This section presents findings related to the overall stage of implementation of selected components of Tech Prep, as reported by the local coordinators surveyed.
Based on the federal Tech Prep legislation, an extensive literature review, and findings from previous research on Tech Prep implementation, 36 components of Tech Prep were listed in the survey. Six of these components were new to the survey and they were added because they were thought to be representative of activities that Tech Prep consortia might engage in when implementing STW activities[15]. Shown in Table 11, the range of mean ratings for the stage of implementation of all 36 of the components in 1993 was between 2.0 and 4.0, indicating ratings from the planning to the initial implementation stage. Mean ratings for 1995 were higher, ranging from 2.5 to 4.6[16].
| 1992-1993 | 1994-1995 | |||||||||||||||
| Tech Prep Components | Not Begun % | Plan % | Development % | Initial Implementation % | Advanced Implementation % | NA | Meanb | SD | Not Begun % | Plan % | Development % | Initial Implementation % | Advanced Implementation % | NA | Meanb | SD |
| Formal signed articulation agreement(s) between secondary and postsecondary schools | 3.3 | 15.8 | 20.6 | 39.9 | 18.3 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 1.12 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 7.4 | 18.6 | 71.7 | 0.6 | 4.6 | 0.7 |
| Consortium building (including recruiting schools, colleges, employers, and other organizations) | .8 | 7.1 | 10.4 | 43.8 | 37.2 | .8 | 4.1 | .91 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 4.7 | 25.7 | 65.4 | 0.9 | 4.5 | 0.8 |
| Formal governing/advisory boarda | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 4.1 | 3.8 | 7.4 | 21.0 | 62.1 | 1.5 | 4.4 | 1.1 |
| Equal access for all students | 7.9 | 20.6 | 30.2 | 27.4 | 13.5 | .5 | 3.7 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 5.6 | 7.4 | 32.3 | 53.7 | 0.3 | 4.3 | 0.9 |
| Applied academics courses such as Principles of Technologya | -- | -- | -- | --- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 2.7 | 2.9 | 8.6 | 33.0 | 51.3 | 1.5 | 4.3 | 0.9 |
| Team building to facilitate Tech Prep planning and implementation | 3.8 | 13.3 | 25.8 | 39.5 | 17.1 | .5 | 3.8 | .96 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 11.3 | 40.7 | 44.2 | 0.3 | 4.2 | 0.9 |
| Site-based planning and decisionmaking for Tech Prep | 4.1 | 19.2 | 21.5 | 39.5 | 15.2 | .5 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 12.5 | 34.4 | 46.3 | 1.5 | 4.2 | 0.9 |
| Joint inservice of secondary and postsecondary personnel (e.g., faculty, counselors, administrators) | 1.5 | 9.9 | 18.7 | 46.1 | 23.3 | .5 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 10.0 | 33.3 | 45.4 | 0.6 | 4.1 | 1.1 |
| Development of 2+2 core academic and technical curriculum | 4.1 | 8.6 | 16.2 | 44.6 | 26.6 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 5.9 | 16.6 | 34.1 | 40.9 | 1.2 | 4.0 | 1.0 |
| Career awareness and exploration for students in Tech Prep | 2.5 | 15.9 | 20.8 | 38.5 | 21.8 | .5 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 6.2 | 20.1 | 42.9 | 29.6 | 0.9 | 4.0 | 0.9 |
| Long-range and/or strategic planning for Tech Prep | 18.0 | 18.5 | 20.6 | 29.7 | 11.7 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 7.7 | 20.4 | 29.8 | 39.8 | 0.3 | 4.0 | 1.1 |
| Guidance and counseling services | 22.1 | 23.2 | 21.1 | 23.9 | 7.9 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 7.2 | 19.5 | 37.2 | 34.2 | 0.6 | 4.0 | 1.0 |
| Integration of academic and vocational secondary curriculum | 4.0 | 8.3 | 12.4 | 31.6 | 42.7 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 8.3 | 16.8 | 41.3 | 30.7 | 0.9 | 3.9 | 1.0 |
| Inservice training of counselors in recruitment, placement, and retention of students for Tech Prep | 5.6 | 19.5 | 29.1 | 30.9 | 14.4 | .5 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 5.6 | 17.5 | 40.8 | 31.7 | 0.6 | 3.9 | 1.0 |
| Marketing and promotions | 17.3 | 26.0 | 22.1 | 23.2 | 9.4 | 2.0 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 7.8 | 22.1 | 35.8 | 33.1 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 1.0 |
| Formal partnerships with business and industry | 13.3 | 24 | 24.8 | 25.8 | 9.5 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 3.6 | 8.3 | 21.9 | 34.3 | 31.7 | 0.3 | 3.8 | 1.1 |
| Use of new instructional strategies (including cooperative learning approaches) | 19.1 | 25.3 | 23.3 | 21.2 | 7.8 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 2.7 | 8.3 | 21.0 | 42.0 | 24.6 | 1.5 | 3.8 | 1.0 |
| Collaboration between academic and vocational educators | 15.3 | 15.5 | 20.1 | 27.5 | 18.6 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 8.3 | 20.4 | 46.2 | 22.8 | 0.6 | 3.8 | 0.9 |
| Individualized student training and/or career plansa | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 4.2 | 10.1 | 22.3 | 34.4 | 27.3 | 1.8 | 3.7 | 1.1 |
| Preparatory services for all participants | 17.9 | 26.2 | 22.6 | 23.1 | 7.7 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 5.1 | 13.8 | 21.0 | 28.4 | 27.5 | 4.2 | 3.6 | 1.2 |
| Strategies to address the needs of special populations | 7.1 | 22.7 | 25.5 | 31.1 | 12.1 | 1.5 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 4.7 | 13.4 | 24.9 | 30.3 | 26.1 | 0.6 | 3.6 | 1.1 |
| Evaluation of Tech Prep programs | 37.9 | 29.5 | 15.3 | 8.1 | 2.5 | 6.6 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 4.7 | 13.3 | 28.1 | 28.1 | 25.4 | 0.3 | 3.6 | 1.1 |
| Workplace professional development experiences for teachers and counselors | 7.3 | 21.8 | 24.8 | 29.9 | 15.9 | .3 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 7.7 | 14.2 | 20.7 | 32.5 | 23.1 | 1.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 |
| Labor market analysis to inform curriculum development | 4.3 | 17.7 | 31.6 | 34.9 | 10.6 | .8 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 11.3 | 11.6 | 21.1 | 28.2 | 26.1 | 1.8 | 3.5 | 1.3 |
| Work-based learning for students (e.g., internships, apprenticeships) | 7.1 | 24.0 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 13.4 | .5 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 5.6 | 18.3 | 24.5 | 35.7 | 15.0 | 0.9 | 3.4 | 1.1 |
| Performance standards and measures for Tech Prepa | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 7.1 | 16.6 | 30.3 | 24.0 | 20.2 | 1.8 | 3.3 | 1.2 |
| Alternative assessments (e.g., portfolios, performance assessment) | 6.3 | 16.2 | 23.7 | 32.8 | 20.5 | .5 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 6.8 | 18.0 | 22.8 | 35.2 | 14.5 | 2.7 | 3.3 | 1.1 |
| Use of outcomes-based education for Tech Prep | 20.3 | 27.3 | 23.5 | 19.5 | 7.1 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 13.8 | 11.1 | 19.8 | 28.8 | 18.0 | 8.4 | 3.3 | 1.4 |
| Development of advanced-skills technical curriculum | 3.3 | 17.2 | 18.0 | 32.4 | 28.9 | .3 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 13.1 | 14.0 | 23.5 | 27.7 | 19.9 | 1.8 | 3.3 | 1.3 |
| Joint planning time for academic and vocational teachers | 32.0 | 22.0 | 13.6 | 14.8 | 12.8 | 4.9 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 14.5 | 14.2 | 27.4 | 26.0 | 14.2 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 1.3 |
| Integration of academic and vocational postsecondary curriculum | 5.8 | 22.2 | 27.3 | 31.8 | 12.6 | 0.3 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 17.5 | 13.0 | 25.1 | 24.9 | 14.8 | 4.7 | 3.0 | 1.3 |
| Formal assessment and certification of skills based on industry standardsa | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 19.3 | 21.7 | 22.6 | 22.3 | 12.2 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 1.3 |
| Incorporation of "all aspects of the industry"a | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 17.4 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 22.2 | 9.3 | 6.3 | 2.8 | 1.3 |
| Job placement services for students/graduates | 7.8 | 24.3 | 26.9 | 25.8 | 14.0 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 24.9 | 16.6 | 22.6 | 18.4 | 13.9 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 1.4 |
| Apprenticeships spanning secondary and postsecondary education | 39.4 | 24.9 | 16.0 | 11.7 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 27.3 | 18.1 | 16.9 | 22.6 | 8.0 | 7.1 | 2.6 | 1.3 |
| Computer monitoring (tracking) of student progress through Tech Prep programs | 13.6 | 24.5 | 28.5 | 23.0 | 9.8 | .5 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 27.0 | 22.6 | 24.3 | 14.8 | 8.3 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 1.3 |
| Notes: | aCategories were not included in the 1993 survey. |
| bMean scores presented in this table are calculated without the "NA" value. |
A total of twelve components were given mean ratings of 4.0 or higher in 1995, placing them between the initial and advanced implementation stages, compared to only two components rated at this level in 1993. Of these components, 1995 respondents said their consortia were farthest along with formal signed articulation agreements, giving it a mean rating of 4.6. This component was rated at the advanced implementation stage by 72 percent of the 1995 respondents compared to only 18 percent of the 1993 respondents. The other component above 4.0 in both 1993 and 1995 was consortium building. The percentage of respondents who rated this component at the advanced implementation stage was 65 percent in 1995 but only 37 percent in 1993. Other components rated above 4.0 in 1995 were formal governing/advisory boards, equal access for all students, applied academics course offerings such as team building, site-based planning, joint in-service of secondary and postsecondary personnel, development of 2+2 core curriculum, career awareness and exploration, long-range and/or strategic planning, and guidance and counseling.
Nineteen components had mean ratings between 3.0 and 3.9, indicating a majority of the thirty-six components were considered to be between the development and initial implementation stage in 1995 (two or more years into Tech Prep implementation for most respondents). Interestingly enough, these nineteen components ranged from integration of academic and vocational education at the secondary level (3.9) to integration of academic and vocational courses at the postsecondary level (3.0). Several other components at this same level of implementation were associated with professional development, an "essential element" of Tech Prep according to the federal law. These components were in-service for counselors, workplace professional development for teachers and counselors, and joint planning time. Other components at this stage centered around curriculum issues such as the use of new instructional strategies, advanced-skills curriculum development, individualized student training and/or career plans, and outcomes-based curriculum. Still others were associated with evaluation and assessment, including evaluation of Tech Prep programs, labor market analysis, performance standards and measures, and alternative assessments. Eight of these components received a rating below 3.0 in 1993.
Five components were rated between 2.0 and 2.9, indicating their level of implementation to be between planning and development. Components at this stage were formal assessment of Tech Prep students, incorporation of "all aspects of industry," job placement services, apprenticeships spanning from secondary to postsecondary and finally, computer monitoring or "tracking" of Tech Prep student's progress. The first two of these components were not rated in 1993 because they represent new activities associated with STW systems, but the latter three components were rated in 1993 and these were given even lower ratings at that time.
Within the five field sites there seemed to be a heavy emphasis on organizing and administering Tech Prep initially and now Tech Prep combined with STW. These activities could be considered "consortium building" or "site-based planning." The local coordinators involved in the field studies were engaged in a great deal of coordination activity, ensuring that information was circulated properly and key organizations and persons were informed and "on board." After these concerns were cared for, activities such as professional in-service, curriculum development, instruction, guidance/counseling and other core functions were carried out, explaining why these activities were still rated at the development to initial implementation stage after two or more years of funding.
Our field-site findings reinforce the fact that Tech Prep implementation efforts are fully logical or linear. Momentum in implementing a new initiative such as Tech Prep moves rapidly at times and more slowly at others. From year to year (or even more quickly), implementation can shift from one aspect of the academic curriculum to another (math to science); one part of the vocational curriculum to another (business to health); from one level of education to another (freshman to senior); from one student population to another (middle to all); and so forth. Even relatively dramatic shifting of priorities can occur to accommodate local needs, indicating a certain level of "agility" is advantageous to Tech-Prep implementation.
Many factors contribute to changes in direction such as the ebb and flow of the academic calendar, turnover of key local leadership (especially high-school principals), coordination (or lack thereof) with related reforms, changing local economic and social conditions, stability of resources over time, changes in state and federal priorities, and expressed demands of particular stakeholder groups. Some of these factors are predictable, others are not. Yet, recognizing how these kinds of factors affect implementation is essential if practitioners are to create real change and policy makers at all levels are to encourage and support it. To expect significant change with respect to Tech Prep or STW in a short time period of on a set timetable is simply not realistic.
On the other hand, there are some predominant patterns in the way Tech Prep implementation has occurred, largely due to the limited prescription provided by the Tech Prep Education Act since few states enforced additional requirements (Layton & Bragg, 1992). Most consortia used initial funding to build an administrative structure and hire a coordinator. This individual took responsibility for creating a sort of "virtual" organizational structure called a consortium made up of the leadership of local secondary schools, a community college, businesses, labor, and sometimes other groups. Articulation agreements and all they entail (e.g., curriculum or course review and realignment) were typically the next step to formulating the core sequence of the Tech Prep curriculum. Unfortunately, these agreements usually applied to the vocational curriculum and much less often to the academic.
On the academic side, consortia sought help in the form of off-the-shelf applied academics curriculum to initiative activity around the integration of academic and vocational education--almost completely at the secondary level. Later, they may have provided small incentives for teachers to develop their own applied academics courses or other forms of integration at either the secondary or postsecondary levels. When this was done, leadership for Tech Prep may have been decentralized to some degree with monies oriented to a school-based coordinator to oversee special projects funded by Tech Prep, seemingly lessening the need for a full-time coordinator for the "virtual" organization, the consortium. When this occurred, the evolution of Tech Prep often became less predictable. Depending upon the local (school) context and needs, priorities may have been directed to career guidance and counseling, education/business partnerships and work-based learning for students, elementary or middle-school career exploration, and so forth. If STW was underway within a state, these priorities took on greater priority.
[16] Respondents were asked to rate the level of implementation of each of these components on a five-point scale where 1 = not begun, 2 = planning, 3 = development, 4= initial implementation, and 5 = advanced implementation. Responses were analyzed with frequency distributions, means and standard deviations.