NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

INTERIM REPORT TO CONGRESS

Executive Summary

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2002

Marsha Silverberg

Elizabeth Warner

David Goodwin

Michael Fong

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

INTERIM REPORT TO CONGRESS

Executive Summary
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary

Eugene W. Hickok

Under Secretary

Planning and Evaluation Service

Alan Ginsburg

Director

Postsecondary, Adult and Vocational Education Division

David Goodwin

Director

September 2002

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, Planning and Evaluation Service,

National Assessment of Vocational Education: Interim Report to Congress: Executive Summary,

Washington, D.C., 2002.

This report (as well as the full version of the Interim Report to Congress) is available on the

Department’s Web site at: www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/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.
Chairman John A. Boehner Chairman Edward M. Kennedy

Committee on Education and Workforce Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

U.S. House of Representatives and Pensions

Washington, DC 20515 U.S. Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Boehner and Chairman Kennedy:

In the amendments to the 1998 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, the

Congress called upon the Secretary of Education to appoint an independent panel of vocational and technical education administrators, educators, and researchers, as well as parents

and representatives of business, labor, and other interested parties to advise the U.S.

Department of Education on the evaluation and assessment of programs authorized under this

statute.

This Independent Advisory Panel—which has met a number of times to advise the Department

on research issues and priorities—wanted to use the occasion of this first, interim report of the

National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) to express its views on several issues

related to the forthcoming reauthorization of the Perkins Act. This panel will have more extensive comments and recommendations when the final NAVE report is completed. However, this

interim report is rich in findings that should play an important role in shaping congressional

and public discussion of the future of career and technical education in the United States.

Vocational education has occupied a significant place in American education since the first

federal legislation was enacted in 1917 to help ensure that our nation’s young people had the

skills necessary to succeed in a changing world of work. Eighty-five years later, after 13 legislative reviews and revisions and far-reaching economic, social and technological changes, one

thing remains constant: America’s young people still need the skills to succeed in a changing

world of work, although the mix of skills is constantly evolving. 

Three points are especially worth bearing in mind:

1. At the beginning of the 21st century, vocational education remains an important part

of the high school curriculum, although its function may be changing. Many students

take vocational courses to prepare themselves both for the world of work and further

educational programs. Moreover, while high school students are taking increasing

numbers of academic courses, the decline in vocational course taking prior to the

1990s leveled off during the last decade. In short, these are courses that millions of students find valuable.

NAVE: Interim Report to Congress iii

Accompanying Statement from

Independent Advisory Panel
2. Whereas all students should be well-prepared academically and have the opportunity to pursue a bachelor’s degree or other postsecondary training, it is important

to recognize that two-thirds of America’s young people do not obtain a four-year

college degree and at least 25 percent go to work directly after high school. The

reality is that most young people must draw on skills learned outside of four-year

colleges to succeed in the workforce. That’s where good career and technical education at secondary schools and community and technical colleges comes in.

Moreover, these vocational students can be held to high standards. States such as

New York are working to provide rigorous career and technical courses, and the

standards embedded in them are reflected in state assessments. 

3. Against a backdrop of frequent business complaints that young workers lack both

general (literacy, numeracy, etc.) and specific technical skills, it is essential that our

education system produce young people whose skills are a match for the jobs in

our nation’s workforce. Many jobs require technical skills, as well as strong academic skills, that can be learned in secondary and postsecondary vocational courses but do not require a bachelor’s degree. That is one reason many Americans with

bachelors’ degrees are also turning to career and technical courses in community

colleges. In the Los Angeles transportation industry, for example, three-fourths of

all transit jobs do not require a degree yet demand high-level skills. These are wellpaying jobs, because these skills translate into the high productivity that has

brought the United States the world’s highest standard of living. For many young

Americans, career and technical courses can make the difference between living in

poverty or entering the middle class.

This interim report provides ample material to begin the debate on how best to support

quality career and technical education. On behalf of the entire panel (see list on next

page), we urge the reader to carefully examine the data and analysis in this report.

Sincerely,

Naomi Nightingale

NAVE Advisory Panel Chairperson

Nightingale & Associates

Paul F. Cole

NAVE Advisory Panel Co-Vice Chairperson

New York State AFL-CIO

Russ McCampbell

NAVE Advisory Panel Co-Vice Chairperson

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (retired)

iv NAVE: Interim Report to Congress
NAVE: Interim Report to Congress v

Karl A. Anderson

Workforce Development Team Leader

Saturn Corporation

June S. Atkinson

Director of Instructional Services

North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction

John H. Bishop

Professor of Human Resource Studies

Cornell University

Gene Bottoms

Senior Vice President

Southern Regional Education Board

Betsy Brand

Co-Director

American Youth Policy Forum

Paul F. Cole

Secretary-Treasurer

New York State AFL-CIO

Jay Cummings

Dean of the College of Education

Texas Southern University

Philip R. Day, Jr.

Chancellor

City College of San Francisco

James H. Folkening

Director of the Office of Postsecondary

Services

Michigan Department of Career

Development

Stephen F. Hamilton

Professor of Human Development

Cornell University

James Jacobs

Director, Center for Workforce

Development and Policy

Macomb Community College

Jack Jennings

Director

Center on Education Policy

Dale Kalkofen

Assistant Superintendent of Instruction

Chesterfield County Public Schools

Christopher T. King

Director of the Ray Marshall Center for

the Study of Human Resources

University of Texas at Austin

Joanna Kister

State Director of Career-Technical and

Adult Education (Retired)

Ohio Department of Education

Russ McCampbell

Assistant Commissioner for Vocational

and Adult Education (Retired)

Missouri Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education

Mark D. Milliron

President

League for Innovation in the Community

College

Naomi Nightingale

Principal

Nightingale & Associates

Katharine M. Oliver

Assistant State Superintendent

Maryland State Department of Education

Robert A. Runkle

Administrative Director

Berks Career & Technology Center

Anthony R. Sarmiento

Executive Director

National Senior Citizens’ Education and

Research Center, Inc.

Ellen O’Brien Saunders

Executive Director

Washington State Workforce Training and

Education Coordinating Board

Independent Advisory Panel

| Independent Advisory Panel |
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NAVE: Interim Report to Congress vii

Acknowledgments

This first 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 its appreciation to all of

these individuals and to acknowledge those whose assistance and advice were particularly crucial.

First, the work of the NAVE is conducted with the support of the Independent Advisory

Panel, whose names and affiliations appear at the front of this report. Their guidance has

been invaluable.

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 Carol D’Amico, Deputy Assistant Secretary Hans Meeder,

Dennis Berry, special assistant for research, and Sharon Belli, OVAE’s liaison to NAVE. We

would also like to thank former Assistant Secretary Patricia McNeil for providing the initial support for this assessment. 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 Planning and Evaluation Service (PES).

The foundation of this report is the analysis undertaken by several contractors with

whom we collaborated closely. In particular, we would like to thank Karen Levesque and

Gary Hoachlander at MPR Associates, and Tom Bailey of Teachers College, Columbia

University, for their careful work with the data and their help in interpreting results.

Finally, we appreciate the efforts of all those who helped with the production of the

report. Andrew Yarrow of PES provided editorial support. Angela Clarke and Ann Nawaz

from PES assisted with early document preparation and report dissemination. Barbara

Kridl and Leslie Retallick of MPR Associates are responsible for the cover and layout

design. 

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

While conducted by PES in the Office of the Under Secretary, this assessment is an independent study and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of

Education. 

Marsha Silverberg

Elizabeth Warner

David Goodwin

Michael Fong

| Acknowledgments |
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NAVE: Interim Report to Congress 1

❿☎Executive Summary

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. Given the

magnitude of the vocational education enterprise, the ways in which students participate

and the benefits they may receive can have significant consequences for the nation’s workforce. 

1998 Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act

Federal support for vocational education, and for understanding its outcomes, has a long

history. Most federal objectives for improving the quality and availability of vocational programs are articulated through the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act

and its predecessors since the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. The most recent act (known as

Perkins III) was passed in October 1998, and reflects both continuity with previous vocational legislation and some substantive departures. As policymakers begin to consider further changes in law—in anticipation of the reauthorization scheduled for 2003—they will

be examining vocational education as a field in transition, prompted by sweeping changes

in federal, state, and local education and training priorities. 

As was true with previous vocational legislation, Perkins III directs the secretary of education to complete an “independent assessment of vocational and technical education programs.” This report, the first in a series by the new National Assessment of Vocational

Education (NAVE), provides information to help policymakers shape future improvements

in this particular component of American education. 

Interim Report Highlights

This interim report presents a small, but significant part of a comprehensive research agenda being conducted under NAVE. Studies still underway will examine the effect of vocational education on student outcomes, the quality of implementation, and the role of

accountability provisions and other aspects of federal policy; these results will be presented in a final report. The interim report provides both a context for examining vocational

education and a description of participation at the secondary and postsecondary levels, a

logical first step in evaluating the status and effectiveness of vocational education. Four key

themes emerged.
2 NAVE: Interim Report to Congress

1. Current education, labor market, and policy trends are likely to broaden

Perkins reauthorization debates.

Each time Congress considers federal aid for vocational education, the outcome reflects

an understanding of the economic and educational priorities of the time and the

nature of the federal role in education. The upcoming reexamination of the Perkins Act

is likely to be shaped by several factors: 

❿ High schools increasingly emphasize academic reform and college preparation.

The poor performance of seniors on national and international tests, declining

graduation rates, and high rates of college remediation have raised concerns

about academic achievement at the high school level. Partly in response, nearly every state has set higher academic standards for high school graduation,

and many have begun to include exit exams. The challenge many students,

including those in vocational programs, face in meeting the new standards has

raised questions about the role of high school courses lacking clear academic

focus.

❿ Good jobs require at least some postsecondary education. Both high- and lowpaying employment are available in the labor market, but a college credential

of some kind is needed for the better-paying jobs. Employment growth in occupations requiring a vocational associate’s degree is projected to be higher (30

percent) than overall employment growth (14 percent) through 2008 (Erard

forthcoming). Thus, demand for postsecondary vocational education is likely

to remain strong.

❿ For the past 20 years Perkins has represented a declining share of federal education budgets, but it is still the largest single source of Department funds

spent on high schools. Perhaps because the primary objective of vocational

education has not appeared well aligned with other priorities, appropriations

for the Perkins Act and its predecessors have not kept pace with either inflation

or the expansion of other Department of Education (ED) programs and ED’s

overall budget. In fiscal year 1980, funding for vocational education represented

about 6 percent of total ED appropriations; it is now less than 3 percent (Figure

1). Despite the relative declining share, Perkins III remains the largest single

source of federal education funds used to support high schools. Comparing dollars spent at the high school level, vocational education appears to be of equal

federal priority as other programs focused on raising academic achievement

(Title I) and preparing students for college (TRIO) (Figure 2).

| Executive Summary |
NAVE: Interim Report to Congress 3

2. Federal vocational policy attempts to achieve multiple goals and objectives.

Evolving priorities clearly have moved federal support for vocational education

toward fulfilling a broader set of objectives than training students for work in factories and on farms after high school, the original aim of federal vocational legislation

| Executive Summary |

1984 1990 1992 2000

Year

1980 1982 1986 1988 1994 1996 1998 2002

SOURCE: Internal NAVE Analysis.

Figure 1

Perkins Vocational Education Funding (Appropriations) as a Percentage of Total

U. S. Department of Education Budgets: 1980–2002

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Figure 2

Selected U.S. Department of Education Spending on High Schools: FY 2001

SOURCE: Internal NAVE Analysis.

NOTE: Figure reflects estimated portion of total appropriation spent on high schools.

TRIO Title I Vocational

education

$900

$600

$300

$0

(in millions)

$388

$465

$773
4 NAVE: Interim Report to Congress

| Executive Summary |

at the turn of the 20th century. For example, the stated purpose of the 1998 Perkins

III is to enhance not only the vocational and technical skills of students who choose

to participate in vocational education but also their academic skills. In addition,

other sections of the legislation suggest that vocational education is expected to contribute to high school completion, entry into postsecondary education and training,

postsecondary degree completion, and employment. 

Currently, federal policy allows states, school districts, and postsecondary institutions to decide which objectives are the highest priority for Perkins spending. In contrast, Title I of the recently enacted No Child Left Behind Act, with funding now 10

times greater than Perkins, is unambiguously focused on one core mission: raising

the academic achievement of disadvantaged students. 

3. Secondary vocational education remains a large component of the high school

curriculum, but the full effects of academic reform are not yet evident. 

Although there has been little change in the amount of vocational course work taken

by high school students over the past decade, vocational education’s share of the

overall high school curriculum has declined as students earned more academic credits (Figure 3). 

Figure 3

Average Credits Earned by High Schools Students, by Type of Course Work: 1982–1998

SOURCE: Levesque 2001. Analysis of National High School Transcripts.

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

1982 1990 1992 1994 1998

Year

Credits earned

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.9

4.7 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.0

17.6 18.3 16.7 17.2 14.3

Academic

Vocational

Enrichment1

24.2 25.2

23.9

21.6

23.6
NAVE: Interim Report to Congress 5

❿ Vocational participation rates have been relatively stable during the last decade.

Across most of the 1990s, almost 45 percent of all high school graduates earned

three or more occupational credits, the equivalent of three, year-long courses.

Most of these students (25 percent of all graduates) “concentrated” their courses

in a single program area (e.g., health or business). Occupational “concentrators”

are the closest proxy for vocational program completers.

❿ Many types of students continue to be involved in vocational education, including those in “special population” groups. For the most part, there has been little

change in who participates in vocational education over the last decade.

Vocational education serves a diverse set of students, with most coming from the

middle range of academic and income advantage. Still, some groups continue to

participate more substantially than others: students who enter high school with

low academic achievement, have disabilities, are male, English-language proficient, or from lower-income or rural schools. Gender differences remain. Girls’

vocational course taking has been declining while that of boys has remained consistent. Despite these trends, differences in the rates of participation in computer technology courses, geared to a potentially high-paying field, virtually disappeared by 1998.

❿ Students who participate most in vocational education have increased their

academic course taking, but important gaps remain between them and other

students. By 1998 the gap in academic credits earned between occupational concentrators and other students had grown smaller (from 1.6 in 1982 to 1.1 credits

in 1998). However, vocational students still take less rigorous academic courses

than do other students: for example, substantially fewer concentrators (26 percent) than non-concentrators (42 percent) completed a college preparatory curriculum (Table 1).

| Executive Summary |
6 NAVE: Interim Report to Congress

| Executive Summary |

❿ Students take more vocational

than math or science courses

(Figure 4). Despite the emphasis

placed on academic reforms over

the last decade, high school students earn more credits in vocational education (4.0) than they

do in math (3.4) or science (3.1). 

These course-taking patterns may well

change, as school reform continues

and as rigorous state exit exams become

more common. By 1998–1999, nearly

20 states were already phasing in these

assessments, and 6 more were in the

process. Many students who pursue a

vocational program of study come to

Figure 4

Average Credits Earned by High School

Students, by Subject Area: 1998

Credits earned

Vocational

or technical

education

012345

English

Social

studies

Mathematics

Science

4.0

4.3

3.7

3.4

3.1

SOURCE: Levesque 2001. Analysis of National High School Transcripts.

Table 1

Academic Credits and Course Taking for Occupational Concentrators1

and Non-concentrators: 1998

Concentrators Non-concentrators

Core Academic Credits Earned 13.7 14.8

“New Basics” Curriculum2 45.7% 59.4% 

College-Prep Curriculum3 25.9% 43.2% 

Algebra 1 87.1% 93.2% 

Advanced Math4 26.0% 42.4% 

SOURCE: Levesque 2001. Analysis of National High School Transcripts.

1Concentrator = A graduate earning three or more credits (years) of occupational vocational education in a single program area (e.g., business services or health care).

2New Basics = Four credits of English, three credits each of math, science, and social studies.

3College-Prep Curriculum = Four credits of English; three or more credits in math at the algebra 1 or higher level; two

or more credits in biology, chemistry, and physics; two or more credits in social studies with at least one credit in U.S.

or world history; and two or more credits in a foreign language.

4Advanced Math = Mathematics instruction including algebra 3, trigonometry, and above.
NAVE: Interim Report to Congress 7

high school with lower levels of academic achievement and are therefore likely to face

the stiffest challenges in passing the new assessments. Participation in secondary vocational education and other electives may decline as students focus their efforts on passing these exams. Some evidence suggests that even the minimum competency exams

required for graduation in some states or districts in the early 1990s may have reduced

vocational course taking (Bishop and Mane forthcoming).

4. Postsecondary vocational education serves a diverse set of students, many of

whom will not complete the course work needed to fulfill their objectives.

About one-third of all students in undergraduate postsecondary education are considered to be in vocational programs. The Perkins Act defines vocational education as

occupational programs requiring less than a baccalaureate degree (P.L. 105-332, Section

3(29)), some of which are offered at four-year postsecondary institutions. Not only do

sub-baccalaureate students outnumber those in baccalaureate programs, but twice as

many sub-baccalaureate students choose a vocational over an academic major.

These sub-baccalaureate vocational students vary in age and work experience, and

they report enrolling for different reasons—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 (Figure 5). The students also differ in their

personal resources, with students enrolled in for-credit, degree-oriented course work

more economically disadvantaged than those who enroll in noncredit courses.

Figure 5

Percentage Distribution of Postsecondary Vocational Students,

by Age and Reported Primary Goal

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: Bailey et al. forthcoming. Analysis of National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 1996.

Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Age

| Executive Summary |
8 NAVE: Interim Report to Congress

However, like their academic counterparts, many vocational participants leave subbaccalaureate institutions and programs having completed few courses (Figure 6).

Just under half (47.5 percent) of the younger students—those less than 24 years old—

in vocational programs complete eight or fewer months of postsecondary course

work over a five-year time period. Nearly three-quarters (72.5 percent) of older vocational participants complete no more than eight months of course work. Eight

months of full-time equivalent course work corresponds to what might be considered

a year of postsecondary education and training.

For older students with substantial work experience who enroll primarily to improve

their job skills, a course or two may be exactly what is needed or desired. Some may

participate to help them obtain one of the newly emerging industry- or employerdeveloped certifications (e.g., Microsoft, Cisco, Automotive Service Excellence),

which may be an important way to realize labor market gains without actually earning a degree or institution-based certificate.

Those same one or two courses, though, fall well short of expectations for those

working toward a postsecondary education credential. About half of all postsecondary vocational students indicate wanting to earn a degree or certificate, includFigure 6

Percentage of Sub-baccalaureate Students, by Major and Age and

Number of Months of Course Work Completed within a Five-Year Period

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than or

 equal to 8

Total full-time-equivalent months3

Younger participants1 Older participants2

47.5

26.4

65.4

59.0 59.9

27.5

41.0 40.1

More

than 8

Less than or

 equal to 8

More

than 8

SOURCE: Bailey et al. forthcoming. Analysis of Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 1989–1994.

1Younger=23 years old and younger.

2Older=24 years old and older.

3Eight full-time equivalent (FTE) months are approximately equivalent to one full year of course work.

All vocational programs Vocational associate degree program Academic program

73.6 72.5

52.5

34.6

| Executive Summary |
NAVE: Interim Report to Congress 9

ing those who intend to transfer to obtain a bachelor’s degree (Figure 5). Many of

these students are younger, recent high school graduates with limited job history. For

these students, in particular, a college degree can lead toward labor market success as

well as the fulfillment of a personal goal. But it is likely that the half of younger vocational students who leave postsecondary education with fewer than eight months of

course work (Figure 6) do so without having achieved their objectives and without a

concrete signal of their skills.

Conclusions and Next Steps

Vocational education and its place in American education continue to evolve. The broadening of its goals, the increasing diversity of participants, and the changing education

and labor market climate in which it operates, suggests 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 and testing. For both secondary and postsecondary

vocational education, the wide range of participants and objectives raises a question

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

promote a clearer set of priorities. 

The data in this initial report addressed one of several important questions for policy:

Who enrolls in vocational education and for what purpose? That analysis raises additional questions about the effectiveness of vocational education in improving student

outcomes, the consequences of new funding and accountability provisions for programs

and participants, the implementation and quality of vocational education, and its alignment with other major reform efforts. The final NAVE report, scheduled for submission

later this year, will provide more rigorous evidence to help policymakers and practitioners respond to these issues.

| Executive Summary |
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
www.ed.gov