University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE
TEACHERS

Multi-Site Case Studies on the Collaboration of Career Technical Education Teachers and Core
Teachers

Forest DeRenzo

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
MAY 2015

Copyright 2015 Forest DeRenzo

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 2

ABSTRACT

In the 2014 school year, California implemented the adoption of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). These new standards provided California’s teachers, from multiple
disciplines, the opportunity to collaborate on interdisciplinary curricula. Given the newness of
the adoption, research on Career Technical Education (CTE) teachers and core teacher
collaboration practices, in response to the CCSS, was lacking. This qualitative, multi-site case
study, sought to examine the collaboration models employed by districts to integrate the CCSS
curriculum taught by both core and CTE teachers, in response to the CCSS. Multiple school
districts within the Southern California region known as the Inland Empire were chosen as
locations to collect data. Administrators, CTE teachers, and core teachers from each of the
districts were interviewed using a semi-structured format. The data were transcribed and coded
to reveal the common themes shared by the participants throughout the region. The common
themes that emerged during the study were participants’ understanding of the impending shifts
associated with transitioning from the 1997 California state standards to the CCSS. Other
themes including an awareness of the design of the CCSS, the professional development
provided to district personnel, and teacher collaboration structures. Additionally, varying
attitudes and dispositions associated with the implementation of the CCSS surfaced and were
acknowledged. Moreover, a theme that emerged during the interviews with the districts were the
various Local Educational Agency (LEA) initiatives that were prominent during the
implementation of the CCSS. Although further research is needed to better understand the
phenomenon of interdisciplinary collaboration, this study can assist educators in understanding
the experiences of school districts in the Inland Empire through the examination of the
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 3

collaboration models that were employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by
both core and CTE teachers.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 4

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Dedication 15

Acknowledgements 16

List of Tables 17

List of Figures 19

Preface 20

Chapter One Overview of this Study 21

Introduction 21

Early American Curriculum 22

Educational Reform 23

The Smith Hughes act of 1917 23

The Commission of the Reorganization of Secondary
Education 23

Elementary and Secondary Education Act 24

A Nation at Risk 24

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Legislation 25

No Child Left Behind 25

Common Core State Standards 26

Local Control Funding Formula and Local Control
Accountability Plan 26

Purpose of Study 72

Research Questions 29

Theoretical Background 30
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 5

John Dewey 30

Ralph W. Tyler 31

Hilda Taba 32

Research Methodology 33

Definition of Terms 33

Summary 37

Chapter Two Literature Review 39

CCSS Focus on College and Career Readiness 39

Historical Perspectives on Curriculum and Connections to CTE 41

Historical Perspectives on Vocational Education 46

Recent Trends in Career and Technical Education 49

The Impact of Globalization on CTE Curriculum 52

Shifts Toward Integrated Models 54

Evaluation of CTE Programs 58

Funding CTE programs 61

Summary 61

Chapter Three Research Methodology 63

Introduction 63

Purpose of the Study 63

Research Questions 64

Method of Study 65

Sample and Population 65

Pilot Study 66
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 6

Instrumentation 67

Interview Protocol 67

Multi-Site Case Study Considerations 74

Data Analysis 75

Coding 75

Summary 76

Chapter Four Study Results 78

Introduction 78

Purpose of the Study 78

Research Questions 79

Methodology 80

Instrument and Data 80

Instrument 82

Coding 84

Results by District 86

District A 86

Case Study for District A 87

Findings pertaining to primary research question 88

General Theme 1: Design 89

General Theme 2: Shifts 89

Administrator Theme 1: LEA Initiatives 90

Combined Teacher Theme 1: Design 91

Combined Teacher Theme 2: LEA Initiative 91
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 7

Findings pertaining to first sub-question 92

General Theme 1: Shifts 92

General Theme 2: Design 93

Administrator Theme 1: Professional Development 93

Combined Teacher Theme: LEA Initiative 94

Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions 94

General Theme: Teacher Collaboration 95

Administrator Theme: Teacher Collaboration 96

Combined Teacher Theme: Teacher Collaboration 96

District B 97

Case Study for District B 98

Findings pertaining to primary research question 99

General Theme 1: Shift 99

General Theme 2: Accountability 100

General Theme 3: Teacher Collaboration 101

Administrator Theme 1: Teacher Collaboration 101

Administrator Theme 2: Design 102

Administrator Theme 2: Shift 103

Teacher Theme: The teachers did not differ from the
administrator 103

Findings pertaining to first sub-question 104

General Theme 1: Attitude 104

General Theme 2: Design 105

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 8

Admin Theme: Teacher Collaboration 106

Combined Teacher Theme 1: Shifts 106

Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions 107

General Theme: Professional Development 107

Administrator Theme: Teacher Collaboration 108

Combined Teacher Theme: Shifts 109

District C 109

Case Study for District C 111

Findings pertaining to primary research question 112

General Theme 1: Accountability 112

General Theme 2: Shifts 113

Administrator Theme 1: Design 113

Administrator Theme 2: Shift 114

Combined Teacher Theme: Attitude 114

Findings pertaining to first sub-question 115

General Theme 1: Professional Development 115

General Theme 2: Shifts 116

Administrator Theme 1: Design 118

Administrator Theme 2: Shifts 118

Combined Teacher Theme: Shifts 119

Core Teacher Theme: Attitude 120

Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions 121

General Theme 1: LEA Initiatives 121

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 9

General Theme 2: Professional Development 122

General Theme 3: Teacher Collaboration 124

Administrator Theme: Shift 125

Teacher Theme: The teachers did not differ from the
administrator 126

Core Teacher Theme: Attitude 126

District D 127

Case Study for District D 128

Findings pertaining to primary research question 129

General Theme 1: Attitude 130

General Theme 2: Shift 131

Administrator Theme 1: Accountability 132

Administrator Theme 2: LEA Initiative 132

Administrator Theme 3: Shift 133

Combined Teacher Theme 1: Design 134

Combined Teacher Theme 2: Shift 135

Core Teacher Theme: Instructional Materials 135

Findings pertaining to first sub-question 136

General Theme 1: LEA Initiative 136

General Theme 2: Shift 137

General Theme 3: Professional Development 139

Administrator Theme: LEA Initiative 140

Combined Teacher Theme 1: Attitude 140

Combined Teacher Theme 2: Shift 141
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 10

Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions 142

General Theme 1: LEA Initiative 142

General Theme 2: Teacher Collaboration 143

Administrator Theme: Professional Development 144

Combined Teacher Theme: Teacher Collaboration 145

Core Teacher Theme: Attitude 146

District E 147

Case Study for District E 148

Findings pertaining to primary research question 150

Theme 1: Design 150

Theme 2: Attitude 151

Theme 3: LEA initiatives 152

Theme 4: Shifts 154

Findings pertaining to first sub-question 155

Theme 1: Design 155

Theme 2: LEA Initiatives 156

Theme 3: Shifts 157

Theme 4: Attitude 158

Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions 159

Theme 1: LEA Initiatives 159

Theme 2: Teacher Collaboration 160

Summary of Emergent Themes Across District Case Studies 162

Findings pertaining to the primary research question 163
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 11

Findings pertaining to first sub-question 163

Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions 164

Chapter Five Discussion and Implications 165

Purpose of the Study 165

Method of Study 166

Sample and Population 166

Instrument 167

Key Findings 171

Shifts 172

Design 173

Professional Development 174

Attitudes 175

LEA Initiatives 175

Teacher Collaboration 176

Summary 177

Limitations 178

Implications of the Research 179

Suggestions for Future Research 180

Theoretical Collaboration Model 180
References 183

Appendix A 191

District A Interviews 191

District A Interview 1 191
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 12

District A Interview 2 195

District A Interview 3 198

District A Coding 204

Table A1. Interview Codes District A 204

Table A2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question
District A 207

Table A3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District A 209

Table A4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District A 210

Appendix B 212

District B Interviews 212

District B Interview 1 212

District B Interview 2 216

District B Interview 3 219

District B Coding 224

Table B1. Interview Codes District B 224

Table B2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question
District B 226

Table B3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District B 228

Table B4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District B 230

Appendix C 231

District C Interviews 231

District C Interview 1 231

District C Interview 2 242

District C Interview 3 254
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 13

District C Coding 268

Table C1. Interview Codes District C 268

Table C2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question
District C 270

Table C3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District C 272

Table C4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District C 274

Appendix D 276

District D Interviews 276

District D Interview 1 276

District D Interview 2 285

District D Interview 3 293

District D Coding 303

Table D1. Interview Codes District D 303

Table D2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question
District D 305

Table D3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District D 307

Table D4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District D 308

Appendix E 310

District E Interviews 310

District E Interview 1 310

District E Coding 323

Table E1. Interview Codes District E 323

Table E2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question
District E 324

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 14

Table E3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District E 325

Table E4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District E 326

Appendix F 327

Example of an Integrated Curriculum 327

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 15

DEDICATION

Forest would like to dedicate this dissertation to his family and friends whose patience,
kindness, and selflessness remained unwavering. The DeRenzo family, Mercy family,
Henderson family, Jenkins family, and Forest’s work family all played important roles towards
the completion of this dissertation. Forest would also like to thank Ronnie Henderson for his
insight, wisdom, friendship, and contributions. Ronnie made this whole experience manageable.
Forest’s three boys, Korban, Thayaden, and Xandyn, were a tremendous support by patiently
providing their daddy with the necessary time and space to complete what appeared to be a
never-ending and unsurmountable amount of work. Forest, would most importantly would like
to express his respect, love, thanks and appreciation to his wife Kerri; without her love and
support this dissertation would not have been possible. Kerri willingly, amazingly, and
graciously embodies the wife describe in Proverbs 31 “Who can find a virtuous and capable
wife? She is more precious than rubies. Her husband can trust her, and she will greatly enrich
his life. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life (Proverbs 31:10-12).” Many of
Forest’s friends regularly compliment Kerri by telling Forest “everyone should have a Kerri.”

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 16

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Forest and Ronnie would like to acknowledge each of their professors from the
University of Southern California who professionally, skillfully, and masterfully took their
knowledge, resources, and energy, to mold and educate them. Educators such as Dr. Sandra
Kaplan, Dr. Ray Gallagher, Dr. Tom Boysen, Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Dr. Helena Seli, Dr. Artineh
Samkian, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and Dr. Julie Marsh, challenged Forest and Ronnie by preparing
them to confidently enter into the academic community. Moreover, professors such as Dr.
Sandra Kaplan, Dr. Ray Gallagher, and Dr. Tom Boysen are specifically thanked and
acknowledged for each dedicating their time and guidance to ensure that Forest and Ronnie met
the high expectations associated with the standards established by the University of Southern
California. This process allowed Forest and Ronnie to not only learn more about themselves, it
also help them to better relate to, appreciate, and understand some of the challenging aspects
associated with the Common Core State Standards.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Interview Questions Aligned to Research 71
Table 2. Grouping of Interview Questions 81
Table 3. Interview Script 82

Table 4. Identified Codes 85

Table 5. District A: Participant’s Role within their District 88
Table 6. District B: Participant’s Role within their District 99
Table 7. District C: Participant’s Role within their District 111
Table 8. District D: Participant’s Role within their District 129

Table 9. District E: Participant’s Role within their District 149

Table 10. Interview Questions Aligned to Research 168
Table 11. Shift: Theme Distribution 173

Table 12. Design: Theme Distribution 174

Table 13. Professional Development: Theme Distribution 174

Table 14. Professional Development: Theme Distribution 175

Table 15. LEA Initiative: Theme Distribution 176

Table 16. Teacher Collaboration: Theme Distribution 177

Table A1. Interview Codes District A 204

Table A2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District A 207

Table A3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District A 209

Table A4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District A 210

Table B1. Interview Codes District B 224

Table B2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District B 226

Table B3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District B 228
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 18

Table B4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District B 230

Table C1. Interview Codes District C 268

Table C2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District C 270

Table C3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District C 272

Table C4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District C 274

Table D1. Interview Codes District D 303

Table D2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District D 305

Table D3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District D 307

Table D4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District D 308

Table E1. Interview Codes District E 323

Table E2. Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District E 324

Table E3. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District E 325

Table E4. Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District E 326

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 19

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A visual representation of all of California’s Industry Sectors with each
sector’s respective pathways 29

Figure 2. Dr. Willard Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework 51
Figure 3. Flow Chart Representing Process for Each of the 5 Districts 66
Figure 4. District A: Demographic Data 87
Figure 5. District A: Special Populations 87
Figure 6. District B: Demographic Data 98
Figure 7. District B: Special Populations 98
Figure 8. District C: Demographic Data 110
Figure 9. District C: Special Populations 110
Figure 10. District D: Demographic Data 128
Figure 11. District D: Special Populations 128
Figure 12. District E: Demographic Data 148
Figure 13. District E: Special Populations 148

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 20

PREFACE

This doctoral dissertation is the result of the collaborative efforts of two
researchers, Forest DeRenzo and Ronnie Henderson. The following represents that delineation
of tasks and activities in completion of this project.
Forest DeRenzo served as the primary author for Chapters I, III, and 50 percent of IV
(Districts C-E). This includes the chapter outlines, research applications, interviews, and all
tables and figures contained therein. Forest DeRenzo also developed the Table of Contents,
Acknowledgements, List of Tables, and List of Figures.
Ronnie Henderson served the primary author for Chapters II, V, and 50 percent of IV
(Districts A-B). This includes the chapter outlines, research applications, interviews, and all
tables and figures contained therein. Ronnie Henderson also developed the Abstract and the
Preface.
The construction of the research design, development of the data collection instrument,
design and completion of the pilot study, interview transcriptions, transcription coding, and data
analysis were all done collaboratively with both researchers contributing. Each researcher edited
the work of the other and all corrections and recommendations were agreed upon jointly.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 21

CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THIS STUDY
Introduction
The history of vocational education is not only extensive; it is partially responsible for the
forming of society (Epstein, 1998). Antiquity is filled with examples of vocational trades being
imparted to societies’ youth. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was trained by Joseph in the ways of
carpentry, the family trade (Bible, 1984). Artisans and merchants formed medieval guilds.
Within these guilds, apprentices were established and developed as a way of controlling the
guilds practice while supporting the professional advancement of the association (Epstein, 1998).
This early form of vocational education provided a structural system similar to mainstream
academic learning institutions.
The relationship between formal education and vocational education can be traced
backed to the early second millennium. Scholars such as Byrd, assert that the structure of the
medieval guilds was adopted by early universities, which subsequently gave us the educational
system that currently exists (Byrd, 2001). This interconnected relationship between education
and the need for a skilled workforce has been interwoven throughout the creation of our current
society. Traces of this interconnected relationships become more blatantly evident in the current
American school system, as evidenced by the approval of the 2014 national adoption of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The CCSS specifically identifies the importance of
students demonstrating literacy within “English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social
Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects” (CDE, 2014).

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 22

Early American Curriculum
In 1895, towards the expiration of the Industrial Revolution, as curriculum began to be
defined and scrutinized, educators were making the connection between formal education and
the skills adults need to be successful in society. The National Education Association (NEA)
commissioned The Committee of Fifteen to make recommendations for elementary curriculum
and instruction. Among those recommendations, seventh and eighth grade boys were required to
take courses in manual labor, and their female counterparts were required to take courses in
sewing and cooking (National Education Association, 1895). The career-centric association of
boys being trained for manual labor and girls being trained in sewing and cooking was not novel,
rather it was valued by the Committee of Fifteen to the extent that it was intentionally integrated
into the curriculum as part of formal education.
In 1897, John Dewey’s Pedagogic Creed emphasized the importance of students actively
participating within the educational process. The notion of an interactive education was in strict
opposition to pupils being passive receptacles of information. Dewey believed that for students
to be active in the educational process, they should be given the opportunity to problem-solve
based on their knowledge and individual experiences. Building upon this foundation, Dewey
also advocated for education based on the specific interests of each individual (Dewey, 1897).
Dewey’s early philosophies are reverberated within the forward of The California Career
Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards where State Superintendent Tom Torlakson
and Michael Kirst, President of California State Board of Education, declare that these standards
are designed so that students are served well, by preparing them for their anticipated futures
(CDE, 2014b). The California CTE Model Standards place significance on students’ problem-
solving real-world scenarios. An extension of these beliefs is the underscoring principle that it is
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 23

the responsibility of each individual to be a contributing member of society. Among the basic
physical and sociological needs of individuals are the production and supply of food, housing,
and clothing (Maslow, 1943). In order to ensure the continued functioning of society, it becomes
incumbent upon the institution of education to perpetuate a system that trains individuals for
personal fulfillment and preparation for life (Dewey, 1897).
Educational Reform
The Smith Hughes act of 1917. The Smith Hughes act of 1917 allowed vocational
education to diverge from formal education. The purpose of the distinction was, in part, as a
reaction to the need to create a skilled workforce as a result of the Industrial Revolution
(Rojewski, 2002). The decision to separate vocational education from the contemporary formal
education, allowed the federal government the ability to intentionally focus on preparing
individuals to be properly prepared for the job market.
The Commission of the Reorganization of Secondary Education. The Commission of
the Reorganization of Secondary Education was established shortly after the Smith-Hughes Act
of 1917. In the early 20
th
century, the NEA created the Commission on the Reorganization of
Secondary Education that was tasked with reconciling important differences about the nature of
secondary education (Glatthorn, Boschee, Whitehead, & Boschee, 2012). The commission
published their findings in the report Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education where they
outline the need for required courses, specialty courses aligned with student interests, and
electives (Commission of the Reorganization of Secondary Education, 1918). The commission
was attempting to shape American education to meet the needs of all students, not just students
who were perusing a secondary education (Glatthorn et al., 2012).

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 24

As the American education system continued to progress, individual regions took on the
responsibility of educating their children. During this time, education took a number of forms,
including classroom education, home education, and apprenticeships (Rothbard, 1975). As a
result of different regions’ obligation for their students’ schooling, more affluent towns, having
more resources available, were afforded the luxury of providing their students with an enhanced
educational experience. The unequal distribution of resources from community to community
resulted in a cyclical imbalance.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As a response to educational inequities
associated with poverty, the United States Congress in 1965 adopted the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (NCES, 2014). This followed the Vocational Education Act
(1963) which focused on using educational institutions to create a skilled labor force. Along
with a skilled labor force, prominence was placed on the social importance of meeting economic
demands (Rojewski, 2002). One of the significant outcomes of ESEA was the development and
implementation of Title I. Title I funds are used to increase student achievement by making
education equitable, enhancing programs for students who live in low-income areas (US
Department of Education, 2014a).
A Nation at Risk. In the early 1980’s the US Secretary of Education, T.H. Bell observed
that the country was failing to produce a competitive workforce. Based on this observation as
well as noting that many American’s believed that the public schools were failing, an 18 member
commission was formed to evaluate schools in America. Their findings were published in 1983,
and titled A Nation at Risk (US Department of Education, 2014b). A Nation at Risk highlighted
the failing American school system and made several recommendations to remediate educational
practices (US Department of Education, 2014b). One of the chief grievances initiating this
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 25

report was the failing labor market and the need for a trained skilled workforce (Rojewski,
2002).
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Legislation. The Perkins Act
was initially established in 1984, and has been renewed multiple times. The first reauthorization
was initiated in 1990, the second reauthorization occurred in 1998, and the most recent
reauthorization took place in 2006, which is known as Perkins IV. Perkins is the legislation of
the allocation of federal funding for vocational education programs. Originally Perkins focused
on special populations, English learners, low-income, and disabled students. In the 1998
reauthorization, it was adjusted to deemphasize the focus on special populations (Castellano,
Stringfield, & Stone, 2003). Perkins IV increased the focus on the academic achievement of
CTE students, amplified the relationship between high schools and postsecondary institutions,
and also improved specific accountability measures (Department of Education, 2014).
No Child Left Behind. By the early twenty-first century, it was evident that education
had to undergo major changes in order to produce a generation that would be competitive in the
global market. Towards the end of the 1990’s, California incrementally adopted subject and
grade-level standards. By 2002, the Federal implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
shifted the education model to a results-based system. This new mandate incrementally
increased the expectation of student competency for the purpose of preparing the Nation’s
students to meet the needs of a global economy. The ultimate goal of NCLB was for 100% of
the Nation’s students to demonstrate proficiency in both Reading and Math by 2014 on
standardized tests. This narrow focus of accountability shifted the educational priorities away
from an integrated vocational curriculum towards content specific classes, with the emphasis on
Reading and Math.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 26

Common Core State Standards. In 2009, the National Governors Association and the
Council of Chief School State Officers collaborated to implement a countrywide set of standards,
intended to prepare the Nation’s students to enter the workforce and postsecondary institutions.
While the CCSS are based on the previous State Standards model (Coleman, Pimentel, & Zimba,
2012), the curriculum and instructional strategies necessary to implement these standards are
drastically different than their predecessors. The State standards focused on testing student’s
content knowledge while the CCSS focus on cognitive procedures. The once compartmentalized
curriculum of the ‘97 standards is in the process of being altered through a renewed focus on
problem solving real-world scenarios. This emphasis has come full circle and is paralleled with
the long-standing belief of CTE and John Dewey (Willhoft, 2013).
Local Control Funding Formula and Local Control Accountability Plan. As the
curriculum standards have shifted with the move to CCSS, so too has the California State
funding model. Beginning in 2014, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) fundamentally
changes the way K-14 public schools receive funding allocations. This model ends the revenue
limits and the categorical program established by Proposition 98 and replaces them with a model
that allocates funding to local education agencies (LEAs) equally with adjustments for schools
and districts serving foster youth, English leaners, and low-income student populations (Wested,
2015).
As a part of the LCFF process, LEAs are required to develop a Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) around following the State of California’s 8 priorities:
1. Teachers hold the appropriately credentialed and assigned.
2. Implementation of academic content and performance standards
3. Parental involvement
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 27

4. Pupil engagement
5. Pupil achievement
6. School climate
7. Access to a broad course of study
8. Pupil outcomes
In addition to addressing the eight state priorities, LEAs must also define how they will utilize
LCFF funding to meet their local education goals (Wested, 2015).
The new LCFF and LCAP processes represent significant potential impacts for
vocational, career, and technical programs. Categorical programs that have supported vocational
and technical education in the past are no longer supported in the new funding model. In
addition, vocational and technical educations are not referenced in the State of California’s eight
state priorities as established by the LCAP.
Purpose of Study
With the introduction of the new College and Career Readiness Standards (CCR anchor
standards), there is an increased expectation that all teachers integrate curriculum that is
commiserate with 21
st
Century skills required for the work place as well as higher learning. The
purpose of the study is to examine the impact the CCSS are having on the collaboration practices
of CTE teachers with traditional core content specialists. In the context of this study,
collaboration practices includes opportunities and professional development structures where
core content teachers work in conjunctions with CTE teachers to develop curriculum and
practices that are mutually beneficial.
The transition from the 1997 standards to the CCSS affords school districts the flexibility
to respond to the new standards by providing students with a holistic curriculum. There are
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 28

various approaches of how to best provide students with a holistic and integrated curriculum.
The CCSS have the potential to promote collaboration across all content areas by integrating
problem-based learning through real world applications.
Under the guidelines of the 1997 California State Standards, upper grade classrooms
largely became compartmentalized into content specific environments. Mirroring the
categorized structure of secondary teaching environments, CTE classes likewise became further
isolated, as supported by the CTE Framework (California Department of Education, 2014). The
CTE Curriculum Framework is correspondingly organized into groupings called Industry
Sectors. Moreover each Industry Sector is disseminated into different Pathways (Figure 1).
Each CTE pathway may have one or more classes designed to prepare students to meet the
specific set of CTE Pathway standards. As a result of these isolated subjects, CTE/ROP teachers
and content teachers spend very little time collaborating on developing integrated career and core
curriculum. This study serves to measure how teachers are collaborating to make these shifts. It
also seeks to identify teachers’ attitudes and dispositions as they design career and academic core
integrated curriculum.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 29

Figure 1. A visual representation of all of California’s Industry Sectors with each sector’s
respective pathways (Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, 2014).

Research Questions
The following research questions will provide a perspective for educational institutions to
consider as they implement the Common Core State Standards facilitated by integration of the
Career Technical Educational Standards within academic subject classrooms:
In response to the Common Core State Standards, what collaboration models are
employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by both core and CTE
teachers?
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 30

Sub questions:
1) How do CTE and core teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within
career pathways models?
2) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward the integration of the CCSS
standards?
3) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic
subject standards?
Theoretical Background
The combined pedagogical, and curricular influences of John Dewy, Ralph Tyler, and
Hilda Taba will be foundational sources for this research study. Additionally the contributions
of Lev Vygotsky and Elliot Eisner to the field of curriculum and instruction will aid in the
understanding and design of this case study. The life work of these aforementioned scholars
have impacted the ideals of curriculum and their contributions must be acknowledged when
understanding the philosophy and implementation of the integration of Career Technical
Education into the core academic curriculum.
John Dewey
One of the tenants of John Dewey’s educational philosophy was learning as a social act
(Dewey, 1897). Embedded within the Anchor Standards which span all of the CTE sectors is
Standard 9, “Leadership and Teamwork” (California Department of Education, 2014b). This
aligns with Dewey’s belief that learning is a social endeavor, as students must work
collaboratively to establish teamwork. The importance of student collaboration was later
emphasized by Lev Vygotsky who emphasized that students learn more effectively in social
environment (Vygotsky, 1978). Dewey also advocated for the importance of educations’
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 31

integration of life skills. One way for life skills to be integrated within curriculum is the focus
on skills that students would use in their careers. CTE teaches these skills by presenting real-
world, problem-based, scenarios for students to solve together (CDE, 2014b). This method of
instruction aligns with the problem solving philosophy of the CCSS as well as Dewey’s
proclivities towards problem-based learning. Embedded within these career skills is the
importance of students demonstrating proficiency in mathematics and literacy. CTE’s focus is
on preparing students for careers and post-secondary education that will lead to viable skills
applicable to the needs of the region (CDE, 2014b). This not only embeds Dewey’s philosophy
that students are learning a life skill but also touches on his beliefs that education should be
relevant and used to benefit society.
Ralph W. Tyler
Building upon the established foundation of John Dewey, one of Dewey’s protégés,
Ralph Tyler continued to elaborate on the purposed direction of curriculum. According to Tyler,
curriculum is a result of three different sources, the learner, society, and subject specialists
(Tyler, 1949). CTE integration closely resembles Tyler’s philosophy as the learner chooses a
path that aligns with their interests, society has dictated the need for certain career paths, and the
subject specialist come from both the work force and core curriculum teachers who integrate
technical skills within their curriculum. Tyler was also an advocate for organized learning
experiences which allow students to practice material in varied situations, benefit society, and
develop students’ interests (Tyler, 1949). When CTE is integrated within the core curriculum,
students have the opportunity to demonstrate various skills across a multitude of disciplines.
These students are able to learn content that is encompassed within the CTE Standards and the
CCSS. The skills students are learning are relevant to themselves, society, and the future labor
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 32

market, and students are able to choose a pathway that is appealing to them while still learning
the core curriculum of math and literacy. Tyler also believed that curriculum should be
integrated rather than divided by subject matter, and that curriculum should build upon itself
(Tyler, 1949), as it is demonstrated in an integrated CTE curriculum (CDE, 2014b).
Hilda Taba
Elaborating upon the earlier works of John Dewey and Ralph Tyler, Hilda Taba in 1962
released her book “Curriculum development: Theory and Practice”. Taba expounded upon
Tyler’s earlier effort of looking at curriculum as a linear progression (Taba, 1962). Taba’s work
continues to serve as the modern foundation for education’s current understanding of a curricular
scope and sequence. In agreement with Dewey’s (1897) and Tyler’s (1949) integrated approach,
Taba (1962) ascertained that subjects should not be taught in isolation. The influences of Taba
can be seen within the Common Core as well as CTE Standards. A proper CTE pathway
consists of a minimum of three sequenced CTE classes including an introductory course, a
concentration course, and a capstone course (Linked Learning, 2014). Along with the linear
progression of the three CTE courses, it is important that each of these classes are integrated
across the core curriculum, simultaneously emphasizing the core content within the CTE class.
Modern educational scholar Elliot Eisner also values the holistic approach echoed by his
theoretical predecessors Dewey, Tyler, and Taba (Eisner, 2009).
Research Methodology
Using the philosophical foundation of Dewey, Tyler, and Taba, an appropriate curriculum
should be based on an approach that integrates real work and real world experiences. The basis
of this cross-curricular understanding in conjunction with the forthcoming CCSS provides school
districts within the state of California an opportunity to re-conceptualize their existing
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 33

curriculum. To best answer this phenomenon, a qualitative case study will be conducted to
respond to the question related to the CCSS: “What collaboration models are employed by
districts to integrate the curriculum taught by both core and CTE teachers?” Five different
school districts within the Inland Empire, located in Southern California will be identified for
this study. The lead administrator in each district responsible for implementing the district
vision of CCSS, will be interviewed to determine the approach implemented in order to integrate
the curriculum taught by both CTE and core teachers. Both CTE and core teachers who
participate in professional development collaboration opportunities will then be interviewed to
evaluate their various attitudes and dispositions towards the integration of the CCSS and CTE
standards. Interviews will analyzed and triangulated using qualitative methods to provide an in-
depth understanding of the effects of collaboration between CTE and academic subject matter
teachers.
Definition of Terms
 California Career Technical Education Anchor Standards – In January of 2013, the
California State Board of Education adopted the California Career Technical Education
Model Curriculum Standards. Embedded within the Model Curriculum Standards are
Anchor Standards. Anchor Standards are universal concepts that span all of the CTE
pathway standards. The Anchor Standards include: academics, communications, career
planning and management, technology, problem solving and critical thinking, health and
safety, responsibility and flexibility, ethics and legal responsibilities, leadership and team
work, technical knowledge and skill, and demonstration and application. Anchor
Standards 2-10 are intentionally aligned within the CCSS English Language Arts
Standards and serve as a direct linkage between CTE and CCSS.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 34

 California Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards - In January of
2013, the California State Board of Education adopted the revision of the California
Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards. These CTE Curriculum
Standards include principles designed to prepare students for college and careers. The
CTE Standards are organized into 15 specific industry sectors with multiple pathways
outlined for each of the 15 industry sectors. Connecting all of the industry and pathways
are 11 specific Anchor Standards.
 California Partnership Academies (CPA) – A movement founded in California designed
to reform education by using small learning communities, based upon career themes, to
prepare students to be successful in the work place. These partnership academies
intentionally implement student curriculum by integrating career based skills into the
core curriculum.
 Career Technical Education (CTE) – Career Technical Education is often used as a
synonym with vocational education. Career Technical Education is the curriculum
designed to teach students the skills necessary for a specific trade. CTE classes have
traditionally included classes like auto shop, work shop, metal shop, and agriculture.
 Career Pathways (Figure 1) – Career Pathways are a sequence or set of high school
classes designed to prepare students to meet the needs specific to an industry. There are a
number of models designed to meet this purpose. Models of career pathways include, but
are not limited to Linked Learning, California Partnership Academies, and Project Lead
the Way.
 Collaboration Models – In the context of this dissertation, collaboration models refers to
the structure of the opportunities for core and CTE teachers to collaborate regarding
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 35

curriculum.
 College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards – The College and Career Readiness
Anchor Standards are grade specific Common Core literacy standards designed to
prepare students to be both college and career ready. The College and Career Readiness
Anchor Standards are divided into the following literacy components: reading, writing,
speaking and listening, and language.
 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) – A set of national standards designed to
rigorously prepare students, through real word and real work experiences. The future of
both America’s students and economy depends on a curriculum enabling students to be
globally successful and competitive in both college and careers.
 Core Classes – Core classes are classes that are traditionally emphasized and valued
within traditional, public, k-12 settings. The valuing of these classes stems, in part, from
the State holding schools accountable to these courses by assessing students and then
articulating or labeling the schools effectiveness based upon student scores within core
classes. Core classes are commonly known as math, language arts, science, and social
science.
 Course Sequence – A course sequence is a minimum of three classes that build upon each
other. The culminating class is intended to prepare students to successfully enter the
workforce within a specific industry. A course sequence is often used synonymously
with pathway sequence.
 Holistic Curriculum – A holistic curriculum is used synonymously with an integrated
curriculum (see Integrated Curriculum).
 Industry Sector (Figure 1) - There are 15 individual industry sectors outlined in the
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 36

California Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards. These 15 industries
include the following: “Agriculture and Natural Resources”, “Arts, Media, and
Entertainment”, “Building and Construction Trades”, “Business and Finance”,
“Education, Child Development, and Family Services”, “Energy, Environment, and
Utilities”, “Engineering and Architecture”, “Fashion and Interior Design”, “Health
Science and Medical Technology”, “Hospitality, Tourism, and Recreation”, “Information
and Communication Technologies”, “Manufacturing and Product Development”,
“Marketing Sales and Service,” “Public Services”, and “Transportation”.
 Integrated Curriculum (Appendix F) – An integrated curriculum is course content that
includes content from other courses. An integrated curriculum is used synonymously
with a holistic curriculum. An example of an integrated curriculum would involve
learning Spanish for nurses, algebra for nurses, and anatomy for nurses in classes
(Spanish, algebra and science) that are non CTE nursing classes.
 Linked Learning – Linked Learning is a California based movement that is financially
backed, in part, by the James Irvine foundation. Link Learning aims to transform
education by providing students with an integrated rigorous curriculum which links core
and CTE curriculum ensuring that students have opportunities to experience career-
based, real-world workplace situations. Link Learning provides grants to districts which
are designed to provide structured collaboration opportunities for core and CTE teachers.
 Pathway Sequence - A pathway sequence is a minimum of three classes that build upon
each other. The culminating class is intended to prepare students to successfully enter the
workforce within a specific industry. A pathway sequence is often used synonymously
with course sequence.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 37

 Pathway Standards – The pathway standards are the academic standards specific to a
similar group of careers. Each industry sector is broken into 3 to 7 different pathways.
The pathway standards are designed to prepare a student’s entrance into a particular
career field.
 Project Lead the Way – Project Lead the Way is a nonprofit organization that focuses on
curricula specific to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). There is often
overlap within STEM and Career Technical Education classes, and many CTE pathways
are frequently Project Lead the Way pathways.
 Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROCPs/ROPs) – Regional Occupational
Centers and Programs provide high school students with Career Technical Education
curriculum.
 Vocational Education – Vocational education is often used as a synonym with Career
Technical Education. Vocational education is the curriculum designed to teach students
the skills necessary for a specific trade or vocation. Vocational education classes have
traditionally included classes like auto shop, work shop, metal shop, and agriculture.
Summary
The educational history of the United States has periods of time where mainstream
education was combined with career technical education, and periodic episodes of time where
subjects were separated and taught in isolation. Different educational movements addressed
ways of helping society by preparing students to be vocationally trained, productive members of
society. Other educational movements nurtured environments where careers were deemed as
less significant and preparing students for college was the focus. With California’s adoption of
the CCSS in the 2014/2015 school year, education has realigned with its original purpose of
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 38

preparing students to benefit society, through the filter of both college and career readiness. As
teachers, administrators, and districts prepare to implement the CCSS, research is needed to
identify how districts will transition and provide structured models so that both CTE and core
teachers can collaboratively integrate a once isolated curriculum.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 39

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
CCSS Focus on College and Career Readiness
In the mission statement prominent on the homepage of the Common Core State
Standards website (Common Core, 2015) the founders of the nationally recognized initiative
boldly claim, “The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting
the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers.”
Evidence of these claims can be seen in the Career and College Readiness Anchor Standards,
which are a subset of the new Language Arts Standards. In these standards, English Language
Arts teachers are asked to address a variety of skills linked to both college and career readiness.
Conversely, the CCSS Literacy Standards stress the integration of literacy standards into the
other content areas, including technical subjects.
These new expectations mark a dramatic departure from the 1997 California Content
Standards and the Career and Technical Education standards, which neatly divided standards
respectively into academic content and applied skills. This separatist philosophy can best be
illustrated in the following quote by Rowjewski (2002):
A bulwark of social efficiency was the preparation of a well-trained, compliant workforce.
To accomplish this goal efficiently, vocational education was organized and rigidly
sequenced, an emphasis was placed on hands-on instruction delivered by people with
extensive business-related experience, and program funding and administration occurred
via a system that was physically and conceptually separate and distinct from academic
education. (pp. 11).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 40

This statement exemplifies the historically stratified nature of academic education and Career
and Technical Education. The CCSS, however, are challenging this paradigm. Inherent in the
design of the CCSS, academic content teachers and career and technical educators are asked to
share in the integration of a common set of standards for college and career readiness. As a
result, the CCSS have set the stage for academic content teachers and career and technical
teachers to engage in a common dialogue around standards, instruction, and applied learning.
How this dialogue and collaboration occurs is the main question of this study; more specifically,
what collaboration models are employed by districts to integrate career pathways among core
and CTE teachers? How do CTE/ROP teachers collaborate with core academic teachers to
create integrated curriculum? What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions regarding the
implementation of CCSS? To what extent are the LCAP mandates influencing district
collaboration models?
1997 CA Standards were clearly designed with a concentrated focused on content
specific knowledge while CCSS look at a common set of skills and competencies necessary for
both college and career readiness. Given these new expectations, the conflict between traditional
curriculum movements begs the fundamental questions: how do educators make choices regard
what students need to know? Do students need the applied learning and problem-solving skills
of a CTE curriculum or the academic content knowledge of the core disciplines, or both?
Tyler (1949) frames this essential curriculum question when he asks, “What educational
purposes do we seek to attain,” (p. 3) in his seminal work Basic Principles of Curriculum.
According to Tyler, this essential question drives curricular decisions regarding educational
objectives, selection of instructional materials, content, instructional procedures, and assessment.
As Tyler suggest, educators are making choices regarding curriculum on a daily basis and it is
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 41

important to understand why educators arrive at the decisions they make. As such, it is necessary
to understand the driving forces behind the history of American curriculum and relationship
between traditional academics and educating for the workforce.
This literature review will explore the linkage between the historical curriculum
frameworks of prominent curriculum theorists and education reform movements, both academic
and vocational, that have occurred over the past 200 years that have ultimately led to the
emergence of the CCSS. This perspective will provide a framework to understand the array of
influences and philosophical underpinnings of curricular movements and landmark educational
initiatives that have shaped teaching and learning in this country. This literature review will
also serve to link the research questions of this study to historically relevant curricular theories
and examine their connection to applied and project-based learning as well as integrated/thematic
models of learning. Finally, this literature review will chronicle the history of career-based
models of education and their influence on traditional academic disciplines.
Historical Perspectives on Curriculum and Connections to CTE
In exploring the fundamental goal of public education, the essential question around
teaching and learning begins with defining what is worthy of teaching (Tyler, 1949).
Historically, educators have proposed different answers to this questions based on a number of
political, societal, psychological, and philosophical factors (Tyler, 1949). For example, John
Dewey (1897), largely regarded as the father of American education reform, advocates for a
democratic, student-centered curriculum that invites the learner to be a full participant in society.
The CTE learning framework is consistent with the teachings of Dewey. CTE curriculum is
rooted in the teaching of higher-order thinking skills, decision-making and problem-solving
skills through collaborative models and applied learning in career-based concepts (Hartley et al,
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 42

1996). Dewey argues that this type of teaching and learning is necessary if we are to develop a
citizenry capable of meeting new societal challenges.
He further advocates for the teaching of critical thinking and real world, problem-based
learning experience that students can apply to new situations (Dewey, 1897). In this example,
Dewey’s framework for teaching and learning is grounded in a “philosophical screen” of
democratic principles intended to produce powerfully independent learners with the ability to
think critically and apply knowledge for a lifetime (Tyler, 1949). The screens with which
educators apply the essential question of what to teach informs curricular decisions regarding
educational objectives, selection of instructional materials, content, instructional procedures, and
assessment.
John Dewey, in his 1897 Pedagogical Creed, articulated the importance of educators
creating curriculum that addressed both the psychological and sociological needs of each student.
In addition, Dewey (1897) believed that education should be a social experience where students
collectively learn and investigate concepts. In turn, schooling should help students develop
habits that contribute to the shaping of society (Dewey, 1897). Dewey (1897) further states that
since the future is unknown, we must teach students to think critically and intentionally expose
students to real-world situations. Dewey (1897) stressed the belief that students come to school
already containing prior experiential knowledge and that the teachers pedagogy should facilitate
educational activities where students are enabled to respond to and interpret influences and
experiences.
Both Dewey and Tyler’s curriculum theories align seamlessly with the goals and intended
outcomes of CTE. Miller and Gregson (1999), CTE advocates and reformers, suggest that
curriculum must reflect a novel approaches to CTE that includes education that contributes to
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 43

solutions that have long plagued society in attaining its democratic values such as discrimination
and poor working conditions. This CTE goal is precisely what Dewey (1897) meant when he
suggested that students must be invited to be “full participants” in a democratic society.
Building upon Dewey’s understanding of curriculum and pedagogy, Ralph Tyler in his
1949 work titled Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, describes learning as the
process of changing a student’s behavior. Tyler (1949) believed that curriculum is derived from
a number of different sources. Specifically, Tyler (1949) stated that the three sources that shape
curriculum are the learner, society, and subject specialists. As practitioners implement their
pedagogy of designing educational experiences, they need to be cognizant of, and account for the
philosophies and psychologies associated with their objectives and their intended learning
experiences (Tyler, 1949). Tyler thought that curriculum needed to be evaluated through two
specific filters or screens. Tyler labeled these screens as psychological and philosophical (Tyler,
1949). Tyler also advocated that curriculum must be presented in proper sequence while
teaching multiple subjects within the same lesson. According to Tyler (1949) the educational
elements need to be organized so that they contain continuity and a sequential organizational
thread. Tyler alleged that the sources for curriculum ought to be interesting to students, impact
society, and have a scholastic foundation.
Elaborating upon the earlier works of John Dewey and Ralph Tyler, Hilda Taba in 1962
released her book Curriculum development: Theory and Practice. Taba expounded upon Tyler’s
earlier effort of looking at curriculum as a linear progression (Taba, 1962). Taba’s work
continues to serve as the modern foundation for education’s current understanding of a curricular
scope and sequence. In agreement with Dewey’s (1897) and Tyler’s (1949) integrated approach,
Taba (1962) ascertained that subjects should not be taught in isolation.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 44

As scholars continued to shape and construct curriculum, Taba also looked specifically at
pedagogy. Taba (1962) articulated that a properly implemented pedagogy needed to
encompasses certain elements, which she referred to as an objective, content selection, learning
experiences, and a component to evaluate whether or not the objective was obtained. Much of
Taba’s work emphasized the importance of planning, selecting, and organizing learning
experiences for students to achieve specific goals and objectives.
Madeline Hunter focused on pedagogy when she attempted to articulate a specific
method of planning these learning experiences by expanding on Taba’s work. Hunter formulated
a pedagogical approach know as Direct Instruction which encompassed a structure similar to
Taba’s (Hunter, 1995). Direct instruct is designed to facilitate an experience where students will
utilize information they have been taught and transfer it to different situations with the end result
of being able to transfer their knowledge to lager ideas. Often, as practitioners employ their
lessons, there is a disconnect between the explicit intended curriculum, and what students
experience after the delivery of instruction. Goodlad states that this divide between the ideology
of the formal curriculum and the experience of the student’s perceptions is known as slippage
(Goodlad, 1979).
Contributing to collective definition and betterment of pedagogical practices, David
Ausabel (1960), looked at how to develop inquiry-based lessons using advanced organizers.
This was an integral portion of Purcell’s lesson. Purcell used an advanced organizer in the form
of a concept map to outline the unit. She believed that the use of the concept map would help the
students to understand how the unit was organized, as well as serving to help the students learn
the material.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 45

Other contemporaries like Jerome Bruner (1961) contributed to the field of curriculum by
contradicting Piaget's theory that elementary aged students are unable to understand abstract
thought. Bruner argued that children are able to comprehend abstract concepts when the ideas
are properly scaffolded through the concrete, pictorial, abstract stages (Bruner, 1961). Bruner
believed that students are able to transfer their learning by connecting their understandings to
larger ideas, even if the idea is an abstract concept (Bruner, 1961).
Lev Vygotsky, also a psychologist, had a significant impact on the evaluation of
curriculum. Vygotsky’s research reinforced the beliefs of Dewey, Tyler, Taba, and Bandura that
learning was a social endeavor (Vygotsky, 1978).
Enhancing the earlier works of Taba and Hunter, Wiggins and McTighe (1998) looked at
the importance of planning, selecting, and organizing learning experiences for students.
Wiggins’ and McTighe’s backwards planning of curriculum focuses on pedagogical practices
and curriculum implementation with the end in mind (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Wiggins and
McTighe (1998) advocated that a product or evidence could measure or evaluate the fulfillment
of goals and objectives; this evidence determines whether or not the objective was achieved
(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).
Reinforcing and returning to the foundational beliefs of Dewey and Tyler, Elliot Eisner
wrote that curriculum should be based upon student inquiries and interests while educating the
whole student (Eisner, 2009). He also articulated that students need to learn at their own
individual pace. Eisner confirmed Dewey and Tyler’s principles that curriculum should build on
the student’s prior knowledge that students experiences outside of the classroom.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 46

Historical Perspectives on Vocational Education
Vocational education has been a part of the United States educational system since the
early 19
th
century. In colonial America, it was often the role of extended family to teach trades
necessary for an agrarian society while churches assumed the role or teaching basic literacy
(Scott & Wircenski, 1996). The need skilled apprentices was critical for building colonial
infrastructure, so this became them the main thrust of vocational education. However, the
demand for skilled workers increased resulting in an increased demand for literate master
apprentices. In 1647, as a result of the increased demand for literacy, the State of Massachusetts
ordered 50 households to employ 50 teachers to provide instruction in the areas of reading,
writing, and arithmetic; and shortly after, the other colonies joined suit (Scott & Wircenski,
1996).
Apprenticeships served as the predominate form of vocational training for nearly 150
years until the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (Scott & Wircenski, 1996). The birth of
modern factories and the advanced production technology relegated the apprenticeship to
specialized trades. As a result, students were sorted and selected and taught trades and practical
skills that were beneficial for the local economies. This “practical” education for the great
majority of students began the marginalization of vocational education (Kikncheloe, 1995).
The Smith Hughes Act of 1917 marked the first true legislative effort to standardize
vocational education in America. With the increase in job growth, young people were seen as a
potential source of labor. As a result, the education community responded employing curricula
that equipped students with skills that prepared them to assume paid, entry-level jobs
(Rojeweski, 2002).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 47

The Smith Hughes Act cemented in policy the educational philosophy of the Industrial
Revolution. Traditional academic disciplines acquiesced to job-specific curriculum to meet the
growing needs of the nation (Rojeweski, 2002). This particular philosophical perspective
embodies Prosser’s (1949) essentialist approach, which posits the purpose of educating must
serve to meet the needs of business and industry. In this point of view, a democratic society is
sustained not through the pursuits of the individual, but rather to prepare students to meet the
greater needs of society as a whole. The curricular philosophy championed by the Smith Hughes
Act created a narrowly focused and rigid approach to teaching and learning. Under this
approach, students would learn highly sequenced, job appropriate skills taught by individuals
from industry. While students left these environments work ready, they lacked the exposure to
other academic disciplines. This perspective stands in stark contrast to curriculum theorist such
as Dewey (1897) who suggests that education serves to empower the individual learner to
assume his or her place in a democratic society.
The next historical milestone in vocational education history occurred with the passage of
the Vocational Education Act of 1963. This new legislation presented a dual focus on preparing
students to enter the workforce while adding a social component. This shift marked a major
change in how the vocational education was viewed. By this time, employers were seeking
increased social skills of its workforce. The job market was changing, and employees were
interacting less with heavy-duty machinery and more other people. Thus, the business
community began to seek employees that demonstrated marketable social skills as well as
technical skills (Rojeweski, 2002).
Vocational educational reform continued to evolve in the form of the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational Education Act of 1984. The Perkins act continued to create an expanding view of
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 48

vocational education, one that, for the first time, included skills education for student with
identified special needs. Iterations of the Perkins Act have expanded to include academics as an
essential component of CTE curriculum. The Carl D. Perkins Vocation and Applied Technology
Education Act of 1990 marked the firm commitment of the vocational education community to
incorporate academic standards into career curriculum (Lynch, 2000). This initiative
underscores the vocational education community’s acknowledgement and commitment to a well-
rounded curriculum that emphasizes both applied learning opportunity and academic skills.
While formal Career and Technical Education has been a part of the American education
system since the early 1900s, the initiative is not without its detractors. In recent years, CTE has
been criticized for creating a system of tracking that funnels students of color, gender, and class
into training for low paying, entry-level occupations that do not require college or advanced
certification (Hyslop-Margison, 2000).
Some of these criticisms may stem from competing agendas within the CTE community.
For example, some within CTE believe the goal of the program exist to integrate academics into
workplace preparation, while others believe that CTE should prepare disadvantaged students
with job preparation to enter the workforce straight from high school (Lynch, 2000).
In addition to these philosophical differences, historical data on CTE suggests less than
stellar student outcomes. Over one-third of all secondary students enrolled in CTE programs are
not considered college-bound and another 8-12 percent of students in CTE programs are
considered educationally disadvantaged (Lynch, 2000). For students not matriculating to
college, transition from high school to career is essential. However, the opportunities for CTE
students tend to be limited, and when available, are entry-level jobs with little opportunities for
advancement (Rojewski, 2002).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 49

Recent Trends in Career and Technical Education
Educators in the early part of the 21
st
century have argued that the gap is narrowing
between the skills that are required for industry are those required in an ever-changing
technological society. The forces that are shaping the current landscape of vocational education
are a global economy that demands competitiveness, and the changing nature of skills and
competencies required by emerging technologies (Lewis, 1988). This recent change has caused
the vocational education community to overhaul its curriculum. Inherent in these reforms are a
greater emphasis on rigorous industry standards and the incorporation of high academic
standards (Lynch, 2002).
Yet another pressure creating change in the CTE community is the debate over whether
programs should be industry specific, or more broad-based organized into career clusters (Gray,
1999). Industry specific education allows students to gain a depth of preparation equipping them
with industry standards certifications and entry-level employment. Conversely, occupational
career cluster programs offer a breadth of experience in larger industry sectors allowing students
to have a wide array of CTE experiences.
As the vocational education community continues to evolve, echoes of the past begin to
resonate. Dewey, a pragmatist by nature, advocated for students to become critical-thinkers and
problem solvers, and CTE has recently begun to embrace the pragmatist mindset (Miller, 1996).
Pragmatic thought allows for student to think in an open-minded manner encouraging skills such
as experimentation and the development alternative solutions. At its core, pragmatism is
encourages the type of 21
st
century skills required of shifting, global labor markets. Pragmatic
curriculum prepares students for these environments by providing them with a skill set to be
vocationally adaptable and view change as a natural, iterative life process (Lerwick, 1979).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 50

In light of the changing labor landscape, many CTE reform frameworks have emerged.
Common among these frameworks are the following elements: career planning activity,
development of contemporary programs based on industry sector need, K-14 education model
emphasizing post-secondary education, contextualized teaching and learning, increase in career
academies, the use of authentic assessment (Lynch, 2000).
A theoretical framework that contextualizes these shifts can be found in Dr. Willard
Daggett’s Rigor/Relevelance Framework (Daggett, 2005). In his framework, Dr. Daggett (2005)
asserts that knowledge cannot be retained long-term nor used to create new learning without an
applied learning component. Equally important is the necessity to incorporate the appropriate
degree of instructional rigor to challenge student thinking (Daggett, 2005). When students are
exposed to these highly rigorous, highly relevant learning experiences, higher order skills such as
evaluation, synthesis, and creativity increase (Dagget, 2005).
A seen in Figure 2, there are four quadrants that characterize student learning along and
knowledge and application continuum. Quadrant A represents basic knowledge with little
application. Quadrant resents low levels of knowledge but many opportunities for apply
knowledge such as traditional entry-level CTE programs. Quadrant C represents increased
sophistication of knowledge with no opportunity to apply the knowledge. Quadrant D represents
that pinnacle learning in the Rigor/Relevance framework where student are exposed to rigorous
content while having an opportunity to apply new concepts immediately in real-world authentic
environments.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 51

Figure 2. Dr. Willard Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework

The concepts presented in Dr. Dagget’s Rigor/Relevance framework are consistent with
the direction that CTE is currently embracing with the adoption of the new 2013 CTE California
Model Curriculum Standards. According to the California Department of Education (2013), the
goals of the new standards are to, “meet the demands of the twenty-first-century workplace; help
students make a smooth transition into colleges and universities; and prepare graduates to
successfully compete in the global economy” (California Department of Education, 2013).
These new-look standard were intentionally aligned to Common Core State Standards as well as
the newly adopted Next Generation Science Standards; thereby, providing learning experiences
that incorporate rigorous academic standards with CTE applied learning opportunities.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 52

As evidenced by these reform efforts, CTE is placing a greater focus on college and
career readiness and preparing students to be competitive an a 21
st
Century global community.
This is a very different mindset from historical perspectives of CTE, which sought to have
student placed in basic entry-level jobs out of high school. Leaders of the CTE movement are
now acknowledging that the high-level skills that are required in college and the technologically
advanced workplace are bleeding together more than ever requiring a more balanced and
integrated approach to teaching and learning (California Department of Education, 2013).
The Impact of Globalization on CTE Curriculum
The U.S. Department of Commerce (2014) estimates that jobs related to science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, or what is know as the STEM fields, will increase by
17 percent by 2018 accounting more that 1.2 million jobs nationwide. While these sectors will
continue to thrive for the foreseeable future, the dilemma is that we will not have highly skilled
workforce to assume these jobs. As a result, the U.S. is forced to recruit and employ workers
from other nations with the skills and education to meet the demand.
Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011) argue the impact of globalization had placed every
American job under pressure. The ability to move work to worker anywhere in the world is
creating unprecedented competition over employment opportunities (Dagget, 2005). The next
generation of American worker will not only find themselves competing with their peers in the
labor market but also with international workers on all points of the compass. Free markets,
increases in technology, cheaper costs have created a robust global supply chain and a new
global workforce (Friedman and Mandelbaum, 2011).
The Harvard Pathways to Prosperity (2011) Report paints a rather ominous picture for
the U.S. as we enter the era of global economic competitiveness. The reports points to
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 53

“troubling signs” that the educational system in the U.S. for producing a skill gap in the current
generation of students leaving them underprepared to compete in a 21
st
Century global society.
These skill gaps are have been identified by the business community as staggering deficiencies in
written and oral communication skill, critical thinking, and problem-solving, creativity and
professional behaviors (Pathways to Prosperity, 2011).
This “skills gap” is underscored by the changing landscape of post-secondary education.
According to the Center on Education and the Workforce at Washington University (2013), 14
million new jobs will be filled by workers with some form of post-secondary education other
than a bachelor’s degree or other advanced degrees. Post-secondary certifications and training
for professions such as electrician, dental hygienist, paralegal, and numerous “middle skill”
health professions positions are increasing, and the dependence on a bachelor’s degree to as a
vehicle to a middle class income is decreasing (Pathways to Prosperity, 2011). In fact, in 2007,
27 percent of people with post-secondary licenses or certificates-credentials short of associate’s
degree-earn more money than the average bachelor’s degree recipient.
Reports such as these have sparked the private sector to support various worked-based
and applied learning initiatives. Fortune 500 companies such as Chevron and Lockheed Martin
are investing in educational reform effort such are Project Lead the Way (PLTW). PTLW is an
initiative that seeks to prepare students K-12 to assume the high demand and increasing STEM
careers. PLTW seeks to provide relevant, real-world education through applied math and
science curriculum focused on the areas that the Pathway to Prosperities report exposes as
current weaknesses in education: critical thinking, innovation, and problem-solving.
The Linked Learning Alliance is an example of yet another reform initiative that seeks
to leverage the support and resource of education, industry, and community partners to create
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 54

opportunities for integrated curriculum. Their mission statement is as follow: “Linked Leaning
is an approach to high school that integrates rigorous academics with real-world learning
opportunities in fields of engineering, health care, performing arts, law, and more” (Linked
Learning, 2014). The Linked Learning initiative has received substantial and sustained funding
from the James Irvine foundation in order to increase the implementation of curriculum that
promotes integrated academic and applied learning.
The private sector continues to join the conversation on educational reform in
unprecedented ways. It has not only become important to the framers of the CCSS to change the
way teaching and leaning occurs in the classroom, but society has taken stock of the effects of
globalization and the skills and experiences student will need to be competitive in the 21
st

Century. For these reasons, it has never been more important for academic teachers in schools to
work with CTE teachers to create integrated learning experiences that are both academically
rigorous and real-world relevant.
Shifts Toward Integrated Models
While integrated curriculum models have been present in education for decades, a shared
set of standards that span all content areas is a recent development. Walker (2013) suggest that
CCSS have created the ideal conditions to a powerful platform to re-design education. An
example of such efforts is the CTE California Model Curriculum Standards, which include
Common Core Anchor Standards for College and Career Readiness marking the first time core
academic teachers and CTE teachers would share a common curriculum. The intersection
between disciplines created by the CCR Anchor Standards has created an unprecedented
opportunity for core content teachers and CTE teachers to collaborate (Walker, 2013).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 55

Now CCSS are pushing these teacher groups together, the question remains: will teachers
collaborate to create academic and CTE integrated units? Will schools and districts create
systems of collaboration and professional development that will promote integrated units?
According to Castellano and Stringfield (2003), if the future imitates that past, the answer is no.
CTE reform efforts have occurred in the background as major educational reform efforts have
focused on traditional core academic content, and very little research has been conducted on
connection between CTE and traditional education reforms (Castellano & Stringfield, 2003).
Castellano and Stringfield (2003) expose the lack of research around CTE reform as a great irony
in the context of legislation advocating for increased integration and collaboration.
Comprehensive school reform (CSR) efforts have called for the inclusion of academic
standards in CTE curriculum for years, however, little attention has been paid infusing career-
based curriculum into the core academic classrooms. While Perking II and III established clear
expectations for curriculum integration, traditional CSR reform efforts continue to isolate the
academic from the vocational (Castellano & Stringfield, 2003). According to Hershey,
Silverberg, and Haimson (1999) CTE teachers and academic teachers often do not interact on
high school campuses let alone collaborate on integration.
The lack of collaboration between core academic teachers and CTE teachers is
antithetical to the notions of Dewey (1916) who argues learning must be contextualized in
engaging real-world scenarios. CTE teachers have been utilizing applied learning techniques
for decades with real-world career-based scenarios; yet it appears opportunities have been lost to
integrate career-themed curriculum within the academic classroom (Castellano & Stringfield,
2003).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 56

Sutliff (2000) argues that the academic disciplines must be prepared to open the
classroom to the outside world. Educators must move beyond the “ivory tower” mentality of the
past if they are to meet the expectations of a world that expects student to apply new learning to
unpredictable, real-world scenarios in order to solve novel problems (Sutliff, 2000). Thus, the
responsibility to bring the applied learning and career themed units of study into the academic
environment must be an intentional act of classroom teachers. Sutliff (2000) support this notion
when she states that teachers must be prepared to teach both academic and nonacademic
discourse.
Though evidence of collaboration among academic content teachers and CTE teachers is
scarce, hope for future collaboration is galvanized through element of the CCSS. For example,
CCSS calls for the increased use of informational texts in the instructional environments. The
fiction dominated reading/language arts curriculum present in the 1997 California standards has
given way to balanced expository texts of CCSS. This shift signifies an opportunity for teachers
in traditional academic environments to introduce texts such as technical manuals and other non-
fiction materials common in CTE environment (Walker, 2013).
Though evidence of the integration of vocational education in classical academic
disciplines is sparse, some pilot examples have yielded positive results. In 1994, the Rand
Corporation sponsored a study of eight schools implementing integrated vocational and
academic curriculum well before integration reform mandates (Eden et. al., 1994). The study
identified four major outcomes that resulted from the integration of academic and vocational
education: better-sequenced curricula, more student-directed learning, increased collaboration,
and smoother student transitions from school to work and college.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 57

While the Rand study was limited in scope, it serves as an example of the potential
integrated curriculum:
As a major reform, integration requires a great deal of capital building in both the
development of appropriate curricular materials and the training of teachers. Teachers
need time, resources, and guidance to develop materials to be used in an integrated
curriculum. Some commercially produced curricular materials are available (e.g.,
"applied academic" materials), but at schools that opted to acquire them, teachers
discovered that extensive reworking and supplementation were needed to adapt them to
local needs. Teachers also need to be trained in the use of teaching techniques that
support activity-based learning, including hands-on problem-solving, cooperative or
team-based projects, lessons requiring multiple forms of expression, and project work
that draws on knowledge and skills from several domains (Rand, 2014).
Clearly, the study suggests that integrated approached require a re-thinking of the status quo with
regard to curriculum, collaboration, and teacher training; and when these conditions are met, the
results are enriched environments for students.
Though the Rand study provides a glimpse into the promise of integrated models, the
preponderance of research on curriculum integration demonstrates that academic content
teachers and CTE teachers, as a professional practice, do not collaborate. Walker (2013) posits
that districts must take a much more intentional approach to engaging these teacher groups in
meaningful collaboration:
It behooves districts and school site administrators to foster the environment and culture
that will allow this work to take place. Breaking down department silos that currently
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 58

exist, as well as honoring, and encouraging the rigor and relevance inherent in CTE
curriculum, are important steps in that direction. (p. 19)
Walker (2013) further suggests that administrators must plan time for core academic and CTE
teachers to collaborate through classroom visitation, lesson study, Professional Learning
Committees, interdisciplinary lesson designs.
Evaluation of CTE Programs
Many studies have been conduct on the effectiveness of CTE programs focusing on a
range of outcomes from post-secondary career statistics to college going rates to standardized
test scores. All these studies have attempted to describe the value of CTE education. This
section of the literature review will chronicle several prominent vocational education research
efforts and their outcomes in order to evaluate CTE reform efforts.
In 2000, Kemple and Snipes conducted a study that focused on career academies’ effects
on education and work-based outcomes. The research consisted of a mixed methods study that
analyzed student survey data, transcripts, student achievement data, and observation data. The
findings of the study concluded that while career students where more likely to graduate high
school, they performed no better on state accountability measures than their non-career academy
peers (Kemple & Snipps, 2000). Additionally, post-secondary outcomes for both control and
treatment groups showed no statistical difference (Kemple & Snipes, 2000).
In 2001, Maxwell conducted a similar study on career academies that sought to determine
if career academies facilitated post-secondary education. Maxwell (2001) gathered enrollment
and academic performance data, graduation rates, and state university application data from on
school district as a part of the study methodology. Maxwell’s (2001) most significant finding
revealed that students who participated in career academies needed less remediation in college-
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 59

level English than non-career academy students though the rates for both remained high.
Another key finding showed that college graduation rates remained low for both groups.
Orr, Hughes, and Karp conducted another study measuring the effects of career
academies on post-secondary education in 2002. Orr et al. concluded an analysis of achievement
data and surveys as well as a comparison of alumni data with related national data. The findings
of the study suggested that career academy students reported enrolling in more college courses
than non-academy students and, as in the Maxwell study, academy student need less remediation
than the national average of students.
In 2002, Griffith and Wade conducted a study entitled School to Work. The study
focused on what the authors defined as “career and work related education” (CWE). The goal of
the study was to determine CWE’s impact the college enrollment and employment trajectories.
Griffith and Wade (2002) examined transcript data, higher education commission data, and state
employment data to analyze student outcomes. Griffith and Wade’s (2002) findings showed that
students participating in CWE experience more continuous employment and higher wages than
their non-CWE peers; however, there was no significant difference in college enrollment rates
between the two groups.
Stern, Raby, and Dayton conducted another significant CTE study in 1992. Again the
objective of the study was to determine the effects of career academies on post-high school
outcomes. The study focused on achievement and survey data from academy graduates with
those of non-academy graduates (Stern et al, 1992). The positive effects of the findings
concluded that academy students demonstrated higher attendance, grades, and graduation rates;
yet there were little to no effects on increased wages post-high school or increased chances of
post-secondary enrollment.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 60

Crain et al (1999) engaged in a study on career magnet schools in an attempt to
understand the effects of career magnet school on post-high school outcomes. The study was
large scale, random assignment model examining student achievement, attendance, and
graduation rates in addition to student surveys and interviews from both career magnet students
and no-career magnet students (Crain et al, 1999). The key findings of the study reported low
and average readers in career magnet programs showed higher comparative math scores than the
control group, 9
th
grade magnet students had a higher drop out rate than their non-magnet peers,
and career magnet students earned more college credits and selected a major sooner than there
non-magnet peers (Crain et al, 1999).
The studies cited in this section provide a small but representative sample of the
preponderance of evidence on the impact of CTE programs on student outcomes. In evaluating
these studies, it is clear that CTE programs and reform efforts have had a limited impact on
increased student outcomes across a number of categories. While the studies referenced suggest
incremental gains in areas such as attendance rates, grade rates, and the need for post-secondary
remediation, there is no established correlation between increased student achievement, college
going rates, or increased employment opportunities.
Though CTE programs historically have yielded limited outcomes in terms of student
achievement, the value of applied learning and career-orientated education remains at the
forefront of school reform. One potential reason CTE programs have not flourished as expected
could be the lack of intentional collaboration between academic teachers and CTE teachers. The
siloed approach to curriculum and collaboration has not allowed teachers to construct learning
experiences that are connected across classrooms. This lack of connectivity between classrooms
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 61

has left students struggling with bits and pieces knowledge with no way to contextualize their
learning (Dagget, 2005).
Funding CTE programs
With the arrival of the new LCFF funding model in 2014, more questions surface
regarding the viability of CTE programs. Under LCFF, CTE programs are no longer protected by
the categorical funding structures of the past. Through the LCFF process, funding for programs
such as CTE and ROP have been rolled into one flexible base allocation. As a result, CTE
programs are not guaranteed to receive funding and stand the risk of being lost altogether with
competing LEA priorities (ACSA, 2013).
In its current configuration, the new LCFF funding model is in conflict with the goals of
CCSS, which call educators to integrate rigors academic content standards with career readiness
skills. In its attempt to increase flexibility in how school district utilize funding, California has
allowed LEAs to essentially opt-out of offering CTE programs. The omission of a career
readiness component in California’s LCAP eight state priorities is contradictory to its adoption
of CCSS, which stress career readiness standards (PACE, 2013).
Summary
CCSS have set the change to bring about educational reform the likes of which public
education has not seen to this point in its history. For the first time, teachers of all backgrounds
and content areas of expertise are expected to teach a common set of standards for both college
and career readiness. This opportunity opens the door for teachers create integrated, authentic
learning experiences that are connected across classrooms and are relevant to an ever-changing
competitive global society. Stakeholders in the community and the private sectors have been
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 62

eager to see these reforms take hold in a meaningful way as evidenced by the numerous
initiatives pushing for increased outcomes from our K-12 public education systems.
Now that CCSS are expecting a greater level of calibration of instructional environments
through the CCR Anchor Standards and literacy standards, the question remains: will this
expectation change the practices of educators as the plan instruction? Will CCSS create
increased collaboration between teachers of different content areas resulting in a more integrated
approach to teaching and learning? Will school leaders create the conditions necessary and the
professional learning opportunities to allow teachers to successful integrate curriculum? Are
teachers’ attitudes and dispositions to these shifts such that increased time for collaboration
would result in meaningful pedagogical change? This study seeks to answer these impending
questions and school transition into the new CCSS.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 63

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
By the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year the majority of the United States
transitioned towards the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Prior to the implementation of
the CCSS, States independently adopted curriculum based upon various philosophies they
believed would increase student achievement. In alignment with the 1997 Standards, the
approach of many California schools had been teaching Career Technical Education (CTE)
courses in isolation. Philosophers such as Dewey, Tyler and Taba, adamantly opposed the
notion of courses taught in isolation and endorsed an integrated curriculum where students were
exposed to real world and real life problems in all of their classes, including their core
curriculum.
The philosophy of the 1997 State Standards presented students with isolated information
whereas the CCSS provided an opportunity for an environment where all subjects can interrelate
and interact. In conjunction with Dewey’s model, CTE provides students with opportunities to
learn in real world scenarios utilizing real life problems. Through the CCSS there is the
opportunity for schools to integrate CTE within the core courses, however districts have been
faced with multiple decisions on how to best endeavor the transition.
Purpose of the Study
The advent of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) created apprehension among
various educational practitioners within the State of California. John Dewey’s (1897)
philosophical attitude of integrating Career Technical Education (CTE) into a holistic education
was thwarted due to a segregated standards-based approach. In the 2014-2015 school year the
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 64

1997 State Standards were dismissed, paving the way for the implementation of the State and
Federal mandate of CCSS (CDE, 2014). Education had now evolved full circle; both teachers
and administrators were confronted with making decisions that shaped the future of education.
Embedded at the heart of these decisions, laid the identification of the importance of CTE within
the high school environment. The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the
collaboration models of different school districts within Southern California that were in
different stages of integrating CTE within their core classes. In response to this query,
qualitative research considering multiple case studies was conducted to analyze how 5 different
school districts, within a metropolitan location in Southern California commonly referred to as
the Inland Empire, were preparing to implement the CCSS with the integration of CTE.
Research Questions
To best understand the phenomenon of the unique and unifying approaches on how
different schools within a similar geographical region, planned to meet the challenges of the
Common Core State Standards through the integration of Career Technical Education standards
in math, English language arts, social studies, and science, the proceeding question was
investigated:
In response to the Common Core State Standards, what collaboration models are
employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by both core and CTE
teachers?
Sub questions:
1) How do CTE and core teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within
career pathways models?
2) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward the integration of the CCSS
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 65

standards?
3) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic
subject standards?
Method of Study
To understand the designed collaborative cultures and environments unique to each
district, a qualitative case study where scientific inquiry, examining in-depth the context, setting,
perceptions, and dispositions of impacted stakeholders, was implemented (Creswell, 2009).
Using “thick descriptions” as described by Merriam (2009, p. 43) affords the researcher the
flexibility to determine the generalizability of different aspects described in this research. The
“thick descriptions” furthermore allowed the researchers to evaluate aspects of relevancy which
may be applicable to similar districts.
Merriam (2009) credits qualitative research, specifically case studies, as best suited to
understand and study a phenomenon akin to the situation being researched (Merriam, 2009). A
unique feature of these particular case studies was the concept that this research focuses on the
specific phenomenon of collaboration structures, of a small geographic region, while integrating
CTE and core curriculum. Merriam in 2009 categorizes a case study that evaluates a particular
event as a “particularistic approach” (Merriam, 2009).
Sample and Population
Based on the research question, the respondents were identified using purposeful
sampling. Purposeful sampling is intended to select individuals whose participation will best
help to answer the research question (Creswell, 2009). Merriam in 2009 defines a bounded
system as the criteria for the selection. The bounded system of this research was limited to 5
specific school districts within the Inland Empire. The criteria selection specific for the initial
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 66

stage of the research were the lead administrators, located in the Inland Empire, who were
accountable for aspects of the implementation of the CCSS. Additionally, these lead
administrators had the ability to implement or influence a district wide vision regarding
integrated CTE and core curriculum. The candidates were employed by a district with an active
secondary CTE program. Excluded from this sample were administrative officials who were not
directly involved with CTE and administrators whose districts were not geographically located
within the Inland Empire.
The data collection also consisted of teacher interviews. The selection criteria for the
teacher candidates consisted of them being active participants in collaboration meetings which
were facilitated between CTE and core instructors that were within the prevue of the
participant’s district. Teachers who were not in attendance at one of the collaboration meetings
were not considered as candidates.

Figure 3. Flow Chart Representing Process for Each of the 5 Districts
Pilot Study
Two different researchers participated in the gathering of data for this specific study. To
assist with consistency and inner rater reliability, a pilot study was conducted. During the pilot
study both researchers interviewed 2 different candidates. The first interview provided the
researchers with the opportunity to establish uniformity and stability within the interview
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 67

process. The second interview was conducted to practice the newly established norms, and to
further ensure fidelity to the process. After both interviews, the researchers collectively and
collaboratively transcribed and coded the data. The procedures established within this pilot
study provided a forum for both researchers to practice their data collection skills while
increasing and calibrating the process to enhance consistency.
Instrumentation
This research was a multisite case study utilizing interviews of both administrators and
teachers. The research question attempted to understand the phenomenon of how teachers
collaborate while integrating core and CTE curriculum. In order to best answer the research
question, administrators who facilitated the collaboration were interviewed to determine the
process they implemented and to articulate their intended purposes. Followed by teacher
interviews which provided insight regarding the perspectives of the teachers regarding the
collaboration practices between CTE and core teachers. All interviews were administered by the
researchers and held to a semi-structured format. Through multiple interviews with
administrators, CTE teachers, and core teachers the researchers were able to increase validity and
reliability of the collected data.
Interview Protocol. Within the continuum of interview types, there are three commonly
used formats. Structured interviews follow the interview questions precisely and do not allow
for deviation from the questions. Semi-structured interviews use the interview questions to guide
the interview, but allows for the participants to add additional understandings, and the
interviewer to ask clarifying questions and discover supplementary insights. Unstructured
interviews are not typically led by a set of predetermined questions, but rather questions which
are based on the information given during the unstructured interview process (Merriam, 2009).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 68

A semi-structured approach allows the researcher the guidance and intentionality of the
structured interview, while still allowing for the benefits of the unstructured interview. These
benefits include the ability to use follow-up questions and for the participant to allow the
interview to go in unforeseen directions, while still tying the information to the original purpose
(Merriam, 2009).
The initial interview questions (Figure 3) were formulated based upon the data needed to
sufficiently answer the research question. Prior to the interviews, the questions were
collaboratively assessed by field experts and adjusted for greater accuracy and triangulation of
information. During the collaboration it was determined that altering the sequence of the
questions might have the potential for teachers to provide greater insight. A number of the
questions had to be removed due to underlying bias as well as potential close ended responses.
Other questions were altered because of the way they were phrased by leading the participant to
answer the questions in a particular way. Lastly, organizational specific vernacular was
rephrased so that these questions could be used within different districts, allowing the research to
broaden its scope.
The final interview protocol consisted of 17 sub-questions designed to answer the initial
research question (Figure 3). These sub-questions were written in an open-ended manner
without bias. In 2002, Merriam suggests checking questions to ensure they are written in an
open-ended manner, to reduce interviewer bias in the phrasing of the question. The final
interview questions included seeking information about district structures for teacher
collaboration on integrating core and CTE curriculum in response to the CCSS.
To further develop the protocol, it was important to take into account the physical setting
of when and where the interviews would take place. Since the participants were full time
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 69

educators their schedules were individually accommodated as to not interfere with their primary
responsibilities. For this reason, the participants were asked to select the date, time, and location
of the interview.
Process of Gaining Consent. Within the parameters of this study, each participant was
informed regarding the nature of the study, the intended use of the study, and the researcher’s
university affiliation. The participants were notified in writing of the voluntary nature of the
study, the anticipated time requirements of the study, and the potential benefits to the participants
arising from the study. Each candidate was educated on the purpose of the study, including the
primary research question, why they were chosen, their ability to opt out at any time throughout
the entire study, the voice recording of the study, the storage of the voice recording, the
disposing of the voice recording, and the anonymity assigned within their contributions. Prior to
their participation in any aspect of the study, their formal consent was acquired through their
signature.
Prior to the interviews, the researchers contacted each participant to schedule a mutually
convenient time to conduct the interview, allowing the participant to choose the location. The
duration of each of the individual interviews was approximately 30 minutes. Once the time and
location were solidified, the researchers sent an e-mail to the participants, containing the date,
location, and time of the meeting, as well as the consent form. Within the e-mail, the purpose
and research questions was restated in order to gain contemplative and thorough data, a copy of
the interview questions were provided. The e-mail also served to reinforce to the participant the
voluntary nature of the study.
Approach to Capturing Data. In order to ensure consistency within each of the interviews
the introduction and the purpose of the interview was scripted. The interviews began as follows:
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 70

“Our names are Forest DeRenzo and Ronnie Henderson. We are studying district
collaboration models between core and CTE teachers for the purpose of curriculum integration,
in response to the Common Core State Standards. We are doctoral students at the University of
Southern California and this interview is for use in our dissertation.
During this conversation, we are hoping to learn more about your thoughts and
experiences regarding Common Core State Standards, curriculum integration, and collaboration.
We want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. We will not
identify you by name or district. We would like to tape record this interview in order to have an
accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay? The tape will be digitally stored on an
IPAD and the recording will be erased once the interview has been transcribed.
This interview will last approximately 45 minutes, and you can chose to stop
participating at any time. Do you have any questions for us? Do we have your permission to
start recording your voice and begin the interview now?”
During the interview the participant was asked the interview questions in the
predetermined order. As the participant answered questions, follow-up questions were
developed as the interview progressed. These questions were used to clarify responses as well as
to probe for elaboration and more information. Throughout the course of the interviews the
researchers took notes regarding the participant’s demeanor, mannerisms, and body language as
the questions were asked and answered. Due to the nature of the professional relationship
between the researchers and the participants, it was of utmost importance to maintain a demeanor
of neutrality throughout the interview process by asking the questions in such a way to maintain
an environment of comfort and safety for the participants (Merriam, 2009). At the end of the
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 71

interview, the participants were reassured that the interview was confidential, and they were
informed that a copy of the research would be made available to them once complete.
Table 1
Interview Questions Aligned to Research
Primary Research Question: In response to the Common Core State Standards, what
collaboration models are employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by
both core and CTE teachers?
Sub questions:
1) How do CTE and core teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within
career pathways models?
2) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward the integration of the CCSS
standards?
3) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic
subject standards?

Interview Questions Purpose Research
1. What do you think is
most exciting about
the Common Core
State Standards
transition?

2. What is your
comfort level with
the Common Core
State Standards?

3. Why do you think
the state adopted the
Common Core State
Standards?

4. How will the
Common Core State
Standards impact
your district?
Question 1 is designed to
relax the respondent while
simultaneously acclimating
their mindset to concentrate
on the various attributes of
the Common Core State
Standards.

Questions 2, 3, and 4 are
designed to better understand
the respondent’s awareness of
how the CCSS is designed to
alter existing curriculum and
instruction.

Merriam in 2009, articulates
the importance of taking the
necessary precautions of
making the respondent
relaxed and comfortable. If
the respondents feel
comfortable in a
nonthreatening environment,
they will more thoroughly
answer the forthcoming
questions.

Cognitive load theory
suggests that individuals link
clusters of information,
known as schema, within
their brains. The data within
these questions will help the
researcher to understand the
respondents’ connections
between curriculum,
instruction, and the CCSS
(Sweller, van Merrienboer, &
Paas, 1998).

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 72

5. What accountability
measures exist for
your district and
teachers to ensure
that they are
preparing students
for both college and
careers?

6. How has the
Common Core
expectation of
preparing students
for college and
career impacted your
district?

7. What are the
implications of the
College and Career
Readiness Anchor
Standards on the
district’s
instructional
practices?

8. How is your district
supporting teachers
to meet the career
readiness
expectations of
Common Core State
Standards?

9. What pedagogical
knowledge do you
believe teachers will
need in order to
implement the
Common Core
Readiness
Standards?

Question 5 is designed to
understand the respondent’s
awareness to the correlation
between accountability and
institutional practices.
Specifically the researchers
want to understand how
different districts emphasize
and financially prioritize the
practices that they are held
accountable for.

Questions 6, 7, 8, and 9 are
designed to articulate the
respondent’s understanding
of the prominence of the
CCSS focus on both college
and career. Additionally the
questions are further designed
to understand the
interviewee’s awareness of
the ramifications that this
relationship will have on
curriculum and instruction.

Burke (2004), highlights the
relationships of various forms
of accountability. The
dynamics of this
accountability include how
educational institutions are
accountable to state mandates
as well as accountable to the
individual students.

The curricular and
instructional changes of the
Common Core Anchor
Standards intentionally
address college and career
readiness (CDE, 2014a).

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 73

10. What opportunities
does your district
offer for students to
engage in a hands on
learning?

11. How have the
Common Core State
Standards changed
the purpose of
Career Technical
Education?

12. How have the
Common Core State
Standards altered
your districts view
towards blending
Career Technical
Education and core
curriculum?

13. What does teacher
collaboration look
like in support of the
implementation of
College and Career
Readiness Anchor
Standards?

14. What does teacher
collaboration look
like to support the
implementation of
the Common Core
State Standards?

15. What expectation(s)
and support systems
exist for teachers to
collaborate?

Question 10 is designed to
understand the different
district professional
development opportunities
and the value that individual
districts place on hands on
learning in response to the
CCSS.

Question 11 and 12 are
designed to understand the
value that each district has,
and will, place on the
curriculum and philosophy of
CTE.

Question 13, 14, 15, 16, and
17 are designed to understand
each districts process for
teacher collaboration as well
as identify existing attitudes
and dispositions towards the
CCSS, the CCR, and an
integrated curriculum.
The scholarly work of John
Dewey (1897) brought
attention to the importance of
students being involved in
their educational process.
Hands-on learning is a
philosophy that is in
alignment with Dewey’s
work.

California Education Code
mandates that districts offer
curriculum containing CTE
additionally, the CCSS
emphasizes the expectation
that students are both college
and career ready (CDE,
2014a).

DuFour, DuFour, Eaker and
Many (2006) bring to light
the importance and benefits
of teacher collaboration.
Furthermore, Dewey (1897),
Tyler (1949), and Taba
(1962) all staunchly advocate
the need for an integrated
curriculum.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 74

16. What opportunities
exist to for Career
Technical Education
and core academic
teaches to
collaborate?

17. Describe the
professional
development you
have participated in
to support the
implementation of
the Common Core
State Standards?
a. Career and
College
Readiness?
b. Who
participated?
c. Was there
opportunities
to
collaborate
with teachers
from other
content
areas?
d. Which areas?

Multi-Site Case Study Considerations
Given the vast autonomy afforded to individual districts, there was a natural
inconsistency in the progression and implementation of the CCSS. Districts drastically varied in
their implementation, one of the 5 districts was in their third year of implementing an integrated
CTE and Core curriculum while participating in the grant funded Linked Learning initiative. On
the other side of the spectrum, a different district was engaging in conversations about how to
best begin employing the CCSS while making decisions about whether or not to provide
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 75

collaboration opportunities for core and CTE teachers. Given this gap in professional
development needs for each district, it quickly became apparent that the data would vary
depending on which district it was gathered from.
Data Analysis
Stake (2005) identified different types of case studies that vary in how the data is
analyzed. This particular case study is categorized as a collective multisite comparative case
study because a number of sites will be collectively studied to better understand the phenomenon
of the collaboration models employed by districts to integrate career pathways among core and
CTE teachers (Merriam, 2009).
Given the nature and specificity of the research question, a case study is uniquely suited
to better understand the phenomenon of the collaboration models implemented by the defined
districts. The benefit of best answering and understanding this particular phenomenon,
compensates for the universal restrictions often associated with qualitative case studies
(Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, the involvement of multiple sites and collective assessment of
multiple case studies, is a common strategy for increasing the external validity of the findings
(Merriam, 2009). The nature of the question implies the involvement of human interactions,
therefore contextual understanding is valued higher than the generalization and identification of
universals (Merriam, 2009).
Coding. After reading the notes and listening to the interviews several times, the
interviews were transcribed, verbatim from the recordings. The transcriptions were then
manually coded.
In order to analyze the qualitative data obtained through the interviews constant
comparative data analysis was utilized. Constant comparative analysis compares sections of data
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 76

to one another in order to establish commonalities and deviations. Although this is generally the
method used for grounded theory research, is it also suitable for research in which a theory is not
being generated (Merriam, 2009). For these interviews, several sub-questions were addressed.
The interview transcriptions were read looking for segments that addressed either the primary
research question or the sub-questions. As the interviews were being read, codes were written
within the margins, using the Microsoft Word Track-Change feature, describing the information
that the researchers found as relevant to the research question and sub-questions. This
information was then used to establish common categories that were present within the
interviews. Within the categories, there were several identified subcategories which covered the
pertinent information found in the interviews. Once the categories and sub-categories had been
identified, they were aligned to the research question and individual sub-questions.
Summary
In the 2014/2015 school year many states transitioned to the federal expectation of the
common core state standards. One approach to this conversion was the development and
provision of an integrated curriculum. As districts embarked on this transition there was a lack
of research on the collaborative techniques required for successful integration. To understand
this phenomenon a qualitative analysis of interviews was conducted within five different school
districts located in Southern California in a region known as the Inland Empire. This information
was used to answer the research question: “In response to the Common Core State Standards,
what collaboration models are employed by districts to integrate the curriculum taught by both
core and CTE teachers?” A specific interview instrument was developed to assist the researchers
in collecting the appropriate data to answer the research question. This instrument was used
during the interviews of district administrators accountable for common core and CTE
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 77

curriculum. The researchers properly informed all districts and participants of the purpose and
voluntary nature of the research, ensuring that proper consent was acquired throughout the
process. Once the data was collected it was transcribed, coded, and analyzed.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 78

CHAPTER FOUR
STUDY RESULTS
Introduction
Inherent is the design of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is the claim that
College and Career Readiness (CCR) Anchor Standards are imperative to the framework of core
instruction. The Common Core Website states the following:
To build a foundation for college and career readiness, students must read widely and
deeply from among a broad range of high-quality, increasingly challenging literary and
informational texts. Through extensive reading of stories, dramas, poems, and myths
from diverse cultures and different time periods, students gain literary and cultural
knowledge as well as familiarity with various text structures and elements. By reading
texts in history/social studies, science, and other disciplines, students build a foundation
of knowledge in these fields that will also give them the background to be better readers
in all content areas (Common Core, 2015).
The standards establish a clear connection between content areas and the interrelated skills
required to be college and career ready, including the range and depth of literary content students
should be exposed to, across the content areas, to meet this expectation. This chapter presents
the data collected from 5 districts in Southern California to understand the phenomenon
associated with these new expectations.
Purposes of the Study
One predominant reason behind the need for the implementation of the CCSS was the
reality that many students were graduating high school unprepared for both college and careers
(Common Core, 2015). The previous standards propagated an implementation strategy where
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 79

curriculum was disseminated in isolation, by subject matter (Walker, 2013). As a result, in
situations where teachers collaborated, their collaboration gravitated towards working within
their same discipline. With the renewed emphasis on college and career readiness, and
interdisciplinary standards, new collaboration structures and philosophies will need to be adopted
(DuFour, et al., 2010).
While the CCSS set the expectations for curriculum integration and, subsequently, the
need for unprecedented levels of teacher collaboration, this study sought to determine the extent
to which schools and districts were adapting to this new paradigm. As cited in the literature
review, career and vocational education teachers and core content teachers have not, historically,
worked collaboratively to develop integrated curriculum; rather, they have worked in isolation
distinguishing career skills from academic skills (Castellano et al., 2003).
This study examined the collaborations models that 5 Southern California school districts
have employed to prepare for the expectations of CCSS. Specifically, it sought to determine the
extent to which these districts had created conditions for CTE and core content teachers to
collaborate, to design, and implement integrated curriculum. It further sought to establish how
administrators and teachers were adapting to these changes.
Research Questions
To understand how districts within the Southern California region, known as the Inland
Empire, were responding to the college and career readiness expectations outlined within the
CCSS, the following primary research question was developed:
In response to the Common Core State Standards, what collaboration models are
employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by both core and CTE
teachers?
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 80

To further explore the various facets and intricacies encompassed by the primary research
question the following three sub-questions were generated:
1) How do CTE and core teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within
career pathways models?
2) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward the integration of the CCSS
standards?
3) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic
subject standards?
Methodology
The nature of the research question is suited for a qualitative inquiry methodology. This
methodology allows the researchers to explore the phenomenon through the insights, attitudes,
and dispositions of the participants. Qualitative investigation allows the researcher to explore a
phenomenon in detail from the perspective of the participants. This study examined the
collaboration practices of five different districts within a specific regional location. Given these
parameters, the selected method for collecting data and analyzing their results was a multi-site
case study. The researchers used semi-structured interviews of administrators, and classroom
teachers who were impacted by the CCSS implementation. Data collection and synthesis of the
interviews occurred through the recording, transcribing, and coding of interviews.
Instrument and Data
The data from each of the five individual districts was synthesized as a result of questions
designed and grouped to respond to the various aspects of the research question and sub-
questions. There were seven groups of questions that covered the multiple facets of the research
(Table 2). The first group consisted of Question One and was designed to allow the participant
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 81

to become comfortable with the interview and express their familiarity with the CCSS.
Questions 2 through 4 composed the second group and were developed to assist the researchers
in determining the respondents’ awareness of how the CCSS are designed to alter existing
curriculum and instruction. Group three consisted of Question 5, designed to explore the
participants’ response to and awareness between accountability and institutional practices. The
next group of questions, 6 through 9, emphasized the prominence of the CCSS’s focus on both
college and career. Question 10 comprised the next group, and looked at the importance of
hands-on learning for students in response to the CCSS. Questions 11 and 12 focused on
processes for teacher collaboration. The final group of questions, Questions 13 through 17,
focused on attitudes and dispositions towards the CCSS, the CCR, and an integrated curriculum.
The data from each of the respective groups was synthesized according to each district. Various
themes emerged that were universal to all five districts. Those themes were collectively analyzed
to emphasize the commonalities that the districts within this geographic region shared.
Table 2
Grouping of Interview Questions
Question # Purpose
Group 1 1 Establish Comfort
Group 2 2-4 CCSS Awareness
Group 3 5 Accountability
Group 4 6-9 CCSS Emphasis on College and Career
Group 5 10 Hands on Learning
Group 6 11-12 Teacher Collaboration
Group 7 13-17 Attitudes towards CCSS

Data collection occurred through semi-structured interviews of both administrators and
teachers. Semi-structured interviews transpire when the person conducting the interview has the
latitude to ask follow up questions based upon the participant’s responses (Merriam, 2009). For
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 82

these semi-structured interviews, questions were developed prior to the interviews to guide the
discussion. Both researchers jointly developed the interview questions, or interview instrument,
to ensure consistency among the interviews and increase validity and reliability within the study.
All interviews began with notifying the participant of their voluntary participation in the study,
as well as the purpose of the study.
Instrument. The interview instrument was a script followed by the researchers
conducting the interview. The script was provided to each of the participants at least 24 hours
prior to the scheduled interview. The interview script is provided in Table 3.
Table 3

Interview Script
“My name is Forest DeRenzo/Ronnie Henderson. I am studying district collaboration
models between core and CTE teachers for the purpose of curriculum integration, in response
to the Common Core State Standards. I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California and this interview is for use in my dissertation.
During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your thoughts and
experiences regarding Common Core State Standards, curriculum integration, and
collaboration.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify
you by name or district. I would like to tape record this interview in order to have an accurate
record of our conversation. Would that be okay? The tape will be digitally stored on my IPAD
and the recording will be erased once the interview has been transcribed.
This interview will last approximately 45 minutes, and you can chose to stop
participating at any time. Do you have any questions for me? Do I have your permission to
start recording your voice and begin the interview now?”
___________________________________________________________________________
Primary Research Question: In response to the Common Core State Standards, what
collaboration models are employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by
both core and CTE teachers?
Sub questions:
1) How do CTE and core teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within
career pathways models?
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 83

2) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward the integration of the CCSS
standards?
3) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic
subject standards?

Interview Questions:

1) What do you think is most exciting about the Common Core State Standards transition?
2) What is your comfort level with the Common Core State Standards?
3) Why do you think the state adopted the Common Core State Standards?
4) How will the Common Core State Standards impact your district?
5) What accountability measures exist for you district and teachers to ensure that they are
preparing students for both college and careers?
6) How has the Common Core expectation of preparing students for college and career
impacted your district?
7) What are the implications of the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards on
the district’s instructional practices?
8) How is your district supporting teachers to meet the career readiness expectations of
Common Core State Standards?
9) What pedagogical knowledge do you believe teachers will need in order to implement
the Common Core Readiness Standards?
10) What opportunities does your district offer for students to engage in a hands on
learning?
11) How have the Common Core State Standards changed the purpose of Career Technical
Education?
12) How have the Common Core State Standards altered your districts view towards
blending Career Technical Education and core curriculum?
13) What does teacher collaboration look like in support of the implementation of College
and Career Readiness Anchor Standards?
14) What does teacher collaboration look like to support the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards?
15) What expectation(s) and support systems exist for teachers to collaborate?
16) What opportunities exist to for Career Technical Education and core academic teaches
to collaborate?
17) Describe the professional development you have participated in to support the
implementation of the Common Core State Standards?
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 84

a. Career and College Readiness?
b. Who participated?
c. Was there opportunities to collaborate with teachers from other content areas?
Which areas?
____________________________________________________________________________

Coding. Once the instrumental data were collected, interviews were transcribed
verbatim and the researchers began the coding process. Verbatim transcription of the interviews
was chosen as it is the most accurate approach for data organization (Lodico, Spaulding, &
Voegtle 2010). The researchers then reviewed the data to better understand the depth and
breadth of the information received. This process enabled the researchers to determine codes
that emerged from the data, and ascertained that no additional information was needed (Lodico et
al., 2010,). The researchers synthesized the information obtained using the constant comparative
model, that required the researchers to read over the data multiple times, each time with a
specific focus (Lodico, et al., 2010). During the analysis, common themes began to emerge that
were consistent throughout the participating districts.
The researchers reviewed the data, identifying segments that were related or addressed
the same issues. In order to easily identify these trends in the data, the segments were labeled.
These labels enabled the researchers to find connections within the research. It was essential that
the researchers reread the material to ensure that no information or connection was overlooked.
These labels, known as codes, can be a single word or phrase which identifies a particular idea,
behavior, or issue (Lodico et al., 2010). The emergent codes were collected and alphabetized
into a single location, which enabled the researchers to see the commonalities among the districts
(Table 4).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 85

Table 4
_____________________________________________________________________________
Identified Codes
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accountability: Bureaucratic
Accountability: Bureaucratic/gap
Accountability: Evaluation
Accountability: Financial
Accountability: Peer
Accountability: Political
Attitude: Anxiety
Attitude: Confidence
Attitude: Confidence/Teachers
Attitude: Doubt
Attitude: Need for Clarification
Attitude: Prepared/college and career
Attitude: Proponent of Integration
Attitude: Reservation
Attitude: Student Advocacy
Attitude: Supported in the Implementation
Attitude: Uncomfortable
CTE Initiative
Culture
Curriculum Framework: Acknowledging
Differences
Curriculum Framework: RCD
Design: Acknowledging differences
Design: Basic Knowledge
Design: Basic Knowledge gap/college and
career
Design: Basic Knowledge gap/ela
Design: Basic Knowledge
gap/math/elementary
Design: Basic Knowledge/college and career
Design: Basic Knowledge/math
Design: Basic Knowledge/math/8-12
Design: Equity
Design: Higher Cognitive Design
Design: Integration
Design: Intermediate knowledge
Design: Intermediate Knowledge/College and
Career
Design: Minimal Exposure
Instructional Materials
Instructional Materials: gap/no materials
LEA Initiative
LEA Initiative: Career Pathways/work
experience
LEA Initiative: Career Readiness
LEA Initiative: CTE
LEA Initiative: Multiple focuses
Lesson Design: gap
Lesson Design: gap/no materials
Professional Development: Common Core
Professional Development: Common
Core/Literacy
Professional Development: CTE Standards
Professional Development: Curriculum
Professional Development: Structure
Professional Development: Structure/data
analysis
Professional Development:
Structure/integration
Professional Development: Technology
Rational: Financial motivation
Shift: Applied Learning
Shift: Career Readiness
Shift: Challenging existing paradigms
Shift: Challenging existing
paradigms/resistance
Shift: CTE
Shift: Instructional Approach
Shift: Integration
Shift: Low – Level student task
Shift: Structure
Shift: Student Collaboration
Shift: Technology
Teacher Collaboration
Teacher Collaboration: CTE
Teacher Collaboration: ELA/Math
Teacher Collaboration: Gap
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/college and
career readiness
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/integration
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/primary –
secondary
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/Structure
Teacher Collaboration: Inconsistency
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 86

LEA Initiative: Academy
LEA Initiative: Career Pathways
LEA Initiative: Career Pathways/High School
Professional Development: Articulation
Professional Development: Career Readiness
Teacher Collaboration: Integration
Teacher Collaboration: interdepartmental
Teacher Collaboration: Structure
Teacher Education: Gap/exposure to other
content areas
__________________________________________________________________________

Results by District

District A

At the time of the study, District A was a large, urban K-12 school district serving a
demographically diverse student population. The district was characterized as a high poverty
district with 93.6 percent of student families considered socio-economically disadvantaged as
opposed to the county average of 70.5 percent. The district’s Latino/Hispanic student population
made up 73.5 percent of the district total population (Figure 4) and 27.6 percent of the students
were identified as English Learners (Figure 5). Other, sizable subgroups included African
American (13.7 percent), and White (7.5 percent). Of the districts included in this study, District
A had the highest percentage of Hispanic/Latino students, students identified as English
Learners, and students of low-socioeconomic status.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 87

Figure 4. District A: Demographic Data

Figure 5. District A: Special Populations

Case Study for District A

In analyzing the interview responses of both participating teachers and the district
administrator, several prominent themes emerged. Table 5 illustrates the job positions held by
each of the respondents. The responses to both the primary research questions and the sub
73.5%
13.7%
7.5%
1.6%
1.2%
1.2%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
District A Demographic Data
Population 53,785
Hispanic/Latino-39,541
African American-7,372
White-4,025
Asian-860
Two or More Races-636
None Reported-618
Filipino-208
American Indian-286
Pacific Islander-239
0 20 40 60 80 100
27.6%
93.6%
19.8%
70.5%
District A Special Population by Percentage
of Enrollment
County
District
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 88

questions identified four major themes. First, District A respondents indicated that the
organization recognized major shifts in the expectation of CCSS versus CA 1997 standards.
Second, respondents acknowledged the implications of the higher cognitive demand the CCSS
presents. Third, District A was committed to addressing the CCR standards through the
implementation of career pathways. Lastly, District A respondents indicated that efforts to
implement CCSS through teacher collaboration had been inconsistent.
Table 5

District A: Participant’s Role within their District
District Position Participant
Administrator A1
CTE Teacher A2
Core Teacher A3

Findings pertaining to primary research question (Questions 1, 2-4, 5, 10). The
primary research question for this study sought to understand how school districts were
responding to the CCSS by implementing teacher collaboration models designed to integrate the
CCSS curriculum taught by core and CTE teachers. To understand why districts made specific
decisions about how to implement the CCSS it is critical to understand one of the motivating
factors behind their decisions. In relation to the primary question, District A acknowledged the
several distinct differences between CA 1997 standards and the CCSS, specifically the high
cognitive demand evident in the CCSS and implications of these shifts.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 89

General Theme 1: Design. When asked about the their understanding of CCSS and the
implications of the new standards, all respondents acknowledged, to varying degrees, differences
between the CA 1997 and CCSS. Responses ranged from an emergent understanding of CCSS
of the rationale behind CCSS and its design features to detailed knowledge of CCSS design.
Participant A2: … Common Core standards requires that curriculum enables students to
think and reason critically in order to resolve authentic, relevant 21
st
century
issues giving students the opportunity to compete on a global level.
Participant A3: … At the secondary level in math, we have also decided to adopt an
integrated pathway to teach high school math rather than the traditional pathway
of Algebra 1, Geometry, then Algebra 2. While I believe that this was a wise
choice, it is a change from what people are used to. This has made the transition
slightly more challenging for all stakeholders.
The participant’s responses indicated that they had identified and internalized meaningful
differences between CA 1997 and the CCSS standards. Respondents in District A were
particularly aware of the implication of the CCSS on curriculum. Both participant A2 and A3
intimated that new curriculum models would need to be employed as a result of CCSS
expectations.
General Theme 2: Shifts. While District A respondents acknowledged the differences
between CA 1997 standards and CCSS, the second general theme addressed the specific shift of
higher cognitive demand of the CCSS. This related to the primary research question in that
District A had recognized a specific need for increased rigor that was not present in the current
curriculum.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 90

Participant A1: … I think that for too many years it has been a reliance on scripted curriculum
that has…um…kind of limited the creativity of our teachers and the rigor and
relevance of the content because the curriculum took over.
Participant A3: … Well…I think the most exciting thing about the CCSS transition is that…at
their core…they ask students to think critically rather than simply training them to
find a correct answer.
The data from the participants’ referenced terms such as creativity, rigor, and critical
thinking suggested a departure from low-level knowledge associated with prior standards
movements to CCSS skills that correlate to the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s
Depth of Knowledge (Wested, 2015). Participant A1 comment also introduced the idea of
increased relevance of curriculum as a central shift in CCSS.
Administrator Theme 1: LEA Initiatives. In response to the primary research question,
the lead administrator of District A focused largely on the LEA (district) initiatives to describe
the implementation of CCSS.
Participant A1:…Well I think that one of them is that we have aligned our assessments to
the RCD process. RCD is the curriculum framework we are implementing to
develop common core units of study.
Participant A1:…I think that there are formalized and unformalized processes in the
works. We are the beginning stages of all of certifying our career pathways. But
now, just recently having someone appointed to the to the directorship, that
department demonstrates that we have a huge commitment to college and career
readiness.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 91

The response provided by Participant A1 specified two models District A was utilizing to
implement CCSS: Rigorous Curriculum Design (RCD) and career pathways. The data provided
by Participant A1 suggested that the district was relying on existing frameworks to play an
integral role in professional development and teacher collaboration.
Combined Teacher Theme 1: Design. Information gathered from both teachers
emphasized the design aspects of CCSS that focus on college and career readiness.
Participant A2:… At the high school level and below, allowing students the opportunity
to be exposed to several careers and college interests before graduation.
Graduating with a high school diploma and employability tools for success
whether or not students choose to pursue higher education.
Participant A3:… This topic has become a regular part of our dialog and, hopefully, has
begun to permeate teaching and learning on site. The CCSS have a greater focus
on what students need to master to be prepared for both college and career, so
with that, as we are teaching the CCSS and as students are reaching proficiency in
the CCSS, they will be better prepared for both college and career.
As demonstrated by the teachers’ comments, the concept of college and career readiness
was recognized as important to CCSS implementation in District A. In addition, Participant A3
stated that college and career readiness had become a regular part of the dialog among teachers at
his/her particular school site.
Combined Teacher Theme 2: LEA Initiative. Both teachers from District A identified
LEA Initiatives as a major theme in relation to the primary research question.
Participant A2:... Our district has continued to support academies across high school
sites. These academies seem to be driving our pathways since they are much more
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 92

established. Our district also offers students ROP courses to engage in a hands on
learning opportunity.
Participant A3:… Our district is in the process of developing career pathways/academies,
which will give students work experience in a specific field.
Both responses were consistent with the responses of the lead administrator regarding the
focus on LEA initiatives. As suggested by Participant A2, District A appeared to be in
transition from existing district structures known as “academies” to a new paradigm of career
pathways. Both teachers acknowledged the purpose of such frameworks serve to provide
students with “hands on” or “real world” experiences.
Findings pertaining to first sub-question (Questions 6-9, 11-12). In support of the
primary research question, the first sub-question sought to understand how CTE and core
teachers collaborated to develop integrated curriculum within career pathways models. The
theme of career pathways that continued through participant’s responses, suggested that the
concept had taken root as foundational component of the CCSS.
General Theme 1: Shifts. Learning through tasks and applying concepts to experiential
contexts emerged as a prominent theme in response to the first sub-question.
Participant A1…Well I think the common core is bringing in the task-based learning
approaches. It brings out the creativity in our students.
Participant A3…I believe that teachers need to understand how their content is applied in
various careers in order to effectively teach students to be ready for those careers,
and others…Many have not had the experiences outside of an educational setting
in which they can apply their content knowledge to a career other than teaching.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 93

The respondents’ comments focused on the CCSS shifts to task-based learning and
applied learning. Participant A1 described instructional practices grounded in learning tasks,
while Participant A3 expressed the need for teachers to learn how their content is applied to real-
world scenarios or problems. In addition, Participant A3 identified a perceived need for
teachers to seek experiences in the career fields related to their content areas in order to
effectively teach applied concepts.
General Theme 2: Design. Participants, in general, acknowledged the integrated
approach of academic and career readiness evident in the CCSS.
Participant A1…I think the implication is that, now, they [CCR] need have to…um…be
intentionally woven into all of the subject areas. We used to think of it as high
school thing or and adult ed thing, and now it will be woven in, and I think we are
working on that as a district.
Participants A3…The CCSS have shifted the CTE education from being the
responsibility of the CTE teacher to being the responsibility of all teachers.
As these comments suggested, participants in District A had clearly perceived the CCRs
and other integrated CCSS features as the responsibility of all teachers regardless of content area.
Administrator Theme 1: Professional Development. During the interview conducted
with the administrator from District A, the participant referenced the professional development
efforts employed by the district to implement LEA initiatives. The most prevalent professional
development theme cited by the administrator was the implementation of educational
technology.
Participants A1: We are, also…working to provide each campus with a technology site
coach. Each campus has at least one site coach assigned to them. They are being
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 94

trained on how to take that learning back to the sites. We are trying to bring more
technology into the classroom.
During the interview, the administrator clearly linked the educational technology
professional development that teachers had received from the “site tech coaches” as a
fundamental strategy in the district implementation of CCSS.
Combined Teacher Theme: LEA Initiative. The theme of career pathways as an LEA
initiative in District A was clear in the data from both the CTE and the core teacher interviews.
Details and expectations of the career pathways were consistent across the responses.
Participant A3…One of the movements of the district is to have every student involved
pathways for student to join while in high school. These pathways are designed
to give students their high school curriculum while also engaging them in a career
experiences and/or certifications. This will help our graduates be fully prepared
to enter either a college setting or a career setting.
Participants A2: We are shifting to pathways district-wide. There is a heavy emphasis to
create wall-to-wall career focused pathways at our school site.
The evidence provided by the participants demonstrated that the concept of career
pathways is recognized by teachers, both core and non-core, as an expectation of CCSS
implementation. Moreover, participant A3 acknowledged that the LEA initiative of career
pathways would, in fact, positively impact students’ readiness for college and careers. This
statement suggested that the participant not only acknowledged career pathways as an LEA
Initiative, but also endorsed it as an effective strategy on the implementation of CCSS.
Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions (Questions 13-17). The second
and third sub-questions both supported the primary research question by exploring teachers’
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 95

attitudes and dispositions. The second sub-question looked to understand these attitudes and
dispositions in regards to the integration of the CCSS. The third sub-question specifically sought
to understand these attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic subject
standards. Teacher collaboration was the dominant theme in all three interviews in regards to the
second and third sub-question. More specifically, each participant cited the lack of consistency
in teacher collaboration.
General Theme: Teacher Collaboration. The theme of teacher collaboration resonated
throughout all of the respondents statements.
Participant A2…currently, time to collaborate on a daily basis at our site seems non-
existent. The only form of teacher collaboration between sites is no Monday
mornings at staff and department meetings.
Participant A1:…Yeah…I think a lot of the work [CCSS curriculum development] was
getting calibrated. We had a lot of people [teachers] from elementary and
secondary. I think some of the work was done with everybody in the room, but it
has not been as consistent as we would like.
Participant A3:…While this [teacher collaboration] varies from site to site, our site has
implemented a professional development cycle using our late start Mondays.
As evidenced by the responses, participants, in varying degree, recognized that teacher
collaboration efforts are intermittent at best. Participant A2 described time for collaboration as
seemingly “non-existent,” while Participant A1 described attempts at collaboration that did not
include all teachers. Participant A3 posited that teacher collaboration varied depending on the
school site priority.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 96

Administrator Theme: Teacher Collaboration. The administrator participant from
District A cited several structures that were in place for teachers to collaborate, but admitted that
the efforts were not enough to reach the desired outcomes. While some structures such as
defined meeting times seemed more concrete, references to “clusters” and site collaboration
times appeared much more loose and random.
Participant A1…We have had department chair meetings, we the RCD unit writing
meetings. Every initiative pre-meeting, we have teachers at the table and they
collaborate not only with their peers but also at the district level in elementary and
secondary work. I think we need to continue to work so that there is collaboration
time at the sites. I mean…you can always get better.
Participant A1:…Again, I think this [teacher collaboration] is something to work on in
clusters.
Overall, the administrator’s impression recorded in the interview suggested that there
were many gaps in the teacher collaboration structure; however, the participant did express a
positive outlook that less formal structures would be solidified in the future.
Combined Teacher Theme: Teacher Collaboration. Both teacher participants provided
responses that illustrated the variables at play that prevented teacher collaboration from
occurring in District A.
Participant A2:…Teaching in the classroom with only one conference period really limits
how much we can collaborate with other content areas, especially when the
conference periods are different. Trying to teach a 7 period day with only one
conference really disadvantages opportunities to make time to collaborate with
teachers from other content areas. It seems there is not time…um…allocated
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 97

from our site to work with other cross-curricular content areas. Seems there is no
time unless it is done outside of school hours.
Participant A3:…At our site, CTE and core teachers work together at least on the second
and fourth Monday of each month. Core teachers who are in career pathways
have more opportunity to work collaboratively with CTE teachers.
It was clear through the interview process that the CTE teacher expressed a tone of
frustration when addressing the time constraints preventing CTE and core teachers from
collaborating. The participant continued to point out that the district had not created the
conditions within the organization to allow CTE and core teachers to collaborate.
Conversely, the core teacher acknowledged structures for CTE and core teacher
collaboration, however, the participant also acknowledged that preference for these collaborative
opportunities had been given to core teachers associated with a career pathway.
District B
District B is located in an adjacent county to the other four districts featured in this study.
As compared to the county average of 67.9 percent (Figure 7), District B had a relatively small
low-socioeconomic population (23.8 percent), the smallest of all districts in the study. District B
also had the smallest population of English Learners (5.6 percent) when compared to the study
districts. The district’s two largest subgroups were nearly equal in size with 39.2 percent of the
students of Latino/Hispanic origin and 36 percent of White origin. The district also had
significant populations of Asian students (9.1 percent), African American students (5.1 percent),
and students identifying with two or more races (5.1 percent) (Figure 6).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 98

Figure 6. District B: Demographic Data

Figure 7. District B: Special Populations

Case Study for District B

In interviews with the participating teachers and lead administrator from District B,
several dominant themes emerged connected to the primary research question and the sub-
questions. The CCSS shift to applied learning through increased relevance in curriculum and
expanded CTE and ROP programs were among these themes. Participants expressed increased
39.2%
36.0%
9.1%
5.8%
5.1%
3.0%
1.3%
0.3%
0.2%
District B Demographic Data
Total Population 6,987
Hispanic/Latino-2,737
White-2,518
Asian-635
African American-408
Two or More Races-354
None Reported-211
Filipino-92
American Indian-19
Pacific Islander-13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
5.6%
23.8%
39.8%
67.9%
District B Special Population by Percentage
of Enrollment
County
District
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 99

accountability on the teachers to raise the level of their instruction to the rigor of CCSS. Table 6
illustrates the job positions held by each of the respondents. In addition, respondents perceived a
gap in professional development and teacher collaboration, specifically as it related to CTE and
core teachers. The attitudes and dispositions of the participants ranged from confident in nature
to negativity regarding the lack of structures in place to create opportunities for CTE and core
teachers to engage in collaboration.
Table 6

District B: Participant’s Role within their District
District Position Participant
Administrator B1
CTE Teacher B2
Core Teacher B3

Findings pertaining to primary research question (Questions1, 2-4, 5, 10). The
primary research question for this study sought to understand how school districts were
responding to the CCSS by implementing teacher collaboration models designed to integrate the
CCSS curriculum taught by both core and CTE teachers. To understand why districts made
specific decisions about how to implement the CCSS it was critical to understand the motivating
factors behind their decisions. In District B, the focus of the responses to the primary research
question coalesced around three main themes: shifts, accountability, and teacher collaboration.
General Theme 1: Shift. In the interviews conducted, each participant cited the CCSS
shift to increased applied learning opportunities for students through expanded CTE and ROP
programs.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 100

Participant B3:…Students will be challenged to make real-world connections and
hopefully see the relevancy in what they are learning as opposed to the just
memorizing facts or strategies.
Participant B1:…You can make a case the ROP and electives create opportunities for
students to engage in hands-on learning, but it is not systematic. It is all really
site based.
While each participant acknowledged the shifts, the lead administrator suggested that
efforts to incorporate applied learning through ROP and elective programs were inconsistent.
Furthermore, the administrator’s responses did not suggest that any changes in programs or
collaborative practices in ROP and elective programs had occurred as a result of the CCSS.
General Theme 2: Accountability. The theme of accountability was common among
participant responses. The lead administrator’s responses were focused on political
accountability while the teachers’ responses were focused on teacher accountability.
Participant B1…I guess the published answer is that the governors, getting together
saying we need to get more online with college and career. That may be what the
narrative is. There is a little bit of a cynic inside of me wonders if the states
adopted this [CCSS] for, you know, what are the corporate interests?
Participant B2…It will be a great benefit to have higher learning expectations and
holding teachers accountable to not just teach the standards but how to apply them
at a greater depth of knowledge.
The lead administrator responses expressed doubt as to the true accountability associated
with the CCSS. The administrator initially referenced an official political response to increase
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 101

college and career readiness, but then stated that other monetary motives were behind the CCSS
movement.
Participant B2 seemed to welcome the prospect of increased teacher accountability,
specifically with regard to expectations for teachers to increase the rigor of instruction. This
attitude toward accountability suggested that the respondent was in favor of the shift and looked
forward to this aspect of the CCSS.
General Theme 3: Teacher Collaboration. In terms of teacher collaboration, the study
participants were consistent in their responses that District B had engaged in systematic
collaboration to develop CCSS aligned units of study.
Participant B1:…It [CCSS] is already impacting it [the district]. Teachers have already
started the process of assessment and creating units of study that are aligned to the
new standards. This is pretty much it.
Participant B3…ELA and Math [teachers] are creating units of study across schools and
grade levels. [Participant names 3 district schools] are all communicating and
collaborating on these units and using Rigorous Curriculum Design as a
framework.
In connection to the primary research question, the responses acknowledged structures
that were in place for teacher collaboration around CCSS, however, the activities described by
the participants were limited to ELA and math teachers. The responses were void of examples of
CTE and core teacher collaboration.
Administrator Theme 1: Teacher Collaboration. During the lead administrator
interview, the theme of teacher collaboration emerged repeatedly. Moreover, the lead
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 102

administrator’s comments continued to point to perceived gaps in collaboration structures for
CTE and core teachers.
Participant B1:…It don’t think it has been done. In my district it is definitely not
happening. It may be in other districts. I don’t think the district has done enough
with the careers component of Common Core. I think careers are being ignored,
really.
Participant A1:…These decision [careers] are really left up to the sites. The district is
really just focused on ELA and Math Common Core.
The lead administrator’s comments suggested that collaboration efforts to connect CTE
and core teachers were inconsistent and were not guided by a unified direction from the district,
rather these decisions were left to school site leaders. Additionally, the comments suggested the
lead administrator felt the career component of CCSS is not a priority to the district.
Administrator Theme 2: Design. Another theme that emerged during the lead
administrator interview were the design aspects of the CCSS.
Participant B1:…Fairly comfortable. I am not so sure about the College and Career
Readiness Anchor Standards. I need to get used to the language because I am not
a part of the trainings as say the teachers are. Conceptually, I get it, but getting
used to the language will take some getting used to.
Participant B1: It’s kind of a different approach to say…okay…let’s focus on a specific
skill in ELA and math and not just basic knowledge. The procedural part of math
is less emphasized and conceptual math will become more important.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 103

The lead administrator’s responses demonstrated gaps in knowledge in regard to the CCR
standards and how they impact the overall premise and design of the CCSS. This was consistent
with the general responses from participants that imply the district focus was on the ELA and
Math Common Core standards. The lead administrator’s responses related to the details the
CCSS were always focused on ELA and math, demonstrating a gap in knowledge in the design
and purpose of the CCR standards.
Administrator Theme 3: Shift. During the interview, the lead administrator discussed
the perceived shifts that the CCSS represent and how these shifts materialized in District B.
Participant B1:…I think you will see some things that teachers are naturally doing.
Traditional teaching will serve them well. I actually think the things that they
need to make the shift to Common Core do not have to do with pedagogy, but a
mindset. Things you can’t train or quantity.
Participant B1:…The CTE program needs to step up the rigor game to make the shift to
Common Core. They need to bring more math in. It has only been enough
academics to train for whatever job the students are training for. Kids do not see
the connections.
The lead administrator’s comments suggested that the teaching practices prior to common
core would be sufficient for the transition. The lead administrator also minimized the need for
teachers to examine shifts in pedagogy. The lead administrator also indicated that the onus to
integrate math was incumbent upon the CTE educators, but failed to identify the converse of core
math teachers presenting career curriculum in their classrooms.
Teacher Theme: The teachers did not differ from the administrator. The attitudes and
the dispositions of the teachers in response to the CCSS and curriculum integration paralleled
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 104

that of the administrator. There were no outstanding themes that were held by both teacher
participants, which were not also held by the administrator.
Findings pertaining to first sub-question (Question 6-9, 11-12). In support of the
primary research question, the first sub-question sought to understand how CTE and core
teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within career pathways models. For
teachers to efficiently collaborate, they must understand the design aspect of the CCSS and their
implications on curriculum integration. Once educators understand the CCSS then they can
begin to collaborate towards integrated curricula. Educators’ willingness to collaborate can be
expressed through their attitudes and dispositions, which was explored through the sub-question
data presented in this section.
General Theme 1: Attitude. Participants’ responses expressed personal attitudes and
disposition reading various topics related to CCSS implementation and the curriculum
integration.
Participant B1:…I don’t think there has been enough articulation around Common Core,
you know, what is the endgame? The endgame is college and career readiness.
That is supposed to be the outcome but the dialogue does not get to that level.
Because it doesn't, teachers are not teaching it in that context. Does that make
sense? I hope the conversation evolves to that level. My fear is that most
administrators are not prepared to have those conversations with their teachers.
Participant B2:…As the district is still in the planning and early implementation
stages of the Linked Learning model, most core teachers probably do not see the
benefit of blending their curriculum with CTE.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 105

Participant B3:…For me, personally, there is not a huge shift. I already taught my
classes in a way that fits the common core because I believe this to be the most
relevant and meaningful type of instruction for students.
Attitudes of participants showed a range of outlooks on CCSS implementation and
curriculum integration, both positive and negative. For instance, the lead administrator’s
interview expressed a frustration with other district peers due to their lack of perceived
understanding of the goals of CCSS. Similarly, the CTE teacher’s comments made the
assumption that most core content teachers would not embrace the merits of integrated
curriculum. Conversely, the core teacher interview demonstrated an attitude of positivity and
willingness to integrate curriculum. The range of responses from the participants suggested that
attitudes regarding curriculum integration in District B were without consensus.
General Theme 2: Design. Participants identified the depth and complexity of the CCSS
as a key design feature.
Participant B2:...Teachers will need a deeper knowledge of how students construct
knowledge and acquire skills, and may need to broaden their methods of student
evaluation and assessment especially for the higher DOK [depths of knowledge]
levels.
Participant B3:…Common Core requires teachers and students to dig deep into analysis
and conveying an explanation of that analysis, while also citing evidence. This is
essentially true across all subject areas.
Participants cited key terms and knowledge associated with the CCSS such as depth of
knowledge and the emphasis of the citing evidence when establishing claims. This essential
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 106

knowledge suggested that participants were familiar, to some degree, with the design and the
expectations of the CCSS.
Admin Theme: Teacher Collaboration. The most prominent theme in the lead
administrator interview was the lack of CTE and core teacher collaboration.
Participant B1:…I feel like we are way ahead of the game right now with ELA and math,
but there has been no connection to careers as of yet.
Participant B1:…It is not happening district-wide at all. We send people to conferences
but it does not translate into collaboration between CTE and core teachers.
Participant B1:…It is not complicated, but it does not happen. This is where leadership
comes in. Structures have to be created to make this happen, and right not it isn’t
happening.
The lead administrator specifically cited a lack of district structures to promote the
collaboration of CTE and core teachers. As indicated in earlier responses, the career component
of CCSS had been largely ignored by District B.
Combined Teacher Theme 1: Shifts. Teacher participants acknowledged rudimentary
features of the CCSS, but did not link the importance of career readiness.
Participant B2:…I think the districts instructional practices must shift to meet the needs
of Common Core. All subject areas must implement reading and writing. Math
must be integrated and ask for rationale to problem solving. All subject areas
should work toward cross–curricular collaboration so that students are
transferring meaningful learning across subject areas.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 107

Participant B3:…It provides a greater and more succinct connection from classroom
strategies and standards to a common end result, college readiness, ensuring that
all subjects ultimately driving toward the same learning goals.
While both CTE and core participants acknowledged the shifts that impacted all content
areas, their examples were all focused on the core areas. The link to careers was not identified,
and cross-curricular collaboration was limited to the core content areas.
Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions (Questions 13-17). The second
and third sub-questions both supported the primary research question by exploring teachers’
attitudes and dispositions. The second sub-question looked to understand these attitudes and
dispositions in regards to the integration of the CCSS. The third sub-question specifically sought
to understand these attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic subject
standards.
General Theme: Professional Development. As evidenced by participant interviews,
professional development took on many looks in District B and the expectations varied.
Participant B2:…All teaching and classroom support staff and administration
participated in weekly meetings during the weekly late start time. CTE webinars
and workshops were attended by some CTE as they chose. Pathway teacher leads
and CTE department chairs attended additional training workshops and
conferences through the college and career development office and with outside
consultants.
Participant B2:…It is expected [from district] that teacher will collaborate within
departments and within career pathways. Consultants were hired on to run
professional development sessions last year.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 108

Participant B2:…I am not aware of professional development or collaboration time being
dedicated on a regular basis to common core implantation or professional
development in the current school year outside of department meetings.
Participant B3:…Teachers across the curriculums participated at various trainings and in
some instances ELA and math had their own trainings.
As the interview data indicated, career pathway integration was an expectation of District
B, yet little by way of systematic professional development was defined or described. In
addition, professional development had been outsourced in some cases. Specific CTE and core
teachers benefited from planned professional development opportunities, but it was unclear if all
teachers received this information. Interview data also indicated much of the professional
development was conducted in content-alike groups such as ELA and math teams.
Administrator Theme: Teacher Collaboration. As in the primary research question and
the first sub-question, the major theme that emerged in the lead administrator interview was
teacher collaboration.
Participant B1:…Teachers have been meeting in content areas and grade levels to
develop common core lesson, but it all falls to pot though when you cannot get
people to work together. It is like and act of Congress to get teachers to
collaborate and carry that learning into the classroom.
Participant B1:…At the district level, the expectation is that teachers get together and
share best practices or share whatever and go back and implement them on and
individual level. I want to move past interdependence, but it isn’t happening yet.
It is very surface level.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 109

As evident in the responses of the lead administrator, teacher collaboration was viewed as
inconsistent and dependent upon the wiliness of the individual teachers to implement the CCSS.
The attitude of the lead administrator was one of frustration over current collaborative practices,
but hopeful as well that future collaboration would be more reciprocal in nature.
Combined Teacher Theme: Shifts. One of the key shifts in the CCSS recognized by the
combined teacher participants was the shift toward curriculum integration.
Participant B3:…Teachers should no longer be limited to their own content.
They should work together to create meaningful connections across content
areas…The transfer of the knowledge across content areas will allow for more
meaningful discussion and deeper critical thinking in both subject areas.
Participant B2:…collaboration is just beginning in interdisciplinary projects. A small
number of teachers meet to align their curriculum and plan interdisciplinary cross-
curricular projects.
Both the CTE and core teacher participants acknowledged the importance of creating
links between content areas. The participants also recognized that this curricular link allows
students to perceive the connections between the different learning disciplines. Both participants
either referenced the need for teachers to collaborate on interdisciplinary curriculum or cited
examples of interdisciplinary projects.
District C
At the time of the study, District C was a mid-sized K-12 district with a fairly diverse
student population. The area surrounding the district was considered affluent though many
families within the district boundary opted to send their students to private schools. District C’s
four largest student populations (Figure 8) included Latino/Hispanic (53 percent), White (28.5
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 110

percent), African American (8.4 percent), and Asian (5.2 percent). District C’s special
populations included 12.8 percent English Learners and 57.4 percent low-socioeconomic status,
which were substantially lower than the county’s averages of 19.8 percent and 70.5 percent
respectively (Figure 9).

Figure 8. District C: Demographic Data

Figure 9. District C: Special Populations

53.0%
28.5%
8.4%
5.1%
2.4%
1.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.1%
District C Demographic Data
Population 11,665
Hispanic/Latino-6,177
White-3,323
African American-987
Asian-599
Two or More Races-280
Filipino-202
American Indian-46
Pacific Islander-43
None Reported-8
0 20 40 60 80
12.8%
57.4%
19.8%
70.5%
District C Special Population by Percentage
of Enrollment
County
District
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 111

Case Study for District C
In the interviews with the collaborating teachers and the lead administrator, various
themes were identified. These themes pertained to the primary research question, as well as the
sub-questions. The themes that were dominant when analyzing the primary research question
were the district’s perception toward the political and bureaucratic effects within district
accountability measures. Additionally, all of the respondents emphasized the need for the
district to alter their current instructional practices in response to the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The dominant themes that emerged pertaining to the
first sub-question were the impact of the district professional developments concerning the
educating of staff members about the CCSS. Additionally, all of the respondents discussed the
instructional shifts, specifically the shift towards an integrated subject matter that were directly
associated with the implementation of the CCSS. Sub-questions two and three were directly
linked and coded together. The themes that were most apparent as related to sub-questions two
and three were the respondents’ awareness of different Local Education Agency (LEA)
initiatives and the importance of various professional development opportunities centering
around career readiness and the CCSS. All of the respondents also emphasized the prominence
of teacher collaboration. Table 7 illustrates the job positions held by each of the respondents.
Table 7
District C: Participant’s Role within their District
District Position Participant
Administrator C1
CTE Teacher C2
Core Teacher C3
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 112

Findings pertaining to primary research question (Questions 1, 2-4, 5, 10). The
primary research question for this study sought to understand how school districts were
responding to the CCSS by implementing teacher collaboration models designed to integrate the
CCSS curriculum taught by core and CTE teachers. To understand why districts made specific
decisions about how to implement the CCSS it was critical to understand the motivating factors
behind their decisions. District C emphasized accountability as a driving force behind their
application. The data from district C further suggested that the district believed that there was a
need alter their instructional practices as a direct result of implementing the CCSS.
General Theme 1: Accountability. When asked about the accountability measures behind
the implementation of the CCSS all respondents alluded to the state testing and two of the
respondents discussed the political consequences associated with testing.
Participant C3: …yet clearly it that that there saying it’s going to be a healthy chunk of
the API (Academic Performance Index), so.. which means that what we’re going
to have to care about because that’s what is going to be blasted over the papers...
Participant C2: …I think that they’ll still continue to do testing, uh, do a lot of um,
follow up on students, which I really think is important. I think a lot of times kids
graduate from high school and we put them out there, but nobody is really sure
what happens to them after that.
Based upon the data provided, all of the respondents understood the accountability
pressures placed upon the district. The data revealed that the district was implementing the
CCSS, in part because of the accountability measures associated with state testing. Additionally,
both of the teachers made comments about public perception in association with the school’s
success in educating students.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 113

General Theme 2: Shifts. When the respondents were asked about implementing
curriculum resulting from the CCSS, all of the participants discussed the need to alter existing
instructional approaches.
Participant C1: There is a focus on some key instructional shifts or practices that need to
be embedded in the instruction and also in the learning of students, and that can
been seen in the learning of students as it relates it to how they demonstration
their understanding of concepts and how they demonstrate their understanding of
the application of concepts.
Participant C2: …it’s impacting them, because it’s really changing for some teachers
completely the way they’ve been teaching their classes.
Based upon the data, the responses indicated that the participants understood that in order
to implement the CCSS, altering existing instructional practices was necessary. The lead
administrator specifically mentioned the need for students to be able to demonstrate student
understanding through the application of their learning. Both of the teachers and the
administrator highlighted the perceived necessity in shifting the existing instructional
approaches.
Administrator Theme 1: Design. When asked about the implementation of CCSS, the
lead administrator’s perspective focused on the curricular design associated with the CCSS.
Participant C1: … I think we kind of tweaked the focus from being on facts and
knowledge to more deeper understanding and application.
The participant specifically acknowledged the differences between the CCSS and the previous
standards when they stated the following:
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 114

Participant C1: … it provides a forum or a vehicle for our kids to get a deeper
understanding of content, which hasn’t been happening in previous set of
standards.
The lead administrator accentuated the differences between the CCSS and the waning
state standards. By highlighting the depth of understanding necessary within the CCSS, the
administrator focused on a major change that will impact both teachers and students. The lead
administrator also emphasized the benefit of the CCSS educating students towards obtaining a
deeper understanding of the subject matter.
Administrator Theme 2: Shift. The lead administrator also discussed the evolutions
associated with the implementation of the CCSS.
Participant C1: … my hope is that, what is going to come out of the data in the
assessments is that it’s going to be a lot more of soft skills that we were not able
to assess in previous ways.
The lead administrator discussed the importance of assessing the soft skills of students.
Assessing a student’s soft skills such as a student’s ability to be cooperative, communicate,
display an appropriate attitude, to be honest, etc… as an important aspect of the career readiness
components within the CCSS. These characteristics, linked with the CCSS challenges the
existing paradigm associated with the state standards that measured a district’s effectiveness
through the lens of No Child Left Behind.
Combined Teacher Theme: Attitude. During the interviews, both teachers shared the
same sentiment of reservation regarding the CCSS in general.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 115

Participant C3: So we’re going to end up relying on whatever the state decides and you
know, the state’s track record so far is not been good. And not just our state, but
any state.
Participant C2: …more follow up is going to be important to find out whether this is
working or not.
The teachers during the interview did not appear to be defiant towards the notion of the
CCSS, rather they appeared to be moving forward cautiously. There appeared to be a feeling of
the teachers waiting to see if the CCSS would adequately meet the needs of the nation. The
interview data supported the idea that the teachers in district C had an attitude of reservation
towards the implementation of the CCSS.
Findings pertaining to first sub-question (Questions 6-9, 11-12). In support of the
primary research question, the first sub-question sought to understand how CTE and core
teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within career pathways models. For
teachers to efficiently collaborate, they must first receive the appropriate professional
development to properly prepare and educate them in the carrying out of the CCSS. Once
educators understand the CCSS then they can begin to collaborate towards integrated curriculum.
Educators also naturally respond to changes in different ways, so it was also import to
understand the transitional shifts that will result from the implementation of the CCSS.
General Theme 1: Professional Development. All of the respondents mentioned the
importance of professional development in serving the district to better educate the teachers
about the nuances of the CCSS.
Participant C1: Do we understand the “what” of common core, okay? Check that off,
now do we understand how do deliver that? Which is “how” of common core.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 116

And I think both of those are going to be dependent on professional development,
and I think professional development that focuses not only on the discrete
standards um the discrete subject areas but also the commonality between all
subject matters which are literacy standards, the literacy shifts, those 6 shifts that
are essential to literacy.
Participant C2: … I think that it’s impacted us that we are using a lot more of our
professional development time, um, the high schools as well. I think that they’re
certainly doing a lot more professional development and training for teachers
there.
The data revealed that District C was focused on providing their teacher with professional
development on the CCSS. This professional development was designed to first educate the
teacher on some of the specifics of the CCSS. Once teachers had an appropriate understanding
of the CCSS they would then have the ability to collaborate towards developing integrated
curriculum within career pathways models.
General Theme 2: Shifts. During the interviews all of the participants discussed the
transitional shifts that have and will continue to take place as a result of implementing the CCSS.
The lead administrator looked at the instructional shifts that will need to occur by stating the
following:
Participant C1:… do our teachers understand that we have to look at the lesson model
differently? We have to rethink the lesson model. That in terms of common core,
it really is breaking down that old mold of direct instruction guided practice,
independent practice, and some kind of assessment. We have to look at standards
and how can we develop lessons that have different entry points for our students
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 117

to discover the learning. And that might mean instead of starting a lesson with
direct instruction or EDI (Explicit Direct Instruct) we might start a lesson with a
guiding question, or we might start a lesson with uh a with an activity that’s
meant for kids, meant to have kids struggle a little bit, and in that struggle is
where you get the learning, right at the productive struggle.
Reinforcing the thought about needed instructional shifts, respondent C2 said the following:
Participant C2: … some of the core teachers in high school, it’s going to be a little more
difficult for them to implement. Um, some of their strategies, because there are a
lot of teachers that stand in front of the room and just lecture. And you get it or
you don’t.
All of the participants mentioned the importance of an integrated curriculum. The lead
administrator extrapolated on the ultimate goal of the instructional shifts resulting in an
integrated curricular approach when the following was stated:
Participant C1: … if we can have a student that is in an engineering pathway get
reinforcement from the CTE course that focuses on engineering as well as the
physics course and the math course that focuses on engineering concepts and
skills. Or, opportunities or projects as well as the English course which is reading,
you know, expository text on something related to engineering then, then they’re
being exposed to and supported in many different arenas for that same skill or
concept, and I think there is going to be a deeper understanding of that.
The data revealed that the implementation of the CCSS would create a number of
instructional shifts within District C. Teachers would need to transition away from the typical
format that they were comfortable with. Once teachers began to understand what it meant to
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 118

teach lessons aligned to the CCSS, they would have a better focused understanding on how to
collaborate towards developing integrated curriculums within career pathways models.
Administrator Theme 1: Design. During the interview the lead administrator
acknowledged the differences between the previous standards and the design of the Common
Core State Standards.
Participant C1: … we’ve gotten really good at CST’s and the old standards, you know,
now that we both have these schools that are over 800 and all these API’s and
California distinguished, that means we’ve gotten really good at the old way of
doing things.
There was discussion of the knowledge necessary on part of both the teachers and the students,
in order to achieve the goals of the CCSS.
Participant C1: … the standards are requiring us to develop a deeper understanding in
our student’s concepts and skills. It requires us to have a deeper understanding of
those concepts and skills.
The data suggested that there was an acknowledgment in the design difference between
the previous state standards and the CCSS. While the district was successful with the previous
state standards, changes must be made in order to continue this success with the CCSS. Teachers
must understand the difference in the two sets of standards, and have a deeper understanding of
concepts and skills for collaboration to be beneficial.
Administrator Theme 2: Shifts. Due to the vast differences between the previous state
standards and the CCSS, all educators within the district were having to re-evaluate instruction
and make substantial modifications.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 119

Participant C1: … everyone that touches the students in terms of instruction, because
our teachers are having to rethink how they do things, our instructional, our
support staff are having to rethink how they do things, um our administrator’s are
having to rethink how they do things and so I think it really has kind of created a
form to reset the stage for how we do things in the district.
In addition to the instructional changes taking place, the district had acknowledged the need for
substantial modifications in curriculum, teacher training, and collaboration.
Participant C1: And so is really the rethinking our pedagogy, not only on the lesson level
but how we implement, how we deliver professional development, how we
collaborate, what are the tools we use for collaboration.
The data illustrated that the CCSS demand transitional shifts be made to pedagogy within
the district, by challenging the existing paradigm of the previous standards. The shifts were
impacting educators at all levels within the district, and were forcing substantial modifications to
occur within instruction. Included within these changes was the need for new professional
development and collaboration models.
Combined Teacher Theme: Shifts. A common theme shared among the teachers was the
shift from factual learning to applied learning.
Participant C3: … so the CTE people are the ones that bridge the gap and show the
application portion. And you could describe the common core as almost being all
application. …And so we shouldn’t be just teaching facts anymore. And CTE is
where they are applying the facts.
Within the applied learning there was a new focus on high school students being career ready
upon graduation.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 120

Participant C2: And now that they are thinking more about getting students ready for
college and career, I think they are realizing how important it is for them to have
something um that they can do. They’re thinking more about these kids that
maybe might not go to college right after high school, that may go to college later.
Or may never go to college. So, I think that there are realizing how important
career technical education is.
The data demonstrated that teachers were beginning to recognize how core teachers and
CTE teachers needed to work together in order to prepare students to be college and career
ready. There had been a shift in the focus from factual learning during the state standards to
more of an applied learning philosophy of the CCSS. Along with the applied learning shift, the
CCSS is focused on career readiness and developing skills that the students can use directly out
of high school to enter into the workforce.
Core Teacher Theme: Attitude. The core teacher interviewed for District C was
outspoken in regards to the attitude of the other educators within the district. The teacher voiced
their concern that many people within the district were focused on other things and their
priorities were outside the realm of the implementation of the CCSS.
Participant C3: …he was like, if you would have got me, … you know, 30 years. You
get me 20 years ago, I’m on board, I’m not trying to start that while I’m trying to
retire.
Participant C3: …you need people who are going to be passionate about making that
happen. And it’s hard to get that. Uh you know. The people, unfortunately, but
it’s like everywhere else. A lot of the people who are involved are already over
involved
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 121

The data illustrated that there were roadblocks present within the district in regards to the
CCSS implementation. The teacher had numerous concerns about the priorities of the educators
within the district, ranging from teachers to administration. These attitudes of perceived
indifference would not only impact the overall implementation of the CCSS, but also the
collaboration between Core and CTE teachers.
Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions (Questions 13-17). The second
and third sub-questions both support the primary research question by exploring teachers’
attitudes and dispositions. The second sub-question looked to understand these attitudes and
dispositions in regards to the integration of the CCSS. The third sub-question specifically sought
to understand these attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic subject
standards.
General Theme 1: LEA Initiatives. During the interviews all of the participants
discussed various initiatives specific to their school site or their district. One such initiative was
Project Lead the Way which focuses on engineering and architecture for middle school students.
Participant C1: And I think they’re all going to be aligned to um just the core areas but
also the career technical fields and skills. Like Project Lead the Way at the
middle schools. You know, things of that nature.
One of the LEA Initiatives within this district was the implementation of career pathways, where
students took specific Career Technical Education classes as well as core classes focusing on
their career pathway using an integrated curriculum. The career pathway model within this
district was beginning to take shape amidst scheduling issues.
Participant C2: … all of the freshmen are either in the Spanish 1 teacher’s class or the
biology class um, or the English class. So they may not, the freshmen may not be
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 122

in my class but they are you know, in one of the pathway classes. But our hope
was to have them in my class, the Spanish class the biology class, and you know
at least 3 like classes.
This district has also increased their CTE offerings due to their Local Control Accountability
Plan (LCAP). The community that this district served had indicated that they would like their
students to be career ready, which had become a part of the District’s strategic plan.
Participant C3: … CTE (Career Technical Education) is a part of our idea for LCAP
(Local Control Accountability Plan). You know, and even our strategic plan now
we’re saying one of our big ideas is get kids connected. And connected probably
being construed Get them in a program, whatever it is, and and uh CTE would
certainly be a part of that. So, that’s that part of our strategic plan for this high
school and actually the district.
The data illustrated that all of the participants had recognized that the initiatives were
necessary components towards the implementation of the CCSS and an integrated curriculum.
None of the participants within this district were resisting the CCSS, and the corresponding
changes that were being implemented for integration. Yet, they recognized that they are in the
beginning stages and changes were still needed to occur for ensured success of the
implementation of the CCSS and an integrated curriculum.
General Theme 2: Professional Development. During the interviews, all of the
participants discussed the newly implemented Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and the
need for students to be career ready upon completion of high school. The CCSS and career
readiness are directly linked, as the CCSS were constructed, in part, to prepare students to be
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 123

college and career ready. In order for the district to be properly aligned to the CCSS there must
be an intentional focus on career readiness.
Participant C1: … the support is going to be in a sense, first on the awareness level.
Making sure our teachers understand why, the why of the alignment because it’s
an end result. Right? Because it’s what we are trying to get to, we’re trying to
improve the readiness of our kids to be college and career ready.
The district was beginning to train teachers in the expectations of the CCSS including standards
alignment to CTE. Linked Learning training was also taking place, allowing collaboration for
integration between core and CTE teachers.
Participant C2: … you know, we’ve talked about the common core state standards. I’ve
actually um, went over for some of the standards alignments, uh went over to a
different ROP for that training where we were uh doing alignment of standards.
So I’ve had that training. I actually had some training at the summer institute for
linked learning.
District C was also offering professional development opportunities that focused on college and
career readiness, which allowed for collaboration between teachers within the same industry
sector, as well as integrated collaboration through Linked Learning. This participant indicated
their willingness to participate in professional development in order to meet the needs of
students.
Participant C2: … we certainly have here at District X at our professional developments.
We have our ISC (Industry Sector Collaboration) meetings here. Uh, you know,
we’ve talked about um, not just our standards, but about college and career
readiness. Uh, we’ve had meetings to talk about um, our student outcomes. You
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 124

know, and what our our hopes are for our students, and what we’re trying to
achieve with our students. And again, the linked learning and um, actually um, I
had a summer training, when we were talking about college and career readiness
at X, and not this past summer but the summer before.
The data revealed that all of the participants understood the necessity of professional
development in order to effectively implement CCSS and integrate curriculum. Both teachers
and the administrator valued professional development and its potential impact on CCSS
implementation and integrated curriculum. There was an attitude of willingness to participate in
professional development focused on the CCSS, career readiness, and curriculum integration.
General Theme 3: Teacher Collaboration. During the interviews, all of the participants
discussed how opportunities for interdepartmental collaboration had been made available, and a
structured time had been scheduled for teacher collaboration. While this indicated the district’s
belief that interdepartmental collaboration was important, all participants indicated that there was
a lack of accountability during collaboration meetings.
Participant C1: Many of our schools also have opportunities for our teachers to
collaborate within the day. Where they will develop a master schedule that gives
them common prep times that give them common planning times. Um at our
elementary schools, the kids are able to get release for p.e. or band instruction and
that also provides an opportunity for grade level teams to work with each other.
Um, so there are plenty of opportunities in terms of the scheduling part. Um, I
think the, the question that is now being asked that I think is important, is what is
the accountability for them?
Interviewer: uhhmm
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 125

Participant C1: um, are they actually articulating? Are they actually collaborating? Is it
true collaboration in the sense that there is an end result?
Without teacher accountability, many teachers were not taking advantage of the collaboration
time. There was an apparent lack of structure and expectation for what was to take place during
the district scheduled collaboration times.
Participant C3: Wednesday is supposedly collaboration day but because of the way they
did minutes and the instructional minutes or some mathematics I don’t know what
the deal was. It’s, we’re released early for the purpose of allowing teachers to
collaborate but they’re not obligated to collaborate in that time. So.. some people
just go home early.
The collaboration time which was scheduled by the district was beneficial for the teachers that
participated, and was not limited to interdepartmental collaboration, but also integrated
collaboration.
Participant C3: And occasionally if we can, work out some some cross curricular
projects and things, you know. See how we can coordinate with each other and do
some stuff.
The data illustrated that all of the participants understood the potential significance of
collaboration. Collaboration can be utilized to effectively implement CCSS and integrate
curriculum, but there was a disconnect between the understanding and the implementation. The
district had scheduled collaboration time during the workday, but failed to provide structure or
accountability, essentially making collaboration optional.
Administrator Theme: Shift. The administrator from District C repeatedly recognized
the transitional shift in curriculum towards a more integrated approach. In District C, this shift
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 126

had occurred in conjunction with the implementation of the CCSS and it focused on project-
based learning and career readiness.
Participant C1: … they would actually look at um opportunity within the content to
implement these project based learning opportunities. Where there is articulation
between all the content areas. And then there is a key component that is related to
a stem or steam field. That may be engineering, that may be mathematics that may
be technology and all of that.
The data indicated that the administrator from District C recognized the shift in
curriculum to a more integrated approach as a response to the CCSS. There was an
acknowledgement that in order to meet the CCSS expectations for project-based learning
curriculum must be integrated across content areas. The administrator demonstrated an attitude
of acceptance of the expectations established by the CCSS towards an integrated curriculum.
Teacher Theme: The teachers did not differ from the administrator. The attitudes and
the dispositions of the teachers in response to the CCSS and curriculum integration paralleled
that of the administrator. There were no outstanding themes that were held by both teacher
participants, which were not also held by the administrator.
Core Teacher Theme: Attitude. The core teacher continually expressed the concern that
the district had not established the integration of curriculum as a priority. Since this was not a
priority the teachers had not been given time to produce an integrated curriculum.
Participant C3: … so if we could, if we as teachers had the time and the will to make
those connections, than we can express them to the kids and it will help them
establish those connections as well.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 127

The core teacher also voiced the concern that the district had other priorities which were taking
precedent over career readiness.
Participant C3: …we’re behind on the career readiness, to be honest with you. Um, the
college stuff they, you know, they’ve been talking about it a lot. And we’ve been
working on it, and we have plans to work on it more. The career again, I guess we
have to wait for either there to be a popular groundswell to say this is what we
think career readiness looks like from the staff while we’re waiting. I, I suspect,
we’re honestly waiting more for it to come down from above. But, one way or
another we’re in a holding pattern on that one, to be honest with you.
The data revealed that the core teacher had concerns regarding the district’s priorities and
the lack of focus on curriculum integration and career readiness. The teacher recognized the
importance of the components of the CCSS and did not feel that the district had properly
prioritized them. The teacher felt that unless a directive came from the administration,
curriculum integration and career readiness would not be properly implemented.
District D
At the time of the study, District D was a relatively large K-12 district with over 30,000
students. Its largest demographic populations (Figure 10) included Hispanic/Latino (57.1
percent), White 20.3 percent, Asian 12 percent, and the largest Filipino population (5.8 percent)
reported of the five study districts. 13.5 percent of District D’s students were identified as
English Learners (Figure 11) as compared to the county average of 19.8 percent; and 43.5
percent of the students were of low-socioeconomic status compared to the county average of
70.5 percent.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 128

Figure 10. District D: Demographic Data

Figure 11. District D: Special Populations

Case Study of District D
The data for District D was obtained through an interview with the lead administrator, a
core teacher, and a CTE teacher. For District D various themes were identified. These themes
pertained to the primary research question, as well as the sub-questions. The themes that were
57.1.%
20.3%
12%
5.8%
3.4% 4.5%
0.2%
0.1%
District D Demographic Data
Total Population 30,206
Hispanic/Latino-17,259
White-6,134
Asian-3,630
Filipino-1,343
African American-1,025
Two or More Races-712
Pacific Islander-67
American Indian-34
0 20 40 60 80
13.5%
45.3%
19.8%
70.5%
District D Special Population by Percentage
of Enrollment
County
District
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 129

dominant when analyzing the primary research question were shifts in instructional approaches,
and an overall attitude of being uncomfortable with the CCSS. The dominant themes that
emerged pertaining to the first sub-question were the LEA initiative of developing CTE pathway
academies, professional development focusing on the CCSS, shifts in instructional approaches,
and a shift to a more integrated curriculum. Sub-questions two and three were directly linked
and coded together. The themes that were most apparent as related to sub-questions two and
three were the LEA initiative of developing CTE pathway academies, teacher collaboration to
develop an integrated curriculum, and teacher collaboration to better understand the structure of
the CCSS. Table 8 illustrates the job positions held by each of the respondents.
Table 8

District D: Participant’s Role within their District
District Position Participant
Administrator D1
CTE Teacher D2
Core Teacher D3

Findings pertaining to primary research question (Questions 1, 2-4, 5, 10). The
primary research question for this study sought to understand how school districts are responding
to the CCSS by implementing teacher collaboration models designed to integrate the CCSS
curriculum taught by both core and CTE teachers. To understand why districts made specific
decisions about how to implement the CCSS it was necessary to understand the motivating
factors behind their decisions. District D emphasized shifts in instructional approaches as a
driving force behind their application. The data from district D further suggested that although
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 130

there had been an effort by the district to provide CCSS training and professional development
there was still an attitude of discomfort in regards to the CCSS.
General Theme 1: Attitude. During the interviews all of the participants identified
apprehension towards the CCSS. There were various examples where they expressed a lack of
comfort with the implementation, the expectations, or their overall understanding of the CCSS.
One participant speculated that this discomfort could be attributed to educators resisting change.
Participant D1: …change is hard for people, particularly those in education. People in
education always feel that the new thing is basically the flavor of the month, let’s
sit back and it will go away, and then we can go back to doing what we’re used to
do.
Along with general discomfort with the CCSS, there was also apprehension expressed regarding
the expectation of the CCSS. There was a lack of comfort with how the changes mandated by
the CCSS need to be implemented.
Participant D2: There is a mandate from what I have gathered from those I have spoken
with, core teachers and administrators. They all seem to be a bit confused about
time lines and when things need to be implemented by. And exactly which things
need to be implemented. Um, I think they’re still working that out. And that
confusion level has added to um, peoples discomfort with the transition.
One participant identified how their colleagues are uncomfortable with the shifts in curriculum
and instruction that were a result of the CCSS.
Participant D2: Uh I find it extremely exciting. As a CTE teacher, I’ve always taught
that way. And when I’m in meetings with other core teachers that are having
trouble understanding common core or how it’s implemented in the classroom. I
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 131

find that my… background is very helpful to them, because it’s they’re kind of
scared of it.
Based upon the data provided, it was evident that educators in District D were
uncomfortable with the CCSS. Their attitude of apprehension was evident on many levels
including how the CCSS should be implemented, the expectations of the CCSS, and their overall
understanding of the CCSS. This overall attitude of discomfort towards the CCSS indicated that
there was a lack of confidence within the implementation.
General Theme 2: Shift. During the interviews all of the participants discussed the shift
in instructional approach in response to the expectations of the CCSS. One aspect of this shift in
instructional approaches is the focus on hands on learning, which is commonly used in CTE
classrooms.
Participant D2: It’s something new. Um, when I explain to them how it’s used in the
classroom, or how I’ve always used it in the classroom as most CTE teachers do,
they get it. They are like “oh, okay” and it takes kind of threat away.
Another shift in instructional approach as a result of the CCSS is the focus on integrated
curriculum.
Participant D3: … so they are learning how to draw and uh apply mathematics to it and
how to apply science to it. they are going to have a lot of writing and reports. So
they’re integrating 3 or 4 subjects in that class. Which is really great. Um. And
they’re building uh models and things like that so it is more hands on.
The data illustrated that teachers and administrators within the district understood that
changes in instruction must occur to accommodate the expectations of the CCSS. Some of these
shifts in instruction included adopting more hands-on learning, as well as developing an
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 132

integrated curriculum. District D was responding to the CCSS through the implementation of an
integrated curriculum.
Administrator Theme 1: Accountability. The District D administrator discussed the
district’s decision to hold some of their teachers accountable, while giving others the flexibility
to make adjustments to their teaching strategies with a reprieve on teacher evaluations as they
prepared for the CCSS. This bureaucratic decision, in response to the CCSS changes teacher
accountability as they made changes to account for new expectations.
Participant D1: our district took the stand that there would be a moratorium on
evaluations this year.
Interviewer: Okay
Participant D1: so teachers would have the opportunity to try on the work without the, uh
anvil hanging over their head with a evaluation. Now the temporary and the
probationary teachers are still, you know, being held accountable for evaluations.
But all tenure teachers evaluations, there is a moratorium definitely for this year
or even contemplating for the following year.
Administrator Theme 2: LEA Initiative. The District D administrator discussed two
separate Local Education Agency (LEA) initiatives which were in direct response to the CCSS.
The first LEA initiative discussed was Rigorous Curriculum Design (RCD).
Participant D1: … we are in English and language arts we are rolling out the Rigorous
Curriculum Design. So there’s an accountability piece there. Because it’s an
expectation that everyone who’s become involved with the rigorous curriculum
design, they don’t have to be on the writing team, but they do need to follow the
protocols that have been put in place by the writing team.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 133

Along with RCD, another LEA initiative within District D was integrated curriculum. District D
was utilizing Linked Learning to create integrated curriculum and implement CTE academies at
their schools.
Participant D1: Well I just eluded to the fact with linked learning uh we have a minimum
of two academies at every high school.
According to the data, District D was responding to the mandates of the CCSS by
implementing LEA initiatives. These LEA initiatives included developing curriculum that aligns
to RCD, integrating curriculum, and through the creation CTE pathway academies. All of these
initiatives served as mechanisms to support the implementation of the CCSS.
Administrator Theme 3: Shift. The District D administrator discussed how both the
industry sector and colleges endorsed the CCSS and it was time for educators to accept it as well.
The CCSS challenges the current paradigm that education should be teacher led, and that
students should be independent learners. Due to the mandates of Common core, education needs
to evolve and become a dynamic entity where learners work together, under the guidance of the
instructor to master the content.
Participant D1: Industry depicts that common core is good. Colleges depict that common
core is good. It’s time for, uh, the secondary education and elementary education
to get on board. Uh, I used to share with my teachers when I uh when I had um
staff meetings, When you had study groups in college, did you put yourself in
rows and say, okay we’re going to have a study group, or did you have a circle or
community of learning, where everyone was equal and they bounced ideas off
each other? But when we are in public education, we want to put everyone in
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 134

rows and no, you do not talk to that person, you can’t help and get assistance from
that person, you have to figure it out on your own.
The data illustrated that District D was responding to the Common Core by challenging
the existing paradigms that depict a traditional classroom setting. The district understood that in
order to succeed by the standards of the Common Core they must make changes to their
educational structure. Teachers must take a role as a facilitator, students must be active in their
own education, and learning must be dynamic in nature. In this sense the implementation of the
CCSS means that some of the traditional ideas of education must be challenged and altered.
Combined Teacher Theme 1: Design. The teachers that were interviewed acknowledged
the differences between the previous state standards, and the new expectations of the CCSS.
They had an understanding that the previous standards required students to memorize facts and
acquire basic skills, versus the CCSS which asks students to think critically, and engage in
rigorous material.
Participant D3: … reasoning, thinking, logic and content knowledge is important and not
just the basic skills. Um, as well was the idea of, although it’s not quite there yet,
the idea of more depth versus a mile wide and an inch deep.
The data revealed that teachers understood the fundamental differences between the
previous state standards and the CCSS. These differences included the need for a deeper
understanding of the content material, rigorous curriculum, and increased student critical
thinking. This understanding would allow them to better implement the CCSS within their
classrooms, and make appropriate changes to their curriculum and instruction.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 135

Combined Teacher Theme 2: Shift. The teachers also acknowledged a shift in
curriculum, from single content area curriculum to an integrated model. The aspect specifically
discussed was the integration of CTE and core curriculum.
Participant D2: But the thing I find exciting about it is that is actually that blending of
CTE and core subjects. Where before we’ve always had such a separation
between the two.
The data indicated that teachers comprehended the shift in curriculum directed by the
CCSS. The specific shift that was acknowledged was moving from single subject curriculum to
a more integrated approach. The teachers recognized that in order to properly implement the
CCSS, shifts must be made to ensure that their curriculum met the new expectations.
Core Teacher Theme: Instructional Materials. The core teacher indicated that in order
to successfully transition to the CCSS there must be a change in instructional materials. The
teacher discussed the need to adopt new text books and purchase new materials. This theme was
only posed by the core teacher and not the CTE teacher who historically developed their own
curriculum.
Participant D3: … Our district is going to need to make a new text book adoption. And
so we need new classroom text books and materials, and now graphing calculators
are a must. Which was not necessary before.
The data suggested that the core teacher believed that in order to implement the CCSS
new text books must be adopted and new materials must be purchased. There was no indication
that they would be able to implement the CCSS by modifying current curriculum or developing
their own curriculum. This theme was unique to the core teacher, as many times CTE teachers
develop their own curriculum out of necessity.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 136

Findings pertaining to first sub-question (Questions 6-9, 11-12). In support of the
primary research question, the first sub-question sought to understand how CTE and core
teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within career pathways models. In order to
support collaboration between core and CTE teachers District D emphasized their LEA initiative
of developing CTE pathway academies, professional development on the CCSS, shifts in
instructional approaches, and shifts in curriculum with a focus on integration.
General Theme 1: LEA Initiative. All participants in District D discussed LEA
initiatives set forth by the district to establish collaboration between CTE and core teachers. The
district had chosen to use Linked Learning to train teachers and give them an opportunity to
collaborate outside their subject area. The district had also established Professional Learning
Communities to encourage and foster further teacher collaboration.
Participant D1: We do have Linked Learning. We have a lot of CTE classes. We have a
lot of opportunities for the teachers to collaborate through the PLC models. And
uh, with our academies, we do have the career tech ed teacher collaborating with
the English and with the science and the math teachers.
Participant D1, in the previous quote, referenced “academies”. The district’s academies were
another LEA initiative designed to establish CTE learning pathways. CTE pathways allow
students choose a career path, and their core subject education supports the career path they are
pursuing.
Participant D1: I just eluded to the fact with linked learning uh we have a minimum of
two academies at every high school.
Participant D2: I’ve seen that they have been very keen on establishing pathways. Um,
looking at other districts that have successful pathways in linked learning and how
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 137

that ties into the common core expectations, and how valuable that is. And they
are trying to look at their course offerings and determine how they can move
those into pathways integrated pathways so that the students are … beginning a
process of moving from class to class in the integrated process.
The data showed that the district was supporting CTE and core teacher collaboration
through the LEA initiative Linked Learning. The district had determined that collaboration
between core and CTE teachers was important for proper implementation of the CCSS. They
were utilizing Linked Learning to foster collaboration between core and CTE teachers to develop
CTE pathways for students to support career readiness.
General Theme 2: Shift. All participants acknowledged shifts in instructional approaches
necessary to fully implement the expectations of the CCSS. Participant D1 discussed the
importance of fully differentiating instruction within the classroom. While this was not a new
idea in education, it had apparently not been implemented at acceptable levels within the district
prior to the implementation of the CCSS.
Participant D1: Differentiation of instruction is very important for uh, uh implementing
common core readiness. Um, our students come with a variety of needs. A variety
of learning styles, and they are not separated from you know, they are all in the
same class together. Uh, the standards are very specific, and to make sure that our
students are meeting those standards there’s going to have to be a lot of
differentiation by the teacher to ensure that takes place.
Another shift in instructional practices seen within the district was the mandate for project-based
learning and the implementation of more hands-on learning experiences.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 138

Participant D3: … so now they’re kind of trying to say no. we want you guys to do a lot
more projects in your class. We want to more project based learning. We want to,
we want to see more presentations in your classroom. We want the kids to talk.
We want the kids to be accountable. We want the students to be more doing more
hands on things. So they have kind of changed the the instructional practices that
they wanted us to apply in our classrooms. They still want us to do direct
instruction, but to add a lot more things that before they didn’t really look at.
Yet another instructional shift which was discussed, was the transition between teaching to a test
on a structured schedule, and teaching with increased rigor for deeper understanding.
Participant D2: They’ve had more, um, specific stringent ways of teaching. And again,
especially those who have had to teach to test. Um, they’ve had very specific
things they’ve had to get across, and I have, I have them discuss with me their
frustrations of, especially like a science teacher, a biology teacher who is really
excited about she’s teaching but she can’t extend that and go further with it
because they have to move on to the next thing that’s on the schedule to teach. So
they teach it to a certain point and the students can’t really discover what she
wants them to discover through it. So with the common core coming up, I think it
lends itself a lot more to that type of teaching. Um, where students can learn fully
experience what’s being taught and not just.. here.. answer and move on to the
next thing. So I think that’s going to be a really good change.
The data revealed that changes to instructional practices were taking place in response to
the CCSS. In order for these changes to be long-term and successful teachers were going to have
to engage in collaboration with their peers to determine effective teaching practices. This
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 139

interdepartmental collaboration had the potential to set the tone for collaboration outside
departments between core and CTE teachers.
General Theme 3: Professional Development. All of the participants discussed how the
Common Core was being emphasized in their district and CCSS professional development
sessions within the district. The district administrator, D1, discussed the two CCSS focus areas.
Participant D1: It’s impacted the district with two definite foci right now. One in
English and language arts, and two in Math.
The CTE teacher in the district, D2, discussed how they had been trained in the CCSS through
Linked Learning, which also emphasized collaboration between CTE and core teachers.
Participant D2: I’ve been to a workshop with core teachers to talk about linked learning
and tying into um, to common core.
Teachers within the district had been trained on the Common Core in general and by content
area.
Participant D3: … the second day was specific to our subject area. And we had to attend
that training, and then they would tell us like kind of what common core requires
us to do in our subject area. Now, it was great… um, in thought and in theory but
those days were not as beneficial as they had hoped for.
Participant D3: … and there was also um, the math teachers attended a two day common
core introduction math training with our math specialist at the district.
The data illustrated that the district is focused on providing professional development for
their teachers on the CCSS. For CTE and core teacher to collaborate they must first be trained in
the CCSS. Both CTE teachers and core teachers must understand the expectation of the CCSS
and their roles in its implementation for collaboration to be successful.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 140

Administrator Theme: LEA Initiative. The District D administrator repeatedly
mentioned the LEA initiative of developing CTE pathway academies at all high schools in the
district. These academies required continued collaboration between CTE and core teachers to be
successful.
Interviewer: So what did you say the requirement is of each high school, two?
Participant D1: a minimum of two academies
Participant D1: … the other two high schools are in the implementation stages with ninth
grade on board right now. And um, for uh for one class, one site just has one
section of ninth graders where the other site has at least two sections of ninth
graders going through their academies.
The data showed that the district had determined that curriculum integration was a
priority. The academies discussed required curriculum development through the collaboration of
CTE and core teachers. The implementation of this program demonstrated that CTE and core
teachers were collaborating in order to develop and maintain these academies.
Combined Teacher Theme 1: Attitude. All of the teachers from District D acknowledged
that they were not entirely clear on what they need to do to fully implement the CCSS. They
also talked about how they were not alone in their confusion, their colleagues also need
clarification of the expectations.
Participant D2: So there still seems to be between the counselors the teachers and the
students some confusion to what’s going on.
Participant D2: I just find that there may be a learning curve that is taking place on how
to actually implement these standards.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 141

While district D was providing professional development and training to assist teachers in
understanding their role in the implementation of the CCSS there was still confusion.
Participant D3: … a lot of those workshops were not very good. The day, the second day
for mathematics, everybody was just…. It didn’t.. didn’t apply to our high school
world.
Participant D3: So, they.. they provided a training, we just.. it wasn’t that helpful.
The data revealed that while District D was making an effort to train their teachers in the
expectations of the CCSS the teachers still needed further clarification. The district was
providing training and professional development designed to give educators a better
understanding of the CCSS, but further training and professional development was necessary to
give teachers the confidence to engage in collaboration and effective instruction. As the district
continued to provide training and professional development to the teachers their collaboration
would continue to evolve and allow them to develop a cohesive integrated curriculum.
Combined Teacher Theme 2: Shift. The teachers had recognized that there was a shift in
the existing paradigm; they were no longer responsible for just preparing students for college,
but also preparing them to be career ready upon high school graduation.
Participant D3: But I think now with the common core state standards, we’re trying to
bridge the divide between college and career and have them work together. Like, okay
well yes, you are going to college but, and we’re going to get you ready for college, but I
also want to give you career skills. So now, I feel that the common core state standards
we have to work together with career technical. And not make it two separate paths for
our students.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 142

The data revealed that teachers understood there was a shift in the paradigm from
preparing students for college, to preparing students for college and career. This paradigm shift
translated to teachers developing an integrated curriculum to ensure that students were still
college ready and also career ready. In order for an integrated curriculum to be successfully
developed there must be collaboration between core and CTE teachers to meet the demands of
both college and career readiness.
Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions (Questions 13-17). The second
and third sub-questions both supported the primary research question by exploring teachers’
attitudes and dispositions. The second sub-question looked to understand these attitudes and
dispositions in regards to the integration of the CCSS. The third sub-question specifically sought
to understand these attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic subject
standards. The themes that were most apparent as related to sub-questions two and three were the
LEA initiative of developing CTE pathway academies, teacher collaboration to develop an
integrated curriculum, and teacher collaboration to better understand the structure of the CCSS.
General Theme 1: LEA Initiative. All participants from District D discussed the LEA
initiative of developing CTE pathway academies and Linked Learning trainings. The teachers
within these academies had the opportunity to collaborate and work together, instilling an
attitude of cohesiveness among the teachers.
Participant D1: … our linked learning or our academies. At two of our schools, right
now, all of our teachers within that academy have focus, have the same common
prep time. So not only do they get the weekly, they get the daily opportunity to
come together and collaborate on uh common core strategies, on career tech
awareness strategies and how they are to blend the two together.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 143

The teachers who were a part of the academies had the opportunity to participate in Linked
Learning training, which gave them increased purpose when developing integrated curriculum.
Participant D3: … we’ve had a lot more training and it’s not common core specific but
we had at least 3 trainings on link learning where last year where we did get to see
other schools. We did get to see what they were doing. We did get to to talk to
other people. We got to work with our teams, team members on what we were
going to do the next year and how we were going to further develop our um
academy.
The data demonstrated that teachers who were actively participating in the academies had
an attitude of cohesiveness and purpose in their development of integrated curriculum. The
district had intentionally scheduled sufficient opportunities for academy teachers to collaborate
with one another, increasing their cohesiveness, and giving them time to develop integrated
curriculum. The professional development through Linked Learning allowed the teachers to
recognize the significance of their work and reinforce their purpose.
General Theme 2: Teacher Collaboration. (Integration & Structure) During the
interviews all of the participants discussed the importance of teacher collaboration. The district
had established an expectation for structured collaboration between teachers within the same
academy. This provided the opportunity for collaboration focused on integrated curriculum.
Participant D1: At two of our schools, right now, all of our teachers within that academy
have focus, have the same common prep time.
Participation D1: … if not 100% a very high percentage of the collaboration between
career tech and core academic teachers take place.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 144

The teachers discussed their collaborative experiences, which demonstrated their willingness to
collaborate with one another to develop an integrated curriculum.
Participant D2: My experience I had is that the workshop I went to there was definitely
collaboration between core teachers. We had a math teacher and a language arts
teacher and myself and another CTE teacher um, a… several administrators and a
counselor all together, collaborating on this pathway, pathway we were creating
the um, business pathway.
Participant D3: … we were able to collaborate with our English teacher and with our
history teacher and a science teacher who is now on maternity leave right now, so
for, because our academy was um, computer, science and well it’s changed so
many times. But it was linked computer science so we brought in a science
teacher, a math teacher and English teacher and that’s kind of who we worked
with.
The data suggested that the district viewed the importance of collaboration for an
integrated curriculum. The teachers supported the districts stance on collaboration, and worked
with their colleagues from different disciplines. All participants shared a supportive attitude
towards core and CTE teacher collaboration.
Administrator Theme: Professional Development. The administrator from District D
discussed how the district was developing curriculum for the CCSS through professional
development. The focus of the professional development discussed by the participant was
collaboration within disciplines as well as the literary aspects of the Common Core.
Participant D1: When the literacy standards were rolled out. (Pause) teachers were...
assigned, for a lack of a better word, assigned, table assignments, where a 10th
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 145

grade English teacher was with a biology teacher, with a world history teacher
and they were trying to uh, not trying to, but they were looking at the literacy
standards and how the repetition of learning would go from one content area to
the next, to the next. So the student wasn’t just getting one time in the classroom,
they would look at what standard they could implement in all their particular
contents. And for the series of a week or two weeks how that student would be
exposed to that standard going from one class to the next.
The data illustrated that the administrator from District D valued the tenants of the
Common Core. Specifically, the administrator demonstrated during the interview an attitude of
value toward the literacy approach to the Common Core. Additionally, the administrator
mentioned the integrated approach to learning that the CCSS embraces.
Combined Teacher Theme: Teacher Collaboration. During the interviews both of the
teachers discussed how opportunities for interdepartmental collaboration had been made
available. This indicated the belief that interdepartmental collaboration was important. When
asked about collaboration, the CTE teachers stated the following:
Participant D2: In that meeting, again, participating were two core teachers, two CTE
teachers, a counselor, and three administrators.
Interviewer: and were there opportunities to collaborate with teachers from other content
areas?
Participant D2: Absolutely! Yes
The core teacher specifically mentioned the Linked Learning interdepartmental collaboration
opportunity.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 146

Participant D3: And for the link learning ones, it was one English teacher, one math
teacher one history teacher who only went to one meeting and then didn’t get
involved in our program. Um, at the last link learning meeting we finally got a
CTE teacher there, because our old CTE teacher left.
The data suggested that the teachers understood the potential significance and importance
of collaboration. Collaboration can be utilized to effectively implement CCSS and integrate
curriculum. The district had scheduled collaboration opportunities. These structured
opportunities provided collaboration across academic disciplines.
Core Teacher Theme: Attitude. The core teacher continually expressed the concern that
while the district had established teacher collaboration as a priority, the school site had not
appropriately followed through. With this lack of follow through, the teachers had not been given
time to produce a complete integrated curriculum.
Participant D3: Now there there’s supposed to be a first period common prep time for
everyone in link learning, but it didn’t work out that way. it was not planned very
well.
The core teacher also discussed the lack of planning behind the limited collaboration
opportunities.
Participant D3: …once a month that interdisciplinary team has to work together. But
they haven’t really let us plan together. They’ve been giving us things like, oh
write a rubric that will work for every subject level, but they kind of, we end up
never doing that, because we wanted to work together and do something that’s
more common to all of us…
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 147

The teacher also voiced a concern that not everyone on campus was involved in collaborating
towards an integrated curriculum.
Participant D3: Except the link learning ones. And that’s not everyone on campus, it’s
like 3 teachers out of our whole entire campus.
The data revealed that the core teacher had concerns regarding the school site’s priorities
and the lack of focus on teacher collaboration towards integrating the CCSS. The teacher
recognized the importance of teacher collaboration and did not feel that the school site had
properly prioritized it. The teacher felt that unless appropriate support came from the school
administration, curriculum integration and career readiness would not be properly implemented.
District E
At the time of the study, District E was a union high school district of approximately
25,000 students. District E served the second largest population (Figure 12) of Latino/Hispanic
students (63.4 percent) included in the study. District E served White populations of 18.5
percent and African American population of 8.4 percent with Asian, Filipino, two or more races,
Pacific Islander and American Indian populations combined accounted for the remaining 10
percent. District E’s special populations included 10.1 percent English Learners and 56.1
percent low-socioeconomic status, which were substantially lower than the county’s averages of
19.8 percent and 70.5 percent respectively (Figure 13).
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 148

Figure 12. District E: Demographic Data

Figure 13. District E: Special Populations

Case Study District E

The data for District E was obtained solely through the interview with the lead
administrator, responsible for aspects of the implementation and integration of CTE and core
curriculum as it relates to the CCSS. The decision to not interview teachers was based on the
63.4%
18.5%
8.4%
4.7
2.0%
1.6%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
District E Demographic Information
Total Population 24,747
Hispanic/Latino-15,687
White-4,567
African American-2,089
Asian-1,157
Filipino-486
Two or More Races-383
None Reported-180
Pacific Islander-113
American Indian-85
0 20 40 60 80
10.1%
56.1%
19.8%
70.5%
District E Special Population by Percentage
of Enrollment
County
District
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 149

information obtained through the interview. The district had not yet established collaboration
practices between core and CTE teachers. According to the exclusion criteria established in
chapter three, teachers who were not active participants at collaboration meetings would not be
considered in this research; this district contained no further candidates that qualified for this
study. Table 9 illustrates the job position held by the respondent.
In the interview with the lead administrator various themes were identified. These
themes pertained to the primary research question, as well as the sub-questions. The themes that
were dominant when analyzing the primary research question were district attitudes towards the
CCSS and the belief in the district’s teachers to properly implement the CCSS; understanding the
design of the common core, inclusive of the basic design, and the differences between the CCSS
and the previous standards; LEA Initiatives; and the transitional shifts created by the common
core consisting of challenging existing paradigms, and shifts within instructional approaches.
The dominant themes that emerged pertaining to the first sub-question were attitudes in favor of
content integration; the common core design toward curriculum integration; LEA initiatives; and
transitional curricular shifts towards career readiness. Sub-questions two and three were directly
linked and coded together. The themes that were most apparent as related to sub-questions two
and three was an attitude towards seeking clarification: LEA initiatives like Rigorous Curriculum
Design (RCD) curriculum framework; and teacher collaboration while considering existing
collaboration structures and predominate gaps towards integration.
Table 9
District E: Participant’s Role within their District
District Position Participant
Administrator E1

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 150

Findings pertaining to primary research question (Questions 1, 2-4, 5, 10). The
primary research question for this study sought to understand how school districts are responding
to the CCSS by implementing teacher collaboration models designed to integrate the CCSS
curriculum taught by both core and CTE teachers. For districts to appropriately respond to the
CCSS, they must first understand the basic design of the CCSS and how that design impacts
instruction. The concepts that surfaced from the interview with the lead administrator from
District E concentrated on the design of the CCSS and the belief that teachers would competently
address the new standards, by responding to Local Educational Agency (LEA) initiatives which
would aid in the transitional shifts towards the CCSS.
Theme 1: Design. The participant regularly addressed the design of the CCSS. The
respondent stated that their district was in the early stages of understanding the design of the
common core when they stated the following:
Participant E1: We are still having conversations about how history social studies and
um.. how some of the other core classes fit within the common core and what that
looks like.
The participant specifically acknowledged the differences between the CCSS and the previous
standards when they stated the following:
Participant E1: …we know we’re probably going to see a drop given the new format of
the test and what the students are expected to do. Um, I what I have not yet seen
at least in our district is the teachers assessing students in the way the way that
they or that they are going to assessed on the SBAC test. We’re implementing the
common core standards. But I don’t see them assessing students the way they are
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 151

going to be assessed on the SBAC test. To do that requires a lot heck of a lot of
work on the part from the teachers, is one of the issues.
When asked about the design and intent of CCSS to institute interdisciplinary methods the
respondent stated the following:
Participant E1: …we haven’t even discussed the integration of CTE with common core.
We’re still implementing the English and the math common core.
Based up the data provided by the respondent it was evident that the lead administrator
understood the basic design of the CCSS. The lead administrator understood the differences in
design between the CCSS and the previous standards. The data revealed that the district was still
in the beginning stages of the implementation of the CCSS.
Theme 2: Attitude. The respondent expressed their confidence in their staff’s ability to
meet the challenge of implementing the CCSS. The respondent expressed assurance in their staff
when they stated the following:
Participant E1: …the CTE teachers I’m pretty sure, once they learn uh and are exposed
to what the career technical, err what the common core standards are, they are
going to see the link way before I will. I am going to have to rely on them to help
me understand how that all fits.
The participant also stated their confidence in their district’s implementation of the CCSS
mandate by stating the following:
Participant E1: I think we are further along than the other high schools or school
districts in the area in the state. I mean, I know that high school that my uh my
wife used to work for. They haven’t even started yet.
The respondent also professed their own comfort level with the CCSS by stating the following:
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 152

Participant E1: I do appreciate the fact that these common core state standards came
from the governors of the states that participated, not the federal government.
Interviewer: Right
Participant E1: So that made me feel more comfortable with them right off the bat.
Um... admittedly I would have bit leery I would have been a little bit suspicious
if they had come with the you know, U.S. department of ed.
Based upon the data provided, District E was comfortable with the expectations set forth
by the CCSS. The district was confident in their teacher’s abilities to meet the integrated
curricular needs established by the CCSS. The data showed that the district was also
comfortable with their existing progress towards the implementation of the CCSS in comparison
to other districts within the area.
Theme 3: LEA initiatives. District E responded to the expectations conveyed in the
CCSS through various approaches. One of the prevailing methods that District E addressed new
obligations is through the establishment and application of new initiatives. One of the new
initiatives established as a result of CCSS implementation was Rigorous Curriculum Design
(RCD). The participant provided the following data regarding RCD:
Participant E1: I have sat in on a couple of the sessions that they have had as they were
developing the rigorous course design, and developing the curriculum. We had a
process in our district, that for the past two years we’ve been working with the,
uh, leadership and learning center.
Interviewer: Hmm
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 153

Participant E1: uh, with our English teacher and our math teachers to develop in
conjunction with, um, our feeder school district, to develop the, uh, curriculum for
um English and math.
Additionally, the district altered their vision statement in response to the Common Core. The
respondent stated the following:
Participant E1: We originally had, we just recently changed our vision statement right
away, by the way. Um as a matter of fact the board has not even voted on it. Our
vision statement for our district is, is going to be… All future District X students
will graduate ready for college and careers. That is going to be our vision
statement.
Furthermore, the district stated that they will continue to support their CTE programs and
continue to work with their ROP to aid in the execution of the applied learning aspects set forth
in the CCSS. The respondent stated the following:
Participant E1: Well we are one of the few districts um that still has a what is considered
a full complement of career technical education courses. And our board is very
proud of that. I mean there aren’t a whole lot of high school around anymore that
have auto or wood shop for that matter, or a welding program for that matter or
those types of programs. …and then of course with the opportunities we have
through our ROP um our students have more opportunities for hands on learning
than really I think than anyone going to any other school in the state.
Based upon the data provided, the district had a number of different initiatives intended
to address the expectations established by the CCSS. The data showed that the district was in the
process of implementing the curricular framework of RCD. The data also showed that the
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 154

district had altered their vision to be better aligned with the CCSS. Additionally, the data
demonstrated that the district valued their career technical education classes and saw those
classes as an important aspect in meeting the demands of the CCSS.
Theme 4: Shifts. During the interview the participant was aware of the transitional shifts
that have, and will continue to have an impact of their district. The respondent specifically
addressed the instructional shifts that were resulting from the implementation of the CCSS. The
participant stated the following:
Participant E1: It has uh, really completely changed the way teachers delivering content
in the classroom. Um, some’s good some’s bad, like I said, we are having those
implementation pains, and there will be changes made as we move along in this.
During the interview the participant also discussed the instructional shift towards applied
learning by stating the following:
Participant E1: Also relative to hands on learning is the learning that takes place in those
core classes, English, social studies, math, science, history, doesn’t necessarily
mean making something, but in science you have in the labs, in English you have
students working on projects in um math the same type of thing (phone rang, call..
not important). Um, but what we’ve done I mean over of the past 6-7 years we
have done a lot of work with our teachers in um helping them understand there is
no research to support a 50 minute lecture. You know in an instruction hour you
should have anywhere from 3-5 different learning activities.
Based upon the data provided, District E was aware of the needed instructional shifts in
response to the CCSS. District E had begun to put measures into place, such as working with
teachers towards more hands on learning opportunities for students. The data showed District
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 155

E’s awareness of the importance in changing the existing instructional delivery methods
currently in practice.
Findings pertaining to first sub-question (Questions 6-9, 11-12). In support of the
primary research question, the first sub-question sought to understand how CTE and core
teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within career pathways models. For
teachers to efficiently collaborate, they must first understand the design of the CCSS. Teachers
must also understand various district initiatives and how those initiatives alter existing practices.
Educators naturally respond to change in different ways, so it is also import to understand their
various attitudes and dispositions to the aforementioned transitions.
Theme 1: Design. The participant consistently made references to the design of the
CCSS. The respondent stated that their district was in the early stages of understanding the
Common Core when they stated the following:
Participant E1: Oh it will happen and it will have an impact, but we’re smart enough to
know that we will take this in steps.
When asked about the design of the CCSS in relation to collaboration to integrate curriculum, the
participant responded as follows:
Participant E1: I’ll bring up the anchor standards and how we integrate those with
Common Core in English and math. Next year, more than likely.
The respondent also stated the following:
Participant E1: It’s the English teachers, math teachers, history teachers, science
teachers that we are going to need to work with, to get them to understand how
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 156

career technical education fits in their classes, and what they can do in their
classes to support the career readiness skills the students going to need. They
don’t quite get it yet, and you know what strikes me as interesting is that, this is
not necessarily new.
The data indicates that District E had an understanding of the design of the CCSS, and
was using this information to address implementation. District E was designing their own
implementation of career education to be a step-by-step implementation. Based on the interview
data, it appeared that District E would begin integration with English and math core teachers,
eventually expanding to history and science teachers.
Theme 2: LEA Initiatives. In response to the CCSS District E had begun to enact
different LEA initiatives. To ensure that all administrators within District E had a similar
foundation, the respondent stated the following:
Participant E1: A Matter of fact we were just given this today (held up a book). So I will
probably know more in about a month, after I finish reading this book.
Interviewer: I haven’t seen that… Getting Ready for College and Careers and the
Common Core by David T Conley.
Participant E1: Everybody in the district every administrator in the district got a copy
and our superintendent does book studies with us, and we uh have to read the first
4 chapters in that.
The data stated that District E was still in the early stages of implementing how CTE and
core teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within career pathways models. The
district was working towards educating all of their administrators through a consistent and
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 157

common source. This book, that serves to ensure a stable message, was one of the preliminary
steps for District E as it began to develop integrated curriculum.
Theme 3: Shifts. For CTE and core teachers to develop integrated curriculum within
career pathways models there was a need for District E to alter some of their existing practices.
The respondent discussed the shift of focus from a-g when they stated the following:
Participant E1: Uh I mean we’re still focused on A-G, but now we have to figure out
how we can still meet A-G and have students exposed to or you know, uh enrolled
in courses that will make them ready for college and make them ready for careers.
The respondent also stated that the various stakeholder associated with District E valued the idea
of preparing students for both college and career. This transitional shift was stated as follows:
Participant E1: The feedback we have received from the surveys we’ve done with
parents with students with classified staff with community members with
business. Um, you know the need to prepare students for college and career is up
in the top 3 every time we survey the groups. They see the need for that. For that
has sent our um impacted or um (pause) had an influence on our vision there.
The data revealed that for CTE and core teachers collaborate to develop integrated
curriculum within career pathways models that transitional changes would be necessary. District
E was in the process of transitioning away from classes that only focus on college. Additionally,
the community related to District E voiced support in the transitional shift of preparing students
for both college and careers. This support would be necessary as District E begins to integrate
curriculum within career pathway models.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 158

Theme 4: Attitude. The attitude of the administration was associated with the perceived
need for teacher collaboration between CTE and Core teachers. The administrator from District
E was confident in the district’s ability to integrate curriculum, as was apparent in the interview
when stated:
Participant E1: See our CTE teachers, our CTE teachers are going to get it. They know,
they get the relationship between the uh CTE courses and the core courses. They
already understand that.
Here the participant showed his confidence in the ability of the CTE teachers, in their knowledge
of their curriculum and their understanding of the importance of integration.
Even more apparent in the attitude of the administrator was a positive push for the
integration of CTE and Core curriculum, and the need for career education in the high schools.
Several times the administrator stated the importance and benefits of integrating curriculum,
especially focusing on the need for CTE curriculum. During one portion of the interview the
administrator stated:
Participant E1: When I was the principal of X high school in the early 1990’s X was
one of the first of was the one of the 5 original horizon grant recipients in San
Bernardino County and that was all around um career readiness.
The lead administrator was confident in the teachers of District E to properly implement
the CCSS at the specified time. Additionally, the lead administrator valued curriculum designed
to prepare students for their future careers. This data revealed that, that even prior to the
expectations of the CCSS, the administrator focused on, and saw the importance of creating
courses for students to prepare them for careers directly out of high school.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 159

Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions (Questions 13-17). The second
and third sub-questions both supported the primary research question by exploring teachers’
attitudes and dispositions. The second sub-question looked to understand these attitudes and
dispositions in regards to the integration of the CCSS. The third sub-question specifically sought
to understand these attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic subject
standards.
Theme 1: LEA Initiatives. There were two distinct LEA initiatives discussed by the
participant that reflected the attitudes and dispositions of the district when it came to the
integration of the CCSS, and integrated career and academic standards. The first of these was
RCD. RCD is a curricular philosophy often presented by an outside agency focused on
professional development for teachers to develop cross-curricular lessons.
Interviewer: And describe the professional development that you have participated in in
support of the implementation of the common core state standards?
Participant E1: I was part of, at least on a couple of occasions, the um rigorous course
design sessions that we had…they were rewriting their curriculum, and English
and math teachers were participating in that.
This shows that while the district was in the beginning stages of implementation there was an
acknowledgment of the necessity of an integrated curriculum.
The second LEA initiative discussed during the interview was late-start Fridays. This
structure allowed students to begin school an hour later on Fridays, giving teachers the
opportunity to attend meetings and collaboration. There was a push within the district to forgo
the meetings and turn all late-start Fridays into collaboration meetings:
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 160

Participant E1: We also have built into our schedules, on Fridays, collaboration time in
the morning. Late starts, call it what you want whatever it is. So for an hour on
Friday, right now it’s 2 Fridays a month, because by contract one is a department
chair meeting the other one a faculty meeting, although they’re working on
getting that changed. But on two Fridays a month teachers have the opportunity to
collaborate. Um and that’s the purpose of it.
The data showed that the district was working within their contract to determine
additional times to increase teacher collaboration. Additionally, the district was focused on
providing the teachers of District E with a curricular framework designed to meet the
expectations established within the CCSS. With increased time for teacher collaboration and a
structured curricular framework, collaboration between CTE and core teachers was more likely
to occur.
Theme 2: Teacher Collaboration. Teacher collaboration was the most common theme
when exploring attitudes and dispositions in regards to the integration of CCSS, and towards
integrated career and academic subject standards. Within the theme of teacher collaboration
there were several sub-themes that were apparent in the interview including, CTE, a gap in
college and career readiness, a gap in curriculum integration in CTE and core classes, and the
structure of teacher collaboration. According to the participant the district had not yet engaged
in collaboration between CTE and core teachers. When asked how the common core state
standards had altered the districts view towards blending career technical education and core
curriculum, the administrator stated the following:
Participant E1: It hasn’t yet, because we haven’t even had engaged in that discussion
yet.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 161

Since District E had not implemented collaboration between CTE and Core teachers much of the
data reflected a gap in college and career readiness, and a gap in curriculum integration in CTE
and core classes.
Participant E1: … I have 4 drafting programs, they get together throughout the year, and
I pay for that, I get the release time out of Perkins to pay for the subs. And they
spend all day developing plans sharing best practices, looking what’s available
out there from the technology standpoint and what they can use and what they can
do, So I’ve done that, but they haven’t been involved with the core teachers, So
they haven’t been getting together with English, math, science, history and social
studies. They haven’t’ done that.
The structure of teacher collaboration was also discussed throughout the interview,
indicating that while collaboration was not currently occurring between CTE and Core teachers,
there was a needed for this type of collaboration, and current structures need to be modified to
accommodate further collaboration:
Participant E1: For the most part, I’ve covered what we have. And we’re very fortunate
to have that, but what is happening is the principals are coming in to the
superintendent to the cabinet downstairs and said that they want to have that
practice of the late starts, the collaboration periods, those Fridays, renegotiated,
and at the very least get rid of the either the faculty or the dept meetings and add
another a 3rd collaboration day during the. Really what they want is have them all
collaboration. Most of the principals have said I can cover what I cover in a
faculty, meeting in a memo or emails or go and talk to people.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 162

While collaboration between core and CTE teachers had not been established in this district,
principals and district administrators had recognized the need and were establishing a structure to
make this possible. With the focusing on alignment of teacher prep periods and the restructuring
of late start Friday’s a structure of collaboration was being established:
Participant E1: So there is more of a push to get more of those collaboration Fridays in
there. Now in a couple of campuses, we have um subject alike teams that have
prep periods so they can use that as an addition to those Friday they have. Some
may have the same lunch and have decided on their own that during lunch once a
week they are going together about student achievement and collaborate. So there
is a number of uh different practices taking place out there, so..
This data illustrated the identification of the necessity of a collaboration structure and
schedule between CTE and core teachers to establish curriculum that would ensure that students
are college and career ready. The district believed that collaboration was important to properly
implement the CCSS. Furthermore the district leadership had begun placing structures to
support teacher collaboration.
Summary of Emergent Themes Across District Case Studies
The primary research question for this study sought to understand how school districts
are responding to the CCSS by implementing teacher collaboration models designed to integrate
the CCSS curriculum taught by both core and CTE teachers. The five district case studies were
conducted individually in order to analyze how collaboration models were being employed in
individual districts across a region of Southern California known as the Inland Empire. In this
section, themes across the five districts are presented as a multisite comparative analysis to
determine what approaches to the CCSS were common in the region. The data of all
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 163

participating district was synthesized and categorized in relation to the primary question and
each of the sub-questions of the study.
Findings pertaining to the primary research question (Questions 1, 2-4, 5, 10)
Each of the five districts acknowledged that the shift to CCSS brought with it meaningful
implications to instructional practices, curriculum and collaboration models. A majority of
participants reported, at minimum, a basic knowledge of the CCSS standards organization and
fundamental intent. Rigor, relevance, and applied learning strategies were concepts cited
multiple times by participants. In general, attitudes regarding the shift to the CCSS were positive
and viewed as a necessary change for students to be prepared for both college and career.
Professional development was cited multiple times as a major themes across district.
Respondents expressed an overwhelming sentiment that professional development would serve
as an essential component to implementing the CCSS. In all districts, professional development
was mainly focused on the implantation of the CCSS in the areas of ELA and math. While each
district acknowledged the importance of CTE and integrated curriculum, these initiatives were
portrayed as secondary initiatives or scheduled as topics for future professional development.
Structures for professional development were clearly established for ELA and math, and
described as much less structured and inconsistent in the areas of CTE, career pathways, and
curriculum integration.
Findings pertaining to first sub-question (Questions 6-9, 11-12)
The theme of LEA Initiatives was prevalent across district participant responses as a
method to implement the CCSS. Rigorous Curriculum Design (RCD), for example, is a
curriculum development framework that was employed in four of the five districts. This
framework was mainly utilized in the districts to create CCSS units of study in the areas of ELA
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 164

and math. Career readiness initiatives included Linked Learning, career academies, and career
pathways. As a part of these initiatives, districts outsourced aspects of their professional
development to third parties.
Findings pertaining to second and third sub-questions (Questions 13-17)
The dominant theme reported by district respondents was teacher collaboration. This
theme was further distilled into three different aspects of teacher collaboration:
interdepartmental, integration, and structure. Across the districts, interdepartmental
collaboration was described as inconsistent and often limited to small numbers of teachers or
initiated by teachers as a grass roots effort. In terms of curriculum integration, participants
continued to stress the importance of the concept, yet few descriptions of actual integration or
structures for integration were evident. Lastly, participants depicted collaborative structures as
weak, inconsistent, and dependent upon individual teacher motivation.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 165

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Purpose of the study
The shift to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) established increased
expectations for college and career readiness. Specifically, the College and Career Readiness
(CCR) Anchor Standards provide broad-based expectations for the skills and knowledge students
must demonstrate by the time they graduate high school. The integration of academic standards
and career standards serves as one of the most noteworthy shifts between the expired 1997
California State Standards and the new CCSS. This shift necessitates Career Technical
Education (CTE) and core teachers collaborate in ways that traditionally have not occurred in
public education.
The purpose of this study sought to inspect the systems and conditions that districts have
created to meet the expectations of the CCSS, more precisely, what structures have districts
implemented to promote the collaboration between CTE teachers and core academic teachers
resulting in integrated curriculum. In order to appropriately frame the study, the following
primary research question and sub-questions were developed:
Primary research question:
In response to the Common Core State Standards, what collaboration models are
employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by both core and CTE
teachers?
Sub questions:
1) How do CTE and core teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within
career pathways models?
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 166

2) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward the integration of the CCSS
standards?
3) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic
subject standards?
Method of Study
To adequately address the components of the primary research question and related sub-
questions, qualitative methods were applied to this study. In order to understand the unique
collaborative cultures of each district, a qualitative case study examining, in-depth, the context,
setting, perceptions, and dispositions of impacted stakeholders, was implemented (Creswell,
2009). This study also takes a “particularistic approach” because the research is focused on a
specific event, in this case, the implementation of the CCSS (Merriam, 2009). The “thick
descriptions” developed in the course of the study provided a richness of detail critical to
developing case study themes that emerged from each district (Merriam, 2009, p. 43). Merriam
(2009) credits qualitative research, specifically case studies, as the best empirical approach when
studying how cultures and environments are impacted by particular events (Merriam, 2009).
Sample and Population
While the larger impact of the CCSS was happening nationally across 46 states, this
study focused on the 5 districts in Southern California. The sampling of districts was confined to
a bounded system, meaning the parameters for data collection were set prior to the study and did
not change (Merriam, 2009). Moreover, the bounded system was instituted strategically to
determine the CCSS implementation impact on this particular geographic region.
The method of sampling utilized to select study participants is known as purposeful
sampling. Purposeful sampling is intended to select individuals whose participation will best
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 167

help to answer the research question (Creswell, 2009). In the case of this study, it was important
to gain the perspectives of three key stakeholders in the process: administrators associated with
the implementation of the CCSS, CTE teachers, and core teachers. Sampling from these groups
allowed the researchers to understand how participants in different roles perceived the shift to
CCSS and how they viewed collaboration efforts.
The data collection for the study consisted exclusively of administrator and teacher
interviews. Administrators selected for the study held leadership roles in the implementation of
the CCSS. The selection criteria for the teacher candidates required that they had been active
participants in collaborative meetings between CTE and core teachers within their respective
districts. Teachers who were not in attendance at one of the collaboration meetings were not
considered as candidates.
For the purposes of data collection and analysis, each district was treated as an individual
case study. After each district was analyzed independently thorough the lens of the primary
research questions and related sub-questions, a comparative analysis was conducted to identify
related themes and patterns that emerged across the districts.
Instrument
The instrument developed for data collection consisted of 17 questions that were
strategically designed and grouped to elicit responses to particular aspects of the primary and
sub-question categories ranging from basic knowledge and awareness of the CCSS to attitudes
toward curriculum integration. Table 10 established the intended purpose of each question as
well as the research-base for the construction of the questions.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 168

Table 10
Interview Questions Aligned to Research
Primary Research Question: In response to the Common Core State Standards, what
collaboration models are employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by
both core and CTE teachers?
Sub questions:
4) How do CTE and core teachers collaborate to develop integrated curriculum within
career pathways models?
5) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward the integration of the CCSS
standards?
6) What are teachers’ attitudes and dispositions toward integrated career and academic
subject standards?

Interview Questions Purpose Research
1. What do you think is
most exciting about
the Common Core
State Standards
transition?

2 What is your
comfort level with
the Common Core
State Standards?

3 Why do you think
the state adopted the
Common Core State
Standards?

4 How will the
Common Core State
Standards impact
your district?

Question 1 is designed to
relax the respondent while
simultaneously acclimating
their mindset to concentrate
on the various attributes of
the Common Core State
Standards.

Questions 2, 3, and 4 are
designed to better understand
the respondent’s awareness of
how the CCSS is designed to
alter existing curriculum and
instruction.

Merriam in 2009, articulates
the importance of taking the
necessary precautions of
making the respondent
relaxed and comfortable. If
the respondents feel
comfortable in a
nonthreatening environment,
they will more thoroughly
answer the forthcoming
questions.

Cognitive load theory
suggests that individuals link
clusters of information,
known as schema, within
their brains. The data within
these questions will help the
researcher to understand the
respondents’ connections
between curriculum,
instruction, and the CCSS
(Sweller, van Merrienboer, &
Paas, 1998).

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 169

5 What accountability
measures exist for
your district and
teachers to ensure
that they are
preparing students
for both college and
careers?

6 How has the
Common Core
expectation of
preparing students
for college and
career impacted your
district?

7 What are the
implications of the
College and Career
Readiness Anchor
Standards on the
district’s
instructional
practices?

8 How is your district
supporting teachers
to meet the career
readiness
expectations of
Common Core State
Standards?

9 What pedagogical
knowledge do you
believe teachers will
need in order to
implement the
Common Core
Readiness
Standards?
Question 5 is designed to
understand the respondent’s
awareness to the correlation
between accountability and
institutional practices.
Specifically the researchers
want to understand how
different districts emphasize
and financially prioritize the
practices that they are held
accountable for.

Questions 6, 7, 8, and 9 are
designed to articulate the
respondent’s understanding
of the prominence of the
CCSS focus on both college
and career. Additionally the
questions are further designed
to understand the
interviewee’s awareness of
the ramifications that this
relationship will have on
curriculum and instruction.

Burke (2004), highlights the
relationships of various forms
of accountability. The
dynamics of this
accountability include how
educational institutions are
accountable to state mandates
as well as accountable to the
individual students.

The curricular and
instructional changes of the
Common Core Anchor
Standards intentionally
address college and career
readiness (CDE, 2014a).

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 170

10 What opportunities
does your district
offer for students to
engage in a hands on
learning?

11 How have the
Common Core State
Standards changed
the purpose of
Career Technical
Education?

12 How have the
Common Core State
Standards altered
your districts view
towards blending
Career Technical
Education and core
curriculum?

13 What does teacher
collaboration look
like in support of the
implementation of
College and Career
Readiness Anchor
Standards?

14 What does teacher
collaboration look
like to support the
implementation of
the Common Core
State Standards?

15 What expectation(s)
and support systems
exist for teachers to
collaborate?
Question 10 is designed to
understand the different
district professional
development opportunities
and the value that individual
districts place on hands on
learning in response to the
CCSS.

Question 11 and 12 are
designed to understand the
value that each district has,
and will, place on the
curriculum and philosophy of
CTE.

Question 13, 14, 15, 16, and
17 are designed to understand
each districts process for
teacher collaboration as well
as identify existing attitudes
and dispositions towards the
CCSS, the CCR, and an
integrated curriculum.
The scholarly work of John
Dewey (1897) brought
attention to the importance of
students being involved in
their educational process.
Hands-on learning is a
philosophy that is in
alignment with Dewey’s
work.

California Education Code
mandates that districts offer
curriculum containing CTE
additionally, the CCSS
emphasizes the expectation
that students are both college
and career ready (CDE,
2014a).

DuFour, DuFour, Eaker and
Many (2006) bring to light
the importance and benefits
of teacher collaboration.
Furthermore, Dewey (1897),
Tyler (1949), and Taba
(1962) all staunchly advocate
the need for an integrated
curriculum.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 171

16 What opportunities
exist to for Career
Technical Education
and core academic
teaches to
collaborate?

17 Describe the
professional
development you
have participated in
to support the
implementation of
the Common Core
State Standards?
a. Career and
College
Readiness?
b. Who
participated?
c. Was there
opportunities
to
collaborate
with teachers
from other
content
areas?
d. Which areas?

The roles of the interviewees were selected to represent different stakeholder groups and
their unique perspectives in the process of CCSS implementation. Each interview was recorded
in its entirety, transcribed, and coded to develop themes. Interview data was disaggregated and
analyzed at the administrator level and the teacher level as well as holistically by district.
Key Findings
While no single method of collaboration, curriculum integration, or CCSS
implementation was identified in the five districts included in the study, several dominant themes
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 172

emerged.
Shifts
All participants acknowledged that the CCSS represent a drastic departure from previous
standards movements. Table 11 illustrates the distribution of the respondent’s coded theme, in
reference to the transitional shifts associated with the collaboration practices resulting from the
implementation of the CCSS. Beyond recognizing the significance of the shifts, a majority of
respondents acknowledged that the CCSS standards held major implications for change to the
teaching and learning continuum. For example participants expressed the need for increased
rigor, applied learning, literacy across the content areas, and an increased emphasis on college
and career readiness.
Walker (2013) argues that the intersection between disciplines created by the CCSS is an
unprecedented shift in public education. Participants’ responses indicated that they recognized
and internalized that the CCSS served as a catalyst to a more integrated teaching practice. In
addition, respondents largely stated that they would have to personally change their approach to
teaching based on the factors of increased rigor and new content with which they were
unfamiliar to have not taught prior to the CCSS.
Participants’ attitudes toward the perceived shifts presented in the CCSS were mostly
positive. Though many participants cited the CCSS shifts would require significant effort to
implement, they reported they were necessary for students to be adequately prepared for both
college and careers.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 173

Table 11
Shift: Theme Distribution

District Administrator CTE Teacher Core Teacher
A 2 4 10
B 8 6 20
C 40 18 16
D 12 17 22
E 20 NA NA

Design
Despite their consideration of key shifts, participants, in general, demonstrated a
rudimentary knowledge of the design and purpose of the standards. For example, question seven
of the interview asked respondents to describe their understanding of the CCR Anchor Standards.
The CCR Anchor Standards link grade level English Language Arts (ELA) standards to college
and career readiness skills that students must demonstrate upon completion of the standards
sequence in grade 12. Table 12 illustrates the distribution of the respondent’s coded theme, in
reference to the design of the CCSS. Most respondents failed to describe the relationship
between the CCR Anchor Standards and the CCSS and how this relationship impacted classroom
instruction. Furthermore, several participants acknowledged that they hadn’t explored the CCR
Anchor Standards, or they had limited knowledge of the standards or their purpose.
While study respondents reported limited knowledge of CCR Anchor Standards, a
majority of participants demonstrated intermediate knowledge of the common core ELA and
mathematics standards. The interview data suggested that the five districts in the study placed a
priority on implementing the ELA and mathematics common core standards. In addition, each
district was in the process of developing ELA and math units of study with the involvement of
teachers of the content areas. There were very few cases were CTE teachers were involved in
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 174

the process.
Table 12
Design: Theme Distribution
District Administrator CTE Teacher Core Teacher
A 9 9 15
B 6 9 3
C 26 8 5
D 4 4 4
E 23 NA NA

Professional Development
The preponderance of evidence suggests that very few structures existed within the five
districts focused on the curriculum integration. Most professional develop opportunities reported
were focused ELA and math. Opportunities to attend interdepartmental professional
development were characterized as limited and voluntary in nature. The lack of defined
structures suggested that districts in the study did not see curriculum integration as priority, at
least at this time, in the implementation of CCSS standards. Table 13 illustrates the distribution
of the respondent’s coded theme, in reference to professional development opportunities
associated with the collaboration practices resulting from the implementation of the CCSS.
Table 13
Professional Development: Theme Distribution

District Administrator CTE Teacher Core Teacher
A 0 2 9
B 3 5 3
C 10 11 4
D 5 3 8
E 8 NA NA

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 175

Attitudes
Participant attitudes and dispositions regarding the CCSS ranged from frustration over
the lack of structures in support of integrated curriculum, to positivity over the CCSS movement,
to confidence in teachers’ ability to adapt to the CCSS. Attitudes among CTE teachers
expressed a perceived unwillingness from core teachers to embraced career curriculum in their
classrooms. Administrators attitudes overall expressed confidence in initiatives they have
engaged to implement the CCSS. Other administrator attitudes conveyed a lack of continuity
and direction within the CCSS implementation. Table 14 illustrates the distribution of the
respondent’s coded theme, in reference to the attitudes associated with the collaboration
practices resulting from the implementation of the CCSS.
Table 14
Attitude: Theme Distribution

District Administrator CTE Teacher Core Teacher
A 0 3 2
B 9 4 8
C 5 16 43
D 3 11 14
E 11 NA NA

LEA Initiatives
The participants from each district described at least one LEA initiative established to
implement the CCSS. The perceived confidence or success of these initiatives varied between
the districts. Common LEA initiatives included various forms of career pathways or academies
as well as curriculum frameworks such as Rigorous Curriculum Design (RCD), which was
reported in four of five districts. Some initiatives were led by district personnel, but a majority
of these initiatives were outsourced to private consulting companies. Table 15 illustrates the
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 176

distribution of the respondent’s coded theme, in reference to the LEA initiatives associated with
the collaboration practices resulting from the implementation of the CCSS.
Table 15
LEA Initiative: Theme Distribution

District Administrator CTE Teacher Core Teacher
A 2 2 7
B 1 0 2
C 10 15 8
D 17 6 15
E 17 NA NA

Teacher collaboration
Study participants overwhelmingly reported that opportunities for teacher collaboration
were limited and inconsistent. Specifically, administrator and teacher participants stated that
very few were formalized or structured opportunities for CTE and core teachers to collaborate on
interdepartmental projects, units of study, or integrated lesson. Most formalized teacher
collaboration opportunities were course-alike or content specific meetings with teachers of the
same content areas, customarily ELA and math. Teacher participation, in many cases, was
voluntary and did not reach all teachers. Table 16 illustrates the distribution of the respondent’s
coded theme, in reference to the teacher collaboration practices resulting from the
implementation of the CCSS.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 177

Table 16
Teacher Collaboration: Theme Distribution

District Administrator CTE Teacher Core Teacher
A 4 8 8
B 10 5 17
C 6 15 18
D 11 6 14
E 15 NA NA

Summary
The data gathered from the five district identified in this study suggested that gaps existed
in collaboration structures supporting the integration of CCSS among CTE and core teachers.
This finding were consistent with prior research on curriculum integration. As Hershey,
Silverberg, and Haimson (1999) posit, CTE teachers and academic teachers often do not interact
on high school campuses let alone collaborate on integration. This statement parallels the finding
of this study, which provided little evidence of CTE and core teacher collaboration. While many
participants stated that CTE and core teacher collaboration was an expectation, the lack of
defined structures and opportunities for collaboration did not support these statements.
Evidence of collaborative structures was limited to ELA and math, and career initiatives, but
these structures were kept compartmentalized. This is antithetical to research that suggests that
collaborative structures must move toward integration (Walker, 2013).
Some evidence of CTE and core teacher collaboration was noted, however, most of these
events occurred outside the formal structures of district professional development. These
impromptu meetings included the cross-curricular lessons and projects. While not widespread,
these grassroots efforts represent one of the most effective models of collaboration. As Sutliff
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 178

(2000) posits, the true integration of academic and career-based learning is only possible through
the intentional acts of classroom teachers (Sutliff, 2000).
Teachers’ attitudes and dispositions were largely positive in terms of the implementation
of CCSS; however, attitudes regarding career curriculum were mixed. CTE teachers perceived
that the core academic teachers would be reluctant to bring career curriculum into the
classrooms. Core academic teachers also reported that it was important for CTE teachers to
bring core academic standards into their instruction, yet failed to recognize the need to integrated
career standards into their content areas.
This theme was consistent with research from the CTE field. The integration for
academic and career standards has long been a priority of the CTE movement, but emphasis on
careers in the academic environments has been missing (Castellano & Stringfield, 2003). The
attitudes and dispositions present in the data suggested that this trend has continued in the
districts identified in this study.
Limitations
Limitations of this study included a limited sample size of participants and the lack an
additional study methods, such as observation, to provide a point of data triangulation.
Interviews were limited to one administrator, one CTE teacher, and one core content teacher per
district. The study would have gained increased reliability if additional participant interviews
had been conducted. In addition, consistency of coded themes would have been strengthened
through additional interviews. The inclusion of CCSS professional development observations
would have served as a triangulation measure to establish if interview questions pertaining to
professional development were observable and consistent.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 179

Implications of the Research
As a result of this study, several implications for teacher collaboration and CCSS
implementation emerged. First, districts must develop strong structures that intentionally
promote the collaboration of CTE and core academic teachers. These structures must include
dedicated time for collaboration built into the teacher workday. CTE and core academic teachers
must receive support and professional development that appropriately models effective
interdisciplinary lessons, cross-curricular projects, and applied learning approaches.
Second, districts must guard against the impulse to prioritize initiatives based on state
accountability measures. Several participants expressed that the reason for the professional
development focus on ELA and math was because these content areas will be the first tested
under the new California Assessment of Student Progress and Performance (CAASPP). The
concept of “teaching to the test” is not a new phenomenon in the standards-based era of
education, and districts must ensure that they understand the holistic merit of the common core
and present a balanced collage and career-based course of study.
Third, standards-based initiatives take time to fully implement. The State of California
adopted the CCSS on August 2, 2010, and districts have been implementing the CCSS through
various methods and at different rates. Though more than four years have passed, the five
districts of focus in this study described their CCSS implementation as new and a work in
progress. In addition, participants reported their understating of the CCSS as basic or emerging.
Because the implementation of new standards-based initiatives takes substantial time, districts
must take care to develop long-range plans aimed at developing the skill and knowledge of
teachers to effectively implement the CCSS.

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 180

Suggestions for Future Research
Future research on CTE and core teacher collaboration should be focused on identifying
effective models of integration practices and interdepartmental curriculum development.
Furthermore, future research should aim to define educational best practices for CTE and core
teacher collaboration and curriculum integration. By identifying these best practices, districts
can look to empirical examples to effectively implement the CCSS.
Theoretical Collaboration Model
Based on the research gathered in the course of this study, a theoretical model for
collaboration and curriculum integration has emerged. At the forefront of this model is the
aspect of creating time and space for authentic collaborative practices to occur at the teacher
level. Study participants reported that efforts around inter-disciplinary collaboration and
curriculum began at the grass roots level and were initiated by teachers outside the scope of the
regular school day. Because these efforts were teacher-led, participants described feeling an
inherent investment in the curriculum. This example of impromptu collaboration demonstrates
that teachers often have the desire to work authentically with each other, but often must self-
ccreate the opportunity to do so. Therefore, an effective collaboration model provides regular
opportunities within the professional development calendar for teachers from all disciplines to
come together to develop integrated curriculum projects. Furthermore, the process of developing
integrated curriculum must not be driven by district or site leadership, but rather by the teachers
themselves. The interaction and discourse between teachers of different disciplines allows them
to share their expertise and curricular goals with one another, thereby allowing them to perceive
natural connections within the curricula.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 181

Teachers must receive professional development and training in inter-disciplinary
curriculum development that will lead to their increased skill and knowledge in these areas.
While teachers may be willing to collaborate, they may not all have experience with curriculum
development, design, or the creation of theme-based units. Professional development
opportunities must be carefully thought out to meet the teachers at their place of need. Teachers
should always be a part of planning and selecting the topics for professional development that
will be most useful to their current learning.
Another critical aspect to the model is the focus on applied learning outcomes. The
CCSS at its core stresses the importance of critical thinking and problem-solving skills through
applied learning models. A natural vehicle to connect applied leaning to academic content is
through CTE and ROP programs. As noted in the study, each of the participating district, in one
form or fashion, maintained CTE and ROP programs; however, each district also reported that
very little collaboration between the academic program and the career-based programs.
An effective collaboration model leverages existing career and technical education
programs to create the context for project-based and applied learning activities. Subsequently,
academic skills can be aligned in the core areas to support the over-arching CTE themed
projects. In this model, student receive the theoretical math, science, language arts, and social
studies backgrounds and transfer those skills immediately to applied learning models in the their
CTE environments. Teachers in these environments see how their content interacts and
contributes to the larger picture of applied learning. Co-teaching models and integrated lesson
may also be natural outcroppings of authentic teaching collaboration.
To create these opportunities, schools need to rethink their approach to school day.
Master schedules, specifically at the high school levels, are largely dictated by the activities,
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 182

sports programs, instructional minutes requirements, and transportation schedules. These
competing interests make it challenging to create schedules that allow for the extended necessary
for project-based learning. School leaders must think creatively about the master schedule when
designing a school day that is based on creating authentic learning environments. Block-
scheduling and leveraging opportunities before and after school are methods schools have
utilized within schools and district to create additional opportunities for project-based learning.
Flexibility in student scheduling must also be a consideration in an effective CTE theme-based
model. Because CTE programs are designed to be interest-based, student must be able to move
seamlessly between CTE pathways based on interest.
In summary, teachers from all content areas must lead the process of integrating
academic and career curriculum. School leaders must create the environments and systems as
well as provide professional development and training in support of curriculum integration.
Leaders must also view project-based learning and applied learning as the highest priority when
considering master scheduling and student scheduling. CTE and career pathways must serve as
the learning context for applied learning activities. Only through the establishment of such
models will schools achieve the college and career readiness goals established by the CCSS.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 183

References
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful
verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267-272.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046669
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education (5
th
ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Brooks, J. G., & Dietz, M. E. (2013). The dangers and opportunities of the common core.
Educational Leadership, 70(4), 64-67. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1373089050?accountid=14749
Bruner, J. (1961). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Byrd, M. D. (2001). Back to the future for higher education: Medieval universities. The Internet
and higher education, 4(1), 1-7.
California Department of Education. (2014a). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/finalelaccssstandards.pdf
California Department of Education. (2014b). The California Career Technical Education Model
Curriculum Standards. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/ctemcstandards.asp
Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., & Stone, J.R. (2003). Secondary career and technical education
and comprehensive school reform: Implications for research and practice. Review of
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 184

Educational Research, 73(2), 231. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/214115473?accountid=27965
Coachella Valley Economic Partnership (2014). Career Pathways. Retrieved from
http://www.smartstudentsgreatjobs.org/research_pathway.html
Coleman, D., Pimentel, S., & Zimba, J. (2012). Three core shifts to deliver on the promise of the
common core standards. State Education Standard, 12(2), 9-12. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312420358?accountid=14749
Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). Cardinal principles of
secondary education. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2015). Core Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/
Crain, R. L., Allen, A., Thaler, R., Sullivan, D., Zellman, G. L., Little, J. W., & Quigley, D. D.
(1999). The Effects of Academic Career Magnet Education on High Schools and Their
Graduates.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Daggett, W. R. (2005). Achieving academic excellence through rigor and relevance.
International Center for Leadership in Education, 1-5.
Dewey, J., & Small, A. W. (1897). My pedagogic creed (No. 25). EL Kellogg & Company.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Eden, R., Stasz, C., Ramsey, K., & Bodilly, S. J. (1994). Integrating Academic and Vocational
Education.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 185

Eisner, E. W. (2009). The kind of schools we need. Kaleidoscope: Contemporary and Classic
Readings in Education, 275.
Epstein, S. R. (1998). Craft guilds, apprenticeship, and technological change in preindustrial
Europe. Journal of Economic History, 58, 684-713.
Friedman, T. L., & Mandelbaum, M. (2011). That used to be us: How America fell behind in the
world it invented and how we can come back. Macmillan.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gangi, J. M., & Reilly, M. A. (2013). Laying bare of questions which have been hidden by
answers: The English language arts standards of the common core, K-5. Language and
Literacy Spectrum, 23, 7-19. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1373088388?accountid=14749
Goodlad, J. I., A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future, McGraw-Hill, New
York: 1984.
Glatthorn, A.A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B.M, & Boschee, B.F. (2012). Curriculum leadership:
Strategies for development and implementation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Gray, K. (1999). High school vocational education: Facing an uncertain future. In A. J. Paulter,
Jr. (Ed.), Workforce education: Issues for the new century (pp. 159-169).
Ann Arbor, MI: Prakken.
Hershey, A. M., Silverberg, M. K., Haimson, J., Hudis, P., & Jackson, R. (1999). Expanding
Options for Students. Report to Congress on the National Evaluation of School-to-Work
Implementation.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 186

Hughes, K. L., Bailey, T. R., & Karp, M. M. (2002). School-to-work: Making a difference in
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4), 272-279.
Hartley, N., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Cobb, R. B. (1996). Building a context for reform. In N. K.
Hartley & T. L. Wentling (Eds.), Beyond tradition: Preparing the teachers
of tomorrow’s workforce (pp. 23-52). Columbia, MO: University Council for Vocational
Education.
Hunter, M. C. (1995). Improved instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hyslop-Margison,
E. J. (2000). An assessment of the historical arguments in vocational
education reform.
Journal of Career and TechnicalEducation, 17, 23-30.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1995). Toil and Trouble. Good Work, Smart Workers, and the Integration of
Academic and Vocational Education. Counterpoints: Studies in the Postmodern Theory
of Education, Vol. 7. Peter Lang Publishing, 62 West 45th Street, 4th Floor, New York,
NY 10036-4202.
Kemple, J. J., & Snipes, J. C. (2000). Career Academies: Impacts on Students' Engagement and
Performance in High School.
Lewis, T. (1998). Toward
the 21st century: Retrospect, prospect for American

vocationalisim.
Columbus: The Ohio State University.
ERIC Clearinghouse
on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
Lerwick, L. P. (1979, January). Alternative concepts of vocational education. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, Department of Vocational and Technical Education, Minnesota
Research and Development Center for Vocational Education.
Linked Learning Alliance. (2014). Linked learning. Retrieved January 18, 2014, from
http://linkedlearning.org/
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 187

Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T., & Voegtle, K.H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From
theory to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.
Lynch, R.L. (2000). New directions for high school career and technical education in the 21
st

century. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review,50(4), 370.
Maxwell, N. L. (2001). Step to College Moving from the High School Career Academy through
the 4-Year University. Evaluation Review, 25(6), 619-654.
Merriam, S. B. (Ed.) (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and
analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M. D. (1996). Philosophy: The conceptual framework for designing a system of teacher
education. In N. K. Hartley & T. L. Wentling (Eds.), Beyond tradition: Preparing the
teachers of tomorrow's workforce (pp. 53-72). Columbia, MO: University Council for
Vocational Education.
Miller, M. D., & Gregson, J. A. (1999). A philosophic view for seeing the past of vocational
education and envisioning the future of workforce education: Pragmatism revisited. In A.
J. Paulter, Jr. (Ed.), Workforce education: Issues for the new century (pp. 21-34). Ann
Arbor, MI: Prakken.
Institute for Education Sciences. (2014). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
January 26, 2014, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158
National Education Association. (1895). Report of the committee of fifteen. New York, NY: Arno
and the New York.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 188

Orr, M. T., Bailey, T., Hughes, K. L., Karp, M. M., & Kienzl, G. S. (2007). The National
Academy Foundation’s career academies: Shaping postsecondary transitions. Improving
school-to-work transitions, 169-209.
Prosser, C. A., & Quigley, T. H. (1949). Vocational education: in a democracy. American
Technical Society.
Rothbard, M. (1975). The puritans 'purify': Theocracy in Massachusetts. Conceived in Liberty,1,
174-181.
Rojewski, J. W. (2002). Preparing the Workforce of Tomorrow: A Conceptual Framework for
Career and Technical Education. Journal Of Vocational Education Research, 27(1), 7-34.
Scott, J. L., & Wircenski, M. S. (1996). Overview of vocational and applied technology
education. Homewood, IL: American Technical Publishers.
Symonds, W. C., Schwartz, R. B., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the
challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Report issued by the
Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2008-09.
Stake, R.(2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stern, D., Dayton, C., & Raby, M. (2000). Career Academies: Building Blocks for
Reconstructing American High Schools.
Sutliff, K. (2000). Integrating academics and industry: a challenge for both sides. ACM Journal
of Computer Documentation (JCD), 24(1), 33-38.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt,
Brace & World, Inc.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 189

Tienken, C. (2012). The common core state standards: The emperor is still looking for his
clothes. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(4), 152-155.
Tienken, C. H., & Orlich, D. C. (2013). Translating the common core state standards. AASA
Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 10(1), 3-7. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1373090310?accountid=14749
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
US Department of Education. (2014a). Improving basic programs operated by local educational
agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
US Department of Education (2014b). A nation at risk (Title I, Part A). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
US Department of Education (2014c). Carl D. Perkins career and technical education act of
2006 (Title I, Part A). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/sectech/leg/perkins/index.html?exp=7
Vygotsky, L. L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, D. L. (2013). CTE and the common core partners in education design. Leadership,
43(2), 18-20.
Wested (2015). Local Control Funding Formula. Retrieved from http://lcff.wested.org
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 190

Willhoft, J. (2013). The common core and next-generation assessments: Preparing students for
CTE. Techniques,88(4), 38-41. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1346652485?accountid=27965
Williamson, G. L., Fitzgerald, J., & Stenner, A. J. (2013). The common core state standards'
quantitative text complexity trajectory: Figuring out how much complexity is enough.
Educational Researcher, 42(2), 59-69. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12466695

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 191

Appendix A
District A Interviews
District A Interview 1

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 192

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 193

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 194

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 195

District A Interview 2

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 196

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 197

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 198

District A Interview 3

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 199

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 200

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 201

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 202

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 203

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 204

District A Coding
Table A1

Interview Codes District A
Questions 1,2-5, 10 Questions 6-9, 11-12 Questions 13-17

Codes
Primary Research
Question District A
Sub-Question 1
District A
Sub-Questions 2 and
3 District A
Accountability:
Bureaucratic/gap
- - 1
Accountability:
Evaluation
1 - -
Accountability:
Financial
1 - 1
Accountability:
Political
2 - -

Attitude: Doubt - - 1
Attitude: Excited 1 - -
Attitude:
Prepare/College and
Career
1 1 -
Attitude: Reservation - - 1

Curriculum
Framework:
Acknowledging
Differences
2 - -
Curriculum
Framework: RCD
2 - -

Design:
Acknowledging
Differences
5 - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge
2 1 -
Design: Basic
Knowledge Gap/
College and Career
- 1 -
Design: Basic
Knowledge Gap: ELA
1 - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge
Gap/Math/Elementary
1 - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 205

Design: Basic
Knowledge/College
and Career
3 1 -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/Math/8-12
1 - -
Design: Higher
Cognitive Design
5 - -
Design: Integration 1 2 -
Design: Intermediate
Knowledge
4 3 -
Design: Intermediate
Knowledge/ College
& Career
- 1 -
Design: Minimal
Exposure
1 - -

LEA Initiative 1 - -
LEA Initiate: Career
Pathways
3 3 -
LEA Initiative: Career
Pathways/ High
School
- 1 -
LEA Initiatives:
Career
Pathways/Work
Experience
1 - -
LEA Initiative: CTE 1 1 -

Lesson Design:
Gap/No Materials
1 - -

Professional
Development: Career
Readiness
- 1 1
Professional
Development:
Curriculum
- - 2
Professional
Development:
Structure
1 - 3
Professional
Development:
Structure/ Data
analysis
- - 1
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 206

Professional
Development:
Structure/Integration
- - 2

Rational: financial
Motivation
- 1 -

Shift: Applied
Learning
1 2 -
Shift: Career
Readiness
- 1 -
Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms
2 - -
Shift: challenging
Existing
Paradigms/Resistance
1 - -
Shift: CTE 1 1 -
Shift: Instructional
Approach
3 1 -
Shift: Integration - 1 -
Shift: Low Level
Student Task
1 - -
Shift: Technology 1 - -

Teacher Collaboration 1 - 2
Teacher
Collaboration:
ELA/Math
- - 1
Teacher
Collaboration:
Gap/College & Career
Readiness
- - 1
Teacher
Collaboration:
Gap/Primary-
Secondary
1 - -
Teacher
Collaboration:
Inconsistency
- - 7
Teacher
Collaboration:
Integration
- - 1
Teacher
Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- 1 1
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 207

Teacher
Collaboration:
Structure
- - 4

Teacher Education:
Gap/Exposure to other
content areas
- 2 -

Table A2

Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District A__________________________

Question 1 Questions 2-4 Question 5 Question 10
Codes
A1 - Administrator
A2 - CTE
A3 - Core

A1 - Administrator
A2 - CTE
A3 - Core

A1 - Administrator
A2 - CTE
A3 - Core

A1 - Administrator
A2 - CTE
A3 - Core
Accountability:
Evaluation - - -

- - -

- - 1

- - -
Accountability:
Financial - - -

- - -

- - 1

- - -
Accountability:
Political - - -

- 2 -

- - -

- - -
Attitude: Excited - 1 -

- - -

- - -

- - -
Attitude:
Prepare/College and
Career - - -

- - -

- - 1

- - -
Curriculum
Framework: RCD - - -

- - 1

1 - -

- - -

Design:
Acknowledging
Differences 1 - -

- - 4

- - -

- - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge - - -

- - 1

- - 1

- - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge Gap/ELA - - -

- - 1

- - -

- - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge
Gap/Math/Elementary - - -

- - 1

- - -

- - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 208

Design: Basic
Knowledge/College &
Career - 1 -

- 1 -

- - -

- - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/Math/ 8-
12 - - -

- - 1

- - 1

- - -
Design: Higher
Cognitive Design 1 1 1

- 2 -

- - -

- - -
Design: Intermediate
Knowledge - - -

2 1 1

- - -

- - -
Design: Minimal
Exposure - - -

- - 1

- - -

- - -

Instructional
Materials: Gap/No
Materials - - -

- - 1

- - -

- - -
LEA Initiative - - -

- - 1

- - -

1 - -
LEA Initiative: Career
Pathways/Work
experience - - -

- - -

1 - -

- - -

Lesson Design:
Gap/No Materials - - -

- - -

- - -

- 1 -
Professional
Development:
Structure - - -

- - 1

- - -

1 - 1
Rational: financial
Motivation - - -

- - -

- 1 -

- - 1
Shift: Applied
Learning - - -

- - 1

- - -

- - 1
Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms - 1 -

- - -

- - -

- - -
Shift: Challenging
Existing
Paradigms/Resistance 1 - -

- - 1

- - -

- - -
Shift: CTE - - - - - 1 - - - - - -
Shift: Instructional
Approach - - -

- 1 -

- - -

- - -
Shift: Low Level
Student Task - - 1

- - 1

- - -

- - -
Shift: Technology - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - -
Teacher Collaboration - 1 -

- - -

- - -

- - -
Teacher
Collaboration: - - -

- - 1

- - 1

- - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 209

Gap/Primary-
Secondary

Table A3

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District A
_______Questions 6-9 ___ ______Questions 11-12_____

CODES
A1-
Administrator
A2-
CTE
A3-
Core
A1-
Administrator
A2-
CTE
A3-
Core
Attitude:
Prepare/College
and Career
- - 1 - - -

Design: Basic
Knowledge
- - - - 1 -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/ Gap
College and
Career
- - 1 - - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/
College and
Career
- - 1 - - -
Design:
Integration
1 - - - 1 -
Design:
Intermediate
Knowledge
2 1 - - - -
Design:
Intermediate
knowledge/
College and
Career
1 - - - - -

LEA Initiative:
Career Pathways
- 1 2 - - -
LEA Initiative:
Career Pathways/
High School
- - 1 - -- -
LEA Initiative:
CTE
- - - - - 1

Professional
Development:
Career Readiness
- - 1 - - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 210

Shift: Applied
Learning
- - 1 - 1 -
Shift: Career
Readiness
- - 1 - - -
Shift: CTE - - - - - 1
Shift :Instructional
Approach
1 - - - - -
Shift: Integration - - - - - 1

Teacher
Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- - - 1 - -

Teacher
Education: Gap/
Exposure to other
content areas
- - 2 - - -

Table A4

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District A
Questions 13-17
Codes A1- Administration A2- CTE A3- Core
Accountability:
Bureaucratic/Gap
1 - -
Accountability:
Financial
1 - -

Attitude: Doubt - 1 -
Attitude:
Reservation
- 1 -

Professional
Development:
Career Readiness
- 1 -
Professional
Development:
Curriculum
- - 2
Professional
Development:
Structure
- - 3
Professional
Development:
- - 1
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 211

Structure/ Data
Analysis
Professional
Development:
Structure/
Integration
- - 2

Teacher
Collaboration
- - 2
Teacher
Collaboration:
ELA/Math
- - 1
Teacher
Collaboration:
Gap/Career and
College
Readiness
- - 1
Teacher
Collaboration:
Inconsistency
2 4 1
Teacher
Collaboration:
Integration
- 1 -
Teacher
Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- - 1
Teacher
Collaboration:
Structure
1 3 -

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 212

Appendix B
District B Interviews
District B Interview 1

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 213

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 214

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 215

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 216

District B Interview 2

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 217

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 218

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 219

District B Interview 3

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 220

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 221

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 222

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 223

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 224

District B Coding
Table B1

Interview Codes District B
Questions 1,2-5, 10 Questions 6-9, 11-12 Questions 13-17

Codes
Primary Research
Question District A
Sub-Question 1
District A
Sub-Questions 2 and
3 District A
Accountability:
Evaluation
2 - -
Accountability:
Financial
1 - -
Accountability:
Political
2 - -

Attitude: Anxiety - 1 -
Attitude: Confidence - 2 -
Attitude:
Confidence/Teachers
- 1 -
Attitude: Doubt - 3 -
Attitude: Excited 2 - -
Attitude: Other
Priorities
- 2 -
Attitude: Proponent
of Integration
1 1 -
Attitude: Reservation 1 1 -
Attitude: Student
Advocacy
2 2 -
Attitude: Supported
in the Implementation
- 1 -

Culture - 1 2

Curriculum
Framework: RCD
1 - -

Design: Basic
Knowledge
5 - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge. Gap
College and Career
- 1 -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/ College
and Career
3 1 -
Design: Higher
Cognitive Design
- 2 -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 225

Design: Integration - 2 -
Design:
Intermediated
Knowledge
1 3 -

Instructional
Materials
- 1 -
Instructional
Materials: Gap/No
Materials
- 1 -

LEA Initiative:
Career Pathways
- 2 1

Professional
Development:
Common Core
3 3 -
Professional
Development:
Structure
2 - 2
Professional
Development:
Structure/ Data
Analysis
- 1 -

Shift: Applied
Learning
4 2 -
Shift: Career
Readiness
1 2 -
Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms
2 1 -
Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms/
Resistance
- 2 -
Shift: CTE 3 1 -
Shift: Instructional
Approach
2 2 -
Shift: Integration 3 3 1
Shift: Low Level
Student Task
- 1 -
Shift: Structure 2 1 -
Shift: Technology - 1 -

Teacher
Collaboration: CTE
- 2 -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 226

Teacher
Collaboration: Gap
- - 1
Teacher
Collaboration: Gap/
College and Career
Readiness
- 5 1
Teacher
Collaboration:
Gap/Integration
- - 1
Teacher
Collaboration: Gap/
Structure
1 - -
Teacher
Collaboration:
Integration
- 4 6
Teacher
Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
2 1 3
Teacher
Collaboration:
Structure
2 - 3

Table B2

Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District B
Question 1 Questions 2-4 Question 5 Question 10

Code
B1-Admin
B2 CTE
B3 Core

B1 Admin
B2 CTE
B3 Core

B1 Admin
B2 CTE
B3 Core

B1 Admin
B2 CTE
B3 Core
Accountability:
Evaluation
- 2 - - - - - - - - - -
Accountability:
Financial
- - - - 1 - - - - - - -
Accountability:
Political
- - - 1 1 - - - - - - -

Attitude: Excited 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - -
Attitude:
Proponent of
Integration
1 - - - - - - - - - - -
Attitude:
Reservation
- - - 1 - - - - - - - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 227

Attitude: Student
Advocacy
- - - - - 2 - - - - - -

Curriculum
Framework:
RCD
- - - - - 1 - - - - - -

Design: Basic
Knowledge
- - - 1 2 - - 2 - - - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/
College and
Career
- - - 1 - - - - 2 - - -
Design:
Intermediate
Knowledge
- - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Professional
Development:
Common Core
- - 1 - - 1 - - - 1 - -
Professional
Development:
Structure
- 1 - 1 - - - - - - - -

Shift: Applied
Learning
2 - 1 - - - - - - 1 - -
Shift: Career
Readiness
- - - - 1 - - - - - - -
Shift:
Challenging
Existing
Paradigms
1 - 1 - - - - - - - - -
Shift: CTE - - - - - - - 2 - - 1 -
Shift:
Instructional
Approach
- - 1 - - - - - 1 - - -
Shift: Integration - - - - - - - - - - - 3
Shift: Structure 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - -

Teacher
Collaboration:
Gap/ Structure
- - - - - - 1 - - - - -
Teacher
Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- - - - - 2 - - - - - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 228

Teacher
Collaboration:
Structure
- - - 1 - 1 - - - - - -

Table B3
Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District B
Questions 6-9 Questions 11-12

Code
B1
Administrator
B2 CTE B3
Core
B1
Administrator
B2 CTE B3
Core
Attitude: Anxiety 1 - - - - -
Attitude:
Confidence
- - 1 - 1 -
Attitude:
Confidence/Teacher
- - - - 1 -
Attitude: Doubt 1 1 - 1 - -
Attitude: Other
Priorities
1 - - 1 - -
Attitude: Proponent
of Integration
- - - 1 - -
Attitude:
Reservation
- 1 - - - -
Attitude: Student
Advocacy
- - 1 - - 1
Attitude: Supported
in Implementation
- - 1 - - -

Culture - - 1 - - -

Design: Basic
Knowledge Gap/
College & Career
1 - - - - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge College
& Career
1 - - - - -
Design: Higher
Cognitive Design
- 2 - - - -
Design: Integration - 1 - - 1 -
Design:
Intermediate
Knowledge
1 1 1 - - -

Instructional
Materials
- - 1 - - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 229

Instructional
Materials: Gap/ No
Materials
- 1 - - - -

LEA Initiative:
Career Pathways
- - 1 1 - -

Professional
Development:
Common Core
1 1 1 - - -
Professional
Development:
Structure/ Data
Analysis
- - - - 1 -

Shift: Applied
Learning
- 2 - - - -
Shift: Career
Readiness
- - 2 - - -
Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms
- - 1 - - -
Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms/
Resistance
- - 2 - - -
Shift: CTE - - - 1 - -
Shift: Instructional
Approach
1 - 1 - - -
Shift: Integration - - 1 - - 2
Shift: Low Level
Student Task
1 - - - - -
Shift: Structure - - 1 - - -
Shift: Technology - - 1 - - -

Teacher
Collaboration: CTE
- - - - - 2
Teacher
Collaboration: Gap/
College and Career
Readiness
3 - - 2 - -
Teacher
Collaboration:
Integration
- - - - - 4
Teacher
Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- - 1 - - -

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 230

Table B4

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District B
Questions 13-17
Core B1- Administrator B2- CTE B3- Core
Attitude: Doubt 1 - -

Culture 2 - -

LEA Initiative:
Career Pathways
- - 1

Professional
Development:
Structure
- 2 -

Shift: Integration - - 1

Teacher
Collaboration: Gap
1 - -
Teacher
Collaboration: Gap/
College and Career
Readiness
1 - -
Teacher
Collaboration: Gap/
Integration
1 - -
Teacher
Collaboration:
Integration
- 2 4
Teacher
Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- 3 -
Teacher
Collaboration:
Structure
- - 3

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 231

Appendix C
District C Interviews
District C Interview 1

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 232

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 233

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 234

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 235

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 236

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 237

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 238

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 239

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 240

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 241

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 242

District C Interview 2

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 243

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 244

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 245

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 246

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 247

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 248

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 249

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 250

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 251

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 252

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 253

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 254

District C Interview 3

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 255

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 256

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 257

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 258

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 259

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 260

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 261

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 262

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 263

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 264

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 265

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 266

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 267

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 268

District C Coding
Table C1

Interview Codes District C
Questions 1, 2-5, 10 Questions 6-9, 11-12 Questions 13-17

Code
Primary Research
Question District C
Sub-Question 1
District C
Sub-Questions 2
and 3 District C
Accountability:
Bureaucratic
7 1 1
Accountability:
Bureaucratic/Gap
- 3 3
Accountability: Peer 1 2 -
Accountability: Political 5 - -

Attitude: Anxiety 3 2 -
Attitude: Confidence 4 - 1
Attitude:
Confidence/Teachers
- 3 -
Attitude: Doubt 6 2 1
Attitude: Excited 1 - -
Attitude: Need for
Clarification
1 2 -
Attitude: Other Priorities 1 6 10
Attitude: Proponent of
Integration
- 2 -
Attitude: Reservation 7 3 -
Attitude: Student
Advocacy
- - 1
Attitude: Supported in
Implementation
- 1 1
Attitude: Uncomfortable 4 2 -

Curriculum Framework:
Acknowledging
Differences
1 1 -

Design: Acknowledging
Differences
6 6 -
Design: Basic Knowledge 4 4 -
Design: Basic Knowledge/
College and Career
4 2 -
Design: Equity 1 - -
Design: Higher Cognitive
Design
4 1 -
Design: Integration - 1 -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 269

Design: Intermediate
Knowledge
2 1 -
Design: Intermediate
Knowledge/ College and
Career
1 1 -
Design: Minimal Exposure 1 - -

Instructional Materials 2 1 -

LEA Initiative 1 4 13
LEA Initiative: Career
Pathways
- 2 8
LEA Initiative: CTE - 2 -
LEA Initiative: Multiple
Focuses
- - 1

Professional Development:
Career Readiness
- 1 5
Professional Development:
Common Core
3 7 4
Professional Development:
common Core/ Literacy
- 1 -
Professional Development:
CTE Standards
- 1 -
Professional Development:
Curriculum
- - 1
Professional Development:
Structure
- 1 -
Professional Development:
Technology
- 1 -

Shift: Applied Learning 5 5 1
Shift: Career Readiness 2 6 1
Shift: Challenging Existing
Paradigms
4 4 1
Shift: Challenging Existing
Paradigms/ Resistance
2 3 1
Shift: Instructional
Approach
10 14 1
Shift: Integration - 5 5
Shift: Low Level Student
Task
2 - -
Shift: Structure - 2 -

Teacher Collaboration - 3 4
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 270

Teacher Collaboration:
CTE
- - 1
Teacher Collaboration:
Gap
- 1 2
Teacher Collaboration:
Gap/Integration
- - 2
Teacher Collaboration:
Gap/ Structure
- - 9
Teacher Collaboration:
Inconsistency
- - 1
Teacher Collaboration:
Integration
- - 6
Teacher Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- - 7
Teacher Collaboration:
Structure
- - 3

Teacher Education: Gap/
Exposure to other Content
Areas
- - 1

Table C2

Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District C
Question 1 Questions 2-4 Question 5 Question 10

Codes
C1- Admin
C2- CTE
C3- Core

C1- Admin
C2-CTE
C3- Core

C1- Admin
C2- CTE
C3- Core

C1- Admin
C2- CTE
C3- Core
Accountability:
Bureaucratic
- - - - - - 2 2 2 - - -
Accountability:
Peer
- - - - - - - - 1 - - -
Accountability:
Political
- - - 1 2 - - 1 1 - - -

Attitude:
Anxiety
- - - 1 - 2 - - - - - -
Attitude:
Confidence
- 1 - - - 2 1 - - - - -
Attitude: Doubt - - - - 1 2 - - 2 - - 1
Attitude:
Excited
- - 1 - - - - - - - - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 271

Attitude: Need
for
Clarification
- - - 1 - - - - - - - -
Attitude: Other
Priorities
- - - - - - - - - - - 1
Attitude:
Reservation
- - - - 2 2 - 1 1 - - 1
Attitude:
Uncomfortable
- - - - 1 1 - - - 2 - -

Curriculum
Framework:
Acknowledging
Differences
- - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Design:
Acknowledging
Differences
1 - - 3 1 - 1 - - - - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge
- 1 1 2 - - - - - - - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/
College &
Career
- - 2 1 - - - 1 - - - -
Design: Equity - - - 1 - - - - - - - -
Design: Higher
Cognitive
Design
1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - -
Design:
Intermediate
Knowledge
- - - 1 - - 1 - - - - -
Design:
Intermediate
Knowledge/
College &
Career
- - - - - - 1 - - - - -
Design:
Minimal
Exposure
- - - - - 1 - - - - - -

Instructional
Materials
- - 2 - - - - - - - - -
Instructional
Materials: Gap/
No Materials
- - - - - - - - - - - 1

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 272

LEA Initiative - - - - 1 - - - - - - -

Professional
Development:
Common Core
- - - - 3 - - - - - - -

Shift: Applied
Learning
2 - - - - - - - - 2 1 -
Shift: Career
Readiness
- - - - - 1 - - 1 - - -
Shift:
Challenging
Existing
Paradigms
- - - - - - 1 - - 3 - -
Shift:
Challenging
Existing
Paradigms/
Resistance
- - - - 1 1 - - - - - -
Shift:
Instructional
Approach
- - 2 1 2 2 1 - - 2 - -
Shift: Low
Level Student
Task
1 - 1 - - - - - - - - -

Table C3

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District C
__________Questions 6-9____ ________Questions 11-12____

Code
C1-
Administrator
C2-
CTE
C3-
Core
C1-
Administrator
C2-
CTE
C3-
Core
Accountability:
Bureaucratic
- 1 - - - -
Accountability:
Bureaucratic/ Gap
- - 3 - - -
Accountability: Peer - 2 - - - -

Attitude: Anxiety - 1 - - - 1
Attitude:
Confidence/Teachers
- 3 - - - -
Attitude: Doubt - - 1 - - 1
Attitude: Need for
Clarification
- - 2 - - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 273

Attitude: Other
Priorities
- - - - - 6
Attitude: Proponent of
Integration
- 1 - - - 1
Attitude: Reservation - 1 1 - - 1
Attitude: Supported in
the Implementation
- 1 - - - -
Attitude:
Uncomfortable
- 1 1 - - -

Curriculum
Framework:
Acknowledging
Differences
1 - - - - -

Design:
Acknowledging
Differences
4 1 - - - 1
Design: Basic
Knowledge
3 - - 1 - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/ College
and Career
- 1 - - 1 -
Design: Higher
Cognitive Design
- 1 - - - -
Design: Integration - - - 1 - -
Design: Intermediate
Knowledge
1 - - - - -
Design: Intermediate
Knowledge/ College
and Career
1 - - - - -

Instructional Materials 1 - - - - -

LEA Initiative - - 1 - - 3
LEA Initiative: Career
Pathways
- - - 1 1 -
LEA Initiative: CTE - - 2 - - -

Professional
Development: Career
Readiness
- 1 - - - -
Professional
Development:
Common Core
3 2 2 - - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 274

Professional
Development:
Common Core/
Literacy
1 - - - - -
Professional
Development: CTE
Standards
- 1 - - - -
Professional
Development:
Structure
1 - - - - -
Professional
Development:
Technology
1 - - - - -

Shift: Applied
Learning
- 2 - 1 - 2
Shift: Career Readiness 1 - 2 - 2 1
Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms
3 1 - - - -
Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms/
Resistance
- 2 1 - - -
Shift: Instructional
approach
7 4 1 2 - -
Shift: Integration - - - 3 2 -
Shift: Structure 2 - - - - -

Teacher Collaboration 1 - 2 - - -
Teacher Collaboration:
Gap
- - - 1 - -

Teacher Education:
Gap/ Exposure to other
Content Areas
- - 1 - - -

Table C4

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District C
_____Questions 13-17_____

Code
C1-
Administrator
C2- CTE C3- Core
Accountability: Bureaucratic - 1 -
Accountability: Bureaucratic/Gap - - 3

Attitude: Confidence - - 1
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 275

Attitude: Doubt - - 1
Attitude: Other Priorities - - 10
Attitude: Student Advocacy - 1 -
Attitude: Supported in the Implementation - 1 -

LEA Initiative 9 4 2
LEA Initiative: Career Pathway - 8 -
LEA Initiative: Multiple Focuses - 1 -

Professional Development: Career
Readiness
3 1 1
Professional Development: Common Core 1 2 1
Professional Development: Curriculum - 1 -

Shift: Applied Learning - 1 -
Shift: Career Readiness 1 - -
Shift: Challenging Existing Paradigms 1 - -
Shift: Challenging Existing Paradigms/
Resistance
- - 1
Shift: Instructional Approach 1 - -
Shift: Integration 5 - -

Teacher Collaboration 1 - 3
Teacher Collaboration: CTE - 1 -
Teacher Collaboration: Gap - 1 1
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/ Integration - - 2
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/ Structure 1 5 3
Teacher Collaboration: Inconsistency 1 - -
Teacher Collaboration: Integration - 6 -
Teacher Collaboration: Interdepartmental 1 2 4
Teacher Collaboration: Structure - - 3

Teacher Education: Gap/ Exposure to other
Content Areas
- - 1

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 276

Appendix D
District D Interviews
District D Interview 1

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 277

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 278

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 279

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 280

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 281

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 282

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 283

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 284

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 285

District D Interview 2

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 286

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 287

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 288

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 289

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 290

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 291

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 292

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 293

District D Interview 3

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 294

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 295

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 296

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 297

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 298

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 299

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 300

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 301

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 302

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 303

District D Coding
Table D1

Interview Codes District D
Questions 1,2-5, 10 Questions 6-9, 11-12 Questions 13-17

Code
Primary Research
Question District D
Sub-Question 1
District D
Sub- Questions 2
and 3 District D
Accountability: Bureaucratic 4 1 -
Accountability:
Bureaucratic/Gap
1 - 1
Accountability: Evaluation 1 - -
Accountability: Peer 1 - -
Accountability: Political 2 - -

Attitude: Anxiety 1 - -
Attitude: Confidence 1 - -
Attitude: Excited 2 2 -
Attitude: Need for
Clarification
2 4 -
Attitude: Other Priorities - - 8
Attitude: Prepare/ College and
Career
- 1 -
Attitude: Proponent of
Integration
2 - -
Attitude: Reservation - 1 1
Attitude: Uncomfortable 3 - -

Curriculum Framework: RCD 1 - 1

Design: Acknowledging
Differences
3 1 -
Design: Basic Knowledge 2 - -
Design: Basic Knowledge/
College and Career
2 - -
Design: Equity 2 - -
Design: Higher Cognitive
Design
1 - -
Design: Minimal Exposure 1 - -

Instructional Materials 2 2 2

LEA Initiative 6 7 9
LEA Initiative: Academy 1 5 1
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 304

LEA Initiative: Career
Pathways
- 3 1
LEA Initiative: Career
Readiness
- 1 -
LEA Initiative: CTE 2 2 -

Lesson Design: Gap - 1 -

Professional Development:
Career Readiness
- - 1
Professional Development:
Common Core
1 5 3
Professional Development:
Common Core/ Literacy
- - 2
Professional Development:
Curriculum
- - 1
Professional Development:
Structure
- 1 1
Professional Development:
Structure/ Integration
- - 1

Shift: Challenging Existing
Paradigms
2 3 -
Shift: Challenging Existing
Paradigms/ Resistance
1 - -
Shift: CTE 1 1 -
Shift: Instructional Approach 3 8 -
Shift: Integration 3 5 1
Shift: Low Level Student Task 1 1 -
Shift: Structure 1 - -
Shift: Student Collaboration 1 1 1
Shift: Technology 1 - -

Teacher Collaboration 1 1 3
Teacher Collaboration: CTE - - 2
Teacher Collaboration: Gap - - 1
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/
College and Career Readiness
- - 1
Teacher Collaboration:
Inconsistency
- - 1
Teacher Collaboration:
Integration
- 1 8
Teacher Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- - 6
Teacher Collaboration:
Structure
- - 6
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 305

Teacher Education: Gap/
Exposure to Other Content
Areas
- 1 -

Table D2

Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Question District D
_Question 1__ Questions 2-4 Question 5__ Question 10

Code
D1-
Administrator
D2- CTE
D3- Core

D1-
Administrator
D2- CTE
D3- Core

D1-
Administrator
D2- CTE
D3- Core

D1-
Administrator
D2- CTE
D3- Core
Accountability:
Bureaucratic
- - - - - - 2 1 - - - -
Accountability:
Bureaucratic/
Gap
- - - - - - 1 - - - - -
Accountability:
Evaluation
- - - - - - - - 1 - - -
Accountability:
Peer
- - - - - - 1 - - - - -
Accountability:
Political
- - - - - - 1 - 1 - - -

Attitude:
Anxiety
- - - - - - - 1 - - - -
Attitude:
Confidence
- - - - 1 - - - - - - -
Attitude:
Excited
- 1 - - - - - - - - 1 -
Attitude: Need
for
Clarification
- - - 1 - - - - 1 - - -
Attitude:
Proponent of
Integration
1 - - - - - - - - - - 1
Attitude:
Uncomfortable
- 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - -

Curriculum
Framework
- - - - - - 1 - - - - -

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 306

Design:
Acknowledging
Differences
- 2 - - - - - - 1 - - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge
- - 1 1 - - - - - - - -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/
College &
Career
- - - - 1 1 - - - - - -
Design: Equity - - - 2 - - - - - - - -
Design: Higher
Cognitive
Design
- - 1 - - - - - - - - -
Design:
Minimal
Exposure
- - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Instructional
Materials
- - - - - 1 - - 1 - - -

LEA Initiative - - - - - - 3 - - 2 - 1
LEA Initiative:
Academy
- - - - - - - - - 1 - -
LEA Initiative:
CTE
- - - - - - - - - 1 - 1

Professional
Development:
Common Core
- - - - - 1 - - - - - -

Shift:
Challenging
Existing
Paradigms
- - - 2 - - - - - - - -
Shift:
Challenging
Existing
Paradigms/
Resistance
- - - 1 - - - - - - - -
Shift: CTE - 1 - - - - - - - - - -
Shift:
Instructional
Approach
- 2 - 2 - - - - - - - -
Shift:
Integration
- 1 - - - 1 - - - - - 1
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 307

Shift: Low
Level Student
Task
- - - - - 1 - - - - - -
Shift: Structure - - - - - 1 - - - - - -
Shift: Student
Collaboration
- - - 1 - - - - - - - -
Shift:
Technology
- - - - - 1 - - - - - -

Teacher
Collaboration
- - - - - 1 - - - - - -

Table D3

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District D
___Questions 6-9_____ ____Questions 11-12___

Code
D1-
Administrator
D2-
CTE
D3-
Core
D1-
Administrator
D2-
CTE
D3-
Core
Accountability:
Bureaucratic
- - 1 - - -

Attitude: Excited - 2 - - - -
Attitude: Need for
Clarification
- 2 2 - - -
Attitude: Prepare/
College and Career
- - - - 1 -
Attitude: Reservation - - 1 - - -

Design:
Acknowledging
Differences
- 1 - - - -

Instructional
Materials
- 1 1 - - -

LEA Initiative 1 2 4 - - -
LEA Initiative:
Academy
5 - - - - -
LEA Initiative:
Career Pathways
- 1 2 - - -
LEA Initiative:
Career Readiness
- - 1 - - -
LEA Initiative: CTE - - 1 - 1 -

Lesson Design: Gap - - 1 - - -
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 308

Professional
Development:
Common Core
2 1 2 - - -
Professional
Development:
Structure
- - 1 - - -

Shift: Challenging
Existing Paradigms
- 1 - - 1 1
Shift: CTE - - - 1 - -
Shift: Instructional
Approach
1 5 1 1 - -
Shift: Integration - 1 - 1 1 2
Shift: Low Level
Student Task
- - 1 - - -
Shift: Student
Collaboration
- - 1 - - -

Teacher Collaboration 1 - - - - -
Teacher
Collaboration:
Integration
1 - - - - -

Teacher Education:
Gap/ exposure to
Other Content Areas
- - 1 - - -

Table D4

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District D
___ __________Questions 13-17 ___

Code
D1-
Administrator
D2- CTE D3- Core
Accountability: Bureaucratic/
Gap
- - 1

Attitude: Other Priorities - - 8
Attitude: Reservation - - 1

Curriculum Framework: RCD 1 - -

Instructional Materials 1 - 1

LEA Initiative 3 1 5
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 309

LEA Initiative: Academy 1 - -
LEA Initiative: Career Pathways - 1 -

Professional Development:
Career Readiness
- 1 -
Professional Development:
Common Core
- - 3
Professional Development:
Common Core/ Literacy
2 - -
Professional Development:
Curriculum
1 - -
Professional Development:
Structure
- - 1
Professional Development:
Structure/ Integration
- 1 -

Shift: Integration - - 1
Shift: Student Collaboration - - 1

Teacher Collaboration - 1 2
Teacher Collaboration: CTE - - 2
Teacher Collaboration: Gap - - 1
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/
College and Career Readiness
- - 1
Teacher Collaboration:
Inconsistency
1 - -
Teacher Collaboration:
Integration
4 1 3
Teacher Collaboration:
Interdepartmental
- 4 2
Teacher Collaboration: Structure 4 - 2

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 310

Appendix E
District E Interviews
District E Interview E1

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 311

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 312

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 313

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 314

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 315

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 316

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 317

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 318

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 319

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 320

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 321

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 322

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 323

District E Coding
Table E1

Interview Codes District E
Questions 1, 2-5, 10 Questions 6-9, 11-12 Questions 13-17

Code
Primary Research
Question
Sub-Question 1 Sub-Questions
2 and 3
Accountability:
Bureaucratic
4 1 -
Accountability: Financial - 1 -
Accountability: Political - 1 -

Attitude: Confidence 3 1 -
Attitude: Confidence/
Teachers
3 - -
Attitude: Need for
Clarification
- - 1
Attitude: Proponent of
Integration
- 3 -

Culture - 1 -

Curriculum Framework:
RCD
1 - 3

Design: Acknowledging
Differences
5 - -
Design: Basic Knowledge 8 1 -
Design: Basic
Knowledge/College &
Career
- 1 -
Design: Basic Knowledge/
Math
1 - -
Design: Higher Cognitive
Design
1 - -
Design: Integration 2 2 1
Design: Intermediate
Knowledge
- 1 -

LEA Initiative 7 3 4
LEA Initiative: Career
Readiness
- 1 -
LEA Initiative: CTE 2 - -

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 324

Professional Development:
Articulation
- - 1
Professional Development:
Career Readiness
- - 2
Professional Development:
Common Core
1 - -
Professional Development:
CTE Standards
- 1 1
Professional Development: 1 - -
Professional Development:
Structure/ Data Analysis
- - 1

Shift: Applied Learning 2 - -
Shift: Career Readiness - 2 -
Shift: Challenging Existing
Paradigms
4 1 -
Shift: CTE - 1 -
Shift: Instructional
Approach
4 - -
Shift: Integration 2 1 -
Shift: Structure 2 1 -

Teacher Collaboration - - 3
Teacher Collaboration: CTE - - 1
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/
College and Career
Readiness
- - 2
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/
Integration
- - 3
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/
Structure
- - 6

Table E2

Codes Pertaining to Primary Research Questions District E
E1- Administrator Responses to Primary Research Question
Code Question 1 Questions 2-4 Question 5 Question 10
Accountability:
Bureaucratic
- 3 1 -

Attitude: Confidence 1 2 - -
Attitude: confidence/
Teachers
2 1 - -

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 325

Curriculum Framework:
RCD
1 - - -

Design: Acknowledging
Differences
- 4 1 -
Design: Basic Knowledge 3 5 - -
Design: Basic Knowledge/
Math
1 - - -
Design: Higher Cognitive
Design
- 1 - -
Design: Integration 2 - - -

LEA Initiative 3 - 3 1
LEA Initiative: CTE - - - 2

Professional Development:
Common Core
1 - - -
Professional Development:
Curriculum
1 - - -

Shift: Applied Learning - - - 2
Shift: Challenging Existing
Paradigms
1 2 1 -
Shift: Instructional
Approach
- 4 - -
Shift: Integration 1 - 1 -
Shift: Structure 1 - 1 -

Table E3

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Question 1 District E
E1- Administrator Responses to Sub-Question 1
Code Questions 6-9 Questions 11-12
Accountability: Bureaucratic - 1
Accountability: Financial - 1
Accountability: Political - 1

Attitude: Confidence 1 -
Attitude: Proponent of Integration 3 1

Culture - 1

Design: Basic Knowledge 1 -
Design: Basic Knowledge/ College and
Career
1 -
Design: Integration 1 1
CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 326

Design: Intermediate Knowledge 1 -

LEA Initiative 3 -
LEA Initiative: Career Readiness 1 -

Professional Development: CTE
Standards
1 -

Shift: Career Readiness 1 1
Shift: CTE 1 -
Shift: Integration 1 -
Shift: Structure 1 -

Table E4

Codes Pertaining to Sub-Questions 2 and 3 District E
E1- Administrator Responses to Sub-Questions 2-3
Code Questions 13-17
Attitude: Need for Clarification 1

Curriculum Framework: RCD 3

Design: Integration 1

LEA Initiative 4

Professional Development: Articulation 1
Professional Development: Career
Readiness
2
Professional Development: CTE
Standards
1
Professional Development: Structure/
Data Analysis
1

Teacher Collaboration 3
Teacher Collaboration: CTE 1
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/ College and
Career Readiness
2
Teacher Collaboration: Gap/Integration 3
Teacher Collaboration: Structure 6

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 327

Appendix F
Example of an Integrated Curriculum

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 328

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 329

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 330

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 331

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 332

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 333

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 334

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 335

CASE STUDIES ON THE COLLABORATION OF CTE AND CORE TEACHERS 336

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In the 2014 school year, California implemented the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). These new standards provided California’s teachers, from multiple disciplines, the opportunity to collaborate on interdisciplinary curricula. Given the newness of the adoption, research on Career Technical Education (CTE) teachers and core teacher collaboration practices, in response to the CCSS, was lacking. This qualitative, multi-site case study, sought to examine the collaboration models employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by both core and CTE teachers, in response to the CCSS. Multiple school districts within the Southern California region known as the Inland Empire were chosen as locations to collect data. Administrators, CTE teachers, and core teachers from each of the districts were interviewed using a semi-structured format. The data were transcribed and coded to reveal the common themes shared by the participants throughout the region. The common themes that emerged during the study were participants’ understanding of the impending shifts associated with transitioning from the 1997 California state standards to the CCSS. Other themes including an awareness of the design of the CCSS, the professional development provided to district personnel, and teacher collaboration structures. Additionally, varying attitudes and dispositions associated with the implementation of the CCSS surfaced and were acknowledged. Moreover, a theme that emerged during the interviews with the districts were the various Local Educational Agency (LEA) initiatives that were prominent during the implementation of the CCSS. Although further research is needed to better understand the phenomenon of interdisciplinary collaboration, this study can assist educators in understanding the experiences of school districts in the Inland Empire through the examination of the collaboration models that were employed by districts to integrate the CCSS curriculum taught by both core and CTE teachers.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

Providing parents the necessary resources to comprehend the common core state standards: a guide for schools

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

The role of superintendents and district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college‐ and career‐ready

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Overcoming the career technical education silo: an evaluation case study

PDF

Professional development opportunities for non-core teachers

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s implementation of literacy and common core state standards: preparing students to be college and career ready

PDF

Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice

PDF

An examination of the impact of professional development on teachers' knowledge and skills in the use of text complexity

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

The role of district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

The allocation of resources for career technical education programs that improve college and career readiness

PDF

Strategies utilized by southern California school districts to bridge the college and career gap through career technical education pathways in high schools

PDF

A Catholic school dilemma: Adopt Common Core State Standards?

PDF

Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play

PDF

Implementation of the Social Justice Anchor Standards in the West Coast Unified School District: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator DeRenzo, Forest S. (author)

Core Title Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2015

Defense Date 03/11/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag career education,career readiness,career technical education,collaboration models,collaboration practices,Common Core State Standards,core subject teachers,CTE teachers,curriculum integration,educating for careers,interdisciplinary collaboration,OAI-PMH Harvest,regional occupational program,standards implementation,teacher collaboration,vocational education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gallagher, Raymond John (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee chair), Boysen, Thomas (committee member)

Creator Email derenzo@gmail.com,derenzo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-564395

Unique identifier UC11300331

Identifier etd-DeRenzoFor-3419.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-564395 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DeRenzoFor-3419.pdf

Dmrecord 564395

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights DeRenzo, Forest S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA