Committee discusses career‑coaching definitions, tentative metrics and evaluation plan; no formal vote

The CTE committee held an extended discussion — not a vote — on proposed definitions and tentative metrics for the career‑coaching initiative established under the Blueprint. Staff and local partners presented a data framework for implementation metrics, near‑term impact metrics and longer‑term student outcomes, and outlined plans to contract an external evaluator to finalize measures for the required evaluation due at the end of the year.

Molly Meznard, senior advisor to the Governor's Workforce Development Board CTE committee, explained the work began with a recognition that definitions (a data dictionary) and a concise, non‑burdensome set of metrics were needed before the required evaluation could be designed. Kirkland (Kirk) Murray, representing the Maryland Workforce Association and the network of 13 local workforce boards, described the initiative as both a startup and a partnership consolidation: local workforce boards, local education agencies (LEAs) and community colleges must form local MOUs, hire or fund career coaches, and coordinate to deliver services.

Staff presented the candidate metrics in three buckets: implementation metrics (inputs such as budget, number of career coaches hired, trainings completed and number of employer partners engaged), impact metrics (percent of students completing career assessments, percent participating in career exploration activities, percent of 10th graders with identified post‑secondary and career pathways, and percent of graduates leaving with a post‑graduation plan), and long‑term student outcomes (employment, employer sentiment, wage and credential attainment). Presenters said many implementation measures are already collected by local workforce boards; impact and long‑term measures will require harmonized definitions and likely an external evaluator to design surveys and sampling.

Presenters clarified definitions for key terms used in the Blueprint and the draft metrics. ‘‘All students’’ was defined to include middle and high school students in scope for required career‑coaching services. ‘‘Individualized career counseling’’ was clarified to mean services customized to a student's strengths, interests and values and not necessarily one‑on‑one direct service for every student (staff noted some localities would provide group services where appropriate). Staff described a proposed "six‑year plan" (beginning in middle school, formalized by eighth grade and updated annually) as a personalized roadmap for post‑secondary and career progression; MSDE staff said a template for the six‑year plan will be developed during implementation.

Committee members emphasized equitable access and employer engagement. Members asked how students in communities lacking local industry could access subject matter expertise; presenters said local workforce boards and the Maryland Workforce Association will coordinate cross‑jurisdictional expertise sharing and convenings so smaller localities can draw on subject‑matter resources in other counties. Several committee members urged early consideration of long‑term metrics — employer sentiment, employment and wage outcomes — rather than only short‑term activity counts.

Next steps identified by staff: revise the draft definitions and metrics based on feedback, secure an external evaluator to finalize survey instruments and sampling strategies, and continue technical assistance to local partnerships. Staff said the AIB maintains an annual reporting structure for local workforce boards (with a June 30/July 1 reporting cadence discussed), and the committee will return a refined packet for formal review and potential vote when ready.

Because the discussion was informal and intended to gather committee feedback, no formal motions or votes were taken on the definitions or metrics during the meeting.