The recommendations provided by the survey respondents as well as the field sites fell into six categories. Without question, the two most important recommendations pertain to issues surrounding funding and federal and state guidance, but survey respondents also described the need for increasing the participation of the various stakeholders in Tech Prep, such as the academic faculty, postsecondary institutions, business and industry, guidance counselors and even tech Prep coordinators. Also, many recommended broadening the application of Tech Prep programs to include more students earlier. One of the basic concerns had to do with the relationship between Tech Prep and STWOA. Many consortia wanted to see some kind of combination of effort with Tech Prep as the dominant or leading program within STW, but a few wanted to maintain a completely separate stance between Tech Prep and STW.
Among those whose recommendations relate to funding, the vast majority called for continued funding and for the opportunity to use their money more flexibly. Most respondents who pointed out the need for continued funding wanted to do so to protect fledgling efforts at Tech Prep implementation. They argued that Tech Prep "is not yet a mature program and needs federal support before states can take over leadership," and they feared that a drop in funding would eventually kill Tech Prep because local and state governments could not afford to support it. Without funding, state and federal policies "become optional guideline suggestions for programs." In the end some feared Tech Prep would receive the most dreaded label of all: fad.
Consortia recommending more flexibility in spending were primarily concerned with equipment expenditures. More money was also recommended for the hiring and development of personnel such as a full-time state Tech Prep coordinator and more faculty. Given the emphasis on continued funding, surprisingly few consortia recommended that increased funds be granted. One recommendation was that Tech Prep "needs federal and state funding increases and support for the next 4-5 years to fully implement this reform movement." Increased funding was considered essential to "program development and expansion" and to "provide the necessary professional [development]."
Several consortia expressed concern for the effect of block grants on Tech Prep. These concerns included determining beforehand what percentage of the block grants would go to existing Tech Prep initiatives and what would go to STWOA-supported ones. The concern was to provide funding "blocked" for Tech Prep so secondary and postsecondary education could still work to institutionalize it.
Showing concern that Tech Prep be accountable for its share of federal funding, a small group of consortia wanted to attach new funding to performance. One respondent proclaimed, "Performance-based funding for public education! This, more than any single reform, would change the way we operate." Another respondent recommended "fund allocation for programs that can demonstrate strong and effective 2+2 commitments" and another said, "Get a firm long-term financial commitment with evaluations that accurately reflect local consortium issues." Apparently, quality does not have to happen top-down. Rather, it can bubble up from the local level if there is a firm commitment to quality and accountability.
Federal and state leadership is very important to the surveyed consortia. They recommended that government take a more aggressive role in mandating programs and providing definite guidelines or standards in Tech Prep. Some also recommended that federal and state government provide incentives and recognition for successful Tech Prep initiatives, though these recommendations were very much in the minority. One respondent said, "[National standards] are needed to allow groups using a variety of strategies to assess their programs on students' performance[s]." Respondents' comments suggested they had experienced some confusion in defining Tech Prep programs, an issue discussed in some depth earlier in this paper. One coordinator recommended the "clarification of terms used with Tech Prep." The sense was that consortia had struggled to achieve a relationship among the different shareholders in Tech Prep, but that these struggles could be more successful with increased government support and leadership. One respondent attempted to speak for many in recommending more clarity concerning work-based learning and Tech Prep:
We recommend that the federal and state governments develop and promote incentives for business and industry regarding their working together with schools to implement the work experience component of the Tech Prep program. We recommend that the state do more to help local consortia with the development of work standards and competencies for establishing and implementing the different Tech Prep curricular programs.
Indeed, the federal and state government has contributed to the complex environment in which Tech Prep is being implemented. Sharing this frustration, one respondent said,
Implementers feel assailed by all these new mandates at both the state and local level. Strategies need to be identified which assist implementers to coordinate and integrate these pieces into an articulated whole. Establishment of community wide partnerships with key stakeholders seems to be key. Leadership to help implementers at the local level [to] see the connections between mandates and define strategies to realize them would be very helpful.
One of the most important concerns for the surveyed consortia is the relationship between Tech Prep and the STW initiatives. Many respondents thought that Tech Prep and STW should be joined into a coherent program, but there were misgivings because of the vagaries of government policy and confusion over the proliferation of seemingly identical but uncoordinated programs. Although not the majority, some consortia made the recommendation that the two programs should remain separate because they feared that Tech Prep would disappear in the maelstrom. Representative of these recommendations were: "[We need a] clear definition separate from School-to-Work"; "clearly separate the goals of Tech Prep from School-to-Work"; "clarity must be made (sic) between the terms Tech Prep and School-to-Work." A few respondents discouraged any merger between the two. Although not widespread, the sense of emotion evident in these comments suggest these views should not be discounted. The following statements are representative of this perspective: "[D]o not replace Tech Prep with School-to-Work"; "[S]upport Tech Prep and [do] not move to a new bandwagon such as School-to-Work"; and "Keep it a separate issue from School-to-Work." Looking back at how STWOA was introduced once Tech Prep was underway, one respondent offered, "Tech Prep should have been expanded to reach all students and encompass School-to-Work, instead of starting another new initiative which is a broader version of Tech Prep." Having reviewed all comments, we suspect this sentiment is probably held widely by the respondents.
Consortia recommended that the idea of Tech Prep be expanded in several ways. First, some respondents said that Tech Prep programs should be expanded to include secondary students below tenth grade, suggesting a 2+2 model. "If kids are to make a career choice by the start of 10th grade they need career information and awareness activities long before 10th or 11th grade." Others said, "Require secondary schools to have a career portfolio for all students beginning at middle school level" and "Mandate a comprehensive (K-14) career guidance program." One coordinator suggested that Tech Prep has placed too much emphasis on special populations, resulting in a remedialization of the programs. Therefore, Tech Prep needs to return to its original emphasis on the middle majority."
A prevalent recommendation among the consortia surveyed was to urge an emphasis on "all students," expanding Tech Prep and transforming it ultimately into something more akin to career education for all students. One such recommendation was, "Tech Prep is an occupational-career curriculum open to all students whether or not they may be designated as `vocational'." Another supporting comment follows: "Tech Prep should be for all students. All students should be career bound and should plan for lifelong learning." The emphasis on "all students" moves Tech Prep into the mainstream and away from strictly vocational education, though it appears that the assumption underlying "all students" does not necessarily include liberal arts. Nevertheless, there are threads (admittedly somewhat obscure) among the recommendations that suggest Tech Prep could move further in that direction: "All education should be occupational as well as liberal arts - it isn't necessary to have either/or situations." "Support for technical/vocational and School-to-Work education for students who appear to be college bound. This is the biggest hurdle we have to overcome everyone's daughter/son is going to Harvard so they don't need occupational preparation right? Wrong. Everyone can benefit from high academic and technical education."
A related consideration behind the attempt to include "all students" is a concern over nomenclature: some consortia wish to avoid labeling students as Tech Prep because their emphasis is on career preparation. "It appears that many are concerned that Tech Prep students be identified. Have we not learned that labeling students is `death' to a concept --it is not necessary to label students--curriculum changes that any student can enroll in by choice improves educational opportunities for all." "We need to quit labeling students `College Prep' or `Tech Prep'. They are all career bound. A student in the health/human services cluster who plans on becoming a doctor needs the same core curriculum (in high school) and voc[ational] training as one pursuing a career as a lab technician. The curriculum should only change as they go into post-secondary/specialty training." "Drop labeling [and] move to career pathways with two-year degree as part of choice." For some the notion of all students also refers to all grade levels: "The initiative should create systemic change in K-16 education. Therefore, policy should expand the focus to include all students at all levels."
Many consortia identified a need for increased participation by various stakeholder groups. Of the many, academic faculty and postsecondary institutions were mentioned repeatedly. Academic faculty are especially crucial given the fundamental academic character of the reform, and many see increased participation among academic faculty as a necessary aspect of stabilizing it. To some, the key to involving academic faculty in Tech Prep is considered to be funding. "In addition, offering funding to academic areas to infuse technical and career components into instruction would be beneficial." Another respondent explained,
The problem is academics, for the most part, haven't caught on because it [Tech Prep] is not required of them and the funding has been through vocational channels. As a result, . . . participation and support varies based on [the] actual interest and emphasis of the administration. In our case the interest, support and participation of the academic side is outstanding. Tech Prep should be a required part of every education system with appropriate funding.
Aside from funding, some consortia also recognized and recommended increased cooperation between academic and vocational faculty. One respondent called for an "Inservice/staff education emphasis for administrators and academic faculty, specifically designed to orient toward the reform education movement." Another pointed out a deeper concern surrounding academic and vocational faculty involvement: "The biggest challenge will be to get academic and vocational to do joint planning."
Interestingly enough, three consortia in California clearly expressed the need for increased participation by academic faculty. Comments of two of these coordinators follow:
[The] University of California acceptance of Tech Prep courses would establish credibility of applied academics with traditional academic faculty. . . . All academic and vocational faculty should be required to participate in the integration of academic and vocational curriculum.
Secondary and post-secondary faculty and administrative cooperation has been sluggish. Little motivation for them, slow progress for us. This could have been facilitated at the state level, and saved much time and effort, i.e. California Department of Education could have attached some secondary funding to cooperation or at least have given high schools strong encouragement to participate.
Coordinators also want to see business and industry take a more active role in Tech Prep development. Business and industry organizations are recognized as important stakeholders in Tech Prep, and recommendations for increasing their involvement are made by several consortia. One respondent recommended "a stronger commitment from the private sector related to hiring and promoting employees with certificates." At least one consortium suggested that the government could have a hand in encouraging this stronger commitment: "We recommend that the federal and state governments develop and promote incentives for business and industry regarding their working together with schools to implement the work experience component of the Tech Prep program." One incentive could be to "offer tax incentives and other breaks (workers compensation) to businesses who provide work-based learning opportunities."
Bringing the guidance counselors into a more active role in Tech Prep is one way to increase the impact of Tech Prep as an educational reform, according to respondents. One suggested the need to "Mandate a comprehensive (K-14) career guidance program [that is] focus[ed] on [the] program not the position of the counselor (a counselor is a proactive player in the overall program). Advisor/adviser a must, but provide staff development for training." Another said, "Federal policy should mandate high school counselors to require students to make career choices. Most counselors are the slowest individuals to change old habits of doing business." Even though counselor inservice is an "essential element" of the Tech Prep law, respondents indicated more is necessary. Several comments documented by the survey are: "One weakness is motivation and acceleration of our guidance counselors into the Tech Prep program. More training for these people would help." "More emphasis needs to be placed on educational planning and counselor function" and "Aim at principals and guidance counselors and help people learn how to change systems."
Developing some kind of nationally-based support system for Tech Prep coordinators is also an important part of expanding Tech Prep reforms to include a broader group. One respondent offered, "Most importantly this state needs a pro-active and involved Tech Prep coordinator to solidify and unify Tech Prep efforts." Other respondents emphasized that improving the Tech Prep coordinator position requires training, funding, and government leadership. "It has taken me three years of involvement in Tech Prep and one year of coordinating a Tech Prep project to learn what could have been taught in a workshop dedicated to training Tech Prep participants." Another said, "[The] secondary system should be required to hire a full time Tech Prep coordinator, of course funds should be provided to local system for that purpose." "A coordinator is a must. Part of the grant should include funding for a full-time Tech-Prep coordinator." "State guidelines allow for only one coordinating position per county - this currently presents serious constraints on the level that does not received the funding, i.e. secondary and post-secondary."
Some consortia determined that some kind of national marketing objective or "national awareness program" be agreed upon and pursued with respect to Tech Prep. "Educators need to sell best practices and especially bring parents and counselors on board." A few consortia suggested that Tech Prep should be marketed differently from vocational education so as to not mix Tech Prep with the image of a vocational program. Marketing initiatives should "promote data showing positive impact, if available, and/or publish positive testimonials." Others wanted to see some kind of statewide or national development of recruitment tools. "Too much re-creating the wheel - articles for newspapers, etc. - [we need] more vehicles for sharing."
Part of the reason for marketing Tech Prep to the general public is again to avoid the impression that Tech Prep is a "fad" that will soon be gone from the educational scene, as well as to emphasize that Tech Prep is an educational reform that affects all segments of the population. One coordinator thought it important to "work on internal marketing within [an] educational hierarchy so that Tech Prep is viewed as a high quality program rather than `another vocational program'." A particular concern to some was the need to demonstrate to "superintendents and school board members that Tech Prep/School-to-Work is not just another initiative that will come and go," and to "state and national (Congress) politicians [who] need correct info[rmation] on how and why a program was set upÉ. [It] needs to be sold to national educational organizations and unions which teachers belong to." Some considered the marketing of Tech Prep a government responsibility: "[The] state and feds need to promote Tech Prep much more through marketing and grass roots information elements."