SUMMARY

Since the early 1920s, U.S. high schools have offered a mix of courses--academics, arts, vocational preparation, and physical education--at difficulty levels ranging from low-level introductory or remedial courses to highly demanding academic or technical courses. And since that time, schools have attempted to match students to programs that will accommodate their academic strengths or weaknesses and prepare them for an appropriate slot in the highly differentiated workforce. However, the matching of students to different high school programs has carried with it racial, ethnic, and social-class overtones, with immigrant, poor, and minority youth more often enrolled in low-level academic and vocational training and middle- and upper-class whites more often enrolled in academic, college-preparatory classes.

In the past decade this arrangement has come under fire for its failure to deliver either effective or equitable education. Policymakers and employers have become more and more dissatisfied with the workforce preparation given entry-level workers in the traditional high school and increasingly criticize the academic preparation of students who will attend college. At the same time, the equity of the split curriculum has been called into question by civil rights groups and advocates for low-income children--a concern increasingly shared by mainstream education and policy groups. Although a myriad of reform proposals have been put forward to address the ills of the contemporary high school, some reforms, falling under the rubric "integrated academic and vocational education," attempt to reconstruct the high school curriculum in ways that break down the distinctions between the academic and vocational domains. These reforms are not aimed simply at making vocational education "better" but at developing new programs comprising a rigorous, high status body of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and imparted through multimodal learning, problem solving, and activities lodged in real experience. Such reforms demand fundamental changes in both the structure and the content of the current curriculum. To engender schools' commitment for such reforms and build their capacity to undertake them, policymakers and educators must understand the practices and the assumptions that sustain the current split curriculum.

Most scholars who have studied the differentiated high school curriculum and the sorting patterns associated with it suggest that, for good or ill, they have served important educational and social purposes. Human capital theorists suggest, for example, that schools offer a wide array of opportunities that students can "invest" in as they prepare for different sectors of the workforce, and that the mechanisms for allocating various opportunities within schools are meritocratic (i.e., that placements are based on ability, effort, and achievement rather than race, social-class, or other status characteristics). Others argue that students' access to various curricula is constrained by school structures that interact with students' race and social-class characteristics. The most critical theorists contend that the distribution of curriculum has been used to transmit occupational and social position from one generation to the next.

Such explanations imply that schools act rationally, deliberately, and consistently, even if their procedures appear biased or grounded in educationally irrelevant factors. However, other researchers have pointed to the many irregularities and inconsistencies in schools' curriculum offerings, in the distribution of students among curricula, and in student assignment processes. They claim that these irregularities provide evidence that curriculum offerings and student placements are as affected by organizational contingencies and tradeoffs as they are by predetermined societal intentions or individual choices.

This report describes the results of a two-year effort to understand better the rationale and processes that underlie schools' course offerings and students' coursetaking and draws implications from these for the reform of vocational education.

STUDY METHODS

In the first year's research, we visited three very different comprehensive senior high schools--observing, studying school documents, and talking with educators and students about the curriculum offerings and student assignment practices at their schools. During the second year we analyzed transcripts from students in the 1988 senior class at the three schools to track the effects of these decisions. Taken together, the qualitative and quantitative data permit us to explore the usefulness of prior explanations of the processes and consequences of curriculum decisions and to propose a more comprehensive explanation.

The schools were located in adjacent communities within a major West Coast urban center. Their proximity to one another ensured that they shared local labor market needs, state resource and curriculum policies, and available postsecondary education and training opportunities. However, the schools differed in their student populations. Coolidge[1] served a racially and socioeconomically diverse group of students; Washington students were almost entirely middle- to upper-middle-class white or Asian; and McKinley comprised African Americans and Latinos--many of whom are low-income. These similarities and differences permitted us to raise some preliminary hypotheses about how schools shape their academic and vocational programs as they attempt to serve different groups of students.

Findings from the Field Study

Our schools were very similar in their curriculum offerings and their student assignment practices, yet they varied in important ways. Our field data make clear that all three schools make assumptions about the abilities, aspirations, and educational "needs" of their incoming students. These assumptions guide decisions about what courses to offer and are the basis for well-rationalized and articulated student placement policies. However, these assumptions also relate, in large part, to students' race and family socioeconomic status. These background characteristics, too, play a part in decisions about where to invest discretionary curriculum resources (those not tied to state requirements) and influence decisions about how to place individual students, particularly those on the achievement borderline.

However, we also found that this well-rationalized, if sometimes biased, approach to curriculum and placement decisions was constrained by state graduation requirements (which had a limiting effect on the extent of vocational offerings) and enrollment declines. Further, the day-to-day complexities of managing a large, bureaucratic institution often prevented the schools from carrying out rational decisions fully. Consequently, we found a lack of fidelity between the realities of the curriculum and that envisioned as ideal by the schools' staffs.

However, all schools and students were not affected in the same way. Advantaged Washington High appeared to be more resilient to external forces, perhaps because of community stability or the school's firm and consistent administrative style. McKinley seemed constantly rocked by changing internal policies, limited staff, and inadequate resources. Students in the highest status, academic curriculum at all schools appeared to have the best defined and carefully sequenced programs available and the most stable placement patterns. Those at the very bottom seemed to have access to few coherent programs (especially in their vocational options), but they appeared to experience considerable stability in their placements (especially in their low-level academic courses). School constraints appeared to provide those students in the middle with neither the coherent programs experienced by those at the top nor such stable placements as those found at either the top or the bottom. These students' placements seemed to receive less time and careful planning, either by the students or their counselors. However, when individual placements were made by happenstance, the effect seemed to be lesser rather than greater opportunity. For example, when a counselor needed to fill an empty slot in a student's schedule, unless the student was outstanding or assertive, the placement was far more likely to be in vocational education than in a rigorous academic class. This means that the scheduling process was less likely to optimize the educational program of each student by "stretching" him or her academically and vocationally.

We also found some combined between- and within-school factors that appeared to work to the advantage of the most advantaged students. In smooth running, more academic schools (Washington and Coolidge), high-achieving students (largely white and Asian and middle class) and their parents could exercise their political clout to get the schedules and courses they wanted. Low-achieving students (often non-white or of lower socioeconomic status) and many midrange students appeared less willing to challenge their curriculum placements or to be accommodated when they did. At our least smooth running, least advantaged school, there was less overall opportunity to negotiate changes in course assignments.

Findings from the Transcript Study

We "tested" the validity of our observations about curriculum offerings and students' placements by analyzing the transcripts of the senior class in 1988 at each of the three schools. The transcript analyses substantially bear out what we learned from our interviews and observations at the three schools.

Vocational Coursetaking

Consistent with national patterns, although most students took some vocational education, low-income students and disadvantaged minority students took more such courses, and particularly more occupationally oriented courses, than did whites and middle-class minority students. These differences appear both between and within schools.

Additionally, heavy vocational education participation is partially consistent with the picture that many of our case study respondents painted of vocational education: a program best suited for students who are not expected to be successful in academic programs. Only business courses appear to escape this syndrome. Within all three schools, concentrated vocational education coursetaking was largely, but not entirely, reserved for the least academically able students in the school, as measured by their scores on standardized achievement tests. On average, as achievement scores decreased the likelihood of concentrating on vocational courses increased. However, its relationship with achievement does not fully explain vocational coursetaking, since we find vocational concentrators across a very wide range of achievement at all three schools.

Factors both between and within the schools argue against either student choice or achievement screening as a single explanation for concentrated vocational coursetaking. First, the likelihood of taking a large number of vocational courses is not the same for similar students across the three schools. There are proportionately more vocational course "slots" at low-income, minority McKinley than at the other schools, so that even students in the top of their class have had a greater probability of concentrating on vocational courses there than their counterparts at the more advantaged schools. More important, differences in the number of slots do not correspond neatly to differences in overall achievement levels at the schools.

We also found evidence that race, ethnicity, and social class independent of achievement are related to the variation in vocational participation within schools as well as between them. Students with comparable achievement but from different racial and socioeconomic groups differed considerably in their vocational coursetaking, with the affluent students, Asians, and whites tending to take the fewest vocational courses overall.

Academic Coursetaking

Participation in college-prep math courses also varied among our schools--ranging from 22 percent of the eleventh graders at all-minority McKinley to 45 percent of their counterparts at affluent, white, and Asian Washington. Participation at Coolidge, our most diverse school, fell between the other two.

Participation in college-prep English was higher than in math at all three schools, with almost one out of every two students taking college-prep English in the 11th grade. This higher rate of participation was probably due to the higher English requirement for high school graduation. The comparable rate of participation in college-prep English contrasts sharply with the substantial school differences observed for college-prep math.

Differences in access to college-preparatory coursework appear to have been driven by a number of factors both between and within schools. For example, significant differences exist at both Coolidge and Washington in the college track participation of different racial and ethnic groups. Most notably, over 70 percent of the Asians at the two schools took college-prep math, whereas Latino students participated at a much lower rate than average. In contrast, African American and Latino students at McKinley participated at the same rate in college-prep math. Additionally, those students taking a large number of vocational courses were less likely than others to have completed college-preparatory academic courses.

These patterns cannot be entirely explained by achievement differences. Achievement is highly related to academic course participation, but after controlling for test scores, a student's race/ethnicity was often still important to participation in college-prep math and English. For example, Asian girls and boys at Coolidge were more than ten times as likely as their Latino classmates with the same math and reading scores to be enrolled in college-prep math. Race and ethnicity mattered most at the most diverse school.

We found some between-school differences in students' access to college-preparatory courses that suggest enhanced prospects for participation for students attending lower-achieving, all-minority schools. For example, even though all-minority McKinley had fewer slots available in college-preparatory math, a Latino student at all-minority McKinley was far more likely to take college-prep math than a peer with comparable test scores at the other schools. In sum, if we formed an imaginary queue of students from highest to lowest ability at the schools, a higher percentage of students at the most advantaged school would take college-prep math than at our least advantaged school. However, a student with above-average ability (for example, with percentile scores equal to 80) would have had less than a 50-50 chance of entering the college-prep track at the most advantaged school but would almost certainly have been in the college-prep track at the all-minority school.

THE DYNAMICS OF CURRICULUM AND TRACKING DECISIONS

Together, our findings from our field work and our transcript analyses begin to suggest how the curriculum decisionmaking process works. Without a doubt, the decisionmaking processes produced different placement and coursetaking patterns at each school and for groups of students within each school; these patterns resulted in a sorting of students with different background characteristics into different courses and programs. But there is considerable evidence that all of the schools tried to sort students according to their prior achievement, and much of the racial variation in course placements can be "explained" by students' prior achievement. But the match is not perfect, and some discrepancies relate quite clearly to race and social class. At the same time, the ability of schools to place students by either achievement criteria or on the basis of assumptions related to their race and social class seems to have been limited. We find considerable sloppiness in both patterns, both between our schools and within them.

Setting our qualitative work next to these analyses of student transcripts, we can suggest an eclectic explanation of how schools decide what courses to offer and how to place students in them. Combining elements of earlier theories, this explanation builds on eight propositions that are supported by our data.

1.	Schools judge students' abilities, motivation, and aspirations, and they consider these characteristics relatively fixed by the time students reach high school.
2.	Schools seek to develop and allocate curriculum opportunities in ways that accommodate these student characteristics. The notion that the curriculum might alter students' abilities and motivation is not salient.
3.	Despite considerable curriculum similarity among schools, individual schools tailor their curriculum to their judgments about the characteristics of their student body. Within schools, educators accommodate student differences by assigning them to different levels or types of courses thought to match their different abilities, needs, and future prospects. In both cases, academically able students seem to reap the curriculum benefits of high expectations.
4.	Even as schools attempt to match students to programs and courses according to ability and motivation, students' race, ethnicity, and social class serve to "signal" different ability and motivation and influence students' assignments. Educators usually attribute race- and class-linked curriculum differences to student choice and prior achievement at school. At the same time, they feel considerable ambivalence about the differentiated curriculum and the way it links curriculum opportunities to race and class.
5.	Schools' efforts to provide courses tailored to students' needs are constrained by ideological and structural regularities in the school culture. A strong and widely shared commitment to the idea of the "comprehensive high school" presses schools to divide their curriculum into academic and vocational programs in similar ways at very different schools. At the same time, state policies press schools to skew the curriculum toward academic courses and college preparation. Within the structure that these pressures help create, local policies regarding student assignment work against students' mobility among the programs and courses their schools offer.
6.	Declining resources and demographic shifts also constrain schools' efforts to offer a curriculum that meets their students' needs or to devote much attention to individual students' placements.
7.	Although constraints interfere with the schools' ability to carry out decisions in the ways they would have liked, all schools and students are not affected in the same way. Irregularities in the distribution of curriculum opportunities tend to work to the advantage of the most advantaged students.

Our experiences in the schools and our analysis of the schools' curriculum documents suggest that a complex dynamic underlies curriculum decisions and student placements--one that combines as well as refines elements from previous explanations.

Schools attempt to provide a comprehensive curriculum that includes courses and programs that "fit" the varied needs of their students. Although a "human capital" rationale seems to be most prominent in the minds of educators and is expressed in terms of matching students to curriculum opportunities on the basis of their talents as indicated by their prior school performance (and their preferences, whenever they seem consistent with the schools' judgment about what they can accomplish), schools make less than perfect matches. The considerable sloppiness in the relationship between students' achievement and their enrollment in particular classes can be explained, but only in part, by students' race and social class and the cultural assumptions schools hold about the influence of these characteristics on students' suitability for particular classes. We also find evidence that structural constraints resulting from schools' determination to offer a fairly balanced curriculum, resource and staffing shortages, and policies and practices that limit students' mobility among curriculum tracks contribute to this sloppiness. Students and their parents are not simply passive participants in this process, however. The considerable slack in the system works to the advantage of efficacious parents and students who can often gain placement in classes that would not be recommended by the school. Moreover, admission to high-level academic classes is most tightly controlled, partly out of the fear that ill-prepared or unmotivated students would fail. However, fewer controls are exercised regarding low-level academic classes and vocational courses. Students are less likely to have lower expectations challenged, and those interested in courses at the bottom of the curriculum hierarchy--low-level academics and vocational classes--are more likely to have their choices honored, even if they might succeed in more challenging courses. All of these factors, working together, seem to favor advantaged students.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE REFORM OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Our findings make clear that high school vocational education programs and students' participation in them cannot be understood apart from their role and status relative to the rest of the comprehensive high school curriculum. Similarly, efforts to improve vocational education or to better serve its clients in both academic learning and workforce preparation must also consider the larger context in which these programs exist and compete for resources and status.

The Context of Vocational Education

Among the most striking of our findings was that vocational education commanded very little attention at the three high schools. Neither our examination of the curriculum and coursetaking decisions nor our queries about salient curriculum issues yielded much about vocational education. Rather, academic concerns dominated. Moreover, at all three schools, when we pressed the vocational issue, we encountered similarly negative perceptions of the role and quality of the vocational curriculum, of the faculty who taught those courses, and of the students who took them.

At best the current context for high school vocational education is characterized by benign neglect of its programs and students and at worst by disdain for programs, teachers, and students. In either case, vocational programs are unlikely to receive school-level support or resources for program or staff development or to be perceived as offering exciting curriculum challenges to any but the least motivated and least skilled students. At the same time, these programs are likely to be the first casualties of resource constraints or changes in curriculum polices, and, with the possible exception of business courses, they are often perceived as appropriate only for students with serious academic or behavioral problems.

Prospects for Improvement

Our study, then, suggests a number of obstacles in the culture of schools that will confront reforms aimed at improving vocational education by blurring the distinction between it and the academic curriculum. But it also establishes the strong need for these reforms. It also suggests that educators are eager for a new approach to serving their diverse student bodies.

The Need for Experimentation and Research

Experimentation and research are needed to provide a clearer understanding of the actual processes of developing and implementing integrated academic and vocational curricula. Such projects might focus, for example, on the process of curriculum development--e.g., by bringing together academic and vocational teachers, cognitive psychologists, and curriculum specialists to design programs. Other work might consider implementation of such curricula--e.g., by examining schools where teachers or administrators are attempting to introduce, develop, and sustain the concept of integration. Although both of these lines of work would of necessity focus on specific curricula, teachers, and schools, their major contribution should be generic--developing and implementing integrated curricula applicable in a variety of subjects and schools.

We recommend that schools press forward with experimentation and the evaluation of possibilities relating to a "strong" version of integrated academic and vocational education. Reconstruction of the high school curriculum seems to provide the best hope for overcoming the unfriendly disposition toward vocational education and the unwarranted assumptions about vocational students. A curriculum split into academic and vocational halves seems to be fundamental to current educational troubles--not only in vocational education but in educational quality and equity more generally. As long as this split is maintained, vocational educators will be consigned in large part to acting out the belief that some children, often those who are poor and minority, are unable to learn the things most valued by schools and society.

The Need for More "Good" Schools

However, the problems identified in this report stem as much from a shortage of good schools as from an uneven distribution of opportunity within schools. Consequently, solving these problems will require a serious effort by school systems to expand the supply of challenging academic courses and to think of vocational education as providing the knowledge and skills needed by high-performing sectors of the labor market. Then, schools must learn to use the placement process to expand, not limit, students' academic and vocational opportunities.

[1]We have kept confidential the identity and location of each school and the identity of all individuals with whom we spoke. The names we have assigned to the three schools are pseudonyms.