Barriers to the implementation of Tech Prep were also a focus of this study.[17] To the list of 47 barriers presented in the 1993 survey we added 22 new barriers, many of which represented more recent concerns associated with Tech Prep, STW, or other reforms. Altogether, the list of barriers was wide ranging, covering obstacles linked to attitudes, resources, expertise, policy, and practices. Overall, the vast majority of barriers had minor or moderate levels of impact on Tech Prep implementation (see Table 12). However, eight of the 69 barriers had a mean score of 4.0 or higher, representing a slightly larger number of barriers rated at this level of importance than in 1993. About half of the 69 barriers were considered to be minor barriers, and another 22 were considered very minor.
The barrier of too little time designated for joint planning by academic and vocational or secondary and postsecondary faculty was perceived to be the most serious by respondents as indicated by a mean score of 4.50 on the six-point scale. This barrier was given a major to very major rating by 55 percent of the respondents, showing very similar results to our 1993 survey. The fact that the barrier had not diminished suggests that faculty, upon whom a large share of the responsibility for the actual implementation of Tech Prep often rests, still do not work together to accomplish the planning and development work necessary for Tech Prep. However, the fact that the barrier remains may suggest deeper issues, such as difficulties involved in realigning school calendars or, a situation that is far more disconcerting, the possibility that these faculty groups make a deliberate choice not to collaborate.
| Level of Impact in 1992-1993 | Level of Impact in 1994-1995 | |||||||||||||||
| None | Very Minor | Minor | Moderate | Major | Very Major | Mean | SD | None | Very Minor | Minor | Moderate | Major | Very Major | Mean | SD | |
| Little time for joint planning by ac. and voc. or sec. and postsec. faculty | 2.8 | 6.4 | 17.6 | 28.8 | 28.6 | 15.8 | 4.20 | 1.25 | .6 | 4.7 | 11.9 | 27.0 | 37.7 | 18.1 | 4.50 | 1.10 |
| Tight budgets at the local level | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 3.6 | 7.1 | 12.7 | 20.7 | 31.1 | 24.9 | 4.43 | 1.36 |
| Lack of staff, time, and money dedicated to Tech Prep | 2.5 | 7.3 | 18.9 | 34.8 | 27.0 | 9.3 | 4.05 | 1.16 | 1.2 | 5.4 | 16.4 | 36.3 | 28.6 | 12.2 | 4.22 | 1.10 |
| Tight budgets at the state level | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1.5 | 5.9 | 25.2 | 24.3 | 28.5 | 14.5 | 4.16 | 1.21 |
| Pressure for quick success and student head counts | 16.0 | 12.2 | 16.5 | 25.7 | 17.3 | 12.2 | 3.53 | 1.59 | 5.9 | 9.5 | 16.9 | 26.0 | 24.0 | 17.8 | 4.05 | 1.42 |
| Lack of recent work experience among school personnel | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 3.3 | 8.9 | 19.8 | 26.3 | 30.2 | 11.5 | 4.05 | 1.26 |
| Belief that Tech Prep is a "fad" that will go away | 4.3 | 10.6 | 21.5 | 33.2 | 21.0 | 9.4 | 3.84 | 1.26 | 1.8 | 8.0 | 22.5 | 29.3 | 28.7 | 9.8 | 4.04 | 1.17 |
| Negative attitude toward Tech Prep | 2.5 | 9.2 | 24.7 | 40.2 | 17.6 | 5.9 | 3.79 | 1.10 | 2.1 | 5.3 | 20.8 | 40.1 | 26.1 | 5.6 | 3.99 | 1.04 |
| Difficulty in dealing with educational bureaucracies | 4.3 | 9.5 | 23.3 | 34.5 | 17.6 | 10.7 | 3.84 | 1.26 | 1.2 | 10.1 | 23.7 | 30.6 | 22.6 | 11.9 | 3.98 | 1.20 |
| Failure of educators to see the need to change | 3.8 | 13.4 | 25.8 | 32.2 | 19.2 | 5.6 | 3.66 | 1.20 | 1.5 | 8.0 | 20.2 | 39.8 | 24.0 | 6.5 | 3.96 | 1.07 |
| Lack of general awareness about Tech Prep | 1.5 | 6.6 | 18.9 | 38.1 | 27.0 | 7.8 | 4.06 | 1.08 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 22.8 | 39.6 | 24.0 | 5.6 | 3.95 | 1.04 |
| Lack of funds for curriculum reform | 9.6 | 13.9 | 20.5 | 27.8 | 18.7 | 9.4 | 3.60 | 1.63 | 2.7 | 11.0 | 23.1 | 28.8 | 23.1 | 11.3 | 3.92 | 1.26 |
| Inability of young people to make early career decisions | 8.0 | 18.9 | 21.2 | 30.2 | 17.3 | 4.4 | 3.43 | 1.31 | 3.8 | 13.0 | 23.1 | 28.4 | 22.5 | 9.2 | 3.80 | 1.28 |
| Lack of knowledge and skills among ed. personnel in how to implement educational change | 3.6 | 10.5 | 23.7 | 37.2 | 19.9 | 5.1 | 3.75 | 1.15 | 2.7 | 10.9 | 23.4 | 38.2 | 17.5 | 7.4 | 3.79 | 1.15 |
| Lack of counselor interest in or involvement with Tech Prep | 10.3 | 16.4 | 19.7 | 27.9 | 17.4 | 8.2 | 3.51 | 1.43 | 4.7 | 14.7 | 21.2 | 28.9 | 20.6 | 9.7 | 3.75 | 1.32 |
| Increased paperwork to support Tech Prep | 3.6 | 15.8 | 29.8 | 33.6 | 13.2 | 4.1 | 3.49 | 1.14 | 5.6 | 15.6 | 25.4 | 28.0 | 16.8 | 8.6 | 3.60 | 1.32 |
| Lack of collaboration between ac. and voc. educators | 3.6 | 15.8 | 29.8 | 33.6 | 13.2 | 4.1 | 3.49 | 1.14 | 2.9 | 14.7 | 27.1 | 34.8 | 16.5 | 3.8 | 3.58 | 1.13 |
| The stigma of "tracking" is associated with Tech Prep | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 8.6 | 18.6 | 20.6 | 22.7 | 19.2 | 10.3 | 3.56 | 1.46 |
| Difficulty maintaining momentum over the long term | 16.4 | 16.9 | 27.9 | 21.5 | 13.1 | 4.1 | 3.10 | 1.39 | 5.9 | 15.7 | 24.0 | 33.8 | 16.6 | 3.9 | 3.51 | 1.22 |
| Lack of clear federal level policy for Tech Prep | 14.0 | 21.1 | 26.4 | 20.3 | 11.9 | 6.3 | 3.14 | 1.42 | 9.2 | 18.5 | 25.9 | 21.4 | 16.7 | 8.3 | 3.42 | 1.41 |
| Lack of developed competencies for the academic areas | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 8.3 | 16.1 | 27.1 | 29.2 | 15.5 | 3.9 | 3.39 | 1.26 |
| Limits on using Tech Prep funds below grade 11 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 16.9 | 18.3 | 18.0 | 16.9 | 17.5 | 12.4 | 3.37 | 1.64 |
| Limits on using Tech Prep funds for equipment or materials purchases | 11.5 | 18.4 | 21.0 | 22.8 | 17.4 | 9.0 | 3.43 | 1.48 | 9.8 | 21.4 | 25.2 | 19.3 | 16.0 | 8.3 | 3.35 | 1.43 |
| Lack of authority of local personnel to make changes | 12.7 | 19.8 | 25.4 | 22.3 | 12.2 | 7.6 | 3.24 | 1.43 | 8.8 | 23.9 | 23.0 | 18.9 | 18.3 | 7.1 | 3.35 | 1.42 |
| Resistance from postsec. schools to introduce Tech Prep | 9.0 | 18.8 | 27.8 | 23.3 | 15.5 | 5.7 | 3.34 | 1.34 | 9.0 | 18.8 | 27.8 | 23.3 | 15.5 | 5.7 | 3.34 | 1.34 |
| Lack of evaluation mechanisms to inform implementation | 10.6 | 17.9 | 26.9 | 27.5 | 13.7 | 3.4 | 3.26 | 1.29 | 9.0 | 19.8 | 25.4 | 25.1 | 17.4 | 3.3 | 3.32 | 1.30 |
| Looking at Tech Prep as voc. ed. by another name | 4.1 | 11.5 | 24.9 | 33.6 | 19.8 | 6.1 | 3.72 | 1.20 | 4.2 | 8.7 | 25.3 | 28.0 | 13.1 | 5.1 | 3.31 | 1.31 |
| Funding for Tech Prep limited to vocational education sources | 20.3 | 15.2 | 17.5 | 22.8 | 14.5 | 9.6 | 3.25 | 1.61 | 17.1 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 20.7 | 16.9 | 9.8 | 3.31 | 1.59 |
| Turf battles between secondary and postsecondary educators | 9.8 | 20.2 | 33.3 | 22.7 | 9.8 | 4.0 | 3.15 | 1.25 | 9.5 | 19.0 | 25.3 | 28.0 | 13.1 | 5.1 | 3.31 | 1.31 |
| Lack of parental support for Tech Prep | 16.3 | 20.7 | 29.0 | 23.1 | 8.8 | 2.1 | 2.94 | 1.28 | 9.7 | 16.2 | 28.9 | 27.1 | 14.2 | 3.8 | 3.31 | 1.28 |
| Lack of clear state-level policy for Tech Prep | 12.1 | 21.2 | 18.7 | 22.5 | 14.6 | 10.9 | 3.39 | 1.53 | 15.2 | 21.1 | 22 | 14.3 | 15.8 | 11.6 | 3.29 | 1.60 |
| Lack of student interest in Tech Prep | 15.5 | 23.8 | 30.3 | 22.5 | 6.2 | 1.6 | 2.85 | 1.21 | 4.2 | 17.8 | 36.2 | 32.0 | 9.5 | .3 | 3.25 | 1.00 |
| Lack of a clear definition of the Tech Prep student | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 15.7 | 21.9 | 20.1 | 20.1 | 13.3 | 8.9 | 3.20 | 1.53 |
| Lack of interest and support from upper-level administration | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 12.4 | 21.5 | 24.8 | 23.6 | 12.7 | 5.0 | 3.17 | 1.37 |
| Resistance from secondary schools to introduce Tech Prep into the curriculum | 9.7 | 20.2 | 27.6 | 30.4 | 9.9 | 2.3 | 3.18 | 1.21 | 9.5 | 18.2 | 33.9 | 26.5 | 10.7 | 1.2 | 3.14 | 1.16 |
| Lack of jobs in the region for Tech Prep graduates | 13.7 | 17.3 | 20.1 | 25.2 | 14.2 | 9.4 | 3.37 | 1.50 | 15.8 | 21.1 | 26.2 | 17.3 | 10.1 | 9.5 | 3.13 | 1.50 |
| Resistance from sec. school administrators to Tech Prep | 15.7 | 23.6 | 26.9 | 23.1 | 8.4 | 2.3 | 2.92 | 1.28 | 10.4 | 21.4 | 32.0 | 27.0 | 5.9 | 3.3 | 3.06 | 1.19 |
| Focus on applied academics rather than other academic and vocational integration models | -- | -- | -- | --- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 12.8 | 24.3 | 27.9 | 22.0 | 8.3 | 4.7 | 3.03 | 1.31 |
| Conflict between Tech Prep and School-to-Work | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 24.5 | 20.6 | 16.4 | 15.2 | 12.8 | 10.4 | 3.02 | 1.67 |
| Difficulty reaching consensus on reform strategies | 12.3 | 27.2 | 29.3 | 20.6 | 8.7 | 1.8 | 2.92 | 1.22 | 8.6 | 23.8 | 34.5 | 25.0 | 6.5 | 1.5 | 3.01 | 1.11 |
| Turnover of local or state leaders involved in Tech Prep | 25.5 | 28.1 | 21.2 | 12.8 | 7.7 | 4.8 | 2.64 | 1.43 | 17.8 | 23.4 | 22.2 | 18.3 | 13.0 | 5.3 | 3.01 | 1.46 |
| Large distances separating institutions in the consortium | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 22.7 | 22.7 | 15.6 | 17.4 | 12.4 | 9.1 | 3.01 | 1.62 |
| Lack of clear local-level policy for Tech Prep | 13.2 | 23.2 | 22.6 | 24.9 | 9.7 | 6.4 | 3.14 | 1.40 | 18.0 | 22.1 | 22.4 | 21.2 | 11.5 | 4.7 | 3.00 | 1.43 |
| Conflict with other educational reform movements | 22.0 | 26.3 | 24.6 | 17.0 | 6.1 | 4.1 | 2.71 | 1.36 | 15.8 | 25.9 | 22.6 | 19.9 | 10.1 | 5.7 | 2.99 | 1.41 |
| Lack of certificates of mastery | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 20.0 | 19.7 | 25.1 | 18.8 | 12.5 | 3.9 | 2.95 | 1.42 |
| Lack of active involvement from business and industry | 22.6 | 26.4 | 24.4 | 16.8 | 7.6 | 2.3 | 2.67 | 1.32 | 17.7 | 23.6 | 22.4 | 25.7 | 7.4 | 3.2 | 2. 91 | 1.33 |
| Failure to employ local Tech Prep coordinator full-time | 42.2 | 7.2 | 12.3 | 13.8 | 13.3 | 11.3 | 2.83 | 1.85 | 37.2 | 11.7 | 9.9 | 16.5 | 13.8 | 10.8 | 2.90 | 1.81 |
| Lack of support from business and industry | 24.2 | 28.8 | 29.6 | 13.0 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 2.45 | 1.15 | 12.2 | 31.2 | 27.3 | 21.7 | 5.9 | 1.8 | 2.83 | 1.17 |
| Resistance from academic educators to make changes for Tech Prep | 2.3 | 14.5 | 25.4 | 31.7 | 21.3 | 4.8 | 3.70 | 1.16 | 13.4 | 30.0 | 27.3 | 21.1 | 7.1 | 1.2 | 2.82 | 1.18 |
| Lack of availability of integrated ac. and voc. curriculum materials | 14.5 | 25.7 | 29.3 | 20.9 | 7.9 | 1.8 | 2.87 | 1.23 | 13.6 | 29.1 | 27.3 | 22.8 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 2.82 | 1.18 |
| Limitations in using Tech Prep funds beyond grades 11-14 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 24.7 | 25.3 | 17.9 | 14.6 | 10.7 | 6.8 | 2.81 | 1.55 |
| Lack of credibility of vocational ed. involved with Tech Prep | 11.9 | 29.9 | 30.7 | 21.1 | 4.1 | 2.3 | 2.82 | 1.15 | 11.3 | 33.8 | 29.1 | 18.1 | 5.9 | 1.8 | 2.78 | 1.15 |
| Lack of cooperation among institutional partners | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 17.3 | 30.7 | 25.9 | 13.7 | 8.9 | 3.6 | 2.77 | 1.32 |
| Difficulty in developing formal articulation agreements between sec. and postsec. schools | 22.2 | 26.3 | 21.7 | 22.4 | 5.6 | 1.8 | 2.68 | 1.29 | 23.0 | 26.0 | 22.1 | 18.0 | 8.0 | 2.9 | 2.70 | 1.36 |
| Lack of support from both state sec. and postsec. agencies | 17.8 | 23.7 | 28.2 | 17.8 | 6.6 | 5.9 | 2.89 | 1.38 | 19.8 | 31.4 | 24.6 | 13.3 | 6.8 | 4.1 | 2.68 | 1.33 |
| Resistance from postsec. school administrators to Tech Prep | 25.3 | 25.3 | 27.1 | 14.8 | 5.1 | 2.3 | 2.56 | 1.28 | 18.4 | 29.4 | 27.6 | 16.3 | 6.8 | 1.5 | 2.68 | 1.22 |
| Lack of developed competencies for the vo-tech areas | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 22.4 | 28.0 | 25.1 | 14.2 | 8.8 | 1.5 | 2.63 | 1.29 |
| Failure of two-year postsec. schools to accommodate Tech Prep students | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 22.6 | 28.5 | 26.1 | 16.6 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 2.57 | 1.23 |
| Lack of experts to provide inservice about Tech Prep | 22.0 | 21.5 | 27.1 | 18.7 | 8.2 | 2.6 | 2.77 | 1.34 | 25.0 | 26.8 | 25.0 | 16.7 | 4.2 | 2.4 | 2.55 | 1.18 |
| Lack of support from labor organizations | 36.7 | 23.8 | 22.1 | 9.1 | 4.4 | 3.9 | 2.32 | 1.37 | 35.3 | 22.1 | 21.5 | 9.6 | 7.4 | 4.2 | 2.44 | 1.44 |
| Lack of cooperation for state professional organizations | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 29.5 | 28.0 | 25.0 | 9.8 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 2.40 | 1.27 |
| Too much flexibility in local implementation of Tech Prep | 30.4 | 29.9 | 24.3 | 10.0 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 2.31 | 1.19 | 31.4 | 27.5 | 20.4 | 13.9 | 4.4 | 2.40 | 2.39 | 1.30 |
| Too many schools in the consortium | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 34.0 | 28.1 | 18.3 | 10.7 | 6.2 | 2.7 | 2.34 | 1.34 |
| Use of adv. placement and other articulation that allow students to complete college early | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 30.4 | 35.4 | 18.2 | 10.7 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 2.26 | 1.19 |
| Lack of cooperation from teachers' unions | 47.4 | 20.7 | 17.7 | 8.7 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 2.05 | 1.25 | 44.6 | 15.1 | 24.6 | 10.5 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.19 | 1.31 |
| Pressure from special interest groups to modify Tech Prep | 42.9 | 27.3 | 17.6 | 6.9 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 2.07 | 1.23 | 38.0 | 29.7 | 18.1 | 8.3 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 2.16 | 1.25 |
| Too much state involvement in day-to-day operations | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 33.2. | 33.8 | 22.0 | 6.5 | 3.9 | 6 | 2.15 | 1.11 |
Respondents to the 1995 survey identified seven additional barriers that were thought to have a moderate impact on Tech Prep implementation as indicated by any barrier with a mean score between 4.0 and 5.0. There were eight barriers at this moderate level in 1995 compared to 1993. The seven barriers were tight local budgets; lack of staff, time and money to implement Tech Prep; failure of four-year colleges and universities to award college credit for applied academic or other Tech Prep courses; tight state budgets; pressure for quick success; lack of recent workforce experience among school personnel; and the belief that Tech Prep was an educational "fad." Rather than falling in importance, these barrier had risen, suggesting they were even more serious in 1995 than in 1993.
Two of the barriers were an exception because they were not presented in the 1993 survey, so comparable data were unavailable. These were the barriers of tight budgets at the local level and lack of recent work experience among school personnel. The fact that 40 percent of the respondents perceived a lack of staff, time and money to implement Tech Prep suggests the importance of resources on influencing change at the local level. Without adequate and stable funds, change becomes much more tenuous.
There is a failure of four-year colleges to award credit for Tech Prep courses according to 50 percent of the respondents, and this situation is perceived as having a major or very major negative impact on Tech Prep implementation. This same barrier ranked high on the 1993 survey as well, suggesting little has changed in more recent years. It seems that this kind of systemic educational policy issue must be addressed if Tech Prep curriculum is to be linked to four-year college in meaningful ways, as is advocated by the federal Tech Prep Education Act. Numerous reports by NCRVE and others support this concern, but to no avail (Bailey & Merritt, 1996). Results suggest systemic reforms that involve multiple levels acting together in a coordinated fashion are not likely to happen easily or quickly, if at all.
Other barriers close to the moderate level of impact included negative attitudes toward vocational education, difficulty in dealing with educational bureaucracies, failure of educators to see the need to change, and a lack of general awareness about Tech Prep. While most of these barriers had risen in importance between 1993 and 1995, it appears that efforts to create a general awareness for Tech Prep at all levels had helped somewhat in that it was perceived to be a greater barrier in 1993 than in 1995. Other barriers rated between 3.0 and 4.0, indicating a minor to moderate level of impact ranged from looking at Tech Prep as vocational education by another name to a lack of clear local-level policy. Categories of barriers considered to be minor included administrative, students, and professional development concerns.
In many respects Tech Prep and related innovations such as STW ask people to think in very different ways about education. These reforms ask people to stop thinking that, for most students if not all, formal education should stop at high-school graduation; that only a fraction of the high-school population can and should go to college; that this same small student group is the only one that can and should be challenged academically; that academics should be disconnected from career preparation; that good teaching occurs within the confines of schools; that students should be passive recipients in learning; that business and community groups should be excluded from decision making; and on and on. To stop thinking in these kinds of ways is a grandiose change. For most schools, these kinds of alterations are almost unimaginable. To implement them requires a system overhaul of unprecedented scope and scale. Knowing this, is it any wonder local Tech Prep coordinators say barriers exist? Is it surprising that at least some barriers seem higher and even more insurmountable a few years into the implementation process than in the first few years when changes in classrooms had barely begun? No doubt overcoming obstacles in the creation of policies, programs, and practices that support a new system is a great challenge to any educational reformer.