ineffectively. The commission proposed that the quality of teaching was in jeopardy, principally because more academically capable students were not being attracted to the teaching profession, and teacher education programs needed to be overhauled. They also mentioned that key subject matter areas (e.g., mathematics and science) had serious teacher shortages” (1).

​

• IMPACT: “A Nation at Risk was published in an era of mass discontent with the public education system and had a considerable impact. The nation set about introducing reforms based on the recommendations in the report. Changes included extended school hours and, in some instances, extended school years; the introduction of more challenging learning materials; more careful monitoring of requirements for and progression toward graduation; and teachers’ assigning more homework and examinations. The report also forced many states to improve teacher qualifications and to overhaul teacher education programs that prepared teachers for licensure” (1).
   “All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost. This promise means that all children by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgement needed to secure gainful employment, and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of society itself” (2).
   

• Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act (Perkins I)

​

1) GovTrack.us. (2019). H.R. 4164 — 98th Congress: Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/98/hr4164
2) Congress.gov. H.R.4164 - 98th Congress (1983-1984): Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act. Library of Congress
 

• • WHAT:  “An act to amend the Vocational Education Act [VAE] of 1963….” (1). “Renames VEA as the "Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act" (2).

    • A note about funding…Cannot locate specific allocations but the bill itself “authorizes appropriations for FY 1985 through 1989” (2). 

  • WHY:  “…to strengthen and expand the economic base of the Nation, develop human resources, reduce structural unemployment, increase productivity, and strengthen the Nation's defense capabilities by assisting the States to expand, improve, and update high-quality programs of vocational-technical education, and for other purposes” (1).
    “….to extend and revise VEA programs and to establish programs emphasizing the acquisition of job skills through technical, as well as vocational, education” (2).

  • Impact:

    • How did the definition of vocational education change? (Impact or catalyst)

    • How did the provisions of the Acts impact schools?

    • What was the impact of educational “reform” (i.e. accountability)

    • Who had more control (state vs. federal)
       

• Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (Perkins II) 
  ​​​1) U.S. Department of Education. Archived: The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act

• 2) LaFollette, A., & Pak, Yoon. (2011). An Historical Policy Analysis of the Carl D. Perkins Legislation: Examining the History, Creation, Implementation and Reauthorization of the Law, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

  • WHAT: “The Perkins Act defines vocational-technical education as organized educational programs offering sequences of courses directly related to preparing individuals for paid or unpaid employment in current or emerging occupations requiring other than a baccalaureate or advanced degree. Programs include competency-based applied learning which contributes to an individual's academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning, problem solving skills, and the occupational-specific skills necessary for economic independence as a productive and contributing member of society” (1).

    • A note about funding… “Only State Boards for Vocational Education are eligible to apply for State Basic Grants. The distribution of grant funds within a state is directed to priority items established by the state in accordance with an approved state plan for vocational-technical education. Local education agencies and postsecondary institutions are eligible recipients for subgrants… The total appropriation for Perkins was $1.288 billion dollars in 2002. States received these funds in the form of $1.18 billion for their state basic grants and $108 million for Tech Prep. All states receive funds for secondary and postsecondary education” (1).

  • WHY: “OVAE administers this Act to ensure equal access to programs, services, and activities addressing the nation's education and workforce needs” (1).

  • IMPACT: “Programs include competency-based applied learning which contributes to an individual's academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning, problem solving skills, and the occupational-specific skills necessary for economic independence as a productive and contributing member of society” (1).

    • "In the end, the 1990 Perkins Act‘s purpose shifted the way in which vocational education was presented in America.300 Gordon notes that ―earlier [legislation], initiated and promulgated by Congress and accepted by vocational educators since the days of the Smith-Hughes Act, tended to separate and isolate vocational teachers, students, and curriculum from the rest of the school community.‖301 Gordon believed in 1990 that Congress intended to integrate CTE with academic instruction, as well as provide closer linkages between CTE secondary and postsecondary institutions, CTE and business. In order to accomplish this purpose Congress removed ―virtually all distributional discretion from state officials‖303 and reallocated the majority of funds directly to the local educational agencies.

    • "The 1990 Law strengthened the provisions related to providing services to the disadvantaged, disabled and other special population students.

    • "The incorporation of Tech Prep and the integration of academic and vocational instruction intended to position the Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (Perkins II) as a tool for educational reform by linking vocational education with academic instruction at the postsecondary level" (2) .

​

 

• Tech Prep
  1a) Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/tpreptopic2.html
  1b) Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/techprepdemo/funding.html
  1c) Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/techprep.html
  3) Hershey, Alan M. (1998). Focus for the Future: the final report of the National Tech-Prep Evaluation.
   

  • WHAT: “Tech Prep education [which first appeared in the 1980s] as a small, locally driven high school improvement strategy….  was a sequenced program of study that combines at least two years of secondary and two years of postsecondary education. [It was considered] a significant innovation in the education reform movement in the United States. Tech Prep was given major emphasis in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act…. and was amended in the School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (1a).
     

    • “Appropriations
      Fiscal Year 2006 : $0
      Fiscal Year 2005 : $4,899,488
      Fiscal Year 2004 : $4,939,000
      Fiscal Year 2003 : $4,967,500
      Fiscal Year 2002 : $5,000,000
      Fiscal Year 2001 : $5,000,000” (1b)…
       

    • “While still written into legislation, federal funding for Tech Prep was terminated [in 2011]”. (https://www.acteonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/BriefHistoryofCTE-Timeline-June2019.pdf)

  • WHY: The purpose of Tech Prep was to provide “an important school-to-work transition strategy, helping all students make the connection between school and employment” (1c).

  • IMPACT: “To date, roughly 47% of the nation's high schools (or 7,400 high schools) offer one or more Tech Prep programs. Nearly every community and technical college in the nation participates in a Tech Prep consortium, as do many four-year colleges and universities, private businesses, and employer and union organizations.
    “Research on the effectiveness of Tech Prep programs is inconclusive. State evaluations in Texas and New York found some evidence that Tech Prep improved students' grade point averages, lowered dropout, reduced absences, increased high school completion, and improved postsecondary enrollment. However, these evaluations did not find evidence that Tech Prep improved students' scores on standardized academic achievement tests, and findings were mixed on whether Tech Prep improved students' postsecondary achievement or labor market outcomes. The last national evaluation of Tech Prep programs, conducted in 1997, found that Tech Prep programs were not always implemented as envisioned in the legislation, perhaps lessening their impact on student outcomes” (1).
    “Tech-Prep resources have helped promote awareness of career options, foster students’ interest in technology, and encourage planning for further education and careers.  Most schools that offer career development activities do so for all or most students, rather than for a particular group identified as Tech-Prep participants.  Schools increasingly use career exploration software, classes on career options, employer presentations in school, workplace visits, and job shadowing; in addition, many schools are installing career resource centers.  There is no reason to expect all schools to offer the same career development activities, but most of these activities could still be made more available. Although 85 to 100 percent of consortia offer each of these career development opportunities in at least some schools, only 25 to 50 percent of consortia offer any of them in all of their schools” (3).
     

• School-to-Work Opportunities Act-1994
  1) New Ways to Work. Factsheet. http://www.newwaystowork.org/qwbl/tools/caltoolkit/Factsheets/schooltoworkact1994.pdf
  2) http://www.fessler.com/SBE/act.htm#Section 605
  3) US Department of Education. Archived Information. https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Biennial/95-96/eval/410-97.pdf
  4) Bureau of Labor Statistics. School-to-work programs: information from two surveys. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/08/art5full.pdf
   

  • WHAT: This legislation created “…a framework for the development of School-to-Work systems in the states that called for the integration of school-based learning [and] the real-world context of work.
    “The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–239) states that School-to-Work systems must incorporate three basic components… Work-Based Learning (Title 1, Section 103)…. School-Based Learning (Title 1, Section 102)…. Connecting Activities (Title 1, Section 104)….” (1). Expired October 1, 2001.
    
    A note about funding…
     

    • “The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 was passed by Congress in May of 1994, providing seven years of implementation grants to states through the National School-to-Work Office” (1).

    • Section 605(a) of the act: “In General. --There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretaries to carry out this Act $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 1999” (2).

    • Actual Funding History:
      1994 $45,000,000;
      1995 122,500,000;
      1996 180,000,000 (“Identical amounts were included in the 1994 and 1995 budgets for the Department of Labor; $170 million was included in 1996” (3). 

  • WHY: “The US Departments of Education and Labor developed the School-to-Work initiative to address a growing national concern about the gap between the skills and education required to be competitive in the global economy and the knowledge, skills and abilities of students exiting the U.S. educational system” (1).

  • IMPACT: In August of 2001 the Bureau of Labor Statistic reported that surveys reveal: “Regarding the likelihood of schools with disadvantaged student populations offering school-to-work programs, our findings are somewhat ambiguous—on the one hand, schools with dropout prevention programs are more likely than other schools to offer school-to-work programs, while on the other hand, schools with high percentages of Hispanic students (who are more likely to be disadvantaged) and schools receiving Title I funding are less likely to offer these programs. Students who work while going to school are more likely to participate in school-to-work programs, as are youths who reported their course of study in high school as technical, vocational, or business-oriented. Also, blacks are more likely than whites to participate in school-to-work programs, whereas youths whose mothers are highly educated are less likely to participate in these kinds of programs” (4).
    “A… national employer survey [taken during the effective period of this Act] reported that 19 percent of employers were participating in [various forms of] work-based learning activities…. Initial evidence from the national evaluation of STW and from grantee-reported progress measures [suggested] that considerable effort [had] been made to get employers to participate but that recruiting enough employers to provide many secondary school students with in-depth work-based learning opportunities [remained] very difficult” (3).
     

• Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (Perkins III)
  1) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998: Background and Implementation. http://congressionalresearch.com/RL31747/document.php?study=The+Carl+D.+Perkins+Vocational+and+Technical+Education+Act+of+1998+Background+and+Implementation
  2) LaFollette, A., & Pak, Yoon. (2011). An Historical Policy Analysis of the Carl D. Perkins Legislation: Examining the History, Creation, Implementation and Reauthorization of the Law, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
  3) PUBLIC LAW 105–332—OCT. 31, 1998  https://s3.amazonaws.com/PCRN/uploads/PL105_332.pdf
   

  • WHAT: “Key features of Perkins III include: -Federal-to-state funding formula based mainly on states’ populations in three age groups; -Distribution of at least 85% of funds to local level;
    -Use of up to 10% of total funds for state leadership activities, including programs for individuals in state institutions (such as prisons) and services related to nontraditional programs and employment; -Retention of up to the greater of 5% of the total grant or $250,000 for state administration; -Establishment of core indicators of performance with levels negotiated between each state and the Secretary of Education; -Authorization of sanctions based on states’ failing to meet these performance levels and incentive grants to states for exceeding performance levels established under Perkins and under the Workforce Investment Act” (1).
    
    --A note about funding…
     

  • WHY: “The mission of vocational education… emerged at the turn of the twentieth century in response to businesses’ need for skilled labor….It was needed because “Technically, the Perkins [II] Act expired in October 1995 however, it extended through a continuing resolution and funding was appropriated pending reauthorization. In 1997, the Perkins Act was reintroduced for reauthorization to the 105th Congress and the process started all over again” (1).
    Developed as needed amendments to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. ‘‘The purpose of this Act is to develop more fully the academic, vocational, and technical skills of secondary students and postsecondary students who elect to enroll in vocational and technical education programs, by— “building on the efforts of States and localities to develop challenging academic standards; “promoting the development of services and activities that integrate academic, vocational, and technical instruction, and that link secondary and postsecondary education for participating vocational and technical education students; “increasing State and local flexibility in providing services and activities designed to develop, implement, and improve vocational and technical education, including tech-prep education; and “disseminating national research, and providing professional development and technical assistance, that will improve vocational and technical education programs, services, and activities” (3).

  • IMPACT: “The new law, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, offered vocational education greater flexibility in how federal funds could be spent, while maintaining vocational education as a separate program administered through the educational system. The reform initiatives of Tech Prep and the integration of academic and vocational instruction were continued, and the requirements for the act were simplified and streamlined.
    “The significant changes from the 1990 Act included requiring methods for allocating funds, increased emphasis on accountability measures, removal of set asides, and rigorous outcome-based education and evaluation for all learners. More stringent accountability measures emphasizing quality, flexibility, and seamless communication between the educational and workforce systems was also implemented during this time.
    “The accountability system measures students at both the secondary and postsecondary levels and consist of four basic areas including: 1) student attainment of challenging academic and technical skill proficiencies, 2) credential attainment, 3) placement in postsecondary education, advanced training, military or employment or retention in education and employment, and 4) nontraditional program participation and completion…
    “The evolution of Perkins is different in every state…” (3).