Multiple Definitions, One Pathway? How CTE Coursetaking Criteria Shape Concentrator Classification and Student Outcomes
Saved in:
| Title: | Multiple Definitions, One Pathway? How CTE Coursetaking Criteria Shape Concentrator Classification and Student Outcomes |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Jennifer Freeman, Jacob Kirksey, Braden Re, Angela Crevar, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) |
| Source: | Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2025. |
| Availability: | Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2040 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208. Tel: 202-495-0920; e-mail: contact@sree.org; Web site: https://www.sree.org/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | High Schools Secondary Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Career and Technical Education, Job Skills, Career Development, Courses, Definitions, Classification, Outcomes of Education, Student Characteristics, High School Students, Course Selection (Students), Postsecondary Education, Wages, Graduation Rate, Educational Attainment, English Learners, Economically Disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities |
| Geographic Terms: | Texas |
| Abstract: | Introduction: A significant share of young adults lack the skills needed for the 21st-century workforce, contributing to persistent shortages of workers in middle-skill jobs--positions requiring more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor's degree (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). In response, policymakers have increasingly turned to career and technical education (CTE) to provide instruction that prepares students for short-term credentialing programs and workforce entry. Evidence from experimental and quasi-experimental studies shows that CTE participation--particularly when students complete multiple courses within a single career cluster, known as concentration--is associated with higher rates of on-time graduation, credential attainment, employment, and earnings (Brunner et al., 2019; Kreisman & Stange, 2017; Dougherty & Zeelander, 2017; Jacobson & Mokher, 2014). Yet, despite this evidence, defining who qualifies as a "CTE concentrator" remains challenging. Under Perkins IV (2006), states used various definitions--some based on credits, others on courses completed, program sequencing, or course intensity. The most recent reauthorization, Perkins V (2018), aimed to standardize reporting by defining a concentrator as a student who completes two or more courses in a single CTE cluster or program of study. However, the law leaves key terms (e.g., "course" and "program") undefined, allowing state discretion in implementation (Association for Career and Technical Education, n.d.). This flexibility matters for both accountability and equity, as it influences how many--and which--students are included in performance reporting and shapes conclusions about the effectiveness of CTE. This study fills a critical gap by comparing multiple Perkins-aligned definitions of CTE concentration and examining their implications for student classification and outcomes--specifically among students who do not enroll in four-year institutions. Research Questions: 1. Do outcomes--such as high school graduation, two-year college enrollment, credential attainment, and wages--vary depending on how Perkins-aligned definitions of CTE concentration are applied? 2. How do different definitions affect the share and characteristics of students from federally designated special populations identified as CTE concentrators? Data and Sample: We use student-level longitudinal data from the Texas Statewide Longitudinal Data System, which links K-12, higher education, and workforce records. The sample includes four cohorts of students who graduated from Texas public high schools between 2013 and 2016 and have complete demographic and high school course-taking data. For postsecondary outcomes, we exclude students who enrolled in a four-year institution within six years of graduation. Wage analyses are limited to students with Texas Unemployment Insurance records, excluding those working out of state, self-employed, or in informal labor markets. Table 1 summarizes the demographic and academic characteristics of the analytic sample. Our key independent variable is CTE concentrator status, constructed using four definitions aligned with Perkins V but varying in restrictiveness. These definitions differ by program specificity, instructional time, and sequencing. Table 2 outlines the four approaches: inclusive, credit-based, progression-based, and credit- and progression-based. Texas offers 65 state-defined programs of study nested within the 16 federally recognized career clusters. Because some courses apply to multiple pathways, students can be counted as concentrators in more than one cluster or program of study, depending on the definition used. Key outcomes include on-time high school graduation, enrollment in a two-year institution, credential attainment, and earnings. Wages are transformed using the natural log to reduce skew and improve interpretability. Empirical Strategy: To estimate outcome differences across definitions (Research Question 1), we use the following linear probability model: [equation omitted] where Y is a student outcome (e.g., high school graduation, credential attainment, or wages) for student i in high school j in cohort c; CTE is a binary indicator for concentrator status under a given definition; X is the student-level covariates; and [delta] represents high school-by-cohort fixed effects. The model is estimated separately for each definition of concentration, and the reference group is students not identified as concentrators under the respective definition. For Research Question 2, we estimate a similar model: [equation omitted] where the key predictors are indicators for whether a student is economically disadvantaged, an English learner, or a student with a disability. This model also includes high school-by-cohort fixed effects and is estimated separately for each definition of concentration. Findings: As shown in Table 3, concentrator status is positively associated with all outcomes across definitions. Students identified as concentrators are significantly more likely to graduate on time, enroll in a two-year college, earn a workforce credential, and have higher wages three and six years after graduation. Despite varying in restrictiveness, all four definitions yield consistent estimates, suggesting that stricter criteria do not improve predictive power. Figure 1 shows that definitional choices affect which student groups are classified as concentrators. English learners are consistently underidentified. Economically disadvantaged students are more likely to be included under broader definitions but not stricter ones. Results for students with disabilities are mixed and generally minor. The next phase of analysis will examine whether concentrator definitions produce different patterns across career clusters and programs of study and will expand to include additional student subgroups to assess whether specific populations or pathways are more sensitive to how concentration is defined. Significance: The way states define CTE concentration matters--not just for measurement, but for who gets counted and supported. More restrictive definitions do not yield stronger associations with student success, but they substantially reduce the number of students counted and disproportionately exclude English learners and other underserved groups. Undercounting matters because concentrator status determines whether students are visible in accountability systems, whether their outcomes contribute to performance metrics, and whether they access targeted support. If classification systems fail to recognize students who meaningfully engage in CTE, they risk distorting both the perceived value of CTE and the distribution of opportunity it is meant to provide. As states implement Perkins V, adopting inclusive, clearly defined criteria is essential for accurate reporting and equitable program design. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Access URL: | https://www.sree.org/2025-conference |
| Accession Number: | ED677754 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Introduction: A significant share of young adults lack the skills needed for the 21st-century workforce, contributing to persistent shortages of workers in middle-skill jobs--positions requiring more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor's degree (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). In response, policymakers have increasingly turned to career and technical education (CTE) to provide instruction that prepares students for short-term credentialing programs and workforce entry. Evidence from experimental and quasi-experimental studies shows that CTE participation--particularly when students complete multiple courses within a single career cluster, known as concentration--is associated with higher rates of on-time graduation, credential attainment, employment, and earnings (Brunner et al., 2019; Kreisman & Stange, 2017; Dougherty & Zeelander, 2017; Jacobson & Mokher, 2014). Yet, despite this evidence, defining who qualifies as a "CTE concentrator" remains challenging. Under Perkins IV (2006), states used various definitions--some based on credits, others on courses completed, program sequencing, or course intensity. The most recent reauthorization, Perkins V (2018), aimed to standardize reporting by defining a concentrator as a student who completes two or more courses in a single CTE cluster or program of study. However, the law leaves key terms (e.g., "course" and "program") undefined, allowing state discretion in implementation (Association for Career and Technical Education, n.d.). This flexibility matters for both accountability and equity, as it influences how many--and which--students are included in performance reporting and shapes conclusions about the effectiveness of CTE. This study fills a critical gap by comparing multiple Perkins-aligned definitions of CTE concentration and examining their implications for student classification and outcomes--specifically among students who do not enroll in four-year institutions. Research Questions: 1. Do outcomes--such as high school graduation, two-year college enrollment, credential attainment, and wages--vary depending on how Perkins-aligned definitions of CTE concentration are applied? 2. How do different definitions affect the share and characteristics of students from federally designated special populations identified as CTE concentrators? Data and Sample: We use student-level longitudinal data from the Texas Statewide Longitudinal Data System, which links K-12, higher education, and workforce records. The sample includes four cohorts of students who graduated from Texas public high schools between 2013 and 2016 and have complete demographic and high school course-taking data. For postsecondary outcomes, we exclude students who enrolled in a four-year institution within six years of graduation. Wage analyses are limited to students with Texas Unemployment Insurance records, excluding those working out of state, self-employed, or in informal labor markets. Table 1 summarizes the demographic and academic characteristics of the analytic sample. Our key independent variable is CTE concentrator status, constructed using four definitions aligned with Perkins V but varying in restrictiveness. These definitions differ by program specificity, instructional time, and sequencing. Table 2 outlines the four approaches: inclusive, credit-based, progression-based, and credit- and progression-based. Texas offers 65 state-defined programs of study nested within the 16 federally recognized career clusters. Because some courses apply to multiple pathways, students can be counted as concentrators in more than one cluster or program of study, depending on the definition used. Key outcomes include on-time high school graduation, enrollment in a two-year institution, credential attainment, and earnings. Wages are transformed using the natural log to reduce skew and improve interpretability. Empirical Strategy: To estimate outcome differences across definitions (Research Question 1), we use the following linear probability model: [equation omitted] where Y is a student outcome (e.g., high school graduation, credential attainment, or wages) for student i in high school j in cohort c; CTE is a binary indicator for concentrator status under a given definition; X is the student-level covariates; and [delta] represents high school-by-cohort fixed effects. The model is estimated separately for each definition of concentration, and the reference group is students not identified as concentrators under the respective definition. For Research Question 2, we estimate a similar model: [equation omitted] where the key predictors are indicators for whether a student is economically disadvantaged, an English learner, or a student with a disability. This model also includes high school-by-cohort fixed effects and is estimated separately for each definition of concentration. Findings: As shown in Table 3, concentrator status is positively associated with all outcomes across definitions. Students identified as concentrators are significantly more likely to graduate on time, enroll in a two-year college, earn a workforce credential, and have higher wages three and six years after graduation. Despite varying in restrictiveness, all four definitions yield consistent estimates, suggesting that stricter criteria do not improve predictive power. Figure 1 shows that definitional choices affect which student groups are classified as concentrators. English learners are consistently underidentified. Economically disadvantaged students are more likely to be included under broader definitions but not stricter ones. Results for students with disabilities are mixed and generally minor. The next phase of analysis will examine whether concentrator definitions produce different patterns across career clusters and programs of study and will expand to include additional student subgroups to assess whether specific populations or pathways are more sensitive to how concentration is defined. Significance: The way states define CTE concentration matters--not just for measurement, but for who gets counted and supported. More restrictive definitions do not yield stronger associations with student success, but they substantially reduce the number of students counted and disproportionately exclude English learners and other underserved groups. Undercounting matters because concentrator status determines whether students are visible in accountability systems, whether their outcomes contribute to performance metrics, and whether they access targeted support. If classification systems fail to recognize students who meaningfully engage in CTE, they risk distorting both the perceived value of CTE and the distribution of opportunity it is meant to provide. As states implement Perkins V, adopting inclusive, clearly defined criteria is essential for accurate reporting and equitable program design. |
|---|
