**Efforts to Improve the Quality of Vocational Education in Secondary
Schools: Impact of Federal and State Policies**

Cathleen Stasz\*

Susan Bodilly\*

With the Assistance of

Sarah Remes\*

Tammi Oyadomari-Chun\*

Daniel McCaffrey\*

Tessa Kaganoff\*

Dionne Barnes\*

\*RAND Corporation

June 2004

Prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education,

U.S. Department of Education

ED-00-C0-0002

#  {#section .SECTION-HEADING}

# Contents {#contents .SECTION-HEADING}

Tables ix

Acronyms xii

Preface xiii

Acknowledgments xiv

Executive Summary xv

Study Questions xiv

Approach and Methods xvi

Reactions to Perkins III Specifications xvii

The State Context for Efforts to Improve Vocational Education xix

State and Local Efforts to Improve the Quality of Vocational Education
xxi

Impact of Tech-Prep and Related Federal Policies xxiv

Conclusions and Implications xxiv

General Conclusions xxvi

1\. Introduction 1

The Changing Federal Role in Vocational Education 1

Study Questions 7

Methods 8

Limitations of the Study 9

Roadmap for This Report 9

2\. Study Approach and Methods 11

Case Studies 11

Sample Selection 11

Development of Quality Indicators 13

Instruments 16

Procedures 16

Case-study Data Analysis 18

Analysis of High-Achieving and Low-Achieving Schools 19

Teacher Survey 20

Sampling Frame 20

Design and Development 21

Survey Administration 22

Survey Data Analysis 22

3\. Reactions to Perkins III Specifications: Funding, Accountability and
Special\
Populations 25

Perkins Funding 25

State Uses of Funds 27

Local Uses of Funds 29

Perkins Accountability Requirements 32

Vocational Education for Special Populations 36

Impact of Changes in Set-Asides and Assessment 37

Conclusions 46

4\. The State Context for Efforts to Improve Vocational Education 49

Philosophy and Vision 50

The Structures and Delivery Systems for Vocational Education 52

State Reforms 59

Standards 63

Increased Graduation Requirements 66

Assessments 68

Other Vocational Education Reforms 70

Conclusions 71

5\. State and Local Efforts to Implement Perkins Quality Improvements 75

Promote Academic and Technical Skill Attainment 76

State Efforts 77

Local Efforts 85

Integration of Academic and Vocational Education 88

State Efforts 90

Local Efforts 91

All Aspects of the Industry 94

Parent and Employer Involvement 97

State Efforts 98

Local Efforts 98

Connections to Postsecondary 99

State Efforts 100

Local Efforts 101

Technology 103

State Efforts 103

Local Efforts 104

Professional Development and Teacher Supply 105

State Efforts 106

Local Efforts 107

Conclusions 108

6\. Tech-Prep and Other Federal Policies 113

Tech-Prep and Vocational Education 113

Forms of Tech-Prep 114

Structured Programs: North Carolina and Florida 115

Enhanced Vocational Programs: Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Texas
116

Loosely Structured Programs: California 119

School-to-Work Opportunities Act 119

Workforce Investment Act 122

Conclusions 123

7\. Conclusions and Implications 125

Integration 128

Use of Challenging Standards 129

Build Links to Employers and Postsecondary Education 130

Develop, Expand and Improve the Use of Technology 130

General Conclusions and Policy Implications 133

Appendix A: Selection of States and Schools 137

State Selection 137

Selection Criteria 137

Selection Procedures 138

School Selection 139

Analysis of Achievement Data 139

Screening for Vocational Intensity 141

Consideration of School Characteristics 141

Replacing Schools 143

Appendix B: Survey Sample Design 144

The Sampling Frame of Schools and Teachers 144

Sampling Strata 146

Vocational Schools 146

Comprehensive Schools 149

Teacher Strata 150

Survey Response 151

Adjustments for Survey Non-response 153

Standard Error Estimation 156

Creation of the Overall Teacher Quality Scale 156

Q22. Use of Standards (q_22a_related--q22d_related,
q22a_affect--q22d_affect) 156

Q20. Academic and Technical Quality (Academic Quality, q20a, q20b,
q20d;\
Technical Quality, q20c, q20f) 157

Q24. Assessed Competencies (q24b, q24c, q24e, q24h, q24j, q24f, q24g,\
q24i, q24k) 158

Q17. Teacher Quality (q17) 158

Q25. Amount of Homework (q25_hr q25_min) 159

Overall Teacher Scale 160

Appendix C: Efforts to Improve Quality --- Summary Tables and Analysis
of\
"High-Performing" and "Low-Performing" Schools 169

Narrative Summary 169

Integration Structure (Table C.1) 169

Integration Curriculum (Table C.2) 170

Challenging Academic and Vocational Standards: Table C.3 170

Connections to Employers and Community: Table C.4 170

Connections to Postsecondary: Table C.5 171

Counseling and Career Planning: Table C.6 171

Technology Policy and Resources: Table C.7 172

Teacher Supply and Professional Development: Table C.8 173

Appendix D: Teacher Survey Tables 175

References 193

# Tables {#tables .SECTION-HEADING}

2.1 Summary of Secondary School Sample 15

2.2 Study Topics by Sources of Data 24

3.1 State Allocation of Basic Grant Funds to Secondary and Postsecondary
Institutions 26

3.2 Status of State Accountability Systems 34

4.1 Synopsis of State Governance Structure 53

4.2 Synopsis of Secondary Standards and Assessment 60

5.1 State Policies to Promote Quality 76

B.1 Numbers of Schools by Vocational and Comprehensive Strata 145

B.2 Numbers of Schools by Vocational School Strata 146

C.1 Integration Structure 159

C.2 Integration Curriculum 160

C.3 Challenging Academic and Vocational Standards 161

C.4 Connections to Employers and Community 162

C.5 Connections to Postsecondary 163

C.6 Counseling and Career Planning 164

C.7 Technology Policy and Resources 165

C.8 Teacher Supply and Professional Development 166

D.1 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Any
Professional\
Development on Selected Topics in Last 12 Months 173

D.2 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools
Reporting Any\
Professional Development on Selected Topics in Last 12 Months 174

D.3 Percentage of Vocational Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational
Schools\
Reporting Any Professional Development on Selected Topics in Last 12
Months 175

D.4 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Who Report Team
Teaching 176

D.5 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Who
Report\
Team Teaching 176

D.6 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Any
Participation\
with Postsecondary Faculty in Certain Activities 177

D.7 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools
Reporting Any\
Participation with Postsecondary Faculty in Certain Activities 177

D.8 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Any Contact
with\
Business Groups 178

D.9 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools
Reporting Any\
Contact with Business Groups 178

D.10 Percentage of Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Requiring Career
Plans 179

D.11 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Who Report that
Identified Class\
Has Particular Characteristics (Percentage of Classes) 179

D.12 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting "Above
Average"\
Participation of Special Populations in Identified Classes 180

D.13 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools
Reporting\
"Above Average" Participation of Special Populations in Identified
Classes 180

D.14 Existence of Standards for Identified Classes Taught by Academic
and\
Vocational Teachers (Percentage of Teachers Reporting) 181

D.15 Percentage of Teachers Reporting Standards Influence Class a
"Moderate" or\
"Great" Extent 181

D.16 Academic and Vocational Teacher Reports of Frequency of Activities
in Most\
Recent Identified Class (Percentage of Teachers) 182

D.17 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting
Competency\
Contributes to a "Great Extent" to Students' Grades in Identified
Classes 183

D.18 Reported Amount of Homework Assigned in Identified Classes by
Academic\
and Vocational Teachers (Mean Hours) 184

D.19 Reported Amount of Homework Assigned in Identified Classes by
Teachers\
in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools (Mean Hours) 184

D.20 Reported Preparation of Academic and Vocational Teachers to Teach\
Technology-Related Skills 184

D.21 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting "Moderate"
or\
"Great" Input byBusiness Groups in Identified Career-Oriented or\
Vocational Classes 185

D.22 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools
Reporting\
"Moderate" or "Great" Input by Business Groups in Identified
Career-Oriented\
or Vocational Classes 185

D.23 Weighted Teacher Scales for Academic and Vocational Teachers and
Classes\
(Mean Scores) 186

D.24 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Who Report
"Moderate" or\
"Serious" Problems with Technology 187

D.25 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Who
Report\
"Moderate" or "Serious" Problems with Technology 187

D.26 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Activity
Occurs\
"Frequently" in Identified Class 188

D.27 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Engaged in
Collaboration\
(Percentage Reporting Engagement in Any Collaboration) 189

D.28 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools
Engaged in\
Collaboration (Percentage Reporting Engagement in Any Collaboration) 189

D.29 Academic and Vocational Teacher Reports of Amount of Time School
Provides\
for Teachers to Work Together (Percentage of Teachers) 190

D.30 Reports of Amount of Time school Provides for Teachers in
Comprehensive and\
Vocational Schools to Work Together (Percentage of Teachers) 191

#  {#section-1 .SECTION-HEADING}

# Acronyms {#acronyms .SECTION-HEADING}

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  AAI              All Aspects of the Industry

  ACE              Assessment in Career Education

  AVS              Area Vocational School

  CC               Community college

  COS              Course of study

  CPS              Career Preparation System

  CTE              Career and technical education

  CTSO             Career and technical student organization

  FCAT             Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test

  FTE              Full-time equivalent

  GPA              Grade point average

  HSTW             High Schools that Work

  IEP              Institutional Effectiveness Process

  ISD              Intermediate school district

  ITAC             Integrated Technical and Academic Competencies

  JVS              Joint Vocational School

  LEA              Local education agency

  MCAS             Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System

  MCCTE            Michigan Center for Career and Technical Education

  MDCD             Michigan Department of Career Development

  MDR              Market Data Retrieval

  NAVE             National Assessment of Vocational Education

  OCAP             Ohio Competency Assessment Profile

  OCP              Occupational Completer Point

  OMB              Office of Management and Budget

  RCR              Respondent coverage rate

  ROP              Regional occupational program

  ROP/C            Regional occupational programs/centers

  SCANS            Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills

  SREB             Southern Regional Education Board

  SRG              Survey Research Group (RAND)

  STAR             Standardized Testing and Reporting

  STW              School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994

  T&I              Trade and industry

  TEKS             Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills

  VoCATS           Vocational Competency Achievement Tracking System

  WBL              Work-based learning

  WIA              Workforce Investment Act
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

#  {#section-2 .SECTION-HEADING}

# Preface {#preface .SECTION-HEADING}

The National Assessment of Vocational Education --- a
congressionally-mandated study --- is charged with evaluating the impact
of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998,
known as Perkins III, and preparing a report to Congress by July 2002.
As part of that effort, the National Assessment of Vocational Education
commissioned RAND to conduct a study to assess the quality of vocational
education in the United States. The purpose of the study is twofold. It
will provide evidence on the extent to which actual practice is
consistent with legislative and other views of what constitutes
"quality" practice in secondary vocational education. It also will
provide evidence regarding how policies made at different levels of the
education system enhance or impede implementation of quality practice.
RAND's findings as described in this report provide some of the
information NAVE needs to evaluate the impact of the Perkins Act and
prepare its report to Congress. The database for the study was developed
in 2001 and included case-study analysis and analysis of a national
teacher survey. The case-study sample included seven states ---
California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and
Texas --- and four districts and schools within each state. The survey
was administered to vocational and academic teachers in a
nationally-representative sample of comprehensive high schools and
vocational schools.

While the targeted audience for any NAVE research is the U.S. Congress,
this study should be of interest to any policymakers and administrators
involved in improving vocational education and secondary education more
generally. Because the report contains specific descriptions of
different state and local approaches, it might also be useful to state
and local educators intent on gaining ideas for improvement of their
programs.

This work was contracted by the U.S. Department of Education, Planning
and Evaluation Services, and performed by RAND Education from November
2000 to August 2002.

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
contract number ED-00-CO-0002, using the Department's appropriated
funds. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No
official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or
should be inferred.

# Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .SECTION-HEADING}

This study could not have been carried out without the cooperation of
many individuals around the country. First, we thank the individuals at
the state, district and school levels who helped schedule and organize
the site visits, responded to our many queries and questions, and shared
their views and insights on the issues that affect vocational education
today. Because study respondents, as well as district and school sites,
participated under conditions of confidentiality, we are unable to thank
them all by name.

We also acknowledge the assistance of the NAVE staff --- Marsha
Silverberg, David Goodwin and Betsy Warner --- in the design of the
study and teacher survey. Several other individuals also provided review
and feedback or advice on specific aspects of the research: Karen
Batchelor, Dominic Brewer, Beverly Campbell, Margaret Ellibee, Kimberly
Green, Norton Grubb, Phyllis Hudecki, Jim Jacobs, Jack Jennings, Jo
Kister, Mikala Rahn, Nancy Raynor, Scott Snelson, Carole Stacy, Don
Richards and Peggi Zelinko. We thank them all for their contributions.

The case studies were carried out by teams of researchers from RAND and
MPR Associates. RAND staff included Cathy Stasz, Sue Bodilly, Tammi
Oyodamari-Chun, Tessa Kaganoff, Sarah Remes and Dionne Barnes. MPR staff
included Penni Hudis, Sarah Calderon, Ted Warburton, Jane Sanborn, David
Singleton, Tawny Beal, Anna Sikora and Lois Lynn Deuel. The teacher
survey was conducted by RAND's Survey Research Group, under the
direction of Beverly Weidmer. Dan McCaffrey designed the survey; Brian
Stecher, Cassie Guarino and Jennifer Hawes-Dawson assisted in the design
of the survey instrument. Dan McCaffrey, Brian Stecher, Delia Bugliari
and Vi-Nhuan Le assisted in survey data analysis. Many other staff at
RAND and MPR provided administrative and research assistance to the
project, especially Donna White, Donna Boykin, Karen Ross and Abby Robyn
at RAND, and Shierra Merto, Kelsey Blakely, Steve Klein, Bob Fitzgerald
and Elliott Medrich at MPR. Christopher Dirks and Donna Boykin assisted
in the production of this report.

Finally, we thank Tora Bikson of RAND and David Stern of the University
of California, Berkeley, who provided technical review and offered many
useful comments and suggestions that greatly improved this report.

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .SECTION-HEADING}

The National Assessment of Vocational Education --- a
congressionally-mandated study --- is charged with evaluating the impact
of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998,
known as Perkins III, and preparing a report to Congress by July 2002.
As part of that effort, the National Assessment of Vocational Education
commissioned RAND to conduct a study to assess the quality of vocational
education in the United States. The purpose of the study is twofold. It
will provide evidence on the extent to which actual practice is
consistent with legislative and other views of what constitutes
"quality" practice in secondary vocational education. It also will
provide evidence regarding how policies made at different levels of the
education system enhance or impede implementation of quality practice.
RAND's findings as described in this report provide some of the
information NAVE needs to evaluate the impact of the Perkins Act and
prepare its report to Congress. They also yield lessons for the larger
vocational education community by identifying strategies that can be
adopted by schools, communities and states to improve the quality of
vocational education programs.

Vocational and technical education is defined in Public Law 105-332 as
organized educational activities that individuals need to prepare for
further education and for careers requiring less than a baccalaureate
degree. The educational activities are to offer a sequence of courses
that provide individuals the necessary academic and technical knowledge
and skills and to include competency-based applied learning. Federal
funding for vocational education commenced with the passage of the
Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, and since that time federal legislation has
sought to shape vocational education in specific ways. Vocational
education, like all education in the United States, has traditionally
been the domain of states and local communities. The federal government
plays an important role in education through its leadership and funding,
but the vocational education "system" has no national standards or
curriculum.

Over time, federal legislation has attempted to expand influence over
state vocational education programs. Perkins III offered specific
guidance on the kinds of improvements that a program should incorporate
to enhance its quality. These improvements included

-   integrating academics into vocational and technical studies;

-   adopting challenging academic, vocational and technical standards;

-   promoting understanding of "all aspects" of an industry;

-   encouraging parent and employer involvement;

-   building linkages to postsecondary education;

-   expanding use of technology; and

-   providing for professional development of teachers, counselors and
    administrators.

Importantly, Perkins III incorporated stronger accountability measures
than previous legislation did. States now must develop and track four
core performance indicators and meet specific performance targets.
Federal funds can be withheld from states that fail to meet their
targets.

Perkins III was signed into law on Oct. 31, 1998 and took effect in
program year 2000, from July 1, 1999 through Sept. 30, 2000. Thus, it
was in effect for less than one year when this study began. States in
this study opted to use the last state plan submitted under Perkins II
as a transition plan with only minimal changes. New state plans were
submitted during the course of the study, but most were not implemented
until the second program year, July 1, 2000--Sept. 30, 2001, after
Perkins III was enacted.

The study noted three limitations at the outset: little time has passed
to allow for full implementation of Perkins III or for its
accountability measures to take effect; the reform emphasis in secondary
schools is on higher academic standards and performance; and the federal
resources are relatively small compared with state funding. Thus, the
incentives to implement Perkins-related reforms are weak relative to
reforms associated with other state or local policies.

Within this context, the study aimed to understand the extent to which
the quality improvements identified in Perkins were being implemented
and whether the new provisions in Perkins III were encouraging stronger
implementation of the federal vision for vocational education.

## Study Questions

This study of secondary school vocational education assessed the status
of Perkins III at an early stage of implementation and the current
quality of vocational offerings through five broad questions:

1.  What are the purposes and philosophies of vocational education in
    secondary schools? Have these evolved in keeping with the Perkins
    legislation, and how do they differ among states?

2.  What other education reforms are occurring, and how have these
    affected vocational and technical education within states and
    localities? What is the influence of federal and state policies at
    the local level?

3.  What are the state and local efforts to improve the quality of
    vocational education, especially with respect to the quality
    improvements outlined in Perkins III? Does the implementation
    incorporate challenging academic and technical standards? How
    prevalent are the practices endorsed by Perkins, and do they differ
    for academic and vocational teachers and schools?

4.  What is the impact of changes in Perkins III on special populations
    and other groups and the programs that serve them? Have changes at
    the state level affected service delivery at the local level?

5.  What are the characteristics of Tech-Prep programs? Are the states'
    visions for Tech-Prep reflected in local practice?

## Approach and Methods

The research proceeded along two strands: case studies of implementation
on a selected sample of sites and a national probability survey of high
school teachers.

The case studies for the secondary school study included seven states
and a purposive sample of four districts and schools within each. The
seven states --- California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, North
Carolina, Ohio and Texas --- were purposely selected for several
reasons: each has a data system in place that provides accessible
information about student achievement; for at least the school level;
each had sufficient vocational program offerings; and overall the group
balanced the need for geographic and demographic diversity.

Four school sites were randomly selected from a pool within each state
that had either high or low student achievement relative to other
schools in the state, after adjusting for the demographics of the
students. The two high-achieving and low-achieving schools in each state
also had vocational education enrollment that exceeded the state's
median enrollment. As a whole, the schools balanced the need for
geographic diversity, levels of population concentration/locale, and
different types of vocational schools. The selection of schools that
varied by student achievement was intended to shed light on the
relationship between achievement and vocational education implementation
--- i.e., whether higher- and lower-achieving schools differed in their
efforts to enhance the quality of vocational education. This selection
method was imperfect, however, and this aspect of the analysis was not
very informative.

The case studies were carried out from February through June 2001 and
gathered descriptive information about the quality of vocational
programs in the states, districts and schools using multiple
data-gathering methods, such as interviews, focus groups and document
analysis.

At the same time, RAND conducted a nationally-representative survey of
teachers in comprehensive high schools and vocational schools. The
survey was designed to examine whether the instructional, curricular and
related activities in schools and classrooms correspond to quality
practices as defined in the federal legislation. It also gathered
information about teachers' backgrounds and their school and teaching
environments. This report includes selected findings from the teacher
survey where they inform the main study questions.

To assess the relative quality of vocational education programs at the
study sites, the research team developed a set of quality indicators for
selected program improvements discussed in Perkins III. These indicators
were based on scholarly and policy research and studies of practices and
were used to develop the interview guidelines and teacher survey and to
interpret the study data.

In addition to the limitations in Perkins III noted above, the
case-study findings are limited to the states and localities in the
study sample. The teacher-survey findings reflect teacher reports on
their schools, students, and teaching and curricular practices. Although
the survey was designed to gather information on the prevalence of
practices discussed in the legislation, it did not directly ask about
Perkins III or its implementation.

With these caveats in mind, the following sections present findings
organized by chapter.

## Reactions to Perkins III Specifications

Perkins III brought some policy changes intended to provide more
flexibility to states and local grantees but also to hold them more
accountable for their actions. Three specific types of changes concern
Perkins funding, accountability and services to special populations and
other groups.

***State and local education agencies directed funds in line with
legislative intent. Perkins funds were crucial for supporting
technology-related activities at the local level.***

Perkins III specified both allowable and required use of funds and also
changed the allocation of funds so that a larger proportion went
directly to local districts, from 75 percent to 85 percent of the total
state allocation.

State expenditure of leadership funds was directed primarily at three
areas: curriculum development and dissemination, professional
development of vocational education teachers, and development of
standards and assessments.

At the local level expenditures also appeared to be in line with
legislative intent. Perkins funds were particularly crucial for
supporting technology-related activities --- equipment, software,
Internet support and the like. However, the flexibility in Perkins also
permitted states and local grantees latitude, which allowed for
considerable variation in spending patterns across the study sites.

***Accountability mechanisms in Perkins III were not yet in place.***

The states in this study were in the first year of implementing their
state plans and accountability systems at the time of the field study.
They varied in their ability to comply with the reporting requirements
of Perkins III. Most state data systems were still incomplete, although
states that developed standards and measures in response to Perkins II
were more prepared to comply than others were.

Few local sites had changed their data collection as a result of
Perkins, although many reported changes to comply with state data
collection requirements.

It is simply too soon to tell whether the accountability measures
adopted in Perkins III will exert greater control over state and local
expenditures and efforts.

***The elimination of set-asides to fund activities in support of
students from certain groups reduced staff dedicated to these students.
The full impact of changes is not yet known.***

Perkins III amended the definition of special populations but also
eliminated the set-asides to fund activities in support of students from
certain groups. While the latter change was intended to provide greater
flexibility at the local level, it also raised questions about how
services might be affected. Perkins III also required states to provide
separate reports on the performance of students from special populations
and to report on participation in programs leading to nontraditional
employment.

Five of the seven states made reductions in state-level gender-equity
staff --- and sometimes other positions --- as a result of the
elimination of the set-aside.

Although a few local sites seemed pleased with the flexibility afforded
in Perkins III, most reported possible negative effects, including staff
reductions.

The study revealed a complex picture concerning participation and
access. Four states had differentiated programs of study or alternative
requirements for some students. In some cases, these requirements had
improved services for students at the local level, but in others they
isolated students or reduced their access to the highest-quality
programs.

Respondents in the case studies and teacher survey indicated that
vocational education programs enrolled a disproportionate share of
students from special population groups --- a perception that the study
is unable to verify with the data at hand. It is certainly the case that
in some localities vocational education was still perceived as the
educational alternative for the academically less able.

## The State Context for Efforts to Improve Vocational Education

Perkins III is implemented in the context of existing state and local
education systems. This study examined three aspects of state context
that can shape efforts to reform vocational education: education
philosophy or vision, the structure and delivery system for vocational
education, and the current and ongoing state education reforms,
including those that affect vocational education.

***States and localities embraced the broader vision of vocational
education but faced significant challenges to achieving this vision.***

Since the 1990s, the Perkins legislation advanced a broader and more
flexible vision of vocational education that expanded the content to
include academic and industry standards to a level that would prepare
students for postsecondary education or for high-skill, high-wage
careers. It also expanded the audience for vocational education to
include students who might otherwise only follow a general or
college-prep program of study. The study found that while many states
and localities have adopted the spirit of this philosophy --- and some
have enacted specific policies to advance it --- many barriers to
reaching this vision were evident.

Reported barriers include a negative perception of vocational education
as the alternative for students who will not succeed in a more
academically rigorous program; a perception by parents that it will not
lead to college; a perception by employers that it will not lead to
technically oriented jobs; the status of vocational education as an
elective course of study in all states; and the continued separation of
academic and vocational programs in high schools, where concerns over
academic achievement take priority.

***The structure of state education systems varied. More centralized
systems were more likely to be implementing significant reforms directed
at vocational education.***

Unsurprisingly, states have different structures for the delivery of
general and vocational education that might greatly influence their
implementation strategies. In this study, we characterized states'
governance structures using two simple dimensions: the number and
authority of agencies involved in decisionmaking and delivery of
educational services and the extent to which decisionmaking and policy
is decentralized. The relative uniformity or fragmentation of policy
implementation can vary with a state's structural makeup.

State structures that are characterized by having fewer agencies to
authorize and deliver services and a more centralized or uniform
decision-making system tended to mandate policy changes that resulted in
more coherent and uniform vocational programs. Clients tended to
understand the system and to move easily within it.

State structures with decentralized authority and overlapping delivery
systems promoted vocational improvement through voluntary means. The
result was often more variety in program offerings but less coherence.

***States emphasized reforms directed toward academic standards,
assessment and accountability. Similar attention to vocational education
was rare.***

The study examined academic and vocational reforms in three general
areas: standards, increased graduation requirements and assessment. It
also paid particular attention to specific state reforms directed at
vocational education.

All states had academic standards for general education. These were
mandatory in five states. Only three states had mandatory vocational
content standards.

Four states had increased high school graduation requirements, but these
requirements primarily concerned academic subjects.

All but one of the states had adopted an accountability system with
high-stakes academic tests that students must pass to graduate, although
not all were in effect at the time of the study. Vocational assessments
were in use in three states, but these were independent of the states'
accountability systems.

By and large, local respondents' reactions to academic testing regimes
were somewhat negative, even in states where testing was voluntary.
Respondents acknowledged that the tests had helped raise academic
standards in vocational and technical programs but often at the cost of
vocational learning.

## State and Local Efforts to Improve the Quality of Vocational Education

Perkins III provided guidance to states to improve the quality of
vocational education by outlining several program improvements --- as
listed above --- to enhance vocational educational quality, requiring
states to address these elements in their state plans, and permitting
use of Perkins funds to develop them.

Overall, the study found that states, districts and schools have made
progress in implementing improvements defined by Perkins III but differ
in the consistency and depth of their efforts. Because state and local
policies might encourage similar improvements, it is difficult to gauge
the precise influence of Perkins III.

***States made progress in implementing some structural changes to
support vocational and academic integration, but these did not always
influence local practice. Local sites had few examples of high-quality
integrated curriculum.***

States and local districts and schools have made some improvements in
implementing some of the structural features that support integration
--- for example, in adopting coherent sequences of courses in vertically
aligned pathways or clusters. In some cases these changes represented
true reform at the local level, while in others they are labels that
have been adopted without much alteration to the status quo.

Many state-level activities to support integration, such as curriculum
development, professional development or adoption of whole-school reform
models --- for example, High Schools that Work --- had not significantly
or consistently influenced local practice in the sample of sites
visited.

The case studies provide little evidence of widespread adoption of
integrated curriculum, although each local site could point to one or
two programs that appeared to contain elements indicative of
integration. Survey data indicated that vocational teachers' classes
incorporated more elements associated with integration than academic
teachers' classes.

Vocational and academic teachers had few supports to accomplish
integration. Few teachers engaged in team teaching or had common
planning time to meet with other teachers --- activities associated with
more successful implementation of an integrated curriculum.

***The emphasis on academic reforms had helped raise academic standards
in vocational education --- a core performance indicator in Perkins III
--- but often at the expense of vocational content.***

State academic standards and assessments reportedly had widespread
influence over vocational courses and programs at the local level. In
particular, teachers reported reduced vocational enrollments stemming
from pressure to meet higher academic standards and increased course
requirements; reduced time on vocational tasks arising from increased
time on academic requirements and test preparation; and possible reduced
quality of instruction, given the emphasis of some tests on simplistic
understanding and answers.

The case studies revealed several examples of state and local efforts to
enhance the academic content of vocational courses so that these can
receive academic credit. A fairly high proportion of vocational teachers
--- 41 percent --- reported on the survey that at least one of their
vocational classes received academic credit.

All states and most local sites reported using national or industry
certification programs or state licensure requirements as they develop
vocational courses and programs, but these were not available in all
areas. More than half of the local sites had courses that earned
industry certification.

Survey data indicated that academic teachers were more likely to report
that state and district standards were relevant to their classes, while
vocational teachers were more cognizant of industry standards. Most
teachers reported that standards influenced their teaching.

On a survey-derived measure of overall quality of academic and
vocational teachers' classes, academic teachers had the edge over
vocational teachers.

***Perkins III did not appear to stimulate "All Aspects of the Industry"
or parental involvement to any great extent.***

***Perkins III had stimulated employer involvement. Vocational teachers
had more involvement with employers than academic teachers did.***

All states, districts and schools were adopting strategies to involve
employers in vocational programs in various ways, although some local
sites were clearly more successful than others.

Survey findings indicated that vocational teachers were significantly
more likely to have contact with employers than were academic teachers,
even those who taught career-oriented classes.

***States promoted connections to postsecondary institutions in many
ways, and some were apparent in the schools. Vocational teachers had
more connections with post­secondary institutions than academic teachers
did.***

State mechanisms to promote connections between secondary and
postsecondary institutions included statewide articulation or
dual-enrollment agreements, computer-based counseling programs available
to all schools, adoption of reform models that emphasize such
connections, policies to support career planning, or scholarships. Of
these, articulation agreements, career-planning policies and
scholarships appeared to have most influence locally.

Career planning was fairly common in the case-study states and
localities, but according to survey reports, infrequent nationwide.

Vocational teachers reportedly had more varied and frequent connections
to postsecondary faculty and institutions than academic teachers did.

***Perkins was important for funding technology-related improvements at
the local level. Vocational teachers had more technology support and
resources than academic teachers.***

Several states and schools promoted technology skill development or
computer literacy for all students, including vocational students.

About half of the local sites featured more high-tech programs to
reflect new demands in the workplace, although few of these were
cutting-edge. Instructional activities involving distance learning were
rare.

Academic teachers were more likely than vocational teachers to report
problems with technology availability and quality and reported being
less prepared to teach technology-related skills.

***All states supported professional development for teachers but had
not provided the same level of support for counselors or
administrators.***

All states in the study promoted teacher professional development, but
local support varied considerably.

Survey data indicated that academic teachers received more professional
development on topics related to assessment, while vocational teachers
received more on integration-related or vocational themes. About
three-fourths of all teachers surveyed received professional development
on academic standards, subject-matter content and technology.

Some states had lateral entry policies to promote vocational teacher
certification. Most states and some local sites were also concerned
about vocational teacher shortages, but few had data to support their
concerns.

## Impact of Tech-Prep and Related Federal Policies

Federal policy also intended to improve or support vocational education
through Tech-Prep, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 and the
Workforce Investment Act . Tech-Prep is incorporated into Perkins III as
a separate title and provides funds to create programs that will lead to
attainment of an associate's degree at a community college and
preparation for high-demand, technically-oriented occupations.

***Only two states had structured, comprehensive tech-prep programs.***

Only two states in this study had structured and comprehensive programs.
In the other states, Tech-Prep programs had some identifiable
characteristics, such as articulation agreements, but it was difficult
to distinguish Tech-Prep courses or students from regular vocational
education.

Some states also had statewide articulation agreements or
dual-enrollment policies between high schools and community colleges.
These policies, however, did not always enhance or support Tech-Prep as
defined in Perkins.

***School-to-Work has had some impact on vocational programs, but the
Workforce Investment Act has had little influence.***

Four of the seven states used School-to-Work funds to advance certain
aspects of their vocational education programs. Respondents at nearly
all the local sites in these states reported that programs begun under
STW had become institutionalized and were continuing with local or state
funding.

The Workforce Investment Act, on the other hand, has had minimal effect
at the secondary school level in most states or local districts and
schools. This is not very surprising because WIA is geared toward adult
and postsecondary education.

## Conclusions and Implications

These findings led to a number of conclusions related to the study
questions and also to some broader implications about federal policy for
vocational education.

***What are the purposes and philosophies of vocational education at the
secondary level? Have these evolved in keeping with Perkins
legislation?***

Many states and localities have adopted the spirit of the Perkins
philosophy to broaden the content of and participation in vocational
education in secondary schools, and some have enacted specific policies
to advance it. However, many barriers to reaching this vision remain.

Chief among these barriers is the continuing marginal position of
vocational education in secondary education relative to academic or
general education --- a state of affairs that has been noted in many
studies and for some years. The new vision has not convinced parents
that vocational education will lead to college, which is the route that
most favor. The Perkins legislation may contribute to this problem by
continuing to define vocational education as education for work that
requires less than a baccalaureate degree.

***What other education reforms are ongoing, and how have these affected
vocational and technical offerings within states and localities? What is
the influence of federal and state policies at the local level?***

All the states in this study have adopted reforms that emphasize higher
academic standards and requirements, assessment of academic learning and
greater accountability, but few have adopted similar reforms for
vocational education. By and large, the state reforms are highly
influential, and vocational education is caught up in the academic
reform tide. Although these reforms may have helped raise academic
content in many vocational courses, it often appears to be at the
expense of vocational or technical skills and content.

State reforms also affected local data-gathering practices. While few
local sites knew about the Perkins reporting requirements, many had
changed their data systems or procedures to comply with state
accountability needs.

***What are the state and local efforts to improve the quality of
vocational education, especially with respect to the quality attributes
outlined in Perkins III?***

States and localities differ widely in the consistency and depth of
their efforts to implement program improvements. At this early stage of
implementation, Perkins appears to have had an impact on some of these
efforts, but has not stimulated improvements in all areas.

Most effort has been directed at improving integration, increasing
standards in vocational courses, enhancing connections to employers and
postsecondary institutions, and making technology-related improvements.

Efforts at integration appeared more successful at the structural level
than at the curricular level. The case studies provide little evidence
of widespread adoption of integrated curriculum within a school.
Teachers do not receive the support needed to implement curriculum
integration, such as common planning time during the school day. The
survey indicated that vocational teachers' practices are much more in
sync with the notion of integration than are academic teachers'
practices.

In some localities, the state reforms directed much attention to
improving academic rigor in vocational education. Similar efforts to
improve technical rigor in vocational courses were less evident,
although local use of industry standards was fairly commonplace in
vocational programs and many programs attained industry certification.

Connections to employers are fairly typical in vocational programs ---
the case studies provided many examples of employer involvement in local
programs. Vocational teachers have much stronger connections to
employers than academic teachers do, and they also have stronger
connections to postsecondary institutions. The latter may stem partly
from Perkins' support of Tech-Prep, which incorporates creation of
articulation agreements between secondary schools and postsecondary
institutions.

Perkins appears to play a crucial role in supporting technology needs
associated with vocational programs. At the local level in particular,
Perkins funds make a significant contribution. Although teachers are not
always satisfied with the amount and quality of technology at their
disposal, vocational teachers are much more satisfied than academic
teachers are and they also feel more prepared to teach
technology-related skills. Instructional practices that involve
technologies are more common in vocational teachers' classes, but
instruction through distance learning is infrequent.

***What is the impact of changes in Perkins III on other groups and the
programs that serve them? Have changes at the state level affected
service delivery at the local level?***

The full impact of the elimination of set-asides and other legislative
changes on services to students is unknown at present. Staff devoted to
serving special populations and other groups had been reduced in most of
the sample states and in many localities. Although some respondents
seemed pleased with the flexibility afforded in Perkins III, most
reported negative effects. In addition to staffing reductions, some
programs had been eliminated altogether. In a few instances, states have
devoted resources to particular programs, which helped to maintain them
locally.

It may prove difficult to assess the impact of legislative changes in
Perkins III, as most states in this study were not yet collecting the
data that complies with reporting requirements that differentiate
students from special populations.

***What are the characteristics of Tech-Prep programs? Are the states'
visions for Tech-Prep reflected in local practice?***

Data from this study suggest that Tech-Prep is conceptualized in
different ways. Tech-Prep at the local level --- where local consortia
administer the program and act as fiscal agents --- does not often
reflect the state vision. Two states had structured and coherent
programs, but the others varied considerably in how students and
programs were defined. These findings are in keeping with prior national
evaluations of Tech-Prep that noted similar issues in program
implementation.

## General Conclusions

The study noted at the outset that the timing of the research and some
known limitations in the legislation would likely work against finding
strong effects of Perkins III implementation. These initial hypotheses
seemed to hold and, along with some other observations, lead to the
overall conclusion that Perkins III remains a relatively weak policy
instrument for implementing a strong federal vision for vocational
education.

Perkins III was at an early state of implementation in the states at the
time the study was conducted. Nonetheless, the study found some progress
toward implementation, but individual progress varied.

As anticipated, state reforms appeared to have more influence over
vocational education than did Perkins III. State policy emphasized
academic achievement and accountability. Vocational education was not
part of any accountability systems, even in states with vocational
education standards and assessments. This influence was positive when it
helped raise the academic standards in vocational education --- one of
the goals of Perkins III. But it also sometimes detracted from the core
mission of vocational education to teach technical and career-related
skills.

As anticipated, the financial incentives in Perkins III and even the
stronger threat of losing Perkins funds for poor performance may not be
enough to counteract the greater influence of state general-education
policies. The case studies provided evidence that some states have a
long way to go to be able to comply with Perkins reporting requirements.

Some implementation problems identified in the study can be attributed
to state and local conditions --- for example, the relative level of
centralization and coherence of the state education system, the history
of education reform within the state and related policies and practices
already in place, and the relative importance of vocational education
within the state education policy sphere. Implementation was less varied
in states with more-centralized governance structures; these states also
had more coherent policies directed specifically at vocational
education.

A second set of barriers to implementing the Perkins' vision of an
integrated academic and vocational education is the historical
separation between academic and more occupationally-oriented education,
which has been discussed in many studies. Vocational education and its
teachers are marginalized and in the minority in most high schools, yet
at the same time bear the biggest burden in making the kinds of changes
required to achieve curriculum integration or other improvements.

The Perkins legislation also has some weaknesses that help create
implementation challenges, which also have been documented in earlier
studies. These include its origin in vocational education, which
isolates the reforms from other education programs, and poor definition
of key concepts, such as curriculum integration.

Like previous federal legislation for vocational education, Perkins III
provided inducements to states in the expectation that states will
deliver services to special groups, especially the economically
disadvantaged. Like Perkins II, it incorporated capacity building
mechanisms that directed funds toward specific program improvements.
Perkins III added stronger mandates than prior legislation by holding
states accountable for performance targets in four areas. These policy
instruments were intended to reduce the slippage between policymakers'
expectations and local implementation, which is expected to vary by
state and local government levels.

This study found that Perkins policies were being enacted consistent
with state structure, policy and interests but not necessarily
consistent with federal intentions. Perkins III and concerns about
vocational education are overshadowed by state academic standards and
assessments and by accountability systems that often ignore vocational
and technical learning. While study sites were aware of and working
toward most of the quality improvements described by Perkins II and III,
these efforts were largely on the margins of other state reforms.

On the positive side, Perkins funding undoubtedly plays a crucial role
in state and local efforts to improve the quality of vocational
education, especially in some areas. It is too soon to tell whether the
stronger mandates in Perkins III accountability will have the desired
effect, and some of the philosophical, structural and incentive barriers
will not likely be overcome by time alone.

# 1. Introduction

The National Assessment of Vocational Education --- a congressionally
mandated study --- is charged with evaluating the impact of the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, known as Perkins
III, and preparing a report to Congress by July 2002. As part of that
effort, the National Assessment of Vocational Education commissioned
RAND to conduct a study to assess the quality of vocational education in
the United States. The purpose of the study is twofold. It will provide
evidence on the extent to which actual practice is consistent with
legislative and other views of what constitutes "quality" practice in
secondary vocational education. It also will provide evidence regarding
how policies made at different levels of the education system enhance or
impede implementation of quality practice. RAND's findings as described
in this report provide some of the information the NAVE needs to
evaluate the impact of the Perkins Act and prepare its report to
Congress. They also yield lessons for the larger vocational education
community by identifying strategies that can be adopted by schools,
communities and states to improve the quality of vocational education
programs.

## The Changing Federal Role in Vocational Education

Vocational and technical education is defined in Public Law 105-332 as
organized educational activities that individuals need to prepare for
further education and for careers requiring less than a baccalaureate
degree. The educational activities are to offer a sequence of courses
that provide individuals the necessary academic and technical knowledge
and skills and to include competency-based applied learning. The federal
role in vocational education was clarified with the passage of the
Smith-Hughes Act in 1917. Its purpose was to provide federal funding for
vocational education in public secondary schools. Although vocational
education programs were carried out in traditional secondary schools,
the act separated them from other programs, thus contributing to the
separation of the high school curriculum still present today (Hayward
and Benson, 1993).

In addition, vocational education, like all education in the United
States, has traditionally been decentralized and remains the domain of
states and local communities. The federal government plays a catalytic
role in education through its leadership and funding, but the vocational
education "system" has no uniform standards or curriculum.

From 1917 to 1963 the basic elements of federal vocational education did
not change. The Vocational Education Act of 1993 designated
"set-asides," or funds for special purposes, in an effort to expand
influence over state programs. In particular, the act provided for
experimental programs to meet the special vocational education needs of
youth in economically-depressed areas or of those who had academic,
socioeconomic or other handicaps that might prevent them from succeeding
in regular vocational education programs. As Hayward and Benson (1993)
noted, this was a significant policy shift: vocational education was now
seen as the special refuge of downtrodden minorities and therefore less
likely to compete effectively for state and local resources.

After the 1963 act, federal fiscal controls increased and expanded. The
1968 act, for example, included provisions for exemplary programs,
cooperative education and work-study. The 1976 legislation incorporated
concerns for improved planning, program improvement and support to
overcome gender bias. The first National Assessment of Vocational
Education, authorized in 1976, was influential in the passage of the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984. This act placed more
emphasis than earlier legislation did on improving access to vocational
education programs, particularly for special populations, and on
modernizing and developing program quality.

In 1990 Congress passed the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act, known as Perkins II, which contributed to
another significant policy shift in federal funding for vocational
education. Perkins II aimed to improve preparation for a competitive and
highly-skilled workforce and sought to strengthen the academic and
technical skills of students in vocational education by:

-   "requiring the development of statewide performance measures and
    standards;

-   integrating academic and vocational curricula;

-   promoting two-plus-two Tech-Prep programs that link high schools
    with postsecondary institutions; and

-   supporting work experience programs, such as apprenticeships and
    cooperative education" (NAVE, 1994a, p. 3).

With the inclusion of integration and articulation between secondary and
postsecondary levels, Perkins II attempted to bring academic and
vocational education into a more equal relationship and to enable
students to develop and achieve both academic and vocational
competencies (Hayward and Benson, 1993). For the first time, the act was
directed toward "all segments of the population."

To ensure that states used Perkins funding to attempt to achieve this
vision, the states were required to submit plans that described and
justified how the funds would be used. Congress did not clearly define
how states were to achieve curriculum integration or other program
improvements; therefore, states had some leeway in implementation
(Grubb, 1995). However, states had little discretion over the allocation
of funds to local education agencies; this was largely determined by
federal formulas based on entitlements for specific categories of
underserved students or for specific programs to serve those students.
These provisions ensured that the states could withhold for their use no
more than 25 percent of the funding with a minimum of 75 percent going
to the local agencies.

McDonnell and Grubb (1991) note that vocational educational legislation
is more likely to be implemented if it is viewed as a fully funded
mandate with strong incentives for compliance and strong capacity by
implementers to actually do the work required. Others (for example,
Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989; McLaughlin, 1990) argue that
implementation is more likely absent competing agendas, legislation or
mandates that direct the implementers attention elsewhere or that result
in a confused set of priorities for action. These authors also note that
interaction among competing agendas and actors can delay or slow the
progress of implementation.

Although Perkins II provides incentives for program improvement, as a
policy instrument it is perhaps best described as a carrot without an
accompanying stick. Given the small amount of resources allocated ---
about one-tenth of the total state expenditures in vocational education
in 1994 --- and the competing set of school reforms, it was not
perceived as a mandate but as a set of guidelines. Had it been a
mandate, it would have been sorely underfunded. Like previous vocational
legislation that has been criticized for "trying to do too much with too
little," Perkins II funding levels were not enough of a lure to entice
states to change long-standing behaviors (Hayward and Benson, 1993).
Perhaps just as important, it was not clear if the local agencies,
teachers, counselors, and administrators had the capacity to undertake
such a significant and large-scale reform without much stronger
incentives and much clearer implementation guidance. States were taking
their own actions, which often focused on improving academic standards
and assessments. Vocational education improvements were of lesser
priority. Finally, the legislation lacked any kind of enforcement power
on the part of the federal government. States were not denied funding
based on weak plans, poor performance on indicators or lack of progress
toward achieving the vision.

While Perkins II stimulated much reform at the local level, it resulted
in initiatives of widely varying quality. Schools also seemed to fit the
reforms into already existing curricula rather than making broad
curricular changes (NAVE, 1994b, Volume I). Unsurprisingly then,
Congress attempted to put more "teeth" into Perkins III. It also gave
states still more leeway in use of funds. The main characteristics of
Perkins III are as follows:

-   The state plans have a stronger and more elaborate approval process.
    State must submit five-year plans, based on similar plans required
    by each locality that justified allocations, demonstrated
    measurement of the core performance indicators, and indicated how
    the state would attempt to improve on each indicator. Local plans
    must be driven by performance criteria set by states. Plans must
    address very specific issues, such as how the state would evaluate
    itself, how it would meet the needs of special populations, and so
    on. It also provided for specific allowable uses of funds, as
    discussed below.

-   The development of the state and local plans required a consultative
    and inclusive process that involved teachers, parents and employers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The states are required to develop and track four core performance
    indicators and other indicators as proposed by each state. The
    states must negotiate with the federal government to establish
    benchmarks and targets for these indicators and to document
    improvements toward those targets. Each indicator included
    subindicators for special population groups. States must submit
    annual progress reports. If progress at the specified levels is not
    reached, then the local education agency must develop an improvement
    plan and the state must provide technical assistance. Federal funds
    can be withheld from states and localities that fail to meet their
    targets after a one-year period of nonperformance of the
    "remediation improvement plan." States exceeding targets are
    eligible for incentive bonuses.

-   Perkins III directed more funds to the localities by changing the
    maximum allowable withholding by the state to 15 percent, with 85
    percent going to the local agencies.

-   Funding set-asides for some specifically-defined groups were
    removed, and states were free to use the funds for other purposes,
    provided they met other targets.

-   Perkins III included a separate funding title for Tech-Prep to
    promote preparation for high-demand, technically-oriented
    occupations.

Perkins III also described several attributes or characteristics of
"quality" programs that, if implemented, would support its vision and
specified that funds be used to enhance programs accordingly. In this
way, Congress hoped to improve the quality of vocational education at
the secondary level. The act specified the following quality
improvements:

-   Strengthen the academic, vocational and technical skills of students
    through the integration of academics in their vocational and
    technical programs of studies.

-   Promote student attainment through the development and use of
    challenging academic, technical and vocational standards. All states
    were required to develop such vocational and technical standards as
    a requisite for accepting Perkins funds.

-   Provide students with strong experiences in and understanding of
    "all aspects" of an industry to promote career preparation. Programs
    would not channel students into narrow preparation for a specific
    job.

-   Encourage parental involvement in their children's career
    preparation decisions and employer involvement in providing guidance
    and support for school programs.

-   Build strong linkages between secondary and postsecondary education
    levels so that students graduating from high school would be fully
    prepared for jobs or further education and could make a smoother
    transition.

-   Develop, expand and improve the use of technology to better prepare
    students for the modern workforce.

-   Provide professional development for teachers, counselors and
    administrators.

Perkins III followed the vision of Perkins II by focusing federal
investment on improving the quality of programs, stressing certain
attributes. The legislation presented similar guidance with respect to
program improvements, required states to address these elements in their
plans and permitted use of Perkins funds to develop them. In addition,
Perkins III placed heavy emphasis on academic rigor and standards and
supported the alignment of vocational education with state and local
efforts to reform secondary schools and improve postsecondary education.
It also held states and local education agencies more accountable than
in the past for demonstrating results.

Perkins III was signed into law on Oct. 31, 1998 and took effect in
program year 2000 --- July 1, 1999 through Sept. 30, 2000. Thus, it was
in effect for less than one year when this study began. States in this
study opted to use the last state plan submitted under Perkins II as a
transition plan with only minimal changes. New state plans were
submitted during the course of the study, but most were not implemented
until the second program year --- July 1, 2000--Sept. 30, 2001 --- after
Perkins III was enacted. As discussed, some of the improvements were
first introduced as part of Perkins II. Thus, we would expect to see
more progress in implementation of integrated curricula, for example.

The main questions facing this study are the extent to which quality
improvements designated in Perkins III are being implemented and whether
Perkins III is encouraging a stronger positive implementation of the
vision of quality first invoked in Perkins II. Given the set of
expectations provided by the literature, we observe the following at the
outset.

-   Very little time has passed to allow for the full implementation of
    Perkins III or to allow for the accountability measures to take
    effect.

-   While Perkins III has more "teeth," thus implying greater likelihood
    for implementation, it also is being enacted at a time of
    unprecedented emphasis on higher academic standards and performance
    that is taking up the time and energy of secondary school educators.

-   Again, despite the "teeth" in Perkins III, the federal program
    provides relatively few resources compared to other resource streams
    available to implementers. Thus, incentives solely to implement
    Perkins are slim, while incentives to implement well-funded state
    and local policies that may or may not mesh with Perkins are
    relatively plentiful.

## Study Questions

This study of secondary-level vocational education[^1] assesses the
initial impact of Perkins III on the implementation of the federal
vision and the current quality of vocational offerings through five
broad questions:

-   What are the purposes and philosophies of vocational education at
    the secondary level? Have these evolved in keeping with Perkins II
    and III and how do they differ among states?

-   What other education reforms are taking place and how have these
    affected vocational and technical offerings within states and
    localities? What is the influence of federal and state policies at
    the local level?

-   What are the state and local efforts to improve the quality of
    vocational education, especially with respect to the key attributes
    outlined in Perkins III? Is the implementation rigorous in that it
    incorporates challenging academic and technical standards? How
    prevalent are the practices endorsed by Perkins, and do they differ
    for academic and vocational teachers and schools? How does Perkins
    III contribute to these improvements?

-   What is the impact of changes in Perkins III on special populations
    and other groups and the programs that serve them? Have changes at
    the state level affected service delivery at the local level?

-   Is Tech-Prep distinct from regular vocational education or is it
    part of a strategy for improving quality? Are the states' visions
    for Tech-Prep reflected in local practice?

The study does not attempt to answer all of the questions of interest to
Congress or the U.S. Department of Education. Other National Assessment
of Vocational Education studies will address other questions and
elaborate on the questions addressed here. This study intends to provide
descriptive information about policymaking and practice, to describe
indications of the variation in practice that exists and reasons this
variance occurs, and to highlight examples of current practice and any
effects of Perkins implementation on that practice.

## Methods

The research proceeded along two strands: case-study analysis of
implementation in a selected sample of sites and a national survey of
teachers.

The case studies include seven states and a purposive sample of four
secondary schools and two community colleges in each. Again, the states
are California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio
and Texas --- see Appendix A for more information about the selection of
the states. The case studies, carried out from February through June
2001, gathered descriptive information about the quality of vocational
programs in the states, districts and schools, using multiple
data-gathering methods. The case-study design and analysis focuses on
the implementation of program priorities outlined in Perkins III and how
the broader context affects resulting practices. It enables RAND to
examine whether or how state policies affect vocational education policy
and practice in the sample of districts and schools visited in each
state. This report discusses state and secondary school-level findings;
a companion report covers the postsecondary case studies (Hudis, 2002).

During the same period, RAND also conducted a nationally-representative
survey of teachers in comprehensive high schools and vocational schools.
The survey was designed to examine the extent to which instructional,
curricular and related activities in schools and classrooms correspond
to quality practices as defined in the federal legislation. This report
includes selected findings from the teacher survey when they inform the
main study questions.

## Limitations of the Study

It is important for readers of this report to consider some limitations
of the study. The first concerns the timing of the study. It was
conducted during the second year of the legislation's enactment and as a
result, it is possible that some anticipated effects of Perkins III may
not have had time to materialize. Thus, this report should not be
considered a final assessment of states' responses to Perkins III. On
the other hand, some aspects of Perkins III --- in particular, the
recommended program improvements --- are similar to the Perkins II
legislation enacted in 1990. To the extent that Perkins II foreshadowed
Perkins III, we might expect states to be making progress along those
lines.

Second, although we purposely selected states according to a set of
common criteria, they are not representative of the nation as a whole.
Indeed, the contextual variation among the states is important for
understanding whether and how federal policy is implemented. Thus, while
the analysis will provide some insight into the latter, the findings
cannot necessarily be generalized across the nation.

Third, the study relies primarily on self-reports by respondents ---
through interviews or as survey responses --- on documents provided to
the research team, on information gathered from states' Internet sites
and on the most recent draft of each state's Perkins Plan made available
to the research team. These varied sources of information do not always
agree and indeed often contradict one another. The data are also
time-sensitive, which means that states may have made progress in some
areas since the time of our site visits or as planning has developed.

However, given these conditions, we have made every attempt to ensure
accuracy and to resolve contradictions in our reporting and
interpretation.

## Roadmap for This Report

Following this introduction, Chapter Two of this report discusses the
overall study approach and methods. Chapter Three discusses specific
changes in Perkins III, including those that affect special populations
and other groups. Chapter Four examines the state context for efforts to
improve program quality, while Chapter Five describes state and local
improvement efforts. Chapter Six examines Tech-Prep and other related
federal policies. A final chapter discusses conclusions and
implications. Appendix A provides additional information about the
selection of the states and schools included in the case studies.
Appendix B describes the sample design for the teacher survey. Appendix
C provides site summary tables from the case studies. Appendix D
includes selected data tables from the teacher survey.

# 2. Study Approach and Methods

A main focus of the study was to investigate how states, districts and
schools are implementing Perkins III to enhance vocational education
quality. The study used a two-prong approach: a set of case studies in a
purposive sample of schools to gather descriptive information about
attempts to improve the quality of vocational programs at several levels
and a national teacher survey to gather information about the prevalence
of vocational programs and classroom practices. The two approaches
provide depth and breadth in understanding the manner of and extent to
which schools have attempted to improve vocational education quality as
promoted by Perkins. This chapter describes the study approach and
methods, beginning with the case studies.

## Case Studies

The study adopted a replicated case-study design of seven states in a
purposive sample of schools --- four secondary school sites within each
case-study state. This design was most appropriate because our interest
was in examining and interpreting processes in real-world contexts,
where the processes studied, such as practices and policymaking, were
not easily separable from the context and where variables of interest
outnumbered the units of study (Yin, 1994).

The case-study design and analysis focused on the implementation of
program priorities outlined in Perkins III and how the broader context
--- state, district and school policies and reform initiatives ---
affects resulting practice. It addressed the five broad questions listed
in Chapter One.

### Sample Selection

The sample for the secondary school study consisted of seven case-study
states and four "sites" within each state. A site consisted of a high
school and its corresponding district office. The state selection was
partly motivated by availability of student achievement data.

Because academic achievement is a main focus of high school efforts, we
wanted to understand more about the relationship between student
achievement and vocational education implementation. A school with a
strong emphasis on academics, for example, might help raise the overall
quality of vocational programs, an important goal of Perkins III. In
contrast, lower-achieving schools that may be struggling to raise
student performance would perhaps have more difficulties implementing
the components of high-quality programs as identified in the
legislation. To investigate this relationship, the design called for a
sample of school sites that varied in student achievement. An
alternative approach would have been to sample districts and schools
with higher and lower levels of vocational student performance, but few
states have systematic measures of performance on vocational or
technical subjects.

To ensure sufficient vocational activity at sampled schools, the study
design also restricted the sample to states that could provide a measure
of the intensity of each school's vocational program. Finally, states
were selected to include a wide range of values for a number of
secondary characteristics, including geographic location, demographics
and the overall structure of vocational education in the states chosen:
California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and
Texas.

To identify schools within states, we developed models that adjusted
student achievement to account for different background characteristics.
This created a pool of higher and lower achieving schools where
achievement was better or worse than expected, given the student body
background.[^2] Candidate schools --- two higher-achieving and two
lower-achieving --- were randomly selected from this pool. In each
state, the initial selection of schools was reviewed with state
officials to help verify vocational intensity and to identify any sites
that had particular problems that might make them unsuitable for study.
If a school declined to participate, another was randomly chosen from
the sample pool. (See Appendix A for further details on sample
selection.)

All individuals and schools were promised anonymity as a condition of
study participation. Throughout this report we adopt a convention of
numbering the schools, using the state abbreviation (for example, CA,
MA) followed by one or two for higher-performing schools and three or
four for lower-performing schools. Table 2.1 summarizes the school
sample.

### Development of Quality Indicators

To assess "high-quality" practices in vocational education first
required the development of an operational definition of the
characteristics of high-quality practice, coupled with a set of
indicators or criteria for determining variations in quality. The study
team developed indicators for several of the program improvements
promoted in Perkins III:

-   promote the integration of academic and vocational education,

-   incorporate challenging academic and vocational standards,

-   promote understanding of "all aspects of the industry,"

-   involve parents and employers,

-   create links to postsecondary education,

-   promote access for students from special populations,

-   develop and expand uses of technology, and

-   provide professional development to carry out the program
    improvements.

This list of improvements was determined in collaboration with the
National Assessment of Vocational Education staff. While each state's
plan needs to include information on all these elements, they are not
necessarily equally important.

To create indicators, we reviewed the literature --- including scholarly
research, policy research and studies of practices --- to identify
characteristics associated with better outcomes. In most instances, the
literature tends to be descriptive and does not quantify student
learning or other outcomes. In creating indicators, some of the
characteristics were emphasized more than others. For example, we paid
more attention to gathering information on integration and technical and
academic quality than to special populations or "all aspects."[^3] The
indicators were sent to several outside experts with extensive
experience in vocational education programming for critique and comment.

######## Table 2.1 Summary of Secondary School Sample

  ------ ------------- ------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ------- ------- ------------
  Site   Performance   State   Is all or    Vocational    Enrollment   \%      \% Free Locale
  ID                           part of the  Intensity (%               White   Lunch   
                               vocational   vocational)                                
                               program                                                 
                               conducted                                               
                               off site?                                               

  CA1    High          CA      Yes          49            2,160        31      25      Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Large
                                                                                       City

  CA2    High          CA      Yes          55            2,609        47      76      Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Midsized
                                                                                       City

  CA3    Low           CA      Yes          59            2,001        39      52      Midsized
                                                                                       Central City

  CA4    Low           CA      Yes          59            1,649        92      21      Midsized
                                                                                       Central City

  FL1    High          FL      Yes          18            663          69      27      Rural

  FL2    High          FL      No           15            1,738        44      36      Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Large
                                                                                       City

  FL3    Low           FL      No           22            907          84      19      Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Midsized
                                                                                       City

  FL4    Low           FL      Yes          13            2,043        79      7       Midsized
                                                                                       Central City

  MA1    High          MA      No           29            1,116        67      25      Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Large
                                                                                       City

  MA2    High          MA      No           12            1,112        45      40      Midsized
                                                                                       Central City

  MA3    Low           MI      No           24            957          75      18      Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Large
                                                                                       City

  MA4    Low           MA      No           45            488          96      0       Small Town

  MI1    High          MI      Yes          71            1,464        44      40      Midsized
                                                                                       Central City

  MI2    High          MI      Yes          44            1,828        92      0       Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Large
                                                                                       City

  MI3    Low           MI      Yes          41            1,461        95      9       Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Large
                                                                                       City

  MI4    Low           MI      Yes          11            1,154        97      8       Midsized
                                                                                       Central City

  NC1    High          NC      No           31            567          87      8       Rural

  NC2    High          NC      No           29            1,496        59      18      Small Town

  NC3    Low           NC      Yes          22            1,022        85      7       Rural

  NC4    Low           NC      No           33            1,143        80      8       Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Large
                                                                                       City

  OH1    High          OH      Yes          23            1,095        42      67      Midsized
                                                                                       Central City

  OH2    High          OH      Yes          33            429          100     10      Urban Fringe
                                                                                       of Midsized
                                                                                       City

  OH3    Low           OH      Yes          26            672          100     5       Rural

  OH4    Low           OH      Yes          18            1,321        95      2       Large
                                                                                       Central City

  TX1    High          TX      No           100           326          49      42      Rural

  TX2    High          TX      No           63            1,082        0       47      Large
                                                                                       Central City

  TX3    Low           TX      No           68            1,650        19      34      Small Town

  TX4    Low           TX      No           63            1,028        16      55      Large
                                                                                       Central City
  ------ ------------- ------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ------- ------- ------------

NOTE: The measure used for vocational intensity varies from state to
state and is somewhat imprecise. For some states, the number represents
the percentage of students enrolled in a sequence of vocational courses.
In other states, the number represents the percentage of students
enrolled in any vocational class. Where student enrollment information
was not available (Florida and North Carolina), we used the percentage
of vocational teachers in a school as a proxy.

The revised indicators were then used in the development of case-study
data collection instruments and the teacher survey items. They also were
used in data analysis especially in determining whether and to what
extent the case-study states and local sites were implementing the
quality improvements specified in Perkins. Overall, the indicators
worked fairly well for these purposes, although some components, such as
participation of parents and employers, were easier to evaluate than
others, such as technical rigor of the curriculum.

### Instruments

Semi-structured interview protocols were developed to ensure that
comparable data were collected across sites. These protocols had two
sections: a set of closed-ended questions to set the context, including
the respondent's background, experience, clarification of
responsibilities; and a set of open-ended questions that could be
tailored to the respondent's role or area of expertise. Protocols were
developed for each type of respondent at each level, as well as for
different methods of data collection --- telephone interviews to screen
potential sites, interviews and focus groups.

### Procedures

Field researchers from RAND and MPR and two Department of Education
project officers participated in a two-day training session that
included an overview of the Perkins legislation and review of case-study
protocols and fieldwork procedures.

Data collection began in February 2001 with two-day visits to state
agencies. Prior to these visits, fieldworkers reviewed each state's
Perkins Plan. We requested interviews with state-level staff who had
responsibility or expertise in the following specific areas,
irrespective of job titles:

-   secondary and postsecondary directors of vocational education;

-   Perkins program administrators;

-   curriculum specialists in three target areas --- health occupations,
    business, trade and industry;[^4]

-   administrators of Tech-Prep, STW or other career preparation
    programs;

-   administrators for programs serving special populations and other
    groups; and

-   administrators for economic development or with knowledge of the
    Workforce Investment Act .

Senior staff from RAND and MPR conducted elite interviews of 30--90
minutes using the interview protocols. In all, we interviewed 71
respondents at the state level.

Between March and June 2001, a team of two researchers visited each
site. Preceding this visit, a staffer at each identified site was
interviewed by telephone to gather more information about the program
offerings, to verify information that had already been obtained from the
state, district or school Web site, and to secure the site's
participation in the study. In some cases, state officials elected to
contact the sites to encourage them to participate.

At the district level we requested interviews with the following
individuals:

-   the superintendent,

-   the vocational or Perkins program administrator, and

-   the special populations and Tech-Prep coordinators.

> At the school level we requested interviews or focus groups with:

-   the school principal,

-   the Perkins coordinator,

-   the vocational education department chair,

-   guidance and career counselors,

-   special populations administrator,

-   teachers, and

-   employers involved in vocational programs.

If they were available at the school, we interviewed teachers in health
occupations, business, and trade and industry. We also held focus groups
with other teachers, including academic teachers, and with employers who
were connected to the vocational programs.

Each visit lasted from two to four days. In all, we conducted 97
district and 159 school-level interviews, and conducted focus groups
with 14 teacher groups and 22 employers groups. (At some sites,
additional teachers and employers were interviewed instead of
participating in focus groups.) Additionally, we collected curriculum
materials, school catalogs, school improvement plans, program
descriptions and other documents that provided information about
vocational programs and students.

The bulk of the school-level interviews occurred at the selected
comprehensive high schools. However, in 12 cases, the comprehensive high
school reported that some or indeed most of the vocational program
offerings occurred at an associated school, usually an area vocational
school. In these cases we interviewed staff from both the comprehensive
high school and AVS because vocational students participated in programs
at both sites. In four cases, most of the interviews were conducted at
the associated AVS.

### Case-study Data Analysis

Data analysis proceeded in stages. Information from state site visits
was synthesized in a common format and distributed to fieldworkers prior
to local site visits. As the school-level visits proceeded, fieldworkers
synthesized information for each site, including documentary evidence,
interviews and focus groups, for each of the main study questions.
Separate reports were written for districts and schools except in
smaller districts where administrators had responsibility for both
administrative levels. Individual case reports were summarized for each
of the quality indicators. These state- and local-level summary reports
provided the basic data for the case-study analysis.

A separate analysis was carried out on curriculum-related information.
Although the original study design called for a curriculum assessment
through review of lesson plans or similar detailed information gathered
from teachers, very few teachers could produce detailed written
curriculum documents. As a result we had to rely on other, more general
information --- course listings, school catalogs and program
descriptions --- or teacher interviews when time permitted. Although we
did not have sufficient data to evaluate curriculum in depth, we
reviewed all the curriculum-related materials for each site, using the
quality indicators as a guide.

### Analysis of High-Achieving and Low-Achieving Schools

As discussed, the study design called for a comparison of high- and
low-performing schools to determine if they differed in their efforts to
implement quality improvements in vocational programs. For example, to
assess the extent of curriculum integration program improvements, we
looked at whether or not a school was structured in ways that support
integration --- whether or not the school had stand-alone vocational
courses, programs consisting of a sequence of courses, career pathways,
career academies, pre-apprenticeship programs, or block scheduling.
Details of this analysis are included in Appendix C. Overall, this
analysis did not yield many clear patterns. A few trends appeared, which
are discussed further in subsequent chapters. Our overall conclusion,
however, is that high- and low-performing school are not implementing
Perkins in significantly different fashion.

Several reasons might contribute to this null result. One reason
concerns the joint delivery of vocational education at some sites. For
example, a school might qualify as a high performer according to the
statistical model, but the bulk of its vocational education students
attend an associated area vocational school. The associated AVS might
have lower performing students on average than the "home" schools from
which their students are drawn. Because student achievement data is
aggregated at the home school --- or otherwise not readily available ---
it is not possible to model performance at the AVS. Similarly, a
lower-achieving school might be associated with a particularly
high-quality AVS. As discussed earlier, in nearly half of the sampled
schools vocational education was provided at a different nonsampled
school in the district. This result stems partly from problems with the
vocational intensity measure as seen in Table 2.1.

Second, a high-achieving school might be located in a low-performing
district, which can affect its program implementation. Thus, choosing
schools based on academic student achievement data did not always
guarantee a higher- or lower-performing "site."

A third reason might be imprecision in measurement. While we could judge
whether or not a school had a particular feature, it was not always
possible to determine precisely the level of quality of that feature or
indeed the extent to which it might contribute to student performance.

Finally, many of the characteristics we were looking for are considered
to be good practice. Therefore, it is possible to see traces of them in
any school.

## Teacher Survey

While the case studies provide details about the vocational programs,
the implementation of Perkins III program improvements, the impact of
other school reforms on vocational education, and other important
issues, the findings extend only to the small sample of states and
institutions visited. The teacher survey utilized a national probability
sample of secondary-school teachers in comprehensive and vocational high
schools and area vocational centers. The main purpose of the survey was
to assess the prevalence or extent of Perkins-prompted implementation
strategies and whether these differ for different types of teachers and
schools.

### Sampling Frame

The universe for the survey included all vocational and non-vocational
teachers of selected subjects in public secondary schools in the United
States. To be consistent with the previous National Assessment of
Vocational Education, the design limited the population of schools to
include public comprehensive high schools and vocational schools or area
vocational centers with 11th and 12th grade students. Our design was a
two-stage stratified probability sample. The first-stage sample was a
stratified random sample of schools. The second-stage sample was a
stratified random sample of teachers from the selected schools. We
stratified schools into comprehensive high schools and vocational
schools using definitions similar to those used in the previous NAVE
study. The sampling frame was designed to yield samples large enough to
provide precise estimates of the prevalence of practices for all
vocational teachers and to compare them with academic teachers and among
school types --- comprehensive high schools and vocational schools.

The sampling frame of schools was based on a school list from Market
Data Retrieval and confirmed with lists from the U.S. Department of
Education's Common Core of Data Public School Universe files. We sent
the lists of teachers from MDR to the school principals for verification
of the accuracy of the frame. When available, we used the verified frame
from the principal to draw our sample. If principals did not verify the
frame, we used the MDR lists augmented by data from an alternative
vendor, QED, to correct omissions in the MDR lists. (Further details of
the survey sample can be found in Appendix B.)

The final school sample included 134 vocational and 264 comprehensive
high schools. The teacher sample included 2,958 teachers: 680 from
vocational schools --- 659 vocational, 21 academic --- and 2,278 from
comprehensive schools --- 1,118 vocational and 1,160 academic. Of the
sampled teachers, 54 percent completed the survey instrument and 5
percent reported they were ineligible for the study.[^5] The overall
response rate was 59 percent. The final survey sample, on which the
analysis was based, included 339 schools and 1,572 teachers --- 686
academic teachers and 886 vocational teachers.

### Design and Development

In developing the survey, we relied primarily on the quality indicators
and the previous NAVE teacher survey (Heaviside, Carey and Farris,
1994). The survey included questions about a range of school and
classroom characteristics and practices and gathered background
information on the teachers. Some items were repeated from the previous
NAVE survey to provide information about trends over time. Strict time
constraints on the survey of 30 minutes, specified in the request for
proposal, limited the range and depth of questions that could be asked.

A draft version of the survey was sent for review to several outside
experts, including members of the NAVE Advisory Panel. A pretest and
focus group was conducted with seven high school teachers who
represented the groups of teachers in the sampling frame. Feedback from
all of these individuals was incorporated into the final version.

The survey items were organized into several sections to include
questions about the school, the teaching environment, teaching in a
specified class, vocational or career-oriented classes offered, and
teacher background and experience. The final survey was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for clearance.

### Survey Administration

RAND's Survey Research Group administered the teacher survey between
March and June 2001.

The research group contacted principals of each sampled school to inform
him or her about the survey and to ask them to verify teacher lists and
provide basic demographic information about the student population.
Subsequently, surveys were mailed directly to sampled teachers at their
school addresses. A gift coupon worth \$10 was included. Multiple
follow-ups were conducted and additional incentives offered to obtain
completed surveys.

### Survey Data Analysis

The basic analysis tabulated the data for the entire group of teachers
and for subgroups of interest. The survey design supported the following
types of analyses relating to the elements of quality practice that we
defined and measured: a measure of the prevalence of such elements,
estimates of prevalence across different types of teacher --- academic
versus vocational, experienced versus inexperienced --- estimates of
prevalence across types of vocational education disciplines, and
estimates of prevalence in comprehensive high schools versus vocational
schools.

All comparisons across groups were tested for significance using
chi-square tests or t-tests adjusted where appropriate. The
linearization method (Skinner, 1989a) as implemented in the SUDAAN
software was used to estimate standard errors for all estimates of
population characteristics.[^6]

In addition to the basic analysis, the survey data were analyzed with
respect to school demographics, longitudinal comparison to the previous
NAVE survey and policy-related questions of interest. The full survey
analysis is reported separately. This report incorporates selected
findings from the teacher survey where they inform the main case-study
questions.

Table 2.2 summarizes the different sources of data gathered for the main
topics discussed in this report.

########   {#section-3 .unnumbered}

######## Table 2.2 Study Topics by Sources of Data

+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|                                      | * |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | D |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | a |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | t |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | a |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | S |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | o |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | u |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | r |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | c |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | e |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | * |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| > Study Topics                       | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > |
|                                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | T | S | D | S | S | T | E | D |
|                                      | e | t | i | c | c | e | m | o |
|                                      | a | a | s | h | h | a | p | c |
|                                      | c | t | t | o | o | c | l | u |
|                                      | h | e | r | o | o | h | o | m |
|                                      | e | > | i | l | l | e | y | e |
|                                      | r |   | c | > | > | r | e | n |
|                                      | > | I | t |   |   | > | r | t |
|                                      |   | n | > | A | C |   | > | a |
|                                      | S | t |   | d | o | I |   | t |
|                                      | u | e | I | m | u | n | I | i |
|                                      | r | r | n | i | n | t | n | o |
|                                      | v | v | t | n | s | . | t | n |
|                                      | e | i | e | i | e | / | . |   |
|                                      | y | e | r | s | l | F | / |   |
|                                      |   | w | v | t | o | o | F |   |
|                                      |   | s | i | r | r | c | o |   |
|                                      |   |   | e | a |   | u | c |   |
|                                      |   |   | w | t |   | s | u |   |
|                                      |   |   | s | i |   | > | s |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | o |   |   | > |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | n |   | G |   |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | > |   | r | G |   |
|                                      |   |   |   |   |   | o | r |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | I |   | u | o |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | n |   | p | u |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | t |   |   | p |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | e |   |   |   |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | r |   |   |   |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | v |   |   |   |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | i |   |   |   |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | e |   |   |   |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | w |   |   |   |   |
|                                      |   |   |   | s |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Philosophy/Purpose*                 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Structure/delivery system            |   | X | X | X |   |   |   | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Funding/accountability               |   | X | X | X |   | X |   | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Educational Reforms*                | X | X | X | X | X | X |   | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Integration of academic and         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| vocational education*                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| School structure/organization        | X |   | X | X |   |   |   | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Curriculum                           | X |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Instruction                          | X |   |   | X |   | X |   | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Work-based learning                  | X |   |   | X | X | X | X | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Academic and vocational standards*  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Presence and adoption of frameworks  | X | X | X | X |   | X |   | X |
| and standards                        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Academic and technical quality       | X |   | X | X |   | X | X | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *All Aspects of the Industry*        |   | X | X | X |   | X |   | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Involvement of parents and          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| employers*                           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Extent and nature of parent          |   |   | X | X | X | X |   |   |
| involvement                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Extent and nature of employer        | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| involvement                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Linkages between secondary and      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| postsecondary*                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Extent and nature of postsecondary   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   | X |
| connections                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Career planning and counseling       | X | X | X | X | X |   |   | X |
| services                             |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Technology*                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Technology in vocational programs    | X |   | X | X |   | X | X | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Technology quality and availability  | X |   | X | X |   | X |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Professional development for        | X | X | X | X | X | X |   | X |
| teachers, counselors,                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| administrators*                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Special Populations*                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Impact of Perkins III changes        |   | X | X | X | X | X |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Access/enrollment in programs        | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |   |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Programs and services offered        |   | X | X | X | X | X |   | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| *Tech-Prep*                          | X | X | X | X | X | X |   | X |
+--------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

# 3. Reactions to Perkins III Specifications: Funding, Accountability and Special Populations

As discussed in Chapter One, Perkins III brought some policy changes
intended to provide more flexibility to states and local grantees but
also intended to hold them more accountable for their actions. This
chapter discusses three specific types of changes in Perkins III:
funding, accountability and services to special populations and other
groups. The main issue of interest is how state and local grantees have
responded to these changes and with what result.

This chapter examines two of the study questions outlined in Chapter
One. With respect to funding and accountability, we are most interested
in whether changes have supported the implementation of program
improvements intended to improve vocational education quality --- study
question 3. With respect to special populations, we are interested in
the impact of changes on students who are members of special populations
or other defined groups and the programs that serve them --- study
question 4.

The analyses in this chapter are based on the seven state case studies
and use data from interviews with state, district and school-level
representatives, state Perkins plans, and other documents. The
discussion provides a qualitative perspective of the impact of policy
changes at a point when states are just beginning to implement them. Two
other NAVE studies are examining issues related to funding and
accountability in greater depth.

## Perkins Funding 

The Perkins Act provides grants to states, which then distribute funds
to local secondary and postsecondary institutions, or districts, for
vocational education programs. Resource allocation to states is by
formula, which is based on population. Of the total funds available, 15
percent can remain at the state and 85 percent is distributed. The
distributed portion represents an increase from Perkins II, where 75
percent of funds passed to local education agencies. Further, up to 10
percent of the funds earmarked for LEAs may be targeted to programs with
two of the following characteristics: rural areas, high percentage or
numbers of vocational education students, or communities negatively
affected by changes in the state secondary school formula, as further
discussed below.

Within state, secondary funding for the first year, FY 1999, followed
the Perkins II formula and was based on Title I eligibility at 70
percent, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act eligibility at 20
percent, and the number of students in LEAs and adults in training
programs at 10 percent. Thereafter, secondary funds were distributed
based on the youth population --- ages 15 through 19 --- within the LEA
at 30 percent, and the low-income youth population within the LEA at 70
percent. States may propose to allocate funds using an alternative
formula that more effectively targets funds on the basis of poverty.

The states have discretion in how funds are distributed between
secondary and postsecondary and, to some extent, in the directives or
guidance they give about spending. As can be seen in Table 3.1, with the
exception of California, secondary institutions receive a greater
proportion of Perkins funds than postsecondary institutions.

######## Table 3.1 State Allocation of Basic Grant Funds to Secondary and Postsecondary Institutions

  ---------- --------------------------- ---------------- ----------------
  State      Perkins Funding             Percentage       Percentage
                                         Secondary        Postsecondary

  CA         \$113,226,995               41               59

  FL         \$50,037,449                53               47

  MA         \$17,323,922                75               25

  MI         \$36,920,789                60               40

  NC         \$29,143,015                67               33

  OH         \$43,458,582                80               20

  TX         \$82,285,930                58               42
  ---------- --------------------------- ---------------- ----------------

> NOTE: Funding represents final allotments for FY 2000 (Program
> Memorandum OVAE/DVTE 2000-9, Sept. 27, 2000).

In addition, the states make decisions about the allocation of state
leadership funds --- up to 10 percent or two-thirds of the 15 percent
available to the state. But there are also limits to what states can do,
as Perkins III requires that state leadership funds be used for services
that prepare students for nontraditional employment, which is discussed
further in the following section, and for activities that support:
professional developmental programs that integrate academic and
vocational education; partnerships of local education agencies,
institutions of higher education and adult education providers; and
programs for special populations \[Section 124 (b)\].[^7] States also
may use funds to support education and business partnerships,
development of articulation agreements, vocational student
organizations, technical assistance for local programs, guidance and
counseling, and several other activities \[Section 124 (c)\]. The act
requires the state plan to discuss how the funds will be used to enhance
program quality --- for example, how the state will use the funds to
improve or develop new courses, improve the academic and technical
skills of participating students, ensure that participating students are
taught the same challenging academic proficiencies as other students,
and link secondary and postsecondary education \[Section 122 (c)\].

The act has similar requirements for local funding and emphasizes use of
funds to promote activities that improve program quality ---
integration, technical rigor, etc., as outlined in Chapter One --- as
well as to make provisions for serving students from special populations
\[Section 135 (b)\].

Because Perkins funds make up a small proportion of total funding for
vocational education and because activities may be funded from several
sources, it is not always possible to tease out the precise contribution
of Perkins. This study did not carry out an audit of expenditures, but
relied on interviews and documentation to determine whether funds were
directed in the manner intended by Congress. State and especially
local-level respondents were not always sure themselves about the
precise source of funds. In addition, at the time of the study, the
distribution of funds was still in the planning stages and specific
allocations may have changed. With these limitations, the next sections
present findings on state and local uses of Perkins funds and provide
specific examples to illustrate key findings.

### State Uses of Funds

As discussed above, Perkins III specifies both required and allowable
uses of state leadership funds. Data from interviews and state plans
suggest the following general findings with respect to state uses of
Perkins dollars:

Funding curriculum development and dissemination activities was a high
priority in most states --- Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Michigan and
Massachusetts.

-   Ohio is developing the Integrated Technical and Academic
    Competencies, which integrates technical with state-adopted academic
    standards. These replace older curriculum guidelines and tests that
    emphasize vocational content only.

-   Texas is using \$1.4 million in Perkins funds to develop the Texas
    Essential Knowledge and Skills[^8] in career and technology areas.
    Perkins II funds were used to develop the "essential knowledge and
    skills" for vocational courses, the precursors to Texas Essential
    Knowledge and Skills.

-   In Michigan, Perkins funds support curriculum development activities
    as well as the Michigan Center for Career and Technical Education, a
    clearinghouse for state-developed curriculum.

-   North Carolina is continuing to develop and update course
    "blueprints" and to align them with national standards. Materials
    for several vocational courses of study are developed and
    distributed in a CD-ROM format.

    The second most frequent use of Perkins funds in the states was for
    professional development activities.

-   Massachusetts requires local sites to use 15 percent of their
    Perkins funding for professional development activities for their
    vocational education teachers.

-   All the funding for Workforce Development Education professional
    development activities in North Carolina has come from Perkins.
    Conference topics include curriculum integration, accountability and
    addressing the needs of students from special populations. According
    to state officials, about 4,000 teachers have received staff
    development on the Vocational Competency Achievement Tracking
    System[^9] since 1996.

-   Texas' state trade and industry conference will focus on teachers'
    technical skills and include free automotive service excellence
    certification training for teachers.

-   Florida has run teacher seminars on integration and Tech-Prep and
    pays salaries of individuals to provide professional development in
    the different regions.

Several states earmarked Perkins funds to develop standards and
assessments in keeping with Perkins's intent to improve the academic and
technical quality in vocational education.

-   Funding for the Vocational Competency Achievement Tracking System in
    North Carolina has come from Perkins II and III.

-   Massachusetts is developing standards for vocational courses called
    Certificates of Occupational Proficiency. These will be awarded to
    students successfully completing a comprehensive education and
    training program in a particular trade or professional skill area.

-   California is developing standards for career and technical
    education with the goal of having them adopted by the state's board
    of education. It is also using funds to expand participation in the
    voluntary Assessment in Career Education tests and to promote the
    infusion of career material into the state achievement tests.

In some states, Perkins funds are considered a significant resource for
development of underfunded vocational education programs. Massachusetts,
for example, will use leadership dollars to hire someone to oversee
collection and analysis of accountability data. At the time of our
visit, this position was unfilled. Respondents in other states, such as
Florida and Ohio, viewed Perkins funds more as an addition to what they
were already doing. Many respondents in these states sensed that state
policies for vocational education reform were well in hand and that the
state was well ahead of Perkins III.

### Local Uses of Funds

Interviews with local grantees and documents collected at districts and
schools provided some information on how Perkins funds were being used
locally. Within states, no evident funding patterns were associated with
higher- or lower-achieving schools in the sample. Across states we found
some general patterns, but also much variation in specific activities
within each general funding category. The main findings, with some
illustrative examples, are as follows.

First, the most common use of funds was for technology-related purposes:
all but four local sites --- two each in Ohio and Michigan --- reported
using funds in this manner.

-   The types of activities funded varied. At two Texas sites, for
    example, funds were used to network computers to the Internet. Other
    sites purchased equipment or software.

-   Many local respondents expressed the view that Perkins funding was
    crucial for meeting their technology needs --- for example, one
    respondent commented, "If it wasn't for Perkins, we'd be dead."

-   In one of the Ohio sites, Perkins funds were purposely not used for
    technology because the local compact had instituted a tax for each
    participating school that was used for this purpose. Teachers
    reported that they had all of the technology-related resources that
    they needed.

Professional development activities also were highly supported: each
site in California, Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio used funds in this
manner. Michigan was the only state where none of the local sites
supported professional development activities with Perkins monies.

Local education agencies also targeted funds for curriculum integration
and, to a lesser extent, toward enhancing academic and technical rigor
of vocational education courses.

-   All the Massachusetts sites, for example, reported using Perkins
    funds to align their vocational curriculum with the state testing
    system.

-   A Florida site provided release time for math and vocational
    teachers to work together on integrated curricula.

Overall, fewer LEAs directed funds toward activities to involve parent
or employers or to create links to postsecondary institutions. The
exception was Ohio, where all sites reported using funds for these
purposes.

In several sites, local Perkins funds were directed toward personnel
costs. North Carolina did not report using any funds in this manner.

-   At least one site each in California, Massachusetts, Ohio and
    Florida used Perkins funds to hire personnel to work with special
    populations. All four Michigan sites used funds in this way.

-   Sites in Florida, California, Massachusetts, Texas and Ohio --- one
    site in each --- supported guidance staff.

-   Work experience or career and technical education coordinators were
    funded in California, Florida, Texas and Michigan --- one LEA in
    each.

-   All four Ohio sites reported using Perkins funds to hire vocational
    education teachers. One Massachusetts LEA did likewise.

All of the Ohio sites reported using Perkins funds to market their
programs. As will be discussed further in the next chapter, respondents
in some states thought that vocational education had a poor reputation
and they faced an uphill battle to attract students into their programs.

Overall, the pattern of funding activities at the local level appeared
to be consistent with Perkins's intentions: funds were directed at
program improvements, such as technology and professional development.
In addition, many LEAs used funds to support personnel. However, the
local sites reported differences in the process of fund allocation from
the state level and in the flexibility they had with respect to using
funds. In some instances, funding to LEAs was contingent on state or
local policies and directives. In Michigan, for example, the
intermediate school districts controlled the funding; site MI2 reported
that their ISD would not allocate any funds to schools that did not
offer career pathways or the state-approved educational development
plans. Some schools might object to the rules and as a result not
request any Perkins money.[^10]

Other local sites appeared to have much more discretion. In some LEAs in
California, for example, final funding decisions were made at the
district level typically by the vocational education director or
coordinator. Other sites had site-based management, so final funding
decisions were made at the school.

In some cases the planning process was participatory and local grantees
could discuss the process in detail. At other sites, notably those in
North Carolina, the source of funds was described as "invisible": local
grantees were uncertain about whether their funds came from Perkins or
other sources.

## Perkins Accountability Requirements

Perkins III established a state accountability system to "assess the
effectiveness of the state in achieving statewide progress in vocational
and technical education and to optimize the return of investment of
federal funds in vocational and technical education activities"
\[Section 113 (a)\]. States are required to set performance standards,
to gather data on performance and to report performance outcomes. States
also must report data separately for certain special population groups.
The intent not only is to demonstrate measurable improvement for
vocational education students but also to provide information that would
lead to program improvements.

While Perkins II required states to describe their programs and justify
their expenditures, Perkins III calls for sustained and demonstrable
statewide progress toward improved student achievement in vocational and
technical education. States must negotiate with the federal government
to establish performance benchmarks and targets and document
improvements toward those targets. If a state falls short, it must
develop an improvement plan. Federal funds may be withheld from states
that fail to make progress. States exceeding benchmarks may be eligible
for incentive funds. At the time of this study, states were still in the
planning stages.

The specific reporting requirements center on four core indicators:

-   Student attainment of challenging state-established academic and
    vocational competencies.

-   Student attainment of high school diploma, equivalent, or
    postsecondary degree or credential.

-   Placement in, retention in and completion of postsecondary education
    or advanced training, employment, or the military.

-   Participation in and completion of vocational and technical
    education leading to nontraditional employment.

In addition to these core measures, states also can choose to gather and
report on additional measures.

States reported spending a good deal of time discussing the reporting
and accountability changes in Perkins III with local grantees who need
to gather the information. In some cases, intermediate districts or
regions compiled information and reported to the state. In other cases,
as in Texas, raw data are reported directly to the state for further
analysis.

Table 3.2 briefly summarizes the accountability systems in the seven
states. Data from interviews and examination of relevant documents
revealed several patterns.

First, state respondents noted that Perkins II helped set the stage for
accountability by requiring states to develop performance standards and
measures. This requirement clearly influenced some state actors, but not
all, to think carefully about their assessment and data-gathering
systems.

-   Perkins II appeared to strongly influence development of data
    systems in Ohio and Florida.

-   States with more-developed systems tended to see more positive
    effects from Perkins III, such as encouraging improvements in data
    quality and forcing local providers to concentrate their efforts on
    raising student attainment.

-   In states lacking adequate data systems --- for example, California
    and Massachusetts --- respondents voiced a good deal of concern
    about their ability to meet reporting requirements. Some expressed
    frustration over the costs associated with implementing an
    accountability system and the lack of federal resources for
    implementation of accountability provisions.

######## Table 3.2 Status of State Accountability Systems

+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+
| #  | **Secondary**    | *                | **Ability to Report on    |
| ## |                  | *Postsecondary** | Secondary-Level Perkins   |
| ## |                  |                  | III Core Indicators**     |
| #  |                  |                  |                           |
+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+
| ** | No statewide     | Student-level    | Just beginning to collect |
| CA | system for       | information      | data. Not yet developed a |
| ** | individual       | system that      | statewide database.       |
|    | student data.    | includes Social  |                           |
|    |                  | Security number  |                           |
|    |                  | as a unique      |                           |
|    |                  | identifier.      |                           |
+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+
| ** | Statewide system | Statewide system | Occupational Completer    |
| FL | linking          | linking          | Point system is           |
| ** | databases        | databases        | comparable to Perkins     |
|    | through Social   | through Social   | III, but unable to        |
|    | Security         | Security         | calculate measures of     |
|    | numbers.         | numbers.         | academic success.         |
+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+
| ** | Student          | Career and       | Unclear. Some state       |
| MA | Information      | Technical Report | officials thought data    |
| ** | Management       | and Community    | already collected         |
|    | System under     | College          | satisfied most of the     |
|    | development,     | Measurement      | requirements, others      |
|    | will merge MCAS  | System meet      | disagreed. Unable to      |
|    | and Career and   | postsecondary    | disaggregate data to      |
|    | Technical        | reporting        | report on all special     |
|    | Education        | requirements.    | populations.              |
|    | reports to meet  |                  |                           |
|    | requirements.    |                  |                           |
+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+
| ** | Vocational       | Postsecondary    | Secondary-level data      |
| MI | Education Data   | accountability   | system is nearly          |
| ** | System provides  | uneven. Use      | complete. Unable to       |
|    | individual       | Integrated       | disaggregate data to      |
|    | student data,    | Postsecondary    | report on all special     |
|    | including        | Education Data   | populations.              |
|    | special          | System and       |                           |
|    | populations.     | various sources. |                           |
|    |                  | Unable to        |                           |
|    |                  | calculate some   |                           |
|    |                  | measures.        |                           |
+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+
| ** | ABCs of Public   | ASSET tests      | State's internet-based    |
| NC | Education system | measure          | Planning and Performance  |
| ** | evaluates school | entrants'        | Management System         |
|    | performance gain | academic skills  | supports detailed         |
|    | against an       | used by 65       | tracking of student       |
|    | expected growth  | percent of       | participation and         |
|    | composite.       | community        | provides disaggregated    |
|    | VoCATS measures  | colleges.        | data for each special     |
|    | vocational       | Problems         | population group.         |
|    | achievement but  | disaggregating   |                           |
|    | is not included  | academic and     |                           |
|    | in the           | technical        |                           |
|    | accountability   | proficiencies.   |                           |
|    | system           |                  |                           |
+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+
| ** | Electronic       | Higher Education | Unable to disaggregate    |
| OH | Management       | Information      | data to report on all     |
| ** | Information      | System           | special populations.      |
|    | System provides  | incomplete.      |                           |
|    | individual       | Unable to        |                           |
|    | student data for | establish        |                           |
|    | all secondary    | performance      |                           |
|    | districts.       | targets due to   |                           |
|    |                  | lack of data     |                           |
+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+
| ** | Public Education | Community and    | Some data not yet         |
| TX | Information      | technical        | available.                |
| ** | Management       | colleges'        |                           |
|    | System, combined | Institutional    |                           |
|    | with Texas       | Effectiveness    |                           |
|    | Assessment of    | Process set up   |                           |
|    | Academic Skills, | continuous       |                           |
|    | Academic         | improvement      |                           |
|    | Excellence       | process for      |                           |
|    | Indicator        | institutions and |                           |
|    | System, and      | programs. Ten of |                           |
|    | Automated        | 60 effectiveness |                           |
|    | Student and      | measures relate  |                           |
|    | Adult Learner    | directly to      |                           |
|    | Follow-up        | Perkins.         |                           |
|    | System.          |                  |                           |
+----+------------------+------------------+---------------------------+

Second, the states vary a great deal in their ability to comply with the
reporting requirements of Perkins III.

-   Several are unable to provide complete information disaggregated by
    special population groups --- for example, Ohio, California,
    Michigan and Massachusetts.

-   With the exception of California and Florida, the data systems at
    the secondary level are more developed than at the postsecondary
    level, and therefore states are more likely to be able to provide
    better and more complete data on secondary outcomes.

Third, at this point in time, no state reported using this vocational
outcome information for program accountability improvement purposes at
the local level.[^11]

At the local level, very few sites explicitly reported knowing about
Perkins III's new accountability requirements. Sites in Ohio --- a state
that began changing their data systems with Perkins II --- and
Massachusetts had the most knowledge.

Few local sites changed their data collection as a result of Perkins,
although several sites in Michigan reported taking data collection more
seriously. Local sites did report changing data systems to remain in
compliance with state requirements. These state requirements may or may
not be consistent with federal requirements under Perkins.

All local sites report collecting performance data, but it is not
necessarily for meeting Perkins requirements.

-   All sites in North Carolina collect data for the Vocational
    Competency Achievement Tracking System, not Perkins. Florida sites
    focus on the Occupational Completer Points and completion rate data.

-   Sites in California, Massachusetts and Texas reported problems
    gathering needed data.

In five states, only one school site reported using data for program
improvement purposes --- two sites each in Texas and Michigan.

-   A few sites in Florida and Massachusetts reported a desire to use
    data for program improvement, but respondents said they were not
    getting the needed feedback or data from the state to accomplish
    this.

-   Two North Carolina sites report using VoCATS scores for program
    improvement.

Overall, the study findings indicate that Perkins III does not appear to
have had a great effect on schools' data collection processes. State
requirements dominate local data collections. Sometimes, these are
consistent with federal requirements. Data are not yet used widely for
purposes of program improvement.

## Vocational Education for Special Populations

One of the significant differences between Perkins II and Perkins III
involves regulations associated with special populations. First, Perkins
III expanded the definition of special populations to include single
parents, displaced homemakers and single pregnant women, in addition to
individuals with disabilities, economically-disadvantaged students,
individuals preparing for nontraditional employment, and individuals
with limited English proficiency or other barriers to educational
achievement.

Second, Perkins III eliminated the "set-asides" --- the requirement that
the small percentage of money still controlled by the state must be
spent in a certain way. Perkins II reserved 10.5 percent of state
leadership funds for programs for single parents, displaced homemakers
and single pregnant women and not less than 3 percent for gender-equity
programs. A further 0.5 percent could be used for all these. States were
required to have a full-time gender-equity coordinator to administer
programs for single parents, displaced homemakers and gender equity.
There was a requirement for local recipients to give priority for
funding to programs that served the largest numbers of special
population members --- individuals with disabilities, individuals
preparing for nontraditional employment and individuals with limited
English proficiency or other barriers to educational achievement.

In Perkins III not more than 10 percent of the state administrative
funds --- 15 percent of total state funding --- may be reserved for
state leadership activities, of which not less than \$60,000 or more
than \$150,000 shall be available for services that prepare individuals
for nontraditional employment.[^12] States must describe how the funds
will be used to promote preparation for nontraditional training and
employment \[Section 122 (c)(17)\]. The position of state-level gender
equity coordinator is no longer mandated.

Technically, since the definition of special populations changed from
Perkins II to III, the elimination of the set-aside in Perkins III
refers only to the gender-equity program. The other set-asides in
Perkins II did not apply to special populations so defined at the time.

Perkins II also required states to designate or assign state employees
who would take responsibility for reviewing state and local plans to
ensure that the pertinent provisions under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act and Title I were being implemented as well as
to ensure that the needs of students with limited English proficiency
were being met. Perkins III has no comparable requirements.

In Perkins III certain accountability measures remain in place.
Assessment of how the needs of special populations and other groups are
being addressed and how programs are designed to enable members of
special populations to meet state performance levels is a required state
leadership activity. Participation in programs providing preparation for
nontraditional employment is a core indicator in Perkins III.

The analyses in this section primarily relied on data from state and
local interviews as well as some limited information from the national
teacher survey.

### Impact of Changes in Set-Asides and Assessment

#### **Staffing**

The elimination of the set-asides in Perkins III reduced the number of
state-level staff assigned to issues concerning special populations ---
under the new definition --- and the gender-equity program. Five of the
seven states reported staff reductions: California, Massachusetts,
Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio. These states have eliminated
positions or redesigned positions to include other responsibilities.

-   California maintained the position of gender-equity coordinator,
    although it has been reduced from a full-time position to part-time.
    Massachusetts uses state funds for a staff position that includes
    gender equity as one of several responsibilities.

-   Even before the elimination of the set-aside, Michigan began
    downsizing by not replacing retirees. What was once a seven-person
    unit now consists of one part-time gender-equity staffer because of
    the need to track the related performance indicator.

-   North Carolina still has two individuals with statewide
    responsibility for special populations and gender equity, although
    these individuals have other responsibilities as well.

-   In Ohio, one person was phased out of the gender-equity job and has
    a new position in the department. Another could have moved to a new
    position within the department but took a new job elsewhere.
    Previously the state also employed vocational evaluators --- now
    called career evaluation specialists --- who visited districts to
    provide technical assistance and information concerning career and
    technical education curriculum and programs. These specialists acted
    as a resource to schools in the institutional effectiveness process.
    Lack of funding has reduced the number of individuals in the field
    who can perform this role.

In some instances, changes in staffing at the state level were not
always apparent to the local grantees or did not affect them in ways the
state anticipated. In other instances, local grantees also experienced
personnel losses. A few experienced gains.

-   All the sites in Michigan used Perkins funds to support staffing
    needs related to serving special populations. More than half of the
    Perkins funds at Site 1 and most of the district funds at Site 3
    were used for this purpose. Even so, Site 2 had to eliminate some
    paraprofessional positions as a result of funding changes. A fourth
    site reported taking advantage of the greater flexibility to hire
    paraprofessionals to improve tutoring and guidance services.

-   Overall, local sites in three states reported that staff were
    eliminated or had their time reduced: Michigan (MI2), Ohio (OH1,
    OH4), and North Carolina (NC2).[^13]

#### **State-Level Perceptions of Impact of Changes** 

State-level respondents had varying views of the changes in set-asides.
Few had data to support or refute their perceptions.

Some reactions were mostly positive. The elimination of set-asides was
perceived as positive because it enhanced states' flexibility, as seen
in California and Texas; gender equity was no longer needed in Ohio and
Texas; and set-asides failed to institutionalize or promote services and
only served to isolate students in California.

We also heard a number of arguments about how programs would suffer:
set-asides had failed to institutionalize programs, and without a
set-aside, "it's not going to happen" in California and Ohio; equity
would be threatened in California and Ohio; and services will be
eliminated or become too variable at the local level in Florida.

Fears expressed at the state level were at least partly borne out. In
Massachusetts, for example, state officials were worried about the
demise of their gender-equity centers and two sites reported some
reduction of activities to encourage nontraditional enrollment.

Across most states, program administrators who dealt directly with
gender equity or nontraditional employment issues were less sanguine
than others. These administrators questioned whether gender-equity
programs were established firmly enough before Perkins III and worried
that the elimination of the set-aside will have a negative effect.
However, we were unable to determine to what extent these views reflect
the advocacy stance that these individuals are likely to take and to
what extent their views are an accurate reflection of the status of
gender equity.

#### **Participation and Access**

Although this study was not designed to gather systematic quantitative
data on participation of students from special populations in vocational
education programs, the case studies and teacher survey provide some
limited information.

First, some states claimed that Perkins III had not greatly influenced
participation. Only Texas had data to back up this claim.

-   Texas enrollment data in Tech-Prep --- which the state feels are its
    highest-quality programs --- indicate that for most special
    population groups, student representation is proportional to their
    representation among the total number of students, which in
    1998--1999 was 8.7 percent). In that year, 8.6 percent of
    economically-disadvantaged students, 8.3 percent of
    academically-disadvantaged, at-risk students, and 7.1 percent of
    special education students were in the Tech-Prep category. Only
    among bilingual students was Tech-Prep participation substantially
    lower than for all other students at 2.9 percent.

Second, several states and localities had vocational programs that were
not open to all students or offered differentiated requirements. In some
cases these requirements appeared to funnel students from special
populations into less rigorous programs.

-   Sites in Florida reported that all students, depending on their
    level of ability, have access to vocational programs. All sites took
    advantage of a state law that allows school districts to modify
    basic courses that satisfy graduation requirements for a standard
    diploma as well as vocational courses of programs of study that lead
    to a special diploma for Exceptional Student Education pupils. Two
    sites reported that 40 percent of their Exceptional Student
    Education pupils were in the Special Diploma program. One site
    offered a diploma-based program for students at risk of dropping
    out. Selected students work for half of the day and attend school
    the other half. Most of the academic work is self-paced and
    computer-based. Successful students in this program can receive a
    regular diploma. At another site, however, the required skill level
    for some programs exceeded that of some special population students.

-   North Carolina offers four differentiated diplomas and courses of
    study. Three of these incorporate both academic and vocational
    studies --- College Tech-Prep, Career Prep and Occupational Prep.
    The latter is specifically designed for students with disabilities
    as determined by institutional effectiveness process teams.
    Occupational Prep students are required to take four credits of
    vocational electives, not necessarily in a pathway or at a
    particular level. The principal at one site especially praised the
    new pathway, which he said had "given teeth" to the program for
    special populations. Prior to the development of this course of
    study, "students could just show up and graduate."

Third, in some localities, programs serving students from special
populations were isolated from other programs and students. In other
localities, students from special populations were mainstreamed into
regular vocational classes.

-   All California sites indicated that special populations have equal
    access to all vocational programs, but some programs isolate these
    students. At one site, for example, many of the programs supporting
    special education students were not found at the high school but at
    a continuation school in the district. This continuation school
    served both pregnant teens and students with "behavioral problems."
    The latter were being slowly integrated into the regular high school
    under a new pilot program. Another site's programs for pregnant or
    parenting teens, however, were at the high school.

-   In one Michigan school, special populations had once been targeted
    for vocational education, but respondents reported that this
    practice was no longer followed. Nearly all students from special
    populations --- 97 percent --- were mainstreamed into regular
    vocational classes according to ability and encouraged to pursue a
    regular diploma. This school offered a separate Extended Vocational
    Alternative for severely handicapped students. Two other sites,
    however, were less successful in mainstreaming students. One site
    sent most of the special population students to the technical
    center. Another expressed concern about the elimination of some
    traditional vocational classes in an effort to increase the quality
    of vocational education because it limited the options available to
    students from special populations, about 22 percent of the student
    body. In an effort to address this concern, they offered several
    classes with a lower grade-point average requirement --- and a cap
    at the high end --- to allow special population students to enroll.

-   A site in Ohio offered different "strands" that allowed students of
    multiple levels to be served in one classroom. The special education
    director at this site stated that "the strands are good for kids
    because they can be part of general education classrooms." The area
    vocational school at this site also reportedly had a higher
    concentration of special population students.

-   Two Texas sites reported mainstreaming students; one also offered
    some agricultural classes specifically for students from special
    populations.

    Fourth, in some states and localities the perception remains that
    students from special populations were purposely funneled into
    vocational programs. This perception seemed most acute in states
    with separate vocational schools, such as Ohio and Massachusetts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The technical school in Massachusetts reported having double the
    number of special population students than the average comprehensive
    high school in the state --- 35--40 percent of students in the
    school. School staff were concerned that the new state testing
    system would increase the practice of sending special population
    students to the school as comprehensive schools were motivated to
    improve their test scores.

-   Ohio was the only state where local sites reported spending Perkins
    funds to market their programs. According to respondents, the poor
    reputation of vocational education necessitated active recruitment
    efforts. Respondents at one site --- an area vocational school ---
    felt that the feeder high school targeted special population
    students for their school; about one-third of the students had
    individual education plans. Respondents at other AVSs in Ohio also
    complained about the tendency of home schools to send less
    academically able students who were not bound for college. The AVSs
    were also worried that the preponderance of special population or
    lower-achieving students at their schools would lower their ranking
    on statewide assessments. This concern also was voiced at the state
    level.

Finally, teacher survey data suggest a widespread perception that
vocational education programs enroll a high proportion of students who
are less academically able or who have other problems that negatively
affect academic success.

In the survey, teachers were asked to estimate, compared to the
school-wide average, whether a particular class had a higher, average or
lower proportion of the following types of students: students with
disabilities, limited English proficient students, pregnant or parenting
students, economically-disadvantaged students such as those eligible for
free or reduced lunch, gifted and talented students, and at-risk
students such as students behind in credits for graduation. Vocational
teachers reported having above-average participation for all the above
categories of students, except for gifted and talented. Academic
teachers reported above-average participation of the latter as seen in
Table D.12, Appendix D.

The same pattern was found when the data were analyzed by type of
school: gifted and talented students had above-average participation at
the comprehensive high schools; all other special categories of students
had above average participation at the vocational schools. (All
differences were statistically significant; see Table D.13.) These data
suggest that students from special population groups are highly
represented in courses taught by vocational teachers and in vocational
schools. However, we were unable to verify whether these students are
over- or under-represented in the high school population at large.

#### **Provision of Services** 

With the elimination of the set-asides, one might expect some loss of
programs and services. By and large, both the state and local
respondents reported reduction in services. Very few reported that
services were unaffected.

Some states carried out programs or provisions that they hoped would
partly offset the elimination of set-asides and help local grantees
maintain their programs. In some cases, state efforts seemed to help but
in other cases they did not.

Many states reported deterioration of services. Sometimes other funding
sources made up for the loss in funds and sites could keep their
activities going. Some examples follow.

-   Most of the California schools did not perceive any decrease in
    services stemming from the elimination of the set-asides. One site
    reported that one program was eliminated, but this program was later
    reinstated with federal Workforce Investment Act funds. In providing
    services, two sites reported working closely with local WIA agencies
    and with their state-funded regional occupational programs.

-   None of the Florida sites reported significant changes in services
    or reduction in programs even though the state-level respondents had
    voiced concerns that the elimination of set-asides would lead to
    reduction in services. One site reported an increase in Perkins
    funding. Another used other funds to compensate for the loss of the
    set-aside, and the district retained its gender-equity coordinator.
    Several sites noted that the broader definition of special
    populations had doubled the number of students being served, and
    this often required districts to blend funds from several programs
    to continue to offer services.

-   Three of the Massachusetts sites reduced programs or services.
    Respondents at the single site that was an exception said their
    ability to retain services was maintained by the district's hiring
    of a special population coordinator. This site maintained services
    for students with behavioral problems, at-risk students, limited
    English proficiency students and single parents as well as programs
    to encourage nontraditional employment.

-   Two North Carolina sites (NC2, NC3) were hurt by the elimination of
    set-asides. One reported a significant reduction of services. There
    were fewer funds for materials and books, and the district
    coordinator's job changed to a part-time position. The coordinator
    and the counselors were spending more time on preparing students for
    state tests. The special population coordinator at this school
    reported, "We identify the students but don't provide them with
    services." Conversely, staff at another site said that Perkins
    funding is not large enough to have an impact on services.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Three schools in Ohio reported losses in programs or services. One
    of these was able to fill their funding gaps with money from the
    district. A representative from that school said that "monies were
    used differently once the set-asides were eliminated." In another
    site, however, the School-to-Work coordinator said, "If it's not set
    aside, it's not going to happen."

Programs geared to preparing students for employment in nontraditional
occupations suffered in some states and localities.

-   Massachusetts had supported gender-equity centers --- it had \$2
    million to support three centers and 18 programs to serve single
    parents --- and state-level staff believed that services related to
    gender equity were already declining in both high schools and
    community colleges as a result of the elimination of the set-aside.
    Indeed two sites reported losing such programs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The California sites claimed that gender-equity efforts were
    continuing or being developed, but the study found evidence to the
    contrary. One site, for example, was planning to offer an all-female
    automotive class. However, this class will not emphasize automotive
    technology or prepare students for careers in the industry but will
    cover such topics as emergency car repair, licensing and basic
    engines.

-   In contrast, two Florida sites --- one of which had retained its
    gender-equity coordinator --- described some proactive efforts to
    increase the number of students in nontraditional programs. One had
    a robotics camp for girls as well as week-long workshops about
    nontraditional careers. Another had increased enrollment in its
    electronics academy to more than 50 percent of the class.

Programs and services for pregnant or parenting teens fared a little
better. These were specifically discussed in sites in Massachusetts,
Michigan, Ohio and Texas. The higher incidence of these programs in the
Texas sites may stem partly from a state-supported program in Texas ---
the Parenting Education Program --- which state respondents said
replaced Perkins funding.

In Michigan, state-level respondents reported that 12 of 13 parent
programs were still in operation even though their Perkins funding had
been eliminated.

#### **Assessment and Accountability**

As discussed previously in the chapter, the ability of states to provide
performance-related data for special populations, including information
on nontraditional enrollments, is mixed. California, for example, had
very little information about the impact of Perkins III on special
populations because it did not collect enough data under Perkins II to
allow for any kind of comparisons between the programs. Neither does the
state have the resources to review, or follow up on, local Perkins plans
that detail provision of services.

At least two states expressed the view that the Perkins accountability
measures have "taken up some of the slack" in attention to special
population issues. Because states and local jurisdictions are required
to report on participation in nontraditional programs, the states
believe that local jurisdictions have an incentive to provide the needed
services. In North Carolina, state officials believed that Perkins III
has been instrumental in integrating the concerns about students from
special populations into other programs. They discussed legislation,
known as "Closing the Gap", requiring local education agencies to
develop annual plans for closing gaps in student achievement based on
race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and gender.

At the local level, very few sites seemed poised to gather the types of
data needed. One site in every state reported some ability to meet data
requirements, some well and some poorly.

## Conclusions

This chapter looked at some specific changes in Perkins III and asked
how these changes were affecting implementation of vocational education
programs. Our conclusions are limited by the nature of the data we had
at our disposal and by the fact that states are beginning
implementation. With these limitations, the study points to several
conclusions.

First, with respect to funding, we find that states and localities
appear to direct funds at Perkins-defined program improvements.

At the local level, Perkins funds seem particularly crucial for
supporting technology-related activities --- equipment, software,
Internet support and the like.

Although the Perkins planning process was intended to direct states and
localities to use funds in certain ways, it appears that much room for
variation still exists both among and within state systems. Local
decisionmaking about resource allocation can rest at the district level
and sometimes at the school level. In some states, the districts appear
to have a good deal of authority. By and large, most respondents at the
local level are not knowledgeable about the sources of funding, so it is
difficult to determine the precise contribution of Perkins resources.

Our review of the status of state data systems and activities at the
local level, however, suggests that the accountability mechanisms are
not yet in place. Most state data systems in this study are incomplete
in the sense that they cannot comply with all of Perkins III reporting
requirements, although some are more prepared than others. It is simply
too soon to tell whether the accountability measures taken in Perkins
III will exert greater control over state and local expenditures and
efforts than did Perkins II, thereby helping to improve quality.

The changes in Perkins III concerning the elimination of set-asides to
fund activities in support of students from special populations appear
to have had some negative impact, although the full effects are still
unfolding.

The study revealed a complex picture concerning participation and access
of students from special populations in vocational education. Florida,
North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan have differentiated programs of study
or alternative requirements for some students, primarily those with
disabilities. In some cases, local respondents indicated that these
programs of study have improved services for students from special
populations, such as in North Carolina. But we also noted some instances
where special population students do not have access to the
highest-quality programs, although it is difficult to tell precisely
which groups are affected. Other examples indicate that students from
special population groups may be isolated from the general student body.

Finally, respondents in the case studies and teacher survey indicated
that vocational education programs may enroll a disproportionate share
of students from special population groups, but this is a perception we
are unable to verify with the data at hand. It is certainly the case
that in some quarters vocational education is still perceived as a
"dumping ground" for the less academically able.

# 4. The State Context for Efforts to Improve Vocational Education 

The implementation of Perkins provisions and strategies takes place
within the broader context of state policy. This chapter examines state
policies and addresses the following:

-   What are the purposes and philosophy of vocational education from
    the state's perspective? Have these evolved in keeping with Perkins
    II and III?

-   What general-education reforms are ongoing? How have these affected
    local practices?

-   What are the major state-sponsored efforts to improve vocational
    education?

While Perkins III embodies the federal vision for vocational education,
each state and local education agency has a vision of vocational
education that best meets its own educational goals and objectives.
These may or may not align with the intentions of Perkins.

A state's strategy for implementing its vision may be greatly affected
by its governance structure. This includes the organization of the state
agencies that have legislative and administrative authority for
education, relationships among key agencies and their level of
coordination, the structure of the delivery system from state to local
levels, and so on. The governance structure also incorporates important
power arrangements, for example whether education policymaking and
decisionmaking is centralized at the state level or whether it is
allocated to lower levels, such as regions and districts.

In addition, the past decade has seen a surge of state reform efforts
devoted to improving the academic proficiency of students. Most states
have become part of the "standards-based reform" movement, attempting to
improve student achievement through developing content and performance
standards for all students, instituting assessments to measure progress
toward these standards, and enacting accountability systems tied to
student performance. Because these reforms are being implemented in
public high schools and include all students in the schools, they have
had and will continue to have an impact on vocational education students
and programs.

This chapter discusses and summarizes findings in three general areas:
changes in philosophy of the states toward vocational education, the
structures and authorities the states use to enact their education
agendas, and the types of state-sponsored general and vocational
education reforms being enacted. It relies primarily on data from the
case studies.

## Philosophy and Vision

The traditional vision of vocational education emphasized a pathway that
led from secondary school to work and was intended to help students
prepare for a specific occupation. In this traditional view, the
vocational education student was often considered to be less
academically talented or more manually skilled than his or her peers.

As discussed in Chapter One, Perkins II advanced a broader and more
flexible vision of vocational education. In this vision, vocational
education should ensure that students acquire the knowledge and skills
needed to meet challenging state academic standards and
industry-recognized skill standards, and it should prepare them for
postsecondary education and opportunities in "high-skill, high-wage
careers."

This study identified several broad themes concerning who is served by
vocational education, who supports it and what its purposes are.

First, each state's vision for vocational education is consistent with
Perkins' philosophy to broaden vocational education in the ways
previously discussed. Every state shows some movement in this direction
although in some cases it is too soon to tell whether state policies to
advance their vision will be effective. In some cases, we saw little
evidence that local programs were in line with the state's objectives.
For example:

-   In 1999, North Carolina reorganized high school programs into four
    courses of study with differentiated diplomas. Three of these
    specifically incorporate career and technical education
    requirements. However, the sites we visited were only just beginning
    to implement these changes.

-   Florida reconfigured its vocational programs into a system of
    Occupational Completer Points wherein all courses are organized into
    pathways with sequences of classes identified for specific job exit
    points. Courses not leading to jobs do not receive state funding.
    The local sites in this study, however, seem most concerned about
    raising academic standards and overcoming vocational education's
    poor image.

-   To encourage a wider range of students to take vocational education
    classes, Texas required all students to take a technology course to
    graduate. The state also established eight career and technology
    areas to focus vocational education more on careers. At the local
    level, however, only two sites had made any attempts at integration,
    and little evidence existed that programs were becoming more
    technological.

Second, while all the states in this study say they support a broad
vision of vocational and technical education, it remains an educational
alternative that is not for all students. In all states, vocational and
technical education course-taking is elective not required. Students can
choose to take vocational classes, just as they choose music, drama, art
or any number of electives. Program designs that organize courses around
a course of study or career theme --- such as career academies or career
pathways --- can create an opportunity for interested students to take a
related set of vocational courses, thereby bringing some coherence in
their elective studies, but it remains a choice in these sample states.

Third, many states and localities struggle to overcome negative
perceptions of vocational education. It is still seen by many as the
educational alternative for students who will not attend college.

-   Recent state reforms in Ohio --- for example, the creation of
    "career pathway specialists" who will develop programs to prepare
    students for work and college --- are in keeping with Ohio's goals
    to strengthen academic and technical content of vocational
    education. The state and some sites, however, continue to have
    problems in communicating changes to the community and attracting a
    broader student body.

-   Texas education officials also have struggled recently to change the
    general perception of vocational education, and the consensus is
    that its status has improved in the last five years. However in
    three of four Texas sites, few changes were evident and vocational
    education remains a "lesser" alternative to the college prep
    curriculum.

Fourth, the broadening of vocational and technical education in both
content and audience is not without its critics in each state of our
sample. According to state respondents, many parents view college or
university degrees as the main path to success and do not perceive that
new vocational or career-oriented programs will lead to college. State
respondents also noted some objections from employers, who may have
specific needs for entry-level employees with basic technical skills. A
broader vision of vocational education can lead to fewer high school
courses that prepare students for technically-oriented jobs. Some
employers at the local level expressed similar concerns.

Fifth, vocational education also remains somewhat separate from general
education. As reported in subsequent sections of this chapter, academic
reform goals take precedence in state education reform policy. Thus,
although the vision for vocational education might be changing, the
climate is dominated by concerns about academic achievement.

Overall, the states in this study adopted the spirit of Perkins III and
have policies intended to make that vision into a reality. But barriers
are evident --- for example, the poor image of vocational education, the
preference in policy for academic learning and achievement, and the
inherent tension between the dual goals of preparing students for
education and for work.

## The Structures and Delivery Systems for Vocational Education 

A major, if unsurprising, finding of the case studies is that the seven
states each have a different structure for the delivery of general
education and vocational education as shown in Table 4.1.

######## Table 4.1 Synopsis of State Governance Structure

+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
|      | Cal     | F      | M      | Mic   | North  | Ohio   | T    |
|      | ifornia | lorida | assach | higan | Ca     |        | exas |
|      |         |        | usetts |       | rolina |        |      |
+======+=========+========+========+=======+========+========+======+
| GENE |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| RAL- |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| E    |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| DUCA |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| TION |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| S    |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| TRUC |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| TURE |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| S    | State   | Under  | State  | Mic   | State  | State  | T    |
| econ | Board   | Commis | Board  | higan | Board  | Board  | exas |
| dary | of      | sioner | of     | Depar | of     | and    | E    |
| Go   | Ed      | of     | Edu    | tment | Edu    | Office | duca |
| vern | ucation | Educ   | cation | of    | cation | of     | tion |
| ance | governs | ation, | g      | C     | ov     | Su     | Ag   |
|      | CDE,    | in     | overns | areer | ersees | perint | ency |
|      | headed  | Depa   | Depa   | D     | Depa   | endent |      |
|      | by      | rtment | rtment | evelo | rtment | of     |      |
|      | elected | of     | of     | pment | of     | Public |      |
|      | Superin | Edu    | Edu    | ad    | Public | Instr  |      |
|      | tendent | cation | cation | minis | Instr  | uction |      |
|      | of      |        |        | ters, | uction |        |      |
|      | Public  |        |        | State |        |        |      |
|      | Inst    |        |        | Board |        |        |      |
|      | ruction |        |        | of    |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | Educ  |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | ation |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | ove   |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | rsees |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | p     |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | olicy |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| S    | 58      | 5      | 317    | 53    | State  | Career | 1    |
| econ | c       | r      | high   | seco  | d      | and    | ,221 |
| dary | ounties | egions | s      | ndary | ivided | tec    | ind  |
| S    | divided | within | chools | re    | into   | hnical | epen |
| truc | into 11 | the    | inc    | gions | r      | edu    | dent |
| ture | geogr   | state  | luding | with  | egions | cation | sc   |
|      | aphical | a      | 26     | 377   | with   | system | hool |
|      | r       | ligned | re     | seco  | re     | has 94 | di   |
|      | egions, | with   | gional | ndary | gional | Career | stri |
|      |         | county | vo     | agen  | s      | Tec    | cts; |
|      | 1,000   | boun   | cation | cies, | ervice | hnical | 1    |
|      | school  | daries | al-tec | 60    | s      | Pl     | ,538 |
|      | di      | with   | hnical | area  | upport | anning | high |
|      | stricts | state  | s      | c     | c      | Dist   | scho |
|      |         | leads  | chools | areer | enters | ricts; | ols; |
|      | 72      | to     |        | and   | for    | CTE    | d    |
|      | R       | serve  |        | tech  | profes | pr     | ecen |
|      | egional | each   |        | ed    | sional | ovided | tral |
|      | Occup   | r      |        | cen   | devel  | in     | ized |
|      | ational | egion; |        | ters, | opment | c      | to   |
|      | Pro     | 28     |        | and 9 | in     | ompreh | 20   |
|      | grams/C | dis    |        | trade | each,  | ensive | regi |
|      | enters, | tricts |        | acad  | l      | high   | onal |
|      | serving | and    |        | emies | ocated | s      | e    |
|      | high    | co     |        |       | at     | chool, | duca |
|      | school  | unties |        | 53    | col    | Joint  | tion |
|      | and     | are    |        | C     | leges; | Voca   | ser  |
|      | adult   | coterm |        | areer | dis    | tional | vice |
|      | s       | inous; |        | Educ  | tricts | Sc     | cent |
|      | tudents | within |        | ation | and    | hools, | ers; |
|      |         | each   |        | Pla   | cou    | career | each |
|      |         | can be |        | nning | ntries | ce     | re   |
|      |         | nu     |        | Dist  | are    | nters, | gion |
|      |         | merous |        | ricts | coterm | CTE    | incl |
|      |         | c      |        | ,     | inous; | co     | udes |
|      |         | ompreh |        | which | c      | mpacts | sev  |
|      |         | ensive |        | m     | ompreh |        | eral |
|      |         | high   |        | ostly | ensive |        | coun |
|      |         | s      |        | par   | high   |        | ties |
|      |         | chools |        | allel | s      |        | and  |
|      |         | and    |        | in    | chools |        | ind  |
|      |         | area   |        | terme | only   |        | epen |
|      |         | voca   |        | diate |        |        | dent |
|      |         | tional |        | s     |        |        | sc   |
|      |         | s      |        | chool |        |        | hool |
|      |         | chools |        | dis   |        |        | d    |
|      |         |        |        | trict |        |        | istr |
|      |         |        |        | b     |        |        | icts |
|      |         |        |        | ounda |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | ries; |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | in    |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | 2001- |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | -2002 |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | will  |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | reorg |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | anize |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | to 25 |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | C     |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | areer |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | P     |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | repar |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | ation |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | Pla   |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | nning |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | Areas |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| P    | S       | All    | Go     | Mic   | Se     | Ohio   | T    |
| osts | eparate | under  | verned | higan | parate | Board  | exas |
| econ | boards  | Commis | by a   | Depar | gove   | of     | Hi   |
| dary | and     | sioner | Board  | tment | rnance | R      | gher |
| Go   | gov     | of     | for    | of    | for 3  | egents | E    |
| vern | ernance | Educ   | Higher | C     | sy     |        | duca |
| ance | for CC, | ation, | Edu    | areer | stems: |        | tion |
|      | CSU, UC | with   | cation | De    | State  |        | Coor |
|      | systems | se     | with   | velop | Board  |        | dina |
|      |         | parate | split  | ment, | of     |        | ting |
|      | CC      | board  | for    | but   | Com    |        | B    |
|      | under   | for    | com    | lo    | munity |        | oard |
|      | Co      | com    | munity | cally | Col    |        |      |
|      | mmunity | munity | co     | el    | leges; |        |      |
|      | College | co     | lleges | ected | Univ   |        |      |
|      | Chanc   | lleges | and    | gove  | ersity |        |      |
|      | ellor's | and    | fou    | rning | of     |        |      |
|      | Office  | board  | r-year | b     | North  |        |      |
|      |         | for    | co     | oards | Car    |        |      |
|      |         | univ   | lleges | r     | olina; |        |      |
|      |         | ersity |        | espon | North  |        |      |
|      |         | system |        | sible | Ca     |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | for   | rolina |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | c     | State  |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | urric | Univ   |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | ulum, | ersity |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | opera | system |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | tion, |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | etc.  |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| C    | 107     | 28     | 15     | 28    | 58     | 48     | 50   |
| ommu | co      | com    | com    | comm  | com    | com    | CC   |
| nity | mmunity | munity | munity | unity | munity | munity | d    |
| Col  | c       | co     | co     | coll  | co     | co     | istr |
| lege | olleges | lleges | lleges | eges, | lleges | lleges | icts |
| S    | with    | serve  |        | incl  |        | (26    | with |
| truc | local   | dis    |        | uding |        | parti  | 68   |
| ture | boards  | trict/ |        | 1     |        | cipate | CC   |
|      |         | county |        | t     |        | in     | and  |
|      |         | geogra |        | ribal |        | P      | 74   |
|      |         | phical |        | comm  |        | erkins | camp |
|      |         | areas  |        | unity |        | f      | uses |
|      |         |        |        | co    |        | unding |      |
|      |         |        |        | llege |        | pr     |      |
|      |         |        |        | (3    |        | ocess) |      |
|      |         |        |        | four  |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | -year |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | in    |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | stitu |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | tions |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | also  |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | award |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | AA    |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | deg   |        |        |      |
|      |         |        |        | rees) |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| VO   |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| CATI |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| ONAL |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| S    |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| TRUC |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
| TURE |         |        |        |       |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| Vo   | Dep     | Depa   | Depa   | MDCD  | Depa   | Career | Divi |
| cati | artment | rtment | rtment | inc   | rtment | and    | sion |
| onal | of      | of     | of     | ludes | of     | Tec    | of   |
| Edu  | Ed      | Educ   | Educ   | CTE,  | Public | hnical | Ca   |
| cati | ucation | ation, | ation, | adult | Instru | Educ   | reer |
| on,\ | St      | Di     | Ass    | educa | ction, | ation, | and  |
| K    | andards | vision | ociate | tion, | Di     | part   | Te   |
| --12 | and     | of     | Commis | and   | rector | of     | chno |
|      | High    | Educa  | sioner | post  | of     | Center | logy |
|      | School  | tional | for    | secon | I      | for    | E    |
|      | Deve    | Pro    | Career | dary, | nstruc | Curr   | duca |
|      | lopment | grams; | and    | sep   | tional | iculum | tion |
|      | Di      | Di     | Tec    | arate | Se     | and    |      |
|      | vision; | vision | hnical | from  | rvices | Asses  |      |
|      | Office  | of     | Edu    | Depar |        | sment, |      |
|      | of High | Wor    | cation | tment |        | Depa   |      |
|      | School  | kforce |        | of    |        | rtment |      |
|      | Init    | Develo |        | Educ  |        | of     |      |
|      | iatives | pment; |        | ation |        | Edu    |      |
|      | and     | ov     |        |       |        | cation |      |
|      | Career  | ersees |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | Te      | all    |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | chnical | K-16   |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | Edu     | voca   |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | cation, | tional |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | Office  | edu    |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | of      | cation |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | A       | c      |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | cademic | ourses |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | and     |        |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | Career  |        |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | Integ   |        |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | ration; |        |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | Office  |        |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | for     |        |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | ROP/Cs  |        |        |       |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| Sc   | Called  | STW    | 41     | Moved | Admini | At     | TEA  |
| hool | Sc      | office | partne | from  | stered | tached | and  |
| -to- | hool-to | found  | rships | MI    | by     | to     | TCHB |
| Work | -Career | in     | with   | Jobs  | Depa   | gove   | par  |
|      | in      | Depa   | re     | Commi | rtment | rnor's | tici |
|      | Cali    | rtment | gional | ssion | of     | o      | pate |
|      | fornia; | of     | empl   | (now  | Edu    | ffice, | in   |
|      |         | Educ   | oyment | disso | cation | se     | STC  |
|      | STC     | ation, | or     | lved) | and    | parate | trai |
|      | g       | Di     | wor    | to    | a      | from   | ning |
|      | overned | vision | kforce | MDCD  | warded | Depa   | ma   |
|      | by an   | of     | boards |       | to     | rtment | nage |
|      | inte    | Wor    | as     |       | dis    | of     | ment |
|      | ragency | kforce | leads  |       | tricts | E      | t    |
|      | part    | Develo |        |       |        | ducati | eam; |
|      | nership | pment; |        |       |        | on/CTE | 27   |
|      | in      | pr     |        |       |        |        | p    |
|      | cluding | ovides |        |       |        |        | artn |
|      | EDD,    | se     |        |       |        |        | ersh |
|      | CDE,    | rvices |        |       |        |        | ips, |
|      | and CC  | t      |        |       |        |        | most |
|      | Chanc   | hrough |        |       |        |        | at   |
|      | ellor's | con    |        |       |        |        | CCs  |
|      | Office; | sortia |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | 59      | led by |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | partn   | CC in  |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | erships | each   |        |       |        |        |      |
|      |         | of 28  |        |       |        |        |      |
|      |         | co     |        |       |        |        |      |
|      |         | unties |        |       |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| T    | Jointly | State  | 12     | 30    | Sta    | 26     | 26   |
| ech- | admin   | pr     | cons   | cons  | tewide | con    | c    |
| Prep | istered | omoted | ortia; | ortia | articu | sortia | onso |
|      | by CDE  | t      | each   | which | lation | dis    | rtia |
|      | and CC  | hrough | high   | align | agre   | tricts | in   |
|      | Chanc   | the 28 | school | with  | ements | j      | 763  |
|      | ellor's | county | can    | the   | ma     | ointly | di   |
|      | Office  | CC and | have   | 25    | ndated | admini | stri |
|      |         | r      | an     | re    | for    | stered | cts; |
|      |         | elated | articu | gions | all    | by ODE | c    |
|      |         | dis    | lation |       | CCs    | and    | olla |
|      |         | tricts | agr    |       | and    | Board  | bora |
|      |         |        | eement |       | high   | of     | tion |
|      |         |        | with   |       | s      | R      | bet  |
|      |         |        | any CC |       | chools | egents | ween |
|      |         |        |        |       |        |        | TEA  |
|      |         |        |        |       |        |        | and  |
|      |         |        |        |       |        |        | T    |
|      |         |        |        |       |        |        | HECB |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| ECON | Cal     | Wo     | Depa   | Mic   | Ec     | Ohio   | De   |
| OMIC | ifornia | rkforc | rtment | higan | onomic | Depa   | part |
| DEV  | Trade   | eFlori | of     | Eco   | Devel  | rtment | ment |
| ELOP | and     | da.inc | Labor  | nomic | opment | of     | of   |
| MENT | C       | with   |        | D     | Board  | Develo | Econ |
|      | ommerce | gov    |        | evelo | (Depa  | pment; | omic |
|      | Agency  | erning |        | pment | rtment | Ohio   | Dev  |
|      |         | board  |        | D     | of     | Depa   | elop |
|      |         | rep    |        | epart | Com    | rtment | ment |
|      |         | orting |        | ment, | merce, | of Job |      |
|      |         | to the |        | Mic   | Comm   | and    |      |
|      |         | go     |        | higan | ission | Family |      |
|      |         | vernor |        | W     | on     | Se     |      |
|      |         |        |        | orks! | Workf  | rvices |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | orce), |        |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | Infor  |        |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | mation |        |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | Re     |        |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | source |        |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | Mana   |        |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | gement |        |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | Comm   |        |      |
|      |         |        |        |       | ission |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
| W    | Cal     | Wo     | Go     | MDCD  | Comm   | Gove   | T    |
| ORKF | ifornia | rkforc | verned | a     | ission | rnor's | exas |
| ORCE | Emp     | eFlori | by     | dmini | on     | Wor    | Cou  |
| IN   | loyment | da.inc | st     | sters | Wor    | kforce | ncil |
| VEST | Deve    | po     | eering | Job   | kforce | Policy | on   |
| MENT | lopment | licies | com    | Tra   | Devel  | Board; | W    |
| ACT  | Dep     | are    | mittee | ining | opment | Su     | orkf |
| S    | artment | imple  | inc    | P     | serves | perint | orce |
| TRUC | is a    | mented | luding | artne | as the | endent | and  |
| TURE | state   | by 24  | more   | rship | Wor    | of     | Econ |
|      | agency  | Agency | than   | Ac    | kforce | Public | omic |
|      | for     | for    | 20     | t/WIA | Inve   | Instr  | Com  |
|      | wo      | Wor    | m      |       | stment | uction | peti |
|      | rkforce | kforce | embers | 25    | Board  | and    | tive |
|      | devel   | Inno   | from   | reg   |        | Chan   | ness |
|      | opment; | vation | dif    | ions, | del    | cellor | with |
|      |         |        | ferent | with  | ivered | of     | TEA, |
|      | inte    | re     | ag     | work  | t      | Higher | T    |
|      | ragency | gional | encies | force | hrough | Edu    | HECB |
|      | ag      | wor    |        | d     | Wor    | cation | and  |
|      | reement | kforce | 41     | evelo | kforce | serve  | T    |
|      | between | boards | re     | pment | Boards | on     | exas |
|      | Cal     |        | gional | b     |        | board; | W    |
|      | ifornia |        | wor    | oards |        | ODE    | orkf |
|      | Health  |        | kforce | and   |        | admin  | orce |
|      | and     |        | boards | assoc |        | isters | Co   |
|      | Human   |        |        | iated |        | Title  | mmis |
|      | Se      |        |        | E     |        | 2      | sion |
|      | rvices, |        |        | ducat |        | pr     | Cou  |
|      | CDE     |        |        | ional |        | ograms | ncil |
|      | Sta     |        |        | Adv   |        |        |      |
|      | ndards, |        |        | isory |        | 55     |      |
|      | and HS  |        |        | G     |        | re     |      |
|      | Deve    |        |        | roups |        | gional |      |
|      | lopment |        |        |       |        | wor    |      |
|      | Di      |        |        |       |        | kforce |      |
|      | vision, |        |        |       |        | boards |      |
|      | EDD,    |        |        |       |        |        |      |
|      | CCCO    |        |        |       |        |        |      |
+------+---------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+

First, the states vary by the number of state agencies involved in
decisionmaking and delivery of educational services and the relative
authority of those agencies. Two states, Florida and North Carolina,
have relatively more unified structures with decisionmaking power
especially over vocational programs invested in one central agency and
delivered or administered by a single or few central agencies in each
county. The other states have more fragmented decisionmaking structures
with little centralized or unified authority. They also tend to have
multiple delivery structures with various local agencies involved in
delivery.

Second, the states vary dramatically in the extent to which the state's
educational system is centralized versus decentralized concerning
decisions between local and state agencies, no matter the number of
agencies. Again, two states, Florida and North Carolina, generally held
greater relative power over their districts and had resorted to the use
of mandated standards, curriculum, assessments and accountability
systems for both academic and vocational programs. The other states
provided greater power to their local districts or schools and tended
toward voluntary standards and assessments, especially in the vocational
areas. In Michigan and Texas, for example, the intermediate school
districts were often the locus of policy and decisionmaking.

Generally, we found state structures characterized by centralized and
unified systems had mandated coherent and uniform vocational programs
with clients understanding the system and moving easily from place to
place within it. In contrast, the more decentralized systems with more
fragmented agency authority and control and overlapping delivery systems
often promoted vocational improvement through voluntary means. Florida
and Massachusetts provide contrasting examples.

**Florida.** The unified Florida system relies heavily on a county-based
delivery system for most vocational functions, and significant power
over vocational education at all grade levels is invested in the
state-level Workforce Development Division of the Department of
Education.

-   All educational activities report to and are governed by the
    commissioner of education, an elected official in Florida. This
    official oversees the secondary and postsecondary systems, allowing
    for shared policy on vocational standards and career pathways, for
    example.

-   Vocational education is largely governed from within the K--12
    system in the Workforce Development Division. This division oversees
    all Perkins funding, provides standards for the K--16 system, and is
    responsible for the administration of Tech-Prep and School-to-Work
    within the state.

-   A single delivery system is used: the county. The K--12 system is
    based on one district in each county. The community college system
    aligns with the same counties --- one community college in each
    district and county. The Tech-Prep delivery system also is the same.
    Each community college is the lead institution for the Tech-Prep
    consortia in that county. The School-to-Work initiatives used the
    same delivery system.

-   The commissioner of education sits on the Board of
    WorkforceFlorida.inc, the newly created body in charge of economic
    development and the Workforce Investment Act. The director of the
    Workforce Development Division also serves on working committees of
    this board.

Such a centralized policy and delivery structure has led to a coherent
and consistent system of vocational standards, articulation agreements,
curriculum and uniform delivery of services, although some variation
still exists in implementation in local sites.

**Massachusetts.** The structure of education in the state of
Massachusetts contrasts significantly with that of Florida. The delivery
system has comparatively little uniformity. The structure resembles a
patchwork of overlapping initiatives or policy areas with their own
delivery systems. The state is considerably more decentralized in terms
of local power and authority over vocational education programs.

-   K--12, community college and higher education systems are separately
    governed, each with its own state board. This allows for and
    promotes separate decisionmaking from each component of the system.
    Respondents revealed a less-than-cordial relationship among these
    groups in the past but growing cooperation now.

-   Within the Department of Education, the associate commissioner of
    career and technical education oversees K--12 vocational education.
    This division is treated somewhat separately from the other
    divisions, the major example being that the state has created
    mandatory academic standards and assessments but not vocational
    ones.

-   The K--12 delivery system varies dramatically within the state, as
    does the vocational education K--12 system. The different district
    structures and vocational school structures do not align with the
    structure of the community colleges. These colleges do not have
    formal geographical regions to serve. This K--12 delivery system was
    not used in the establishment of School-to-Work regions or Tech-Prep
    regions. Each has its own set of consortia and areas of service that
    have sprung up as much from local demand and convenience as from any
    coherent plan.

-   While the associate commissioner of education sits on a steering
    committee heading the Workforce Investment Act initiative in the
    state, so do representatives from at least 20 other agencies.

Other states appear to fall between these two contrasting cases in terms
of centralization and consistency of their structures.

North Carolina's system does not have a structurally strong single line
of authority between its different levels of education agencies. But
under the leadership of former Governor James B. Hunt Jr., the state
legislature set up a unified system of standards, curriculum, courses of
study and assessments for K--12 academic and vocational programs and
K--16 articulation and dual-enrollment agreements that obtain statewide.
It provides for a very unified delivery system, such as Florida's,
although also with some variation in implementation.

Ohio has some comparatively centralized structures. It has a single
Office of the Superintendent of Public Education for the K--12 levels
and an Ohio Board of Regents for the postsecondary level. Career and
technical training along with academic training are overseen within the
department by the Center for Curriculum and Assessment. The
postsecondary and secondary offices and the academic and vocational
offices have worked closely to develop Ohio's mandatory academic
standards and assessments that include work competencies. The vocational
standards are mandatory, but the vocational assessments are voluntary.
School-to-Work, Tech-Prep and Workforce Investment Act structures,
however, are more fragmented and dispersed across many offices.

California, Michigan and Texas have more decentralized structures
similar to those of Massachusetts.

Although California has a single elected superintendent of public
instruction, it has an otherwise more fragmented structure for
vocational education, compared with Florida or North Carolina. The state
has separate governing boards and governance structures for the
community college, state university and university systems. Several
offices in the Department of Education handle vocational issues,
including the Standards and High School Development Division, the Office
of High School Initiatives and Career Technical Education, the Office of
Academic and Career Integration, and the Office for Regional
Occupational Programs/Centers. School-to-Work is governed by an
interagency partnership, and Tech-Prep is administered by the Department
of Education and the Community College Chancellor's Office. The
Employment and Development Department oversees the Workforce Investment
Act. The state has voluntary academic and vocational standards. While
its academic assessments are mandatory, its vocational assessments are
voluntary.

Michigan's vocational structure mirrors Florida's with one agency, the
Michigan Department of Career Development, responsible for K--16
vocational education and adult education. In Michigan, however, the MDCD
is completely separate from the Department of Education that has
responsibility for general education. Furthermore, respondents describe
Michigan as a local-control state. The state can "put it out and make a
case for it," but cannot mandate testing, use of standards and
curriculum, and other activities.

Like Michigan, Texas has a very decentralized delivery structure for
general and vocational education, dictated by state law. The Texas state
legislature revised the entire Texas Education Code in 1995 to increase
local control and support for school district initiatives. As a result,
technical assistance functions previously performed by the Texas
Education Agency were transferred to the state's 20 regional education
services centers. The state, however, did not give away all control. The
state holds local agencies accountable to statewide academic standards
through a mandatory testing and accountability system.

Implications of these differences in structure and policy instruments
will become evident as we further examine vocational education in the
schools and districts.

## State Reforms

The seven sample states vary in how and to what degree education reforms
manifest themselves in their vocational education programs. Table 4.2
summarizes the major reforms impacting vocational education programs in
the seven sample states. For each state, the table displays academic and
vocational courses separately in three general areas: standards,
increased graduation requirements, and assessment and specific
vocational reforms. Note that this discussion does not include regular
programs that can support vocational education, such as state
professional development funds or conferences. Many of these are
discussed in Chapter Five.

In sum, the general trend across these states is for reforms to focus on
improving academic achievement through standards and for holding
teachers and students more accountable through assessments and incentive
mechanisms. However, few have implemented similar policies for
vocational education. Only three states have clearly put significant
effort into standards-based reforms for vocational education: Florida,
North Carolina and Ohio.Table 4.2 Synopsis of Secondary Standards and
Assessment.

######### Key: M = mandatory; V = voluntary; BD = being developed; NA = not applicable; Acad = academic; Voc = vocational

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>California</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Florida</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Massachusetts</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Michigan</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>North Carolina</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Ohio</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Texas</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Acad</strong></td>
<td><strong>Voc</strong></td>
<td><strong>Acad</strong></td>
<td><strong>Voc</strong></td>
<td><strong>Acad</strong></td>
<td><strong>Voc</strong></td>
<td><strong>Acad</strong></td>
<td><strong>Voc</strong></td>
<td><strong>Acad</strong></td>
<td><strong>Voc</strong></td>
<td><strong>Acad</strong></td>
<td><strong>Voc</strong></td>
<td><strong>Acad</strong></td>
<td><strong>Voc</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>STAN-DARDS</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Content</strong></td>
<td>V, CA, K–12 aca-demic content stan-dards, math, language arts,
science, history-social science</td>
<td>V, BD, Endorsed 10 “core area” standards developed by OVAE; creating
crosswalks between acad and voc standards</td>
<td>M, Sunshine State Standards</td>
<td><p>M,</p>
<p>Workforce Develop-ment Com- panion to Sunshine State
Standards</p></td>
<td><p>M, Common Core of</p>
<p>Learning</p></td>
<td>BD, Certificates of Occu-pational Proficiency will be mandatory in
K–12 and voluntary in 13–16</td>
<td>V by DoE, model content standards in aca-demic areas plus
tech-nology</td>
<td>BD by MDCD;<br />
V, model content standards for career pathways; employ-ability skills by
DoE</td>
<td>M, standard course of study for academic subject areas plus
tech-nology</td>
<td><p>M, voca-tional blueprints</p>
<p>and work-force develop-ment standards in stan-dard course of
study</p></td>
<td>M, standards being developed for 6 academic subject areas, plus
tech-nology</td>
<td><p>M, OCAP</p>
<p>BD ITAC</p></td>
<td>M, TEKS for academic areas</td>
<td>V, TEKS for 9 areas offered as guides</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Perfor-mance</strong></td>
<td>BD</td>
<td>BD</td>
<td>M, grade level ex-pectations for math, language arts, science, and
social studies</td>
<td>M in Sunshine State Standards</td>
<td><p>M,</p>
<p>Common Core of Learning</p></td>
<td>BD Certi-ficates of Occu-pational Profi-ciency</td>
<td>V, BD by DoE</td>
<td>V, BD by DoE</td>
<td>M, grade level compe-tencies in course of study</td>
<td>M, in voca-tional blueprints</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>V, BD by state skills standards board</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>In-creased gradu-Ation requirE-ments</strong></td>
<td>Proposal to in-crease math and English require-ments; districts may
add addition-al require-ments</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>Increased academic require-ments; required minimum GPA</td>
<td>Must have one credit in career exploratory or fine arts
exploratory</td>
<td>No change at state, but some districts adding require-ments</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>No state gradua-tion require-ments except for course in civics</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>New course require-ments associ-ated with COS; district can add
course require-ments</td>
<td>Same; key-boarding required by all students.</td>
<td>SB 55 increased academics and decreased electives by two units;
awards diplomas with honors</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>Statewide required curriculum sequences</td>
<td>Tech-nology credit<br />
may be academic or voca-tional</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>ASSESS-MENT</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>General Testing</strong></td>
<td>M, STAR Program,</td>
<td>V, ACE; career content items for STAR, BD</td>
<td>M, FCAT</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>M, MCAS</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>V, MEAP used for school accredita-tion</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>M, ABC, used for school account-ability</td>
<td>M, VoCATS</td>
<td>M, 9th and 11th grade profi-ciency test</td>
<td>M, OCAP</td>
<td>M, TAAS</td>
<td>None</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>End-of-Course Testing</strong></td>
<td>V, Golden State Exam, selected academic subjects</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>M, in selected academic subjects</td>
<td>M, VoCATS required, not used in account­ability</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>None</td>
<td>M, end of course tests in selected areas</td>
<td>None</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>High School Gradua-tion Exam</strong></td>
<td>M, in 2004, pilot testing with 9th grade students this year</td>
<td>M, vocational education students must pass academic exam</td>
<td>M, compe-tency test in grade 11</td>
<td>M, vocational education students must pass academic exam</td>
<td>M, compe-tency test in grade 10</td>
<td>M, vocational education students must pass academic exam</td>
<td>V, profi-ciency test in grade 11 but not required for
gradua-tion</td>
<td>V, vocational education students must pass academic exam</td>
<td>M, includes skill areas</td>
<td><p>M, vocational education students must pass academic exams;</p>
<p>beginning with class of 2007</p></td>
<td>M, profi-ciency test in grade 11</td>
<td>M, vocational education students must pass academic exam</td>
<td>M, passing 10th grade TAAS required, also passing selected end of
course TAAS</td>
<td>M, vocational education students must pass academic exam</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Standards

All states have adopted academic standards for general education. In
five states these standards are mandatory --- Florida, Massachusetts,
North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. In California and Michigan --- states
that emphasize local control --- they are voluntary.

Only three states had mandatory vocational content standards ---
Florida, North Carolina and Ohio. Florida and North Carolina also have
performance standards. Note these states have a more centralized and
unified structure for vocational delivery. Some examples follow.

> **Florida.** Florida developed content standards for all academic
> courses --- Sunshine State Standards --- as well as content and
> performance standards for all vocational courses --- the Workforce
> Development Companion to the Sunshine State Standards. Both sets of
> standards are mandatory.
>
> The discussion about state standards at the local level in Florida was
> quite mixed even within sites. For example, responses from teachers
> and administrators at one school ran the gamut from the standards
> being "reasonable and appropriate" and "cover common-sense material"
> to being "outdated" and criticized by industry partners.
>
> Several local Florida respondents discussed how they are aligning
> their curriculum with the state standards --- both academic and
> vocational, according to state law and because the Florida
> Comprehensive Assessment Test measures the academic standards. Some
> respondents suggested that aligning with academic standards increases
> the rigor of vocational classes. Others believed that if vocational
> education succeeds in meeting the state standards, it will more
> generally do well. Not everyone, however, was completely supportive of
> Florida standards. Some were concerned that higher standards may drive
> out some students who get discouraged, while others feared that
> standards may lower the profile of vocational education.
>
> **Ohio.** Early in the 1990s, Ohio began using the Ohio Competency
> Assessment Profiles, employer-identified competency lists that outline
> the knowledge and skills needed to enter and succeed in a given
> occupational area or an applied academics, dropout prevention, or work
> and family life program. OCAPs also include tests to assess those
> competencies.
>
> Changes in the Ohio economy partly led to the development of
> Integrated Technical and Academic Competencies later in the decade.
> There are two types of ITAC: generic "core" competencies --- such as
> problem-solving, working responsibly and communicating effectively ---
> and career cluster ITAC that add academic skills for specific career
> areas --- such as arts and communication, business and management, and
> industrial engineering.[^14] During our site visits some commentary
> arose about the transition from OCAPs to ITAC, with respondents at one
> site emphasizing that it would require significant curriculum review
> and upgrades to switch. This school is supporting curriculum-writing
> sessions to implement ITAC. Teachers at one of the other sites
> discussed using both ITAC and OCAPs. At another, some teachers used
> OCAP curriculum but not OCAP assessments. Respondents at two sites
> supplemented the OCAPs with industry standards to better meet local
> industry needs. In short, sites were responding in various ways to the
> Ohio approach.

Of the five states remaining that do not have mandatory course standards
for vocational education, Texas has developed voluntary standards, and
California, Massachusetts and Michigan are in the process of developing
them.

> **California.** California has voluntary academic standards and is
> developing separate voluntary standards for vocational education. In
> the meantime, the state has endorsed 10 "core" area standards that
> were developed by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
> Vocational and Adult Education; these include leadership and teamwork,
> employability skills, and career development. Several districts or
> schools mentioned using the state academic content standards or
> Challenge Standards, an older set of standards. Only one site
> specifically mentioned state-developed vocational standards. This
> district was implementing new standards in business education.
>
> Some California sites made efforts to align vocational education
> curriculum with the state's academic content standards. One district
> brought together teams of vocational teachers in different subject
> areas to align the vocational program curricula with core standards.
> At another site, district funding was used to support curriculum
> implementation teams to ensure that the district's curriculum
> reflected state standards.
>
> The perceived impact of California state-level content standards on
> vocational education was mixed. Staff at one site felt that the state
> efforts promoted student attainment of challenging academic and
> vocational standards. At the other extreme, a respondent argued that
> by placing so much emphasis on academic standards, the state is
> squeezing out vocational education.
>
> **Texas.** In a slightly contrasting example, Texas legislation for
> the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills included mandatory academic
> standards and voluntary standards for nine vocational education areas.
> The vocational standards are not reflected in the assessment and
> accountability system. At some schools, the vocational TEKS were woven
> into the curriculum to varying degrees, while another did not
> incorporate them.
>
> The tone of the comments we heard from local sites in Texas ranged
> from complaints about TEKS covering too many topics to recognition
> that the breadth of the standards allows teachers flexibility to do
> just about anything. Thus, some teachers used the design of TEKS to
> their advantage while others seemed to ignore them altogether. One
> teacher who conducts classes in a building and trades program summed
> it up by saying that the TEKS are somewhat beneficial but overly
> detailed and cover too many topics. The teacher said, "They look good
> on paper, but kids have different interests and may want to
> specialize." Teachers at other schools said the TEKS "underscore what
> I already know" and "we mostly use them as a guideline for what we
> already do."

In general, respondents across all states held very mixed views about
the impact of standards. In Michigan, respondents indicated that the
voluntary standards had little impact at all. In Texas and Ohio, local
sites generally paid more attention to vocational standards than to
academic standards. Schools in Florida and North Carolina gave very
mixed reviews of the impact of the mandated standards. Massachusetts
schools were generally positive about them. In a few cases, state
standards were thought to help increase the rigor of vocational courses.
Others worried that the emphasis on academic standards in many states
only discouraged some students and further signaled that vocational
education was less important.

### Increased Graduation Requirements

Several states in the sample --- Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas
--- have increased high school graduation requirements. California has
proposed but not yet enacted increased graduation requirements in math
and English. For the most part, these new requirements tend to be in
academic areas. Two exceptions are North Carolina, which now requires
keyboarding courses or the passing of a keyboarding test for graduation,
and Texas, which requires a technology credit to graduate. State
officials expressed concern that these increased academic requirements
might limit the amount of time students have to take elective vocational
classes.

North Carolina has created a unique system of graduation requirements
that merits further discussion. In 1999, the state reorganized high
school programs into four courses of study with differentiated diplomas.
Beginning with the class of 2000--2001, all students had to choose one
course of study, each with very specified course and graduation
requirements:

-   College/University Prep readies students to enter a four-year
    postsecondary institution. No specific career and technical
    education requirements exist.

-   College Tech-Prep is designed for students to transfer to a two-year
    technical or community college and requires four credits in CTE
    within a career pathway, one of which must be a second-level course.
    The students must also complete mid-level technical or integrated
    math in addition to Algebra I.

-   Career Prep aims to prepare students for immediate employ­ment and
    requires four credits of CTE in a career path-way or an arts
    pathway, one of which must be a second-level or advanced class.

-   Occupational Prep, which is designed for students with disabilities,
    requires students to take four credits of vocational electives not
    necessarily in a pathway or a particular level.

The course of study chosen by the student determines his or her
graduation requirements. The reactions to the COS were generally
positive and were considered to have raised the status of vocational
education. Anecdotally, local respondents indicated that enrollments in
the College Tech-Prep COS have increased because students are choosing
to be well prepared for both college and job, but the state respondents
could not provide clear evidence of this because the program was just
being put into place. For the most part, the local districts and schools
take the mandated system to mean that their vocational education
programs should serve all students and should prepare students for
high-skill, high-wage jobs in the local community and region

In contrast, most sites in Texas and Ohio had negative reactions to
state-level changes in graduation requirements. As foreshadowed by the
state-level respondents, the most frequent cause for concern at the
local level was the reduction in vocational class enrollments. State
requirements in Texas that might be expected to increase vocational
enrollments did not appear to have any significant affect at the local
level. In Michigan, however, new district-level requirements to earn
nontraditional credits had increased enrollments in business courses,
but respondents still had concerns about possible enrollment reductions
in other areas.

A few positive reactions to changes in graduation requirements are worth
noting. The North Carolina courses of study are viewed as a positive
change, assuming students were well counseled in their choices. It was
too early to tell what the full impact of this system would be.

In California, the proposed graduation requirements --- and changes in
college admission requirements --- prompted some sites to seek academic
credit for some vocational classes. Respondents at two sites, however,
thought that increased high school graduation requirements were hurting
vocational education because they result in fewer electives open for
vocational classes. Staff at the other two sites, the higher-achieving
schools, did not mention this problem. At two schools, concerns were
expressed that changes in the University of California and California
State University entrance requirements would likewise leave less room
for electives, including vocational education.

### Assessments

Six of the states, the exception is Michigan, have created
accountability systems with high-stakes academic tests --- students must
pass them to graduate --- and schools, teachers and students are somehow
held responsible for the test results. All six have recently enacted
mandatory graduation exit exams, although not all are in effect as yet

For example, in 1999, California established a high school exit exam to
improve the accountability of schools and students in the achievement of
rigorous board-adopted content standards, especially in reading, writing
and mathematics. Students in the graduating class of 2004 will be the
first required to pass the test to receive a high school diploma.

Only two states have mandatory assessments in vocational courses, North
Carolina and Ohio. In Ohio, these assessments are only required for
programs seeking Perkins funds. California has developed some voluntary
vocational exams.

> **North Carolina.** North Carolina's Vocational Competency Achievement
> Tracking System has been introduced to assess student learning in
> vocational subjects. VoCATS applies to all vocational programs of
> study and includes a computerized assessment bank of 600 to 800 items
> per course. Students must pass these end-of-course exams in their
> vocational subjects.
>
> We found a range of negative and positive comments about North
> Carolina's testing requirements. Local respondents pointed out that
> the state had developed new Blueprints,[^15] but that the old
> curriculum guides had not yet been updated. In the past, teachers
> could access test questions via the test item databank, but the state
> has restricted the databank and teachers no longer have access to it.
> Without access to the questions, teachers cannot identify
> misalignments between the test and the curriculum and therefore cannot
> modify the curriculum to address these gaps. The lack of access made
> some teachers feel "disempowered."
>
> We heard commentary at all of the sites about the alignment between
> the Blueprints and the VoCATS. Reactions seemed to be fairly evenly
> divided. Respondents at two sites claimed that the Blueprints are
> aligned with VoCATS, while those at the remaining sites said that they
> are not aligned.
>
> Even in North Carolina the vocational tests are not part of the
> accountability system. ABCs School Report Card is the state's
> comprehensive plan for accountability. Currently, ABC tests only cover
> academic courses. Over the next two years, the state is gathering data
> to consider whether vocational course performance should be included
> in school-level accountability as well.

State-level respondents in all study states were concerned about the
overemphasis, from their point of view, on academic exams. They worried
that schools would begin to push hard for students to excel at these
academic exams, possibly taking time away from vocational learning. None
said that the academic exams themselves were a poor policy; rather, most
thought that all students would need higher levels of language arts and
math skills to succeed as adults than in the past. The academic exams
were thought to encourage that. Many, however, expressed a concern over
the balance. California respondents, for example, noted that teachers
might emphasize preparing students for the state assessments, especially
the high school exit exam. While state respondents thought that tests
tended to improve the academic learning required of students, this might
be accomplished at the cost of vocational skill learning.

By and large, the local sites' reactions to academic testing regimes
were overwhelmingly negative, even in states where testing is voluntary.
The districts and schools had several types of complaints. Academic
testing shifted attention away from vocational education and vocational
programs. It reduced the time available for teaching vocational content
because teachers had to teach more academics or spend class time on test
preparation. In the view of several respondents, academic testing
"forced" vocational teachers to align their curriculum with academic
standards, while academic teachers did not make similar concessions.
Testing increased the need for remedial courses, which in turn
threatened enrollment in elective vocational courses. Schools had
similar complaints about high-stakes tests, especially in California,
where the test is not yet implemented, and in Massachusetts.

In states where vocational assessments were available --- North
Carolina, Ohio and California --- some acknowledged that the tests
helped promote integration (North Carolina sites). But outside of North
Carolina, the vocational tests were not always used at the sites and
respondents voiced similar concerns to those held for academic tests.

Districts and schools in four states --- Massachusetts, North Carolina,
Ohio and Texas --- were concerned enough about testing to devote extra
resources to academic and vocational test preparation, such as tutoring,
special classes, or diagnostic and remedial software.

### Other Vocational Education Reforms

Each of the states had enacted other reforms specific to vocational
education, but few of these took on the significance of the standards,
assessments and accountability reforms that emphasized academic areas.

> **Florida.** After a major debate several years ago, the goal of
> vocational education in Florida, for example, emerged as "to provide
> high-quality education leading to further education and/or a job";
> education for its own sake is not a recognized goal. The most
> significant action taken by the state to advance this goal has been to
> reconfigure vocational programs into a system of Occupational
> Completer Points. All courses have been organized into pathways with
> sequences of classes identified for specific job exit points. Exit
> points can occur at secondary school or at the postsecondary level;
> thus, students can examine specific jobs and see a clearly defined
> pathway through high school and college. Courses not leading to jobs
> are not part of the system and do not receive state funding. In this
> way, Florida has defined vocational pathways that lead to jobs and
> further education.
>
> **California**. California's policies emphasize career academies for
> which the state provides additional funding for programs that qualify
> and development of career pathways or clusters. California's system
> also includes regional occupational programs/centers where high school
> students and adults can receive vocational and technical training.
> Planning time in career academies is supported with state Partnership
> Academy funds. Interviews and focus groups with teachers indicated
> that common planning time was significant for supporting curriculum
> integration within the academy.

## Conclusions

This review of the state context for Perkins implementation shows
several interesting commonalities across the states as well as some
differences between states.

All the states in this sample have embraced the standards-based reform
movement within their borders that emphasizes the importance of academic
standards, assessment and accountability. This movement is consonant
with federal efforts to promote academic achievement in academic and
vocational programs.

The nature of those reforms and the instruments used varied across the
states. Three states --- Florida, North Carolina and Ohio --- are
attempting to integrate vocational standards and assessments into their
reform packages. Others addressed academic standards first and only now
are turning to vocational standards and assessments. Assessments of
vocational performance have not been part of the accountability systems
set up in any of the sample states. In general, then, we conclude that
in this sample, vocational education has been affected by the enactment
of academic reforms far more than vocational reforms have been affected
or are likely to affect academic programs.

The policy instruments used and the emphasis on vocational education
appear to be dependent, at least in part, on the structure of education
in those states, the political climate over the past decade, and the
extent of changes in the state economy. For example, Florida and North
Carolina both had strong centralized state structures, growing economies
with new types of jobs being rapidly created, and a succession of
governors and political appointees in favor of strong job preparation
for the populace. These two states have emphasized vocational education
in their standards reforms more than others states, except Ohio, and
have had some success in creating integrated academic and vocational
standards and assessments.

All the states still treat vocational education as an elective. Even
while some states created strong career-based courses of studies or
pathways, these remain electives. In general, sites report continuing
stakeholder disagreement about the need and place of vocational
education in today's high schools, including who will best benefit from
it. In this sample, it remained the last resort for many students and
not a viable option for the college-bound.

Interviews at the state and local levels indicated some consensus of
likely effects of the state reform context, even while the full impact
remains to be felt.

-   Many respondents thought that the emphasis on academic achievement
    was important to improving both academic and vocational learning.
    They saw the state standards, assessments and accountability regimes
    as important building blocks of improved instruction for all
    students.

-   At the same time, they worried that vocational programs would not be
    held harmless. Depending on the specific state and local context,
    respondents reported negative effects on vocational programs and
    students in the form of reduced vocational enrollments because of
    pressure to meet higher academic standards and increased course
    requirements; reduced time on vocational tasks because of increased
    time on academic requirements and test preparation; and possible
    reduced quality of instruction, given the emphasis of some tests on
    simplistic understanding and answers.

While the reforms discussed here are still being fully implemented, all
sites could report some impact, some of it possibly detrimental to
vocational programs. We now turn to state and local efforts to implement
Perkins quality improvements.

# 5. State and Local Efforts to Implement Perkins Quality Improvements

Perkins III provides guidance to states to improve the quality of
vocational education. As discussed in Chapter One, it outlines several
program improvements or elements that will enhance vocational education
quality, requires states to address these elements in their state plans,
and permits use of Perkins funds to develop them. The elements for
program improvement addressed in this study are as follows:

-   Promote student attainment of challenging academic, technical and
    vocational standards.

-   Strengthen the academic and vocational and technical skills of
    students through the integration of academics with vocational and
    technical education programs.

-   Provide students with strong experiences in and understanding of all
    aspects of the industry.

-   Involve parents and employers.

-   Provide strong linkages between secondary and postsecondary
    education.

-   Develop, expand and improve the use of technology.

-   Provide professional development for teachers, counselors and
    administrators.

In this chapter, we describe the efforts made by states, local districts
and schools to develop and deliver vocational education programs that
embody these elements or characteristics. Where applicable, we draw on
results from the teacher survey to determine the prevalence of these
characteristics nationwide.

In the teacher survey we asked teachers to identify a specific class and
report information about it. The class was defined as the first class in
the teacher's primary teaching assignment. Teachers wrote in the name of
the class, which was later coded as vocational or academic.[^16] This is
the class referred to in this section as "identified" or "selected." The
survey did not directly ask about Perkins or its implementation, but the
questions were designed to gather information about the aforementioned
program improvements.

This chapter is organized by the above elements of quality improvement.
Under each element we clarify what we sought in interpreting the
case-study and survey data. We then provide state-level activities in
support of the elements. Finally, we provide local-level information
about implementation, including information gathered from the teacher
surveys. We use specific examples to highlight some promising practices
or some dilemmas or issues faced in the sites. We also try to make
comparisons between vocational and academic teachers and between
comprehensive high schools and vocational schools. In addition, we noted
when local respondents within a state were fairly uniform in their
descriptions of activities concerning state policy. A final section
presents conclusions.

This chapter examines several questions: What policies and practices do
states and localities adopt to improve the quality of vocational
education, especially with respect to the quality features embodied in
Perkins III? How widespread are these practices? Does vocational
education incorporate challenging academic and vocational standards? How
does Perkins III contribute to these improvements?

## Promote Academic and Technical Skill Attainment 

To improve vocational education outcomes, states and localities must
ensure that the curriculum and learning activities offered meet high
standards. Through Perkins accountability measures, states are
responsible for demonstrating that vocational education students attain
state-established academic and vocational skill competencies. To
accomplish this, states must first establish standards for localities to
adopt.

Where states do not develop standards, localities must define their own.
For vocational standards, schools can adopt standards defined by
industry groups or national initiatives, such as the Secretary's
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills from 1991. Once standards are
identified and adopted, states and localities can use them as guideposts
for curriculum alignment and development.

In addition to adopting and using standards, schools can take other
actions that promote higher levels of skill attainment. For example,
they can require academic math classes for vocational students, increase
the level of academics within a course so it can receive academic
credit, or design courses to achieve industry certification. Schools
also can participate in career and technical student organizations that
connect vocational education with industry and promote skill attainment
through their various activities.

### State Efforts

As discussed in the previous chapter, states have encouraged academic
attainment through the adoption of mandatory academic standards --- in
Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas --- or voluntary
ones --- California and Michigan --- and through the assessment of
students relative to those standards. The states in our sample have paid
less attention to the development of standards for vocational programs.
The two states that have developed mandatory vocational education course
standards --- Florida and North Carolina --- also are relatively more
centralized. Ohio also has mandatory standards, but only for programs
that seek Perkins funding and state approval. The other four states are
either in the process of developing vocational standards --- California,
Massachusetts and Michigan --- or their standards are voluntary ---
Texas.

Five states --- California, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Texas ---
reported working on activities to better align vocational courses with
the state's academic standards and assessments. Meanwhile all states in
the sample report encouraging the use of national or industry
certification programs or state licensure requirements as they develop
vocational programs and courses, as seen in Table 5.1.

######## Table 5.1 State Policies to Promote Quality

  ------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- -------------
                California       Florida         Massachusetts   Michigan         North Carolina   Ohio            Texas

  INTEGRATION                                                                                                      

  Adoption of   State funded New State funds     State funds     Advanced career  State funds SREB State supports  20 HSTW
  Integrated\   American High    SREB and        SREB and        academy funding  and supports     HSTW through    sites; state
  Models        Schools program; supports        supports        from state;      voluntary        Goals 2000      encourages
                California       voluntary       adoption of     Making           adoption of HSTW funds and other Tech-Prep
                Partnership      adoption of     HSTW through    Connections                       state funds     consortia to
                Academies        HSTW and Career modest funding  project                                           identify and
                                 Academies       to schools      incorporates                                      sponsor
                                 (partially      (\$2,500 each   integration                                       additional
                                 supported with  to 3 schools to                                                   HSTW sites
                                 STW funds)      act as                                                            
                                                 visitation                                                        
                                                 sites)                                                            

  Integrated    Cross-walking    State offers    HSTW intended   New curriculum   Explicitly       State developed Leadership
  Curriculum    health and       limited number  to whet the     development for  promoted in      integrated      funds
  Development   business         of              appetite of     each pathway;    Blueprints;      technical and   supported
                education with   demonstration   schools to      support for      state has        academic        state
                academic         grants for      pursue their    MCCTE state      developed        competencies    development
                standards to     schools to      own development curriculum       several courses  that are        of units in
                develop          develop         of units;       clearinghouse;   in business      cluster-level   specific
                integrated       integrated      clearinghouse   funding CORD to                   courses with    areas; RFA
                curriculum       curriculum      for curriculum  develop                           integrated      process to
                                 units           developed by    integrated math                   curriculum      fund
                                                 teachers        for auto                                          curriculum
                                                                 mechanics; used                                   development
                                                                 STW to support                                    projects
                                                                 some of these                                     
                                                                 integrated                                        
                                                                 curriculum                                        
                                                                 activities                                        

  Pathways/\    Tech-Prep;       All vocational  Moving toward   Curriculum       Four courses of  6 career        District must
  Clusters      career majors    education       organizing      organized around study with       pathways        offer 3 of 8
                aligned with 15  courses         offerings into  6 pathways with  differentiated   developed by    coherent
                industry sectors including those 7 career        41 career        diplomas offered state;          sequences of
                being developed. at              clusters        programs; STW    to all students; Tech-Prep       courses;
                Demonstration    postsecondary                   funds used to    required 9th                     state
                site in place    level organized                 develop pathways grade choice and                 published
                for each         into OCPs with                                   plan; vocational                 "Exploring
                cluster;         technical                                        education                        Career
                published        performance and                                  organized into                   Pathways" to
                implementation   skill standards                                  11 pathways                      aid choice
                guides                                                                                             
  ------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- -------------

  ------------ -------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------
               California     Florida          Massachusetts    Michigan      North Carolina   Ohio           Texas

  Work-based   Encourages     State            State supports   No explicit   Promoted through No explicit    Tech-Prep
  Learning     practices      established 17   apprenticeship   policy        Tech-Prep; state policy         programs
               connected with youth            and internship                 has                             evaluated on
               Tech-Prep,     apprenticeship   programs by                    apprenticeship                  work-based
               partnership    programs serving paying partial                 program,                        learning
               academies and  1,900 students   salaries of                    cooperative                     opportunities
               school to                       staff to develop               education                       
               career                          programs and                   program, and                    
               activities                      make                           internship                      
                                               connections;                   program; co-op                  
                                               programs must be               program has                     
                                               based on                       detailed                        
                                               materials and                  policies and                    
                                               guidelines                     procedures                      
                                               developed by                                                   
                                               state STW                                                      
                                               coordinator                                                    

  Generally    Some courses                                     Eliminate     Promoted through Eliminate      Accomplished
  Increase     meet academic                                    keyboarding   Blueprint, which industrial     through TEKS,
  Academic\    requirements                                     as CTE class  includes         arts,          incorporated
  Content of   for UC/CSU;                                      because of    academic skills  keyboarding,   into vocational
  Vocational   health science                                   low quality                    or general     courses on
  Courses      and business                                                                    courses as CTE voluntary
               crosswalk with                                                                  because of low basis;
               STAR;                                                                           quality; ITAC  sponsoring
               participate in                                                                  development to conferences to
               U.S. DOE skill                                                                  link           increase
               standards                                                                       vocational     academic and
               projects in                                                                     courses with   vocational
               health;                                                                         state academic content in
               establish                                                                       standards      courses
               Academic and                                                                                   
               Career                                                                                         
               Integration                                                                                    
               Office                                                                                         
  ------------ -------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------

  --------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------ --------------
                  California       Florida        Massachusetts   Michigan        North Carolina  Ohio         Texas

  STANDARDS                                                                                                    

  Vocational      Being developed  Standards      Moving toward   All vocational  Used leadership ITAC for     TEKS
  Course\         by CDE to        included in    certificates of standards are   funds to        some areas;  incorporated
  Standards       incorporate 10   the            occupational    voluntary;      develop         others being into voluntary
                  core elements    description of proficiency for career pathway  mandatory       developed    standards for
                                   occupational   the 7 new       leaders support Blueprint                    career and
                                   completer      clusters        use of any      curriculum                   technology
                                   points                         widely accepted frameworks for               areas; some
                                                                  skill           all vocational               CTE courses
                                                                  standards;      courses that                 receive
                                                                  health pathway  include                      science credit
                                                                  leaders         standards;                   
                                                                  involved in     leadership                   
                                                                  national skill  funds for                    
                                                                  standards       development of               
                                                                  project, now    bank of test                 
                                                                  used in health  items in VoCATS              
                                                                  programs;       end-of-course                
                                                                  out-of-date     exams                        
                                                                  business                                     
                                                                  curriculum                                   
                                                                  being entirely                               
                                                                  overhauled; T&I                              
                                                                  programs in                                  
                                                                  process of                                   
                                                                  restructuring                                
                                                                  to include                                   
                                                                  SCANS and Goals                              
                                                                  2000                                         

  Industry        State is pushing State          State will use  Being included  State is        Mandated for Used at
  Certification   for increased    including      in developing   in all 6 career pushing for use all          district
                  use of           certificates   the certificate pathways when   in all courses  automotive   discretion
                  certification,   for all        of occupational available;      and inclusion   programs;    
                  but this remains vocational     proficiency     health          in Blueprints   being        
                  voluntary and    courses as                     participated in                 included for 
                  incomplete       they are                       national                        other        
                                   available                      standards                       programs as  
                                                                  project                         developed    
  --------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------ --------------

  -------------- -------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------
                 California     Florida         Massachusetts     Michigan          North Carolina Ohio            Texas

  ALL ASPECTS OF Reorganizing   No explicit     Discussed as part No explicit       No explicit    Require local   Curriculum
  INDUSTRY       into 15        policy          of revisions to   policy            policy         plans to        development
                 industry                       business pathway.                                  specify budget  projects and
                 sectors that                                                                      activities      TEKS framework
                 create                                                                            related to AAI  support AAI
                 structure for                                                                                     
                 teaching AAI.                                                                                     

  PARENTAL AND   Promoting      Employers sit   Employers provide CPS legislation   Employers      Require local   Employer
  EMPLOYER       partnerships   on state boards input into        funds Council for specifically   plans to budget involvement
  INVOLVEMENT    with industry. for determining program decisions Career            *not* involved activities      encouraged
                 Will use       needed          through licensure Preparation       in development related to      through Perkins
                 employer group improvements    boards; schools   Standards, made   of Blueprints  collaboration   application
                 to develop     and new cluster must have         up of business,                  (links to       process; TEKS
                 performance    or program      site-based        education and                    business and    developed with
                 standards      offerings       councils and      labor                            community)      input from
                                                business advisory representatives                                  employers and
                                                boards                                                             parents

  LINKS TO POST                                                                                                    
  SECONDARY                                                                                                        

  General        Promoted       Promoted        Promoted through  Through adoption                 Through         Promoted
                 through school through use of  Tech-Prep program of Tech-Prep and                 adoption of     through
                 to career;     OCPs for K--16                    funds for                        HSTW (academics Tech-Prep
                 Tech-Prep;     system and                        advanced career                  at a higher     program;
                 Partnership    Tech-Prep; have                   academies                        standard) and   disseminate
                 Academy        encouraged                                                         Tech-Prep       "Educational
                 initiative     links to                                                           (state budgeted Opportunities
                                community                                                          additional      at Texas Public
                                colleges STW                                                       funds); require Schools" (1998)
                                                                                                   local plans to  to provide
                                                                                                   budget          information on
                                                                                                   collaboration   postsecondary
                                                                                                   with            opportunities
                                                                                                   postsecondary   statewide

  Scholarships                  State provides  State offers      Michigan Merit                                   
                                75 percent      limited number of Award program                                    
                                funding for any scholarships to   provides \$7,500                                 
                                postsecondary   University of     to any student                                   
                                for all         Massachusetts for scoring well on                                  
                                vocational      high-performing   MEAP or Work Keys                                
                                education       vocational                                                         
                                students with B education                                                          
                                average or      students                                                           
                                better (Bright                                                                     
                                Futures)                                                                           
  -------------- -------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------

  ------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ---------------
                California     Florida          Massachusetts   Michigan      North         Ohio         Texas
                                                                              Carolina                   

  Career                       State has funded                               Career        Career       Districts must
  Exploration                  computer-aided                                 exploration   planning     detail career
                               career                                         courses       required for exploration
                               exploration                                    required in   all 8th      efforts in
                               programs for                                   middle        graders      Perkins plan to
                               school adoption                                schools                    receive funding

  Counseling    4-year plan    State has funded                 Students      EDP to be                  Districts must
                encouraged for computer aided                   complete      developed by               detail
                all students   counseling                       Educational   9th grade and              counseling
                               programs for                     Development   annually                   efforts in
                               school adoption                  Plan in       reviewed by                Perkins plan to
                                                                middle school student and                receive funding
                                                                              counselor                  

  TECHNOLOGY    CDE promotes                    Education       Business/IT   Keyboarding a Creating     All students
                use of                          technology bond pathway       required      ITAC         required to
                technology                      where state     replaces old  course for    curriculum   complete a
                with state                      supplies        business ed   all students  materials in technology
                leadership                      matching funds  curriculum to               technology   credit; TEKS
                funds and                       to districts    incorporate                              outlines
                through                         with approved   IT;                                      required
                professional                    technology      Department of                            technology
                development                     plans; sponsors Education                                skills; state
                                                Tech Net Web    developing                               leadership
                                                site for        technology                               funds used for
                                                professional    content                                  distance
                                                development of  standards and                            learning
                                                teachers in     benchmarks                               demonstration
                                                technology                                               projects and
                                                                                                         professional
                                                                                                         development of
                                                                                                         teachers in
                                                                                                         technology
                                                                                                         applications
  ------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ---------------

  --------------- --------------- ---------- ---------------- ------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------
                  California      Florida    Massachusetts    Michigan      North Carolina  Ohio             Texas

  PROFESSIONAL                                                                                               
  DEVELOPMENT                                                                                                

  Teacher\        Works with CSU  Extra pay  Encourages       State reports Provides for    Provides         Using Web-based
  Certification   system to       for        lateral entry;   teacher       lateral entry   incentives for   certification
                  enhance teacher teachers   teachers must    shortage in   and has         national board   program for
                  recruitment and in         show relevant    14 CTE        supported East  certification;   rural areas
                  preparation,    shortage   work experience, categories    Carolina        traditional      
                  especially      areas;     pass competency  has relaxed   University      entry through    
                  helping         allows     tests, and       management    accelerated     teacher programs 
                  teachers use    lateral    acquire 24       regulations   licensure       requires passing 
                  block           entry, but semesters of     to get        program;        PRAXIS exam;     
                  scheduling to   district   state-mandated   retired       provides        lateral          
                  enhance         must       course work      teachers to   incentives for  enrollment       
                  contextual      develop                     return to the national board  provides         
                  learning;       own                         classroom     certification   provisional      
                  encourages      policies                                                  license and      
                  vocational                                                                requires         
                  teachers to                                                               additional       
                  acquire                                                                   educational      
                  academic                                                                  course work over 
                  certification                                                             several years;   
                  to help teach                                                             certifies        
                  remedial math                                                             qualifying       
                  and English                                                               vocational       
                  courses;                                                                  teachers in      
                  collaborates                                                              academic areas   
                  with California                                                           so some          
                  Commission on                                                             vocational       
                  Teacher                                                                   classes receive  
                  Credentialing                                                             academic credit  
                  to ensure                                                                                  
                  standards are                                                                              
                  reflected in                                                                               
                  professional                                                                               
                  development                                                                                
                  activities                                                                                 
  --------------- --------------- ---------- ---------------- ------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------

  ------------- ------------------- -------------- --------------- ----------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------
                California          Florida        Massachusetts   Michigan          North Carolina Ohio           Texas

  Staff\        Supports            Supports       Leadership      Sponsorship of    State sponsors Organizes      Leadership
  Development   professional        professional   funds used to   career academy    annual summer  professional   funds for
                development through development    support         model and Making  professional   development    professional
                sponsorship of      through        curriculum      Connections       development    through        development and
                integrated models;  sponsorship of resources       (includes         conference for pathway        development of
                sponsors statewide  HSTW; delivers center and      externship); 10   vocational     structure;     certification
                conferences for     professional   summer          percent of state  teachers and   supports       program at
                partnership         development    institutes      Perkins funds     externships    professional   universities
                academies,          and technical  including       used for teacher  for teachers;  development    for teachers,
                Tech-Prep; supports assistance     yearly          education and     funds          through        especially in
                California Mentor   through        conferences on  professional      professional   sponsorship of technology
                Teacher Program and regional area  STW, Tech-Prep, development;      development on HSTW           applications;
                beginning teacher   directors and  HSTW, and       Perkins funds     the VoCATs;                   sponsoring
                support and         area centers   Perkins;        used to support   supports                      conferences to
                assessment; uses    for            general state   curriculum        professional                  increase
                leadership funds    educational    funds supply    clearinghouse;    development                   academic and
                for professional    enhancement;   \$125 per FTE   sponsors          through                       vocational
                development and     has Workforce  to each         spring/summer     sponsorship of                content in
                technical           Development    district for    updates on        HSTW                          courses;
                assistance on       Specialist in  professional    progress for                                    statewide
                standards-based     each center to development;    teachers,                                       conferences for
                curriculum,         support        state requires  quarterly meeting                               CTE and
                articulation,       standards,     15 percent of   of CTE                                          academic
                interdisciplinary   HSTW,          Perkins local   administrators;                                 teachers
                career paths, and   integrated     funds be        supports one-day                                
                work-based          learning, and  applied to      orientation for                                 
                connections;        other          professional    new teachers,                                   
                supports committees practices      development     two-day workshop                                
                that identify                                      on writing, and                                 
                professional                                       one-day workshop                                
                development needs                                  on writing                                      
                                                                   objectives for                                  
                                                                   each pathway                                    
  ------------- ------------------- -------------- --------------- ----------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------

However, not all vocational or occupational areas have widely accepted
industry standards. In some states, such as Texas, adoption is
voluntary; others, such as Ohio, mandate use of industry standards in
some programs.

### Local Efforts

At the local level, teachers have been affected by the states' move
toward academic standards and by the standards movement in general. For
example, in the survey most teachers reported that some type of
standards existed for their "specified" class: 92.4 percent of academic
teachers compared to 82.3 percent of vocational teachers (p \< .001, see
Table D.14). Academic teachers were significantly more likely to report
that state and district standards were relevant to their class, while
vocational teachers were more cognizant of industry standards. For
teachers who reported existence of a standard related to the selected
class, most teachers said that standards influenced their teaching to a
"moderate" or "great" extent. The differences between academic and
vocational teachers were not significant, as seen in Table D.15. Thus,
when teachers have identified standards that apply to their class, they
report that the standards influence their teaching.

Respondents at most sites --- 25 out of 28 --- reported during our field
visits that state academic standards had affected the vocational
courses. The only sites not reporting this were in Michigan and Ohio, as
seen in Table C.3. Respondents at 24 sites reported feeling under
pressure to raise the academic content in vocational courses.
Twenty-three out of 28 sites reported that the academic testing regime
was influential in establishing content in vocational courses --- only
sites in California and Ohio did not report this. Oftentimes, this was
through the inclusion of academic skill practice in vocational courses
--- for example, inclusion of high-level math or required writing. Fewer
sites --- 20 out of 28 --- reported that state vocational exams
influenced the content of vocational courses, in part because of the
lack of such exams in several sample states or because of their
voluntary nature.

Most sites had moved or were moving toward the inclusion of industry
standards in their vocational courses. Respondents at 26 sites in the
field sample noted the influence of these standards, while respondents
at 16 said one or more vocational courses earn industry certification.
This finding was confirmed in the survey analysis. In the survey,
vocational teachers were significantly more likely than academic
teachers to report that their class led to a certificate of occupational
skills --- 37.7 and 4.1 percent for vocational and academic teachers,
respectively, as seen in Table D.11.

As indicated in the previous chapter, the increasing influence of
academic achievement in vocational courses was seen as both a blessing
and a curse. Local respondents were quite positive about the increased
emphasis on academics, stating that all students needed greater than
basic skills in reading, writing and math to successfully navigate in
today's world. On the other hand, some vocational teachers thought the
emphasis on academics ate away time that previously had been dedicated
to vocational skills. Given the increased emphasis by vocational
teachers on industry-based standards, many vocational teachers reported
being stretched to meet both academic and vocational standards given
that the school day and year had not been increased.

Higher standards have been incorporated in other ways, but these varied
between academic and vocational teachers. In the survey, teachers
reported on a set of specific features that are indicative of academic
or technical quality, as seen in Table D.11. Academic teachers were more
than twice as likely as vocational teachers to report that their
"identified" class fulfilled an academic requirement --- 84 and 42.1
percent, respectively, p \< .001 --- and to report that it was an
"honors" class --- 24.6 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, p \<
.001. Vocational teachers were more likely to report that this class had
an articulation agreement; was part of a Tech-Prep, pre-apprenticeship
or academy program; and included a paid internship or job shadowing. The
percentage of vocational teachers' classes fulfilling a graduation
requirement --- 41.2 percent --- is higher than any other reported
feature. This suggests that vocational classes are at least aiming to
meet some academic standards in addition to incorporating many of the
features one expects to be associated with a quality career and
technical education.

Similarly, in our site visits, only 13 sites noted that they had one or
more vocational courses that met academic standards for college
acceptance. Meanwhile 17 noted that some vocational courses did receive
college credit --- sometimes through dual enrollment --- for vocational
career paths, as seen in Table C.3. Twenty-two sites reported that
vocational classes had articulation agreements, as seen in Table C.5.

A third indicator that teachers promote higher achievement is the amount
of homework that teachers assign to students. Surveyed teachers reported
the amount of homework --- in hours and minutes --- assigned to students
in the identified class in the last five school days. Academic teachers
assigned significantly more homework than vocational teachers --- 2.9
and 1.4 hours per week, respectively, see Table D.18. Average hours of
homework assigned did not significantly differ for teachers in
comprehensive high schools compared to those in vocational schools, as
seen in Table D.19.

To further explore the differences between the quality of academic and
vocational teachers' classes, we developed a "quality index" consisting
of some of the individual items just discussed. The index is comprised
of six individual scales, and has a maximum value of nine points. The
variables used to create the scales measure several characteristics of
the selected class: the extent to which state, district, school or
industry standards affect instruction; academic quality --- fulfills
academic requirement, is designated as honors, has an articulation
agreement; technical quality --- leads to a skills certificate, includes
related paid internship; the extent to which certain academic and
technical competencies contributed to students' grades in the class;
teacher quality --- whether a teacher has a certificate in primary
teaching area; and amount of homework. (Appendix A describes the
derivation of the quality scale in more detail.)

Using scale scores, we examined differences between academic and
vocational teachers, as seen in Table D.23. Overall, classes taught by
academic teachers score significantly higher than those taught by
vocational teachers, although the absolute difference is not that large
--- 5.08 and 4.62, respectively, of a maximum of nine points. Academic
teachers scored significantly higher than vocational teachers on several
individual scales: influence of standards, academic quality and
homework. Academic teachers were also more likely than vocational
teachers to be certified in their primary teaching field, but most
teachers were so certified --- 97 and 93 percent, respectively.
Vocational teachers scored significantly higher than academic teachers
on the two remaining individual scales: technical quality and
contribution of competencies to students' grades.

This analysis of case-study and survey data leads to the following broad
conclusions about efforts to raise standards.

-   Academic and vocational teachers are being influenced by standards
    and assessments to improve the quality of their instruction across
    all states with little difference among respondents within states.

-   These attempts and influences differ somewhat between the two
    groups.

-   Academic teachers report being influenced by the academic standards,
    but few report being influenced by vocational ones.

-   While vocational teachers have attempted to increase the academic
    content of their courses, they also are guided by industry standards
    and expectations.

## Integration of Academic and Vocational Education 

The concept of integration is central to the program improvements in
Perkins: indeed, many of the other improvements serve to enhance
integration. States are required to describe how they will improve
programs by strengthening the integration of academic with vocational
and technical components through a coherent sequence of courses.[^17] In
addition, many other features of integration have been defined that can
help promote learning (e.g., Grubb et al., 1992). These fall into two
broad categories: structure and curriculum.

By structure we refer to the organization and sequencing of courses or
experiences designed to aid the student to develop higher and deeper
levels of understanding and career preparation. In addition, it refers
to the opportunities provided by the course scheduling for teachers to
work together to develop and present a more integrated curriculum.

Schools can align academic and vocational courses either by ensuring
that courses taken concurrently are related to one another in content
--- horizontal alignment, meaning courses taken at the same time --- or
that courses form a sequence overtime that reinforce each other ---
vertical alignment, meaning over the four-year high school period. The
"coherent sequence" is often translated into a minimum number of
vocational classes in order to define a vocational student or program.
Ideally, this sequence would also incorporate horizontal or vertical
alignment, or both.

Schools can also organize single courses or programs more broadly, for
example, by creating career pathways or majors. They can adopt reform
models that explicitly support integration, through vertical and
horizontal alignment, such as career academies or High Schools That Work
.

Schools can group students within pathways, clusters or academies so
students focusing in a particular career area take their academic and
vocational courses together.

Structural support for teachers to develop integrated curriculum
includes team teaching and common planning time for teachers. These
provide the opportunities for teachers, especially vocational and
academic teachers, to work together to create projects and experiences
that seamlessly meld academic and vocational content and skills. Schools
can adopt block scheduling to support planning or curriculum
integration.

Integration also refers to curricular innovations in which vocational
and academic materials are more easily and naturally combined instead of
the more traditional separation by course. Schools can adopt strategies
to incorporate more academic content into vocational courses, modify
academic courses to make them more relevant to vocational studies ---
such as through adoption of applied academics curriculum or through such
integrated curriculum models as High Schools That Work --- require
projects that force students to integrate learning from different
classes, and encourage project-based learning in which students
demonstrate application of academic and vocational knowledge, such as
designing a product or building a house.

Note that simply increasing academic content in vocational courses does
not constitute integration. This simply manifests an attempt to cover
academic curriculum. Integration requires the skillful blending of
academic and vocational content to help students understand the workings
of the world and better learn needed job skills.

Schools also can enhance integration by more directly connecting school
learning to work, perhaps in a vertical sequence. This can be
accomplished by providing different kinds of learning opportunities that
take students to workplaces --- such as job shadowing and paid or unpaid
work-based learning --- and by explicitly connecting school learning and
work-based learning --- such as in seminars that discuss students' work
experiences or in work-based learning plans. As discussed below, strong
connections to employers can enhance the quality of these school-to-work
connections.

### State Efforts

All state respondents were cognizant of integration concepts and fluent
in the language of integration. They also seemed to be highly supportive
of the integration approach first discussed in Perkins II. The sample
states have adopted several policies, in addition to Tech-Prep, to
enhance integration.

Every state in the sample has begun, if not completed, the
reorganization of vocational programs into career pathways or clusters
to create more coherent and sequential courses of study. These tend to
vary by state (see Table 5.1). For example, Michigan has developed six
different pathways with 41 career programs while Massachusetts is in the
process of developing seven career clusters.

The systems in Florida and North Carolina stand out as providing the
most coherent vocational pathway structures. Florida has done away with
stand-alone vocational courses. The state established career pathways or
ladders through its Occupational Completer Point system --- discussed in
Chapter Four --- that organizes courses into industry-related clusters.
In addition, this system provides coherent sequences of courses ---
vertical alignment --- with specific sequences for each job or completer
point --- the point of exit from school and entrance into a job --- for
grades 9--16.

North Carolina's mandated system of four courses of study, also
discussed in Chapter Four, incorporates career clusters vertically
aligned with a statewide articulation agreement and dual-enrollment
policy for all secondary and postsecondary institutions. As in Florida,
this was possible because of the strong centralized character of the
state educational system. The more recent changes in North Carolina were
still being implemented at the time of the visits to local sites.

Five states --- Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas
--- have adopted the Southern Regional Education Board's High Schools
That Work whole-school reform model. Other states, including California,
Florida, North Carolina and Michigan, support the Career Academy model.
This model adopts a school-within-a-school structure that groups
teachers and students in a vertically-integrated career cluster;
students are grouped to take their academic and vocational courses
together. All seven states reported sponsoring curriculum development
and dissemination as another approach to getting integrated curriculum
into classrooms.

Integration also may be enhanced through work-based learning. Not every
state had a set of explicit policies for work-based learning. Florida,
Massachusetts and North Carolina emphasized this component more than
other states. For example, Massachusetts supports both apprenticeship
and internship programs for students. State employees work with
employers to develop such programs at the local level and to connect
students with work opportunities. The programs are based on materials
developed by the state and include specific guidelines for work-based
learning activities and experiences.

### Local Efforts

The analyses of school-level data indicate that some forms of integrated
structures were more readily adopted than others. For example, while 13
of the 28 sites reported still having vocational stand-alone courses not
connected in any sequence, 25 of the 28 reported having some vertical
alignment of vocational courses and/or career pathways, as seen in Table
C.1.

In Florida and North Carolina, all sites reported using the
state-mandated, vertically-aligned sequences of courses and, along with
Massachusetts, reported no stand-alone courses. In Florida, site
respondents praised the system for making course-taking more coherent
and understandable to students. All schools had pamphlets that clearly
delineated the sequences and choices of pathways for students. All
schools in these two states reported having vertically-aligned
curriculum and de facto articulation agreements with local colleges in
place stemming from the strong state support for K--16 course sequences.
These clear pathways might have enabled the Florida schools to more
readily adopt academies. Three of the four schools we visited had
created career academies.

In North Carolina, all schools had adopted the state courses of study
--- although not all were fully implemented --- and were beginning to
implement the counseling programs that supported the students' choices.
Respondents did not see the requirement to choose a course of study as
limiting or tracking students: "Students will still have lots of choices
upon graduation . . . this approach ensures that they are adequately
prepared for their choices." However, administrators also noted that it
may be difficult for students to change after grade 10 because of
prerequisite requirements, course load and scheduling issues.

Ten of the local sites have adopted career academies, while 18 reported
having adopted some type of curriculum model that includes vertical
integration, such as HSTW or Accelerated Schools.

Sixteen of the schools reported using block scheduling, which allows for
longer class periods for project-based work. All the schools in North
Carolina reported using block scheduling, in part because the courses of
study encourage this approach and promote it through workshops and
conferences. Block scheduling allows students to complete the increased
requirements included in the courses of study.

In contrast, the supports needed for teacher-to-teacher interactions and
time for developing integrated curriculum were much less evident in the
sample sites. Only seven schools in the sample reported any kind of team
teaching and this was always among only a handful of teachers in the
schools. In the national survey, only 9.4 percent of academic teachers
and 12.7 percent of vocational teachers reported jointly teaching a
course with a teacher of another subject area during the past year, as
seen in Table D.4. Vocational teachers and teachers in vocational
schools are slightly more likely to report team teaching than are
academic teachers and teachers in comprehensive high schools (Table
D.5).

Similarly, only six schools in the case-study sample reported having
common planning time between vocational and academic teachers so that
they could jointly plan and deliver integrated curriculum. In the
survey, teachers reported little opportunity for joint planning, as seen
in Tables D.29 and D.30. About 60 percent of academic and vocational
teachers reported that the school offers *no* time for planning during
the school day --- 61.2 and 60.1 percent, respectively, p \< .07.
Teachers in comprehensive schools were a little less likely to report
time for joint planning than those in vocational schools --- 61.6 and
50.8 percent, respectively.

Although the schools did not provide planning time, teachers
collaborated on their own for purposes of developing overall curriculum,
discussing student progress, developing assessments, or planning field
trips or other activities. More than half of the teachers surveyed
reported some type of collaboration during the current school year, as
seen in Table D.29. Academic teachers reported that they are much more
likely to work with other academic teachers than with vocational
teachers, while vocational teachers seem to collaborate as frequently
with both types of teachers. We found similar patterns in the
local-level case-study data.

Other forms of curricular integration that appeared to be adopted by
many schools in at least some vocational programs included project-based
learning (23 sites), better connections to work through opportunities to
job shadow or have guest speakers (24 sites), and the opportunity for
work-based learning (27 sites, see Table C.2). Few sites, however,
adopted senior projects (10 sites) or had school-based enterprises (10
sites).

We note that while respondents at the school level said these types of
activities or curricular opportunities existed in their schools, they
were neither available to all students nor could respondents report that
such practices as project-based learning were uniform across all
classes. Here, it is important to distinguish between increasing the
academic content of vocational courses and using an integrated
curriculum. Many respondents, as noted in the previous chapter, reported
using more vocational time to cover academic subjects in preparation for
state assessments. We do not consider this in keeping with the notion of
integrated curriculum, although it could be considered an attempt to
provide more rigorous academic curriculum to all students. Here, we
probed for attempts to merge academic and vocational content, often
through real-life problem-solving or project-based activities, into a
seamless curriculum. This latter idea did not seem to be adopted at many
sites.

Probing often revealed that teachers had only one or two integrated
curriculum units lasting perhaps a day or so. As examples:

-   The agricultural sequence at one school in California ---
    Agriculture Science I and II, Animal Anatomy and Physiology, and
    Environmental Agriculture Science --- incorporated learning of
    communication skills, laboratory skills, specific scientific
    knowledge --- for example, the metric system --- and application of
    science knowledge in specific areas of agriculture. The teachers
    mapped the curriculum against the science standards, and the courses
    received science credit.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A health teacher and a math teacher in a North Carolina school
    worked together to develop a three-day or four-day unit during which
    students would assess their nutritional needs and their actual
    intake, using basic math concepts to keep accurate track of the
    student's actual versus ideal intake.

-   A school in Florida had been designated a New Millennium school.
    Teachers were just beginning to get together to develop a more
    integrated curriculum. Academic and vocational teachers were only
    just receiving professional development on how to do this.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A school in North Carolina had sent all the vocational teachers to
    professional development on integrated curriculum writing, but none
    of the academic teachers had attended. Each vocational teacher was
    given an assignment to meet with an academic teacher and develop a
    unit of integrated curriculum. Because the school had no common
    planning time, vocational teachers chose whichever academic teacher
    was available to partner with, even if the pairing made little sense
    in terms of course content or purpose.

-   A Medical Preparation program in Ohio emphasized a "hands-on"
    approach in the anatomy and physiology course, as well as critical
    thinking exercises, where students were given a problem situation to
    think through and solve. The class was organized into teams, and
    students had to "apply" for the job of head nurse. The teacher
    "hired" a head for each team, who was responsible for the work of
    the whole team. Project work was common and students worked in teams
    for at least half of the daily class time.

Even in Florida and North Carolina, which appeared able to get local
sites to adopt the structural components of integration, the study found
far fewer examples of curricular integration than one might hope to
find. While states have supported integration with conferences; staff
development; and, in the case of Massachusetts, Ohio and Michigan,
clearinghouses of integrated curricular units, most teachers in our site
visits could only describe very limited attempts at a truly integrated
curriculum.

Why is integration so difficult? Teachers often reported that lack of
funding for professional development, lack of common planning time or
lack of interest posed barriers to the demanding work of curricular
integration at the teacher level. In some cases, the separation of
academic and vocational programs in different schools --- such as area
vocational schools and regional occupational programs --- worked against
integration. Underlying all of this was the increased emphasis on
standards-based academic curriculum and assessments and separately
developed voluntary (in most cases) standards for vocational skills. The
more clearly separate standards had been articulated in the academic or
vocational disciplines and the more states had developed mandated
curriculum in these subjects, the more teachers reported difficulty in
even conceptualizing how to develop integrated curriculum. In other
words, lack of jointly developed and integrated curriculum standards put
most of the burden of integrated curriculum development on already
overworked teachers.

The teacher survey results echo the case studies in showing little
evidence of integration. According to teacher reports, student
activities most associated with integration are more prevalent in
vocational classes than in academic classes.[^18] Survey data, as seen
in Table D.26, indicated that academic teachers report more frequent use
of the type of activities associated with more didactic instruction ---
listening to a lecture, writing a paragraph, receiving a homework
assignment, or taking a test or quiz. Vocational teachers, on the other
hand, report significantly more frequent use of hands-on or applied
activities (work on extended projects, "applied academics" curriculum,
application of academic skills to tasks that might be found in a job or
career), technology-related activities (use computers, instruments,
tools or equipment; use the Internet to conduct research; use technology
in industry or postsecondary setting), career exploration activities,
and activities involving distance learning.

Similarly, teachers reported differences when asked to indicate to what
extent certain competencies contribute to students' grades in the
identified class, as seen in Table D.17. For about a third of academic
and vocational teachers, "basic math skills" contribute to students'
grades to "a great extent." For all other academic competencies ---
advanced math, basic and advanced reading, writing skills --- academic
teachers were significantly more likely than vocational teachers to
report that these competencies contributed "a great extent" to students'
grades. In contrast, vocational competencies --- job specific skills,
general employability skills and ability to apply academic concepts to
occupation-related tasks --- are significantly more important to
vocational teachers.

Following the previous National Assessment of Vocational Education
(1994b), competencies on the list provided to teachers can be
interpreted in the context of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving
Necessary Skills. With respect to SCANS-related competencies ---
teamwork skills, research or reference skills, and ability to use
technology to solve problems --- teachers do not differ in reporting the
contribution of "research/reference skills": vocational teachers are
significantly more likely to report that teamwork and technology use
contributed to grades to "a great extent." With respect to SCANS-related
foundation skills (oral communication, creative thinking and
problem-solving), teachers do not differ in reporting the contribution
of thinking and problem-solving. Vocational teachers are significantly
more likely to report that oral communication skills contribute to
grades to "a great extent." Overall, these findings are consistent with
what might be expected: academic and vocational teachers continue to
emphasize different kinds of knowledge and skill development in their
classes.

In summary, state and local efforts appear to have focused heavily on
structural components of integration and have successfully implemented
some of these components at the local level. In some cases, these
changes represent true reform, while in others, they are labels that
have been adopted without much alteration to the status quo. Integration
of curriculum has proven more fleeting even though states have supported
it through professional development, curriculum development and adoption
of model programs. Lack of common planning time, lack of block
scheduling, different foci of professional development between academic
and vocational teachers, and increased mandated standards and curriculum
that appear on the surface to discourage integration might all
contribute to this state of affairs.

## All Aspects of the Industry

All Aspects of the Industry was first mentioned in Perkins II and called
for students to have "strong experience in and an understanding of those
aspects of the industry the students are preparing to enter." This means
that courses should include such topics as planning, management,
finance, technical and production skills, underlying principals of
technology, labor issues, community issues, and health, safety, and
environmental issues. In practice, AAI is implemented in various ways
but is primarily thought of as a way to organize curriculum (e.g., Finch
et al., 1999). AAI is present to the extent that these types of topics
are incorporated in a program's learning activities.

#### ***State and Local Efforts***

Interviews with state officials and document review did not uncover many
direct policies to encourage an understanding of AAI. This does not
necessarily mean it has fallen by the wayside. Rather, AAI appears to be
addressed in the context of other policies. However, the term "all
aspects" was rarely used at the state or local level, with a few
exceptions, such as in Ohio. It appears that Perkins is not stimulating
the adoption of this concept in vocational education curriculum to any
great extent.

## Parent and Employer Involvement

As described in Perkins, a quality vocational program is one that
actively engages the identified stakeholders --- including students,
parents, teachers, employers and community members --- in program
development, implementation and evaluation. An effective program will
include processes to inform stakeholders about the programs, to utilize
their skills and interests to improve the program and broaden
opportunities for students, and to build on relationships thus developed
to promote program goals. Especially crucial is the extensive
involvement of labor groups and businesses to provide information about
changes in the workplace that affect education programs. The literature
suggests that teachers, especially vocational teachers, may play a
significant role in connecting with and involving employers (Rosenbaum
and Jones, 1995). Parent support also is known to play an important role
in student attainment.

### State Efforts

The Perkins legislation does not appear to be generating much attention
to the issue of parental involvement. Few states have direct policies to
involve parents, although this does not mean that parents are not
involved.

Queries regarding employer involvement were more fruitful. All states
reported having implemented school-level and program-level advisory
committees in compliance with Perkins rules and regulations. Another way
to involve employers and the community is through career and technical
student organizations. A few states reported using state leadership
funds to support these organizations.

### Local Efforts

Data from the teacher survey indicate that vocational teachers --- and
teachers in vocational schools --- had significantly greater contacts
with representatives of business, industry or labor groups than academic
teachers did. More than 40 percent of academic teachers had no contact
at all, compared to only 8 percent of vocational teachers, as seen in
Table D.8. More than half of vocational teachers worked with employers
on advisory committees (57.5 percent), had employers make class
presentations (52.1 percent), discussed skill needs with employers (66.8
percent), visited a work site (57.7 percent) and referred students for
placement (68.6 percent). Comparable percentages for academic teachers
were in the range 12.5 to 39 percent. Similarly, teachers in vocational
schools had more contact overall for every type of activity than did
teachers in comprehensive schools, as seen in Table D.9.

This pattern repeated itself among the subset of academic and vocational
teachers who taught a vocational or career-oriented class as part of
their primary teaching assignment --- 98 academic teachers and 827
vocational teachers. Vocational teachers reported significantly greater
involvement than academic teachers of vocational or career-oriented
classes; the most frequent types of involvement concerned input on skill
requirements (28.6 percent), followed by review of overall curriculum
(25.8 percent), and advice on the selection of instruments, tools or
equipment (20.2 percent, see Table D.21). These findings indicate that
academic teachers, even when they are teaching career-oriented classes,
have more limited contact with employers than vocational teachers do.
Similarly, teachers of career-oriented courses in vocational schools ---
primarily vocational teachers --- were much more likely to have all
types of employer involvement in the identified class than would
teachers in comprehensive schools, as seen in Table D.22.

These survey findings are quite consistent with the case studies, where
22 schools reported having industry advisory groups. Specifically, these
groups provided insights on curriculum (14 sites) or advised on industry
skill needs (17 sites). Local practitioners reported extensive
involvement with employers, particularly in Michigan and Ohio, through
advisory groups or through the provision of work experiences (20 sites)
or hiring of students (21 sites). Respondents at 14 sites reported that
businesses had made significant donations of equipment or materials or
assisted with funding.

In some states, involvement was either not as widespread or was stronger
in some programs than others. For example, in California the career
academy programs and regional occupational programs[^19] had more
connections to employers than other types (see summary, Table C.4).

## Connections to Postsecondary 

Traditionally, vocational education in secondary schools was primarily
geared to preparing students for work right after high school.
Increasingly, it aims to prepare students for work and further
education, and federal funds support activities that help make that
connection. Perkins III directs states to link secondary vocational and
technical education and postsecondary vocational and technical
education.

Formal connections to postsecondary institutions --- primarily community
colleges --- are usually accomplished through articulation agreements
that enable students to receive college credit for high school courses.
More informal collaborations may involve local administrators and
teachers from both institutions who meet to share information about
college requirements or the labor market, develop curriculum for a
vocational program or pathway, or

share laboratory or other equipment.

Another way that secondary schools link to postsecondary education is
through guidance and counseling services. In this case the interest is
not just college choice and matriculation --- the usual function of high
school guidance counselors --- but career planning. A comprehensive
career-planning program might begin prior to high school and include
career exploration activities or an introduction to high school
programs. High schools typically hold "career and college" nights during
which parents and students can learn about postsecondary and career
opportunities. Some may hold separate events. High schools may require
career planning, regularly updated and involving parents of all
students. Schools may offer more in-depth activities, such as special
classes for work-readiness, career development or awareness, or a course
where students learn about different career pathways before they choose
which one to enter. The study investigated the extent and depth of these
activities, as well as the availability of specialized or trained staff
to conduct career counseling and guidance --- for example,
school-to-career coordinators, dedicated career counselors or staff
development for counselors who engage in career planning.

### State Efforts

States use multiple mechanisms to promote connections between secondary
vocational programs and postsecondary institutions. By far the most
structured means is through Tech-Prep programs and related policies, as
discussed further in the next chapter. States have also adopted
integrated curriculum models that specify links to postsecondary
institutions as a component of the model --- for example, career
academies. In addition, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and
Texas promote links to postsecondary through career counseling, career
exploration courses, computer-based counseling programs available to all
schools, or scholarships.

Several states mandated or strongly emphasized career planning ---
California, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio --- and nearly
all sites in these states reported that students developed career plans.
Several states have invested in computer software to provide students
with the counseling they need. Florida in particular has invested in
this manner to support student's understanding of the Occupational
Completer Point system and the vertical pathways available. The software
even identifies the postsecondary institutions that offer the pathway of
interest. All students are encouraged to use this system to develop
their career plans in the eighth grade.

Three states discussed scholarships with students as a way to encourage
further education. Massachusetts and Michigan have scholarship programs
that any student can apply for and thus they support vocational
postsecondary attendance.

Florida's Bright Futures Program was unique in offering specific
scholarships for vocational students. The program is a merit-based
scholarship that encourages college attendance. Under the Gold Seal
Vocational Scholars Awards, vocational students with a GPA of 3.0 or
better and specific minimum test scores can get 75 percent of their
tuition and fees paid by the state in any public or private
postsecondary institution in Florida.

Before leaving this subject, we need to make a brief observation about
the local impact of the Florida's Bright Futures Program. Both state and
local respondents reported that this program has had a profound effect
on students' and parents' attitudes toward vocational education. The
program has made clear that vocational education is valued and can lead
to well-paying careers. All school districts and school respondents knew
about this program and indicated it sent clear signals to students and
parents that vocational education "counted for something." While no one
could provide specific evidence, many reported that this program enabled
Florida to maintain high vocational program enrollments.

### Local Efforts

To assess involvement between secondary schools and postsecondary
institutions the survey asked how often --- during the current school
year --- teachers participated in several coordinated activities with
faculty or staff from postsecondary institutions. The responses varied
significantly by academic and vocational teachers.

More than half of the academic teachers --- 52.3 percent --- reported no
coordination at all, compared to about one-fourth of vocational teachers
--- 25.7 percent, as seen in Table D.6. Compared with academic teachers,
vocational teachers reported significantly more coordination of any
type, for such purposes as curriculum and lesson planning, sharing
technology or equipment, discussing student postsecondary preparation,
working on articulation agreements and exchanging employer contacts.
Except for planning specific lessons or units, all coordination
activities occurred significantly more frequently among teachers in
vocational schools than teachers in comprehensive high schools (see
Table D.7).

Overall, these survey results only partly correspond to the case-study
findings. Across the case-study sites, the most common and frequent
connections --- at 14 of the sites --- between high schools and
postsecondary schools were found in the development of articulation
agreements through which high school courses would receive credit at
community colleges or, in a few instances, four-year institutions (see
Table C.5).

In a few states --- notably Ohio --- the local practitioners also
reported a variety of connections with postsecondary institutions,
including having faculty on advisory boards, sharing information on
requirements, and joint curriculum or program planning. The case studies
turned up far fewer of these types of activities than suggested by the
survey.

The frequency of connections for the purposes of developing articulation
agreements found in both survey and case-study data suggests the
influence of Tech-Prep. Articulation agreements are a distinguishing
feature of Tech-Prep, and, because Tech-Prep is a vocational education
reform, one might expect vocational teachers to be more involved in this
activity than academic teachers.

Another way that high schools connect with postsecondary institutions is
through guidance and counseling and, in particular, career planning.
However, according to the teacher survey, almost two-thirds of schools
--- 64.3 percent --- did not require students to develop a career plan,
although about 16 percent of schools required written career plans for
some students. Planning was more frequent in vocational schools than in
comprehensive high schools (see Table D.10).

In contrast to this national picture, career planning was reportedly
fairly common in the case-study sites and took different forms.
Twenty-two sites reported requiring the students to complete a four-year
plan for high school, as seen in Table C.6. Seventeen sites reported
regular review of these plans. Nineteen schools reported providing
career planning prior to high school --- often a career exposure class
or seminar in the eighth grade. Twenty sites reported using career
fairs, and 22 reported using career inventories to aid students in their
choice of careers and relevant courses.

Across the states, counseling services --- including dedicated career
counselors --- seemed more widespread in "high"-performing schools,
whereas "low"-performing schools tended to engage students in a
career-planning process through activities embedded in coursework.

## Technology

Perkins III emphasizes the more effective use of technology in
classrooms to encourage better preparation of students for work and
postsecondary education. It specifically encourages teacher training to
use state-of-the-art technology, including distance learning, training
in academic and technical skills to prepare vocational and technical
education students to enter high-technology and communications fields,
and program development in high-technology fields. Not mentioned in
Perkins, but found in other literature and the National Education Goals
is the growing need for all students to become computer-literate. In
this report, we focused on identifying policies to support the effective
uses of technology in vocational programs, access to and quality of
technology --- as judged by teachers --- teacher preparation, and, to a
lesser extent, the uses of technology in instruction.

### State Efforts

States have promoted the expansion, development and use of technology,
but this does not seem to be a priority area specific to vocational
education. Rather, where policies are in place, they tend to apply to
all students and programs. For example, several states have technology
education guidelines or goals for all students, and these apply to
vocational programs.

Two states specifically require students to take a technology credit for
graduation, North Carolina and Texas. Other states endeavor to include
student technology skill acquisition as part of the vocational course
standards. For example, these are included in the North Carolina
Blueprints. California, Michigan and Texas have specific programs to
promote technology skills in teachers.

### Local Efforts

At the sample sites, 14 schools had a technology policy and 17 schools
had requirements for computer literacy for graduation, as seen in Table
C.7. Thirteen sites reported having "high-tech" programs --- such as
Cisco and pre-engineering --- or computer-based courses such as CAD/CAM.
Twenty-two sites reported that they emphasize computer-based skills in
the curriculum.

The "high-tech" programs visited, however, were of varying quality. A
few examples stood out as state-of-the-art --- for example, a program in
Michigan sponsored by General Motors --- but teachers at many sites were
not satisfied with the quality or amount of technology available to
them.

Three sites in California happened to be "Digital High Schools,"
providing a glimpse of what could be done to encourage the use of
technology. These schools had a schoolwide technology policy applied to
all students, not just vocational students and programs. Extra funds
were available to these schools to support technology, including funds
for staff development for all teachers. This staff development was
somewhat general and did not emphasize curriculum integration.

Importantly, districts and schools in the field sample emphasized the
criticality of Perkins funding for the acquisition of technology. This
was a major source of technology funding for vocational courses at 25 of
the 28 sites. At many of these sites, it was the major use of Perkins
funds at the local level.

As one California teacher explained, "Teachers are constantly fighting
for equipment. Perkins saves our rear end. If it weren't for Perkins,
we'd be dead."

A few items on the teacher survey asked about technology-related issues
in career-related or vocational classes only. Academic and vocational
teachers who taught a career-related or vocational class reported on the
availability and quality of technology --- including computers,
instruments, tools or equipment --- in the class. Specifically, they
reported on whether or not certain conditions posed a problem for using
technology in the classroom. As can be seen in Table D.24, academic
teachers were significantly more likely to report a "moderate" or
"serious" problem with respect to availability of technology,
availability in adequate numbers, appropriateness, alignment of
technology with the curriculum and convenience of location. Almost half
of academic and vocational teachers reported problems with having
"current or state-of-the-art technology"; about 40 percent of each
reported problems with "maintenance of technology." None of these
differences were significant for teachers in comprehensive schools
compared with those in vocational schools (see Table D.25).

Compared to academic teachers, vocational teachers were significantly
more likely to feel prepared to teach the technology-related skills
students need to learn in the identified class: 50.1 percent of academic
teachers and 81.2 percent of vocational teachers felt "adequately" or
"very well prepared," as seen in Table D.20. This difference may stem
from the greater non-teaching experience that vocational teachers have
in their primary teaching field --- compared with academic teachers ---
or it may indicate that Perkins funds are indeed being directed toward
technology-related professional development.

Finally, instruction through distance learning is not widespread.
Distance learning was evident in very few of the case-study sites. Two
schools in Ohio, for example, used Perkins funds to support online
academic course-taking. On the survey, only about 8 percent of academic
teachers and 16 percent of vocational teachers reported any classroom
instruction involving distance learning in the previous year. Only 2 to
3 percent reported "frequent" instruction through distance learning.

## Professional Development and Teacher Supply

Implementation of integration and other program improvements requires
well-trained teachers and staff. Perkins III directly addresses this
need in asking states to describe how comprehensive professional
development --- including initial teacher preparation --- for vocational
and technical, academic, guidance, and administrative personnel will be
provided. The programs should, for example, help teachers and personnel
assist students in meeting state levels of performance, provide
in-service and pre-service training in education programs and
techniques, or provide internships that involve business experience for
teachers

In addition to professional development, teacher quality can also affect
program quality. The vocational teaching force has declined since the
early 1980s, but it is not clear if this decline stems from declining
vocational education enrollments, a decrease in the supply of teachers
or other factors, for example, decline in university programs that train
vocational teachers (Guarino, Brewer, and Hove, 2000). Whatever the
cause of the decline, the National Assessment of Vocational Education's
interest in vocational teacher quality and potential shortage of
high-quality teachers prompted some investigation.

### State Efforts

Consistent with the legislation, states have developed specific policies
to raise teacher quality in vocational schools and classrooms. One set
of policies concerns hiring highly qualified vocational teachers into
the profession through lateral entry. Florida, Massachusetts, North
Carolina and Ohio allow lateral entry with the condition that the
vocational teachers take additional coursework in teaching methods
during a probationary or provisional period. As far as we could
determine, none of the states in the sample required lateral entry
teachers to qualify on the exams some of these states require academic
teachers to pass. Florida also provides extra pay for teachers in
shortage areas but has not put many of the vocational areas on the list.

State respondents noted that lateral entry for vocational education
teachers might become more important in the near future. Respondents in
most states were concerned about teacher shortages, but none had hard
data to support their claims.

The states also promote professional development opportunities for
teachers to ensure that existing teachers are proficient in delivering
high-quality vocational programs and keep up with the latest
developments in the field and to ensure that new teachers quickly come
up to speed. Six of the seven states --- all but Texas --- provided
professional development through sponsorship of different integration
models, such as High Schools That Work and career academies. Five of the
states sponsored statewide conferences in these models or on Tech-Prep,
School-to-Work and curriculum integration. Florida, Massachusetts and
North Carolina particularly favored this approach.

While most of the states offered specific types of professional
development or in-servicing opportunities, Massachusetts took a uniquely
decentralized approach. As part of the local planning for Perkins funds,
the state requires the local educational agencies to set aside 15
percent of the Perkins funds for professional development. Other state
funds provide for \$125 per full-time equivalent of professional
development funds for each school. Together these funds have allowed the
Massachusetts schools a significant and stable resource for professional
development.

Several states also support the use of teacher externships. For example,
California, Michigan and North Carolina support these activities. The
states have paid little attention, however, to the professional
development of school counselors or administrators.

### Local Efforts

Nearly half of the local sites reported vocational teacher shortages ---
these reports were more common in California, Michigan and Ohio. Local
respondents in California, Michigan and Florida partly blamed the
shortage on the lack of vocational teacher training programs in the
state universities.

The field visits revealed that in 20 sites the teachers were cognizant
of or had attended professional development activities provided by the
state, as seen in Table C.8. Fewer were aware of or participated in
professional development supported exclusively by the district or
school. In this sample, the most commonly mentioned type of professional
development dealt with understanding and using the state's standards and
assessments. Only eight schools reported professional development on
vocational standards and in about half it involved curriculum
integration. Teachers were not always satisfied with the amount and
quality of professional development available to them.

Consistent with this finding, the majority of teachers surveyed reported
receiving professional development on one or more topics during the past
12 months, regardless of the type of school in which they taught or
their teaching assignment, academic or vocational. Table D.1 shows the
percentage of academic and vocational teachers who reported receiving
professional development during the past year on each of 10 topics. The
most common topics for professional development were academic standards,
subject matter content and technology. Three-fourths or more of teachers
received professional development on these topics. The average amount of
training in each of these topics among teachers who received training
was about 10 hours.

Notable differences also occurred in participation in professional
development between academic and vocational teachers. As Table D.1
shows, a higher percentage of vocational teachers than academic teachers
report receiving professional development in vocational education
standards, incorporating academic content into vocational subjects,
incorporating vocational contents into academic subjects, applying
concepts to the real world and incorporating workplace competencies into
instruction. Perhaps not surprisingly, all these topics relate to
vocational education and integration. Academic teachers were more likely
to have received professional development in student assessment than
vocational teachers.[^20] These findings suggest that vocational
teachers indeed receive more technology-related professional
development, which may partly account for their feeling more prepared
than academic teachers feel. However, the study cannot determine to what
extent Perkins III legislation or funding specifically supported these
activities.

The survey pointed to some differences in professional development
between vocational teachers teaching in comprehensive high schools and
those teaching in vocational schools. The professional development
experience of vocational teachers in comprehensive high schools more
resembles the training received by academic teachers than it does the
training received by vocational teachers in vocational schools (see
Table D.3).

Finally, teachers at 14 sites had taken advantage of the state programs
that offered "teacher externships." Teachers who had attended were
universally positive about the experience. Other teachers noted they had
opportunities to participate in an externship but were unable to do so
because of scheduling conflicts.

## Conclusions

The above analytic descriptions indicate that state and local level
actors have taken some steps consistent with the federal legislation's
view of improvements to vocational education. However, much work remains
to be accomplished

The states clearly differed in the consistency of their efforts. In the
two states with more centralized control over education, Florida and
North Carolina, we found more consistent applications by the school
sites of the state policies. In other, more decentralized states, we
found more latitude. Even in the two more centralized states, however,
important local differences were revealed between individual schools and
districts and their pursuit and use of state and federal resources.
Thus, we conclude that, while states have made progress, it remains
uneven. Furthermore, the initiative of local actors remains an important
ingredient in any improvement effort. The federal government can expect
school-by-school variation no matter the state context. However, some
states likely will have more consistency in specific areas in local
implementation than others.

Perhaps prompted by general education reform, most states have made or
intend to make improvements to increase the academic rigor of vocational
courses. The case studies provide a number of examples where vocational
courses attain academic credit as well as efforts to continue with that
trend.

In addition, the teacher survey indicates that a fairly high proportion
of vocational teachers teach at least one class that receives academic
credit. Many case-study respondents view the Perkins accountability
measures to be consistent with state and local efforts to increase
academic learning in vocational programs and thereby also supportive of
states' own accountability priorities. Although states and localities do
focus on academic improvements, similar attention to enhancing
vocational education standards lagged in most states. The two exceptions
might be Florida and North Carolina, which have mandatory vocational
standards, pathways, courses sequences, and, in North Carolina,
assessments. Even in these states, accountability regimes favor
academics over vocational learning.

States and local districts have made some improvements in implementing
some of the structural features that support integration.

However, despite the apparent state support for integrated curriculum
and model adoption, school-level adoption and implementation remained
problematic at most sites. The case studies provided little evidence of
widespread adoption of integrated curriculum.

The survey results suggest that curriculum integration, when it
occurred, primarily applied to vocational education. The curricular and
instructional practices of academic and vocational teachers remained on
separate tracks, and these teachers had different instructional goals
for their students.

Neither the case studies nor the teacher survey indicate that schools
actively support opportunities for teacher collaboration or planning
that might increase curriculum integration. Team teaching and regular
joint planning time are rare. Teacher collaboration, when it does occur,
most frequently happens within separate academic or vocational
disciplines.

All states, districts and schools were adopting strategies to involve
employers in vocational programs in various ways, although some local
sites were clearly more successful than others. The survey indicates
that links to employers are overwhelmingly associated with vocational
teachers' classes. Academic teachers have few connections even when they
are teaching career-oriented classes. Perkins does not, however, appear
to be enhancing linkages to parents in any substantial way.

Efforts to develop, expand and improve the use of technology are evident
at many sites, and Perkins funds are essential in these efforts. By and
large, teachers at the case-study sites were not satisfied with the
technology available to them. Survey data suggest that academic teachers
felt significantly less prepared than vocational teachers to teach
technology-related skills, and they also reported more problems with
respect to availability and quality of technology in their classes.

Connections to postsecondary education also appear to be strong,
especially for vocational teachers. The case studies clearly show that
vocational teachers interact with community college faculty and staff,
primarily for the development of articulation agreements. Similarly, the
survey data indicate that such agreements were much more likely to be a
feature of vocational teachers' classes than of academic teachers'
classes.

Guidance and counseling for purposes of career planning appears to be
rare nationwide but was fairly common in the case-study sites. Several
states in the sample mandate or highly recommend career planning and
most districts and schools we visited comply.

All of the states promote professional development of teachers, but
local participation support varied considerably. The survey suggests
that academic and vocational teachers' professional development
activities cover different topics. Academic teachers receive more
professional development on assessment while vocational teachers receive
more on integration-related or vocational themes.

The case studies and teacher survey also identify specific barriers to
improving vocational education along the lines encouraged by Perkins
III. Several seem particularly important. First, all the case-study
sites provided examples of the importance of funding to support their
efforts at program improvement. Some examples were negative: lack of
resources or professional development had hindered their efforts. Others
were more positive: federal or state resources had propelled their
efforts forward.

Second, the focus on academic standards had enhanced the academic
quality of many vocational courses but did little to improve vocational
or technical quality. Many respondents from all the case-study sites,
including employers, thought that vocational education might be
suffering from the uneven emphasis of academics over vocational
standards.

Third, many respondents noted that vocational education continues to
have a bad reputation among parents, who do not see this course of study
as one leading to college. Several respondents cited this as a major
barrier to improvement. So long as parents perceived vocational
education as a less desirable alternative for their children, it would
remain so.

Finally, as mentioned above, teachers are not supported in ways that
might enhance integration or other aspects of program improvement. Lack
of common planning time and common professional development
opportunities maintain the separation between academic and vocational
teachers and create difficulties toward developing and implementing
integrated curriculum. This separation is exacerbated when academic and
vocational programs are delivered in separate schools.

# 6. Tech-Prep and Other Federal Policies

Thus far our discussion has concentrated on the impact of changes in
Perkins III and on state and local efforts to implement the kinds of
improvements that policymakers hope will enhance vocational program
quality. This last chapter discusses three aspects of federal policy
that are also intended to improve or support vocational education: the
Tech-Prep Education Act, School-to-Work Opportunities Act and Workforce
Investment Act. While Tech-Prep is incorporated into Perkins III as a
separate funding title, the others are independent. Each in its own way
intersects with the vocational education programs already discussed, and
the picture of secondary-school vocational education would not be
complete without reference to them.

This chapter employs data from the case studies to examine the
characteristics of Tech-Prep and whether states' visions for Tech-Prep
are reflected in local practice. The chapter also explores the influence
of School-to-Work and the Workforce Investment Act on vocational
education.

## Tech-Prep and Vocational Education

The Tech-Prep Education Act was introduced as federal policy in Perkins
II to respond to widespread concerns that many high school students were
failing to develop the technical and academic skills they would need to
succeed in the workplace. The goals of the program were to create in
high schools a more coherent foundation for further education and
employment, to introduce higher standards in academic and vocational
courses, and to increase students' motivation to pursue the further
education they would likely need for career success, particularly in
high-demand, technically-oriented occupations. States were apportioned
funds to support local consortia of school districts and postsecondary
institutions that are in turn responsible for implementing Tech-Prep.
Tech-Prep remained a separate title and funding stream in Perkins III,
although its goals certainly overlap with the Perkins goals to improve
the quality of vocational education. Some states have chosen to
implement the Tech-Prep authority within the larger Perkins III program,
but other states operate these as two separate programs. Both approaches
are authorized.

This examination of Tech-Prep focused first on how states are defining
Tech-Prep programs and students. We then determined whether each state's
vision was reflected in Tech-Prep programs at the local secondary school
level.[^21]

### Forms of Tech-Prep

The legislation defined several components that Tech-Prep programs
should incorporate: a two-plus-two design --- two years in secondary
school and two years in postsecondary school --- in a non-duplicative
sequence of courses; articulation agreements between secondary and
postsecondary institutions; a common core of required proficiency in
mathematics, science, reading, writing, communications and technologies
designed to lead to an associate's degree or a postsecondary certificate
in a specific career field; preparatory services, such as recruiting and
counseling; and training for teachers and counselors \[Section 204\].

A recent national evaluation of Tech-Prep (Hershey et al., 1998)
identified three main forms of Tech-Prep implementation by local
consortia that emphasized and combined these individual elements of
Tech-Prep in varying degrees. These forms are useful for illuminating
variations in a state's approach to implementing Tech-Prep.

Tech-Prep may be described as a *structured, comprehensive program of
study* that includes

-   a defined sequence of integrated classes;

-   a broadly-defined career focus;

-   grouping of students within academic classes;

-   an active enrollment and selective application process; and

-   courses aligned, rather than articulated, with community college
    classes --- credit is not necessarily awarded.

Tech-Prep may be an *enhanced vocational program* for students with at
least moderate academic success.

-   Vocational students are encouraged to take applied academic classes,
    articulated classes or a defined sequence of classes within a broad
    career area --- there is no clustering.

-   Consortia train teachers in applied academic approaches.

-   Students do not perceive that they are choosing Tech-Prep programs
    and would not identify themselves as Tech-Prep students.

-   Guidance counselors help students pick appropriate classes --- no
    prescribed sequence of courses.

Tech-Prep may simply *emphasize articulation or applied academics with
no target group.* This approach advances one or two ingredients of
Tech-Prep but does not really attempt to create a comprehensive program
experience.

In the next sections we use these forms to first classify and describe
the Tech-Prep programs in the seven states. We then discuss the extent
to which local programs follow the state's vision.

### Structured Programs: North Carolina and Florida

Of the states in this study, North Carolina's program is the most
structured and comprehensive. Florida's program combines elements of a
structured program with an emphasis on articulation requirements.

North Carolina has the most prescriptive and differentiated definition
of Tech-Prep as a particular course of study. Interested students must
choose College Tech-Prep as one of four courses of study, which includes
the core courses and academic requirements for a high school diploma;
math, including Algebra I and geometry; a technology course; and locally
set student achievement standards. In addition, all Tech-Prep students
must take an applied science sequence with other students with the same
technical focus. The course of study must explicitly lead to an
associate of science degree or two-year certificate. North Carolina also
has statewide articulation agreements and uniform dual enrollment
between all high schools and community colleges.

Tech-Prep in North Carolina varied widely from site to site on the local
level. Although the College Tech-Prep option has been available since
the 2000--2001 school year, it was fully operating at only one site; in
others few students enrolled or local articulation agreements were not
yet in place. It appeared that the existence of statewide articulation
agreements tended to decrease local connections between school districts
and community colleges because there was less reason for representatives
of these institutions to meet.

Florida defined a Tech-Prep student as one enrolled in an articulated,
sequential program of study --- enrolled in level 2 or above courses ---
at grade level or above by grade 11 in mathematics, science and
communications, including a technical component, which leads to a
minimum of a two-year postsecondary certificate or degree or an
apprenticeship program.

Other requirements in Florida included work-based learning and meeting
academic standards in math, science, reading, writing and
communications. Thus, the program combined elements of a structured
program --- most notably, the requirement of a defined sequence of
vocational and academic classes explicitly linked to community college
--- with an emphasis on articulation requirements. However, Tech-Prep
classes and other vocational education classes have the same standards.
The only difference is the articulation agreements.

Florida's statewide vision for Tech-Prep was, for the most part, carried
out at the local level. All school-level programs provided guidance to
students in choosing sequential classes, had articulation agreements and
encouraged students to enroll in postsecondary education. The sites
differed somewhat on the specific target group of student for Tech-Prep
enrollment and in their application processes.

### Enhanced Vocational Programs: Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Texas

For most of the states in the study, Tech-Prep is perhaps best described
as an enhanced vocational program.

Tech-Prep in Massachusetts was a hybrid program with elements of all
three forms. The state spent five years debating the definition of a
Tech-Prep student and finally decided on the following:

\[A student who\] has indicated an intent and is enrolled in courses
within a recognized Tech-Prep education plan that consists of a minimum
of two years secondary and two years postsecondary study; is carried out
under a written articulation agreement; has completed a Tech-Prep
student registration form; allows the student to earn a postsecondary
credit while in secondary schools; and leads to a specific postsecondary
two-year certificate, degree or apprenticeship program.

The state plan included articulation agreements and student registration
and targeted a broad group of students, but it did not define coherent
course sequences.

The state's vision was carried out in two of the four schools. A third
school offered a more structured program than the state program in
clustering Tech-Prep student --- regardless of the technical focus of
their program --- in the same English and math classes. The fourth site
--- a technical high school --- had articulation agreements but no
formal Tech-Prep program.

Michigan's Tech-Prep was a fairly open program. A Tech-Prep student must
have an Educational Development Plan plus a selection of a series of
courses and School-to-Work activities at high school and college levels.
Initially, most consortia focused on guidance or work-based learning
programs, but eventually the state decided to emphasize articulation
agreements or other ways to foster connections between secondary and
postsecondary schools. The consortia were in the process of realignment
with the state's 25 regional workforce development boards so that
Tech-Prep will eventually be connected with the regional planning
process that reviews all vocational education programs.

The state's view of Tech-Prep seemed far removed from local activities.
Although all four sites in Michigan had some articulation agreements in
their vocational programs, three did not have any program that they
called Tech-Prep. A fourth site considered integrated classes to be the
defining feature of Tech-Prep.

From the state's perspective, Ohio combined elements of a structured,
comprehensive program with elements quite different from those of other
states. Rather than encouraging articulation agreements and a
"time-shortened model," the state adopted an "advanced skill model."
Under this model, high school Tech-Prep classes allowed students to take
more advanced courses in college and learn more skills rather than earn
college credit and graduate from college early. At the same time,
Tech-Prep appeared to be less flexible than in other states. It required
students to continue in the same program of study in postsecondary if
they are to remain in Tech-Prep. All Tech-Prep classes must lead to
high-tech, high-wage jobs. It was specifically geared to "academically
inclined kinds \[of students\] that *don't* have a career focus." There
was no clustering; Tech-Prep and non-Tech-Prep students took the same
classes.

The Tech-Prep programs found at the local level varied tremendously,
from separate programs with rigorous application procedures --- one
school described Tech-Prep as "its crowning glory" --- to a loose
program defined only by a list of recommended classes.

Tech-Prep in Texas was considered at the state level as part of a
strategy to encourage successful education transitions and as a
higher-quality program than career and technical education (Hudis,
2002). At the time of our study, the characteristics of a Tech-Prep
student included the intention to complete a coherent sequence of
classes of content high enough to qualify for articulated postsecondary
credit.

Other parts of the Texas strategy included a Technical Course Alignment
Manual that listed titles and course descriptions for high school
courses approved for course credit, usually the final course in a
coherent sequence. On the postsecondary side, the Workforce Education
Course Manual provided an inventory of workforce education courses
offered at community and technical colleges, including course
descriptions and student learning outcomes. High school Tech-Prep
programs could use these tools to align course content with entry-level
community and technical college courses. Texas also was developing a
statewide articulation agreement that will be fully implemented in 2002,
and was providing training to Tech-Prep teachers, who will ultimately
have more specialized training than other teachers.

Little or no Tech-Prep activity occurred at the sites we visited. One
had a defined program in criminal justice that attracted mostly
low-achieving students who were unlikely to succeed in community
college. Two schools had articulation agreements in some classes. There
was no particular target group of students, and they did not appear to
have to elect to participate.

### Loosely Structured Programs: California

California's Tech-Prep program was the least structured of the states we
visited. To be considered Tech-Prep, a program must have articulation
agreement(s) based on a particular course of study, an integrated
curriculum, workplace learning and industry partnership. Unlike regular
vocational education, Tech-Prep prepared students for *both* further
education and employment, according to the state plan. No statewide
articulation agreements existed. Rather, each high school and community
college developed its own articulation agreements.

Two of the California sites had no Tech-Prep programs at all, although
both had articulation agreements in some courses. Tech-Prep was
considered "outdated" or "stigmatizing," and these schools were not
involved with the local consortia. At the other two sites, Tech-Prep
amounted to a fairly unstructured program that mostly emphasized
articulation agreements.

## School-to-Work Opportunities Act

The STW provided funds to states and to local partnerships to develop a
comprehensive STW system comprised of three components:

-   School-based learning that provides students with the information
    and skills they need to identify and prepare for promising careers.

-   Work-based learning that offers students workplace experiences
    linked to their school programs.

-   Connecting activities that help employers and schools link the
    school- and work-based components.

Within states, local partnerships consisting of education agencies,
postsecondary institutions, labor unions, employers and other
organizations were to establish and implement the system.

School-to-Work espoused similar goals to Perkins in promoting the
integration of school-based and work-based learning, academic and
vocational instruction, and secondary and postsecondary studies. Unlike
Perkins, STW emphasized building a system for *all* students.[^22]
School-to-work activities were often built on preexisting partnerships
and programs, including Tech-Prep, academies, and other career and
technical education programs (Hershey et al., 1999). Because the funding
provided by the act had ended, this study provided an opportunity to get
a sense of STW's legacy in the sample states.

While many schools had activities to facilitate the transition from
school to work, our study considered only those activities that were
specifically funded by federal STW funds or were begun under the
auspices of that program.

The study found, first, that in four states current vocational education
policy has evolved from and was seen as a natural extension of STW.
These states identified synergies between the very similar goals of STW
and Perkins III and used STW to promote their own goals for vocational
education. For example:

-   Florida received \$57 million in stipends from the federal
    government to support a number of statewide initiatives, including
    annual STW conferences, support for career development academies and
    High Schools That Work, and awards to exemplary programs. Although
    their grant ended in 2000, the state and some districts were still
    spending funds. All the schools visited had STW activities, many of
    which were continuing even without STW funds.

-   In Massachusetts, 41 school-business partnerships around the state
    received STW grants. Three of the four school sites had STW funding
    at some point. At two sites, STW activities had become
    institutionalized, for example, the STW coordinator at one is now
    paid with general district funding. The third site reported that it
    was "losing ground" on all STW activities but that some were being
    picked up by WIA funds.

-   Michigan used STW funds to develop career pathways, and local
    programs submitted plans to receive funds. Despite concerns from the
    federal STW office that the decentralized Michigan system would
    provide too little oversight to local programs, the funds seem to
    have been invested wisely. Since the federal funding ended, the
    career pathways have evolved into a statewide, state-funded Career
    Preparation System that has replaced STW activities. All the local
    sites showed some STW-related activity, including some adoption of
    career pathways.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In North Carolina, the state's primary goal with regard to STW was
    to coordinate work-based learning activities for vocational
    education students. Three local sites had work-based learning
    activities --- primarily job shadowing for teachers and students ---
    funded by STW; and one had work-based programs but did not receive
    STW funds. Except for one school, these activities seemed fairly
    institutionalized.

According to state respondents in Ohio, the relationship between
vocational education and STW has been controversial from the start and
little synergy has been created with these two federal programs. The
reasons for this seemed largely political.

State officials described STW as a "disaster" and a "missed
opportunity." The offices of STW and career and technical education were
originally separated on purpose because CTE was seen as inferior, and
STW "would not work if connected to CTE." Toward the end of the STW
grant, however, an individual with CTE experience was placed in the STW
office and the remaining funds were used to support CTE --- for example,
to develop ITAC and externships. Locally, teachers at one site had
participated in externships; two sites had no involvement in STW at all;
and the fourth site had participated early but with no lasting
influence.

Two states --- California and Texas --- had little STW activity. As late
as 1997, they were still non-grantee states and had not received federal
STW funds.

-   California was late in applying for funds and the only site that had
    a grant was using it to create linkages between elementary and
    junior high schools.

-   Texas officials reported that schools were not very involved with
    STW, and participation was strictly voluntary. Only one site had
    funds, which were used to provide career exploration in middle
    schools and job shadowing for high school and middle school
    teachers.

## Workforce Investment Act

The WIA was enacted in 1998 as an attempt to create a more efficient and
coordinated workforce development system that also allowed states some
flexibility. WIA permitted states to identify a variety of possible
roles for secondary and postsecondary institutions but placed more
emphasis on postsecondary involvement as traditional providers of
training and vocational education or as the location of "One-Stop"
centers that will provide an array of services. These institutional
roles are still evolving.

As most WIA activities are geared toward adult education and
postsecondary students, most secondary school districts and schools
reported little involvement with WIA. Florida, Michigan, North Carolina,
Ohio and Texas had little or no activity, although a few localities
reported some activity.

-   For example, two North Carolina sites reported high school
    participation in the WIA job-training program. One Ohio school had
    an active WIA youth council with many activities, but these were not
    coordinated with Perkins-funded activities.

Two states in the study --- California and Massachusetts --- had some
WIA activity at the state level that impacted secondary schooling.

In California, the regional occupational programs/centers will receive
up to \$4.6 million over two years to provide a variety of services to
local workforce boards and youth councils. Because secondary school
students enroll in ROP/Cs for vocational education, WIA will influence
high school programs.

-   Two California sites were already affected by WIA. One district had
    two programs for special education students. At the other, WIA
    supported an ROP/C summer program that provided work experience to
    special education students --- WIA funds paid their wages. The
    students continued their schooling at the ROP/C in the following
    year. The goal of the program was to place them in supported
    employment by graduation.

The Department of Labor in Massachusetts sponsored STW "connecting
activities" and provided \$5 million per year through the regional
workforce investment boards. A main thrust was to increase participation
in work-based learning. The state developed the Massachusetts Work-Based
Learning Plan, a standard for teachers and employers to evaluate
students along a set of workplace competencies. Designated staff at the
workforce investment boards worked with high schools to promote these
plans and trained teachers and employers in their use. The state
reported that internships grew eightfold from 1998 to 2001, with an
estimated 24,000 students participating in 2001. Two sites reported WIA
activities.

-   At one site, the local workforce investment board had two dedicated
    staff to work with teachers, students and employers to use the state
    work-based learning plans. WIA staff also helped identify student
    internships and job opportunities and assisted with career fairs.
    However, few students at the school reportedly took advantage of the
    WIA services.

-   Respondents at Site 3 reported a close, collaborative relationship
    between district officials and the workforce investment board. The
    WIB received funds to establish internships in certain industries
    and to develop a blueprint of critical and emerging industries to
    guide the school's course offerings.

## Conclusions

This chapter examined three federal programs that intersect with
vocational education and were intended to support and enhance
higher-quality vocational programs.

With respect to Tech-Prep, only two states had structured and
comprehensive programs. For other states, Tech-Prep was a loose
assortment of articulation agreements between high schools and colleges
such that high school courses receive college credit. Still other states
fell somewhere in the middle --- particular Tech-Prep classes or a
suggested sequence of integrated classes existed, but they were open to
all students and Tech-Prep students were not necessarily identified as
such.

The two states that had more-centralized structures and policies ---
North Carolina and Florida --- also had the most-structured Tech-Prep
programs at the state level. However, this was no guarantee that
students would experience a similarly structured Tech-Prep program at
their local schools. While programs at the Florida sites showed some
consistency with the state, only one North Carolina site had fully
implemented the College Tech-Prep course of study.

Although states may define Tech-Prep in particular ways or have specific
goals for the Tech-Prep programs, these perspectives may or may not be
visible at the school or district level where local consortia act as
fiscal agents and administer the program. The study found few instances
of local programs that emulate the state, let alone the federal, vision.

A main characteristic of Tech-Prep that sets it apart from regular
vocational programs --- at least in federal legislation --- is the
articulation agreement. The presence of an articulation agreement was
the common thread across all the states and local programs, suggesting
that this aspect of Tech-Prep is the most salient.

Some states --- Michigan, North Carolina and Texas --- also had
statewide articulation agreements or dual enrollment policies between
high schools and community colleges. These policies, however, did not
always enhance or support Tech-Prep as defined in Perkins. In North
Carolina, for example, these policies actually appeared to decrease
links between local schools and districts and the community college
sector. Michigan's dual enrollment policies supported articulated course
credit, but no other aspect of Tech-Prep.[^23]

Of the two other federal reforms related to vocational education,
School-to-Work has had a bigger impact when an early effort was
undertaken at the state level. Four of the seven states used STW funds
to advance certain aspects of their vocational education programs.
Respondents at nearly all the local sites in these states reported that
programs begun under STW have become institutionalized and continue with
local and/or state funding.

The Workforce Investment Act, on the other hand, has had minimal effect
at the secondary level in most states or local districts and schools.
This is not very surprising because WIA is geared toward adult and
postsecondary education.[^24] As WIA is implemented, however, other
states also might use it to promote secondary school programs. It is
just too soon to tell.

# 7. Conclusions and Implications

The purposes of this report on vocational education in secondary schools
were to provide evidence on the extent to which actual practice is
consistent with federal legislation and other views of what constitutes
"quality" practice and how policies made at different levels of the
education system enhance or impede the implementation of quality
practice. The report did not attempt to answer all the questions of
interest to Congress or the National Assessment of Vocational Education.
Rather, it investigated a subset of questions concerning the
implementation of specific program improvements in Perkins III and other
practices that aim to improve the quality of vocational education.

In this chapter, we summarize the findings discussed in the previous
chapters to provide answers to the five broad questions addressed in
this study. We then discuss the policy implications of the study's
findings.

1.  **What are the purposes and philosophies of vocational education at
    the secondary level? Have these evolved in keeping with Perkins
    legislation?**

Many states and localities have adopted the spirit of the Perkins
philosophy to broaden the content of and participation in vocational
education, and some have specific policies to advance it.

Several of the states in the sample had adopted new "mission statements"
concerning vocational education and had changed the names of agencies
that support vocational education. These changes tended to promote
vocational education as a program of study that can lead to both higher
education --- at least to the community college level --- as well as
preparation for careers or immediate jobs. This shift from a more
traditional view of vocational education as only preparation for work in
a particular occupation immediately after high school is in keeping with
Perkins. Both states and localities, however, faced challenges in
promoting this vision.

While respondents from all the states in this study said they support
the broader vision of vocational and technical education, it remains an
educational alternative that is not for all students. All the states
still treat vocational education as an elective, even those states that
created career-based courses of studies or pathways.

In general, the case-study sites reported continuing stakeholder
disagreement about the need for and place of vocational education in
today's high schools, including who will best benefit from it. The
prevailing perception is that vocational education is the program of
study for less academically able students. Data from the teacher survey,
as reported in Chapter Three, indicate that vocational teachers share
this perception; they report that their classes have higher proportions
of students from special populations, compared with other classes in
their school.

A related perception is that vocational education in secondary school
will not lead to college. Case-study data indicate that parents,
students and some educators view a college diploma as the only ticket to
future success --- a perception that finds support in research (for
example, Boesel and Fredland, 1999; Murnane, Willett, and Levy, 1995;
Murnane and Levy, 1996).

The Perkins legislation may even contribute to the problem by continuing
to define vocational and technical education as education for work
requiring less than a baccalaureate degree. While the language in
Perkins encourages connections to postsecondary education through
Tech-Prep or other activities, this connection rarely extends to
four-year institutions.

By and large, this study found that vocational education remains
separate from academic or general education, as it has for many decades.
The many efforts discussed in the report to broaden the content of
vocational education and its appeal to students and parents have not
overcome this isolation and perception.

2.  **What other education reforms are ongoing and how have they
    affected vocational and technical offerings within states and
    localities? What is the influence of federal and state policies at
    the local level?**

As described in Chapter Four, all the states in this study have embraced
reforms that emphasize the importance of academic standards, assessment
of academic performance and accountability. These types of reforms are
consistent with the standards-based reform movement across the nation
and with federal legislation that promotes academic achievement in
academic and vocational programs.

Only three states had significant reforms to address vocational
standards and assessments, but these were not part of the states'
accountability systems, which address academic learning only.

Four states increased high school graduation requirements, but these
concern primarily academic subjects. These requirements have prompted
some schools to upgrade the academic content of vocational courses to
receive academic credit.

Interviews at the state and local levels indicated some consensus on
effects of the state reforms, although the full impact of some of these
reforms has yet to be felt. First, local respondents generally reported
that the emphasis on academic achievement was important to improving
both academic and vocational learning. At the same time, however, they
worried that vocational programs would not be held harmless. Second,
depending on the particular state and local context, respondents
reported negative effects on vocational programs and students in the
form of reduced vocational enrollments because of pressure to meet
higher academic standards and increased course requirements; reduced
time on vocational tasks stemming from increased time on academic
requirements and test preparation; and possible reduced quality of
instruction given the emphasis of some tests on simplistic understanding
and answers. Third, state academic reforms and accountability systems
dominated educators' concerns.

3.  **What are the state and local efforts to improve the quality of
    vocational education, especially with respect to the key quality
    attributes outlined in Perkins III?**

The study found that state- and local-level actors have taken some steps
consistent with the federal legislation's view of improvements to
vocational education. However, much work remains to be accomplished.

The case-study sites clearly differed in the consistency and depth of
their efforts to implement the program improvements --- a finding that
has been documented in previous studies (McDonnell and Grubb, 1991).
This stemmed from many factors, including the structure of the education
system, as discussed in Chapter Four, and the capacity and will of state
and local actors. In this nation's decentralized education system,
variation among states and schools is to be expected.

As discussed in Chapter Three, states and local education agencies
followed the legislation in directing Perkins funds toward the kind of
program improvements outlined in the law. That said, they also showed
different priorities in funding. The most consistent use of Perkins
funds at the local level was to support technology-related expenditures.
Many local respondents noted that Perkins funds were crucial in
maintaining this aspect of their programs. It is also important to point
out that states and LEAs have other funding sources to direct at program
improvements, and this report could not isolate the precise influence of
Perkins funds. Other NAVE studies that examined funding in more detail
might shed more light on this report's initial observation.

Chapter Five described state and local efforts to implement Perkins
program improvements. First, the study found that Perkins provided
little stimulus for improvements in two areas --- promoting
understanding of "all aspects of the industry" and encouraging parental
involvement in vocational education. Perkins also appeared to influence
professional development for vocational teachers --- at least at the
state level --- but not for administrators or counselors.

Overall, the most significant efforts were directed at integration,
raising the academic rigor of vocational courses and programs, building
linkages to employers and postsecondary education, and implementing
technology-related improvements. The following sections summarize the
main findings.

## Integration

Efforts to improve quality through the integration of academic and
vocational education primarily emphasized new structural arrangements.
In particular, the case-study data indicate that all states, districts
and schools in the sample have made progress toward developing coherent
sequences of courses in vertically-aligned clusters or pathways. Three
examples are Florida's Occupational Completer Point system, North
Carolina's courses of study and California's state-funded career
academies program. The reform in North Carolina is particularly
noteworthy for clearly delineating different levels and aims for the
three courses of study that involve career and technical education. The
impacts of these changes in the longer term are uncertain.

States also support the development of integrated curriculum and
adoption of reform models that incorporate integration, for example,
High Schools That Work. At the school level, however, adoption of
structural and curricular reforms remained inconsistent at most sites.
The case studies provide little evidence of widespread adoption of
integrated curriculum within a school. Each site could point to one or
two vocational programs that appeared to reflect the spirit of
curriculum integration --- for example, by including senior projects,
project-based learning or opportunities to apply academic knowledge to
vocational or work-related problems. By and large, programs seemed more
successful at making connections to work through work-based learning or
job-shadowing opportunities.

The survey results suggest that curriculum integration, when it occurs,
primarily applies to vocational education. According to their own
reports, the curricular and instructional practices of academic and
vocational teachers remain significantly different. Academic teachers'
instructional practices are more didactic and more focused on developing
students' academic competencies. In contrast, vocational teachers'
instructional practices are more applied, or "hands on"; involve greater
use of computers and other tools; and make more specific reference to
careers. Vocational teachers also place more emphasis than academic
teachers do on developing students' technical knowledge and skills and
work-related skills and competencies.

Finally, the case studies and the teacher survey indicate that schools
provide insufficient opportunities for teacher collaboration or planning
--- activities known to enhance integration (Benson, 1997; Ramsey et
al., 1995). Team teaching and regular joint planning time is exceedingly
rare. Teacher collaboration, when it does occur, most frequently occurs
within academic or vocational disciplines, not between them.

## Use of Challenging Standards

As discussed in Chapter Four, the states in this study were implementing
general education reforms aimed at academic learning. Vocational
education seems to be going along with this tide in the sense that it is
being held accountable in many states for contributing to higher student
achievement. The number and kinds of specific activities directed toward
increasing the academic rigor of vocational courses is testimony to this
effort. In addition, teacher survey data indicate that a fair proportion
of vocational teachers reportedly teach at least one class that receives
academic credit.

Many case-study respondents view the Perkins accountability measures as
consistent with state and local efforts to increase academic learning in
vocational programs and thereby are supportive of states' accountability
priorities. Similar effort was not directed toward improving vocational
standards. The exceptions are Florida and North Carolina, which have
mandatory vocational standards, pathways, courses sequences, and, in
North Carolina, assessments. Even in these states, accountability
regimes take no notice of achievement in vocational and technical
subjects.

All states are moving toward at least voluntary adoption of vocational
standards, and many local sites seem anxious to implement these
standards if they do not have them already. All states and most
districts and schools were adopting industry standards as available and
appropriate. The survey data indicate that when teachers have identified
standards that are appropriate to their classes, they report being
influenced by them. Not surprisingly, vocational teachers are more
attuned to and influenced by industry standards than are academic
teachers.

## Build Links to Employers and Postsecondary Education

All states, districts and schools in the sample were adopting a variety
of strategies to involve employers in vocational programs, although some
local sites were clearly more successful than others. The teacher survey
supports the conclusion that vocational teachers have significantly more
connections with employers. Academic teachers report few connections
even when they are teaching career-oriented classes.

Vocational teachers in the survey and case studies also report stronger
connections to postsecondary education than academic teachers do. A
primary reason for linking to postsecondary institutions is to establish
articulation agreements --- Perkins appears to have applied a direct
hand here, through Tech-Prep. Many states and local sites also support
links to postsecondary education through career planning, although this
activity appears to be less prevalent nationwide than it was in the
study sample.

## Develop, Expand and Improve the Use of Technology

One of the areas in which Perkins appears to have had some impact is in
efforts to develop, expand and improve the use of technology. Several
findings point to this conclusion. As discussed earlier, nearly all of
the local sites relied on Perkins funds for technology-related purposes:
respondents reported that they would be far worse off without Perkins
funds. Even so, most teachers in the cases studies were not satisfied
with the availability or quality of technology. Second, in the survey
data, academic teachers report more problems with technology and feel
less prepared than vocational teachers to teach technology-related
skills in classes where such instruction is relevant. Third, the case
studies noted a definite trend to create more high-tech programs that
will better prepare students for technology-heavy fields, although many
more of these programs are desirable. Fourth, in the survey data,
vocational teachers were significantly more likely than academic
teachers to report incorporating instructional activities in their
classes that used computers and other tools. Fifth, several states and
schools promote technology skill development or computer literacy for
all students. Although Perkins funds are not necessarily involved here,
these types of requirements and supporting activities, such as teacher
staff development, also benefit vocational teachers, students and
programs.

Distance learning is one area that Perkins has not stimulated much
activity. The study found few examples of instruction through distance
learning in vocational education courses or programs.

4.  **What is the impact of changes in Perkins III on special
    populations and other groups and the programs that serve them? Have
    changes at the state level affected service delivery at the local
    level?**

The changes in Perkins III concerning the elimination of set-asides to
fund activities in support of students from certain groups appear to
have resulted in reduced staffing for these specific purposes in five
states and some localities. Gender-equity programs were most seriously
affected. Although some respondents seemed pleased with the flexibility
afforded in Perkins III, most reported negative effects.

Apart from the impact of the elimination of set-asides, the study
revealed a complex picture concerning participation and access of
students from special populations in vocational education. Four states
have differentiated programs of study or alternative requirements for
some students, primarily those with disabilities. In some cases, local
respondents indicated that these programs have improved services for
students from special populations --- for example, North Carolina. In
other instances these students did not have access to the highest
quality programs or were isolated from the regular student body,
although it is difficult to tell precisely which groups were affected.

Finally, respondents in the case studies and teacher survey indicated
that vocational education programs might enroll a disproportionate share
of students from special population groups, but this is a perception
that the study is unable to verify. This finding does, however, confirm
results from many prior studies (McDonnell and Grubb, 1991).

5.  **What are the characteristics of Tech-Prep programs? Are the
    states' visions for Tech-Prep reflected in local practice?**

Tech-Prep takes various forms in the states visited. Tech-Prep at the
local level does not always reflect the state\'s vision.

Only two states had structured and comprehensive programs, but these
were not always realized at local sites. For other states, Tech-Prep
does not exist at all or, if it does, only as a loose assortment of
articulation agreements between high schools and colleges such that high
school courses receive college credit. Still other states fall somewhere
in the middle --- there are particular Tech-Prep classes or a suggested
sequence of integrated classes, but they are open to all students and
Tech-Prep students are not necessarily identified as such.

Although states might define Tech-Prep in particular ways or have
specific goals for the Tech-Prep programs, these perspectives were not
always visible at the school or district level where local consortia act
as fiscal agents and administer the program. The study identified few
instances of local programs that emulate the state, let alone the
federal, vision.

State policies for dual enrollment or statewide articulation agreements
do not necessarily enhance or support Tech-Prep as defined in Perkins.

There may be may be several reasons Tech-Prep is less effective than
hoped. First, as with the rest of the Perkins Act, federal direction was
limited. The legislation included a number of general requirements but
did not specify the relative importance of the different elements or how
they might be configured. Rather, it left states and localities to work
out the details. As a result, Tech-Prep programs in this study were
highly varied in their activities and student populations --- a finding
that concurs with previous studies (Hershey et al., 1998; Bragg, 2001).
A second reason may be the association between Tech-Prep and vocational
education. In several of the study sites, the poor reputation of
vocational education did not help attract students and it sometimes
created difficulties in creating connections with postsecondary
institutions as well. A final reason we have already discussed: states
are focused on academic achievement. Although a Tech-Prep program
designed as the legislation intended is arguably one specific strategy
that could help raise academic achievement, it would only apply to some
students. States have other policy options, such as increased graduation
requirements or mandated testing, that can apply to all students and
over which they have more control.

## General Conclusions and Policy Implications

We set the tone for the report in Chapter One by reviewing the change in
language between Perkins II and Perkins III and noting the stronger
incentives provided in Perkins III for compliance with federal intent,
and by providing a set of expectations with regard to state and local
compliance or implementation distilled from a general literature on
implementation of past federal education policy. We indicated that,
given the evidence provided by the literature, one might expect to find
significant variation from state to state and among localities within
states in the adoption of the quality practices defined in the federal
legislation for three reasons: insufficient time has passed since
Perkins III enactment; other state-level reforms may interfere with
Perkins implementation; and Perkins provides relatively weak incentives
compared to other reforms.

Given this introduction and the evidence described in the intervening
chapters we arrive at the following general findings concerning Perkins
implementation.

Perkins III was at an early state of implementation in the states at the
time the study was conducted. Nonetheless, the study found some progress
toward implementation --- for example, states and localities were
directing Perkins funds appropriately; states were at least grappling
with the implications of the accountability measures on their
data-gathering systems; and states and localities were engaged in many
efforts to improve vocational education quality. The Perkins legislation
appeared to stimulate some program improvements more than others.
Individual site progress, however, varied because of many factors.

As anticipated, state reforms have more influence on vocational
education than Perkins does. The study found that most states have
adopted such education reforms as academic standards, mandatory academic
assessments and accountability for academic performance --- reforms
consistent with the Perkins goal of raising the academic standards in
vocational classes and improving academic achievement of vocational
education students. This emphasis, however, had the effect in many local
sites of emphasizing strong academic achievement at the expense of
strong technical proficiency.

As anticipated, the financial incentives in Perkins and even the
stronger threat of losing Perkins funds for poor performance are
apparently not enough to counteract the greater influence of state
general-education policies. The case studies provided ample evidence
that the accountability mechanisms are not in place at this stage. Most
state data systems in this study are unable to comply with all of the
Perkins III reporting requirements, and data-gathering at local sites
reflects state reporting requirements, not Perkins requirements. It may
be that the data systems will evolve and accountability measures
eventually will operate as hoped, but in several states it will likely
take quite some time.

Some implementation problems identified in the study can be attributed
to state and local conditions --- for example, the relative level of
centralization and coherence of the system, the history of education
reform within the state, related policies and practices already in
place, and the relative importance of vocational education within the
state education policy sphere. Some conditions seemed more beneficial
for implementation than others. The study found significant variation
among localities within states with regard to the implementation of
Perkins III--related practices, but this variation was minimized in the
two states with more highly-centralized and more-coherent education
systems. States with decentralized and fragmented systems tended to
produce more local variation. These differences in state governance may
affect implementation of any federal policy, not just Perkins.

A second set of barriers to implementing the Perkins vision of an
integrated academic and vocational education is the historical
separation between academic and more occupationally-oriented education,
which has been discussed in many studies (Benson, 1997; Benson and
Hayward, 1993; Grubb, 1995). In this study, the teacher survey results
illustrate this separation. The survey found significant variation in
practice between academic and vocational teachers and between teachers
in comprehensive high schools and vocational schools. Vocational
teachers in general reported adopting more practices consistent with a
vision of integrated academic and vocational education, while academic
teachers emphasized more traditional roles and academic achievement.
This suggests that vocational teachers are indeed taking the lead in
establishing integration, as the Perkins legislation implies. However,
as Benson (1997) pointed out, vocational teachers are not honored in the
education community and are a minority in most secondary schools. A
minority, then, must gain the support of site and district
administrators and other teachers to make major changes. The study also
shows that most schools do not support activities that can encourage
integration, such as team teaching, joint planning time for teachers and
career planning.

The Perkins legislation also has some weaknesses that help create
implementation challenges, which have been documented in earlier
studies. First, it is aimed at vocational education only and channeled
through state and district offices of vocational education --- yet the
reforms must engage academic teachers and interests to be successful.
Even when the Perkins reforms align with other reforms, their origin in
vocational education isolates them from other reform efforts (Grubb,
1995). Second, some of the fundamental ideas in the Perkins view of
reformed vocational education --- such as curriculum integration --- are
poorly defined. As in Perkins II, this sets up a situation that is on
the one hand potentially ripe for experimentation and innovation but
that on the other may be so non-prescriptive that it fails to create
recognizable changes (Stasz and Grubb, 1991). This lack of definition
contributes to the variation in practice observed in this study and
makes it difficult to communicate a coherent vision to others.

In conclusion, the findings from this study of seven states indicate
that Perkins III remains a relatively weak policy for implementing a
strong federal vision for vocational education. As with previous
vocational education legislation, Perkins III uses a combination of
policy instruments. Federal policymakers have recognized the limits of
mandates in vocational education programs, particularly in a federalist
system where authority and power are shared among government levels and
where local programs must meet the needs of different client groups and
labor markets. Therefore, they provide inducements or fiscal resources
to states in the expectation that states will deliver services to
specific groups, especially the economically disadvantaged, as discussed
in Chapter Three. However, the potential for slippage between
policymakers' expectations and local implementation is high because
inducements encourage variation, especially when set in highly-variable
contexts. To temper this trade-off, policymakers have added secondary
policy instruments. Perkins II and III included capacity-building
mechanisms that directed funds toward specific program improvements.
Perkins III also added stronger mandates than previous vocational
education legislation by holding states accountable for performance
targets in four areas. This combination of inducements with secondary
policy instruments is meant to direct lower levels of government to
implement programs consistent with federal expectations and
simultaneously send the signal that certain minimum standards must be
met as a condition for funding (McDonnell and Grubb, 1991).

Because states have greater leverage over local education agencies than
the federal government has, their policies can carry more weight. In
this study's sample, Perkins policies were being enacted consistent with
state structure, policy and interests but not necessarily completely
consistent with federal intent. In an era of standards-based reform,
Perkins III and concerns about vocational education are overshadowed by
state academic standards and assessments and accountability systems that
often ignore vocational and technical learning. While study sites were
aware of and working toward most --- but not all --- of the quality
practices described by Perkins II and III, these efforts were largely on
the margins of important other state reforms. Significantly, vocational
education policies were strongest and most consistently implemented ---
or had at least the most promise of implementation --- in more
centralized states that were able to use policy mandates to secure local
compliance. But these states were not necessarily following federal
policy. Rather, they were reforming vocational education to meet state
conditions and needs.

This report indicates that Perkins III has undoubtedly made some
important contributions to improving the quality of vocational education
--- for example, in supporting technology-related improvements and
encouraging greater attention to student outcomes, and it will likely
continue to support vocational education in many ways. But it is too
soon too tell whether the stronger mandates in Perkins III
accountability will have the desired effect, and some of the
philosophical, structural and incentive barriers will not likely be
overcome by time alone.

# Appendix A: Selection of States and Schools

This appendix provides details on the procedures and criteria for
selecting case-study sites.

## State Selection

Seven states were included in the case studies: California, Florida,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. Each of the
states shares the following characteristics:

-   They each have data systems in place that provide information about
    student achievement and vocational education participation.

-   They have significant academic and vocational education reforms
    under way that should lead to improved vocational offerings.

-   Experts recommended them based on knowledge of the state's progress
    and innovation. Several of them have significant work under way to
    strengthen workforce development and to forge stronger links between
    secondary and postsecondary vocational programs.

-   As a whole, they balance the need for geographic diversity,
    population concentrations/locale, and different types of vocational
    schools.

The states in the sample provide variation on demographic and
programmatic dimensions that allow us to describe implementation of
Perkins III. The states in the sample account for about 38 percent of
the nation's K--12 student population.

### Selection Criteria

To identify states for the case-study sample, two main criteria and
several secondary criteria were used. To address questions about the
relationship between school performance and implementation, the sample
of schools needed to vary on some measure of student achievement. In
addition, because we are interested in vocational education, the schools
in the sample must include sufficient vocational program offerings.
These two characteristics --- achievement and vocational intensity ---
constitute the main selection criteria for choosing schools. Thus, they
are the main criteria for selecting states. Secondary characteristics
--- geography, demography, vocational education structure, presence of
academic school reforms or workforce development initiatives, and
linkages to postsecondary schools --- were considered to ensure
variation in the types of sites visited. Information about states was
collected through a variety of sources, including document review, Web
site review, interviews with state officials, expert opinions, and other
studies and databases.

### Selection Procedures

We reviewed the availability and accessibility of state data on academic
achievement, vocational enrollment and student demographics. The primary
source of information was state department of education Web sites.
Additionally, we interviewed experts, asking them which states had
undertaken significant academic, vocational or School-to-Work reforms
and had attempted to build strong relationships between secondary and
postsecondary institutions. Then, we further investigated availability
of state data for states that received strong or multiple nominations
from experts. To be included in the sample, states needed to provide
school-level student achievement data, vocational enrollment data and a
file that linked the state's identifiers for schools to the National
Center for Educational Statistics identifiers for schools in the Common
Core of Data --- to provide demographic information.

For states with sufficient data available, we reviewed state reforms and
the structure of vocational education. We looked for states that had
undertaken reforms, such as new academic and vocational standards,
identification of required occupational skills, increased graduation
requirements, elimination of the general track, institution of statewide
integration or Tech-Prep programs, or adoption of applied academics or
certificates of mastery. We identified the types of vocational delivery
systems in states, such as area vocational schools, comprehensive high
schools and vocational schools.

After compiling and examining data from different sources, we identified
approximately 10 states that had reasonable, easily accessible --- or
available upon request --- data and that had instituted some type of
reform that might be expected to improve vocational education quality.
We also considered geographic diversity and demography to ensure that
the sample would represent different regions of the country, a range of
demographic characteristics --- for example, high and low minority ---
and both urban and rural sites. In consultation with our project
officers, we identified a list of seven states for study: California,
Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.
Massachusetts replaced New York in the sample when New York declined to
participate.

## School Selection

In selecting school sites, we strove to be objective and consistent and
to identify sites that could provide meaningful data about vocational
education in a range of settings. The sample was selected to balance
various vocational programs and school characteristics. The process had
three main components: analysis of achievement data, screening for
vocational intensity and consideration of school characteristics to
provide balance throughout the sample. Each of the schools shares the
following characteristics:

-   Relative to other schools in the state, they have either high or low
    student achievement after adjusting for the demographic
    characteristics of their students.

-   They have significant vocational programs; the schools' vocational
    enrollment exceeds the state's median enrollment.

-   As a whole, they balance the need for geographic diversity,
    concentrations of population/locale and different types of
    vocational schools.

### Analysis of Achievement Data

We analyzed student achievement data in each state and classified
schools based on actual school performance compared with predicted
performance. Some might argue that selected schools for a study of the
quality of vocational education should be based on their vocational and
technical performance. However, very few states assess students'
vocational and technical performance, and, where they do, it is not
always available by school. This was the case even in states where the
main vehicle for vocational education was in an area vocational school
or in technical school. Thus, we used academic achievement data to
stratify schools' performance. Available state data systems did not test
or track student performance to the area vocational school. Then, the
selection process concentrated on comprehensive high schools.
Nevertheless, the study includes AVSs associated with the selected
comprehensive high schools from which they draw their students.

To stratify schools by performance, we conducted regression analyses
using school-level data that adjusted school performance for school
characteristics, including the demographics of the student population.
We identified schools that seemed to be performing above or below
expectations, given their characteristics. State assessments at the
high-school level were used as measures of school performance. While the
assessments were unique to each state, sufficient variation in each
state's results differentiated school performance. For each school, we
created a single achievement measure by averaging standardized state
test scores using multiple years of test results --- where available.

The model for predicting achievement included measures of racial and
ethnic distribution of a school's students, percentage of students
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, school locale, and school
size. This information was drawn from state databases or the Common Core
of Data. Regression models for each state differed slightly, depending
on the type of data available and the distributions within the dataset.
For example, in some states many schools had three or more sizeable
ethnic groups, while in others, most schools had only one or two such
groups. Where available, we also considered alternative models that
included such variables as percentage eligible for public assistance,
percentage gifted and percentage of students classified as limited
English proficient. Results tended to be robust to the inclusion of the
additional variables and given that such additional variables were not
available in all states, we restricted predictors in the model to allow
for consistency across states.

The regression models provided adjusted achievement ranks for each
school. On the basis of these ranks, we selected two samples from each
state. The first sample --- "low-performing schools" --- included 15
schools chosen at random from the 10th to 30th percentile of schools, as
determined by the adjusted ranks. The second sample --- "high-performing
schools" --- included 15 schools chosen from the top quintile of
schools, as determined by the adjusted ranks.

### Screening for Vocational Intensity

Selected schools were then screened for vocational intensity by
identifying the percentage of students enrolled in a vocational class at
each school. State departments of education provided their own internal
data on vocational enrollment, with the exception of Florida. In
Florida, we used commercially available data from Market Data Retrieval
to determine the concentration of teachers classified as vocational in a
school as a proxy for vocational enrollment of students. Using
vocational enrollment data, we identified the 30 selected schools on
each state's list whose vocational enrollment exceeded median
enrollment. Interpretation of vocational enrollment information across
states was challenging because states, and often schools in the same
state, have different definitions of vocational enrollment or vocational
courses. Some state databases count every student taking a vocational
course, while other states only consider students who are enrolled in a
sequence of courses. Also, some states include all vocational classes in
the database while others exclude classes that are commonly taken but
not part of a vocational track, for example, keyboarding or computer
literacy. Thus, the level of vocational intensity varied significantly
across states with the median school in Texas having 62 percent of
students enrolled in vocational courses and the median school in
Michigan having 23 percent participation. We removed schools with
vocational participation below the median, therefore ensuring that
schools in the sample had high vocational participation relative to the
entire state. Our assumption is that at least half of the schools in the
state have meaningful participation.

The exception to the process was Massachusetts, which entered the study
as a replacement state. In Massachusetts, we ranked all schools on the
basis of our standard achievement analysis, but, rather than selecting
random samples for screening for vocational intensity, we screened all
schools in the state --- including only schools with five or more
approved vocational programs. The state provided us with a list for this
purpose.

### Consideration of School Characteristics

Representatives from state departments of education reviewed the
screened lists of about 30 schools. They were asked to identify schools
without significant vocational enrollment and schools that should be
excluded because of administrative problems or crises that would
preclude data collection. In a few cases, administrators provided
additional vocational enrollment data, but none of the administrators
identified schools that should be excluded on the grounds of
administrative problems or crises. During the process, a few state
administrators raised concerns that some lists contained many very
small, rural school districts with limited vocational offerings. Some
were concerned that the schools on the list did not receive
(significant) Perkins funds because the funds were directed to districts
with numerous special populations. In Florida, none of the schools
selected receive Perkins funds because they are directed to a few urban
districts. Additionally, we investigated some state administrators'
concerns --- for example, the seeming paucity of urban schools on the
list. In some cases, many urban schools did not meet the performance
criteria, either being "average" or performing at an extremely low
level. Other urban schools met performance criteria but did not make the
candidate list because of the process of random selection.

From the reviewed list, we also considered secondary criteria:
geography, locale and accessibility. Within each state, we sought to
represent regions as well as provide some urban and rural
representation. A few schools were excluded from consideration because
of their extreme remoteness that would make site visits impractical.
Additionally, schools with competitive and selective admissions
processes for all students were excluded from the study. In each state,
two pairs of high- and low-performing schools with similar locale and
representing the range of regions were selected. If more than one
candidate existed for the selected pairs, schools were selected randomly
within each performance group.

Once four schools were identified in each state, we gave state
administrators an opportunity to review the final selections. State
administrators also advised us on local protocol for asking schools to
participate in the study. In almost every case, state administrators
provided a letter of introduction and support for the study, which was
sent to the schools along with a letter from the research team. RAND and
MPR then followed up with calls to the principals to describe the study
and secure participation. At schools where the majority of vocational
education occurred at an off-site facility, such as an area vocational
school, we approached the AVS along with the selected school.

### Replacing Schools

Of the 28 schools selected initially, 21 agreed to participate. Seven
schools --- five high-performing and two low-performing --- refused for
a variety of reasons. At three sites, we had to replace candidate
schools twice because the backup schools also refused. A common reason
for refusing was the principal's feeling that the school was overwhelmed
with extraneous activities, such as state testing, other research
studies, Office of Civil Rights visits and natural disasters. In one
case, the district barred schools from participating in research. In a
few schools, including a school where overcrowding resulted in an abrupt
moratorium on all vocational education, not enough students were
enrolled in vocational education to warrant participation in the
National Assessment of Vocational Education. Replacements were randomly
chosen from the same performance stratum as the original site and, when
possible, from similar locale and geographic area of the state. When
selecting replacements, we gave preference to other schools from the
initial screening sample. If necessary, we extended the pool of possible
replacements to any school in the state in the correct performance
stratum with sufficient vocational enrollment and from a similar region
and locale.

# Appendix B: Survey Sample Design

In this appendix we describe the sample design for the National Teacher
Survey conducted as part of the National Assessment of Vocational
Education. The main purpose of the survey was to assess the extent to
which strategies promoted by the Perkins legislation have found their
way into vocational education practices. The survey was designed to
answer the following questions:

-   How prevalent are quality practices in vocational and technical
    education?

-   How do practices in comprehensive high schools compare with those in
    area vocational technical schools?

-   How do practices reported by vocational teachers compare with those
    of academic teachers?

-   Which practices are unique to vocational education and which to
    general reform?

The universe for our study includes all vocational and non-vocational
teachers of selected subjects in public secondary schools in the United
States. Secondary schools include comprehensive or regular schools as
well as vocational schools and area vocational centers. To be consistent
with the previous NAVE, we limited our population of schools to include
only public schools with 11^th^- and 12^th^-grade students. The universe
excludes all itinerant teachers --- unless their home base is the
sampled school ---, substitute teachers, special education teachers and
teachers teaching only physical education or music.

## The Sampling Frame of Schools and Teachers

The basis for the sampling frame of the universe was the Market Data
Retrieval K--12 Public School Data Base, school types senior high
schools and vocational technical schools, which excludes adult and
continuing education programs. MDR guarantees that the list of schools
is complete.[^25] The sampling frame excluded from this list schools
without 11^th^- and 12^th^-grade students. The frame also excluded
alternative and special education schools as defined by MDR. The frame
included 16,945 schools.

We compared this frame to the 1998 Common Core of Data maintained by the
National Center for Education Statistics. For the comparison, the CCD
list excluded schools classified by the CCD as alternative or special
education. The MDR list contained almost all schools on the CCD, and MDR
verified that to the best of their information schools not on the MDR
list were not in operation. The comparison between the two lists
revealed errors in the CCD. For example, the CCD maintained school names
and addresses that were out of date --- and in at least one case, many
years out of date. Therefore, the frame for the teacher sample included
only the schools on the MDR list.

A teacher sampling frame was compiled at each sampled school by first
creating a roster of teachers employed at the school and then
identifying sample-eligible teachers on the roster. Rosters were
obtained using a two-stage process. First, RAND purchased teacher lists
for sampled schools from MDR. MDR maintained teacher lists for all but
one of the sampled schools. For the next stage of roster building, RAND
staff contacted the office personnel at every sampled school and
requested that the staff verify the accuracy of the MDR list or provide
an alternative. When available, the final roster was the corrected list
of teachers provided by the school. Otherwise, the roster was the MDR
list augmented by lists from QED, another vendor of school lists.[^26]

The rosters contained teacher names and teaching assignments. Teacher
eligibility was determined on the basis of the assignments. RAND staff
compiled a complete list of assignments and reviewed each assignment to
determine eligibility. The sampling frame at each school is the roster
of teachers with eligible teaching assignments.

## Sampling Strata

The sample design used for this study was a two-stage stratified sample.
The first stage sample was a stratified random sample of schools. The
second stage sample was a stratified random sample of teachers from the
selected schools. We first describe the strata used for the first stage
of sampling and then discuss the teacher strata.

Schools were stratified by school type --- for example, comprehensive or
vocational --- and size of the teaching staff. All schools in the frame
were first classified as either comprehensive or vocational. We first
describe the vocational strata and then discuss comprehensive schools.

### Vocational Schools

To enhance comparisons between the current study and the previous NAVE,
we planned to classify schools as vocational using the previous study
definition of a vocational school. The previous NAVE study reported that
vocational schools were defined as schools that provided "only
vocational education," (Muraskin, Hollinger, and Harvey, 1994, p. T-6).
All other schools were classified as comprehensive or regular for that
study. We could not locate a readily available source that identified
the universe of schools offering only a vocational course of study.
Using data from MDR, we were able to determine which schools had only
vocational teachers. However, our school frame contained far fewer
schools with only vocational teachers than the number of vocational
schools reported by the previous NAVE study. Therefore, we contacted the
researchers who conducted the previous NAVE to determine the data source
they used for stratifying schools. Several of these researchers reported
that they recalled using the QED list of vocational schools, and the
published reports from the previous study state that QED provided the
sampling frame (Muraskin et al., 1994).

In 2000, the QED universe of vocational schools was similar in size to
the MDR universe. In addition, the two data sources used similar
definitions of vocational schools --- QED did not define vocational
schools as schools providing only a vocational course of study.
Therefore, we determined that the MDR classification of schools was
comparable to the QED and that using the MDR definition would produce
estimates that are substantively interesting and comparable to the
previous NAVE.[^27] The following is MDR's definition of a vocational
school:

A Vocational School is a school \... separately organized under the
direction and management of an administrator (such as a principal) for
the primary purpose of offering education and training in one or more of
the skilled, semiskilled or technical occupations. In some cases
students attend the school full-time and receive their academic courses
as well as their vocational courses. In other cases, students attend a
vocational school part-time, receiving only their vocational courses
there, and attend a regular high school for their academics. Vocational
schools can also be referred to as Voc-Tech Schools and Technical
Schools. (Market Data Retrieval, 2000.)

Schools were classified into either the vocational or comprehensive
school stratum. The vocational school stratum contained all schools
classified as vocational by MDR. The comprehensive school stratum
contained all other schools. Table B.1 lists the number of schools in
the population and the sample from each stratum. We sampled 134 schools
from the vocational stratum and 234 schools from the comprehensive
stratum.

######## Table B.1 Numbers of Schools by Vocational and Comprehensive Strata

  ---------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------
  **Strata**       **Number of Schools in\      **Number of Schools in\
                   Population**                 Sample**

  Vocational       1,216                        134

  Comprehensive    15,729                       234

  Total            16,945                       368
  ---------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------

We stratified vocational schools into schools from vocational local
education agencies --- LEAs with only vocational schools --- and schools
from mixed vocational and comprehensive LEAs --- LEAs with both
comprehensive and vocational schools. Of the 1,216 vocational schools,
356 (29.3 percent) were from vocational LEAs and 860 (70.7 percent) were
from mixed LEAs. We further stratified schools from the mixed LEAs into
area vocational schools or centers --- AVS --- and vocational high
schools.

We classified a school as a vocational high school if it employed more
than 15 teachers and less than 50 percent of these teachers were
classified as vocational. Small schools or schools with a majority of
vocational teachers were classified as AVS. Table B.2 gives counts of
schools in the population and sample by the three vocational school
strata.

######## Table B.2 Numbers of Schools by Vocational School Strata

  --------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------
  **Strata**      **Number of Schools in\       **Number of Schools in\
                  Population**                  Sample**

  Vocational LEA                                

  All schools     356                           50

  Mixed LEA                                     

  *Vocational     77                            10
  High Schools*                                 

  AVS             783                           74
  --------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------

We further stratified schools on the basis of the number of vocational
teachers. For every school, MDR provided a count of vocational and other
teachers. Although MDR reported that the counts should be accurate for
most schools, they could not make precise estimate of the overall
accuracy or the distribution of errors in the lists. Therefore, we used
Common Core of Data enrollment data to predict the MDR teacher count. On
the basis of this model, we identified low outliers --- schools where
the model greatly exceeded the MDR count. We assumed that these were
schools where MDR had an inaccurate list. To get the most accurate
prediction model, we iteratively excluded the low outliers from the data
and refit the prediction model. We repeated this process until the data
contained no additional low outliers. For the low outliers, we used the
model prediction as our estimate of size rather than the MDR list. Using
the data without the outliers, we then fit models for predicting the
proportion of vocational teachers at a school. We used this model to
estimate the proportion of vocational teachers for schools where we
estimated the number of teachers. The product of these two estimates
provided an estimate of the number of vocational teachers. The estimate
of the number of other or academic teachers is found by subtraction ---
the estimated total minus the estimated number of vocational teachers.

The size strata and the number of schools per strata were determined to
minimize the coefficient of variation in the teacher sampling weights
for vocational teachers. The sampling weight is the inverse of the
selection probability. The selection probability is the product of the
probability that the school is selected and the probability that a
teacher is selected from a sampled school. School selection
probabilities were determined by the sampling rate in each stratum. The
teacher selection probability equals the number of teachers sampled
divided by the number of teachers in the school. We sampled up to five
vocational teachers from each vocational school. For schools with less
than five teachers, we included all teachers. For other schools we chose
a simple random sample of five teachers. Five teachers were chosen as a
balance between the goal of limiting the design effects of the
clustering of teachers within a school and the desire to limit the total
sample of schools. We determined that a sample of 134 schools with (up
to) five teachers from each would provide sufficiently precise
estimates. Using these sampling rules, we determined the optimal size
strata and strata allocations through Monte Carlo replications of the
sampling procedure. Stratification by size --- estimated number of
vocational teachers at the school --- and sampling roughly five teachers
from every school resulted in a sample design that, across possible
samples, produced stable sample sizes and within a sample variability of
the weights that was small on average with a limited range. The final
sample of vocational schools includes 134 schools and 659 vocational
teachers.

Academic teachers in vocational schools make up only a very small
fraction of the teacher population. We decided not to oversample these
teachers. These teachers were not the main focus of our study and
oversampling would have resulted in a large reduction in the precision
of our estimates for all academic teachers, pooling across vocational
and other schools. Therefore, we selected a small sample of academic
teachers from the vocational schools. For each school we randomly chose
the number of academic teachers to include so that the sampling rate for
academic teachers in the vocational schools equaled the sampling rate
for academic teachers in other schools. The final sample included 21
academic teachers from vocational schools.

### Comprehensive Schools

We stratified comprehensive schools on the basis of the number of
vocational and the number of academic (i.e., not vocational) teachers at
the school. Using the same procedures described above we estimated the
number of vocational and the number of academic teachers using the MDR
counts and the CCD enrollment data. We then chose strata limits and
allocations to minimize the expected coefficient of variation in the
sampling weights for both vocational and academic teachers. We again
used Monte Carlo replications of the sampling procedure to determine the
expected coefficient of variability.

On the basis of power calculations, we determined that we would sample
234 schools and would select simple random samples of five academic
teachers and five vocational teachers from each school. For schools with
fewer than five teachers of either type, all would be included. We
modified the preliminary sample design to include (up to) five academic
teachers from each sampled school, five vocational teachers for schools
with 10 or fewer vocational teachers, and six vocational teachers for
schools with 11 or more vocational teachers. We modified the sample to
reduce the variability in the sample size and to ensure a sufficiently
large sample of vocational teachers.

## Teacher Strata

Within each school, teachers on the frame were classified as vocational
or academic. The strata were defined using the teaching assignments
listed on the sampling frame provided by the principal or MDR. The one
exception is health teachers. We classified all health teachers as
vocational because we expected that in some schools the assignment for
health professions teachers was "health" or "health teacher."

Within each school a simple random sample of teachers was selected from
each stratum. The sample sizes were determined according to the rules
described above. The goal was a sample with 660 vocational teachers and
about 20 academic teachers from vocational schools and 1,170 vocational
and 1,170 academic teachers from comprehensive schools. The final sample
as fielded included 659 vocational teachers and 21 academic teachers
from vocational schools and 1,118 vocational and 1,160 academic teachers
from comprehensive schools.

The teacher assignments used to stratify teachers for sampling were
somewhat ambiguous for some teachers. For example, the assignment
"computer teacher" might refer to a technology teacher in a vocational
course of study or a mathematics teacher teaching academic courses.
Therefore, we used teacher responses to survey items 16 ("What is your
PRIMARY teaching assignment --- that is, *in* what subject area do you
teach the most classes this school year?") and 18 ("What is the *course
title* of the FIRST class in your PRIMARY teaching assignment that you
taught today \[or on the most recent regular school day\]?") to
determine if the sampling strata accurately reflected the teacher's
assignment as either a vocational or academic teacher. We reclassified
58 teachers sampled as vocational teachers, who on the basis of their
survey responses appeared to be academic teachers. We also identified
seven teachers sampled as academic, who on the basis of survey responses
were reclassified as vocational for analyses.[^28]

## Survey Response

We sampled 134 vocational and 264 comprehensive schools. Of these
schools, one academic and one vocational school were found to be
ineligible. Both ineligible schools were replaced by random sampling
another school from the ineligible school's sampling strata. The weights
for schools from those two strata were increased to reflect a reduction
in the size of the school population for the strata.

Of the 368 eligible schools, six vocational and 16 comprehensive schools
refused to participate in the study. For each of these schools, we
selected a replacement school by randomly sampling another school from
the refusing school's sampling strata.[^29] Of this final sample of
schools, 276 schools --- 103 vocational and 173 comprehensive ---
returned the teacher rosters. We used MDR rosters for 26 of the
remaining vocational schools and 56 of the remaining comprehensive
schools. We were unable to obtain teacher rosters or approval for
sampling for the remaining 11 schools --- five vocational and six
comprehensive.[^30] Because we could only sample teachers in schools for
which we obtained a roster, the schools without rosters are
non-responding schools, and they reduce the overall response rate for
the survey.

The teacher sample included 2,958 teachers (680 from vocational schools
--- 659 vocational, 21 academic; and 2,278 from comprehensive schools
--- 1,118 vocational and 1,160 academic). Of the 2,958 sampled teachers,
1,595 (54 percent) completed the survey instrument and an additional 148
(5 percent) reported that they were ineligible to for the study. Thus,
according to the definition disseminated by the Council of American
Survey Organizations (Frankel, 1983) the response rate for this sample
equals 100 × (1,595 + 148)/2,924 = 100 × 1,743/2,958 = 59 percent.
Teachers who reported being ineligible tended not to teach high school
students at the sampled school --- some had left the school, others did
not teach, others taught only adult or postsecondary education --- or
taught only special education.

McCaffrey, Duan, and Morton (2000) define the respondent coverage rate,
which estimates the response rate among eligible teachers and allows for
differential eligibility rates among non-respondents. To obtain this
estimate we developed non-response weights --- see details below --- to
weight up the responding teachers, both eligible and ineligible, to the
entire sample. The product of the non-response and sampling weights
equals the analysis weights --- after trimming a few large weights.[^31]
The sum of the analysis weights equals the sum of the sampling weights
for the original sample of teachers. The RCR estimates the proportion of
the population that would respond to the survey if sampled. For this
study, the RCR equals the sum of the analysis sampling weights for
responding eligible teachers divided by the sum of the analysis weights
for the same teachers. The RCR equals 59 percent for the overall sample,
66 percent for vocational teachers in vocational schools, 60 percent for
vocational teachers in comprehensive schools, and 58 percent for
academic teachers in comprehensive schools.[^32]

### Adjustments for Survey Non-response

Response rates among the surveyed teachers differed across identifiable
groups of teachers. For teachers, we had the following data for both
respondents and non-respondents to uses for modeling response:

-   School type --- area vocational schools in vocational district, AVS
    in joint district, vocational high school in joint district.

-   School size --- estimated number of vocational and academic
    teachers.

-   Source of roster --- school or MDR.

-   Teaching assignment --- as listed on roster.

-   School locale --- urban, suburban or rural.

-   Percentage of white, non-Hispanic students.

Racial-ethnic data were unavailable for almost all schools not listed in
the Common Core of Data. All the comprehensive schools in the sample
were found in the CCD and had racial-ethnic data. However, many of the
vocational schools were not found in the CCD, and MDR did not provide
racial-ethnic data for most of these schools. Thus, data on the
racial-ethnic distribution was substantially incomplete for vocational
schools and could not be used to predict response. We did obtain
racial-ethnic and socioeconomic data from schools, but this was not
useful for modeling response because it was available only for a subset
of the schools and teachers.

We first discuss the response patterns for the vocational teachers from
the vocational schools and then discuss vocational and academic teachers
from comprehensive schools.

*Vocational Teachers in Vocational Schools*. We found that teachers from
schools in vocational districts were more likely to respond than their
counterparts in joint districts --- in particular, teachers in area
vocational schools in joint districts were least likely to respond (57
percent), while 67 percent of teachers for vocational districts
responded. We also found that teachers from very small schools --- few
vocational teachers --- had a very low response rate (28 percent), but
school size was not systematically related to the teacher response rate
among larger schools. Occupational home economics teachers were the most
likely to respond at 69 percent, and trade and industrial and
technology/technical communications teachers were the least likely ---
57 percent and 64 percent, respectively.

Teachers were more likely to respond when the school provided a roster
than when we used the MDR roster. Several plausible reasons exist for
the association between the source of the roster and the response rate.
First, teachers from the MDR rosters were contacted later than most of
the teachers on school-supplied rosters. To maintain the greatest
accuracy in our frame, we wanted every school to verify the MDR roster.
Therefore, we only used the MDR roster as a last resort after the school
failed to provide a roster by the deadline required to allow us
sufficient time to field the teacher surveys. Thus, samples from the MDR
roster were fielded much later than the most of the samples from the
school-supplied rosters, allowing less time for follow-up. The
abbreviated follow-up could be a source of the lower response rates.
Second, the MDR rosters could contain more ineligible teachers who did
not report ineligibility than the school-supplied rosters. Third, almost
all communications with the schools and teachers were through the school
office and schools where the office did not provide a roster might have
made less of an effort to ensure that teachers received the survey
packets and understood the importance of completing the survey. Finally,
schools with uncooperative offices might also be schools with
uncooperative teachers --- for example, schools that had teachers with
very active schedules.

We modeled teacher response using the variables listed above. We first
created non-response weights for the five non-responding schools ---
schools without rosters or permission to survey. Using these
non-response weights we created temporary analysis weights for all
teachers. We fit a weighted logistic regression model to predict
response using the temporary analysis weights. The final model for
predicting response included an indicator for whether the principal
returned the staff list, indicators for small schools --- fewer than
five vocational teachers --- and medium schools --- five to seven
vocational teachers --- and indicators for technology and trade and
industrial teachers.[^33]

We used the propensity method of Little and Rubin (1987) to poststratify
teachers for estimating non-response weights. Teachers were stratified
into five strata according to the size of the predicted probability of
response from the logistic regression model. Within each stratum the
response weight is the ratio of the sum of all teachers to the sum of
the weights for the respondents.[^34]

*Vocational Teachers from Comprehensive Schools*. Agriculture teachers
had the lowest response rate (42 percent), followed by career education
teachers (45 percent), and business teacher (54 percent). At the other
extreme, health occupations teacher had the highest response rate (75
percent), followed by occupational home economics teachers (67 percent).
Response rates were not systematically related to the number of academic
teachers. However, teachers from schools with more than 20 vocational
teachers had the relatively low response rate of 44 percent. Response
rates increased with the percentage of white non-Hispanic students at
the school. For schools where less than 25 percent of students are white
non-Hispanic, the response rate was 46 percent, for schools with 25
percent to 75 percent white non-Hispanic students the response rate was
51 percent, and for schools with 75 percent or more white non-Hispanic
students the response rate was 61 percent. Teachers were also much less
likely to respond when the principal did not return a staff list than
when he or she did (41 percent versus 65 percent).

The final model for predicting response included an indicator for
whether or not the principal returned the staff list, an indicator for
whether or not the school had 75 percent or more white non-Hispanic
students, and indicators for health occupations and occupational home
economics teachers. The model also included indicators for schools with
less than 40, with 40 to 59 academic teachers, and with 11 to 14
vocational teachers. The model also took into account interactions
between the indicators for the numbers of academic and vocational
teachers. The predicted probability of response was again used to assign
teachers to post-strata for estimating non-response weights.

*Academic Teachers from Comprehensive Schools*. Social studies teachers
and teachers classified as other had the lowest response rates (51
percent and 47 percent, respectively). The response rates ranged from
about 62 percent to 65 percent for teachers in all other disciplines.
Response was not systematically related to the number of vocational or
academic teachers in the school. Teachers from schools where less than
25 percent of students are white non-Hispanic were less likely to
respond than teachers in other schools --- 46 percent versus 60 percent.
Teachers also were much less likely to respond when the principal did
not return a staff list than when he or she did --- 44 percent versus 66
percent.

The final model for predicting response included an indicator for
whether or not the principal returned the staff list, an indicator for
whether or not the school had 75 percent or more white non-Hispanic
students, and indicators for social studies teachers. The model also
included indicators for schools with less than 30, with 40 to 59, and
with 60 to 89 academic teachers. The predicted probability of response
was again used to assign teachers to poststrata for estimating
non-response weights.

### Standard Error Estimation

Linearization methods (Skinner, 1989) were used to estimate the standard
errors for all parameter estimates. Replacement sampling was assumed for
each stratum, even those with relatively large sampling fractions. A
small simulation study supported the use of this estimator.

## Creation of the Overall Teacher Quality Scale

The Overall Teacher Quality Scale is a maximum nine-point scale. It
consists of six individual scales, which have been divided into two or
three categories each. The variables used to create the scale are given
in parentheses, and the name of the final scale is given in capitalized
letters.

### Q22. Use of Standards (q_22a_related--q22d_related, q22a_affect--q22d_affect)

Survey Item 22: Are there any curriculum standards or student
performance standards related to the identified class? If so, to what
extent do the standards affect your teaching in the identified class?

(Check yes if standards exist; if yes, check 1 (not at all), 2 (a slight
extent), 3 (a moderate extent), 4 (a great extent). Standards listed are
a) state-adopted, b) district-adopted, c) industry-adopted, d)
school-adopted.

For each of the four standards (state-adopted, district-adopted,
industry-adopted or school-adopted), we created two variables. The first
variable, q22_related, refers to whether the standards related to the
identified class. The second variable, q22_affect, refers to what extent
the standards affected teaching in the identified class.

The scale takes the maximum value of q22a_affect through q22d_affect. We
recoded q22a_affect through q22d_affect using information from items
q22a_related through q22d_related. If the teacher indicated that a
standard was not relevant to the class, the corresponding response
regarding the extent to which the standard affected their teaching was
recoded from legitimate skip ("S") to 1 (for example, "does not affect
teaching at all."). Then, the maximum value of q22a_affect through
q22d_affect was found. Once the maximum value was found, two groups were
created such that those who indicated moderate to great extent (for
example, 3 or 4) constituted one group (recoded as 1) and those who
indicated none or little extent (for example, 1 or 2) constituted
another (recoded as 0). This final, dichotomized scale is called MAXAFF,
and takes a maximum value of 1 point.

### Q20. Academic and Technical Quality (Academic Quality, q20a, q20b, q20d; Technical Quality, q20c, q20f)

The Academic Quality Index consists of three items: q20a (class fulfills
academic requirement), q20b (class is designated as honors) and q20d
(class has articulation agreement). The Technical Quality Index consists
of two items: q20c (class leads to certificate of occupational skills)
and q20f (class includes paid related internship). Question 20 asked,
"Do any of the following features apply to the identified class?" (Check
yes or no).

All these items were recoded so that 0 = "no" and 1= "yes." The relevant
items were summed within a scale so that the Academic Quality Index
ranged from 0 to 3 and the Technical Quality Index ranged from 0 to 2.
The Academic Quality Index was then further divided into three groups so
that teachers who received a score of 0 constituted one group (recoded
as 0), those who received a score of 1 constituted another (recoded as
1), and those who received a score of 2 or 3 constituted a third group
(recoded as 2). This scale is called ACADEMIC_INDEX, and takes a maximum
value of 2 points. The Technical Quality Index was dichotomized so that
those who scored a 0 made up one group (recoded as 0) and those teachers
with a score of 1 or 2 were the other group (recoded as 1). This scale
is TECHNICAL_INDEX and takes a maximum value of 1 point.

### Q24. Assessed Competencies (q24b, q24c, q24e, q24h, q24j, q24f, q24g, q24i, q24k)

This item asked: "To what extent do each of the following competencies
contribute to students' grades in the identified class?" Check 1 (not at
all), 2 (a slight extent), 3 (a moderate extent), 4 (a great extent).
The list of competencies are b) advanced reading skills; c) writing
skills; e) advanced mathematics skills; h) research/reference skills; j)
creative thinking and problem-solving skills; f) oral communication
skills; g) teamwork skills; i) ability to use technology to solve
problems; and k) ability to apply academic concepts to
occupation-related tasks that might be found in a job or career.

Responses for items relating to the above competencies were summed, then
divided into three groups. The first group was those whose competency
score was 20 or less (recoded as 0), the second group was those whose
competency score was between 21 and 29 (recoded as 1), and the third
group was those whose competency score was greater than 30 (recoded as
2). This scale, COMPETENCIES_OVERALL, takes a maximum value of 2 points.

### Q17. Teacher Quality (q17)

Item 17 asked, "Do you have a teaching certificate in your state in the
same subject as your primary teaching assignment?" Check 1 (yes), 2
(no), or 3 (not applicable).

"Not applicable" responses were recoded as "no." A 2-point scale,
CERTIFICATE, was created that takes on the value of 0 if the response is
"no" and 1 if the response is "yes." The maximum value of CERTIFICATE is
1 point.

### Q25. Amount of Homework (q25_hr q25_min)

Item 25 asked, "For the identified class, how many hours of homework
were assigned in the last five school days?" Respondent wrote in number
of hours and minutes.

The amount of homework within the last five days was first converted to
minutes. The number of minutes was then divided into three groups. The
first group (recoded as 0) consisted of those who assigned between 0 and
50 minutes of homework, the second group (recoded as 1) consisted of
those who assigned between 51 and 150 minutes of homework, and the third
group (recoded as 2) consisted of those who assigned more than 150
minutes of homework. This scale, HOMEWORK, takes a maximum value of 2
points.

## Overall Teacher Scale

The 9-point overall teacher scale (TEACHER_QUALITY) was created by
summing up the dichotomized or trichotomized individual scales.

# Appendix C: Efforts to Improve Quality --- Summary Tables and Analysis of "High-Performing" and "Low-Performing" Schools

This appendix first provides summary tables in support of the case-study
analysis. The tables show, for each of the seven states, how high- and
low-performing schools in each state were implementing the program
improvements discussed in Perkins III. Each table lists different
indicators used to assess local efforts to improve. Throughout, 1 or 2
designates a high-performing school; and 3 or 4 designates a
low-performing school. In cases where a local site was represented by
more than one school (for example, a high school and a regional
occupational program or area vocational school), the identifying number
is further qualified as applying to the high school only, the ROP or the
AVS.

As discussed in Chapter Two, the analysis of high- and low-performing
schools with respect to a number of quality indicators associated with
the Perkins program improvements yielded few differences. This stemmed
undoubtedly partly from the sampling problems discussed in that chapter
and does not necessarily mean that vocational education does not or
cannot affect academic achievement.

Following the tables, further narrative describes the interpretation of
these data that led us to the overall conclusion that high- and
low-performing schools are *not* implementing Perkins differently. We
used simple counts for this analysis. One count included all 28 schools
in the sample. A second count included only the 13 "pure" schools ---
the schools sampled according to the original design and in which
vocational education was provided. These 13 schools --- seven
high-performing and six low-performing --- constitute the subset of
schools in which the analysis of high and low schools can be carried out
as originally intended. These schools are found in four states ---
Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Texas --- as follows:

High --- FL2, MA1, MA2, NC1, NC2, TX1, TX2

Low --- FL3, MA3, MA4, NC4, TX3, TX4

######## Table C.1 Integration Structure

+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
|        | Ca   | F      | Mas   | Mic   | North  | Ohio  | Texas |
|        | lifo | lorida | sachu | higan | Ca     |       |       |
|        | rnia |        | setts |       | rolina |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Voca   | 1, 3 | none   | none  | All   | none   | 1, 2, | 1, 2, |
| tional |      |        |       | sites |        | 3,    | 4     |
| as     |      |        |       |       |        | and 4 |       |
| stand  |      |        |       |       |        | AVS   |       |
| -alone |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| c      |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ourses |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Voca   | 1, 4 | all    | 2, 3, | 1, 2, | all    | 1, 2, | all   |
| tional |      |        | 4     | 3     |        | 3, 4  |       |
| as     | 3    |        |       |       |        | AVS   |       |
| se     | ROP  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| quence |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| of     |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| c      |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ourses |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| (ve    |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| rtical |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| a      |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| lign.) |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Pre-ap | none | none   |       |       |        | 3 AVS |       |
| prenti |      |        |       |       |        | (     |       |
| ceship |      |        |       |       |        | some) |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Career | 1    | 1 (1), | none  | 1     | none   | 3 AVS | 2     |
| aca    | (5), | 2 (2), |       |       |        |       | (1),  |
| demies | 3    | 3 (1), |       |       |        |       | 4 (1) |
|        | (2)  | 4 (1)  |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Career | 1    | all    | all   | 1, 2, | all    | 1, 2  | all   |
| pa     | ROP, |        |       | 3, 4  |        | AVS,  |       |
| thways | 2    |        |       | AVS   |        | 3 HS, |       |
|        | (7), |        |       |       |        | 3 AVS |       |
|        |      |        |       |       |        | (pla  |       |
|        | 3    |        |       |       |        | nned) |       |
|        | (    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | plan |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | ned) |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Other  | ROP  |        | 1     | AVS   | 3 HSTW | AVS   | 3     |
| organi | at   |        | HSTW, | at    |        | at    | H     |
| zation | all  |        | 2     | all   |        | all   | STW,\ |
|        | s    |        | sev   | sites |        | sites | 4     |
|        | ites |        | eral, |       |        |       | A     |
|        |      |        | 3     |       |        |       | ccele |
|        |      |        | HSTW  |       |        |       | rated |
|        |      |        |       |       |        |       | Sc    |
|        |      |        |       |       |        |       | hools |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Gr     | 1    | 1, 2   | none  | 1     | none   | 2, 3  | 2, 4  |
| ouping | and  | in     |       |       |        | AVS   | in    |
| of     | 3    | aca    |       |       |        |       | acad  |
| career | a    | demies |       |       |        |       | emies |
| st     | cade |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| udents | mies |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| in     | only |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| same   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ac     |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ademic |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| c      |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| lasses |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Block  | 3 (1 | 1, 3   | 2, 3, | 1 and | all    | 1,    | 2, 4  |
| sche   | ROP  |        | 4     | 4 AVS |        | 2--4  |       |
| duling | )    |        |       |       |        | AVS   |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Acad   | none | 3 in   | 3,    | 2 AVS | 2 in   | 2 HS, | 3     |
| emic/\ |      | a      | some  |       | co     | 4 AVS | devel |
| voca   |      | cademy | times |       | mputer | (     | oping |
| tional |      |        |       |       | class  | some) | units |
| team   |      |        |       |       |        |       | now   |
| te     |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| aching |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Common | 1    | none   | 2, 3  |       | none   | none  | 2, 4  |
| pl     | and  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| anning | 3    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| time   | a    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| for    | cade |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| te     | mies |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| achers | only |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+

########  

######## Table C.2 Integration Curriculum

  -------------------- ------------ --------- --------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- --------
                       California   Florida   Massachusetts   Michigan    North      Ohio       Texas
                                                                          Carolina              

  Increase academics   2, 3         all       all             1 AVS, 2, 3 all        2, 3 AVS,  all
  in vocational                                               AVS                    4 AVS      

  Increase             3            none      none            No evidence none       No         none
  vocational/careers                                                                 evidence   
  in academics                                                                                  

  Senior projects      1, 4         2 next    3, 4            No evidence 1, 4       AVS at 1,  3
                                    year                                             2, 3       

  Horizontal alignment 1, 3         1 in      2, 3, 4         1           all        4 AVS      3
                       (academy)    academy                                          (some)     

  Vertical alignment   1, 2, 3 ROP  all       2, 3, 4         1, 2        all        1, 2, 3    all
                                                              (some), 3              (some), 4  

  Project-based        1 and 3      all       2, 3, 4         3 (some)    all        2, 3 AVS   all
  learning             academy, 2                             and 4 AVS              (some)     
                       (some)                                                                   

  Connections to work  1 (some      all       all             2 some, 1   all        2, 3 AVS   all
  (e.g., job shadow,   programs),                             and 4 AVS                         
  speakers)            2, 3, 4                                                                  

  Work-based learning  All sites    all       all             1 AVS, 2    all        1 AVS, 2,  2, 3, 4
                       for some                               (some), 3,             3 AVS, 4   
                       programs                               4                                 

  Credit for WBL       1, 4, 3 ROP  1, 2      2, 3, 4         2, 3, 4     all        2 AVS, 4   2, 3, 4
                                                              (some                             
                                                              programs)                         

  Class seminars to    4 (one       1         3               4 (some)    none       4 HS       none
  discuss WBL          class)                                                        (some)     

  School-based         2, 4         1         4               3, 4 AVS    2          AVS at 1,  none
  enterprise                                                                         2, 4       
  -------------------- ------------ --------- --------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- --------

######## Table C.3 Challenging Academic and Vocational Standards

+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
|        | Ca   | F      | Mas   | Mic   | North  | Ohio  | Texas |
|        | lifo | lorida | sachu | higan | Ca     |       |       |
|        | rnia |        | setts |       | rolina |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Voca   | 2    | all    | no    | Elim  |        | Elimi | no    |
| tional | (el  |        |       | inate |        | nated |       |
| c      | imin |        |       | k     |        | k     |       |
| ourses | ated |        |       | eyboa |        | eyboa |       |
| meet   | app  |        |       | rding |        | rding |       |
| c      | lied |        |       | for   |        | for   |       |
| ertain | Engl |        |       | vocat |        | vocat |       |
| ac     | ish) |        |       | ional |        | ional |       |
| ademic |      |        |       | c     |        | c     |       |
| st     |      |        |       | redit |        | redit |       |
| andard |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Voca   | 1    | all    | no    | 1, 2  | no     | 2, 3, | no    |
| tional | and  |        |       | (some |        | and 4 |       |
| c      | 3    |        |       | AVS), |        | (     |       |
| ourses | ac   |        |       | 3     |        | some) |       |
| earn   | adem |        |       | (     |        |       |       |
| ac     | ies, |        |       | some) |        |       |       |
| ademic | 2    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| credit | (    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | some |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | p    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | rogr |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | ams) |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Voca   | 2    |        | 3, 4  | 1, 3  | all    | 2 AVS | all   |
| tional | (    |        |       |       |        | (s    |       |
| c      | some |        |       |       |        | ome); |       |
| ourses | pr   |        |       |       |        | 3 and |       |
| earn   | ogra |        |       |       |        | 4 AVS |       |
| c      | ms), |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ollege | 3    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| credit |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Voca   | 4    | 1 ---  | all   | 2     | 2, 3   | 1, 2, | 2     |
| tional | (    | o      |       | AVS,  |        | 3 and |       |
| c      | some | ffered |       | 4     |        | 4 AVS |       |
| ourses | p    | at     |       |       |        |       |       |
| earn   | rogr | nearby |       |       |        |       |       |
| skill  | ams) | CC, 2  |       |       |        |       |       |
| c      |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ertifi |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| cation |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| State  | 1    | all    | all   | 3, 4  | all    | 1, 3  | all   |
| ac     | and  |        |       |       |        | and 4 |       |
| ademic | 3    |        |       |       |        | AVS   |       |
| sta    | ac   |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ndards | adem |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| inf    | ies, |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| luence | 2, 4 |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| voca   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tional |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| State  |      | all    | all   | 1, 2, | all    | All   | all   |
| ac     |      |        |       | 4     |        | sites |       |
| ademic |      |        |       | (wr   |        |       |       |
| tests  |      |        |       | iting |        |       |       |
| inf    |      |        |       | in    |        |       |       |
| luence |      |        |       | all   |        |       |       |
| voca   |      |        |       | CTE   |        |       |       |
| tional |      |        |       | cla   |        |       |       |
|        |      |        |       | sses) |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| State  | chec | all    | none  | 2, 3  | all    | All   | all   |
| voca   | king |        |       | (dis  |        | sites |       |
| tional |      |        |       | trict |        |       |       |
| sta    |      |        |       | stan  |        |       |       |
| ndards |      |        |       | dards |        |       |       |
| /tests |      |        |       | for   |        |       |       |
| inf    |      |        |       | 1, 4) |        |       |       |
| luence |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| voca   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tional |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| C      | 1,   | no     |       | No    | no     | AVS   | 1, 2, |
| ollege | 2, 3 |        |       | evi   |        | (s    | 4     |
| sta    |      |        |       | dence |        | ome); |       |
| ndards |      |        |       |       |        | 3, 4  |       |
| inf    |      |        |       |       |        | (     |       |
| luence |      |        |       |       |        | Tech- |       |
| voca   |      |        |       |       |        | Prep) |       |
| tional |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| In     | 1    | all    | all   | all   | all    | 1, 2, | 2, 3  |
| dustry | and  |        |       |       |        | 3 and |       |
| /SCANS | 2    |        |       |       |        | 4 AVS |       |
| sta    | (so  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ndards | me), |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| inf    |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| luence | 3    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| voca   | ac   |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tional | adem |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | ies, |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | 4    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | ROP  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Pr     | 1, 2 | all    | all   | all   | all    | 2, 4  | all   |
| essure |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| to     |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| raise  |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| aca    |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| demics |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| in     |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| voca   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tional |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+

######## 

######## Table C.4 Connections to Employers and Community

+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
|        | Ca   | F      | Mas   | Mic   | North  | Ohio  | Texas |
|        | lifo | lorida | sachu | higan | Ca     |       |       |
|        | rnia |        | setts |       | rolina |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| EMP    |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| LOYERS |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| In     | 1    | 2, 3,  | all   | 1, 2, | 1      | 1     | 1     |
| dustry | and  | 4      |       | 3, 4  |        | (s    | (very |
| ad     | 3    |        |       | AVS,  |        | ome), | few), |
| visory | aca  |        |       | 4 HS  |        | 2, 3  | 3     |
| groups | demy |        |       | (one  |        | AVS,  |       |
| in     |      |        |       | pro   |        | 4     |       |
| some   | 2, 4 |        |       | gram) |        |       |       |
| pr     | ROP  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ograms |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Parti  | 1    |        | all   | 1, 2  | 2, 3,  | 4     | 2 at  |
| cipate | and  |        |       |       | 4 all  |       | dis   |
| in     | 3    |        |       |       | at     |       | trict |
| scho   | aca  |        |       |       | di     |       | level |
| olwide | demy |        |       |       | strict |       |       |
| com    |      |        |       |       | level  |       |       |
| mittee |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Advise | 1    |        | 4     | 1, 2, | 2, 4   | 2, 3, | 1, 3  |
| on     | acad |        |       | 3, 4  |        | 4     |       |
| curr   | emy, |        |       | AVS   |        |       |       |
| iculum | 2    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Advise | 1    |        | 3, 4  | 1, 2, | 1, 2,  | All   | 1, 3  |
| on     | and  |        |       | 4 AVS | 3      | sites |       |
| in     | 3    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| dustry | acad |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| skill  | emy, |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| needs  | 2    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | ROP  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Review | 1    |        | 4     |       | 1      | 2, 3, | none  |
| s      | acad |        |       |       |        | 4     |       |
| tudent | emy, |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| wor    | 4    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| k/port |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| folios | 2    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | ROP  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| P      | 1    |        |       | 1, 2, | 1      | 1, 2, | 1, 3  |
| rovide | and  |        |       | 3, 4  |        | 3     |       |
| j      | 3    |        |       | AVS   |        |       |       |
| ob-sha | aca  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| dowing | demy |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| or     |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| men    | 2    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| toring | ROP  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| P      | 1    | 2      | 2, 3, | 1, 3, | all    | All   | 2, 3, |
| rovide | and  |        | 4     | 4 AVS |        | sites | 4     |
| work   | 3    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| expe   | aca  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| rience | demy |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Hire   | 1, 2 | 2, 3   | all   | All   | all    | 1, 2, | 2, 3  |
| st     |      |        |       | sites |        | 3     |       |
| udents |      |        |       | (some |        |       |       |
|        |      |        |       | prog  |        |       |       |
|        |      |        |       | rams) |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| P      | 1, 2 |        | 1, 3, | 1, 3, | 1, 2   | 1, 2, | none  |
| rovide | ROP, |        | 4     | 4     |        | 4     |       |
| fe     | 3    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| edback | aca  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| on     | demy |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| s      |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tudent |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| work   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| perfo  |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| rmance |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Donate | 1    | 2, 3   | 3, 4  | 4     | 1, 2,  | 1, 2  | 1, 3  |
| mate   | and  |        |       |       | 4      |       |       |
| rials/ | 3    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| assist | aca  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| f      | demy |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| unding |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| PARENT | 1    |        |       | 1, 2  | All    | 3     |       |
| INVOL  | and  |        |       |       | ---    | (     |       |
| VEMENT | 3    |        |       |       | for    | Tech- |       |
|        | aca  |        |       |       | course | Prep) |       |
|        | demy |        |       |       | of     |       |       |
|        |      |        |       |       | study  |       |       |
|        |      |        |       |       | choice |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| CTSO   | CA2  | 3      |       | No    | 2      | 1, 2, |       |
| INVOL  | (Ag  | (many) |       | evi   |        | 3     |       |
| VEMENT | prog |        |       | dence |        |       |       |
|        | ram) |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+

########  Table C.5 Connections to Postsecondary

  ------------------ ------------ --------- --------------- ----------- ---------- -------------- --------
                     California   Florida   Massachusetts   Michigan    North      Ohio           Texas
                                                                        Carolina                  

  CC faculty on      1 academy, 4 3                         1, 4 (one              2, 3 (AVS)     3
  advisory board                                            program)                              

  CC provides PD for 3                                                  1          2 HS           
  teachers                                                                                        

  CC shares info on  2                                                             1, 2 and 3 AVS 1, 3
  requirements                                                                                    

  CC gives placement 2                                                                            
  tests at HS                                                                                     

  Some HS teachers   4                                      4                      2              
  teach at CC                                                                                     

  Share info on job  2                                      1                      1, 4, 2 and 3  
  skill needs                                                                      AVS            

  Joint curriculum,  3                                      4 (one                 1 and 4        4
  program planning                                          program)               (Tech-Prep), 2 
                                                                                   and 3 AVS      

  Share technology   1                                                             1 AVS          
  or labs                                                                          (Tech-Prep)    

  Articulation       3                                                                            1, 2, 4
  infrequent                                                                                      

  Articulation: few               1, 2, 3   3, 4            4 HS                   1 AVS (some)   3
  courses/programs                                                                                

  Articulation: many 1, 4, 2                                1, 3, AVS   all        2 AVS, 3, 4    
  courses/programs                                          at 2, 4                               

  Articulation:      4, 2 ROP                               1, 3, 4                               
  4-year                                                    (some                                 
  institutions                                              programs)                             

  Program to assist  4                                      1                      4              
  college entry                                                                                   
  ------------------ ------------ --------- --------------- ----------- ---------- -------------- --------

######## Table C.6 Counseling and Career Planning

  ----------------- ------------ --------- --------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ --------
                    California   Florida   Massachusetts   Michigan    North      Ohio         Texas
                                                                       Carolina                

  Counseling focus  1, 2                                   2, HS at 3,            1, 2 and 4   1, 2
  on college                                               4                      HS           

  Counselors do     1, 2, 3      1, 2      all             1, 4        all        2, 4         1, 3, 4
  college and                                                                                  
  career                                                                                       

  Dedicated career  1 academy, 2 2         none            1, 2        2, 3       2 AVS, 3, 4  3; 4
  counselors                                                                                   

  Counselor PD on                                          2, 3        3          1, 2         
  careers                                                  (limited)                           

  Students complete All sites    1, 2      2, 3, 4         1 AVS, 2,   all,       2, 3, 4      3, 4
  4 year plan                                              3, 4        mandated                

  Plan reviewed     4            1, 2      2, 3, 4         1 AVS, 2,   all        3, 4 AVS     3
  regularly                                                3, 4                                

  Career            All sites    1, 2      2, 3, 4         1, 2        all        2, 4         2, 3, 4
  fair/center                                                                                  

  Planning          1 academy, 2 2         3, 4                                   2, 4         
  activities or     ROP, 3, 4                                                                  
  portfolios                                                                                   

  Career interest   3, 4         all       2, 3, 4         1, 2, 4     all        2, 3, 4      2, 3, 4
  inventories                                                                                  

  Career planning   All sites              4               3                      4 (planning) 1, 3
  units in courses                                                                             

  Course on career               1, 2      3, 4                        All in 8th 4 AVS        3, 4
  planning                                                             grade                   

  Course/exposure                1, 2      3, 4            1, 3, 2 AVS All in 8th 2, 3, and 4  3, 4
  to CTE options                                                       grade      AVS          

  Career planning   2, 4         1, 2      2, 3, 4         All sites   All in 8th 2, 3, 4      4
  before HS                                                            grade                   
  ----------------- ------------ --------- --------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ --------

######## Table C.7 Technology Policy and Resources

+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
|        | Ca   | F      | Mas   | Mic   | North  | Ohio  | Texas |
|        | lifo | lorida | sachu | higan | Ca     |       |       |
|        | rnia |        | setts |       | rolina |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| School | 2, 3 |        | 2, 3, | 1, 2, | all    | 4 AVS |       |
| has    | and  |        | 4     | 4     |        |       |       |
| tech   | 4    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| nology | are  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| policy | "Dig |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | ital |        |       |       |        |       |       |
|        | HS"  |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Co     | 1, 4 | all    |       | 2     | all,   | 2, 4  | all,  |
| mputer |      |        |       |       | ma     | AVS   | req   |
| li     |      |        |       |       | ndated |       | uired |
| teracy |      |        |       |       | keybo  |       |       |
| requi  |      |        |       |       | arding |       |       |
| rement |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Emp    | 1, 3 | all    | 2, 3, | 1, 2  | all    | 1, 2, | 3     |
| loyers | (    |        | 4     |       |        | 3     |       |
| advise | some |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| on     | p    |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tech   | rogr |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| nology | ams) |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| School | 3, 2 | 2      | 2, 3, | 2     |        | 1     | 2     |
| has    | (    |        | 4     | AVS,  |        | (s    |       |
| hig    | plan |        |       | 3 AVS |        | ome), |       |
| h-tech | ned) |        |       | and   |        | 2     |       |
| pr     |      |        |       | some  |        |       |       |
| ogram, |      |        |       | at    |        | 3     |       |
| e.g.,  |      |        |       | HS, 4 |        | AVS,  |       |
| Cisco  |      |        |       | (     |        | 4 AVS |       |
| engin  |      |        |       | some) |        |       |       |
| eering |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Curr   | 4, 1 | all    | all   | 2, 3  | all    | 1     | 3     |
| iculum | and  |        |       | AVS   |        | (s    |       |
| incorp | 3    |        |       | and   |        | ome), |       |
| orates | (    |        |       | some  |        | 2, 4  |       |
| tech   | some |        |       | at    |        | AVS   |       |
| nology | p    |        |       | HS, 4 |        |       |       |
| know   | rogr |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| ledge/ | ams) |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| skills |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Te     | 2, 4 |        |       | 2     | all    | 2 & 4 |       |
| achers |      |        |       |       |        | AVS   |       |
| r      |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| eceive |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| PD for |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tech   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| nology |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| Te     | 2    | 1, 2   | 1, 3, | 4     | 4      | 2 yes |       |
| achers | not  | not    | 4 not | va    |        |       |       |
| sat    | s    | sat    | sati  | ried, |        | 1 & 3 |       |
| isfied | atis | isfied | sfied |       |        | v     |       |
| with   | fied |        |       | 3 AVS |        | aried |       |
| amount |      |        |       | yes,  |        |       |       |
| or     |      |        |       | HS no |        | 4 AVS |       |
| q      |      |        |       |       |        | yes,  |       |
| uality |      |        |       |       |        | HS no |       |
| of     |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tech   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| nology |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+
| P      | All  | all    | all   | 1, 4  | all    | 1, 3, | all   |
| erkins | s    |        |       |       |        | 4     |       |
| funds  | ites |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| used   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| for    |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| tech   |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
| nology |      |        |       |       |        |       |       |
+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+-------+

######## Table C.8 Teacher Supply and Professional Development

+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
|         | Ca   | F      | Mas   | Mic   | North  | Ohio  | T    |
|         | lifo | lorida | sachu | higan | Ca     |       | exas |
|         | rnia |        | setts |       | rolina |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| Voc     | All  | 2      |       | 2, 3, |        | 1, 2  | 2    |
| ational | s    |        |       | 4     |        |       |      |
| teacher | ites |        |       |       |        | 4     |      |
| s       |      |        |       |       |        | (an   |      |
| hortage |      |        |       |       |        | ticip |      |
|         |      |        |       |       |        | ated) |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| S       | 1, 2 |        |       | 2, 3  |        | 4     |      |
| hortage |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| has     |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| a       |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| ffected |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| p       |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| rograms |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| S       | 1, 2 | 2      |       | 2, 3  |        |       |      |
| hortage |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| of      |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| teacher |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| t       |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| raining |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| p       |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| rograms |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| State   | No   | all    | all   | 2, 4  | all    | 1, 2  | all  |
| p       |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| rovides |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| PD      |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| D       | 1,   | all    | all   | 1, 3, |        | 1, 2, |      |
| istrict | 2, 3 |        |       | 4     |        | 3, 4  |      |
| p       |      |        |       |       |        | AVS   |      |
| rovides |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| PD      |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| School  | 4,   | all    | all   | 4     | 1, 3   | 2, 4  |      |
| p       | dig  |        |       |       |        | AVS   |      |
| rovides | ital |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| PD      | HS   |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| T       | 1    |        | 1 --- | 4     |        | 2     |      |
| eachers | and  |        | not   |       |        |       |      |
| sa      | 2    |        | sati  |       |        |       |      |
| tisfied | (not |        | sfied |       |        |       |      |
| with PD | sa   |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| time    | tisf |        |       |       |        |       |      |
|         | ied) |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| T       |      | 2      | 2, 3, | 4     | 1, 3   | 1, 2  | 1    |
| eachers |      |        | 4 yes |       | yes    |       | yes  |
| sa      |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| tisfied |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| with PD |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| quality |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| PD      |      | 2      |       | 3     | all    | 2     | All, |
| i       |      |        |       |       |        | some  | s    |
| ncludes |      |        |       |       |        | times | tate |
| acad    |      |        |       |       |        |       | po   |
| and     |      |        |       |       |        |       | licy |
| voc     |      |        |       |       |        |       | en   |
| ational |      |        |       |       |        |       | cour |
| t       |      |        |       |       |        |       | ages |
| eachers |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| PD on   | 1    | all    | all   | 4     | all    | 2     |      |
| a       |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| cademic |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| s       |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| tandard |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| s/tests |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| PD on   |      | 2      |       | 1, 2  |        | 4 AVS | all  |
| voc     |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| ational |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| st      |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| andards |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| PD on   |      | all    | 3, 4  |       |        | 1, 2  |      |
| general |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| curric  |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| PD on   |      | 2      | 3, 4  | 2, 3  | 1, 3   | 2, 3, | 3    |
| integ.  |      |        |       |       |        | 4 AVS |      |
| curric  |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| PD on   |      | 2      |       | 2, 3  |        | 4 AVS | 3    |
| int     |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| egrated |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| CTE     |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| p       |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
| rograms |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| PD on   | 1, 2 | 2      | 4     |       |        | 3     | 3    |
| inn     |      |        |       |       |        | (dis  |      |
| ovative |      |        |       |       |        | trict |      |
| t       |      |        |       |       |        | PD)   |      |
| eaching |      |        |       |       |        |       |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+
| PD      | 3    |        | all   | 2     | all    | 1, 2  |      |
| exte    |      |        |       |       |        | and 3 |      |
| rnships |      |        |       |       |        | AVS,  |      |
|         |      |        |       |       |        | 4     |      |
+---------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+------+

## Narrative Summary

The following sections summarize the previous tables. In discussing
distinctions between schools, two numbers are provided: the number of
schools in the full sample (28 schools), followed in parentheses by the
number of schools in the "pure" sample (13 schools). Since the number of
"pure" schools is very small, the interpretations presented here must be
taken as very tentative.

### Integration Structure (Table C.1)

Data in this table indicate few differences. Most schools in the sample
incorporate career pathways and vocational education as a sequence of
courses. In the case of pathways, 14 (7) "high" schools and 11 (6) low
schools have pathways, and data indicate that two additional low schools
are in the planning stages. With respect to course sequencing, 12 (6)
"high" schools and 13 (6) low schools sequence courses. Equal numbers of
"high" and low schools have academy programs: 5 (2) high and 5 (2) low.
Equal numbers of "high" and low schools have block scheduling --- 8 (4);
equal numbers have common planning time: 3 (2). There is a tendency for
"high" schools to group career students in academic classes: 6 (2) high,
3 (1) low. "High" schools more frequently reported on an indicator that
is negatively associated with integration --- providing vocational
education as stand-alone courses: 7 (2) high, 6 (1) low.

### Integration Curriculum (Table C.2)

The schools in the sample incorporated a number of features associated
with curriculum integration. Most prevalent were increasing academics in
vocational courses, vertical alignment of courses, project-based
learning, connections to work --- for example, job shadowing, speakers
in class --- and work-based learning. Differences were small between
high-performing and low-performing schools for all these categories (2
schools at most).

"High" schools showed more attention to academics than low: 12 (6) high,
10 (7) low (note the reversal for the "pure" sample); more connections
to work: 13 (7) high, 12 (6) low; and more vertical alignment: 13 (6)
high; 12 (6) low.

More prevalent activities in low schools included senior projects: 5 (2)
high, 6 (4) low; project-based learning 10 (6) high and 12 (6) low;
work-based learning: 13 (6) high, 14 (6) low; and obtaining credit for
work-based learning: 9 (5) high and 11 (5) low.

Equal numbers of schools had school-based enterprises: 5 (1). Only one
low school reported efforts to increase vocational learning in academic
subjects.

### Challenging Academic and Vocational Standards: Table C.3

Data in Table C.3 illustrate the influence of academic standards and
tests over vocational programs. Most sites felt pressure to raise
standards: 13 (7) high, 11 (6) low and were influenced by state academic
standards --- 11 (7) high, 14 (6) low --- or tests: 12 (7) high, 11 (6)
low. About equal numbers --- 13 schools in each group --- reported
influence of industry standards in vocational programs. Vocational
standards were less important --- about 10 schools in each group. In
about half of the schools, 7 (1) high and 6 (1) low, at least some
vocational classes had to meet some academic standard or earned academic
credit. In three states, meeting standards meant either that keyboarding
was no longer acceptable for vocational course credit --- Michigan and
Ohio --- or that some "applied academics" courses have been eliminated
--- site C2 in California. Vocational classes in "high" schools were a
little more likely to earn skill certificates: 8 (5) high, 7 (2) low.

### Connections to Employers and Community: Table C.4

Few sites were involved with parents (five of each type) --- or career
and technical student organizations, although in the complete sample,
the "high" schools showed more CTSO connection than the low schools: 4
(1) high, 1 (1) low. In about equal numbers of "high" and low schools,
employers participated in advisory groups (11 schools) or on schoolwide
committees: 7 (4) high, 6 (3) low. Employers advised about the
curriculum at about half of the schools: 7 (2) high, 7 (1) low. They
also advised on industry skill needs: 9 (3) high, 8 (3) low.

The "high" schools tended to report a little more employer involvement
for provision of job-shadowing or mentoring: 8 (2) high, 5 (1) low.
However, the low schools had more involvement for purposes of providing
work experience, arguably the more significant kind of connection for
vocational students: 9 (4) high, 11 (5) low. Employers associated with
"high" schools however, were a little more likely to hire students: 12
(6) high, 10 (5) low. Overall, these are not huge differences between
"high" and low schools.

### Connections to Postsecondary: Table C.5

Instances of postsecondary connections at the local level are somewhat
sparse in Florida and North Carolina, partly reflecting the use of
statewide articulation agreements, which reportedly tended to decrease
local connections between high schools and institutions of higher
education. Very few schools reported much collaboration with community
colleges. The most frequent activities were having community college
faculty on advisory boards: 3 (0) high, 5 (2) low, and sharing
information on requirements and job skills: 4 high, 2 low for each. Low
schools showed more indication of joint curriculum or program planning
with community colleges than high schools: 2 (0) high, 5 (1) low.

Low schools tended to have more articulation agreements than "high"
schools: 10 (3) high, 12 (6) low for articulation in "some" or "many"
courses. Equal numbers of high and low sites (2 each) had articulation
with four-year institutions. These occurred in California and Michigan
only.

With respect to postsecondary connections, then, some small differences
exist between high- and low-performing schools, but these seem to favor
"high" schools about half the time and low schools about half the time.
Overall, the schools look fairly similar except perhaps for the higher
instances of articulation agreements in the low schools.

### Counseling and Career Planning: Table C.6

Counseling services seem more widespread in "high" schools. More of
these schools had counselors that focused on college: 6 (1), high, 4 (1)
low; and counselors that advised on both college and career: 11 (6)
high, 9 (5) low. "High" schools also were more likely to have dedicated
career counselors: 7 (2) high, 4 (1) low.

Only 5 sites (3 high, 2 low) reported professional development for
counselors that focused on career planning or counseling.

Completion of a four-year career plan, however, was a little more
prevalent in the low-performing schools: 10 (4) high, 12 (5) low. Low
schools tended to review these plans more regularly: 7 (3) high, 10 (4)
low. Career planning occurred before high school in similar numbers of
high and low sites: 9 (4) high; 10 (4) low. The schools also engaged in
numerous kinds of activities in support of career planning, including
career fairs: 11 (5) high, 9 (5) low; planning activities or portfolios:
4 (1) high, 5 (2) low; and career interest inventories: 9 (5) high, 13
(6) low. Low-performing schools tended to have more opportunities for
career planning within courses --- for example, as a unit in a course,
as a dedicated course or by means of exposure within courses to career
and technical education options: 14 (8) high, 22 (11) low.

In general, these findings suggest that high-performing schools tend to
provide more and more varied counseling services, while low-performing
schools provide more specific activities to engage students in a
career-planning process.

### Technology Policy and Resources: Table C.7

Half the sites in the sample had some technology-related policy: 6 (3)
high, 8 (3) low. Computer literacy was required for all students in
three states and this policy was carried out in all affected schools: 9
high sites (5), 8 (4) low across all states. Nearly all sites reported
using Perkins funds for technology-related purposes: 12 \[7\] high, 13
\[6\] low.

High-tech programs --- for example, pre-engineering and Cisco --- were
not very evident in the study sites and were distributed similarly over
high- and low-performing schools: 7 (3) high, 7 (2) low. In about half
the sites, the study found evidence that at least some vocational
courses incorporated learning technology-related skills: 10 (5) high, 12
(5) low. Similar number of "high" and low schools received advice from
employers about technology-related matters: 10 (4) high, 9 (5) low.
Professional development directed at technology use was fairly uncommon
--- this type of activity was evident in only 9 sites: 5 (2) high, 4 (0)
low. Teachers were not always satisfied with the amount or quality of
technology available to them --- reports were provided at about 12 sites
--- but the pattern of satisfaction or dissatisfaction appears unrelated
to whether a school is high- or low-performing.

### Teacher Supply and Professional Development: Table C.8

Twelve sites in five states reported current or anticipated vocational
teacher shortages: 7 (2) high, 5 (0) low. Five of these reported that
shortages had affected programs: 3 (0) high, 2 (0) low. Sites in
California, Michigan and Florida reported that lack of teacher training
programs in the state contributed to these shortages.

State, district or school-provided professional development was fairly
common, with no clear pattern of differences between schools: 11 (7)
high, 9 (6) low provided by the state; 9 (3) high, 9 (3) low by the
district; and 6 (4) high, 8 (3) low by the school. At 11 sites,
professional development included both academic and vocational teachers:
6 (5) high, 5 (4) low.

The case studies have some limited data on topics covered in
professional development courses --- fewer than half the sites having
any such details. These limited data suggest that professional
development on academic and vocational standards is associated with
"high" schools: 13 (8) high, 10 (6) low; whereas professional
development on integrated curriculum or on integrated career and
technical education programs is associated with low schools: 6 (3) high,
10 (4) low. Professional development on general curriculum or innovative
teaching is infrequent, but similar at "high" and low schools. Other
than the limited reports on different topics at high- and low-performing
schools, the data do not reveal any important patterns.

# Appendix D: Teacher Survey Tables

######## Table D.1 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Any Professional Development on Selected Topics in Last 12 Months 

  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------
                              Academic            Vocational                     
                              Teachers            Teachers                       

                                                                                 

  TOPIC                       n=685               n=881                          

                              PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test     p

  Training in academic        86.99      1.51     83.26        1.71     2.88     0.09
  standards                                                                      

  Training in vocational      40.56      2.38     76.99        1.70     110.44   0.00
  education standards                                                            

  Training in your subject    70.47      2.04     75.62        2.08     2.99     0.08
  content                                                                        

  Training in academic        33.58      2.33     70.78        2.00     127.68   0.00
  incorporated into                                                              
  vocational education                                                           

  Training in vocational      37.69      2.18     52.14        2.33     20.18    0.00
  education incorporated into                                                    
  academic                                                                       

  Training in                 79.19      1.81     81.35        1.71     0.79     0.38
  technology/equipment                                                           

  Training in special needs   38.37      2.36     40.85        2.27     0.70     0.40
  students                                                                       

  Training in student         65.41      2.28     57.06        2.58     6.41     0.01
  assessment                                                                     

  Training in concept         46.65      2.33     55.87        2.20     8.96     0.00
  application/real world                                                         

  Training in incorporated    31.53      2.31     51.90        2.20     47.52    0.00
  workplace competencies                                                         

  Training in other topics    24.81      3.48     16.17        2.31     4.13     0.04
  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------

######## 

######## Table D.2

######## Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Reporting Any 

######## Professional Development on Selected Topics in Last 12 Months

  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------
                              Comprehensive            Vocational                    
                              HS                       HS                            

                                                                                     

  TOPIC                       n=1,197                  n=369                         

                              PCT             SE       PCT          SE       test    p

  Training in academic        86.94           1.31     72.35        5.32     7.22    0.01
  standards                                                                          

  Training in vocational      47.02           2.03     71.09        5.14     21.24   0.00
  education standards                                                                

  Training in your subject    71.77           1.72     67.24        4.95     0.72    0.40
  content                                                                            

  Training in academic        40.14           2.07     64.96        5.63     22.91   0.00
  incorporated into                                                                  
  vocational education                                                               

  Training in vocational      39.87           1.87     57.03        4.99     8.82    0.00
  education incorporated into                                                        
  academic                                                                           

  Training in                 80.27           1.54     68.07        5.29     4.12    0.04
  technology/equipment                                                               

  Training in special needs   38.44           2.09     47.33        4.93     2.85    0.09
  students                                                                           

  Training in student         64.06           2.01     55.84        5.05     2.13    0.15
  assessment                                                                         

  Training in concept         48.19           2.04     56.12        4.76     2.30    0.13
  application/real world                                                             

  Training in incorporate     34.84           2.08     54.80        4.69     14.45   0.00
  workplace competencies                                                             

  Training in other topics    22.28           2.90     32.08        8.79     1.05    0.31
  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.3 Percentage of Vocational Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Reporting Any

######## Professional Development on Selected Topics in Last 12 Months

  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------ ------
                              Vocational                                            
                              Teachers                                              

                              Comprehensive            Vocational                   
                              HS                       HS                           

  TOPIC                       n=528                    n=353                        

                              PCT             SE       PCT          SE       test   p

  Training in academic        84.81           1.98     75.18        2.88     8.11   0.00
  standards                                                                         

  Training in vocational      75.50           2.00     84.75        2.13     9.30   0.00
  education standards                                                               

  Training in your subject    75.62           2.42     75.58        2.74     0.00   0.99
  content                                                                           

  Training in academic        69.77           2.28     76.06        3.85     2.07   0.15
  incorporated into                                                                 
  vocational education                                                              

  Training in vocational      51.28           2.69     56.58        3.76     1.35   0.25
  education incorporated into                                                       
  academic                                                                          

  Training in                 82.32           1.90     76.31        3.75     1.93   0.17
  technology/equipment                                                              

  Training in special needs   39.12           2.60     49.80        3.78     5.56   0.02
  students                                                                          

  Training in student         56.05           2.98     62.33        3.91     1.67   0.20
  assessment                                                                        

  Training in concept         55.27           2.52     58.97        3.90     0.64   0.42
  application/real world                                                            

  Training in incorporated    50.11           2.55     61.17        3.53     6.80   0.01
  workplace competencies                                                            

  Training in other topics    15.50           2.71     19.19        3.25     0.76   0.38
  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------ ------

######## Table D.4 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Who Report Team Teaching

  ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ------- -------
                     Academic              Vocational                      
                     Teachers              Teachers                        

                     n=674                 n=871                           

                     PCT        SE         PCT          SE         test    p

  Yes                9.45       1.46       12.73        1.71       2.20    0.14

  No                 90.55      1.46       87.27        1.71       2.20    0.14
  ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ------- -------

######## Table D.5 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Who Report Team Teaching

  ------------------ --------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ------- -------
                     Comprehensive              Vocational                      
                     HS                         HS                              

                     n=1,181                    n=364                           

                     PCT             SE         PCT          SE         test    p

  Yes                9.72            1.26       18.34        4.77       2.99    0.09

  No                 90.28           1.26       81.66        4.77       2.99    0.09
  ------------------ --------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ------- -------

######## Table D.6 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Any Participation with Postsecondary Faculty in Certain Activities

  ----------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------
                                Academic            Vocational                     
                                Teachers            Teachers                       

  TYPE OF COORDINATION          n=675               n=873                          

                                PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test     p

  Plan overall curriculum       20.86      1.82     35.26        2.32     23.25    0.00

  Plan specific lessons/units   21.07      2.17     28.90        1.88     9.20     0.00

  Share tech/lab equipment      23.83      2.07     35.94        2.05     17.54    0.00

  Attend joint professional     30.09      2.37     47.29        2.39     27.46    0.00
  development activities                                                           

  Serve on joint advisory       15.40      1.86     33.56        2.32     32.73    0.00
  committees                                                                       

  Discuss student postsecondary 23.36      1.98     45.61        2.41     53.76    0.00
  preparation                                                                      

  Work on articulation          14.52      1.58     41.28        2.40     82.49    0.00
  agreements                                                                       

  Exchange employer             9.50       1.34     37.79        2.10     109.34   0.00
  contacts/networks                                                                

  No coordination               52.29      2.43     25.69        1.96     67.08    0.00
  ----------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------

######## Table D.7 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Reporting Any Participation with Postsecondary Faculty in Certain Activities

  ----------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------
                                Comprehensive            Vocational                    
                                HS                       Schools                       

  TYPE OF COORDINATION          n=1,179                  n=369                         

                                PCT             SE       PCT          SE       test    p

  Plan overall curriculum       23.41           1.62     32.57        3.96     4.59    0.03

  Plan specific lessons/units   22.61           1.92     24.65        2.72     0.39    0.53

  Share tech/lab equipment      25.84           1.79     36.15        4.03     5.06    0.03

  Attend joint professional     32.86           2.05     48.95        4.57     8.39    0.00
  development activities                                                               

  Serve on joint advisory       18.30           1.60     36.17        4.51     11.75   0.00
  committees                                                                           

  Discuss student postsecondary 27.09           1.78     45.08        4.60     14.21   0.00
  preparation                                                                          

  Work on articulation          19.27           1.53     35.81        3.71     19.53   0.00
  agreements                                                                           

  Exchange employer             14.09           1.27     39.99        4.38     34.01   0.00
  contacts/networks                                                                    

  No coordination               47.70           2.12     28.53        4.66     14.56   0.00
  ----------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.8 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Any Contact with Business Groups

  ---------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------
                               Academic            Vocational                     
                               Teachers            Teachers                       

                               n=681               n=882                          

                               PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test     p

  Work on advisory committee   21.71      1.80     57.50        2.41     126.81   0.00

  Have employers make          39.03      2.24     75.49        2.12     137.76   0.00
  presentations to students                                                       

  Have employers review        9.58       1.37     34.39        2.06     105.21   0.00
  student work                                                                    

  Discuss                      16.75      1.68     49.62        2.47     111.09   0.00
  curriculum/performance                                                          
  standards                                                                       

  Receive equip/material       27.72      2.17     51.57        2.49     47.74    0.00
  donations                                                                       

  Discuss labor market         12.79      1.70     52.14        2.28     192.83   0.00
  information                                                                     

  Discuss employee skill needs 21.92      1.89     66.82        2.19     202.78   0.00

  Visit employer work site     12.50      1.50     57.68        2.11     206.39   0.00

  Refer students to employers  20.53      1.89     68.62        2.26     204.67   0.00
  for placement                                                                   

  No coordination              41.88      2.37     8.11         1.28     122.17   0.00
  ---------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------

######## Table D.9 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Reporting Any Contact with Business Groups

  ---------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------
                               Comprehensive            Vocational                    
                               HS                       High Schools                  

                               n=1,191                  n=372                         

                               PCT             SE       PCT          SE       test    p

  Work on advisory committee   27.15           1.66     68.18        6.46     75.18   0.00

  Have employers make          45.81           2.06     63.17        5.67     12.26   0.00
  presentations to students                                                           

  Have employers review        13.17           1.25     45.22        4.78     59.66   0.00
  student work                                                                        

  Discuss                      21.20           1.52     69.64        5.05     67.70   0.00
  curriculum/performance                                                              
  standards                                                                           

  Receive equip/material       31.82           1.90     49.73        4.54     19.46   0.00
  donations                                                                           

  Discuss labor market         18.74           1.73     63.60        5.45     73.48   0.00
  information                                                                         

  Discuss employee skill needs 29.08           1.78     74.20        6.02     73.00   0.00

  Visit employer work site     19.93           1.48     60.43        5.62     81.30   0.00

  Refer students to employers  28.34           1.73     73.51        6.33     78.46   0.00
  for placement                                                                       

  No coordination              35.88           2.03     14.49        4.93     20.08   0.00
  ---------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.10 Percentage of Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Requiring Career Plans

  --------------------- --------------- ------- ------------ ------- --------- ------ ------ ------
                        Comprehensive           Vocational           All                     
                        HS                      HS                   Schools                 

                        n=220                   n=119                                        

                        PCT             SE      PCT          SE      PCT       SE     test   p

  No written career     65.20           3.90    51.19        5.52    64.26     3.66   6.77   0.08
  plan                                                                                       

  Career plan for all   0.43            0.30    4.65         2.16    0.72      0.31   6.77   0.08
  students                                                                                   

  Career plan for some  15.21           2.80    20.53        5.19    15.57     2.63   6.77   0.08
  students                                                                                   
  --------------------- --------------- ------- ------------ ------- --------- ------ ------ ------

> NOTE: School-level response determined by response given by 50 percent
> or more of teachers in the school.

######## Table D.11 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Who Report that Identified Class Has Particular Characteristics (Percentage of Classes)

  ------------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------
                                  Academic            Vocational                     
                                  Teachers            Teachers                       

                                                                                     

                                  n=682               n=860                          

                                  PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test     p

  Class fulfills academic         83.99      1.48     41.18        2.45     187.93   0.00
  requirement                                                                        

  Class is designated as honors   24.57      2.02     2.80         0.65     92.47    0.00

  Class leads to certificate of   4.14       0.83     37.66        2.23     138.66   0.00
  occupational skills                                                                

  Class has articulation          5.63       0.98     34.39        2.25     107.70   0.00
  agreement                                                                          

  Class is in                     4.86       1.02     35.48        2.17     146.18   0.00
  Tech-Prep/pre-apprent/academy                                                      

  Class includes paid related     0.62       0.30     18.22        1.74     90.90    0.00
  internship                                                                         

  Class includes job-shadowing    3.90       0.76     38.13        2.27     146.76   0.00
  ------------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------

######## Table D.12 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting "Above Average" Participation of Special Populations in Identified Classes

  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------
                              Academic            Vocational                    
                              Teachers            Teachers                      

                                                                                

                              n=681               n=870                         

                              PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test    P

  Students with disabilities  11.63      1.39     20.54        1.73     56.87   0.00

  Limited English proficiency 8.76       1.23     9.28         1.40     35.86   0.00
  students                                                                      

  Pregnant/parenting students 5.26       1.08     8.81         1.21     14.45   0.00

  Economically disadvantaged  17.77      2.00     27.17        2.26     45.31   0.00

  Gifted and talented         28.91      2.11     6.12         0.86     96.40   0.00

  At-risk students            17.71      1.71     31.99        2.09     70.89   0.00
  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.13 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Reporting "Above Average" 

######## Participation of Special Populations in Identified Classes

  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------
                              Comprehensive            Vocational                    
                              HS                       HS                            

                                                                                     

                              n=1,188                  n=363                         

                              PCT             SE       PCT          SE       test    P

  Students with disabilities  12.68           1.17     29.43        5.07     22.40   0.00

  LEP students                8.85            1.10     9.20         2.40     8.46    0.02

  Pregnant/parenting students 5.65            0.91     12.73        3.70     6.26    0.05

  Economically disadvantaged  19.07           1.86     32.58        4.97     29.78   0.00

  Gifted and talented         25.15           1.81     4.62         1.01     43.25   0.00

  At-risk students            20.11           1.50     31.59        5.34     14.70   0.00
  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.14 Existence of Standards for Identified Classes Taught by Academic and Vocational Teachers (Percentage of Teachers Reporting)

  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------
                              Academic            Vocational                     
                              Teachers            Teachers                       

                                                                                 

                              n=680               n=862                          

                              PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test     p

  State standards             82.18      1.82     68.09        2.28     23.40    0.00

  District standards          71.05      2.41     50.91        2.39     33.76    0.00

  Industry standards          3.54       0.89     24.21        1.82     107.70   0.00

  School standards            51.55      2.31     48.80        2.45     0.72     0.40

  Any standards               92.38      1.15     82.31        2.05     16.15    0.00
  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------

######## Table D.15 Percentage of Teachers Reporting Standards Influence Class a "Moderate" or "Great" Extent

  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- ------ ------
                              Academic            Vocational                   
                              Teachers            Teachers                     

                                                                               

                              n=548               n=603                        

                              PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test   p

  State standards             77.84      2.08     72.39        2.45     3.32   0.19

  District standards          79.46      2.05     74.39        2.81     4.53   0.11

  Industry standards          66.86      11.97    78.47        3.65     1.28   0.53

  School standards            78.07      2.40     72.50        2.73     5.74   0.06

  Any standards               80.02      1.98     76.28        1.86     1.82   0.18
  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- ------ ------

######## Table D.16 Academic and Vocational Teacher Reports of Frequency of Activities in Most Recent Identified Class (Percentage of Teachers)

  ----------------------------- ---------- ------ -------------- ------ ------------ ------ ------------ ------ -------------- ------ ------------ ------ -------- ------
                                Academic                                                    Vocational                                                             
                                Teachers                                                    Teachers                                                               

                                n=671                                                       n=863                                                                  

                                Never             Occasionally          Frequently          Never               Occasionally          Frequently                   

                                PCT        SE     PCT            SE     PCT          SE     PCT          SE     PCT            SE     PCT          SE     test     p

  Listen to a lecture           4.63       0.87   25.82          2.06   69.55        2.18   3.05         0.87   39.17          1.98   57.78        1.97   20.71    0.00

  Write a paragraph or more     6.11       1.17   40.34          2.38   53.56        2.43   5.21         0.87   56.17          2.07   38.62        2.09   25.85    0.00

  Receive homework assignment   1.33       0.52   12.52          1.47   86.15        1.49   17.10        1.73   48.96          2.22   33.94        2.06   246.82   0.00

  Take test or quiz             0.43       0.25   44.02          2.21   55.55        2.22   1.70         0.50   59.42          2.02   38.89        2.05   34.9     0.00

  Use computers                 19.57      2.07   60.95          2.49   19.48        1.85   8.20         1.29   37.26          2.54   54.53        2.47   120.65   0.00

  Use                           62.30      2.37   14.04          1.46   23.66        2.04   27.56        2.12   7.82           1.18   64.62        2.24   148.09   0.00
  instruments/tools/equipment                                                                                                                                      

  Work in groups                1.04       0.41   41.09          2.28   57.87        2.26   5.46         1.06   30.17          1.95   64.36        2.02   23.69    0.00

  Work on extended projects     10.24      1.28   71.29          1.92   18.47        1.43   2.29         0.58   44.73          2.21   52.98        2.22   175.57   0.00

  Use commercial curriculum     83.75      1.68   13.34          1.51   2.92         0.79   66.77        1.99   21.83          1.74   11.40        1.24   48.23    0.00
  materials                                                                                                                                                        

  Discuss or explore careers    25.37      1.91   69.83          2.14   4.81         0.98   2.03         0.56   74.03          1.86   23.94        1.83   157.51   0.00

  Apply academic skills to job  19.22      1.72   59.33          2.44   21.46        1.80   1.52         0.45   34.25          2.32   64.23        2.29   231.66   0.00
  tasks                                                                                                                                                            

  Use the Internet for research 22.03      1.97   67.34          2.22   10.62        1.37   13.93        1.54   61.45          2.34   24.62        1.95   45.51    0.00

  Receive instruction through   92.58      1.08   5.82           0.91   1.60         0.54   85.67        1.47   11.70          1.35   2.62         0.71   15.37    0.00
  distance learning                                                                                                                                                

  Use technology at local       92.54      1.08   7.46           1.08   0.00         0.00   86.48        1.45   12.38          1.43   1.13         0.43   16.04    0.00
  college                                                                                                                                                          

  Use technology at local       94.68      0.97   5.32           0.97   0.00         0.00   72.14        1.79   22.76          1.65   5.11         1.05   113.61   0.00
  business                                                                                                                                                         
  ----------------------------- ---------- ------ -------------- ------ ------------ ------ ------------ ------ -------------- ------ ------------ ------ -------- ------

######## Table D.17 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Competency 

######## Contributes to a "Great Extent" to Students' Grades in Identified Classes

  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------
                              Academic            Vocational                     
                              Teachers            Teachers                       

                                                                                 

                              n=666               n=845                          

  2001                        PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test     p

  Academic skills                                                                

  Basic math skills           30.84      1.90     32.27        2.02     0.25     0.62

  Advanced math skills        15.25      1.65     6.80         1.03     15.48    0.00

  Basic reading skills        58.14      2.02     44.76        2.35     17.79    0.00

  Advanced reading skills     31.03      2.46     14.67        1.50     33.68    0.00

  Writing skills              39.11      2.35     18.90        1.75     47.69    0.00

  SCANS competencies                                                             

  Teamwork skills             22.48      1.91     46.25        2.16     65.79    0.00

  Research/reference skills   16.08      1.54     13.90        1.45     1.20     0.27

  Ability to use technology   19.70      1.51     45.82        2.14     87.29    0.00

  SCANS foundation                                                               

  Oral communication skills   28.49      1.79     37.81        2.34     11.07    0.00

  Creative thinking/problem   48.24      2.34     50.52        2.20     0.49     0.48
  solving                                                                        

  Vocational/integrated                                                          

  Job-specific skills         1.94       0.60     44.08        2.27     236.36   0.00

  General employability       10.73      1.29     44.57        2.12     155.28   0.00
  skills                                                                         

  Ability to apply academic   7.79       1.12     33.52        2.23     96.77    0.00
  concept                                                                        
  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------

######## Table D.18 Reported Amount of Homework Assigned in Identified Classes by Academic and Vocational Teachers (Mean Hours)

  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- --------- ------
                              Academic            Vocational                      
                              Teachers            Teachers                        

                                                                                  

                              n=660               n=802                           

                              MEAN       SE       MEAN         SE       test      p

  Mean hours of homework in   2.88       0.09     1.43         0.08     --12.77   0.00
  last 5 school days                                                              
  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- --------- ------

######## Table D.19 Reported Amount of Homework Assigned in Identified Classes by Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools (Mean Hours)

  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------
                              Comprehensive            Vocational                     
                              HS                       HS                             

                                                                                      

                              n=1,119                  n=343                          

                              MEAN            SE       MEAN         SE       test     p

  Mean hours of homework in   2.63            0.08     2.10         0.26     --1.92   0.06
  last 5 school days                                                                  
  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------

######## Table D.20 Reported Preparation of Academic and Vocational Teachers to Teach Technology-Related Skills

  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------
                              Academic            Vocational                    
                              Teachers            Teachers                      

                                                                                

                              n=91                n=808                         

                              PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test    p

  Unprepared/somewhat         50.23      6.32     18.54        1.65     16.78   0.00
  prepared                                                                      

  Adequately or very well     49.77      6.32     81.46        1.65     16.78   0.00
  prepared                                                                      
  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.21 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting "Moderate" or "Great" Input by 

######## Business Groups in Identified Career-Oriented or Vocational Classes

  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------
                              Academic            Vocational                    
                              Teachers            Teachers                      

                                                                                

                              n=98                n=827                         

                              PCT        SE       PCT          SE       test    p

  Review overall curriculum   4.16       1.88     25.76        2.18     55.94   0.00

  Advise on curriculum        3.09       1.53     19.15        1.96     31.77   0.00
  materials                                                                     

  Advise on computer          5.73       2.20     10.29        1.24     6.71    0.04
  selection                                                                     

  Advise on instrument/equip  4.44       2.06     20.16        1.75     35.61   0.00
  selection                                                                     

  Help set class standards    4.66       2.11     19.98        1.79     35.66   0.00

  Review student work         5.17       2.14     11.05        1.39     12.01   0.00

  Advise on skill             6.50       2.50     28.63        2.02     44.54   0.00
  requirements                                                                  
  --------------------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.22 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Reporting "Moderate" or "Great" Input by 

######## Business Groups in Identified Career-Oriented or Vocational Classes

  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------
                              Comprehensive            Vocational                     
                              HS                       Schools                        

                                                                                      

                              n=578                    n=347                          

                              PCT             SE       PCT          SE       test     p

  Review overall curriculum   12.85           1.67     56.67        4.37     102.47   0.00

  Advise on curriculum        9.66            1.48     41.25        3.81     101.83   0.00
  materials                                                                           

  Advise on computer          7.31            1.26     18.75        2.37     29.91    0.00
  selection                                                                           

  Advise on instrument/equip  10.08           1.44     47.89        4.10     81.37    0.00
  selection                                                                           

  Help set class standards    10.13           1.48     47.04        4.29     78.76    0.00

  Review student work         7.26            1.29     21.52        2.63     50.53    0.00

  Advise on skill             15.42           1.79     60.23        4.48     95.95    0.00
  requirements                                                                        
  --------------------------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------

######## Table D.23 Weighted Teacher Scales for Academic and Vocational Teachers and Classes (Mean Scores)

  -------------- ---------- ------ ------ ------------ ----- ------ ------ -- -- ---------- ------ ------ ------------ ----- ------ ------
  Scale          Teacher                                                         Class Type                                         
                 Type                                                                                                               

                 Academic                 Vocational                             Academic                 Vocational                

                 N          Mean   Std                 N     Mean   Std          N          Mean   Std                 N     Mean   Std

  Affect of      683        .73    .44                 867   .62    .48          612        .75    .43                 803   .62    .49
  standard                                                                                                                          

  Academic index 678        1.11   .55                 854   .77    .70          608        1.13   .55                 790   .75    .70

  Technical      677        .04    .21                 860   .45    .50          608        .05    .21                 797   .44    .50
  index                                                                                                                             

  Competencies   657        .89    .54                 841   1.07   .57          585        .90    .55                 767   1.07   .58
  overall                                                                                                                           

  Certificate    683        .97    .18                 873   .93    .26          607        .98    .14                 799   .92    .27

  Homework       659        1.35   .64                 810   .76    .74          589        1.37   .62                 740   .73    .72

  Teacher        624        5.08   1.36                743   4.62   1.67         561        5.14   1.32                690   4.57   1.67
  quality                                                                                                                           
  -------------- ---------- ------ ------ ------------ ----- ------ ------ -- -- ---------- ------ ------ ------------ ----- ------ ------

> NOTE: All differences between academic and vocational teachers and
> classes are significant at the .01 level.

######## Table D.24 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Who Report "Moderate" or "Serious" Problems with Technology

  ------------------------- ---------- --------- ------------ ------ ------- ------
                            Academic             Vocational                  
                            Teachers             Teachers                    

                            n=93                 n=818                       

                            PCT        SE        PCT          SE     test    p

  Availability of           42.33      5.75      28.21        2.02   6.22    0.05
  technology problem                                                         

  Availability of           57.32      5.83      37.19        2.11   8.49    0.02
  technology in adequate                                                     
  numbers                                                                    

  Maintenance of technology 42.40      5.61      38.03        2.30   0.99    0.61
  problem                                                                    

  Appropriateness of        44.12      5.83      29.54        2.28   6.69    0.04
  technology problem                                                         

  Currentness of technology 51.15      5.74      40.66        2.44   2.43    0.30
  problem                                                                    

  Alignment of tech with    38.52      5.87      22.55        1.92   11.29   0.00
  curriculum problem                                                         

  Convenient location of    45.80      6.27      26.37        2.02   8.89    0.01
  technology problem                                                         
  ------------------------- ---------- --------- ------------ ------ ------- ------

######## Table D.25 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Who Report "Moderate" or "Serious" Problems with Technology

  ------------------------- --------------- --------- ------------ ------ ------ ------
                            Comprehensive             Vocational                 
                            HS                        HS                         

                            n=564                     n=347                      

                            PCT             SE        PCT          SE     test   p

  Availability of           33.61           2.56      30.41        4.49   0.85   0.65
  technology problem                                                             

  Availability of           45.26           2.71      37.48        4.36   2.49   0.29
  technology in adequate                                                         
  numbers                                                                        

  Maintenance of technology 40.28           2.89      34.44        3.90   1.71   0.43
  problem                                                                        

  Appropriateness of        35.19           2.64      30.73        4.39   0.87   0.65
  technology problem                                                             

  Currentness of technology 45.20           2.63      38.03        4.31   3.64   0.16
  problem                                                                        

  Alignment of tech with    29.12           2.63      21.50        3.75   3.46   0.18
  curriculum problem                                                             

  Convenient location of    33.81           2.99      29.43        4.35   0.72   0.70
  technology problem                                                             
  ------------------------- --------------- --------- ------------ ------ ------ ------

######## 

######## Table D.26 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Reporting Activity Occurs "Frequently" in Identified Class

  ----------------------------- ---------- ------- ------------ ------- -------- ---------
                                Academic           Vocational                    
                                Teachers           Teachers                      

                                n=671              n=863                         

                                PCT        SE      PCT          SE      test     p

  Listen to a lecture           69.55      2.18    57.78        1.97    20.71    0.00000

  Write a paragraph or more     53.56      2.43    38.62        2.09    25.85    0.00000

  Receive homework assignment   86.15      1.49    33.94        2.06    246.82   0.00000

  Take test or quiz             55.55      2.22    38.89        2.05    34.9     0.00000

  Use computers                 19.48      1.85    54.53        2.47    120.65   0.00000

  Use                           23.66      2.04    64.62        2.24    148.09   0.00000
  instruments/tools/equipment                                                    

  Work in groups                57.87      2.26    64.36        2.02    23.69    0.00000

  Work on extended projects     18.47      1.43    52.98        2.22    175.57   0.00000

  Use commercial curriculum     2.92       0.79    11.40        1.24    48.23    0.00000
  materials                                                                      

  Discuss or explore careers    4.81       0.98    23.94        1.83    157.51   0.00000

  Apply academic skills to job  21.46      1.80    64.23        2.29    231.66   0.00000
  tasks                                                                          

  Use the Internet for research 10.62      1.37    24.62        1.95    45.51    0.00000

  Receive instruction through   1.60       0.54    2.62         0.71    15.37    0.00060
  distance learning                                                              

  Use technology at local       0.00       0.00    1.13         0.43    16.04    0.00040
  college                                                                        

  Use technology at local       0.00       0.00    5.11         1.05    113.61   0.00000
  business                                                                       
  ----------------------------- ---------- ------- ------------ ------- -------- ---------

######## Table D.27 Percentage of Academic and Vocational Teachers Engaged in Collaboration 

######## (Percentage Reporting Engagement in Any Collaboration)

  --------------------- ----------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------
                        Academic             Vocational                    
                        Teachers             Teachers                      

                        n=689                n=888                         

                        PCT         SE       PCT          SE       test    p

  Develop overall       61.99       2.14     65.61        2.14     1.53    0.22
  curriculum                                                               

  Plan specific         65.32       2.11     67.47        2.21     0.55    0.46
  lessons/units                                                            

  Discuss individual    84.39       1.46     85.34        1.63     0.18    0.67
  student progress                                                         

  Field trips/special   46.51       2.03     60.64        2.13     22.32   0.00
  activities                                                               

  Develop student       58.51       2.35     61.40        2.17     0.92    0.34
  assessments                                                              
  --------------------- ----------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.28 Percentage of Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools Engaged in Collaboration 

######## (Percentage Reporting Engagement in Any Collaboration)

  --------------------- --------------- --------- -------------- -------- ------- ------
                        Comprehensive             Conventional                    
                        HS                        HS                              

                        n=1,204                   n=373                           

                        PCT             SE        PCT            SE       test    p

  Develop overall       62.55           1.86      66.47          5.17     0.52    0.47
  curriculum                                                                      

  Plan specific         65.58           1.84      69.45          5.51     0.44    0.51
  lessons/units                                                                   

  Discuss individual    84.43           1.24      87.60          2.93     0.92    0.34
  student progress                                                                

  Field trips/special   48.43           1.72      69.15          4.80     16.43   0.00
  activities                                                                      

  Develop student       58.78           2.06      65.50          4.75     1.59    0.21
  assessments                                                                     
  --------------------- --------------- --------- -------------- -------- ------- ------

######## Table D.29 Academic and Vocational Teacher Reports of Amount of Time School Provides for Teachers to Work Together (Percentage of Teachers)

  -------------------- ----------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- -------
                       Academic             Vocational                    
                       Teachers             Teachers                      

                       n=673                n=870                         

                       PCT         SE       PCT          SE       test    p

  Not applicable       16.95       1.62     15.45        1.37     10.42   0.07

  No time provided     61.16       2.21     60.66        2.25             

  About 30 minutes     7.08        1.46     4.76         0.77             

  One hour             5.04        0.89     9.79         1.36             

  Two hours            3.24        0.82     3.12         0.71             

  Three or more hours  6.53        1.07     6.22         1.09             
  -------------------- ----------- -------- ------------ -------- ------- -------

######## Table D.30 Reports of Amount of Time school Provides for Teachers in Comprehensive and Vocational Schools to Work Together (Percentage of Teachers)

  -------------------- --------------- --------- -------------- -------- ------ ------
                       Comprehensive             Conventional                   
                       HS                        HS                             

                       n=1,176                   N=367                          

                       PCT             SE        PCT            SE       test   p

  Not applicable       16.73           1.42      14.87          3.40     9.08   0.11

  No time provided     61.64           1.98      50.08          4.79            

  About 30 minutes     6.26            1.21      12.95          3.18            

  One hour             5.97            0.81      7.13           1.42            

  Two hours            3.09            0.69      5.55           2.76            

  Three or more hours  6.31            0.95      9.43           2.96            
  -------------------- --------------- --------- -------------- -------- ------ ------

# References

Benson, C.S. (1997). New vocationalism in the United States: Potential
problems and outlook. *Economics of Education Review, 16, (3),* pp.
201--212.

Benson, C.S., and Hayward, G.C. (1993). *Vocational-technical education:
Major reforms and debates 191---present.* Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

Boesel, D. and Fredland, E. (1999). *College for all? Is there too much
emphasis on getting a college degree?* Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Bragg, D. (2001). *Promising outcomes for Tech Prep participants in
eight local consortia: A summary of initial results.* St. Paul, MN:
National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, University
of Minnesota.

Frankel, L.R. (1983). "The report of the CASRO task force on response
rates." In F. Wiseman (ed.), *Improving data quality in sample surveys*.
Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Grubb, W.N. (1995). Achieving the promise of curriculum integration. In
W. N. Grubb (Ed.), *Education through occupations in American high
schools: The challenges of implementing curriculum integration.* New
York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, pp. 227--236.

Grubb, W.N., Davis, G., Lum, J., Plihal, J., and Morgaine, C. (1991).
*The cunning hand, the cultured mind: Models for integrating vocational
and academic education*. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education, University of California.

Guarino, C., Brewer, D.J., and Hove, A. (2000). *Who's teaching, and who
will teach, vocational education?* RP-901. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Hayward, G.C. and Benson, C.S. (1993). *Vocational-technical*
*education: Major reforms and debates, 1917--present*. Berkeley, CA:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of
California.

Hershey, A.M., Silverberg, M.K., Harrison, J., Hudis, P., and Jackson,
R. (1999*)*. *Expanding options for students: Report to Congress on the
national evaluation of School-to-Work implementation*, Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research.

Hershey, A.M., Silverberg, M.K., Owens, T., and Hulsey, L.K. (1998).
*Focus for the future: The final report of the national Tech-Prep
evaluation*. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Heaviside, S., Carey, N., and Farris, E. (1994). *Public secondary
school teacher survey on vocational education.* NCES 94-409. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.

Hudis, P. (2002). *A study of postsecondary vocational education:
Case-study findings from states and institutions.* MR-1607-USDE. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.

Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (1987). *Statistical analysis with
missing data*. New York: Wiley.

Mazmanian, D.A., and Sabatier, P.A. (1989). *Implementation and public
policy.* Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

McCaffrey, D.F., Duan, N., and Morton, S.M. (2000). "Propaga­tion of
non-response weights for censoring in multi-phase screen­ing in complex
designs." *Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology*, Vol. 1, pp.
213--231.

McDonnell, L.M., and Grubb, W.N. (1991). *Education and training for
work: The policy instruments and the institutions.* MDS-025. Berkeley,
CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of
California \[ERIC: ED 330 852\].

McLaughlin, M. (1990). The RAND change-agent study revisited: Macro
perspectives in micro realities. *Educational Researcher,* 19 *(9),* pp.
11--16.

Muraskin, L., Hollinger, D., Harvey, J. (1994). *National Assessment of
Vocational Education: Final report to Congress. Volume V: Funding and
administration issues.* Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Murnane, R.J., and Levy, F. (1996). *Teaching the new basic skills.* New
York: The Free Press.

Murnane, R.J., Willett, J.B., and Levy, F. (1995). The growing
importance of cognitive skills in wage determination. *Review of
Economics and Statistics, 77, (2),* pp. 251--266.

National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE, 1994a). *Executive
summary of the interim report to Congress.* Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement.

National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE, 1994b). *Final report
to Congress: Volume I, summary and recommendations.* Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and
Improvement.

Ramsey, K., Eden, R., Stasz, C., and Bodilly, S. (1995). Integrating
academic and vocational education: Lessons from early innovators. In W.
N. Grubb (Ed.), *Education through occupations in American high schools:
The challenges of implementing curriculum integration.* New York:
Teachers College Press, Columbia University, pp. 7--34.

Rosenbaum, J.E., and Jones, S. (1995). Creating linkages in the
high-school-to-work transition: Vocational teachers' networks. In M.
Hallinan (Ed.), *Restructuring schools: Promises, practices and
policies.* New York: Plenum.

Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS, 1991).
*What work requires of schools.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Labor.

Skinner, C.J. (1989a). Introduction to part A. In C.J. Skinner, D. Holt,
and T. Smith (Eds.), *Analysis of complex surveys.* New York: Wiley.

Skinner, C.J. (1989b). "Domain means, regression and multivariate
analyses." In C.J. Skinner, D. Holt, and T.M.F. Smith (Eds.), *Analysis
of complex surveys.* New York: Wiley, pp. 59--88.

Stasz, C., and Grubb, W.N. (1991). *Integrating academic and vocational
education: Guidelines for assessing a fuzzy reform.* MDS-375. Berkeley,
CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of
California.

Yin, P. (1994). *Case-study research: Design and methods,* second
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[^1]: Vocational education at the "secondary" level --- for young people
    who have not graduated from high school --- is provided in a variety
    of settings including "comprehensive" high schools, which are
    schools that offer instruction in the full range of academic and
    nonacademic subjects, and vocational schools that emphasize
    education in vocational fields. "Postsecondary" vocational education
    presumes an older student and/or one who has completed high school
    or an equivalent educational program.

[^2]: The middle level --- schools performing as expected --- was
    discarded because a contrast between high-performing and
    low-performing schools is more likely to reveal a relationship
    between implementation and achievement if one exists.

[^3]: These decisions were based partly on the appropriateness of the
    case study and survey methods for gathering information and partly
    on the data already being gathered in other NAVE studies.

[^4]: Because technical quality may be disciplinary-specific, it was
    suggested that the school-level assessment be limited to a small
    number of fields. Thus, to the extent possible, the design and data
    collection concentrated on three fields: health occupations,
    business occupations, and trade and industry. Business and T&I
    include the largest proportion of vocational teachers at the
    secondary level --- 33 and 20 percent, respectively. These fields
    also enroll a large number of students: 52 percent of 1992 graduates
    earned business credits, 34 percent of 1992 graduates earned T&I
    credits (NAVE, 1994b). The health field is smaller, representing 3
    percent of teachers and 14 percent of vocational concentrators in
    1992 (NAVE, 1994b). Teachers from these fields were identified first
    for study participation; others were substituted when these were not
    available at a site.

[^5]: The universe of teachers for the study includes all vocational and
    non-vocational teachers of selected subjects in public secondary
    schools in the United States. Secondary schools include
    comprehensive or regular schools as well as vocational schools and
    area vocational centers --- only public schools. The universe
    excludes all itinerant teachers, unless their home base is the
    sampled school; substitute teachers; special-education teachers; and
    teachers teaching only physical education or music.

[^6]: The linearization method approximates nonlinear statistics, such
    as ratios, proportions and regression coefficients, with a linear
    approximation so that tractable variance formula can be used for
    nonlinear estimates. The standard errors account for sampling
    weights and the clustered nature of the sample design.

[^7]: Throughout this document, specific references to Perkins III,
    PL-105-332, appear in brackets.

[^8]: The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills are a set of content
    standards in several academic subjects that districts must use in
    their foundation courses. TEKS in other areas, such as career and
    technical education, are voluntary and offered to districts as
    curriculum guidelines.

[^9]: The Vocational Competency Achievement Tracking System applies to
    all 112 vocational programs of study in North Carolina and includes
    course blueprints, detailed curriculum guides and a computerized
    assessment bank of 600--800 test items per course. It is used for
    developing course-related assessments, such as course pretests,
    quizzes and final exams.

[^10]: We heard similar reports in Ohio about the rejection of Perkins
    funds because of its requirements or the effort involved to qualify
    relative to the amount of funds available. Although we were not able
    to do so in this study, it would be interesting to quantify the
    number of schools in the country that choose not to participate in
    the federal program.

[^11]: In Florida, however, student performance affected funding at the
    postsecondary level.

[^12]: Nontraditional employment is defined as occupations or fields of
    work for which individuals from one gender constitute less than 25
    percent of those employed in the occupation or field of work
    \[Section 3 (17)\].

[^13]: It is likely that staff reductions occurred in other sites as
    well. Several schools reported that special population staff were
    located at a district or regional level, and thus local-level
    respondents might not know about cuts or reallocation of
    responsibilities.

[^14]: Core Integrated and Technical Academic Competencies, for example,
    consist of 51 competencies organized into six strands, similar to
    the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills framework.
    Career cluster ITAC for each of the six pathway areas included
    integrated academic and technical competencies, expectations of
    desired workforce behaviors, scenarios that show how competencies
    are applied, and objectives from Ohio's competency-based education
    standards in grades 9--12 that relate to and reinforce the
    competencies. Rubrics for assessing career-focused instructional
    plans are also provided (*From ITAC to Instruction: Resource Guides
    for Ohio's Career-Focused Education System.* Columbus, OH:
    Vocational Instructional Materials Laboratory, 2000).

[^15]: In the Vocational Competency Achievement Tracking System, each
    course has a "Blueprint" that shows the integrated skill area ---
    arts, communications, career development, information and computer
    skills, health and safety, math, science, and social studies ---
    addressed, along with technical competencies and objectives. Review
    of these Blueprints shows fairly extensive inclusion of academic
    skill requirements in every WDE course.

[^16]: For the most part, vocational teachers taught vocational classes
    and academic teachers taught academic classes. The correlation
    between type of class identified and designation of teacher in the
    sample as academic or vocational was 0.96.

[^17]: PL 105-332 Sec 134 (b) (3) (A).

[^18]: We asked teachers to report how often, on average, their students
    engage in a number of activities in their "identified" class.
    Response categories included never, one to five times per
    semester/one to five times per year, one to two times per month/six
    to 30 times per year, one to two times per week/31 to 80 times per
    year, and almost daily/81 or more times per year. Table D.16 reports
    frequencies for never, "occasionally" (one to 30 times per year) and
    "frequently" (31 times to almost daily).

[^19]: Regional occupational programs/centers provide vocational
    training to high school students and to adults in surrounding
    communities. In many cases, they have strong relationships with the
    high school vocational programs. Vocational students may take some
    or all of their courses through the ROP/C.

[^20]: Similar differences were observed when comparing professional
    development by school type (see Table D.2).

[^21]: A companion report to this study (Hudis, 2002) examines Tech-Prep
    from the postsecondary side. That report discusses Tech-Prep
    programs at a sample of 14 postsecondary institutions --- two from
    each of the study states --- state dual enrollment policies, and
    other activities that aim to smooth the transition from secondary to
    postsecondary schooling. The postsecondary report provides
    additional details about state Tech-Prep programs, so readers
    interested in this topic may want to consult that report as well.

[^22]: This aspect of School-to-Work proved somewhat controversial, and,
    as a result, the Perkins III language specifically stated that
    federal vocational education funds could not be used for STW
    programs.

[^23]: For further discussion of the impact of dual enrollment policies,
    see Hudis (2002).

[^24]: See Hudis (2002) for discussion of the impact of WIA on
    postsecondary institutions in this study.

[^25]: MDR's list is a complete list of school buildings.

[^26]: For schools that relied on the MDR lists, we also purchased lists
    from QED to fill in any omissions from the MDR lists. A QED list
    replaced the MDR list for one school and for a small number of
    teachers at other schools. The job titles provided by QED were more
    specific than those provided by MDR, and the QED titles were used
    for determining eligibility and assigning the teachers to strata. We
    compared the MDR and school roster for a sample of schools. Among
    those schools, the rosters agreed 86.3 percent of the time for
    eligible teachers. The high rate of agreement between rosters for
    schools that responded to our requests might overstate the agreement
    for schools that did not. One might expect that schools that did not
    respond to our request were probably more likely to not provide data
    to MDR, which would lead MDR to use alternative sources for data and
    reduce the accuracy of the MDR roster.

[^27]: Teacher self-reports of school type agree with the MDR
    classification for more than 98 percent of teachers.

[^28]: Although academic teachers tended to have larger sampling weights
    than vocational teachers because of oversampling of vocational
    teachers, estimates were not greatly influenced by the responses of
    the small number of teachers sampled as academic but then
    reclassified as vocational.

[^29]: The replacement schools received the same weight as the refusing
    school. Using the original weight is similar to adjusting the
    weights and then weighting for non-response within the sampling
    strata. Using replacements will introduce only minimal bias if
    refusals are similar to other schools in the strata. The primary
    reason for refusing to participate was time pressure on teachers
    stemming from other activities, such as state and district testing
    or other research. It is not obvious that such activities will be
    directly related to teaching practices.

[^30]: Five of the schools required that we receive district approval
    before sampling teachers, and we were unable to obtain that approval
    during the fielding of the study, even though we actively pursued it
    throughout the study period. For the remaining six schools, we
    delayed using the MDR rosters because we expected to obtain rosters
    from the schools, but we did not obtain rosters in sufficient time
    for surveying teachers.

[^31]: To control variability of the estimators, we trimmed roughly the
    three largest weights for each stratum.

[^32]: Of the 21 sampled academic teachers in vocational schools, 16
    responded and 13 were eligible. Because the sample is so small, we
    do not report the RCR for this group.

[^33]: Academic teachers in vocational schools were treated as a
    separate poststrata for estimating non-response weights.

[^34]: Because health teachers sampled as vocational teachers had a high
    misclassification rate, they were treated as a separate poststratum
    for estimating non-response weights.