Some advocates of career and technical education programs are up in arms about a potential move by the Trump administration to move the administration of the program out of the Department of Education and into the Department of Labor.
Democrats in Congress insist the department doesn’t have the power to make that kind of change. And, advocates say it could worsen the job training programs — and be the beginning of the end of the DOE.
Right now, the move is on hold because of a judge’s injunction preventing the Trump administration from dismantling the Education Department. But, Chad Wilson, superintendent of East Valley Institute of Technology, or EVIT, says he doesn’t think this spells all doom and gloom for career and technical education, or CTE.
Wilson joined The Show to talk more about it, beginning with how he thinks this move might impact his program.
Full conversation
CHAD WILSON: That's a fair question, and I'll be honest, I think it is an ever-evolving situation, so to completely understand it is a bit problematic. But my limited understanding is that the idea of moving CTE out of the Department of Education into the Department of Labor could carry with it some ramifications as it relates to Carl Perkins and other federal funding. In that, those federal funding sources appear to be, from my understanding, linked to the Department of Education.
And so if you move CTE out of the DOE and into the DOL, will that limit the ability to have access to those funds? And so that's a real concern. I think that is a legitimate concern. I don't know that necessarily it's a deal breaker, but I think it's a concern that folks need to have and should be aware of.
LAUREN GILGER: Yeah. OK. So when you were talking about career and technical education, right, like what does that mean exactly? Like it's moved beyond, I understand in recent decades, a kind of old school model where you'd sort of say some students are going to become electricians and some students are going to go to college. Like there's much more to it now.
WILSON: There is. And I think that is such a smart question to ask, because I think that's the question that I think sometimes still stumbles us.
My son went to high school here in the East Valley. When he was a freshman in high school, we went to his counselor and we said to his counselor, “We would like, you know, his schedule to be able to fit going to EVIT, his junior and senior year.”
And the counselor said to my wife and myself, “Well, he doesn't have to go to EVIT. He's going to go to college.”
GILGER: Right.
WILSON: And that is such a misnomer, because the learning that occurs at EVIT is applicable to any student. And I'll tell you why. Oftentimes students don't have a passion for learning until it becomes contextual, until it becomes hands-on, until it becomes a real-life opportunity for them.
GILGER: Sure.
WILSON: So for many students, this idea that learning matters, only becomes a reality when they come to EVIT. And so when we talk about those students that are going to go to college, their ability to understand why college matters is increased, enhanced by programs like EVIT.
For some students, the ability to see how they're learning and what they're learning is actually a motivator for them to go to college.
And the third reason why I think a program like EVIT is for every student is that today's environment and today's workforce is ever evolving and ever changing. And what you might decide is going to be your career path when you're 17 years old may not be your career path when you're 22 years old, or it may be, but it may not be when you're 30 years old.
GILGER: Yeah.
WILSON: And so if you're able to have a passion and a purpose, and that passion and purpose can give you a livable paycheck, that is not a bad thing to have in your pocket. Even if you are going to pursue a college degree, right?
GILGER: So one of the concerns from many CTE advocates is that moving this kind of program out of the Department of Education and into the Department of Labor will essentially undermine its academic rigor, right? Like we'll go back to that kind of old school model, think about short term training programs as opposed to long term education. Do you share those concerns?
WILSON: I do not to be honest with you. And the reason why I don't is — and so, you know, I am the superintendent of EVIT so of course, I'll talk about EVIT — but the EVIT central campus program, and one of the things that's most unique about it is the vast majority of our instructors are individuals that did not go through the College of Education.
GILGER: Sure.
WILSON: They came from the workforce. And there is something magical about having an individual who has spent his or her career in an industry, working with young people to teach that industry. And I say that because I actually think connecting to the Department of Labor, connecting to workforce, connecting to business and industry, actually could create a deeper understanding of the industry outcome, expectation and knowledge needed.
I don't see it reverting back to the days in which it was just a short term – it's for those kids. I actually see it as a potential accelerator, and having CTE take a much bigger step forward in its workforce development opportunity by putting it in the Department of Labor, which is ultimately responsible for creating workforce.
GILGER: Yeah. So there are some silver linings here for you or even positives?
WILSON: Yeah, there are. Like I said, I think, you know, anytime there's change in legislation or change in statute or change in where programs are housed, there's reason to be concerned. And so I think it's smart for people to raise those issues and concerns. But I do think that there's much more than a silver lining. I think there's a real golden opportunity, potentially, for CTE to take a step forward.
You know, I shared the story about my son. The reason why, in my opinion, the individual said what he said to my son is because CTE in many ways has been relegated to a second-class citizen and traditional K-12 education. It's a general elective course in many cases, and that isn't what CTE is.
And so if it gets pulled out of the DOE and put into the Department of Labor, it may actually take an accelerated step forward on the table of giving students opportunities to not only get credit to complete high school, but also get the industry certification that gives them the leg up or the leg in to the workforce.
GILGER: Let me ask you, lastly, a broader question about the Department of Education and the Trump administration's attempt to dismantle it, which this is part of — obviously held up in court right now — but, do you have concerns about that in general and about this sort of being a harbinger for more consolidation?
WILSON: So I think again, I think any time there's a discussion about reducing departments, shifting departments, shifting opportunities, shifting programs, there's reason to be concerned because we don't know what that really means, right? And it's the unknown. I think that that causes some real concern.
What I can say, though, is that, you know, I'm the product of K-12 education. I was a high school teacher, a high school assistant principal, high school principal, superintendent of a traditional K-12 education. My dad's an educator. I have cousins and aunts. So I am the K-12 education person.
GILGER: Yeah.
WILSON: But I also think traditional K-12 education in our country and in our state needs a reboot – needs to be rethought to some degree. And if doing that is the result of moving the Department of Education — the U.S. Department of Education down and reducing it down — if that produces opportunities that allow us to potentially rethink traditional K-12 education. I don't think that that's a bad thing.
And I also think too, as much as, you know, there's lots of different granting opportunities that come from the federal government. EVIT was just awarded the Build Back America grant that allows us to be a registered apprenticeship hub. And so we're very grateful for that. But those are federal dollars.
And I think there is also value in trying to push more onus and responsibility to K-12 education at the state level. And so in doing so, I think the reduction of the department, U.S. Department of Education, opens the door for that as well, because the unique needs that we have here in Arizona are different than those in Delaware. And I think that matters.
GILGER: So you like the idea of localizing control of education. Are you concerned, though, about losing that kind of federal funding? We're already seeing a bunch of it frozen right now.
WILSON: Yeah, I mean, I think yeah. So that's a great question. So I am concerned about it because our system in many ways has been built on that federal funding. And so unwinding that is not an easy task to do, right? And so I get concerned about the potential of having to unwind that.
But I also get encouraged by the same potential of being able to have more direct control at the local level of what we want from our educational system. And so I don't know that there's a bridge that gets from the unwinding of the federal government as it relates to the funds, to the autonomy and ownership at the more local level.
I don't know what that looks like, but I do think that it's worth trying to look for a bridge that does that, a bridge that allows there to still be federal oversight, because I think federal oversight in some cases does matter. But putting a lot more responsibility, ownership and support for K-12 education at the local state level so that we can do what's good for our kids here in Arizona, and people in Kentucky can do good things for kids in Kentucky.
