Michigan CTE Engagement Dashboards

DATA AND DEFINING PARTICIPATION

The main data for this project was student-level data from state administrative records covering every public high school student in Michigan. Our results are five year averages from the expected graduation cohorts of 2018 through 2022. We averaged across years to reduce biases created from looking at just one year, especially for the years affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

We kept only the last record for each student and assigned them to their final school and district for the purposes of our analyses. For most students this is their 12th grade record capturing four years of coursetaking, but students who entered or exited the school system during high school are also included in our results.

Students are considered CTE participants if they completed any state-approved CTE courses. Students are considered CTE concentrators if they completed a specified sequence of courses

Many students participate in CTE outside of their home school building and sometimes outside their home district. Because students are counted in the denominator of our rate calculations for their home district we wanted to also count them in the numerators for their home or sending district, not the receiving district or off-campus location. For example, if 30% of District A’s students participate in CTE in District B, they would count toward District A’s participation rates because they are in District A’s denominator. For this reason, some districts may offer 0 CTE programs but have higher than 0% engagement rates because students participate in CTE at other locations or transferred into the district with CTE credits from previous years. 

CONTROLLING FOR DISTRICT DIFFERENCES

Comparing raw participation and concentration rates across districts does not take into account important differences in context. A rural district with 200 students in a small high school may find it impossible to offer the same breadth of programs as a suburban district with 5,000 students and a large CTE tech center. 

Comparing raw rates is also ill-advised because rates for smaller districts are more easily affected by small changes and will naturally vary more widely than rates for larger districts. Ten additional CTE students is a 5% increase in a district with 200 students and only a 0.5% increase in a district with 2,000 students.

To account for these differences, YPL ran a series of regression models that included several student, school, neighborhood, and district characteristics to calculate a predicted CTE participation and concentration rate for each district. In our final models we also added the number of CTE programs offered both within a student’s home school and at other locations to be able to compare across models that do or do not consider CTE availability. 

By controlling for all of these variables we can identify districts that have higher-than-predicted or lower-than-predicted engagement given the characteristics of their students and schools and the number of CTE programs they offer.

Conversations with CTE leaders helped shed light on why some districts have very high or very low engagement.

DISTRICTS WITH HIGHER PARTICIPATION

• A few districts with participation rates over 90% have made CTE courses part of their core curriculum and/or a graduation requirement. So while they may not offer many different programs, nearly every student participates.
• Many other districts said that allowing students to use CTE classes to fulfill Michigan Merit Curriculum requirements and/or earn college credits has been a major driver of increased participation. Policymakers should continue supporting efforts to offer academic and postsecondary credit for CTE courses so the advanced knowledge and skills students acquire is appropriately recognized.
• Administrators in areas with high engagement also emphasized the importance of widespread awareness and strong support from district and school administrators, teachers, counselors, parents, and community partners as a major boost to the visibility and popularity of CTE programs. 

DISTRICTS WITH LOWER PARTICIPATION

• In districts with many programs but lower-than-expected participation, transportation and scheduling issues prevent many students from enrolling. Districts and administrators can do more to align schedules and provide transportation options so students can take advantage of the opportunities already available to them.
• Difficulty finding qualified CTE teachers was another major issue. Investing in efforts to recruit and retain CTE teachers and increased flexibility with teacher credentialing requirements would make it easier for districts to add new programs or expand popular ones to better meet student demand.
• Some administrators brought up needs for more targeted funding to defray specific costs, like purchasing specialized equipment or paying fees associated with providing industry-recognized credentials.
• There was also consensus around the need for more investment in career awareness, exploration, and planning activities. Expansion of middle school programs, offering short-term introductory courses, and robust use of Education Development Plans and Personalized Curriculum would help more students identify their career interests and be matched with aligned opportunities. 
   

Why are the number of programs for my district so high?

The variable ‘Number of Programs’ represents the average number of CTE programs available to students in the district whether those programs were located within or outside the district. We count a CTE program X as being available to students in school A if  we observe students from school A enrolling in program X regardless of whether program X was located within the students’ own school or district, at another comprehensive high school, at a CTC, a community college, or other contracted site. CTE programs with fewer than 10 participants ever were excluded from our availability measures, meaning that to be included in the number of CTE programs available at a school, a CTE program had to have at least 10 participants between 2015 and 2022.

My district’s enrollment numbers seem off, what is the source?

The sample includes students from five expected graduating cohorts: 2018 – 2022. These cohorts were constructed using the K12 graduation file from the State of Michigan. It is made up of first-time 9th graders and students who transferred in during later grades. We identified all students in the cohorts of interest using the K12 graduation file and retained their last observation including their final exit status. Students were assigned to the district in which they were enrolled at the time of exit from Michigan public schools – for about 76% of our sample the school assigned will be the same as the Primary Education Providing Setting (PEPE).  We dropped student-by-year observations beyond students’ expected graduation year to calculate on-time high school graduation. Student observations from schools with fewer than 5 students in a graduation cohort were dropped from the analysis. 

This research result used data structured and maintained by the MERI-Michigan Education Data Center (MEDC). MEDC data is modified for analysis purposes using rules governed by MEDC and are not identical to those data collected and maintained by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and/or Michigan’s Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI). Results, information and opinions solely represent the analysis, information and opinions of the author(s) and are not endorsed by, or reflect the views or positions of, grantors, MDE and CEPI or any employee thereof.