Tech Prep/School-to-Work Partnerships: More Trends and Challenges (MDS-1078)

D. D. Bragg, P. A. Puckett, W. Reger IV, H. S. Thomas, J. Ortman

A few years ago, the National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE) published the results of our national study of Tech Prep implementation in the United States (Bragg, Layton, & Hammons, 1994). That report indicated that Tech Prep-a relatively new federal initiative designed to improve education by linking vocational subjects with rigorous academics and articulating to the secondary and postsecondary levels-had produced a number of promising trends, but that lingering challenges were evident. In 1993 and 1995, we surveyed local consortia to determine how Tech Prep implementation had changed and/or progressed over time. What we found was encouraging, but issues emerged. Between 1993 and 1995, the Tech Prep concept had spread to more schools and involved more students, but the extent to which it had produced changes in student outcomes was unclear. In 1996 and 1997, we conducted in-depth field studies in five Tech Prep consortia located in different regions of the United States to learn more about how various approaches to Tech Prep and School-to-Work (STW)-career-oriented programs supported by the federal School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) that were designed to assist youth to transition from school to careers-were advancing together. Through interviews and observations, these field studies gave us insights into various facets of Tech Prep implementation, furthering knowledge about changes that are being attempted but also accomplished.

Throughout all of our research, our overall objectives have remained consistent:

• To document the characteristics of local Tech Prep consortia and consortium coordinators.
• To describe the goals, elements, and outcomes of local Tech Prep initiatives.
• To determine the stage of implementation of local Tech Prep initiatives and selected components operating within those initiatives.
• To assess the barriers impacting local Tech Prep implementation.
• To identify recommendations that local coordinators perceive to be needed in state and federal policy.

Presented here are the methodologies and major findings of the 1995 survey and the five field studies. Throughout, comparisons are made to the 1993 survey and related literature on Tech Prep, STW, educational reform, and the like. Policy recommendations made by the local Tech Prep coordinators surveyed are reported at the conclusion of the report along with our own concluding remarks concerning the future of Tech Prep implementation in the United States.

More Promising Trends and Lingering Challenges

• Tech Prep continues to expand across the nation, reaching well over half of the comprehensive high schools and the vast majority of community colleges in the United States.
• As Tech Prep implementation progresses, a wider net is cast in terms of local Tech Prep consortia membership, especially among businesses, community-based organizations, and postsecondary education. Involvement by four-year colleges and universities remains problematic, however.
• A more diversified approach to public finance of Tech Prep is evident, including more local and state funding; however, federal funds continue to dominate the financial resource base for local Tech Prep implementation.
• Support for Tech Prep remains strong among stakeholder groups that are key to its implementation and sustainability. These groups are vocational faculty, state agency personnel, local secondary and two-year college administrators, business/industry representatives, and students. Much less support was felt from four-year higher-education institutions toward greater acceptance of or involvement in Tech Prep.
• Most local coordinators support the notion of using Tech Prep as a foundation for STW, and there are signs that collaboration is occurring. Evidence of the marriage of Tech Prep and STW includes the increasing number of coordinators thinking about Tech Prep in terms of "all students," the expansion of business/education partnerships, and the provision for more work-based learning opportunities for more students.

Whereas these results are promising, lingering challenges remain:

• A lack of clarity and consensus is evident surrounding the fundamental purpose of Tech Prep, reinforcing concerns about how Tech Prep will fit with or contribute to related educational restructuring endeavors, including the STW programs targeted for all students.
• Many local coordinators have devoted the majority of their time in the past several years to Tech Prep but less and less of their salaries is paid by grants earmarked for it. Where an organization designates Tech Prep as an administrative priority, this trend may be fine. However, where an administrator's time and attention is routinely diverted to other tasks, Tech Prep is likely to suffer.
• Curriculum reform has extended into some aspects of postsecondary education (mostly community colleges), but Tech Prep continues to be primarily a secondary reform, potentially weakening student outcomes.
• With few exceptions, barriers thought to be the most serious in 1993 continued to be troublesome two years later. In fact, many concerns had heightened, not diminished, including issues surrounding joint planning time, secondary and postsecondary (two-year but also four-year) articulation, and instructor preparation to integrate academic and vocational subject matter.

Six recommendations were offered by local Tech Prep coordinators that deserve the attention of practitioners and policymakers at all levels:

1. Continue a distinct funding stream for Tech Prep to protect and nurture fledgling but also maturing Tech Prep initiatives.
2. Strengthen state and federal leadership for Tech Prep to ensure clear guidelines are provided to local leaders.
3. Clarify the uneasy relationship between Tech Prep and STW by encouraging logical relationships between Tech Prep and STW policies at the state and federal levels.
4. Broaden the concept of Tech Prep by adopting the view that Tech Prep should serve all students, avoiding targeting of the neglected majority.
5. Increase the active involvement of key stakeholder groups such as academic faculty, postsecondary faculty, counselors, and business/industry by finding rewards and incentives to encourage the participation of these groups.
6. Heighten awareness about Tech Prep. If the idea of Tech Prep has merit, as many believe that it does, it should become much more widely recognized and understood.