Wisdom of the Outsiders Within: How Career Technical Education Leaders Can Inform Educational Leadership Preparation

Overview of Career and Technical Education

In a flyer announcing the 2017 to 2018 New and Aspiring Superintendents Academy, the Ohio Association of Career-Technical Superintendents made this observation:

The 49 superintendents who serve as chief executive officers (CEOs) of Ohio’s Joint Vocational School Districts (JVSDs) are expected to possess all the skills of a comprehensive school district superintendent plus those associated with CTE, adult education, and management of additional services unique to JVSDs. (OACTS, 2017)

A similar observation could be made regarding principals serving in CTE settings. According to Zirkle (2002), principals and superintendents serving in CTE programs are often viewed as being like traditional principals and superintendents with the assumption that the knowledge and skills of these roles are analogous. In fact, according to Clark and Cole (2015) “while CTE leadership shares many of the same characteristics as traditional educational leadership in K-12 settings, there are also many components of CTE leadership that fall outside of traditional educational leadership job performance functions” (p. 64).

In support of this observation, Zirkle et al. (2005) emphasized that the knowledge and skills for CTE leaders requires information beyond the standards recommended by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISSLC) and includes the knowledge and skills required to develop a CTE vision and culture, organize advisory councils, arrange for and maintain CTE facilities, identify CTE funding sources, integrate academics and CTE, promote CTE safety, develop work training agreements, recruit, retain, and develop both trade and tech-based instructors, work with adult learners, develop linkages between schools and community-based business and industry partners, facilitate post-secondary transitions to employment, and lead CTE reform. Highlighting the outsider within position of CTE, Zirkle et al. (2005) not only note the unique complexity of CTE leadership but also shine a light on the ways CTE leadership is ignored within the literature. Although the ISSLC standards fare no longer in use, the observations by Zirkle remain relevant; CTE leadership is under-explored in research on leadership standards. Recent work on CTE leadership knowledge, skills, and competencies supports our team’s experience that this work is highly contextualized and requires close collaboration between preparation faculty and CTE insiders (Harvey et al., 2022).

While CTE leaders have responsibilities that fall outside the work of traditional educational leaders, one responsibility appears to stand out from the rest. VanderMolen and Zinzer (2009) found that the most frequently performed duty area of a CTE center director involved the integration of academic and CTE programs. According to VanderMolen and Zinzer, “to perform this duty CTE leaders must have a solid working knowledge of CTE curriculum and how contextually taught academics can be integrated into existing CTE curriculum” (p. 128). This calls for an expansion of traditional models for instructional leadership, whereby CTE leaders must work to partner knowledge of industry with core academic content for adult educators who most often bring skills in one, but not both, of these required domains.

Adding to the challenge of preparing CTE professionals to lead CTE organizations, it is also the case that, as CTE begins to play an increasingly important role in reforming the nation’s schools, leadership expectations within CTE appear to be shifting as well. According to Walters and Oliveria (2014),

the next generation of Career and technical education (CTE) leaders will need to be well-versed not only in traditional CTE delivery models, but also in knowledge and skills that promote a positive and effective working relationship with the entire education community, with a focus on success for all students. (p. 10)

According to the Ohio Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation (2017), the state of Ohio has seen 448,500 private sector jobs created since 2011, and to address the disconnect between business and education, the Workforce developed four recommendations to address the shortage of the adult workforce. These recommendations include (a) establish stronger connections between business and educational training systems, (b) address the skills gap to ensure businesses have access to skilled and productive workers, (c) build awareness of alternative pathways and increase the pipeline of students in non-4-year post-secondary programs and certificates, and (d) leverage nontraditional community assets (Ohio Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation, 2017).

Moreover, by simply folding CTE leadership and workforce transformation development into existing educational leadership programs for principal and superintendent licensure, the uniqueness and vitality of CTE leadership programmatic needs will be lost and under-prioritized due to limited knowledge and skills on behalf of those who may graduate from such programs and find themselves in CTE leadership positions (Clark & Cole, 2015). Those lacking CTE knowledge or experience may suddenly find themselves leading career and technology centers without training that is adequately focused on the CTE context. As we started to create this specialized focus for educational leadership preparation and working with practicing CTE leaders, we quickly realized that their vantage point on education and educational leadership was illuminating for our efforts to prepare school leaders in all settings. This occurred due to the unique position CTE takes in the field—under the umbrella of the PK-12 system but at the outside edge of that system.

Principal Preparation Requirements: National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Standards

At the national level in the US, preparation programs are tasked with preparing school leaders to meet a set of standards with 9 domains:

1) Mission, Vision, and Improvement; 2) Ethics and Professional Norms; 3) Equity and Cultural Responsiveness; 4) Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment; Community of Care and Support for Students; 5) Professional Capacity of School Personnel, 6) Professional Community for Teachers and Staff; 7) Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community; 8) Operations and Management; 9) School Improvement. (NPBEA, 2018)

Further, programs must prepare leaders at the levels of 1) awareness, 2) understanding, and 3) application of these standards (NPBEA, 2018). That is, programs must provide future school leaders with more than a rote, superficial knowledge of important concepts; there must be explicit focus on developing future leaders’ abilities to analyze this information and put it use in addressing practical issues in the field.

Within this project the NELP Standards are an important consideration. First, aligning the findings of this study with the standards allows for readers to see connections with their preparation programs. Using the NELP Standards as a prism for considering our own program’s effectiveness also aligns with literature (Boyland et al., 2022).

The Evolution of Principal Preparation Programs

The field in which future principals will soon find themselves is anything but static. Thus, University-based principal preparation programs (UPPPs) must adhere to the standards at each of the three levels while also adapting to shifts in family and community needs and demographics (Wang et al., 2018), policy landscapes (Reyes-Guerra & Lochmiller, 2016), technological advances (Dodson, 2019), and the need to address society’s wicked problems (Farley et al., 2019). In addition, programs must prepare principals to lead in diverse contexts such as rural and urban settings, public and private schools, magnet schools, arts intensive schools and career and technical schools (Wang et al., 2018).

UPPP’s are faced with the need to support unique and diverse populations (Clement et al., 2022b; Farley et al., 2019; O’Malley & Capper, 2015). While this literature has focused on marginalized student populations and underrepresented populations in the principal ranks, CTE settings are not represented. As previously noted, this project started with attempting to consider the unique needs that CTE leaders require to be successful. But, during the work the focus changed to look at how the lessons from CTE leaders could better shape the preparation of all school leaders. This shift was better informed by examining the curriculum of the field in general (Fanoos & He, 2021; Friend & Watson, 2014). But this examination required that we also consider the unique position that CTE leaders have with the field of public education.

Framework for Analysis

When the advisory board met to help us create this specialized preparation program there were aspects which were very familiar to our traditional PK-12 leadership development. At the same time, we also immediately picked up on the fact that these CTE leaders did not see themselves as fully inside the PK-12 system; members of the advisory board expressed feeling like they were kept outside or treated as supplemental and not integral to PK-12 education. This observation led us to adopt the outsider within framework to consider what could be learned from CTE’s position at the margins of public education. The outsider within framework was developed to bring forward the unique and illuminating perspectives of members of a group (insiders) that do not fully conform (outsider) to the group’s traditional norms (Collins, 1986). Collins (1986) developed the framework to examine the unique contributions that Black female sociologists contribute to a field created and dominated by White male perspectives. She notes the unique positions Black women have historically played in various settings. For example, as domestic workers in White households, Black women were able to see behind the veil of White social power. Within the civil rights and feminist movements Black women were key operators but marginalized in both settings. Collins also points out that within academia Black women are taking up a position where they can see things from both the inside and the outside simultaneously.

In this paper we employ this outsider within framework to highlight the viewpoints and observations administrators in CTE settings bring to the practice of preparing all school leaders. This framework has been applied across multiple fields, including sociology (Collins, 1986, Kwon, 2015, Sharma & Kumar, 2020), literature (McCoy, 2015), education (De Four-Babb et al., 2015, Thurlow, 2001), and educational leadership (Rusch, 1995). We see this framework as a useful lens for capturing the voices of our CTE advisory board members and their experiences as part of the broader PK-12 community. In working with our focus groups and visiting CTE settings we heard many examples of how CTE leaders see themselves and their schools as a part of the PK-12 educational system but not considered full members by the broader system (e.g., state departments of education, professional development organizations) including their peers in traditional comprehensive high schools.

A key feature of this framework is establishing the outsider position. We identify three ways this outsider position manifests: (a) CTE teachers’ training and career paths, (b) perceived stereotypes of CTE students, and (c) auxiliary physical space. First, CTE teachers are often well trained and experienced in their practical/professional fields, with less training in teaching and pedagogy (Stephens, 2015). Second, there are stereotypes, which are often negative, about the type of students that CTE attracts (Lichtenberger, 2004; Shields & Harris, 2007). Finally, CTE educational spaces are typically physically distant from traditional PK-12 spaces.

Participants

Participants in this study were the CTE and industry leaders (N = 12) in Ohio who served on the advisory board for the development of the CTELP program. These industry leaders reported an average of 19 years of experience in CTE settings, ranging from 2 to 33 years. Five were superintendents, five were CTE directors or executive directors (e.g., Director of Career and Tech), one was the owner of a marketing and PR firm specializing in CTE, and one was a CTE Specialist. Participants received $600 per full day (for a maximum of 2 days) for their advisory board participation. This remuneration was for their contributions to program development and was not contingent on their voluntary participation in this research. All participants completed consent forms permitting the use of these data for research purposes.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection included three sources: field notes from three CTE school site visits, verbatim transcriptions of focus group data (audio recordings) from 2 day-long (8 hours each) advisory board meetings, and written responses from CTE advisory board members (N = 12) to open-ended questionnaires (Appendix A) administered on-site at the Advisory Board meetings.

We employed two-cycle coding (Saldaña, 2015), first generating emergent codes to describe and categorize the stakeholders’ written comments and focus group discussions, and then conducting focused coding with the final, condensed list of codes. After data were independently coded, we met to consolidate codes and used an iterative team memo-writing process in our analysis, summarizing our findings from the data set and themes across the participant responses and field notes. Any discrepancies in our coding were addressed through discussion until we reached consensus. Appendix B includes the final codebook. We also constructed matrices to compare our research teams’ field notes from the three CTE school site visits to the coded Advisory Board meeting data (i.e., transcribed focus group discussions and written responses to open-ended questions). We wrote memos until we had achieved theoretical and empirical saturation (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

To support the validity of our study, we focused on collecting rich data (Maxwell, 2013). We chose to record and transcribe advisory board meetings verbatim rather than relying on notes. Field jottings during site visits were later memorialized in detailed field notes (Emerson et al., 2011). In addition, we used triangulation to avoid certain validity threats (Fielding & Fielding, 1986). For example, by asking for written responses to prompts during the workshops, we gave participants the opportunity to express divergent opinions or positions they may otherwise have hesitated to share during group discussions. Faculty site visits allowed faculty to observe the CTE settings firsthand and engage in less formal discussions with participants in the field, while also supporting rapport development between our team and our CTE partners.

Internal Versus External

There was a stark contrast between how the CTE insiders viewed the work of their schools (internal) and the way they believe that work is viewed by others (external). The internal versus external theme emerged in part from several responses to the question “What are the most common misconceptions about CTE that you encounter within the broader education community?” Answers to this question revealed the outsider position that those in CTE settings perceive in the PK-12 landscape. Examples of the type of responses to this question that demonstrate the positioning of CTE participants as relative outsiders were, “CTE is for the dumb kids,” “[CTE] is easier than the home school,” and “Students at the career center don’t go to college.” At the same time, it was also evident that these focus group participants, who are internal to the CTE community have much pride in their work. This pride was evident not only in their responses to questions, but through all their communications. For example, their facial expressions and body language were joyful as they discussed the work that happens in their schools. This pride was also evident in responses like: “. . . we have been a safe haven for students who aren’t suited to sitting at a desk for 6 hours . . .” and “. . . students are focused and want to succeed in their chosen career field.” These statements demonstrate how CTE leaders see their work as important to the well-being of students and how their schools provide a positive and productive school experience for students. During our site visits, administrators and teachers were eager to show us their spaces, demonstrated great pride in the facilities they could offer students, and expressed joy over students’ work. Our field notes reveal that in each school site the administrators guiding us through their schools use students’ first names in every classroom. In one school, as soon as our team walked into the automotive center a student went straight to the principal and gave an enthusiastic hello, high-five, and launched into an explanation of what the students were working on; students were in the process of finishing the seatbelt installation on a car they planned to race. A second student in this class told our team about what a wonderful job the students in the machine shop did in making the metal couplings for the seatbelts; “They totally rocked it! I mean, do you see how perfectly these work?” This engagement, enthusiasm, and sense of pride from both students and adults was evident in each of the site visits.

Another key finding from our focus group data is how students’ home schools seemed to present CTE to students and families; participants specifically shared frustrations around home school messaging on how CTE can/not shape a student’s post-graduation options. This finding is important for leadership preparation across program areas, as this stigma around CTE needs to be challenged in traditional schools as well.

The Challenges of Teacher Development

The second theme our data revealed was the unique situation that CTE leaders face when it comes to teacher development. The participants repeatedly came back to the challenge they face in this area due to how the laboratory teachers come into the profession. Teaching is often the second career for these lab teachers. Prior to coming to the CTE setting they were working as skilled professionals in their fields (e.g., auto mechanic, verterinarian, etc.). In other words, the welding teacher at your local career center was a professional welder before they took at job as a welding teacher. In many states there is an accelerated path for people to take in order to transition CTE teaching. CTE leaders are then faced with a critical portion of their faculty having had the minimum exposure to preservice teaching experience. Additionally, these CTE teachers are already professionally socialized in work and workplace traditions from their first careers. Focus group members repeatedly mentioned this transition with comments like, “. . . they aren’t traditionally trained teachers.” or “. . . they come from industry.” While these CTE teachers hold vast skill and expertise in their career areas, they must learn how to transfer that knowledge in meaningful ways to students in their new roles as practicing teachers. CTE teachers are also learning the career landscape of public education. These teachers are engaged in local- and state-mandated induction and mentoring programs and teacher evaluation systems that include student performance measures, all while they are transitioning from working exclusively with adults to having the duty to help adolescents develop into adults. During lunch at one of our site visits, a CTE administrator shared “Our hiring practices are absolutely critical. And I think this is maybe even more important in CTE because folks who come to us from industry sometimes really struggle to think about rigor in their instruction.”

This unique teacher development issue was present throughout participants’ discussions with our team. These leaders recognize that non-CTE leaders do not need to provide as much training for new staff members. While this is true, our participants also seemed to overestimate the level of skill that comes with teachers that pass through the traditional preservice process. In other words, our CTE leaders, as a group, held a belief that instructional leadership in traditional PK-12 settings was not especially challenging because teachers come to that work via traditional teacher preparation routes where they would have already been trained to be expert teachers. Our research team sees this is an important finding for all leader preparation programs. Again, our data offer insight into a common misconception between different stakeholder groups (i.e., CTE vs. traditional school leaders).

Unique Areas of Focus

The final theme emerging from our analyses was that CTE leaders have unique responsibilities and areas of work. For the CTELP program to effectively prepare effective CTE leaders it was clear we would need to address these unique responsibilities of CTE leadership. Two illustrative examples brought to light by our participants offer insight. The first centered around budgeting and funding streams, and the second was concerning the various communities that many CTE settings need to serve.

There are unique funding streams that CTE schools have access to. These include both federal grants linked to the Pell program and state-level workforce development grants. Principals in the CTE setting are required to know about these funding streams and make sure they are applying for as well as renewing them each year. Study participants let us know how critical this is to the work of a successful CTE principal. This information is not always taught in a traditional school finance course. This knowledge, however, is necessary for the financial health of CTE schools. The second unique area of understanding revealed in our study, various communities that a CTE school serves, was equally important for developing our insider perspective via the wisdom of these outsider within colleagues.

A unique challenge for many CTE schools is that they are a school of choice. In other words, they serve one or many districts and students choose to leave, for at least part of the school day, the traditional setting and spend a portion of their day in the CTE setting. Students are not automatically assigned to a CTE program or school. The result is that CTE schools must connect with schools, students, and parents, in order to have students opt into their CTE programming. It is here, in the relationship with the sending schools, that CTE leaders face the challenge of school counselors working in tradition high schools holding the perception that CTE and going-to-college are not aligned. Within this unique focus of needing to recruit and retain students and families, some of our participants worked for CTE schools that had massive geographic reach. One of the participating Career Centers serves 16 different school districts from five different counties. The way CTE principals need to think about student recruitment and retention is simply not really a part of the traditional high school principalship. The other unique and key community that CTE leaders need to foster relationships with are the local business and industry leaders. As a part of the funding and evaluation cycle for CTE schools, each program within the school is required to have an advisory board. These boards provide input on new trends in the field and give impressions on the quality of recent program graduates. This type of interaction with people hiring graduates rarely, if ever, happens in the traditional high school setting. In addition to maintaining an advisory board for each existing program, if principals wish to consider starting a new program, they are required to conduct a needs assessment. This needs assessment calls for the Career Center to demonstrate that there are firms in need of skilled workers that the new program would produce. If the CTE school cannot establish a current need for the graduates of a proposed program, then the funding for the new program will not be approved. This explains some of the similarities and differences between the curricula at various CTE schools. Most CTE schools have programs in auto repair and cosmetology since nearly all communities have a demand for these skills. We also see differences in CTE program offerings based on specific community needs. For example, schools in more rural areas are likely to support programs in large animal veterinary care and agriculture. Schools in more metropolitan areas, however, might offer aviation and restaurant management programs. These differences stem from the communities’ needs and CTE schools’ efforts to respond. This type of engagement with business and industry is not typically required of traditional high school principals and helps us to think about the role of school/community relations in a very different way.

Implications for Principal Preparation Programs

The findings from this work yields two areas for implications for UPPPs. The first area comes from the results discussed above. Our CTE leaders raised issues that are important for UPPPs to consider for all school leaders. How principals are prepared to think about curriculum, teacher development, and who forms their communities are areas that UPPPs should consider. The second implication is the importance of considering the perspectives held by those at the edge of the PK-12 landscape. It is easy for preparation programs to design with an eye toward the middle of the field. The danger of this position is that it not only ignores those working at the margins but also misses opportunities to reshape the learning and understanding of leaders in all contexts.