In the age of college- and career-ready standards, the education reform community is finally jumping on the career and technical education (CTE) bandwagon—and with good reason. As Mike Petrilli recently noted, “The best CTE programs, like Career Academies, tend to do a better job with both career skills and academic skills, and create a glide path for students into postsecondary education of the technical variety. Long-term outcomes are very promising, especially for low-income students and African American boys.” But what makes a good CTE program, and how can we ensure that students are benefiting from them?
Reading Visher and Stern’s policy brief is a good place to start. The authors meticulously describe existing CTE programs across the country, focusing on two approaches to CTE: systemic approaches and discrete programs. The former are usually state-driven, less rigid, partner-focused (typically with colleges and communities), and reach a large number of students. Examples are Linked Learning and California Partnership Academies. The latter are usually school-based, such as Career Academies and small schools of choice in New York City
CTE has the benefit of being the “both/and” of education reform: It can be for both college and career, and for all students. “The debate about high school reform is increasingly focused on the role of career-technical education in helping to prepare all students for success in both postsecondary education and the workforce,” write the authors. Back in 1982, only 28 percent of students who completed occupational work sequences also completed academic coursework expected for college. That number jumped to a whopping 88 percent by 2000.
As effective as good CTE has the potential to be, these programs are struggling to take hold and expand in states and districts, in part because of a lack of resources and rigorous research. (Stay tuned for an upcoming Fordham study to add to literature reviews.)
The authors cite several important policy challenges to consider when creating and implementing high-quality CTE programs. First, ensuring that students have a choice to participate in CTE, while also ensuring that enrollment does not skew to students of one particular race, income, or prior academic achievement. This is a significant challenge, as too many naysayers cite vocational education’s sordid history of pushing low-income and minority students off the college track as a reason to oppose today’s CTE. Second, and equally critical, ensuring that CTE programs are using and delivering an integrated curriculum. The authors write that “there is still much work to be done to ensure that teachers have the skills and knowledge they need to teach interdisciplinary content.” The Common Core State Standards should help with the emphasis to “overcome the inertia of standard curriculum.”
CTE is gaining traction in policy discussions. Let’s make sure the programs in states, districts, and schools deliver on that promise.
SOURCE: Mary G. Visher and David Stern, “New Pathways to Careers and College: Examples, Evidence, and Prospects,” MDRC (April 2015).
