im Hermes is a Senior Legislative Associate with the American Association of Community Colleges. The legislative issues Mr. Hermes covers include workforce development and vocational education, technology policy, international education and veterans’ education. In February Catherine Kirby, UPDATE Editor, conducted this interview with Mr. Hermes.

UPDATE: It is evident the AACC played a big role in Perkins reauthorization. What is your role now as implementation begins?

Mr. Hermes: We joined the state directors and ACTE and other partners in the regional workshops that were conducted last year. We also work directly with our own affiliated councils that are independent groups such as the National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC). [Illinois Community College Board President and CEO] Geoff Obrzut is an active member of the NCSDCC. It’s an invaluable group for hearing about what is going on with some of these issues related to implementation. Another resource is the Workforce Development Institute where we get into a lot of these issues with members of our field.

UPDATE: Perkins IV reflects important policy shifts for state and local implementation of career and technical education. Tell us what you observed during the reauthorization process and how those changes might impact colleges, programs, and services.

Mr. Hermes: One of the important policy shifts of the Act is a change in nomenclature; they finally started using the term career and technical education (CTE) instead of vocational education. During the whole reauthorization process, there was opposition to that change in terms, all the way up to the member level in Congress, despite the fact that by that time at least 49 states had already adopted the new terminology. All the stakeholder groups were pressing for the change because we felt it wasn’t simply a matter of terminology but rather a more accurate representation of what CTE had evolved into. For example, the emphasis on “high skill, high demand occupations” is more reflective of what career and technical education is all about – the cutting edge training for high tech careers at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. Some other obvious areas of policy issues are increased accountability and moving towards more integrated coursework through the Programs of Study emphasis. Some may not be strict “policy shifts” but are very important parts of the legislation.

UPDATE: Regarding the development of Programs of Study, we know that each state must adopt at least one, but many states are setting their goals much higher. What opportunities and challenges does the concept of Programs of Study present to community colleges?

Mr. Hermes: Programs of Study, or something like it, have been going on most places already; many states are planning or have moved to go well beyond the one that is required. For community colleges, this presents the same sorts of opportunities and challenges that they’ve dealt with for some time; that is, how to interface most effectively with their counterparts at the secondary level, and Perkins IV demands more of an emphasis on connection with the 4-year institutions so we do a better job to help students who want to continue with their technical studies to the bachelors level and in some cases beyond that. The real opportunity is that we now have federal legislation asking for coordination between CTE programs at the various educational levels. At the very least, it’s a wake up call for areas where there isn’t coordination in place already. It’s more than a signal; it’s a mandate from the federal level saying that this is an important part of Programs of Study. One of the biggest challenges you’re going to see is in how to address the fairly large gap between what is produced at the secondary level and what the expectations are at the postsecondary level. On the flip side of that, Perkins is on the leading edge in terms of looking at ways to narrow and eliminate the gap, so there’s a real opportunity from the colleges’ perspective to take the lead in their technical education areas. You don’t yet see that issue addressed as directly in any other federal acts. Of course Congress is talking now about NCLB and the higher education act. But Perkins is leading the way in some of these important issues.

UPDATE: How can CTE get traction at the secondary level when the focus there is on meeting the mandates of NCLB; and some administrators do not necessarily look to CTE programming and instructional strategies as potential solutions to some NCLB goals and directives? Not meeting NCLB requirements can lead to sanctions and that trumps the effort and resources to implement CTE’s goals of integrated instruction, curriculum alignment, and improved transition between secondary and postsecondary education, especially if it is seen as an “either/or” situation.

Mr. Hermes: That’s an excellent question. One of the answers in terms of how this is going to get any traction is hopefully people on the secondary side will see an opportunity in what Perkins IV is demanding how CTE can be used as a tool towards those other ends, such as meeting their NCLB requirements. All the CTE groups are always pounding down the message that CTE is an excellent way to get kids in learning those core concepts and subjects through a much more applied learning methodology and integrated curriculum.

UPDATE: Speaking of curriculum integration, there are often gulfs between the CTE program areas at community colleges and the academic side of the house. What can be done to help faculty of both disciplines see the potential that blending their curricula in innovative ways can have to improve all curricula and positively impact student learning?

Mr. Hermes: There is the hope from the folks who wrote this bill that Perkins IV implementation will initiate change at both secondary and postsecondary levels. We have other pressures at the postsecondary level, but we don’t have some of those specific federal pressures like NCLB. Although we have certainly entered into an era of much greater scrutiny and the possibility of similar types of accountability for colleges and universities across the board, I don’t think we’re going to see anything that looks like NCLB at the postsecondary level. For that reason, these issues of integration at the postsecondary level will come more to the forefront.

UPDATE: Some local systems as well as some states face problems in tracking CTE student outcomes information and making sure it is accurate between secondary and postsecondary levels. The breakdown is found at both levels and for justifiable reasons. Were these issues raised when the accountability discussions were underway?

Mr. Hermes: It became clear at the beginning that there was going to be an increased focus on accountability, born out of the fact that this administration had zeroed out funding in its budget for the Perkins program for a couple of years prior based on the official federal analysis that Perkins was rated ineffective. As far as concern about local and states’ ability to track and provide accurate outcomes, yes, the concern was raised. I don’t know that everyone anticipated all the particularities of what it was going to take to deal with some of the measures, and I am not as familiar with the secondary side about what kind of headaches the increased secondary technical attainment or NCLB measures will cause. Bottomline, it was just going to happen. Now that we are in the implementation phase, that amplifies things even further. The area where a lot of people, myself included, are taken a little bit by surprise is with how fast the US Department of Education wants to move toward having those industry-recognized assessments in place: very quickly, when, in fact, the legislative language gives you the room to have a more measured transition from what we have now to the [additional measures]. I also think that they’re discovering some of the complexities involved in that transition.

UPDATE: Perkins accountability measures require separate secondary and postsecondary performance indicators. While these indicators better represent the multiple student and program outcomes at both levels, at the postsecondary level, they’ll require robust data systems that are able to identify CTE students and track their participation, retention, skill proficiencies, credentialing, and job placement. There is variability among CTE program areas in the ability to capture all of these measures and some might be very difficult to obtain with accuracy. What advice do you have for colleges that are currently struggling with this?

Mr. Hermes: The AACC advocated for those separate postsecondary indicators – something that was better reflective of the multiple measures of success at the postsecondary level. The indicators themselves are not a key change from what they were before, but there are some important differences. I do know that a lot of colleges are struggling with the revised technical skill attainment measures, in terms of making the transition from a system where grades and GPAs were used to one that relies much more heavily on other types of industry recognized (external) assessments. The speed to which colleges move to those assessments has been, and will continue to be, a very large issue for postsecondary institutions in the transition of accountability. My only suggestion is for colleges to make every effort to get to a place where they can track and report outcomes that are reflective of what students should get out of their postsecondary experience, and that’s ‘all over the map.’

UPDATE: As you know, special populations as defined by the law include individuals with disabilities; individuals from economically disadvantaged families including foster children; individuals preparing for nontraditional fields; single parents, including single pregnant women; displaced homemakers, and individuals with limited English proficiency. These descriptors apply to many adults who seek the educational and support services offered at community colleges. Their transition to college presents additional challenges to those of traditional students who matriculate from high school. How can Perkins funded programs and services best address the needs of this increasing population of adult students?

Mr. Hermes: My understanding is that a fair-sized chunk of the Perkins funds at the postsecondary level are already used for academic supportive services, and my experience in talking with various community college people in the programs around the country supports that. The new Act does not represent a big change on this front. However, one of the big issues you just mentioned that applies to Perkins special populations and is also in the Adult Education Act (that Congress still has to act on) is the issue of transition from adult basic education to some sort of postsecondary program, often in CTE. Colleges can be creative in leveraging funding from not only Perkins and Adult Ed but from all applicable sources to put in place solid strategies to address some of these transition issues for this specific group of students.

UPDATE: Finally, do you have any interesting anecdotal comments about your experience working on this legislation?

Some people might be surprised at how much struggle there was to update the terminology [vocational education to career and technical education] in the bill. Most on the hill were perfectly in favor of it, but there was some conservative opposition to changing the terminology. Specifically, it was about using the word “career.” Part of it was a backlash to a previous program that had similar terminology. It was frustrating at the time for many of us, but we got it done!

Mr. Hermes can be reached at JHERMES@aacc.nche.edu