This section presents findings related to the goals and elements of Tech Prep as well as progress on curriculum reform. Included in this section are the primary goals and elements specified for Tech Prep, the vocational program areas involved, the student groups targeted, and the activities being addressed by curriculum reform at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. Survey respondents wrote brief narratives regarding how their consortium differentiates between Tech Prep and vocational education, enhancing our understanding of how Tech Prep fits with other curricular options or tracks. Similar questions were asked of various stakeholder groups involved in our field studies.
The 1993 survey asked respondents to write a brief statement about the primary goal of their consortium's Tech Prep initiative. A range of responses were received, and the statements were organized into five distinct categories. The five goals, gleaned from a content analysis of the respondents' 1993 narratives, were to:
In 1993, the most prominent goal for Tech Prep was enhancing the workforce through educational programs involving technology and career preparation, according to 36 percent of those surveyed. In 1995, this goal remained predominant, although less so than in 1993[13] (see Figure 2). In 1995, 29 percent of the respondents chose the goal to enhance workforce preparation as their top goal for Tech Prep. The next three goals--to reach the neglected majority, give students multiple options beyond high school, and articulate secondary and postsecondary education--were identified by 18 to 20 percent, a small increase over 1993 in each category. Finally, in 1993, 17 percent of the respondents indicated their Tech Prep initiative was directed at reforming secondary school curriculum; however, in 1995, the percentage of respondents who selected this option was 12 percent, suggesting less emphasis on secondary school reform relative to the other goals.
Figure 2
Examining these rankings, Table 7 indicates that respondents' views on the goals for Tech Prep were highly disparate. Whereas the goal of enhancing workforce preparation was top for about one-third of the respondents, this goal ranked last or next to last for another one-quarter. About one-fifth of the respondents indicated the goal of reaching the neglected majority was ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th; the distribution of responses could not have been spread more equally. Except for the goal of reforming the secondary school curriculum, ranked at the bottom or next to bottom by the majority, the four goals of workforce preparation, serving the neglected majority, articulating curriculum, and providing students with multiple options were viable for a fairly large proportion of respondents, suggesting Tech Prep was not intended to meet only one goal, but many. As local circumstances and needs vary, so do the goals of Tech Prep. So, if Tech Prep can be viewed primarily as an approach to addressing workforce needs by engaging students who have been neglected by traditional high-school curriculum. Accepting this perspective, it is logical and reasonable to pursue multiple goals for Tech Prep.
| Goal | Percent Ranked 1st | Percent Ranked 2nd | Percent Ranked 3rd | Percent Ranked 4th | Percent Ranked 5th |
| Articulate secondary and postsecondary education | 18 | 13 | 20 | 25 | 24 |
| Enhance workforce preparation | 30% | 23% | 23% | 15% | 10% |
| Give students multiple options beyond high school | 19 | 31 | 22 | 19 | 10 |
| Reach the neglected majority | 20 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Reform the secondary school curriculum | 12 | 15 | 16 | 22 | 36 |
Goals of the Field Sites. Our field study revealed just how complex the task of goal setting can be to local Tech Prep consortia. In many respects, all five of the aforementioned goals are evident in the five sites we studied. All seek to use Tech Prep to prepare a more highly skilled technical workforce, and all do so by improving relationships between secondary and postsecondary education, by serving secondary students seem to be short-changed by existing curricula, and by increasing options for students in school-based and work-based learning experience. Where substantial differences exist among each site, the level of emphasis on particular goals within the sites seems to shift and grow as Tech Prep evolves. For example, some local consortia build Tech Prep around articulation agreements. Once these agreements are hammered out, priorities shift to another goal, such as articulation with four-year colleges and universities. In other consortia, articulation was not the first priority. Instead, the consortia start with curriculum re-design at the high-school level, preferring to make secondary curricular changes before developing articulation agreements. For these sites, Tech Prep goals are not stagnant, but dynamic and dependent upon many factors, not the least is the stage of implementation.
The 1995 respondents were asked to respond to the same list of fourteen elements presented in 1993, plus an additional element: local program evaluation of Tech Prep. Similarly to 1993, results indicate that thirteen of the fourteen elements are formally stated as a foci of Tech Prep by the vast majority of respondents in 1995 (see Table 8). Six elements presented in the 1993 survey were identified by over 90 percent of the respondents as being "formally stated in writing as a foci for Tech Prep implementation." These include articulation agreements, integrated academic and vocational curriculum, career guidance, collaboration between education and employers, and equal access for special populations. Over 80 percent of the respondents said an element of Tech Prep was joint in-service for teachers, marketing, and training for counselors. Over 60 percent indicated elements such as preparatory services, new teaching methods, work-based learning, and alternative assessment. Only in the case of job placement did less than 50 percent of the 1993 respondents fail to respond affirmatively.
| Element | Percent 1992-1993 | Percent 1994-1995 |
| Formal articulation agreements to create 2+2 program-area course sequences between secondary and postsecondary schools | 96.4% | 97.4% |
| Integrated academic and vocational curriculum | 95.6 | 92.6 |
| Career guidance, including career awareness and exploration | 93.6 | 94.7 |
| Collaboration between educators and employers | 92.5 | 89.6 |
| Equal access to the full range of Tech Prep for special populations | 91.9 | 87.8 |
| Common core curriculum in math, science, and communications (including applied academics) and technologies leading to an associate degree, certificate, or apprenticeship in a career field | 91.9 | 91.4 |
| Joint inservice training for teachers from the entire consortium | 89.9 | 81.3 |
| Marketing of Tech Prep programs | 87.0 | 88.7 |
| Training programs for counselors | 82.5 | 73.1 |
| Preparatory services for all participants in Tech Prep | 78.5 | 73.4 |
| New teaching methods such as cooperative learning appropriate for varied student needs and learning styles | 71.9 | 72.3 |
| Work-based learning experiences (e.g., youth apprenticeships, cooperative education, school academies) | 67.7 | 77.5 |
| Alternative learner assessment (e.g., performance assessment, portfolios) | 60.5 | 60.4 |
| Employment assistance and job placement services | 46.8 | 46.2 |
| Local program evaluation of Tech Prepa | -- | 77.6 |
In 1995, only minor deviations were noted in the areas of joint in-service for teachers and training for counselors, with 1995 respondents indicating that less attention was being paid to these areas than in 1993. In contrast, more respondents indicated work-based learning to be formally stated foci of Tech Prep in 1995 than in the previous survey, possibly showing compliance with the STWOA law. Work-based learning was identified by over 77 percent of the 1995 respondents as a foci of Tech Prep, up from 68 percent in 1993. With respect to our new item on "local program evaluation of Tech Prep," about three-fourths of the respondents identified this area as a formally stated foci of Tech Prep, although, as later results show, actual implementation of evaluation was much less common.
Elements as Foci of Field Sites. The breadth of elements specified for Tech Prep is immense. In reviewing the list of elements provided in Table 8, one gets the sense that Tech Prep has taken on a much broader scope than Parnell (1985) imagined in his book The Neglected Majority, where the notion of Tech Prep was first introduced on the national scene. Yet, as our local field sites aptly point out, if Tech Prep is going to have an impact, if it is going to be sustainable over time, it must not be isolated from other systemic reforms, particularly those occurring at the secondary level. To advocate new Tech Prep programs that do not mesh with other systemic reforms will likely perpetuate the separateness vocational education has experienced from mainstream curricula throughout much of its modern history. Indeed, grappling with the issue of targeting Tech Prep to the neglected majority versus all students is not a peripheral concern but a central one. Aligning Tech Prep with a philosophy of serving all students, as our five field sites have done, demonstrates that the visibility and credibility of Tech Prep can be strengthened, producing valuable advancements in implementation activities. More limited definitions seem destined to replicate the past, yielding far less powerful results.
In both surveys, we asked respondents to indicate the primary target group of students for their local Tech Prep initiative. In 1993, we concluded,
consortia were directing their efforts to students in the middle quartiles of academic ability, and especially to students in the second quartile (i.e., 50th-75th). Students in the two extreme quartiles were much less likely to be identified as target groups for Tech Prep. . . . [Therefore] it seems apparent that many local Tech Prep coordinators have adopted the perspective that Tech Prep can fill the gap in high school curriculum for the `neglected majority'. (Bragg, Layton & Hammons, 1994, p. 48)
In 1995, 39 percent of respondents indicated they were directing Tech-Prep efforts to the 25th-75th percentile--the `middle majority', and 20 percent indicated the 50th-75th percentile group. Together, these two responses accounted for 59 percent of all 1995 responses compared to 73 percent in 1993, suggesting the practice of targeting of Tech Prep to the neglected majority had weakened. In 1995 we saw a noticeable increase in the proportion of respondents who viewed Tech Prep as for "all students," rising from 11 percent to 16 percent. Little change was registered in other categories (see Figure 3 and 4 below).
Figure 3
Figure 4
Anticipating this finding, we added a question to our 1995 survey asking respondents to identify elements of their definition of a Tech Prep student. By checking yes or no, respondents could indicate whether their consortium's official definition of a Tech Prep student included any one of fourteen statements (gleaned primarily from state and local policy statements). To interpret the results, first note that 42 percent of the respondents denied that a formal written definition exists for a Tech Prep student and 66 percent answered negatively to the statement that "a formal written admission process is used to admit Tech Prep students" (see Table 9). These responses suggest that the ambiguity we saw in definitions of the target population in our earlier survey (as well as NAVE and national Tech Prep evaluation studies) are largely unresolved.
| Element | Percent |
| Any student who chooses to participate in Tech Prep can do so. | 92.4 |
| A Tech Prep student is someone who chooses a program of study designated as Tech Prep. | 80.2 |
| A Tech Prep student is someone who has an individualized plan showing Tech Prep is his/her designated program of study. | 66.8 |
| A Tech Prep student must create a formal plan to complete a sequence of courses in a core curriculum of math, science, communications, and workplace skills that logically leads to an associate degree. | 63.3 |
| A formal written definition exists for a Tech Prep student. | 58.3 |
| A Tech Prep student is someone who is required to enroll in vocational-technical courses that are formally articulated to the postsecondary level. | 56.1 |
| A Tech Prep student is someone who is academically capable but unmotivated by the traditional academic curriculum. | 49.5 |
| A Tech Prep student is someone who is required to take applied academics courses such as applied math, Principles of Technology, or applied communications. | 47.6 |
| A Tech Prep student must maintain academic progress on grade level in the core curriculum. | 47.3 |
| A formal written admission process is used to admit Tech Prep students. | 34.3 |
| A Tech Prep student is someone who actually participates in a work-based learning experience such as co-op or apprenticeship. | 30.7 |
| All students are considered Tech Prep students. | 21.1 |
| A Tech Prep student is someone who is identified as being at risk of dropping out or of school failure. | 12.0 |
| At entry into Tech Prep, a student must meet a specific grade point average. | 10.4 |
Addressing this concern head-on, a 1996 statement on Tech Prep by the U.S. Department of Education identified the definition and target population for Tech Prep as its #1 issue. This report addressed concerns brought about by targeting Tech Prep to a subset of students when the goals are applicable to all students. In the Tech Prep Concept Paper, Harkin, Beaulieu, Brooks, and Cossaro (1996) concluded "Tech Prep is a curricular and instructional strategy for all students" [emphasis added], (p. 4). They support this conclusion with the following rationale:
In a broader sense, the purpose of Tech Prep education is to prepare an academically and technically competent workforce. This workforce must be prepared to adapt to rapid technological changes in the competitive workforce and to pursue lifelong learning. How then is Tech Prep different from other educational strategies? Let us take a look at its unique features:
- a planned, non-duplicative sequence of study in a technical field leading to an associate degree or certificate
- an articulated secondary and postsecondary career pathway tied to the evolving workplace
- an applied/integrated academic and technical/occupational curriculum
- a rigorous set of high academic and occupational skills standards for students. (Harkin, Beaulieu, Brooks, & Cossaro, 1996, p. 4-5)
Considering the milieu of concerns surrounding defining the target student population for Tech Prep, it is noteworthy that the top statement, chosen by nearly all respondents, was "any student who chooses to participate in Tech Prep can do so," demonstrating a firm appreciation for access. At the same time, the results do not support the conclusion that all students are Tech Prep students since only a few respondents gave an affirmative response to the statement that "all students are considered Tech Prep students," which closely approximates earlier findings showing 16 percent of respondents selected the 0-100th percentile of students as the target group for Tech Prep. Of course, it is one thing to construct a definition of Tech Prep that includes all students and quite another to deliver programs so that all students benefit. Although limited evaluation exists of STW, this observation probably applies to other models and approaches to STW too, such as cooperative education (co-op), youth apprenticeships, and career academies. Saying STW is for "all" appeals to our egalitarian values, but adopting that appealing rhetoric does not necessarily translate into action. To accomplish STW for all requires enormous change, far beyond our present circumstances.
When a definition is offered for the Tech Prep student, what are the elements of that definition? Results show the definition of a Tech Prep student is much more closely tied to participation in a particular curriculum, course, or program than it is to student characteristics. For example, 80 percent of respondents indicated a Tech Prep student is "someone who chooses a program of study designated as Tech Prep," 66 percent said a Tech Prep student is "someone who has an individualized plan," and another 63 percent said "a Tech Prep student must create a formal plan." In their written comments, several respondents identified counseling as an important element of Tech Prep because it allows schools to expose all students to the opportunity to enroll in Tech Prep; thus Tech Prep is considered a mainstream system or an option for all students within a total delivery system. In effect, students become Tech Prep students through their participation rather than because of their characteristics or any selection mechanism. This conclusion is consistent with earlier findings showing that "any student who chooses to participate in Tech Prep can do so."
Nearly half of the respondents indicated there are other elements of curriculum that can be added to help define the Tech Prep student. These include enrollment in vocational-technical courses formally articulated to the postsecondary level, applied academics courses and work-based learning. Apparently, for some, educating students for a lifetime in the workforce is central to providing a well-rounded education. These results suggest, as the Tech Prep process becomes better defined, so does the definition of the Tech Prep student. Some consortia considered their primary target students as those who are enrolled in vocational classes, but most expressed a different view. The others suggested the more inclusive the Tech Prep approach, the better the chances of countering the isolationism characteristic of some vocational programs. These consortia refuse to label or track students under the banner of Tech Prep, preferring to consider all students participants in a comprehensive education system.
Ultimately, these results suggest that, in practice, Tech Prep is rarely targeted at particular student groups, especially the top or bottom academic-ability quartiles. Only 12 percent of the respondents indicated that a Tech Prep student is someone who is at risk of dropping out or school failure (suggesting lower academic ability) and only 10 percent indicated a student must meet a specific grade point average to enter Tech Prep (approximating higher academic ability).
Nearly half of the respondents did report that a Tech Prep student must maintain academic progress on grade level in the core curriculum, but this is quite different from requiring a particular entry-level grade point average (GPA) for access into the program. In these sites, a wide population of students--sometimes all students--are encouraged to enroll rather than targeting only a few. Once engaged, all students are expected to perform at prescribed academic and occupational performance levels, specified by educators and sometimes other stakeholders, such as employers. The established performance levels are often well beyond what the typical student (sometimes labeled the "general education" student) is attaining, particularly in the math, science and technical course sequences. In so doing, students are better prepared to matriculate to college, often receiving articulated credit in the process.
When students enroll in Tech Prep, what is the focus of their involvement in vocational-technical areas? Over one-half of the 1995 respondents indicated that Tech Prep involved one or more of four vocational-education program areas (see Figure 5). Business and Office was a focus of most Tech Prep initiatives in 1993 and almost all in 1995, followed by Trade and Industrial education that is reported by approximately two-thirds of respondents. In 1993, Industrial Technology Education was the next most prominent vocational area as it was reported to be part of about two-thirds of the consortia as well. A fourth vocational area, appearing in slightly over one-half of the 1993 consortia, was Health Occupations. This percentage increased by 1995 to two-thirds, approximating the same level of activity as trade and industrial and industrial technology education. While less than one-third of the 1993 consortia reported involving any of the remaining vocational program areas such as agriculture, marketing/distributive education, or various areas of consumer and family studies, nearly one-half indicated agriculture and marketing/ distributive to be part of Tech-Prep curriculum reform by 1995.
Figure 5
Vocational Areas in the Field Sites. The concentration of Tech Prep programs in such areas as business and office, health occupations, trade and industrial, and technology education was evident in our field sites as well. Vocational program such as business management, nursing, automotive technology, or electronics are likely foci because they have a logical extension to the postsecondary level, and they have a meaningful connection to academic subjects, making academic and vocational integration a valuable activity. Since a requirement of Tech Prep is to articulate programs from the secondary to the postsecondary level, some secondary vocational education programs do not fit the Tech Prep model well because there is no obvious parallel curriculum at the collegiate level. Several representatives of our local field sites talked about the challenges in realigning secondary and postsecondary vocational curriculum; in some cases, new vocational programs were built from scratch at either the secondary or postsecondary level to ensure a core sequence of courses for grades 9-14. Clearly, such immense changes take time and resources. They also require skillful leadership as changes of this scope rarely occur without conflict or stress. Fundamentally, reorganization of this scale requires that local policy makers and practitioners take a close look at what Tech Prep means and how it is similar to or different from vocational education and other aspects of the secondary curriculum.
Five major components distinguish Tech Prep from vocational education, according to our survey respondents. The most important components are applied academics, articulation, workplace experiences, career clusters or pathways, and the notion that tech prep is a strategy that benefits all students. These components are not universal or even readily applicable to all respondents. Nevertheless, the terms used to define Tech Prep reflect a fair amount of consistency.
Applied Academics. An important foundation of Tech Prep is its academic component. One hundred and forty-nine respondents in forty-two states identified academics as a central part of their definition of Tech Prep. Principally, academics in Tech Prep are considered to be integrated with vocational courses, usually meaning a combination of academic and technical subject matter. Sixty-three consortia included the element of applied academics in their definitions of Tech Prep, using terms such as "cluster," "sequence," "integration," "direct link," or "pathway," in which applied academics are a key element. Eighteen consortia described applied academics in superlative terms: "Tech prep includes more academic course work in programs of study." Or the academic element of the program is described as "rigorous" or as the "foundation" of the Tech Prep course of study. One coordinator identified applied academics as the principle characteristic of Tech Prep reform, saying "Tech Prep is a change to applied academics." Other respondents said that applied academics "supported" technical programs or "complemented" them.
Though Tech Prep appears to be based on the idea that academics are closely linked to technical education, relatively few consortia defined academics in term of specific standards. Only twelve consortia pointed out that Tech Prep was differentiated from vocational education because of its "high level" or "increased academics." Fewer identified a specific grade point level (GPA) as a measurement of academic performance that could be used to define "high level" academics and therefore Tech Prep which is consistent with our previous discussion regarding definitions for Tech Prep students. In fact, twenty-eight consortia differentiated Tech Prep from vocational education with minimum standards in core academic courses in mathematics, English, communications or science. Also, not all consortia consider these subjects equally important; Mathematics was named more often than science, English or communications.
As a final comment on raising academic standards, only four consortia identified Tech Prep students as those students required to take a specific number of courses or years in academic subjects. A few consortia stipulated that these courses were internally oriented toward students with "applied" interests or, in other words "related courses" with a contextual format (Bolt & Swartz, 1997), while other consortia identified mathematics, English or communications and science courses as part of a broader set of course work, avoiding stipulating that these are applied courses by nature. Only one consortium identified the academic core of math, science and communications as "designed to make postsecondary study a possibility for all students."
Articulation. Close behind applied academics is the notion that secondary and postsecondary schools create continuous Tech Prep programs to support the completion of higher degrees or further education, almost as though this component was so obvious and little specific comments were necessary. Some consortia emphasized that the academic core of the secondary program is articulated directly to the postsecondary level (i.e., to the associate degree, a certificate in a specific field, or apprenticeship.) A few consortia defined articulation as a formal agreement between institutions, in which standards of accomplishment are governed by "skill content/curriculum review" by faculty and business representatives, or in which other academic standards are agreed upon, thereby determining who can articulate. This approach to Tech-Prep articulation was evident at two of our field sites: the Golden Crescent Tech Prep/School-To-Work Partnership and Mt. Hood Regional Tech Prep Consortium. Although not prevalent, a few respondents indicated that articulation is pursued by the student as opposed to the institution itself.
Work-based learning. Although not the majority, some respondents emphasized workplace (or work-based) learning experience as a core component of Tech Prep. For a growing number of respondents, work-based learning made an important contribution to Tech Prep and its applied academics course work, providing "practical application of learned skills in a workplace setting." In at least a few consortia, work-based learning was limited to "honors students" or "special populations" and the student body at large was not informed about workplace learning opportunities. However, this was not appear to be the norm. More often, consortia were grappling with operationalizing the idea of work-based learning for all students. Only one consortium specifically noted that adult apprenticeships were a part of Tech Prep and an alternative to the associate degree.
Some consortia associated Tech Prep with internships or youth apprenticeships offered in conjunction with local business and industry. In fact, this view was evident in the East Central ETC Partnership (one of our field sites) that has incorporated the youth apprenticeship model into nearly all aspects of Tech Prep. Consortia like the East Central Partnership are moving toward providing work experiences for a sizable proportion if not all students. In this consortium, youth apprenticeships and other forms of work-based learning are a core component of Tech Prep, following state guidelines established when Tech Prep grants were first awarded in 1991. As such, Tech Prep are indistinguishable from STW and, because Tech Prep has become an recognized and accepted term in the community, the new terminology of STW has not been emphasized in an attempt to avoid the perception that Tech Prep was being replaced quickly by yet another program. Although their approaches were different, all of our five field sites held somewhat similar views toward the relationship between Tech Prep and STW.
Career Clusters or Pathways. Some consortia considered career development or education to be part of Tech Prep, and the predominant terminology used to describe this component was "career path" or "career cluster." Career paths or pathways were typically career or technical in nature and combined with stronger academic components. Tech Prep was sometimes characterized by the planning of career pathways (apparently consistent with the STWOA legislation. Tech Prep students were said to follow a career path to work or past study. One consortium identified Tech Prep as a secondary technology curriculum (among others) that could be followed by students. Tech Prep students could identify a vocational program within career clusters that would eventually lead to an associate degree. Of course, in at least some of these cases, career clusters represented more of an administrative than curricular feature since existing vocational programs appeared to be unchanged.
On the other hand, many respondents considered career clusters broader in scope than vocational education as evidenced by the following statement: "Tech Prep is aimed at a career cluster and requires post-secondary training." Career clusters in engineering, health and human services, and business were common. One consortium considered career clusters and pathways to be the solution to the division between vocational and academic tracks; in this view, "all students are `career bound.'"[14] Furthermore, some consortia considered career guidance or counseling part of Tech Prep. For these consortia, Tech Prep includes career guidance that extends throughout the student's career, including career and academic assessment. Guidance counselors play a critical role in these Tech Prep initiatives, from junior high school through at least the community-college level.
No differentiation. Twenty-seven consortia specifically stated that they do not differentiate between Tech Prep and vocational education; however, these responses fall into several categories. Some claim to have no Tech Prep program in place that is distinctive from other vocational programs. These consortia state either that clear policies have not been laid down to define a distinct Tech Prep program or that there are efforts being made to make the distinction, but they are incomplete. Some consortia make no distinction because they have incorporated either the term or some elements of Tech Prep into all existing vocational programs. Here, the term "Tech Prep" is applied with no mention of reforms to change the stigma of vocational education. Most often, however, distinction is not made because elements of Tech Prep are incorporated into existing vocational programs still not considered Tech Prep at the local levels. In other words, the old vocational system continues to dominate and overwhelm early changes associated with newer Tech Prep. These consortia commonly adopt such facets of Tech Prep as articulation and applied academic courses, but deeper changes are not reported. While these consortia may not consider Tech Prep to be a part of or distinct from vocational education generally, it has informed the local practice of vocational education. Of course, such subtleties are nearly impossible to apprehend using survey research.
In contrast to some local Tech Prep coordinators who were surveyed, none of the coordinators in our field sites considered Tech Prep and vocational education synonymous with one another. Rather, they viewed Tech Prep as a more contemporary approach to help restructure all of education, partly by updating vocational education or replacing it altogether. At the least, each of the five field-site coordinators recognized the need to align vocational education with more current thinking, particularly with respect to their personal beliefs about how secondary education ought to work.
Further, all of our five field sites viewed Tech Prep as having a close relationship with STW, although most did not see Tech Prep and STW as synonymous. Interestingly, where the line between Tech Prep and STW seemed to us to be the most blurred was in the rural settings, where the limited size of schools, teaching staffs, employers, and student populations compelled nearly everyone to think carefully about how one reform, Tech Prep, should relate to the next reform, STW. In our two rural sites, the local Tech Prep coordinator became the STW coordinator, making a fairly smooth transition into this position. Few distinctions were made between Tech Prep and STW, as evidenced by how often a wide range of local personnel interchanged the terms. Referring to the Golden Crescent Partnership, Carrie Brown, state evaluator of Tech Prep in Texas explained,
This partnership appears to have fully integrated Tech Prep and STW, as well as related state and local education reform initiatives. This is reflected in the consortium's name, mission statement, goals, by-laws, governance structure, print materials, [and] activities. . . . [T]here is no problem with the definitions of Tech Prep and STW locally. . . . The timing is perfect for STW (with regard to increased emphasis on workplace experiences and earlier work experiences, the ability to expend funds to lower grade levels, and a formal change in board composition to meet federal requirements), and the initiatives are stated to be complementary. (Brown, Field Notes, 1996, p. 6)
Directing her comments to the complimentary nature of Tech Prep and STW in Texas, and specifically the Golden Crescent Partnership, Brown added,
Although most people interviewed overwhelmingly stated that their approach to Tech Prep and STW is no different ("they are the same thing," "they are identical," etc.), some distinguishing characteristics were evident. They are: a) the focus of Tech Prep is secondary to postsecondary articulation, and in STW, the emphasis is from school to college to the workplace; b) board composition is different; and c) STW focuses on earlier workplace experiences.
What seems apparent from Brown's comments is that there are features (or priorities) that distinguish Tech Prep and STW; however, many of these are complimentary, even transparent to local practitioners and other stakeholders. In fact, the closer one gets to the classroom, the foggier the distinctions get; the farther away from the classroom (especially the state and federal levels), the wider the gap.
Distinctions between Tech Prep and STW were more evident in the suburban and urban settings we studied. There, different people led the two initiatives and their relationships were not as clearly formulated, although, in most cases, we still saw cooperative arrangements being forged. These arrangement varied, however. In one site, Tech Prep was designated as the school-based side of the STW equation while the work-based side was to be carried out by new staff dedicating itself to securing more workplace learning arrangements for students. Of all our sites, this conceptualization was most problematic because of the separation of the two most critical aspects of STW (school-based and work-based learning) at the administrative level. A tension if not outright competition was evident between the two "camps" responsible for the school-based and work-based components. In yet another site, Tech Prep was viewed as a premier approach to STW for more academically-talented students, incorporating both school-based and work-based components. In this site, other approaches such as cooperative learning (co-op) were encouraged for the rest of the student population, creating the potential for a two-tier approach to STW. Still, in all of our field sites, STW was perceived as the umbrella for several STW models and approaches, with Tech Prep being one of the most central.
Survey respondents were asked to respond to a list of twelve potential curriculum reform options that could have been implemented at the secondary or postsecondary level. These options focused on several avenues of reform, such as articulation, applied academics, career academies, block scheduling, and work-based learning. At both the secondary and postsecondary levels, the proportion of consortia implementing almost any one of these reforms was thought to have increased from 1993 to 1995 (see Table 10). At the secondary level, increases were evident in the areas of career clusters, block scheduling, advanced-skills curriculum, and work-based learning. At the postsecondary level, noteworthy increases were reported in the areas of supplementing existing vocational courses with academics or vice versa, adding advanced-skills courses, and providing work-based learning. The only areas where no change or a decline was reported was in career academies at both the secondary and postsecondary levels and in block scheduling courses at the postsecondary level.
In 1993, the major thrust of Tech Prep curriculum reform took place at the secondary level. In 1995, secondary curriculum reform activities continued to surpass those reported for postsecondary schools, with the exception of a few activities. One of these was articulation of vocational and academic program sequences between secondary and postsecondary schools--a process that requires that both levels be involved. Another area was work-based learning, an approach to learning that has taken place in many postsecondary schools in the form of cooperative education and professional-clinical experiences for many years (Bragg, Trinkle, & Hamm, 1995; Bragg & Hamm, 1996; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). An additional area was the addition of advanced-skills curriculum, a strategy that has a direct impact on postsecondary curriculum because of the necessity to develop new courses at the upper level when standards are raised in preceding courses (Parnell, 1985).
| 1992-1993 | 1994-1995 | |||
| Tech Prep Curriculum Reform Efforts | Secondary (Percent) | Postsecondary (Percent) | Secondary (Percent) | Postsecondary (Percent) |
| Articulate vocational program sequences between secondary and postsecondary levels. | 89.5% | 88.1% | 94.2% | 93.4% |
| Add applied academics (commercially or locally developed) to existing curriculum. | 86.4 | 37.7 | 88.8 | 41.3 |
| Supplement existing vocational courses with academics. | 76.5 | 42.7 | 81.3 | 53.2 |
| Replace existing curriculum with applied academics (commercially or locally developed). | 77.9 | 29.9 | 80.4 | 40.1 |
| Supplement existing academic courses with vocational courses. | 72.1 | 34.3 | 80.4 | 49.0 |
| Articulate academic program sequences between secondary and postsecondary levels. | 69.6 | 69.2 | 75.2 | 77.2 |
| Organize occupational/career clusters. | 68.9 | 51.6 | 79.7 | 58.6 |
| Sequence and block scheduling courses. | 56.5 | 32.0 | 71.2 | 32.1 |
| Provide work-based learning. | 46.2 | 39.8 | 66.6 | 64.1 |
| Add advanced-skills courses to the existing curriculum. | 40.6 | 35.3 | 51.4 | 53.2 |
| Provide career academies. | 39.9 | 23.3 | 39.9 | 20.3 |
| Provide interdisciplinary courses. | 37.4 | 22.3 | 48.3 | 29.0 |
Curriculum Reform in the Field Sites. Many of these reforms were represented in our five field sites. For example, in the Miami Valley Tech Prep Consortium, noted for its dedicated use of advanced-skills curriculum, students progress to higher levels of competence in academic and technical subjects at both the secondary and postsecondary levels without the provision of dual credits. The Consortium awards scholarships to most students who matriculate from the secondary to postsecondary level in a 2+2 curriculum sequence (grades 11-14). The University of Dayton, a private school, participates in the consortium, offering students the opportunity to complete their final two years of college with a baccalaureate degree (creating the 2+2+2 approach). In contrast, the Tech Prep initiative located in the East Central Education-To-Careers (ETC) Partnership is directed at grades 9-14, creating a 4+2 pattern. Over 70 business and labor partners are involved, several of whom sponsor youth apprenticeships for Tech Prep students. Tech Prep/youth apprenticeships are available in the areas of manufacturing, accounting, banking, health occupations, and food service. With the support of local employers, all apprenticeships require a postsecondary component consisting of two years of study for the associate degree at Danville Area Community College (DACC). After graduating from DACC, most, if not all, of the apprenticeships require that students go to work full-time as a way to compensate the businesses for their human-resource investment. A two-year minimum of full-time work is prescribed, after which students can continue their education at four-year colleges, if they so choose. Concurrent college enrollment and full-time work is possible, often with support for tuition from local employers; however, the remote location of the East Central ETC Partnership provides few options for four-year college in the area, so many students foresee having to move out of the area to continue their pursuit of a baccalaureate degree.
A third consortium, the Golden Crescent Tech Prep/School-To-Work Partnership, develops its own version of Tech Prep but also adheres to the curriculum required by the state of Texas. At Golden Crescent, seven Tech Prep pathways are approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. These pathways are offered in such areas as electronics/instrumentation advanced technology, associate degree nursing, and microcomputer technology. Dual credit is a key feature of articulation agreements worked out between the almost 40 high schools and intermediate school districts and the local community college, Victoria College; over twenty high-school vocational-technical courses provide college credit. Similarly to this Texas consortium, the Mt. Hood Regional Tech Prep Consortium, has offered articulation agreements as the backbone of its Tech Prep initiative for many years. To date, thirteen professional/technical areas are offered by Mt. Hood College that are articulated with feeder high schools. More recently, several high schools in the consortium have become involved in whole-school reform. Noteworthy among these is the Reynolds High School, which is attempting to change the learning environment by re-organizing around four houses or families. The goals of each house is to assist students in achieving academic and career goals, to support students in making successful transitions, to assist students in meeting Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) standards, and to integrate instruction that connects learning to real world application. Due to the relative infancy of the whole-school reform taking place at Reynolds, some of the relationships between the academic curriculum and Tech Prep or STW are not fully developed. Vocational education is a part of the Tech Prep/STW initiative, but other elements of the curriculum are less clear, largely because the
Taking a very different tact but also focusing on secondary school reform, our fifth field site, the Hillsborough School District/Community College Tech Prep Consortium, has specified courses of study that students select during counselor/student conferences. The School District of Hillsborough County has indicated that several courses of study have a Tech Prep focus, including the Tech Prep course of study where students take appropriate community college preparatory courses, plus applied technical courses; the College/Tech Prep course of study where students meet College Prep and Tech Prep requirements; and the Florida Academic Scholars/Tech Prep course of study where students take specific academic course requirements along with Tech Prep to qualify for the Florida Gold Seal Scholarship. The later two courses of study are designed specifically to attract college-bound students while the general Tech Prep pathway attracts a sizable proportion of special needs students. According to local officials, having the distinctive courses of study was an important for this consortium because historically vocational education has been populated primarily by special needs students. To differentiate Tech Prep from vocational education and reinforce its emphasis on academic standards, the College/Tech Prep and even more importantly the Florida Academic Scholars/Tech Prep options were seen as vital to the success of the local Tech Prep initiative.
[14] For further reading on this perspective toward academic and vocational education, see Badway and Grubb (1997) and Illinois Task Force on Integration (1997).