A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Definition Of A Tech-Prep Student

How consortia define Tech-Prep participation potentially affects program image, student morale, and performance reporting. Generally, consortia take one of two very different approaches to defining participation. On the one hand, some consortia believe Tech-Prep should not be considered a distinct program because it will lead inevitably to the stigma associated with "tracking," particularly of vocational students. Consortia following this approach may not differentiate students in Tech-Prep from the general student population or may count students as in Tech-Prep if they happen to take any of the courses considered fundamental to the Tech-Prep initiative (for example, articulated vocational courses). Students, however, are unaware of their participation in a "program." On the other hand, some consortia view Tech-Prep as a true program; students apply for admission, enroll, and participate in a defined set of activities that set them apart from other students. These consortia often consider a cohesive Tech-Prep program to have the added benefit of allowing students to feel that they are part of something special, and may encourage students to wear Tech-Prep logos or take them on special field trips to reinforce this attitude. Regardless of the approach used to identify Tech-Prep students, developing a concrete definition of participation allows consortia to count Tech-Prep students and to track their outcomes--capabilities that are important for reporting to state and federal agencies interested in the progress of Tech-Prep reforms.

The challenges consortia face in defining Tech-Prep participation depend on how the program is organized. When Tech-Prep is not viewed as a distinctive program, consortia often make components broadly available and students take advantage of or participate in these components--courses or activities--at different points and different levels of intensity. Under these circumstances consortia are likely to find it more difficult to identify which students are in Tech-Prep at a given time. If Tech-Prep is organized as a cohesive program with a defined set of required courses, it is easier to identify participants. Some consortia may begin implementing Tech-Prep as an unconnected set of courses, but over time begin to define programs of study and determine the individual components that should be part of the core program experience.

Data from the national survey reveal the variation in Tech-Prep program organization, as reflected in the definitions of participation. The myriad of ways in which consortia defined a Tech-Prep student--even constrained by the response categories in the questionnaire--suggest real differences in implementation approach and priorities, and probably stages of development. Discussions with local coordinators in the in-depth study and other sites suggest that many consortia had not previously had to determine how they would identify and count Tech-Prep participants, either because they had not yet enrolled students or because state agencies had not required them to report. In many cases, the national survey acted as a catalyst for constructing a definition of Tech-Prep participation.

To document how consortia define Tech-Prep participation, we asked coordinators to report the minimum criteria necessary for a student to be counted as "in Tech-Prep." We asked only for the minimum in order to differentiate the core program (the full set of activities in which students would eventually be engaged) from the manner in which students are identified and counted as "entering" Tech-Prep. Coordinators were asked to document the combination of criteria they use to identify the students in Tech-Prep. A list of criteria for defining participation was specified that overlapped with some elements of core programs: (1) student explicitly elects Tech-Prep as a path, major, track, or program; (2) student completes an individual student plan; (3) student takes or completes one or more vocational courses; and (4) student takes or completes one or more applied academic courses.

Most consortia report a definition of Tech-Prep participation

More established consortia are more likely to have a definition for identifying Tech-Prep students. Three-fourths of the consortia that received their first Title IIIE grant in FY 1992 reported having a definition for participation, compared with 59 percent of those that received their first grant in FY 1993 (Figure V.5).

Applied academic classes and vocational classes are common elements of the definition of a Tech-Prep student

Linking applied academic and vocational courses has been identified in the literature as a key element of Tech-Prep programs (Silverberg 1993). Many consortia reported including participation in both applied academic and vocational course work in their definitions of participation. Almost 200 (44 percent) of the consortia that reported a definition for counting Tech-Prep students included both elements. About half of these (106) reported a definition that also includes explicitly choosing Tech-Prep as a path, and completing a student plan--the definition that comes closest to the program model promoted by Hull and Parnell. This definition also best represents the concept of participating in a defined program of study--one of the objectives of Title IIIE of the Perkins legislation.

Some consortia defined participation more narrowly than their core program. For example, 46 of the 208 consortia that reported that applied academic courses were part of their core Tech-Prep program did not include participation in these classes in their minimum definition of a Tech-Prep student. Similarly, 76 of the 253 consortia that included vocational course taking in the definition of the core program did not include it in the definition of participation. It is also possible, of course, that despite instructions in the questionnaire, consortia described elements of their core programs that have not been fully implemented. In reporting their criteria for counting Tech-Prep students, consortia may be more likely to rely on components that were already implemented.

Many consortia receive state guidance on definitions of Tech-Prep participation

Communication between state and local coordinators about the state's guidance is often unclear, however. At least some local coordinators in 41 states reported using a definition of participation established by their state, which suggests that at least some interpreted general state guidance as a directive. On the other hand, where states are trying to establish a consistent statewide definition of participation, it is inconsistently understood. In only 12 of the 18 states that had developed a participation definition and mandated its use did more than 75 percent of the consortia report they used it.
-###-

[Definition Of A Core Program]

[VI. Participation In Tech-Prep Programs]