University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS THAT IMPROVE COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READINESS
by

Mayra Helguera

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

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Mayra Helguera

2

THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS THAT IMPROVE COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READINESS
by
Mayra Helguera

A Dissertation Presented

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

2018

APPROVED:

___________________________________
Pedro Garcia, Ed.D.
Committee Co-Chair

____________________________________
Rudy M. Castruita, Ed.D.
Committee Co-Chair

_____________________________________
John A. Roach, Ed.D.
Committee Member
3

Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two other doctoral candidates,
Allan Tyner (2018) and Concepcion Quintero (2018). We three doctoral students set out to
identify the role of district administrators in developing, implementing, and supporting Career
Technical Education programs. However, the subject was too large for a single dissertation. As
a result, the three dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively address the roles of
district administrators.

4

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study to examine the role of district-level administrators, including
Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Executive Directors, Directors, and Coordinators in
allocating resources and developing effective Career Technical Education programs to improve
college- and career-readiness. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, the study focused on the
following research questions: 1) what is the role of district administrators in developing Career
Technical Education programs to support college- and career-readiness, 2) what Career
Technical Education programs have districts supported for implementation, 3) what resources do
districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs, and 4) what types of Career
Technical Education programs have proven to be effective in improving college-and career-
readiness. Data was collected via a quantitative survey of 27 district-level administrators and six
qualitative interviews of district-level administrators. The study’s findings clearly shows that
district-level administrators play a significant role in the allocation of resources to support CTE
programs. These resources are provided in a variety of ways such as, but not limited to, staffing,
equipment, and financial resources. District-level administrators were in agreement about the
importance of having articulation agreements with postsecondary institutions. Measuring the
effectiveness in preparing students for college and career is an area that is challenging for school
districts. There is a clear need to develop some type of way to measure and analyze the
effectiveness of CTE programs in preparing students to be college- and career-ready. The
insights gained from this study can be beneficial to current or aspiring district-level
administrators embarking on ensuring that their CTE programs are effective and prepare students
in becoming college- and career-ready.
5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank God for the strength, knowledge, patience, peace
of mind, ability, and opportunity to undertake this research study and fulfill this accomplishment.
The writing of this dissertation is the end to a long journey of ups and downs. This work
certainly would not have been possible without my faith. I would like to thank the faculty at the
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, for the invaluable wisdom,
guidance, inspiration, and support throughout the doctoral program. I would like to express the
deepest appreciation to my committee chairs, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Rudy Castruita; without
their guidance and persistent help this dissertation would not have been possible. I would also
like to thank Dr. John Roach for serving on my committee and always being supportive and
honest with me. It was a great pleasure and honor to work under their guidance.
To the district level administrators who took the time to participate in the study, thank
you. The time and insight that each of you provided on Career Technical Education is
invaluable. Each of you is doing great things to ensure that students graduate college- and
career-ready.
To my writing partners, and General Josie, thank you for supporting me along the way.
Throughout this program we have grown personally and professionally and I cannot wait to see
what else life has in store for us. Looking forward to continuing to work with you in the future.
I do miss our study sessions.
My family, including Rene, deserve an outpouring of gratitude for their support and
understanding during this time. Through it all, you have been there to ground me when I needed
it and pushed me to get it done. Thank you for your patience and belief in me.

6

Table of Contents
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................. 10
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 10
Background of the Problem ................................................................................ 11
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................... 13
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 14
Research Questions ............................................................................................ 14
Importance of the Study ..................................................................................... 15
Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 15
Limitations ......................................................................................................... 16
Delimitations...................................................................................................... 16
Definitions of Terms .......................................................................................... 16
Organization of the Study ................................................................................... 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................... 19
Introduction to the Topic .................................................................................... 19
The Relationship between CTE and College- and Career-Readiness ................... 26
Allocation of Funding Resources........................................................................ 38
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................ 46
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 46
Research Questions ............................................................................................ 46
Study Methods ................................................................................................... 47
Sample and Population ....................................................................................... 47
Instrumentation .................................................................................................. 48
Data Collection .................................................................................................. 48
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 49
Summary............................................................................................................ 49
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion .......................................................................... 51
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 51
Response Rates .................................................................................................. 52
Demographic Data ............................................................................................. 52
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question One .................................... 55
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Two ................................... 59
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Three ................................. 62
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Four ................................... 69
Summary and Discussion of Findings................................................................. 77
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusions ................................................ 81
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 82
Research Questions ............................................................................................ 82
Methodology ...................................................................................................... 83
Sample Population ............................................................................................. 83
Data Collection .................................................................................................. 84
Summary of Findings ......................................................................................... 84
Implications for Practice .................................................................................... 88
Limitations ......................................................................................................... 89
7

Future Research ................................................................................................. 90
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 91
References ..................................................................................................................... 93
Appendix A: Alignment of Survey and Interview Questions to Research
Questions ......................................................................................................... 101
Appendix B: Participant Letter .................................................................................... 104
Appendix C: Survey Questions for District Administrators (Quantitative).................... 105
Appendix D: Interview Questions for District Administrators (Qualitative) ................. 106

8

List of Tables
Table 1. Demographic Data of Participants .................................................................... 54
Table 2. Demographics of Participants’ Districts ........................................................... 55
Table 3. Research Question One Survey Response......................................................... 56
Table 4. Research Question Two Survey Responses ...................................................... 59

Table. 5. Research Question Three Survey Responses.................................................... 65
Table 6. Research Question Four Survey Responses ...................................................... 70

9

List of Figures
Figure 1: Career Technical Education Anchor Standards................................................ 29
Figure 2: P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning ..................................................... 32
Figure 3: Eight State Priorities and Their Indicators ....................................................... 43

10

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Authors: Mayra Helguera, Concepcion Quintero, and Allan Tyner
1

Introduction
Preparing students to be college- and career-ready is a complex process that requires
instruction in academic, technical, and employability/soft skills. The shift in education from the
California Content Standards that were implemented in 1997 to the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) that were enacted in 2010 came as a result of colleges, universities, and the
industry sector reporting that high school students were not graduating with the necessary skills
to be successful in higher education institutions or careers (Kendall, 2011). Common Core State
Standards included a clear emphasis on graduating students that were both college- and career-
ready (CDE, 2016c). This shift has resulted in an increased demand for programs that
incorporate teaching of the academic, technical, and employability/soft skills identified in order
to be college- and career-ready.
Career Technical Education (CTE) programs are being used by many school districts as a
means to teach college- and career-readiness skills. However, many Career Technical Education
Programs must be further developed to meet the rigor of college preparatory coursework while
simultaneously including employability/soft skills to make students college- and career-ready. In
order to do so, district administrators must allocate resources for these programs and evaluate the
effectiveness so that informed decisions can be made moving forward. It is imperative that the
resources are allocated according to the Local Education Agency’s (LEA) Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) in alignment with the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
requirements set forth in the state of California.

1
Chapters One, Two, and Three were jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this project.
The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by those listed.
11

Background of the Problem
As our society changes, the demand for certain academic and technical skills has
decreased while there has been an increase in demand for others, including employability/soft
skills. Federal funding for vocational education started in 1917 with the passage of the Smith-
Hughes Act which focused primarily on agriculture. The focus of vocational education changed
in 1984 with the passing of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act. At that time,
vocational education was comprised of low-level courses, job training, and electives (Brand,
Valent, & Browning, 2013). Thus, a negative stigma was developed and at times vocational
education programs turned into dumping grounds for students who were deemed incapable of
succeeding academically.
In the state of California, academic content standards were implemented in 1997 and
were designed to encourage the highest achievement of every student by defining the knowledge,
concepts, and skills they should acquire at each grade level (California Department of Education,
2017). The content standards drove instruction in public schools and defined the content that
would be included in annual statewide standards-based assessments. As a result, colleges,
universities, and the industry sector reported that students were not graduating from high school
with the adequate skills needed for success in college and careers (Kendall, 2011).
The 2006 reauthorization of the Perkins Act renamed it as the Carl D. Perkins Career
and Technical Education Act. The Perkins Act was reframed to address the need for both
academic and technical skills required for success in college and the workforce. This reframing
was supported by research in college- and career-readiness which indicated that a college- and
career-ready student must have content knowledge, strategies, skills, and techniques (Conley,
2014).
12

Conley (2014) defined success as the ability to complete entry-level courses at a level
that is sufficient to move onto the next courses in the students’ chosen field. Each student may
need different knowledge and skills to be college- and career-ready (Conley, 2014). A different
study conducted in 2011 identified communication, decision making/problem solving, self-
management, teamwork, professionalism, leadership, and experience as valuable soft skills that
make one employable and ready for the 21st century (DiBenedetto & Myers, 2016).
College- and career-readiness skills have been incorporated into Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) with the goal of defining the knowledge and skills students should achieve in
order to graduate with the ability to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college
courses, and in workforce training courses (Conley, Drummond, de Gonzalez, Rooseboom, &
Stout, 2011). The new standards place less emphasis on memorizing facts and focus more on the
explicit teaching of collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking skills. Jobs in
the current economy require different knowledge and skills from those in the past (Conley,
2014). This new economy requires nearly everyone entering the workforce to have at least some
post-secondary education, not necessarily a typical four-year degree (Conley, 2014). College
admission requirements are very clear for students pursuing four-year degrees. Students take
part in rigorous academic coursework in high school to prepare them to succeed in the required
college courses. However, there are students who will pursue careers that require technical
training, which is different from a four-year degree and as such have different admission
requirements.
In the past, vocational education was offered for students looking to go into technical
fields. Nevertheless, the vocational education programs did not include rigorous academic
coursework in addition to technical training. Career and Technical Education (CTE) is an
13

educational strategy designed to provide students with the academic, technical, and
employability/soft skills and knowledge to pursue postsecondary training. Students participating
in CTE courses will enter their fields prepared for ongoing learning as CTE includes
academically rigorous, integrated, and sequenced programs of study that align with and lead to
postsecondary education (Brand et al., 2013).
Statement of the Problem
The problem is that high school students are not graduating with college- and career-
readiness skills. According to the California Department of Education (CDE, 2016b), only
43.4% of graduates during the 2014-2015 school year completed all coursework required for
University of California and/or California State University admission. This coursework is
commonly referred to as A-G requirements and refers to the classes that make students eligible
for admission to University of California and California State University schools. The
requirements include three years of college-preparatory social science, four years of college-
preparatory English, three years of college-preparatory math, two years of a laboratory science,
two years of a foreign language, one year of a visual and performing art, and one year of a
college-preparatory elective (Regents of the University of California, 2015). Additionally, in
regards to career readiness, research has shown that high school graduates have not consistently
met standards set by employers in the areas of attendance, teamwork, and work habits (Bangser,
2008).
In order to develop effective Career Technical Education programs to address college-
and career-readiness, resources must be allocated to the development of successful Career
Technical Education programs. With the introduction of the Local Control Funding Formula
(LCFF), districts have greater discretion in how they allocate their resources. While their
14

spending must fall into one of eight categories and align with the Local Education Agency’s
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), districts can develop interventions geared to their
district’s specific needs. It is imperative that resources are allocated in a manner that is aligned
with effective college- and career-readiness programs that have proven effective and line up with
student needs.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to examine the role of district administrators in allocating resources
and developing effective Career Technical Education (CTE) programs. This study also analyzed
the resources allocated by districts to support the implementation of CTE programs to improve
college- and career-readiness. Convenience/purposeful sampling was used for the study. It was
conducted using a mixed-methods approach including qualitative and quantitative methods.
Qualitative information was collected through interviews and quantitative data was comprised of
a Likert-style survey.
Research Questions
This study will concentrate on the following research questions:
1. What is the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical Education
programs to support college- and career-readiness?
2. What Career Technical Education programs have districts supported for implementation?
3. What resources do districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs?
4. What types of Career Technical Education programs have proven to be effective in
improving college- and career-readiness?
This study was conducted from a critical research perspective. The goal in critical
inquiry is to critique and challenge, and to transform and empower. Through critical inquiry, this
15

study sought to explain how district administrators can be instrumental to the development of
Career Technical Education courses. It challenges Local Education Agencies to transform the
learning environment for students and empower them to be college- and career-ready (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2015).
Importance of the Study
By examining the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical
Education programs, this study provides information that facilitates and supports the
implementation of Career Technical Education programs. The findings can be used by Local
Educational Agencies seeking to improve student achievement and expand opportunities for
students to develop college- and career-readiness skills. Information obtained through this study
can also assist district administrators in determining allocation of resources and developing
support systems for their site personnel. Furthermore, this study identifies programs that have
shown to be effective in preparing students for real world settings and making them college- and
career-ready.
Assumptions
This study assumed the following:
1. District administration is imperative in the implementation of new programs and the
development of existing ones.
2. College- and career-readiness is a priority for participating districts.
3. The district has a vision and action plan that includes college- and career-readiness and is
shared amongst the organization and all of its stakeholders.

16

Limitations
This study included the following limitations:
1. There was a limited amount of time allotted for this study.
2. The number of school districts offering Career Technical Education programs and their
geographic location limited access for the researchers.
3. The ability to gain access to district administrators to collect information.
4. The ability and/or willingness of district administrators to provide accurate responses.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study are:
1. Data collected from district administrators was limited to a small number.
2. Only perspectives of district administrators were captured during the data collection
process.
Definition of Terms
• A-G Requirements: The coursework that high school students must take in order to make
them eligible for admission to the University of California and California State
University systems.
• Academic Skills: A collection of skills that students need in order to learn and succeed at
a university, including study habits, critical thinking, reading proficiency, written
communication, analytical thinking, problem solving, and time management.
• American College Test (ACT): A nationally administered standardized assessment used
by most colleges and universities for admissions purposes.
• Career Readiness: Having the academic skills, employability skills, and technical skills
needed to perform job duties.
17

• Career Technical Education (CTE): Courses that provide students with challenging
academic, technical, and employability/soft skills and knowledge they need to prepare for
further education and for careers in emerging and established professions.
• Career Technical Education Pathway: Coherent, planned sequence of career technical
education courses along with academic courses that detail the knowledge and technical
skills students need in order to succeed in a specific career area.
• College Readiness: Students have the skills necessary to succeed in college.
• College- and Career-Readiness: High school graduates have the academic, technical, and
soft skills necessary to qualify for and succeed in postsecondary education and/or job
training.
• Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Education initiative in the United States that
details what students in the K-12 system should know in English language arts and
mathematics at the end of each grade level. Initiative seeks to ensure that high school
graduates are prepared for postsecondary college programs or to enter the workforce.
• District Administrators: Leaders of faculty, curricula, and budget for their school district.
They set the tone and ensure the quality of education for their district.
• Employability Skills/Soft Skills: The transferable skills and attributes needed by
individuals in order to make them “employable.” These skills enable employees to
collaborate with their colleagues, solve problems, and make critical decisions.
• Industry: A group of manufacturers or businesses involved in the production of goods or
services.
• Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP): In order for school districts to receive Local
Control Funding Formula funds, they must develop a Local Control Accountability Plan
18

(LCAP) that describes the district’s goals and specific actions, along with expenditures
that the district will need in order to achieve those goals.
• Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): Education finance system enacted in 2013-
2014 in the state of California that requires school districts, County Offices of Education,
and charter schools to develop, adopt, and annually update a three-year Local Control and
Accountability Plan (LCAP) using a template adopted by the California State Board of
Education.
• Local Education Agency (LEA): A commonly used synonym for a school district.
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The federal government’s reform and accountability model
for education.
• Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT): A globally recognized college admission test designed
as an integrated system made up of the SAT, Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test/
National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/ NMSQT), PSAT 10, and PSAT 8/9
• Stakeholders: Individuals and groups that occupy formal and informal roles within an
organization.
• Technical Skills: Abilities and knowledge needed to perform specific tasks.
• Urban Schools: Schools located in large central cities that serve a disproportionately high
number of at-risk students.
Organization of the Study
A mixed-methods approach was utilized for this study. The collection of both
quantitative and qualitative data allowed for a more holistic understanding to the research
questions in this study (Creswell, 2014).
19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction to the Topic
The general public has believed that high schools have the responsibility of teaching
students to be college- and career-ready. This is evident in the college- and career-readiness
skills which have been incorporated into common core standards with the goal of defining the
knowledge and skills students should achieve in order to graduate with the ability to succeed in
entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training courses (Conley et
al., 2011). Jobs in the current economy require different knowledge and skills from those in the
past. This new economy requires nearly everyone entering the workforce to have at least some
post-secondary education, not necessarily a typical four-year degree. Implementation of Career
Technical Education (CTE) programs provide students with opportunities to participate in
rigorous academic courses and prepare for college and career.
The review of the literature highlights key concepts that provide background information,
standards-based practices, and information on resources that can be allocated toward the
development and implementation of CTE programs. The literature review defined college- and
career-readiness, examined how CTE programs prepare students to be college- and career-ready,
and discussed possible funding options to create effective CTE programs. This information
provides a basis for district administrators in defining the role they play in the development,
implementation, and support of CTE programs.
History of College- and Career-Readiness
While college- and career-readiness appears to be the new catchy phrase in education, the
idea of preparing proficient students that can enter college or the workforce is nothing new. The
American educational system has always worked to maintain a balance between three competing
20

goals: democratic equality, social efficiency, and social mobility (Labaree, 1997). In the early
1980’s, there was a definite concern that the American educational system had lost its advantage
and was not producing secondary graduates that could compete with the rest of the world. The
National Commission on Excellence in Education highlighted this deficiency in its report, A
Nation at Risk. In the report, members highlighted the complaint that business and military
leaders committed large amounts of money to remedial education and training programs
(Gardner, 1983). Additionally, the College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) revealed
consistent declines in verbal and mathematic scores leading to a belief that students were
entering college unprepared for postsecondary coursework (Gardner, 1983). While these are just
two of the highlights from the report, they underscore the main point of A Nation at Risk, that
graduates were woefully unprepared for college or the workforce.
A Nation at Risk had a definitive impact on education and the government’s role. As a
result of the report, states took legislative action by establishing mandates, creating
accountability measures and developing commissions to evaluate their own educational systems
(Bell, 1993). Improving the educational experience for all American students appeared to be on
the national radar with American Presidents such as George H. Bush and Bill Clinton
campaigning with a focus on being the “Education President” (Bell, 1993). While bringing the
educational system to the state and national scene, the report also put the country on notice that
its students were not graduating college- and career-ready.
With education being part of national policy, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB, 2002) brought assessment and accountability to the forefront. According to Bush
(2001), NCLB provided the vision for reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (ESEA) and provided a blueprint for education which included: increasing accountability
21

for student performance, focusing on what works, reducing bureaucracy, and increasing
flexibility and empowering parents. There was no mention of college- and career-readiness only
assessing standards that were already put into place. The increased focus on standards led to an
unclear future for CTE (Kazis, 2005). As with A Nation at Risk, the law highlighted the fact that
American students were behind their peers around the world. Although other supplemental laws
addressing college- and career-readiness were introduced, NCLB remained in place through
George W. Bush’s presidency and was reauthorized when the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) was introduced in 2015 under President Barack Obama.
One of the most important supplemental laws addressing college- and career-readiness
was the Carl D. Perkins CTE Improvement Act of 2006. This act was the fourth version of the
law that focused on allowing all students access to vocational programs while addressing jobs
and the economy (Threeton, 2007). Originally passed in 1984, the act was reauthorized in 1990,
1998, and 2006. The 2006 version is important in the history of college- and career-readiness
because it is the first piece of legislation that referred to CTE instead of vocational education
(Threeton, 2007). More importantly, the law defined CTE as:
organized educational activities that: (1) offer a sequence of courses . . . that (a) provides
individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic
standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further
education and careers in current or emerging professions; (b) provides technical skill
proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and
(c) may include prerequisite courses . . . that meet the requirements of this subparagraph;
and (2) include competency based applied learning that contributes to the academic
knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general
employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all
aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an individual (Perkins IV, section 3,
paragraph 5). (Perkins IV/CTEA, 2006, p. 1).

Once the Perkins Act reframed CTE, career- and college-readiness became part of the
national conversation regarding high school graduates. According to Betts, Young, Zao and
22

Bachofer (2016), 23 states currently mandate that graduates complete a college-preparatory and
career-ready curriculum that allows access to a rigorous course of study that students require for
college entry. While that may not be a national consensus, even prominent states like California
have seen large districts such as Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego Unified School Districts
adopt graduation policies requiring students to complete A-G coursework in order to graduate
from high school (Betts et al., 2016). The fact that the Perkins Act mentioned CTE, made it part
of the national discussion.
Skills Associated with College- and Career-Readiness
College- and career-readiness has been discussed in regards to its importance for high
school students but it is crucial to define what it actually entails. According to Achieve, Inc.
(2011), college- and career-readiness refers to the content knowledge and skills high school
graduates must possess in English and mathematics—including, but not limited to reading,
writing communications, teamwork, critical thinking, and problem solving—to be successful in
any and all future endeavors. While these are important factors for one to be successful at the
postsecondary level, Conley (2012) took it a step further by writing that a student who is defined
as college- and career-ready qualifies for entry-level college courses or career pathway training
programs without having to take remedial or developmental classwork. In other words, students
need to be ready for college-level classes and/or any training programs with no need for
remediation courses to be categorized as college- and career-ready. The next step is defining the
characteristics needed to be ready.
College- and career-readiness skills have been looked at to determine changes that need
to be made at the secondary level. According to Darling-Hammond, Wilhoit, and Pittenger
(2014), skills should include both content knowledge as well as “soft skills” that allow one to be
23

an active participant in their own learning. For purposes of this study, employability/soft skills
are the transferable skills and attributes needed by individuals in order to make them
“employable.” These skills enable employees to collaborate with their colleagues, solve
problems, and make critical decisions. In a study of successful secondary schools, the following
skills were identified: earning skills, cognitive strategies, content knowledge, and transition
knowledge and skills (Conley & McGaughy, 2012).
Learning skills. There are specific skills outside of content knowledge that are crucial to
being successful at the college- and career-level. According to Conley and McGaughy (2012),
learning skills such as time management, study skills, persistence, and ownership of learning are
skills needed for any and all postsecondary learning environments. These are basic skills that
would allow one to be successful before they learned actual content knowledge. In regards to
learning skills, Pittman (2010) referred to a commitment to learning involving achievement,
motivation, and school engagement. Both researchers believed that learning skills are one
component in determining whether a student is college- and career-ready.
Transition and knowledge skills. There are specific skills that are associated with
making the transition from secondary to post-secondary. Conley and McGaughy (2012)
mentioned ideas such as postsecondary awareness, postsecondary costs, knowledge of the job
market, and self-advocacy. Lack of knowledge regarding postsecondary educational options
create bigger chances for missed opportunities. For example, a student may fail to apply for
additional colleges because they are not aware of other schooling options. While academic and
behavioral skills are important, students must also be able to work through admissions and
financial aid processes (Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009). Knowledge of admissions and
financial aid processes might also limit access to career certification programs. Gaps in
24

transition knowledge and skills may keep secondary students from exploring all options in
regards to postsecondary college- and career-options.
Key cognitive strategies. Postsecondary college- and career-options require specific
academic skills when it comes to completing tasks. Students must acquire and develop these
skills in order to be successful at the postsecondary level. According to Conley and McGaughy
(2012), students must possess a variety of cognitive strategies so that they can accomplish
tasks. Some of these strategies are the ability to “formulate problems, collect information,
interpret and analyze findings, communicate in a variety of modes, and do all of this with
precision and accuracy” (Conley & McGaughy, 2012, p. 31). All of these strategies provide
students with the ability to assess any problem they encounter and determine what they need to
address it. When looking at how to address teaching these skills, professional development for
teachers needs to focus on strategies for critical and analytical thinking, drawing inferences and
conclusions, conducting research and effectively communicating ideas verbally and in writing
(Moore et al., 2010). Cognitive strategies provide students with the necessary skills to be
successful across the curriculum and in any career.
Key content knowledge. Another important skill in college- and career-readiness is
content knowledge. These skills are not specific to one particular content although most would
mainly be found in the English classroom setting. According to Conley and McGaughy (2012),
foundational content such as speaking and listening, reading informational texts, writing in a
variety of genres and mathematical reasoning and problem solving are all content knowledge
skills that have proven to be successful in both the college- and career-settings. Other literature
also referred to the importance of developing content knowledge in addition to core academic
25

skills and metacognitive skills (Barnes, Slate, & Rojas-LeBouef, 2010; Callan, Finney, Kirst,
Usdan, & Venezia, 2006; Moore et al., 2010; Roderick et al., 2009).
Assessing College- and Career-Readiness
Developing definitions of college- and career-readiness are only the first steps in
preparing students for postsecondary education. Assessing the components of those definitions
has been challenging for secondary and postsecondary institutions. The United States
Department of Education (2010) issued a blueprint that discussed college- and career-readiness
success in relation to measures collected and reported at the state level. According to the U. S.
Department of Education (2010) these measures include:
• Advanced Placement course taking
• Dual credit courses
• Percentage of students who go to college
• College remediation rates of public high school graduates
• College grade point average and credit attainment
• Academic indicators for students from individual high schools
• SAT, ACT, or AP scores
• One year college retention rates
These measures provide scores that can be quantified giving secondary institutions data as to
who is academically prepared for postsecondary coursework.
Individual states have begun to look at ways of assessing whether their students are
college- and career-ready. As part of the American Diploma Project (ADP), 44 states recognized
that there was a deficiency in expectations and achievement in their high schools (Achieve, Inc.,
2011). They created four priorities, one of which included developing a statewide assessment of
26

English and math for high schools that is connected to college- and career-ready expectations
(Achieve, Inc., 2011). Conley and McGaughy (2012) also addressed English and math
proficiency as key components of a college- and career-ready student. Since California has state
assessments that report data on English and math proficiency, it was mentioned as one of the
states that has a college- and career-assessment in place (Achieve, Inc., 2011).
While it is important to have academic measures in place, assessing learning skills
identified by Conley and McGaughy (2012) such as time management, study skills, persistence.
and ownership of learning are much more difficult. Lombardi, Seburn, and Conley (2011)
conducted a study using a sample of high school students in California, Colorado, Connecticut,
and Oregon that participated in a pilot test of the College & Career Ready School Diagnostic
(CCRSD). The CCRSD was chosen because it measured both self-monitoring and study skills
(Lombardi et al., 2011). Lombardi et al. found that use of the assessments could target
instruction to better integrate the use of self-monitoring by students. Additionally, results could
be used to determine how study skills could be merged into the curriculum (Lombardi et al,
2011). This study provides an opportunity to look at data other than academic measures.
The Relationship between CTE and College- and Career-Readiness
California Education Code/Career Technical Education Standards
California Education Code Section 51228 states “districts are encouraged to provide all
pupils with a rigorous academic curriculum that integrates academic and career skills,
incorporates applied learning in all disciplines, and prepares all pupils for high school graduation
and career entry” California Legislative Information (2017, para. (b)). Additionally, Education
Code Section 51224 decrees school district boards to “prescribe separate courses of study,
including, but not limited to, a course of study to prepare prospective pupils for admission to
27

state colleges and universities and a course of study for career technical training” California
Education Code Section 51224). Section 51228 also specifies that career technical training
should be “a course of study that provides an opportunity for those pupils to attain entry-level
employment skills in business or industry upon graduation from high school” (California
Legislative Information, 2017, para. (b)).
The CTE Model Curriculum Standards were developed in 2005 to identify the skills
required for specific pathways and help California districts and schools develop rigorous
curriculum to prepare students for college and careers. The CTE Framework for California
Public Schools was developed in 2007 by an advisory board and serves as a how-to manual for
teachers, school and district administrators, curriculum specialists, and school boards in
developing standards-based CTE pathways, courses, curricula, and assessments. The CTE
Model Curriculum Standards were revised in 2013 to incorporate the Beyond Knowledge
Construct, which demonstrated the importance of adding the CTE Performance dimension to the
cognitive dimension based on the Depth of Knowledge levels and revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
(California Department of Education, 2017).
The CTE Model Curriculum Standards include Standards for Career Ready Practice,
which describe the knowledge and skills that students need to acquire before entering a CTE
program, as part of the CTE sequence, or as integrated elements of other coursework in
preparation for careers and college. The standards are organized around 15 industry sectors and
include a description, anchor standards, pathway standards, and an academic alignment matrix.
California has 12 standards for Career Ready Practice; they align with the state’s CTE anchor
standards and reflect the expectations from business industry, labor and community
28

organizations, and secondary and postsecondary education representatives from 42 participating
states (California Department of Education, 2017).
The 11 anchor standards build on the Standards for Career Ready Practice and are
common across the 15 industry sectors (see Figure 1). Each anchor standard is followed by
performance indicators and are presented in a hierarchical progression of simple to more
complex tasks. The performance indicators provide guidance for curriculum design and
standards measurement. More specific industry-sector anchor standards are customized to better
reflect the skills necessary for each sector. The CTE standards, in conjunction with the Common
Core State Standards, define the skills students must acquire to be college- and career-ready.
Skills Needed for College Career Readiness
The 12 standards for Career Ready Practice followed in California are the same for all
industry sectors. These practices reflect the expectations from the business industry, labor and
community organizations, and secondary and postsecondary education. One can connect these
practices to the skills identified by Conley and McGaughy (2012) as being essential to college-
and career-readiness, which fall into four key categories: learning skills and techniques,
cognitive strategies, content knowledge, and transition knowledge and skills. In their analysis,
Conley and McGaughy stated that students must acquire the cognitive strategies that enable them
to communicate, interpret, research, have precision and accuracy, and carry out problem
formulation. Students must also attain content knowledge that they value at an appropriate
challenge level and effort, show attribution, and be able to structure knowledge. Conley and
McGaughy explained that students must take ownership of their learning and develop learning
techniques. Students must learn how they learn to become lifelong learners. Furthermore,
students must learn the process to transition between institutions including postsecondary
29

awareness and costs, the matriculation process, their role and identity, career awareness, and
self-advocacy.

Source: California Department of Education, 2013, p. 6.
Figure 1: Career Technical Education Anchor Standards
30

The key skills identified by Conley and McGaughy (2012) line up with the expectations
in the California CTE standards. CTE programs can be organized in many different models
including career academies, Linked Learning, and early college high schools; nevertheless, they
are all designed to provide students various opportunities to develop the skills they need to be
college- and career-ready. Research in the field of CTE has determined that students who
participate in CTE programs have a higher probability of graduating from high school than their
peers (Castellano, Richardson, Sundell, & Stone, 2015). In a study conducted in 2015,
researchers found that students who participated in CTE courses performed better than their
peers because they were exposed to context-based learning (Castellano, Richardson et al., 2015).
Context-based exposure allows students to better grasp the relevance of academic subjects,
become more engaged by the content of the curriculum, and develop postsecondary education
and career aspirations. The researchers in the study recommended that school districts seek ways
to increase enrollment in pathways of study and encourage students to participate in CTE course
sequences. The increase in student enrollment will lead to high student engagement and
participation in a field of interest and in turn increase graduation rates.
In addition to context-based learning, school-based factors such as educational
aspirations, program quality, and adults’ impact on college enrollment determined student
performance. A 2013 study conducted by Loera, Nakamoto, Oh, and Rueda (2013) found that
students’ perceptions regarding the quality and effectiveness of a CTE program influenced their
choice to participate. This finding was especially important when districts were in the early
stages of developing their course offerings. Proper resources must be allocated by district and
school site administrators so that CTE pathways are well equipped and students can recognize
the value of the program being offered. Loera et al. (2013) also found that CTE teachers play a
31

critical role in shaping students’ educational and career choices. Students perceived their
teachers as being knowledgeable in a career industry when the teachers could combine classroom
instruction with real-life work experience and expose the students to real employment (Loera et
al., 2013).
Soulé and Warrick (2015) defined 21st century readiness for all students and provided
districts with guidance on how to provide students support. Soulé and Warrick called for a
paradigm shift in education to support the global, information-centric, and technology-infused
reality of the 21st century. Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21, Kozma, 2008), a non-
profit organization made up of a coalition of education, business, community, and government
leaders, supported the innovative, collaborative, and community-embedded experiences that can
provide all students the opportunities to learn the skills they need to be effective citizens,
workers, and leaders.
P21 (Kozma, 2008) highlighted the new skill demands that presented themselves with the
fundamental changes that have taken place in today’s economy, jobs, and businesses. The
increase in the use of technology and the shift from an industrial economy has raised the demand
for problem-solving and communication tasks (Kozma, 2008). The framework created by P21
encompasses the skills, knowledge, and expertise that students must master along with the
learning supports necessary to attain college- and career-readiness. The P21 Framework
represents 21st century student outcomes in the arches of the rainbow and support systems in the
pools at the bottom (see Figure 2).
Every implementation strategy for 21st century learning requires the attainment of core
academics for all students. Students must master the essential skills for success in today’s world
known as the 4Cs: critical thinking and problem-solving, communication, collaboration, and
32

Source: Soulé and Warrick, 2015, p. 181.
Figure 2: P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning

creativity and innovation. When schools use standards, assessments, curriculum and instruction,
professional development, and learning environments as a foundation to combine these necessary
supports, students are more engaged in the learning process and graduate better prepared to
thrive in college, career and life (Soulé & Warrick, 2015).
Soulé and Warrick (2015) stated that 21st century education models offer learning
opportunities that make direct connections for students between what they learn, how it is
connected to their community, and its association with what students will need to know in
college and the workplace. P21 (Kozma, 2008) has recognized exemplar learning programs
since 2013. A pilot study conducted in 2015 showed exemplar learning programs varied in
strengths and approaches, but all programs shared five common interactive themes, (1) a climate
33

of achievement, (2) distributed leadership, (3) student agency, (4) research & evidence, and (5)
an engaged community.
Dual Enrollment and Articulation Agreements
Soulé and Warrick (2015) called for a paradigm shift in how and what students learn to
prepare for the new demands of the changing economy. They stated that the new proposed
mindset requires various stakeholders to work together to make learning meaningful to students
and teach them how to apply the concepts they learn to the real-world setting. One example of
helping students apply learned concepts to real world settings is creating the opportunities for
them to serve as interns in community businesses. These types of opportunities can only be
created successfully through collaboration among policy makers, business executives, education
leaders, and stakeholders. Through such collaboration, students and adults can create
meaningful learning opportunities reflective of workplace challenges and demands.
Students can also prepare for college- and career-readiness through participation in dual
enrollment programs. Dual enrollment is an accelerated program that allows students
opportunities to earn college credit while in high school. Available in all 50 states, dual
enrollment offers several benefits for students including preparation for college coursework and
degree attainment, an increased likelihood of graduating from high school and earning higher
grades in college (An, 2013a). An’s (2013b) research found that dual enrollment positively
influences academic performance and college readiness and that students who participated in
dual enrollment programs were less likely to participate in remediation than non-dual enrollees.
Participation in dual enrollment programs increase academic rigor of the high school
curriculum, help low-achieving students meet high academic standards, provide more academic
opportunities and electives in small or economically struggling schools, prevent high school
34

dropout and increase student aspirations, help students acclimate to college life and reduce the
cost of college for students (Karp & Hughes, 2008). CTE students are taking part in dual
enrollment opportunities often offered as explicit parts of their CTE programs. Participation in
dual enrollment courses can upgrade the CTE curriculum by providing students access to
rigorous college courses, automatically awards students college credit upon successful
completion of the course, and enables students to participate in courses without having to invest
in costly equipment.
Karp and Hughes (2008) found that participation in dual enrollment opportunities
increased graduation rates and encouraged students to pursue college. Once in college, CTE
students who participated in dual enrollment were more likely to persist in college and obtain
higher grades. Dual enrollees also made faster progress toward a college credential than students
who did not participate in dual enrollment. Because of the promising use of dual enrollment as a
strategy to encourage students to access and succeed in postsecondary education, the researchers
suggested that collaborations among high schools and colleges should focus on ways that dual
enrollment can be integrated into current and future career pathways (Karp & Hughes, 2008).
A major purpose of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 2006
was to strengthen the connections between secondary and postsecondary education (King &
West, 2009). With the emphasis on the secondary to postsecondary connections, high schools
and community colleges have sought out the development of formal articulation agreements.
The process of developing articulation agreements between secondary and postsecondary
institutions is a long one. It requires that the secondary organization submit curricular
information to the postsecondary institution so that a board can review it and determine course
content equivalency. If the postsecondary institution deems that the high school course is
35

equivalent, the articulation agreement is granted. The established articulation agreement sets the
parameters and requirements that students must fulfill in order to receive college credit for the
course completed in high school.
Career Pathways
During much of America’s educational history, there has been a focus on either preparing
secondary students to be “college ready” or “career ready” (Meeder, 2016). Careers in the
current economic structure require a different set of knowledge and skills than those that were
required in the past. The 21st century workplace requires that nearly everyone who enters the
workforce have some level of postsecondary education, which does not always mean a typical
four-year college degree. According to Schwartz, Keppel, and Symonds (2012), the workplace
requires a certain level of technical skills that require licenses or certificates, which in turn
require a change to the educational practices at the secondary level.
The shift in education in California from preparing students as “college-bound” or
“career-bound” and instead focusing on preparing them to be ready for both college and career
transpired with the implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which was
enacted in 2010. As our society has changed, so have the demands of the workforce; therefore.
inspiring a reform in the way students are educated in the public-school system. According to
Bloom (2010), two key motivators for preparing all students to be college- and career-ready are
“economic competitiveness and social equity” (p. 4). Essentially the shift came as a direct result
of the ever-changing workforce needs of the 21st century workplace.
Career Technical Education (CTE) programs have become an integral part of preparing
students to be college- and career-ready. CTE is much more than simply training students for
skilled work in agriculture, trade, or the industry sector. CTE provides an academic foundation,
36

combined with technical and employability/soft skills and knowledge that are essential for
preparing students to be successful for the 21st century workforce (Wonacott, 2003). By
integrating academic rigor into CTE programs, students can be taught the necessary academic
skills while simultaneously learning the technical and employability skills they will need to be
successful in the workforce (Threeton, 2007). For purposes of this research, CTE is defined as
courses that provide students with challenging academic, technical, and employability/soft skills
and knowledge they need to prepare for further education and for careers in emerging and
established professions.
Another key aspect of CTE are career pathways. According to the California Department
of Education (2010), a career pathway is defined as a multi-year, comprehensive program of
study that integrates academic and technical skills that are formed around broad themes, interest
areas, or industry sectors. Career pathways provide a seamless educational structure that
includes training from secondary education to postsecondary and the workforce. By providing a
series of integrated courses with the same theme in mind, students develop a richer
understanding of that particular career interest, which better prepares them to be successful in
postsecondary college- and career-options. Career pathways are intended to assist students in
becoming college- and career-ready by preparing them to work through the complexities of a
career after entering and completing postsecondary education and training (Meeder,
2016). Career pathways emerged as a way to encourage and support secondary students’
transition from high school to college and careers. They provide a framework for students to
learn relevant coursework that incorporates academic rigor, technical skills, and
employability/soft skills that are vital in the workforce. Essentially, career pathways provide an
37

opportunity for students to learn technical skills with academic rigor that build up through each
course taken in the pathway series.
According to Castellano, Stringfield, and Stone (2003) “career pathways are…intended to
provide a rigorous, coherent program of study that includes high-level academics in addition to
technology applications and work-based learning” (p. 256). Career pathways provide contextual
learning of technical and employability/soft skills with academic rigor within the classroom
setting and work-based and/or hands-on learning opportunities outside of school or within a
workshop type setting (such as a construction automotive program within a school’s automotive
shop). Participation in career pathways can prepare students to be successful by teaching the
necessary skills needed to succeed in the workforce and aligning courses of study with
postsecondary institutions. Additionally, career pathways tend to have strong partnerships with
employers who are very involved in the programs, either by means of offering mentorships,
internships, job-shadowing, or apprenticeship opportunities.
Strong college- and career-pathway programs focus on the following priorities:
defining and developing Career and Life Readiness; engaging all students in career
development, offering learners engaging and relevant Pathway Programs, connecting
students with employers and community-based learning experience; creating engaging
and connected learning across the curriculum; and linking programs and services across
secondary, postsecondary, and workforce systems. (Meeder, 2016, 58-59)

Coursework for career pathways need be rigorous and sequential. Courses and skills
need to build upon one another for students to transition from one level to the next. Involvement
and engagement with postsecondary institutions and employers are critical for priorities of career
pathway programs as this helps ensure that the pathways incorporate the necessary skills,
coursework or certifications necessary for employment or postsecondary institutions.
Additionally, career pathways can provide an opportunity for students to participate in dual
38

enrollment with postsecondary institutions. As previously mentioned, participation in dual
enrollment in career pathways can provide high school students with opportunities to earn both
high school and college credit.
Allocation of Funding Resources
Local Control Funding Formula
In June of 2013, the state of California radically reformed its educational finance system
when Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the new educational funding model known as the
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The LCFF “represents the most significant change in
California’s funding system for K-12 schools in four decades” (California Teacher’s Association,
2017, p. 1). The LCFF is meant to provide a more equitable way of allocating funds to school
districts, provide support for underperforming districts, and change the way that school and
district performance is evaluated by the state (Bae & Darling-Hammond, 2014). With the
implementation of this law, California eliminated most of the existing funding categories that
school districts were previously required to earmark specific funding for, giving them more
discretion on how to fund different educational programs that would best support the needs of
their district and student population (Taylor, 2013). Essentially, funding shifted from categorical
programs to district and student needs, with weighted formulas for students with greater need
(Bae & Darling-Hammond, 2014).
The enactment of the LCFF served as a way to consolidate most categorical programs
into allocation of funding for districts that helps move decision making from the state to the local
level (Hill, Warren, Murphy, Ugo, & Pathak, 2016). Prior to the LCFF, the state would allocate
funds to districts based on a unique revenue limit, which was then multiplied by the district’s
average daily attendance (ADA; CDE, 2015a, LCFF Frequently Asked
39

Questions). Additionally, the state provided restricted funding to school districts for dozens of
categorical programs that were intended to provide specific services dependent on the
demographics and student needs of each school district (CDE, 2015a, LCFF Frequently Asked
Questions). Under the LCFF, California provides districts the majority of their funding through
base grants which are dependent on their ADA with slight adjustments depending on four grade
spans, i.e., kindergarten through grade 3 ($6,845 per student), grades 4-6 ($6,947 per student),
grades 7-8 ($7,154 per student), and grades 9-12 ($8,289 per student) (Taylor, 2013, p. 2). The
high school grade span included a 2.6% increase of the base rate (initially this amounted to $216
per student); although the adjustment is not designated for any education service in particular,
the origin of the adjustment is related to the costs associated to providing career technical
education (CTE; Taylor, 2013). The 2.6% adjustment reflected the average amount spent per
student on CTE or Regional Occupational Programs (ROP) under the state’s old funding system
(Taylor, 2013). Base rates are adjusted annually to reflect the cost-of-living (COLA) increases
(CDE, 2015a, LCFF Frequently Asked Questions).
Funding is distributed directly to school districts rather than individual schools.
Additionally, it provides differentiated funding that is equal to 20% of the base funding (adjusted
for grade span) to districts based on demographics, specifically those districts with a large
percentage of high-needs students. The LCFF defined high-needs students as low-income
children (specifically students who qualify for free or reduced priced meals), English learners,
and homeless and foster youth (CDE, 2015b, LCFF Overview). High-needs populations are
referred to as targeted disadvantaged students by LCFF (CDE, 2015b, LCFF Overview). This
additional 20% supplemental grant for targeted disadvantaged students is provided for
unduplicated counts; meaning that if a student qualifies in two or three of the targeted
40

populations, the student will only be counted once. Additionally, LCFF provides a concentration
grant for districts where English learner and low-income demographics exceed 55% of their total
enrollment. This concentration grant is funded at 50% of the adjusted grade span base grant for
the particular percentage of students exceeding the 55%.
The LCFF does not solely focus on school finance reform; it also “substantially
reorganizes and decentralizes the delivery of public education in California” including a new
accountability framework (Affeldt, 2015, p. 4). Districts are required to identify the progress
they are making and have made with various student subgroups. The two main goals for the
LCFF are to enhance the academic achievement of students by providing targeted funds to
districts in order for them to improve outcomes of high-need students and bring state funding
back to the local control at the district and school level while holding them accountable for
obtaining results. The intent was to improve educational services for high-need students utilizing
greater flexibility, local accountability, and targeted student funding based on demographics
(Koppich, Humphrey, & Marsh, 2015). The implementation of the LCFF provided school
districts the flexibility of allocating their funding as they see fit in order to enhance student
outcomes. Although districts are provided with flexibility in terms of how to spend their
weighted funds, the LCFF requires them to increase or enhance services for high-need students
(Affeldt, 2015).
The LCFF put into place rules related to transparency and accountability in districts
(Taylor, 2013). As part of these new rules, districts are required to develop and adopt a Local
Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), the LCFF’s local accountability counterpart. In order for
the LCFF funds to be distributed, each district is required to develop and adopt a 3-year strategic
plan that identifies the annual goals and specific actions that will be taken to achieve these goals
41

in order to address the state’s eight priority areas and any local priorities (Bae & Darling-
Hammond, 2014). Once adopted by the school board, the LCAPs are to be revisited and updated
annually in which the previous year’s goals, actions, and expenses are reviewed to determine
progress and make corrections or revisions as needed (Affeldt, 2015). Examples of
accountability measures that could be utilized to assess progress on the LCAP goals can include:
college- and career-readiness, performance on state and local assessments, graduation rates, A-G
completion rates, English learner reclassification rate, attendance rates, rate of teacher mis-
assignment, suspension and expulsion rates, levels of parental participation and satisfaction, and
reports on facilities and availability of instructional materials (CDE, 2015b, Local control
funding formula overview). After three years, a new 3-year LCAP is to be developed and
adopted by each district, and the process begins once again. Districts that fail to meet their
LCAP’s goals and do not improve education outcomes are to receive aid through a system of
support and intervention (Taylor, 2013).
The LCFF also required that parents, students, teachers, bargaining units, site
administrators, and other community members participate and be involved in the process of
deciding how LCFF funds are used and gives authority to supervise a critical element of the
LCFF, the completion of the LCAP, to County Offices of Education (Koppich et al., 2015). This
new requirement shifts the way that many districts engage with their community. Districts are
encouraged to engage with community stakeholders through various means, including but not
limited to surveys, district-wide meetings, forums, parent meetings, and/or school site
meetings. At the very minimum, districts are required to hold two public hearings to discuss and
adopt their LCAP.
42

Each district’s LCAP must include annual goals and action steps in each of the eight state
priorities. The eight state priority areas fall under three categories: conditions of learning,
student outcomes, and engagement. The eight state priorities are: basic services, implementation
of Common Core State Standards, course access, parental involvement, student engagement,
school climate, student achievement (CDE, 2016a, State Priority Related Resources), and other
student outcomes (see Figure 3). The eight state priorities “are intended to encompass the key
ingredients of high-quality education programs” (Taylor, 2013, p. 10).
These eight state priorities are intended to encourage districts to pay closer attention to
what the state considers key mechanisms of a high-quality education system. The priority of
implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is a key factor in career technical
education (CTE) as it includes a clear emphasis on graduating students that are both college- and
career-ready. Therefore, it is imperative that districts develop strong educational programs that
focus on both college- and career-ready skills (Bae & Darling-Hammond, 2014). It was evident
that the “needs of the 21st century workforce are rapidly changing amidst demographic shifts,
technological advances, and economic globalization” (Bae & Darling-Hammond, 2014, p. 8).
A commonly recommended measure to use as an indicator of career readiness is the
completion of high-quality CTE pathways (Bae & Darling-Hammond, 2014). CTE is defined as
“a program of study that involves a multiyear sequence of courses that integrates core academic
knowledge with technical and occupational knowledge to provide students with a pathway to
postsecondary education and careers” (CDE, n.d., Career Technical Education, p. 1).
Throughout the state of California, many high schools offer stand alone CTE courses or Career
Pathways that incorporate career readiness with academic preparation (Bae & Darling-
Hammond, 2014). The integration of career pathways with academic curriculum is vital given
43

Source: Taylor, 2013, p. 12.

Figure 3: Eight State Priorities and Their Indicators

that high school graduation college requirements will typically not provide enough room in
students’ academic schedules to complete both A-G requirements and career pathways (Bae &
Darling-Hammond, 2014).
Being that the LCFF has already made a 2.6% adjustment per student in high school to
account for CTE, districts can utilize this funding to develop or further develop CTE programs to
meet the rigor of college preparatory coursework while simultaneously incorporating
employability/soft skills to prepare students for postsecondary education and careers. This 2.6%
base grant adjustment for high school students can be strategically used to provide CTE at the
high school level. The LCFF and LCAP legislation has pushed California districts to redefine
postsecondary success by ensuring that each district include college- and career-readiness
44

indicators to prepare all students for both postsecondary options (Bae & Darling-Hammond,
2014).
Additional Funding
In addition to allocating funding resources through the LCAP and the LCFF’s 2.6%
adjustment on the base grant amount for grades 9-12 (related to the costs that are associated with
providing CTE in high school), districts can apply for additional funding through different
federal and state grants, depending on what is available. Obtaining additional funds via grants
and possible grants can be critical for districts who are trying to implement and/or improve the
quality of CTE programs for students.
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Acts of 1984 and 1990 renamed the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act in 2006, not only requires that CTE curriculum be
more academically rigorous and includes skills to prepare students for the 21st century
workforce but also provides funding for CTE programs (Friedel, 2011). The reauthorization of
the Perkins Act in 2006 increased the accountability for academic rigor, CTE teacher
credentialing, and the attainment of technical and employability/soft skills (Carl D. Perkins CTE
Improvement Act of 2006, 2006). The Perkins Act accounts for over $1.5 billion dollars
nationally in CTE funding. It allocates a certain amount of funding to each state nationwide and
provides guidelines to ensure that quality CTE programs are implemented within each
district. The states then determine how to allocate the funding to provide CTE resources based
on the established guidelines provided by the Perkins Act.
Conclusion
District administrators play a key role in the development, implementation, and support
of CTE programs. District administrators can use their positions to allocate appropriate
45

resources for the efficient implementation of career pathways. CTE programs implement
educational strategies designed to provide students with the academic, technical, and
employability/soft skills and knowledge to pursue postsecondary training. Students participating
in CTE courses will enter their fields prepared for ongoing learning as CTE includes
academically rigorous, integrated, and sequenced programs of study that align with and lead to
postsecondary education (Brand et al., 2013).

46

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Chapter three includes a description of the purpose and design of the study, identifies the
research participants, clarifies how data was collected and analyzed, explains the instruments
used to conduct the research, and specifies ethical considerations.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to examine the role of district administrators in allocating resources
and developing effective Career Technical Education (CTE) programs. This study analyzed the
resources allocated by districts to support the implementation of CTE programs to improve
college- and career-readiness. Convenience/purposeful sampling was used for the study. It used
a mixed-methods approach including qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative
information was collected through interviews and quantitative data was comprised of a Likert-
style survey.
Research Questions
This study concentrated on the following research questions:
1. What is the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical Education
programs to support college- and career-readiness?
2. What Career Technical Education programs have districts supported for implementation?
3. What resources do districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs?
4. What types of Career Technical Education programs have proven to be effective in
improving college- and career-readiness?
This study was conducted from a critical research perspective. The goal in critical
inquiry is to critique and challenge, and to transform and empower. Through critical inquiry, this
study sought to explain how district administrators can be instrumental to the development of
47

CTE courses. It challenges Local Education Agencies to transform the learning environment for
students and empower them to be college- and career-ready (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Study Methods
Creswell (2014) listed the following steps for conducting a research study, (1) identifying
a research problem, (2) reviewing the literature, (3) specifying a purpose for research,
(4) collecting data, (5) analyzing and interpreting the data, and (6) reporting and evaluating
research. This study was built around these guidelines and conducted using a mixed-methods
approach including qualitative and quantitative data. The combination of quantitative and
qualitative data serves to increase methodological rigor (Patton, 2002). The study was conducted
with district administrators in the state of California who play a role in the development,
implementation, and support of CTE programs in their district. The study involved the collection
of qualitative data through interviews. Quantitative data in the form of a Likert-style surveys
was also collected.
Assertions regarding the efficiency of CTE programs was made based on quantitative
data collected. Qualitative data provided additional information to determine the role of district
administration in the development, implementation, and support of CTE programs, allocation of
resources, and the types of CTE programs determined to be effective in preparing students for
college and careers. The use of qualitative and quantitative data allowed for data triangulation
and increase the validity of the evidence collected (Creswell, 2014)
Sample and Population
Purposeful criterion sampling was used to identify and select district administrators who
play a role in the development, implementation, and support of CTE programs within their
district for the collection of quantitative data using a Likert-style survey. Purposeful criterion
48

sampling is a technique that is widely used in qualitative research for the identification and
selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources (Patton, 2002).
The process involves the identification and selection of individuals or groups of individuals that
are knowledgeable about or experienced with the research topic (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
Convenience sampling was used for the interview portion of this study. Convenience
sampling is a non-probability sample in which respondents are chosen based on their
convenience and availability (Creswell, 2014). District administrators were selected to
participate in a qualitative interview from the survey participants who indicated their willingness
to do so and were interviewed based on their availability.
Instrumentation
Critical research theory allows the researcher to critique and challenge ideas and seek to
transform and empower (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The use of this lens allowed the researcher
to understand and research challenges associated with the development, implementation, and
support of CTE programs and seek information to determine how district administrators can be
instrumental to bring about change. A critical research perspective challenges Local Education
Agencies to transform the learning environment for students and empower them to be college-
and career-ready. Survey and interview questions for this study were developed to facilitate
research and ensure a consistent approach for data collection. The survey and interview
questions were aligned with the research questions for this study (Appendix A).
Data Collection
Identified district administrators received an email with a Request to Participate letter
(Appendix B) and a link to complete the quantitative survey (Appendix C). Based on the
indication of their willingness to participate in an interview for qualitative data collection,
49

participants were contacted again to set up an interview time. In order to make an interview
convenient for the participant, interviews were conducted at a time and place convenient to the
participant (Appendix D). Permission was requested from participants to use an audio recording
device to record each interview for accuracy. Audio recording allowed the researcher to focus
on the participants’ responses during the interview. All participants were provided the option to
accept or decline being recorded on an audio device.
To guarantee respondents in this study are protected, applications were submitted to the
Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California for approval. All
information pertaining to the participants in this study will remain confidential, and participation
will be voluntary.
Data Analysis
Interview transcripts were utilized to create a codebook for analysis. Corbin and Strauss
(2008) described coding as the process used to derive and develop concepts from data. The
coding process began with the identification of open codes; the open codes were then be refined
into axial codes relating categories and properties (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The final step in
the analysis of interview data entailed creating selective codes per Merriam and Tisdell (2015)
which were used to develop a proposition or hypothesis.
Summary
This chapter explained the purpose of the study, research questions, study methods,
sample population, data collection, and the data analysis process used in the study. The goals of
the study were best accomplished through a mixed-method study design that included a
quantitative survey and a qualitative interview of district administrators involved in the
development, implementation, and support of CTE programs. The researchers made every effort
50

to be transparent in the process so as to limit the appearance of impropriety (Creswell, 2014).
Chapter Four includes an analysis of the data collected and the major findings.

51

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter provides an analysis of data collected from a mixed-methods study aimed at
exploring the role of district-level administrators in allocating resources and developing effective
Career Technical Education (CTE) programs. Furthermore, this study also analyzed the
resources allocated by Local Education Agencies (LEA) to support the implementation of CTE
programs to improve college- and career-readiness. Quantitative data was obtained utilizing an
online Likert-style survey that consisted of statements related to the allocation of resources for
CTE programs. Qualitative data was collected through interviews with district administrators
consisting of Assistant Superintendents, Directors, and Coordinators depending on the school
district’s organizational structure, regarding the selection and funding for CTE programs. This
chapter presents the response rates of the online Likert scale surveys, the demographic
information of the interviewees, the research findings from the compiled and analyzed data, and
the researcher’s discussion as far as the meaning of the research findings.
The following research questions were utilized to guide this study:
1. What is the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical Education
programs to support college- and career-readiness?
2. What Career Technical Education programs have districts supported for implementation?
3. What resources do districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs?
4. What types of Career Technical Education programs have proven to be effective in
improving college- and career-readiness?

52

Response Rates
The participants for this study were selected from a target population within the
following counties throughout central and southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. Participants were
selected based on having CTE programs in place and utilizing Carl D. Perkins grants. Since the
study focused on the allocation of resources for the development and implementation of CTE
programs, surveys were sent to district-level administrators, such as Superintendents, Assistant
Superintendents, Executive Directors, Directors, and Coordinators. Also since CTE programs
and career pathways are mostly provided at the secondary level, the study focused on districts
that provided secondary education. Therefore, the district administrators that received the
invitation to participate in the study were either employed by unified or joint union high school
districts. Although districts ranged in size, location, and student demographics, the common
factor that each of the districts had CTE programs in place.
District administrators in 56 districts throughout central and southern California were
contacted to participate in the online Likert-style survey. Of 56 districts that were contacted, 29
responses were received. It is important to note that one of the respondents completed the survey
twice and another respondent indicated that they were not involved with CTE programs.
Therefore, these two responses were omitted from the data analysis. Altogether, of the 56
surveys sent, 29 were returned, 2 were omitted, which resulted in a 48.2% response rate.
Demographic Data
There were a total of 21 respondents that were willing to participate in a 30 to 45 minute
interview. Interview participants were selected using convenience sampling. Convenience
sampling was chosen due to the availability of respondents who were willing to participate in an
53

interview. Demographic data was only obtained for the district administrators who participated
in an interview, and not for those who only participated in the survey. The data for each
interviewee was disaggregated by gender, age, educational attainment, position held, years in
education, and years working in CTE or Vocational Education.
Out of the six district administrators who participated in an interview, three were male
and three were female. Four of the interviewees were Directors, one was a Coordinator, and one
was an Assistant Superintendent. The Assistant Superintendent was recently promoted to this
position and he previously held the title of Director. The Director position has not been filled;
therefore, he continues to directly oversee CTE programs for his district. All of the district
administrators interviewed played a role in the development, implementation, and support of
CTE programs in their district.
The ages of the six participants ranged from late 30s to early 60s. Two of the participants
had doctorate degrees, while four had masters degree. At the time of the interview, one of the
participants was enrolled in a doctoral program in educational leadership. Amongst the
participants, the number of years they have been working in education ranged from 16 to 36.5.
And the number of years they have worked in CTE or vocational education programs ranged
from 12 to 29.
Participants were all working in district-level administrative positions within unified
school district organizations ranging in student enrollment from 18,400 to 47,800. Due to
convenience sampling, all of the participants worked in school districts within either Los
Angeles or Orange county. There was no correlation found between the size of the district and
the number of CTE programs and/or career pathways that were offered. All of the districts
54

offered a wide range of CTE programs and/or career pathways and it was clear that CTE was a
district initiative for all of these districts.

Table 1
Demographic Data of Participants

District
Administrator

Gender

Age

Educational
Attainment

Position Held

Years in
Education
Years
in CTE
or Voc
Ed
A M 60 M.A. Director of Support
Programs and Career
Technical Education

36.5 12
B F 53 Ed.D. Director of Secondary
Schools

31 15
C M 56 M.A. Director of Career
Technical Education

29 29
D M 38 Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent
of Administrative
Services

16 16
E F 44 M.A. Coordinator of
STEM/CTE/Pathways

16 16
F F 46 M.A. Director of College and
Career Pathways
17 14

55

Table 2
Demographics of Participants’ Districts
District Administrator District Type County District Enrollment
A Unified Los Angeles 22,700
B Unified Los Angeles 21,000
C Unified Orange 47,800
D Unified Orange 24,000
E Unified Orange 30,000
F Unified Los Angeles 18,400

Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question One
What is the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical Education
programs to support college- and career-readiness?
Quantitative Data
District-level administrators play a major role in the development, implementation, and
support of educational programs, such as CTE programs and career pathways. In order to further
understand their role, district-level administrators were provided with statements about their
involvement in the development and implementation of CTE programs in their respective school
districts via an online Likert scale survey. District-level administrators were presented with
statements regarding the effectiveness of CTE programs in preparing students to be college- and
career-ready, the importance of being knowledgeable about CTE standards, and the importance
of data driven, decision-making regarding CTE program development. Respondents rated how
much they agreed with the given statement on a 1 to 4 Likert scale, with 1 being “strongly
56

disagree” and 4 being “strongly agree.” The statements provided on the survey that related to
this research question were:
● CTE programs are effective in preparing students to be college- and career-ready.
● It is important to be knowledgeable about CTE standards.
● It is important to make data-driven decisions regarding CTE program development.
Table 3 shows the responses to these statements. When analyzing the data, 96.3% of
respondents agreed that CTE programs are effective in preparing students to be college- and
career-ready. Of the 27 responses received, 29.6% agreed and 66.7% strongly agreed with this
statement while 3.7% disagreed with this statement.

Table 3
Research Question One Survey Response

Survey Statement
Strongly
Disagree
%

Disagree
%

Agree
%
Strongly
Agree
%
CTE programs are effective in preparing
students to be college- and career-ready.
3.7 29.6 66.7
It is important to be knowledgeable about
CTE standards.
3.7 33.3 63.0
It is important to make data-driven
decisions regarding CTE program
development
14.8 85.2

In regards to whether it is important to be knowledgeable about CTE standards, the data
once again indicated a total of 96.3% of respondents being in agreement with this statement. Of
the 27 survey responses received, 33.3% agreed and 63% strongly agreed while 3.7% disagreed
with this statement.
57

District administrators unanimously agreed that it is important to make data-driven
decisions regarding CTE program development. The survey responses indicated that 14.8%
agreed and 85.2% strongly agreed with this statement.
Qualitative Data
In addition to the Likert scale survey, six district-level administrators, consisting of
Assistant Superintendents, Directors, and Coordinators, were interviewed regarding the
development, implementation, and support of CTE programs in their district. The interviews
consisted of open-ended questions and each interview lasted between 14.33 minutes to 40.38
minutes, with the average being 25.58 minutes. The interview questions that pertained to
research question one were:
● What role do you play in the development of Career Technical Education programs?
● Who is involved in the hiring process for CTE teachers in your district?
Each one of the participating district-level administrators played key roles in the
development of CTE programs in their district. Although their job titles were different,
depending on the organizational structure of their district, they all oversaw CTE programs for
their school district. District Administrator A shared, “I’d say I’m the person at the top, the
capstone person in terms of the development of CTE programs.” They all oversaw the
development of CTE programs and career pathways, the programs themselves, and the funds that
are needed for these programs. District Administrator D shared, “I’m the person who fills out
the grant applications, does all the reporting, works with the principals, works with the assistant
principals, and works with the counselors to grow these programs.”

58

District Administrator E added that she not only oversaw CTE programs, but she also
developed many career pathways, she shared that she began by “taking what were random
electives that high school students and middle school students would take and forming them into
career pathways.”
When asked who was involved in the hiring process for CTE teachers in their district,
District Administrators B, C, D, and F indicated that ultimately the school site principals along
with their interview panels do the hiring. Additionally, District Administrators B and D also
indicated being directly involved in the process for hiring all CTE teachers. While District
Administrator F stated, “sometimes I get asked to be a part of that but not all the time.” District
Administrator B shared, “we do first round interviews to find out if they, they pass, you know . .
. then once we put a list together, . . . we send that list to the schools. So the final selection goes
through a principal and a teacher committee on the site and who makes recommendations to
HR.” District Administrator B stated, “So our principals do our hiring for their sites . . . I’ll do
preliminary screening . . . our district will fly it. Our sites will do the hiring.” And District
Administrator A stated, “Everything goes through personnel. I get involved when it comes to
recruiting.” Finally, District Administrator E shared, “I run the process with human resources
support . . . I basically put the panels together . . . sometimes we bring people from the county to
help.”
Whether working directly to hire CTE teachers or working with human resources on
screening applicants or putting panels together, all of the Administrators interviewed were
knowledgeable about the hiring process and each recognized the importance of having
individuals with the appropriate CTE credentials and backgrounds teaching in CTE programs.

59

Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Two
What Career Technical Education programs have districts supported for
implementation?
Quantitative Data
The statements provided to district administrators on the Likert scale survey that related
to this research question were:
● Industry partners are beneficial in the development, implementation, and support of CTE
programs.
● CTE programs in my district are articulated with postsecondary institutions.
Table 4 shows the responses to these statements. An analysis of the data indicated that
88.8% of the districts that responded agreed that their districts are articulated with postsecondary
institutions. Of the 27 responses received, 44.4% agreed and 44.4% strongly agreed with this
statement, while 11.1% disagreed, with 7.4% disagreeing and 3.7% strongly disagreeing with
this statement.

Table 4
Research Question Two Survey Responses

Survey Statement
Strongly
Disagree
%

Disagree
%

Agree
%
Strongly
Agree
%
Industry partners are beneficial in the
development, implementation, and support
of CTE programs.
3.7 11.1 85.2
CTE programs in my district are
articulated with postsecondary institutions.
3.7 7.4 44.4 44.4

60

In terms of industry partners being beneficial in the development, implementation, and
support of CTE programs, respondents indicated being 96.3% in agreement with this statement.
Of the 27 survey responses received, 11.1% agreed and 85.2% strongly agreed with this
statement, while only 3.7% disagreed.
Qualitative Data
The interview questions that correlated to research questions two were as follows:
● What CTE programs does your district offer?
● How were those CTE programs selected?
● In a district with multiple schools, how do you decide which CTE programs to develop
where?
When asked about the CTE programs that their individual districts offered, each of the
district administrators started naming a lot of different courses. Then each eventually stopped
and instead mentioned the number of career pathways offered in their district. There was a wide
variety in the amount of programs being offered yet it was evident that all of the administrators
were proud of how many CTE programs are available in their district. The numbers of pathways
offered in the districts ranged from 13 to 33. District Administrators A, C, and D indicated that
they also offered CTE programs at the middle-school level.
In regards to how the CTE programs were selected for their districts, district
administrators discussed a variety of reasons. District Administrators A, B, C, D, and E all
reported selecting CTE programs based on the job market and projected needs. These
administrators reported looking at Employment Development Department data and utilizing that
data to make projections on the future needs of the workforce in order to determine what
programs to put in place. District Administrator D stated,
61

we try to determine what the . . . projected needs are going to be for the surrounding area,
basically for the county . . . with those projections, we make sure that we’re feeding the
future workforce for the most part. We’ll offer a variety of different choices for kids, and
we have 13 different pathways.

District Administrators B, E, and F indicated student interest as a reason as to why
programs were selected. District Administrator E shared that they use “student assessments from
their middle school to look at where kids have an interest and we align our electives in pathways
according to both the interests of the students and the jobs that are going to be available.”
District Administrators A and F discussed selecting programs based on teacher capacity. District
Administrator A shared, “the first thing we did is we looked at our . . . rock stars on our
campuses that we could credential immediately so they could begin to teach these courses. The
hardest thing about these classes is the teacher.” District Administrator F noted, “teacher
capacity in terms of teacher interest was . . . part of the conversation.”
When asked about deciding which CTE programs to develop since each of the districts
have multiple schools, the responses were a lot more diverse. District Administrators A and C
indicated that it has to do with facilities. Both administrators indicated that you need space on a
school site in order to develop CTE programs. District Administrator A stated, “if you don’t
have the facilities, then . . . that’s gonna be a big hill to climb. So, let’s say you want to build out
a culinary program, yeah. It’s a . . . 750 thousand to one million dollar cost to build that ”
referring to the fact that you cannot easily build a program without the facilities. While District
Administrator C stated,
as a district, we try not to duplicate programs between school sites. We want to create a
culture of options for the kids. Principals will often have personalities or visions that
dictate what types of programs best fit. I also take a look at what facilities are available
at each site to determine what programs could possibly go into those classrooms.
Sometimes I will get direction from the superintendent or the school board as well.

62

District Administrator B reported that school site principals decide what programs to
build at their sites, with the assistance of the district office. She stated, “we took the . . . money,
and all of the principals sat in a room, and we said ‘okay, this is how much we’re going to have
for the next three years. What do we want to focus on?” and a decision about what programs
will be at their site is made. District Administrators D and E reported student interest driving the
decision as to where CTE programs are developed. District Administrator E shared that
decisions are made based on student requests to take certain CTE programs, the district utilizes
this data to develop what she referred to as “student-driven master schedules” in order to develop
programs at the school sites for students. Finally, District Administrator F shared that the
decisions about programming at school sites depends on the labor market needs and teacher
capacity at that site.
Although decisions are made utilizing different criteria in order to support the
implementation of CTE programs in school districts, it is clear that all districts made decisions as
a team. Not a single district administrator responded making any decisions on their own. And
all decisions seem to be made with the students at the center.
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Three
What resources do districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs?
In order for CTE programs to be developed, implemented, and supported, districts need
to allocate resources to them. Districts utilize a variety of funding resources to support these
programs, including grants, bonds, local control funding formula/local control accountability
plan funding. Some resources are not monetary, but instead they could be staff, equipment, etc.
all of which are also utilized to support these programs. This research question looks at the
resources that districts allocate to support CTE programs.
63

Quantitative Data
The statements provided to district administrators on the Likert scale survey related to
this research question were:
● In order to have an effective CTE program, financial resources must be allocated.
● In order to have an effective CTE program, resources must be invested in human capital.
● Students should learn using the same equipment and tools that are being used in the
industry.
● My district uses grant money to fund CTE programs.
● My district uses bond money to fund CTE programs.
● My district uses LCFF/LCAP funding to fund CTE programs.
● My district uses Perkins funds to fund CTE programs.
Table 5 shows the responses to these survey statements. All 27 of the district
administrators who responded to the survey agreed that in order to have an effective CTE
program, financial resources must be allocated. Of the 27 responses received, 11.1% agreed and
88.9% strongly agreed with this statement. When asked if resources must be invested in human
capital in order to have an effective CTE program, similar results were noted as 100% of the
district administrators who responded noted their agreement. Of the 27 responses received,
14.8% noted they agreed and 85.2% noted they strongly agreed with this statement. When posed
with the statement of whether students should learn using the same equipment and tools that are
being used in the industry, once again 100% of the respondents were in agreement; 22.2% agreed
and 77.8% strongly agreed. Being that 100% of the respondents were in agreement with these
three statements, it was evident that district administrators understand the need to allocate
64

financial resources, human capital, and industry level equipment in order to have effective CTE
programs.
In regards to funding sources that districts utilize for CTE programs, the results on the
type of funding sources utilized varied by district. While 96.3% of the district administrators
reported using grant money to fund CTE programs, only 40.7% reported using bond money.
This was interesting to note as it was evident that 59.3% of participating districts do not utilize
bond money to fund CTE programs. This was the only funding source presented in the Likert
scale survey that districts do not tend to utilize to fund CTE programs. Finally, when asked if
their district uses Perkins funds to fund CTE programs, 96.3% of participating agreed that these
funds are being utilized, with only 3.7% strongly disagreeing to using Perkins funds.
In regards to Local Control Funding Formula/Local Control Accountability Plan
(LCFF/LCAP), 85.2% of the participating districts agreed to using these monies to fund CTE
programs, leaving only 14.8% not using these monies. The fact that 14.8% of participating
districts are not utilizing this funding source is interesting as there is a 2.6% increase of the base
rate that district receives under LCFF/LCAP for high school students. This 2.6% adjustment
reflects the average amount spent per student on CTE or Regional Occupational Programs (ROP)
under the state’s old funding formula (Taylor, 2013). Therefore, it seems as if these districts are
not tapping into a funding source that can be utilized to further support CTE programs in their
district.
In analyzing the responses, it was evident that participating district administrators all see
the need to allocate financial resources to CTE programs in order for them to be effective. Two
areas that can be further explored are: why districts are choosing not to utilize bond money to
fund CTE programs and why districts are choosing not to utilize LCFF/LCAP monies to fund
65

CTE programs. Both of these funding sources can be useful in further developing,
implementing, and supporting CTE programs for school districts.

Table 5
Research Question Three Survey Responses

Survey Statement
Strongly
Disagree
%

Disagree
%

Agree
%

Strongly
Agree
%
In order to have an effective CTE
program, financial resources must be
allocated.
11.1 88.9
In order to have an effective CTE
program, resources must be invested in
human capital.
14.8 85.2
Students should learn using the same
equipment and tools that are being used in
the industry.
22.2 77.8
My district uses grant money to fund CTE
programs.
3.7 7.4 88.9
My district uses bond money to fund CTE
programs.
51.9 7.4 11.1 29.6
My district uses LCFF/LCAP funding to
fund CTE programs.
11.1 3.7 25.9 59.3
My district uses Perkins funds to fund
CTE programs.
3.7 3.7 92.6

Qualitative Data
The interview questions pertaining to research question three were:
● What types of resources do you allocate to support the development, implementation, and
support of CTE programs?
66

● What types of support do you provide school sites to facilitate the implementation and
sustainment of CTE programs?
● What funding sources have you used for CTE programs in your district?
In terms of what resources and support the district-level administrators provide school
sites to facilitate the implementation and sustainment of CTE programs, all of the district
administrators reported providing staff and financial support. District Administrators A and B
reported having led CTE administrators at each site who they met with regularly. District
Administrator C reported having district-level administrative, teaching, and clerical support that
school sites utilized to support CTE programs. District Administrator E reported,
we have a really unique position in our school district . . . we’ve hired . . . something
calling a P-21 Pathway Instructional Specialist. And there’s one at each site. And they
basically manage pathways in CTE for that specific site.

District Administrator E further added that part of the role of the P-21 Pathway Instructional
Specialist is to find ways for core teachers to work with CTE teachers so that there could be
further streamlined college- and career-readiness for students.
District Administrators A, B, and F reported having advisory groups consisting of
district-level administrators, CTE site administrative leads, and counselors. These administrative
teams meet regularly to discuss what is working, what needs to be improved, new ideas, and
funding. District Administrator F shared, “we come together and share information, share best
practice. We talk about issues, you know, what are we struggling with.” Additionally, both
administrators shared that it is important to have the right people in these meetings. District
Administrator A stated, “you gotta have people in the room who could make decisions and sign
checks” which is why key leaders from the district office are a part of these meetings.
67

District Administrator F shared that their school district has established an education
alliance which is a partnership with the city, the district, and other neighboring schools in the city
that are not part of the school district. She stated,
we really come together and talk about how to elevate and promote education . . . How do
we promote education? How do we promote Career Technical Education? How do we
promote higher education? We’re having these conversations . . . we get the right people
at the right time and the right place to be able to generate this conversation and then
move to a level where this takes life.

District Administrators A, B, and E also reported providing professional development to
school site staff to facilitate the implementation and sustainment of CTE programs.
Furthermore, District Administrators E and F reported providing resources, such as curriculum to
school sites. It is interesting to note that only District Administrators A and D reported
providing financial support to sustain CTE programs, although this is something they all clearly
do. District Administrator D noted, “sustainability is all going to be based on how much general
fund money are you spending on it? Is it a priority?”
District Administrator D also discussed supporting school sites by closely working on
credentialing so that the district has a wide range of individuals who are qualified to teach CTE
courses. Referencing his work on hiring staff that have CTE credentials and/or assisting in
getting them immediately into a program through the county office of education, he noted,
from a sustainability perspective, our programs don’t live and die on one person. Where
I’ve definitely seen that happen in the past . . . you might only have one culinary arts
teacher at your campus. That person moves away, you can’t find somebody, so you just
shut your program down. And leave kids hanging, you know, two thirds of the way
through a pathway . . . we won’t do that.

All six of the district administrators that were interviewed stated they allocate financial
resources to support the development, implementation, and support of CTE programs. They all
68

indicated utilizing LCFF/LCAP and grants as funding sources for these programs. District
Administrator D stated,
CTE has been a board goal. It’s listed right on our board goals next to academic
achievement in math, AP growth, A-G growth . . . number one on our priority list for our
district is the growth of college- and career-readiness and CTE . . . our money directly
aligns with our priorities. So, that’s what we spend our money on . . . if I had to throw a
number out there, I’d say for every $1 of grant funding that we receive, we spend $3 from
our general fund.

All of the districts interviewed utilized Perkins grants along with a wide variety of
different grants all centered around CTE programs. The Perkins Act of 2006 is a federal grant
that allocates over $1.5 billion dollars to states for CTE funding. States then disseminate these
funds to school districts who apply for the grant and meet the guidelines established under the
grant. District Administrator B stated, “really it’s grants and the way that we do our local control
funding formula.” Although each district reported utilizing a variety of grants, most mentioned
the Career Technical Education grant, or C-tag grant, as it is commonly referred to. District
Administrator C reported,
[the] district has been very supportive of our program, our base district allocation out of
our LCAP is approximately $4 million a year. On top of that, I aggressively go after
additional state and federal grants, monies . . . we’ve raised close to $10 million in the
last five years.

District Administrator D was the only one who reported utilizing bonds as a funding
source for CTE programs in their district. He stated,
We also have something very unique . . . where our community passed a 30-year
technology bond . . . and part of that is every five years, we gain $400,000 specifically for
CTE . . . we’ve always earmarked that for lane-changing opportunities, to keep the
programs up to industry standards . . . like we have a carbon fiber 3D printer at one of our
places. Well that’s insanely expensive . . . but, it is industry standard . . . so when our
kids take their internship at like, Boeing, they’re going to work with that piece of
technology . . . we want them to have that type of exposure so that it is not intimidating
when they get to a Boeing.

69

Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Four
What types of Career Technical Education programs have proven to be effective in
improving college- and career-readiness?
Career Technical Education has been designed to provide students with the academic,
technical, and employability/soft skills and knowledge needed in order to pursue postsecondary
training. As previously noted, in the past, vocational education was offered for students who
were looking to go into technical fields and did not provide those rigorous academic
opportunities needed for college and career. Students who participate in CTE programs will
enter postsecondary options prepared for ongoing learning as these programs include
academically rigorous, integrated, and sequential programs of study that are aligned and lead to
postsecondary education (Brand et al., 2013). Therefore, it is important to determine which
programs have been proven to be effective in improving college- and career-readiness for
students.
Quantitative Data
The statements provided to district administrators on the Likert scale survey related to
this research question were:
● Articulation with postsecondary institutions encourages students to take CTE courses.
● Industry partners are beneficial in the development, implementation, and support of CTE
programs.
● CTE programs in my district are articulated with postsecondary institutions.
● There are internship opportunities available to CTE students in my district.
When asked if CTE programs in their district are articulated with postsecondary
institutions, 88.8% of the responding district administrators reported that they were. In analyzing
70

the data, 44.4% agreed and 44.4% strongly agreed with this statement, while 11.1% disagreed
with this statement, with 7.4% disagreeing and 3.7% strongly disagreeing. Of the 27 district
administrators who participated in the survey, 85.2% reported that articulation with
postsecondary institutions encourages students to take CTE courses, with 25.9% reporting they
agreed and 59.3% reporting they strongly agreed with this statement.
When posed with the following statement, industry partners are beneficial in the
development, implementation, and support of CTE programs, 96.3% were in agreement, with
85.2% strongly agreeing, 11.1% agreeing, and 3.7% disagreeing. In regards to whether
internship opportunities were available to CTE students in their district, only 59.2% indicated
that there were. In analyzing the data, 33.3% agreed and 25.9% strongly agreed with this
statement, while 40.7% disagreed; 33.3% disagreed and 7.4% strongly disagreed. This is clearly
an area that some districts may need some assistance from industry partners in. An area of
further research could be how are internships with industry partners secured for students in CTE
programs.

Table 6
Research Question Four Survey Responses

Survey Statement
Strongly
Disagree
%

Disagree
%

Agree
%
Strongly
Agree
%
Articulation with postsecondary
institutions encourages students to take
CTE courses.
14.8 25.9 59.3
Industry partners are beneficial in the
development, implementation, and support
of CTE programs.
3.7 11.1 85.2

71

Table 6 (Cont’d.)

Survey Statement
Strongly
Disagree
%

Disagree
%

Agree
%
Strongly
Agree
%
CTE programs in my district are
articulated with postsecondary institutions.
3.7 7.4 44.4 44.4
There are internship opportunities
available in my district.
7.4 33.3 33.3 25.9

Qualitative Data
The interview questions that pertained to research question number four were:
● How do your CTE programs prepare students to be college- and career-ready?
● What types of CTE programs have proven to be effective in improving college- and
career-readiness?
● How do you determine if your programs are effective in preparing students for college
and career?
● Does your district have articulation agreements for CTE courses with post-secondary
institutions?
● How do industry partners support the development, implementation, and support of CTE
programs in your district?
The participating District Administrators all stated that their CTE programs prepare
students to be college- and career-ready as the courses in the pathways are designed to be A-G
approved, a part of a sequence of study, and focus not only on the technical and employability
aspect (career) but also provide the academic rigor (college). District Administrator E shared,
“within each pathway, we have both content-specific curriculum as well as soft skills or
72

employability skills embedded in the . . . outline of the course so that we’re meeting both of
those needs.”
District Administrator B stated,
It should be college AND career. If you choose not to go to college, that’s okay, but it’s
our job still to give you that opportunity. So when we write out pathways, we make sure
that as many courses as possible are A through G approved. So that way, kids when they
take a pathway not only are in a pathway but they’re also in a course to go to a four-year
university if they choose to do so . . . when we’re talking about careers we try to give
them all kinds of work-based learning experiences. For instance, in our pharmacy
pathway we want to make sure they’re certified before they get out, and so . . . we find
internships in the summertime. And that’s their kind of summer school . . . so work-
based learning aligned with . . . the way we assure that they’re UC/Cal State approved
courses.

When asked what types of CTE programs have proven to be effective in improving
college- and career-readiness, District Administrators B, C, D, and E all reported their
Engineering programs as being the most effective. District Administrator B stated,
I think those are really good for kids because we cover more kids, that’s a science that
goes along with the pathway. Or a math class that can be integrated in the pathway. And
I think those have worked out the best because of the way we’re able to integrate the
academia with the career component of a classroom setting.

District Administrator D shared,
Engineering is the slam dunk . . . we have the academy. So in terms of attacking our
gaps, the kid who’s not intimidated by engineering, is probably a kid who was going to
college anyway . . . but the students where it’s really made the biggest difference have
been in our academy locations, where you’re trying to aim intentionally at an
underrepresented group of people or females in engineering. And you’re specifically
saying, ‘we built this program in middle school, so that we can give everyone an
opportunity to explore this.’ And then you’re specifically saying, ‘this is for you.’ And
trying to set kids up for success and to have early wins in those areas . . . and that’s
maybe a little bit different, as we are open access. If you want to take a class, you can.

District Administrators A and F shared that they believed all of their CTE programs have
proven to be effective in improving college- and career-readiness. District Administrator A
expanded on this and stated, “I think all of them have and the reason is it connects kids to
73

schools. Kids that come to school that are connected, that are motivated to be there, generally do
better.” While District Administrator F shared,
I would say every single one . . . the ones that are most effective are the ones that are
starting to partner with our core subject teachers and starting those integrated projects.
Project-based learning that’s really giving more purpose to the science learning or to the
math learning or the English learning or the history learning, so people are understanding
that context and making that learning more relevant and applied. So I would say that
stand alone CTE courses do a great job, but they’re more powerful when we combine
them with our core teachers and start more project things and then make them school-
wide, not just, you know, a six-week project for this class or whatever, but something
that’s more like, impactful for the community or the school.

District Administrators B, C, and E also mentioned CTE programs in Computer Science
and/or Robotics as being effective. District Administrator B shared,
I also think our Computer Science and our Game Design classes because we know that
everybody’s going to have apps. Everything in the future. We’re going to look at cars
that drive themselves. Um, so those are now high demand courses, where in the past
maybe not so much . . . I think we’re going to see career tech ed change . . . when you’re
talking about technical, we’re talking about . . . what computers can do, what we can do
to help kids’ program to make sure they’re ready for the future.

When asked how it is determined if their programs are effective in preparing students for
college and career, most of the administrators did not have a clear answer, with some of them
being stumped with a response for a few minutes, while others such as District Administrators A
and E stating that “this was a very good question.” District Administrator A stated,
That’s a great question because . . . data has been a problem for us . . . we’re working
hard now at building a new data system . . . I’m pretty sure I can prove that the [student]
in CTE is performing at a higher level than the other student [who is not in CTE], for the
most part . . . You could pull out graduation rates . . . you could talk to kids and [conduct]
surveys. We get strong data back from students in surveys . . . you could talk to teachers
and we do that with surveys . . . for the most part, it’s just being out and about and
watching and talking to teachers, I get a sense that . . . CTE is very successful in
encouraging students to go onto college

74

District Administrators A, D, and F stated that they also look at graduation data. District
Administrator C seemed to have the most concrete way of determining the effectiveness in
preparing students for college and career. He stated that,
required by both Perkins and the State of California, all of our programs are evaluated.
As far as we track progress of where students are headed to, what their next steps are,
whether they found employment or not. All of those things are things we track on an
ongoing basis. Right now we’re identifying with new state requirements, which are
called the CCI, the College Career Indicators. These are a set of defined standards the
State of California has recognized, as preparing students for both college- and career-
readiness. And we use those well, as far as helping guide our decisions regarding our
pathways.

District Administrator F also discussed looking at the data that the district is required to
collect as part of receiving the Perkins grant as well as following their students six months or a
year later to collect data on what they are doing. Additionally, District Administrators D and F
also referred to utilizing data such as the college and career indicator that is part of the new
Dashboard accountability system for the state of California. District Administrator D shared,
Well now with the dashboard . . . the state’s measure of success is our measure of success
now . . . in the past, it was on completion, and we’ve always decorated kids. We’d let
them walk at graduation with a cord that was the color of, say they took three years worth
of culinary arts. Whatever the culinary color is, they got to wear that at graduation if they
completed those pathways, or certified in that level or in that particular band. Um, same
with all of our others. So now it’s going to be, how many kids that have locked in that
entry level have actually made it through the entire pathway? . . . then have taken an AP
course along with it, so they can show they’re college- and career-ready. How many
have certified within an area that they’ve specialized in?

District Administrator E shared that in her district, they started using pre- and post-tests,
pre-test when students start CTE programs and post-tests when they leave the program to
measure the effectiveness. However, she shared that those tests are only based around
employability skills/soft skills. Additionally, they have also started utilizing assessments to test
individual skills building, she shared,
75

So if you’re low in communication skills, then they’ll basically assess you at 30% in the
beginning of the year. And then the modules help you go much further in a more specific
way so that at the end of the year, you’ve got more like, 50 to 70% . . . we also have some
content-specific exams, they could be for the culinary industry or for business or
whatever. So you can also do that with the more specific-industry based skills for each
sector or pathway. We’ve started that, but we haven’t really been diving too deep into it.

Measuring the effectiveness in preparing students for college and career is an area that
can be explored further in future research. When interviewing district administrators, none of
them could provide a comprehensive way to collect data to measure this. Therefore, it is an area
of research worth exploring further.
In terms of whether their districts have articulation agreements for CTE courses with
postsecondary institutions, all six of the district administrators stated they did have these
agreements in place. District Administrator A had an interesting perspective about articulation
agreements, he stated,
Yeah we have articulation agreements and . . . the most important thing about an
articulation agreement is not a piece of paper . . . what’s more important is that the two
teachers get together and talk about their curriculum so that when kids leave, [they] don’t
fall into this valley. He crosses right over and feels comfortable. That’s more important
than a piece of paper, right? . . . The idea is the articulation agreement is a bridge that
they walk across to college . . . so that’s what we’ve worked towards, putting our people
together with the community college professors.

District Administrators A, B, D, and E indicated having agreements with multiple
postsecondary institutions. District Administrator D stated,
all of our different schools have multiple pathways that articulate with local community
colleges. Our teachers have done a significant amount of meetings over the past five
years with community college professors, especially at . . . the entry level . . . to make
sure our kids . . . can either skip that class or are feeding into it perfectly. Dual
enrollment is now the new articulation, I guess, of where you’re just flat out getting credit
while you’re in high school. And we’re making sure that we’re at the same rigor level,
and most of the time, we’ve aimed higher than what that at the entry level community
college course is. And we may have even more funding than what they have. So our
kids are getting their hands on higher end stuff, maybe, in the high school. It might even
be a step back to go to some of the community colleges, or even the four year college
programs at the beginning level.
76

When asked how industry partners support the development, implementation, and support
of CTE programs in their district, all of the district administrators had positive and supportive
statements about working with industry partners. District Administrator F shared,
they help with opening up their doors for tours, job shadowing, internships . . . and being
a resource to and for teachers . . . it has to be integrated . . . being able to have that kind
of a partnership where the teacher is able to share and then the industry provides input
and they’re able to modify . . . I think that’s real unique about CTE.

District Administrators A, B, C, D, and F all reported having CTE Advisory committees
with industry partners. District Administrator B shared that the CTE Advisory committees with
industry partners were a challenge at first, she stated,
the educators and the business people did not speak the same language . . . I was a
business teacher, so I could speak both languages. So I thought everybody could. Well,
[they] don’t. So I had to actually go in and work with our principals. Okay, so when
we’re talking to industry sector people . . . what is it that you want from them and how do
we bring it up? So it was a learning process for us to learn to connect because we just
don’t. We look at things differently . . . so we have business education round tables . . .
it’s been really helpful.

Additionally, District Administrators B and C stated that they are involved in the
Chamber of Commerce within their districts as the individuals who will eventually either provide
internships or jobs for students in their districts belong to this organization and, therefore, they
work hand-in-hand with them in the development of programs.
All of District Administrators reported having industry partners supporting CTE
programs by developing internships for students to participate in. Internships with industry
partners provide a wide variety of opportunities for students to get hands on experience in the
field that they are studying. Additionally, internships give students the cutting edge when
applying for jobs in the fields that they have interned in.
Furthermore, District Administrators C, D, and E shared that business partners also
provide monetary support for the development, implementation, and support of CTE programs.
77

An example of how industry partners can provide funding for CTE program was shared by
District Administrator E,
we have lab classes that are very career-centered and those career-centered lab classes,
they could in part serve as a pipeline for future jobs, for different industries . . . So one of
the ideas we’re trying to successfully negotiate right now is for a specific industry that
has an interest in kids learning some specific skill set, having them sponsor modules in
that lab.

District Administrator E, shared another example of how industry partners support CTE
programs; she stated
we’re actually in the process of developing this construction pathway with a number of
community members, including trade unions that are local and one of the things that the
trade unions have talked about, which is new, for us, is if we create an MOU
[memorandum of understanding] with the trade union for our district, then when
graduates from a program at our district, they will have priority placement within the
union for jobs . . . it creates a pipeline for them for future employees.

The information collected provided a clear view of just how valuable districts believe their
partnerships with industry partners are.
Summary and Discussion of Findings
This chapter presented an analysis of data collected from a mixed-methods study aimed
at exploring the role of district-level administrators in allocating resources and developing
effective Career Technical Education (CTE) programs. The study also analyzed the resources
that are allocated by the Local Education Agencies (LEA) to support the implementation of CTE
programs in order to improve college- and career-readiness. Quantitative data was collected
utilizing the results of an online Likert scale survey instrument and qualitative data was collected
via interviews with district-level administrators who oversaw CTE programs in their district.
District administrators in 56 districts throughout central and southern California were
contacted to participate in the online Likert-style survey. Of 56 district that were contacted, 29
responses were received. One of the respondents completed the survey twice and another
78

respondent indicated that they were not involved with CTE programs. Therefore, these two
responses were omitted from the data analysis. Altogether, of the 56 surveys sent, 29 were
returned, 2 were omitted, resulting in a 48.2% response rate. Additionally, a total of six district-
level administrators who oversaw CTE programs in their district were interviewed.
The analysis was divided into four sections according to the four guiding research
questions. The first section analyzed the role of district administrators in developing CTE
programs to support college- and career-readiness. The next section analyzed which CTE
programs districts have supported for implementation. The third section analyzed the resources
that districts have allocated to support CTE programs. And the last section analyzed the types of
CTE programs that have proven to be effective in improving college- and career-readiness.
The data clearly indicated that the role of the district administrators is to oversee the
development of CTE programs including career pathways, and to provide school sites and
teachers with the necessary funding and resources for implementation and sustainment. District
administrators must also work with the human resources department to hire staff as well as
ensure that teachers are appropriately credentialed and trained to educate and support students in
developing college- and career-readiness. Finally, district administrators are the ones who
oversee the writing of grants, grant compliance, and ensuring that funds are appropriately
distributed to school sites for CTE programs.
The data also showed that each district offered a wide range of career pathways and that
many districts make CTE programs available to their middle-school students as well. District
administrators indicated making decisions regarding the selection of CTE programs based on the
job market, projected needs, student interest, and teacher capacity. The data showed that when
having to decide where to develop CTE programs, district administrators often look at available
79

school site facilities and school site administrators’ feedback regarding what programs they
might want to have on their school campus. Other factors that contribute to deciding where to
develop programs are student interest and teacher capacity at the individual sites. The data
further showed that the majority of the school sites have articulation agreements with
postsecondary institutions. And all of the districts who participated in the interview had
successful partnerships with the industry sector which have resulted in funding and internships
for students.
The data also indicated districts must allocate resources to support CTE programs. Some
of the resources that district-level administrators allocate to school sites to support CTE
programs are financial resources as well as staffing resources. Various different types of staff,
such as administrative, teaching, and/or clerical staff is often allocated to support CTE programs.
District administrators also reported providing professional development to school-site staff as
well as advisory groups which may include industry partners, district-level administrators,
school-site administrators, counselors, and teachers who assist in supporting CTE programs.
Finally, the data further indicated that although district administrators believe that CTE
programs are effective in improving college- and career-readiness, this has been a challenge to
measure. Districts are hopeful that the data being collected for the college- and career-indicator
that is part of California’s new accountability system, the Dashboard, will assist them in
determining the effectiveness of their CTE programs in terms of college- and career-readiness.
Each district was utilizing a different way to measure the effectiveness, yet they did not appear to
have a concrete or comprehensive way of truly measuring the effectiveness of CTE programs.
Furthermore, most district administrators reported engineering programs as being the most
effective as they are preparing students for careers with futuristic demands.
80

These findings were presented in both narrative and table form. Chapter Five follows
with a summary of findings including implications, limitations, and conclusions.

81

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
College- and career-readiness is a vital part of public education throughout the United
States in today’s society (Kendall, 2011). This shift in education came about with the enactment
of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010. Prior to the implementation of CCSS,
postsecondary institutions as well as the industry sector reported that high school graduates were
not leaving high schools with the necessary skills to be successful in higher education institutions
or careers (Kendall, 2011). CCSS put a clear emphasis on graduating students that were both
college- and career-ready. Therefore, secondary institutions have shifted the way they educate
students and further developed their educational programs to ensure that they focus on the
academic, technical, and employability/soft skills that are needed to be considered college- and
career-ready.
As a response to the need to further develop college- and career-readiness in students,
many districts have placed their efforts in further expanding and/or developing their Career
Technical Education (CTE) programs. Although districts might have had vocational programs in
place, those programs lacked the academic rigor that was necessary for college preparatory
coursework (Meeder, 2016). Additionally, most of these programs also did not include the
employability/soft skills that are essential for success in postsecondary options, in both college
and career (Meeder, 2016). The hope is that students participating in CTE courses will enter
their chosen fields prepared for ongoing learning as CTE includes academically rigorous,
integrated, and sequenced programs of study that align with and lead to postsecondary education
(Brand et al., 2013).
The research indicated that it is imperative that district-level administrators who play a
role in the development of CTE programs, such as Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents,
82

Executive Directors, Directors, and Coordinators, work with their Local Education Agencies
(LEA) to allocate resources to further develop and evaluate their CTE programs in order to
ensure that they are preparing students for college- and career-readiness. The introduction of the
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provided districts in California with greater discretion in
how they allocate their resources. While funding must fall into one of eight categories and align
with the LEA’s Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), districts do have the flexibility to
develop programs geared to meet the specific needs of their district and student population,
which for most if not all districts, can be college- and career-readiness (Taylor, 2013).
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to examine the role of district administrators in allocating resources
and developing effective CTE programs. This study also analyzed the resources allocated by
districts to support the implementation of CTE programs to improve college- and career-
readiness. Convenience/purposeful sampling was used for the study. The study was conducted
using a mixed-methods approach including qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative
information was collected through interviews and quantitative data was comprised of a Likert-
style survey.
Research Questions
This study focused on the following research questions:
1. What is the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical Education
programs to support college- and career-readiness?
2. What Career Technical Education programs have districts supported for implementation?
3. What resources do districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs?
83

4. What types of Career Technical Education programs have proven to be effective in
improving college- and career-readiness?
Methodology
This study was conducted utilizing a mixed-method approach. Quantitative data was
obtained utilizing an online Likert-style survey that consisted of statements related to the
allocation of resources for CTE programs. These surveys were sent to district-level
administrators in 56 districts throughout central and southern California who offer CTE
programs and receive Perkins grant money.
At the end of the quantitative Likert-style survey, participants were asked if they would
like to participate in a 30-minute follow-up interview. A total of 21 respondents stated that they
were willing to participate in an interview. Six district-level administrators, including an
Assistant Superintendent, four Directors, and a Coordinator, were selected to be interviewed
using convenience sampling. The data that was collected from those six interviews formed the
qualitative portion of the research. Interview participants were asked a series of questions in
order to acquire more in-depth data regarding the allocation of resources for CTE programs in
their districts. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for data analysis purposes and
interviewees were advised that their responses would be kept confidential and anonymous.
Sample Population
District-level administrators, including Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents,
Executive Directors, Directors, and Coordinators, who make decisions about the allocation of
resources for CTE programs in 56 districts across central and southern California were
considered for participation in this study. The researcher focused on administrators in districts
that offered secondary instruction, had CTE programs in place, and received Perkins grant
84

money. Participating district administrators were employed by districts that ranged in size,
location, and student demographics.
Data Collection
An email with an introduction to the study along with an invitation to participate in the
study was sent to the previously identified district-level administrators who play a role in the
development, implementation, and sustainment of CTE programs in their district. Within the
email, there was a link to an online Likert-scale survey. The quantitative data was derived from
the information shared on the online Likert-scale survey. The qualitative data was collected
through interviews with survey participants who indicated their willingness to participate in a 30-
minute follow-up interview. There were a total of 21 respondents that were willing to
participate in a 30-minute interview. Interview participants were selected using convenience
sampling. Convenience sampling is a non-probability sample in which respondents are chosen
based on their convenience and availability (Creswell, 2014). Convenience sampling was chosen
due to the availability of respondents who had indicated their willingness to participate in an
interview.
Summary of Findings
The key findings were based on the analysis of the data provided in Chapter Four. In
regards to the first research question, what is the role of district administrators in developing
Career Technical Education programs to support college- and career-readiness, it was clear from
the data collected via the online Likert-scale survey as well as the interviews with participating
district-level administrators, including Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Executive
Director, Directors, and Coordinators, that district-level administrators:
85

1. Believe Career Technical Education (CTE) programs are effective in preparing students
to be college- and career-ready.
2. Find it important to be knowledgeable about CTE standards.
3. Believe it is important to make data driven decisions regarding CTE program
development.
4. Oversee the development of CTE programs and career pathways.
5. Complete grant applications and oversee grant funding.
6. Support school site staff with the development, implementation, and sustainment of CTE
programs.
7. Assist in the hiring process of CTE teachers, in a variety of ways, including recruiting,
supporting credentialing, and interviewing applicants.
The data clearly demonstrated the importance that district-level administrators place on
CTE programs in their districts. It is evident that the role of district-level administrators is
critical in developing CTE programs to support college- and career-readiness.
In regards to research question number two, what Career Technical Education programs
have districts supported for implementation, the data revealed the following:
1. Districts have articulation agreements with multiple postsecondary institutions.
2. Industry partners are beneficial in the development, implementation, and support of CTE
programs.
3. There is a wide variety of career pathways offered in each district.
4. Some districts have expanded their CTE programs to the middle school level.
5. A key factor in selecting which CTE programs to develop in districts is based on the job
market and projected needs.
86

6. Employment Development Department data is utilized to make projections on the future
needs of the workforce and to determine what programs to put in place.
7. Students are provided with choices when it comes to CTE programs.
8. Student interest and teacher capacity are other factors in determining why programs are
selected
9. Availability of facilities and input from school-site administrators are used to determine
at which schools programs will be developed.
Common trends were seen throughout the findings. District-level administrators were in
agreement about the importance of having articulation agreements with postsecondary
institutions. Although decisions are made utilizing different criteria in order to support the
implementation of CTE programs in school districts, it was clear to this researcher that all
districts made decisions as a team. Also, all decisions seem to be made with the students at the
center.
In terms of the third research question, what resources do districts allocate to support
Career Technical Education programs, the findings revealed that:
1. All district-level administrators believe that in order to have an effective CTE program,
financial resources must be allocated.
2. All district-level administrators believe that resources must be invested in human capital.
3. Unanimously all participants believe that students should learn using the same equipment
and tools that are being used in the industry sector.
4. School districts use a variety of funding resources, such as grant money, including
Perkins funds, and LCFF/LCAP funding to fund CTE programs.
5. Less than half of the participating districts use bond money to fund CTE programs.
87

6. District-level administrators provide school sites with staffing and financial support in
order to facilitate the implementation and sustainment of CTE programs. Staffing
resources include clerical, administrative, and teaching staff, while financial resources
can include professional development, equipment, curriculum, and facilities.
7. Districts rely on CTE advisory groups to make decisions about what is working, what
needs to be improved, new ideas, and funding resources.
8. District-level administrators also work with Human Resources to assist with credentialing
of CTE teachers.
The data clearly shows that district-level administrators play a significant role in the
allocation of resources to support CTE programs. These resources are provided in a variety of
ways, such as, but not limited to, staffing, equipment, and financial resources.
In regards to the fourth research question, what types of Career Technical Education
programs have proven to be effective in improving college- and career-readiness, the researcher
found that:
1. CTE programs prepare students to be college- and career-ready as the courses in the
pathways are designed to be A-G approved, a part of a sequence of study, and focus not
only on the technical and employability aspect (career) but also provide the academic
rigor (college).
2. Industry partners are essential in the development, implementation, and support of CTE
programs. Industry partners play a critical role in CTE programs by providing internship
opportunities for students allowing them to gain that hands-on experience that they
cannot gain at school.
88

3. Articulation with postsecondary institutions encourages students to take CTE courses as
it is a way to help build that bridge between secondary and postsecondary institutions.
These agreements get instructors and leaders from secondary and postsecondary
institutions talking and working together on how to best prepare students for
postsecondary options.
4. Engineering, robotics, and computer science programs seem to be the most effective CTE
programs as they focus on what the future job market will be looking for.
5. There is not one clear and concrete way to measure and analyze the effectiveness of CTE
programs. Methods of measuring the effectiveness of CTE programs is clearly an area
that needs to be further researched.
6. CTE advisory groups that include industry partners are essential as these partners provide
critical input as to the needs of the job market.
Measuring the effectiveness in preparing students for college and career is an area that is
challenging for school districts. There is a clear need to develop some way to measure and
analyze the effectiveness of CTE programs in preparing students to be college- and career-ready.
Implications for Practice
The findings associated with this study contribute to the body of scholarly literature by
identifying factors that district-level administrators, including Superintendents, Assistant
Superintendents, Executive Directors, Director, and Coordinators, need to consider when making
decisions regarding how to allocate resources for CTE programs. The insights herein provide a
framework for understanding how other district-level administrators have successfully managed
to allocate a variety of sources to support, implement, and sustain CTE programs. The insights
gained from this study can also be beneficial to current or aspiring district-level administrators
89

embarking on ensuring that their CTE programs are effective and prepare students in becoming
college- and career-ready.
Although successful models of how to allocate resources may be difficult to duplicate
due to the varying needs of individual districts, this study suggests that district-level
administrators must be creative in findings ways to allocate financial, staffing, and technical
support in the development, implementation, and sustainment of CTE programs. This study also
provides useful information regarding a wide variety of ways to find funding sources to support
CTE programs. The identification of common and effective strategies can provide guidance to
current and aspiring district-level administrators as they consider how to fund and support CTE
programs when districts might not have enough funding available that is associated with these
programs. In addition, the findings can also be used by school districts to help increase
awareness of what effective CTE programs look like and the importance of articulation
agreements and partnerships with the industry sector in preparing students for postsecondary
options (college and career).
Current or aspiring district-level administrators can also use this information to develop
concrete ways to measure the effectiveness of CTE programs in preparing students to be college-
and career-ready. As California’s new accountability system, the Dashboard, now includes a
College and Career Indicator, it is going to be vital for school districts to monitor CTE programs
to ensure that they are meeting the targets according to the target set by the state.
Limitations
There were several limitations to the current study. The first limitation has to do with the
ability to gain access to district-level administrators in order to collect data for the study. Of the
56 districts that were contacted for the study, only 29 responses were received on the survey. It
90

is important to note that one of the respondents completed the survey twice and another
respondent indicated that they were not involved with CTE programs. Therefore, these two
responses were omitted from the data analysis. Altogether, of the 56 surveys sent, 29 were
returned, 2 were omitted, which resulted in a 48.2% response rate. District-level administrators
might not have had the time due to their hectic work schedules to respond to the survey and/or
were unwilling to participate. Of those 27 district administrators who responded, there were 21
respondents that were willing to participate in a 30-minute interview. It was challenging to
coordinate interviews with district-level administrators due to their hectic work schedules.
Another limitation is that the 56 districts that were invited to participate in the study were
all from southern California. Therefore, the findings of the study may not necessarily be
applicable to other geographical areas. For example, although CTE exists throughout the United
States, the Local Control Funding Formula and Local Control Accountability Plan are unique to
California; therefore, this is not a resource that districts outside of the California can utilize to
allocate funding for CTE programs. Limitations also had to do with the time allotted to complete
the study. If there was a longer time frame to collect data, then a larger sampling could have
possibly been obtained and, therefore, the findings might have been more significant.
Future Research
In order to further expand on the findings of this study, the researcher recommends that
the following be considered for future research:
1. Expand the study to include districts throughout the United States that have CTE
programs in place in order to generalize the findings of the study to programs outside of
southern California.
91

2. Further research on how to concretely measure the effectiveness of CTE programs is
needed. While conducting the study, it was evident that this was an area of need for
districts. Since districts are allocating so many resources to these programs, it is vital to
find a way to measure their effectiveness on preparing students to be college- and career-
ready.
3. Further research on the impact that postsecondary institutions and the industry sector
have noted in regards to the success of students in postsecondary options (college and
career) who have participated in CTE programs and Career Pathways while in the K-12
public school system. This research can provide more clarity as to which programs are
more effective, what areas are working, and what areas need improvement.
4. Expand the research to include CTE teachers and industry partners. CTE teachers can
provide valuable insight into which resources they receive from district-level
administrators to support their work with CTE programs in preparing students to be
college- and career-ready. Industry partners can provide insightful information as to the
types of resources that they can and are willing to provide to school districts in order to
assist them in developing, implementing, and sustaining CTE programs.
Conclusion
This study adds to the existing body of literature related to Career Technical Education
programs and their use in improving college- and career-readiness in students. The research
findings in this study are consistent with previously published findings on Career Technical
Education and college- and career-readiness. These research findings can be utilized by school
districts to improve student outcomes in terms of college- and career-readiness. Furthermore,
92

aspiring and/or current district-level administrators seeking to expand, develop, implement,
and/or sustain Career Technical Education programs can make use of the findings of this study.

93

References
Achieve, Inc. (2011). Closing the expectations gap. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.
org/files/AchieveClosingtheExpectationsGap2011.pdf
Affeldt, J. T. (2015). New accountability in California through local control funding reforms:
The promise and the gaps. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(23), 1-20.
An, B. P. (2013a). The impact of dual enrollment on college degree attainment: Do low-SES
students benefit?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 57-75.
An, B. P. (2013b). The influence of dual enrollment on academic performance and college
readiness: Differences by socioeconomic status. Research in Higher Education, 54(4),
407-432.
Bae, S., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Recognizing college- and career-readiness in the
California school accountability system. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education.
Bangser, M. (2008). Preparing high school students for successful transitions to postsecondary
education and employment. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: National High School Center.
Barnes, W., Slate, J. R., & Rojas-LeBouef, A. (2010). College-readiness and academic
preparedness: The same concepts? Current Issues in Education, 13(4).
Bell, T. H. (1993). Reflections one decade after a nation at risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(8), 592.
Betts, J. R., Young, S. M., Zau, A. C., & Bachofer, K. V. (2016). College prep for all, Part II:
Will San Diego students meet challenging new graduation requirements. Retrieved from
https://sandera.ucsd.edu/research-and-publications/College%20Prep%20Part%20II.pdf
Bloom, T. (2010). College- and career-readiness: A systemic P-20 response. Arlington, VA:
Naviance.
94

Brand, B., Valent, A., & Browning, A. (2013). How career and technical education can help
students be college- and career-ready: A primer. Washington, DC: College- and career-
Readiness and Success Center at American Institutes for Research.
Bush, G. W. (2001). No child left behind. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/
intro/execsumm.pdf
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Career technical education. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct
California Department of Education, CDE. (2010). Multiple pathways to student success:
Envisioning the new California high school. Retrieved from
https://www.wested.org/resources/multiple-pathways-to-student-success/
California Department of Education, CDE. (2013). California career technical education model
curriculum standards. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/documents/
ctestdfrontpages.pdf
California Department of Education, CDE. (2015a). LCFF frequently asked questions. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp
California Department of Education, CDE. (2015b). Local control funding formula overview.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California Department of Education, CDE. (2016a). State priority related resources. Retrieved
from www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/statepriorityresources.asp
California Department of Education, CDE. (2016b). 12th grade graduates completing all courses
required for U.C. and/or C.S.U. entrance. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
stgradnum.asp?cChoice=StGrdEth2&cYear=1993- 94&ProgramName=All&cTopic=
Graduates&cLevel=State&myTimeFrame=S
95

California Department of Education, CDE. (2016c). Common core state standards. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
California Department of Education, CDE. (2017). Career technical education model curriculum
standards. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/ctemcstandards.asp
California Legislative Information. (2017). California education code. Retrieved from
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=51228&l
awCode=EDC
California Teacher’s Association. (2017). Local Control Funding Formula Q &A. Retrieved
from http://www.cta.org/en/Issues-and-Action/School-Funding/Local-Control-Funding-
Formula/LCFF-Q-and-A.aspx
Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M. W., Usdan, M. D., & Venezia, A. (2006). Claiming
common ground: State policymaking for improving college readiness and success.
(National Center Report No. 06-1). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education.
Carl D. Perkins CTE Improvement Act of 2006. (2006). Public Law 109-270 to amend the Carl
D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 to improve the Act.
Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ270/PLAW-109publ270.pdf
Castellano, M. E., Richardson, G. B., Sundell, K., & Stone, J. R. (2015). Preparing students for
college- and career-in the United States: The effects of career-themed programs of study
on high school performance. Vocations and Learning, 1-24.
Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., & Stone, J. R., III. (2003). Secondary career and technical
education and comprehensive school reform: Implications for research and practice.
Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 231-272.
96

Conley, D. T. (2012). A complete definition of college- and career-readiness. Educational Policy
Improvement Center (NJ1).
Conley, D. T. (2014, spring). New conceptions of college- and career-ready: A profile approach
to admission. Journal of College Admission, (223).
Conley, D. T., & McGaughy, C. (2012). College- and career-readiness: Same or different.
Educational Leadership, 69(7), 28-34.
Conley, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzalez, A., Rooseboom, J., & Stout, O. (2011). Reaching
the goal: The applicability and importance of the common core state standards to
college- and career-readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center
(NJ1). Retrieved from http://www.ccrscenter.org/products-resources/resource-
database/reaching-goal-applicability-and-importance-common-core-state
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college- and
career-readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
22(86). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n86.2014
DiBenedetto, C. A., & Myers, B. E. (2016). A conceptual model for the study of student
readiness in the 21st century. NACTA Journal, 60(1a), 28-35.
97

Friedel, J. N. (2011). Where has vocational education gone? The impact of federal legislation on
the expectations, design, and function of vocational education as reflected in the
reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins career and technical education act of 2006.
American Educational History Journal, 38(1/2), 37.
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: The National Commission on
Excellence in Education, US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://teacher
tenure.procon.org/sourcefiles/a-nation-at-risk-tenure-april-1983.pdf
Hill, L., Warren, P., Murphy, P., Ugo, I., & Pathak, A. (2016). Special education finance in
California. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from: www.ppic.org/
content/pubs/report/R_1116LHR.pdf
Karp, M. M., & Hughes, K. L. (2008). Study: Dual enrollment can benefit a broad range of
students. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers (J1), 83(7), 14-17.
Kazis R. (2005). Remaking career and technical education for the 21st century: What role for
the high school programs. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Kendall, J. S. (2011). Understanding common core state standards. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
King, S. B., & West, D. (2009). Statewide articulation agreements between high schools and
community college career and technical programs. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 33(6), 527-532.
Koppich, J. E., Humphrey, D. C., & Marsh, J. A. (2015). Two years of California's local control
funding formula: Time to reaffirm the grand vision. Policy. Stanford, CA: Policy
Analysis for California Education, PACE.
Kozma, R. (2008). 21st century skills, education and competitiveness. Tucson, AZ: Partnership
for 21st Century Skills.
98

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational
goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.
Loera, G., Nakamoto, J., Oh, Y. J., & Rueda, R. (2013). Factors that promote motivation and
academic engagement in a career technical education context. Career and Technical
Education Research, 38(3), 173-190.
Lombardi, A., Seburn, M., & Conley, D. (2011). Development and initial validation of a measure
of academic behaviors associated with college- and career-readiness. Journal of Career
Assessment, 19(4), 375-391.
Meeder, H. (2016). The power and promise of pathways. Columbia, MD: National Center for
College- and career-Transitions.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Moore, G. W., Slate, J. R., Edmonson, S. L., Combs, J. P., Bustamante, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A.
J. (2010). High school students and their lack of preparedness for college: A statewide
study. Education and Urban Society, 42(7), 817-838.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). Public law 107-110: An Act to close the achievement gap
with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Perkins IV/CTEA. (2006). Basic definitions: Career & technical education act of 2006 (Perkins
IV) guidelines. Retrieved from http://department.sunysuffolk.edu/DeptDocs/Officeof
GrantsDevelopment_Docs/PerkinsIVBasicDefinitions.pdf
99

Pittman, K. J. (2010). College- and career-readiness. School Administrator, 67(6), 10-14.
Quintero, C. (2018). The role of district administrators in developing career technical education
programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Regents of the University of California. (2015). A-G subject requirements. Retrieved from
http://www.ucop.edu/agguide/a-g-requirements/
Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for urban
high schools. The Future of Children, 19(1), 185-210.
Schwartz, R. B., Keppel, F., & Symonds, W. C. (2012). Pathways to prosperity project: Meeting
the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Retrieved from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-impact/tag/pathways-to-prosperity
Soulé, H., & Warrick, T. (2015). Defining 21st century readiness for all students: What we know
and how to get there. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 178-186.
Taylor, M. (2013). Updated: An overview of the local control funding formula. Legislative
Analyst’s Office. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-
072913.pdf
Threeton, M. D. (2007). The Carl D. Perkins career and technical education (CTE) act of 2006
and the roles and responsibilities of CTE teachers and faculty members. Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, 44(1), 66-82.
Tyner, A. (2018). The role of superintendents and district administrators in developing career
technical education programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California.
100

U. S. Department of Education. (2010). Application for grants under the investing in innovation
funds (i3) grant program. Washington, DC: Author.
Wonacott, M. E. (2003). History and evolution of vocational and career-technical education. A
compilation. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482359.pdf

101

Appendix A: Alignment of Survey and Interview Questions
to Research Questions

Research Question 1:
What is the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical Education
programs to support college- and career-readiness?
Aligned Survey Statements:

1. CTE programs are effective in preparing students to be college- and career-ready.

2. It is important to be knowledgeable about CTE standards.

3. It is important to make data driven decisions regarding CTE program development.

Aligned Interview Questions:

8. What role do you play in the development of Career Technical Education programs?

16. Who is involved in the hiring process for CTE teachers in your district?

Research Question 2:
What Career Technical Education programs have
districts supported for implementation?
Aligned Survey Statements:

8. Industry partners are beneficial in the development, implementation, and support of
CTE programs.

9. CTE programs in my district are articulated with postsecondary institutions.

Aligned Survey Statements:

9. What CTE programs does your district offer?

10. How were those CTE programs selected?

17. In a district with multiple schools, how do you decide which CTE programs to
develop where?

102

Research Question 3:
What resources do districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs?
Aligned Survey Statements:

4. In order to have an effective CTE program, financial resources must be allocated.

5. In order to have an effective CTE program, resources must be invested in human
capital.

6. Students should learn using the same equipment and tools that are being used in the
industry.

11. My district uses grant money to fund CTE programs.

12. My district uses bond money to fund CTE programs.

13. My district uses LCFF/LCAP funding to fund CTE programs.

14. My district uses Perkins funds to fund CTE programs.

Aligned Interview Questions:

14. What types of resources do you allocate to support the development,
implementation, and support of CTE programs?

18. What funding sources have you used for CTE programs in your district?

Research Question 4: What types of Career Technical Education programs have proven
to be effective in improving college and career readiness?
Aligned Survey Statements:

7. Articulation with postsecondary institutions encourages students to take CTE
courses.

8. Industry partners are beneficial in the development, implementation, and support of
CTE programs.

9. CTE programs in my district are articulated with postsecondary institutions.

10. There are internship opportunities available to CTE students in my district.

103

Aligned Interview Questions:

11. How do your CTE programs prepare students to be college and career ready?

12. What types of CTE programs have proven to be effective in improving college and career
readiness?

13. How do you determine if your programs are effective in preparing students for college and
career?

19. Does your district have articulation agreements for CTE courses with postsecondary
institutions?

20. How do industry partners support the development, implementation, and support of CTE
programs in your district.

104

Appendix B: Participant Letter

105

Appendix C: Survey Questions for District Administrators (Quantitative)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following:
(1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Agree 4=Strongly Agree)

1) I am involved in the development of Career Technical Education programs.
1 2 3 4
2) CTE programs are effective in preparing students to be college and career ready.
1 2 3 4
3) It is important to be knowledgeable about CTE standards.
1 2 3 4
4) It is important to make data driven decisions regarding CTE program development.
1 2 3 4
5) In order to have an effective CTE program, financial resources must be allocated.
1 2 3 4
6) In order to have an effective CTE program, resources must be invested in human capital.
1 2 3 4
7) Students should learn using the same equipment and tools that are being used in the
industry.
1 2 3 4
8) Articulation with postsecondary institutions encourages students to take CTE courses.
1 2 3 4
9) Industry partners are beneficial in the development, implementation and support of CTE
programs.
1 2 3 4
10) CTE programs in my district are articulated with postsecondary institutions.
1 2 3 4
11) There are internship opportunities available to CTE students in my district.
1 2 3 4
12) My district uses grant money to fund CTE programs.
1 2 3 4
13) My district uses bond money to fund CTE programs.
1 2 3 4
14) My district uses LCFF/LCAP funding to fund CTE programs.
1 2 3 4
15) My district uses Perkins funds to fund CTE programs.
1 2 3 4

106

Appendix D: Interview Questions for District Administrators (Qualitative)

1. What is your age?
2. What is the highest education level you have completed?
3. How many years have you worked in education?
4. How many years have you worked in CTE or Vocational Education?
5. What did you teach before going into administration?
6. What school district are you employed by?
7. What is your job title?
8. What role do you play in the development of Career Technical Education programs?
9. What CTE programs does your district offer?
10. How were those CTE programs selected?
11. How do your CTE programs prepare students to be college and career ready?
12. What types of CTE programs have proven to be effective in improving college and career
readiness?
13. How do you determine if your programs are effective in preparing students for college
and career?
14. What types of resources do you allocate to support the development, implementation and
support of CTE programs?
15. What types of support do you provide school sites to facilitate the implementation and
sustainment of CTE programs?
16. Who is involved in the hiring process for CTE teachers in your district?
17. In a district with multiple schools, how do you decide which CTE programs to develop
where?
18. What funding sources have you used for CTE programs in your district?
19. Does your district have articulation agreements for CTE courses with post-secondary
institutions?
20. How do industry partners support the development, implementation and support of CTE
programs in your district?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study to examine the role of district-level administrators, including Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Executive Directors, Directors, and Coordinators in allocating resources and developing effective Career Technical Education programs to improve college- and career-readiness. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, the study focused on the following research questions: 1) what is the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical Education programs to support college- and career-readiness, 2) what Career Technical Education programs have districts supported for implementation, 3) what resources do districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs, and 4) what types of Career Technical Education programs have proven to be effective in improving college-and career-readiness. Data was collected via a quantitative survey of 27 district-level administrators and six qualitative interviews of district-level administrators. The study’s findings clearly shows that district-level administrators play a significant role in the allocation of resources to support CTE programs. These resources are provided in a variety of ways such as, but not limited to, staffing, equipment, and financial resources. District-level administrators were in agreement about the importance of having articulation agreements with postsecondary institutions. Measuring the effectiveness in preparing students for college and career is an area that is challenging for school districts. There is a clear need to develop some type of way to measure and analyze the effectiveness of CTE programs in preparing students to be college- and career-ready. The insights gained from this study can be beneficial to current or aspiring district-level administrators embarking on ensuring that their CTE programs are effective and prepare students in becoming college- and career-ready.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The role of leadership in creating guided pathways for career technical education

PDF

Assessing college and career readiness through the Senior Project program

PDF

College-educated immigrants' experiences in adult education career technical education programs

PDF

Ready or not? Unprepared for community college mathematics: an exploration into the impact remedial mathematics has on preparation, persistence and educational goal attainment for first-time Cali...

PDF

Pivotal positions, critical experiences, and preparation programs in the career paths of superintendents

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents

PDF

The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

The influence spouses have on superintendents in Los Angeles County school districts

PDF

Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

College and career readiness through high school STEM programs: an evaluation study

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

Asset Metadata

Creator Helguera, Mayra Judith (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/23/2018

Defense Date 01/29/2018

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

Tag career technical education,college and career readiness,CTE,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email mbardale@usc.edu,myhelguera@yahoo.om

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-29212

Unique identifier UC11671935

Identifier etd-HelgueraMa-6445.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-29212 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HelgueraMa-6445.pdf

Dmrecord 29212

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Helguera, Mayra Judith

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