This page intentionally left blank
National Assessment of 

Career and Technical Education 

Final Report 

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2014 
This report was produced with support from RTI International under U.S. Department of Education 

Contract No. ED-04-CO-0121/0006. Michael Fong served as the contracting officer’s representative. 

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department 

of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, 

commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Emma Vadehra 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Stephanie Stullich

Acting Director

September 2014 

This report is in the public domain, except for the photographs. Photographs on the cover and pages 

1, 15, 33, 53, 65, and 83 are used with permission from ©iStockphoto.com. Authorization to 

reproduce this report in whole or in part is granted, except for the photographs. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Service (2014), National Assessment of Career and Technical Education: Final Report to Congress. 

Washington, DC. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#cte. 

Availability of Alternate Formats 

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons 

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are 

available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, 

please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202. 

Content Contact: 

Michael Fong 

202-401-7462 

michael.fong@ed.gov
 

CONTENTS i 

Contents

List of Exhibits..........................................................................................v

Executive Summary ..............................................................................xiii

Changes Introduced in Perkins IV ....................................................................... xiii

The National Assessment of Career and Technical Education ........................... xiv

Independent Advisory Panel ...........................................................................xv

Data Sources Included in the NACTE ............................................................xv

Definitions of Terms Used in This Report .................................................... xvi

Study Limitations ......................................................................................... xvii

Key Findings ..................................................................................................... xviii

CTE Programs and Participation ................................................................ xviii

Finance .......................................................................................................... xix

Programs of Study ...........................................................................................xx

Accountability ............................................................................................... xxi

Student Outcomes ......................................................................................... xxi

Chapter 1: Career and Technical Education in the 21st 

Century......................................................................................................1

Introduction .............................................................................................................2

Changes Introduced in Perkins IV ...........................................................................3

The National Assessment of Career and Technical Education ...............................6

Independent Advisory Panel .............................................................................6

Data Sources Included in the NACTE ..............................................................6

Significance Testing ..........................................................................................9

Definitions of Terms Used in This Report ..............................................................9

Definitions of CTE Participants and Concentrators ........................................11

Study Limitations ..................................................................................................13

Chapter 2: CTE Programs and Participation........................................15

Key Findings .........................................................................................................16

Secondary CTE Programs .....................................................................................17

Secondary Student Participation .....................................................................18

Characteristics of Secondary CTE Students ...................................................21

Secondary CTE Instructors .............................................................................22

Postsecondary CTE Programs ...............................................................................26

Access to Postsecondary CTE ........................................................................26
ii CONTENTS

Postsecondary Student Participation ...............................................................28

Characteristics of Postsecondary CTE Students .............................................31

Chapter 3: Finance Systems..................................................................33

Key Findings .........................................................................................................34

Statutory Provisions for Allocating Funds Under Perkins IV ...............................35

Allocations to States .......................................................................................35

Within-State Allocations .................................................................................35

Federal Funding Over Time ..................................................................................37

State Eligible Agencies .........................................................................................41

State Set-Asides ....................................................................................................41

State Administration .......................................................................................41

State Leadership ..............................................................................................42

Reserve Option for Funding Certain High-Need Subgrantees ........................42

Secondary and Postsecondary Distributions .........................................................43

Allocation of Funds at the Secondary Level .........................................................44

Allocation of Funds at the Postsecondary Level ...................................................47

Minimum Allocation Rule and Consortia Provision .............................................48

Uses of Funding at the Local Level ......................................................................51

Chapter 4: Programs of Study...............................................................53

Key Findings .........................................................................................................54

Predecessors to POS ..............................................................................................55

Components of POS ..............................................................................................56

POS Design and Development ..............................................................................56

POS Implementation Challenges ..........................................................................60

Measurement .........................................................................................................63

Chapter 5: Accountability ......................................................................65

Key Findings .........................................................................................................66

The Perkins Accountability Framework ...............................................................67

State-Reported Results for Performance Indicators ..............................................69

Measurement Issues ..............................................................................................70

Secondary Academic Attainment....................................................................72

Technical Skill Attainment .............................................................................74

Completion ......................................................................................................76

High School Graduation Rate .........................................................................76

Postsecondary Retention or Transfer ..............................................................78

Placement ........................................................................................................78

Nontraditional Participation and Completion .................................................81

Uses of Performance Indicator Data ...............................................................81
 

CONTENTS iii

Chapter 6: Student Outcomes...............................................................83

Key Findings .........................................................................................................84

Background ...........................................................................................................85

Secondary CTE Outcomes ....................................................................................85

Academic Coursetaking ..................................................................................86

Academic Achievement ..................................................................................87

High School Completion .................................................................................88

Postsecondary Education and Employment ....................................................89

Employment and Earnings for Non-College-Going Students .........................92

Postsecondary CTE Outcomes ..............................................................................94

Persistence and Attainment .............................................................................94

Employment and Earnings ..............................................................................95

Study Review — The Academic Impacts of Career and Technical 

Schools: A Case Study of a Large Urban School District ..............................98

Study Review — Career and Technical Education in San Diego: 

A Statistical Analysis of Course Availability, Students’ Coursetaking 

Patterns, and Relationships with High School and Postsecondary 

Outcomes ......................................................................................................100

Study Review — Florida Study of Career and Technical Education ..................102

Study Review — Career and Technical Education and Academic Progress 

at the End of High School: Evidence from the Education Longitudinal 

Study of 2002 ................................................................................................104

References ............................................................................................107

Appendix A. NACTE Independent Advisory Panel ............................111

Appendix B. Methodology ...................................................................113

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act ...............................................................................113

Commissioned Studies of CTE Student Outcomes .............................................113

Reviews of Existing Research .............................................................................114

Analyses of Extant Data ......................................................................................114

Significance Testing ............................................................................................117

Appendix C. Standard Error Tables....................................................119

Appendix D. Supplemental Exhibits ...................................................135
This page intentionally left blank
 

LIST OF EXHIBITS v 

List of Exhibits

EXHIBIT

CHAPTER 1 

1.1. Definition of CTE in Perkins IV .......................................................................3

1.2. Key developments in Perkins legislation ..........................................................5

1.3. Labor market preparation areas included in analyses of survey data 

on occupational CTE courses at the secondary and postsecondary 

levels ...............................................................................................................10

1.4. Definitions of CTE participants and concentrators in nonregulatory 

guidance ..........................................................................................................11

1.5. Number of states using various definitions for CTE concentrators at

the secondary level ..........................................................................................12

CHAPTER 2 

2.1. Percentage of public school graduates who had earned various 

amounts of occupational CTE credits, by occupational area, 2009 ................18

2.2. Percentage of public school graduates who earned occupational

CTE credits, for selected years from 1990 to 2009 .........................................19

2.3. Average number of credits earned by public high school graduates 

during high school, by curricular area, 1990 and 2009 ...................................20

2.4. Percentage change in the percentage of public school graduates who

earned occupational CTE credits, by occupational area, 1990 and 2009........21

2.5. Percentage of public high school graduates who were CTE 

concentrators, by student characteristics, 1990 and 2009 ...............................22

2.6. Percentage of grade 9–12 public school teachers who had attained

bachelor’s degree or higher and a master’s degree or higher, by

main teaching assignment and CTE occupational area, 2011–12 ...................23

2.7. Percentage distribution of grade 9–12 public school teachers’ type

of certification, for occupational CTE teachers and academic

teachers, 2011–12 ...........................................................................................24

2.8. Percentage distribution of grade 9–12 public school teachers who

participated in professional development, for occupational CTE

teachers and academic teachers, 2011–12.......................................................25

2.9. Number and percentage of Title IV-eligible postsecondary 

institutions that offered CTE certificates or associate’s degrees, and 

percentage distribution of students seeking a subbaccalaureate CTE

credential, by type of institution, 2011–12 .....................................................27

2.10. Number and percentage of undergraduate students who were

seeking a certificate or degree .........................................................................28
 

vi LIST OF EXHIBITS

2.11. Number and percentage distribution of credential-seeking 

undergraduates in subbaccalaureate programs, by credential goal

and career field of study, 2011–12 ..................................................................29

2.12. Change in number of subbaccalaureate CTE awards and other

undergraduate awards, 2002 to 2012 ..............................................................30

2.13. Change in number of subbaccalaureate CTE certificates and 

associate’s degrees awarded, by career field of study, 2002 to 2012 .............31

2.14. Percentage distribution of undergraduate students enrolled in

selected types of degree and certificate programs, by demographic 

characteristics, 2011–12 ..................................................................................32

CHAPTER 3 

3.1. Federal appropriations for CTE from FY 1985 through FY 2014, in

constant 2014 dollars ......................................................................................37

3.2. Federal appropriations for CTE compared with total discretionary 

funding for elementary-secondary and postsecondary education

programs, for selected fiscal years from FY 1985 through FY 2014, 

in constant 2014 dollars ..................................................................................38

3.3. Estimated spending on high schools from Perkins funds and from 

ESEA Title I funds, FY 2001 and FY 2014, in constant 2014 dollars ............39

3.4. Total Perkins state grants (Title I and Title II) in FY 2000, FY 2007, 

and FY 2014, and percentage change from FY 2000 to FY 2014 and 

from FY 2007 to FY 2014, in constant 2014 dollars, by state ........................40

3.5. Number of states using reserve option to fund certain high-need

subgrantees, FY 2006 and FY 2010 ................................................................42

3.6. Percentage of Perkins Title I local funds that states allocated to the 

secondary level in FY 2010, by state ..............................................................43

3.7. Average Perkins Title I secondary allocation per student and per 

poor school-age child received by school districts, overall and by 

district poverty quartile and by urbanicity, 2009–10 ......................................44

3.8. Percentage distribution of Perkins Title I secondary funds allocated

to school districts, and distribution of school district subgrantees, by 

district poverty quartile, 2009–10 ...................................................................45

3.9. Percentage distribution of Perkins Title I secondary funds allocated

to school districts, and distribution of school district subgrantees, by 

district urbanicity, 2009–10 ............................................................................46

3.10. Percentage of Perkins Title I postsecondary subgrantees and local

funds, by institution type, 2009–10.................................................................47

3.11. Number of Perkins Title I secondary consortia, number of consortia 

members, and average consortia subgrant amount, by state, 2009–10 ...........49

3.12. Number of Perkins Title I postsecondary consortia, number of consortia 

members, and average consortia subgrant amount, by state, 2009–10 ...........50

3.13. Number of states that used the minimum allocation waiver at the 

secondary level, 2008–09 ................................................................................50

3.14. Percentage of secondary and postsecondary local subgrantees who

reported using Perkins Title I funds for permissive uses, 2008–09 ................51
 

LIST OF EXHIBITS vii 

CHAPTER 4 

4.1. POS Design Framework .................................................................................57

4.2. Number of states reporting various strategies to develop POS, and 

average number of POS reported by local directors in states using 

each strategy, by education level, 2008–09 ....................................................58

4.3. Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that various 

stakeholders participated “a lot” in POS development, 2008–09 ...................59

4.4. Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of 

their five highest-enrollment POS had certain linkages between

secondary and postsecondary education, 2008–09 .........................................60

4.5. Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of 

their five highest-enrollment POS was part of an articulation 

agreement, 2008–09 ........................................................................................61

4.6. Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of 

their five highest-enrollment POS led to certain credentials, 2008–09 ..........62

4.7. Number of states reporting various barriers to POS development, 2009 ........63

CHAPTER 5 

5.1. Growth of accountability requirements in Perkins II, III, and IV ...................68

5.2. Number of states that met or exceeded their negotiated performance 

targets for Perkins core indicators, and number that met at least 90 

percent of their targets, by education level, in 2011–12 .................................69

5.3. Number of states that reported using or consulting the

nonregulatory guidance for developing definitions for Perkins IV

performance measures and populations, 2009 ................................................70

5.4. Percentage of LEAs and IHEs reporting various methods for

identifying CTE concentrators, 2009 ..............................................................71

5.5. Proficiency rates on state high school mathematics assessments for

CTE concentrators as reported under Perkins and for all students as

reported under ESEA, by state, 2011–12.........................................................73

5.6. Number of states using various measures for the Perkins indicator

on technical skill attainment, by education level, 2011–12 ............................74

5.7. Percentage of LEAs and IHEs that reported using various measures 

to assess technical skill attainment for all students participating in

state-approved CTE programs, by education level, 2008–09 .........................75

5.8. Graduation rates for CTE concentrators as reported under Perkins

and for all students as reported under ESEA, by state, 2011–12 .....................77

5.9. Number of states using surveys and/or administrative records for

the Perkins placement indicator, by education level, 2011–12 .......................79

5.10. Number of states that reported using various administrative record 

matching resources to collect placement data, by education level, 2009........80

5.11. Number of states that reported using annual Perkins performance 

indicator data for various purposes, by education level, 2009 ........................81
viii LIST OF EXHIBITS

5.12. Number of states that reported having policies to impose various 

consequences on local subgrantees that did not meet 90 percent of 

their performance targets, by education level, 2009 .......................................82

CHAPTER 6 

6.1. Percentage of public high school graduates completing the New Basics

core curriculum and 4-year college preparatory coursework, by the 

number of occupational CTE credits earned, 1990, 2000, and 2009 ..............86

6.2. Percentage of CTE concentrators and non-concentrators scoring at

or above the proficient level on NAEP 12th-grade assessments in

mathematics in 2005 and 2009 and in science in 2009 ...................................87

6.3. Percentage distribution of secondary CTE concentrators and nonconcentrators who earned a postsecondary degree or credential within

eight years of high school graduation, by attainment status, 2012 .................89

6.4. Percentage distribution of 2004 public high school graduates by 

postsecondary enrollment and employment status two years after high

school, by CTE occupational field and concentrator status, 2006 ..................90

6.5. Percentage of secondary CTE concentrators who enrolled in

postsecondary education within two years of high school 

graduation, by same or different field of study, 2006 .....................................91

6.6. Percentage of secondary CTE concentrators who earned a 

postsecondary degree or certificate in the same or a different field

of study within eight years of high school graduation, 2012 ..........................92

6.7. Among 2004 public high school graduates who worked for pay and 

did not enroll in postsecondary education in the first two years after 

high school graduation, percentage who worked full-time and 

average hourly wage, by CTE participation status..........................................93

6.8. Percentage of students who began postsecondary education in 2003 

who had attained various credentials or were still enrolled as of 

2009 six years after initial enrollment, by postsecondary program ................94

6.9. Percentage of students who began postsecondary education in 2003 

who had various employment outcomes in 2009, by postsecondary 

attainment as of 2009 ......................................................................................95

6.10. Average hourly wages earned in 2012 by students who graduated 

from a public high school in 2004, for secondary CTE concentrators 

and non-concentrators, by postsecondary attainment .....................................96

6.11. Average annual earnings for postsecondary certificate holders 

working in their CTE field, for selected occupations, 2008 ...........................97

APPENDIX C

C.1. Standard Errors for 2.1. Percentage of public school graduates who

earned one or more occupational CTE credits, by occupational area,

2009...............................................................................................................120
 

LIST OF EXHIBITS ix 

C.2. Standard Errors for 2.2. Percentage of public high school graduates 

who earned occupational CTE credits, for selected years from 1990 

to 2009 ..........................................................................................................120

C.3. Standard Errors for 2.3. Average number of credits earned by public 

high school graduates during high school, by curricular area, and 

percentage of total credits in each area, 1990 and 2009 ...............................121

C.4. Standard Errors for 2.4. Percentage change in the percentage of 

public school graduates who earned occupational CTE credits, by 

occupational area, 1990 and 2009 .................................................................121

C.5. Standard Errors for 2.5. Percentage of public high school graduates who

were CTE concentrators, by student characteristics, 1990 and 2009 ............122

C.6. Standard Errors for 2.6. Percentage of grade 9–12 public school 

teachers who had attained bachelor’s degree or higher and a 

master’s degree or higher, by main teaching assignment and CTE

occupational area, 2011–12 ..........................................................................123

C.7. Standard Errors for 2.7. Percentage distribution of grade 9–12 

public school teachers’ type of certification, for CTE occupational 

teachers and academic teachers, 2011–12.....................................................123

C.8. Standard Errors for 2.8. Percentage distribution of grade 9–12 

public school teachers who participated in professional 

development, for CTE occupational teachers and academic teachers,

2011–12 .........................................................................................................124

C.9. Standard Errors for 2.9. Percentage distribution of students seeking 

subbaccalaureate CTE credentials, by type of institution, 2011–12 ............124

C.10. Standard Errors for 2.11. Number and percentage distribution of 

credential-seeking undergraduates in subbaccalaureate programs, by 

credential goal and career field of study, 2011–12 .......................................125

C.11. Standard Errors for 2.14. Percentage distribution of undergraduate 

students enrolled in selected types of degree and certificate

programs, by demographic characteristics, 2011–12 ....................................126

C.12. Standard Errors for 3.14. Percentage of secondary and 

postsecondary local subgrantees who reported using Perkins Title I 

funds for permissive uses, 2008–09 ..............................................................127

C.13. Standard Errors for 4.2. Average number of POS reported by local

directors in states using each strategy, by education level, 2008–09 ...........127

C.14. Standard Errors for 4.3. Percentage of LEA and IHE directors 

reporting that various stakeholders participated “a lot” in POS

development, 2008–09 ..................................................................................128

C.15. Standard Errors for 4.4. Percentage of LEA and IHE directors 

reporting that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS had 

certain linkages between secondary and postsecondary education, 

2008–09 .........................................................................................................128

C.16. Standard Errors for 4.5. Percentage of LEA and IHE directors 

reporting that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS was

part of an articulation agreement, 2008–09 ..................................................128
x LIST OF EXHIBITS

C.17. Standard Errors for 4.6. Percentage of LEA and IHE directors 

reporting that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS led

to certain credentials, 2008–09 .....................................................................129

C.18. Standard Errors for 5.4. Percentage of LEAs and IHEs reporting 

various methods for identifying CTE concentrators, 2009 ...........................129

C.19. Standard Errors for 6.1. Percentage of public high school graduates 

completing the New Basics core curriculum and 4-year college

preparatory coursework, by the number of occupational CTE credits 

earned, 1990, 2000, and 2009 .......................................................................129

C.20. Standard Errors for 6.2. Percentage of CTE concentrators and nonconcentrators scoring at or above the proficient level on NAEP

12th-grade assessments in mathematics in 2005 and 2009 and in

science in 2009 ..............................................................................................130

C.21. Standard Errors for 6.3. Percentage distribution of secondary CTE 

concentrators and non-concentrators who earn a postsecondary 

degree or credential within eight years of high school graduation, by 

attainment status, 2012 ..................................................................................130

C.22. Standard Errors for 6.4. Percentage distribution of 2004 public high

school graduates by postsecondary enrollment and employment 

status two years after high school, by CTE occupational field and 

concentrator status, 2006 ..............................................................................131

C.23. Standard Errors for 6.5 Percentage of secondary CTE concentrators 

who enrolled in postsecondary education within two years of high

school graduation, by same or different field of study, 2006 .......................131

C.24. Standard Errors for 6.6 Percentage of secondary CTE concentrators 

who earned a postsecondary degree or certificate in the same or a 

different field of study within eight years of high school graduation, 

2012...............................................................................................................132

C.25. Standard Errors for 6.7. Among 2004 public high school graduates 

who worked for pay and did not enroll in postsecondary education 

in the first two years after high school graduation, percentage who

worked full-time and average hourly wage, by CTE concentrator 

status and number of CTE credits earned, 2006 ...........................................132

C.26. Standard Errors for 6.8. Percentage of students who began

postsecondary education in 2003 who had attained various 

credentials or were still enrolled as of 2009, six years after initial

enrollment, by postsecondary program .........................................................133

C.28. Standard Errors for 6.10. Average hourly wages earned in 2012 by 

students who graduated from a public high school in 2004, for

secondary CTE concentrators and non-concentrators, by

postsecondary attainment ..............................................................................134

C.27. Standard Errors for 6.9. Percentage of students who began 

postsecondary education in 2003 who had various employment

outcomes in 2009, by postsecondary attainment of 2009...............................133
LIST OF EXHIBITS xi

APPENDIX D

D.1. Crosswalk between postsecondary and secondary taxonomies for

career and technical education ......................................................................136

D.2. Percentage distribution of undergraduate credentials conferred in

CTE fields by Title IV postsecondary institutions, by type of

institution, 2011–12 ......................................................................................137

D.3. Supporting detail for 2.12. Change in number of subbaccalaureate 

CTE awards and other undergraduate awards, selected years from 

2000 to 2012 .................................................................................................137

D.4. Supporting detail for 2.13. Change in number of subbaccalaureate 

CTE certificates and associate’s degrees awarded, by career field of 

study, 2002 to 2012 .......................................................................................138

D.5. Supporting detail for 3.1. Federal appropriations for career and 

technical education, from FY 1985 through FY 2014, in nominal 

dollars (actual appropriations) and in constant 2014 dollars ........................139

D.6. Supporting detail for 3.2. Federal appropriations for Career and 

Technical Education compared with total discretionary funding for

elementary-secondary and postsecondary education programs, for

selected fiscal years from FY 1985 through FY 2014, in nominal

dollars (actual appropriations) and in constant 2014 dollars ..........................140

D.7. Supporting detail for 3.4. Total Perkins state grants (Title I and 

Title II), in FY 2000, FY 2007, and FY 2014, in nominal dollars 

and in constant 2014 dollars, by state ...........................................................141

D.8. Amount and percentage of state Perkins Title I and Title II funds 

allocated to administration and amount and percentage of state

matching contribution, by state, FY 2010 .....................................................142

D.9. Supporting detail for 3.6. Percentage of Perkins Title I formulaallocated funds that states allocated to secondary and postsecondary 

education, by state, FY 2001 and FY 2010 ...................................................143

D.10. Supporting detail for 3.13. Number of waivers granted by each state

that used the minimum allocation rule waiver at the secondary level,

2008–09 .........................................................................................................144

D.11. Perkins IV core indicators for secondary education and the 

numerators and denominators that are recommended in the 

Department’s nonregulatory guidance for calculating each indicator ..........145

D.12. Perkins IV core indicators for postsecondary education and the

numerators and denominators that are recommended in the 

Department’s nonregulatory guidance for calculating each indicator ..........146

D.13. Proficiency rates on state high school English/language arts 

assessments for CTE concentrators as reported under Perkins and 

for all students as reported under ESEA, by state, 2011–12 .........................147
This page intentionally left blank
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii

Executive Summary

Economic globalization and technological innovations are redefining the knowledge and skill 

expectations for 21st century workers (Carnevale and Rose 2011; Friedman 2005). Policymakers and 

educators are responding by emphasizing the preparation of high school students for college and

careers — both options, not just one or the other — with the understanding that all youth will require 

some form of advanced education or skill training if they are to compete in today’s labor market. 

Career and technical education (CTE) coursework at the postsecondary level offers students more 

specialized instruction — academic as well as technical — that culminates in the award of a 

certificate or degree that will help them secure employment or pursue further education. 

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) continues a 

longstanding federal investment in CTE through grants to states and subgrants to local entities such 

as local education agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs).1

 As the fourth 

reauthorization of a law first enacted in 1984, Perkins IV was intended to raise the academic and 

technical rigor of secondary and postsecondary CTE instruction in order to prepare students for entry 

into high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations. Under Perkins IV, subgrantees are now 

required to offer one or more programs of study (POS) that link secondary to postsecondary 

education through a sequenced, non-duplicative progression of CTE courses. Changes in Perkins

accountability provisions expanded performance reporting requirements and extended accountability 

requirements to local subgrantees. 

This final report of the National Assessment of Career and Technical Education (NACTE) 

summarizes the most recent available data on the implementation of Perkins IV, as well as student 

participation and outcomes for CTE more generally. The report uses information from studies 

commissioned for the NACTE, reviews of existing research, and analyses of extant data from state 

performance reports and from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Topics include 

student participation in CTE programs at the secondary and postsecondary levels, changes in Perkins 

funding levels and targeting, implementation of Perkins IV provisions regarding POS and 

accountability, and educational and employment outcomes for CTE students.

Changes Introduced in Perkins IV

Perhaps the most immediately apparent change in Perkins IV is its name change, from Vocational 

and Applied Technology Education Act to Career and Technical Education Act. This change follows 

a movement in the field to use the term “career and technical education” to differentiate the mission 

1 Local secondary subgrantees may include LEAs, area CTE centers, educational service agencies, and consortia of 

eligible agencies. Local postsecondary subgrantees may include public or private nonprofit IHEs, LEAs and area 

CTE centers that provide CTE at the postsecondary level, postsecondary institutions controlled by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs or operated by or on behalf of an eligible Indian tribe, educational service agencies, and consortia of 

eligible entities. Because LEAs account for nearly all secondary subgrantees (98 percent in FY 2010), and IHEs 

account for the large majority (86 percent) of postsecondary subgrantees (and 96 percent of postsecondary subgrant 

funds), this report sometimes uses the terms “LEA” and “IHE” to refer to local secondary and postsecondary 

subgrantees.

 
 

xiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

of contemporary career-focused education from that of the past. Perkins IV defines CTE as a 

sequence of courses that, among other things, provides individuals with coherent and rigorous 

content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills 

needed to prepare for further education and careers; provides technical skill proficiency, an industryrecognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and includes competency-based applied 

learning that contributes to academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, 

work attitudes, employability skills, technical skills, occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all 

aspects of an industry.2

Key programmatic changes in Perkins IV include the following: 

• Changes to accountability indicators — Perkins IV introduced separate indicators for 

secondary and postsecondary education, added two secondary indicators aligned with 

requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA), and required reporting of disaggregated data to include the same subgroups as are 

used for ESEA reporting, in addition to the “special populations” that are specifically listed in 

the Perkins statute. 

• Extension of performance accountability to the local level — LEAs, IHEs, and other 

subgrantees must now negotiate performance targets for each indicator with their state

eligible agency. A subgrantee whose actual performance is below 90 percent of any of its 

negotiated targets must develop a program improvement plan and may face increasing 

sanctions if its performance does not improve. 

• Introduction of POS — All local Perkins IV subgrant recipients must now offer one or more 

POS that consist of a sequenced, non-duplicative progression of CTE courses that are 

designed to connect secondary and postsecondary curricula and to lead to an industryrecognized credential or certificate at the postsecondary level or an associate’s or bachelor’s 

degree. A POS must include rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards 

and relevant technical content. Where appropriate, secondary students may earn college 

credit while still enrolled in high school. 

• Tech Prep — Perkins IV gave states the option to consolidate all or a portion of their Perkins

Title II (Tech Prep) allocations into their Perkins Title I basic grant. Subsequently, in April 

2011, Congress eliminated funding for Tech Prep, and the program has not been funded since 

that time. Tech Prep has essentially been replaced by the POS approach to linking high 

school and postsecondary CTE curricula. This report provides limited coverage of this 

discontinued program. 

• Finance — Perkins IV made few changes to provisions concerning the allocation and use of 

Perkins funds. Aside from the new option to consolidate Tech Prep funds with Title I funds 

(discussed above), change in fiscal provisions were relatively minor. 

The National Assessment of Career and Technical Education

Perkins IV mandated an independent evaluation and assessment of CTE programs, including the 

implementation of new and revised requirements enacted in the 2006 reauthorization. This final 

2 See Exhibit 1.1 for the complete Perkins IV definition of CTE.

 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv

report provides a comprehensive summary of key findings from the NACTE, using information from 

a study of Perkins implementation, commissioned studies of CTE student outcomes, reviews of 

existing research, and analyses of extant data to examine how states and local subgrantees, such as 

LEAs and IHEs, are responding to key provisions of Perkins IV. The report examines student 

participation in CTE programs at the secondary and postsecondary levels, changes in funding levels 

and targeting, implementation of Perkins IV provisions regarding accountability and POS, and 

achievement and employment outcomes for CTE students. 

The NACTE was designed to examine the following research questions: 

• Has student participation in CTE programs changed? 

• How were Perkins IV funds allocated and used?

• How were states and local subgrantees developing and implementing programs of study that 

integrate academic and technical content across secondary and postsecondary education? 

• How were states implementing Perkins IV accountability provisions, and what measurement 

issues affect the validity and reliability of the accountability data that were reported? 

• Are educational and employment outcomes showing positive results for secondary and 

postsecondary students who participated in CTE?

Independent Advisory Panel 

The Congressional mandate for the NACTE included a requirement to form an Independent Advisory 

Panel to advise the U.S. Department of Education on the design and implementation of the NACTE. 

The Department assembled a panel of 13 members including researchers with expertise in CTE and 

research methods, education and workforce development policy experts, and state and local 

practitioners, and the panel provided input on study plans and draft reports through a series of seven 

meetings held in Washington, D.C. The panel also prepared its own independent report with its 

findings and recommendations to Congress. 

Data Sources Included in the NACTE 

The NACTE synthesizes data collected from a variety of sources, including a study of Perkins IV

implementation, commissioned studies of CTE student outcomes, reviews of existing research, and 

analyses of extant data. Key data sources are summarized briefly below and described in more detail 

in Appendix B: 

• Evaluation of the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006. This study, commissioned for the NACTE, conducted surveys, case 

studies, and analyses of extant data to provide information on the implementation of Perkins 

IV provisions for finance, accountability, and programs of study. The study surveyed state 

directors responsible for overseeing Perkins implementation at the secondary and 

postsecondary levels in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as local program 
 

xvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

directors in a stratified random sample of 2,041 LEAs and area CTE centers3 and 1,006 IHEs. 

Surveys were administered in fall 2009, and response rates were 100 percent for state 

secondary directors, 94 percent for state postsecondary directors, 77 percent for LEAs and 

CTE centers, and 91 percent for IHEs. Case studies were conducted in six states and 18 local 

communities (three per state), including site visits and in-depth interviews.

• Commissioned studies of CTE student outcomes. Four independent studies, based on 

different data sources and methodological approaches, used longitudinal student-level data to 

examine outcomes related to high school students’ participation in CTE. These studies 

primarily examined CTE students who were enrolled in high school during the period prior to 

the implementation of Perkins IV; this approach was chosen in order to follow students over 

a longer period of time than was possible for Perkins IV at the time these studies were 

initiated. 

A study of Philadelphia CTE high schools took advantage of a natural experiment involving a 

lottery to select student applicants to attend CTE high schools, following students from the 

classes of 2003, 2004, and 2005 to examine both secondary and postsecondary student 

outcomes. A San Diego study used a fixed-effects model to examine the association between 

student CTE coursetaking and academic outcomes, following eight cohorts of high school 

students who entered ninth grade between1998 to 2006. A Florida study analyzed individual 

secondary and postsecondary student records that followed students who were in ninth grade 

in 1996 for 10 years, through 2007. Finally, an analysis of data from the NCES Education 

Longitudinal Study (ELS) used a fixed-effects model and data from a nationally 

representative longitudinal study of 2002 high school sophomores to examine the 

associations between CTE coursetaking and high school outcomes. 

• Analyses of extant data. The NACTE also drew upon existing data from a variety of 

sources, including annual state performance reports as well as NCES longitudinal and crosssectional studies. The NCES datasets used included the Education Longitudinal Study, 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the associated High School 

Transcript Study (HSTS), Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and 

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). 

Definitions of Terms Used in This Report 

Although Perkins IV provides a broad statutory definition of the term “career and technical 

education,” it does not identify specific subjects or fields that are to be considered as CTE; rather, 

grantees and subgrantees design and implement CTE courses and course sequences that they support 

through Perkins funds (as well as through other funding sources). For analytic purposes, NCES has 

developed taxonomies for classifying certain fields of study as CTE at the secondary and 

postsecondary level4

 (see Chapter 1); however, the NCES taxonomies are not necessarily the same as 

are used by secondary and postsecondary subgrantees at the local level. 

3 The sample for this survey included 2,993 LEAs and 48 area CTE centers. This report, for brevity, uses the term 

“LEA directors” when presenting findings from this survey. 

4 Bradby and Hudson (2007), The 2007 Revision of the Career/Technical Education Portion of the Secondary 

School Taxonomy.

 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xvii

This report uses the following broad definitions of secondary and postsecondary CTE: 

• Secondary CTE: At the secondary level, occupational CTE is coursework designed to 

prepare students for work in a specific occupational field or for related postsecondary 

education or training, while non-occupational CTE is coursework that prepares students for 

roles outside the paid labor market and instruction in generic employment skills such as basic 

computer literacy, introduction to technology, and general work experience. Analyses in this 

report focus primarily on occupational CTE. 

• Postsecondary CTE: At the postsecondary level, CTE is undergraduate instruction that is 

designed to prepare students to enter specific occupations or careers. Perkins postsecondary 

funds generally support CTE activities and programs at the subbaccalaureate level, and most 

of the information in this report on postsecondary CTE participation and outcomes is focused 

on subbaccalaureate programs and students. 

At both the secondary and postsecondary levels, the terms “participant” and “concentrator” are used 

to differentiate between CTE students who may have earned only one CTE credit and those who 

earned a larger number of credits in a single CTE field. The definitions used for Perkins IV reporting 

purposes are established by states and thus may vary across states, as well as differing from the 

definitions used in NCES datasets or by other researchers. 

In this report, definitions of the terms CTE “student,” “participant,” and “concentrator” vary 

depending on the data source. When examining performance indicator data submitted by states for 

accountability purposes (i.e., in Chapter 5), we use the indicator data submitted by states, which are 

based on the definitions of participant and concentrator chosen by each state. However, when 

analyzing data from NCES datasets and certain other sources, this report follows the common 

research practice of using definitions that are consistent across jurisdictions, in order to provide 

analyses of CTE participation and outcomes that are comparable across states and the nation. At the 

postsecondary level, CTE students are generally considered to be students who are seeking a 

subbaccalaureate credential (i.e., a certificate or associate’s degree) in a CTE field, based on their 

major or field of study. At the secondary level, we use the following definitions: 

• Participant: A secondary student earning at least one credit in occupational CTE courses. 

• Concentrator: A secondary student earning three or more credits within a single CTE 

occupational area.

• Non-concentrator: A secondary student who had not earned sufficient CTE credits to meet 

the concentrator definition in the preceding bullet; these include students who earned no CTE 

credits as well as those who earned some CTE credits but not enough to meet the definition 

of a concentrator. 

Study Limitations 

This report has three main limitations. First, the most recent data for many of the data sources 

included in this report were for years when key provisions of Perkins IV were still in the early stages 

of implementation, and many individuals in the studies had had limited, if any, exposure to changes 

enacted in Perkins IV. A second limitation is that the NCES datasets that were used for analyses of 

CTE student participation and outcomes do not always use consistent definitions for CTE fields or 
 

xviii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

concentrators, and the three-credit definition for CTE concentrators used to conduct consistent 

analyses across states is different from the definitions adopted by many states. Finally, the NACTE 

was not able to examine the effects or effectiveness of Perkins IV and instead provides information 

on implementation of the Perkins IV provisions and on student participation and outcomes related to 

CTE in general.

Despite these limitations, the information presented in this report represents the most current and 

comprehensive assessment of how states and local subgrantees are responding to the provisions of 

Perkins IV and the challenges they face in designing, implementing, and administering CTE 

programs. 

Key Findings

CTE Programs and Participation

• Nearly all public high school students (95 percent of ninth-grade students in 2009) attended a 

school that offered CTE instruction, either on campus or at a partnering school. In 2009, 

85 percent of public high school graduates had completed one or more occupational CTE 

courses, 76 percent had earned at least one full credit in occupational CTE, and 19 percent 

were CTE concentrators who had earned at least three credits in the same CTE field.

o The most common occupational CTE subject areas for secondary students were 

business (33 percent of high school graduates), communications and design (30 

percent), and computer and information sciences (21 percent). 

• Secondary occupational CTE coursetaking declined slightly from 1990 to 2009, while 

academic coursetaking increased. However, some CTE occupational areas saw large 

increases in secondary coursetaking from 1990 to 2009, including health sciences (+222 

percent) and public services (+153 percent), while large declines in coursetaking occurred 

in other areas such as manufacturing (–42 percent) and business (–37 percent). 

• In 2011–12, secondary teachers who taught occupational CTE were less likely to have a 

bachelor’s or master’s degree than were academic teachers. However, CTE teachers reported 

receiving more hours of professional development in that year than did academic teachers.

• At the postsecondary level, 2-year institutions accounted for two-fifths of all institutions 

offering CTE subbaccalaureate credentials but over three-fourths of undergraduate students 

who were seeking such credentials. 

• More than 8 million students were seeking a subbaccalaureate certificate or degree in a CTE 

field in 2011–12. Over half of these postsecondary CTE students were in the fields of health 

sciences (36 percent) or business (17 percent). 

• The number of students earning subbaccalaureate credentials in CTE fields rose 71 percent 

from 2002 to 2012, compared with a 54 percent increase in all undergraduate awards. 

o Some CTE fields showed even greater rates of growth in certificates and associate’s 

degrees (e.g., a 137 percent increase for health sciences), while others showed 

declines (e.g., a 44 percent decline for marketing). 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xix

• Certificate seekers tended to be older than students seeking a bachelor’s degree and were 

more likely to be from a lower-income stratum.

• Federal appropriations for Perkins IV have fallen since the 2006 reauthorization. Adjusting 

for inflation, total Perkins funding declined by 24 percent from FY 2007 to FY 2014. 

Finance

Declines in allocations for individual states ranged from 6 to 30 percent. 

o Over the longer term, from FY 1985 to FY 2014, the decline in Perkins funding 

amounted to a 32 percent reduction in purchasing power, while total discretionary 

funding for federal elementary-secondary programs and postsecondary programs 

more than doubled (with increases of 153 and 133 percent, respectively). 

• An increasing number of states are using the reserve option to provide additional funding to 

subgrantees in rural areas or those serving high numbers or percentages of CTE students, 

rising from 24 states in FY 2006 to 41 states in FY 2010. 

• In FY 2010, states allocated 64 percent of their Perkins Title I subgrant funds to secondary 

school programs and 36 percent to postsecondary programs, on average, about the same 

proportions as in FY 2001. However, states varied widely in the share of funds they allocated 

to secondary school programs, ranging from 38 percent in California to 88 percent in Ohio. 

o High-poverty school districts received larger allocations per secondary student in 

2009–10 than lower-poverty districts. However, they received smaller allocations per 

poor school-age child (ages 5–17) than lower-poverty school districts. 

o School districts located in cities received larger allocations per secondary student 

than those located in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. However, school districts in 

towns and rural areas received larger allocations per poor school-age child than urban 

and suburban districts. 

o Over three-fourths (77 percent) of Perkins postsecondary funds were allocated to 

public 2-year institutions. 

• Almost two-thirds of all states reported funding consortia at the secondary level; states less 

frequently reported providing waivers of the minimum allocation rule. Both consortia and 

waivers were less common at the postsecondary level than at the secondary level.

o The number of subgrantees participating in consortia varied widely across states, 

ranging from two to 554 at the secondary level and from two to 50 at the 

postsecondary level. 

o States were most likely to waive the minimum allocation rule for LEAs serving 

sparsely populated areas.

• In 2008–09, subgrantees most frequently reported using Perkins funds for equipment and to 

provide career guidance and academic counseling to students. 
 

xx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Programs of Study

• Statutory provisions allow states and local subgrantees considerable flexibility in designing 

and implementing POS. This flexibility has led to variation — both across and within states 

— in how CTE practitioners design programs and work to build linkages between secondary 

and postsecondary education. 

• Based on surveys conducted in 2009, states tended to play a larger role in developing POS at 

the secondary level than at the postsecondary level, where IHEs were more likely to take the 

lead.

o Taking into account states that either developed POS and/or provided guidance for 

locally-developed POS, a total of 40 states participated in POS development at the 

secondary level, and 24 did so at the postsecondary level. 

o At the local level, LEA CTE directors reported that secondary CTE teachers and 

LEA administrators were the groups most involved in POS development, while IHE 

CTE directors reported that postsecondary CTE faculty and administrators were the 

most involved. 

• Reports from both state and local CTE directors indicated incomplete compliance, as of the 

2008–09 program year, with statutory requirements that POS provide a coordinated, nonduplicative progression of courses that link secondary and postsecondary education. 

o For example, at the local level, 68 percent of LEA directors and 70 percent of IHE 

directors reported that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS spanned 

secondary and postsecondary education. 

o Smaller percentages reported that at least one of these POS was non-duplicative 

across the secondary and postsecondary levels (42 and 59 percent, respectively).

• Nearly two-thirds of LEA and IHE directors reported using articulation agreements with 

postsecondary and secondary partners to implement POS as of 2008–09, but about one-fifth 

said they did not know if their institutions had articulation agreements.

• IHE directors were more likely than LEA directors to report that their POS led to 

postsecondary credentials or degrees. 

• Nearly half of all state secondary and postsecondary CTE directors (23 of each) reported in 

2008–09 that CTE teachers or faculty did not have a good understanding of POS, suggesting 

that the POS concept was unclear to the instructors who are expected to deliver it. 

• States and local subgrantees are not required to report on POS participation and outcomes, 

and there are no national data on the number of students participating in POS or the outcomes 

they achieve.
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxi

Accountability

• For each performance indicator, three-fourths or more of the states met at least 90 percent of 

their performance target in 2011–12, at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. 

• Flexibility in the Perkins accountability system precludes the ability to use the performance 

indicator data for valid comparisons between states or for aggregating data across states to 

examine national progress over time.

• Local subgrantees used a variety of methods to identify CTE concentrators, including local 

management information systems, statewide databases, teacher identification of concentrators 

based on coursetaking, and student self-reports. 

• ESEA assessments are often administered before students reach concentrator status, so the 

academic attainment indicator often provides information on the academic abilities of 

students who subsequently become CTE concentrators.

• Some states reported mathematics and English/language arts proficiency rates for CTE 

concentrators under Perkins that were unexpectedly higher than the proficiency rates they 

reported for all students under ESEA and that appear to be inconsistent with research 

findings. Similar patterns were found for reporting on graduation rates. 

• Most states used administrative records to report on the placement of students who exited the 

program. At the secondary level, states most commonly used the state higher education 

database to acquire placement information about their students, while at the postsecondary 

level, the most commonly used data source was state unemployment insurance wage records. 

• Most states reported using Perkins performance indicator data to identify programs needing 

improvement and to provide targeted technical assistance.

Student Outcomes

• The percentage of high school graduates completing 4-year college preparatory coursework 

nearly doubled from 1990 to 2009, and CTE students showed larger increases than did nonCTE students. However, this may reflect changes in who participated in CTE rather than the 

impact of CTE. 

• The NACTE-commissioned studies, which used quasi-experimental methods to control for 

student background, found that CTE coursetaking had little or no relationship with academic 

achievement. Differences in achievement between CTE concentrators and non-concentrators 

were almost entirely explained by differences in student characteristics. Evidence on the 

relationship between CTE concentration and high school graduation is inconclusive. 

• High school graduates who were CTE concentrators were less likely to attend or complete 

postsecondary education than were non-concentrators, but studies that controlled for student 

background found mixed results for college-going and degree attainment. 

• College-going and completion rates varied considerably by CTE concentration field, as did 

continuation in the same CTE field at the postsecondary level. For example: 
 

xxii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

o As of 2006, college-going rates for 2004 high school graduates ranged from 

84 percent for CTE students who had concentrated in computer and information 

sciences to 52 percent for concentrators in repair and transportation. 

o Continuation in the same CTE field at the postsecondary level was most common 

among high school graduates who concentrated in health sciences or business. 

o Completion of a postsecondary degree or certificate in the same field was most 

common among high school graduates who concentrated in health sciences. 

• Among students who initially enrolled in subbaccalaureate programs in 2003–04, students in 

CTE and academic fields had attained credentials at similar rates six years later (by 2009). 

• Findings on employment and earnings outcomes for CTE students were mixed. For example: 

o Eight years after graduating from high school in 2004, CTE concentrators had 

average hourly wages that were not statistically different — no better but no worse — 

than those for graduates who were non-concentrators and had the same level of 

postsecondary attainment. 

o For CTE concentrators who did not enroll in postsecondary education, studies show 

mixed findings on employment and earnings outcomes. Some studies suggest that 

there may be higher returns for some CTE fields (e.g., construction and architecture) 

and programs (e.g., career academies). 

o Six years after starting postsecondary education, students who earned a CTE 

certificate or associate’s degree were more likely to be employed and to consider 

their job to be the start of a career than were those who did not earn a 

subbaccalaureate credential. However, students who earned a bachelor’s degree had 

even better employment outcomes. 

o Among postsecondary certificate holders who were working in an occupation related 

to their field of study, average earnings varied considerably by field, with the highest 

average earnings found for those working in computer and information sciences. 
CHAPTER 1 

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 1 

1

Career and 

Technical 

Education in the 

21st Century

As the fourth reauthorization of a law first 

enacted in 1984, Perkins IV was intended to raise 

the academic and technical rigor of secondary 

and postsecondary CTE instruction in order to 

prepare students for entry into high-skill, highwage, or high-demand occupations. Under 

Perkins IV, subgrantees are now required to offer 

one or more programs of study (POS) that link 

secondary to postsecondary education through a 

sequenced, non-duplicative progression of CTE 

courses. Changes in Perkins accountability 

provisions expanded performance reporting 

requirements and extended accountability 

requirements to local subgrantees. 
 CHAPTER 1

 2 CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Introduction

Economic globalization and technological innovations are redefining the knowledge and skill 

expectations for 21st century workers (Carnevale and Rose 2011; Friedman 2005). Policymakers and 

educators are responding by emphasizing the preparation of high school students for college and 

careers — both options, not just one or the other — with the understanding that all youth will require 

some form of advanced education or skill training if they are to compete in today’s labor market 

(Pathways to Prosperity Project 2011; Richmond 2009). 

Postsecondary education and training has become increasingly important for students to develop the 

knowledge and skills they will need to succeed in the labor market (Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl 

2013; Osterman 2008). Automation and technological advances, in combination with the outsourcing 

of jobs overseas, have lowered wages in many occupations that do not require advanced education or 

training and have eliminated domestic employment opportunities in many skilled trades.5 While 

many high-skill, high-wage jobs do not require a bachelor’s degree, an increasing number call for at 

least some postsecondary training. By 2020, nearly two-thirds of all jobs are expected to require 

workers who have completed some form of postsecondary education or training — with nearly half 

of these positions requiring at least an associate’s degree (Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl 2013). CTE 

coursework at the postsecondary level offers students more specialized instruction — academic as 

well as technical — that culminates in the award of a certificate or degree that will help them secure 

employment or pursue further education. 

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) continues a 

longstanding federal investment in career and technical education (CTE) through grants to states and 

subgrants to local entities such as local education agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher 

education (IHEs).

6

 As the fourth reauthorization of a law first enacted in 1984, Perkins IV was 

intended to raise the academic and technical rigor of secondary and postsecondary CTE instruction in 

order to prepare students for entry into high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations.7

 Under 

Perkins IV, subgrantees are now required to offer one or more programs of study (POS) that link 

secondary to postsecondary education through a sequenced, non-duplicative progression of CTE 

courses. Changes in Perkins accountability provisions expanded performance reporting requirements 

and extended accountability requirements to local subgrantees. 

This final report of the National Assessment of Career and Technical Education (NACTE)

summarizes the most recent available data on the implementation of Perkins IV, as well as student 

5 Changes to the structure of work opportunities in the United States have been documented in the literature. See, for 

example, Outsourcing America: The True Cost of Shipping Jobs Overseas and What Can Be Done About It (Hira 

and Hira 2008) and The World Is Flat (Friedman 2005). 6 Local secondary subgrantees may include LEAs, area CTE centers, educational service agencies, and consortia of 

eligible agencies. Local postsecondary subgrantees may include public or private nonprofit IHEs, LEAs and area 

CTE centers that provide CTE at the postsecondary level, postsecondary institutions controlled by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs or operated by or on behalf of an eligible Indian tribe, educational service agencies, and consortia of 

eligible entities. Because LEAs account for nearly all secondary subgrantees (95 percent in FY 2010), and IHEs 

account for the large majority (86 percent) of postsecondary subgrantees (and 96 percent of postsecondary subgrant 

funds), this report sometimes uses the terms “LEA” and “IHE” to refer to local secondary and postsecondary 

subgrantees. 7 The first three authorizations of the Perkins Act were: Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 

(Perkins I); Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 (Perkins II); and Carl D. 

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III). 

 
CHAPTER 1 

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 3 

participation and outcomes for CTE more generally. The report uses information from studies 

commissioned for the NACTE, reviews of existing research, and analyses of extant data from state 

performance reports and from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Topics include 

student participation in CTE programs at the secondary and postsecondary levels, changes in Perkins 

funding levels and targeting, implementation of Perkins IV provisions regarding POS and 

accountability, and educational and employment outcomes for CTE students. 

Changes Introduced in Perkins IV

Perhaps the most immediately apparent change in Perkins IV is its name change, from Vocational 

and Applied Technology Education Act to Career and Technical Education Act. This change follows 

a movement in the field to use the term “career and technical education,” to differentiate the mission 

of contemporary career-focused education from that of the past.

8 Perkins IV defines CTE as a 

sequence of courses that, among other things, provides individuals with coherent and rigorous 

content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills 

needed to prepare for further education and careers, and provides technical skill proficiency, an 

industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate’s degree. Exhibit 1.1 provides the 

complete Perkins IV definition of CTE. 

Exhibit 1.1.

Definition of CTE in Perkins IV

The term “career and technical education” means organized educational activities that

A) offer a sequence of courses that

i. provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic 

standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further 

education and careers in current or emerging professions;

ii. provides technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or 

an associate degree; and

iii. may include prerequisite courses (other than a remedial course) that meet the 

requirements of this subparagraph; and

B) include competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, 

higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, 

technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, 

including entrepreneurship, of an individual.

SOURCE: Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, Sec. 3(5).

8 In 1998, the American Vocational Association changed its name to the Association for Career and Technical 

Education (ACTE). Similarly, in 2002, the state directors’ association dropped the term vocational from its title, 

renaming itself “National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education consortium” (NASDCTEc). 

While the term vocational education has fallen from favor in the United States, where it is often perceived as training 

for low-wage, low-skill jobs, other nations continue to use the term Vocational Education and Training (VET) to refer 

to workforce development programs that support students in obtaining diverse skills for a broad range of industries.

 
 CHAPTER 1

 4 CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Key programmatic changes in Perkins IV include the following: 

• Changes to accountability indicators — Perkins IV introduced separate indicators for 

secondary and postsecondary education, added two secondary indicators aligned with 

requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA), and required reporting of disaggregated data to include the same subgroups as are 

used for ESEA reporting, in addition to the “special populations” that are specifically listed in 

the Perkins statute. 

• Extension of performance accountability to the local level — LEAs, IHEs, and other 

subgrantees must now negotiate performance targets for each indicator with their state 

eligible agency. A subgrantee whose actual performance is below 90 percent of any of its

negotiated targets must develop a program improvement plan and may face increasing 

sanctions if its performance does not improve. 

• Introduction of POS — All local subgrantees must now offer one or more POS that consist of 

a sequenced, non-duplicative progression of CTE courses that are designed to connect 

secondary and postsecondary curricula and to lead to an industry-recognized credential or 

certificate at the postsecondary level, or an associate’s or bachelor’s degree. A POS must 

include rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical 

content. Where appropriate, students may earn college credit while still enrolled in high 

school. 

• Tech Prep — Perkins IV gave states the option to consolidate all or a portion of their Perkins

Title II (Tech Prep) allocations into their Perkins Title I basic grant. Subsequently, in April 

2011, Congress eliminated funding for Tech Prep, and the program has not been funded since 

that time. Tech Prep has essentially been replaced by the “programs of study” approach to 

linking high school and postsecondary CTE curricula. This report provides limited coverage 

of this discontinued program. 

• Finance — Perkins IV made few changes to provisions concerning the allocation and use of 

Perkins funds. Aside from the new option to consolidate Tech Prep funds with Title I funds 

(discussed above), changes in fiscal provisions were relatively minor, such as a change in the 

allotment for outlying areas. 

Exhibit 1.2 provides a summary of key provisions and changes from Perkins I through Perkins IV in 

the areas of accountability, secondary to postsecondary transitions (Tech Prep and POS), and finance. 
CHAPTER 1 

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 5 

Exhibit 1.2. 

Key developments in Perkins legislation 

Perkins Act of 1984

(Perkins I) 

Perkins Act of 1990

(Perkins II) 

Perkins Act of 1998

(Perkins III) 

Perkins Act of 2006

(Perkins IV) 

Program Year Fall 1985–Spring 1991 Fall 1991–Spring 1999 Fall 1999–Spring 2007 Fall 2007–Spring 2013

Accountability • Develop measures to 

assess effectiveness 

• States must create 

measures to assess 

learning and 

competency gains but 

are not required to 

report on outcomes

• Core indicators of 

performance 

introduced, including 

student skill 

attainment, job and 

academic placement, 

and degree and 

credential attainment 

• Separate secondary and 

postsecondary 

indicators introduced

• Adoption of ESEA 

academic and high 

school graduation 

definitions and 

measures 

• Tech Prep indicators 

introduced

• Local programs held 

accountable for setting

and meeting 

performance targets

Secondary to 

Postsecondary 

Transitions 

(Tech Prep 

and POS)

• None • Tech Prep introduced as 

a special project

• Tech Prep introduced as 

separate title

• Tech Prep programs 

optional

• POS introduced; all local 

subgrantees must offer 

one or more POS

Finance • Set-asides for special 

populations equal to 

57 percent of basic 

grant resources

• Program improvement 

equal to 43 percent of 

basic grant resources

• Secondary formula 

allocation based on 

students living in 

poverty (70 percent), 

students with 

disabilities (20 percent), 

and number of students 

enrolled in CTE 

programs (10 percent)

• Postsecondary formula 

allocation based on 

number of Pell Grant 

and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs assistance 

recipients 

• Not less than 75 

percent distributed to

local programs

• Secondary formula 

allocation based on 

students living in 

poverty (70 percent) 

and youth aged 15–19 

years residing within 

the LEA (30 percent)

• Postsecondary formula 

allocation unchanged. 

• Not less than 85 

percent distributed to 

local programs 

• Secondary formula 

allocation unchanged

• Postsecondary formula 

allocation unchanged

• States offered option to 

merge Title II (Tech 

Prep) funds with Title I 

(basic grant)

• Reduced allotment for 

outlying areas from 0.20 

to 0.13 percent of total 

Perkins appropriation to 

correspond to the lower 

number of outlying 

areas that are eligible 

for funding 

• Funds may be used for 

prerequisite courses 

(other than a remedial 

course)
 CHAPTER 1

 6 CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

The National Assessment of Career and Technical Education

Perkins IV mandated an independent evaluation and assessment of CTE programs, including the 

implementation of new and revised requirements enacted in the 2006 reauthorization. An interim 

report of the NACTE, released in May 2013, described the overall research approach to meeting the 

congressional mandate and presented interim findings focused on participation and outcomes, as well 

as international comparisons of secondary school career and technical education. 

This final report provides a comprehensive summary of key findings from the NACTE, using 

information from a study of Perkins IV implementation, commissioned studies of CTE student 

outcomes, reviews of existing research, and analyses of extant data to examine how states and local 

subgrantees, such as LEAs and IHEs, are responding to key provisions of Perkins IV. The report 

examines student participation in CTE programs at the secondary and postsecondary levels, changes 

in funding levels and targeting, implementation of Perkins IV provisions regarding accountability and 

POS, and achievement and employment outcomes for CTE students. 

The NACTE was designed to examine the following research questions: 

• Has student participation in CTE programs changed? 

• How were Perkins IV funds allocated and used?

• How were states and local subgrantees developing and implementing programs of study that 

integrate academic and technical content across secondary and postsecondary education? 

• How were states implementing the Perkins IV accountability provisions, and what 

measurement issues affect the validity and reliability of the accountability data that were 

reported? 

• Are educational and employment outcomes showing positive results for secondary and 

postsecondary students who participated in CTE?

Independent Advisory Panel 

Congress mandated the formation of an Independent Advisory Panel to advise the U.S. Department 

of Education on the implementation of the NACTE. The Department assembled a panel of 13 

members including researchers with expertise in CTE and research methods, education and 

workforce development policy experts, and state and local practitioners (see Appendix A for list of 

panel members). The panel provided input on study plans and draft reports through a series of seven 

meetings held in Washington, D.C. The panel also prepared its own independent report with its 

findings and recommendations to Congress. 

Data Sources Included in the NACTE 

The NACTE summarizes data collected on the implementation and outcomes of programs supported 

under Perkins IV, including information from a study of Perkins implementation, commissioned 

studies of CTE student outcomes, reviews of existing research, and analyses of extant data. Key data 

sources are summarized briefly below and described in more detail in Appendix B: 
CHAPTER 1 

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 7 

• Evaluation of the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006. This study, commissioned for the NACTE, conducted surveys, case 

studies, and analyses of extant data to provide information on the implementation of 

Perkins IV provisions for finance, accountability, and programs of study. The study surveyed 

state directors responsible for overseeing Perkins implementation at the secondary and 

postsecondary levels in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as local program 

directors in a stratified random sample of 2,041 LEAs and area CTE centers9 and 1,006 IHEs. 

Surveys were administered in fall 2009, and response rates were 100 percent for state 

secondary directors, 94 percent for state postsecondary directors, 77 percent for LEAs and 

CTE centers, and 91 percent for IHEs. Case studies were conducted in six states and 18 local 

communities (three per state, including one urban, one suburban, and one rural), including 

site visits and in-depth interviews. For the targeting analyses, suballocation data for the 

2009–10 program year were obtained from 50 secondary and 49 postsecondary directors. 

• Commissioned studies of CTE student outcomes. As part of the NACTE, the Department 

commissioned four independent studies that used longitudinal student-level data to examine 

the relationship between high school students’ participation in CTE and secondary and 

postsecondary outcomes; each study used different methodological approaches and data 

sources. These studies primarily examined CTE students who were enrolled in high school 

prior to the implementation of Perkins IV; this approach was chosen in order to follow CTE 

students over a longer period of time than was possible for the period covered by Perkins IV

implementation at the time these studies were initiated.

o Philadelphia. This study took advantage of a natural experiment involving a lottery 

to select applicants to attend CTE high schools. The study used individual student 

records provided by the district, merged with National Student Clearinghouse data on 

postsecondary enrollment and completion, following students from the classes of 

2003, 2004, and 2005 to examine a range of outcomes including coursetaking, high 

school graduation rates, and postsecondary attendance and completion. The analysis 

used multi-level regression models to compare outcomes for students who were 

accepted and not accepted to CTE high schools and also explored the effect of the 

amount of time that a student actually attended a CTE school on outcomes. 

o San Diego. This study used a fixed-effects model to examine the association between 

student CTE coursetaking and academic outcomes, following eight cohorts of high 

school students who entered ninth grade between 1998 and 2006. The study used 

individual student records provided by the district and merged them with 

postsecondary data from the National Student Clearinghouse; the data included 

student course taking, attendance, grades, test scores, high school completion, and 

postsecondary enrollment and completion. 

o Florida. This study analyzed individual secondary and postsecondary student records 

from the Florida Department of Education that tracked students who were in ninth 

grade in 1996 for 10 years, through 2007. The analysis used multivariate and logistic 

regression models to examine whether there was a relationship between CTE 

participation status and student outcomes. 

9 The sample for this survey included 2,993 LEAs and 48 area CTE centers. This report, for brevity, uses the term 

“LEA directors” when presenting findings from this survey. 

 
 CHAPTER 1

 8 CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

o Analysis of Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS) data. This study used a 

fixed-effects model and data from a nationally representative longitudinal study of 

2002 high school sophomores to examine the associations between CTE coursetaking 

and high school outcomes. The analysis used ELS data were from the baseline year; a 

first follow-up in spring 2004 when most students were high school seniors; and a 

transcript study, which collected transcripts beginning in the winter of 2004–05.

More detailed summaries of the methodologies and findings for these four studies are 

provided at the end of Chapter 6. 

• Reviews of existing research. Study staff conducted a literature search to identify published 

reports that examined the implementation of Perkins and career and technical education more 

generally, as well as student outcomes for CTE students. 

• Analyses of extant data. The NACTE also drew upon existing data from a variety of 

sources, including annual state reports as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional studies 

sponsored by NCES: 

o Annual state reports. States submit Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports to the 

U.S. Department of Education, as well as annual updates to their Perkins state plans; 

these include data on performance indicator targets and results, as well as certain 

fiscal data. The NACTE also used data from ESEA Consolidated State Performance 

Reports for comparative data on ESEA performance indicators. Perkins and ESEA

performance indicator data are currently available for the 2011–12 school year. 

o Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS). This longitudinal study surveyed a 

national sample of students who were in the 10th grade in 2002 and conducted 

follow-up surveys of these students in 2004, 2006, and 2012, in order to follow their

progress through high school and on to postsecondary education and the workforce. 

o National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the High School 

Transcript Study (HSTS). NAEP is a nationally representative and ongoing 

assessment of what students in the United States know and can do in mathematics, 

reading, science, and other subjects. The HSTS is a part of NAEP that collects data 

about student coursetaking and credits earned. This report uses NAEP and HSTS data 

for 2009, the most recent year for which HSTS data on coursetaking are available.

o Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). The periodic SASS surveys of districts, 

schools, principals, and teachers collect information about teacher supply and 

demand, teacher and administrator characteristics, school programs, and general 

conditions in schools as well as staff perceptions of school climate, hiring and 

compensation, and student characteristics. The most recent SASS data available are 

for the 2011–12 school year. 

o Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). This annual universe 

data collection gathers information from every college, university, and technical and 

vocational institution that participates in federal student financial aid programs. These 

data include information about student enrollments and completions, faculty and 

staff, institutional expenditures, and financial aid. The most recent IPEDS data 

available are for 2012. 
CHAPTER 1 

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 9 

o National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Although the primary 

purpose of NPSAS is provide information on financial aid for postsecondary 

students, its large nationally representative sample of institutions and students is also 

useful for examining the characteristics of Title IV-eligible institutions and the 

students who are enrolled in them, including fields of study and credentials sought. 

The most recent NPSAS data available are for the 2011–12 academic year.

o Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). This periodic study 

surveys cohorts of first-time postsecondary students at the end of their first year and 

three and six years after first starting postsecondary education, collecting student 

demographic characteristics, school and work experiences, persistence, transfer, and 

degree attainment. The most recent BPS data available are for 2009, based on a 

cohort that began postsecondary education in 2003–04. 

Significance Testing 

For original analyses conducted for the NACTE, references in the text to differences between groups 

or over time that are based on sample data only discuss differences that are statistically significant 

using a significance level of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha level, reflects the probability that a 

difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise simply due to sampling variation, 

if there were no true difference between groups in the population. A failure to reach this level of 

statistical significance does not necessarily mean that two groups were the same or that there was no 

change over time; a lack of statistically significant findings simply means that no reliable conclusion 

can be drawn from the analyses that were conducted. The tests were conducted by calculating 

students’ t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. The t-test formula was 

not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Standard error tables for exhibits that are based on sample 

data are included in Appendix C. 

Definitions of Terms Used in This Report

Although Perkins IV provides a statutory definition of the term “career and technical education,” it 

does not identify specific subjects or fields that are to be considered as CTE; rather, grantees and 

subgrantees are expected to design and implement CTE courses and course sequences that meet the 

criteria in the law. Specific occupational CTE courses may be classified by labor market preparation 

area in different ways in state and local practice or in various data sources. For analytic purposes, 

NCES developed taxonomies for classifying CTE and academic fields of study at the secondary and 

postsecondary levels in a consistent way across data collections.10

10 To enable these different surveys to provide consistent information on students’ fields of study, NCES has 

developed taxonomies for classifying coursetaking into specific fields, including CTE fields as well as academic 

fields. At the secondary level, coursetaking information from high school transcripts is coded using the 

Classification of Secondary School Courses (CSSC), and this information is then aggregated into broad subject areas 

in order to summarize student coursetaking in CTE as well as in academic fields. The 21 secondary CTE fields are 

often aggregated into a smaller set of 12 CTE fields in order to create more analytically powerful comparison groups 

as well as to simplify the presentation of data. At the postsecondary level, survey data on student majors or fields of 

study are classified using the 2000 Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), and the detailed CIP fields are 

aggregated into 13 major CTE fields. CTE information from these data collections is consolidated in NCES’ 

Career/Technical Education Statistics (CTES) system (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/).

 
CHAPTER 1

10 CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

This report uses the following general definitions of secondary and postsecondary CTE in analyzing 

available data on student participation and outcomes: 

• Secondary CTE: At the secondary level, occupational CTE is coursework designed to

prepare students for work in a specific occupational field or for related postsecondary

education or training, while non-occupational CTE includes instruction in generic

employment skills such as basic computer literacy, introduction to technology, and general

work experience (general labor market preparation) as well as coursework that prepares

students for roles outside the paid labor market (family and consumer sciences education).11

Analyses in this report focus primarily on occupational CTE but sometimes also include nonoccupational CTE.

• Postsecondary CTE: At the postsecondary level, CTE is undergraduate instruction that is

designed to prepare students to enter specific occupations or careers. Perkins postsecondary

funds generally support CTE activities and programs at the subbaccalaureate level, and most

of the information in this report on postsecondary CTE participation and outcomes is focused

on subbaccalaureate programs and students. However, the report also provides some

information on participation in bachelor’s degree programs in CTE fields, to provide

additional context.

Exhibit 1.3 shows the specific labor market preparation areas that are used in this report’s analyses of 

NCES data at the secondary and postsecondary levels.

Exhibit 1.3.

Labor market preparation areas included in analyses of survey data on 

occupational CTE courses at the secondary and postsecondary levels

Secondary Postsecondary

Agriculture and natural resources Agriculture and natural resources

Business Business management

Business support

Communications and design Communications and design

Computer and information sciences Computer and information sciences

Consumer and culinary services Consumer services

Construction and architecture Engineering, architecture, and science technologies Engineering technologies

Manufacturing Manufacturing, construction, repair, and transportation Repair and transportation

Marketing Marketing

Health sciences Health sciences

Public services

Public, legal, and social services

Education

Protective services

SOURCE: Bradby and Hudson (2007). See Exhibit D.1 in Appendix D for a more detailed version of the Bradby and Hudson 

crosswalk between secondary and postsecondary taxonomies for career and technical education.

11 Students training for paid employment in family and consumer sciences education and human sciences are 

included in the consumer and culinary services occupational area (Bradby and Hudson 2007).
CHAPTER 1 

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 11

Definitions of CTE Participants and Concentrators

At both the secondary and postsecondary levels, the terms participant and concentrator are used to 

differentiate between students who may have earned only one CTE credit and those who earned a 

larger number of credits in a single CTE field. The definitions used for Perkins IV reporting purposes 

are established by states and thus may vary across states. The U.S. Department of Education released 

nonregulatory guidance with recommended definitions of CTE participants and CTE concentrators 

(Exhibit 1.4), but states may choose to set their own definitions. 

Exhibit 1.4.

Definitions of CTE participants and concentrators in nonregulatory guidance

Term Secondary Postsecondary

CTE 

participant

A secondary student who has earned one 

or more credits in any CTE program area.

A postsecondary/adulta student who has earned 

one or more credits in any CTE program area.

CTE 

concentrator

A secondary student who has earned 

three or more credits in a single CTE 

program area, or two credits in a single 

CTE program area for which two credit 

sequences at the secondary level are 

recognized by the State and/or its local 

eligible recipients.

A postsecondary/adult student who (1) completes 

at least 12 academic or CTE credits within a single 

program area sequence that is comprised of 12 or 

more academic and technical credits and 

terminates in the award of an industry-recognized 

credential, a certificate, or a degree; or (2) 

completes a short-term CTE program sequence of 

less than 12 credit units that terminates in an 

industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a 

degree.

a Although Perkins IV does not refer to an “adult” population for accountability reporting, the Department’s nonregulatory guidance uses the 

term “postsecondary/adult” in the population definitions. Several states offer adult CTE programs outside their community and technical 

colleges, and some states have negotiated separate performance targets and reported separate data for their adult programs (in 2013–14, 

Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia) (U.S. Department of Education 2014).

SOURCE: Justesen (2007). 
 CHAPTER 1

12 CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

At the secondary level, 15 states defined concentrators as students who earn three or more credits in a 

single occupational area and 18 states used other credit thresholds based on a single occupational 

area (12 states required two or more credits, three states required one or 1.5 credits, and three states 

required four or more credits). Seven states permitted the number of required credits to vary 

depending on the specific program, and 11 states applied other types of definitions (Exhibit 1.5). 

Exhibit 1.5.

Number of states using various definitions for CTE concentrators at the secondary level

Definition Number of states

4 or more credits 3

3 or more credits 15

2 or more credits 12

1.5 or more credits 2

1 or more credits 1

1+ or 2+ depending on program 3

2+ or 3+ depending on program 4

Completed 50 percent of the program 9

Other (e.g., completed advanced-level work) 2

Exhibit reads: Three states defined CTE concentrators as students who earned four or more 

credits in a single occupational area.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (2013), Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006, Report to Congress on State Performance: Program Year 2009–10. 

In this report, the chapter on implementation and outcomes for the Perkins IV accountability 

indicators (Chapter 5) uses the indicator data submitted by states, which are based on the definitions 

of participant and concentrator chosen by each state. However, when analyzing data from NCES 

datasets and certain other sources, this report follows the common research practice of using 

consistent definitions of the terms “CTE student,” “participant,” and “concentrator” in order to 

provide analyses of CTE participation and outcomes that are comparable across states and the nation. 

At the postsecondary level, CTE students are generally considered to be students who are seeking a 

subbaccalaureate credential (i.e., a certificate or associate’s degree) in a CTE field, based on their 

major or field of study. At the secondary level, we use the following definitions:12

• Participant: A secondary student earning at least one credit in occupational CTE courses.

• Concentrator: A secondary student earning three or more credits within a single CTE 

occupational area.

• Non-concentrator: A secondary student who had not earned sufficient CTE credits to meet 

the concentrator definition in the preceding bullet; these include students who earned no CTE 

credits as well as those who earned some CTE credits but not enough to meet the definition 

of a concentrator. 

12 These definitions are generally used by researchers for analyses of national data from NCES and other sources to 

enhance the comparability of data across states (Hudson and Laird 2009; Levesque and Hudson 2003).

 
CHAPTER 1 

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY 13

Study Limitations

This report has three main limitations. First, the most recent data for many of the data sources 

included in this data were for years when key provisions of Perkins IV were still in the early stages of 

implementation, and many individuals in the studies had had limited, if any, exposure to changes 

enacted in Perkins IV. Although enacted in August 2006, the first year of Perkins IV implementation 

was the 2007–08 program year.13 Not only did states have the option to submit a transition plan for 

the 2007–08 program year, but also some of the new or revised provisions (such as POS) would take 

years to implement fully. The Perkins IV implementation study was conducted during the 2009–10 

program year, and 2009 was the most recent data available for three of the NCES datasets used in 

this report (HSTS, NAEP, and BPS). The four commissioned studies covered a variety of time 

periods, but generally covered periods prior to Perkins IV implementation.

A second limitation is that the NCES datasets that were used for analyses of CTE student 

participation and outcomes do not always use consistent definitions for CTE fields or concentrators. 

In addition, the three-credit definition for CTE concentrators that was used to conduct consistent 

analyses across datasets and states is different from the definitions adopted by many states; indeed, 

some states require fewer than three credits, as discussed above, and schools may not actually offer 

three credits in the same field.

Finally, the NACTE was not able to examine the effects or effectiveness of Perkins IV and instead 

provides information on implementation of the Perkins IV provisions and on student participation 

and outcomes related to CTE in general. When looking at student outcomes, most of the studies are 

correlational rather than rigorous impact studies designed to assess effects on students. In addition, 

local subgrantees may offer CTE programs supported by multiple funding sources and may be 

influenced by other federal, state, and local requirements, making it difficult to disentangle the 

effects of federal CTE policies from those of other initiatives. 

Despite these limitations, the information presented in this report represents the most current and 

comprehensive assessment of how states and local subgrantees are responding to the provisions of 

Perkins IV and the challenges they face in designing, implementing, and administering CTE 

programs.

13 Signed into law on August 12, 2006, Perkins IV authorized appropriations for FY 2007 through FY 2012. 

Program authorizations were automatically extended for one year (FY 2013) under section 422 of the General 

Education Provisions Act, and some programs were subsequently continued in the FY 2014 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act. 

 
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 2 

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 15

2

CTE Programs and 

Participation

In the United States, career and technical 

education is widespread at both the secondary 

and postsecondary levels. Most American high 

school students take at least one CTE course, and 

at the postsecondary level, CTE students account 

for nearly three-fourths of all students seeking a 

subbaccalaureate credential. This chapter 

examines the extent to which secondary and 

postsecondary students participate in CTE, 

describes the characteristics of students enrolling 

in CTE coursework at the secondary and 

postsecondary level, and provides descriptive 

data on certain qualifications of secondary CTE 

teachers.
 CHAPTER 2

16 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

Key Findings

• Nearly all public high school students (95 percent of ninth-grade students in 2009) attended a 

school that offered CTE instruction, either on campus or at a partnering school. In 2009, 

85 percent of public high school graduates had completed one or more occupational CTE 

courses, 76 percent had earned at least one full credit in occupational CTE, and 19 percent 

were CTE concentrators who had earned at least three credits in the same CTE field.

o The most common occupational CTE subject areas for secondary students were 

business (33 percent of high school graduates), communications and design (30 

percent), and computer and information sciences (21 percent). 

• Secondary occupational CTE coursetaking declined slightly from 1990 to 2009, while 

academic coursetaking increased. However, some CTE occupational areas saw large 

increases in secondary coursetaking from 1990 to 2009, including health sciences (+222 

percent) and public services (+153 percent), while large declines in coursetaking occurred in 

other areas such as manufacturing (–42 percent) and business (–37 percent). 

• In 2011–12, secondary teachers who taught occupational CTE were less likely to have a 

bachelor’s or master’s degree than were academic teachers. However, CTE teachers reported 

receiving more hours of professional development in that year than did academic teachers. 

• At the postsecondary level, 2-year institutions accounted for two-fifths of all institutions 

offering CTE subbaccalaureate credentials but over three-fourths of undergraduate students 

who were seeking such credentials. 

• More than 8 million students were seeking a subbaccalaureate certificate or degree in a CTE 

field in 2011–12. Over half of these postsecondary CTE students were in the fields of health 

sciences (36 percent) or business (17 percent). 

• The number of students earning subbaccalaureate credentials in CTE fields rose 71 percent 

from 2002 to 2012, compared with a 54 percent increase in all undergraduate awards. 

o Some CTE fields showed even greater rates of growth in certificates and associate’s 

degrees (e.g., a 137 percent increase for health sciences), while others showed 

declines (e.g., a 44 percent decline for marketing). 

• Certificate seekers tended to be older than students seeking a bachelor’s degree and were 

more likely to be from a lower-income stratum.
CHAPTER 2 

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 17

Secondary CTE Programs

Career and technical education is typically offered in one of three settings: comprehensive high 

schools, full-time CTE schools, or area or regional CTE centers. Comprehensive high schools 

primarily have an academic focus but may offer elective CTE courses either on-site or at an affiliated 

area or regional CTE center. Full-time CTE high schools emphasize career and technical coursework 

in conjunction with an academic curriculum. Area or regional CTE centers serve students who attend 

comprehensive high schools for their academic instruction and attend the CTE centers part-time to 

receive CTE instruction (Levesque et al. 2008). 

Nearly all public high school students attended a school that offered CTE 

instruction.

Ninety-five percent of ninth-grade students who attended public schools in 2009 were enrolled in 

schools that offered CTE programs either on campus or in a partnering off-site location, such as an 

area CTE school, postsecondary institution, or other high school facility.14 

Educators are experimenting with a range of approaches and school organizations to deliver CTE 

services, some of which employ applied learning as a vehicle for teaching all students. For example, 

career academies are schools-within-schools located within comprehensive or full-time CTE high 

schools, which integrate academic and technical curricula around one or more career themes to 

provide students with a context for learning (Kemple and Willner 2008); 25 percent of public high 

schools offered career academies in 2011–12.15 

Another example is Project Lead the Way (4,000 schools), which introduces high school students to 

engineering concepts through the use of a uniform 4-year curriculum.16 The High Schools That Work 

program (1,200 schools), developed by the Southern Regional Education Board, emphasizes the 

integration of academic and technical skills and work-based learning to prepare students for 

postsecondary education and careers.17

14 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, High 

School Longitudinal Study (HSLS), 2009.

15 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools 

and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2012. See http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013312_s2s_007.asp. 16 For information on Project Lead the Way, see www.pltw.org. 17 For information on High Schools That Work, see www.sreb.org/page/1137/about_high_schools_that_work.html. 

 
 CHAPTER 2

18 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

Secondary Student Participation

In 2009, 85 percent of public high school graduates had completed one or more 

occupational CTE courses, 76 percent had earned at least one full credit in 

occupational CTE, and 19 percent were CTE concentrators who had earned at least 

three credits in the same CTE field.

While 19 percent of public high school graduates met this report’s definition of CTE concentrator by 

earning at least three credits in the same occupational field, almost twice as many students (36 

percent) had earned at least three credits in one or more occupational CTE fields (Exhibit 2.1). 

Looking at non-occupational CTE, 59 percent of public high school graduates earned credit in 

general labor market preparation and 34 percent earned credit in family and consumer sciences 

education. Overall, 94 percent of graduates earned credit in either occupational and/or nonoccupational CTE.

18

Exhibit 2.1. 

Percentage of public school graduates who had earned various amounts of occupational CTE credits, 

by occupational area, 2009

Occupational area

Any

credit

At least 

one credit

At least 

two credits

At least 

three credits

Any CTE occupational area 85 76 53 36

Same CTE occupational area † † 36 19

Business 33 23 7 2

Communications and design 30 20 6 2

Computer and information sciences 21 13 3 1

Consumer and culinary services 18 10 4 2

Manufacturing 13 8 3 1

Engineering technologies 11 8 2 1

Agriculture and natural resources 11 9 4 3

Health sciences 10 8 4 3

Public services 10 7 1 1

Marketing 8 6 2 1

Repair and transportation 8 6 3 2

Construction and architecture 7 5 2 1

Exhibit reads: In 2009, 85 percent of public high school graduates earned credit in one or more occupational CTE

areas.

† Not applicable.

NOTES: Credit is a standardized measure used to provide a consistent measure of coursetaking from the student transcript data collected in the 

High School Transcript Study (HSTS). In the HSTS, a credit is equivalent to one Carnegie unit, which is awarded for a class that meets for one 

period per day for the entire school year or the equivalent instructional time. It is possible for students to earn less than one Carnegie unit if a 

class meets less than one period per day for the entire school year. The rows for “Any CTE occupational area” and “Same CTE occupational 

area” do not represent totals of the rows for individual occupational areas. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 2009.

18 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, High 

School Transcript Study (HSTS), 2009. See http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/h123.asp. 

 
CHAPTER 2

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 19

The most common occupational CTE subject areas for secondary students were 

business, communications and design, and computer and information sciences.

Among all public high school graduates in 2009, 33 percent earned course credit in business, 

30 percent in communications and design, and 21 percent in computer and information sciences 

(Exhibit 2.1). For CTE concentrators, differences among occupational fields were not statistically 

significant.

Occupational CTE coursetaking declined slightly from 1990 to 2009, while academic 

coursetaking increased.

The percentage of public high school graduates who earned any occupational CTE credit declined 

from 88 percent in 1990 to 85 percent in 2009, and CTE concentrators declined from 24 percent to 19 

percent of graduates. However, the percentage who earned at least one occupational CTE credit in 

2009 was not statistically different from that in 1990 (76 vs. 78 percent) (Exhibit 2.2). 

Exhibit 2.2.

Percentage of public school graduates who earned occupational CTE credits, 

for selected years from 1990 to 2009

88% 89% 87% 85%

78% 80% 79% 76%

24% 23% 21% 19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 2000 2005 2009

Any CTE credit

One or more CTE credits

(CTE participants)

Three or more CTE credits in

a single occupational area

(CTE concentrators)

Exhibit reads: The percentage of public high school graduates who had earned credit for completing at least one 

occupational CTE course declined from 88 percent in 1990 to 85 percent in 2009.

NOTE: Typically, a student earns a full CTE credit (1.0 credits) by completing a year-long course and may earn a partial credit for completing a 

single semester of a CTE course.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study 

(HSTS), 1990, 2000, 2005, and 2009.
CHAPTER 2

20 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

The average number of occupational CTE credits earned by public high school graduates declined 

slightly, from 2.7 credits in 1990 to 2.5 credits in 2009, and non-occupational CTE credits declined 

from 1.5 to 1.1 credits. Over the same period, the overall number of credits earned by public high 

school graduates rose from 23.5 credits to 26.9 credits. This increase was largely related to increases 

in student academic coursetaking, which rose from 16.7 to 20.0 credits (Exhibit 2.3). Many states 

increased high school graduation requirements during this period; for example, the number of states 

requiring at least 4 credits in mathematics increased from zero states in 1987 to 11 states in 2008 

(Stillman and Blank 2009). 

Exhibit 2.3. 

Average number of credits earned by public high school graduates during high school, 

by curricular area, 1990 and 2009

16.7

20.0

2.7

3.4

1.5

1.1

2.7

2.5 23.5

26.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990 2009

Occupational CTE

Non-occupational CTE

Enrichment/other

Academic

Exhibit reads: In 1990, public high school graduates had earned a total of 23.5 credits, including 16.7 credits in 

academic courses, 2.7 credits in enrichment courses, 1.5 credits in non-occupational CTE, and 2.7 credits in 

occupational CTE. 

NOTES: “Enrichment/other” includes credits earned in areas such as health, physical, and recreational education; religion and theology; and 

military science, among other areas. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study 

(HSTS), 1990 and 2009.

Decreased CTE coursetaking in conjunction with increased academic course requirements have 

reduced the relative number of CTE credits earned by public high school graduates: occupational 

CTE credits declined from an average of 11 percent of total credits in 1990 to 9 percent in 2009. 

Overall, in 2009, academic courses accounted for 74 percent of total credits earned, occupational 

CTE for 9 percent, and non-occupational CTE for 4 percent; enrichment and other courses accounted 

for the remaining 13 percent of credits (see Exhibit C.3). 
CHAPTER 2

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 21

Some CTE occupational areas saw large increases in coursetaking from 1990 to 

2009, including health sciences (+222 percent) and public services (+153 percent), 

while large declines in coursetaking occurred in other areas such as manufacturing

(–42 percent) and business (–37 percent). 

The percentage of public high school graduates who earned one CTE credit in health sciences more 

than tripled, rising from 3.2 percent in 1990 to 10.3 percent in 2009. Large increases in CTE 

coursetaking also occurred in public services (from 3.8 to 9.6 percent of graduates) and 

communications and design (from 18.4 to 29.6 percent) (Exhibit 2.4). 

Over the same period, the percentage of public high school graduates earning occupational CTE 

credits declined in manufacturing (from 22.4 to 12.9 percent), business (from 51.7 to 32.5 percent), 

repair and transportation (from 10.1 to 8.0 percent), and engineering technologies (from 13.7 to 

11.1 percent) (Exhibit 2.4).

Exhibit 2.4. 

Percentage change in the percentage of public school graduates who earned 

occupational CTE credits, by occupational area, 1990 and 2009

Occupational area 1990 2009 % Change

Health sciences 3.2 10.3 222

Public services 3.8 9.6 153

Communications and design 18.4 29.6 61

Consumer and culinary services 13.8 18.0 30

Agriculture and natural resources 9.1 10.7 18

Marketing 8.5 8.5 *

Construction and architecture 7.4 6.7 *

Computer and information sciences 25.1 21.2 *

Engineering technologies 13.7 11.1 –19

Repair and transportation 10.1 8.0 –21

Business 51.7 32.5 –37

Manufacturing 22.4 12.9 –42

Any CTE occupational area 88.2 84.9 –4

Exhibit reads: The percentage of public high school graduates who earned occupational CTE credits in the 

health sciences increased from 3.2 percent in 1990 to 10.3 percent in 2009, an increase of 222 percent. 

*Percentage change is not statistically significant.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 1990 and

2009.

Characteristics of Secondary CTE Students 

Although participation in CTE courses was widespread among public high school 

students, the percentage of students who were CTE concentrators varied among 

students with different characteristics.

Among students who graduated from high school in 2009, those who had completed more 

challenging mathematics courses in the ninth grade were less frequently CTE concentrators than 

were other students. For example, CTE concentrators accounted for 14 percent of those who had 

completed geometry (or a higher-level course) in ninth grade, compared with 20 percent of those 

who had completed algebra and 24 percent of those who completed a lower-level course or no 
CHAPTER 2

22 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

mathematics course. Graduates with disabilities were more frequently CTE concentrators than were 

those with no reported disabilities (27 vs. 18 percent). However, graduates who were classified as 

limited English proficient (LEP) in the 12th grade were less frequently CTE concentrators than those 

with no reported limited English proficiency (however, relatively few students are classified as LEP

in the 12th grade). Among racial/ethnic groups, the lowest percentage of CTE concentrators was 

found among Asians (7 percent in 2009), while much higher CTE concentrator rates were found for 

blacks (23 percent), whites (20 percent), American Indians (18 percent), and Hispanics (17 percent). 

Male graduates were more likely to be CTE concentrators than were female graduates (21 vs. 17 

percent) (Exhibit 2.5). 

Exhibit 2.5. 

Percentage of public high school graduates who were CTE concentrators,

by student characteristics, 1990 and 2009

Student characteristic 1990 2009

Mathematics course completion in 9th grade

Geometry or higher 9 14

Algebra 18 20

Below algebra or no mathematics 33 24

Disability status in 12th grade

Students with disabilities 37 27

Students with no reported disability 23 18

Limited English proficiency in 12th grade

Limited English proficient 12! 13

No reported limited English proficiency 24 19

Race/ethnicity

White 24 20

Black 24 23

Hispanic 24 17

Asian 12 7

American Indian 30 18

Other ‡ 14

Sex

Male 25 21

Female 23 17

All CTE concentrators 24 19

Exhibit reads: Among students who graduated from high school in 1990, 9 percent of those who had 

completed geometry (or a higher-level course) in ninth grade were CTE concentrators.

‡ Reporting standards are not met; the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 1990 and 2009.

Secondary CTE Instructors

In 2012, about 8 percent of the more than 1 million grade 9–12 teachers in public high schools 

identified their main teaching assignment as a subject associated with a specific CTE occupational 

field. In addition, 3 percent of grade 9–12 teachers taught general labor market preparation, and 

2 percent taught family and consumer sciences education. Academic teachers accounted for about 
CHAPTER 2 

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 23

two-thirds (68 percent) of secondary teachers; the remaining 20 percent of high school teachers 

had other types of teaching assignments such as special education and physical education.19

This section examines certain characteristics of occupational CTE teachers in comparison to 

academic teachers, including degree attainment, certification, and participation in professional 

development. However, it should be noted that CTE teachers may have other kinds of preparation 

and qualifications, such as industry certification or experience, for which data are not systematically 

collected in existing national data collections.

Occupational CTE teachers were less likely to have a bachelor’s or master’s degree 

than were academic teachers.

In 2011–12, public school grade 9–12 CTE teachers were less likely than academic teachers to have a 

bachelor’s degree or higher degree (82 vs. 97 percent) or a master’s degree or higher degree (46 vs. 

59 percent). The percentage of CTE teachers with bachelor’s and master’s degrees varied by CTE 

field (Exhibit 2.6). 

Exhibit 2.6. 

Percentage of grade 9–12 public school teachers who had attained bachelor’s degree or higher 

and a master’s degree or higher, by main teaching assignment and CTE occupational area, 2011–12

Main teaching assignment

and CTE occupational area 

Bachelor’s degree 

or higher

Master’s degree 

or higher

Main teaching assignment

Occupational CTE 82 46

Academic education 97 59

All subjects 95 57

CTE occupational area

Marketing 99 63

Business 96 64

Agriculture and natural resources 93 38

Computer and information sciences 90 57

Communications and design 82 52

Health sciences 81 36

Consumer, culinary, and public services 72 48

Construction, architecture, and engineering technologies 69 32

Manufacturing 47 ‡

Repair and transportation 26 12 !

Exhibit reads: Among grade 9–12 public school teachers who reported that occupational CTE was their 

main teaching assignment, 82 percent had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher degree.

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate. 

‡ Reporting standards are not met; the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.

NOTE: Fifteen percent of occupational CTE teachers possessed an associate’s degree or a postsecondary certificate, and 4 percent 

had no degree or certificate. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School 

Teacher Questionnaire,” 2011–12. 

19 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 

“Public School Teacher Questionnaire,” 2011–12. “Other” teaching assignments also included health education; 

military science or Reserve Officers’ Training Corps; religious studies, theology, or divinity; and other unspecified 

teaching assignments. These “other” teachers are excluded from analyses presented in this chapter.

 
CHAPTER 2

24 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

While some states require all CTE instructors to meet the same licensure and certification 

requirements as their academic counterparts, most allow CTE instructors to enter the teaching 

profession by substituting work experience for academic coursework. Most states require CTE 

teachers with an alternative classification to pass a state-approved licensure exam; as of 2007, 48 

states required CTE teachers with traditional teacher training to pass a state-approved licensure exam 

and 46 states required the exam for alternatively prepared CTE teachers. All 50 states also offer the 

option for teachers to obtain provisional or temporary teaching licenses that provide teachers in highneed areas with time to fulfill additional certification requirements, such as coursework and passing a 

teacher test (Zirkle, Martin, and McCaslin 2007). 

Occupational CTE teachers were less likely than academic teachers to hold regular 

state certification and also were more likely to have entered teaching through an 

alternative certification process.

In 2011–12, 85 percent of CTE teachers held a regular state certification, compared with 91 percent 

of academic teachers. CTE teachers were more likely to have a provisional teaching certification than 

were academic teachers (14 vs. 8 percent) (Exhibit 2.7). In that same year, one-third (33 percent) of 

CTE teachers had entered teaching through an alternative certification process, compared with 19 

percent of academic teachers.20

Exhibit 2.7. 

Percentage distribution of grade 9–12 public school teachers’ type of certification, 

for occupational CTE teachers and academic teachers, 2011–12

91%

85%

8%

14%

1%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Academic teachers

Occupational CTE teachers

Regular state certification Provisional certification No certification

Exhibit reads: Among grade 9–12 public school teachers who reported that occupational CTE was their main 

teaching assignment, 85 percent had regular state certification, 14 percent had provisional certification, and 

2 percent had no certification.

NOTES: Provisional certification includes those issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a probationary period and 

those that require additional coursework, student teaching, passage of a test, or completion of a certification program. Detail may not sum to 

100 percent due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher 

Questionnaire,” 2011–12. 

20 NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/h120.asp.
CHAPTER 2

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 25

Professional development

Effective teaching requires high quality and relevant professional development throughout a 

teacher’s career (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009). In the case of CTE instructors, professional 

development may be particularly important due to the relatively high number of career changers who 

enter the teaching profession directly from industry (National Research Center for Career and 

Technical Education 2010). Industry experience and connections can help CTE teachers understand 

the knowledge and skills that are required in the field, but teachers also need pedagogical skills to 

transfer that knowledge to students. CTE teachers also need exposure to new and changing 

technologies to stay current in their fields. As one local CTE administrator noted, “Funds should be 

concentrated on professional development because technology is changing rapidly and instructors 

need to be able to teach at that level” (Klein et al. 2014). 

CTE teachers reported receiving more hours of professional development, on 

average, than did academic teachers. 

In 2011–12, CTE teachers were more likely than academic teachers to report 17 hours or more of 

professional development (58 vs. 52 percent, respectively), although CTE teachers and academic 

teachers were equally likely to report more than 32 hours of professional development (28 percent of 

each group) (Exhibit 2.8). 

Exhibit 2.8. 

Percentage distribution of grade 9–12 public school teachers who participated in professional development, 

for occupational CTE teachers and academic teachers, 2011–12

28%

28%

24%

30%

27%

26%

21%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Academic teachers

Occupational CTE teachers

More than 32 hours 17 to 32 hours 9 to 16 hours Less than 9 hours

Exhibit reads: Twenty-eight percent of grade 9–12 public school occupational CTE teachers had more than 

32 hours of professional development in 2011–12; 30 percent had 17–32 hours; 26 percent had 9–16 hours; and 

16 percent had less than 9 hours.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher 

Questionnaire,” 2011–12. 
 CHAPTER 2

26 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

Postsecondary CTE Programs

At the postsecondary level, the term “CTE” refers to undergraduate instruction that is designed to 

prepare students to enter specific occupations or careers. Perkins postsecondary funds generally

support CTE education at the subbaccalaureate level, and most of the information in this report on 

postsecondary CTE participation and outcomes is focused on subbaccalaureate programs and 

students. However, the report also provides some information on participation and outcomes for 

bachelor’s degree programs in CTE fields. 

The NCES data used in this section to describe CTE postsecondary programs and participation are 

based on a taxonomy that classifies undergraduate majors and instruction as CTE for the following 

13 career/technical fields: agriculture and natural resources; business management; business support; 

communications and design; computer and information sciences; consumer services; education; 

engineering, architecture, and science technologies; health sciences; marketing; protective services; 

public, legal, and social services; and manufacturing, construction, repair, and transportation. 

Access to Postsecondary CTE

In 2011–12, some 5,767 postsecondary institutions — roughly 80 percent of all postsecondary 

institutions that are eligible to participate under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA)21 — offered a postsecondary certificate or associate’s degree in a CTE field

(Exhibit 2.9). 

Two-year institutions accounted for two-fifths of all institutions offering CTE 

subbaccalaureate credentials but over three-fourths of undergraduate students who 

were seeking such credentials. 

In 2011–12, 2-year postsecondary institutions accounted for 40 percent of all postsecondary 

institutions that offered CTE certificates or associate’s degrees and 77 percent of students who were 

seeking a subbaccalaureate credential in a CTE field. In contrast, 4-year institutions accounted for 

27 percent of CTE-offering institutions but a smaller percentage of students (13 percent). Lessthan-2-year institutions accounted for 34 percent of institutions awarding CTE credentials and 

10 percent of CTE students (Exhibit 2.9). 

21 Title IV institutions are postsecondary institutions eligible to participate in any of the Title IV federal student 

financial assistance programs, which include Pell Grants and direct student loans, among other types of assistance. 

However, not all Title IV institutions are eligible to receive subgrants under Perkins IV. To receive a subgrant under 

Perkins IV, a postsecondary institution must meet the definition of “institution of higher education” in section 101 of 

the HEA. 

 
CHAPTER 2 

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 27

Exhibit 2.9. 

Number and percentage of Title IV-eligible postsecondary institutions that offered CTE

certificates or associate’s degrees, and percentage distribution of students seeking a 

subbaccalaureate CTE credential, by type of institution, 2011–12

Type of institution

Total 

number of 

institutions 

Number of 

institutions 

offering a CTE 

subbaccalaureate 

credential

Percentage of 

institutions 

that offered 

CTE credentials 

Percentage 

distribution 

of CTEoffering 

institutions 

Percentage 

distribution of 

students seeking 

subbaccalaureate 

CTE credential

Total 7,234 5,767 80 100 100

4-year institutions 2,983 1,534 51 27 13

Public 683 342 50 6 5

Private not-for-profit 1,566 634 41 11 2

Private for-profit 734 558 76 10 6

2-year institutions 2,305 2,289 99 40 77

Public 1,072 1,064 99 19 65

Private not-for-profit 185 181 98 3 1

Private for-profit 1,048 1,044 100 18 11

Less-than-2-year institutions 1,946 1,944 100 34 10

Public 256 256 100 4 1

Private not-for-profit 79 79 100 1 #

Private for-profit 1,611 1,609 100 28 9

Exhibit reads: In 2011–12, of the 2,983 Title IV-eligible 4-year postsecondary institutions, 1,534 (51 percent) 

offered CTE certificates or associate’s degrees. Four-year institutions accounted for 27 percent of postsecondary 

institutions that offered CTE subbaccalaureate credentials and 13 percent of students seeking such a credential. 

# Estimate rounds to zero.

NOTES: Number of institutions offering a CTE credential is based on the number that reported awarding at least one certificate or associate’s 

degree in a CTE field in 2011–12. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. For the distribution of students seeking a CTE certificate and the 

distribution of students seeking a CTE associate’s degree, see Exhibit C.9 in Appendix C. For the distribution of credentials conferred in CTE 

fields, see Exhibit D.2 in Appendix D. 

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

2012 (data on number of institutions); 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12) (data on distribution of students). 
 CHAPTER 2

28 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

Postsecondary Student Participation

In 2011–12, more than 8 million students were seeking a subbaccalaureate

certificate or degree in a CTE field.

Overall, 22.3 million students were enrolled in undergraduate degree or certificate programs, 

including 11.6 million in subbaccalaureate programs and 10.7 million in bachelor’s degree programs. 

About 38 percent of all undergraduate students reported that they were seeking a certificate or 

associate’s degree in a field that is classified as CTE; an additional 31 percent were seeking a 

bachelor’s degree in a CTE field (Exhibit 2.10). Subbaccalaureate students seeking a credential in 

a CTE field accounted for 72 percent of all students in subbaccalaureate programs, including 

94 percent of those seeking a certificate and 68 percent of those seeking an associate’s degree. 

Among students seeking a bachelor’s degree, 64 percent were seeking a degree in a CTE field. 

Exhibit 2.10.

Number and percentage of undergraduate students who were seeking a certificate or degree

in CTE and non-CTE fields, by type of credential sought, 2011–12

Type of degree or certificate Number Percentage

Students enrolled in undergraduate degree or certificate programs 22,288,000 100

Students enrolled in subbaccalaureate programs 11,597,000 52

Seeking credential in CTE field 15,253,000 68

Subbaccalaureate CTE 8,403,000 38

Certificate 1,743,000 8

Associate’s degree 6,660,000 30

Bachelor’s degree in a CTE field 6,850,000 31

Seeking credential in non-CTE field 6,570,000 29

Certificate 82,000 #

Associate’s degree 2,884,000 13

Bachelor’s degree 3,605,000 16

Undecided 465,000 2

Certificate 27,000 #

Associate’s degree 201,000 1

Bachelor’s degree 236,000 1

Exhibit reads: In 2011–12, there were 22.3 million students enrolled in undergraduate degree or certificate 

programs, and 68 percent of these (15.3 million) were seeking a credential in a CTE field.

# Rounds to zero.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 

Institutional Characteristics (IC) Component, 2012; 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12).
CHAPTER 2 

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 29

Over half of all credential-seeking undergraduates in subbaccalaureate programs 

were in the fields of health sciences or business.

Health care fields accounted for 36 percent of the 8.4 million students seeking a subbaccalaureate 

credential in a CTE field in 2012, and business accounted for 17 percent of subbaccalaureate CTE 

students. Other CTE fields shown in Exhibit 2.11 each accounted for between 1 and 7 percent of the 

students. 

Exhibit 2.11. 

Number and percentage distribution of credential-seeking undergraduates in subbaccalaureate programs, 

by credential goal and career field of study, 2011–12

CTE occupational field

Number of 

subbaccalaureate 

students

Percent of all 

subbaccalaureate 

students

Percent 

seeking a 

certificate

Percent seeking 

an associate’s 

degree

Any CTE occupational area 8,403,000 100 21 79

Health sciences 3,032,000 36 26 74

Business 1,412,000 17 7 93

Manufacturing, construction, repair, 

and transportation 592,000 7 42 58

Personal and consumer services 576,000 7 64 36

Military technology and protective 

services

538,000 6 5 95

Computer and information sciences 533,000 6 10 90

Engineering, architecture, and science 

technologies 525,000 6 12 88

Education 470,000 6 10 90

Public, legal, and social services 381,000 5 9 91

Communications and design 252,000 3 7 93

Agriculture and natural resources 92,000 1 9 91

Exhibit reads: Of the 8.4 million undergraduates pursuing a subbaccalaureate credential in 2012, 3.0 million 

(36 percent) were studying health sciences fields; 21 percent of health sciences students were seeking a certificate, 

and 79 percent were seeking an associate’s degree.

NOTES: Business and marketing includes business management, business support, and marketing. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:12).

Across all CTE fields, 79 percent of subbaccalaureate undergraduates were seeking an associate’s 

degree, and 21 percent were seeking a certificate. In seven of the CTE fields, 90 percent or more of 

the students were pursuing an associate’s degree: military technology and protective services 

(95 percent); business (93 percent); communications and design (93 percent); public, legal, and social 

services (91 percent); agriculture and natural resources (91 percent); and education (90 percent). Two 

CTE fields had more than 40 percent of their students seeking a certificate: personal and consumer 

services (64 percent) and manufacturing, construction, repair, and transportation (42 percent). 
 CHAPTER 2

30 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

The number of students earning subbaccalaureate credentials in CTE fields rose 

71 percent from 2002 to 2012, compared with a 54 percent increase in all 

undergraduate awards. 

The rate of increase was similar for students who earned a certificate (70 percent) and those who 

earned a CTE-focused associate’s degree (73 percent). Certificates continued to comprise 62 percent 

of total CTE subbaccalaureate awards in 2012, the same percentage as in 2002. Overall, CTE 

subbaccalaureate awards rose from 38 percent of all undergraduate awards in 2002 to 42 percent in 

2012 (Exhibit 2.12). 

Exhibit 2.12. 

Change in number of subbaccalaureate CTE awards and other undergraduate awards, 2002 to 2012

Award 2002 2012 % Change

CTE subbaccalaureate awards 938,000 1,601,000 71%

Certificates 583,000 988,000 70%

CTE-focused associate’s degrees 355,000 613,000 73%

Other undergraduate awards 1,531,000 2,196,000 43%

Academic associate’s degrees 240,000 405,000 69%

Bachelor’s degrees 1,292,000 1,791,000 39%

All undergraduate awards 2,469,000 3,796,000 54%

CTE as a percentage of all undergraduate awards 38% 42% 11%

Certificates as a percentage of all CTE subbaccalaureate 

awards 62% 62% 0%

Exhibit reads: The number of postsecondary students who earned a CTE subbaccalaureate credential rose from 

938,000 in 2002 to 1,601,000 in 2012, a 71 percent increase.

NOTE: See Exhibit D.3 in Appendix D for additional years of data as well as unrounded estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

2002 and 2012.

Some fields showed growth in certificates and associate’s degrees in CTE fields 

(e.g., health sciences), while others showed declines (e.g., marketing).

Over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012, the change in the number of credentials awarded in 

CTE fields showed considerable variation across fields. For example, the number of 

subbaccalaureate CTE credentials awarded in the health sciences field more than doubled, from 

268,400 to 635,300 — a 137 percent increase. Similarly, the number of subbaccalaureate awards 

more than doubled in the fields of protective services (+114 percent) and education (+105 percent). 

In contrast, there was a decline in the number of credentials awarded in marketing (–44 percent), 

business support (–23 percent), and computer and information sciences (–21 percent) (Exhibit 2.13). 
CHAPTER 2 

CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION 31

Exhibit 2.13. 

Change in number of subbaccalaureate CTE certificates and associate’s degrees awarded, 

by career field of study, 2002 to 2012

CTE occupational field 2002 2012 Change % Change

Health sciences 268,400 635,300 366,900 137

Protective services 37,600 80,300 42,700 114

Education 14,100 28,900 14,800 105

Consumer services 108,100 190,600 82,600 76

Manufacturing, construction, repair, and transportation 113,500 196,600 83,000 73

Public, legal, and social services 18,500 31,400 12,900 70

Business management 102,200 149,100 46,900 46

Communications and design 32,000 36,300 4,300 13

Engineering, architecture, and science technologies 72,500 77,600 5,100 7

Agriculture and natural resources 12,900 12,800 –100 –1

Computer and information sciences 85,200 67,400 –17,800 –21

Business support 39,000 30,100 –8,900 –23

Marketing 19,000 10,600 –8,400 –44

Exhibit reads: The number of postsecondary students who earned a CTE subbaccalaureate credential in the health 

sciences field rose from 268,400 in 2002 to 635,300 in 2012, an increase of 366,900 or 137 percent. 

NOTE: See Exhibit D.4 in Appendix D for detail on certificates and associate’s degrees as well as unrounded estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

2002 and 2012. 

Characteristics of Postsecondary CTE Students 

Certificate seekers tended to be older than students seeking a bachelor’s degree and 

were more likely to be from a lower-income stratum.

In 2011–12, students over the age of 34 accounted for 25 percent of undergraduate students seeking a 

certificate, compared with 22 percent of those seeking an associate’s degree and 12 percent of those 

seeking an associate’s degree. Students from the lowest income quartile accounted for 32 percent of 

students seeking a certificate, compared with 28 percent of those seeking an associate’s degree and 

22 percent of those seeking an associate’s degree. Students whose parents had not completed high 

school accounted for higher percentage of students seeking a certificate than of those seeking a 

bachelor’s degree (10 vs. 5 percent), and a similar pattern was found for students whose parents’ 

highest educational attainment was a high school diploma (33 vs. 21 percent). 

Hispanic and black students represented a larger proportion of students seeking a certificate 

(20–22 percent) than they did of those pursuing a bachelor’s degree (13–14 percent). Similarly, 

students seeking a CTE-focused associate’s degree also included a relatively high proportion of 

Hispanic and black students (18–19 percent). Female students accounted for a majority of students 

for all three types of credentials: they comprised 65 percent of students enrolled in certificate 

programs, 58 percent of those in CTE-focused associate’s degree programs, and 55 percent of 

students in bachelor’s degree programs (Exhibit 2.14). 
 CHAPTER 2

32 CTE PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION

Exhibit 2.14. 

Percentage distribution of undergraduate students enrolled in selected types of 

degree and certificate programs, by demographic characteristics, 2011–12

Student characteristic

Any 

certificate

CTE-focused 

associate's degree

Any bachelor's 

degree

Age group, as of 2012

Under 25 45 49 71

25 to 34 30 29 17

Over 34 25 22 12

Income quartile, 2010

Lowest quartile 32 28 22

Second quartile 28 27 24

Third quartile 20 25 25

Highest quartile 20 21 29

Parent’s highest level of education

Less than high school 10 9 5

High school diploma or equivalent 33 30 21

Some college, no bachelor’s degree 25 30 25

Bachelor’s degree or higher 24 27 47

Unknown 7 5 2

Race/ethnicity

Asian 3 4 7

Black or African American 22 19 14

Hispanic or Latino 20 18 13

White 52 54 62

Other 4 5 4

Sex

Male 35 42 45

Female 65 58 55

Exhibit reads: Among undergraduates pursuing a certificate, 45 percent were under the age of 25, 

30 percent were between the ages 25 and 34, and 25 percent were over the age of 34.

NOTES: Other races include American Indians, Alaska Natives, those of two or more races, and those of unspecified races. For 

income quartiles, parents’ income was used if student is dependent; student’s own income (and spouse’s income, if applicable) 

is used if student is independent. Income rankings compare a student to other students with the same dependency status. Detail 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:12).
CHAPTER 3 

FINANCE SYSTEMS 33

0 

3

Finance Systems

Perkins IV continues most of the fiscal provisions 

contained in the Perkins III statute. Funds are 

allocated to states based on a statutory formula, 

and states generally must distribute at least 85 

percent of the funds to secondary and 

postsecondary subgrantees using formulas that 

target economically disadvantaged students. States 

may reserve a portion of the funds for state 

leadership and administrative activities. To be 

eligible for Perkins funds, subgrantees must qualify 

for a minimum grant amount ($15,000 for 

secondary subgrantees and $50,000 for 

postsecondary subgrantees). If these thresholds 

are not met, the applicant must form a consortium 

with one or more other subgrantees, unless it 

receives a waiver from the state.
 CHAPTER 3

34 FINANCE SYSTEMS

Key Findings

• Federal appropriations for Perkins IV have fallen since the 2006 reauthorization. Adjusting 

for inflation, total Perkins funding declined by 24 percent from FY 2007 to FY 2014. 

Declines in allocations for individual states ranged from 6 to 30 percent. 

o Over the longer term, from FY 1985 to FY 2014, the decline in Perkins funding 

amounted to a 32 percent reduction in purchasing power, while total discretionary 

funding for federal elementary-secondary programs and postsecondary programs 

more than doubled (with increases of 153 and 133 percent, respectively). 

• An increasing number of states are using the reserve option to provide additional funding to 

subgrantees in rural areas or those serving high numbers or percentages of CTE students, 

rising from 24 states in FY 2006 to 41 states in FY 2010. 

• In FY 2010, states allocated 64 percent of their Perkins Title I subgrant funds to secondary 

school programs and 36 percent to postsecondary programs, on average, about the same 

proportions as in FY 2001. However, states varied widely in the share of funds they allocated 

to secondary school programs, ranging from 38 percent in California to 88 percent in Ohio. 

o High-poverty school districts received larger allocations per secondary student in 

2009–10 than lower-poverty districts. However, they received smaller allocations per 

poor school-age child (ages 5–17) than lower-poverty school districts. 

o School districts located in cities received larger allocations per secondary student 

than those located in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. However, school districts in 

towns and rural areas received larger allocations per poor school-age child than urban 

and suburban districts. 

o Over three-fourths (77 percent) of Perkins postsecondary funds were allocated to 

public 2-year institutions. 

• Almost two-thirds of all states reported funding consortia at the secondary level; states less 

frequently reported providing waivers of the minimum allocation rule. Both consortia and 

waivers were less common at the postsecondary level than at the secondary level.

o The number of subgrantees participating in consortia varied widely across states, 

ranging from two to 554 at the secondary level and from two to 50 at the 

postsecondary level.

o States were most likely to waive the minimum allocation rule for LEAs serving 

sparsely populated areas.

• In 2008–09, subgrantees most frequently reported using Perkins funds for equipment and to 

provide career guidance and academic counseling to students. 
CHAPTER 3 

FINANCE SYSTEMS 35

Statutory Provisions for Allocating Funds Under Perkins IV

Most Perkins funds are allocated through Title I basic grants, which states primarily use to make 

subgrants to school districts, postsecondary institutions, and other eligible subgrantees, after 

reserving some of the funds to support state-level activities.

22 Perkins IV also authorized Title II 

grants to support Tech Prep Education that integrates academic and career and technical education 

instruction; however, Congress discontinued funding for Tech Prep beginning in FY 2011, and the 

Perkins IV authorization for Tech Prep has since expired. 

Perkins IV employs essentially the same resource distribution provisions as in the preceding law. The 

statutory reservation for outlying areas was reduced slightly, from 0.2 to 0.13 percent of Title I funds 

(because two outlying areas, Marshall Islands and Micronesia, were no longer eligible to participate, 

under the terms of their renewed compacts). A change in the state minimum allocation provision 

would direct additional funds to small states, but the provision is applicable only in years in which 

Title I appropriations exceed the FY 2006 funding level, which has not occurred as of FY 2014; as a 

result, this formula change has not taken effect. 

Each state must designate a state agency as its “eligible agency” to be responsible for the 

administration of career and technical education. The eligible agency determines how Perkins funds 

are allocated to subgrantees as well as how funds are used for state-level activities.

Allocations to States

The U.S. Department of Education allocates Title I funds to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands using a statutory formula that is based on states’ share of the 

national population within each of three age groups (15–19, 20–24, and 25–65) and also incorporates 

an “allotment ratio” based on average per capita income relative to other states. This formula is 

designed to favor states with larger populations in the 15–19 age group as well as states with lower 

per capita income levels. The formula includes a hold harmless provision that limits the amount of 

funds that a state can lose due to relative changes in population, per capita income, or other factors, 

and also includes a state minimum provision that increases the size of allocations for small states. 

Within-State Allocations

States generally must distribute at least 85 percent of their Title I allocations to local recipients for 

secondary and postsecondary programs and are permitted to expend up to 15 percent of their 

allocations for state-level activities and administration. States have the flexibility to determine how 

much of the funds they allocate to secondary education and how much they allocate to postsecondary 

education. 

State reservations for state-level activities

First, states may reserve up to 10 percent of their Title I grant for state leadership activities. States 

must earmark a portion of their leadership funds to serve individuals in state institutions, which 

22 Title I funds are allocated to states after certain funds are set aside for grants to certain outlying areas (U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Freely Associated 

States), as well as for Native American programs, Native Hawaiian programs, tribally controlled postsecondary and 

career and technical institutions, and national activities. Title I also includes an authorization for an occupational and 

employment information system, but funds have not been appropriated for this purpose.

 
 CHAPTER 3

36 FINANCE SYSTEMS

include correctional facilities and facilities serving individuals with disabilities (no more than 

1 percent of a state’s Title I grant). States must also reserve between $60,000 and $150,000 of their 

leadership funds for services that prepare individuals for nontraditional fields (those in which 

individuals from one gender comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in the 

occupation or field of work). In addition to these two specific uses, the statute also identifies nine 

required uses and 17 permissible uses of state leadership funds. 

Second, states may use up to 5 percent or $250,000 of their Title I funds (whichever is greater) for 

administration of the state plan. These funds may be used for developing the state plan; reviewing 

local plans; monitoring and evaluating program effectiveness; ensuring compliance with federal law; 

providing technical assistance; and supporting and developing state data systems relevant to the 

statute. 

State reserve option for funding certain high-need subgrantees

Of the funds that states allocate to local subgrantees (generally at least 85 percent of their total 

allocation), states may reserve up to 10 percent of their allocation to provide funding for subgrantees 

in rural areas or in areas with high numbers or percentages of CTE students. The statute does not 

specify how states are to allocate these reserve funds to eligible recipients.

State suballocations to secondary education providers

In suballocating funds to secondary education providers, states must follow a statutory formula that 

targets a greater share of the funds to school districts with higher poverty level. Specifically, the 

formula allocates 70 percent of the funds based on the proportion of the state’s total number of poor 

children ages 5–17 who reside in each school district and 30 percent based on total population ages 

5–17. 

State suballocations to postsecondary education providers

States allocate funds to eligible postsecondary institutions23 based on the number of recipients of Pell 

Grants and Bureau of Indian Affairs assistance they enroll in CTE programs, relative to the statewide 

total. Because funding is based on the number of students enrolled in CTE who are economically 

disadvantaged, the distribution of postsecondary allocations is directly associated with the level of 

student participation in CTE, unlike the secondary allocations.

Alternative distribution methods

Perkins IV offers states two options for distributing Title I funds to local subgrantees through means 

other than the statutory formulas: the waiver for more equitable distribution and the special rule for 

minimal allocation. The waiver for more equitable distribution allows states to request a waiver to 

use an alternative formula that will more effectively target resources on the basis of poverty (at the 

secondary level) or to postsecondary institutions or consortia with the highest numbers of 

economically disadvantaged students. The special rule for minimal allocation permits states 

allocating 15 percent or less to either the secondary or postsecondary level to distribute funds for that 

level either on a competitive basis or by an alternative method determined by the eligible agency. 

23 Eligible postsecondary institutions include: (A) a public or nonprofit private institution of higher education that 

offers CTE courses that lead to technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a 

degree; (B) a local educational agency providing education at the postsecondary level; (C) an area CTE school 

providing education at the postsecondary level; (D) a postsecondary educational institution controlled by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs or operated by or on behalf of any Indian tribe that is eligible to contract with the Secretary of the 

Interior for the administration of programs under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act; 

(E) an educational service agency; or (F) a consortium of two or more of the above entities.

 
CHAPTER 3 

FINANCE SYSTEMS 37

Secondary and postsecondary consortia

To be eligible for Perkins funds, secondary subgrantees must qualify for a minimum grant of 

$15,000, and postsecondary subgrantees must qualify for a $50,000 grant. If these thresholds are not 

met, the applicant must form a consortium with one or more other subgrantees, unless it receives a 

waiver from the state. States may grant consortia waivers to LEAs or postsecondary institutions that 

are located in rural, sparsely populated areas and to LEAs that are public charter schools or that 

demonstrate that they are unable to enter into a consortium to provide CTE. 

Federal Funding Over Time

Federal appropriations for Perkins IV have fallen since the 2006 reauthorization.

For the first 20 years of the Perkins Act, from FY 1985 through FY 2004, funding remained 

relatively stable in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. Total Perkins funding in FY 2004 

($1.65 billion in constant 2014 dollars) was about the same as in FY 1985 ($1.64 billion). However, 

by FY 2007, funding had declined to $1.47 billion (in 2014 dollars), and appropriations continued 

declining steadily to the current level of $1.12 billion in FY 2014 (Exhibit 3.1).

Exhibit 3.1.

Federal appropriations for CTE from FY 1985 through FY 2014, 

in constant 2014 dollars

$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014

$ in Billions

Exhibit reads: In constant 2014 dollars, federal funding for CTE programs was lower in FY 2014 than in FY 1985. 

NOTE: See Exhibit D.5 in Appendix D for annual appropriations figures in nominal and constant dollars.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, Budget History Table, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf, and 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (accessed June 19, 2014).
CHAPTER 3

38 FINANCE SYSTEMS

From FY 1985 to FY 2014, the decline in Perkins funding amounted to a 32 percent 

reduction in purchasing power, while total discretionary funding for federal 

elementary and secondary education programs and postsecondary education 

programs more than doubled.

Measured in constant FY 2014 dollars, total Perkins funding declined from $1.6 billion in FY 1985 

to $1.1 billion in FY 2014 — a 32 percent reduction in purchasing power. In contrast, total 

appropriations for federal elementary and secondary education programs administered by the 

U.S. Department of Education (which include Perkins) increased from $14.7 billion in FY 1985 to 

$37.2 billion in FY 2014. Similarly, discretionary funding for postsecondary education programs 

increased from $11.5 billion in FY 1985 to $26.8 billion in FY 2014 (Exhibit 3.2). The increases in 

total discretionary funding for elementary-secondary programs and postsecondary programs 

corresponded to increases in purchasing power of 153 percent and 133 percent, respectively. 

Exhibit 3.2.

Federal appropriations for CTE compared with total discretionary funding

for elementary-secondary and postsecondary education programs, 

for selected fiscal years from FY 1985 through FY 2014, in constant 2014 dollars

$1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.5 $1.1

$14.7 

$19.9 

$30.6 

$41.7 

$37.2 

$11.5 $12.6 

$15.3 

$19.3 

$26.8 

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

FY 1985 FY 1991 FY 2000 FY 2007 FY 2014

$ in Billions

Career and Technical Education Elementary and Secondary Programs Postsecondary Programs

Exhibit reads: In constant 2014 dollars, federal appropriations for Perkins CTE grants in FY 1985 were $1.6 billion, 

compared with $14.7 billion in total discretionary funding for all federal elementary and secondary education 

programs and $11.5 billion for postsecondary education programs.

NOTES: The first four years presented in this exhibit represent the first appropriations year after the passage of Perkins I through Perkins IV. 

Specific programs that received federal appropriations varied by year. See Exhibit D.6 in Appendix D for unrounded appropriations figures in 

both nominal and constant dollars.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, Budget History Table, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html, and Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (accessed June 19, 2014).
CHAPTER 3

FINANCE SYSTEMS 39

In 2004, the National Assessment of Vocational Education reported that despite declines in the 

Perkins share of total federal education funding, Perkins was still the largest single source of federal 

education funds used to support high schools (Silverberg et al. 2004). However, by FY 2014, with 

continued growth in ESEA Title I funding and declining funding for Perkins (in constant 2014 

dollars), the estimated amount that Perkins provides to high schools is now less than that provided 

through ESEA Title I (Exhibit 3.3). 

Exhibit 3.3.

Estimated spending on high schools from Perkins funds and from ESEA Title I funds, 

FY 2001 and FY 2014, in constant 2014 dollars 

$1,023

$616

$715

$1,040

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Perkins ESEA Title I Part A Perkins ESEA Title I Part A

FY 2001 FY 2014

$ in Millions

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, Perkins grants provided an estimated $1.023 billion (in constant 2014 dollars) to support 

high school education, while ESEA Title I Part A provided an estimated $616 million. 

SOURCES: FY 2001 data are from Silverberg et al. 2004, adjusted to 2014 dollars. FY 2014 data are from an internal NACTE analysis conducted 

by the Policy and Program Studies Service based on the assumptions that all Perkins funds allocated to the secondary level (64 percent) are for 

the benefit of high school students and that 7.2 percent of ESEA Title I Part A funds are allocated to high schools.

Declines in Perkins allocations for individual states from FY 2007 to FY 2014, in 

constant dollars, ranged from 6 to 30 percent. 

Since the 2006 reauthorization, total Perkins grants to states have declined, both in nominal dollars 

and constant dollars, from FY 2007 through FY 2014 (a 13 percent decline in nominal dollars and a 

23 percent decline in constant dollars). The reductions in funding for individual states, in terms of 

constant dollars, ranged from a low of 6 percent in Nevada to a high of 30 percent in New Mexico 

and New York. Ten states experienced reductions of less than 20 percent, 27 states had reductions of 

20–25 percent, and 13 states had reductions of more than 25 percent (Exhibit 3.4). 

Over a longer timeframe from FY 2000 to FY 2014, the reduction in total Perkins grants to states 

was smaller in nominal dollars (4 percent) but larger in constant dollars (29 percent). One state saw 

a constant-dollar funding increase over this period (14 percent in Nevada), four states saw funding 
 CHAPTER 3

40 FINANCE SYSTEMS

reductions between 14 and 18 percent, and 46 states saw funding reductions between 23 and 

37 percent. 

Exhibit 3.4. 

Total Perkins state grants (Title I and Title II) in FY 2000, FY 2007, and FY 2014, and percentage change

from FY 2000 to FY 2014 and from FY 2007 to FY 2014, in constant 2014 dollars, by state

State/jurisdiction 

Perkins III

FY 2000

Perkins IV

FY 2007

Perkins IV

FY 2014 

% Change

FY 2000– 

FY 2014 

% Change

FY 2007– 

FY 2014 

Total $1,573,848,387 $1,456,428,003 $1,117,598,000 –29 –23 

Alabama 29,052,294 24,649,209 19,175,065 –34 –22

Alaska 6,216,446 5,180,954 4,214,921 –32 –19

Arizona 28,896,929 30,601,637 24,934,607 –14 –19

Arkansas 17,408,270 15,560,721 11,403,795 –34 –27

California 169,217,886 159,393,453 122,943,598 –27 –23

Colorado 20,574,154 19,542,527 15,944,320 –23 –18

Connecticut 12,762,238 12,617,536 9,466,507 –26 –25

Delaware 6,394,511 6,065,416 4,720,975 –26 –22

District of Columbia 6,121,393 5,122,588 4,214,921 –31 –18

Florida 74,754,655 78,621,912 61,726,876 –17 –21

Georgia 44,930,163 46,478,617 38,240,445 –15 –18

Hawaii 7,747,672 7,173,107 5,496,906 –29 –23

Idaho 9,454,606 8,468,388 6,376,981 –33 –25

Illinois 59,278,368 55,668,240 40,519,069 –32 –27

Indiana 35,893,085 32,082,774 24,843,250 –31 –23

Iowa 18,010,410 15,166,467 11,963,946 –34 –21

Kansas 16,183,471 14,042,149 10,245,408 –37 –27

Kentucky 26,849,738 22,559,736 17,905,647 –33 –21

Louisiana 31,989,238 26,987,625 21,041,943 –34 –22

Maine 7,747,672 7,175,531 5,496,906 –29 –23

Maryland 22,684,470 20,900,169 15,289,772 –33 –27

Massachusetts 25,724,804 22,692,888 17,766,415 –31 –22

Michigan 55,158,703 49,185,353 37,280,167 –32 –24

Minnesota 25,657,896 22,544,651 16,684,637 –35 –26

Mississippi 20,255,022 17,203,008 13,363,550 –34 –22

Missouri 32,483,908 29,530,273 21,433,742 –34 –27

Montana 7,547,869 6,849,515 5,179,103 –31 –24

Nebraska 10,421,181 8,821,357 6,816,893 –35 –23

Nevada 8,456,199 10,293,941 9,650,599 14 –6

New Hampshire 7,747,672 7,173,107 5,496,906 –29 –23

New Jersey 32,304,900 30,823,993 22,370,715 –31 –27

New Mexico 12,370,424 11,475,082 8,028,679 –35 –30

New York 76,695,124 73,423,875 51,368,505 –33 –30

North Carolina 43,542,627 43,266,515 35,695,795 –18 –17

North Dakota 6,212,834 5,155,673 4,214,921 –32 –18

Ohio 64,925,998 56,790,964 42,750,001 –34 –25

Oklahoma 23,537,551 19,566,303 15,094,180 –36 –23

Oregon 19,119,491 17,752,919 13,448,245 –30 –24

Pennsylvania 61,516,294 56,315,986 40,722,778 –34 –28

Rhode Island 7,747,672 7,173,107 5,496,906 –29 –23

South Carolina 25,658,528 23,416,514 18,310,739 –29 –22

South Dakota 6,283,574 5,467,843 4,214,921 –33 –23

Tennessee 32,605,585 29,739,734 23,042,024 –29 –23

Texas 122,933,052 117,558,513 92,014,058 –25 –22

Utah 18,160,917 15,684,958 12,274,340 –32 –22
CHAPTER 3

FINANCE SYSTEMS 41

Exhibit 3.4 (continued). 

Total Perkins state grants (Title I and Title II) in FY 2000, FY 2007, and FY 2014, and percentage change 

from FY 2000 to FY 2014 and from FY 2007 to FY 2014, in constant 2014 dollars, by state

State/jurisdiction

Perkins III

FY 2000

Perkins IV

FY 2007

Perkins IV

FY 2014

% Change

FY 2000– 

FY 2014

% Change

FY 2007– 

FY 2014

Vermont 6,191,633 5,159,437 4,214,921 –32 –18

Virginia 35,405,560 32,102,121 23,634,248 –33 –26

Washington 30,196,216 28,438,803 20,736,066 –31 –27

West Virginia 12,607,976 10,536,649 8,428,617 –33 –20

Wisconsin 31,337,062 27,412,331 20,241,685 –35 –26

Wyoming 6,097,865 5,085,934 4,214,921 –31 –17

American Samoa 257,419 396,290 334,544 30 –16

Guam 677,419 747,289 630,855 –7 –16

Northern Mariana Islands 257,419 396,290 334,544 30 –16

Puerto Rico 27,611,187 23,152,373 18,458,484 –33 –20

Virgin Islands 851,393 769,045 567,534 –33 –26

Freely Associated States 0 181,161 152,934 NA –16

Native American programs 17,877,944 16,722,761 13,969,975 –22 –16

Other allocations 5,243,802 3,362,690 2,793,995 –47 –17

NOTE: See Exhibit D.7 in Appendix D for allocations figures in both nominal and constant dollars.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, State Funding History Tables, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html, and 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (accessed June 19, 2014).

State Eligible Agencies

A majority of grantees — 40 of the 55 states and jurisdictions for which information was available — 

assigned Perkins IV oversight to their K–12 education agencies. Nine states chose a postsecondary 

system office or institution to serve in this role, and six states chose a separate state department of 

CTE or workforce development agency.24

State Set-Asides

State Administration

About half of the states make full use of the state administration provision to offset the staffing and 

other costs associated with grant administration. In FY 2010, 24 states reserved the maximum 

amount available for state administrative activities, and most of the remaining states reserved 

between 4.5 and 4.9 percent (22 states). Five states reserved smaller amounts, ranging from 

1.8 percent in Indiana to 3.3 percent in Texas (see Exhibit D.8 in Appendix D). 

In FY 2010, 19 states reported providing state matching funds for state administration that were 

greater than the amount they reserved from their Perkins allocation. Thirty states reported 

contributing state funds equal to the matching requirement, and one state (New Hampshire) reported 

providing state funds that were less than the amount it reported reserving from its Perkins allocation

(see Exhibit D.8). 

24 http://www.careertech.org/cte-your-state (accessed August 27, 2014). 
 CHAPTER 3

42 FINANCE SYSTEMS

State Leadership

Most states reported reserving the maximum amount permitted for state leadership activities. In 

FY 2010, 42 states reported reserving 10 percent of their allocation for this purpose, with the 

remainder allocating between 5 and 9 percent (Klein et al. 2014). 

Nontraditional employment

In FY 2010, states spent an average of $80,983 on services to prepare individuals for nontraditional 

fields (those in which individuals from one gender comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals 

employed in the occupation or field of work), down from an average of $91,500 in FY 2006, a 

decline of roughly 11 percent in nominal dollars. Although Perkins III discontinued a previous 

requirement for states to have a gender equity coordinator, many states continue to have staff 

designated to coordinate such activities (29 states at secondary level and 19 states at the 

postsecondary level) (Klein et al. 2014). 

Individuals in state institutions

In both FY 2006 and FY 2010, states reserved 0.8 percent of their Title I funds, on average, for 

services to individuals in state institutions, which include correctional facilities and facilities serving 

individuals with disabilities (Klein et al. 2014). 

Reserve Option for Funding Certain High-Need Subgrantees

An increasing number of states are using the reserve option to provide additional 

funding to subgrantees in rural areas or those serving high numbers or percentages 

of CTE students, rising from 24 states in FY 2006 to 41 states in FY 2010.

States may reserve up to 10 percent of their allocation to provide additional funding to subgrantees in 

rural areas or those serving high numbers or percentages of CTE students. Among the 41 states using 

this option in FY 2010, 21 reported reserving the maximum amount and 20 reported reserving less 

than 10 percent. In FY 2010, 14 states allocated all of these reserve funds to the secondary level, five 

states allocated all of these funds to the postsecondary level, and 22 states allocated these funds to 

both levels; on average, states allocated 63 percent of these reserve funds to the secondary level. 

Exhibit 3.5. 

Number of states using reserve option to fund certain high-need subgrantees, FY 2006 and FY 2010

Number of states FY 2006* FY 2010

States using the reserve option 24 41

States reserving the maximum amount (10 percent) 10 21

States reserving less than the maximum allowed 14 20

States allocating all reserve funds to secondary level 13 14

States allocating all reserve funds to postsecondary level 2 5

States allocating reserve funds to both secondary and postsecondary levels 6 22

Exhibit reads: In FY 2006, 24 states used the reserve option to provide additional funding for certain high-need 

subgrantees, including 10 states that reserved the maximum amount and 14 states that reserved less than the 

maximum allowed.

*In FY 2006, three states using the reserve option did not report on the amount suballocated to each level. 

SOURCE: Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports for FY 2006 and FY 2010 (n = 51). 
CHAPTER 3 

FINANCE SYSTEMS 43

In states using this option, the average amount reserved in both FY 2001 and FY 2010 was 8 percent, 

but the total amount of reserve funds reported by states grew from $34 million in FY 2006 to $52 

million in FY 2010 (Exhibit 3.5), due to the larger number of states using this option. States most 

often reported using the reserve fund to encourage innovation or allocate additional funds to local 

subgrantees based on their need relative to others in the state (Klein et al. 2014). 

Secondary and Postsecondary Distributions

On average, states allocated nearly two-thirds of their Perkins subgrant funds to 

secondary school programs and one-third to postsecondary programs. However, 

states varied widely in the share of funds they allocated to secondary school 

programs, ranging from 38 percent in California to 88 percent in Ohio.

In FY 2010, states allocated an average of 64 percent of their Title I local subgrant funds to the 

secondary level; 11 states allocated 80 percent or more of the funds to secondary subgrantees, while 

five states allocated less than half of the funds to the secondary level (Exhibit 3.6). 

Exhibit 3.6. 

Percentage of Perkins Title I local funds that states allocated to the secondary level in FY 2010, by state

80–88% 70–79% 60–69% 50–59% 38–49%

11 states 7 states 13 states 15 states 5 states

Alaska

Arizona

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

New Hampshire

Ohio (+)

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Virginia

Arkansas

Massachusetts

Missouri 

Pennsylvania

Texas (+)

Vermont

West Virginia (–) 

Alabama

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Maryland

Michigan

Montana

Nevada 

North Carolina

North Dakota

South Carolina (–) 

Utah

Wyoming

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Iowa (–) 

Kansas (–) 

Kentucky (+)

Louisiana

Maine 

Mississippi

Nebraska

New Jersey (–) 

New Mexico (+)

New York

Oregon

South Dakota (+)

California

Colorado

Minnesota (+)

Washington

Wisconsin

Exhibit reads: In FY 2010, 11 states allocated between 80–88 percent of Perkins Title I subgrant funds to the 

secondary level. 

NOTE: “(+)” indicates that secondary share increased by more than 5 percentage points from FY 2001 to FY 2010, and “(–)”indicates that 

secondary share decreased by more than 5 percentage points.

SOURCE: Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports for FY 2010 (n = 51). 

Overall, the share of funds that states allocated to the secondary level in FY 2010 (64 percent) was 

about the same as in FY 2001 (63 percent). Of the 44 states for which data for both years were 

available, the secondary share changed by no more than 5 percentage points in 33 states, with 

13 states showing changes of 1 percent or less. Six states increased the proportion of funds flowing to 

the secondary level by 6–14 percentage points, while five states reduced the secondary share by 

6–15 percentage points (see Exhibit D.9 in Appendix D). 
 CHAPTER 3

44 FINANCE SYSTEMS

Allocation of Funds at the Secondary Level

With few exceptions, states approved nearly all applications for secondary subgrants submitted for 

the 2008–09 program year; the 45 states that provided these data reported approving all but 26 of the 

4,060 applications they received for an approval rate of 99 percent. State secondary CTE directors 

reported working closely with subgrant applicants to improve applications that did not initially meet 

Perkins requirements. Three of the 45 responding state directors reported that they disapproved one 

or more funding applications, with one state accounting for 23 of the 26 disapproved applications. 

The reasons cited for disapproval included failure to provide an adequate plan for allocating funds 

and collecting accountability data, failure to provide past accountability data, poor past performance, 

insufficient program quality, and inability or unwillingness to join a consortium (Klein et al. 2014). 

High-poverty school districts received larger allocations per secondary student than 

did lower-poverty districts.

In 2009–10, school districts in the highest poverty quartile received an average Perkins Title I 

allocation of $48 per secondary student compared with $16 per secondary student in the lowestpoverty quartile of districts (Exhibit 3.7). However, the highest-poverty districts received smaller 

allocations per poor school-age child (ages 5–17) than did lower-poverty school districts. 

Exhibit 3.7. 

Average Perkins Title I secondary allocation per student and per poor school-age child 

received by school districts, overall and by district poverty quartile and by urbanicity, 2009–10

Curricular area

Average allocation

per secondary student

Average allocation

per poor child aged 5–17

All districts $29 $50

Highest poverty quartile 48 42

Second highest poverty quartile 31 52

Second lowest poverty quartile 23 57

Lowest poverty quartile 16 70

City 37 51

Suburban 22 46

Town 32 55

Rural 29 54

Exhibit reads: In 2009–10, school districts that received Perkins Title I secondary subgrants received, on average, 

$29 per secondary student and $50 per poor school-age child.

NOTES: The first column displays funding per secondary student (grades 7–12) because most take at least one vocational education course; this 

can be viewed as funding per potential participant in secondary vocational education. The second column displays funding per poor school-age 

child (ages 5–17) because Perkins funds are allocated in part based on census poverty data. Analysis is based on Perkins suballocation data 

reported by secondary state directors in 49 states and the District of Columbia (Delaware did not report these data). The analysis excludes local 

secondary subgrantees for which Census population and poverty data were not available. Poverty quartiles were determined based on Census 

Bureau data on the percentage of school-age students residing within a district who were living in poverty in 2010. Highest poverty quartile = 

26.627 to 100 percent poverty; second highest poverty quartile = 18.9847 to 26.626 percent; second lowest poverty quartile = 11.542 to 

18.9846 percent; lowest poverty quartile = 0 to 11.541 percent. Urbanicity classifications are from the NCES Common Core of Data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 2014. 

Analysis of Perkins Title I allocations to school districts based on data from NACTE Secondary State Director Survey Fiscal Data, 2009; National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year 2009–10; NCES CCD 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2009–10 and Census Bureau, Small Area Poverty Estimates, 2010 (n = 9,423). 
CHAPTER 3

FINANCE SYSTEMS 45 

The share of funds allocated to school districts in the highest poverty quartile (36 percent) was 

greater than their share of all school-age children (25 percent) though less than their share of poor 

children (43 percent). School districts in the highest poverty quartile accounted for 22 percent of all 

school district subgrantees, slightly larger than their proportion of all school districts with secondary 

grades (20 percent) (Exhibit 3.8). 

Exhibit 3.8. 

Percentage distribution of Perkins Title I secondary funds allocated to school districts, 

and distribution of school district subgrantees, by district poverty quartile, 2009–10

20%

22%

25%

43%

36%

23%

25%

25%

28%

29%

30%

31%

25%

19%

21%

26%

23%

25%

10%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All school districts with secondary grades

School district subgrantees

Share of all children

Share of poor children

Share of funds allocated to school districts

Highest-Poverty Quartile Second-Highest-Poverty Quartile Second-Lowest-Poverty Quartile Lowest-Poverty Quartile

Exhibit reads: In 2009–10, the highest poverty quartile of school districts received 36 percent of all Perkins Title I 

funds that were allocated to school districts, which was less than their share of poor school-age children 

(43 percent) but greater than their share of all school-age children (25 percent). The highest poverty quartile 

accounted for 22 percent of all school districts that received Perkins Title I funds, which is slightly higher than their 

proportion of all school districts with secondary grades (20 percent). 

NOTES: Analysis of Perkins Title I allocations to school districts is based on data reported by secondary state directors in 49 states and the 

District of Columbia (Delaware did not report allocation data). The analysis excludes local secondary subgrantees for which Census population 

and poverty data were not available. Poverty quartiles were determined based on Census Bureau data on the percentage of school-age 

students residing within a school district who were living in poverty in 2010. Highest poverty quartile = 26.627 to 100 percent poverty; second

highest poverty quartile = 18.9847 to 26.626 percent; second lowest poverty quartile = 11.542 to 18.9846 percent; lowest poverty quartile = 0 

to 11.541 percent. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: NACTE Secondary State Director Survey Fiscal Data, 2009; National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2007–08; and Census Bureau, Small Area Poverty Estimates, 2010 (n = 13,328). 

School districts located in cities received larger allocations per secondary student 

than did those located in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. However, school districts 

in towns and rural areas received larger allocations per po`or school-age child than 

did urban and suburban districts.

In 2009–10, school districts located in cities received an average Perkins Title I allocation of $37 per 

secondary student compared with $32 per secondary student in school districts located in towns, $29 

in rural districts, and $22 in suburban districts. However, when examined in terms of funding per 

poor school-age child, the largest average allocations were received by town and rural school districts 

($55 and $54 per poor child, respectively), followed by urban districts ($51 per poor child). Suburban 

districts received the smallest average allocation per poor child ($46) (see Exhibit 3.7). 
CHAPTER 3

46 FINANCE SYSTEMS

Rural districts received a share of total school district allocations (19 percent) that was greater than 

their share of school-age children (7 percent) and poor children (18 percent). Urban districts received 

funding that was equivalent to their share of poor children (39 percent) and greater than their share of 

all school-age children (31 percent). Town districts received a share of funding (13 percent) that was 

similar to their share of school-age children and poor children (12 percent). Suburban districts 

received a share of funding (28 percent) that was less than their share of school-age children 

(38 percent) and poor children (31 percent) (Exhibit 3.9). 

Exhibit 3.9. 

Percentage distribution of Perkins Title I secondary funds allocated to school districts, 

and distribution of school district subgrantees, by district urbanicity, 2009–10

5%

6%

31%

39%

39%

20%

18%

38%

31%

28%

18%

20%

12%

12%

13%

57%

55%

7%

18%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All school districts with secondary grades

School district subgrantees

Share of all children

Share of poor children

Share of funds allocated to school districts

City Suburb Town Rural

Exhibit reads: In 2009–10, urban school districts received 39 percent of all Perkins Title I funds that were allocated 

to school districts, which was about the same as their share of poor school-age children (39 percent) but greater

than their share of all school-age children (31 percent). Urban districts accounted for 6 percent of all school 

districts that received Perkins Title I funds, which was slightly larger than their proportion of all school districts with 

secondary grades (5 percent).

NOTES: Analysis of Perkins Title I allocations to school districts is based on data reported by secondary state directors in 49 states and the 

District of Columbia (Delaware did not report allocation data). The analysis excludes local secondary subgrantees for which Census population 

and poverty data were not available. Urbanicity classifications are from the NCES Common Core of Data. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due 

to rounding.

SOURCE: NACTE Secondary State Director Survey Fiscal Data, 2009; National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) 

Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year 2005–06; NCES CCD Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2007–08

and Census Bureau, Small Area Poverty Estimates, 2010 (n = 13,328). 
CHAPTER 3 

FINANCE SYSTEMS 47

Allocation of Funds at the Postsecondary Level

As at the secondary level, states approved nearly all applications submitted for postsecondary 

subgrants. According to state postsecondary CTE directors, all but two of the 1,179 applications 

submitted were approved in the 2008–09 program year, either as originally submitted or after 

revision and resubmission (Klein et al. 2014). The very small number of rejected applications in 

2008–09 is similar to that reported in the 2000–01 program year, when only three states rejected one 

or more postsecondary subgrant applications (Silverberg et al. 2004). 

In both Perkins III and Perkins IV, the special rule for minimal allocation permits states allocating 

15 percent or less to either the secondary or postsecondary level to distribute these funds on a 

competitive basis or by an alternative method determined by the eligible agency. Seven states used 

this alternative distribution strategy at the postsecondary level in FY 2010 (Alaska, Arizona, 

Delaware, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Tennessee) (Klein et al. 2014). 

Over three-fourths (77 percent) of Perkins postsecondary funds were allocated to 

public 2-year institutions. 

In 2009–10, 86 percent of postsecondary subgrantees were public or nonprofit IHEs, and these 

institutions accounted for 96 percent of Title I funds distributed at the postsecondary level. 

Postsecondary programs offered to adults in non-IHE settings, such as in secondary schools in LEAs, 

accounted for the remaining funds. While a range of postsecondary institution types received Perkins

funds, the majority of these funds were allocated to public 2-year institutions (community colleges), 

which received 77 percent of Perkins postsecondary subgrant funds. Most of the remaining funds 

went to public 4-year institutions (9 percent) and administrative units that serve multi-campus college 

systems (also 9 percent). Private nonprofit institutions received less than 2 percent of the funds 

(Exhibit 3.10). 

Exhibit 3.10. 

Percentage of Perkins Title I postsecondary subgrantees and local funds, 

by institution type, 2009–10

Institution type

Percentage of Perkins Title I 

postsecondary subgrantees

Percentage of Perkins Title I 

postsecondary local funds

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) 86 96

Public 2-year 71 77

Public 4-year 9 9

Public less-than-2-year 3 1

Administrative unitsb 2 9

Private nonprofit 2-year 1 1

Private nonprofit 4-year 1 <1

Programs for adults in non-IHE settingsa 14 4 

Exhibit reads: Institutions of higher education accounted for 86 percent of Title I local postsecondary subgrantees 

in 2009–10 and received 96 percent of Title I postsecondary local funds.

a The majority of non-IHE postsecondary subgrantees were area CTE centers that also served secondary students, such as Boards of Cooperative 

Educational Services (BOCES) in New York. b Administrative units are offices for multi-campus college systems.

SOURCE: NACTE Postsecondary State Director Survey Fiscal Data, 2009 (n = 50). 
 CHAPTER 3

48 FINANCE SYSTEMS

Minimum Allocation Rule and Consortia Provision 

Eligible local entities that do not meet the minimum grant requirement ($15,000 for secondary 

subgrants and $50,000 for postsecondary subgrants) may enter into a consortium with one or more 

other subgrantees or apply for a waiver from the state agency.

Almost two-thirds of all states reported funding Perkins consortia at the secondary

level; states less frequently reported providing waivers of the minimum allocation 

rule. Both consortia and waivers were less common at the postsecondary level than 

at the secondary level. 

In 2009–10, 32 of the 50 states that submitted secondary fiscal data reported funding at least one 

secondary consortium, and 22 states funded 10 or more secondary consortia; 10 states funded

consortia at the postsecondary level. A total of 5,570 LEAs participated in 706 consortia 

(Exhibit 3.11), accounting for over half (59 percent) of all LEAs participating in Perkins Title I. 

At the postsecondary level, there were 191 IHEs participating in 78 consortia (see Exhibit 3.12), 

accounting for 20 percent of all participating IHEs. Consortia accounted for 17 percent of 

subgrantees at the secondary level and 11 percent at the postsecondary level (Klein et al. 2014). 

Based on the 2008–09 surveys of state CTE directors, 22 states granted secondary waivers and two 

states granted postsecondary waivers (Klein et al. 2014). 

The number of subgrantees participating in consortia varied widely across states, 

ranging from two to 554 at the secondary level and from two to 50 at the postsecondary 

level. 

At the secondary level, five states reported having just one consortia in 2009–10 (New Jersey, 

Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington), while five states reported having more than 50 (Illinois, 

Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas). The number of subgrantees participating in consortia 

ranged from two in New Jersey, Utah, Virginia, and Washington to more than 400 in Illinois, 

Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Across the 32 states reporting suballocations for 

secondary consortia, the average consortia grant ranged from $15,700 in Utah to $1,582,900 in 

Tennessee (Exhibit 3.11). 

At the postsecondary level, three states reported having one consortia (Connecticut, Massachusetts, 

and Nebraska), and three states reported having more than 10 (Minnesota, Oklahoma, and 

Pennsylvania). The number of subgrantees participating in consortia ranged from two in Connecticut 

and Nebraska to more than 40 in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Across the 10 states reporting 

suballocations for postsecondary consortia, the average consortia grant ranged from $56,000 in 

Connecticut to $374,600 in Minnesota (see Exhibit 3.12).

Grants to consortium members are pooled, and members must agree on how to use their aggregate 

Perkins funds to support CTE services across the consortium. In case study interviews, one state 

director stated that in the past subgrantees had largely ignored this requirement and had reallocated 

the funds to consortium members to be spent individually, but that consortia members in this state 

increasingly were meeting this requirement. Another state-level administrator reported that the state, 

in an effort to encourage collaboration, had imposed a requirement that LEAs could form consortia 

only if they joined with a regional education services unit or community college (Klein et al. 2014). 
CHAPTER 3 

FINANCE SYSTEMS 49

Exhibit 3.11. 

Number of Perkins Title I secondary consortia, number of consortia members, 

and average consortia subgrant amount, by state, 2009–10 

State

Number of 

consortia

Number of consortia

members

Average consortia 

subgrant amount

Alabama 2 6 84,300

Arkansas 16 179 218,700

California 20 102 101,800

Colorado 14 108 50,900

Connecticut 6 28 63,300

Idaho 18 69 43,800

Illinois 52 483 303,800

Indiana 48 291 418,900

Iowa 49 327 51,500

Kansas 18 191 69,500

Kentucky 5 12 23,700

Massachusetts 2 11 147,000

Michigan 24 523 679,800

Minnesota 26 337 240,200

Mississippi 20 57 110,600

Missouri 60 418 187,400

Nebraska 15 233 79,700

New Hampshire 17 28 250,700

New Jersey 1 2 27,900

New Mexico 4 19 42,700

North Dakota 26 151 46,900

Oklahoma 59 311 44,700

Oregon 15 142 201,700

Pennsylvania 72 462 255,700

Rhode Island 10 38 397,200

South Dakota 21 140 38,900

Tennessee 1 25 1,582,900

Texas 52 554 85,700

Utah 1 2 15,700

Virginia 1 2 278,700

Washington 1 2 16,300

Wisconsin 30 317 134,300

Average 22 174

Total 706 5,570

Exhibit reads: In 2009–10, Alabama had two Title I secondary consortia with a total of six consortia members, and 

the average subgrant across these two consortia was $84,300. 

NOTE: States not listed did not report data on secondary consortia. 

SOURCE: NACTE Secondary State Director Survey Fiscal Data, 2009 (n = 50).
 CHAPTER 3

50 FINANCE SYSTEMS

Exhibit 3.12.

Number of Perkins Title I postsecondary consortia, number of consortia members, 

and average consortia subgrant amount, by state, 2009–10 

State

Number of 

consortia

Number of consortia 

members 

Average consortia 

subgrant amount

Arkansas 2 6 148,000

Connecticut 1 2 56,000

Massachusetts 1 8 61,000

Minnesota 26 30 374,600

Missouri 8 36 296,900

Nebraska 1 2 265,800

New Jersey 3 6 64,700

Oklahoma 13 43 128,200

Oregon 8 8 267,400

Pennsylvania 15 50 239,300

Average 8 19

Total 78 191

Exhibit reads: In 2009–10, Arkansas had two Title I postsecondary consortia with a total of six consortia members, 

and the average subgrant across these two consortia was $148,000.

NOTE: States not listed did not report data on postsecondary consortia.

SOURCE: NACTE Postsecondary State Director Survey Fiscal Data, 2009 (n = 48). 

States were most likely to waive the minimum allocation rule for LEAs serving 

sparsely populated areas.

Of the 22 states that granted waivers of the minimum allocation rule in 2008–09, 19 states provided 

waivers to LEAs located in sparsely populated areas and two states granted waivers to LEAs serving 

charter schools. Out of a total of 286 waivers, 94 percent (269 waivers) were granted to LEAs in 

sparsely populated areas (Exhibit 3.13). Most states issued a small number of such waivers; 16 of the 

19 states granted waivers to 10 or fewer LEAs serving sparsely populated areas, while one 

predominantly rural state granted over half of these waivers (152 out of 269) (Klein et al. 2014). 

Exhibit 3.13. 

Number of states that used the minimum allocation waiver at the secondary level, 2008–09

Type of waiver Number of states Number of waivers

Sparsely populated area 19 269

Public charter school 2 12

Waiver type unknown 3 5

All waivers 22 286

Exhibit reads: In 2008–09, 19 states reported providing waivers of the minimum allocation requirement 

to LEAs that were located in sparsely populated areas and were unable to join a consortium. States 

granted such waivers to a total of 269 LEAs.

NOTES: Three states reported granting five waivers due to inability to enter into a consortium but did not indicate whether these 

waivers were for sparsely populated areas or charter schools. Some states provided waivers for more than one reason. 

Exhibit D.10 in Appendix D shows the number of waivers reported by each state. 

SOURCE: NACTE Survey of Secondary State Directors, 2009 (n = 50). 
CHAPTER 3 

FINANCE SYSTEMS 51

Uses of Funding at the Local Level

Subgrantees most frequently reported using Perkins funds for equipment and to 

provide career guidance and academic counseling to students.

At the secondary level, in 2008–09, 70 percent of local subgrantees reported using Perkins funds for 

leasing, purchasing, upgrading, or adapting equipment, and 68 percent used the funds to for 

providing career guidance and academic counseling. At the postsecondary level, 81 percent of 

subgrantees reported using Perkins funds for providing career guidance and academic counseling; 

76 percent used the funds for leasing, purchasing, upgrading, or adapting equipment; and 69 percent 

used them for providing programs for special populations. More than half of subgrantees used the 

funds to support the implementation of POS (58 percent of secondary subgrantees and 61 percent of 

postsecondary subgrantees) (Exhibit 3.14). 

Exhibit 3.14. 

Percentage of secondary and postsecondary local subgrantees who reported 

using Perkins Title I funds for permissive uses, 2008–09

Permissive use Secondary Postsecondary

Leasing, purchasing, upgrading, or adapting equipment 70 76

Providing career guidance and academic counseling 68 81

Implementing POS 58 61

Promoting work-related experiences for students 56 57

Providing programs for special populations 53 69

Assisting CTE student organizations 43 23

Supporting nontraditional training and activities 39 61

Involving business and labor in designing, implementing, and evaluating CTE 

programs 

37 45

Developing new CTE courses 36 46

Supporting teacher preparation programs 35 32

Promoting industry experiences for teachers 35 40

Improving accountability data collection and reporting 30 36

Offering mentoring and related support services 28 48

Providing training programs in automotive technologies 23 40

Providing entrepreneurship education and training 18 14

Offering continuing education or job referral services 13 27

Offering programs for adults and school dropouts † 26

Supporting family and consumer sciences programs † 15

Creating small, personalized career-themed learning communities † 11

Exhibit reads: In program year 2008–09, 70 percent of secondary and 76 percent of postsecondary subgrantees

reported using Perkins funds for leasing, purchasing, upgrading, or adapting equipment.

†Not applicable. Survey of LEA directors did not include this subitem. 

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 1,021 LEAs, 748 IHEs). 
 CHAPTER 3

52 FINANCE SYSTEMS

In case study interviews, local CTE directors and faculty described ways in which local Perkins 

funds were used for equipment and training purchases. Some reported that the Perkins funds were 

used to keep their programs up-to-date and in compliance with evolving industry standards. Several 

directors noted that for some programs, Perkins funds were the only resources available for these 

purposes. Several local postsecondary CTE directors described combining Perkins funds with those 

of other sources, and two reported leveraging Perkins funds to attract funding from outside sources 

for large technology purchases, such as computer lab upgrades and medical equipment (Klein et al. 

2014). 
CHAPTER 4 

PROGRAMS OF STUDY 53

4

Programs of Study

One of the most substantive changes in Perkins IV

is the requirement that all local subgrantees offer 

one or more POS that prepare students to make 

the transition from high school to college or 

advanced training and into a career. The 

introduction of POS acknowledges the economic 

reality that competing in a global economy 

demands a workforce with more advanced skills 

than those attained in high school and that too 

few individuals enter postsecondary education 

and persist long enough to earn an industryrecognized credential or degree that will improve 

their labor market prospects.
 CHAPTER 4

54 PROGRAMS OF STUDY

Key Findings

• Statutory provisions allow states and local subgrantees considerable flexibility in designing 

and implementing POS. This flexibility has led to variation — both across and within states 

— in how CTE practitioners define key terms, design programs, and organize, administer, 

and deliver services. 

• Based on surveys conducted in 2009, states tended to play a larger role in developing POS at 

the secondary level than at the postsecondary level, where IHEs were more likely to take the 

lead.

o Taking into account states that either developed POS and/or provided guidance for 

locally-developed POS, a total of 40 states participated in POS development at the 

secondary level, and 24 did so at the postsecondary level. 

o At the local level, LEA CTE directors reported that secondary CTE teachers and 

LEA administrators were the groups most involved in POS development, while IHE 

CTE directors reported that postsecondary CTE faculty and administrators were the 

most involved. 

• Reports from both state and local CTE directors indicated incomplete compliance, as of the 

2008–09 program year, with statutory requirements that POS provide a coordinated, nonduplicative progression of courses that link secondary and postsecondary education. 

o For example, at the local level, 68 percent of LEA directors and 70 percent of IHE 

directors reported that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS spanned 

secondary and postsecondary education. 

o Smaller percentages reported that at least one of these POS was non-duplicative 

across the secondary and postsecondary levels (42 and 59 percent, respectively).

• Nearly two-thirds of LEA and IHE directors reported using articulation agreements with 

postsecondary and secondary partners to implement POS as of 2008–09, but about one-fifth 

said they did not know if their institutions had articulation agreements.

• IHE directors were more likely than LEA directors to report that their POS led to 

postsecondary credentials or degrees. 

• Nearly half of all state secondary and postsecondary CTE directors (23 of each) reported in 

2008–09 that CTE teachers or faculty did not have a good understanding of POS, suggesting 

that the POS concept was unclear to the instructors who are expected to deliver it.

• States and local subgrantees are not required to report on POS participation and outcomes, 

and there are no national data on the number of students participating in POS or the outcomes 

they achieve.
CHAPTER 4 

PROGRAMS OF STUDY 55

Predecessors to POS

The introduction of programs of study in Perkins IV reinforced and extended previous efforts to 

organize instruction in ways that make school more relevant to students’ career goals. Over the last 

several decades, initiatives such as school-to-work, apprenticeships, career academies, Tech Prep, 

and dual enrollment were introduced to strengthen linkages between education and work, academic 

and technical content, and secondary and postsecondary education. Recognition of the importance of 

connecting secondary to postsecondary education transcends CTE, and other education approaches to 

connect the two levels include early college high schools, Advanced Placement courses, and 

International Baccalaureate programs. 

Perkins’ focus on secondary-postsecondary connections dates back to 1990 when Tech Prep was 

created as a strategy to encourage the formation of partnerships between secondary and 

postsecondary subgrantees through consortia that included both levels. Tech Prep programs, 

introduced as a special project in Perkins II and authorized as a separate title in Perkins III

and Perkins IV, were intended to combine at least two years of secondary education with at least two 

years of postsecondary education with coursework offered in a non-duplicative, sequential manner 

that integrated academic and technical skill instruction. Where feasible, programs were expected to 

offer opportunities for dual enrollment and/or work-based learning experiences. Ultimately, Tech 

Prep programs were to lead to an associate’s or bachelor’s degree or a postsecondary certificate in a 

specific career field as well as placement in appropriate employment or further education. Tech Prep 

was funded from FY 1991 through FY 2010 and accounted for 8 to 10 percent of Perkins grants to 

states during those years. 

Although states and local consortia were required to report the number of students participating in 

Tech Prep as a subpopulation within the Perkins III accountability system, they struggled to collect 

data, in part because there was no clear definition of a “Tech Prep student.” Even when students 

could be identified, educators faced challenges tracking students across education levels (Hershey et 

al. 1998). 

Studies of Tech Prep implementation indicated that the strategy of aligning coursework across 

education levels had achieved limited success in practice. Two major studies of Tech Prep found that 

few students completed at least two years of high school coursework that was closely linked to at 

least two years of related studies at the college level (Hershey et al. 1999; Silverberg et al. 2004). The 

National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress recommended that 

Congress eliminate Tech Prep as a separate title and transfer its key activities to postsecondary 

institutions (Silverberg et al. 2004). 

Instead of eliminating Tech Prep, Perkins IV offered states the option to merge their Title II (Tech 

Prep) allocation with their Title I (basic grant) funds. Slightly more than half of states (27) opted to 

merge the two funding streams, but the reasons for their decisions varied. Some sought to extend the 

benefits of Tech Prep programs to all CTE students, while others opted to merge funds to avoid 

required reporting on the new set of Tech Prep measures (Klein et al. 2014). Tech Prep funding was 

eliminated by Congress in its April 2011 continuing resolution,25 and the program has not been 

funded since that time (the Perkins IV authorization for Tech Prep has since expired). 

25 Public Law 112–010.

 
 CHAPTER 4

56 PROGRAMS OF STUDY

Components of POS

Perkins IV requires each local subgrantee to offer one or more POS that address four core elements 

identified in the statute. Specifically, POS:

1. Must incorporate secondary and postsecondary education elements; 

2. Must include coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and 

relevant career and technical content in a coordinated, non-duplicative progression of courses 

that align secondary education with postsecondary education to adequately prepare students 

for success in postsecondary education; 

3. May offer the opportunity for high school students to participate in dual or concurrent 

enrollment programs or other ways to acquire postsecondary education credits; and 

4. Must lead to an industry-recognized credential or certificate at the postsecondary level or an 

associate’s or bachelor’s degree.

In the early years of Perkins IV implementation, the statutory definition was the only information 

available to guide state and local practitioners in POS development. In January 2010, the 

U.S. Department of Education released a POS Design Framework, which was based in part on input 

provided by a diverse group of CTE practitioners and researchers. The Framework identified 

10 components of effective POS (Exhibit 4.1), which may be adopted by states and local 

subgrantees. The Framework was intended to be a voluntary guide to assist state and local CTE 

directors in the design, development, and implementation of POS that fulfill statutory requirements. 

POS Design and Development

Flexibility in the statutory language permitted state and local experimentation as well as a wide range 

of interpretations of POS components. As a result, there is significant variation in the content and 

components of POS both across and within states, as well as variation in the processes and 

stakeholders involved in designing and implementing POS. 

Some states employed a centralized approach by developing model POS across all CTE program 

areas and requiring local agencies to adopt state definitions and course sequencing or apply for 

waivers to establish their own programs. Other states left POS development largely to local 

discretion, although they sometimes provided guidance or required compliance with some minimum 

criteria.
CHAPTER 4 

PROGRAMS OF STUDY 57

Exhibit 4.1.

POS Design Framework

Legislation and Policies Federal, state, and local legislation or administrative policies that promote 

POS development and implementation. 

Partnerships Ongoing relationships among education, business, and other community 

stakeholders that are central to POS design, implementation, and 

maintenance. 

Professional Development Sustained, intensive, and focused opportunities for administrators, teachers, 

and faculty involved in the design, implementation, and maintenance of POS. 

Accountability and Evaluation Systems and strategies to gather quantitative and qualitative data on both 

POS components and student outcomes to aid ongoing efforts to develop 

and implement POS. 

College and Career Readiness 

Standards

Content standards that define what students are expected to know and be 

able to do to enter and advance in college and/or careers. 

Course Sequences Non-duplicative sequences of secondary and postsecondary courses within 

POS that ensure that students can make a transition to postsecondary 

education without duplicating classes or requiring remedial coursework. 

Credit Transfer Agreements Credit transfer agreements that provide opportunities for secondary 

students to gain postsecondary credits, supported by formal agreements 

between secondary and postsecondary partners. 

Guidance Counseling 

and Advisement

Guidance counseling and advisement that help students make informed 

decisions about which POS to pursue. 

Teaching and Learning 

Strategies

Innovative and creative instructional approaches that enable teachers to 

integrate academic and technical instruction and students to apply academic 

and technical learning in their POS coursework. 

Technical Skill Assessments National, state, and/or local assessments that provide ongoing information 

on student attainment of the necessary knowledge and skills for entry and 

advancement in postsecondary education and careers in their chosen POS. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (2010), Career and Technical 

Programs of Study: A Design Framework, Washington, DC.
 CHAPTER 4

58 PROGRAMS OF STUDY

States tended to play a larger role in developing POS at the secondary level than at 

the postsecondary level, where IHEs were more likely to take the lead.

In 2009, 29 out of 41 responding state secondary directors reported developing POS at the state level, 

and 28 reported that POS were developed locally. In contrast, 11 out of 29 responding state 

postsecondary directors reported having state-developed POS and 21 reported that POS were 

developed locally (Exhibit 4.2). 

Some state directors reported that there were both state- and locally-developed POS in their state, 

particularly at the secondary level. For example, some released state-developed models or templates 

but also allowed local subgrantees to develop their own programs. At the secondary level, 16 states 

reported having both state- and locally-developed POS, while three states reported both state- and 

locally-developed POS at the postsecondary level. Taking into account states that either developed 

POS and/or provided guidance for locally-developed POS, a total of 40 states participated in POS 

development at the secondary level and 24 did so at the postsecondary level. 

Exhibit 4.2. 

Number of states reporting various strategies to develop POS, and average number of POS reported by local 

directors in states using each strategy, by education level, 2008–09 

Type of POS development approach

Number of states reporting 

approach to developing POS

Average number of POS 

reported by local CTE directors

Secondary

(n = 41)

Postsecondary

(n = 29)

LEA directors

(n = 687) 

IHE directors

(n = 549) 

State-developed 29 11 10 18

Locally-developed 28 21 9 18

Locally-developed with state guidance 27 16 8 16

Locally-developed without state guidance 5 5 7 17

Overall average † † 11 22

Exhibit reads: In 2008–09, 29 out of 41 responding state secondary directors reported that POS had been 

developed at the state level. Local LEA directors reported an average of 10 state-developed POS were available in 

their district.

†Not applicable.

NOTES: Some states used more than one approach (for example, four states reported that locally-developed POS included POS developed with 

state guidance as well as POS developed without state guidance). The unduplicated count of states that reported either that POS were 

developed by the state and/or were locally-developed with state guidance was 40 at the secondary level and 24 at the postsecondary level.

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors and Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009.

State approval processes were sometimes used as quality control mechanisms, with 29 secondary and 

20 postsecondary state directors reporting that state approval was required for all POS offered by 

local subgrantees. At the other end of the spectrum, 10 secondary and 18 postsecondary state 

directors reported that state approval was not required for any POS, meaning that the POS design 

characteristics and components were left completely in the hands of local administrators (Klein et al. 

2014). 
CHAPTER 4 

PROGRAMS OF STUDY 59

LEA CTE directors reported that secondary CTE teachers and LEA administrators 

were the groups most involved in POS development, while IHE CTE directors 

reported that postsecondary CTE faculty and administrators were the most involved.

Local CTE directors’ perceptions of who was most involved in POS development varied based on 

whether they directed LEA or IHE CTE programs. For example, 66 percent of LEA directors 

reported that secondary CTE teachers participated “a lot” in developing POS, but only 16 percent 

reported the same level of participation among postsecondary CTE faculty. Conversely, 59 percent of 

IHE directors reported that postsecondary CTE faculty participated a lot in developing POS 

compared with 37 percent reporting this for secondary CTE teachers (Exhibit 4.3). Similar patterns 

were found for administrators and academic teachers. 

LEA directors reported that CTE teachers were more likely than academic teachers to participate a 

lot in developing POS (66 percent vs. 14 percent). Reports of IHE directors showed a similar pattern 

(59 vs. 27 percent). 

In terms of industry involvement in POS development, IHE directors were more likely than LEA 

directors to report substantial involvement of business and union groups. For example, 27 percent 

of IHE directors reported a lot of participation of local business and unions and 13 percent reported 

this for national industry and union groups, compared with 13 percent and 6 percent, respectively, 

of LEA directors. 

Exhibit 4.3. 

Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that various stakeholders 

participated “a lot” in POS development, 2008–09

Stakeholder group As reported by LEA CTE directors As reported by IHE CTE directors

Secondary CTE teachers 66 37

Postsecondary CTE faculty 16 59

LEA administrators 37 20

Postsecondary administrators 9 52

Secondary academic teachers 14 12

Postsecondary academic faculty 8 27

Local business, unions 13 27

National industry, union groups 6 13

Local chamber of commerce 5 6

Exhibit reads: Among LEA CTE directors, 66 percent reported that secondary CTE teachers participated “a lot” in 

POS development, compared with 16 percent reporting that postsecondary CTE faculty participated “a lot.”

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 1,001 LEAs, 736 IHEs).

Roughly half of CTE directors (46 percent secondary and 56 percent postsecondary) reported that 

one or more of their POS were previously part of a Tech Prep program (Klein et al. 2014). 
CHAPTER 4

60 PROGRAMS OF STUDY

POS Implementation Challenges

Although state and local CTE practitioners reported making progress in implementing POS, they also 

reported challenges relating to bridging the institutional divide between secondary and postsecondary 

CTE programs, as well as challenges to bridging the instructional divide between academic and 

technical faculty.

Secondary and postsecondary CTE programs are organized and delivered independently at both 

the state and local levels, and collaboration across this institutional divide requires time, effort, 

and commitment outside the day-to-day routine at either level. Study findings suggest that this 

collaboration did not occur consistently. Specific challenges arose with implementing requirements 

to align course sequences across the secondary and postsecondary levels, offer dual or concurrent 

enrollment, and ensure that POS lead to a postsecondary degree or certificate. Where effective 

secondary-postsecondary partnerships were reported, their success depended largely on local 

relationships between individuals at the two levels of institutions.

Reports from both state and local CTE directors indicated incomplete compliance, 

as of the 2008–09 program year, with statutory requirements that POS provide a 

coordinated, non-duplicative progression of courses that link secondary and 

postsecondary education. 

For example, at the local level, 68 percent of LEA directors and 70 percent of IHE directors reported 

that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS spanned secondary and postsecondary 

education. Both groups were less likely to report that POS course sequences were non-duplicative 

across secondary and postsecondary levels (42 percent of LEA directors and 59 percent of IHE 

directors) than to offer opportunities for dual or concurrent enrollment (58 and 76 percent, 

respectively) (Exhibit 4.4). 

Exhibit 4.4. 

Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS 

had certain linkages between secondary and postsecondary education, 2008–09

76%

59%

70%

58%

42%

68%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Opportunity for dual or concurrent

enrollment

Non-duplicative across secondary and

postsecondary levels

Spanned secondary and postsecondary

levels

LEA directors

IHE directors

Exhibit reads: Sixty-eight percent of LEA directors reported that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS 

spanned the secondary and postsecondary levels. 

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 981 LEAs, 714 IHEs). 
CHAPTER 4 

PROGRAMS OF STUDY 61

A sizeable proportion of local directors (24 percent of LEA directors and 15 percent of IHE 

directors) did not know if their POS included both secondary and postsecondary elements. Similarly, 

42 percent of LEA directors and 35 percent of IHE directors did not know if their POS included nonduplicative course sequences.

A challenge for implementing the dual enrollment component is how to pay for it. Three of the six 

case study states provided funds for dual enrollment, but the other three states did not. The states that 

provided funding for dual enrollment used different procedures, including (1) having the LEA or IHE 

reimburse the other, depending on whose instructor taught the course, (2) area CTE centers handling 

the funds for dual enrollments, or (3) including dual enrollment students in the LEA’s daily 

attendance funds and reimbursing the IHE from other sources. In the states that did not provide funds 

for dual enrollment, one obstacle cited was concern about paying for the same student twice through 

both secondary and postsecondary state funding formulas (Klein et al. 2014). 

As of 2008–09, nearly two-thirds of LEA and IHE directors reported using articulation 

agreements with postsecondary and secondary partners to implement POS, but 

about one-fifth said they did not know if their institutions had articulation agreements. 

Sixty-two percent of LEA directors reported having articulation agreement with one or more 

postsecondary institutions for at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS, and 36 percent 

reported having such agreements with two or more postsecondary institutions. Similarly, 63 percent 

of IHE directors reported having such articulation agreements with LEAs, and 58 percent reported

having agreements with two or more LEAs). However, 22–25 percent of LEA directors and 18–19 

percent of IHE directors did not know whether their organization had such articulation agreements

(Exhibit 4.5). 

Exhibit 4.5. 

Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of their five 

highest-enrollment POS was part of an articulation agreement, 2008–09

POS component

Agreement with one

or more IHEs or LEAs

Agreement with two

or more IHEs or LEAs 

Percent of LEA directors reporting that at least one of their five 

highest-enrollment POS was part of an articulation agreement 

with a postsecondary institution

62% 36% 

Percent of IHE directors reporting that at least one of their five 

highest-enrollment POS was part of an articulation agreement 

with a school district

63% 58% 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-two percent of LEA directors reported that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS 

was part of an articulation agreement with one or more postsecondary institutions. 

NOTES: Between 22–25 percent of LEA directors and 18–19 percent of IHE directors did not know whether their organization had such 

articulation agreements. Some LEA and IHE respondents indicated that at least one of their highest-enrollment POS was covered by a statewide 

articulation agreement; if those responses are also included, then the percentage of local directors reporting use of articulation agreements 

was 65 percent for LEA directors and 69 percent for IHE directors.

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 980 LEAs, 710 IHEs).
CHAPTER 4

62 PROGRAMS OF STUDY

One state CTE administrator said that the state is using POS to send a message to local school 

districts and colleges: “You will align your curriculum, and you will create the sequence of courses. 

And we don’t want students shot-gunning all over the place and then showing up at the 

postsecondary doorstep taking a bunch of remedial courses.” A local CTE coordinator in a small 

district in another state, in describing a shift in thinking after Perkins IV: “I don’t want to articulate 

[individual] courses anymore. We articulate programs [e.g., POS].” (Klein et al. 2014) 

IHE directors were more likely than LEA directors to report that their POS led to 

postsecondary credentials or degrees.

Because IHEs are directly involved in awarding postsecondary certificates and degrees, it is not 

surprising that IHE directors were more likely than LEA directors to report that at least one of their 

top five POS led to a postsecondary certificate (80 vs. 43 percent) or associate’s degree (77 vs. 33 

percent). LEA directors were more likely to report that their POS led to an industry-recognized or 

sponsored credential (47 percent) than that they led to an associate’s degree (33 percent) 

(Exhibit 4.6). 

Exhibit 4.6. 

Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS 

led to certain credentials, 2008–09

32%

77%

80%

78%

22%

33%

43%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Bachelor's degree

Associate's degree

Postsecondary certificate

Industry-recognized or sponsored

credential

LEA directors

IHE directors

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of LEA directors reported that one or more of their five highest-enrollment POS 

led to an industry-recognized or sponsored credential. 

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 974 LEAs, 712 IHEs). 
CHAPTER 4

PROGRAMS OF STUDY 63

Nearly half of all state secondary and postsecondary CTE directors (23 of each) 

reported in 2008–09 that CTE teachers or faculty did not have a good understanding 

of POS, suggesting that the POS concept was unclear to the instructors who are 

expected to deliver it.

While nearly half of state CTE directors reported lack of understanding of POS among CTE teachers 

or faculty, an even greater number (40 secondary, 28 postsecondary) reported that academic teachers 

or faculty do not have a good understanding of POS (Exhibit 4.7). This was also a frequentlymentioned challenge in the case study interviews at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. 

One community college administrator commented, “I don’t even think the academic teachers 

understand where they fit into [POS].” (Klein et al. 2014) 

Exhibit 4.7. 

Number of states reporting various barriers to POS development, 2009

18

28

23

22

40

23

0 10 20 30 40 50

CTE teachers lack skills or time to

integrate academic and technical

content

Academic teachers/faculty do not

have a good understanding of POS

CTE teachers/faculty do not have a

good understanding of POS

As reported by secondary CTE

directors

As reported by postsecondary

CTE directors

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three state secondary CTE directors reported that CTE teachers or faculty do not have a 

good understanding of POS.

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors, 2009 (n = 51 secondary, 48 postsecondary).

Measurement

States and local subgrantees are not required to report on POS participation and 

outcomes, and there are no national data on the number of students participating in 

POS or the outcomes they achieve.

Perkins IV does not require states to measure or report information specific to POS implementation. 

The statute neither offers a specific definition of a POS student, nor does it hold states and local 

subgrantees accountable for reporting on student participation and outcomes. In the absence of 

federal accountability requirements, few states or local subgrantees could provide data on student 

involvement in POS. As of fall 2009, 13 secondary state directors and 21 postsecondary state 

directors could not estimate the percentage of students in their states who were enrolled in POS. 

Estimates of student participation in POS offered by the remaining state directors ranged from none 

to all CTE students in the state (Klein et al. 2014).
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 65

course 

5

Accountability

Perkins IV requires states and local CTE providers 

to collect and report data about the performance 

of their Perkins programs. States must establish 

performance targets for a required set of core 

indicators, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Education, and must submit 

annual data on their progress toward meeting 

these targets. The statute also requires states to 

negotiate performance targets with local 

subgrantees. States and local providers failing to 

achieve their agreed-upon targets face sanctions 

that begin with developing a program 

improvement plan and could culminate in the 

loss of some or all of their Perkins funding.
 CHAPTER 5

66 ACCOUNTABILITY

Key Findings

• For each performance indicator, three-fourths or more of the states met at least 90 percent of 

their performance target in 2011–12, at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. 

• Flexibility in the Perkins accountability system precludes the ability to use the performance 

indicator data for valid comparisons between states or for aggregating data across states to 

examine national progress over time.

• Local subgrantees used a variety of methods to identify CTE concentrators, including local 

management information systems, statewide databases, teacher identification of concentrators 

based on coursetaking, and student self-reports.

• ESEA assessments are often administered before CTE students reach concentrator status, so 

the academic attainment indicator often provides information on the academic abilities of 

students who subsequently become CTE concentrators. 

• Some states reported mathematics and English/language arts proficiency rates for CTE 

concentrators under Perkins that were unexpectedly higher than the proficiency rates they 

reported for all students under ESEA and that appear to be inconsistent with research 

findings. Similar patterns were found for reporting on graduation rates. 

• Most states used national or state assessments for reporting on the Perkins indicator for 

technical skill attainment. At the local level, subgrantees often used different measures to 

assess technical skill attainment than were used for performance indicator reporting. 

• Most states used administrative records to report on the placement of students who exited the 

program. At the secondary level, states most commonly used the state higher education 

database to acquire placement information about their students, while at the postsecondary 

level, the most commonly used data source was state unemployment insurance wage records. 

• Most states reporting using Perkins performance indicator data to identify programs needing 

improvement and to provide targeted technical assistance.
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 67

The Perkins Accountability Framework

The Perkins accountability framework has evolved over several decades, with each reauthorization 

expanding the requirements to address national policy priorities (Exhibit 5.1). In 1990, Perkins II

laid the foundation for the current accountability system by requiring states to develop a system of 

performance measures. Perkins II allowed states broad flexibility in constructing measures and did 

not require them to share performance results with the Department. Perkins III required states to 

report on certain specific indicators (referred to as “core indicators”) that were listed in the statute. 

Perkins IV revised the accountability requirements to introduce separate core indicators for 

secondary and postsecondary education, add two secondary core indicators aligned with ESEA

requirements (proficiency on state assessments and graduation rates), and require reporting of 

disaggregated data to include the same subgroups as are used for ESEA reporting, in addition to the 

“special populations” that are specifically listed in the Perkins statute. Perkins IV also extended 

accountability and reporting requirements to apply to local subgrantees. Finally, new references in 

Perkins IV to valid and reliable data set a higher expectation for performance reporting. 

States negotiate with the Department to establish agreed-upon targets for each indicator and may 

update the targets periodically.26 States must report annual performance indicator data to the 

Department by December 31, six months after the end of each program year. 

For the first time, Perkins IV extends the same level of accountability to local subgrantees, which

now must adopt their state’s levels of performance or negotiate separate performance targets with the 

state. Both states and local subgrantees that do not achieve at least 90 percent of their agreed-upon 

performance targets must develop improvement plans. If states or local subgrantees do not 

implement an improvement plan, show improvement within a year of plan implementation, or meet 

at least 90 percent of the negotiated target on a single indicator for three consecutive years, they may 

face fiscal sanctions. 

States must report outcomes for all CTE students, overall and by race, ethnicity, and gender and for

certain student subgroups: students with disabilities; students from economically disadvantaged 

families, including foster children; students preparing for nontraditional fields; single parents, 

including single pregnant women; displaced homemakers; students with limited English proficiency; 

and, at the secondary level, migrant students. 

Perkins IV specifies six secondary and five postsecondary core indicators for which states must 

report valid and reliable data, and the Department’s nonregulatory guidance operationalized these 

indicators into eight secondary and six postsecondary performance indicators

27 (see Exhibits D.11 

and D.12 in Appendix D). Concentrators are the cohort of students evaluated in all of the core 

indicators except nontraditional participation, which focuses on the outcomes of participants at the 

secondary and postsecondary levels. 

26 States set targets as part of their five-year plans, with an option to negotiate new targets prior to the third and fifth 

program years. The Department allows states to request performance-level revisions in other years “if the State can 

show that an unanticipated circumstance arose in the State that resulted in a significant change in the factors that 

were considered” when the state originally negotiated targets (Dann-Messier 2009, p. 2). 27 The nonregulatory guidance divided the secondary academic attainment indicator into two indicators, one for 

reading and one for math, and divided the nontraditional participation and completion indicator into separate 

indicators for nontraditional participation and nontraditional completion.

 
 CHAPTER 5

68 ACCOUNTABILITY

Exhibit 5.1. 

Growth of accountability requirements in Perkins II, III, and IV

Requirement Perkins II Perkins III Perkins IV

Performance 

indicators

• Required states to 

establish measures of 

learning and competency 

gains and at least one of 

four specified measures of 

performance.

• Allowed states to consider 

standards and measures of

the Social Security Act

and Job Training 

Partnership Act when 

developing measures.

• Introduced four core 

indicators for secondary and 

postsecondary.

• Allowed states to substitute 

other existing state 

performance measures if they 

were aligned with the statute. 

•Gave states the option to 

include additional 

performance indicators.

• Introduces six separate core indicators 

for secondary and five indicators for 

postsecondary. 

• Aligns three secondary indicators with the 

ESEA performance measures.

• Continues option to substitute existing state 

indicators if they are aligned with the statute. 

• Establishes separate indicators for Tech Prep 

for states that do not merge Tech Prep and 

basic grant funding.

Indicator 

definitions

•Permitted states to 

develop their own data 

collection and reporting 

methodologies.

•Permitted states to develop 

their own data collection 

and reporting 

methodologies.

•Required that technical skill 

proficiencies be aligned 

with state-established 

vocational and technical 

skill standards.

•Permits states to develop their own data 

collection and reporting methodologies.

•Adds requirement that technical skill 

proficiencies be aligned with industryrecognized standards, if available and

appropriate.

•Adds references to validity and reliability 

of reported performance results.

Reporting •Did not require states to 

report performance to 

the Department.

•Required states to report 

progress of all CTE 

students, including special 

populations.

•Added single parents and 

displaced homemakers to 

the definition of special 

populations.

•Requires states to report progress of all 

CTE students, including disaggregated 

data for special populations, which are 

defined to include migrant students at 

the secondary level and to eliminate 

individuals with other barriers to 

educational attainment from the 

definition. 

•Adds requirement to report the 

disaggregated data for the same 

subgroups as required in the ESEA. 

Performance 

targets and 

sanctions

•None. •Required states to set 

performance targets and 

implement state 

improvement plans if 

targets were not met.

• Introduced sanctions for 

states that did not 

implement improvement 

plans or showed no 

improvement within one 

year of plan implementation or for two or more 

consecutive years.

•Requires states to set performance 

targets and implement state improvement plans if 90 percent of targets are 

not met.

•Adds requirement that subgrantees

negotiate performance targets and 

implement local improvement plans if 

targets are not met.

•Extends use of sanctions to subgrantees

that do not implement improvement 

plans or show no improvement within 

one year of plan implementation or for 

three or more consecutive years.
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 69

State-Reported Results for Performance Indicators

States are to submit performance data to the Department for all Perkins indicators by December 31 of 

each year. Once the performance data have been certified by the state, the Department reviews the 

data and begins a process of validation. States that do not meet at least 90 percent of their target on 

any individual measure must develop an improvement plan. 

For each performance indicator, three-fourths or more of the states met at least 

90 percent of their performance target in 2011–12, at both the secondary and 

postsecondary levels. 

At the secondary level, at least 28 states (55 percent) met or exceeded targets for each performance 

indicator in 2011–12, and at least 39 states (76 percent) met at least 90 percent of their target for an 

indicator. At the postsecondary level, at least 20 states met or exceeded targets for each performance 

indicator, and at least 38 states met at least 90 percent of their target for an indicator. Across all eight 

secondary indicators, between 28–45 states met or exceeded their performance targets, depending on 

the indicator; between 39–49 states met at least 90 percent of their targets for seven out of eight 

indicators, and all 50 states and the District of Columbia met at least 90 percent of their graduation 

rate target. Across all six postsecondary indicators, 20–35 states met or exceeded their targets, and 

38–50 states met at least 90 percent of their targets (Exhibit 5.2). 

Exhibit 5.2. 

Number of states that met or exceeded their negotiated performance targets for Perkins core indicators, and 

number that met at least 90 percent of their targets, by education level, in 2011–12 

Core indicators

Secondary Postsecondary

Met or exceeded 

target

Met at least 

90% of target

Met or exceeded 

target

Met at least 

90% of target

Academic attainment — 

reading/language arts

31 44 † † 

Academic attainment —

mathematics 28 41 † †

Technical skill attainment 35 47 34 50

Completion 40 49 21 38

Graduation rate 45 51 † †

Retention or transfer † † 25 46

Placement 31 46 20 43

Nontraditional participation 32 44 35 45

Nontraditional completion 31 39 32 41

Exhibit reads: Thirty-one states met or exceeded their negotiated Perkins performance target for academic 

attainment in reading/language arts. Forty-four states met at least 90 percent of the negotiated performance 

target for the indicator, the threshold by which a state would be required to submit a performance improvement 

plan if it did not meet it.

†Indicator is not applicable at this level.

NOTE: Data are missing from three states: Mississippi (secondary “nontraditional completion”); Washington (postsecondary “technical skill 

attainment” and postsecondary “completion”); and Wisconsin (secondary “placement”).

SOURCE: Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports (n = 51).
 CHAPTER 5

70 ACCOUNTABILITY

Measurement Issues

Perkins IV emphasizes the importance of data quality, including multiple references to “valid and 

reliable” data, although the statute does not define these terms. In general, validity refers to whether 

populations and indicators measure what they are intended to measure, while reliability refers to the 

stability of results. In addition, this report also uses the term comparability to refer to whether 

measures and methods are consistent across states. This section provides information about issues 

that may affect the validity, reliability, and comparability of state-reported accountability data.

Flexibility in the Perkins accountability system precludes the ability to use the 

performance indicator data for valid comparisons between states or for aggregating 

data across states to examine national progress over time. 

Under Perkins IV, states have the flexibility to choose their own measures and definitions for 

reporting on performance indicators, which means that the indicator data are not comparable 

across states. For example, for the technical skill attainment indicator, state measures have 

included state assessments, course completion, industry-recognized credentials or certificates, 

and grade point averages, among others. In addition, states may permit local subgrantees to use 

different definitions and measurement approaches. 

The nonregulatory guidance sought to encourage more comparability of measures across states by 

providing suggested definitions for Perkins IV performance measures and student populations. 

Nearly all state CTE directors reported either using the suggested definitions in the guidance 

verbatim or consulting the guidance as they developed their own definitions. For most indicators, 

fewer than half reported using the guidance definition verbatim (Exhibit 5.3). 

Exhibit 5.3.

Number of states that reported using or consulting the nonregulatory guidance for developing 

definitions for Perkins IV performance measures and populations, 2009

Measures and populations 

Secondary Postsecondary

Used verbatim Consulted Did not use Used verbatim Consulted Did not use

Measures

Academic attainment 24 27 0 † † †

Technical skill attainment 17 32 1 14 29 5

Completion 20 30 1 19 28 1

Graduation rate 23 27 1 † † †

Retention or transfer † † † 21 26 1

Placement 20 30 1 22 26 0

Nontraditional participation 22 27 2 28 19 1

Nontraditional completion 20 29 2 26 21 1

Populations

CTE participants 18 30 3 21 25 2

CTE concentrators 14 35 2 13 33 2

Exhibit reads: At the secondary level, 24 state CTE directors reported that their state used nonregulatory guidance 

language verbatim for the academic attainment indicator, and 27 reported that they consulted the guidance.

†Indicator is not applicable at this level.

NOTE: Among states that “consulted” the guidance, some developed definitions that were similar to those contained in the guidance, but the 

NACTE did not conduct a systematic analysis of the extent to which state definitions were similar to or different from the guidance definitions.

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors, 2009 (n = 51 secondary, 48 postsecondary). 
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 71

Even when states use the same definitions, specific measures or measurement approaches may differ. 

For example, state academic assessments are not comparable across states, reflecting different 

content and performance standards as well as differences in test timing and administration. Measures 

of course and program completion have similar issues, since specific course and program 

requirements likely vary across jurisdictions. Student grade point averages also may reflect varying 

standards and expectations, not only across sites but also across individual teachers. Another area of 

variation is the definition of CTE concentrators, which is the cohort of students evaluated in most

indicators. Again, fewer than half of state CTE directors reported using the guidance definition 

verbatim, although most of the remaining state directors reported that they consulted the guidance in 

some way (Exhibit 5.3). 

Local subgrantees used a variety of methods to identify CTE concentrators, 

including local management information systems, statewide databases, teacher 

identification of concentrators based on coursetaking, and student self-reports.

In 2009, local CTE directors were more likely to report that identification of CTE concentrators was 

done using a local management information system (60 percent of IHE directors and 57 percent of 

LEA directors) than using a statewide database (34 percent and 26 percent, respectively). A common 

method among LEAs was for teachers to identify CTE concentrators based on coursetaking 

(50 percent), but this method was less common at the postsecondary level (25 percent). Some 

subgrantees allowed CTE students to self-report their concentrator status (reported by 20 percent of 

IHE directors and 12 percent of LEA directors) (Exhibit 5.4). 

Exhibit 5.4. 

Percentage of LEAs and IHEs reporting various methods for identifying CTE concentrators, 2009

9%

12%

26%

50%

57%

5%

20%

34%

25%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don't know

Students self-report concentrator status

State administators identify students using

statewide database

Teachers/faculty identify students based on

coursetaking

Local administrators identify students using local

management information systems

IHEs

LEAs

Exhibit reads: Sixty percent of IHEs and 57 percent of LEAs reported that local administrators used local 

management information systems to identify students who were CTE concentrators. 

NOTE: Survey respondents could report using more than one method.

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors of CTE, 2009 (n = 1,014 LEAs, 736 IHEs). 

To inform Perkins reauthorization efforts, the Department formed the State Perkins Accountability 

Congress (SPAC) in 2011 to facilitate dialogue among federal and state staff about ways to improve 

performance measurement and promote meaningful comparisons across and within states. The SPAC 

final report, issued in February 2013, provided recommendations for improving the validity, 
 CHAPTER 5

72 ACCOUNTABILITY

reliability, and comparability of performance measures, including revised CTE participation 

thresholds for students to be included in performance reporting (Richards et al. 2013).28

Secondary Academic Attainment 

Perkins IV directs states to assess the academic attainment of students identified as CTE 

concentrators using the same academic assessments that they use to meet ESEA requirements. 

ESEA assessments are often administered before CTE students reach concentrator 

status, so the academic attainment indicator often provides information on the 

academic abilities of students who subsequently become CTE concentrators. 

In many cases, secondary CTE students may not be identified as CTE concentrators until they 

complete the 11th or 12th grade; although state definitions of CTE concentrator vary, they often 

require that a student has earned three or more credits in a single CTE program area (see Exhibit 1.5). 

States most commonly administer their ESEA high school assessments in the 10th or 11th grade, 

which may occur before a CTE student has earned the number of credits required to be considered a 

CTE concentrator.29 For students who attain CTE concentrator status one or two years after taking 

their last ESEA high school assessments, the academic attainment indicator may be providing 

information on their academic achievement before they took or completed all of their CTE 

coursework rather than on the impact of CTE on academic attainment. 

Some states reported mathematics and English/language arts proficiency rates for 

CTE concentrators under Perkins that were unexpectedly higher than the 

proficiency rates they reported for all students under ESEA and that appear to be 

inconsistent with research findings.

Based on state mathematics assessments, 28 states and the District of Columbia reported a higher 

proficiency rate for CTE concentrators compared with the proficiency rate reported for all students 

under ESEA reporting, and 16 reported proficiency rates for CTE students that were 10 or more 

percentage points higher than those reported for all students. At the same time, a sizeable number of 

states (21) reported lower mathematics proficiency rates for CTE concentrators than for all students. 

One state (Illinois) reported the same mathematics proficiency rate for CTE students and all students 

(Exhibit 5.5). Similar results were found for Perkins reporting on CTE concentrators’ performance 

on English/language arts assessments (see Exhibit D.13 in Appendix D). 

28 The SPAC report also proposed changes to core indicators, including the addition of indicators on employment 

rates and earnings and elimination of indicators on nontraditional enrollment and completion and secondary 

academic attainment. The report provided suggestions for improving measurement approaches and data collection 

methods for each indicator. More detailed information about the SPAC initiative and results can be obtained from 

the SPAC website (http://cte.ed.gov/spac/) or from the State Perkins Accountability Congress Final Report, 

available at http://cte.ed.gov/spac/downloads/SPAC_Final_Report_February_2013.pdf. 29 Based on a Council of Chief State School Officers report that summarized state ESEA high school assessments for 

the 2009–10 school year, the highest grade in which such mathematics assessments were administered was the 10th 

grade in 11 states, the 11th grade in 26 states, and the 12th grade in 11 states (information was not available for three 

states). Similar patterns were found for English/language arts assessments (Blank and Stillman, 2010).

 
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 73

Exhibit 5.5. 

Proficiency rates on state high school mathematics assessments for CTE concentrators 

as reported under Perkins and for all students as reported under ESEA, by state, 2011–12

State Perkins reporting ESEA reporting Difference

Florida 88 47 41

Colorado 72 36 36

Arizona 89 60 29

Wisconsin 73 44 29

Georgia 89 61 28

Virginia 99 73 26

Texas 96 74 22

Tennessee 73 55 18

Idaho 93 78 15

Minnesota 56 42 14

District of Columbia 57 43 14

Oklahoma 77 64 13

Oregon 79 66 13

Ohio 94 83 11

Connecticut 88 77 11

New Mexico 49 39 10

Nevada 82 73 9

Mississippi 80 72 8

Rhode Island 38 30 8

Alaska 68 62 6

North Dakota 64 58 6

Kentucky 45 40 5

Maryland 88 84 4

Alabama 89 85 4

Kansas 87 83 4

New Jersey 82 79 3

New York 95 92 3

Wyoming 69 66 3

Nebraska 57 56 1

Illinois 52 52 0

South Dakota 68 69 –1

California 55 58 –3

Iowa 77 81 –4

Montana 56 60 –4

Hawaii 41 46 –5

Arkansas 72 78 –6

Michigan 23 30 –7

Massachusetts 70 78 –8

Louisiana 74 83 –9

Delaware 62 71 –9

Indiana 67 78 –11

New Hampshire 25 36 –11

Missouri 44 57 –13

West Virginia 34 48 –14

North Carolina 69 83 –14

Maine 29 47 –18

Pennsylvania 39 58 –19

Vermont 16 36 –20

Utah 43 63 –20

South Carolina 56 82 –26

Washington 46 75 –29

SOURCES: Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports (n = 51); ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports (n = 51). 
 CHAPTER 5

74 ACCOUNTABILITY

The pattern of higher proficiency rates reported for CTE concentrators than for all students that was 

found in many states is inconsistent with research findings that indicate that CTE concentrators often 

face additional challenges and have lower academic attainment than other students.30 A variety of 

factors could contribute to this finding. The Perkins indicator’s focus on CTE concentrators who left 

secondary education in the Perkins reporting year would tend to exclude low-achieving students who 

dropped out of school prior to the 12th grade but after taking the high school academic assessments. 

States that maintain separate data systems for CTE may face technical challenges in replicating the 

ESEA computation for CTE concentrators (Klein et al. 2014; U.S. Government Accountability Office 

2009). CTE concentrators are defined differently for the purposes of indicator reporting and analyses 

of NCES data, as discussed in Chapter 1. Finally, national patterns found using NCES data may 

differ from patterns that exist in individual states. More research is needed to examine possible 

explanations for the different patterns found between state-reported Perkins and ESEA indicator data.

Technical Skill Attainment

The Department’s nonregulatory guidance asks states to report the number of concentrators who pass 

technical skill assessments aligned with industry-recognized standards, if available and appropriate. 

Most states used national or state assessments for reporting on the Perkins

indicator for technical skill attainment. At the local level, subgrantees often used 

different measures to assess technical skill attainment than were used for 

performance indicator reporting.

Forty-three secondary directors and 33 postsecondary directors reported using national or state 

assessments as an indicator of technical skill attainment. The second most common measure at the 

postsecondary level was grade point average (17 states), but this measure was less common at the 

secondary level (four states). Course or program completion was used by 10 states at the secondary 

level and nine states at the postsecondary level (Exhibit 5.6). 

Exhibit 5.6. 

Number of states using various measures for the Perkins indicator on technical skill attainment, 

by education level, 2011–12

Measure Secondary Postsecondary

National or state assessments 43 33

Course or program completion 10 9

National or state standards 5 1

Industry-recognized credential or certificate 5 3

Grade point average 4 17

Degree, certificate, or transfer from 2-year to 4-year institution † 5

Exhibit reads: Forty-three states used national or state assessments to measured technical skill attainment at the 

secondary level, and 33 states did so at the postsecondary level.

† This measure is not applicable at the secondary level.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education. States’ Final Agreed-Upon Performance Levels, 

2011–12. See http://cte.ed.gov/accountability/faupls.cfm?year=2011. 

30 For example, high school graduates with disabilities were more likely to be CTE concentrators than were those 

with no reported disabilities, and those who had completed lower-level mathematics courses in the ninth grade were 

more frequently CTE concentrators than were students who had completed higher-level courses (see Exhibit 2.5). 

Similarly, analyses of NAEP data indicate that CTE concentrators were less likely to perform at or above the 

proficient level on 12th-grade mathematics and science assessments than were non-concentrators (see Exhibit 6.2).

 
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 75

Local subgrantees infrequently reported using national or state exams to assess technical skill 

attainment for all students participating in state-approved CTE programs, and were much more 

likely to report using course or program completion, grade point averages, or locally-developed or 

institutionally-developed skill exams. For example, 56 percent of LEAs reported using course or 

program completion to assess all participating students, while 9 percent reported using a statedeveloped CTE skill exam. Similarly, 63 percent of IHEs reported using course or program 

completion for this purpose, while 3 percent reported using a state-developed CTE skill exam 

(Exhibit 5.7). 

Exhibit 5.7. 

Percentage of LEAs and IHEs that reported using various measures to assess technical skill attainment for 

all students participating in state-approved CTE programs, by education level, 2008–09

Measure LEAs IHEs

CTE course or program completion 56 63

Grade point average 41 53

Locally or institutionally developed skill exam 39 36

State-developed CTE skill exam 9 3

Commercially developed exam 4 3

State licensing/credentialing exam 2 3

Industry-developed, employer-validated exam 2 3

National licensing/credentialing exam 1 3

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent of LEA directors reported using CTE course or program completion to assess 

technical skill attainment for all students participating in state-approved CTE programs. 

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors of CTE, 2009 (n = 1,004 LEAs, 733 IHEs). 

Accessing test data from third-party licensing and certification agencies or private third-party testing 

entities may present challenges. Students seeking licensure or an industry-recognized credential may 

have opportunities to take the assessments only a few times per year or after they have obtained a 

threshold amount of work experience, meaning that data may not be available at the time Perkins

data collection occurs.31 Citing privacy concerns, some licensing and certification organizations may 

decline to share assessment information with anyone other than the student. States also encountered 

considerable difficulty in obtaining student-level assessment records administered by other state 

agencies, such as state nursing boards (Data Quality Institute 2006; U.S. Government Accountability 

Office 2009). 

States also cited cost as an impediment to offering technical skill assessments. According to the 

Government Accountability Office, the cost of developing statewide assessments or acquiring thirdparty exams can be prohibitive for some institutions or for individual students who are asked to pay 

for an exam (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009). 

31 For example, the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Technologists offers three examination periods in 

2014, in January, June, and October (http://www.ptcny.com/clients/AAET/index.html). Another example is 

Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certification, which requires students to pass an ASE test and have relevant 

hands-on work experience (usually two years) (https://www.ase.com/Tests/). 

 
 CHAPTER 5

76 ACCOUNTABILITY

Completion

Perkins IV requires states to report the percentage or number of secondary CTE concentrators who 

earn a high school diploma, General Educational Development (GED) credential, or other staterecognized equivalent. For postsecondary education, states are to report on CTE concentrators who 

earn a degree, certificate, or industry-recognized credential. 

To report accurately on this indicator at the secondary level, LEAs must be able to reliably 

distinguish among students who drop out, transfer to another school, or graduate. GED information 

appears to be a challenge in some states. A Government Accountability Office study found that 

approximately one-third of states reported “great” or “very great” challenges in accessing GED data 

(U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009). States that have difficulty collecting GED award 

data may appear to have lower completion rates than that those have ready access to the data.

Some states struggle to obtain postsecondary certification and licensure completion data. As in the 

case of technical skill attainment, the timing of some assessments does not align with Perkins

reporting requirements, and privacy concerns may prevent external organizations from sharing 

results with state agencies and local subgrantees. While some states collect completion data for at 

least some postsecondary students who earn an external credential, such as a nursing certificate 

awarded by a state nursing board, few states capture this information for all external credentials. 

Others may not include any external credentials when calculating postsecondary completion 

(Klein et al. 2014). 

High School Graduation Rate

To support states in calculating high school graduation rates, the Department promulgated ESEA 

Title I regulations that specify how states are to report 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rates.32

However, as with the academic attainment indicator, some states have difficulty accessing 

longitudinal data for CTE students or applying the methodology for calculating ESEA graduation 

rates to the subset of CTE concentrators (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009; Richards and 

Schoelkopf 2008). 

Almost all states reported graduation rates for CTE concentrators that were higher 

than the graduation rates they reported for all students under ESEA. 

In 2011–12, two-thirds of the states reported CTE graduation rates that were 10 or more percentage 

points higher than the graduation rates for all students (33 states and the District of Columbia). Over 

half of all states (28 states and the District of Columbia) reported CTE graduation rates of 95 percent 

or higher in 2011–12, including eight states that reported graduation rates of 99 to 100 percent. In 

contrast, the highest graduation rate reported for all students under ESEA reporting requirements was 

89 percent (in Iowa). All but one state (Nevada) reported a CTE graduation rate over 80 percent, 

compared with 24 states under ESEA reporting. Only one state (Connecticut) reported a CTE 

graduation rate that was lower (83 percent graduation rate for CTE concentrators vs. 85 percent for 

all students) (see Exhibit 5.8). 

32 Regulations for calculating ESEA graduation rates are listed in 34 Code of Federal Regulations § 200.19. 

 
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 77

Exhibit 5.8. 

Graduation rates for CTE concentrators as reported under Perkins

and for all students as reported under ESEA, by state, 2011–12

State Perkins reporting ESEA reporting Difference

District of Columbia 96 59 37

Mississippi 97 75 22

Arizona 97 76 21

South Carolina 96 75 21

Minnesota 98 78 20

Louisiana 92 72 20

Alaska 89 70 19

New Mexico 89 70 19

Michigan 95 76 19

Georgia 89 70 19

Ohio 99 81 18

Rhode Island 95 77 18

Florida 92 75 17

Delaware 97 80 17

West Virginia 96 79 17

Hawaii 99 82 17

Virginia 99 83 16

Wyoming 94 79 15

Pennsylvania 99 84 15

South Dakota 97 83 14

North Carolina 94 80 14

Oregon 82 68 14

New Jersey 100 86 14

Kansas 99 85 14

Montana 97 84 13

Illinois 94 82 12

Utah 92 80 12

Nebraska 100 88 12

Maryland 95 84 11

California 89 78 11

Arkansas 95 84 11

Alabama 86 75 11

Washington 87 77 10

Tennessee 97 87 10

Vermont 97 88 9

Missouri 95 86 9

Colorado 84 75 9

New Hampshire 95 86 9

Indiana 94 86 8

Texas 96 88 8

North Dakota 95 87 8

Nevada 70 63 7

New York 84 77 7

Wisconsin 95 88 7

Massachusetts 89 85 4

Iowa 93 89 4

Maine 88 85 3

Connecticut 83 85 –2

Idaho 99 N/A N/A

Kentucky 97 N/A N/A

Oklahoma 88 N/A N/A

N/A indicates that data were not available.

SOURCES: Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports (n = 51); ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports (n = 48).
 CHAPTER 5

78 ACCOUNTABILITY

One explanation for the wide discrepancies in graduation rates is that some states may be calculating 

the Perkins graduation rate as the percentage of 12th-grade concentrators who graduated in the 

reporting year (e.g., California, Kentucky, and New Hampshire), rather than as the percentage of 

beginning high school students who earn a diploma in the standard number of years. Since students 

who have persisted to the 12th grade are close to completing graduation requirements, it comes as no 

surprise that a very high percentage of 12th-grade CTE concentrators go on to graduate at the end of 

the school year. Part of the reason for this challenge may be that the definition of CTE concentrator, 

by its nature, implies a student who has reached 11th or 12th grade. 

Postsecondary Retention or Transfer

Perkins IV requires that states report on student retention in postsecondary education, including 

students who transfer from a subbaccalaureate to a baccalaureate degree program. The Department’s 

nonregulatory guidance clarifies this requirement by specifying that “retained” CTE concentrators 

are those who remain enrolled in their original postsecondary institution, and “transfers” are those 

who enroll in a different 2-year or 4-year postsecondary institution. 

Unlike other measures, the retention or transfer measure, as defined in the nonregulatory guidance, 

looks back in time to assess student progress. Rather than exploring what percentage of the 

concentrator cohort transfers or is retained, the measure assesses whether students who enrolled or 

transferred in the current year were enrolled the previous fall. This approach limits the validity of the 

measure; it does not examine whether a particular cohort of concentrators continue their education 

(i.e., re-enroll or transfer in future terms or years). Instead, it evaluates whether concentrators and 

students who have already transferred were enrolled in a specific term in a previous year. 

In addition, this approach may not account for the coursetaking patterns of postsecondary students 

who may enroll part-time or stop out and re-enroll at a later date.33 A 2001 report found that 

30 percent of the students included in the study’s sample “stopped out,” meaning they enrolled, did 

not enroll, and then enrolled again across a sequence of terms (Stratton, O’Toole, and Wetzel 2001). 

Information about students who transfer also may not be accessible to all states and local 

subgrantees. This may occur because matching student records across postsecondary institutions — 

within a given institution type (e.g., 2-year institutions) or across institution types (e.g., 2-year and 

4-year institutions) — poses a challenge for many states. Obtaining data from out-of-state and private 

institutions presents an even greater barrier, in part due to the cost of tracking student enrollments 

(U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009). States that do not use national databases to follow 

postsecondary enrollment may underreport outcomes for this indicator. 

Placement

Perkins IV asks states to report secondary CTE concentrator placement in postsecondary education 

or training, employment, or the military, and postsecondary CTE concentrator placement in 

employment, an apprenticeship program, or military service. The postsecondary indicator specifies 

that the indicator include high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations, a provision that does 

not appear in the secondary placement indicator. The Department’s nonregulatory guidance clarifies 

the timeline for assessing student placement, indicating that states should evaluate student placement 

33 This issue is not limited to CTE students and applies to efforts to study the persistence of postsecondary students 

in general.

 
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 79

outcomes in the second quarter following the end of the program year, but does not indicate that the 

postsecondary data could include data on high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations. 

Most states used administrative records to report on the placement of students who 

exited the program.

In 2011–12, states most frequently relied on administrative records alone (33 secondary, 

38 postsecondary). Some states used a combination of administrative records and surveys 

(11 secondary, 8 postsecondary); for example, some states used record matching for postsecondary 

enrollment and surveys for employment outcomes. Relatively few states relied on surveys alone 

(7 secondary, 5 postsecondary) (Exhibit 5.9). 

Exhibit 5.9. 

Number of states using surveys and/or administrative records for the Perkins placement indicator, 

by education level, 2011–12

38

33

8 

11

5 

7 

0 10 20 30 40 50

Postsecondary level

Secondary level

Administrative records Both administrative records and surveys Surveys

Exhibit reads: States most commonly used administrative records to measure student placement after leaving 

the program (33 secondary, 38 postsecondary).

SOURCE: Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports (n = 51). 

Surveys may be administered at the state or local level and, depending upon the state, may involve 

contacting students or their families by mail or phone, online, or in person. Some states have 

developed standardized survey questions and methodologies that all subgrantees must implement the 

same way, while others allow more flexibility in the questions asked and the methods used. Reaching 

former students may be challenging, because their permanent addresses and phone numbers may 

have changed (Klein et al. 2014). 

Administrative records approaches typically involve matching student records with enrollment and 

employment records maintained by other agencies. National sources for administrative record 

matching include the Federal Employment and Data Exchange System (FEDES), which contains 

records for those employed by the military and many branches of the federal government, and the 

National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), which provides information about student enrollment in 

more than 3,300 U.S. postsecondary institutions and covers 92 percent of U.S. college students. 

FEDES matches require use of Social Security numbers (SSNs), while the NSC uses a matching key 
CHAPTER 5

80 ACCOUNTABILITY

that includes name, high school attended, and birth or graduation date (Jacob France Institute 2012; 

National Student Clearinghouse 2014). 

At the state level, unemployment insurance wage records provide employment information about 

individuals working in the private sector and state and local governments, but matching requires use 

of SSNs. Some states can match student records across K–12 schools, 2-year institutions, and 4-year 

institutions within their states to track student enrollment. These databases do not, however, include

information about students who attend postsecondary institutions out of state (Klein et al. 2014). 

At the secondary level, states most commonly used the state higher education database 

to obtain placement information on their students, while at the postsecondary level, the 

most commonly used data source was state unemployment insurance wage records. 

In 2009, 21 states reported using their higher education database to collect placement data for 

secondary students, while 17 states used state unemployment insurance wage records. At the 

postsecondary level, this pattern was reversed: 33 states used state unemployment insurance wage 

records and 28 states used their higher education database. The two national databases (NSC and 

FEDES) were less commonly used than state databases but still were utilized by a number of states. 

Some states used more than one of these databases to track students for reporting purposes. In 

general, use of each administrative records resource was more frequently reported by postsecondary 

CTE directors than by secondary directors (Exhibit 5.10). 

Exhibit 5.10. 

Number of states that reported using various administrative record matching resources 

to collect placement data, by education level, 2009

14

23

33

28

11

14

17

21

0 10 20 30 40 50

Federal Employment and Data Exchange System

(FEDES)

National Student Clearinghouse (NSC)

State unemployment insurance (UI) wage records

State higher education database

Secondary level

Postsecondary

level

Exhibit reads: At the secondary level, states most commonly used the state higher education database to collect

placement data for their students (21 states).

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors, 2009 (n = 51 secondary, 48 postsecondary).

State law or state interpretation of federal law sometimes prohibits the collection or use of SSNs for 

this type of record matching. More than half of the states (40 secondary, 32 postsecondary) identified 

access to SSNs as having an impact on their ability to report placement data. Even those states with 
CHAPTER 5 

ACCOUNTABILITY 81

access to SSNs and state unemployment insurance wage records may not have access to individual 

employment information outside their state borders.34 The majority of state directors (39 secondary, 

43 postsecondary) reported that accessing out-of-state employment data had at least some impact on 

their ability to report placement data.

Nontraditional Participation and Completion

The nonregulatory guidance outlines two separate measures for the nontraditional participation and 

completion indicator. These measures evaluate students’ involvement in programs leading to 

occupations identified as nontraditional for their gender. Nontraditional participation is the only 

measure that assesses the outcomes of participants rather than concentrators. 

Uses of Performance Indicator Data

Most states reported using Perkins performance indicator data to identify programs 

needing improvement and to provide targeted technical assistance.

At the secondary level, in 2009, over half of the states reported using annual Perkins performance 

indicator results to identify programs needing improvement (47 states), provide targeted technical 

assistance (45 states), identify underserved special populations (36 states), identify unusually 

effective programs (35 states), and provide resources for program improvement (29 states). Similar 

results were found at the postsecondary level (Exhibit 5.11). 

Exhibit 5.11. 

Number of states that reported using annual Perkins performance indicator data 

for various purposes, by education level, 2009

4 

12 

28 

29 

34 

40 

41 

11 

21 

29 

35 

36 

45 

47 

0 10 20 30 40 50

Reward LEAs/IHEs for high performance

Sanction low-performing LEAs/IHEs

Provide resources for program

improvement

Identify unusually effective programs

Identify underserved special populations

Provide targeted technical assistance

Identify programs needing improvement

Secondary level

Postsecondary level

Exhibit reads: Most states used annual Perkins results to identify programs needing improvement (47 secondary, 

41 postsecondary) and to provide targeted technical assistance (45 secondary, 40 postsecondary).

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors, 2009 (n = 51 secondary, 48 postsecondary).

34 The Wage Record Interchange System (WRIS) provides out-of-state private employment data, but WRIS data 

currently cannot be accessed for Perkins reporting purposes.
CHAPTER 5

82 ACCOUNTABILITY

States were less likely to report using core indicator data to sanction or reward subgrantees, and both 

sanctions and rewards were less common at the postsecondary level than at the secondary level. At 

both levels, states more frequently reported using core indicator data to sanction low-performing 

subgrantees (21 secondary, 12 postsecondary) than to reward subgrantees for high performance 

(11 secondary, 4 postsecondary) (Exhibit 5.11). 

For local subgrantees that do not achieve 90 percent of their Perkins performance targets, states 

reported having policies to impose additional requirements or consequences (in addition to the 

statutory requirement to develop a local improvement plan). For such local subgrantees, states were 

more likely to report policies to restrict flexibility in the use of Perkins funds (30 secondary, 22 

postsecondary) than to withhold or decrease state or Perkins funding (11 secondary, 9 postsecondary) 

or impose additional accountability reporting requirements (9 secondary, 7 postsecondary). A few 

states reported either imposing no consequences or responded that the consequences existed but were 

unlikely to be imposed (Exhibit 5.12). 

Exhibit 5.12. 

Number of states that reported having policies to impose various consequences on local subgrantees

that did not meet 90 percent of their performance targets, by education level, 2009

5 

1 

7 

9 

22 

3 

5 

9 

11 

30 

0 10 20 30 40 50

No consequences exist

Consequences exist but are unlikely to

be imposed

Additional accountability reporting

requirements

Loss of, or decrease in, state or Perkins

funding

Restrictions or loss of flexibility in the

use of Perkins funds

Secondary level

Postsecondary level

Exhibit reads: Thirty secondary state directors reported that local subgrantees that failed to meet a performance 

target faced restrictions or loss of flexibility in their use of Perkins funds. 

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of Secondary and Postsecondary State Directors, 2009 (n = 51 secondary, 48 postsecondary). 
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 83

6

Student Outcomes

Perkins IV was intended to raise the academic and 

technical rigor of secondary and postsecondary CTE 

instruction in order to prepare students for entry 

into high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand 

occupations. Implied in this goal is an expectation 

that participation in CTE should be associated with 

improved educational and employment outcomes. 

However, given the variation in local policy, 

definitions, and outcome measures — as well as 

the current limitations of state education data 

systems — it is not possible to rely on state data 

alone to examine indicators of Perkins IV outcomes. 

Research on CTE therefore relies on a combination of 

other data sources to provide insights into the 

potential benefits of the Perkins IV statute. 
 CHAPTER 6

84 STUDENT OUTCOMES

Key Findings

• The percentage of high school graduates completing 4-year college preparatory coursework 

nearly doubled from 1990 to 2009, and CTE students showed larger increases than did nonCTE students. However, this may reflect changes in who participated in CTE rather than the 

impact of CTE. 

• The NACTE-commissioned studies, which used quasi-experimental methods to control for 

student background, found that CTE coursetaking had little or no relationship with academic 

achievement in high school. Differences in achievement between CTE concentrators and 

non-concentrators were almost entirely explained by differences in student characteristics. 

• High school graduates who were CTE concentrators were less likely to attend or complete 

postsecondary education than were non-concentrators, but studies that controlled for student 

background found mixed results for college-going and degree attainment. 

• College-going and completion rates varied considerably by CTE concentration field, as did 

continuation in the same CTE field at the postsecondary level. For example: 

o As of 2006, college-going rates for 2004 high school graduates ranged from 

84 percent for CTE students who had concentrated in computer and information 

sciences to 52 percent for concentrators in repair and transportation. 

o Continuation in the same CTE field at the postsecondary level was most common 

among high school graduates who concentrated in health sciences or business. 

o Completion of a postsecondary degree or certificate in the same field was most 

common among high school graduates who concentrated in health sciences. 

• Among students who initially enrolled in subbaccalaureate programs in 2003–04, students in 

CTE and academic fields had attained credentials at similar rates six years later (by 2009). 

• Findings on employment and earnings outcomes for CTE students were mixed. For example: 

o Eight years after graduating from high school in 2004, CTE concentrators had 

average hourly wages that were not statistically different — no better but no worse — 

than those for graduates who were non-concentrators and had the same level of 

postsecondary attainment. 

o For CTE concentrators who did not enroll in postsecondary education, studies show 

mixed findings on employment and earnings outcomes. Some studies suggest that 

there may be higher returns for some CTE fields (e.g., construction and architecture) 

and programs (e.g., career academies). 

o Six years after starting postsecondary education, students who earned a CTE 

certificate or associate’s degree were more likely to be employed and to consider 

their job to be the start of a career than were those who did not earn a 

subbaccalaureate credential. However, students who earned a bachelor’s degree had 

even better employment outcomes. 
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 85

Background

States report a substantial amount of data on student outcomes in response to Perkins accountability 

requirements, but these data have a number of limitations affecting their use for examining overall 

outcomes for CTE students. For example, as discussed in Chapter 5, performance measures and 

definitions of CTE students differ across states, preventing the aggregation of data to obtain valid 

national estimates. In addition, data reported on academic attainment and graduation rate indicators 

may tend to exclude low-achieving students who dropped out of school prior to the 12th grade. 

For these reasons, the NACTE’s examination of achievement and employment outcomes for CTE 

students relies on other data sources, including nationally representative longitudinal datasets and 

quasi-experimental studies. Descriptive analyses in this chapter use NCES longitudinal datasets to 

examine educational and employment outcomes of CTE students, including comparisons between 

CTE concentrators and non-concentrators and among concentrators in different CTE fields. The 

chapter also summarizes findings from studies that sought to gauge the “value added” of CTE using 

experimental or quasi-experimental methods to control for pre-existing differences among students.35 

It is important to note that the findings in this chapter cannot be used to draw conclusions about the 

effects of the Perkins IV statute. Due to the time required to implement policy changes and track 

student outcomes through graduation and beyond, as well as the timing of national and state data 

collection, significant time may elapse between the introduction of a new policy and the availability 

of valid and reliable student outcome data. For example, NCES longitudinal studies that follow 

nationally representative samples of high school students and postsecondary students over time 

generally do not yet have data on educational and employment outcomes for student cohorts entering 

secondary or postsecondary education after the implementation of Perkins IV. Consequently, this 

chapter uses student outcomes data from NCES studies that followed earlier student cohorts,36 as 

well as data from four NACTE-commissioned studies that followed students who were enrolled in 

high school during the period covered by Perkins III (and in one case, Perkins II). Accordingly, 

although the information presented in this chapter is the most recent available, much of it addresses 

the outcomes of students who completed all or part of their education programs prior to Perkins IV.

In addition, differences in how student populations are defined also may mean that students included 

within national analyses differ from those identified for Perkins purposes. In short, although this 

chapter does not assess the impact of Perkins IV on student outcomes, it does provide a summary of 

the most recent available information on CTE student outcomes based on NCES longitudinal and 

cross-sectional data as well as from recent quasi-experimental studies.

Secondary CTE Outcomes

This section examines a wide range of outcomes for secondary CTE students, including academic 

coursetaking, academic achievement, high school completion, postsecondary education, and 

employment and earnings. 

35 Summaries of the methodology and findings for four NACTE-commissioned studies of student outcomes are 

provided at the end of this chapter. All four studies examined outcomes for secondary CTE students and one also 

examined outcomes for postsecondary CTE students. While various studies have examined the effects of secondary 

CTE participation on student outcomes, relatively few have investigated such effects at the postsecondary level.

36 NCES currently has two longitudinal studies underway that will provide data on outcomes for students 

participating in CTE after Perkins IV implementation: the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 and a new cohort 

for the Beginning Postsecondary Students study (i.e., students who entered postsecondary education in 2012).

 
 CHAPTER 6

86 STUDENT OUTCOMES

Academic Coursetaking

Two sets of standards that can be used to examine the relationship between CTE coursetaking levels 

and students’ completion of academic coursework are the New Basics core curriculum and the more 

challenging 4-year college preparatory coursework. The New Basics core curriculum includes four 

years of English and three years each of mathematics, science, and social studies. Four-year college 

preparatory coursework is defined as at least four credits in English; three credits in mathematics 

(algebra I level or higher); two credits in biology, chemistry, or physics; two credits in social studies 

with at least one credit in U.S. or world history; and two or more credits in a single foreign language. 

The percentage of high school graduates completing the New Basics core curriculum

nearly doubled from 1990 to 2009, as did the percentage completing 4-year college 

preparatory coursework. CTE students showed larger increases than did non-CTE 

students, but this may reflect changes in who participated in CTE rather than the 

impact of CTE. 

Among high school graduates who earned four or more CTE credits, the percentage completing the 

New Basics curriculum increased from 18 percent in 1990 to 70 percent in 2009, and the percentage 

completing 4-year college preparatory coursework rose from 10 percent to 45 percent. In contrast, 

graduates with no CTE credits showed gains that were smaller (although still substantial); the 

percentage completing these courses rose from 55 percent to 80 percent for the New Basics 

curriculum and from 45 percent to 74 percent for 4-year college preparatory coursework (Exhibit 6.1). 

Exhibit 6.1. 

Percentage of public high school graduates completing the New Basics core curriculum and 

4-year college preparatory coursework, by the number of occupational CTE credits earned, 

1990, 2000, and 2009

CTE participation 

status 

New Basics core curriculum Four-year college prep coursework

1990 2000 2009 1990 2000 2009 

4.0 or more credits 18 50 70 10 29 45

2.0–3.99 credits 39 59 75 30 44 60

0.01–1.99 credits 52 63 76 42 50 66

None 55 66 80 45 54 74

All graduates 38 58 73 29 42 56 

Exhibit reads: The percentage of public high school graduates with 4.0 or more CTE credits who 

completed the New Basics core curriculum rose from 18 percent in 1990 to 70 percent in 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Studies (HSTS) for 

1990, 2000, and 2009.

Some studies that used statistical methods to control for student background characteristics have

found either minimal or no relationships between CTE coursetaking and academic coursetaking. 

A study of Florida public high school students who were ninth-graders in 1996 found that CTE 

concentrators were slightly more likely than non-concentrators to complete the New Basics

curriculum (Jacobson and Mokher 2014). A study of eight ninth-grade cohorts in the San Diego 

Unified School District from 1998 to 2006 found that students who took more CTE courses had 

slightly lower completion rates for coursework required for entry to California state 4-year colleges 

and universities compared with students who took fewer CTE courses (Betts et al. 2014). The 

magnitude of differences in both studies was small. 
CHAPTER 6

STUDENT OUTCOMES 87

However, a more rigorous study, based on a natural experiment with random admission of students to 

CTE high schools in Philadelphia, found that students who attended CTE high schools were more 

likely to complete the college preparatory mathematics course sequence of algebra I, algebra II, and 

geometry than similar students who did not attend CTE high schools. The study did not find a 

relationship between attending a CTE school and chemistry, physics, or foreign language 

coursetaking (Neild, Boccanfuso, and Byrnes 2013). 

Academic Achievement

CTE concentrators were much less likely than non-concentrators to score at or above 

the proficient level on NAEP mathematics and science assessments, but this may 

reflect differences in coursetaking patterns and prior achievement. 

Based on the most recent NAEP for which data on coursetaking are available from the NAEP High 

School Transcript Study, CTE concentrators scored lower than non-concentrators in mathematics in 

2005 and 2009 and in science in 2009. On the 2009 NAEP 12th-grade mathematics assessment, 

16 percent of CTE concentrators scored at or above the proficient level, compared with 31 percent 

of non-concentrators. In science, 10 percent of CTE concentrators scored at or above the proficient 

level, compared with 24 percent of non-concentrators (Exhibit 6.2). These differences may be due in 

part to a lower level of advanced coursetaking among CTE concentrators; high school graduates who 

took more CTE credits were less likely to complete 4-year college preparatory coursework (see 

Exhibit 6.1), and those had completed more challenging mathematics courses in the ninth grade were 

less likely to become CTE concentrators (see Exhibit 2.5). 

Exhibit 6.2.

Percentage of CTE concentrators and non-concentrators scoring at or above the proficient level on NAEP 

12th-grade assessments in mathematics in 2005 and 2009 and in science in 2009 

13% 16%

10%

27% 31%

24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2009 2009

Mathematics Science

CTE concentrators Non-concentrators

Exhibit reads: On the 2005 NAEP 12th-grade mathematics assessment, 13 percent of CTE concentrators and 

27 percent of non-concentrators scored at or above the Proficient level. 

NOTE: The 2009 NAEP science assessment is not comparable to earlier science assessments. Because NAEP scales are developed independently 

for each subject, NAEP results cannot be used to make comparisons across subjects.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 and 2009 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Mathematics Assessment and 2009 Mathematics and Science 

Assessments.
 CHAPTER 6

88 STUDENT OUTCOMES

The NACTE-commissioned studies that used quasi-experimental methods to control 

for student background found that CTE coursetaking had little or no relationship 

with academic achievement in high school. Differences in achievement between 

CTE concentrators and non-concentrators were almost entirely explained by 

differences in student characteristics.

The study of CTE high schools in Philadelphia found that CTE coursetaking had no effect on 

achievement in mathematics and reading comprehension for students in grades 8–11 (Neild, 

Boccanfuso, and Byrnes 2013). The San Diego study found that mathematics score gains showed no 

significant relationship with the number of CTE courses taken, while for reading, a small but 

statistically significant negative relationship was found (Betts et al. 2014). Finally, the analysis of 

longitudinal ELS data for 2004 high school graduates found that individual CTE courses had no 

relationship with mathematics achievement; however, the study showed slightly lower achievement 

for students who earned a relatively high percentage of their credits in CTE during the last two years 

of high school compared with students who did not take CTE courses (Bozick and Dalton 2013). 

High School Completion

Evidence on the relationship between CTE concentration and high school 

graduation is inconclusive.

Some studies have found that CTE courses, particularly when taken early in high school, were 

associated with a lowered risk of dropping out, whereas others found the opposite or no link 

(Silverberg et al. 2004). In part, students’ tendency to take CTE courses during the final two years 

of high school limits the influence of occupational CTE coursework on dropping out because a high 

percentage of students who drop out do so before their final two years (Bozick and Dalton 2013; 

Hampden-Thompson, Warkentien, and Daniel 2009). 

Three NACTE studies examined the relationship between CTE coursetaking and high school 

completion among students with similar socioeconomic and academic backgrounds. The Philadelphia 

study found that students who attended CTE high schools had higher on-time graduation rates and 

5-year and 6-year graduation rates relative to students who attended other types of high schools 

(Neild, Boccanfuso, and Byrnes 2013). However, the San Diego study found that CTE coursetaking 

or concentrator status had no relationship with the likelihood of students’ graduating within five 

years of starting ninth grade; mixed results were found for the association between attending a CTE 

school and graduation rates (Betts et al. 2014). Similarly, the analysis of longitudinal ELS data found 

that CTE concentrators and non-CTE students had nearly the same probability of dropping out of 

school (Bozick and Dalton 2013). 

Another recent analysis suggested that this outcome may be related to a student’s age when entering 

the ninth grade and the proportion of CTE courses taken. Among a national sample of youths who 

were aged 12–17 in 1997 and followed through the early 2000s, Plank, DeLuca, and Estacion (2008) 

found a lower risk of dropping out among those who took CTE/academic courses in a 1:2 ratio (i.e., 

one-third of their total CTE and academic courses), as long as they were aged 15 or younger when 

they entered the ninth grade. Lower and higher proportions of CTE coursetaking were associated 

with increased risks of dropping out. In contrast, students who were aged 15 or older when they 

entered the ninth grade did not show a relationship between CTE coursetaking and drop-out rates; the 

authors suggested that these students may have a constellation of risk factors that diminish the 

potential benefits of CTE coursetaking. 
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 89

Postsecondary Education and Employment

High school graduates who were CTE concentrators were less likely to attend or 

complete postsecondary education than were non-concentrators, but studies that 

controlled for student background found mixed results for college-going and degree 

attainment.

Longitudinal data from a study that followed 2004 high school graduates indicate that as of 2012 

(eight years after graduating), 18 percent of CTE concentrators had never enrolled in postsecondary 

education, compared with 9 percent of non-concentrators. CTE concentrators were less likely to earn 

a degree or certificate during this period (50 vs. 58 percent of non-concentrators). CTE concentrators 

were more likely to earn a subbaccalaureate degree or certificate (23 vs. 19 percent), but they were 

less likely to earn a bachelor’s or professional degree or certificate (27 vs. 39 percent) (Exhibit 6.3). 

Exhibit 6.3. 

Percentage distribution of secondary CTE concentrators and non-concentrators who earned a 

postsecondary degree or credential within eight years of high school graduation, by attainment status, 2012

18%

9%

32%

32%

23%

19%

27%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CTE concentrators Non-concentrators

Bachelor's or professional degree

or certificate

Subbaccalaureate degree or

certificate

Some postsecondary, no degree

or certificate

No postsecondary attendance

Exhibit reads: Among CTE concentrators who graduated from high school in 2004, 27 percent of CTE concentrators 

had earned a bachelor’s or professional degree or certificate by 2012.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Third Followup Restricted-use File.

CTE concentrators were less likely than all graduates to enroll immediately and full-time (78 vs. 

83 percent), less likely to enroll in a 4-year institution (48 vs. 58 percent), and more likely to work 

full-time while enrolled (27 vs. 21 percent). The enrollment characteristics of CTE concentrators also 

varied by CTE occupational area. For example, 67 percent of computer and information sciences 

concentrators enrolled in a 4-year institution, compared with 26 percent of repair and transportation 

concentrators. 

However, the three NACTE studies that examined postsecondary outcomes for high school CTE 

concentrators found mixed results. The Philadelphia study of CTE high school applicants found some 
CHAPTER 6

90 STUDENT OUTCOMES

evidence that attendance in CTE schools had a positive impact on enrollment in 2-year and 4-year 

colleges, but the findings were not consistent across all cohorts studied (Neild, Boccanfuso, and 

Byrnes 2013). The San Diego study found that CTE coursetaking — but not concentrator status — 

had a positive relationship with the length of time that a student was enrolled in postsecondary 

education during the four years after high school graduation (Betts et al. 2014). The Florida study of 

students who entered the ninth grade in 1996 found no difference between CTE concentrators and 

non-concentrators with similar backgrounds in terms of college-going, remedial coursetaking, 

persistence, and degree attainment (Jacobson and Mokher 2014). 

College-going rates varied considerably by CTE concentration field.

Among 2004 high school graduates, the percentage who had enrolled in postsecondary education 

within two years (by 2006) was 70 percent for CTE concentrators, compared with 80 percent for nonconcentrators. Among concentrators in specific CTE fields, the college-going rate ranged from 84 

percent for CTE students who had concentrated in computer and information sciences to 52 percent 

for concentrators in repair and transportation (Exhibit 6.4). 

Exhibit 6.4. 

Percentage distribution of 2004 public high school graduates by postsecondary enrollment and employment 

status two years after high school, by CTE occupational field and concentrator status, 2006

79%

80%

70%

52%

54%

59%

69%

72%

72%

78%

80%

81%

84%

20%

18%

29%

48%

43%

37%

30%

28%

26%

19%

19%

17%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All high school graduates

Non-concentrators

All CTE concentrators

Repair & transportation

Construction & architecture

Consumer & culinary services

Agriculture & natural resources

Engineering technologies

Marketing

Business

Communications & design

Health sciences

Computer & information sciences

Enrolled in postsecondary education Never enrolled but worked for pay Neither enrolled nor worked for pay

Exhibit reads: Among 2004 public high school graduates who were CTE concentrators in computer and information 

sciences, 84 percent had enrolled in postsecondary education by 2006, 12 percent had never enrolled in 

postsecondary education but had worked for pay, and 4 percent had neither enrolled nor worked for pay. 

NOTES: The timeframe for postsecondary enrollment and employment was between high school graduation and the 2006 interview date. Two 

occupational CTE fields are not included in this chart because reporting standards were not met (manufacturing and public services).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Second 

Follow-up, Restricted-use File.
CHAPTER 6

STUDENT OUTCOMES 91

Continuation in the same CTE field at the postsecondary level was most common 

among high school graduates who concentrated in health sciences or business.

Two years after high school graduation, among 2004 high school graduates who had been CTE 

concentrators, 10 percent were enrolled in postsecondary fields related to their high school CTE 

program. Continuation in the same CTE field varied across different fields of study. For example, 

19 percent of high school health science concentrators became undergraduate concentrators in the 

same field, as did 16 percent of high school business concentrators. In contrast, continuation in the 

same field was much less common among students who were high school concentrators in marketing 

(5 percent) or consumer and culinary services (5 percent) (Exhibit 6.5). 

Exhibit 6.5. 

Percentage of secondary CTE concentrators who enrolled in postsecondary education within

two years of high school graduation, by same or different field of study, 2006

10%

5%

5%

7%

7%

8%

11%

13%

16%

19%

60%

55%

67%

45%

62%

64%

69%

72%

62%

62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All CTE concentrators

Consumer & culinary services

Marketing

Repair & transportation

Agriculture & natural resources

Engineering technologies

Communications & design

Computer & information sciences

Business

Health sciences

Enrolled in postsecondary education in same field Enrolled in postsecondary education in different field

Exhibit reads: Among 2004 high school graduates who had concentrated in health sciences, 19 percent had 

enrolled in postsecondary education in the health sciences field by 2006, and an additional 62 percent had 

enrolled in postsecondary education in a different field (or had not yet declared a major or field of study). 

NOTES: “Enrolled in postsecondary education but not in same field” includes students who had not yet declared a major or field of study. The 

timeframe for postsecondary enrollment was between high school graduation and the 2006 interview date. Three occupational CTE fields are 

not included in this chart because reporting standards were not met (construction and architecture, manufacturing, and public services).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Second 

Follow-up, Restricted-use File. 
CHAPTER 6

92 STUDENT OUTCOMES

Completion of a postsecondary degree or certificate in the same field was most 

common among high school graduates who concentrated in health sciences.

Eight years after high school graduation, among 2004 high school graduates who had been CTE 

concentrators, 14 percent had completed a postsecondary degree or certificate in a field related to 

their high school CTE concentration, but the percentages varied significantly by field of study. 

Forty percent of high school health science concentrators earned a postsecondary credential in the 

same field, compared with 4 percent of high school concentrators in agriculture and natural resources 

and 9 percent of those who had concentrated in consumer and culinary services (Exhibit 6.6).

Exhibit 6.6. 

Percentage of secondary CTE concentrators who earned a postsecondary degree or certificate in 

the same or a different field of study within eight years of high school graduation, 2012

14%

4%

9%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

40%

35%

42%

27%

39%

51%

40%

13%

38%

22%

49%

46%

36%

53%

66%

56%

30%

56%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Total

Agriculture and natural resources

Consumer and culinary services

Engineering technologies

Communications and design

Computer and information sciences

Repair and transportation

Business

Health sciences

Earned postsecondary degree or certificate in same field Earned postsecondary degree or certificate in a different field

Exhibit reads: Among 2004 high school graduates who had concentrated in health sciences, 40 percent had earned 

a postsecondary degree or certificate in health sciences by 2012, and an additional 22 percent had earned a 

postsecondary degree or certificate in a different field.

NOTES: The timeframe for postsecondary enrollment was between high school graduation and the 2006 interview date. Four occupational CTE 

fields are not included in this chart because reporting standards were not met (construction and architecture, marketing, manufacturing, and 

public service). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Third Followup Restricted-use File.

Employment and Earnings for Non-College-Going Students

Among high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary education, studies 

have found mixed results on employment and earnings outcomes for CTE concentrators. 

Some studies suggest that there may be higher returns for some CTE fields (e.g., 

construction and architecture) and programs (e.g., career academies). 

A descriptive comparison of 2004 high school graduates who worked instead of enrolling in 

postsecondary education within the first two years of graduation found higher rates of full-time 

employment among CTE concentrators (69 percent) than among non-concentrators (62 percent) 

(Exhibit 6.7). 
CHAPTER 6

STUDENT OUTCOMES 93

Exhibit 6.7.

Among 2004 public high school graduates who worked for pay and did not enroll in postsecondary

education in the first two years after high school graduation, percentage who worked full-time and 

average hourly wage, by CTE participation status, 2006 

CTE participation status Percent working full-timea Average hourly wageb

CTE concentrators 69% $10.04

Non-concentrators 62% $9.59

Graduates by number of CTE credits

4.00 or more credits 70% $9.84

2.00 – 3.99 credits 62% $9.83

0.00 – 1.99 credits 60% $9.46

All high school graduates 64% $9.70

Exhibit reads: Among high school graduates who worked and did not enroll in postsecondary education 

within two years of graduation, 69 percent of those who were CTE concentrators were working full-time 

in 2006, and their average hourly earnings in 2012 were $10.04.

a “Full-time” is defined as working 35 or more hours per week. b Graduates who reported earning less than $2 per hour or more than $30 per hour were excluded (2 percent of respondents).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), 

Second Follow-up, Restricted-use File.

Data from the Education Longitudinal Study follow-up surveys in 2006 and 2012 do not show 

significant differences in hourly compensation between non-college-going concentrators and nonconcentrators. In 2006, both CTE concentrators and non-concentrators who had not attended 

postsecondary education earned an average of about $10 per hour (Exhibit 6.7). Similarly, 2012 

average hourly wages for this same cohort do not show a statistically significant difference between 

these two groups (the two groups earned about $14–$15 per hour) (see Exhibit 6.10). 

The NACTE commissioned study using Florida administrative data examined this issue by following 

a cohort of Florida high school students who entered the ninth grade in 1996 for 10 years, through 

2007, and using statistical methods to control for differences in student characteristics. This study

found that although the CTE concentrators had higher median quarterly earnings than nonconcentrators, much of the difference was attributable to observed characteristics, such as work 

experience or academic performance. However, the study did find an earnings advantage for 

concentrators in some CTE fields (e.g., construction and architecture) (Jacobson and Mokher 2014). 

In a randomized long-term study of students who participated in career academies in nine urban high 

schools, Kemple and Willner (2008) found a positive impact on earnings: students who had been 

enrolled in academies earned an average of 11 percent more than other students, and this effect was 

more pronounced for males, who had an earnings gain of 17 percent. 
 CHAPTER 6

94 STUDENT OUTCOMES

Postsecondary CTE Outcomes

A total of about 1.6 million subbaccalaureate credentials — either certificates or associate’s 

degrees — were awarded in CTE fields in 2012 (see Exhibit 2.12). This chapter examines several 

types of outcomes for postsecondary CTE students, including persistence, academic attainment (i.e., 

certificates and degrees), employment rates, and earnings. 

Persistence and Attainment

CTE students in certificate programs were more likely to persist and attain 

credentials than were CTE students in associate’s degree programs. Within each of 

these two types of subbaccalaureate credentials, students in CTE and academic 

fields attained credentials at similar rates within six years.

Among 2003–04 beginning undergraduates who initially enrolled in certificate programs, 53 percent 

of those in CTE fields had attained a certificate or degree within six years (by 2009), compared with 

54 percent of those in academic fields. Similarly, among students who enrolled in associate’s degree 

programs, 37 percent of those in CTE fields had attained some type of credential as of 2009, as did 

37 percent of those in academic fields (Exhibit 6.8). 

Exhibit 6.8. 

Percentage of students who began postsecondary education in 2003 who had attained various credentials 

or were still enrolled as of 2009 six years after initial enrollment, by postsecondary program

Initial degree program and 

field of study

Total 

attained or 

persisted

Total, any 

credential Certificate

Associate’s 

degree

Bachelor’s 

degree

No

credential, 

still enrolled

Certificate programs

Career/technical field 60 53 50 2 1 8

Academic field 75 54 45 ‡ ‡ 21!

Associate’s degree programs

Career/technical field 54 37 6 20 11 17

Academic field 56 37 ‡ 17 15 19

All subbaccalaureate programs 56 39 16 15 9 16

Baccalaureate programs 79 67 1 3 63 12

Career field 77 64 1 3 60 13

Academic field 84 73 1! 2 70 10

All beginning students 65 50 9 9 31 15

Exhibit reads: Among 2003–04 first-time undergraduates who initially enrolled in certificate programs in CTE fields of 

study, 60 percent had either attained a credential or were still enrolled in postsecondary education in 2009.

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.

‡ Reporting standards not met.

NOTE: CTE-focused associate's degrees are distinguished from those with an academic focus per an NCES taxonomy that can be found at 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/postsec_tax.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003/04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 

(BPS:2004/09).
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 95

Postsecondary persistence and attainment did, however, vary by the type of credential that CTE 

students initially sought. Among students who initially enrolled in CTE fields of study, 53 percent of 

those in certificate programs had attained a certificate or degree by 2009, compared with 37 percent 

of those in associate’s degree programs and 64 percent of those in bachelor’s degree programs. 

Similarly, among CTE students who initially enrolled in certificate programs, the percentage who 

had either attained a credential or were still enrolled (60 percent) was higher than for CTE students in 

associate’s degree programs (54 percent) but lower than for students in bachelor’s degree programs 

in career fields of study (77 percent) (Exhibit 6.8). 

Employment and Earnings

Postsecondary students who earned a CTE certificate or associate’s degree were 

more likely to be employed and to consider their job to be the start of a career than 

were those who did not earn a subbaccalaureate credential. However, students who 

earned a bachelor’s degree had even better employment outcomes. 

Among 2003–04 beginning undergraduates, those who had earned a CTE certificate or associate’s 

degree were more likely to be employed in 2009 (81 percent) than were those who had not earned a 

credential (75 percent). Among those who were employed, students who had earned a CTE 

certificate or degree were more likely than those without a credential to be employed full-time (83 vs. 

79 percent) and to report that they considered their current job to be the start of a career (57 vs. 44 

percent). Differences between graduates with CTE subbaccalaureate credentials and those with any 

subbaccalaureate credential were not statistically significant. Students who had earned a bachelor’s 

degree had better outcomes than those with a subbaccalaureate CTE credential on two of these 

measures (employment rate and career starting); the difference in full-time employment rates was not 

statistically significant (Exhibit 6.9). 

Exhibit 6.9.

Percentage of students who began postsecondary education in 2003 who had various 

employment outcomes in 2009, by postsecondary attainment as of 2009

Credential attained when last 

enrolled Employed

Percent of those 

employed who were 

working full-time

Consider current job 

to be start of a career

No degree or certificate 75% 79% 44%

CTE subbaccalaureate credential 81% 83% 57%

Any subbaccalaureate credential 80% 83% 57%

Bachelor’s degree 88% 87% 66%

Exhibit reads: Among 2003–04 first-time undergraduates who did not earn a degree or certificate programs within 

six years (by 2009), 75 percent were employed in 2009. Of those who were employed (and were not still enrolled

in postsecondary education), 79 percent were working full-time and 44 percent considered their job to be the start 

of a career.

NOTES: Last two columns of table include only those who were employed and not still enrolled in postsecondary education in 2009.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:04/09). 
 CHAPTER 6

96 STUDENT OUTCOMES

Students who earned an undergraduate certificate or associate’s degree had higher 

earnings than high school graduates with no postsecondary education. Earnings of 

high school CTE concentrators were not statistically different from those of nonconcentrators who had the same level of postsecondary attainment.

Looking at a single cohort of high school graduates who had graduated in 2004 and were followed 

through 2012, those who earned a postsecondary certificate had average hourly wages of $15.23 in 

2012, compared with $13.89 for those who did not attend postsecondary education and $13.81 for 

those who attended postsecondary education but did not complete a certificate or degree. Students 

who earned an associate’s degree also had higher earnings than those that did not attend or complete 

a postsecondary program. However, similar comparisons for students who had been CTE 

concentrators in high school did not show statistically significant differences. In addition, there was 

not a statistically significant difference in the average hourly wages for CTE concentrators and nonconcentrators with the same level of postsecondary attainment (Exhibit 6.10).

Exhibit 6.10. 

Average hourly wages earned in 2012 by students who graduated from a public high school in 2004, 

for secondary CTE concentrators and non-concentrators, by postsecondary attainment

Postsecondary degree or certificate type

All high school 

graduates

CTE 

concentrators

Nonconcentrators

No postsecondary enrollment $13.89 $14.54 $13.65

Some postsecondary enrollment, no credential $13.81 $14.52 $13.67

Undergraduate certificate $15.23 $16.27 $14.97

Associate’s degree $16.14 $15.90 $16.18

Bachelor’s degree $18.87 $19.15 $18.84

Professional degree or certificate $22.94 $22.26 $23.03

Exhibit reads: Among students who graduated from a public high school in 2004, average hourly earnings in 2012 

were $13.89 for all graduates, $14.54 for CTE concentrators, and $13.65 for non-concentrators. The difference

between CTE concentrators and non-concentrators was not statistically significant.

NOTE: Composite variable F3HOURWAGE was used in this analysis and provides a standard estimate of hourly wage from respondent reports of 

wages or salary from their current or (for those not currently employed) most recent job.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Third Followup Restricted-use File. 

The above findings are descriptive and do not control for differences in student characteristics that 

may affect educational attainment, employment, and earnings. To better examine the relationship 

between postsecondary CTE education and earnings, the NACTE Florida study used multivariate and 

logistic regression models to estimate the association between CTE concentrator status and student 

outcomes while controlling for student, school, and labor market characteristics including student 

socioeconomic status, grade point averages, and average employment rates and earnings in the area 

where the student attended high school or college. The study found that postsecondary CTE 

concentrators37 achieved significantly higher earnings than those who majored in academic fields; 

37 This study used student coursetaking rather than majors to determine postsecondary CTE concentrators, similar to 

the Perkins non-regulatory guidance. Specifically, the study defined postsecondary CTE concentrator as a student 

who either: (a) completed at least 12.0 college credits (about four semester-long courses) with a majority of those 

credits in one of 11 CTE occupational areas; or (b) attained a credential and took most of the courses in a CTE 

program area.

 
CHAPTER 6

STUDENT OUTCOMES 97

this earnings advantage was generally greater for students who earned a degree (rather than a 

certificate) and for those who found employment in an industry related to their CTE program area 

(Jacobson and Mokher 2014). 

Among postsecondary certificate holders who were working in an occupation related 

to their field of study, average earnings varied considerably by field, with the highest 

average earnings found for those working in computer and information sciences.

Among all postsecondary certificate holders who were employed in an occupation related to their 

field of study, annual earnings averaged $40,000. However, some certificate holders who were 

working that field had higher earnings, such as those in computer and information sciences ($70,400) 

and drafting ($59,600). In contrast, certificate holders in some other fields had lower earnings, such 

as those in cosmetology ($25,200) and food services ($17,600) (Exhibit 6.11). 

Exhibit 6.11. 

Average annual earnings for postsecondary certificate holders working in their CTE field, 

for selected occupations, 2008 

$40,400 

$17,600 

$25,200 

$30,600 

$40,000 

$53,900 

$55,500 

$59,600 

$70,400 

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000

All certificates

Food service

Cosmetology

Healthcare

Business/office management

HVAC

Police

Drafting

Computer and information services

Exhibit reads: Certificate holders in computer and information sciences who were working in that field had 

average annual earnings of $70,400 in 2008. 

SOURCE: Carnevale, Rose, and Hanson (2012), based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP),

2004/2008.
 CHAPTER 6

98 STUDENT OUTCOMES

Study Review — The Academic Impacts of Career and Technical 

Schools: A Case Study of a Large Urban School District

By Ruth Curran Neild, Christopher Boccanfuso, and Vaughan Byrnes

Purpose: To examine the relationship between 

attending a CTE high school and secondary and 

postsecondary educational achievement and 

attainment outcomes.

Setting: Public high schools (including five CTE 

schools) in the Philadelphia School District.

Subjects: Approximately 15,000 Philadelphia 

public high school students from the classes of 

2003, 2004, and 2005 who applied to attend a CTE 

school. The analytical samples varied by analytical 

approach and outcome.

Research design(s): Quasi-experimental, statistical 

modeling; longitudinal.

Data and analysis: The analysis of secondary 

education outcomes used individual student 

records provided by the school district. These

records were merged with National Student 

Clearinghouse data on postsecondary enrollment 

and completion. 

Offers of admission to CTE schools were 

determined by a lottery that took into account 

student race/ethnicity (to achieve a racial balance 

in the schools) and how highly each student had 

ranked the school on his or her application form. 

In the latter two cohorts, the lottery was 

conducted after an initial screening process based 

on prior academic achievement and behavior.

The analysis used multi-level regression models to 

calculate two sets of estimates. The first set of 

estimates compared the outcomes of students 

who were accepted and not accepted to a CTE high 

school, using statistical models that accounted for 

observed and unobserved student characteristics 

and for students who applied to multiple schools. 

A second set of estimates explored the effect of 

the amount of time that a student actually 

attended a CTE school, regardless of whether he or 

she entered the lottery. All of the models included 

control variables for race/ethnicity and the ranking 

that the student gave to the CTE school on the 

application. The attendance analysis also 

controlled for a number of student background 

characteristics, such as gender, attendance, and 

grade point average in the eighth grade.

Findings: At the secondary level, the findings 

indicate that academic outcomes for CTE schools 

were similar to those of other schools, and in some 

cases, better. 

• Students at CTE schools had higher rates of 

on-time graduation and credit accumulation 

within each of the three cohorts and an 

increased likelihood of successfully completing 

a college preparatory mathematics sequence 

of algebra I, algebra II, and geometry.

• The findings regarding CTE school attendance 

and completing chemistry and physics credits 

and two years of a foreign language were 

inconsistent, and CTE school attendance was 

not found to be associated with improvements 

in performance in mathematics and reading 

comprehension for students in grades 8–11. 

Effects on CTE school attendance were smaller and 

less likely to be significant at the postsecondary 

level than at the secondary level.

• CTE school attendance was found to have a 

positive effect on postsecondary enrollment in 

2-year and 4-year institutions, but findings 

were mixed across cohorts. The positive 

impact on postsecondary enrollment was 

found for all students only; when the analysis 

was limited to high school graduates only, no 

impact was found.

• Findings for the impact of secondary CTE 

school attendance on the number of 

semesters a student enrolled in postsecondary 

education were inconclusive, and CTE school 

attendance did not affect degree completion 

at 2-year and 4-year institutions.
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 99

Methodological and data limitations: Random 

assignment can potentially eliminate the bias 

caused by the sorting of students into schools or 

programs on the basis of interest, ability, or other 

factors, but pure random assignment is generally 

not possible when evaluating educational 

programs. The Philadelphia CTE lottery was not 

strictly random in several respects. 

First, the lottery assigned offers of admission, and 

students could choose whether they actually 

wanted to attend. As a result, the groups of 

students who did and did not choose to attend a 

CTE school may have been different in ways for 

which the study did not account. Additionally, a 

proportion of students attended the CTE schools 

without participating in the lottery, and lottery 

information was missing for some students who 

applied. 

The study included methodological strategies to 

address biases associated with these factors, but 

these limitations should be considered when 

interpreting the findings.

Conclusions: Overall, the study found that the 

average academic outcomes of CTE school 

attendance equaled, and in some cases exceeded, 

those of other district schools. Among the 2003 to 

2005 cohorts of Philadelphia high school students, 

attendance at CTE schools increased a student’s

probability of on-time graduation and successful 

completion of a college preparatory mathematics 

sequence of algebra I, algebra II, and geometry. 

Attendance at these schools may also increase the 

rates at which students enroll in 2-year and 4-year

postsecondary institutions. 

Attendance at CTE schools, however, did not affect 

students’ completion of physics and chemistry 

courses and of two years of foreign language, their 

performance in mathematics and reading 

comprehension tests, and their overall high school 

GPA. Finally, CTE school attendance did not appear 

to have an effect on postsecondary outcomes for 

these cohorts.
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 100

Study Review — Career and Technical Education in San Diego: 

A Statistical Analysis of Course Availability, Students’ 

Coursetaking Patterns, and Relationships with High School and 

Postsecondary Outcomes

By Julian R. Betts, Andrew Zau, John McAdams, and Dallas Dotter

Purpose: To examine the availability of CTE courses 

and high school students’ coursetaking patterns 

and to assess the impact of CTE coursetaking on 

secondary and postsecondary educational 

outcomes.

Setting: 43 high schools in the San Diego Unified 

School District (SDUSD).

Subjects: Eight cohorts of high school students 

who entered grade nine from 1998 to 2006. The 

district enrolled an average of about 9,900 ninthgrade students in each of the years studied, but 

the analytical sample sizes varied by outcome.

Research design: Quantitative case study; 

longitudinal, statistical modeling.

Data and analysis: The study analyzed SDUSD 

administrative records on students and teachers 

that were merged with data from the National 

Student Clearinghouse to include information on 

postsecondary education. The data included 

year-to-year information on student coursetaking, 

attendance, grades, test scores, high school 

completion, and postsecondary enrollment and 

completion.

The analysis used multivariate regression models 

that included various methodologically rigorous 

strategies to isolate the influence of CTE 

coursetaking and account for differences between 

CTE and non-CTE students. The models used to 

analyze changes in mathematics and reading 

achievement included fixed-effects and 

instrumental variables to account for unobserved 

student characteristics. Estimates of one-time 

outcomes, such as high school completion, also 

used instrumental variables and controlled for 

students’ prior academic achievement.

Findings: After controlling for student background 

and other variables, most analyses found little 

relationship between CTE coursetaking in high 

school and secondary academic achievement or 

postsecondary outcomes.

• Students in the middle of the distribution of 

prior academic achievement (as measured by 

grade point average in the eighth grade) were 

the most likely to become CTE concentrators, 

followed by students at the top. Students with 

the lowest levels of prior academic 

achievement were the least likely to become 

concentrators.

• The number of occupational CTE courses taken 

had a small negative relationship with reading 

scores but no relation to mathematics scores. 

CTE coursework had a weak negative 

relationship with completion of a college 

preparatory curriculum but had no relation to 

absences or grade promotion.

• Occupational CTE coursetaking or concentrator 

status was not associated with the probability 

of graduating from high school within five 

years, passage of the California High School 

Exit exam, or overall GPA.

• High school CTE coursetaking was associated 

with an increase in the length of time that a 

student was enrolled in postsecondary 

education during the first four years after high 

school graduation, but it was not associated 

with 2-year or 4-year postsecondary degree 

attainment.

• Some CTE occupational areas showed 

significant positive and negative associations 

with postsecondary outcomes. For example, 

three-course concentrators in computer 
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 101

information sciences in high school were 

significantly more likely to obtain a 2-year or 

4-year degree than those who did not become 

CTE concentrators, while concentrators in 

construction during high school were 

significantly less likely to obtain either degree. 

Methodological and data limitations: The students 

analyzed in this study were not randomly assigned 

to courses or schools, and students who took CTE 

courses may have differed from students in ways 

that could affect their educational outcomes. 

Multiple strategies were used to account for 

unobserved differences between CTE and non-CTE 

students and strengthen the causal claims linking 

coursetaking and outcomes, but analyses may have 

omitted unobserved factors associated with the 

outcomes analyzed that could bias the findings. 

The analysis of postsecondary attainment was 

limited to four years, a shorter period than the sixyear postsecondary completion rates used in many 

studies. This shorter time period would not 

account for students who took longer to complete 

their degrees, such as students who worked while 

enrolled or those who transferred from 2-year to 

4-year institutions.

Conclusions: CTE coursetaking in San Diego was 

found to have little association with secondary or 

postsecondary outcomes. While some analyses 

found positive or negative associations between 

CTE coursetaking and student outcomes, these 

associations were generally weak and may be 

explained by factors other than CTE coursetaking.
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 102

Study Review — Florida Study of Career and Technical Education

By Louis Jacobson and Christine Mokher

Purpose: To examine the association between

concentrating in a CTE program at the secondary 

and postsecondary levels and education and 

workforce outcomes. These outcomes included 

completion of the high school curriculum required 

for entrance to a Florida public university, 

postsecondary enrollment, post-high school 

employment and earnings, college coursetaking, 

postsecondary persistence and completion, and 

post-college employment and earnings.

Setting: Public high schools and 2-year and 4-year 

public postsecondary institutions in Florida.

Subjects: 84,700 ninth-grade students who 

attended public high schools in Florida and reached 

the 12th grade. The cohort was followed from 

1996 through 2007; analytical sample sizes varied 

by outcome due to data limitations.

Research design: Longitudinal; statistical modeling.

Data and analysis: The study used student records 

data provided by the Florida Department of 

Education to follow a cohort of students who were 

in the ninth grade in 1996 over a 10-year period 

(through 2007). The secondary and postsecondary 

records data were matched to employment 

information from Florida quarterly unemployment 

insurance wage records from 1995 to 2007. 

The analysis used multivariate and logistic 

regression models to estimate the association 

between CTE concentrator status and student 

outcomes.38 The models controlled for student, 

school, and labor market characteristics that past 

38 Secondary CTE concentrators were students who had 

completed at least 3.0 CTE credits (equivalent to three 

year-long courses) in one of 12 occupational areas in high 

school. A postsecondary CTE concentrator was defined as 

a student who either: (a) completed at least 12.0 college 

credits (about four semester-long courses) with a majority 

of those credits in one of 11 CTE occupational areas; or 

(b) attained a credential and took most of the courses 

in a CTE program area.

research has indicated to be associated with 

postsecondary outcomes.

Findings: At the secondary level, the findings 

suggest that concentrating in a CTE program has 

little influence on outcomes among Florida high 

school students. The study found:

• Twelfth-grade CTE concentrators were more 

likely than non-concentrators to complete 

the curriculum required for entrance to public 

4-year institutions in Florida, but the 

difference was small (82 vs. 78 percent).

• High school CTE concentrators were more 

likely than non-concentrators to concentrate 

in a CTE program at the postsecondary level. 

Across all high school CTE concentrators, 

16 percent concentrated in the same program 

area at the secondary and postsecondary 

levels, but this percentage varied widely by 

program.

• Concentrators and non-concentrators with 

similar background and academic 

characteristics had similar college and career 

outcomes after graduation. High school CTE 

concentrators were as likely as nonconcentrators to attend college, take remedial 

courses once enrolled, persist in higher 

education, and attain a credential. Among 

students who did not enroll in college, both 

groups had similar employment rates and 

earnings.

Among postsecondary graduates, significant 

earnings differences were found between 

postsecondary CTE concentrators and nonconcentrators after controlling for observable 

differences between the two groups.

• Depending on the CTE program and credential 

attained, median earnings for CTE 

concentrators were from $849 to $2,665 per 

quarter higher than for non-concentrators who 

majored in academic or humanities fields.

 
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 103

• CTE concentrators employed in industries 

related to their CTE program area had higher 

earnings than those employed in nonrelated 

industries. Earnings for CTE concentrators 

employed in an industry related to their 

program area were 9 percent higher for 

students with certificates, 54 percent higher 

for students with associate’s degrees, and 30 

percent higher for students with bachelor’s 

degrees, relative to those employed in nonrelated industries. 

This earnings advantage varied by 

occupational field. For example, among 

students with associate’s degrees, the earnings 

advantage for working in field was 102 percent 

for the health care field, 32 percent for the 

protective services field, and 7 percent for the 

education field.

Methodological and data limitations: The data 

used in the study are observational, and students 

were not randomly assigned to courses or schools. 

The analyses controlled for observable student 

characteristics but may have excluded unobserved 

differences between the groups that could also 

affect the outcomes of interest. The study, 

therefore, could not show that CTE coursetaking 

caused various outcomes, but instead it provided a 

comparison of outcomes of CTE concentrators and 

non-concentrators with similar academic 

backgrounds.

The data were limited to students who attended 

public high schools and postsecondary institutions 

in Florida. The analysis, therefore, excludes high 

school dropouts, students who transferred to 

private high schools or to high schools in other 

states, and students who did not enroll in college 

or who attended a private or out-of-state college. 

Employment data were only available for students 

employed in Florida and covered by the state’s 

employment insurance system.

Conclusions: Among Florida high school graduates 

who attended public schools, the study did not find 

an association between concentrating in a CTE field 

at the secondary level and postsecondary career 

and educational outcomes among students with 

similar academic and background characteristics. In 

contrast, postsecondary graduates who were CTE 

concentrators appeared to earn more than 

graduates who majored in academic fields. The 

earnings advantage was even greater among 

concentrators employed in an industry related to 

their CTE program area.
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 104

Study Review — Career and Technical Education and Academic 

Progress at the End of High School: Evidence from the Education 

Longitudinal Study of 2002

By Robert Bozick and Ben Dalton

Purpose: To examine the association between 

CTE coursetaking and mathematics achievement 

and the likelihood of dropping out of high school.

Setting: U.S. public high schools.

Subjects: High school students in grades 11

and 12 who were in grade 10 in spring 2002. The 

analysis of mathematics achievement included 

about 7,000 students, and the analysis of school 

leavers included about 11,300 students.

Research design: Longitudinal; statistical 

modeling.

Data and analysis: This study used data from the 

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, a nationally 

representative longitudinal study of 2002 high 

school sophomores. The data included in the 

analysis were from the baseline year, a first 

follow-up in the spring of 2004 when most of the 

students were high school seniors, and a 

transcript study, which collected transcripts 

beginning in winter 2004–05. The analysis of 

mathematics achievement used fixed-effects 

regression analysis to control for student selfselection into CTE and academic courses. The 

dropout analysis estimated the influence of CTE 

coursetaking on the risk of dropping out for each 

semester in which a student was enrolled and 

included control variables for a range of 

demographic and academic student 

characteristics.

Findings: Among students with similar 

background and academic characteristics, the 

overall number of CTE courses taken was not 

related to mathematics achievement or the risk 

of dropping out of high school. The study did find, 

however, evidence that the relative proportion of 

CTE versus academic credits in a student’s 

transcript were related to both mathematics 

achievement and the risk of dropping out.

Findings on mathematics achievement included:

• Concentrators had slightly lower mathematics 

achievement gains than students who earned 

only academic credits, but the difference was 

small. Students who earned three credits in 

CTE courses were predicted to answer one 

fewer question correctly on an 81-item 

assessment than students who earned 

exclusively academic credits.

• The acquisition of basic and intermediate 

mathematics skills was similar among CTE 

students and students who earned only 

academic credits. However, students who 

earned two CTE credits were slightly less likely 

than their peers who earned only academic 

credits to be proficient at an advanced level.

• Traditional academic mathematics courses 

were positively associated with achievement; 

but the same was not found for STEM (science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics) 

courses offered through the CTE curriculum.

Findings regarding the probability of dropping out 

of high school included:

• Dropouts and enrolled students earned similar 

numbers of CTE credits, but dropouts 

accumulated fewer academic credits.

• Students who earned a high proportion of CTE 

credits relative to academic credits had a 

higher probability of dropping out, but this 

relationship only held when the overall 

number of academic credits earned was small. 

Students who earned a large number of both 

academic and CTE credits were no more likely 

than other students to drop out, and 

concentrators and non-concentrators had 

similar probabilities of dropping out.
CHAPTER 6 

STUDENT OUTCOMES 105

Methodological and data limitations: Because the 

study relied on observational data rather than the 

random assignment of students to courses, 

unobserved differences between CTE and other 

students could influence outcomes and bias the 

findings. The study included methodological 

strategies to account for selection bias, but both 

analyses may have omitted unobserved factors 

associated with the outcomes that could bias the 

findings.

The analytical sample for mathematics 

achievement excluded the relatively small 

proportion of students who attended private 

schools and a relatively larger number for whom 

interview or transcript data were missing. As a 

result, the study included fewer economically 

disadvantaged students, racial/ethnic minorities, 

and low-achieving students than were present in 

the entire cohort, and the findings may be less 

applicable to these groups. Furthermore, student 

coursetaking patterns limited the dropout analysis 

to students in grades 11 and 12 only because most 

CTE courses are taken during the last two years of 

high school. As the study notes, as many as onehalf or more of students who drop out do so prior 

to their junior year.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that students 

who take relatively more CTE courses than 

academic courses perform lower on mathematics 

tests and have a higher probability of dropping out 

of high school than students who take academic 

courses exclusively. These findings, however, were 

small and largely attributable to pre-existing 

differences between students with a CTE-focused 

curriculum relative to students with an academicfocused curriculum.
This page intentionally left blank
 

REFERENCES 107

References

Betts, Julian R., Andrew Zau, John McAdams, and Dallas Dotter. 2014, April. Career and 

Technical Education in San Diego: A Statistical Analysis of Course Availability, Students’ 

Course-Taking Patterns, and Relationships with High School and Postsecondary Outcomes. 

San Diego, CA: University of California San Diego, San Diego Education Research Alliance. 

Accessed August 27, 2014. http://sandera.ucsd.edu/research-andpublications/FINAL%20QUANTITATIVE%20CTE%20Report.pdf. 

Blank, Rolf, and Lauren Stillman. 2010. Statewide Student Assessment: 2009–10, Washington, DC: 

Council of Chief State School Officers. Accessed June 7, 2014. 

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2010/Statewide_Student_Assessment_2009-10.pdf. 

Bozick, Robert, and Ben Dalton. 2013. Career and Technical Education and Academic Progress at 

the End of High School: Evidence from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002. Research 

Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Accessed July 29, 2014. http://www.rti.org/pubs/cteoutcomes-els_final.pdf. 

Bradby, Denise, and Lisa Hudson. 2007. The 2007 Revision of the Career/Technical Education 

Portion of the Secondary School Taxonomy. NCES 2008–030. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Accessed August 27, 2014. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008030. 

Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. 2013. Recovery: Projections of Jobs and 

Education Requirements Through 2020. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center on 

Education and the Workforce. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://cew.georgetown.edu/recovery2020/. 

Carnevale, Anthony P., Stephen J. Rose, and Andrew R. Hanson. 2012. Certificates: Gateway to 

Gainful Employment and College Degrees. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center 

on Education and the Workforce. Accessed July 8, 2014. 

https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/w6bzsdoxvqcywwoog6yl. 

Carnevale, Anthony P., and Stephen J. Rose. 2011. The Undereducated American. Washington, 

DC: Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce. Accessed May 5, 2014. 

http://cew.georgetown.edu/undereducated. 

Dann-Messier, Brenda. 2009, December 23. Guidance for Submission of State Plan Revisions, 

Budgets, and Performance Levels for FY 2010 Perkins IV Grant Awards. Program 

Memorandum. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and 

Adult Education. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://cte.ed.gov/file/2010_SP_Guidance_LTR.pdf. 

Darling-Hammond, Linda, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios 

Orphanos. 2009. Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on 

Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Stanford, CA: National Staff 

Development Council and The School Redesign Network at Stanford University. Accessed 
 

108 REFERENCES

August 27, 2014. 

http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudytechnicalreport2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0. 

Data Quality Institute. 2006, August. Postsecondary Definitions and Measures. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Division of 

Academic and Technical Education. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://cte.ed.gov/accountability/dqi.cfm.

Friedman, Thomas L. 2005. The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 

Hampden-Thompson, Gillian, Siri Warkentien, and Bruce Daniel. 2009. Course Credit Accrual 

and Dropping Out of High School, by Student Characteristics. NCES 2009–035. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009035. 

Hershey, Alan, Marsha Silverberg, Joshua Haimson, Paula Hudis, and Russell Jackson. 1999. 

Expanding Options for Students: Report to Congress on the National Evaluation of School-toWork Implementation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the 

Undersecretary. Accessed August 27, 2014. http://www.ccrscenter.org/productsresources/resource-database/expanding-options-students-report-congress-national-evaluation.

Hershey, Alan, Marsha Silverberg, Tom Owens, and Lara Hulsey. 1998. Focus for the Future: The 

Final Report of the National Tech-Prep Evaluation. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. Accessed August 27, 2014. http://www.mathematicampr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/Tech.pdf. 

Hira, Ron, and Anil Hira. 2008. Outsourcing America: The True Cost of Shipping Jobs Overseas 

and What Can Be Done About It. New York: AMACOM.

Hudson, Lisa, and Jennifer Laird. 2009. New Indicators of High School Career/Technical 

Education Coursetaking: Class of 2005. NCES 2009–038. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Accessed August 27, 2014. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009038. 

Independent Advisory Panel of the National Assessment of Career and Technical Education. 

(2014). Putting “career” in “college and career ready”: The report of the Independent 

Advisory Panel of the National Assessment of Career and Technical Education. Washington, 

DC. 

Jacob France Institute. 2012. Federal Employment Data Exchange System (FEDES) Fact Sheet.

Baltimore, MD: University of Baltimore, Merrick School of Business. Accessed August 14, 

2014. http://www.ubalt.edu/jfi/fedes/documents/FEDES-Factsheet-April-2012.pdf. 

Jacobson, Louis, and Christine Mokher. 2014. Florida Study of Career and Technical Education. 

Arlington, VA: CNA Corporation. 

Justesen, Troy R. 2007, March 13. Student Definitions and Measurement Approaches for the Core 

Indicators of Performance Under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006 (Perkins IV). Program Memorandum. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 
 

REFERENCES 109

Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://cte.ed.gov/docs/nonregulatory/studentdef.pdf. 

Kemple, James J., and Cynthia J. Willner. 2008, June. Career Academies: Long-Term Impacts on 

Labor Market Outcomes, Educational Attainment, and Transitions to Adulthood. New York: 

MDRC. Accessed August 27, 2014. http://www.mdrc.org/publications/482/overview.html. 

Klein, Steven, Amanda Richards, Robin White, Sandra Staklis, Corinne Alfeld, Caitlin Rose 

Dailey, Ivan Charner, and Anne Poliakoff. 2014. Evaluation of the Implementation of the Carl 

D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006: Finance, Accountability, and 

Programs of Study. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

Levesque, Karen, and Lisa Hudson. 2003. Trends in High School Vocational/Technical 

Coursetaking: 1982–1998. NCES 2003–025. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Accessed August 27, 

2014. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003025. 

Levesque, Karen, Jennifer Laird, Elisabeth Hensley, Susan P. Choy, Emily Forrest Cataldi, and 

Lisa Hudson. 2008. Career and Technical Education in the United States: 1990 to 2005. NCES 

2008–035. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education Statistics. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008035. 

National Student Clearinghouse. 2014. “About the Clearinghouse.” National Student 

Clearinghouse. Accessed August 14, 2014. http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/about/. 

Neild, Ruth Curran, Christopher Boccanfuso, and Vaughan Byrnes. 2013. The Academic Impacts of 

Career and Technical Schools: A Case Study of a Large Urban School District. Baltimore, 

MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools. Accessed July 29, 

2014. http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Academic-Impacts-ofCareer-and-Technical-Schools.pdf. 

Neild, Ruth Curran, and Vaughan Byrnes. 2014. Impacts of Career and Technical Schools on 

Postsecondary Outcomes: A Case Study of a Large Urban School District. Baltimore, MD: 

Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools. 

Osterman, Paul. 2008, August. College for All? The Labor Market for College-Educated Workers. 

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2008/08/12/4811/college-for-all/. 

Pathways to Prosperity Project. 2011. Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing 

Young Americans for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of 

Education. Accessed August 27, 2014. http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4740480. 

Plank, Stephen B., Stefanie DeLuca, and Angela Estacion. 2008. “High School Dropout and the 

Role of Career and Technical Education: A Survival Analysis of Surviving High School,” 

Sociology of Education 81 (October): 345–370. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://soe.sagepub.com/content/81/4/345.short. 

Richards, Amanda, Steven G. Klein, Jay Pfeiffer, and Jim Schoelkopf. 2013. State Perkins 

Accountability Congress: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 
 

110 REFERENCES

Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Academic and Technical Education. 

Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://cte.ed.gov/spac/downloads/SPAC_Final_Report_February_2013.pdf. 

Richards, Amanda, and Jim Schoelkopf. 2008. Recommendations to Improve the Quality of 

Perkins IV Data in Alabama. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates, Inc. Accessed August 21, 2014. 

http://www.rti.org/pubs/perkins_iv_data_alabama.pdf. 

Richmond, Eric. 2009, June. Preparing Students for College and Career: California Multiple 

Pathways. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/preparing-students-for-college-and-career-californiamultiple-pathways/. 

Silverberg, Marsha, Elizabeth Warner, Michael Fong, and David Goodwin. 2004. National 

Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service. 

Accessed August 27, 2014. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nave/navefinal.pdf. 

Stillman, Lauren, and Rolf Blank. 2009. Key State Education Policies on PK–12 Education: 2008. 

Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Accessed April 22, 2014. 

http://programs.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/KSP%20final%20draft3.pdf. 

Stratton, Leslie S., Dennis M. O’Toole, and James N. Wetzel. 2001. Factors Affecting Part-Time 

College Enrollment Within the First Year. AIR 2001 Annual Forum Paper. Paper read at the 

Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, at Long Beach, CA. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. 2013. Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Report to Congress on State 

Performance: Program Year 2009–10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Accessed August 27, 2014. http://cte.ed.gov/docs/Rpt_to_Congress/Perkins_RTC_2009-

10.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. 2010. Career and 

Technical Programs of Study: A Design Framework. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education. Accessed August 27, 2014. http://cte.ed.gov/file/POS_Framework_Unpacking_1-

20-10.pdf. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2009. States Have Broad Flexibility in 

Implementing Perkins. Washington, DC: U.S. GAO. Accessed August 21, 2014. 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09683.pdf. 

Zirkle, Christopher J., Lindsey Martin, and N.L. McCaslin. 2007, October. Study of State 

Certification/Licensure Requirements for Secondary Career and Technical Education 

Teachers. St. Paul, MN: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, 

University of Minnesota. Accessed August 27, 2014. 

http://www.nrccte.org/sites/default/files/publicationfiles/state_certification_secondary_teachers_0.pdf. 
APPENDIX A 

NACTE INDEPENDENT ADVISORY PANEL 111

Appendix A. NACTE Independent Advisory Panel

The NACTE Independent Advisory Panel was created to advise the U.S. Department of Education 

on the design and implementation of the NACTE, as required in the Congressional mandate for the 

NACTE. The panel met seven times throughout the conduct of the NACTE and provided input on 

study designs, preliminary findings, and draft reports. The panel also prepared its own report to 

Congress (Putting “career” in “college and career ready”: The report of the Independent Advisory 

Panel of the National Assessment of Career and Technical Education, 2014). 

Adam Gamoran, Chair 

Professor of Sociology and 

Educational Policy Studies 

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Belinda Cole 

Tuttle Endowed Chair for Career and 

Workforce Studies 

Oklahoma State University 

Willard R. Daggett

President 

International Center for Leadership 

in Education

James Jacobs 

President 

Macomb Community College 

Timothy W. Lawrence 

Executive Director

SkillsUSA

Katharine Oliver

Assistant State Superintendent 

Division of Career and College Readiness 

Maryland State Department of Education 

James E. Rosenbaum 

Professor of Sociology, Education & 

Social Policy

Northwestern University 

Larry Rosenstock 

Chief Executive Officer

High Tech High

Becky Smerdon

Managing Director 

Education Research and Policy 

Quill Research Associates, LLC

Mala B. Thakur

Executive Director

National Youth Employment Coalition

John Tyler 

Professor of Education, Economics, and 

Public Policy 

Brown University 

Charles Ware

Vice Chair (Retired) 

Wyoming Workforce Development Council 

Ross Wiener

Executive Director

Education and Society Program 

Aspen Institute 
This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX B 

METHODOLOGY 113

Appendix B. Methodology

The NACTE summarizes data collected on the implementation and outcomes of programs supported 

under Perkins IV, including information from a study of Perkins implementation, commissioned 

studies of CTE student outcomes, reviews of existing research, and analyses of extant data sources. 

This appendix provides a brief description of the samples, data collection, and other methodological 

features of each data source; more detailed information can be found in study-specific reports and 

(for NCES datasets) on the NCES website. 

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act

This study, commissioned for the NACTE, conducted surveys, case studies, and analyses of extant 

data to provide information on the implementation of Perkins IV provisions for finance, 

accountability, and programs of study. The study surveyed state directors responsible for overseeing 

Perkins implementation at the secondary and postsecondary levels in the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia, as well as local program directors in a stratified random sample of 1,993 LEAs, 48 

independent area CTE centers, and 1,006 IHEs. These surveys are referred to in this report as 

“NACTE surveys” (i.e., in source notes for exhibits). The surveys were administered in fall 2009, 

and response rates were 100 percent for state secondary directors, 94 percent for state postsecondary 

directors, 77 percent for LEAs, 93 percent for area CTE centers, and 91 percent for IHEs. (In this 

report, survey data for area CTE centers were combined with LEA data due to the small sample size 

for the CTE centers.) Case studies were conducted in six states and 18 local communities (three per 

state, including one urban, one suburban, and one rural); these case studies included site visits and indepth interviews. 

For the fiscal analyses contained in Chapter 3, suballocation data for the 2009–10 program year were 

obtained from 50 secondary and 49 postsecondary directors. Targeting analyses in this chapter were 

conducted by Policy and Program Studies Service staff; these analyses combined suballocation data 

collected through this study with Census Bureau poverty and population data for school districts 

(from the small area estimates program), as well as with NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) data 

on enrollments and urbanicity (locale). 

Commissioned Studies of CTE Student Outcomes

As part of the NACTE, the Department commissioned four independent studies that used 

longitudinal student-level data to examine the relationship between high school students’ 

participation in CTE and secondary and postsecondary outcomes, with each study using different 

methodological approaches and data sources. These four studies primarily examined CTE students 

who were enrolled in high school during the period prior to the implementation of Perkins IV; this 

approach was chosen in order to follow students over a longer period of time than was possible for 

the period covered by Perkins IV implementation at the time these studies were initiated.
 APPENDIX B

114 METHODOLOGY

• Philadelphia. This study took advantage of a natural experiment involving a lottery to select 

student applicants to attend CTE high schools. The study used individual student records 

provided by the district, merged with National Student Clearinghouse data on postsecondary 

enrollment and completion, following students from the classes of 2003, 2004, and 2005 to 

examine a range of outcomes including coursetaking, high school graduation rates, and 

postsecondary attendance and completion. The analysis used multi-level regression models to 

compare outcomes for students who were accepted and not accepted to a CTE high school 

and also explored the effect of the amount of time that a student actually attended a CTE 

school on outcomes. 

• San Diego. This study used a fixed-effects model to examine the association between student 

CTE coursetaking and academic outcomes, following eight cohorts of high school students 

who entered ninth grade between 1998 and 2006. The study used individual student records 

provided by the district and merged them with postsecondary data from the National Student 

Clearinghouse. The data included student coursetaking, attendance, grades, test scores, high 

school completion, and postsecondary enrollment and completion. 

• Florida. This study analyzed individual secondary and postsecondary student records from 

the Florida Department of Education that tracked students who were in ninth grade in 1996 

for 10 years, through 2007. The analysis used multivariate and logistic regression models to 

examine whether there was a relationship between CTE participation and student outcomes. 

• Analysis of Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS) data. This study used a fixedeffects model and data from a nationally representative longitudinal study of 2002 high 

school sophomores to examine the associations between CTE coursetaking and high school 

outcomes. The data included in the analysis were from the baseline year, a first follow-up in 

the spring of 2004 when most of the students were high school seniors, and a transcript study, 

which collected transcripts beginning in the winter of 2004–05. 

Reviews of Existing Research

Study staff conducted a literature search to identify published reports that examined the 

implementation of Perkins and career and technical education more generally, as well as student 

outcomes for career and technical education.

Analyses of Extant Data

The NACTE also drew upon existing data from a variety of sources, including annual state reports as 

well as longitudinal and cross-sectional studies sponsored by NCES. Each of these data sources is 

described below. Many of the NCES statistics found in this report were previously prepared through 

the NCES Career/Technical Education Statistics (CTES) system and are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/index.asp. 

• Annual state reports. As required under Perkins, states submit Consolidated Annual 

Reports (CARs) to the U.S. Department of Education, as well as annual updates to their 

Perkins state plans. These annual reports include information on performance indicator 

targets and results, as well as certain data on state allocation of Perkins funds. These data are 

stored in a Perkins database system maintained by the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education, and the data are available at http://cte.ed.gov/accountability/reports.cfm. In 
APPENDIX B 

METHODOLOGY 115

addition, the NACTE used state-reported data from ESEA Consolidated State Performance 

Reports (CSPRs) for data on ESEA performance indicators, for comparison purposes. The 

CSPR data are collected and maintained through the EDFacts database system; the CSPR 

data used in this report are available at http://eddataexpress.ed.gov. 

The most recent Perkins and ESEA performance indicator data available are for the 

2011–12 school year. In this report, CAR data are used in Exhibits 3.5, 3.6, 5.2, 5.5, 5.8, 

5.9, D.8, D.9, and D.13, and CSPR data are used in Exhibits 5.5, 5.8, and D.13. 

• Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS). This longitudinal study initially surveyed a 

national sample of students who were in 10th grade in 2002 — as well as their parents, 

teachers, librarians, and schools — and then conducted periodic follow-up surveys to monitor 

the students’ progress through high school and on to postsecondary education and the 

workforce. The ELS focused on the educational, vocational, and personal development of 

students at various stages in their educational careers and the personal, familial, social, 

institutional, and cultural factors that may affect that development. In addition to the base 

year data collection in 2002, three follow-up surveys were conducted in 2004, 2006, and 

2012. The base year surveys collected a range of data from and about the sampled students, 

including their high school experiences, performance on assessments, coursetaking patterns, 

and plans and expectations for the future, as well as their parents’ plans and expectations for 

their children’s future. The 2004 follow-up survey again examined the high school 

experiences of the cohort, most of whom were then in the 12th grade. For those who had 

graduated from or dropped out of high school, the 2004 survey focused on retrospective 

experiences in high school, postsecondary education, and labor force participation. The 

second and third follow-ups focused on the current educational and labor market status of the 

cohort, such as high school completion; postsecondary education, including field of study, 

credential attainment and degree completion; employment, income, and family formation. In 

this report, ELS data are used in Exhibits 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, and 6.9. 

Over the history of the ELS, student response rates have been high; weighted response rates 

in the base year were 68 percent for schools and 87 percent for the student questionnaire. In 

the first follow-up year (2004), the weighted response rates were 89 percent for the student 

questionnaire and 91 percent for the high school transcripts. In the second and third followup years, the rates were 88 percent and 84 percent, respectively. In the 2012 follow-up, 

response rates were 84 percent for the 2002 sophomore cohort was 84 percent and 85 percent 

for the 2002 senior cohort. For more information on ELS, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/. 

• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the High School Transcript 

Study (NSTS). NAEP is a nationally representative and ongoing assessment of what students 

in the United States know and can do in mathematics, reading, science, writing, the arts, 

civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history. NAEP is administered to students, with 

students in grades 4, 8, and 12 typically taking part in mathematics, reading, and science 

assessments every two years. HSTS was conducted in 2005 and 2009, collecting transcripts 

for all students who graduated during the school year. HSTS enables analyses of student 

coursetaking, credits earned, and grade point averages and allows these data to be linked to 

the NAEP assessments and student background questionnaires, which collect information 

about student characteristics. 
 APPENDIX B

116 METHODOLOGY

In this report, HSTS data are used in Exhibits 2.1, 2.2. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, and 6.2, and NAEP 

assessment data are used in Exhibit 6.2. Although NAEP assessment data are now available 

for 2013, this report uses NAEP data for 2009 because it is the most recent year for which 

data on coursetaking is available from the HSTS, in order to compare NAEP results for CTE 

concentrators and non-concentrators. For more information about NAEP and the HSTS, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/. 

• Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). This system of surveys collects information on a 

range of issues relevant to elementary and secondary education through questionnaires 

administered to school districts, schools, principals, and teachers. SASS includes traditional 

public schools and public charter schools, schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

and private schools. Topics covered include teacher supply and demand, teacher and 

administrator characteristics, school programs, and general conditions in schools, as well as 

staff perceptions of school climate, hiring and compensation, and student characteristics. In 

this report, SASS data are used to examine the characteristics of CTE teachers and academic 

teachers, including educational background, certification, and professional development. 

SASS data are used in Exhibits 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8. 

SASS has been conducted periodically since the mid-1980s; the most recent data available 

are for 2011–12. Weighted response rates for the 2011–12 SASS were 81 percent for the 

school district questionnaire, 73 percent for the school questionnaire, 73 percent for 

principals, and 62 percent for teachers. For more information on SASS, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/. 

• Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). This annual universe data 

collection gathers information from every college, university, and technical and vocational 

institution that participates in federal student financial aid programs. Collected data include 

information about institutional characteristics (e.g., levels of awards offered, types of 

programs, admission requirements); institutional prices (e.g., tuition and fees); student 

enrollment (e.g., enrollment by student characteristics, incoming student counts); student 

financial aid; degrees and certificates conferred (reported by type of program and level of 

award, including CTE programs); student persistence and success (retention and graduation 

rates), and; institutional human and fiscal resources (e.g., staff counts, salaries, and 

characteristics, and detailed revenues and expenditures). In this report, IPEDS data are used 

in Exhibits 2.9, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, D.2, D.3, and D.4. 

Because reporting to IPEDS is mandatory for programs that participate in federal student 

financial aid programs, the response rate for IPEDS is nearly 100 percent. IPEDS data are 

available for 1980 and annually since 1984; the most recent IPEDS data available are for 

2012. For more information on IPEDS, see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 

• National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Based on a large, nationally 

representative sample of postsecondary institutions and students, NPSAS is the primary 

resource for analyzing financial aid for postsecondary students in the United States, but it 

also can be used to estimate characteristics of Title IV-eligible institutions and the students 

who are enrolled in them. The periodic NPSAS data collections draw data from multiple 

sources, including postsecondary institution records, federal financial aid databases, and 

student surveys. NPSAS student-level data collection includes, among other things, 

information on student demographics, education, and work experiences. In this report, 

NPSAS data are used in Exhibits 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.14. 
APPENDIX B 

METHODOLOGY 117

Response rates for the 2011–12 NPSAS were high, with 88 percent of sampled institutions 

providing lists of enrolled students and 92 percent providing detailed information on sampled 

students. Among eligible students, 69 percent completed the student survey. For more 

information on NPSAS, see http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/. 

• Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). This periodic study 

leverages the NPSAS collection, following the subset of students who were identified in the 

certain NPSAS cohorts as being first-time postsecondary students. The BPS then conducts 

follow-up surveys of these students at three points in time: at the end of their first year, and 

then three and six years after they first started postsecondary education. BPS surveys collect 

information on student demographic characteristics, school and work experiences, 

persistence, transfer, and degree attainment. 

The most recent BPS data collection (BPS:04/09) followed a cohort of students who started 

their postsecondary education for the first time during the 2003–04 academic year at any 

Title IV-eligible postsecondary institution in the United States; these students were surveyed 

again in 2006 and in 2009. In addition to survey data, student transcripts were collected, 

enabling analyses by fields of study, including CTE. In this report, BPS data are used in 

Exhibit 6.8. 

The response rate for BPS:04/09 was 82 percent. For more information on the BPS, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/bps/. 

Significance Testing 

For original analyses conducted for the NACTE, references in the text to differences between groups 

or over time that are based on sample data only discuss differences that are statistically significant 

using a significance level of 0.05. The significance level, or alpha level, reflects the probability that a 

difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise simply due to sampling variation, 

if there were no true difference between groups in the population. A failure to reach this level of 

statistical significance does not necessarily mean that two groups were the same or that there was no 

change over time; a lack of statistically significant findings simply means that no reliable conclusion 

can be drawn from the analyses that were conducted. The tests were conducted by calculating 

students’ t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. The t-test formula was 

not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Standard error tables for exhibits that are based on sample 

data are included in Appendix C.
This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX C 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 119

Appendix C. Standard Error Tables

In the following tables, standard errors are provided in parentheses after each estimate. 
 APPENDIX C

120 STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

Exhibit C.1. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.1.

Percentage of public school graduates who earned one or more occupational CTE credits, 

by occupational area, 2009

Curricular area

Any

credits

At least 

one credit

At least 

two credits

At least 

three credits

Any CTE occupational area 84.9 (0.61) 76.1 (0.79) 53.2 (1.02) 36.2 (1.02)

Same CTE occupational area † † 35.5 (0.93) 19.1 (0.77)

Business 32.5 (1.05) 22.7 (0.86) 6.6 (0.39) 2.4 (0.17)

Communications and design 29.6 (0.91) 19.5 (0.65) 5.8 (0.29) 2.2 (0.13)

Computer and information sciences 21.2 (0.87) 12.9 (0.60) 3.1 (0.23) 1.0 (0.13)

Consumer and culinary services 18.0 (0.62) 10.2 (0.48) 4.2 (0.27) 2.4 (0.18)

Manufacturing 12.9 (0.52) 8.4 (0.44) 2.8 (0.21) 1.3 (0.15)

Engineering technologies 11.1 (0.62) 8.3 (0.56) 2.2 (0.14) 0.9 (0.09)

Agriculture and natural resources 10.7 (0.58) 8.7 (0.54) 4.3 (0.34) 2.6 (0.24)

Health sciences 10.3 (0.65) 8.1 (0.57) 4.0 (0.31) 2.6 (0.25)

Public services 9.6 (0.56) 6.6 (0.49) 1.5 (0.16) 0.6 (0.10)

Marketing 8.5 (0.54) 5.6 (0.45) 1.9 (0.24) 0.9 (0.12)

Repair and transportation 8.0 (0.43) 6.0 (0.36) 3.3 (0.26) 2.1 (0.24)

Construction and architecture 6.7 (0.44) 5.0 (0.35) 2.0 (0.21) 1.1 (0.11)

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 2009.

Exhibit C.2. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.2.

Percentage of public high school graduates who earned occupational CTE credits, 

for selected years from 1990 to 2009

Amount of occupational CTE credits earned 1990 2000 2005 2009

Any occupational CTE credit 88.2 (0.78) 89.0 (0.78) 87.0 (0.45) 84.9 (0.61)

One or more occupational CTE credits 77.9 (1.12) 79.8 (1.24) 78.6 (0.62) 76.1 (0.79)

Three or more credits in same CTE occupational area 23.8 (0.96) 22.7 (1.26) 20.9 (0.60) 19.1 (0.77)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 1990, 2000, 2005, and 2009.
APPENDIX C

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 121

Exhibit C.3. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.3. 

Average number of credits earned by public high school graduates during high school, 

by curricular area, and percentage of total credits in each area, 1990 and 2009

Curricular area

Average credits 

in 1990

Average credits 

in 2009

Percent of total 

in 1990

Percent of total in

2009

Total credits 23.5 (0.13) 26.9 (0.10) 100.0 100.0

Occupational CTE 2.7 (0.06) 2.5 (0.06) 11.4 (0.23) 9.0 (0.19)

Non-occupational CTE 1.5 (0.05) 1.1 (0.03) 6.5 (0.21) 4.1 (0.10)

Enrichment/other 2.7 (0.07) 3.4 (0.05) 11.3 (0.28) 12.6 (0.17)

Academic 16.7 (0.11) 20.0 (0.08) 70.7 (0.40) 74.4 (0.32)

NOTE: Enrichment includes credits earned in areas such as health, physical, and recreational education; religion and theology; and military 

science, among other areas. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study

(HSTS), 1990 and 2009.

Exhibit C.4. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.4. 

Percentage change in the percentage of public school graduates who 

earned occupational CTE credits, by occupational area, 1990 and 2009

Occupational area 1990 2009

Health sciences 3.2 (0.65) 10.3 (0.65)

Public services 3.8 (0.70) 9.6 (0.56)

Communications and design 18.4 (0.88) 29.6 (0.91)

Consumer and culinary services 13.8 (1.02) 18.0 (0.62)

Agriculture and natural resources 9.1 (0.90) 10.7 (0.58)

Marketing 8.5 (0.56) 8.5 (0.54)

Construction and architecture 7.4 (0.54) 6.7 (0.43)

Computer and information sciences 25.1 (1.47) 21.2 (0.87)

Engineering technologies 13.7 (0.58) 11.1 (0.62)

Repair and transportation 10.1 (0.71) 8.0 (0.43)

Business 51.7 (1.49) 32.5 (1.05)

Manufacturing 22.4 (1.26) 12.9 (0.52)

Any CTE occupational area 88.2 (0.78) 84.9 (0.61)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study 

(HSTS), 1990 and 2009.
 APPENDIX C

122 STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

Exhibit C.5. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.5. 

Percentage of public high school graduates who were CTE concentrators, 

by student characteristics, 1990 and 2009

Student characteristic 1990 2009

Mathematics course completion in 9th grade

Geometry or higher 9.3 (1.19) 14.0 (0.85)

Algebra 17.9 (0.91) 20.1 (0.94)

Below algebra or no mathematics 32.9 (1.44) 24.2 (1.14)

Disability status in grade 12

Students with disabilities 36.8 (3.93) 27.2 (1.57)

Students with no reported disability 23.5 (0.94) 18.4 (0.76)

Limited English proficiency in grade 12

Limited English proficient 11.5 (5.40)! 12.9 (1.43)

No reported limited English proficiency 23.9 (0.95) 19.3 (0.79)

Race/ethnicity

White 24.4 (1.08) 20.0 (0.91)

Black 24.4 (2.20) 22.9 (1.68)

Hispanic 24.1 (2.23) 17.1 (1.24)

Asian 11.8 (2.95) 7.3 (1.22)

American Indian 30.0 (4.99) 17.5 (2.59)

Other ‡ 13.9 (2.94)

Sex

Male 25.2 (1.17) 21.1 (0.97)

Female 22.6 (1.16) 17.2 (0.70)

All CTE concentrators 23.8 (0.96) 19.1 (0.77)

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.

‡ Reporting standards are not met; the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 1990 and 

2009.
APPENDIX C 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 123

Exhibit C.6. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.6. 

Percentage of grade 9–12 public school teachers who had attained bachelor’s degree or higher 

and a master’s degree or higher, by main teaching assignment and CTE occupational area, 2011–12

Main teaching assignment 

and CTE occupational area

Bachelor’s degree 

or higher

Master’s degree 

or higher

Main teaching assignment

CTE education 81.7 (1.91) 46.3 (2.40)

Academic education 97.0 (0.27) 58.6 (0.81)

All subjects 95.4 (0.35) 57.3 (0.67)

CTE occupational area

Marketing 99.1 (1.12) 62.7 10.42)

Business 96.4 (1.74) 64.4 (4.50)

Agriculture and natural resources 93.3 (3.86) 37.6 (5.96)

Computer and information sciences 89.8 (3.60) 57.5 (7.06)

Communications and design 82.5 (5.83) 52.1 (8.32)

Health sciences 80.8 (5.43) 36.2 (9.55)

Consumer, culinary, and public services 72.0 (7.29) 47.8 (7.32)

Construction, architecture, and engineering technologies 69.2 (4.95) 32.3 (5.53)

Manufacturing 46.7 (12.91) ‡

Repair and transportation 25.8 (6.84) 12.3 (4.17) !

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.

‡ Reporting standards are not met; the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), Public School 

Teacher Questionnaire, 2011–12.

Exhibit C.7. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.7. 

Percentage distribution of grade 9–12 public school teachers’ type of certification, 

for CTE occupational teachers and academic teachers, 2011–12

Type of certification

Occupational CTE 

teachers Academic teachers

Regular state certification 84.9 (1.65) 91.4 (0.55)

Provisional certification a 13.5 (1.65) 7.7 (0.44)

No certification 1.5 (0.37) 1.0 (0.43)

a Includes certificates issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a probationary period and certificates that 

require additional coursework, student teaching, passage of a test, or completion of a certification program.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), Public School 

Teacher Questionnaire, 2011–12.
APPENDIX C

124 STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

Exhibit C.8. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.8. 

Percentage distribution of grade 9–12 public school teachers who participated in professional 

development, for CTE occupational teachers and academic teachers, 2011–12

Number of professional development hours Occupational CTE teachers Academic teachers

More than 32 hours 28.5 (2.30) 28.4 (0.88)

17 to 32 hours 29.6 (2.31) 23.7 (0.83)

9 to 16 hours 26.1 (2.49) 26.7 (0.82)

Less than 9 hours 15.8 (1.62) 21.2 (0.96)

More than 17 hours 58.1 (2.44) 52.1 (0.96)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), Public School Teacher 

Questionnaire, 2011–12.

Exhibit C.9. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.9. 

Percentage distribution of students seeking subbaccalaureate CTE credentials, 

by type of institution, 2011–12 

Type of institution

Subbaccalaureate 

credential Certificate Associate’s degree

4-year institutions 12.8 (0.57) 8.2 (0.75) 15.2 (0.82)

Public 5.2 (0.44) 4.3 (0.56) 5.6 (0.63)

Private not-for-profit 1.7 (0.24) 1.5 (0.47) 1.8 (0.27)

Private for-profit 5.9 (0.32) 2.4 (0.28) 7.8 (0.44)

2-year institutions 77.2 (0.63) 63.2 (1.41) 84.8 (0.82)

Public 64.7 (0.73) 40.0 (1.86) 78.1 (0.90)

Private not-for-profit 1.2 (0.13) 2.1 (0.35) 0.6 (0.14)

Private for-profit 11.3 (0.28) 21.1 (1.04) 6.1 (0.51)

Less-than-2-year institutions 10.0 (0.28) 28.5 (1.08) †

Public 1.3 (0.11) 3.8 (0.32) †

Private not-for-profit # (†) 0.4 (0.29) †

Private for-profit 8.5 (0.24) 24.3 (0.95) †

† Not applicable. 

# Rounds to zero.

NOTES: This exhibit provides standard errors for the last column of Exhibit 2.9 (percentage distribution of students seeking a

subbaccalaureate credential), as well as estimates and standard errors for the distribution of students seeking a CTE 

certificate and the distribution of students seeking a CTE associate's degree, which are not included in Exhibit 2.9. In addition,

Exhibit C.9 does not include standard errors for the first four columns of Exhibit 2.9 because those data are from IPEDS, which 

is a universe survey. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:12).
APPENDIX C 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 125

Exhibit C.10. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.11. 

Number and percentage distribution of credential-seeking undergraduates in subbaccalaureate programs, 

by credential goal and career field of study, 2011–12

CTE occupational field

Number of 

subbaccalaureate 

students

Percent of all 

subbaccalaureate 

students

Percent 

seeking a 

certificate

Percent 

seeking an 

associate’s 

degree

Any CTE occupational area 8,402,703 100.0 20.7 (0.63) 79.3 (0.63)

Health sciences 3,032,440 36.1 (0.70) 25.7 (1.17) 74.3 (1.17)

Business 1,411,844 16.8 (0.38) 6.8 (0.75) 93.2 (0.75)

Manufacturing, construction, repair, 

and transportation 591,916 7.0 (0.38) 42.3 (3.07) 57.7 (3.07)

Personal and consumer services 575,744 6.9 (0.45) 64.0 (2.40) 36.0 (2.40)

Military technology and protective 

services

538,484 6.4 (0.25) 5.0 (0.88) 95.0 (0.88)

Computer and information sciences 532,711 6.3 (0.26) 9.6 (1.20) 90.4 (1.20)

Engineering, architecture, and 

science technologies

524,716 6.2 (0.22) 12.0 (1.52) 88.0 (1.52)

Education 469,631 5.6 (0.29) 9.6 (2.24) 90.4 (2.24)

Public, legal, and social services 380,848 4.5 (0.24) 9.3 (1.45) 90.7 (1.45)

Communications and design 252,069 3.0 (0.19) 6.8 (1.48) 93.2 (1.48)

Agriculture and natural resources 92,302 1.1 (0.10) 9.4 (3.09) 90.6 (3.09)

NOTES: Business and marketing includes business management, business support, and marketing. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12). 
 APPENDIX C

126 STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

Exhibit C.11. Standard Errors for Exhibit 2.14. 

Percentage distribution of undergraduate students enrolled in selected types of 

degree and certificate programs, by demographic characteristics, 2011–12

Student characteristic Any certificate

CTE-focused 

associate's degree

Any bachelor's 

degree

Age group, as of 2012

Under 25 45.1 (1.02) 49.2 (0.56) 70.7 (0.47)

25 to 34 29.7 (0.92) 29.3 (0.49) 17.4 (0.32)

Over 34 25.2 (0.92) 21.5 (0.45) 11.9 (0.33)

Income quartile, 2010

Lowest quartile 32.3 (1.00) 27.7 (0.47) 21.7 (0.25)

Second quartile 27.6 (0.84) 26.5 (0.43) 23.7 (0.30)

Third quartile 20.4 (0.80) 25.2 (0.44) 25.4 (0.32)

Highest quartile 19.7 (1.26) 20.6 (0.48) 29.2 (0.32)

Parent's highest level of education

Less than high school 10.0 (0.55) 9.1 (0.31) 4.9 (0.18)

High school diploma or equivalent 33.3 (1.11) 29.7 (0.47) 20.9 (0.28)

Some college, no bachelor's degree 25.2 (0.94) 29.9 (0.48) 24.9 (0.29)

Bachelor's degree or higher 24.4 (1.06) 26.6 (0.50) 47.3 (0.38)

Unknown 7.1 (0.53) 4.6 (0.23) 2.0 (0.12)

Race/ethnicity

Asian 3.2 (0.36) 4.3 (0.28) 6.7 (0.21)

Black or African American 21.6 (1.59) 18.8 (0.56) 14.3 (0.32)

Hispanic or Latino 19.8 (1.12) 18.1 (0.61) 13.0 (0.35)

White 51.5 (1.53) 54.2 (0.79) 61.6 (0.47)

Other 4.0 (0.42) 4.5 (0.25) 4.4 (0.16)

Sex

Male 35.3 (1.02) 41.6 (0.46) 45.0 (0.25)

Female 64.7 (1.02) 58.4 (0.46) 55.0 (0.25)

NOTES: Other races include American Indian, Alaska Native, those of two or more races, and those of other (unspecified) race. For 

income quartile, parents’ income was used if student is dependent; student’s own income (and spouse’s income, if applicable) is used 

if student is independent. Income rankings compare the student only to other students with the same dependency status. Detail may 

not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS). 
APPENDIX C 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 127

Exhibit C.12. Standard Errors for Exhibit 3.14. 

Percentage of secondary and postsecondary local subgrantees who reported 

using Perkins Title I funds for permissive uses, 2008–09

Permissive use Secondary Postsecondary

Leasing, purchasing, upgrading, or adapting equipment 70.2 (1.41) 75.8 (0.92)

Providing career guidance and academic counseling 67.7 (1.44) 80.5 (0.88)

Implementing POS 57.8 (1.50) 61.1 (1.08)

Promoting work-related experiences for students 55.7 (1.53) 57.0 (1.09)

Providing programs for special populations 53.4 (1.52) 69.2 (1.03)

Assisting CTE student organizations 42.8 (1.52) 23.4 (0.94)

Supporting nontraditional training and activities 39.1 (1.50) 60.6 (1.07)

Involving business and labor in designing, implementing, and evaluating CTE 

programs 

37.2 (1.49) 44.6 (1.10) 

Developing new CTE courses 36.0 (1.47) 45.7 (1.07)

Supporting teacher preparation programs 34.9 (1.48) 31.9 (1.02)

Promoting industry experiences for teachers 34.8 (1.48) 40.2 (1.08)

Improving accountability data collection and reporting 39.8 (1.44) 35.8 (1.05)

Offering mentoring and related support services 27.5 (1.39) 47.7 (1.11)

Providing training programs in automotive technologies 22.7 (1.28) 39.8 (1.08)

Providing entrepreneurship education and training 17.5 (1.17) 13.8 (0.76)

Offering continuing education or job referral services 13.0 (1.06) 26.9 (0.98)

Offering programs for adults and school dropouts † 25.7 (0.95)

Supporting family and consumer sciences programs † 14.9 (0.78)

Creating small, personalized career-themed learning communities † 10.5 (0.66)

† Not applicable. Survey of LEA directors did not include this subitem.

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 1,021 LEAs, 748 IHEs).

Exhibit C.13. Standard Errors for Exhibit 4.2.

Average number of POS reported by local directors in states using each strategy, 

by education level, 2008–09 

POS development strategy

As reported by 

LEA CTE directors

As reported by 

IHE CTE directors

State-developed 10.2 (0.65) 18.1 (1.13)

Locally-developed 8.7 (0.65) 17.6 (0.72)

Locally-developed with state guidance 8.3 (0.68) 16.0 (0.75)

Locally-developed without state guidance 7.0 (1.30) 17.0 (1.43)

Overall average 11.5 (0.62) 22.3 (0.81)

NOTE: Some states used more than one approach (for example, four states reported that locally-developed POS included POS developed with 

state guidance as well as POS developed without state guidance).

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 687 LEAs, 549 IHEs).
 APPENDIX C

128 STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

Exhibit C.14. Standard Errors for Exhibit 4.3.

Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that various stakeholders 

participated “a lot” in POS development, 2008–09

Stakeholder group As reported by LEA CTE directors As reported by IHE CTE directors

Secondary CTE teachers 66.2 (0.61) 37.4 (0.73)

Postsecondary CTE faculty 16.4 (1.23) 59.5 (0.45)

LEA administrators 36.7 (0.88) 19.5 (0.85)

Postsecondary administrators 9.1 (1.38) 52.0 (0.46)

Secondary academic teachers 14.1 (1.31) 11.6 (1.01)

Postsecondary academic faculty 7.9 (1.43) 27.2 (0.89)

Local business, unions 13.4 (1.16) 27.2 (0.70)

National industry, union groups 5.5 (1.50) 13.1 (0.98)

Local chamber of commerce 5.0 (1.55) 6.2 (1.08)

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 1,001 LEAs, 736 IHEs).

Exhibit C.15. Standard Errors for Exhibit 4.4. 

Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of their five highest-enrollment POS 

had certain linkages between secondary and postsecondary education, 2008–09

POS component LEA directors IHE directors

Spans secondary and postsecondary 67.8 (1.45) 70.4 (1.03)

Non-duplicative across secondary and postsecondary 42.3 (1.57) 59.0 (1.12) 

Opportunity for dual or concurrent enrollment 58.2 (1.53) 76.0 (0.97)

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 981 LEAs, 714 IHEs).

Exhibit C.16. Standard Errors for Exhibit 4.5.

Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of their 

five highest-enrollment POS was part of an articulation agreement, 2008–09

POS component

Agreement with one 

or more IHEs or LEAs

Agreement with two 

or more IHEs or LEAs

Percent of LEA directors reporting that at least one of their five 

highest-enrollment POS was part of an articulation agreement 

with a postsecondary institution

61.8 (1.43) 36.3 (1.52)

Percent of IHE directors reporting that at least one of their five 

highest-enrollment POS was part of an articulation agreement 

with a school district

63.5 (1.04) 58.3 (1.12)

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 980 LEAs, 710 IHEs).
APPENDIX C 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 129

Exhibit C.17. Standard Errors for Exhibit 4.6.

Percentage of LEA and IHE directors reporting that at least one of their 

five highest-enrollment POS led to certain credentials, 2008–09

POS component LEA directors IHE directors

Industry-recognized or sponsored credential 46.5 (1.50) 77.6 (0.95)

Postsecondary certificate 43.4 (1.53) 80.0 (0.90)

Associate’s degree 32.5 (1.49) 76.7 (0.94)

Bachelor’s degree 21.9 (1.34) 32.1 (1.07)

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors, 2009 (n = 974 LEAs, 712 IHEs).

Exhibit C.18. Standard Errors for Exhibit 5.4. 

Percentage of LEAs and IHEs reporting various methods for identifying CTE concentrators, 2009

Identification method LEA directors IHE directors

Local administrators identify students using local management 

information systems 57.4 (1.52) 59.6 (1.10)

Teachers/faculty identify students based on coursetaking 49.9 (1.56) 25.3 (0.95)

State administrators identify students using statewide database 25.7 (1.36) 34.4 (1.06)

Students self-report concentrator status 12.4 (1.03) 19.9 (0.89)

Don’t know 8.7 (0.84) 5.4 (0.50)

NOTE: Survey respondents could report using more than one method.

SOURCE: NACTE Surveys of LEA and IHE Directors of CTE, 2009 (n = 1,014 LEAs, 736 IHEs). 

Exhibit C.19. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.1.

Percentage of public high school graduates completing the New Basics core curriculum and 4-year college 

preparatory coursework, by the number of occupational CTE credits earned, 1990, 2000, and 2009

CTE participation 

status

New Basics core curriculum Four-year college prep coursework

1990 2000 2009 1990 2000 2009

4.0 or more credits 18.1 (1.97) 50.1 (2.59) 69.7 (1.02) 9.5 (0.89) 29.0 (1.93) 45.2 (0.89)

2.0–3.99 credits 38.7 (1.90) 59.0 (2.00) 75.2 (1.03) 29.5 (1.51) 43.6 (1.71) 60.1 (1.08)

0.01–1.99 credits 52.2 (2.43) 62.5 (2.11) 75.8 (1.41) 41.7 (1.96) 49.8 (1.89) 66.4 (1.52)

None 54.6 (3.02) 66.1 (2.90) 80.1 (2.41) 45.4 (2.70) 53.5 (2.97) 73.5 (2.64)

All graduates 38.1 (1.70) 57.9 (1.72) 73.4 (0.81) 28.7 (1.18) 41.8 (1.37) 56.4 (0.82)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Studies (HSTS) for 1990, 2000, and 

2009.
 APPENDIX C

130 STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

Exhibit C.20. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.2.

Percentage of CTE concentrators and non-concentrators scoring at or above the proficient level 

on NAEP 12th-grade assessments in mathematics in 2005 and 2009 and in science in 2009 

Postsecondary attainment status CTE concentrator Non-concentrator

Mathematics — 2005 13.0 (1.40) 26.7 (1.00)

Mathematics — 2009 16.2 (1.05) 30.5 (1.52)

Science — 2009 10.3 (3.70) 23.5 (5.10)

NOTE: The 2009 NAEP science assessment is not comparable to earlier science assessments. Because NAEP scales are developed 

independently for each subject, NAEP results cannot be used to make comparisons across subjects.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 and 2009 High School Transcript Study (HSTS) and 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005 12th-grade Mathematics Assessment and 2009 Mathematics and Science 

Assessments.

Exhibit C.21. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.3.

Percentage distribution of secondary CTE concentrators and non-concentrators who earn a postsecondary 

degree or credential within eight years of high school graduation, by attainment status, 2012

Postsecondary attainment status CTE concentrator Non-concentrator

No postsecondary attendance 17.6 (1.40) 9.3 (0.52)

Some postsecondary attendance, no credential 32.5 (1.64) 32.4 (0.67)

Subbaccalaureate degree or certificate 23.1 (1.59) 19.0 (0.64)

Bachelor’s or professional degree or certificate 26.8 (1.74) 39.3 (0.89)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Third 

Follow-up Restricted-use File.
APPENDIX C 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 131

Exhibit C.22. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.4. 

Percentage distribution of 2004 public high school graduates by postsecondary enrollment and employment 

status two years after high school, by CTE occupational field and concentrator status, 2006

CTE occupational area

Enrolled in 

postsecondary 

education

Never enrolled 

but worked for 

pay 

Neither enrolled 

nor worked for 

pay 

Computer and information sciences 84.3 (5.59) 11.6 (4.07) 4.1 (3.76)

Health sciences 80.8 (5.25) 17.5 (5.17) 1.7 (1.39)

Communications and design 80.3 (4.47) 18.5 (4.49) 1.2 (1.01)

Business 78.3 (2.99) 19.4 (2.82) 2.3 (1.12)

Marketing 72.1 (5.18) 26.3 (5.03) 1.6 (1.24)

Engineering technologies 72.0 (7.49) 28.0 (7.49) ‡

Agriculture and natural resources 69.1 (4.78) 29.6 (4.68) 1.3 (0.93)

Consumer and culinary services 59.3 (4.50) 37.4 (4.49) 3.4 (1.87)

Construction and architecture 54.5 (8.59) 42.7 (8.08) 2.8 (2.09)

Repair and transportation 52.0 (4.33) 48.0 (4.33) ‡

All CTE concentrators 69.9 (1.64) 28.6 (1.60) 1.6 (0.39)

Non-concentrators 80.4 (0.71) 18.3 (0.68) 1.3 (0.17)

All high school graduates 78.7 (0.66) 20.0 (0.63) 1.4 (0.16)

‡ Reporting standards are not met; the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.

NOTE: The timeframe for postsecondary enrollment and employment was between high school graduation and the 2006 interview date. Detail 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Second 

Follow-up Restricted-use File. 

Exhibit C.23. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.5

Percentage of secondary CTE concentrators who enrolled in postsecondary education 

within two years of high school graduation, by same or different field of study, 2006

Main teaching assignment

and CTE occupational area

Enrolled in postsecondary 

education in same field of study

Enrolled in postsecondary education

but not in the same field of study

All CTE concentrators 9.7 (1.01) 60.1 (1.65)

Health sciences 18.7 (4.39) 61.8 (5.94)

Business 16.3 (3.06) 62.0 (4.09)

Computer and information sciences 12.6 (4.99) ! 71.7 (6.83)

Communications and design 10.9 (3.00) 69.4 (5.29)

Engineering technologies 7.5 (3.65) ! 64.5 (8.97)

Agriculture and natural resources 7.5 (2.39) ! 61.6 (3.69)

Repair and transportation 7.3 (2.39) ! 44.7 (4.43)

Marketing 5.5 (2.55) ! 66.6 (5.59)

Consumer and culinary services 4.6 (2.02) ! 54.7 (4.72)

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.

NOTES: “Enrolled in postsecondary education but not in the same field of study” includes students who had not yet declared a major or field of 

study. Timeframe for postsecondary enrollment was between high school graduation and the 2006 interview date. Three occupational CTE 

fields are not included in this chart because reporting standards were not met (construction and architecture, manufacturing, and public 

services). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Second 

Follow-up Restricted-use File. 
 APPENDIX C

132 STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

Exhibit C.24. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.6

Percentage of secondary CTE concentrators who earned a postsecondary degree or certificate in 

the same or a different field of study within eight years of high school graduation, 2012

Main teaching assignment 

and CTE occupational area

Earned postsecondary degree or 

certificate in same field of study

Earned postsecondary degree or 

certificate in different field of study

All CTE concentrators 13.7 (1.74) 35.2 (1.13)

Health sciences 39.5 (5.58) 22.3 (5.36)

Business 17.7 (3.33) 38.1 (4.07)

Repair and transportation 17.2 (4.12) 13.1 (3.24)

Computer and information sciences 16.3 (5.83) 40.1 (8.05)

Communications and design 15.2 (4.29) 50.8 (5.65)

Engineering technologies 14.3 (5.58) 38.5 (7.54)

Consumer and culinary services 8.6 (3.12) 26.6 (4.88)

Agriculture and natural resources 3.9 (1.67) 41.6 (5.12)

NOTES: The timeframe for postsecondary enrollment was between high school graduation and the 2006 interview date. Four occupational CTE 

fields are not included in this chart because reporting standards were not met (construction and architecture, marketing, manufacturing, and 

public service).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002),Third 

Follow-up Restricted-use File. 

Exhibit C.25. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.7.

Among 2004 public high school graduates who worked for pay and did not enroll in postsecondary 

education in the first two years after high school graduation, percentage who worked full-time and average 

hourly wage, by CTE concentrator status and number of CTE credits earned, 2006

CTE participation status Percent working full-timea Average hourly wageb

CTE concentrators 68.8 $10.04

Non-concentrators 62.1 $9.59

Graduates by number of CTE credits

4.00 or more credits 69.8 $9.84

2.00 – 3.99 credits 62.1 $9.83

0.00 – 1.99 credits 59.9 $9.46

All high school graduates 63.7 $9.70

a “Full-time” is defined as working 35 or more hours per week. b Graduates who reported earning less than $2 or more than $30 per hour were excluded (2 percent of respondents)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Second 

Follow-up Restricted-use File. 
APPENDIX C 

STANDARD ERROR TABLES 133

Exhibit C.26. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.8.

Percentage of students who began postsecondary education in 2003 who had attained various credentials or 

were still enrolled as of 2009, six years after initial enrollment, by postsecondary program

Initial degree program and 

field of study

Total 

attained or 

persisted

Total, any 

credential Certificate 

Associate’s 

degree

Bachelor’s 

degree

No credential, 

still enrolled

Certificate programs

Career/technical field 60.5 (1.85) 52.7 (1.96) 50.3 (1.98) 1.8 (0.46) 0.7 (0.31) 7.8 (1.14)

Academic field 75.5 (7.82) 54.4 (9.18) 44.8 (8.27) ‡ ‡ 21.1 (7.27) !

Associate’s degree programs

Career/technical field 54.3 (1.43) 36.9 (1.21) 5.7 (0.63) 19.7 (0.97) 11.5 (0.88) 17.4 (1.22)

Academic field 56.3 (3.48) 37.0 (3.15) ‡ 17.1 (1.93) 14.9 (1.93) 19.2 (3.08)

All subbaccalaureate programs 55.9 (0.95) 39.4 (0.82) 15.9 (0.65) 14.5 (0.60) 9.0 (0.51) 16.5 (0.88)

Baccalaureate degree programs 79.0 (0.81) 67.3 (1.02) 1.1 (0.17) 2.9 (0.32) 63.2 (1.09) 11.8 (0.59)

Career field 77.5 (1.01) 64.4 (1.28) 1.3 (0.23) 3.4 (0.45) 59.7 (1.32) 13.1 (0.81)

Academic field 83.6 (1.51) 73.5 (1.92) 1.1 (0.47) ! 2.0 (0.47) 70.4 (2.00) 10.1 (1.05)

All beginning students 64.5 (0.65) 49.5 (0.68) 9.4 (0.38) 9.3 (0.37) 30.7 (0.56) 15.0 (0.55)

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.

‡ Reporting standards not met.

NOTE: CTE-focused associate's degrees are distinguished from those with an academic focus per a taxonomy that can be found at 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/postsec_tax.asp. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003/04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 

(BPS:2004/09).

Exhibit C.27: Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.9.

Percentage of students who began postsecondary education in 2003 who had various 

employment outcomes in 2009, by postsecondary attainment as of 2009

Credential attained when last 

enrolled Employed

Percent of those 

employed who were 

working full-time

Consider current job 

to be start of a career

No degree or certificate 75.2 (1.05) 78.8 (1.13) 44.3 (1.35)

CTE subbaccalaureate credential 81.3 (1.69) 83.2 (1.53) 57.2 (2.22)

Any subbaccalaureate credential 81.3 (1.69) 83.2 (1.53) 57.2 (2.22)

Bachelor’s degree 87.5 (0.71) 86.5 (0.75) 65.7 (1.07)

NOTES: Last two columns of table include only those who were employed and not still enrolled in postsecondary education in 2009. Differences 

between graduates with CTE subbaccalaureate credentials and those with any subbaccalaureate credential were not statistically significant.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:04/09). 
 APPENDIX C

134 STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

Exhibit C.28. Standard Errors for Exhibit 6.10. 

Average hourly wages earned in 2012 by students who graduated from a public high school in 2004, for 

secondary CTE concentrators and non-concentrators, by postsecondary attainment

Postsecondary degree or certificate type

All high school 

graduates

CTE 

concentrators

Nonconcentrators

No postsecondary enrollment $13.89 (0.43) $14.54 (0.93) $13.65 (0.46)

Some postsecondary enrollment, no certificate $13.81 (0.21) $14.52 (0.60) $13.67 (0.22)

Undergraduate certificate $15.23 (0.48) $16.27 (1.04) $14.97 (0.53)

Associate’s degree $16.14 (0.48) $15.90 (0.76) $16.18 (0.54)

Bachelor’s degree $18.87 (0.26) $19.15 (0.67) $18.84 (0.28)

Professional degree or certificate $22.94 (0.64) $22.26 (1.51) $23.03 (0.70)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Third 

Follow-up Restricted-use File. 
APPENDIX D 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 135

Appendix D. Supplemental Exhibits
APPENDIX D

136 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit D.1. 

Crosswalk between postsecondary and secondary taxonomies for career and technical education

Postsecondary Career Education 

Categories

Family and Consumer Sciences Education

General Labor Market Preparation

Occupational Education

Agriculture and Natural Resources Agriculture and Natural Resources

Business Management 

Business Finance

Business Support Business Support

Communications and Design Communications and Design

Computer and Information Sciences Computer and Information Sciences

Consumer Services

Education Education

Engineering Technologies1

Architecture

Health Sciences Health Sciences

Marketing Marketing

Protective Services Protective Services

Library Science

Public, Legal, and Social Services Public Administration

Legal services

Manufacturing 

Construction

Repair

Transportation

Manufacturing, Construction,

 Repair, and Transportation

Engineering, Architecture and

 Science Technologies

Business Management 

Secondary School Taxonomy CTE 

Categories

Culinary Arts 

Consumer Services

1 In the secondary school taxonomy, engineering courses are included in the academic curriculum rather than the CTE curriculum.

SOURCE: Bradby and Hudson (2007).
APPENDIX D

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 137

Exhibit D.2.

Percentage distribution of undergraduate credentials conferred in CTE fields 

by Title IV postsecondary institutions, by type of institution, 2011–12

Type of institution Certificates Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree

4-year institutions 8 31 100

Public 4 13 63

Private not-for-profit 1 5 30

Private for-profit 3 13 7

2-year institutions 63 69 †

Public 43 61 †

Private not-for-profit 1 1 †

Private for-profit 19 7 †

Less-than-2-year institutions 28 † †

Public 4 † †

Private not-for-profit 1 † †

Private for-profit 23 † †

† Not applicable.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS). Extracted June 16, 2014, from the IPEDS Data Center, http://www.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/. 

Exhibit D.3. Supporting detail for Exhibit 2.12.

Change in number of subbaccalaureate CTE awards and other undergraduate awards, 

selected years from 2000 to 2012

Award 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 

CTE subbaccalaureate awards 897,815 937,797 1,088,776 1,145,877 1,205,307 1,448,742 1,600,678

Certificates 552,321 582,578 687,787 715,401 749,876 935,789 987,715

CTE-focused associate’s degrees 345,494 355,219 400,989 430,476 455,431 512,953 612,963

Other undergraduate awards 1,452,235 1,531,374 1,664,061 1,767,972 1,857,536 1,986,633 2,195,621

Academic associate’s degrees 216,762 239,741 264,519 282,730 294,838 336,619 404,575

Bachelor’s degrees 1,235,473 1,291,633 1,399,542 1,485,242 1,562,698 1,650,014 1,791,046

All undergraduate awards 2,350,050 2,469,171 2,752,837 2,913,849 3,062,843 3,435,375 3,796,299

CTE as a percentage of 

all undergraduate awards 38.2% 38.0% 39.6% 39.3% 39.4% 42.2% 42.2% 

Certificates as a percentage of all 

CTE subbaccalaureate awards 61.5% 62.1% 63.2% 62.4% 62.2% 64.6% 61.7% 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), selected 

years from 2000 to 2012.
 APPENDIX D

138 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit D.4. Supporting detail for Exhibit 2.13.

Change in number of subbaccalaureate CTE certificates and associate’s degrees awarded, 

by career field of study, 2002 to 2012

CTE occupational field 2002 2012 Change % Change

Associate’s degrees and certificates 922,869 1,547,045 624,176 68

Health sciences 268,413 635,327 366,914 137

Protective services 37,566 80,283 42,717 114

Education 14,069 28,888 14,819 105

Consumer services 108,080 190,632 82,552 76

Manufacturing, construction, repair, and transportation 113,537 196,613 83,076 73

Public, legal, and social services 18,467 31,405 12,938 70

Business management 102,177 149,097 46,920 46

Communications and design 32,004 36,283 4,279 13

Engineering, architecture, and science technologies 72,481 77,593 5,112 7

Agriculture and natural resources 12,909 12,843 –66 –1

Computer and information sciences 85,180 67,417 –17,763 –21

Business support 38,950 30,051 –8,899 –23

Marketing 19,036 10,613 –8,423 –44

Associate’s degrees 355,219 612,963 257,744 73

Protective services 16,689 50,695 34,006 204

Health sciences 82,408 218,041 135,633 165

Education 9,611 20,531 10,920 114

Public, legal, and social services 11,667 22,323 10,656 91

Manufacturing, construction, repair, and transportation 18,371 32,216 13,845 75

Consumer services 19,007 32,660 13,653 72

Business management 68,089 106,664 38,575 57

Communications and design 20,695 22,654 1,959 9

Agriculture and natural resources 6,494 7,066 572 9

Computer and information sciences 40,145 41,161 1,016 3

Engineering, architecture, and science technologies 43,375 43,644 269 1

Marketing 7,148 6,358 –790 –11

Business support 11,520 8,950 –2,570 –22

Certificates 567,650 934,082 366,432 65

Health sciences 186,005 417,286 231,281 124

Education 4,458 8,357 3,899 87

Consumer services 89,073 157,972 68,899 77

Manufacturing, construction, repair, and transportation 95,166 164,397 69,231 73

Protective services 20,877 29,588 8,711 42

Public, legal, and social services 6,800 9,082 2,282 34

Business management 34,088 42,433 8,345 24

Communications and design 11,309 13,629 2,320 21

Engineering, architecture, and science technologies 29,106 33,949 4,843 17

Agriculture and natural resources 6,415 5,777 –638 –10

Business support 27,430 21,101 –6,329 –23

Computer and information sciences 45,035 26,256 –18,779 –42

Marketing 11,888 4,255 –7,633 –64

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

2002 and 2012.
APPENDIX D 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 139

Exhibit D.5. Supporting detail for Exhibit 3.1.

Federal appropriations for career and technical education, from FY 1985 through FY 2014,

in nominal dollars (actual appropriations) and in constant 2014 dollars

Fiscal year

Actual 

appropriations Constant FY 2014 dollars GDP deflator

1985 842,148,000 1,642,597,410 0.5127 

1986 813,113,000 1,550,097,122 0.5246 

1987 881,967,000 1,637,589,374 0.5386 

1988 888,243,000 1,598,041,959 0.5558 

1989 918,404,000 1,590,580,721 0.5774 

1990 936,723,000 1,564,753,193 0.5986 

1991 1,008,488,000 1,623,005,921 0.6214 

1992 1,152,848,000 1,808,253,714 0.6375 

1993 1,173,727,000 1,801,388,497 0.6516 

1994 1,180,477,000 1,774,248,100 0.6653 

1995 1,107,847,000 1,630,523,533 0.6794 

1996 1,084,896,000 1,566,523,285 0.6926 

1997 1,136,195,000 1,610,879,150 0.7053 

1998 1,144,047,000 1,601,665,800 0.7143 

1999 1,150,147,000 1,589,164,596 0.7237 

2000 1,188,150,000 1,609,751,613 0.7381 

2001 1,237,500,000 1,638,131,452 0.7554 

2002 1,314,500,000 1,711,675,813 0.7680 

2003 1,325,826,000 1,691,880,860 0.7836 

2004 1,327,846,000 1,652,643,850 0.8035 

2005 1,326,107,000 1,598,489,378 0.8296 

2006 1,296,306,000 1,511,186,898 0.8578 

2007 1,296,306,000 1,467,750,566 0.8832 

2008 1,271,694,000 1,407,233,955 0.9037 

2009 1,271,694,000 1,389,377,275 0.9153 

2010 1,271,694,000 1,375,414,937 0.9246 

2011 1,131,503,000 1,198,623,531 0.9440 

2012 1,130,859,000 1,176,335,380 0.9613 

2013 1,071,866,000 1,092,161,688 0.9814 

2014 1,117,598,000 1,117,598,000 1.0000 

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, Budget History Table, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

(accessed June 19, 2014). GDP deflator used for constant dollar calculations is from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Inflation Calculator,

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (accessed June 19, 2014).
 APPENDIX D

140 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit D.6. Supporting detail for Exhibit 3.2.

Federal appropriations for Career and Technical Education compared with total discretionary funding 

for elementary-secondary and postsecondary education programs, for selected fiscal years from 

FY 1985 through FY 2014, in nominal dollars (actual appropriations) and in constant 2014 dollars

Fiscal year

Career and technical 

education

Elementary and 

secondary programs

Postsecondary 

programs

Nominal dollars

(actual appropriations)

FY 1985 842,148,000 7,551,707,000 5,889,095,000 

FY 1991 1,008,488,000 12,348,715,000 7,824,855,000 

FY 2000 1,188,150,000 22,600,399,000 11,270,671,000 

FY 2007 1,296,306,000 36,830,689,000 17,052,433,000 

FY 2014 1,117,598,000 37,225,602,000 26,778,138,000 

Constant FY 2014 dollars

FY 1985 1,642,597,410 14,729,494,527 11,486,594,034 

FY 1991 1,623,005,921 19,873,352,551 12,592,897,486 

FY 2000 1,609,751,613 30,619,895,419 15,269,941,355 

FY 2007 1,467,750,566 41,701,777,682 19,307,723,782 

FY 2014 1,117,598,000 37,225,602,000 26,778,138,000 

NOTES: The first four years presented in this exhibit represent the first appropriations year after the passage of Perkins I through Perkins IV. 

Specific programs that received federal appropriations varied by year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Budget History Table, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html (accessed 

June 19, 2014). GDP deflator used for constant dollar calculations is from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgibin/cpicalc.pl (accessed June 19, 2014).
APPENDIX D 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 141

Exhibit D.7. Supporting detail for Exhibit 3.4.

Total Perkins state grants (Title I and Title II), in FY 2000, FY 2007, and FY 2014, 

in nominal dollars and in constant 2014 dollars, by state

State

FY 2000 

(nominal $)

FY 2007 

(nominal $)

FY 2014 

(nominal $)

FY 2000 

(constant $)

FY 2007 

(constant $)

FY 2014 

(constant $)

Alabama 21,443,360 21,769,992 19,175,065 29,052,294 24,649,209 19,175,065 

Alaska 4,588,329 4,575,779 4,214,921 6,216,446 5,180,954 4,214,921 

Arizona 21,328,686 27,027,130 24,934,607 28,896,929 30,601,637 24,934,607 

Arkansas 12,848,961 13,743,109 11,403,795 17,408,270 15,560,721 11,403,795 

California 124,898,916 140,775,071 122,943,598 169,217,886 159,393,453 122,943,598 

Colorado 15,185,685 17,259,809 15,944,320 20,574,154 19,542,527 15,944,320 

Connecticut 9,419,747 11,143,711 9,466,507 12,762,238 12,617,536 9,466,507 

Delaware 4,719,758 5,356,929 4,720,975 6,394,511 6,065,416 4,720,975 

District of Columbia 4,518,171 4,524,230 4,214,921 6,121,393 5,122,588 4,214,921 

Florida 55,176,055 69,438,267 61,726,876 74,754,655 78,621,912 61,726,876 

Georgia 33,162,739 41,049,557 38,240,445 44,930,163 46,478,617 38,240,445 

Hawaii 5,718,520 6,335,233 5,496,906 7,747,672 7,173,107 5,496,906 

Idaho 6,978,400 7,479,215 6,376,981 9,454,606 8,468,388 6,376,981 

Illinois 43,753,081 49,165,761 40,519,069 59,278,368 55,668,240 40,519,069 

Indiana 26,492,515 28,335,259 24,843,250 35,893,085 32,082,774 24,843,250 

Iowa 13,293,398 13,394,907 11,963,946 18,010,410 15,166,467 11,963,946 

Kansas 11,944,943 12,401,918 10,245,408 16,183,471 14,042,149 10,245,408 

Kentucky 19,817,664 19,924,585 17,905,647 26,849,738 22,559,736 17,905,647 

Louisiana 23,611,104 23,835,263 21,041,943 31,989,238 26,987,625 21,041,943 

Maine 5,718,520 6,337,374 5,496,906 7,747,672 7,175,531 5,496,906 

Maryland 16,743,299 18,458,868 15,289,772 22,684,470 20,900,169 15,289,772 

Massachusetts 18,987,355 20,042,184 17,766,415 25,724,804 22,692,888 17,766,415 

Michigan 40,712,376 43,440,125 37,280,167 55,158,703 49,185,353 37,280,167 

Minnesota 18,937,971 19,911,262 16,684,637 25,657,896 22,544,651 16,684,637 

Mississippi 14,950,135 15,193,564 13,363,550 20,255,022 17,203,008 13,363,550 

Missouri 23,976,218 26,080,910 21,433,742 32,483,908 29,530,273 21,433,742 

Montana 5,571,046 6,049,439 5,179,103 7,547,869 6,849,515 5,179,103 

Nebraska 7,691,824 7,790,955 6,816,893 10,421,181 8,821,357 6,816,893 

Nevada 6,241,480 9,091,529 9,650,599 8,456,199 10,293,941 9,650,599 

New Hampshire 5,718,520 6,335,233 5,496,906 7,747,672 7,173,107 5,496,906 

New Jersey 23,844,093 27,223,513 22,370,715 32,304,900 30,823,993 22,370,715 

New Mexico 9,130,551 10,134,704 8,028,679 12,370,424 11,475,082 8,028,679 

New York 56,608,306 64,847,401 51,368,505 76,695,124 73,423,875 51,368,505 

North Carolina 32,138,606 38,212,653 35,695,795 43,542,627 43,266,515 35,695,795 

North Dakota 4,585,663 4,553,451 4,214,921 6,212,834 5,155,673 4,214,921 

Ohio 47,921,570 50,157,342 42,750,001 64,925,998 56,790,964 42,750,001 

Oklahoma 17,372,954 17,280,808 15,094,180 23,537,551 19,566,303 15,094,180 

Oregon 14,112,005 15,679,241 13,448,245 19,119,491 17,752,919 13,448,245 

Pennsylvania 45,404,884 49,737,845 40,722,778 61,516,294 56,315,986 40,722,778 

Rhode Island 5,718,520 6,335,233 5,496,906 7,747,672 7,173,107 5,496,906 

South Carolina 18,938,437 20,681,285 18,310,739 25,658,528 23,416,514 18,310,739 

South Dakota 4,637,876 4,829,157 4,214,921 6,283,574 5,467,843 4,214,921 

Tennessee 24,066,027 26,265,904 23,042,024 32,605,585 29,739,734 23,042,024 

Texas 90,736,300 103,826,774 92,014,058 122,933,052 117,558,513 92,014,058 

Utah 13,404,486 13,852,834 12,274,340 18,160,917 15,684,958 12,274,340 

Vermont 4,570,015 4,556,775 4,214,921 6,191,633 5,159,437 4,214,921 

Virginia 26,132,675 28,352,346 23,634,248 35,405,560 32,102,121 23,634,248 

Washington 22,287,683 25,116,932 20,736,066 30,196,216 28,438,803 20,736,066 

West Virginia 9,305,887 9,305,887 8,428,617 12,607,976 10,536,649 8,428,617 

Wisconsin 23,129,736 24,210,360 20,241,685 31,337,062 27,412,331 20,241,685 

Wyoming 4,500,805 4,491,858 4,214,921 6,097,865 5,085,934 4,214,921 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, State Funding History Tables, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html

(accessed June 19, 2014). GDP deflator used for constant dollar calculations is from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Inflation Calculator, 

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (accessed June 19, 2014).
 APPENDIX D

142 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit D.8.

Amount and percentage of state Perkins Title I and Title II funds allocated to administration 

and amount and percentage of state matching contribution, by state, FY 2010

State

Total Title I 

and II funds

Amount reserved for 

state administration

Percentage of 

Perkins allocation State match

Percentage of 

Perkins allocation

Total 1,223,877,450 51,866,549 4.2 299,762,557 24.5

Alabama 21,169,358 1,028,468 4.9 1,028,468 4.9

Alaska 4,465,084 250,000 5.6 250,000 5.6

Arizona 26,950,635 1,253,518 4.7 2,358,900 8.8

Arkansas 12,905,743 645,287 5.0 1,000,000 7.7

California 139,243,327 6,399,575 4.6 6,399,575 4.6

Colorado 17,242,558 792,447 4.6 792,447 4.6

Connecticut 10,831,245 541,562 5.0 51,189,507 472.6

Delaware 5,052,516 250,000 4.9 71,000,000 1,405.2

District of Columbia 4,349,598 250,000 5.7 250,000 5.7

Florida 64,193,572 1,350,000 2.1 1,350,000 2.1

Georgia 41,807,825 2,090,390 5.0 2,090,390 5.0

Hawaii 6,121,451 306,073 5.0 523,137 8.5

Idaho 7,006,710 350,335 5.0 N/A N/A

Illinois 49,157,223 2,255,395 4.6 2,255,395 4.6

Indiana 28,052,743 494,923 1.8 494,923 1.8

Iowa 13,208,250 598,197 4.5 598,197 4.5

Kansas 11,721,389 586,069 5.0 586,069 5.0

Kentucky 19,767,916 988,396 5.0 2,167,818 11.0

Louisiana 23,230,400 1,161,520 5.0 1,161,520 5.0

Maine 6,235,453 311,773 5.0 311,773 5.0

Maryland 18,424,911 921,246 5.0 921,246 5.0

Massachusetts 20,565,053 600,000 2.9 600,000 2.9

Michigan 44,594,721 2,047,648 4.6 2,047,648 4.6

Minnesota 19,395,706 969,785 5.0 969,785 5.0

Mississippi 14,753,419 668,178 4.5 668,178 4.5

Missouri 24,871,527 1,134,685 4.6 1,667,627 6.7

Montana 5,825,871 269,892 4.6 285,091 4.9

Nebraska 7,525,881 376,294 5.0 376,294 5.0

Nevada 8,609,174 430,458 5.0 488,233 5.7

New Hampshire 6,086,100 304,305 5.0 285,498 4.7

New Jersey 26,071,027 1,303,551 5.0 1,303,551 5.0

New Mexico 9,279,588 422,287 4.6 422,287 4.6

New York 66,954,138 1,400,000 2.1 1,400,000 2.1

North Carolina 38,904,958 1,795,580 4.6 1,800,000 4.6

North Dakota 4,528,072 250,000 5.5 2,100,000 46.4

Ohio 49,171,479 2,233,195 4.5 2,233,195 4.5

Oklahoma 16,664,042 754,709 4.5 754,709 4.5

Oregon 15,361,296 768,064 5.0 768,064 5.0

Pennsylvania 49,131,116 2,244,788 4.6 2,244,788 4.6

Rhode Island 6,048,484 285,497 4.7 437,252 7.2

South Carolina 20,567,894 956,407 4.6 956,407 4.6

South Dakota 4,697,519 250,000 5.3 561,852 12.0

Tennessee 25,366,106 1,268,305 5.0 1,268,305 5.0

Texas 101,081,082 3,290,344 3.3 3,290,344 3.3

Utah 14,197,655 709,882 5.0 1,539,536 10.8

Vermont 4,452,109 250,000 5.6 282,668 6.3

Virginia 27,720,438 1,265,133 4.6 1,669,645 6.0

Washington 23,061,524 1,051,234 4.6 1,051,234 4.6

West Virginia 9,305,231 421,431 4.5 1,203,000 12.9

Wisconsin 23,499,683 1,069,723 4.6 119,915,408 510.3

Wyoming 4,448,650 250,000 5.6 442,593 9.9

N/A indicates data are not available.

SOURCE: Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports, FY 2010 (n = 51). 
APPENDIX D 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 143

Exhibit D.9. Supporting detail for Exhibit 3.6. 

Percentage of Perkins Title I formula-allocated funds that states allocated to 

secondary and postsecondary education, by state, FY 2001 and FY 2010

State 

Secondary Postsecondary Percentage point change 

FY 2001 FY 2010 FY 2001 FY 2010 in secondary share

Alabama 63 68 37 32 5

Alaska 87 85 13 15 –2

Arizona 86 84 14 16 –1

Arkansas 75 74 25 26 –1

California 41 38 59 62 –4

Colorado 42 40 58 60 –2

Connecticut 86 81 14 19 –5

Delaware N/A 85 N/A 15 N/A

District of Columbia N/A 81 N/A 19 N/A

Florida 53 51 47 49 –3

Georgia 49 50 51 50 1

Hawaii 50 50 50 50 0

Idaho 65 65 35 35 0

Illinois 60 60 40 40 0

Indiana N/A 64 N/A 36 N/A

Iowa 56 51 44 49 –6

Kansas 56 50 45 50 –6

Kentucky 49 55 51 45 6

Louisiana 55 56 45 44 1

Maine 50 50 50 50 0

Maryland 65 65 35 35 0

Massachusetts 71 70 29 30 –1

Michigan N/A 60 N/A 40 N/A

Minnesota 36 42 64 58 6

Mississippi 53 53 48 47 1

Missouri 71 72 30 28 2

Montana 63 65 37 35 2

Nebraska 60 55 40 45 –5

Nevada 68 68 32 32 0

New Hampshire 79 80 21 21 0

New Jersey 66 55 34 45 –11

New Mexico 36 50 64 50 14

New York 57 52 43 48 –5

North Carolina N/A 64 N/A 36 N/A

North Dakota 65 65 35 35 0

Ohio 82 88 18 12 6

Oklahoma 88 84 12 16 –4

Oregon N/A 50 N/A 50 NA

Pennsylvania 70 70 30 30 0

Rhode Island N/A 85 N/A 15 N/A

South Carolina 82 67 18 33 –15

South Dakota 43 50 57 50 7

Tennessee 89 85 11 15 –4

Texas 57 71 43 30 13

Utah 58 60 42 40 2

Vermont 80 75 20 25 –5

Virginia 85 85 15 15 0

Washington 43 44 57 56 1

West Virginia 78 71 22 29 –7

Wisconsin 44 48 56 52 3

Wyoming 65 60 35 40 –5

N/A indicates data are not available.

SOURCE: Silverberg et al. (2004) (n = 44); Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports, FY 2010 (n = 51 ).
 APPENDIX D

144 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit D.10. Supporting detail for Exhibit 3.13.

Number of waivers granted by each state that used the minimum allocation rule waiver

at the secondary level, 2008–09

State Sparsely populated areas Public charter schools Reason not specified

Arizona 12 7 1

California 21 5 0

Colorado 21 0 1

Florida 1 0 0

Georgia 6 0 0

Idaho 2 0 0

Kentucky 15 0 0

Maine 1 0 0

Massachusetts 1 0 0

Mississippi 3 0 3

Montana 152 0 0

Nevada 7 0 0

North Carolina 4 0 0

North Dakota 4 0 0

South Carolina 7 0 0

South Dakota 2 0 0

Tennessee 1 0 0

Utah 4 0 0

Virginia 5 0 0

Total 269 12 5

NOTE: In addition to the 19 states shown above, Washington, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico reported that they granted waivers of the minimum 

allocation rule but did not indicate the number of waivers granted or the reason for granting such waivers. 

SOURCE: NACTE Survey of Secondary State Directors, 2009 (n = 50).
APPENDIX D 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 145

Exhibit D.11.

Perkins IV core indicators for secondary education and the numerators and denominators that are 

recommended in the Department’s nonregulatory guidance for calculating each indicator

Core indicator Numerator Denominator

Academic 

attainment —

reading/ 

language arts 

and mathematics

Number of CTE concentrators who met the 

proficient or advanced level on statewide ESEA

high school assessments, based on the scores that 

were included in the state’s computation of 

adequate yearly progress, and who, in the 

reporting year, left secondary education.

Number of CTE concentrators who took 

the ESEA assessments whose scores were 

included in the state’s computation of 

adequate yearly progress, and who, in the 

reporting year, left secondary education.

Technical skill 

attainment

Number of CTE concentrators who passed 

technical skill assessments that are aligned with 

industry-recognized standards, if available and 

appropriate, during the reporting year.

Number of CTE concentrators who took 

the assessments during the reporting year.

Completion Number of CTE concentrators who earned a 

regular secondary school diploma, earned a GED 

credential as a State-recognized equivalent to a 

regular high school diploma or other Staterecognized equivalent (including recognized 

alternative standards for individuals with 

disabilities), or earned a proficiency credential, 

certificate, or degree, in conjunction with a 

secondary school diploma, during the reporting 

year.

Number of CTE concentrators who left 

secondary education during the reporting 

year.

Graduation rate Number of CTE concentrators who, in the 

reporting year, were included as graduated in the 

State’s computation of its graduation rate as 

described in Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the ESEA. 

Number of CTE concentrators who, in the 

reporting year, were included in the 

State’s computation of its graduation rate 

as defined in the State’s Consolidated 

Accountability Plan pursuant to Section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the ESEA.

Placement Number of CTE concentrators who left secondary 

education and were placed in postsecondary 

education or advanced training, in the military 

service, or employment in the second quarter 

following the program year in which they left 

secondary education.

Number of CTE concentrators who left 

secondary education during the reporting 

year.

Nontraditional 

participation

Number of CTE participants from 

underrepresented gender groups who 

participated in a program that leads to 

employment in nontraditional fields during the 

reporting year.

Number of CTE participants who 

participated in a program that leads to 

employment in nontraditional fields during 

the reporting year.

Nontraditional 

completion

Number of CTE concentrators from 

underrepresented gender groups who completed 

a program that leads to employment in 

nontraditional fields during the reporting year.

Number of CTE concentrators who 

completed a program that leads to 

employment in nontraditional fields during 

the reporting year.

SOURCE: Justesen (2007).
 APPENDIX D

146 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

Exhibit D.12.

Perkins IV core indicators for postsecondary education and the numerators and denominators that are 

recommended in the Department’s nonregulatory guidance for calculating each indicator

Core indicator Numerator Denominator

Technical skill 

attainment

Number of CTE concentrators who passed technical 

skill assessments that are aligned with industryrecognized standards, if available and appropriate, 

during the reporting year.

Number of CTE concentrators who took 

technical skill assessments during the 

reporting year.

Completion Number of CTE concentrators who received an 

industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a 

degree during the reporting year.

Number of CTE concentrators who left 

postsecondary education during the 

reporting year.

Retention or 

transfer

Number of CTE concentrators who remained 

enrolled in their original postsecondary institution 

or transferred to another 2-year or 4-year 

postsecondary institution during the reporting year 

and who were enrolled in postsecondary education 

in the fall of the previous reporting year.

Number of CTE concentrators who were 

enrolled in postsecondary education in the 

fall of the previous reporting year and who 

did not earn an industry-recognized 

credential, a certificate, or a degree in the 

previous reporting year.

Placement Number of CTE concentrators who were placed or 

retained in employment, or placed in military service 

or apprenticeship programs in the second quarter 

following the program year in which they left 

postsecondary education.

Number of CTE concentrators who left 

postsecondary education during the 

reporting year.

Nontraditional 

participation

Number of CTE participants from underrepresented 

gender groups who participated in a program that 

leads to employment in nontraditional fields during 

the reporting year.

Number of CTE participants who 

participated in a program that leads to 

employment in nontraditional fields during 

the reporting year.

Nontraditional 

completion

Number of CTE concentrators from 

underrepresented gender groups who completed a 

program that leads to employment in nontraditional 

fields during the reporting year.

Number of CTE concentrators who 

completed a program that leads to 

employment in nontraditional fields during 

the reporting year.

SOURCE: Justesen (2007). 
APPENDIX D 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 147

Exhibit D.13.

Proficiency rates on state high school English/language arts assessments for CTE concentrators 

as reported under Perkins and for all students as reported under ESEA, by state, 2011–12

State Perkins reporting ESEA reporting Percentage point difference

Wisconsin 78 42 36

Colorado 93 69 24

Alabama 100 83 17

Arizona 96 80 16

Florida 66 51 15

District of Columbia 56 43 13

North Dakota 77 66 11

Connecticut 91 80 11

Oregon 94 84 10

Kentucky 61 52 9

New Mexico 54 46 8

Rhode Island 85 77 8

Ohio 95 87 8

Idaho 96 88 8

Oklahoma 83 75 8

Texas 97 90 7

Nevada 84 77 7

Hawaii 77 70 7

Tennessee 68 61 7

Nebraska 70 64 6

Virginia 99 94 5

Georgia 93 89 4

New York 96 93 3

Kansas 91 88 3

Wyoming 79 76 3

New Jersey 93 91 2

Maryland 85 83 2

Mississippi 58 57 1

Minnesota 78 77 1

Alaska 82 81 1

Washington 84 83 1

Illinois 51 51 0

Missouri 72 73 –1

Utah 87 89 –2

California 53 56 –3

Montana 80 84 –4

South Dakota 66 70 –4

Delaware 67 72 –5

Michigan 52 57 –5

Arkansas 63 69 –6

Iowa 77 83 –6

New Hampshire 67 77 –10

West Virginia 31 45 –14

Massachusetts 72 88 –16

Indiana 62 78 –16

Pennsylvania 48 66 –18

Vermont 54 72 –18

Maine 29 47 –18

Louisiana 66 90 –24

North Carolina 55 86 –31

South Carolina 58 89 –31

SOURCE: Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports (n = 51); ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports (n = 51).
 APPENDIX D

148 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS