![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.6111111111111112in"
height="1.4861111111111112in"}

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF\
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

FINAL REPORT TO CONGRESS

Executive Summary

2004

Marsha Silverberg

Elizabeth Warner

Michael Fong

David Goodwin

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

*Secretary*

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg

*Director*

Program and Analytic Studies Division

David Goodwin

*Director*

June 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies
Service, *National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to
Congress,* Washington, D.C., 2004.

To obtain copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of
Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If
877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

or order online at: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nave/reports.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

# ►Acknowledgments

This final report of the National Assessment of Vocational Education
(NAVE) benefited from the contributions of many persons, both inside the
U.S. Department of Education and in other organizations. The NAVE staff
would like to extend their appreciation to all of these individuals and
to acknowledge those whose assistance was particularly crucial.

First, the work of the NAVE was conducted under the guidance of an
Independent Advisory Panel, whose names and affiliations appear at the
back of this report. Their insights and support were invaluable, and
their constructive advice made both the interim and final NAVE reports
better products.

Several colleagues at the Department played important roles. At the
Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), we are especially
grateful for the input and cooperation provided by Assistant Secretary
Susan Sclafani, former Assistant Secretary Carol D'Amico, Deputy
Assistant Secretary Hans Meeder, Dennis Berry, special assistant for
research, Sharon Belli, OVAE's original liaison to NAVE, and Braden
Goetz in OVAE's policy group. Our partnership with Lisa Hudson at the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) was extremely
productive. We also received useful advice from Alan Ginsburg, director
of the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) in the Office of the
Under Secretary.

The foundation of this report is the analysis undertaken by a variety of
contractors with whom we collaborated closely. For their careful work
with the data and their help in interpreting results we would like to
thank, in particular: (1) Karen Levesque, Gary Hoachlander, Denise
Bradby, Bob Fitzgerald, Paula Hudis, Steve Klein, and Rosio Bugarin at
MPR Associates, (2) Roberto Agodini, Joshua Haimson, John Deke, Tim
Novak, and Stacey Uhl at Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., (3) Tom
Bailey and his team at Teachers College, Columbia University, (4) Ivan
Charner and Robin White at the Academy for Educational Development, and
(5) Cathy Stasz and Sue Bodilly at the RAND Corporation.

We also appreciate the efforts of all those who helped with the
production of the report. Angela Clarke and Ann Nawaz from PPSS assisted
with early document preparation and report dissemination. Barbara Kridl,
Andrea Livingston, Leslie Retallick, and the publishing staff of MPR
Associates are responsible for editing the report and providing the
cover and layout design. Edward Ohnemus in the Department's Office of
Public Affairs reviewed the report for publication.

Finally, we owe our gratitude to the many students and vocational
educators across the country on whom our data and analyses are based.
This report is written with sincere appreciation for their efforts.

In the end, the judgments expressed in this report are those of the
authors. While they are employees of PPSS in the Office of the Under
Secretary, this assessment is an independent study, as called for by
law, and does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of
the U.S. Department of Education.

Marsha Silverberg

Elizabeth Warner

Michael Fong

David Goodwin

# ►Executive Summary

Eighty-five years ago the federal government first committed to
vocational education as a national priority.[^1] Since then, the
enterprise has grown to encompass a wide variety of activities,
participants, and purposes. Currently, nearly half of all high school
students and about one-third of college students are involved in
vocational programs as a major part of their studies. Perhaps as many as
40 million adults---one in four---engage in short-term, postsecondary
occupational training (Darkenwald and Kim 1998). These individuals come
to vocational education for different reasons, participate in different
ways, and take different paths afterwards. In an era in which strong
skills and lifelong learning are rewarded, the nature and impact of
student experiences in vocational education could have important
implications for the nation's workforce and America's place in the
global economy.

Federal efforts to improve the quality and availability of vocational
programs are articulated, most recently, in the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education Act (Perkins III).[^2] Passed in
October 1998, this act reflects both continuity with previous vocational
legislation and some substantive departures, specifically in funding and
accountability. As policymakers begin to consider further changes in
law---in anticipation of reauthorization scheduled for 2004---they will
be examining vocational education as a field in transition, prompted by
sweeping changes in federal, state, and local education and training
priorities. This final report of the congressionally-mandated National
Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) provides information to enable
new policy to be responsive to these shifts.

# A. Key Findings

The National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) was charged with
evaluating the status of vocational education and the impact of Perkins
III. After more than three years of study NAVE finds that:

► Vocational education has important short- and medium-run earning
benefits for most students at both the secondary and postsecondary
levels, and these benefits extend to those who are economically
disadvantaged.

► Over the last decade of academic reforms, secondary students who
participate in vocational programs have increased their academic course
taking and achievement, making them better prepared for both college and
careers than were their peers in the past. In fact, students who take
both a strong academic curriculum and a vocational program of
study---still only 13 percent of high school graduates---may have better
outcomes than those who pursue one or the other.

► While positive change is certainly happening at the high school level,
secondary vocational education itself is not likely to be a widely
effective strategy for improving academic achievement or college
attendance without substantial modifications to policy, curriculum, and
teacher training. The current legislative approach of encouraging
"integration" as a way to move secondary vocational education toward
supporting academics has been slow to produce significant reforms.

In large part, the pace and path of improvement are hampered by a lack
of clarity over the program's fundamental purpose and goal. Perkins III
offers a conflicted picture of federal priorities for vocational
education improvement---academic achievement, technical skills, high
school completion, postsecondary enrollment and degree completion, and
employment and earnings. Without a clearer focus for the federal
investment---amounting to about 5 percent of local spending---around
which to rally the commitment and efforts of vocational teachers,
counselors, and administrators, ongoing program progress in any
particular direction is less certain.

This overall assessment draws on evidence addressing three key NAVE
questions:

1\. How does, or can, vocational education improve the outcomes of
secondary students who choose to enroll in vocational and technical
programs?

2\. What is the nature and impact of vocational education at the
sub-baccalaureate level, and what is its relationship to current
workforce development efforts?

3\. Is the policy shift from set-asides and legislative prescription to
flexibility and accountability likely to improve program quality and
student outcomes? How do special populations fare?

***~1.\ How\ does,\ or\ can,\ vocational\ education\ improve\ the\ outcomes\ of\ secondary\ students\ who\ choose\ to\ enroll\ in\ vocational\ and\ technical\ programs?~***

Perkins III and its legislative predecessors have largely focused on
improving the prospects for students who take vocational education in
high school, a group that has historically been considered low achieving
and noncollege-bound.[^3] However, students who participate most
intensively in vocational programs---those we call occupational
"concentrators"[^4]---are actually quite diverse; certainly, about a
quarter never enroll in postsecondary education, but a substantial
number (18 percent) go on to complete at least a baccalaureate degree.
The vocational courses most high school students take improve their
later earnings but have no effect on other outcomes that have become
central to the mission of secondary education---such as improving
academic achievement or college transitions (Table 1). Whether the
program as currently supported by federal legislation is judged
successful depends on which outcomes are most important to policymakers.

![](media/image2.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="4.925694444444445in"}

► ***The short- and medium-term benefits of vocational education are
most clear when it comes to its longstanding measure of
success---earnings.*** Several recent studies highlight the positive
average effects of vocational course taking on annual earnings, measured
just over a year or several years after high school graduation. Seven
years after graduation, for example, students earned almost 2 percent
more for each extra high school occupational course they took. That
translates into about \$450 per course, based on average earnings of
about \$24,000 (Figure 1); the benefit would be \$1,350 more for the 45
percent of all high school graduates who take at least three
occupational courses, including the quarter of graduates who concentrate
their course taking in one program area (occupational concentrators).

![](media/image3.png){width="6.5in" height="4.7965277777777775in"}

To varying extents, the studies indicate that these benefits extend to
the large group of high school graduates who enroll in postsecondary
education and training, to both economically and educationally
disadvantaged students, to those with disabilities, and to both men and
women. In addition, students who complete the "New Basics" academic
curriculum as well as a concentration of occupational courses---about 13
percent of all graduates---earn more than similar students who complete
the New Basics and little vocational education.[^5] However, the studies
are more mixed on whether secondary vocational courses benefit the
one-quarter of high school graduates who never enroll in postsecondary
education, a group that has historically been the focus of vocational
policy. There are also some important caveats to these earnings results.
The evidence that vocational education increases wages---a proxy for a
"better" job---is weaker, and it is likely that the benefits will
continue to decline over time.

► ***Students in vocational programs of study have significantly
increased their academic course taking and achievement over the last
decade, although gaps remain.*** During the 1990s, successive groups of
occupational concentrators took more, and more rigorous, academic
courses along side their vocational curriculum (Table 2). By the end of
the decade, the academic credit gap between them and students who took
little or no vocational education had narrowed substantially. However,
there were still differences between concentrators (51.1 percent) and
non-concentrators (60.3 percent) in the proportion who completed the
extensive New Basics core academic curriculum and larger gaps in the
percent that completed a rigorous college preparatory curriculum (29.2
percent versus 46.2 percent).

![](media/image4.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="5.459027777777778in"}

More importantly, occupational concentrators also made substantial
progress on academic achievement (Figure 2). The National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) 12th-grade test scores of occupational
concentrators increased during the decade, by about 8 scale points in
reading and 11 scale points in math. Students who took little or no
vocational education increased their reading achievement by about 4
points in reading and experienced no increase in math achievement. As a
result of these trends, the gap between concentrators and
non-concentrators remained roughly stable in reading, while the gap in
math achievement was reduced significantly.

![](media/image5.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="4.438888888888889in"}

The NAEP assessments indicate that there has been substantial progress,
but more work is necessary to raise the achievement levels of all
students, particularly those in vocational programs. Most importantly,
occupational concentrators are far less likely than non-concentrators to
be proficient in reading or math, as defined by their most recent NAEP
test scores (Figure 3). If proficiency on the 12th-grade NAEP
assessments is associated with readiness for postsecondary education or
success in the labor market, then these figures suggest a greater focus
on academic improvement is needed.

![](media/image6.png){width="6.492361111111111in" height="4.94375in"}

► ***There is little evidence that vocational courses contribute to
improving academic outcomes.*** The noted improvements in academic
performance are likely due to higher academic graduation requirements
and increased emphasis on academic reforms. Both analyses of high school
student data and randomized controlled studies indicate that, on
average, vocational courses and programs do not themselves "add value"
to academic achievement as measured by test scores. Not surprisingly,
substituting additional academic courses for occupational courses does
raise achievement. Moreover, although there is mixed evidence that
vocational education reduces dropping out of school, the more rigorous
studies suggest there is no effect.

► ***Postsecondary transition rates have increased; vocational courses
neither hurt nor help most students' chances of going on to college but
are associated with a shift from earning a bachelor's degree to earning
an associate's degree or certificate.*** Vocational education has long
been stigmatized as for the "noncollege bound" or as a deterrent to
college, although NAVE finds that neither of these concerns is well
founded. The best available national trend data indicate that higher
proportions of occupational concentrators are moving on to some form of
postsecondary education or training, although they still participate
overall at lower rates than do other students and in particular in
four-year colleges and universities (Table 3). Many concentrators enroll
later, so that by seven years after graduation nearly three-quarters
versus 90 percent of all other students have participated to some
extent.

![](media/image7.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="3.8743055555555554in"}

However, improvements in postsecondary enrollment do not appear related
to vocational course taking. Studies of graduates in both the early and
later 1990s indicate that vocational education itself has no effect on
whether students ever attend postsecondary education or training.[^6]
Moreover, among those who enroll, high school vocational education is
associated with a lower likelihood of completing a bachelor's degree
program and a corresponding higher likelihood of completing an
associate's degree or certificate program.

► ***Secondary vocational education is a large component of high school
course taking and serves a diverse set of students, but it is an
increasingly smaller share of the overall curriculum.*** Nearly every
student (96.6 percent) leaves high school having taken some vocational
education, although the extent of student involvement varies. By almost
any measure, participation remained stable during the last decade after
an earlier period of decline, withstanding schools' ongoing focus on
academic improvement. While there was little change in the amount of
vocational course work taken by high school students during the 1990s,
students earned more academic credits, thus lowering vocational
education's share of the overall high school curriculum---from 21.8
percent in 1982 to 17.8 percent in 1990 to 16.2 percent in 2000 (Figure
4). Still, high school students earn, on average, more credits in
vocational education (4.0) than in math (3.4) or science (3.1).

![](media/image8.png){width="6.492361111111111in"
height="3.863888888888889in"}

Those who participate most intensively---occupational
concentrators---are a varied set of students. However, those who have
disabilities or are male, come from lower-income or rural schools, or
arrive at high school with low academic achievement participate more
substantially than do other students. These patterns were generally
stable during the last decade, although vocational education appeared to
attract more academically talented students during the 1990s. Less
progress was made on overcoming gender differences in vocational course
participation.

► ***The Perkins quality improvement strategies may be too vague to
drive change without clear direction.*** Perkins III carried over a
variety of strategies from Perkins II---such as integration of academic
and vocational instruction, an all aspects of the industry emphasis,
linkages between secondary and postsecondary programs, collaboration
with employers, and expanding the use of technology. Several of these
strategies, including integration, are ill defined and that may be a
barrier to wider implementation. In addition, little is known about
their effectiveness in improving student outcomes. Perhaps more
importantly, the practices are potentially targeted toward different
outcomes: for example, technology might be expected to affect
occupational-technical skills, integration to affect students' academic
achievement. The list does not reflect a focused purpose to the federal
investment.

► ***Improving teacher quality will be important if vocational education
is expected to alter its mission.*** Teachers have the most direct
impact on instruction and the earnings benefits for many vocational
students may suggest that this instruction is valued in the labor
market. However, federal legislation over the past decade has tried to
guide vocational education toward providing greater support for academic
achievement; student outcomes and program implementation suggest that
these efforts have been less successful. Current vocational teachers are
less likely than academic teachers to have bachelors' degrees and many
do not feel they have received sufficient professional development on
the key strategy of integration. Moreover, prospective high school
vocational teachers (in vocational teacher training programs) score
lower on basic reading and writing tests than do those preparing to be
elementary school teachers and lower on math tests than other secondary
teachers (Figure 5). Substantial investments in new recruitment and
in-service training approaches may be required if federal legislation
continues to make supporting academic achievement a priority for
vocational education.

![](media/image9.png){width="6.492361111111111in"
height="4.129861111111111in"}

► ***Tech-Prep was a catalyst for certain vocational reform activities
but, because few schools implement it as a comprehensive program of
study, it is now playing less of a distinctive role.*** Efforts to
promote both integration of academic and vocational instruction and
articulation between secondary and postsecondary education were
stimulated by the Tech-Prep Education Act in Perkins II. However, 12
years later, few schools implement Tech-Prep as a structured program
with at least two years of clearly linked high school course work and at
least two years of related postsecondary course work (the "two-plus-two"
design). The most recent estimates suggest that about 10 percent of
Tech-Prep consortia, representing 5 percent of Tech-Prep students
overall, may be promoting this comprehensive two-plus-two approach. In
2001, only seven states reported that they require local grantees to
implement Tech-Prep as a distinct program.

More typically schools implement individual components of the Tech-Prep
model---maintaining articulation agreements, providing professional
development on integration to academic or vocational teachers, or
improving career guidance and planning. Many of these activities are
becoming part of secondary vocational education more broadly, and little
change has occurred at the postsecondary level to accommodate Tech-Prep
students. As a result, Tech-Prep efforts now overlap substantially with
those of regular vocational education.

***~2.\ What\ is\ the\ nature\ and\ impact\ of\ vocational\ education\ at\ the\ sub-baccalaureate\ level,\ and\ what\ is\ its\ relationship\ to\ current\ workforce\ development\ efforts?~***

Given the labor market value of college credentials, "lifelong
learning," and flexibility in skills, the role of sub-baccalaureate
vocational education is increasingly important. Many different types of
students, with different intentions, cross the doors of community
colleges and other Perkins-eligible postsecondary institutions; even
with this diversity, the institutions provide services from which most
participating students benefit. Relatively low rates of retention are a
concern, however, not only because federal policy has long encouraged
postsecondary degree completion as a strategy for maintaining American
economic competitiveness, but also because individual participants would
reap much greater earnings advantage from staying long enough to earn a
credential. An emphasis on degree completion may be at odds with the
shorter-term training emphasized by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
But at least so far, integration of decision-making and services between
Perkins and WIA has been limited in most states.

► ***There are significant economic returns to postsecondary vocational
education, with the greatest benefits for those who earn a
credential.*** As was true at the secondary level, vocational education
in community colleges appears to produce a substantial positive effect
on earnings for the vast majority of participants. There are differences
in these returns, depending on how much course work is completed (Table
4). Some postsecondary vocational participants do benefit from a year's
worth of vocational course taking even without attaining a credential,
earning between 5 and 8 percent more than do high school graduates with
similar characteristics. However, much higher economic rewards go to
those who pursue significant amounts of postsecondary vocational
education and earn a degree or certificate; female associate's degree
holders, for example, earn 47 percent more than similar students with a
high school degree and males earn 30 percent more. These results
represent the average effects of earning postsecondary degrees. Although
many economists argue that the effects vary widely by occupational
field, the available data did not permit fields of study to be analyzed
separately.

![](media/image10.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="3.686111111111111in"}

► ***Fewer than half of postsecondary vocational participants seeking a
degree or certificate take enough courses to earn a credential.*** Like
their academic counterparts, many vocational participants leave
sub-baccalaureate institutions and programs having completed few
courses; more than two-thirds of vocational majors complete the
equivalent of a year or less of course work within a five-year time
period. Even among those who enroll with the goal of earning a degree or
certificate, fewer than half actually complete a credential of any kind
(Figure 6).[^7] Taking student goals and characteristics into account,
the completion rate for vocational majors is similar to that of academic
majors, although vocational participants are more likely to earn a
shorter-term credential (e.g., certificate) than they originally set out
to attain. The relatively low completion rate among postsecondary
vocational students is consistent across categories of students,
including those in special population groups.

![](media/image11.png){width="4.708333333333333in"
height="5.791666666666667in"}

► ***Postsecondary vocational education serves a large and diverse
population with varied expectations.*** About one-third of all students
in undergraduate postsecondary education are considered to be in
postsecondary vocational programs. These sub-baccalaureate vocational
students vary in age, income, work experience, and previous college
activity. Not surprisingly, then, they enroll with different goals---to
get an associate's degree or institutional certificate, to transfer and
pursue a bachelor's degree, to enhance their job skills, or to engage in
personal enrichment activities; older students are more interested in
obtaining job skills while younger students are more likely to aim for a
credential (Figure 7). To accommodate this diversity, community colleges
have to be particularly flexible institutions. Perkins III funds, which
represent just 2 percent of vocational education expenditures in public
two-year and less-than-two-year colleges, can be used to support almost
any part of the enterprise.

![](media/image12.png){width="6.492361111111111in"
height="3.723611111111111in"}

► ***Community colleges have had limited involvement in early
implementation of WIA, citing both low emphasis on training and
reporting requirements as disincentives.*** Early WIA implementation,
during a period of economic expansion and job growth, primarily
emphasized the development of new procedures and the delivery of
employment information over the kinds of training activities
Perkins-eligible institutions typically provide. There is some evidence
that, with the recent economic downturn, both the availability of
training vouchers and policy interest in training are increasing, but
the lack of coordination between WIA and Perkins accountability measures
reportedly still leads to substantial burden for participating
institutions.

***~3.\ Is\ the\ policy\ shift\ from\ set-asides\ and\ legislative\ prescription\ to\ flexibility\ and\ accountability\ likely\ to\ improve\ program\ quality\ and\ student\ outcomes?\ How\ do\ special\ populations\ fare?~***

The funding and accountability changes enacted under Perkins III have
been partially successful in addressing policymakers' objectives,
although much is still in development. Local grantees are receiving
larger dollar amounts and case studies suggest they are able to
distribute secondary Perkins funds to more schools, outcomes consistent
with the goal of directing more money to the local rather than state
levels. However, both the traditional ways in which grantees use their
funds and early implementation of the higher stakes accountability
system forecast at best slow change in vocational program quality.
Despite serious commitment among state administrators, technical
measurement and data quality problems hinder widespread use of
performance data for program management at either the state or local
levels. Given these deficiencies, it seems unlikely that, in the short
run, the accountability system will have particular benefits for special
population students, especially since identifying and collecting data on
these students has proven to be particularly difficult for state and
local officials. The effects of eliminating targeted set-asides intended
to promote gender equity is currently unknown.

► ***The new law succeeded in sending a higher share of funds to the
local level.*** The average size of local grants grew substantially
between Perkins II and Perkins III (approximately 34 percent for
secondary and 26 percent for postsecondary grantees) (Table 5). These
increases cannot be fully explained by increases in federal
appropriations that go to state grants (just over 15 percent) or a
reduction in the number of grants awarded.

![](media/image13.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="4.595833333333333in"}

► ***Flexibility provisions are popular, but may be weakening the
targeting of funds to high-poverty communities.*** Nearly 30 states at
the secondary level and 20 at the postsecondary level use at least one
of the flexibility provisions in Perkins III. The most common choice is
the newly established "reserve fund" provision, which allows states to
award 10 percent of local funds to programs in rural and other areas
without using the poverty-weighted legislated formula. Perhaps as a
result, the dollar advantage of high-poverty districts has declined
since Perkins II (Table 6).

![](media/image14.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="5.004166666666666in"}

Perkins III also included several options to allow states to better
coordinate federal vocational funds and activities with those of other
federal programs. Only one state submitted to ED a "consolidated" plan
to integrate vocational education with other education programs, and 12
states submitted "unified" plans in which they described their expected
activities under some combination of the Perkins, WIA, Adult Education,
and Vocational Rehabilitation laws. Although, under the ED Flex program,
states received the authority to waive Perkins requirements, states
generally did not exercise that authority.

► ***Implementation is progressing, but so far the performance
measurement system is rarely viewed as a tool for program
improvement.*** The current system, perhaps the first legislated
accountability effort with significant "teeth," is still evolving and
state officials have demonstrated a serious commitment to it. However,
several factors limit its likely impact on vocational programs and
student outcomes in the next few years: (1) difficulty collecting data,
(2) lack of validity or reliability of many adopted performance
measures, and (3) inconsistent approaches to data collection and
reporting within states. Certainly, the current system cannot provide a
reliable, national picture of vocational education performance. Overall,
the quality and reach of the Perkins accountability measures vary
considerably by indicator, by state, within state, and sometimes even
within local grantees' programs. It is therefore unsurprising that
relatively few states or districts use the performance data for
consequential decision-making.

► ***Although there have been some cutbacks in staffing dedicated to
special population services, the full effects on programs and students
are unknown.*** Even with the elimination of the gender equity
set-asides and coordinator requirements, many states continued to
support these efforts, though the amount of staff time seems to have
declined. In 2001, 23 states reported having at least one gender equity
coordinator working full- or part-time, but case studies suggest these
figures represent reductions from Perkins II. There were fewer observed
effects at the local level, with other funding sources sometimes making
up for the loss of Perkins gender equity grants. There were cutbacks in
targeted programs and services in some communities, but how these might
affect student outcomes cannot be known for several more years.

# B. Options for Future Directions[^8]

Despite the current strengths of the vocational education system
supported by Perkins III, there remain ongoing challenges for further
improvement. Policymakers may wish to consider a variety of
ways---encompassing broad or more specific strategies---in which to
shape the course of these improvements.

## 1. Broad Strategies for Promoting Change

There are several possible options that have implications for the
structure of a new or revised law. These broad strategies share a common
goal of providing a clearer focus to federal priorities.

***~Transform\ Perkins\ into\ a\ program\ with\ clear,\ focused,\ and\ limited\ objectives.~***

The Perkins legislation authorizes a stream of funds that provides wide
latitude to state and local grantees in terms of implementation and
goals. The law's reporting requirements reflect the historical
accumulation of purposes that have been laid out for vocational
education: improving students' academic and technical skills, enhancing
high school completion, promoting postsecondary enrollment and
completion, and ensuring successful labor market entry and
retention.[^9] All of these, it could be argued, are worthy objectives
for federal policy to address at either the high school or college
level, or both.

However, it is reasonable to question the capacity of any single law or
any single program strategy to succeed on all of these fronts. The
diffuse nature of federal priorities for this stream of funds both
reflects and contributes to ambivalence among policymakers and educators
about what "problem" is being addressed by the Perkins legislation, and
impedes efforts to develop clear, focused, and tested education
interventions designed to ameliorate the identified problem.

The federal investment could be more effective if directed toward a
narrower set of goals around which program improvement strategies and
accountability systems could be developed. There are some choices in
moving in that direction:

► ***Emphasize immediate goal of education or workforce development.***
Decision-makers may want to weigh whether vocational education, or the
activities the Perkins legislation supports, should most directly and
immediately contribute to:

> • Education, in which the emphasis is primarily on learning academic
> or occupational skills (or both) while enrolled in school; or
>
> • Workforce development, in which the emphasis is primarily on job and
> other post-school outcomes.

These various objectives are certainly interrelated and clarifying the
priorities does not imply that vocational education cannot also have
other benefits. Studies clearly link higher levels of learning and of
educational attainment to success in the work- place (see NAVE Interim
Report \[Silverberg et al. 2002\]). The language in Perkins III and of
vocational advocacy groups suggest that effective technical skills rest
on a strong foundation of academic proficiency. The question is,
however, which of these goals is most critical for Perkins-funded
activities? A focus is important for the federal role of promoting
continuing improvement.

► ***Separate the high school and postsecondary components of the
Perkins Act versus keeping them joined in the structure of the law.***
In some sense, secondary and postsecondary vocational education share
many qualities. Both are elective choices for students rather than a
required curriculum. Both serve an increasingly diverse set of students,
who have widely varying purposes for participating and hopes for what
they will accomplish. When secondary vocational education was clearly a
program for developing occupational skills and preparing for immediate
employment, the strategies at the two levels were similar. However, that
may no longer be the case. Because the mission of high schools and
community and technical colleges differ, as do the challenges they face,
policymakers may decide that federal vocational education should play a
different role at each level. For example, although federal policy may
charge secondary vocational education with reinforcing high schools'
learning objectives, policy may choose to more clearly tie postsecondary
vocational education to workforce development outcomes.

Establishing separate policies and goals for vocational education at the
two levels need not undermine the current federal emphasis on developing
clear pathways from high school to postsecondary education. On the
contrary, with two separate titles or sections, the law could more
clearly articulate the specific responsibilities of secondary and
postsecondary institutions to create and maintain those pathways.

***~Eliminate\ Tech-Prep\ as\ a\ separate\ title,\ folding\ its\ key\ activities\ into\ postsecondary\ institutions'\ responsibilities.~***

Tech-Prep has spurred some important efforts but has not lived up to its
promise of creating rigorous programs of technical study. The Tech-Prep
title of the Perkins Act has become a funding stream like the larger
state grant title in Perkins, allowing local consortia to supplement
vocational education or other efforts associated generally with the
spirit of the law (e.g., career development). Rarely are funds focused
on developing the well-defined two-plus-two (2+2) programs that early
Tech-Prep advocates promoted: integrated high school academic and
vocational curricula that are "articulated"---linked through credit
transfer agreements---to postsecondary programs. Instead, integration
and articulation have been implemented more on a course-by-course basis.
Moreover, these two key components of Tech-Prep have become more common
priorities for vocational education generally, diminishing the
distinctive role that Tech-Prep efforts might play. Finally, there is
some evidence that Tech-Prep funds are not as well targeted to
high-poverty areas as are the formula-driven basic grant funds under the
Perkins Act.

Despite these limitations, Tech-Prep remains the catalyst for some
initiatives and strategies that many consider worth preserving. Two, in
particular---convening local partners to collaborate on postsecondary
transition issues and updating articulation agreements---could instead
become required activities for postsecondary Perkins grantees, many of
whom already play this role as part of Tech-Prep consortia.[^10]

This strategy could, in effect, focus the Perkins-funded efforts of
eligible postsecondary institutions on serving their younger students
(those transitioning from high school) rather than on the older adult
population. Such an emphasis might be warranted, because the younger
students are less likely to be on a stable trajectory toward labor
market success: they have more limited work histories and previous
college or job training experience, and there is some evidence that
earning a credential matters more for them than for older students.
Given that Perkins grants represent about 2 percent of local community
college spending on occupational education, a focus for federal funds on
younger students might also strengthen current efforts to develop
rigorous cross-level course sequences, pathways, or programs of study.

***~Streamline\ accountability\ requirements\ to\ align\ with\ the\ more\ focused\ objectives.~***

The current accountability provisions in Perkins III require secondary
and postsecondary grantees to report on a broad array of student
outcomes, both those that students achieve while in school (academic
achievement, occupational-technical skill development, school
completion) and those that define their paths after they leave (further
education or training and employment). There are two reasons for
reducing the number of indicators:

► ***To limit burden and improve performance data quality.*** Many
states are finding it burdensome to meet all of the reporting
obligations and their current performance measures and data collection
approaches have limited validity and reliability, impeding reliance on
them for significant program management decisions. Improvements in data
quality and use are more likely if state and local grantees could
concentrate their efforts on a smaller set of indicators.

► ***To focus program improvement activities.*** The accountability
system is intended to motivate states, districts, and postsecondary
institutions to manage their programs more effectively. A more limited
set of performance indicators, closely aligned to policymakers'
priorities for the federal investment, could encourage more targeted
improvement efforts.

## 2. Specific Strategies for Improved Performance 

Although there are broad changes to the structure of the law that
policymakers could pursue, there are also individual practices and
strategies new legislation could promote that might improve particular
outcomes (Table 7). Ideally, one set of strategies would be emphasized,
tied to a clear declaration of federal priorities. However, the
strategies could also be implemented in combination.

![](media/image15.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="6.447222222222222in"}

These specific approaches---summarized in Table 7---draw to a large
extent on current research and evaluation analyses, most conducted under
the NAVE.

## 3. Closing

Vocational education, increasingly known as career and technical
education, is a longstanding program whose place in American education
continues to evolve. The broadening of its goals, the ongoing diversity
of participants, and the changing education and labor market climate in
which it operates, suggest vocational education is a flexible option for
schools and students.

With this flexibility comes some challenges, however. At the high school
level, participation in vocational education is an elective choice that
faces increasing pressure from emphasis on academic improvement. For
both secondary and postsecondary vocational education, the wide range of
participants and objectives raises a question about how effective a role
federal policy plays and whether that policy can or should promote a
clearer set of priorities. This final NAVE report is designed to
contribute to that discussion, by providing the most up-to-date and
comprehensive assessment of vocational education in the United States
and of the effects of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act of 1998.

# ►References 

Agodini, Roberto. Forthcoming. *Achievement Effects of Vocational and
Integrated Studies.* Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Agodini, Roberto, and John Deke. Forthcoming. *The Relationship between
High School Vocational Education and Dropping Out.* Princeton, N.J.:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Agodini, Roberto, John Deke, Timothy Novak, and Stacey Uhl. Forthcoming.
*Vocational Education and Postsecondary Outcomes: Eight Years After High
School.* Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Bailey, Thomas R., Mariana Alfonso, Marc Scott, and Timothy Leinbach.
Forthcoming. *Educational Outcomes of Occupational Postsecondary
Students.* New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Institute on
Education and the Economy.

Bailey, Thomas R., Gregory Kienzl, and David Marcotte. Forthcoming. *The
Return to a Sub-Baccalaureate Education: The Effects of Schooling,
Credentials, and Program of Study on Economic Outcomes.* New York:
Columbia University, Teachers College, Institute on Education and the
Economy.

Crain, R., A. Allen, R. Thaler, D. Sullivan, G. Zellman, J. Little, and
D. Quigley. 1999. *The Effects of Academic Career Magnet Education on
High Schools and Their Graduates.* Berkeley, Calif.: University of
California, National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Cramer, Kevin. Forthcoming. *The Vocational Teacher Pipeline: How
Academically Well- Prepared Is the Next Generation of Vocational
Teachers?* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the
Under Secretary.

Darkenwald, Gordon, and Kwang Kim. 1998. *Statistics in Brief: Adults'
Participation in Work-Related Courses: 1994--1995.* Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 98--309.

Hoachlander, Gary, Denise Bradby, Robert Fitzgerald, Marcel Paret, Peter
Teitelbaum, W. Lee Holcombe, Christopher T. King, and Robert W. Glover.
Forthcoming. *Career and Technical Education in Two States:
Participation and Student Outcomes.* A report prepared by MPR Associates
and the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources, University
of Texas at Austin for the National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under
Secretary.

Kemple, James, and Judith Scott-Clayton. 2004. *Career Academies:
Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes and Educational Attainment.* New York:
MDRC.

Levesque, Karen. 2003b. *Trends in High School Vocational/Technical
Coursetaking: 1982--1998.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. NCES 2003--025.

Levesque, Karen. 2003c. "Analysis of 2000 High School Transcripts."
Tables prepared by MPR Associates for the National Assessment of
Vocational Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of the Under Secretary.

Levesque, Karen, and Marcel Paret. Forthcoming. *The Academic
Achievement Gains of Occupational Concentrators and Nonconcentrators:
1990--2000.* A report prepared by MPR Associates for the National
Assessment of Vocational Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary.

Levesque, Karen, Doug Lauen, Peter Teitelbaum, Martha Alt, and Sally
Librera. 2000. *Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the
Year 2000.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education
Statistics. NCES 2000--029.

Plank, Stephen. 2001. *Career and Technical Education in the Balance: An
Analysis of High School Persistence, Academic Achievement, and
Postsecondary Destinations.* St. Paul, Minn.: National Center for
Research in Career and Technical Education, University of Minnesota.

Silverberg, Marsha, Elizabeth Warner, David Goodwin, and Michael Fong.
2002. *National Assessment of Vocational Education: Interim Report to
Congress.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the
Under Secretary.

White, Robin, Ivan Charner, Gail Promboin, Amy Johnson, Glenn Nyre, and
Richard Phelps. Forthcoming. *The Structures and Challenges of
Vocational Education Funding and Accountability Systems.* A report
prepared by the Academy for Educational Development for the National
Assessment of Vocational Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary.

[^1]: The first federal legislation supporting vocational education was
    the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.

[^2]: Other federal programs, such as student financial aid, tax
    credits, and the Workforce Investment Act, help provide individuals
    with *access* to occupational training at the postsecondary level;
    the Perkins Act provides support to institutions and programs.

[^3]: About 62 percent of Perkins funds are spent at the high school
    level.

[^4]: Occupational concentrators are defined as students who earn at
    least 3.0 occupational credits in one program area.

[^5]: The "New Basics" academic curriculum, as measured here, is
    equivalent to four years of English or language arts, and three
    years each of math, science, and social studies. Many states are
    moving to this standard for core high school graduation
    requirements.

[^6]: Some students enroll in high school vocational education *because*
    they do not plan to attend college, so a negative relationship
    between vocational courses and postsecondary education might be
    expected. However, even controlling for college plans and other
    student characteristics, vocational courses have no effect, on
    average, on postsecondary enrollment.

[^7]: The comparable completion rate for students entering four-year
    postsecondary programs seeking bachelor's degrees is 61.9 percent;
    that is, almost two-thirds of students who enter these longer degree
    programs actually earn a credential of some kind (including less
    than a baccalaureate degree), compared to about half of students who
    enter shorter-term vocational associate degree programs.

[^8]: Perkins III requires the NAVE to provide "findings and
    recommendations resulting from the assessment" (Section 114(c)).

[^9]: Since federal vocational education legislation was enacted in
    1917, the law has responded to changing needs and acquired new
    objectives. Initially, it was a way to prepare immigrant and rural
    populations to work in factories and on farms. At some point it
    became a form of training that might appeal to less academically
    oriented students, perhaps helping to keep them in school by
    engaging them in activities most relevant to future employment. Over
    time vocational education was supported as a strategy to keep the
    United States internationally competitive, by delivering advanced
    technical training to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech
    economy. More recently, vocational education has been promoted as a
    strategy to enhance academic learning and provide a clearer pathway
    to success in college.

[^10]: Requiring postsecondary institutions to be responsible would not
    preclude other Perkins institutions---secondary districts, high
    schools, area vocational centers, adult centers---from playing major
    roles in these activities, as is appropriate. However, designating
    the lead institutions in law may help ensure that the activities are
    a focus of funded efforts.