggestions or questions.
Thanks,
Karen Madsen, WSSDA President-elect
Home 425.337.5552
Cell 425.231.9934
E-Mail
