Skip Navigation
Illustration/Logo View Quarterly by  This Issue  |  Volume and Issue  |  Topics
Education Statistics Quarterly
Vol 5, Issue 3, Topic: Elementary and Secondary Education
Public High School Graduates Who Participated in Vocational/Technical Education: 1982-1998
By: Karen Levesque
 
This article was originally published as the Executive Summary of the E.D. Tabs report of the same name. The sample survey data are from the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study of 1980 Sophomores (HS&B), the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS), and the High School Transcript Studies (HSTS).
 
 

This report examines patterns and trends in the vocational/technical coursetaking of public high school graduates between 1982 and 1998. It updates and expands upon trends that were published in the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the Year 2000 (Levesque et al. 2000). Specifically, the current report includes trends in the participation of graduates based on their special and protected population status, including race/ethnicity, sex, disability status, English proficiency, and several measures of student academic achievement, as well as school urbanicity and school poverty level. The report analyzes these trends by examining high school transcripts for the graduating classes of 1982, 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1998.1 The analysis samples and variables used in the report are comparable across the survey years. The analysis focuses on public high school graduates who earned regular or honors diplomas.2

Transcripts provide information on the courses that public high school graduates took in grades 9 through 12. For simplicity’s sake, the report refers to this information as “high school coursetaking.” With the exception of a few tables that examine coursetaking in each grade (9 through 12) separately, the report describes the cumulative course-work that graduates took in high school. The report is intended to accompany the NCES report Trends in High School Vocational/Technical Coursetaking: 1982–1998 (Levesque 2003), which provides an in-depth examination of the vocational/technical coursetaking patterns of public high school graduates in general.


Terms Used in the Report

The vocational/technical curriculum

The NCES Secondary School Taxonomy (SST) classifies high school vocational/technical education into three different curricula: specific labor market preparation, or “occupational education”; general labor market preparation; and family and consumer sciences education. Occupational education consists of courses that teach skills and knowledge required in a particular occupation or set of related occupations. General labor market preparation consists of courses that teach general employment skills that are not specific to one occupational area, such as basic typewriting/keyboarding, introductory technology education, and career preparation and general work experience courses. Family and consumer sciences education consists of courses intended to prepare students for family and consumer roles outside the paid labor market.3 For purposes of this report, trends focus on vocational/technical coursetaking overall and on occupational coursetaking.

Although vocational/technical coursetaking is prevalent in high schools, students take varying amounts and types of these courses and take them for different purposes. This report emphasizes the coursetaking patterns of occupational concentrators because this group is a common focus of federal and state accountability and research efforts for vocational/technical education (U.S. Department of Education 2002; Silverberg et al. 2002). Occupational concentrators are graduates who earned 3.0 or more credits during high school in one of the following 10 broad occupational program areas: agriculture, business, marketing, health care, protective services, trade and industry, technology, food service and hospitality, child care and education, and personal and other services. In some cases, the report also examines trends in concentrating (earning 3.0 or more credits) in 18 narrow occupational program areas.4

Key population variables

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act Amendments of 1998 (1998 Perkins Act) defines "special populations" as follows:

  • individuals with disabilities;
  • individuals from economically disadvantaged families, including foster children;
  • individuals preparing for occupations that are nontraditional for their gender;
  • single parents, including single pregnant women;
  • displaced homemakers; and
  • individuals with other barriers to educational achievement, including individuals with limited English proficiency.
The 1990 Perkins Act, which governed the second half of the period covered in this report (1990–1998), defined “special populations” fairly similarly, including individuals with handicaps, educationally and economically disadvantaged individuals (including foster children), individuals of limited English proficiency, individuals who participate in programs designed to eliminate sex bias, and individuals in correctional institutions.

In addition, the Office for Civil Rights (2001) in the U.S. Department of Education enforces federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (such as Perkins Act funds) on the following bases: race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age.

To the extent possible, this report provides information on trends in the vocational/technical coursetaking of these special and protected populations, as well as their peers who were not members of these groups. To do so, the report uses the following categories. Measures were selected based on federal definitions, previous related research, and data availability. Data were provided only for those years and surveys that contained comparable variables. For the sake of readability when summarizing findings, the report uses the terms disadvantaged and advantaged to describe student groups on some of the key variables, as indicated below.5

Race/ethnicity. Includes the five categories of American Indian/Alaska Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Hispanic; non-Hispanic Black; and non-Hispanic White. For simplicity’s sake, the text refers to Black and White graduates, although students in both of these groups were also non-Hispanic.

Sex. Includes the two categories of male and female.

Disability status (grade 12). Includes students who were reported to have a disability and students who were reported to have no disability as of grade 12. It should be remembered, however, that graduates with the most severe disabilities were excluded from the analysis due to survey constraints. Consequently, the disability status variable identifies students with and without disabilities among the population of public high school graduates who earned regular or honors diplomas.6 For purposes of this analysis, students with disabilities were considered to be “disadvantaged,” while students without disabilities were considered to be more “advantaged.”

English proficiency (grade 12). Includes the two categories of limited English proficiency and English proficient. It is important to note that this variable describes students’ English language proficiency as of grade 12. For purposes of this analysis, graduates who had limited English proficiency in grade 12 were considered to be “disadvantaged,” while graduates who were English proficient in grade 12 were considered to be more “advantaged.”

The report uses the following three measures of academic achievement:7

Grade point average (GPA). Calculated from grades recorded in the transcript files, this variable has a range of 0.0 to 4.0. It was not possible in some of the surveys to calculate GPA for academic courses only (a preferable measure of academic achievement), so overall GPA was used. GPA was collapsed into three categories: high GPA (greater than 3.5); mid-level GPA (2.0 to 3.5); and low GPA (less than 2.0). For purposes of this analysis, students with a GPA of less than 2.0 were considered to be “disadvantaged”; students with a GPA of 2.0 to 3.5 were considered to be “moderately advantaged”; and students with a GPA of greater than 3.5 were considered to be “highly advantaged.”

Academic coursework completed. This variable describes whether students completed all low or all high mathematics, science, and English courses, or some other combination of mathematics, science, and English courses (mid-level or mixed academic coursetaking). Low and high mathematics, science, and English courses are defined in the glossary (appendix B) and technical appendix (appendix C) of the full report. For purposes of this analysis, students completing all low-level academic coursework were considered to be “disadvantaged”; students completing all high-level academic coursework were considered to be “highly advantaged”; and students completing mid-level or mixed academic coursework were considered to be “moderately advantaged.”

Grade 9 mathematics. This variable identifies the mathematics course a student took in grade 9. It includes the three categories of high-level grade 9 mathematics (geometry or higher), mid-level grade 9 mathematics (pre-algebra or algebra 1), and low-level mathematics (no mathematics or mathematics courses below pre-algebra). It provides a measure of academic achievement before most of graduates’ coursework in vocational/technical education was taken and is therefore less confounded with that coursetaking than either GPA or academic coursework completed. For purposes of this analysis, students who took low-level mathematics in grade 9 were considered to be “disadvantaged”; students who took mid-level grade 9 mathematics were considered to be “moderately advantaged”; and students who took high-level grade 9 mathematics were considered to be “highly advantaged.”

Although a student-level measure of socioeconomic status would have been preferable for this analysis, such a variable was not available from the 1990, 1994, and 1998 High School Transcript Studies (HSTS). Instead, the report uses the following two school-level variables as measures of economic status:8

School urbanicity. This variable describes the location of the school a graduate attended in the 12th grade and includes the three categories of urban, suburban, and rural. These categories are defined further in appendixes B and C of the full report.

School poverty level. This variable describes the proportion of students in the school a graduate attended in the 12th grade who participated in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). It includes the categories of high poverty (greater than 50 percent in NSLP) and low poverty (5 percent or less in NSLP), with a middle group having greater than 5 percent but no greater than 50 percent of students in NSLP. This variable also includes a category for students whose schools did not report their participation in NSLP. For purposes of this analysis, students in high-poverty schools were considered to be “disadvantaged,” while students in low-poverty schools were considered to be “highly advantaged.” The middle group was considered to be of mixed advantage. The variable is defined further in appendixes B and C of the full report.

It should be remembered that there may be a fairly high correlation among some of these population variables. The report does not attempt to isolate the unique contribution of each factor to participation in vocational/technical education. Instead, the report describes bivariate relationships according to NCES standards for this type of analysis. See appendix C of the full report for additional information on the technical methodology used.

back to top


Vocational/Technical Coursetaking in 1998

Overall patterns among 1998 graduates

Although most 1998 public high school graduates took at least some vocational/technical and occupational coursework, graduates who were members of disadvantaged groups generally took more vocational/technical and occupational coursework and were more likely to concentrate in occupational education than their counterparts who were members of more advantaged groups. These differences were apparent with regard to disability status in grade 12, GPA, academic coursework completed, grade 9 mathematics, and school poverty. One exception was that students who had limited English proficiency in grade 12 generally took less vocational/technical and occupational coursework and were less likely to concentrate in occupational education than their English-proficient peers.

In addition, male graduates took more vocational/technical and occupational coursework than female graduates, and students in rural schools took more such coursework than students in either urban or suburban schools. In contrast, Asians/Pacific Islanders generally took less vocational/technical and occupational coursework than graduates in other racial/ethnic groups, particularly Black and White graduates.

Characteristics of occupational concentrators from the class of 1998

Although disadvantaged students were more likely to participate in vocational/technical education in general, and to concentrate in occupational education in particular, these students represented a minority of all occupational concentrators. In fact, when students were classified into three groups (low-, moderate- or middle-, and high-advantage), the majority of occupational concentrators (about 60 percent or more) came from the middle groups. This pattern was apparent with regard to GPA, academic course-work completed, grade 9 mathematics, and school poverty. In each case, either occupational concentrators were more likely to be from the middle groups than was the 1998 public high school class as a whole, or no significant difference was detected in the proportion of occupational concentrators and all graduates who were from these groups. Moreover, no significant difference was detected in the proportion of occupational concentrators and all graduates who were from the lowest academic achievement groups. However, occupational concentrators were less likely than the 1998 graduating class as a whole to be from the highest academic achievement groups.

In the cases of disability status and English proficiency in grade 12, most occupational concentrators (more than 95 percent) came from advantaged (rather than disadvantaged) groups. While a larger proportion of occupational concentrators than of the 1998 graduating class as a whole were disabled in grade 12, the proportion of occupational concentrators who had limited English proficiency in grade 12 was lower than that for all 1998 graduates.

The majority of occupational concentrators (more than 50 percent) were White and were male. In fact, occupational concentrators were more likely to be male than the 1998 graduating class as a whole.9 With regard to school urbanicity, no school type enrolled a majority of occupational concentrators. However, occupational concentrators were more likely to attend rural schools than urban schools.10

While academically disadvantaged graduates were more likely than their more advantaged peers to concentrate in occupational education generally, this pattern was reversed to some extent in certain occupational program areas. Notably, higher achieving students were somewhat more likely than their lower achieving peers to concentrate in communications technology.

back to top


Trends in Vocational/Technical Coursetaking: 1982 to 199811

The average number of credits graduates earned in vocational/technical education declined from 1982 to 1990, after which no significant changes were detected. One question of interest to policymakers is whether these declines occurred across the board or only among certain subgroups of students.

Most often, vocational/technical coursetaking declines occurred among groups earning numbers of vocational/technical credits that were not statistically different from the average for all 1982 graduates. In comparison, there were few significant changes detected in the average number of vocational/technical credits earned by several groups that earned above-average numbers of vocational/technical credits in 1982. At the same time, there were no significant changes detected between 1982 and 1998 in the average number of vocational/technical credits earned by several groups that earned below-average numbers of vocational/technical credits in 1982 compared with all 1982 graduates.

As a consequence of these changes, there were few shifts among subgroups of graduates with regard to their relative vocational/technical coursetaking patterns over the period studied. That is, most groups that earned above-average numbers of vocational/technical credits in 1982 still earned above-average numbers of such credits as of 1998 (including low academic achievers and students attending rural schools). In addition, all groups that earned below-average numbers of vocational/technical credits in 1982 still earned below-average numbers of such credits as of 1998 (including Asians/Pacific Islanders and high academic achievers). Finally, despite the coursetaking declines noted above, most groups that earned numbers of vocational/technical credits in 1982 that were not statistically different from the average for all 1982 graduates were also in this middle coursetaking group as of 1998.

In contrast to declines in vocational/technical coursetaking, there was no statistically significant change between 1982 and 1998 in the average number of occupational credits that graduates earned in high school. However, trends varied somewhat among student groups. For example, students with disabilities as of grade 12 took the equivalent of about one additional full-year occupational course, while Hispanic graduates took about one-half fewer occupational courses, by the end of the period.

Trends in occupational concentrating

The percentage of public high school graduates who concentrated in occupational education declined from 33.7 percent in 1982 to 27.8 percent in 1990, after which no significant changes were detected. However, trends varied among student groups. Similar to the vocational/technical coursetaking changes noted above, declines in occupational concentration rates occurred most often among groups with concentration rates in 1982 that were not statistically different from the average for all 1982 graduates. In addition, there were few significant changes detected between 1982 and 1998 in the concentration rates for several groups that exhibited below-average occupational concentration rates in 1982 compared with all 1982 graduates.

As a consequence of these changes, most subgroups of graduates kept their relative occupational concentration status over the period studied. That is, most groups that exhibited above-average occupational concentration rates in 1982 still concentrated in occupational education at above-average rates as of 1998 (including males and students completing all low academic coursework in high school). In addition, most groups that exhibited below-average occupational concentration rates in 1982 still concentrated in occupational education at below-average rates as of 1998 (including females and high academic achievers). Finally, most groups that exhibited occupational concentration rates in 1982 that were not statistically different from the average for all 1982 graduates were also in this middle occupational concentrating group as of 1998.

Trends in occupational concentrating also varied by program area. For example, while most student groups were more likely to concentrate in communications technology in 1998 than in 1982, no significant changes in concentration rates in this program area were detected over this period among Blacks, Hispanics, students with disabilities as of grade 12, students taking low-level mathematics in grade 9, and students in urban schools. In addition, while no differences were detected between 1982 and 1998 in overall rates of concentrating in marketing, print production, and computer technology, these program areas attracted somewhat higher academically achieving students over the period.

Gaps in occupational concentration rates

Occupational concentration rates in specific program areas often varied by student race/ethnicity, sex, and disability status. Most differences in occupational concentration rates among racial/ethnic groups in 1982 were no longer detected by 1998. In contrast, most 1982 differences between males and females persisted as of 1998. However, some of these gender gaps decreased, particularly in business services, where male graduates increased their concentration rate over the period. With regard to disability status in grade 12, in no program areas were students with disabilities more likely to concentrate than students without disabilities in 1982.12 However, by 1998, students with disabilities as of grade 12 were more likely than those without to concentrate in agriculture, construction, mechanics and repair, and materials production.

Trends in the characteristics of occupational concentrators

Some changes in the characteristics of occupational concentrators were consistent with changes in the student body in general between 1982 and 1998. For example, both graduates in general and occupational concentrators in particular became more academically advantaged by 1998. However, the shift toward moderate academic achievement was greater for occupational concentrators than for the larger group of graduates.

back to top


Computer-Related Coursetaking

The SST currently includes all computer-related courses (including those taught in mathematics and computer science departments) under the vocational/technical curriculum. The report focuses on overall computer-related coursetaking for the period 1990 to 1998, as well as on coursetaking in the typewriting/keyboarding, computer-related business services, and computer technology areas.

Computer-related coursetaking among 1998 graduates

The 1998 public high school graduates took the equivalent of about one full-year computer-related course, on average, during high school. Graduates with disabilities as of grade 12 took less computer-related coursework overall than their 1998 counterparts without such disabilities. In addition, graduates in low-poverty schools took less computer-related coursework than their counterparts in higher poverty schools. In contrast, graduates who were moderate academic achievers, who attended rural schools, or who were Black took more computer-related coursework overall than their 1998 peers who were lower academic achievers, who attended urban or suburban schools, or who were Asian/Pacific Islander, respectively. Generally, there was mixed evidence about the relationship between student advantage and the amount of computer-related coursework taken by 1998 graduates.

Trends in computer-related coursetaking

There were no significant changes in overall computer-related coursetaking between 1990 and 1998, although coursetaking declined in typewriting/keyboarding over the same period. In addition, trends varied somewhat among student groups. Compared to their 1990 peers, 1998 graduates who had disabilities in grade 12 or who were male took more computer-related coursework overall and in business services. In addition, 1998 graduates with disabilities in grade 12 took more computer technology course-work than their 1990 peers. In contrast, 1998 graduates who were female took less computer-related coursework overall than their 1990 peers.

back to top


Combining Vocational/Technical and Academic Coursetaking

Several pieces of federal legislation in the 1990s focused attention on increasing the academic achievement of participants in vocational/technical education, including the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act Amendments of 1990 and 1998 and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. Consequently, the report examines some of the ways that public high school graduates combined academic and vocational/technical education between 1982 and 1998, focusing primarily on the academic coursetaking of occupational concentrators.

Core academic coursetaking among 1998 graduates

For most identified student groups, 1998 graduates in general earned more credits in core academic subjects (English, mathematics, science, and social studies) than occupational concentrators. However, there were no significant differences between occupational concentrators and the larger group of 1998 graduates in the numbers of core academic credits earned by the subsets of students who were from racial/ethnic minorities, who had disabilities as of grade 12, who completed either all low- or all high-level academic coursework in high school, who took high-level mathematics coursework in grade 9, or who attended urban or high-poverty schools.

Among the class of 1998, occupational concentrators who were members of more advantaged groups generally earned more core academic credits than occupational concentrators who were less advantaged. This was true with regard to disability status in grade 12, GPA, academic coursework completed, and grade 9 mathematics. However, no significant differences were detected among occupational concentrators with regard to school poverty level or school urbanicity. In addition, occupational concentrators who were Asian/Pacific Islander or who were female earned more core academic credits than occupational concentrators who were members of other racial/ethnic groups or who were male, respectively. All of these 1998 patterns for occupational concentrators held as well for the larger group of public high school graduates.

Trends in core academic coursetaking

Both the larger group of 1998 public high school graduates and the subset of these graduates who were occupational concentrators earned more core academic credits than their 1982 counterparts, regardless of their special or protected population status. For every identified student group, there was no significant difference in the rates of increase over the period in the number of core academic credits earned by all graduates compared with occupational concentrators.

Among both the larger group of public high school graduates and the subset of these graduates who were occupational concentrators, increases between 1982 and 1998 in core academic credits earned were smaller for students with disabilities in grade 12, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and males than for students without disabilities in grade 12, Hispanics, and females, respectively.

back to top


Conclusion

Various pieces of federal legislation are concerned with the participation of special and protected populations in education programs. This report examines the participation of public high school graduates in vocational/technical education between 1982 and 1998, focusing on the participation of graduates based on their special and protected population status.

Trends in participation for most subgroups reflected overall trends for graduates. Generally, graduates decreased their vocational/technical coursetaking between 1982 and 1998, although their occupational coursetaking was relatively steady. The percentage of graduates concentrating in occupational education (earning 3.0 or more credits in one of the 10 broad occupational program areas cited in the report) also declined over the period.

A few groups of graduates exhibited exceptions to these general trends, however. In particular, graduates with disabilities as of grade 12 took more vocational and occupational coursework by the end of the period studied. In addition, Asians/Pacific Islanders and high academic achievers earned numbers of vocational credits and exhibited occupational concentration rates at the end of the period that were not statistically different from corresponding figures for 1982. Thus, these latter groups did not exhibit the usual declines. Both Asians/Pacific Islanders and high academic achievers participated in vocational/technical education at below-average rates at the beginning of the period.

As of 1998, there were differences in participation in vocational/technical education on all of the variables examined in the report: race/ethnicity, sex, disability status, English proficiency, academic achievement, and school urbanicity and poverty level. In particular, groups exhibiting relatively high levels of participation in vocational/technical education in comparison with their peers included males, graduates with disabilities as of grade 12, low academic achievers, and graduates in rural and in high-poverty schools. In contrast, females, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and graduates who had limited English proficiency as of grade 12 exhibited relatively low levels of such participation.

With regard to computer-related coursetaking, groups exhibiting relatively low levels of participation in comparison with their 1998 peers included students with disabilities as of grade 12, low academic achievers, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and students in low-poverty and in urban and suburban schools. Among these groups, 1998 graduates who had disabilities as of grade 12 and graduates who were low academic achievers also earned fewer core academic credits than their more advantaged counterparts. However, 1998 graduates who were Asian/Pacific Islander as well as female graduates earned relatively large numbers of core academic credits in comparison with their peers. All of these core academic coursetaking patterns also held for the subset of graduates who were occupational concentrators.

On measures that classified students into three levels of advantage (low-, moderate- or middle-, and high-advantage), most occupational concentrators were from the middle groups. In some cases, occupational concentrators were more likely to be from the middle groups than was the 1998 public high school class as a whole. Although no significant difference was detected in the proportion of occupational concentrators and all graduates who were from the lowest academic achievement groups, occupational concentrators were less likely than the 1998 graduating class as a whole to be from the highest academic achievement groups.

back to top


References

Boesel, D., Hudson, L., Deich, S., and Masten, C. (1994). Participation in Secondary Vocational Education. In National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report to Congress, Volume II: Participation in and Quality of Vocational Education (pp. 3–38). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Gifford, A.G., Harde, D., Hoachlander, E.G., Meyer, R.H., and Tuma, J.E. (1989). Course Enrollment Patterns in Public Secondary Schools: 1969 to 1987. A discussion paper for the National Assessment of Vocational Education, U.S. Department of Education.

Levesque, K. (2003). Trends in High School Vocational/Technical Coursetaking: 1982–1998 (NCES 2003–025). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Levesque, K., Lauen, D., Teitelbaum, P., Alt, M., and Librera, S. (2000). Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the Year 2000 (NCES 2000–029). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Office for Civil Rights. (2001). About OCR. Retrieved June 10, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html.

Silverberg, M., Warner, E., Goodwin, D., and Fong, M. (2002). National Assessment of Vocational Education: Interim Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary.

Tuma, J. (1996). Trends in Participation in Secondary Vocational Education: 1982–1992 (NCES 96–004). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (2002). Appendix. In Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, Report to Congress on State Performance, Program Year 1999–2000. Washington, DC: Author.

Back to top


Footnotes

1"These transcript studies were conducted as part of the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study of 1980 Sophomores, "High School Transcript Study" (HS&B-So:80/82) regarding 1982 graduates; the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88/92), "Second Follow-up, Transcript Survey, 1992" regarding 1992 graduates; and the High School Transcript Studies (HSTS) of 1990, 1994, and 1998 regarding 1990, 1994, and 1998 graduates, respectively.

2"The HS&B and NELS studies excluded students with the most severe disabilities, where it was determined by school staff that these students were unable to complete the lengthy student questionnaires that were a part of these studies. In order to ensure comparability across the data sets, graduates with special education diplomas were excluded from the HSTS samples (Gifford et al. 1989; Tuma 1996). Thus, the samples used for this trend analysis were consistent with the population of public high school graduates, including students with disabilities, who earned regular or honors diplomas in each of the study years. In addition, there may be some minor coding differences between NELS and the other transcript data that may affect the data for 1992. See appendix C of the full report for more information.

3"Home economics-related courses that prepare students for the paid labor market are included under occupational education.

4"These include agriculture, business services, business management, marketing, health care, protective services, construction, mechanics and repair, print production, materials production, other precision production, transportation, computer technology, communications technology, other technology, food service and hospitality, child care and education, and personal and other services.

5In a few cases, advantaged students were further classified as moderately advantaged and highly advantaged. The race/ethnicity and sex categories were not classified according to advantage, because the Perkins legislation did not make this distinction for these variables.

6As of 1998, about 31 percent of students with disabilities held special education diplomas and were excluded from the study.

7The final federal regulations to the 1990 Perkins Act used grade point average to define academically disadvantaged individuals. The other two measures were suggested by previous research on whether vocational education has been a "dumping ground" for low academically achieving students (Boesel et al. 1994). The 1998 Perkins Act offered no additional guidance for identifying students with barriers to educational achievement, other than limited English proficiency.

8Section 421 of the 1990 Perkins Act included information on students in rural and urban areas in its identification of economically disadvantaged students. The final regulations to the 1990 Perkins Act also included eligibility for the National School Lunch Program in the definition of this group. The 1998 Perkins Act provided no additional guidance on defining economically disadvantaged students.

9No significant difference was detected in the proportions of occupational concentrators and all 1998 graduates who were White.

10No significant difference was detected in the proportion of occupational concentrators who attended suburban schools and those who attended schools in other locales. In addition, no significant difference was detected between occupational concentrators and all 1998 graduates based on school urbanicity.

11Because data for 1982 were not available, trends between 1982 and 1998 could not be determined with regard to English proficiency in grade 12 and school poverty.

12In fact, students with disabilities were less likely than those without to concentrate in business services and in communications technology in 1982. However, these gaps were no longer detected as of 1998.


Data sources: The NCES High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study of 1980 Sophomores, "High School Transcript Study" (HS&B-So:80/82); National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88/92), "Second Follow-up, Transcript Survey, 1992"; and 1990, 1994, and 1998 High School Transcript Study (HSTS).

For technical information, see the complete report:

Levesque, K. (2003). Public High School Graduates Who Participated in Vocational/Technical Education: 1982–1998 (NCES 2003–024).

Author affiliation: K. Levesque, MPR Associates, Inc.

For questions about content, contact Lisa Hudson (lisa.hudson@ed.gov).

To obtain the complete report (NCES 2003–024), call the toll-free ED Pubs number (877–433–7827) or visit the NCES Electronic Catalog (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch).


back to top