![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Evaluation capabilities at the local level will determine the feasibility of implementing federal performance measures. Establishing consistent performance measures will require that consortia be able to identify which students are in Tech-Prep, and track and report on the students' progress. To date, slightly more than one-third of the consortia are able to identify Tech-Prep participants, and there is some indication that, as other consortia develop further, they, too, will be able to identify participants. However, the extent to which these and other consortia can collect data on student participation and outcomes will ultimately influence how likely performance measures are to be adopted and routinely reported.
Most consortia at least have a plan for evaluating Tech-Prep. Sixty-nine percent of the consortia reported plans for evaluating the implementation and outcomes of Tech-Prep, but this proportion varies widely across states. In nine states, between 80 and 100 percent of the consortia reported having such plans, but in ten states, fewer than half of the consortia reported such plans. Older and newer consortia were equally likely to have plans.
Most consortia report they are planning to develop or are already implementing a Tech-Prep student database. Intentions to create computer systems with Tech-Prep data are relatively high. More than three-fourths of all consortia report that they expect to develop or have already developed a computerized database containing information on individual Tech-Prep students. Consortia that are testing or implementing student databases include standard transcript data more often than any other type of information--usually academic and vocational courses taken or completed, and grades attained.
Although most consortia are planning to develop Tech-Prep student databases, relatively few actually had done so by fall 1993. Older grantees were more likely to have either partially or fully implemented computer files with data on Tech-Prep students than were more recent grantees (19 percent versus 7 percent, respectively). In both groups of grantees, however, significantly more consortia were still in the planning stage (58 percent overall). Sixty-three percent of the consortia that had at least partially implemented a database also had begun to identify and report on Tech-Prep participation.
If expectations for student databases are fulfilled, state and federal collection of data on Tech-Prep will be more easily achieved. However, unless consortia accompany their efforts to develop databases with efforts to develop programs and definitions enabling them to identify students who are considered in Tech-Prep, computer systems alone will be ineffective.
Program data collection has focused mostly on informal discussion with staff. Almost all consortia are engaged in some type of information gathering about program implementation, regardless of the status of their evaluation plans or student databases. To obtain information, most consortia have relied on informal discussions with staff, rather than collecting individual student data. Seventy-two percent of the consortia reported holding small group discussions with consortium staff or governing board members, or with teachers and counselors. In contrast, about one-third held small group discussions with Tech-Prep students, and about one-fourth conducted surveys or abstracted data from records on aggregate outcomes of Tech-Prep students in consortium districts. Fewer than 50 percent of consortia that are nearing implementation of a database reported that they are already collecting data on individual Tech-Prep students for analysis.
Local coordinators see several continuing obstacles to effective Tech-Prep implementation. The most pervasive problems facing Tech-Prep programs are funding and attitudes. Negative attitudes toward vocational education and/or Tech-Prep and a lack of staff, time, and money for Tech-Prep at the secondary level were most frequently cited as serious problems--by more than two-thirds of consortium coordinators. Consortia also continue to have difficulty integrating vocational and academic education to create programs of study for Tech-Prep students; almost 60 percent cited this as a major obstacle to Tech-Prep implementation. Undoubtedly contributing to this difficulty are such factors as insufficient collaboration between vocational and academic educators and difficulties in defining and revising curricula (cited as a barrier by 37 percent and 44 percent of coordinators, respectively).
Class scheduling conflicts also affect student participation in programs of study. To implement a sequence of related, integrated academic and vocational courses, class schedules must be configured so that students can actually enroll in the relevant courses. However, almost half of consortium coordinators cited class scheduling constraints or conflicts as a significant barrier to Tech-Prep implementation. Some of these scheduling difficulties may reflect the newness of the program and a lack of full support for Tech-Prep by school administrators. Cost might also be a factor. Administrators who might be willing to offer a vocational course to a limited number of enrollees might be reluctant to set aside or schedule special academic courses for these few students, because doing so may not be cost effective.
Many local coordinators are pleased with business/industry involvement, articulation progress, state-level support, and local collaboration. Only about a quarter of all consortia reported a lack of business and industry involvement in Tech-Prep as an obstacle to implementation, and nearly half reported that getting employers involved was one of their major areas of success. Almost three-fourths of the consortia had signed new articulation agreements within the two years preceding the survey, and almost 70 percent of the coordinators cited articulation agreements as one of the most successful aspects of Tech-Prep implementation. Nearly half of the consortium coordinators reported positively on the high degree of state-level involvement in and support of Tech-Prep.
Finally, it is worth noting that local coordinators generally considered local collaboration to be an important accomplishment of their Tech-Prep initiatives. To be sure, 30 to 40 percent of local coordinators cited vocational educators' resistance to change, lack of local administrator support, and lack of collaboration between secondary and postsecondary educators or between vocational and academic educators as major implementation problems. At the same time, however, more than three-fourths of local coordinators consider administrative support for Tech-Prep to be a successful feature of their Tech-Prep planning and implementation, and more than three-fourths also reported collaboration between secondary and postsecondary educators as a successful feature.
-###-
[ I. Introduction]