An Advocate for Change:

What Educators and Business Have to Say About

Career–Technical Education and Change©

A report of the findings of six regional symposia conducted in the spring of 2003 in the State of North Carolina

Prepared by Praxis Research, Inc.

Executive Summary

Since 1998 North Carolina has made nationally recognized progress in educational gains for its students, reform of its early childhood programs, and method making schools accountable for student progress.  It also deserves significant praise for its progress in Career-Technical Education (C-TE), particularly for its encouragement of innovative programs, accountability and productive dialogue between business and educators.

In the year 2000 the first North Carolina Business Symposium created a model that has been replicated successfully across the state to gather information and create working alliances of schools, businesses and economic developers. The original business symposium looked closely at issues of marketing C-TE, creating a continuous K–14 education system, integrating minorities into the workforce and creating accountability for C-TE programs. Identifying these issues as important in economic development came at a critical time in our state’s history; a time of changing social and economic realities not equaled since the mid-nineteenth century. Rapid non-native immigration, high unemployment, changing business strategies, rapid urbanization, budget crises, and a growing population are just a few of the factors that schools and businesses had to face shortly after the findings of 2000 symposium were released. 

Adding to this picture of change is the complexity of North Carolina itself.  From north to south and east to west, it presents a changing patchwork of economic and geographic scenery; each region with divergent and sometimes conflicting interests. Issues that are a priority for the northeast sometimes don’t receive much notice in the west. Catastrophes in Castle-Hayne may seem trivial in Fuquay-Varina.     

In order to understand the full range of opinion in each region of the state, gauge the change in opinion since 2000 and create regional C-TE advocacy groups, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction completed a series of six symposia in the spring of 2003. These groups met with over three hundred educator and business participants. They provided valuable insight into the original business symposia findings at the regional level and created the basis for regional advocacy action.

The major findings and recommendations emerging from these symposia are that:

1) The symposia were highly representative of educators and business/industry within the state.

To be effective, however, regional groups will have to continue to maintain a balance of educators and business/development representatives. 

2) 0pinions expressed in the symposia varied both by group membership
 and by region. 

Although there was much agreement on many issues, audience polling and small group discussion data showed significant differences of opinion across both region and participant type. Organizers of advocacy groups must expect dissenting opinions between business and education representatives. There will also be differences within each group depending on the particular perspective of the individual from within their organization or business niche. These differences can be strengths if leadership uses them to create innovative solutions to solve problems.

3) There is strong support for marketing the benefits of C-TE.

Innovative marketing, encouraging students, parents, business and educators to see C-TE in a new light, was seen as the top priority for action across all groups and was recognized in focus groups as the primary activity that could move stakeholder communities toward greater economic development.  Careful planning and piloting of CTE marketing programs can attract a great deal of positive attention if real jobs and community development are linked to them.  Coordination with business and long term planning will be an absolute requirement.

4) There is a need for continuous education beyond high school.

Getting educational organizations to change is not an easy task under any circumstance.  However, there is a window of opportunity available under federal No Child Left Behind legislation to craft for North Carolina an innovative approach that reduces the barriers to continuous K–14 learning via proposed “Sec-Tech” legislation.  Taking every opportunity to get all high school students on to college campuses, creating a challenging math and science curriculum, providing innovative means for contextualizing coursework, and making C-TE courses more palatable to middle and upper income students are ways in which the benefits of continuous education could be garnered.  But, these will need to be “top down” decisions coming from Raleigh that will have to be supported and promoted at the local level.  

5) All participants seem to be affected in one way or another (positively or negatively, directly or indirectly) by non-native immigration to North Carolina.

Whoever first said, “Demographics are destiny” was absolutely correct. School and business leaders must coordinate with community groups to share their vision of the kind of community they want to see in the future.

6) Follow-up surveys of students and employers, “benchmarking” of critical economic indicators, and monitoring of student post-secondary remediation rates should measure accountability for C-TE education.

Respondents clearly saw the creation of a means to survey students and employers regarding the effectiveness of C-TE efforts as a need.  To this end a pilot North Carolina Business Survey was created to and distributed to members of the follow-up focus groups.  This survey can be used to create an annual assessment of business attitudes toward the skills and abilities of entry level workers in their fields. 

Baseline data collection for the first business survey is currently being planned for January, 2004.  This survey, if carried out periodically, could become the yardstick by which progress in advancing career-technical education and business-education collaboration is measured.

7) There is support for creating and maintaining business-education advocacy groups that address C-TE issues on a regional basis.

The major criteria established for the function of such regional groups include:

· Participation in the group by local and regional decision makers

· Utilization of as much technology as possible for efficient dissemination of information

· Connection of the advocacy groups to the local and state educational structures

· Collaboration with existing advocacy groups

Regional leaders in education, development, and business will be given electronic copies of a slide show that summarize the findings of this report for presentation in their home areas. They will also be provided with assistance via Internet communication and data sharing in bringing together a regional advocacy group to address the issues identified in this report. They will receive data from the North Carolina Business Survey completed in January 2004, reported at both the state and regional levels.

I. Introduction

Since 1998 North Carolina has made considerable progress in establishing career-technical education (C-TE) as the foundation for its economic development. North Carolina has accomplished this through linking the needs and aspirations of students with existing educational opportunities, the demand for educational accountability, and an acute awareness of changing workplace realities. 

In 1998 there were a number of students graduating from North Carolina high schools with a C-TE sequence of courses; however, there was no statewide data describing how those students performed academically after they left secondary education. We now have annual reports that use established criteria for identifying C-TE students and the number that graduate from each high school in the state.  We also have a database with three years of longitudinal data following C-TE graduates (2000-2002) into their post-secondary careers. The number of C-TE graduates is also now linked to a high schools performance assessment as established by the North Carolina ABC Accountability program.

In addition to monitoring and establishing career-technical education as part of the academic accountability package for public schools, another major accomplishment during the same period was the creation of a statewide articulation agreement between public schools and the state community college system. This undertaking required tremendous collaboration in reviewing and establishing criteria for providing students with a seamless transition between high school and higher education.

These data and reforms comprise only part of the effort. Maintaining a partnership with the business community is also critical to creating a viable career-technical education program that supports students and stimulates economic development. In the fall of 2000, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) initiated a collaboration with the business community that has provided far-reaching impact. The North Carolina Business Symposium 2000 brought together 100 employers from all over the state, representing every major type of business and industry, from both small and large firms. This business-led gathering used the latest technology to gather input from the participants via e-polling. Its results have been used to inform the efforts of educators and guide local collaborations between business and schools for the past two years.

The recommendations that emerged from the business symposium emphasized:

• Marketing existing educational opportunities
• Raising the standard expectation of education in North Carolina to K–14
• Making the educational system more accountable for career-technical education
• Designing programs to integrate minority workers into the workplace
• Establishing a permanent liaison between business and education.

Since the release of the symposium report, its contents have been disseminated statewide and have been the subject of lively discussion and debate. Several communities have used the symposium model for bringing business people and educators together and making improvements to local career-technical education initiatives. This model of direct input from the business community into the nature and quality of career preparation is vital for the long-term success of efforts in C-TE and in contributing to the economic well being of the state. Reviewing the symposium recommendations in the light of current realities makes this clear.      

When the 2000 business symposium was held the employment picture in North Carolina was different than it is today. Also, the results of 2000 census were not available. Employment figures were at all time highs and the economic boom seemed poised to continue for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, employers were emphatic that students take advantage of the underutilized opportunities that were available to them in education and job training and that the school dropout rate decrease. Even more radical, business representatives saw the need for change in the public perception of what constituted a basic education and advocated public financing and accountability of that education. Business representatives also saw the need for bringing new minority groups, particularly Hispanic workers, into the educational community for career preparation. 

The business community emphasized two other points emphatically and repeatedly. They wanted to be involved with the educational community in a meaningful way and they wanted that involvement to be on going.  What the business community did not want were requests for financial contributions without demonstrations of effectiveness and an opportunity for input (Yelton, 2001).

In the three years since the original business symposium took place much has changed in our state economically and socially.  In addition, some regions of the state were more heavily represented than others in the symposium gathering.  This suggested that some of the findings might have been influenced by the regional interests of the groups present. In terms of the symposium findings and recommendations (marketing C-TE, accountability, continuous K–14 education, integrating underserved populations, creating a permanent business-education liaison, dissemination of the model, etc.) the symposium model has been used successfully several times since 2000 to bring business people and educators together, gather information, and create local problem solving teams. This progress, while promising, did not address the new economic and social realities of the state or bring together resources at the regional level to address the core themes of the 2000 symposium. In order to do this and to assist in the creation of regional business-educator advocacy groups for C-TE, the DPI instituted the creation of six regional symposia during the spring of 2003. They contracted with Praxis Research, Inc. of Charlotte, NC to assist them in this effort.   

II.  Gathering Business and Educator Opinions

North Carolina is an economically diverse state. Agriculture, manufacturing, banking, medicine, technology, and tourism are more or less important as you travel from east to west and north to south.  It is important to gather information from each component of this economically diverse picture to have a complete and “consumer friendly” understanding of the state as a whole.  This project began by gathering input from each of the state’s 100 counties and analyzing other employment and outcome data received from business and educational sources. 

North Carolina does not exist in an economic and social vacuum. Recent events on the national and international stage are linked to the state’s well being at both the micro- and macro-levels. Data on economic and demographic trends from the broader national and international perspective were gathered to demonstrate how these trends might impact North Carolina’s local economic development.

The purposes of these analyses were threefold:

· First, to identify critical issues important in economic development and employment

· Second, to identify issues and questions to be placed before a regional symposium for e-polling and discussion leading to regional and statewide action planning by a coalition of business and educator advocates, and

· Third, to place the discussion in larger context of economic and social change.

The results of these analyses were prepared in the form of six regional data packets for North Carolina counties (see Appendix A) and a brief presentation of data from a variety of sources showing five trends impacting economic development (see Appendix B). These data (in addition to other data showing job loss, school dropout rates, and Vocational Education Information System [VEIS] data) were provided to the participants at the time of the symposia.

Regional Symposia

The follow-up to the regional/national economic information gathering consisted of six regional symposia. These symposia cut across all seven of the North Carolina Economic Development Zones and represented geographic regions of the state with common economic interests. The purposes of the symposia were to:

1. Gather reactions from the participants to economic, social and educational issues via e-polling, and
2. Begin to create action groups to address regional priorities in career-technical education and economic development,
3. Share information with the participants on the new state standard course of study and a draft of the College Tech Prep strategic plan.

Since this project is a collaborative effort between educators and the business community, both were included in the symposia groupings to provide input and opinions. These participants included business and industry managers, recruiters, trainers, human resource personnel, educators (including both C-TE and non-C-TE staff, and administrators), economic development specialists, Chamber of Commerce representatives, trade and industry organization members, labor representatives, retirees, Workforce Development representatives, NC Employment Security staff, parents of students, and community college instructors and administrators.  The symposia meetings were held between May 1^st and May 16^th 2003. One meeting took place in each of the state’s six educational service regions (west, southwest, northwest, central, southeast, and northeast) in the cities of Enka, Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Fayetteville, and Williamston. The C-TE regional coordinators arranged the meetings for DPI, which took place in various facilities ranging from community college campuses to private industry space. All symposia were scheduled to begin with breakfast (around 8:30 am) and end before luncheon (around 12:15 pm). The regional coordinator for each location secured a welcoming dignitary as well as a Master of Ceremonies to guide the proceedings. The regional coordinator also identified and secured training for small group facilitators to guide the small group discussions. (For a guide to a typical symposium meeting, see the sample agenda in Appendix C.) 

Data were gathered from the participants during the symposia in two ways. First, information was gathered from them via e-polling, which is opinion polling using wireless computer technology to provide instantaneous results, graphic display and discussion. Participants were then assigned to small groups to discuss and come to consensus on questions presented on four Round Table Report forms (See Appendix D).  

Participants were presented with issues that were centered around four central topics: The marketing of C-TE, accountability for C-TE, reaching underserved (particularly minority and foreign-born) populations with C-TE programs, and creating a continuous K–14 educational system. Identifying data was collected for each respondent to the e-polling data in order to disaggregate the results by size and type of organizational affiliation as well as by region. 

After welcoming remarks and an overview of the agenda and objectives for the symposium, participants were given brief instructions on the use of the e-polling keypads. After the first round of e-polling, a brief presentation identified five national economic and social trends that may have an impact on North Carolina’s economic and educational goals (See Appendix B). These trends addressed the issues of changes in education, wages, the labor force, job openings, and global markets. Next, in their small round table groups of 6-7 people, the symposia participants prioritized critical local and regional needs and brainstormed ways in which those needs could be addressed. Finally, follow-up e-polling identified those participants who wished to be involved in future symposium related activities and to evaluate the symposium process.

III.  Results

Demographics

A total of 245 of the participants at the symposium were included in the e-polling results (Table 1) of which slightly over half were non-educators (A total of 312 participants attended the symposia). Figure 1 shows that the participants represented a variety of economic enterprises and backgrounds and Figure 2 show how those backgrounds are represented percentage-wise just among the non-educator participants. 

Table 1: e-Polling Participants

Region	Educators	Non-Educators
West	19	17
Southwest	28	32
Northwest	13	11
Central	14	20
Southeast	23	21
Northeast	22	25
Total	119	126

Figure 3 shows that slightly over half of the non-educators represented large organizations (>100 employees) while about a fifth were from medium size enterprises (15-100) and the remaining quarter from small employers  (15 or less).

Table 2 provides an additional breakdown by region on the attendance by defined organizational categories of the attendees.

Table 2: Organizational Type by Region

Organization type (N)	SW (60)	West (36)	SE (44)	NW (24)	Central (34)	NE (47)
	Percentage
Chamber/Economic Dev.	8.3	8.3	9.1	4.2	8.8	12.8
Construction	6.7	0	0	12.5	11.8	4.3
Financial/Real Estate	5	2.8	6.8	4.2	2.9	4.3
Retail	1.7	0	2.3	0	2.9	4.3
Transportation/Utilities	0	5.6	2.3	0	5.9	6.4
Health Care	6.7	8.3	9.1	8.3	8.8	6.4
Manufacturing/Agriculture	11.7	8.3	2.3	8.3	8.8	6.4
Government	5	5.6	4.5	4.2	0	4.3
Other	8.3	8.3	11.4	4.2	8.8	4.3
Education	46.7	52.8	52.3	54.2	41.2	46.8

e-Polling Results

e-Polling results are presented in Tables 3-17. Each table shows the response to a specific question posed to the symposium groups. These data are disaggregated to show how all participants responded and also to show the responses of educators and non-educators. 

Marketing

As might be expected, educators were more aware of marketing efforts to students than those outside the school system (Table 3). These results were paralleled by similar findings regarding marketing to businesses and parents of high school students (Tables 4-5).

Table 3

Have you ever heard of C-TE Programs being marketed to high school students?
	Yes, Very often	Occasionally	Rarely	No, Never
All	57	25	10.5	7.5
Non-educators	31.1	36.9	18	13.9
Educators	86.8	11.3	1.9	0

Table 4

Have you ever heard of C-TE Programs being marketed to business and industry?
	Yes, Very often	Occasionally	Rarely	No, Never
All	33.8	40.4	21.5	4.4
Non-educators	19.5	43.9	30.1	6.5
Educators	50.5	36.2	11.4	1.9

Table 5

Have you ever heard of C-TE Programs being marketed to parents of high school students?
	Yes, Very often	Occasionally	Rarely	No, Never
All	34.8	29.5	23	12.6
Non-educators	14.5	28.2	35.5	21.8
Educators	58.5	31.1	8.5	1.9

When the attendees were asked whether they themselves would encourage their own child to enroll in a C-TE program the results were positive, but again somewhat mixed.  Educators were more likely to answer “Yes” to this statement than non-educators (Table 6). 

Table 6

Would you encourage your child to enroll in a C-TE program?
	Yes	No	Maybe
All	83.1	4.4	12.4
Non-educators	75.8	8.3	15.8
Educators	91.4	0	8.6

Continuous K–14 Education

The overwhelming majority of all respondents felt that receiving additional education after high school was “very important” (Table 7). While the majority of both educators (57.0%) and non-educators (76.6%) felt that raising the compulsory education age to 18 was a good idea (either “Yes, absolutely” or “Yes, maybe”) there was a definite difference in those groups  (Table 8).  Non-educators were considerably more positive about this type of change than educators (41.1% ‘Probably not” or “Definitely not”).

Table 7

How important do you believe it will be for current high school students in your region to receive at least some additional education after high school?
	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Very Important
All	93	5.7	1.3
Non-educators	91.7	6.6	1.7
Educators	94.5	4.6	0.9

Table 8

In your opinion would raising the compulsory education age in North Carolina to 18 be a good idea?
	Yes, absolutely	Yes, maybe	Probably not	Definitely not	Don't know
All	27.7	39.8	20.3	8.2	3.9
Non-educators	35.5	41.1	14.5	3.2	5.6
Educators	18.7	38.3	27.1	14	1.9

Accountability

These results reveal that the respondents believe that the schools should have some level of accountability for the quality of the labor force in their region (Table 9). Tables 10-12 show that the greatest level of accountability identified as “Yes, totally” was for higher level thinking skills.

Table 9

Do you think high schools should be accountable for the overall quality of the labor force in your region?
	Yes, totally	Yes, partially	No, not at all
All	5.2	87.8	7
Non-educators	8.3	83.3	8.3
Educators	1.8	92.7	5.5

Table 10

Do you think high schools in your region should be responsible for the technical skills of entry-level employees?
	Yes, totally	Yes, partially	No, not at all
All	12.7	83.8	3.5
Non-educators	18.9	78.7	2.5
Educators	5.7	89.6	4.7

Table 11

Do you think high schools in your region should be responsible for the "soft" (workplace practices like cooperativeness, timeliness, courtesy, etc.) skills of entry-level employees?
	Yes, totally	Yes, partially	No, not at all
All	21.7	73.9	4.3
Non-educators	27.6	67.5	4.9
Educators	15	81.3	3.7

Table 12

Do you think high schools in your region should be responsible for the higher level thinking (like problem solving, group participation, new skill acquisition, innovation) skills of entry-level employees?
	Yes, totally	Yes, partially	No, not at all
All	24.2	75.3	0.4
Non-educators	30.1	69.9	0
Educators	17.6	81.5	0.9

Non-Native workers

e-Polling results regarding non-native workers are contained in Tables 13-16. These tables show that the majority of all organizations represented at the symposia both employ and serve non-natives.  They also employ individuals who are multilingual. 

Table 13

My business/organization currently employs non-native workers.
	Yes	No	Don't Know
All	70.3	23.1	6.6
Non-educators	63	31.9	5
Educators	78.2	13.6	8.2

Table 14

My business/organization currently employs at least one person who is multilingual.
	Yes	No	Don't Know
All	79.3	16.7	4
Non-educators	64.8	28.7	6.6
Educators	96.2	2.9	1

Table 15

My business/organization has served non-native customers/clients in the past year.
	Yes	No	Don't Know
All	92.6	5.2	2.2
Non-educators	87.6	9.9	2.5
Educators	98.1	0	1.9

Table 16 shows a very mixed opinion in regard to the impact of non-natives on the ability of organizations to fill job openings. Around 40% of all respondents stated that non-native immigration had had a positive impact but over a quarter of all respondents, 21.3% of non-educators, and 32.4% of educators responded “Don’t Know”.

Table 16

The immigration of non-native labor into our region has had a positive impact on the ability of my company/organization to find employees for job openings.
	True	False	Don't Know
All	39.6	33.9	26.5
Non-educators	40.2	38.5	21.3
Educators	38.9	28.7	32.4

Importance for Economic Development

All e-polling respondents were asked to rank as most important the one issue that they felt was most important in terms of its impact on economic development in their region over the forthcoming five years (Table 17). Overall, the majority of respondents chose marketing C-TE programs. However, by a small difference in percentage educators chose creating a continuous K–14 education system and non-educators chose marketing.

Table 17

Of the four issues we just discussed, which would you rank as "most important" in terms of its importance for economic development in your region over the next five years?
	Marketing	K–14 Education	Accountability	Under-represented populations
All	42.8	34.1	14.8	8.3
Non-educators	44.3	27	18	10.7
Educators	41.1	42.1	11.2	5.6

Round Table Results

The round table (small group) discussion results were analyzed for the frequency of responses that were presented as consensus by the participants. The three most frequently identified items/responses are listed by their overall frequency across all regions and by individual region in Tables 18-33. The listings A-B-C should not be considered rankings of importance as there were often no differences in frequency between the concepts included in category A and those included in B or C.

Issue A: Marketing Career–Technical Education

On the marketing issue there was unanimity across all regions in the rating of the marketing the potential benefits of C-TE participation, collaboration with business and the ability of school staff (particularly career development counselors) as the most valuable assets currently available to C-TE advocates (Table 18).

Table 18

In this region, what is this group’s consensus agreement on the three greatest assets available for marketing C-TE to High School students, their parents and the supporting business community?
Region (N)	Most Frequently Mentioned Assets
	A	B	C
All Regions (36)	Potential benefits of participation	Collaborations with business partners	Abilities of school staff (CDC’s)
West (5)	Collaborations with business partners	Potential benefits of participation	Abilities of school staff (CDC’s)
Southwest (8)	Collaborations with business partners	Potential benefits of participation	Abilities of school staff (CDC’s)
Northwest (4)	Potential benefits of participation	Collaborations with business partners	Abilities of school staff (CDC’s)
Central (7)	Collaborations with business partners	Potential benefits of participation	Collaborations with PTA/O and other community partners.
Southeast (7)	Potential benefits of participation	Collaborations with business partners	Abilities of school staff (CDC’s)
Northeast (5)	Potential benefits of participation	Collaborations with business partners	Abilities of school staff (CDC’s)

Table 19 shows more variation across regions in terms of identifying challenges to marketing C-TE. All but one region, the west, identified the concentration of interest and resources on four-year college preparatory program/students as a challenge. All but two of the regions (northwest and southeast) identified issues surrounding negative “stigma” associated with C-TE participation. Other issues identified by various regions included lack of adequate funding, lack of information, lack of parental support and conflict state/national accountability programs.

Round table groups across all regions suggested the utilization of mass media in marketing C-TE (Table 20). Five of six regions suggested business presentations to Parent Teacher Student Organizations and other groups in support of C-TE. Other suggestions included the integration of C-TE courses into the “honors” program, marketing C-TE at the middle school level, specialized career fairs and the integration of business/industry skill standards into the curriculum.

Table 19

In this Region what is this group’s consensus agreement on the three greatest challenges for involving High School students, their parents and the supporting business community in C-TE?
Region	Most Frequently Mentioned Challenges
	A	B	C
All Regions (36)	Concentration of attention on College Prep	Overcoming the image/stigma of C-TE	Lack of adequate funding
West (5)	Lack of parental support	Lack of information about programs	Overcoming the image/stigma of C-TE
Southwest (8)	Concentration of attention on College Prep	Lack of parental support	Overcoming the image/stigma of C-TE
Northwest (4)	Concentration of attention on College Prep	Lack of information about programs	Lack of adequate funding
Central (7)	Concentration of attention on College Prep	Overcoming the image/stigma of C-TE	Lack of adequate funding
Southeast (7)	Concentration of attention on College Prep	Lack of support from administration/legislature	Conflicts with NCLB, state testing and curriculum requirements
Northeast (5)	Concentration of attention on College Prep	Overcoming the image/stigma of C-TE	Conflicts with NCLB, state testing and curriculum requirements

Table 20

Describe in some detail at least one new approach that might work to generate interest in C-TE among High School students, their parents and the supporting business community.
Region	Most Frequently Mentioned Approaches
	A	B	C
All Regions (36)	Mass media and marketing	Business participation in PTSO and other presentations	Specialized career fairs
West (5)	Mass media and marketing	Specialized career fairs	Integration of skill standards into the curriculum
Southwest (8)	Mass media and marketing	Specialized career fairs	Business participation in PTSO and other presentations
Northwest (4)	Business participation in PTSO and other presentations	Mass media and marketing	Integrate C-TE courses into the honors program
Central (7)	Mass media and marketing	Business participation in PTSO and other presentations	Integrate C-TE courses into the honors program
Southeast (7)	Mass media and marketing	Business participation in PTSO and other presentations	Target middle school students for C-TE programs
Northeast (5)	Mass media and marketing	Integrate C-TE courses into the honors program	Business participation in PTSO and other presentations

Table 21 shows the variety of suggestions that emerged from the small groups regarding ways in which business could support C-TE programs. These ranged from offering work-based-learning opportunities to participating in the “Adopt-a-School” or similar programs. 

Table 21

In what ways can the business community help promote C-TE programs effectively?
Region	Most Frequently Mentioned Suggestions for Business Promotion
	A	B	C
All Regions (31)	Engage in “Adopt-a-School” concept	Offer internships, WBE, job shadowing, apprenticeships, etc.	Sponsor/participate in C-TE events
West (3)	Business endorsements/support	Offer internships, WBE, job shadowing, apprenticeships, etc.	Engage in “Adopt-a-School” concept
Southwest (7)	Business endorsements/support	Sponsor/participate in C-TE events	Offer internships, WBE, job shadowing, apprenticeships, etc.
Northwest (4)	Business endorsements/support	Offer internships, WBE, job shadowing, apprenticeships, etc.	Engage in “Adopt-a-School” concept
Central (6)	Sponsor/participate in C-TE events	Provide donations and scholarships	Offer internships, WBE, job shadowing, apprenticeships, etc.
Southeast (7)	Offer internships, WBE, job shadowing, apprenticeships, etc.	Business endorsements/support	Provide donations and scholarships
Northeast (4)	Sponsor/participate in C-TE events	Provide donations and scholarships	Offer internships, WBE, job shadowing, apprenticeships, etc.

Issue B: Creating the Expectation of a Continuous K–14 Education

Tables 22-26 show the results of the questions addressing the creation of a continuous K–14 education. The preponderance of small groups in all regions saw K–14 education as “absolutely essential” or “important”. The Northeast showed a variation from this pattern with 40% responding “not important” or “not necessary” (Table 22).

Table 22

In the opinion of the consensus of this group, how important is a K–14 education for students?
Region (N)	Percentage of Groups
	Absolutely Essential	Important	Not Very Important	Not Important	Not Necessary
All Regions (36)	36.1	50.0	5.6	2.8	5.6
West (4)	-	75.0	25.0	-	-
Southwest (9)	55.6	44.4	-	-	-
Northwest (4)	100	-	-	-	-
Central (7)	42.9	22.2	11.1	-	11.1
Southeast (7)	14.3	85.7	-	-	-
Northeast (5)	-	60.0	-	20.0	20.0

Table 23 shows that small groups believe that citizens would be, in general, unwilling at this time to pay for K–14 education. In the west, central and northeast 50% or more of the small groups rated this item “not at all willing”. Only in the southwest did 22.2% of the groups say that citizens would be “very willing”.

Table 23

How willing would citizens in this region be to pay for K–14 education?
Region (N)	Percentage of Groups
	1 Very Willing	2	3	4	5 Not At All Willing
All Regions (35)	5.7	-	28.6	42.6	22.8
West (4)	-	-	-	50.0	50.0
Southwest (9)	22.2	-	22.2	55.6	-
Northwest (4)	-	-	75.0	25.0	-
Central (6)	-	-	50.0	-	50.0
Southeast (7)	-	-	28.6	71.4	-
Northeast (5)	-	-	-	40.0	60.0

Few of the groups in any region thought it was likely that North Carolina would see the compulsory education age level raised to 18 in the next ten years (Table 24).  

Table 24

On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being “absolutely yes” and 5 being “absolutely not” how likely is it that North Carolina will see compulsory education through age eighteen in the next ten years? (group consensus)
Region (N)	Percentage of Groups
	1 Absolutely Yes	2	3	4	5 Absolutely Not
All Regions (36)	-	2.8	33.3	36.1	27.8
West (4)	-	-	25.0	50.0	25.0
Southwest (9)	-	-	44.4	22.2	33.3
Northwest (4)	-	-	25.0	50.0	25.0
Central (7)	-	14.3	57.1	14.3	14.3
Southeast (7)	-	-	28.6	42.6	28.6
Northeast (5)	-	-	-	60.0	40.0

Challenges in creating a K–14 system that were identified by the small groups included lack of facilities, unwillingness to change “tradition”, lack of staffing, bureaucracy, and lack of institutional flexibility (see Table 25). Benefits attributed to creating a K–14 system included gains in technical skills and credentials, guaranteed articulation between secondary and post-secondary education, and more marketable education/more attractive to high skill employers (Table 26).  Interestingly, in the southeast one of the most frequent small group responses was that the creation of a K–14 system would have “no benefit”.

Table 25

What challenges (other than financial ones) would face the state or region in providing a K–14 education?
Region (N)	Most Frequently Mentioned Challenges
	A	B	C
All Regions (36)	Unwillingness to change tradition and involvement with political issues	Lack of facilities	Lack of staffing
West (4)	Lack of facilities	Bureaucratic and legal obstacles	Disruptive to labor market
Southwest (9)	Unwillingness to change tradition and involvement with political issues	Lack of facilities	Lack of staffing
Northwest (4)	Unwillingness to change tradition and involvement with political issues	Lack of facilities	Lack of staffing
Central (7)	Lack of facilities	Lack of staffing	Bureaucratic and legal obstacles
Southeast (7)	Unwillingness to change tradition and involvement with political issues	Bureaucratic and legal obstacles	Lack of staffing
Northeast (5)	Lack of facilities	Unwillingness to change tradition and involvement with political issues	Lack of institutional and curricular flexibility

Table 26

What benefits for C-TE would be derived from establishing K–14 as the NC standard (instead of the current K-12)?
Region (N)	Most Frequently Mentioned Benefits
	A	B	C
All Regions (31)	Gains in technical skills and credentials by graduates	Guaranteed articulation between secondary and post-secondary education	More marketable education/more attractive to high skill employers
West (4)	Gains in technical skills and credentials by graduates	Guaranteed articulation between secondary and post-secondary education	More marketable education/more attractive to high skill employers
Southwest (7)	Guaranteed articulation between secondary and post-secondary education	Gains in technical skills and credentials by graduates	More marketable education/more attractive to high skill employers
Northwest (4)	Guaranteed articulation between secondary and post-secondary education	Gains in technical skills and credentials by graduates	More marketable education/more attractive to high skill employers
Central (6)	Gains in technical skills and credentials by graduates	Guaranteed articulation between secondary and post-secondary education	More marketable education/more attractive to high skill employers
Southeast (5)	Gains in technical skills and credentials by graduates	No benefits	Greater maturity of new workers/students
Northeast (5)	Gains in technical skills and credentials by graduates	Guaranteed articulation between secondary and post-secondary education	More marketable education/more attractive to high skill employers

Issue C: Accountability for C-TE

There was very solid support across all regions for follow-up surveys of graduates and employers to assess how well high schools are doing in preparing students (Table 27).  Small groups also suggested reviewing employment and other economic indicator data and post-secondary student remediation rates as indicators of high school accountability.

Table 27

In the opinion of the consensus of the members of your group, what are the three best ways to measure how well public high schools are doing in preparing students for their future after high school?
Region (N)	Most Frequently Mentioned Ways to Measure High School Preparation Efforts
	A	B	C
All Regions (38)	Survey follow-up of graduates and employers	Employment and other economic indicator rate change	Post-secondary remediation rates
West (6)	Survey follow-up of graduates and employers	Employment and other economic indicator rate change	Post-secondary remediation rates
Southwest (9)	Survey follow-up of graduates and employers	Employment and other economic indicator rate change	Analysis of career development plans
Northwest (4)	Survey follow-up of graduates and employers	Employment and other economic indicator rate change	Post-secondary remediation rates
Central (7)	Survey follow-up of graduates and employers	Employment and other economic indicator rate change	Performance testing results
Southeast (7)	Survey follow-up of graduates and employers	Employment and other economic indicator rate change	Post-secondary remediation rates
Northeast (5)	Survey follow-up of graduates and employers	Employment and other economic indicator rate change	Post-secondary remediation rates

In asking about what could be done to encourage business to pay closer attention to the quality of high school C-TE programs the small groups encouraged activities that fostered greater interaction between schools and the business community. These included work-based-learning, curriculum development, the joint creation of job standards, transcript analysis, the creation of business-education advocacy groups, and the sharing of job descriptions.

Table 28

In the opinion of the consensus of the members of your group, what are three ways in which business could be encouraged to pay closer attention to the quality of secondary C-TE programs?
Region (N)	Most Frequently Mentioned Ways to Encourage Business
	A	B	C
All Regions (36)	Interaction of schools with business,  and Chamber of Commerce	Business participation in mentoring, apprenticeship, and WBE programs	Focus on job descriptions, job standards, curriculum, development, transcripts
West (6)	Interaction of schools with business,  and Chamber of Commerce	Business participation in advocacy groups	Business participation in recognition programs
Southwest (9)	Focus on job descriptions, job standards, curriculum development, transcripts	Business participation in mentoring, apprenticeship, and WBE programs	Interaction of schools with business,  and Chamber of Commerce
Northwest (3)	Business participation in advocacy groups	Interaction of schools with business,  and Chamber of Commerce	Focus on job descriptions, job standards, curriculum, development, transcripts
Central (7)	Interaction of schools with business,  and Chamber of Commerce	Business participation in mentoring, apprenticeship, and WBE programs	Financial incentives or tax credits
Southeast (6)	Interaction of schools with business,  and Chamber of Commerce	Business participation in mentoring, apprenticeship, and WBE programs	Focus on job descriptions, job standards, curriculum, development, transcripts
Northeast (5)	Interaction of schools with business,  and Chamber of Commerce	Business participation in mentoring, apprenticeship, and WBE programs	Focus on job descriptions, job standards, curriculum, development, transcripts

Slightly more that half of the groups responded “no” when asked if C-TE programs or high schools should be accountable for soft skills like those developed in character education programs (cooperation, honesty, promptness, etc.) and skills like problem solving, communication, group participation and innovation (Table 29-30). There was, however considerable variation across regions in the responses to these questions.  The range of response to the “soft skills” question in the “yes” category was from 62.5% (southwest) to 25% (northwest).  For the “problem solving, etc.” question responses in the “yes” category ranged from 62.5%, again in the southwest, to 0% in the northeast.

Table 29

In the opinion of the consensus of your group should C-TE programs be held accountable for developing the values of “Character Education” such as cooperation, honesty, promptness, courtesy, etc?
Region (N)	Percentage
	YES	NO
All Regions (37)	45.9	54.1
West (6)	33.3	66.7
Southwest (8)	62.5	37.5
Northwest (4)	25.0	75.0
Central (7)	42.9	57.1
Southeast (7)	57.1	42.9
Northeast (5)	40.0	60.0

Table 30

Problem solving, communication, group participation and innovation (among others) are frequently mentioned as skills in demand by employers. In the opinion of this group, are public schools being held accountable for teaching these skills?
Region (N)	Percentage
	YES	NO
All Regions (34)	41.2	58.8
West (6)	60.0	40.0
Southwest (8)	62.5	37.5
Northwest (4)	50.0	50.0
Central (7)	28.6	71.4
Southeast (6)	33.3	66.7
Northeast (4)	-	100

Issue D: Integration of Under-Represented Populations

The small groups clearly feel that there have been some problems for business created by the influx of non-native labor into their regions (Table 31). The fewest problems are reported in the northeast and west, and the regions reporting the most severe difficulties are the central and northwest.  All regions report that non-native migration has created some difficulties for their schools. The areas reporting the highest percentage of “major problems” are the southwest and northwest.

Table 31

According to the consensus of this group the influx of non-native labor into this region: (circle your choice)
Region (N)	Percentage
	Is being handled by business very effectively with few problems	Has created some problems for business and native or non-native workers	Has created major problems for business and native or non-native workers
All Regions (33)	12.1	72.7	15.2
West (4)	25.0	75.0	-
Southwest (8)	12.5	75.0	12.5
Northwest (4)	-	75.0	25.0
Central (7)	14.3	57.1	28.6
Southeast (6)	-	83.3	16.7
Northeast (4)	25.0	75.0	-

Table 32

According to the consensus of this group the influx of non-native labor into this region: (circle your choice)
Region (N)	Percentage
	Is being handled by the schools very effectively with few problems	Has created some problems for schools	Has created major problems for schools
All Regions (33)	-	63.6	36.4
West (4)	-	75.0	25.0
Southwest (7)	-	42.9	57.1
Northwest (4)	-	50.0	50.0
Central (7)	-	57.1	42.9
Southeast (6)	-	83.3	16.7
Northeast (4)	-	80.0	20.0

Small groups identified a variety of community, school religious and private organizations that were assisting non-natives in adjusting and settling into their communities (Table 33).

Table 33

In the opinion of your group what existing assets (public/private groups, financial, community involvement, etc.) are being used to help integrate non-natives into the educational system and labor markets of this region?
Region (N)	Most Frequently Mentioned Assets
	A	B	C
All Regions (31)	Orientation/integration programs	ESL Classes	Religious Organizations
West (4)	Orientation/integration programs	ESL Classes	Advocacy Groups
Southwest (8)	Orientation/integration programs	ESL Classes	Religious Organizations
Northwest (4)	Religious Organizations	Advocacy Groups	Orientation/integration programs
Central (6)	ESL Classes	Advocacy Groups	Orientation/integration programs
Southeast (4)	ESL Classes	Advocacy Groups	-
Northeast (5)	Religious Organizations	ESL Classes	Orientation/integration programs

Follow-up Focus Groups

A series of three focus groups were held to follow-up on questions posed in the regional symposia and to assist in the interpretation of the symposia findings. These sessions combined symposia participants from two or more educational regions into one focus group. The groups consisted of both educators and non-educators and contained 13-14 participants each. These groups were carried out three months after the completion of the original symposia.

Participant Demographics

A total of forty-one participants, representing a variety of industries (health, communication, chamber, construction, manufacturing, non-education government-related, and retail), participated in one of the three focus groups (See Figures 4-5). Each of the groups was conducted in the same manner with introductions followed by an overview of the group’s purpose and process.  Questions were structured to assess four specific topics: Marketing, Continuous K–14 Education, Non-Native Migration, and Creating Regional Action Groups. Participants were given approximately twenty minutes on each topic and each attendee was encouraged to contribute to the dialogue. Each focus group began at 9:30 am and ended 11:30 am. 

The following are the questions that were presented to the focus groups in each category of inquiry.  Except where indicated the responses reported reflect the general opinion of all three groups.

Marketing

What action can be taken to market C-TE in your region that is not already being carried out? 

When asked what could be done, that is not already being done, to successfully market C-TE, the most consistent and frequently mentioned suggestion was to re-invent its image. The predominant feeling was that C-TE has long suffered from a negative stereotype; one, which implies that C-TE is a dumping ground for students who can't make it in a four-year college or university. 

The extent to which this mindset is perpetuated at home, in the schools, and in the media makes a successful marketing campaign the more challenging. Participants suggested evidence of negative images in the schools are indicated by:

1. Academic instructors being more highly regarded than C-TE instructors
2. Academic courses weighted more heavily than C-TE courses (students want to take those because they earn more credit)
3. Negative image is reinforced at home
4. Parents think C-TE is just a newer version of Distributive Education
5. Parents self-esteem is related to the level of education their child has attained (“my child got a 4-year degree from “State” or “Chapel Hill”)
6. Negative image is reinforced in the media and by decision-makers (newspaper articles, politics, etc.)

The participants felt it would be useful if C-TE was redefined in a way that diminishes its negative stigma. Suggestions included a “Flash’em and Dash’em” advertisement campaign that highlighted the educational, employment and economic advantages of C-TE participation. Other suggestions included:

· Sell the benefits to students—even those pursuing a 4-year post-secondary education

· Sell benefits to instructors —even academic instructors

· Sell benefits to parents—as a money saver students can earn college credit without having to pay for it

· Place supportive articles in company newsletters

· Sell the benefits of technical careers—more money, set hours, job security (based on workforce trends)

· Create an electronic newsletter from the schools/region regarding trends in

C-TE

· Place notes on classroom doors

· Create C-TE statement stuffers in pay stubs and utility bills

· Market to state, national and local leaders since they’re the ones who make decisions/influence public policy (get away from preaching to the choir)

· Sell the job market and C-TE will sell itself

· Better define and broaden the definition of  “college”

· Don’t forget to include counselors in marketing strategies

Continuous K–14 Education

There is a disconnect between people that say that a K–14 education is important and support in the state for creating a free K–14 system. Should this be rectified? If so, how?

Unlike the information obtained from the round table discussions at the regional symposia, focus group participants were not as enthusiastic about the idea of pushing for a continuous K–14 education. Their lack of enthusiasm seemed to have little relation to funding issues but rather was related to priorities. Many focus group participants seemed to believe that market and social forces were of themselves creating a K–14 system but until the public caught up to the realization of the need for additional educational requirements and the institutions (high schools and colleges) were ready to accept structural changes in their missions, advocacy for change was premature.  Better, participants said, to market the benefits of C-TE education to the individual and the community and let the K–14 system grow from the demand for programs.

Non-Native Migration

Based on current trends by the year 2013 the non-native born population of North Carolina could be 20% of the total population and represent a disproportionate number of the younger workers in the state. If current conditions remain unchanged almost half of these workers will be in this country illegally, and many will have low literacy and technological skills. How do you think this will affect North Carolina economically? Politically? Socially? What can be done now that will help avoid future problems?

This issue seemed to prompt more conversation among focus group participants in the east than in the other two focus groups.  Participants recognized the contribution to the workforce that non-native workers make but perceived them as a drain on their community’s human service resources, particularly in the areas of tax revenue, education and healthcare. Un-documented workers in particular were seen as non-tax paying residents. Additionally, some employers were blamed because they did not pay employment taxes for workers paid in cash. Furthermore, non-natives were blamed for not bringing spending cash in the local economy because a large portion of their income was being sent “home”.  Participants believe that the eligibility of the children of non-natives for healthcare and education stresses local systems in terms of the number of new patients/students and staffing needed to deal with language issues. 

Some focus group members expressed a desire for government to make a more concentrated effort to identify and remove current undocumented workers and to implement more effective ways of preventing future undocumented workers from entering the country. Others felt that the businesses that benefit from non-native workers should lobby on behalf of the human service systems that are stressed by them.

All participants who expressed an opinion agreed that non-natives were “hardworking and conscientious”. Several argued that they were filling job positions that “Americans” no longer found attractive and could not be filled in other ways. 

There was a variety of opinion about the future of non-native immigration. Some participants seemed to believe that immigration would stop or reverse as jobs became scarce. Others were not as convinced that immigration was not permanent. “Keep in mind”, said one participant, “that the building trade is currently, and has always been, the largest industry in America. As long as North Carolina growth continues, there will always be a need for these workers.” 

Regional Action Groups

How can regional dialogue be turned into regional action on the issues we have discussed here and in the symposia?

One of the primary reasons for the follow-up focus groups was to tap the expertise and insight of the participants regarding the creation of regional business-education advocacy groups. These groups would forward the work begun by the regional symposia, advocating at a regional level for C-TE and maintaining an on-going liaison between business and education. Because these groups would be regionally based, they could focus on the specific regional issues identified in the symposia and minimize the logistical problems associated with working at a statewide level.

Critical points that emerged from the groups’ discussions include the following:

Group Structure

· Participation by Decision Makers: Two of the groups felt that it was imperative that any regional structure include decision makers including representatives from local Boards’ of Education, District Superintendents and state level political representatives. Also identified as imperative was collaboration with local Chambers of Commerce and Economic Development Commissions.

“The economic commissioners need to be there. They are interested in quality of life and education. They are natural partners for what we do. They also have an identification regionally with where the jobs are and what skills are needed.”

“If they [school board representation/support] are not there and not willing to make a change, it isn’t going to happen.”

· Logistics:  All of the groups felt that the action groups should take as much advantage of technology as possible, including web-based communication and limit travel and face-to-face meetings. They also felt that feedback on issues, findings and results needs to have a quick turnaround. Two groups praised the quick turnaround on the current round of symposia and results postings on the website  (ww.praxisresearch.com/regionalsymposia).

“You don’t meet any more often than is absolutely necessary. It’s tough to get key business people away from their jobs, especially when they have to do two or three jobs instead of one. When we do come together, have an agenda so we get something accomplished.”

· Educational Structure: Some group participants believed that there would have to be greater support at both the local and state levels for regional efforts if they were to be successful.  Suggestions included the creation of a full-time state level C-TE Director position within DPI and the resurrection of the federally supported JobReady program with state funds.  Also discussed was the importance of the dissemination of advocacy group activities, or the inclusion in the advocacy groups themselves, to academic counselors and teachers.  This was considered necessary so that they could understand the issues and pass on their knowledge to students and parents. 

“We need direction from the state on how to deliver C-TE; some strategies work some don’t.”

· Collaboration With Existing Groups: The participants recognized that there are already some groups in the state that have a strong business connection and have an impact on state education policy.  These include the North Carolina Council for Business and Industry and the North Carolina Business Committee for Education.

IV.          Discussion and Recommendations

The following discussion and recommendations are summarized from both the symposia findings and the focus group results. Discussion points are followed by a brief elaboration of each, including recommendations for activities of regional advocacy groups.

The symposia were highly representative of educators and business/industry within the state.

These meetings produced a balanced mix of educators and business people in large enough numbers to allow us to speak confidently about the statewide opinions of both groups.

To be effective regional groups will have to continue to maintain a balance of educators and business/development representatives. Dominance by one group or another will stifle the collaboration essential for progress and communication.

0pinions expressed in the symposia varied both by group membership and by region.

The intent in creating six symposia across the state was to produce regionally diverse data. The purpose of having the participants in the symposia consist of almost equal numbers of educators and non-educators was to produce a balanced exchange of opinions regarding C-TE and economic development in our state. In reviewing the data produced by the symposia, it is clear that we were successful in both of these objectives. Although there was much agreement on many issues, the e-polling and small group discussion data show significant differences of opinion across both region and participant type. In addition, the inclusion of some 300 total participants in the discussions, the representation of small, medium and large-size employers of various types (from accountants to zoologists) gives great power to the generalizability of these findings.

Organizers of advocacy groups must expect dissenting opinions between business and education representatives. There will also be differences within each group depending on the particular perspective of the individual from within their organization or business niche.  These differences can be strengths if leadership uses them to create innovative solutions to solve problems.

There is strong support for marketing the benefits of C-TE.

Although it must be recognized that the participants to the symposia were by and large already advocates of C-TE, the level of support for marketing the program to larger populations was somewhat surprising. Innovative marketing, encouraging students, parents, business and educators to see C-TE in a new light, was seen as the top priority for action across all groups and was recognized in focus groups as the primary activity that could move stakeholder communities toward greater economic development. 

Support for the idea that new ways of viewing education can be of benefit is bolstered by recent national trend data and research (Stone, 2003; Castellano, Stringfield & Stone, 2003; and Tyler, 2003). Stone (2003) proposes that advocates for C-TE should push for more rigorous academic-technical programs as they keep students in school and lead to long-term economic benefits for the individual and the communities in which they live. Castellano, Stringfield and Stone (2003) have shown that there is research-based evidence from multiple studies to support the belief that C-TE programs can be effective in generating positive school reform and student achievement.  Tyler (2003) shows that those who join the growing numbers who drop-out of high school and secure a GED (General Education Development) Certificate are not likely to benefit from doing so unless they are at the very bottom of their achievement group and, even then, only with a long separation in time and at the risk of lowering the chances of ever receiving post-secondary or on-the-job training.

Old ideas, prejudices and economic models will have to be discarded regarding the “non-college bound” and the expectations that schools, teachers and parents have for their students if this new way of thinking is to succeed.

Intensive marketing using a repetitive economic and social theme is the advice C-TE advocates are giving for advancing the utilization of career development programs. Careful planning and piloting of C-TE marketing programs can attract a great deal of positive attention if real jobs and community development are linked to them. Coordination with business and long term planning will be an absolute requirement.

There is a need for continuous education beyond high school.

Employers declare that new job openings will be for those with high school “plus” education and training. Job creation statistics support this. Educators and educational researchers (Stone, 2003) are telling us that the structure, infrastructure, and curriculum are not ready for all students to remain in school until age 20.

Turf guarding and bureaucracy in educational institutions would have to change to create a truly integrated, continuous system. The exemplary effort showing how difficult this may be is the initiative to provide articulated high school/college credit in North Carolina. 

In many localities across the state, establishing this was and continues to be a struggle between secondary and post-secondary institutions, with few students actually receiving credit for coursework completed.  The Huskins Bill (dual enrollment) classes may show a more successful model for creating a workable collaboration.  Why?  Because high school students enrolled in Huskins classes create a win-win situation for high schools and community colleges. Other win-wins that might go a long way to changing the status of C-TE that were suggested in the symposia include adding “honors” and “advanced” status to C-TE courses and including C-TE courses in the NC End-of-Course Testing protocol.

Getting educational organizations to change is not an easy task under any circumstance. However, there is a window of opportunity available under federal No Child Left Behind legislation to craft for North Carolina an innovative approach that reduces the barriers to continuous K–14 learning via proposed “Tec-Sec” legislation. Taking every opportunity to get all high school students on to college campuses, creating a challenging math and science curriculum, providing innovative means for contextualizing coursework, and making C-TE courses more palatable to middle and upper income students are ways in which the benefits of continuous education could be garnered. These, however, will be top-down decisions coming from Raleigh that will have to be supported at the local level.  

All participants seem to be affected in one way or another (positively or negatively, directly or indirectly) by non-native immigration to North Carolina.

Never in the history of immigration (much to the chagrin of the Tuscarora, Cherokee, Catawba, Yuchi, Catawba, PeeDee, Cheraw, Algonquin, and others) to North Carolina has a large group arrived in the state and then decided en masse to leave. Hispanic and other non-native immigrants to our state, it is safe to say barring cataclysmic events, are here to stay. If they follow the pattern of other immigrants, and there is no reason based on current projections to suspect that they will not, within a generation their socio-economic spectrum will begin to look much like that of the native population; thus, there will be Latino managers, professionals, administrators and technicians in jobs currently held by native-born Carolinians. Two questions arise. What will be the relationship between the children of the native born and the children of the immigrant and will there be enough jobs for all that are qualified to have one? What are we doing now to ensure understanding and acceptance between cultures?  What can we do to take advantage of immigration to make it an asset?

Whoever first said, “Demographics are destiny” was absolutely correct. School and business leaders must coordinate with community groups to share their vision of the kind of community they want to see in the future.

Follow-up surveys of students and employers, “benchmarking” of critical economic indicators, and monitoring of student post-secondary remediation rates should measure accountability for C-TE education.

Respondents clearly saw the creation of a means to survey students and employers regarding the effectiveness of C-TE efforts as a need. To this end a pilot North Carolina Business Survey was created and distributed to members of the follow-up focus groups. This survey can be used to create an annual assessment of business attitudes toward the skills and abilities of entry-level workers in their fields (available from Praxis Research, Inc.). Taken from a stratified random sample of businesses from each region of the state it could provide an unbiased picture of the attitude of business toward C-TE and its products. Similar surveys can be designed to strengthen and supplement the existing Vocational Education Information System (VEIS) data for student feedback. Both can be administered via Internet technology.

Baseline data collection for the first business survey is currently being planned for January 2004. This survey, if carried out periodically, could become the yardstick by which progress in advancing career-technical education and business-education collaboration is measured.

There is support for creating business-education advocacy groups that address C-TE issues on a regional basis and maintain an on-going relationship.

The picture developed during the focus groups for how regional advocacy groups might be organized and developed into self-sustaining groups is a powerful message about how well the symposium process can work.  Bringing together those with a vital stake in the present and future status of our state’s society and economy while at the same time providing them with factual information about economics, demographics and education seems to inspire them to practical action. 

The major criteria established for the function of such regional groups include:

• Participation in the group by local and regional decision makers

· Utilization of as much technology as possible for efficient dissemination of information

• Connection of  the advocacy groups to the local and state educational structures
• Collaboration with existing advocacy groups

Plans for creating these advocacy groups were a part of the original objectives of the symposia and are included in the flow chart in Figure 6. This figure shows that the next step in creating these groups is the dissemination of the information contained in the symposia via this report and the creation of an electronic version of the findings. Other activities include creation and elaboration of the symposia web site (already underway) and the identification of leadership and issues for local advocacy.

Regional leaders in education, development, and business will be given electronic copies of a slide show that summarizes the findings of this report for presentation in their home areas. They will also be provided with assistance via Internet communication and data sharing in bringing together a regional advocacy group to address the issues identified in this report. They will receive data from the North Carolina Business Survey carried out in January, reported at both the state and regional levels.

Figure 6:  Advocacy Group Development

	Dissemination/Marketing

Appendix A

Local Information Packets

Appendix B

Five Points Slides

Appendix C

Regional Business and Education Symposia

May 2003, 8:45 AM—12:15 PM

Detailed Agenda

Goal

To support economic development within North Carolina through the creation of regional action groups addressing issues related to economic development and secondary Career Technical Education.

8:45—9:15 AM                     Breakfast

Registration (30 min.): Participants will pick up nametags, information packets, sign in, check email address, etc and will be given table assignment and Praxis e-poll device assignment

Symposium Agenda

9:15—9:30 AM                    Introduction

(15 min.; Buffer time included): All participants

in this segment sit at head table. (Symposium Leader, Welcome Person, Praxis Representative

Symposium Overview/                  Symposium

Goal/Product/Process                   Leader

(5-6 min)        

                                                Welcome                                           Welcome

(2 min)                                                Person

9:30—10:00 AM                  Opinion Polling                               Praxis

(30 min): Praxis will lead responses to demographic and original symposium questions

10:00—10:15 AM                “National Trends Impacting         Praxis

Workforce Preparation”

(5 points to consider)

(15 min): A. Praxis presentation showing national trends in education, wages, labor force, productivity and globalism. B. Regional Data Packets will be referenced as an info source for the Round Table Discussions

10:15—11:45AM     Round Table Discussions Symposium 
(90 min total time):                                       Leader

A. Instructions/Assignments (5 min) The group will have pre-assigned tables. The group will be divided with one forth working on Issue A first, one forth working on Issue B first, etc. More time (30 min) will be given to the first ‘session’ within the 85 minutes in order to make sure each issue is addressed in depth.  All groups will address all four issues. A pre-trained facilitator will be assigned to each table. A minimum of four discussion tables need to be assigned since each of the four issues need the extended time during the first session.  Discussion questions for each issue are pre-set. The Round Table discussions will result in key information used to develop a listing of Action Steps to address issues for C-TE. Response options are planned for e-polling will also be developed by each group to ‘vote on’ in the last segment. B. Round Table Discussions (85 min): Discussions and responses to pre-set questions by the participants.

10:20—10:50 AM    Session I

(30 min): Groups address 1 of 4 issues as assigned

10:50-11:45 AM       Session II

(55 min): Groups address the 3 remaining issues

C.  Issues:

1. Marketing Career Technical Education

2. Continuous K–14 Education

3. Accountability for C-TE

4. Integration of Under-represented Populations

11:45-11:55 AM       NC C-TE Standard Course of Study      Regional

NC CTP Strategic Plan                              Coordinators

Current Legislation Issues

Impacting NC-C-TE

(10 mins): RC’s to present key points on each of the three topics as materials are referenced in packets.

11:55 AM—              Next Steps and Evaluation                      Symposium

12:15 PM                   (20 min):                                                         Leader

Participants will vote on responses developed by Round Table groups with immediate feedback given via e-polling. Description of next steps and evaluation of the morning will end the symposium.

Appendix D

Regional Symposia Round Table Report Form

Date _________ Location (City/Town) __________________ 

Facilitator _________________

Issue A:  Marketing Career–Technical Education

1. In this Region what is this group’s consensus agreement on the three greatest assets available for marketing C-TE to High School students, their parents and the supporting business community?

a.

b.

c.

2. In this Region what is this group’s consensus agreement on the three greatest challenges for involving High School students, their parents and the supporting business community in C-TE?

a.

b.

c.

3. Describe in some detail at least one new approach that might work to generate interest in C-TE among High School students, their parents and the supporting business community.

4.   In what ways can the business community help promote C-TE programs

effectively?

Issue B: Creating the Expectation of a Continuous Tuition Free K–14

                   Education

1. In the opinion of the consensus of this group how important is a K–14 education for students? (Please comment on your rating)

Absolutely Essential       Important        Not Very Important

Not Important Not Necessary

2. How willing would citizens in this region be to pay for K–14 education?

Very Willing                                                                      Not At All Willing

                        1                   2                     3                      4                 5

3. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being “absolutely yes” and 5 being “absolutely not” how likely is it that North Carolina will see compulsory education through age eighteen in the next ten years? (group consensus)

1          2          3          4          5

                        Absolutely Yes                            Absolutely Not

4. What challenges (other than financial ones) would face the state or region in providing a K–14 education?

5. What benefits for C-TE would be derived from establishing K–14 as the NC standard (instead of the current K-12)?

Issue C: Accountability for C-TE

1. In the opinion of the consensus of the members of your group, what are the three best ways to measure how well public high schools are doing in preparing students for their future after high school?

a.

            b.

            c.

2. In the opinion of the consensus of the members of your group, what are three ways in which business could be encouraged to pay closer attention to the quality of secondary C-TE programs?

a.

            b.

            c.

3. In the opinion of the consensus of your group should C-TE programs be held accountable for developing the values of “Character Education” such as cooperation, honesty, promptness, courtesy, etc?

4.  Problem solving, communication, group participation and innovation (among others) are frequently mentioned as skills in demand by employers.  In the opinion of this group are public schools being held accountable for teaching these skills?  If your answer is “yes”, how would you describe that accountability?  If your answer is “no”, should they be accountable for them?   

Issue D: Integration of Under-represented Populations

1. According to the consensus of this group the influx of non-native labor into this region: (circle your choice)

a. Is being handled by business very effectively with few problems (please describe steps that may have been taken to integrate non-native workers)

b. Has created some problems for business and native or non-native workers (please describe)

c. Has created major problems for business and native or non-native workers (please describe)

2. According to the consensus of this group the influx of non-native students into this region: (circle your choice)

a. Is being handled by the schools very effectively with few problems (please describe steps that may have been taken to integrate non-native students)

b. Has created some problems for schools (please describe)

c. Has created major problems for schools (please describe)

3. In the opinion of your group what existing assets (public/private groups,

financial, community involvement, etc.) are being used to help integrate non-natives into the educational system and labor markets of this region?

References

Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., & Stone, J. R. (2003).  Secondary career and
technical education and comprehensive school reform: Implications for research and practice.  Review of Educational Research, 73 (2), 231-272.

Stone, J. R. (2003).  ACTE national policy seminar.  Paper presented at the

Policy Development Institute: Washington, DC, March.

Tyler, J. H. (2003).  Economic benefits of the GED: Lessons from recent research.  Review of Educational Research, 73 (3), 369-403.

Yelton, B. T., (2001).  Workforce development in the new millennium: North Carolina’s Economic Edge.  Raleigh: NC Department of Public Instruction.

For Information regarding this report contact:

Bruce Yelton, Ed.D.

Praxis Research, Inc.

5200 Park Rd., Suite 207-G

Charlotte, NC  28209

800-542-9733

praxis1@att.net

www.praxisresearch.net