![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
The issues these consortia face, as observed early in their program development, merit discussion now because these issues will face consortia throughout the country. In addition, they may have some bearing on refinement of federal policy, as well as state and local decisions and priorities. This final chapter contributes to such deliberations by raising and exploring six key questions about the direction of Tech-Prep:
Tech-Prep implementation strategies are far more diverse, however. This diversity raises the question of whether federal policy should promote a particular interpretation of Tech-Prep or continue to support multiple approaches. Elements of the early Tech-Prep model--such as technical preparation, programs of study with a particular career focus, career awareness activities, applied academics, and concentration on middle-quartile students--are emphasized to quite varying degrees by different consortia. The consortia have also adopted diverse views about who is a "Tech-Prep student." Some consortia have made a deliberate decision not to identify Tech-Prep students. For those that identify Tech-Prep students, the definitions vary. Some consortia include any student who takes an applied academics course, and others include all students who take articulated vocational courses. Others include only students engaged in more comprehensive occupationally focused programs of study that delineate their academic and vocational courses in high school and community college, as envisioned by Parnell (Silverberg and Hershey 1994). Some consortia contend that Tech-Prep students can only be identified after they have successfully completed at least part of the educational path to a career--for example, when they matriculate to a community college.
To some extent, these target population definitions and implementation approaches reflect different stages of development. Some consortia start to implement Tech-Prep by articulating individual vocational courses and consider students who take such courses "Tech-Prep students." Later, these same consortia may identify sequences of existing secondary and postsecondary vocational courses relating to specific career directions and amend their definition of Tech-Prep participation to match their capacity to guide students into these sequences. Still later, consortia may develop curricula that weave occupationally relevant material into academic skill instruction. Some consortia, of course, may approach full implementation of their program vision more quickly, if some Tech-Prep components had already been created before Title IIIE funding was received. If consortia are at different stages in an evolutionary process, we are likely at any given time to observe what appear to be quite different implementation approaches.
Variation in Tech-Prep implementation, however, also reflects real differences in opinion about what purposes and which students should be served by Tech-Prep. Some educators view the features associated with Tech-Prep as potentially benefiting all students; others consider Tech-Prep most appropriate for certain groups. Some consortia appear to have made conscious strategic decisions about the target population for Tech-Prep. In other cases, local circumstances and the origin of Tech-Prep grants in vocational education legislation seem to have precluded consideration of the target population issue. We have identified three implementation models that correspond to three different targeting objectives, each with its advantages and disadvantages:
The Selective Occupations Model. In the selective occupations model, consortia implement a few thoroughly defined Tech-Prep programs of study, usually for high-tech occupations. Business and industry representatives are typically active partners in choosing the occupations and structuring the program. Students are selected carefully, although not strictly on the basis of grades, to maximize their chances of success in the math and science courses (which are typically more rigorous than what they might otherwise have taken). This model has been endorsed by such states as Ohio and West Virginia and is typified in the Dayton and Logan in-depth study sites.
This focus on structured programs in just a few high-technology occupations has some important advantages:
However, it remains uncertain whether consortia implementing this model can involve more than a small number of students without sacrificing program quality. Program quality might be compromised, for example, if the consortia expanded Tech-Prep into less technology-oriented occupations, if they became less selective in choosing students, or if an increase in the number of participating students undermined the cohesiveness of their programs of study because of course scheduling problems.
Upgrading Vocational Education. Other consortia have chosen to upgrade vocational education in general, hoping to affect most or all students who choose vocational education programs by improving their academic skill attainment and encouraging them to continue to postsecondary education. Consortia that adopt this approach, such as those in Springfield and Hartford, focus on articulation and guiding vocational students into suitable applied academic courses when possible. Under this model, students may not identify closely with Tech-Prep or feel part of a special new program, because the major choice they face is still between college-prep and a vocational track or school. Their vocational courses and their applied academic classes may differ somewhat from classes they would have taken in the past, but most likely in ways that the students cannot readily identify as part of a new, higher-status program.
Viewing Tech-Prep as a way to upgrade vocational education has some benefits. The originally anticipated technical focus of Tech-Prep is achieved most naturally in technically oriented vocational programs. The students enrolled in particular vocational programs provide natural groupings of students for whom efforts to integrate academic and vocational instruction can be made.
However, this approach also faces some constraints. Trying to adjust master schedules so that all vocational students can take applied academic courses can be very difficult, as shown by the experience of several study sites. Despite the development of articulation agreements, parents, students, and employers may not perceive that students are enrolled in anything different or special, particularly when Tech-Prep efforts are aimed broadly at all vocational programs rather than a select few. Consortia that adopt this strategy may thus find that even improved vocational programs and their students have difficulty escaping the stigma often associated with vocational education.
One approach to offsetting this potential weakness is linking the upgrading of vocational education with an emphasis on technology education for all students. In the Gainesville consortium and in one school in the Springfield consortium, elaborate technology centers have been opened that provide stimulating, engaging opportunities for students to explore a wide range of technical fields. In Gainesville, the technology center course is an elective for middle school students and attracts a wide range of students. In the Springfield consortium school, all vocational students take an introductory technology course at the center, but the course is also taken as an elective by others, and has generated favorable publicity for vocational programs.
Systemwide Reform. Consortia that apply this model (such as Salem and Fresno) reject the idea that Tech-Prep should be targeted to any particular group. Instead, they contend that programs of study, career development activities, and applied approaches to instruction should be available to all students. Consortium staff envision that, when their plan is fully implemented, all high school students will select a program of study or career cluster suited to their general career interests, and applied learning techniques will be incorporated into academic curricula for students of all ability levels.
In the short term, however, these principles are extremely difficult to realize. Vocational courses may be the only distinction of occupational focus among programs of study at the secondary level, and even that distinction may not always be clear, because vocational courses are often an option rather than a requirement. Despite ambitions to bring more applied instructional approaches to all students, applied academics principles may be most evident in a few courses offered as alternatives to traditional academic courses, rather than being infused into all classes. However, applied academic classes in these communities are likely to attract a wider range of students than under the other two models, because they are open to any student. Although most students taking these courses come from vocational programs or the general education track, high-achieving students may also choose them--taking Principles of Technology in 10th grade, for example, as preparation for Advanced Placement physics. As a result, applied academic instruction may neither be focused on a core of "program participants" nor truly affect all students.
This model also raises questions about the aim of federal policy and whether this approach uses Tech-Prep resources as envisioned in the federal legislation. Rather than improving vocational education directly and focusing on technical fields, as envisioned in the Title IIIE legislation, the Tech-Prep development effort may be diffused over the full student population, and the impact of this broad reform strategy on the experiences of individual students may be quite limited for some years to come.
-###-
[2. How Central Is Articulation to Tech-Prep Development?]