This week, the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education released the long-awaited final report of the National Assessment of Career and Technical Education (NACTE). You may remember that an interim report came out in 2013, with major findings on student course-taking patterns that increasingly balance CTE and academics.
As noted in the NACTE, the report cannot shed light on the effectiveness of Perkins IV and programs of study (POS), only on early implementation, as the NACTE evaluation period covered only the early stages of Perkins IV. In addition, most of the data from other sources and the original research on CTE outcomes cited in the report are from before Perkins IV.
Programs of study: Through surveys conducted in 2009, the researchers found that states were playing a larger role in developing POS at the secondary level and postsecondary institutions at the postsecondary level. In addition, at the time, compliance with POS as outlined in the law had not been fully realized (not surprising this early in the new provisions’ implementation), particularly the need to ensure that courses are nonduplicative.
Accountability: The good news is that the majority of states have been meeting 90 percent of their targets for most indicators. However, the authors question the validity of some of the state data on student outcomes and the value of the Perkins academic achievement indicators, since they are often administered before students reach concentrator status. These are issues that ACTE has raised in Perkins reauthorization discussions as well.
Research: According to the authors, the research on student outcomes cited in the report is inconclusive (again, remember that this research uses student cohorts prior to Perkins IV). It appears that CTE typically does no harm academically to students, reducing stereotypes of CTE as less rigorous, and may help them, both academically and in relation to postsecondary enrollment and completion. CTE can also have benefits in the workforce; for instance, a Florida study found that postsecondary CTE concentrators achieved significantly higher earnings than those who majored in academic fields, particularly students employed in an industry related to their program of study.
Funding: Trends in funding demonstrate that, by fiscal year 2010, more states were utilitizing the reserve fund option in Perkins. In addition, states were allocating, on average, about two-thirds of their funds to secondary schools and one-third to postsecondary programs. Subgrantees in 2008-09 mostly used Perkinsfunds for equipment and career guidance and academic counseling.
Recommendations: In addition to the main report, the Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) for the NACTE published a separate document with recommendations for CTE, focusing on integrating CTE into broader education reform, better aligning secondary and postsecondary CTE and capturing more robust and actionable data and research, including capturing data on outcomes more effectively than the NACTE is currently able to do. The IAP also recommends that reauthorization “define the federal role in more limited, strategic ways,” which echoes ACTE’s own guiding principles for Perkins.
In conclusion, this report provides some much-needed information, but owing to timing and other limitations, falls short in shedding light on the outcomes of students participating in today’s high-quality CTE. As part of preparing for reauthorization, ACTE and the National Association of State Directors of CTE Consortium have been talking to stakeholders in the CTE research community and considering ways to make research and evaluation more timely and useful.