NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

FINAL REPORT TO CONGRESS

Executive Summary

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service
N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s i

2004

Marsha Silverberg

Elizabeth Warner

Michael Fong

David Goodwin

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

FINAL REPORT TO CONGRESS

Executive Summary
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg

Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division

David Goodwin

Director

June 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. 

While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department 

of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, National Assessment 

of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress: Executive Summary, Washington, D.C., 2004.

To obtain copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

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

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

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

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

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

nave/reports.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape 

or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format 

Center (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s iii

| Acknowledgments |

Acknowledgments

This final report of the National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) benefited 

from the contributions of many persons, both inside the U.S. Department of Education 

and in other organizations. The NAVE staff would like to extend their appreciation to all 

of these individuals and to acknowledge those whose assistance was particularly crucial.

First, the work of the NAVE was conducted under the guidance of an Independent 

Advisory Panel, whose names and affiliations appear at the back of this report. Their 

insights and support were invaluable, and their constructive advice made both the interim and final NAVE reports better products.

Several colleagues at the Department played important roles. At the Office of Vocational 

and Adult Education (OVAE), we are especially grateful for the input and cooperation 

provided by Assistant Secretary Susan Sclafani, former Assistant Secretary Carol D’Amico, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Hans Meeder, Dennis Berry, special assistant for research, 

Sharon Belli, OVAE’s original liaison to NAVE, and Braden Goetz in OVAE’s policy group. 

Our partnership with Lisa Hudson at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

was extremely productive. We also received useful advice from Alan Ginsburg, director of 

the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) in the Office of the Under Secretary.

The foundation of this report is the analysis undertaken by a variety of contractors 

with whom we collaborated closely. For their careful work with the data and their 

help in interpreting results we would like to thank, in particular: (1) Karen Levesque, 

Gary Hoachlander, Denise Bradby, Bob Fitzgerald, Paula Hudis, Steve Klein, and Rosio 

Bugarin at MPR Associates, (2) Roberto Agodini, Joshua Haimson, John Deke, Tim 

Novak, and Stacey Uhl at Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., (3) Tom Bailey and his 

team at Teachers College, Columbia University, (4) Ivan Charner and Robin White at the 

Academy for Educational Development, and (5) Cathy Stasz and Sue Bodilly at the RAND 

Corporation.

We also appreciate the efforts of all those who helped with the production of the report. 

Angela Clarke and Ann Nawaz from PPSS assisted with early document preparation and 

report dissemination. Barbara Kridl, Andrea Livingston, Leslie Retallick, and the publishing staff of MPR Associates are responsible for editing the report and providing the 

cover and layout design. Edward Ohnemus in the Department’s Office of Public Affairs 

reviewed the report for publication.
iv NAVE: Final Report to Congress

| Acknowledgments |

Finally, we owe our gratitude to the many students and vocational educators across the 

country on whom our data and analyses are based. This report is written with sincere 

appreciation for their efforts.

In the end, the judgments expressed in this report are those of the authors. While they 

are employees of PPSS in the Office of the Under Secretary, this assessment is an independent study, as called for by law, and does not necessarily reflect the official views or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Education. 

 Marsha Silverberg

 Elizabeth Warner

 Michael Fong 

 David Goodwin
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 1

X Executive Summary

Eighty-five years ago the federal government first committed to vocational education as 

a national priority.1 Since then, the enterprise has grown to encompass a wide variety of 

activities, participants, and purposes. Currently, nearly half of all high school students and 

about one-third of college students are involved in vocational programs as a major part of 

their studies. Perhaps as many as 40 million adults—one in four—engage in short-term, 

postsecondary occupational training (Darkenwald and Kim 1998). These individuals come 

to vocational education for different reasons, participate in different ways, and take different paths afterwards. In an era in which strong skills and lifelong learning are rewarded, the 

nature and impact of student experiences in vocational education could have important 

implications for the nation’s workforce and America’s place in the global economy.

Federal efforts to improve the quality and availability of vocational programs are 

articulated, most recently, in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 

Act (Perkins III).2 Passed in October 1998, this act reflects both continuity with previous vocational legislation and some substantive departures, specifically in funding and 

accountability. As policymakers begin to consider further changes in law—in anticipation 

of reauthorization scheduled for 2004—they will be examining vocational education as 

a field in transition, prompted by sweeping changes in federal, state, and local education and training priorities. This final report of the congressionally-mandated National 

Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) provides information to enable new policy 

to be responsive to these shifts.

A. Key Findings

The National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) was charged with evaluating 

the status of vocational education and the impact of Perkins III. After more than three 

years of study NAVE finds that:

X Vocational education has important short- and medium-run earning benefits for 

most students at both the secondary and postsecondary levels, and these benefits 

extend to those who are economically disadvantaged. 

X Over the last decade of academic reforms, secondary students who participate in 

vocational programs have increased their academic course taking and achievement, 

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

2Other federal programs, such as student financial aid, tax credits, and the Workforce Investment Act, help 

provide individuals with access to occupational training at the postsecondary level; the Perkins Act provides 

support to institutions and programs.
| Executive Summary |

2 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

making them better prepared for both college and careers than were their peers in 

the past. In fact, students who take both a strong academic curriculum and a vocational program of study—still only 13 percent of high school graduates—may have 

better outcomes than those who pursue one or the other.

X While positive change is certainly happening at the high school level, secondary 

vocational education itself is not likely to be a widely effective strategy for improving academic achievement or college attendance without substantial modifications 

to policy, curriculum, and teacher training. The current legislative approach of 

encouraging “integration” as a way to move secondary vocational education toward 

supporting academics has been slow to produce significant reforms. 

In large part, the pace and path of improvement are hampered by a lack of clarity over 

the program’s fundamental purpose and goal. Perkins III offers a conflicted picture of 

federal priorities for vocational education improvement—academic achievement, technical skills, high school completion, postsecondary enrollment and degree completion, and 

employment and earnings. Without a clearer focus for the federal investment—amounting to about 5 percent of local spending—around which to rally the commitment and 

efforts of vocational teachers, counselors, and administrators, ongoing program progress 

in any particular direction is less certain. 

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

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

2. What is the nature and impact of vocational education at the sub-baccalaureate 

level, and what is its relationship to current workforce development efforts?

3. Is the policy shift from set-asides and legislative prescription to flexibility and 

accountability likely to improve program quality and student outcomes? How do 

special populations fare?

1. How does, or can, vocational education improve the outcomes of secondary 

students who choose to enroll in vocational and technical programs?

Perkins III and its legislative predecessors have largely focused on improving the prospects 

for students who take vocational education in high school, a group that has historically 

been considered low achieving and noncollege-bound.3 However, students who partici3About 62 percent of Perkins funds are spent at the high school level.
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 3

pate most intensively in vocational programs—those we call occupational “concentrators”4—are actually quite diverse; certainly, about a quarter never enroll in postsecondary 

education, but a substantial number (18 percent) go on to complete at least a baccalaureate degree. The vocational courses most high school students take improve their later 

earnings but have no effect on other outcomes that have become central to the mission 

of secondary education—such as improving academic achievement or college transitions 

(Table 1). Whether the program as currently supported by federal legislation is judged 

successful depends on which outcomes are most important to policymakers.

X The short- and medium-term benefits of vocational education are most clear 

when it comes to its longstanding measure of success—earnings. Several recent 

studies highlight the positive average effects of vocational course taking on annual 

earnings, measured just over a year or several years after high school graduation. 

Seven years after graduation, for example, students earned almost 2 percent more 

for each extra high school occupational course they took. That translates into about 

Table 1

Value-Added Effects of Vocational Education on Student Outcomes: 

Summary of Recent Research Evidence 

Outcome Effect Research Evidence

Academic achievement 0 Consistent

High school completion 0/+ Mixed

Postsecondary enrollment

Short-run (about one year after high school graduation) –/0 Mixed 

Medium-run (seven years after high graduation) 0 One study

Postsecondary completion (seven years after high school 

graduation)

0 One study

Complete a four-year college degree (vs. associate degree 

or certificate)

– One study

Short- and medium-run earnings + Consistent

SOURCE: Agodini forthcoming; Agodini and Deke forthcoming; Agodini, Deke, et al. forthcoming; Crain et al. 1999; Hoachlander et al. 

forthcoming; Kemple and Scott-Clayton 2004; Plank 2001. 

+ = vocational education increases the outcome.

– = vocational education reduces the outcome.

0 = vocational education has no effect on outcome.

4Occupational concentrators are defined as students who earn at least 3.0 occupational credits in one program 

area.
| Executive Summary |

4 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

$450 per course, based on average earnings of about $24,000 (Figure 1); the benefit 

would be $1,350 more for the 45 percent of all high school graduates who take at 

least three occupational courses, including the quarter of graduates who concentrate 

their course taking in one program area (occupational concentrators). 

 To varying extents, the studies indicate that these benefits extend to the large 

group of high school graduates who enroll in postsecondary education and training, to both economically and educationally disadvantaged students, to those with 

disabilities, and to both men and women. In addition, students who complete 

the “New Basics” academic curriculum as well as a concentration of occupational 

courses—about 13 percent of all graduates—earn more than similar students who 

complete the New Basics and little vocational education.5 However, the studies are 

more mixed on whether secondary vocational courses benefit the one-quarter of 

high school graduates who never enroll in postsecondary education, a group that 

has historically been the focus of vocational policy. There are also some important 

Figure 1

Average Earnings of 1992 High School Graduates, with and without an Extra

Occupational Course: First Year and a Half and Seventh Year after Graduation

SOURCE: Agodini, Deke, et al. forthcoming. Analysis of NELS 1994 and 2000 Follow-up Surveys.

*Indicates that the effect is significantly different at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test.

$0

With extra

occupational course

Without extra

occupational course

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

Average earnings

Seven years

Years after high school graduation

One year

$6,681 $6,474

$24,391

$455 (1.9%)*

$207 (3.2%)*

$23,936

5The “New Basics” academic curriculum, as measured here, is equivalent to four years of English or language 

arts, and three years each of math, science, and social studies. Many states are moving to this standard for core 

high school graduation requirements.
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 5

caveats to these earnings results. The evidence that vocational education increases 

wages—a proxy for a “better” job—is weaker, and it is likely that the benefits will 

continue to decline over time. 

X Students in vocational programs of study have significantly increased their academic course taking and achievement over the last decade, although gaps remain.

During the 1990s, successive groups of occupational concentrators took more, and 

more rigorous, academic courses along side their vocational curriculum (Table 2). 

By the end of the decade, the academic credit gap between them and students who 

took little or no vocational education had narrowed substantially. However, there 

were still differences between concentrators (51.1 percent) and non-concentrators 

(60.3 percent) in the proportion who completed the extensive New Basics core academic curriculum and larger gaps in the percent that completed a rigorous college 

preparatory curriculum (29.2 percent versus 46.2 percent). 

Table 2

Percentage of Occupational Concentrators and Non-concentrators Completing the 

“New Basics” Core Academic Curriculum and a College Prep Curriculum: 

1990 and 2000

Academic Indicator 1990 2000

Percentage 

Change

“New Basics” academic curriculum1

Occupational concentrators 18.5 51.1 +32.6*

Non-concentrators 45.7 60.3 +14.7*

Gap between concentrators and nonconcentrators -27.1 -9.2 -17.9*

College prep curriculum2

Occupational concentrators 10.1 29.2 +19.1*

Non-concentrators 35.9 46.2 +10.3*

Gap between concentrators and nonconcentrators -25.8 -17.0 -8.8*

SOURCE: Levesque 2003b. Analysis of High School Transcripts.

1 New Basics = Four years of English and three years of math, science, and social studies.

2 The “college-prep curriculum” is defined as earning 4.0 or more credits in English; 3.0 or more credits in mathematics at the algebra 1 

or higher level; 2.0 or more credits in biology, chemistry, or physics; 2.0 or more credits in social studies, with at least 1.0 credit in U.S. or 

world history; and 2.0 or more credits in a single foreign language (see Levesque et al. 2000).

*Statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
| Executive Summary |

6 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

 More importantly, occupational concentrators also made substantial progress on 

academic achievement (Figure 2). The National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) 12th-grade test scores of occupational concentrators increased during the 

decade, by about 8 scale points in reading and 11 scale points in math. Students who 

took little or no vocational education increased their reading achievement by about 

4 points in reading and experienced no increase in math achievement. As a result of 

these trends, the gap between concentrators and non-concentrators remained roughly 

stable in reading, while the gap in math achievement was reduced significantly.

 The NAEP assessments indicate that there has been substantial progress, but more 

work is necessary to raise the achievement levels of all students, particularly those 

in vocational programs. Most importantly, occupational concentrators are far less 

likely than non-concentrators to be proficient in reading or math, as defined by 

their most recent NAEP test scores (Figure 3). If proficiency on the 12th-grade NAEP 

assessments is associated with readiness for postsecondary education or success in 

the labor market, then these figures suggest a greater focus on academic improvement is needed.

SPORTSMEN

Figure 2

Change in NAEP 12th-Grade Test Scores for Concentrators and Non-concentrators:

Reading 1994–1998 and Mathematics 1990–2000

SOURCE: Levesque and Paret forthcoming. Analysis of 12th-Grade NAEP Assessments.

*Difference between concentrators and non-concentrators is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

NOTE: All increases over time are statistically significant at the 0.05 level except for non-concentrators in mathematics.

0

5

10

15

Change in

composite test score

8.0

4.2

11.2

0.4

Concentrators Non-concentrators

Reading Mathematics*
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 7

X There is little evidence that vocational courses contribute to improving academic 

outcomes. The noted improvements in academic performance are likely due to 

higher academic graduation requirements and increased emphasis on academic 

reforms. Both analyses of high school student data and randomized controlled studies indicate that, on average, vocational courses and programs do not themselves 

“add value” to academic achievement as measured by test scores. Not surprisingly, 

substituting additional academic courses for occupational courses does raise achievement. Moreover, although there is mixed evidence that vocational education reduces dropping out of school, the more rigorous studies suggest there is no effect.

X Postsecondary transition rates have increased; vocational courses neither hurt nor 

help most students’ chances of going on to college but are associated with a shift from 

earning a bachelor’s degree to earning an associate’s degree or certificate. Vocational 

education has long been stigmatized as for the “noncollege bound” or as a deterrent to 

college, although NAVE finds that neither of these concerns is well founded. The best 

available national trend data indicate that higher proportions of occupational concentrators are moving on to some form of postsecondary education or training, although 

they still participate overall at lower rates than do other students and in particular in 

Figure 3

Percentage of Concentrators and Non-concentrators Scoring at or above Proficiency

on NAEP 12th-Grade Test Scores: Reading 1994–1998 and Mathematics 1990–2000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

21.4*

40.3

29.3*

44.8

3.8*

15.3

9.5*

17.3

Concentrators Non-concentrators

SOURCE: Levesque and Paret forthcoming. Analysis of 12th-Grade NAEP Assessments.

*Difference between concentrators and non-concentrators is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

NOTE: All increases over time are statistically significant at the 0.05 level except for non-concentrators in mathematics (1990–2000).

1994 1998 1990 2000

Reading Mathematics

Percentage scoring at

or above proficiency
| Executive Summary |

8 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

four-year colleges and universities (Table 3). Many concentrators enroll later, so that 

by seven years after graduation nearly three-quarters versus 90 percent of all other students have participated to some extent.

 However, improvements in postsecondary enrollment do not appear related to vocational course taking. Studies of graduates in both the early and later 1990s indicate 

that vocational education itself has no effect on whether students ever attend postsecondary education or training.6 Moreover, among those who enroll, high school 

vocational education is associated with a lower likelihood of completing a bachelor’s 

degree program and a corresponding higher likelihood of completing an associate’s 

degree or certificate program. 

X Secondary vocational education is a large component of high school course taking and serves a diverse set of students, but it is an increasingly smaller share of 

the overall curriculum. Nearly every student (96.6 percent) leaves high school having taken some vocational education, although the extent of student involvement 

varies. By almost any measure, participation remained stable during the last decade 

after an earlier period of decline, withstanding schools’ ongoing focus on academic 

Table 3

Percentage of 1982 and 1992 High School Graduates Who Enrolled in Postsecondary 

Education or Training within Two Years after Graduation: 

1984 and 1994

Curriculum Path

1982 

Graduates

1992 

Graduates

Percentage 

Change

1992 

Graduates 

in Four-Year 

Institutions

All students 57.3 73.0 +27.4 41.4

Occupational concentrators 41.5 54.7 +31.8 21.3

College preparatory 95.6 93.2 -2.5 73.3

Other/General 61.2 69.1 +12.9 30.4

SOURCE: Levesque et al. 2000. Analysis of the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study (HS&B) and the National Education 

Longitudinal Study (NELS).

6Some students enroll in high school vocational education because they do not plan to attend college, so a negative relationship between vocational courses and postsecondary education might be expected. However, even 

controlling for college plans and other student characteristics, vocational courses have no effect, on average, 

on postsecondary enrollment.
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 9

improvement. While there was little change in the amount of vocational course 

work taken by high school students during the 1990s, students earned more academic credits, thus lowering vocational education’s share of the overall high school 

curriculum—from 21.8 percent in 1982 to 17.8 percent in 1990 to 16.2 percent in 

2000 (Figure 4). Still, high school students earn, on average, more credits in vocational education (4.0) than in math (3.4) or science (3.1).

 Those who participate most intensively—occupational concentrators—are a varied 

set of students. However, those who have disabilities or are male, come from lowerincome or rural schools, or arrive at high school with low academic achievement 

participate more substantially than do other students. These patterns were generally 

stable during the last decade, although vocational education appeared to attract 

more academically talented students during the 1990s. Less progress was made on 

overcoming gender differences in vocational course participation.

X The Perkins quality improvement strategies may be too vague to drive change 

without clear direction. Perkins III carried over a variety of strategies from Perkins 

II—such as integration of academic and vocational instruction, an all aspects of the 

industry emphasis, linkages between secondary and postsecondary programs, collaboration with employers, and expanding the use of technology. Several of these 

strategies, including integration, are ill defined and that may be a barrier to wider 

implementation. In addition, little is known about their effectiveness in improving 

Figure 4

Average Credits Earned by High Schools Students, by Type of Course Work: 1982–2000

SOURCE: Levesque 2003b, 2003c. Analysis of National High School Transcripts.

1Includes courses such as art, music, and driver’s education.

Year

Credits earned

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Academic

Vocational

Enrichment1

1994

2.6

4.0

17.6

24.2

1998

2.9

4.0

18.3

25.2

2000

2.9

4.2

18.8

25.9

1992

2.7

4.0

17.2

23.9

1982

2.6

4.7

14.3

21.6

1990

2.7

4.2

16.7

23.6
| Executive Summary |

10 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

student outcomes. Perhaps more importantly, the practices are potentially targeted 

toward different outcomes: for example, technology might be expected to affect 

occupational-technical skills, integration to affect students’ academic achievement. 

The list does not reflect a focused purpose to the federal investment.

X Improving teacher quality will be important if vocational education is expected 

to alter its mission. Teachers have the most direct impact on instruction and the 

earnings benefits for many vocational students may suggest that this instruction is 

valued in the labor market. However, federal legislation over the past decade has 

tried to guide vocational education toward providing greater support for academic 

achievement; student outcomes and program implementation suggest that these 

efforts have been less successful. Current vocational teachers are less likely than academic teachers to have bachelors’ degrees and many do not feel they have received 

sufficient professional development on the key strategy of integration. Moreover, 

prospective high school vocational teachers (in vocational teacher training programs) score lower on basic reading and writing tests than do those preparing to be 

elementary school teachers and lower on math tests than other secondary teachers (Figure 5). Substantial investments in new recruitment and in-service training 

approaches may be required if federal legislation continues to make supporting 

academic achievement a priority for vocational education.

Figure 5

PRAXIS (Preservice) Reading and Mathematics Scores,

by Type of Prospective Teacher: 1994–1999

174

180

SOURCE: Cramer forthcoming. Analysis of Praxis Test Scores.

NOTE: These results are for the paper-based version of the test.

179

178

177

176

175

174

180

179

178

177

176

175

93–94 94–95 95–96 96–97 97–98 98–99 93–94 94–95 95–96 96–97 97–98 98–99

PRAXIS Reading Scores PRAXIS Mathematics Scores

Elementary Secondary Vocational
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 11

X Tech-Prep was a catalyst for certain vocational reform activities but, because few 

schools implement it as a comprehensive program of study, it is now playing less 

of a distinctive role. Efforts to promote both integration of academic and vocational 

instruction and articulation between secondary and postsecondary education were 

stimulated by the Tech-Prep Education Act in Perkins II. However, 12 years later, 

few schools implement Tech-Prep as a structured program with at least two years 

of clearly linked high school course work and at least two years of related postsecondary course work (the “two-plus-two” design). The most recent estimates suggest 

that about 10 percent of Tech-Prep consortia, representing 5 percent of Tech-Prep 

students overall, may be promoting this comprehensive two-plus-two approach. In 

2001, only seven states reported that they require local grantees to implement TechPrep as a distinct program.

 More typically schools implement individual components of the Tech-Prep model—

maintaining articulation agreements, providing professional development on integration to academic or vocational teachers, or improving career guidance and planning. Many of these activities are becoming part of secondary vocational education 

more broadly, and little change has occurred at the postsecondary level to accommodate Tech-Prep students. As a result, Tech-Prep efforts now overlap substantially 

with those of regular vocational education.

2. What is the nature and impact of vocational education at the sub-baccalaureate 

level, and what is its relationship to current workforce development efforts?

Given the labor market value of college credentials, “lifelong learning,” and flexibility in 

skills, the role of sub-baccalaureate vocational education is increasingly important. Many 

different types of students, with different intentions, cross the doors of community colleges and other Perkins-eligible postsecondary institutions; even with this diversity, the 

institutions provide services from which most participating students benefit. Relatively 

low rates of retention are a concern, however, not only because federal policy has long 

encouraged postsecondary degree completion as a strategy for maintaining American 

economic competitiveness, but also because individual participants would reap much 

greater earnings advantage from staying long enough to earn a credential. An emphasis 

on degree completion may be at odds with the shorter-term training emphasized by the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA). But at least so far, integration of decision-making and 

services between Perkins and WIA has been limited in most states.
| Executive Summary |

12 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

X There are significant economic returns to postsecondary vocational education, 

with the greatest benefits for those who earn a credential. As was true at the secondary level, vocational education in community colleges appears to produce a substantial positive effect on earnings for the vast majority of participants. There are differences in these returns, depending on how much course work is completed (Table 

4). Some postsecondary vocational participants do benefit from a year’s worth of 

vocational course taking even without attaining a credential, earning between 5 and 

8 percent more than do high school graduates with similar characteristics. However, 

much higher economic rewards go to those who pursue significant amounts of postsecondary vocational education and earn a degree or certificate; female associate’s 

degree holders, for example, earn 47 percent more than similar students with a high 

school degree and males earn 30 percent more. These results represent the average 

effects of earning postsecondary degrees. Although many economists argue that the 

effects vary widely by occupational field, the available data did not permit fields of 

study to be analyzed separately.

X Fewer than half of postsecondary vocational participants seeking a degree or 

certificate take enough courses to earn a credential. Like their academic counterparts, many vocational participants leave sub-baccalaureate institutions and 

programs having completed few courses; more than two-thirds of vocational 

majors complete the equivalent of a year or less of course work within a fiveyear time period. Even among those who enroll with the goal of earning a degree 

Table 4

Adjusted Percentage Difference in Earnings between Postsecondary Vocational 

Program Participants and High School Graduates, by Gender: 2000 

Percentage Difference in Earnings1

Returns to: Male Female

One year of postsecondary vocational courses 8.0* 5.4

Credential

Institutional certificate 6.5 16.3*

Vocational associate degree 30.2* 47.0*

SOURCE: Bailey, Kienzl, and Marcotte forthcoming. Analysis of the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS).

1Numbers are the actual earnings returns in percentages, calculated by taking the anti-log of the regression coefficients; tests of statistical 

significance were computed using the original regression coefficients.

*Statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 13

or certificate, fewer than half 

actually complete a credential 

of any kind (Figure 6).7 Taking 

student goals and characteristics into account, the completion rate for vocational majors 

is similar to that of academic 

majors, although vocational 

participants are more likely to 

earn a shorter-term credential 

(e.g., certificate) than they 

originally set out to attain. The 

relatively low completion rate 

among postsecondary vocational students is consistent 

across categories of students, 

including those in special 

population groups.

X Postsecondary vocational education serves a large and diverse population with 

varied expectations. About one-third of all students in undergraduate postsecondary 

education are considered to be in postsecondary vocational programs. These sub-baccalaureate vocational students vary in age, income, work experience, and previous 

college activity. Not surprisingly, then, they enroll with different goals—to get an 

associate’s degree or institutional certificate, to transfer and pursue a bachelor’s degree, 

to enhance their job skills, or to engage in personal enrichment activities; older students are more interested in obtaining job skills while younger students are more likely 

to aim for a credential (Figure 7). To accommodate this diversity, community colleges 

have to be particularly flexible institutions. Perkins III funds, which represent just 2 

percent of vocational education expenditures in public two-year and less-than-twoyear colleges, can be used to support almost any part of the enterprise.

X Community colleges have had limited involvement in early implementation of 

WIA, citing both low emphasis on training and reporting requirements as disincentives. Early WIA implementation, during a period of economic expansion and job 

growth, primarily emphasized the development of new procedures and the delivery 

Figure 6

Highest Credential Attained by Postsecondary

Vocational Participants within

Five Years, by Stated Goal:1994

SOURCE: Bailey, Alfonso, et al. forthcoming. Analysis of the Beginning

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 1989–1994.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Certificate

goal

Associate

goal

38.9

53.0

Bachelor

Certificate

Associate

7The comparable completion rate for students entering four-year postsecondary programs seeking bachelor’s 

degrees is 61.9 percent; that is, almost two-thirds of students who enter these longer degree programs actually 

earn a credential of some kind (including less than a baccalaureate degree), compared to about half of students 

who enter shorter-term vocational associate degree programs.
| Executive Summary |

14 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

of employment information over the kinds of training activities Perkins-eligible 

institutions typically provide. There is some evidence that, with the recent economic 

downturn, both the availability of training vouchers and policy interest in training 

are increasing, but the lack of coordination between WIA and Perkins accountability 

measures reportedly still leads to substantial burden for participating institutions.

3. Is the policy shift from set-asides and legislative prescription to flexibility and 

accountability likely to improve program quality and student outcomes? How 

do special populations fare?

The funding and accountability changes enacted under Perkins III have been partially 

successful in addressing policymakers’ objectives, although much is still in development. 

Local grantees are receiving larger dollar amounts and case studies suggest they are able 

to distribute secondary Perkins funds to more schools, outcomes consistent with the goal 

of directing more money to the local rather than state levels. However, both the traditional ways in which grantees use their funds and early implementation of the higher 

stakes accountability system forecast at best slow change in vocational program quality. 

Despite serious commitment among state administrators, technical measurement and 

data quality problems hinder widespread use of performance data for program management at either the state or local levels. Given these deficiencies, it seems unlikely that, 

in the short run, the accountability system will have particular benefits for special population students, especially since identifying and collecting data on these students has 

proven to be particularly difficult for state and local officials. The effects of eliminating 

targeted set-asides intended to promote gender equity is currently unknown.

Figure 7

Percentage Distribution of Postsecondary Vocational Students,

by Age and Reported Primary Goal: 1996

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Younger than 20 20–23 24–29 Older than 29

30.4

24.6

33.3

11.7

43.6

19.5

20.2

16.7

51.4

26.9

10.0

11.7

29.3

20.5

37.6

12.5

Personal enrichment

Transfer

Degree/certificate

Job skills

SOURCE: Silverberg et al. 2002. Analysis of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1996.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Age
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 15

X The new law succeeded in sending a higher share of funds to the local level. The 

average size of local grants grew substantially between Perkins II and Perkins III 

(approximately 34 percent for secondary and 26 percent for postsecondary grantees) 

(Table 5). These increases cannot be fully explained by increases in federal appropriations that go to state grants (just over 15 percent) or a reduction in the number of 

grants awarded. 

X Flexibility provisions are popular, but may be weakening the targeting of funds 

to high-poverty communities. Nearly 30 states at the secondary level and 20 at 

the postsecondary level use at least one of the flexibility provisions in Perkins III. 

The most common choice is the newly established “reserve fund” provision, which 

allows states to award 10 percent of local funds to programs in rural and other areas 

without using the poverty-weighted legislated formula. Perhaps as a result, the dollar 

advantage of high-poverty districts has declined since Perkins II (Table 6). 

 Perkins III also included several options to allow states to better coordinate federal 

vocational funds and activities with those of other federal programs. Only one 

state submitted to ED a “consolidated” plan to integrate vocational education with 

other education programs, and 12 states submitted “unified” plans in which they 

described their expected activities under some combination of the Perkins, WIA, 

Table 5

Grant Amounts Awarded to Secondary and Postsecondary Recipients: 

1992 and 2001

Grant Amounts 1992 2001 Difference

Percentage 

Change

Perkins appropriations for state and substate 

grants (in thousands)1 $954,259 $1,100,000 $145,741 15.3

Average secondary substate grant amount

Current dollars 76,238 101,813 25,575 33.5

Real dollars (2001) 96,670 101,813 5,143 5.3

Average postsecondary substate grant amount

Current dollars 226,019 285,645 59,626 26.4

Real dollars (2001) 286,592 285,645 -947 -0.3

SOURCE: White et al. forthcoming. Analysis of National Survey of State Directors of Vocational Education, Fiscal Data 1992 and 2001.

1Overall Perkins appropriations included other programs that on average increased 7.3 percent between 1992 and 2001.
| Executive Summary |

16 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

Adult Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation laws. Although, under the ED Flex 

program, states received the authority to waive Perkins requirements, states generally did not exercise that authority.

X Implementation is progressing, but so far the performance measurement system 

is rarely viewed as a tool for program improvement. The current system, perhaps 

the first legislated accountability effort with significant “teeth,” is still evolving 

and state officials have demonstrated a serious commitment to it. However, several factors limit its likely impact on vocational programs and student outcomes in 

the next few years: (1) difficulty collecting data, (2) lack of validity or reliability of 

many adopted performance measures, and (3) inconsistent approaches to data collection and reporting within states. Certainly, the current system cannot provide a 

reliable, national picture of vocational education performance. Overall, the quality 

and reach of the Perkins accountability measures vary considerably by indicator, by 

state, within state, and sometimes even within local grantees’ programs. It is therefore unsurprising that relatively few states or districts use the performance data for 

consequential decision-making.

Table 6

Average Perkins Grant Amounts, Adjusted for Student Enrollments, 

by LEA Poverty Level: 1992 and 20011

Grant Amount per 

Secondary Student2

Poverty Level3 1992 2001

Percentage 

Change

High-poverty school districts $51 $53 3.9

Medium-poverty school districts 28 32 14.3

Low-poverty school districts 32 41 28.1

All school districts 32 40 25.0

SOURCE: White et al. forthcoming. Analysis of National Survey of State Directors of Vocational Education, Fiscal Data 1992 and 2001, and 

NCES, Common Core of Data (CCD).

1

Averages based on 29 states for which data were available in both 1992 and 2001 and where more than 80 percent of grantee recipients 

in a state had an NCES ID.

2

These calculations adjust for the number of 9th- through 12th-grade students in a district to isolate the effects of targeting from those of 

enrollments. 

3

Poverty level is measured by the number of students in a district qualifying for the federal free or reduced-price lunch program: Low 

poverty = 0 to 9 percent of students in a district qualify; medium poverty = 10 to 49 percent of students; and high poverty = 50 percent 

or more of students.
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 17

X Although there have been some cutbacks in staffing dedicated to special population services, the full effects on programs and students are unknown. Even with 

the elimination of the gender equity set-asides and coordinator requirements, many 

states continued to support these efforts, though the amount of staff time seems to 

have declined. In 2001, 23 states reported having at least one gender equity coordinator working full- or part-time, but case studies suggest these figures represent reductions from Perkins II. There were fewer observed effects at the local level, with other 

funding sources sometimes making up for the loss of Perkins gender equity grants. 

There were cutbacks in targeted programs and services in some communities, but 

how these might affect student outcomes cannot be known for several more years.

B. Options for Future Directions8

Despite the current strengths of the vocational education system supported by Perkins 

III, there remain ongoing challenges for further improvement. Policymakers may wish to 

consider a variety of ways—encompassing broad or more specific strategies—in which to 

shape the course of these improvements. 

1. Broad Strategies for Promoting Change

There are several possible options that have implications for the structure of a new or 

revised law. These broad strategies share a common goal of providing a clearer focus to 

federal priorities. 

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

The Perkins legislation authorizes a stream of funds that provides wide latitude to state 

and local grantees in terms of implementation and goals. The law’s reporting requirements 

reflect the historical accumulation of purposes that have been laid out for vocational education: improving students’ academic and technical skills, enhancing high school completion, promoting postsecondary enrollment and completion, and ensuring successful labor 

market entry and retention.9 All of these, it could be argued, are worthy objectives for 

federal policy to address at either the high school or college level, or both.

8Perkins III requires the NAVE to provide “findings and recommendations resulting from the assessment” 

(Section 114(c)).

9Since federal vocational education legislation was enacted in 1917, the law has responded to changing needs 

and acquired new objectives. Initially, it was a way to prepare immigrant and rural populations to work in 

factories and on farms. At some point it became a form of training that might appeal to less academically oriented students, perhaps helping to keep them in school by engaging them in activities most relevant to future 

employment. Over time vocational education was supported as a strategy to keep the United States internationally competitive, by delivering advanced technical training to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech 

economy. More recently, vocational education has been promoted as a strategy to enhance academic learning 

and provide a clearer pathway to success in college.
| Executive Summary |

18 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

However, it is reasonable to question the capacity of any single law or any single program strategy to succeed on all of these fronts. The diffuse nature of federal priorities for 

this stream of funds both reflects and contributes to ambivalence among policymakers 

and educators about what “problem” is being addressed by the Perkins legislation, and 

impedes efforts to develop clear, focused, and tested education interventions designed to 

ameliorate the identified problem. 

The federal investment could be more effective if directed toward a narrower set of goals 

around which program improvement strategies and accountability systems could be 

developed. There are some choices in moving in that direction:

X Emphasize immediate goal of education or workforce development. Decision-makers may want to weigh whether vocational education, or the activities the Perkins 

legislation supports, should most directly and immediately contribute to: 

• Education, in which the emphasis is primarily on learning academic or occupational skills (or both) while enrolled in school; or

• Workforce development, in which the emphasis is primarily on job and other 

post-school outcomes.

 These various objectives are certainly interrelated and clarifying the priorities does 

not imply that vocational education cannot also have other benefits. Studies clearly 

link higher levels of learning and of educational attainment to success in the workplace (see NAVE Interim Report [Silverberg et al. 2002]). The language in Perkins 

III and of vocational advocacy groups suggest that effective technical skills rest on 

a strong foundation of academic proficiency. The question is, however, which of 

these goals is most critical for Perkins-funded activities? A focus is important for the 

federal role of promoting continuing improvement.

X Separate the high school and postsecondary components of the Perkins Act versus 

keeping them joined in the structure of the law. In some sense, secondary and 

postsecondary vocational education share many qualities. Both are elective choices 

for students rather than a required curriculum. Both serve an increasingly diverse 

set of students, who have widely varying purposes for participating and hopes for 

what they will accomplish. When secondary vocational education was clearly a program for developing occupational skills and preparing for immediate employment, 

the strategies at the two levels were similar. However, that may no longer be the 

case. Because the mission of high schools and community and technical colleges 

differ, as do the challenges they face, policymakers may decide that federal vocational education should play a different role at each level. For example, although 
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 19

10Requiring postsecondary institutions to be responsible would not preclude other Perkins institutions—secondary districts, high schools, area vocational centers, adult centers—from playing major roles in these activities, as is appropriate. However, designating the lead institutions in law may help ensure that the activities are 

a focus of funded efforts.

federal policy may charge secondary vocational education with reinforcing high 

schools’ learning objectives, policy may choose to more clearly tie postsecondary 

vocational education to workforce development outcomes.

 Establishing separate policies and goals for vocational education at the two levels 

need not undermine the current federal emphasis on developing clear pathways 

from high school to postsecondary education. On the contrary, with two separate 

titles or sections, the law could more clearly articulate the specific responsibilities of 

secondary and postsecondary institutions to create and maintain those pathways.

Eliminate Tech-Prep as a separate title, folding its key activities into postsecondary 

institutions’ responsibilities.

Tech-Prep has spurred some important efforts but has not lived up to its promise of 

creating rigorous programs of technical study. The Tech-Prep title of the Perkins Act 

has become a funding stream like the larger state grant title in Perkins, allowing local 

consortia to supplement vocational education or other efforts associated generally with 

the spirit of the law (e.g., career development). Rarely are funds focused on developing 

the well-defined two-plus-two (2+2) programs that early Tech-Prep advocates promoted: 

integrated high school academic and vocational curricula that are “articulated”—linked 

through credit transfer agreements—to postsecondary programs. Instead, integration and 

articulation have been implemented more on a course-by-course basis. Moreover, these 

two key components of Tech-Prep have become more common priorities for vocational 

education generally, diminishing the distinctive role that Tech-Prep efforts might play. 

Finally, there is some evidence that Tech-Prep funds are not as well targeted to high-poverty areas as are the formula-driven basic grant funds under the Perkins Act.

Despite these limitations, Tech-Prep remains the catalyst for some initiatives and strategies that many consider worth preserving. Two, in particular—convening local partners 

to collaborate on postsecondary transition issues and updating articulation agreements—

could instead become required activities for postsecondary Perkins grantees, many of 

whom already play this role as part of Tech-Prep consortia.10

This strategy could, in effect, focus the Perkins-funded efforts of eligible postsecondary 

institutions on serving their younger students (those transitioning from high school) 

rather than on the older adult population. Such an emphasis might be warranted, 

because the younger students are less likely to be on a stable trajectory toward labor 
| Executive Summary |

20 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

market success: they have more limited work histories and previous college or job training experience, and there is some evidence that earning a credential matters more for 

them than for older students. Given that Perkins grants represent about 2 percent of 

local community college spending on occupational education, a focus for federal funds 

on younger students might also strengthen current efforts to develop rigorous cross-level 

course sequences, pathways, or programs of study. 

Streamline accountability requirements to align with the more focused objectives.

The current accountability provisions in Perkins III require secondary and postsecondary 

grantees to report on a broad array of student outcomes, both those that students achieve 

while in school (academic achievement, occupational-technical skill development, school 

completion) and those that define their paths after they leave (further education or training 

and employment). There are two reasons for reducing the number of indicators:

X To limit burden and improve performance data quality. Many states are finding it 

burdensome to meet all of the reporting obligations and their current performance 

measures and data collection approaches have limited validity and reliability, impeding reliance on them for significant program management decisions. Improvements 

in data quality and use are more likely if state and local grantees could concentrate 

their efforts on a smaller set of indicators.

X To focus program improvement activities. The accountability system is intended to 

motivate states, districts, and postsecondary institutions to manage their programs 

more effectively. A more limited set of performance indicators, closely aligned to 

policymakers’ priorities for the federal investment, could encourage more targeted 

improvement efforts.

2. Specific Strategies for Improved Performance 

Although there are broad changes to the structure of the law that policymakers could 

pursue, there are also individual practices and strategies new legislation could promote 

that might improve particular outcomes (Table 7). Ideally, one set of strategies would be 

emphasized, tied to a clear declaration of federal priorities. However, the strategies could 

also be implemented in combination.

These specific approaches—summarized in Table 7—draw to a large extent on current 

research and evaluation analyses, most conducted under the NAVE.
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 21

Table 7

Overview of Specific Strategies to Improve Vocational Program Performance, 

by Federal Priority

Federal Priority for Vocational Education Improvement Strategies 

Secondary Level

Enhance academic achievement X Make priority more explicit in law

X Support curriculum development strengthening academic content of vocational courses

X Limit funding to programs with proven academic content

X Invest in focused teacher training

Raise occupational and technical skills in 

high schools 

X Require content and performance standards for vocational courses

X Promote aligned end-of-course technical assessments

X Include rewards and sanctions 

Improve employment and earnings, particularly for noncollege-bound studentsX Encourage implementation of vocational program 

course sequences

X Promote work experience programs

Postsecondary Level

Improve employment and earnings X Focus improvement efforts on younger students

X Work with high schools to give students realistic sense 

of college, training, and job requirements

X Place more emphasis on support services

3. Closing

Vocational education, increasingly known as career and technical education, is a longstanding program whose place in American education continues to evolve. The broadening of its goals, the ongoing diversity of participants, and the changing education 

and labor market climate in which it operates, suggest vocational education is a flexible 

option for schools and students. 

With this flexibility comes some challenges, however. At the high school level, participation in vocational education is an elective choice that faces increasing pressure from 

emphasis on academic improvement. For both secondary and postsecondary vocational 

education, the wide range of participants and objectives raises a question about how 
| Executive Summary |

22 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

effective a role federal policy plays and whether that policy can or should promote a 

clearer set of priorities. This final NAVE report is designed to contribute to that discussion, 

by providing the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of vocational education 

in the United States and of the effects of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 

Education Act of 1998.
| Executive Summary |

N A V E : F i n a l R e p o r t t o C o n g r e s s 23

X References 

Agodini, Roberto. Forthcoming. Achievement Effects of Vocational and Integrated Studies.

Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Agodini, Roberto, and John Deke. Forthcoming. The Relationship between High School 

Vocational Education and Dropping Out. Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc.

Agodini, Roberto, John Deke, Timothy Novak, and Stacey Uhl. Forthcoming. Vocational 

Education and Postsecondary Outcomes: Eight Years After High School. Princeton, N.J.: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Bailey, Thomas R., Mariana Alfonso, Marc Scott, and Timothy Leinbach. Forthcoming. 

Educational Outcomes of Occupational Postsecondary Students. New York: Columbia 

University, Teachers College, Institute on Education and the Economy.

Bailey, Thomas R., Gregory Kienzl, and David Marcotte. Forthcoming. The Return to a SubBaccalaureate Education: The Effects of Schooling, Credentials, and Program of Study on 

Economic Outcomes. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Institute on 

Education and the Economy.

Crain, R., A. Allen, R. Thaler, D. Sullivan, G. Zellman, J. Little, and D. Quigley. 1999. The 

Effects of Academic Career Magnet Education on High Schools and Their Graduates.

Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, National Center for Research in 

Vocational Education.

Cramer, Kevin. Forthcoming. The Vocational Teacher Pipeline: How Academically WellPrepared Is the Next Generation of Vocational Teachers? Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.

Darkenwald, Gordon, and Kwang Kim. 1998. Statistics in Brief: Adults’ Participation in WorkRelated Courses: 1994–1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education 

Statistics. NCES 98–309.

Hoachlander, Gary, Denise Bradby, Robert Fitzgerald, Marcel Paret, Peter Teitelbaum, W. 

Lee Holcombe, Christopher T. King, and Robert W. Glover. Forthcoming. Career 

and Technical Education in Two States: Participation and Student Outcomes. A report 

prepared by MPR Associates and the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human 

Resources, University of Texas at Austin for the National Assessment of Vocational 

Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under 

Secretary.
| Executive Summary |

24 NAVE: Final Report to Congress

Kemple, James, and Judith Scott-Clayton. 2004. Career Academies: Impacts on Labor Market 

Outcomes and Educational Attainment. New York: MDRC.

Levesque, Karen. 2003b. Trends in High School Vocational/Technical Coursetaking: 1982–

1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 2003–025.

Levesque, Karen. 2003c. “Analysis of 2000 High School Transcripts.” Tables prepared by 

MPR Associates for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.

Levesque, Karen, and Marcel Paret. Forthcoming. The Academic Achievement Gains of 

Occupational Concentrators and Nonconcentrators: 1990–2000. A report prepared by 

MPR Associates for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.

Levesque, Karen, Doug Lauen, Peter Teitelbaum, Martha Alt, and Sally Librera. 2000. 

Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the Year 2000. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 

National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 2000–029. 

Plank, Stephen. 2001. Career and Technical Education in the Balance: An Analysis of High 

School Persistence, Academic Achievement, and Postsecondary Destinations. St. Paul, 

Minn.: National Center for Research in Career and Technical Education, University 

of Minnesota.

Silverberg, Marsha, Elizabeth Warner, David Goodwin, and Michael Fong. 2002. National 

Assessment of Vocational Education: Interim Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.

White, Robin, Ivan Charner, Gail Promboin, Amy Johnson, Glenn Nyre, and Richard 

Phelps. Forthcoming. The Structures and Challenges of Vocational Education Funding 

and Accountability Systems. A report prepared by the Academy for Educational 

Development for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.