(80.7 percent), Effective Organizational Design (80.7 percent), and System Responsiveness to Changing Economic Demands (75.0 percent). Except for High Quality Curriculum and Instruction, no statistically significant differences (p<.05) were noted by gender, role, school/office experience, district experience, school performance, school/office type, or location type.
For High Quality Curriculum and Instruction, differences were observed by length of district experience, with 100 percent of the least experienced staff (i.e., 0-5 years) rating implementation of this element as high or medium high, compared with 81.8 percent of staff with 6-15 years of experience and 70.0 percent of staff with 16 or more years of experience.
2. Interviewees gave lowest implementation ratings to Middle School
Preparation and Orientation (10.7 percent rated implementation of this element high or medium high), CTE Promotion, Outreach, and Communication (18.5 percent), Confluence of Efforts (38.9 percent), and Facilities and Equipment (38.9 percent). Statistically significant differences (p<.05) were observed for at least one group for every element, except CTE Promotion, Outreach, and
Communication.
For Middle School Orientation and Preparation, differences were noted by school/office experience, with 27.3 percent of less experienced staff rating implementation of this element low or medium low, compared with 76.5 percent of more experienced staff. Differences were also noted by school performance, with 100 percent of staff at less-than-effective schools rating this element low or medium low, compared with 80.0 percent of staff at the
“on the move” school and 28.6 percent of staff at effective high schools.
Differences by school/office type and location type were also observed for Confluence of Efforts. Staff at small high schools (68.8 percent) rated
implementation of this element as high or medium high more often than staff at comprehensive high schools (18.8 percent) and staff based in the district office (0.0 percent). Staff based at schools sites (both small schools and comprehensive schools) rated implementation of Confluence of Efforts high or medium high more often than district office staff (43.8 percent and 0.0 percent, respectively).
school’s strong academic outcomes and improving CTE outcomes (they offered the highest number of distinct CTE courses in the district) supported their inclusion in the study.
Finally, differences by school/office type were noted for Facilities and Equipment, with 0.0 percent of staff at small high schools rating the element low or medium low, compared with 26.7 percent of comprehensive high schools staff and 40.0 percent of district office staff.
3. Interviewees gave highest impact/importance ratings (via a Spend-a-Dot activity28) to High Quality Curriculum and Instruction (3.7 dots), Skilled Faculty and Professional Development (3.2 dots), Industry Partnerships (2.8 dots), and Funding (2.4 dots). With the exception of Skilled Faculty and Professional Development, no statistically significant differences (p<.05) were noted by gender, role, school/office experience, district experience, school performance, school/office type, or location type.
For Skilled Faculty and Professional Development, differences were observed by role; the mean number of dots assigned to this element by principals was 4.3 compared with teachers’ mean impact/importance rating of 2.9 dots.
4. Interviewees gave lowest importance/impact ratings to Middle School Preparation and Orientation (0.9 dots), System Responsiveness to Changing Economic Demands (1.2 dots), CTE Promotion, Outreach, and Communication (1.3 dots), and Effective Organizational Design (1.4 dots). Statistically significant differences (p<.05) were noted for some groups for all of these elements, with the exception of Middle School Orientation and Preparation.
For System Responsiveness to Changing Economic Demands, differences were noted by role, with Employer Outreach Specialists rating the
impact/importance of this element significantly higher than teachers (2.0 and 0.9 dots, respectively).
Differences were also noted, by role, for impact/importance ratings for CTE Promotion, Outreach, and Communication with Employer Outreach
Specialists (2.6 dots) and counselors (2.3 dots) rating this element significantly higher than teachers (1.1 dots).
Finally, impact/importance ratings for Effective Organizational Design differed by role; principals’ mean ratings were significantly lower than teachers’ mean ratings (0.6 and 1.7 dots, respectively).
5. Interestingly, High Quality Curriculum and Instruction and Skilled Faculty and Professional Development received highest implementation and the highest impact/importance ratings from interviewees.
28 The Spend-a-Dot activity was used to capture interviewees’ opinions about the relative
importance of each program element. Each interviewee was given 32 adhesive dots and asked to distribute (“spend”) them among the 16 elements of an effective program, based upon the perceived importance/impact of each element on the CTE program at the school/in the district.
Interviewees were told that a maximum of eight dots could be spent on any one element, and that assigning zero dots to one or more elements was permitted.
6. Even though they were considered of high impact/importance, Industry
Partnerships (third highest with a mean of 2.8 dots) and Funding (fourth highest with a mean of 2.4 dots), had implementation ratings that were considerably lower (i.e., Industry Partnerships was tenth of 16 elements; Funding was fourteenth of 16 elements).
7. Middle School Preparation and Orientation received the lowest implementation and the lowest impact/importance ratings; CTE Promotion, Outreach, and Communication was not far behind (i.e., rated second lowest in implementation and third lowest in impact/importance). Even though System Responsiveness to Changing Economic Demand was rated second lowest in impact/importance, the element was rated fourth highest with respect to implementation.
8. Overall, statistically significant differences were found in interviewees’
implementation ratings in 9 of 112 cases (i.e., 16 elements X 7 groups) – five related to programmatic elements, three to organizational elements, and one to institutional elements. Statistically significant differences in
impact/importance ratings were found in 13 of 112 cases – four related to programmatic elements, five to organizational elements, and four to
institutional elements. Given that we might expect differences in interviewees’
ratings to be due to chance in five percent of cases, this finding allows us to reject our null hypothesis that no significant differences would be found.
5.2.2 Differences by Group: Implementation and Impact/Importance Ratings for Programmatic, Organizational, and Institutional Elements
1. There were no differences in implementation ratings for any element by gender or role.
2. Differences in implementation ratings by school/office experience were observed for Middle School Orientation and Preparation and Funding; for both elements, less experienced staff tended to rate the implementation of these elements higher than more experienced staff.
More than three-quarters (76.5 percent) of staff with more school/office experience (i.e., 3 or more years) rated Middle School Orientation and Preparation low or medium low, compared with 27.3 percent of less experienced staff (i.e., 0-2 years experience).
Staff with less school/district experience rated Funding high or medium high more often than more experienced staff (42.9 and 13.1 percent, respectively).
3. Differences in implementation ratings by district experience were noted for only one element – High Quality Curriculum and Instruction – with less experienced staff (i.e., 0-5 years experience) (100 percent) rating
implementation of this element higher than their more experienced colleagues
(81.8 percent for staff with 6-15 years experience; 70.0 percent for staff with 16 or more years experience).
4. Differences in implementation ratings by school performance were noted only for one element – Middle School Orientation and Preparation. While only 28.6 percent of staff at effective schools rated this element low or medium low, 80.0 percent of staff at the “on the move” school and 100 percent of staff at less-than-effective schools did so.
5. Differences in implementation ratings by school/office type were observed for Student Support and Student Leadership, Confluence of Efforts, and Facilities and Equipment.
Staff at comprehensive high schools (71.4 percent) rated implementation of Student Support and Student Leadership high or medium high more often than staff at small high schools (64.3 percent) or staff at the district office (50.0 percent).
Staff at small high schools (68.8 percent) rated implementation of Confluence of Efforts high or medium high, compared with 18.8 percent of their
comprehensive high school peers and 0.0 percent of district office staff.
And, district office staff (0.0 percent) rated implementation of Facilities and Equipment as high or medium high, compared with 43.8 percent of small high school staff and 46.7 percent of comprehensive high school staff.
6. Differences in implementation ratings by location type were noted for Student Support and Student Leadership (with 50.0 percent of district office staff assigning a rating of low or medium low compared with 0.0 percent of school site staff) and Confluence of Efforts (with 43.8 percent of school site staff rating implementation of this element as high or medium high compared with 0.0 percent of district office staff).
7. There were no statistically significant differences (p<.05) in impact/importance ratings by gender or school/office experience.
8. Significant differences in impact/importance ratings by role were noted for six elements: Effective Organizational Design, System Responsiveness to Changing Economic Demands, CTE Promotion, Outreach, and Communication, Facilities and Equipment, and Leadership at All Levels.
Principal ratings (0.6 dots) for Effective Organizational Design were significantly lower than those of teachers (1.7 dots).
Employer Outreach Specialist ratings (2.0 dots) for System Responsiveness to Changing Economic Demands were significantly higher than those of teachers (0.9 dots).
Employer Outreach Specialist (2.6 dots) and counselor (2.3 dots) ratings for CTE Promotion, Outreach, and Communication were significantly higher than those of teachers (1.1 dots)
9. Significant differences in impact/importance ratings by district experience were observed for Student Support and Student Leadership, with staff with 6-15 years of experience rating this element significantly lower than their more
experienced peers (i.e., 16 or more years of district experience) (1.3 and 2.2 dots, respectively).
10. Significant differences in impact/importance ratings by school performance