![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Most consortia report models for Tech-Prep that begin earlier and extend later than required under the federal law applicable in 1993, which called for a "2+2" program. In fall 1993, 60 percent of consortia reported that they were working toward a Tech-Prep model that includes 10th grade or 9th and 10th grade. Of those including the early years of high school, 37 percent (22 percent of all consortia) claimed also to offer program components in middle school. Almost two-thirds of all consortia reported that their program design includes options for transfers from community colleges to four-year colleges. These reports probably reflect diverging views of what should be included under the Tech-Prep label. For example, some consortia may consider new career exposure activities for all 8th-graders as a Tech-Prep component, while others view these activities as simply an improvement to the overall career guidance system. Similarly, pre-existing articulation agreements allowing transfer of credits from community colleges to four-year colleges may be seen by some coordinators as part of an overall Tech-Prep design and not by others.
In most consortia, a defined core program has been adopted by all or some members. About 63 percent of all consortia reported that a core set of activities or courses has been defined and is required for all Tech-Prep students in at least some schools or districts in the consortium--but the survey data suggest that these core activities may not yet be so fully available that they are actually a standard part of all students' programs. In almost half of all consortia, coordinators reported that a core program has been adopted consortium-wide.
About a third of reported core programs were described as mandated by state agencies. On the other hand, many local coordinators are relatively unaware of the core programs that state coordinators say they have mandated. Although 27 state coordinators reported that their state had prescribed at least some features of Tech-Prep, in only three states did the survey show at least a 75 percent rate of local coordinator awareness of a state program definition.
Where local consortia have a defined core program, five features are commonly found. In about three-fourths or more of all consortia that have consortium-wide definitions of a core program, Tech-Prep students are expected to do one or more of the following: (1) develop a plan of study, (2) choose a broad career cluster; (3) take or complete one or more applied academic courses; (4) take required academic or occupational courses related to a career cluster, or take a minimum number of such courses as electives; (5) participate in career awareness/development activities. Workplace activities are reportedly a standard part of Tech-Prep student experiences in about half of the 336 consortia with consortium-wide definitions. These activities are usually low-intensity workplace exposure activities rather than ongoing instruction at a work site.
How consortia or local districts define a core program affects what it means to be a participant in Tech-Prep. Generally, consortia take one of two very different approaches to defining participation. 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.
Most consortia report that they have defined Tech-Prep participation, but these definitions vary widely. In fall 1993, more than 70 percent of the consortia reported having a definition of which secondary students are to be counted as "in Tech-Prep." In about 10 percent of these consortia, each participating school or district determined its own definition. Even consortia that did not report a definition for a core program (that is, lacked a specified set of activities required for all Tech-Prep students) reported having a definition for how to identify and count students. Slightly fewer than half (117) of the 256 consortia that did not have a core program nevertheless reported that they had a definition of 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.
Definitions for identifying and counting Tech-Prep students vary widely. Consortia reported 18 combinations of four criteria for counting participation--students' choice of Tech-Prep as a path, development of a four- or six-year student plan, vocational course taking, and taking applied academics classes. 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 Tech-Prep participation. Similarly, 76 of the 253 consortia that included vocational course taking in the definition of the core program did not include it in their definition of participation. This discrepancy may be due to some tendency for consortia to describe as part of their core program elements that have not been fully implemented, but to take a more immediate and practical approach in defining their method for counting Tech-Prep students, referring only to participation in activities that already exist.
-###-
[Participation in Tech-Prep Programs]