Proposal for thesis
The information provided by the LPs related to these topics is summarized in this chapter, and serves as an introduction to the LPs and their overall approaches to implementing STC. Introduction to Case Study LPs As mentioned in the introduction, the primary focus of this final report is on the 13 case study LPs selected for the statewide evaluation. Case study LPs are located in 8 of the 12 geographic regions in the state. North Coast STC Consortium, Sierra Regional STC Partnership) or large urban areas (e. The four largest case study LPs (in terms of K-12 enrollment) include between 1 and 36 school districts and between 293 and 580 K-12 schools. The smaller LPs include between 1 and 33 school districts and between 29 and 186 K-12 schools. Case study LPs have relationships with a greater number of community colleges than 4-year colleges and universities. Specifically, 6 of the 13 case study LPs were established prior to 1996, when California received the National School-to-Work Implementation Grant. A few grew out of partnerships between high schools and commxmity colleges involved in creating articulation agreements and coordinating Tech Prep and ROP activities. Data from phone interviews with non-case study LP directors suggest that LPs created prior to the availability of STC fionding consider themselves proposal for thesis at an advantage over those LPs established with STC funds. Because these LPs have been in existence for awhile, they have had more time than newer LPs to plan and implement various collaborative efforts and to learn from their experiences. Also, STC funding has allowed them to expand and refine their efforts as opposed to starting from scratch.
Finally, many of these LPs received financial support from a variety of partners and funding sources prior to receiving formal STC funding. Therefore, LPs that began their efforts prior to receiving STC funding report proposal for thesis being confident that they can revert back to these sources if needed, and in fact, some have already started to do so.
In California, LPs are required to involve several key partners, including employers, labor organizations, LEA representatives (elementary, middle, secondary), postsecondary representatives, local educators, students, and parent representatives. Inclusion of these partners is important for several reasons. For the most part, the composition of case study and non-case study LPs appears to be consistent with STWOA recommendations and California requirements. A majority of , the LPs report representation from county offices of education, K-12 school districts and schools, postsecondary institutions, and employers proposal for thesis on advisory and governing boards.
In addition to these primary partners, some LPs report involvement in an advisory capacity from labor organizations, workforce investment agencies, local Chambers of Commerce, and other CBOs. Several non- case study LPs also report active participation by parents and members of local political offices. While the specific roles that these key partners play in STC implementation vary from LP to LP, some generalizations can be made about the different ways in which they participate. District offices often monitor mini-grant implementation and sometimes designate STC coordinators at the proposal for thesis district or school levels to facilitate STC efforts. Administrators at the county, district and school levels, teachers, employers, and representatives from, postsecondary institutions, CBOs, and labor organizations often participate in LP governing and advisory bodies.
While organizational structure varies somewhat from LP to LP, there are many structural similarities across LPs. Figure B Typical LP organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities 39 15 Fiscal Agent In most case study and non-case study LPs, an education entity serves as fiscal agent for the LP. For example, 8 of the 13 case study LPs have designated their the best custom essay writing service county office of education as fiscal agent. An additional 4 case study LPs have given fiscal responsibility to a school district. Only one case study LP, the Sacramento Regional STC Alliance, selected a regional economic development organization — LEED (Linking Education and Economic Development) — as fiscal agent. This organization was chosen as lead agency because of its success in creating business-education partnerships prior to passage of the STWOA. Workforce Silicon Valley, currently serves as its own lead agency.
Two additional non-case study LPs report that they will form similar non-profit organizations once their STC funding ends. According to one LP director, obtaining non-profit status makes an LP eligible to apply for a variety of different kinds of grant monies.
Governing Body Within most LPs, a governing body (e. Partnership Board, Leadership Council, Coordinating Council, Collaborative Assembly) is responsible for setting broad policy, establishing organizational priorities, and providing general guidance and assistance with oversight to the LP director and his or her staff. While some governing bodies meet monthly, many meet only 2 to 4 times each year. In some LPs these committees are actually subcommittees of the governing body, while in others they are separate committees altogether. Some LPs have organized their committees around different key elements of STC (e. LP-Level Operational Team In most LPs, the LP-level operational team is comprised proposal for thesis of the LP director and his or her staff. Overall, the LP-level operational team is responsible for overseeing implementation of STC across the LP. Data fiom telephone interviews with non-case study LP directors suggest that strong leadership at the LP level has been very important to the success of STC implementation. Without it, some LPs have struggled to get their STC efforts off the ground. More specifically, several current LP directors in non-case study LPs report that leadership turnover at the LP level (e. For LPs that experienced such turnover, lack of strong and consistent leadership has made it difficult to develop a central vision, establish a stable organizational structure, recruit and maintain relations with key partners, and generate momentum in implementing STC.