any state education administrators are currently working to define secondary career and technical education (CTE) content standards that specify the knowledge and skills students are expected to master. This development effort, analogous to the academic standards movement of the 1990s, is a necessary first step to creating curriculum frameworks and assessments for structuring and assessing student learning. The report on which this excerpt is based explored (a) the progress and status of states in developing secondary CTE standards systems, and (b) whether and how high school teachers are using those standards in their CTE programs

The report reviews the federal legislative history that has supported the development of standards as a part of school accountability, including the Goals 2000 Act of 1994, which funded the creation of industry standards, and the periodic reauthorizations of the Perkins legislation that funds CTE. All of these laws strengthened the emphasis on accountability by requiring states to measure the skills and competencies of CTE students and by encouraging the development of secondary CTE standards. The latest re-authorization, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV), requires local education agencies to assess CTE and academic performance on state-developed indicators.

Research Questions and Method

There were two phases to the study. The goal of the first phase was to synthesize what was known about the secondary CTE standards system of each state. The following research questions guided this phase and were examined in each state. This excerpt will include findings from Questions 1, 3, 6, and 7.

We began by developing an interview protocol about secondary CTE standards systems that elicited the information being sought by the study’s funders, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education (USDE/OVAE). We then conducted Web searches of state department of education or other state agency Web sites for information on each state’s CTE standards system. After we had exhausted the online resources for a state, we contacted the state CTE director to set up an appointment for a telephone interview. Our search results were validated and supplemented during these interviews with state officials, which were designed to collect the information still missing for each state.

For the second phase of the project, the research team selected states with well-developed statewide CTE standards systems and interviewed state-selected high school CTE teachers from those states. These teachers were predominantly female with over 20 years of teaching experience, mostly in the business and family and consumer science program areas. The list of teacher focus group questions included the following, which are reported here. For more information, please see the full report.

Phase 1 Findings

The findings from this project provide a snapshot of the status of each state’s secondary CTE standards system as of fall 2006. There was a great deal of variability in the design of state standards systems across states, with these differences explained by each state’s unique philosophies, policies, and practices.

Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 30 reported that they had a statewide secondary CTE standards system. They are listed in Table 1 as Group A. Eleven states (GA, HI, ID, IL, ME, ND, NM, NV, RI, SD, VT) were either in the process of developing or had partially developed their CTE standards system. These states comprised Group B. Group C consisted of 8 states (AK, CO, DC, MD, MI, MN, MT, PA) that did not have a statewide CTE standards system, although they did have locally-developed CTE standards in many if not all localities. Two states did not participate in the interviews. This article will focus on the 30 Group A states that were farthest along in developing CTE standards. Readers can find additional information on Illinois in the full report.

States with Ongoing Categorical CTE State Funding

All states receive federal Perkins funding supporting CTE. However, this funds only approximately 5% of most states’ secondary CTE expenditures. Most CTE funding comes from state sources. Some states allocate funding to secondary CTE through what is called categorical (i.e., specifically targeted) funding, while other states provide more general K-12 education funding to local education agencies which then distribute the funds among many local programs including CTE. It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether a state’s funding mechanism is categorical or not because states also provide one-time grants or supplements for CTE activities, thus providing targeted but inconsistent funds. We relied upon our state contacts to help us classify each state correctly.

Of the 30 states in Group A, 22 reported that they provided ongoing categorical state funding for secondary CTE programs (see Table 1). Only states with consistent, ongoing categorical funding were included in this count. No information was collected about the amount of state funding provided, but several officials in states with ongoing categorical funding opined that their CTE standards system had come about due to a steady source of funding. However, the full report notes that 9 of the 11 states in Group B also receive ongoing categorical state funding, yet they have not yet fully developed a CTE standards system. This finding suggests that ongoing categorical state funding can help a state develop its CTE standards system, but it is not a sufficient condition. Clearly, though, developing standards and a statewide system for their implementation requires investments of time and money.

Alignment of Secondary Academic Standards with CTE Programs

Integrating specific state academic standards into CTE courses and coursework is called crosswalking. States identify the academic skills addressed in each CTE program area, and these skills become an explicit part of the curriculum. Thus, the purpose of crosswalking is to demonstrate the academic foundations of CTE. While some might argue that the time spent on academic skills takes away from the time needed to master the skills of the CTE program area, most CTE program areas do include important foundational academic skills. In the current climate of strong accountability for academic achievement, CTE programs that explicitly list their contribution to academic achievement may be more highly valued than similar ones that do not.

One example of crosswalking from Louisiana lists “learning and following safety and inspection procedures” as a CTE standard for welding students. When they do this, students are also “analyzing and evaluating complex texts with supportive explanations to generate connections to real life situations and other texts,” an academic standard in that state (See http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/2909.pdf). We found that 18 of the 30 states in Group A had crosswalked their academic standards to their CTE courses (see Table 1).

Alignment of Secondary CTE Standards System with Postsecondary Technical Standards

Twelve of the 30 states in Group A reported that they had a statewide postsecondary technical standards system in addition to their secondary standards system. Of these 12 states, 10 had aligned the two systems (see Table 1). The remaining two (KY, NE) both indicated that they were working toward this goal. Two other states (DE, UT) reported that they had aligned secondary CTE standards in some program areas with relevant baccalaureate programs as well. Finally, two states (FL, OH) have no distinction between secondary and postsecondary standards—they are simply all CTE standards.

Ensuring that the CTE Standards are Reflected in Practice

We asked our contacts how the state ensured that the standards were reflected in practice. The officials were allowed more than one response. The most common response across all state groups (n = 19) was that assessment was or was slated to be the primary means by which states would ensure that the standards indeed guided local practice. Table 1 shows the 11 states from group A that used assessment.

Of the total 19 states, 10 states were using assessments at the time of our data collection (CT, KY, LA, MA, MI, NC, NY, OH, UT, WV). These assessments varied widely, from end-of-program assessments (KY) to end-of-course assessments (UT), from online assessments (WV) to hands-on demonstrations (NY), and from state-developed exams (UT) to state-specific vendor-developed exams (CT). The rest of the 19 states (DC, FL, HI, MD, ME, OK, PA, RI, VT) planned to include assessment as part of their standards system but had not done so at the time of the interview. Professional development and site visits were the next most frequently mentioned means of ensuring that the standards were implemented in practice.

As can be seen from the table, four states (LA, MS, NC, OH) appear to be the farthest along in their development of a CTE standards system that includes elements important to the implementation of the Perkins IV legislation: (a) ongoing categorical state CTE funding, (b) secondary academic and postsecondary technical standards integrated with secondary CTE standards and programs, and (c) the use of CTE technical assessment measures. Three other states came close to being in every column, but missed by one: Texas does not require CTE student assessments, and Oklahoma and Utah have not crosswalked their academic standards onto CTE.

Phase 2 Findings

For the second phase of the project, which explored the extent of teacher use of the standards, we interviewed state-selected teachers from four states with statewide standards systems: NE, OH, TX, and UT. Learning about teacher attitudes is important because the existence of CTE standards would be moot if teachers did not use them. Standards will be easier to implement if CTE teachers value them for holding teachers and students accountable.

Overall, teachers expressed satisfaction with the standards systems in their states. They believed that having CTE standards added rigor, credibility, and parity with academic courses. Rather than driving students away, these teachers believed that having CTE standards had attracted higher-performing students to their programs. Even in a state where use of the CTE standards is voluntary, such as Nebraska, teachers reported using the standards as a way to ensure that they are covering the relevant material.

Teachers had many different responses to how they learned to incorporate the standards into their teaching. The newer teachers, especially in Ohio, cited their pre-service certification programs. Other teachers, particularly in Nebraska and Utah, noted state or district-sponsored in-services and workshops. Informal sharing and networking at conferences were also cited by Nebraska teachers. Teachers from Texas and Utah noted the utility of web-based resources in incorporating standards into their curriculum.

We asked teachers what was not working with respect to the standards. Teachers in Nebraska and Texas were concerned that the standards were not being implemented consistently: in Nebraska due to the fact that the standards were voluntary and in Texas because of different levels of support for schools across the state.

In Ohio and Utah, teachers expressed a certain amount of stress over trying to cover all of the standards. Some felt that there were too many standards being required while schools were shortening class periods and increasing graduation requirements in other subjects, leaving CTE with less time in which to accomplish more. It is important to note in this regard that Ohio and Utah were the two states in Phase 2 that use student assessment as a means of ensuring standards implementation.

Given the skew in this teacher sample toward more veteran teachers, it is heartening to learn that most are eager for professional development and to do the work it takes to implement standards. As the accountability movement progresses, we can expect that new teachers will be trained in the use of CTE standards, but discovering that veteran teachers are also behind the effort is a positive finding.

Conclusions

We found that the development of state secondary CTE standards systems remains a work in progress. However, most states have completed or nearly-completed statewide standards systems. With respect to teacher use of the standards, the CTE teachers we spoke with welcomed CTE standards and the added credibility that the standards conferred upon their programs.

Our findings suggest that there are challenges ahead as states move to implement Perkins IV. For example, few states have crosswalked their academic standards onto CTE programs, and similarly small numbers of states use technical skill assessments to measure student technical proficiency gained from CTE coursetaking. We assume that the number of states responding to these mandates will grow, but incentives might be required in order to motivate states to move away from approaches undertaken before the details of Perkins IV were available.

A major conclusion of this study was that the current system of many different CTE standards systems across the states is highly inefficient. We believe that standardizing the CTE standards could be beneficial; however, the reality is that the states have invested time and money in developing their systems. Our recommendation for the early years of Perkins IV is for the federal government to monitor and help states collect valid and reliable data, examine those data, and then determine next steps. As some states are currently finding to be the case with academic subjects, voluntarily adopting common standards across states has benefits. Perhaps states will recognize that similar benefits may accrue if they align CTE standards across states as well. In short, many challenges remain in any effort to create a system of secondary CTE that allows for easy comparison of outcomes by state.

The information provided in this excerpt and the full report may be useful to federal and state government officials interested in improving CTE by implementing standards. The results can inform future federal evaluation activities, provide states with information about other states’ efforts and strategies, and more fully describe the CTE standards landscape for researchers in the CTE field and beyond.

Table 1
States with Complete or Nearly Complete Statewide Secondary CTE Standards Systems, Selected Summary

Marisa Castellano is Visiting Associate Professor in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Louisville. Her research interests span K-14, with the common theme of identifying strategies that can improve the educational and life opportunities of minority students. Castellano has studied elementary school reading programs, high school career and technical education programs, and developmental and occupational programs at community colleges. She can be reached at mecast02@louisville.edu

Linda Harrison is a researcher with the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education (NRCCTE) at the University of Louisville (KY). Dr. Harrison has studied academic integration in high school CTE programs, high school graduation and college entrance trends, and content standards systems in secondary CTE programs. Currently she is a lead facilitator for the Math-in-CTE teacher professional development model offered through NRCCTE. She can be reached at linda_harrison@comcast.net

---

Sherrie Schneider is a researcher with the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education (NRCCTE) at the University of Louisville (KY). Her research interests include: K-14 academic and technical instructional programs, standards, and teacher preparation/licensure. Currently she serves as a lead facilitator of CTE teacher professional development for the NRCCTE. She can be reached at schneider.sherrie@comcast

---