Description: Tags: Naveiap
Description: Tags: Naveiap
Description: Tags: Naveiap
Learning,
and Choice
Career and Technical Education
Works for Students and Employers
Report of the
NAVE Independent Advisory Panel
June 2004
write to: Paul Cole, c/o New York State AFL-CIO, 100 S. Swan Street, Albany, NY 12210-1939;
or call 518-436-8516
This report is also available on the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of
Vocational Education Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nave/index.html
Preface
This report of the NAVE Independent
Advisory Panel fulfills an important
obligation under the 1998 Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act (Perkins III). Perkins III
directed the Secretary of Education to complete an “independent evaluation and
assessment of vocational and technical education programs under this Act”
(Section 114(c)(3)). The law also directed the Secretary to appoint an
Independent Advisory Panel to provide advice on conducting this National
Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE). Such a panel was selected in mid-
1999 and included employers, secondary school and district administrators, rep-
resentatives of postsecondary institutions, state directors of vocational education
at both the secondary and postsecondary levels, union representatives, educa-
tion and workforce development policy experts, and researchers with experience
in relevant fields.
The panel met on seven occasions to (1) identify the key policy and research
questions NAVE was to address, (2) review the analytic framework and study
designs, and (3) receive and help interpret results from NAVE analyses, including
those described in the NAVE final report already transmitted to Congress.
Perkins III required the panel to submit to Congress and the Secretary of
Education its own independent analysis of NAVE findings and recommenda-
tions. This report contains that independent analysis, and the judgments
expressed in it are solely those of the panel and do not represent the views of
the NAVE authors or the U.S. Department of Education.
iii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Independent Advisory Panel
Gene Bottoms
Senior Vice President
Southern Regional Education Board Stephen F. Hamilton
Professor of Human Development
Cornell University
Betsy Brand
Co-Director
American Youth Policy Forum James Jacobs
Director, Center for Workforce Development
and Policy
Macomb Community College
Paul F. Cole*
Secretary-Treasurer
New York State AFL-CIO
Mark D. Milliron
President
League for Innovation in the Community
Jack Jennings College
Director
Center on Education Policy
Naomi Nightingale*
Principal
Dale Kalkofen Nightingale & Associates
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction
Chesterfield County Public Schools
Katharine M. Oliver
Assistant State Superintendent
Christopher T. King Maryland State Department of Education
Director of the Ray Marshall Center for
the Study of Human Resources
University of Texas at Austin
Robert A. Runkle
Administrative Director
Berks Career & Technology Center
Joanna Kister
State Director of Career-Technical and
Adult Education (Retired)
Ohio Department of Education Ellen O’Brien Saunders
Executive Director
Washington State Workforce Training and
Education Coordinating Board
Russ McCampbell*
Assistant Commissioner for Vocational
and Adult Education (Retired)
Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education
*Panel Co-chairpersons.
vi
Earning, Twenty years ago, A Nation
at Risk called upon schools
and Choice
Career and Technical Education
threatening American com-
petitiveness and living stan-
Works for Students and Employers dards. Arguing that access to
well-paying jobs increasing-
ly would depend on strong academic and technical skills, the report recom-
mended that all teachers expect more of their students and that all high school
students take the New Basics curriculum of at least four credits in English, three
credits each in mathematics, science, and social studies, and a half credit in
computer science. Responding to the report, many states increased academic
course graduation requirements and introduced a minimum competency test
requirement for receiving the high school diploma.
Career and technical education, which was also subject to criticism for not
providing sufficient academic fundamentals, had to respond as well. The Carl
D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Act of 1990 focused on integrating aca-
demic and vocational proficiencies, and the 1998 Perkins Act made rigorous
academic standards and accountability additional priorities for career and
technical education.
Career and technical education (CTE), a formal part of American education since
the first federal vocational education law was passed in 1917, has changed not
only in response to the education reform movement but also to changes in our
nation’s economy. CTE now is increasingly linked to high academic standards
as well as particularly responsive to our nation’s need for a labor force better
prepared with the diverse skills required for our knowledge-based economy. In
addition to significantly enhancing students’ earnings, CTE expands their
opportunities for learning, careers, and further education.
1
2
Earning, Learning, and Choice
These are the key messages we wish to convey as the congressionally mandated
Independent Advisory Panel to the National Assessment of Vocational Education
(NAVE). Our 22-member panel includes state and local career and technical educa-
tion leaders at the secondary and postsecondary levels, business and labor leaders,
academics, and workforce development professionals. The panel was charged by
the 1998 Carl D. Perkins legislation with providing independent advice to the
secretary of education on implementing NAVE and reporting to the Congress
on “ . . . the issues addressed, the methodology of the studies involved, and the
findings and recommendations resulting” from it [Section 114 (c)(2)]. The panel
has met seven times since it was selected in 1999 and has drawn on the findings
of NAVE, as well as other research and its members’ own experience and expertise,
in articulating the ideas and recommendations presented in this paper.
We are united around three large and important conclusions: First, CTE “works”
by increasing earnings for students. Second, the changes that have been initiated
under the Perkins Act are aligning CTE with the school reform movement and
raising academic standards for CTE students. And third, CTE provides students
with choices for how to learn and which careers and postsecondary education
options to pursue.
1Rates of return describe the annual payoff, usually over a number of years, of an investment or
one-time cost. Because they compare benefits to costs, rates of return characterize the payoff of CTE
in a way that is independent of how many courses a student takes.
3
Earning, Learning, and Choice
the investment in CTE are equally high when students take only two or three
courses. Millions of high school students who take several career and technical
courses reap this short- and medium-term benefit. In addition, given the fact
that 37 percent of America’s three million annual high school graduates go
directly to work after receiving their diplomas, it
is critical that they be prepared for the labor
market. opportunities
In addition to significantly
Since most students work to put themselves
enhancing students’
through college, the skills learned in CTE courses earnings, CTE expands
can help them pay for their higher education. their opportunities for
This is one reason why more than 50 percent of
those who complete a CTE concentration in
learning, careers, and
high school are able to attend college and persist further education.
long enough to obtain at least a two-year degree
or certificate. In addition, because CTE is more likely to benefit those students
who are less well served by strictly academic classes, these students are more
likely to stay in school learning productive skills than to drop out and potentially
burden the welfare or criminal justice systems.
Thus, at both the secondary and postsecondary levels, CTE plays an important
role in advancing economic opportunity and social equity. In contrast to the
mixed results of many other initiatives intended to improve earnings and well-
being among disadvantaged populations in the United States—including short-
term adult training programs—CTE stands virtually alone in having an unam-
biguously positive economic effect.
Indeed, CTE students have been closing the gap with academic students. CTE
programs have led the way toward increasing the number and rigor of academic
courses required. As a result, the number of academic courses taken by occupa-
tional concentrators increased by nearly 30 percent from 1982 to 1998 without
a corresponding decline in the number of CTE courses taken. During the same
period, the number of CTE students completing the New Basics curriculum has
risen from 5 percent to 46 percent. Today, 26 percent of CTE concentrators
take trigonometry, pre-calculus, and other advanced math courses, compared
to 42 percent of other students. The proportion of U.S. students successfully
completing both college prep and vocational concentrations in high school
has risen from 1 percent in 1982 to 7 percent in 1998.
The types of CTE courses that students are taking are also changing in response
to employers’ growing knowledge and skill demands. Since 1982, enrollments in
traditional fields such as auto mechanics have been declining, while health-care
courses have more than tripled their enrollment, and communications and
information technology have nearly quintupled their enrollment. Rather than a
low road to a high school diploma, CTE is now a rigorous and rewarding means
5
Earning, Learning, and Choice
of acquiring the academic and technical learning that meets the high standards
required for both productive employment and further education.
This greater emphasis on academics has produced quantifiable results. The test
score gap between CTE concentrators and other students is closing. For example,
reading scores of CTE concentrators rose by nearly a
grade equivalent on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) scale2 between 1994
results
Students have demonstrated
and 1998, according to NAVE.
significant increases in
CTE keeps students engaged in learning, as data academic course taking,
show that the option of taking CTE courses reduces test score results, and
the probability of dropping out of high school.
college matriculation.
Without this option, more young people would be
left behind.
Another sign of the increased academic proficiency of CTE students is the fact
that college attendance among CTE students increased by 32 percent between
1982 and 1992, keeping pace with increases in postsecondary attendance among
all students. Nearly half of vocational concentrators go on to college, compared
to 64 percent of college prep students. The articulation agreements linking high
schools and community colleges that were encouraged by tech prep and other
initiatives have made CTE a bridge between secondary and postsecondary educa-
tion. In fact, high school CTE programs increasingly serve as a pipeline to com-
munity colleges.
In short, CTE students have opted for more academic rigor in their studies and
have remained engaged in their learning.
2National Assessment of Educational Progress, the test that is popularly known as “the Nation’s
Report Card.”
6
Earning, Learning, and Choice
marketable skills that Most European countries offer a very broad range of
meet industry-recognized CTE programs that attract a majority of upper secondary
skill standards. school students. Because of the greater number of CTE
options offered there, secondary school graduation rates
and proportions of 15- to 19-year-olds attending school or college are higher in
Europe than in the United States.
7
Earning, Learning, and Choice
CTE also allows students to explore career options and clarify career goals. CTE
promotes learning in workplaces through internships, job shadowing, coopera-
tive education, and apprenticeships. More students now gain some work experi-
ence as part of their high school program—31.6 percent in 1998 compared to
28.3 percent in 1990, NAVE reports. High school sen-
iors describe CTE classes and related work experience
as very helpful to them in clarifying their career options
CTE prepares students
goals.
for a variety of
At both the secondary and postsecondary levels, CTE postsecondary options,
courses enable students to develop marketable skills including higher education,
that meet industry-recognized skill standards. As a
skilled employment, and
result, students can earn credentials or certificates
that are valuable for career placement and advance- lifelong learning.
ment. Youths and adults gain occupational skills
through secondary and postsecondary education more efficiently and without
the stigma often attached to remedial employment training programs. As a
result, high school CTE has a much higher rate of return than second-chance
programs such as Jobs Corps.
Recommendations
While today’s career and technical education is clearly providing meaningful ben-
efits to millions of American students, it can be improved so that our education
system successfully prepares our young people for rewarding careers and helps our
nation’s workforce be the best trained and most productive in the world.
What would such programs look like? A CTE program of study is a multi-year
sequence of courses that integrates core academic knowledge with technical and
occupational knowledge leading to higher levels of skill attainment and whose
curriculum is organized around a unifying career theme. Such a program of
study provides students with a pathway to postsecondary education and a career
by detailing academic and occupational competencies needed for advancement
and by providing a series of related courses. Programs of study must provide
articulated pathways between the high school and postsecondary curricula and
help students move efficiently into college and careers.3
Programs of study can take several forms. They resemble or are found in career
clusters, career academies, tech prep programs, small learning communities, and
small schools. Secondary students in CTE programs of study take a core academ-
ic curriculum that is strong in literacy development, numeracy, and science,
together with a concentration of electives in a broad career area.
3See Brand, Betsy, “Rigor and Relevance: A New Vision for Career and Technical Education”
(American Youth Policy Forum, 2003).
9
Earning, Learning, and Choice
Rigor cannot be assured when there is limited accountability for CTE program
outcomes. As NAVE indicates, there is considerable inconsistency of measure-
ment across and within states, and measurements often are not tied to outcomes
of interest. Overarching assessments such as NAVE are important to get a
national picture, but CTE has suffered from a dearth of research that evaluates
local promising practices aimed at the broader goal of developing well-educated,
highly trained citizens and workers.
and comparing outcomes across and within states, the federal government
should support states in developing meaningful data collection systems for
career and technical education that are coordinated with the accountability sys-
tems required by No Child Left Behind. One way to do this would be to develop
means by which income gains can be measured and
support
In addition to supporting
linked to specific degrees earned.
Because teachers are such a vital part of the learning process, federal funding
and policy should foster the improvement of CTE teachers’ academic skills. CTE
teacher training in math, science, English, and other subjects, as well as the
integration of academic teachers into contextual CTE foundation skills programs,
would go a long way to enhance the academic rigor of career and technical edu-
cation. Professional development should ensure depth of content knowledge;
provide a strong foundation in pedagogy; be rooted in best available practices;
contribute to measurable improvement in student achievement; provide suffi-
cient time, support, and resources to enable teachers to master new content and
pedagogy, and integrate these into their practice; and provide opportunities for
CTE and academic teachers to plan jointly.
The federal role should be to support state and local CTE leaders as they develop,
institute, and promote the improvements called for in this paper and in the
NAVE report itself. Because previous NAVE reports and other research have
demonstrated the importance of effective state leadership in promoting curricu-
lum integration, secondary-postsecondary articula-
tion, and other Perkins reforms, states should have
considerable latitude in designing systems and ini- improvement
Because teachers are such
tiatives that meet the legislation’s goals. Thus, the
federal government should reinforce and support
a vital part of the learning
the states’ role in reforming CTE, as long as states process, federal funding
are held accountable for making these reforms. and policy should foster
The federal government can also help CTE programs
the improvement of CTE
improve their connections to employers through teachers’ academic skills.
support of industry-endorsed skill standards and
assessments and by providing better, more updated labor market demand data.
In addition, because students consistently report that college and career planning
activities in high school are helpful, the federal government should support efforts
to improve career guidance and counseling services.
12
Earning, Learning, and Choice
Conclusion
By promoting a new, more rigorous vision for career and technical education,
the federal government can have a profound influence on how state and local
funds are spent and how millions of students are educated.
Federal support for CTE signals the priorities that national policy-makers want
for career and technical education. Legislation can specify that funded programs
should not only develop students’ occupational skills to meet challenging
standards but also contribute to students’ academic improvement. In addition,
federal legislation can direct secondary school CTE programs to encourage
13
Earning, Learning, and Choice
The federal government is also able to distance itself from state and local poli-
cies that inhibit reform and to help promote equal access by providing funding
targeted to low-income communities. National leaders can play a vital role in
coordinating policies and funding among the many federal initiatives designed
to improve our people’s skills and well-being—ranging from the No Child Left
Behind Act and the Higher Education Act to the Workforce Investment Act and
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Federal
funding is also important for ensuring a focus on vision
We need to combine our
results because accountability requirements mean
that federally funded CTE programs must demon- humanistic values with an
strate continuous improvement if they are to con- awareness of educational
tinue to receive federal support.
and labor force realities
If we truly want to leave no child behind academi- and a recognition that
cally or economically, we need to combine our one-size-does-not-fit-all.
humanistic values with an awareness of educational
and labor force realities and a recognition that one-size-does-not-fit-all. We need
young people who are able to gain the very best academic skills. While 65 to 70
percent of American youths do not go on to receive four-year degrees, and a
commensurate number of jobs do not require such degrees, we do not do as well
in ensuring that our millions of students are literate, numerate, civic-minded,
and prepared for careers after 12 or 14 years of education. Finally, the hundreds
of thousands of young people who do not graduate from high school or are at
risk of dropping out are at risk of being excluded from the American Dream
unless we concentrate our efforts to engage them in their education. As we
look ahead to new federal CTE legislation, it is this vision of a reformed career
and technical education that we hold up. It is one in which academic rigor and
real-world relevance, buttressed by strong accountability, combine to provide
expanded opportunity for millions of young Americans.