INTRODUCTION

Tech Prep is intended to integrate vocational subjects with rigorous academics and articulate secondary and postsecondary education. The intended result of this new combination of general and vocational education is an approach to education that is more relevant to and supportive of students' career goals[1]. Recognizing the potential of this relatively new federal initiative, the National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE) published the results of our study of Tech Prep implementation in the United States (Bragg, Layton, & Hammons, 1994). In 1994 we reported many hopeful trends with respect to Tech Prep implementation but some serious concerns were raised by local officials as well. Many of these early findings were corroborated by results of other national evaluations conducted in accordance with the National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) by Boesel, Rahn, & Deich (1994) and by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Silverberg & Hershey, 1995; Silverberg, 1996a). We therefore concluded that Tech Prep was stimulating a number of promising trends but lingering challenges remained.

At the time we conducted our initial survey during the summer of 1993, only a couple of years had passed since federal support was made available for Tech Prep[2]. Whereas some Tech Prep initiatives had started prior to passage of the Tech Prep Education Act, Title IIIE of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, most were initiated in the 1990s once federal funds became available. Consequently, much of what we reported in 1994 represented progress associated with very early planning, development, and some initial implementation of new Tech Prep initiatives throughout the country.

To introduce our current research, it is important to summarize the major conclusions from our 1994 report, first noting several positive developments associated with Tech Prep at that time. These promising trends include the following:

• As many as 50% of the nation's high schools were participants in some form or fashion in Tech Prep implementation in a local consortium, indicating dramatic growth in Tech Prep activity at the secondary education level from 1991 (pre-Perkins II) to 1993 (post-Perkins II).
• Broad-based representation was evident in most local Tech Prep consortia, and this phenomenon was thought to be highly useful in implementing local programs. During the 1992-93 academic year, on average, a local Tech Prep consortium consisted of twelve high schools, two postsecondary schools, and ten private-sector business and industry firms. Some consortia, although not the majority, also involved labor organizations and public community-based organizations.
• A diverse set of student outcomes was given high priority for Tech Prep participants or graduates. The areas of academic skill attainment, employability skill attainment, and matriculation from high school to college were viewed as particularly important outcomes for Tech Prep students.
• A high level of support was perceived for Tech Prep by numerous stakeholder groups, particularly state agency personnel, vocational faculty, local two-year postsecondary administrators, business/industry representatives, local secondary administrators, students, and secondary school board members. One group was viewed as having only a "fair" level of support: four-year college/university personnel.
• Professional development of secondary and postsecondary personnel was conducted by nearly all consortia (which is not surprising since it is an "essential element" of the federal Tech Prep law.) Still, it was encouraging to see that 90 percent of local consortia reported offering joint in-service training for secondary and postsecondary teachers. In a typical consortium, about one-half of the secondary and postsecondary vocational faculty, counselors, and administrators had participated in at least one Tech Prep in-service activity. Academic faculty were less likely to participate than vocational faculty, and postsecondary personnel were less likely to participate than their secondary counterparts.
• The hallmark of Tech Prep--formal articulation agreements--were well established in vocational courses in most consortia. Articulation agreements at the program level or in academic areas were much less evident, however. Other key elements of Tech Prep showed encouraging signs of development, including the integration of academic and vocational education (primarily utilizing applied academics) and the implementation of career clusters and career awareness activities, and the beginnings of work-based learning experiences for selected students.

In 1994, we also reported findings considered more disconcerting. We referred to these results as lingering challenges and they are summarized below:

• Most local coordinators worked on Tech Prep part-time or as only one facet of their regular jobs, indicating limited resources were dedicated to overseeing Tech Prep implementation and administration. Other resource constraints were evident and manifested in a widespread perception of lacking staff, time, and money for Tech Prep, particularly for collaborative planning that could lead to significant curriculum changes.
• The purpose of Tech Prep lacked clarity as evidenced by the broad and conflicting goals supplied by respondents. Utilizing 1993 survey findings, we tried to determine whether respondents thought Tech Prep was for all students, a subset of students known as the neglected majority, or for still another group? Whereas the respondents indicated that equal access for all students was a priority[3], nearly a majority reported dedicating resources to the middle two quartiles of students in academic ability, as envisioned by Parnell (1985) in his book The Neglected Majority. Apparently, Parnell's persuasive argument resonates with Tech Prep consortia throughout the nation. However, it is noteworthy that some consortia have adopted different perspectives toward the appropriate student population(s) for Tech Prep. Some have directed Tech Prep to all students; others have targeted it to either higher-achieving or lower-achieving students. Much of this variation is due to local circumstances, of course, but such findings raise questions about how Tech Prep fits with other systemic educational reforms, especially those intended for all students such as the reforms brought about by the School-To-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA)[4].
• Few consortia were engaged in complex or far-reaching curriculum reform at either the secondary or postsecondary levels, as evidenced by the lack of reported involvement in advanced-skills courses, career academies or interdisciplinary courses. About two-thirds of respondents planned to implement work-based learning, but only one-third had done so. On an encouraging note, the level of implementation of work-based learning was higher for consortia funded in 1991 than in 1992, showing that consortia with more time and resources were more likely to implement work-based learning Furthermore, minimal levels of curriculum reform were reported at the postsecondary level, except for formal articulation agreements associated with vocational courses.
• The most serious barriers to the implementation of Tech Prep were those most deeply rooted in long-standing educational policy and practice--the continuation of tracking; the indelible structure of the school day; and teachers' beliefs that `theory' is for the college-bound and `practice' is for the rest. These fundamental concerns are evident in respondents' perceptions of the barriers to Tech Prep implementation, especially the lack of time for joint planning by academic and vocational; issues with coordinating secondary and postsecondary programs; the failure of four-year colleges and universities to award college credit for applied academics or other Tech Prep courses; a poor image of vocational education reflecting unfavorably on Tech Prep; and a lack of staff, time, and money. Indeed, these barriers are so deeply ingrained in the fabric and structure of American education, particularly K-12 education, that they seem almost impenetrable. With limited resources, one wonders what level of impact an initiative such as Tech Prep can be expected to have on educational systems.

[2] The Carl D. Perkins Applied Technology and Vocational Education Act of 1990, commonly known as Perkins II, included Tech Prep within the special projects section (Title IIIE). Federal funds were appropriated to the states to begin local planning and implementation of Tech Prep in July, 1991. Although a few states were delayed in receiving federal funds because of issues with their states' plans for Perkins funding, by July 1992 all states had received federal funds to support local Tech Prep activities.

[3] It is important to remember that one of the essential elements of Title IIIE, The Tech Prep Education Act, is to provide "equal access for special populations to the full range of Tech Prep programs, including the development of services appropriate to the needs of such individuals." To be in compliance with the law, local consortia may support the goal of providing access to Tech Prep but target a different group of students--the neglected majority--for enrollment in these programs. Indeed, the National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) study of Tech Prep supports this conclusions (Boesel, Rahn, & Deich, 1994).

[4] The federal School-To-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) legislation was signed into law by President Clinton in May 1994. It calls for implementation of three key components designed to enhance school-to-work transition for all students: school-based learning, work-based learning, and connecting activities. Among other strategies, Tech Prep is mentioned as a promising practice with respect to STWOA.

• The Initial Tech Prep Implementation Survey in 1993