Improving Education Using Policy

Policies are instrumental in improving education for all students. In an era of educational accountability, educational leaders must familiarize themselves with the formation and implementation of educational policies. Definitions regarding policy vary; however, a practical view is a process where requirements, intentions and objectives, transform into an arrangement of goals, programs, and policies which have an effect on funding, procedures, and outcomes, which form the foundation for assessment, improvement, and new policies. Policies in education are significant both as a method to attain decisions and as an outline for implementing and constructing a plan of action (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). The following treatise presents an analysis and evaluation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. This treatise will include various elements pertaining to the evaluation process including when the policy should be evaluated, how the policy should be evaluated, who should be responsible for carrying out the studies, and who should control the process, and the end results of the evaluation. In addition, this treatise will include who benefits from the policy evaluation, ethical and social concerns, and financial litigation that have affected the policy and its development.

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (Perkins) was signed into law in 1984. The Perkins Act was reauthorized in 1998 and again in 2006. The Perkins Act directs the disbursement of approximately $1.3 billion annually in federal funds to state and local work-related classes, programs, and training (Cavanagh, 2006). This policy supports career and technical education to prepare students for postsecondary education or a specific career. The Perkins Act provides funds for secondary and post-secondary vocational and technical programs that provide individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills to flourish in a knowledge and skills-based economy (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2007).

The intention of the Perkins Act is to enhance the academic and occupational qualifications of vocational students, accentuating special populations. The special populations stipulation refers to students with disabilities and students who maintain a disadvantage either academically or economically (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2007). The reauthorized Perkins includes requirements for a program of study that relates academic and technical content across secondary and postsecondary education, and strengthened local accountability provisions that will establish continual program improvement (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2007). Perkins tends to have an influence on program improvements but does not encourage improvement in all areas. The majority of improvement efforts include increasing standards in courses, improving integration, intensifying relations with employers and postsecondary institutions, and constructing technology-related improvements (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

Federal funds are the primary source for innovation and program improvement, and facilitate state support through a provision in the federal law. The Perkins Basic State Grant provides funding to states, then states allocate funds to secondary school districts and postsecondary educational institutions. States manage the distribution of funds between secondary and postsecondary levels. Accordingly, states grant agencies have an obligation to allocate at least 85% of the Basic State Grant funds to local programs to disadvantaged schools and students. The remainder of funds can be used for leadership activities and administrative activities. Concomitantly, states also obtain a Tech Prep grant to either add to the Basic State Grant funds or provide grants to educational institutions. (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2007).

Aligning with federal legislation concerning accountability, the reauthorized Perkins Act considers accountability for both K-12 and higher education. At the high school level, policymakers relate program effectiveness to performance on exams under the No Child Left Behind Act (Dervarics, 2006). According to Hyslop, (as cited in Dervarics, 2006) this relationship is expected to warrant collaboration among academic and career and technical education. In community colleges, policymakers measure success by the number of students who obtain skill credentials and have positive placement after school. Another condition of the reauthorized Perkins Act replaces the term vocational education with career and technical education. In addition, schools can utilize federal money to eliminate barriers involving traditional four-year degree programs and shorter career or technical programs. In considering tech-prep, policymakers will evaluate programs centered on job placement rates, realization of an industry-recognized diploma and completion of a job program within a mandatory time limit (Dervarics, 2006).
When should this policy be evaluated?

The timing of policy evaluation is a significant concern for policymakers. A concern of individuals with an interest in the policy is that evaluation may come too late. Other individuals assert that the true intention of the policy may take years to attain and evaluate (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004).

The Carl D. Perkins Act was first signed into law in 1984 and was reauthorized in 1998, a 14 year lapse (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2007). The federal vocational education law, retitled the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education and Improvement Act of 2006, an 8-year lapse. The current Perkins Act is not due for reauthorization until 2012, a six-year lapse (Cavanagh, 2006; Pekow, 2005).
How should it be evaluated?

Individuals disagree about how best to evaluate a policy and the policy's influence.
Some believe an effective evaluation of the policy includes a case method using specific sites or programs. Others policymakers contend that a cross-sectional method is better, using a sampling of programs. In addition, some individuals assert that a mixed design will best evaluate a policy including surveys and statistical methods to understand the meaning of a policy and the individuals the policy influences (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004).

The Perkins Act is evaluated through a performance accountability system that evaluates the effectiveness and adequacy of the act to achieve its purpose in vocational and technical education. The evaluation should be done through interviews, group conferences, and relevant records to include the number and type of students, quantitative measurements of program effectiveness, and the organizational structures and procedures to fulfill the programs objectives. In addition, the evaluation should include statements on program operation by providers, students, and the community. The basis of the evaluation includes key indicators of performance including student achievement in academics, and vocational and technical skill proficiencies, student achievement of secondary or postsecondary diploma, student enrollment in, retention in, and completion of postsecondary education, enlistment in the military, or placement in employment, and student participation in and completion of vocational and technical education programs leading to nontraditional training and employment (Skinner & Apling, 2005).

Who should be responsible for carrying out the studies, and who should control the process?

Another concern in policy evaluation is who should be responsible for carrying out the studies, and who should control and process. Some individuals contend that educational institutions that utilize the policy should implement their own research. Researchers assert that an outside agency implement the research so results are not inconsistent with the educational institution (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). The U.S. Department of Education evaluates the Perkins Act, reports to Congress annually, and may evaluate Perkins through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements. In addition, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collects and reports information on vocational and technical education from a representative sample of students across the country. The U.S. Department of Education may collect information from states regarding performance and report to the Committee on Education and the workforce of the House of Representative and Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2005).

According to Pekow, (2005) the U.S. Department of Education evaluates the Perkins Act and reports to Congress with available data. In 2002, congress mandated a study to evaluate the impact of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998; the study was called The National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE). The National Assessment of Vocational Education delegated RAND to perform the evaluation. The purpose of evaluation was twofold, to present support on the degree to which practice aligns with legislative and other perceptions of quality in secondary vocational education, and present verification concerning how policies at different levels of the education system improve or hinder implementation of quality practice. RAND's results provided valuable information NAVE needed to evaluate the Perkins Act. The study included case-study analysis and analysis through a national teacher survey. Although the intended audience for this study was the U.S. Congress, this study was of interest to individuals wanting to improve vocational education specifically policymakers, administrators, and state and local educators desiring to improve their programs (Stasz & Bodilly, 2004).

What are the possible end results of the evaluation?

The end results of the policy evaluation raise another concern. If the policy is not working should the results terminate the policy, change the policy, or initiate a new policy? The results are of particular interest both to those who support the policy and to those who are against the policy (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004).

When evaluating the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, states will report on four previously mentioned indicators of efficiency including student realization of challenging academic and vocational-technical skills and knowledge established by the state; student realization of a high school diploma, or postsecondary degree; placement, retention, or completion of postsecondary education or advanced training, the military or employment; and participation in, and completion of vocational and technical programs leading to nontraditional employment (Dervarics, 2006; Hoachlander, 2000). These four indicators will be principal accountability elements of the Perkins Act and valuable information for policymakers regarding the effectiveness of career and technical education. States will create performance levels, for which they will be held accountable, for each of the indicators along with the U.S. Department of Education. Failure to attain the performance levels will generate state and local program improvement plans, in conjunction with the likelihood, that federal funding may be withdrawn. In considering the Perkins Act, consequences relating to performance and achievement are present in adult education and employment training. States will receive incentive funds through the Workforce Investment Act when they surpass performance goals (Hoachlander, 2000).

When states fail to attain established performance levels, the state creates and implements a plan for improvement. The state may lose Perkins funding if established performance levels are not adhered to and if an improvement plan has not been implemented. In addition, a state may lose funding if a state fails to attain established performance levels for two or more successive years. Perkins funds that are withheld may be used for support services and activities within the state (Association for Career and Technical Education, 2005).

Who benefits from the policy evaluation?

The policy evaluation may benefit several stakeholders. Individuals who were instrumental in the development of the policy may benefit through promotions or advancement in careers. The evaluation of the policy may also determine who takes credit or blame for the policy, which may include individuals, political parties, or organizations (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act is instrumental to career and technical education programs, prepares students for the future by offering the knowledge and skills for chosen careers and is vital in strengthening the workforce. The evaluation of the Perkins Act is beneficial to students, and a key component of high schools, postsecondary schools, workforce development systems, the community, employers, and fundamental to career and technical education (Driscoll, 2005).

The Perkins Act offers valuable and demonstrated funding for individuals to acquire necessary skills and academic opportunities, as well as improved employment outcomes. According to the Southern Regional Education Board (as cited in Driscoll, 2005), students achieve a demanding academic core along with a career concentration. Employers maintain a need for well-trained workers with high-quality skills. According to a 2002 survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for Workforce Preparation (as cited in Driscoll, 2005) approximately 75 % of employers have a difficult time hiring qualified employees, 40 % report interviewees that are inadequately skilled, and 30 % contend that interviewees have the wrong skills for existing employment. The education and career training supported by the Perkins Act are essential to focus on this skills gap. Career and technical education is fundamental to numerous individuals. According to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education (as cited in Driscoll, 2005) approximately 97 % of high school students take a career and technical education course, one-third of college students, and approximately 40 million adults obtain postsecondary occupational training.

What are the ethical and social concerns that must be considered prior to evaluation?

In order for policies to be effective, they must focus around concerns for equity and social justice. According to Haller and Strike (as cited in Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004) constructing educational polices must meet three circumstances, policies must establish and maintain the dignity and regard of individuals, policies must be objective, and ensure "the equal consideration of interests" (p. 49). Due to inequities that exist in the United States, developing policies that improve educational institutions requires policies that support at-risk students. Policies with these elements will help to equalize educational opportunities for all students. Consequently, as Strike (as cited in Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004) postulates, "people who differ should be treated differently" (p.49). As Emihovich (as cited in Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004) contends, policymakers should express a policy framework that represents a dedication to ethics and community. Emihovich (as cited in Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004) further contends that resolutions to social issues can be addressed in a policy framework of dedication to the public good and compassion for individuals in need. The development of ethical educational policies must commence with a practical assessment of education opportunities and outcomes within educational institutions, with reflection of minority students. To integrate ethical and social concerns into educational policy, policymakers should consider an educational institution where all students have the opportunity to achieve their potential; only then can improvement be made to enhance education for all students (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004).

How has financial legislation affected the policy and its development?

In recent budget proposals, the Bush administration contemplated the elimination of funding for the Perkins Act contending that federal vocational funds would be better spent on the administration's suggestions to expand the No Child Left Behind law's provisions to high schools (Cavanagh, 2006). Some policymakers had objections to the Perkins Act asserting that the policy was not academically demanding; however, Congress supported the policy with needed reforms (Cavanagh, 2006). Vocational and Career training are necessary to prepare students to further their education and careers. A loss of the Perkins Act would create a devastating effect to the students and to the communities in which they live (Hyslop, 2006).

States do provide funds for vocational and career training programs to function; however, the funds provided through the Perkins Act is vital to sustaining high-quality programs that prepare students for further education and the workplace (Hyslop, 2006). Additionally, the Perkins Act requires states to invest resources in these types of programs if federal funding stays the same or increases. If the Perkins Act does not exist, little motivation exists for states to maintain funds for these programs with already stressed budgets. Furthermore, states match federal funding dollar-for-dollar that is offered for administrative expenses, which ensures further resources at the state level to support local programs (Hyslop, 2006). A decrease in funds or removal of the Perkins Act would compel already impecunious schools, training programs, and community colleges to condense or do away with programs that are working well in communities. Financial legislation that affects this policy may create a loss of funds for programs, program enhancements and innovation and the needed knowledge and skills that connects students with business and industry (Driscoll, 2005).

Conclusion

The Perkins Act assists career and technical education programs at the state and local levels and helps to train individuals for a career. The Perkins Act is instrumental in providing proper and pertinent educational knowledge for students, the education, and training encouraged by the Perkins Act is significant (Driscoll, 2005). This federal policy seeks to expand educational opportunities for students, an opportunity many individuals would not have without the existence of this policy.

A number of elements present obstacles for policy evaluation, some are controllable, some are not. Cooper, Fusarelli and Randall (2004) propose five circumstances are significant to policy evaluation, conformity as to the intention of the policy, information as to the consistency of implementation, access to individuals whom the policy influenced to establish quality and outcomes, ample measures of improvement; and conformity among policymakers and individuals that the results of the evaluation relate to the policy and student outcomes.

Postsecondary education is an elaborate endeavor and includes a wide array of diverse educational institutions enrolling an extensive student population. Federal student aid is essential to postsecondary institutions eligible to enroll students who receive federal student aid. These include nonprofit educational institutions, both public and private, and for-profit educational institutions, mainly offering occupational training (Wolanin, 1997). Consequently, the investment by the federal government, through the Perkins Act, is significant to sustain high-quality programs that train students for further education or those who enter the workforce (Hyslop, 2006).

References

Association for Career and Technical Education (2005). Comparison of proposals to
reauthorize the Carl d. Perkins vocational and technical education act. Retrieved
December 16, 2007 from www.acteonline.org

Association for Career and Technical Education, (2007). Perkins: Background. Retrieved
November 15, 2007 from http://www.acteonline.org/policy/legislative_issues/Perkins_background.cfm

Cavanagh, S. (2006). Perkins bill is approved by congress. Education Week, (25).
Retrieved December 14, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Cooper, B.S, Fusarelli, L.D., & Randall, E.V. (2004). Better policies, better schools: Theories
and applications. Pearson Education, Inc.

Dervarics, C. (2006). Congress defies Bush budget, approves extension of Perkins act. Diverse
Issues In Higher Education, (23). Retrieved December 14, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Driscoll, C.M. (2005). Capitol view: You have the power to protect career and technical
education. Techniques, (80). Retrieved November 18, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Hartle, T. (2004). Reauthorization of the higher education act of 1965. Retrieved November 21,
2007 from www.ed.gov

Hoachlander, G. (2000). Make a tool of the rules. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers,
(75). Retrieved December 12, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.

Hyslop, A.D. (2006). What if Perkins disappeared? Techniques, (81). Retrieved November 16,
2007 from ProQuest database.

Pekow, C. (2005). House and senate work to keep Perkins act alive. Black Issues in
Higher Education, (22). Retrieved December 10, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Skinner, R.R. & Apling, R.N. (2005). The Carl D. Perkins vocational and
technical education act of 1998:Background and implementation. Retrieved
December 15, 2007 from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/Perkins_CRS_Report.pdf

Stasz, C. & Bodilly, S. (2004). Efforts to improve the quality of vocational education in
secondary schools: Impact of federal and state policies. Retrieved December 16,
2007 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nave/impact-2004.pdf

Wolanin, T. (1997). A primer on the reauthorization of the higher education act. Change, (29).
Retrieved November 21, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.