Impact of Perceptions On Enrollment Final

Running Head: PERCEPTIONS ON ENROLLMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT
A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF PERCEPTIONS ON ENROLLMENT AND

ACHIEVEMENT
AT OAKLAND TECHNICAL CAMPUS SOUTHWEST
Amy Flynn
Oakland University
Dr. Lindson Feun
March 31, 2018

PERCEPTIONS ON ENROLLMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT 2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………5
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Chapter 1………………………………………………………………………………………7
Background
Assumptions and Limitations
Evaluation/Research Questions
Chapter 2……………………………………………………………………………………..15
Introduction
Review of Literature
Chapter 3……………………………………………………………………………………..18
Method of the Study
Overview of Study Conducted
Selection of the Subjects
Research Design
Description of Instruments
Data Analysis
Summary of Chapter 3
Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………………………….24
Triangulation of Data
Data Source 1
Table of Contents
Data Source 2
Data Source 3
Discussion of Results
Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………………………..39
Overview
Conclusions
Recommendations
Implications for Future Research
Resources……………………………………………………………………………………..47
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………...49
Appendix A: Consent Form…………………………………………………………………..49
Appendix B: Enrollment Data for 2016-17…………………………………………………..50
Appendix B1: Cumulative Initial Enrollment Data……………………………….....50
Appendix B2: Enrollment Attrition Timeline …………………………………….....51
Appendix B3: General vs. Special Populations by School…………………………..52
Appendix B4: General vs. Special Populations by Program………………………....53
Appendix C: Surveys, Interviews, Journal Entries…………………………………………..54
Appendix C1: Counselor Perception Survey on Enrollment Process………………..54
Appendix C2: Counselor Perception Survey Results………………………………..58
Appendix C3: Student Interview -Student Program Change Request……………….62
Appendix C4: Counselor Schedule Change Requests……………………………….64
Appendix C5: Student Support Team Referral Interviews…………………………..65

Table of Contents
Appendix C6: Student Support Team Referral Results………………………………66
Appendix C7: Enrollment Concern Progression……………………………………...67
Appendix C8: Community Perceptions Survey………………………………………68
Appendix C9: Community Perceptions Survey Results……………………………...71
Appendix D: Achievement Data
Appendix D1: State Achievement Data……………………………………………...75
Appendix D2: OSTC Total Achievement Awards…………………………………..76
Appendix D3: Disaggregated Academic and Technical Achievements …………….77

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Dean of the Southwest Campus, Martin Kaye, for encouraging the
research project by granting access to stakeholders during the data collection process in order to
gain the broadest perspectives and perceptions possible. The enrollment data collection was
extremely time consuming. I would like to thank Ella Fletcher, front office Secretary, for her
excel expertise and assistance in pulling the data together. Without her skill and efficiency, this
project would not have been possible. I would also like to demonstrate sincere appreciation for
the Student Support Team members, Mary Crockett and Jessica Dawson, who took a genuine
interest in the research by keeping notes and records all of student meetings for the duration of
the process. They also helped me to synthesize the data through countless hours of data
exploration and dialogue. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Lindson Feun for his guidance
throughout the research. This research opportunity has been one of the most valuable and
applicable learning experiences of my career.

Abstract
This paper examines the perceptions of Career and Technical Education (CTE) and the impact
those perceptions have on the enrollment process at the Oakland Schools Technical Campus
Southwest (OSTC-SW). Research cited shows that elevated CTE curriculum standards now align
with college level learning, making CTE is a powerful learning advantage for students. However,
CTE still struggles to contend as a viable option for higher achieving students. The result is that
the Southwest campus population is skewed with a disproportionate number of Special
Population and alternative learners and is operating well beneath its capacity. A review of the
enrollment applications, as well as qualitative inquiries, demonstrated that four of seven districts
used only half of their allocated slots. Of those utilized, referrals were 50% Special Populations
and nearly 40% credit deficient. Qualitative inquiries support an overall disconnect in
knowledge and value of CTE in those districts, as referrals were seeking alternative education,
rather than the pursuit of industry/postsecondary specific curriculum and credentialing. A
number of solutions are explored in this paper to facilitate a referral process which demonstrates
the value and purpose of CTE as an option for all learners.
Key words: Career and Technical Education (CTE) Oakland Schools Technical Campus
Southwest (OSTC-SW)
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Oakland Schools Intermediate School District is a regional service agency that offers
support services to local districts that are best delivered regionally, as measured by cost, size and
quality advantages. Relevant to this research project, Oakland Schools oversees the funding,
compliance and data collection of all state approved Career and Technical Education (CTE)
programs in Oakland County, including the four Oakland Schools Technical Campuses
(OSTC’s). There is state approved CTE programming in all districts in Oakland County, except
two. Of approximately 30, 600 students in Oakland County, age appropriate for the Technical
Campuses, approximately 16,899 students enroll in CTE courses countywide. Approximately 5,
600 students take local CTE offerings with an additional 597 enrolled at the Technical Campus
Southwest.
Several years ago, each of the Technical Campuses were operated and maintained by the
local district where the campus resided. In the Southwest quadrant, for example, the campus was
staffed and operated by Walled Lake School District. In 2000, the campus was taken over by
Oakland Schools. Anyone working at the campus became an Oakland Schools Employee.
However, students attending the campus were considered “shared” students. Oakland Schools
educated them but all Full Time Equivalency (FTE) funding was given to the local school
district. In order to ensure equitable access for all students, a “slotting” protocol was enacted. An
allocated a number of slots was given to each district, based on the number of 10th grade students
enrolled. Hence, the district was responsible for referring students and using the allocated slots.
To facilitate this, the OSTC’s asked each high school to establish a “Liaison to OSTC.” This
individual would act as the conduit between the district and the Technical Campus. This person
would attend regular meetings, become knowledgeable on OSTC program options, advocate the
benefits of Career and Technical Education and above all, refer students for enrollment that
were committed to learning the curriculum and earning aligned credentialing at the Technical
Campus.
From a service agency perspective, taking control of the Technical Campuses made fiscal
sense; because, the cost for running Career and Technical Education electives is extremely high.
This is due, in large part, to the function that CTE serves: students’ access to “industry-inspired”
laboratory technology and equipment, project based, experiential hands-on learning, small class
sizes with industry certified teachers. Not only will students gain knowledge of concepts and
curricula, they will demonstrate competency in industry relevant technical skills, career ready
habits and work based learning experiences. Costs for educating one student in a State Approved
CTE program at OSTC-SW are significantly higher (depending on program) than in the sending
schools. So, despite the notion that Career and Technical Education programming is more
costly, it is a very effective way to educate our youth. It is noteworthy to mention that funding
for CTE comes from federal Perkins funds (Carl D. Perkins Act of 2006), state initiatives and a
county millage (which has been renewed in perpetuity.) In short, this millage allows all students
in Oakland County to access technology which local districts could not afford to purchase nor
maintain on their own.
“Career and Technical Education is a proven strategy that expands options for learners,
empowers them to choose a meaningful and sustainable career, and prepares them with real-
world skills for success in college and careers. Through hands on learning, engagement with
industry experts and rigorous academic and career focused course work; CTE is learning that
works for Michigan’s students and its economy.” (Advance CTE) The research supports the
effectiveness of career and technical education in matriculating to college:
Students in CTE programs are more likely to graduate and continue their education
beyond high school than their peers in traditional academic settings.
79% of CTE concentrators enrolled in postsecondary education within 2 years of high
school graduation
80% of CTE concentrators persisted in postsecondary education
27% of people with less than an associate’s degree (including licenses and certificates)
earn more than the average bachelor’s degree recipient (U.S. Department of Education,
2011).
This data feeds nicely into the directive by President Obama “To educate our way to a
better economy, educators, public officials and policy makers must ensure that every student
graduates from high school prepared for college and a successful career” (Duncan, 2012). The
Oakland Schools vision statement for the Technical Campuses echoes the same sentiment, “All
students will graduate progressing to quality postsecondary learning.” This vision is underscored
by the creation of the Oakland Technical Early College program where students in multiple
programs at OSTC can leave high school with an Applied Associate’s Degree.
Again, the decision by Oakland Schools to take over maintenance and operations of the
campuses saved districts hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the same time, the ISD assured
local districts that the Technical Campuses would not be in competition for students, because
OSTC programs would not duplicate district offerings, it would supplement or elevate program
options. In other words, students would begin with an elective at the partner school and then
finish at the Technical Campus. The two would work in partnership to streamline county state
approved technical education offerings and elevate the achievement of students in Oakland
County.
The relational history paints a critical backdrop to this research project because there is an
opportunity for all students in Oakland County to gain the competitive advantage that CTE
offers; yet, districts are not demonstrating that they value this opportunity. Enrollment is down at
the Technical Campuses. The OSTC-SW building is running at approximately 65-70 % capacity,
the other three slightly higher. Furthermore, multiple sending schools are not filling their slots
and those who do, initially, experience high rates of attrition. Others send a student demographic
comprised of a population who have not been successful with traditional education. Enrollment
applications reflect a disproportionate number of students that have excessive attendance or
behavior issues, students who are not on track to graduate or students whom require substantial
accommodations, as dictated by, the Individualized Education Plans (IEP). One celebrated data
fact is this: once enrolled, the vast majority of students demonstrate increased performance and
achievement according to the state completer metric. A less celebrated fact is this: very few
students hit the performance benchmarks dictated by industry. This is problematic, because a
critical function of CTE is to fill the skills gap and strengthen the local economy.
In short, the rationale for this study was born when the researcher began to review the
applications for enrollment into the Technical Campus Southwest for the 2016-2017 school year
and recorded some demographic information into a database. A review of some initial data led to
several inquiries, notably: What is the impact of perceptions on the referral process at OSTC and
is there a correlation to achievement at the Oakland Schools Technical Campus Southwest?

Assumptions
The following assumptions are based on enrollment and engagement data, informal and
formal interviews and anecdotal case studies with students and districts (either individually or
collectively) over the past 8 years of working with Career Focused Education on many levels.
The following assumptions are pertinent to the study:
1. The role and expectations of the Counselor Liaison differ per district, but in all districts,
it is the Counselor Liaison that confirms, at least in part, the enrollment referrals to
OSTC.
2. Despite regular meetings, trainings and data shared with the Counselor Liaison, there is a
great disparity of knowledge amongst the Counselor Liaisons, as it relates to OSTC
program offerings, curriculum, enrollment process, advocacy and value of CTE.
3. There has been no evidence of any directive from leadership (either ISD or LEA) to
regulate and/or mandate the enrollment process at the county/district level. The 2009
Office of Civil Rights corrective action plan delineated OSTC process, but did not
reference or mandate any such process at the district level, where arguably, the issue
originated.
4. Sending schools perception of the value of CTE is as diverse as the constituent district
demographics, but collectively, there seems to be a general misunderstanding as to how
achievement is defined for CTE students vs. traditional students.
5. Sending schools understand the OSTC achievement dashboard and work to align right fit
students to maximize achievement at OSTC, but there exists notable barriers beyond their
control. One of which could be barriers created by biased perceptions.

6. Sending schools lack adequate knowledge about OSTC achievement outcomes and/or
lack vocational/career alignment skills, so referrals for enrollment are inadequate due to
misalignment.
7. Sending schools are apathetic toward OSTC achievement outcomes and seek placement
for students who are not able to achieve in a traditional setting, but may achieve a passing
grade at OSTC, at minimum.
8. Participants in surveys and interviews responded accurately and honestly to the questions.
Limitations
1. The study was conducted in only one of the four Oakland Schools Technical Campuses;
and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the other campuses.
2. Oakland Schools SIS system is not capable of capturing all of the metrics in this research
study. Data was collected via multiple avenues, thus human error is a factor and a
limitation.
3. The student population did not remain consistent for 2016-17 (due to adds and attrition).
4. Accessibility to community contacts (for survey purposes) was limited to the districts
that cooperated in sending out the survey on behalf of OSTC-SW.
5. Oakland Schools is fearful of litigation and thus conversations, suggestions and data
shares surrounding the topic of enrollment, process and proposed criteria are discouraged
(at the building level) and reserved for the Legal Department, who have exacerbated the
issue since the OCR Complaint found against Oakland Schools in 2010.
Notably, in 2010, Oakland Schools was cited with a Civil Rights violation. The findings
revealed a “disproportionate number of Special Education students” attending the

campuses and the organization were ordered to comply with a corrective action plan. This
spurred a revision of the enrollment process at the Technical Campus, whereby applicants
were not to be discriminated on the basis of disability. The plan required the districts to
be able to submit applications without demographic or special population information
included, so that that OSTC could not discriminate against those placements. Hence, a
limitation from the Civil Rights suit is that Oakland Schools is fearful of litigation and
doesn’t want to “appear” to discriminate against students with IEP’s. In the interim,
Special Populations referrals are climbing and the unintentional implication is that
students without special needs are being discriminating against. Some of the learning
environments are comprised of 40-60% of learners who have an IEP, thus tipping the
learning environment from general education to special education. Inadvertently, this
may slow down the pace of curriculum or “water down” its’ rigor. Thus, causing
stakeholder perceptions to believe that any and all can be successful in a career and
technical placement.
6. Oakland Schools is a service agency, who has strived to strengthen relationships with
sending schools since the Technical Campus takeover in 2000. Because Oakland Schools
insisted that the Campuses were an extension of the local high school, they allowed and
continue to allow the high schools to use our programming to accommodate their needs.
The unintentional outcome of this arrangement is that Oakland Schools has forfeited its
mission and achievement standards to maintain relationships.
In 2000, the curriculum standards at the Technical Campus were vocational in
nature, providing an alternative population the opportunity for vocational exploration and
career success. In 2006, Perkins reauthorized vocational education, thereby renaming it

“Career and Technical Education” in which the state approved curriculum standards had
to align with postsecondary programs of study. This launched a formal relationship
between the high school and community colleges program, whereby 80% of the
curriculum would be shared. In essence, the high school students were learning college
level curriculum. In other words, the curriculum for CTE programs became rigorous but
the standards for entry into those programs remained the same.
7. The study was conducted in only one of the four Oakland Schools Technical Campuses;
and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the other campuses.
Research Questions
The following inquiries guided the research:
1. What are the perceptions of Career and Technical Education program opportunities
(at OSTC) by sending schools/students/parents?
a. Is there an understanding of the value of CTE?
b. Is there an understanding of what achievement outcomes look like in CTE?
2. How do perceptions impact the referral/enrollment process?
3. Is there a correlation between enrollment data and achievement at OSTC?
4. What are the leadership roles in strengthening collaboration and shared accountability
for student access and achievement in county CTE programs.
Chapter 2
Introduction
A large part of the OSTC Counseling position involves outreach and enrollment. Because
students elect to come to OSTC and seats are determined by high school slotting allocations, an
enrollment application is required to attend. Thus, the job involves a great deal of educating.
OSTC provides training on program offerings, academic front loading, curriculum standards, and
careers associated with program choices, etc. The goal is to enroll the “right student in the right
program for the right reason,” so that students will achieve the necessary credentials to transition
to quality postsecondary learning. One key goal of CTE is college and career readiness, through
rigorous applied academics, technical skill attainment and the achievement of work skills
appropriate for college or the work place. In the skilled trades, the goal is slightly more focused:
to produce students who will fill the skills gap by preparing for high skill, high wage and high
demand jobs.
All training and outreach messages echo that sentiment; including bimonthly Counselor
contact meetings and bi-annual administrative luncheons, building visits, community
presentations, but most notably the 10th grade assemblies. In the Fall, the OSTC Counselor
travels to each of the high schools in the Southwest quadrant and presents to 10th graders about
Career and Technical Education Programming available at OSTC. For the 2016-17 schoolyear,
12 of 13 partner high schools hosted approximately 4,500 students in an OSTC assembly. OSTC
hosted another 1,200 students and parents at its annual Open House. There was enormous
exposure to OSTC and great enthusiasm generated.

A few weeks later, when enrollment documents were sent to OSTC a number of
hypotheses began to grow as the applications by one school, in particular, were reviewed. It
seemed apparent that despite multiple attempts to educate, the sending schools either did not
understand CTE or simply did not value CTE. Several questions began to emerge which
launched the research study. Why aren’t districts using all of the allocated slots? Why are there
so many credit deficient students? What do these referrals reveal about the districts value of
CTE? Because this one group of referrals was so offensive, a curiosity was spurred about
perceptions and how they influence and affect campus enrollment and ultimately, achievement.
Literature Review
Career and Technical Education is arguably one of the most misunderstood learning
opportunities available for students today. Perhaps the most enduring belief is that it is only for
the non-college bound, potential drop outs or other students with special need (Stone, 1993).
Research suggests that there are a related set of beliefs about the labor market that reinforce
traditional negative images of vocational education, assuming that technical training is inferior to
academic programs (West1996) and is in some ways a consolation prize for those who do not
pursue a four year education. Society has been bombarded with data that correlates increased
degrees with increased earnings. These perceived higher earnings have fueled “college for all
mentality,” where students believe that a four year degree will bring job security, social mobility
and financial prosperity. However, data suggests that of all the high school students who enroll
in postsecondary education, only about 25% complete the four year degree. Of those who finish
the degree, half of college graduates are underemployed in gray collar jobs that do not require
the education they have received at a cost that is more than they can afford (Fleming, 2014). The
rationale that higher degrees pay more money is not necessarily inaccurate, but is incomplete and
outdated advice, given the changing workforce over the last three decades. By 2018, Harvard
University predicts that only 33% of all jobs will require a four year university degree, the
overwhelming majority will require middle skill jobs requiring technical skills and training at the
credential or associate degree level. This puts Career and Technical Education in the perfect
position to train and deliver a workforce that meets the demands of industry.
CTE reform is a key factor in bridging the gap between education and industry.
Fortunately, federal and state law makers across the 50 states are seeing substantial policy
changes, via legislation specific to CTE and workforce development. What is driving these
policy changes? In order to compete in a global economy, the work force needs high skilled
workers, holding industry-recognized certifications to fill labor market demands. Education
reform is popping up across the Unites States and is essentially being driven by four components,
including: formalizing avenues for business and industry to inform CTE offerings, blending high
school and postsecondary learning opportunities, incentivizing completion of industry
certifications and credentials and expanding opportunities for internships and apprenticeships.
The reform of vocational education was rooted in the Carl D. Perkins law which re-
authorized and mandated CTE state adopted standards, requiring postsecondary linkages.
Because Federal and State governments were highly interested in elevating the rigor of the
curriculum, delivery models and benchmarks for completion were also set. The goal and purpose
of CTE is to prepare students for high skill, high wage and high demand careers by strengthening
academic knowledge, technical skills and developing the mindsets for career and college
readiness. The key to this success will be to educate stakeholders on the desperate need to raise
and validate standards of CTE, so that we may sustain the pipeline for business and industry.
Chapter 3
Method of Study
Overview
The purpose of this study is to understand stakeholder perceptions, knowledge and value
of CTE programming at OSTC and how those perceptions affect enrollment and achievement.
The study was conducted in the following manner:
A. Consent for conducting the research study via building Administrator at OSTC-SW was
secured.
B. Enrollment Data was collected, including: program choice, EDP alignment, GPA, credit
status, general education vs special populations, number of slots used by districts
C. Anecdotal Interviews/Case Studies (both formal and informal): Collaborative
Conversations with district stakeholders, Progress and Planning meetings with students
and parents, Program Change Requests (Counselor Online Change Request System and
Student Audit Process)
D. Surveys: Students, Counselor Liaisons, district high school partners, community
members and industry partners
Interviews: Phone calls and/or email surveys to students who decided not to attend
E. Achievement Data: Student academic and technical skill achievement at the end of the
year as acknowledged by OSTC-SW (locally) and CTEIS reports (regionally) from
Oakland Schools Office of Career Focused Education
Selection of Subjects
Initially, the selection of subjects focused on the entire student enrollment population for
the 2016-17 schoolyear at OSTC-SW. It also incorporated the perceptions of the lead partner
school contacts referred to as the “Counselor Liaisons.” As the year progressed, additional
subjects included district representatives, community members and industry partners and current
students.
Research Design
The Initial Enrollment Data (Appendix B1) were collected (one time) for all new enrollees
who had applied and were accepted into OSTC-SW at the start of the enrollment process for the
2016-17 schoolyear. Review and collection of data regarding Educational Development Plans
(EDP’s) alignment to program, credit deficiencies, cumulative GPA, student support classes and
any aligned coursework previously taken were recorded into a database. The data were also
disaggregated by Special Populations by High School (Appendix B3) and by program (Appendix
B4).
The Enrollment Attrition Data (Appendix B2) were collected throughout the year from
sending school Counselors and Transition Coordinators via electronic google form. These
requests included changes in program, session, academic request and in many cases, drops from
OSTC-SW. This information was monitored all year and all changes in data were reflected in the
data base.
Surveys, interviews, observations and anecdotal case studies (Appendix C) began in
Spring of 2016. Students identified as “Not Ready Yet” candidates for OSTC were flagged for
sending school meetings, called “Collaborative Conversations” (Appendix C5). Because the
student transcript revealed excessive credit deficiency, excessive absences, low GPA, OSTC
requested a “Collaborative Conversation” with the sending district to reevaluate the candidate
and/or to prescribe support strategies to assist with student success. Meetings were conducted
(typically) via phone conference with the sending school counselors and Transition Coordinator
with the OSTC Student Support Team. The team discussed three items: concerns about
placement, implications for concerns, and solutions for front loading or deferring enrollment.
Program Change Requests (Appendices C3 and C4) were program change requests either
submitted online by sending school Counselors or by students in paper format. The electronic
requests were logged for the year. The paper forms were initiated by students in September 2016
and concluded on Count Day (October 5) of 2016 for first semester. Students began initiating
requests once again in the Spring via the same manner for placement at OSTC in the subsequent
year, as a Returning Student. When a student filled out the request, the Counselor would
interview the student, do an interest inventory, then allow the student to audit (sit in) on the class.
After the audit the student would write a short reflection and then take the form home for
signatures from parent and sending school Counselor.
Student Support Team Weekly Meetings (Appendix C4) were the avenue by which
teachers referred students that were having difficulty with grades, behaviors or technical skills.
These weekly meetings began in October and continued throughout the year. Student Support
Team personnel met with students and captured authentic accounts of the issues occurring, the
implication of the issues and possible solutions. Informal student and staff interviews were
captured via expository notes and recurring themes were tabulated for the first semester. They
were also documented in the Student Information System (SIS).
Collaborative Conversations and Progress and Planning Team meetings (Appendix C5)
with students, parents, High School Counselors and OSTC staff were conducted on an as-needed
basis, when student performance concerns warranted planning that may result in change of
program or placement. These meetings were formal in nature, requiring attendees to sign in and a
designee scribe to capture the content and outcome of the meeting. Meeting notes were captured
via expository notes sent to all stakeholders. Recurring themes, as well as a collection of quotes
was captured to indicate the perceptions of the student, parent, OSTC instructor, sending school
Representative Counselor or Transition Coordinator.
Surveys (Appendix C) samples of convenience were collected via electronic survey and
included:
 Counselor Surveys on OSTC Enrollment, Process, Perception and programming
(Appendix C1)
 OSTC District Perception Survey of sending school personnel, students, parents and
industry partners. (Appendix C6)
Data obtained from surveys was on a Likert scale, so item analysis was done by looking at
the mean and standard deviation of each response. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were
used for this project.
Achievement Data (Appendix D) were pulled in May 2017 via the SIS MiStar Activities
Tab. Achievement defined locally at the OSTC-SW campus included merit based Academic,
Technical and Career Ready Achievement accomplishments, as well as achievement related
brushes of success.
Merit achievement included: Students inducted into the National Technical Honor Society
and the Dean’s List, both requiring a minimal GPA and attendance requirement. Technical Skill
Achievement, as measured by National Certifications earned and Work Based Learning paid and
unpaid job placements. It also included Career Readiness achievement, indicated by the
completion of a professional portfolio with mandatory components.
State Achievement Data Achievement data was collected at the conclusion of the second
semester and correlated back to the original data to see if the readiness indicators had merit and
did predict success. State achievement indicators are defined as “Completers” and
“Concentrator.” Completer status require the student to finish 12 or 12 learning segments,
achieve a CTE grade of a 2.0 and take the state program assessment. Passing is not required.
Concentrator status requires that the student finish 7 of 12 learning segments, earns a 2.0 and
takes the assessment, if available.
Summary
The research project was initiated to investigate the perceptions of district engagement and
advocacy of OSTC programming, its impact on the referral process and the correlation, if any, to
the achievement rate of students at OSTC-SW.
The collection of data was extremely time consuming. In terms of the enrollment data,
there was a relatively short turn around period, in which the campus collected and reviewed the
applications. Reading 700 students Educational Development Plans and transcripts, then
recording it into a data base was tricky and posed some real time limitations. In terms of
collecting perceptions for students, parents and partner districts, discussions, meetings and case
studies as they occurred in the natural environment, seemed to be the most comprehensive way
to capture authentic perceptions. The challenge, of course, was with the systematic synthesis of
the data. Qualitative data is not always easy to code. Throughout the research, there were
multiple discoveries of process that actually infringed upon the accuracy of the data collection,
such as: the MiStar Student Information System producing inconsistent data and data pulls-
dependent upon teacher- entry were not consistently accurate. (This was noted when the
researcher compared the Campus data to the CTEIS data collected from Oakland Schools Career
Focused Education department.)

One notable learning experience pertains to the lack of accessibility and information
sharing going on between the Technical Campus and the “partner” schools. Lack of mailing
addresses, list serves, and parent and student contacts leaves the campus at the mercy of the
partner school discretion and impedes campus productivity in numerous ways, notably, the
difficulty getting districts to send out the Community Perceptions Survey.
Moreover, Oakland Schools’ goal to become ADA (American Disabilities Act) compliant
with the website has rendered the website completely useless to both community partners
seeking information and for OSTC needing to post events, surveys, etc.
Despite difficulties with data collection, the research process highlighted concerns, which
allowed for thoughtful solution-seeking endeavors to strengthen the mission and purpose of the
enrollment process at OSTC-SW.

Chapter 4
Triangulation of Data
Triangulation is a technique that validates data through cross verification from two or
more sources. In this study, multiple methods of research were employed for validation and
inquiry by the use of quantitative data from the enrollment applications and achievement
outcomes, combined with empirical observation and qualitative studies, such as surveys,
interviews and case studies.
Data Source 1: Enrollment Data
The initial enrollment data were collected once at the start of the enrollment period
(January 2016) for the 2016-17 schoolyear and revealed the following:
Overall, the population at OSTC was comprised of 33% Special Education Students, 29%
credit deficient, of which 6% was not on track for a diploma, 19% of students had a GPA below
a 1.9 (“D”) or below and 33% of students were not in a program area which aligned with their
EDP. Out of seven sending districts, four of the largest districts were using well under the
amount of slots allocated, yet referred an inordinate amount of students who were credit
deficient, special needs, has a low GPA and an EDP that was not aligned to the program in which
they were placed. Despite surveys given to sending school districts in which the Counselor
Liaisons responded in favor of sending “right fit referrals,” four of the largest districts have
seemingly ignored best practices for enrollment. This implied that those sending districts valued
CTE educational opportunities for alternative or low achieving students only.

Table 1 illustrates the population of referrals in those districts.
Table 1: Excerpt from Appendix B1.
Disaggregated Enrollment by four largest sending districts to OSTC-SW

District % Slots Used % Special % Credit % EDP not
Populations Deficient Aligned
A 40 60 43 25
B 41 46 53 42
C 51 43 38 30
D 79 35 34 33
Note: Low slot usage, with high rate of students with IEPS and credit deficiencies, with EDP’s
not aligned to OSTC program imply that CTE is for students that need credits and exchanges
offered through CTE programming.
After reviewing the data, it should be noted that capturing EDP alignment was problematic
for all districts, collectively. OSTC used the matchmaker results aligned to the Michigan Career
Pathways to determine alignment. However, after further discussion with districts and reviewing
the dates that the EDP’s were completed, it was determined that the Matchmaker Interest
Inventory was outdated and inaccurate, as many students had not retaken Matchmaker since their
8th grade year.
The initial data collection were not conclusive as to what readiness factors, such as GPA,
credit deficiency and EDP alignment, in isolation, indicate student success. However, students
with GPA’s lower than 2.0, or students who had not taken the aligned and suggested prerequisite
classes, IEP students who gave up learning skills classes at the high school in order to come to
OSTC and those with program alignment (interest) issues were a majority of the students that
were referred to the Student Support Team and ultimately the subject of this research.
Data Source 2: Surveys, Interviews, Case Studies
The schools Counselors were surveyed to capture their knowledge and perception of the
enrollment timeline, process and best practices (Appendix C1). The results of the survey (Table
2) revealed that many of districts demonstrated solid knowledge of process and best practices for
slot usage, incorporating district initiated protocols for equity of placement, such as the use of
rubrics, curriculum and or Career Trees, collaborative meetings, among other methods for
placement into OSTC.
Table 2
District reported protocols used for OSTC placements

% that use protocol % that don't use protocol
Interest aligns to programs as evidenced 66.7 33.3
by EDP or interest inventory
Rubrics to assess readiness 42.9 57.1
Collaborative meetings with other 87.5 12.5
colleagues
Using IEP to assist with placement 68.8 31.3
Using curriculum, career trees, 75.0 25.0
indispensable skill reviews
Note: There were 16 total respondents. All districts were represented, but not all high schools.
Ironically, the percentage of districts that don’t use EDP’s as an assistive tool to direct
programming directly corresponds to the number of students whose EDP’s do not align with
programming. Along the same vein, collaborative meetings and the use of IEP’s to assist with
placement may infer that referrals for students with IEP’s are higher than other populations,
hence the high percentages reported, 88% and 69%, respectively.

Table 3
District reported items necessary for “right fit” referrals

Importance of considering the following: Extremely Important Not N/A to
Important Important enrollment
Aligned Interest/EDP 5 9 1 1
Related Coursework at HS 1 7 5 3
On Track for Diploma 9 6 1
Visit to Campus 10 4 2
Appropriate Attendance at HS 11 5
Appropriate Discipline at HS 9 7
Student has Aptitude to be Successful 9 7
Student can Earn Extra Credits 6 5 5
Student can Access OTEC 4 8 2 2
Note: There were 16 total respondents. All districts were represented, but not all high schools.
The Counselor Liaisons and Transition Coordinators that were surveyed have all been
partners with OSTC for at least two years, some of them acting in their role for nearly a decade.
Those surveyed had been privy to OSTC meetings and trainings on best practices, which could
explain the contradiction between their answers in Table 2 and the referrals that were sent. The
data clearly illustrates that the criteria in the table, with the exception of “related coursework” is
critical to consider when enrolling students. An emphasis was seen in the data on good
attendance, behavior and aptitude, as 100% of the respondents agreed that students should
demonstrate those things prior to coming to OSTC. 15 of 16 respondents believed that being on
track for a diploma is important, yet 29% of the OSTC population was credit deficient with 6%
not earning a diploma.
Moreover, the Counselors were asked to comment on the necessity of courses at OSTC.
The courses in Table 3 are primarily required classes for a diploma, with the exception of
Trig/Pre-Calculus and Online Recovery. The data revealed that the largest necessity, with a
response rate of 100%, was4th math, which allowed the student to ‘Opt Out’ of math by counting
the CTE course as a Math credit. The second most necessary course was Algebra 2 Exchange.
Likewise, this course allowed students to meet the Michigan Merit Curriculum Requirements for
Algebra 2 by completing the CTE curriculum and then gaining exposure to Algebra 2 content
once per week. 81% of respondents believed that option was necessary. By contrast, courses
which would supplement various career pathways taught at the campus, such as Mechatronics or
Machining, through applied Trigonometry or Pre-Calculus, were deemed mostly unnecessary
with a response rate of 18%. Overall, the impression from Table 4 alludes to the fact that
districts see OSTC as a place for low achieving students needing access to recovery credits.
Table 4
District Rating of Academics necessary at OSTC

Rate the necessity of the following % Necessary % Not Necessary
Academic offerings at OSTC to best
serve your population
Algebra 2 Exchange 81.3 18.8
Algebra 2 Two year pace 50.0 50.0
Algebra 2 One year pace 50.0 50.0
4th (Senior Math) 100.0 0.0
Trig/Pre-Calculus 18.8 81.3
Physics 75.0 25.0
English 12 68.8 31.3
Online Recovery 68.8 31.3
Note: Algebra 2 Exchange is remedial option for CTE students to meet the Algebra 2
requirement.
4th Math is a way for seniors to “opt out” of taking math
Total Respondents=16
The data revealed that there was a correlation between credit deficient or low achieving
students and academic requests made by the sending school, most notably in the areas of Algebra
2 Exchange and Two Year Pace Algebra.

Chart 1 Academic Requests made by Counselors for 2016-17
Academic and Pullout Classes from 2016-17

120 112
100
80
60
42
40
20 12 8
5
0
Algebra 2 Exchange Algebra 2 Year 1 Algebra 2 Year 2 English 12 Physics
According to Chart1, 179 Academic Requests were made of the total 594 students
enrolled. This means that 30% of the student population was pulled from the CTE curriculum, to
earn needed credits for their diploma. Some of these students missed approximately 1/3 of the
curriculum, yet when reintegrated into the classroom, were expected to gain competency with the
curriculum, by completing assignments at home or online. In reviewing the data from the Student
Support Team student interviews, credit deficient and low achieving students responded that they
struggled immensely by being pulled from the CTE classroom.(Ironically, these are the types of
learners typically scheduled into those programs.) Progress in both areas was impeded and
numerous students ended up dropping an academic class, while others stayed, yet forfeited the
CTE curriculum. As noted, Chart 1 revealed a spike in the requests for Algebra 2 Exchange,
which met only once per week, whereas dramatic dips were seen in English 12, Physics and Year
2 of Algebra 2 (2year pace). It has been observed that the unintended implication of this
scenario was that the curriculum became watered down or the benchmarks whittled, so that the
student could achieve some success in the CTE learning environment.

Another intriguing piece of data was the total number of program requests. With an
enrolled population settled at 611 for the start of the year, 388 change requests by the Counselors
revealed enormous inconsistency and uncertainty with placement. However this information
further corroborates the enrollment data, as the highest occurrence was related to Academic Adds
requested by the sending school Counselor. 43% of the requests involved an academic, thus
indicating that OSTC is valued for its academic offerings, rather than the CTE experience.
Furthermore, an astounding 64% of enrollment applications had changes made to the original
request.
Table 5
Counselor Schedule Change Requests for 2016-17 via online request link.
Counselor Requests Number of Occurrences

Program Adds 52
Program Drops 108
Program Change 30
Session Change 30
Academic Requests (Adds/Drops) 168
Total 388
Note: Total Number of Enrolled Students was 611 at start of the year, 388 changes signifies 64% of the
enrollment applications were changed.
This total is not inclusive of all requests, only the ones submitted formally via the online system. Other
requests were made via phone, email, in person.
Lack of intentional placement, readiness concerns about the student, excessive change
requests by the Counselor or student, opposing program requests all raised concerns by OSTC,
prompting the initiation of meetings called, “Collaborative Conversations” to discuss the

enrollment applications prior to enrolling students. During these meetings, specific candidates
were discussed with a solution focused outcome in mind. OSTC had made the recommendation
that any student that was deficient beyond earning a diploma, not attend. 41 students were
flagged as inappropriate placements. 32 of those students were discussed in the Collaborative
Conversation format. 7 students were dropped without having a meeting. In the end, despite the
recommendations made for front loading and other aspects of preparation suggested, 34 of the 41
students still enrolled into OSTC. The overarching commentary from districts was that “OSTC
was the student’s last chance for success.” They continued the statement by admitting, “even if
the student is at OSTC for credits and not CTE, at least they will pass the class even if they don’t
earn certifications or do work based learning.”
This launched the Enrollment Concern Progression data (Appendix C7) where the
Student Support Team interviewed struggling students weekly over the course of the year. As
early as September, the misplaced students began to falter and the themes and occurrences are
represented in Table 6.
Table 6
Themes and Occurrences of low performing students at OSTC
Themes Occurrences
Work Completion 20
Student is off task, doesn’t use time wisely 20
Course content is too challenging 18 (many citing academic pullouts)
Lacks organization 13
Is disengaged, appears disinterested in content 11
Attendance and Tardiness 11
Struggles with test taking 8
Struggles during lab time 7
Total Referrals 88 (62 students)
Note: Data gathered from teacher referrals made to the Student Support Team, who met with low
achieving students weekly regarding grades, placement, work habits, etc.
Again, during the case studies, numerous students that had significant credit deficiencies
were enrolled in classes that would satisfy the academic credits and exchanges needed for
graduation, but they demonstrated no sincere interest in the program for which they were
enrolled. When they met with the high school Counselor to change programs, they were denied
on multiple occasions because they were placed into the program to obtain a specific course
requirement. Table 6 is perhaps the most cohesive way to unite the enrollment data with student
and teacher interviews. Issues arose when enrollments were made for the wrong reason;" specific
to credits or preferring “hands on learning.” Chart 2 disaggregates the incidences by high school,
demonstrating that some of the largest schools who used the least amount of slots, like North
Farmington and Novi still produced sizable incidents, likely due to “wrong fit” referrals.
Chart 2 Disaggregated Student Support Team Referral Interviews by High School for 2016-17
14
Disaggregated Student Support Team Referral Interviews for 2016-17
12
12
10 9 9
8
8 7 7
6
6 5 5 5 Series1
4 4
4 3 3
2 1
Another survey (Appendix C7) that provided insight on perceptions was a survey of
convenience given to the sending school Counselors to disseminate on behalf of OSTC. The
same survey was also used with and disseminated to business partners of the Southwest campus.
The results yielded a very poor return rate from the districts. Based on the results, it was noted
that 6 of 14 sending schools had replied, but totaled only 9 respondents. However, 20 of the 29
total respondents were identified as Business and Industry partners from OSTC-SW. Therefore,
the results of the survey were skewed from the business partner perception, which of course,
revealed that business partners valued the opportunity to respond and take part in the survey,
whereas the districts did not. Nevertheless, the results revealed interesting perceptions and
included the following:
Respondents were asked to define CTE as either “a bridge to college” or “an alternative to
college.” 66% of the responses revealed CTE to be an alternative to college. When asked to rank
the population that would be best served by Career and Technical Education, the population
ranked first, or best served by CTE, were those students on track for a diploma. The second
ranking results were split between alternative learners and students who were credit deficient,
the third ranked population were students with IEP’s, the last two were students going to college
and gifted and talented students.
Although the survey was not statistically validated, the perceptions did corroborate the
results from the sending school Counselor Liaison survey and the enrollment referrals, for the
most part.
Data Source 3: Achievement Data
The final sources of data collected and reviewed were the state achievement indicators
(Appendix D1) as well as campus identified success measures. In essence, according to state
reporting, a student is considered a “Completer” if s/he completes 12 of 12 segments of the class

with 2.0 or higher and takes the end of the year assessment (if there is one), but does not have to
pass it. A “Concentrator” is defined in a similar manner, except the student need only finish 7 of
the 12 segments. In reviewing the data, it was noted that 80% of the population at OSTC
achieved this state metric: 75% were Completers and 5% were Concentrators. This measure is
based on Career and Technical GPA, so the 80% Completer rate triangulates the initial data set
where 80% of the students were at a 2.0 or above. Initially, almost 20% of the population fell
below the 2.0 GPA mark and predictably, did not achieve the state achievement benchmarks.
Table 7 CTE End of Year State Assessment Pass/Fail Rate for 2016-17
Table 7
CTE End of Year State Assessment Pass/Fail Rate for 2016-17

No % %
Building Assessment Name Program Result Pass Fail Total Pass Fail
0STC- 63.6 36.4
SW Electrical/Electronic Systems Mechatronics 7 4 11 % %
IC3 Networking 22 22 0.0% 0.0%
Automotive 64.5 35.5
Maintenance & Light Repair Technology 20 11 31 % %
MBA Research: Accelerated Entrepreneurship/Ma 13.6 86.4
Marketing (3 Credit) rketing 3 19 22 % %
National Health Science 56.1 43.9
Assessment - Single/Post Health Sciences 32 25 57 % %
25.0 75.0
Painting & Refinishing Collision 10 30 40 % %
Truck Electrical/Electronic 56.0 44.0
Systems Heavy Equip 14 11 25 % %
25.0 75.0
Welding Welding 6 18 24 % %
0STC-
SW 39.7 50.9
Total 0STC-SW Total 22 92 118 232 % %
39.6 53.7
0STC Regional Totals 0STC Regional Totals 315 427 795 % %
Note: Not all programs offer end of year assessments. Students need only attempt the test to be validated in the
achievement data. They do not need to pass it.
MBA Research Test is no longer given.
Furthermore, the state assessments results were likewise reviewed, revealing abysmal
achievement rates. Of the students that took the assessment available in 8 of 13 programs, the
overall fail rate was 50%.
The third data set, OSTC Student Awards (Appendix D) was slightly more complex to
dissect. At first glance, it appeared that OSTC students were achieving based on locally
established metrics of achievement. The metrics included 3 categories of achievement:
Academic, Technical Skill and Career Readiness. Of 597 students enrolled, a total of 2, 131
awards were given. One might surmise that each of the students was earning 3 or more
certifications and those certifications were a notable achievement, as they were deemed,
“awards.” Chart 3 illustrates total awards earned.
Chart 3 Total Achievement Awards Earned
OSTC-SW Total Achievement Awards 2016-17

764
800
700
600
455
500 383
400
300
200 121 100 108
78 78
100 37 7 Total
0
2,131 Total Awards

597 Student
Enrolled
When reviewed with greater scrutiny, however, many of the awards were participatory
rather than merit based. Examples of this included attendance awards which were given to
students that had perfect attendance for a one month period. There were 383 awards given in this
category. Likewise, the 100 students joining professional organizations and thereby competing in
technical skill competitions were noted for their participation rather than their achievement.
In reality, there were a small number of merit awards given, comprised by a fraction of
the population and program. To illustrate this point, the largest category of earned awards was
Work Based Learning, with 764 achievements. When drilled down, the occurrences were
primarily comprised of program field trips with 505 experiences. There were 113 job shadows
(done by 70 students), 89 on the job training experiences with only 48 field experiences. So,
many of the same students are represented in multiple categories. It should also be noted that On
the Job Training options have eligibility standards which include good attendance, career ready
habits and a minimum grade of a 2.5 in the program. When the researcher inquired with various
teachers as to why students didn’t get placed in On the Job Training opportunities, the main
reasons cited was student ineligibility due to low grades or excessive absences in the CTE
program.
On the flip side, the researcher would be remiss to discount the achievement related data
evident in Chart 2, which demonstrates that a number of students participated at OSTC with high
levels of engagement, such as the 69% that achieved monthly achievement awards, the 15% that
joined professional organizations and the 18% that competed in technical skill competitions,
even if they were not achieving merit awards for academics or technical skills.
Discussion of Results
Overall, the findings indicated that readiness indicators from the transcripts have concrete
implications for success. The following chart delineates the correlation between the quantitative
enrollment data the qualitative experience of the learning environment at OSTC:
Readiness Data Implications for Success with CTE
Credit Students not on track for diploma weren’t able to:

Deficiency
 Take advantage of Postsecondary Planning and Mapping
 Had to decline employment due to taking an academic pullout
class
 Transition to postsecondary and use articulated and/or college
credits
 Access Apprenticeships, Scholarship monies, employment from
industry partners.
 Earn as many industry credentials due to being pulled out for
academics
Academic Credit Students who elected OSTC for academic credits and exchanges were:
Requested
 Enrolled in pullout academics, causing them to miss 1/3 of the
CTE instruction, yet maintain all course requirements.
 Struggling to maintain CTE and academic progress so learning
suffered in both areas
 Academically deficient in areas required for the CTE program
 Enrolled for aligned academic and disengaged in CTE program
EDP/Interest Student alignment to program is critical to success and occurs:
Alignment to
 When the student is knowledgeable about his/her interests and
Program
aptitudes and has realistic expectations of the demands of the
program curriculum and activities.
 When there are objective measures to gauge interest and aptitude
such as Career Cruising Matchmaker and Ability Profiler
 When districts collaborate with OSTC for the good of the student.
GPA The Grade Point Average (GPA) demonstrates accountability for
learning. It delineates areas of success and failure. For instance, students
who have taken Biology and done poorly, should not expect to fare well
in Health Sciences. Biology is a prerequisite for Anatomy and Health
Science curriculum is aligned to Anatomy and Physiology standards.
Area of Understanding the type and amount of support that each student is
Disability receiving at the high school is essential for indicating success. Students
who need academic support skills classes at sending school and opt out
of them to come to OSTC are concerning referrals.
Likewise, students who need resource academics will struggle
profoundly with the curriculum, as all programs are 80% aligned with
college coursework.
Finally, districts that referral a disproportionate number of IEP’s tended
to refer students to many of the same programs, thus the culture of the
learning environment was skewed with a high percentage of students
with special needs and alternative learners (Appendix B4).
Chapter 5
Overview
Research cited, both from literature and from this action research project, shows that
CTE is a powerful learning advantage for students. It promotes aligned academic and technical
preparation, while strengthening the college and career ready mindset necessary for success in
any career. It has been proven that students in CTE programs are more likely to graduate and
continue their education beyond high school than their peers in traditional academic settings and
thus should be a viable educational opportunity for all students.
However, despite initiatives to elevate CTE curriculum standards, there seems to be a
pervasive misconception of the rigor of CTE. The research demonstrated that Career and
Technical Education still struggles to define itself as a contender for college preparatory
programming, even though 80% of the curriculum is aligned to college level coursework in all
program areas. These perceptions do, indeed, impact the enrollment process, as the culture of the
learning environment is skewed with a high percentage of students with special needs and
alternative learners. This, in turn, impacts the appeal for OSTC to other populations of learners.
Hence, the enrollment process does influence and impact the achievement rates at the technical
campus.
Conclusions
The findings indicated that reviewing enrollment applications exclusively with quantitative
indicators did not serve the entire student population well in Career and Technical Education, as
these students tended to be tactile. They were observed performing best when they were engaged
and deeply interested in the program area, demonstrating skill and competency in a lab
environment. Complimentary research which occurred during the student support team
interviews, collaborative conversations and the progress and planning meetings, all reinforced
the notion that students enrolled in the right program for the right reason with the aptitude to
achieve, were successful, even if the transcript revealed some subpar areas of readiness. Because
the goal of CTE is to prepare students for college and career readiness in a high skill, high wage,
high demand career, students must have the aptitude to achieve, as well as the interest and
engagement to persist with the state mandated, college aligned coursework. The transcript
contained only a fraction of the telltale signs for readiness and may have served its purpose for
the true outliers, such as students with GPA’s below 2.0 and deficiencies in excess of 1.0 credit
or students with resource academics at the high school. The largest indicator of success, not
found on the transcripts, was interest aligned to program. True Program alignment occurs when
there is career knowledge matched with student personality, interests and aptitudes. These tenets
are the threshold of career development and should be the goal of every applicant referred to
OSTC. Research revealed that this type of alignment was difficult to achieve with all 14 sending
schools, because there were various levels of value and advocacy tied within the Counselor’s
referral process. Each school referred students according to their own process, protocols and
agenda. One instrument used was the Counselor Perception Survey and it revealed some
interesting observations about the enrollment process and the biases embedded.
The findings suggested that in primarily affluent areas, where the “four year college for all
mentality” was prevalent, the value of CTE was not promoted. The bias filtered into the
enrollment process and was evident by the referrals reviewed. Out of seven sending districts,
four of the largest districts were using well under (50%) of slots allocated, yet referred an
disproportionate number of students who were credit deficient (40-50%), presented with IEP’s
(50%), had a GPA below 2.0 (20%) and an EDP that was not aligned to the program (33%).
Despite surveys given to sending school districts in which the Counselor Liaisons responded in
accordance with OSTC’s “best practice guidelines” to refer the “right student in the right
program for the right reason,” referrals were made for primarily low achieving students seeking
additional access to academic credits. High achieving students were sprinkled into the referrals
and accounted for approximately 11% of the total population.
Another finding suggested, that in less affluent areas, where parents and students
seemed open to postsecondary options that expanded beyond the four year university, the value
of CTE was more heavily promoted. Although, many of these districts used almost all of their
allocated slots and followed “best practice” guidelines, they still submitted a disproportionate
number of special population’s referrals, due to the fact that the Special Education staff
advocated so strongly for their placement. Likewise, the disproportionate number of credit
deficient referrals came from Counselors that were trying to get their student population to
graduate. Their reasoning was portrayed as follows, “even though the student would not achieve
in the sense of certifications or work based learning, the student would earn credit and would
have access to Michigan Merit Curriculum credits and exchanges via the CTE legislation that
would get the student a diploma.”
Further validation of this finding was found by the Counselor responses when asked to
rank the necessity of academic courses available at OSTC. The data revealed that the largest
response rates came from remedial courses, such as 4th math (100%), Algebra 2 Exchange (81%)
and online credit recovery classes (69%). By contrast, courses which would supplement various
career pathways taught at the campus, such as Mechatronics or Machining, through applied
Trigonometry or Pre-Calculus, were deemed mostly unnecessary with a response rate of 18%.
Overall, the data suggested that districts see OSTC as a place for obtaining academics necessary
for graduation, when a student is unable to achieve them at his or her homeschool.
Findings regarding right fit, interest and aptitudes were further qualified through
interviews, observations, surveys, and case studies in which it was determined that Counselors
prioritized enrollment based on the academic need of the student, rather than college and career
alignment, especially from the four largest offending districts. For instance, there were a number
of applicants flagged initially as concerning placements. This led to the “Collaborative
Conversation Meetings” with the sending districts to define the concerns with the hope of
delaying or deterring enrollment. The data revealed that OSTC requested district meetings for 41
students, but only 32 student meetings were scheduled. This was primarily due to the lack of
availability of the sending school Counselor. Key findings indicated: low GPA’s (34), credit
deficiencies of 8 classes or more (15) credit deficiencies of 5 to 7 classes (24), unfit returning
student placement, excessive attendance issues (19). Despite OSTC reservations, 34 of the
concerning were still enrolled by the district.
These findings signify that districts made referrals which suited their agenda or learning
environment, without considering the impact that misplaced students have on the OSTC learning
environment or the devastating effect that it has on the student’s mental health and well- being.
Furthermore, the research revealed that districts did not advocate OSTC as a viable option, as
communication requests to parents, students and district members were not consistently carried
out. When asked to distribute the OSTC Perception Survey, results from respondents revealed
that many of the districts simply ignored the requests. Out of 14 sending schools, only 6 districts
were represented with 9 respondents in total. The same survey was sent out to the OSTC
Business Partners and 20 of the 29 respondents were from this group. Therefore, the results of
the survey were skewed from the business partner perception, which of course, revealed that
business partners valued the opportunity to respond and take part in the survey, whereas the
districts did not. Nevertheless, the results revealed one overarching perceptions about CTE and
that is that respondents view CTE as an alternative option for students not going to college.
The final sources of data collected and reviewed were achievement indicators. In
reviewing the data, it was noted that 80% of the population at OSTC achieved the state metric,
which basically measured program completion and minimal GPA requirements. OSTC
achievement was a blend of both participation and merit based achievement. The finds revealed
that there were a small number of merit awards given, comprised by a fraction of the population
and program. To illustrate this point, the largest category of earned awards was Work Based
Learning, with 764 achievements. When drilled down, the occurrences were primarily comprised
of program field trips with 505 experiences. There were 113 job shadows (done by 70 students),
89 on the job training experiences with only 48 field experiences. So, many of the same students
are represented in multiple categories.
On a final note, two threads that, when weaved through the data in unison, provided a solid
indicator of success. The two threads were: interest in the curriculum and aptitude for
achievement. For instance, there were students that presented with 2.3 GPA’s, had history of
prior knowledge of program related skills and a passion for program content who surpassed
students with a 3.0 GPA and no prior skill development. The fact was evident; students
demonstrating interest and aptitude were successful.

Recommendations
1. Oakland Schools Career Focused Education mission and achievement outcomes should
be redefined in order to bridge the gap between workforce needs and talent development.
(Instructor externships, stronger Business Advisory initiative, etc.)
All initiatives should fall under the auspices of county leadership.
2. Oakland County leadership team should guide the process for countywide standards-
based initiative in Career Development, which begins in Elementary School and
culminates in High School. Oakland Schools should work toward complementing not
duplicating CTE offerings, to ensure a stronger collaborative partnership between County
CTE and local programming. Annual data collection, compliance expectations, funding
and success indicators should be shared with districts for consistency in delivery.
3. OSTC Admission criteria should be congruent to Business and Industry standards, which
translates into the following criteria for admission into OSTC, such as:
 Excellent attendance
 Professional behavior (i.e. Clean discipline history at high school)
 On track for earning a diploma (no more than 1.0 credit deficient)
 Interest aligned to program (Updated Matchmaker interest inventory)
 Review of Indispensable Skills (universal demands of industry)
 Aptitude aligned to program (Updated Ability Profiler or Industry developed aptitude
assessment) taken prior to enrollment
 Academic pre-requisites: passing Sophomore level coursework such as Algebra 1,
Biology before enrolling at OSTC
 Student essay/statement of purpose indicating the reason the student would like to attend
 Year 2 students should demonstrate Work Based Learning eligibility, such as 75% in
Technical Skills, 80% Career Ready Habits, no more than 5 absences per semester, a
driver’s license/transportation, pass drug test
4. OSTC should integrate academic support within the classroom environment to better
apply industry aligned standards and rigor, while diminishing the interruptions to the
CTE curriculum.
5. OSTC should work collaboratively with partner districts to align the enrollment process
more closely with sending schools scheduling timeline. OSTC course offerings should be
part of district Curriculum Guides, with mandated consistent Program Names embedded
within local elective offerings rather than in a separate section
6. OSTC should work collaboratively with sending schools on enrollment referral process
and timeline. “Best Practice” training and meeting attendance at the campus should be a
mandatory expectation for the person in that role. The application window should open
just shortly before district scheduling begins (January and February) and the slot
allocations should be reserved for a time period of two weeks.
7. OSTC should make final determination on placements, while working collaboratively
with the districts. The process, criteria and data should be collected yearly at each of the
four campuses and shared with sending school leadership teams.
8. Oakland Schools needs to further define achievement dashboard (other than Completer
and Concentrator Status) and collect data on the benchmarks. This could then be tied into
instructor evaluations.
9. OSTC needs greater exposure to the community. Marketing and Social Media roles at
each campus to promote programming, value of CTE, success stories.

Implication for Future Research
First and foremost, this study should be replicated at the other campuses, so the
organization can review the data collectively and plan accordingly. Although the results cannot
be generalized to the other campuses, currently, all of the campuses are under enrolled and have
a disproportionate number of alternative and low achieving students.
Second, it is recommended that further research be done to identify what enrollment
practices and criteria have been incorporated at other similar educational institutions, which can
be incorporated at Oakland Schools to assist in the application process.
Third, this research has generated additional questions pertaining to community awareness
and knowledge of CTE programming. The organization should conduct further surveys to assess
what community members know and perceive, so that marketing and outreach initiatives can
address the misinformation. This survey should be designed and conducted by the Marketing
team at Oakland Schools, so they can reach an expansive population. The results can be
incorporated into marketing initiatives.
Last, future research should concentrate on aligning student achievement benchmarks with
the needs of business and industry, since a large function of CTE is meant to develop and retain
talent for the workforce.

Resources
Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera and Andrew R. Hanson, Career and Technical
Education: Five Ways That Pay Along the Way to the B.A., (Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce, September 2012.)
Anthony P. Carnevale, Nicole Smith and Jeff Strohl, Recovery: Job Growth and Education
Requirements Through 2020, (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University, Center on
Education
John Bridgeland, Jessica Milano, and Elyse Rosenblum, Across the Great Divide: Perspectives
of CEOs and College Presidents on America’s Higher Education and Skills Gap, March
2011, p. 7.
United States Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Investing in
America’s Future: A Blueprint for Transforming Career and Technical Education,
Washington,D.C.,2012.andtheWorkforce,June2013),
https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/tll0zkxt0puz45hu21g6.
United States Department of Education, Postsecondary and Labor Force Transitions Among
Public High School Career and Technical Education Participants, January 2011. Table 2,
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011234.pdf
Symonds, W., Schwartz R., Ferguson R., (2011) Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge
of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century, Harvard Graduate School of
Education.
Wonacott, M. E. (2000) ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education Myths
and Realities Series: Benefits of Vocational Education by Michael E. Wonacott,
Zinth, J.D. (2013) Education Commission of the States, The Progress on Education Reform:
Career and Technical Education, States Aligning Programs to Meet Workforce Needs
Appendices
Appendix A1
OSTC-SW Dean Consent Form
Oakland Schools Technical Campus Southwest

1000 Beck Road
Wixom, MI 48393
Dear :
As a member of the Galileo Education Specialist Program at Oakland University, I am conducting a

research study on the referral process for enrollment at the Technical Campus Southwest. This study will
investigate the correlation between perceptions, enrollment and achievement at OSTC-SW. I am seeking
permission to collect perception and achievement data for the 2016-2017 school year via the following
methods:
A. Surveys: current and potential students, Counselor Liaisons, district high school partners,
community members and industry partners
B. Individual student data relevant to enrollment: program choice, EDP alignment, GPA, credit
status, Perkins indicators
C. Individual district engagement and achievement data (presentations and visits, slot usage,
achievement, perceptions of enrollment timeline, process and program offerings)
D. Anecdotal interviews/case studies (both formal and informal) : placement, change requests
E. Accessing completed data reports (CTEIS) from Oakland Schools main building
All information collected will remain confidential. No student, staff or parent names will be used. It is my
hope that this research will assist Oakland Schools Career Focused Education by providing
recommendations to assist in the enrollment process which may be streamlined to the other three
Technical Campuses.
Sincerely,
I give permission for Amy to conduct any and all of the above research for the betterment of
our organization. I understand that the scope of the research will focus on the 2016-17 school
year, but Amy may collect and utilize trend data where applicable.
_______________________________________________________ ____________
Administrator’s Name Date

Appendix B1: Cumulative SW Quadrant Initial Enrollment Data for 2016-17
Credit Credit
Total Total % Deficient Deficient On Track GPA 0 -
School Slots Enrolled Enrolled % (0.5 - 2) % (2.5 +) % 1.9 %
Clarenceville HS 30 35 116.67 28.57 5.71 65.71 11.43
Farmington HS 61 44 72.13 27.27 4.55 68.18 11.36
FlexTech 2 2 100.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00
Harbor HS 2 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
Harrison HS 52 24 46.15 29.17 8.33 62.50 8.33
Holly HS 1 1 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
North Farmington HS 65 23 35.38 17.39 4.35 78.26 17.39
Lakeland HS 79 84 106.33 20.24 3.57 76.19 11.90
Milford HS 72 77 106.94 29.87 10.39 59.74 22.08
Novi HS 111 44 39.64 36.36 6.82 56.82 34.09
South Lyon HS 67 64 95.52 15.63 4.69 79.69 18.75
South Lyon East HS 51 53 103.92 15.09 5.66 79.25 16.98
West Bloomfield HS 87 36 41.38 30.56 22.22 47.22 27.78
Walled Lake Central 95 90 94.74 15.56 2.22 82.22 21.11
Walled Lake Northern 79 58 73.42 29.31 5.17 65.52 24.14
Walled Lake Western 60 44 73.33 15.91 0.00 84.09 13.64
All Buildings 914 681 74.51 22.91 6.17 70.92 18.80
GPA 2 - GPA 3.5 + EDP not EDP not General Special Special
School 3.4 % % Alignment Aligned % Pops % Pops Pops %
Clarenceville HS 82.86 5.71 12 34.29 62.86 13 37.14
Farmington HS 47.73 18.18 16 36.36 72.73 12 27.27
FlexTech 100.00 0.00 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00
Harbor HS 100.00 0.00 1 50.00 100.00 0 0.00
Harrison HS 87.50 4.17 9 37.50 100.00 0 0.00
Holly HS 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00
North Farmington HS 69.57 13.04 4 17.39 69.57 7 30.43
Lakeland HS 79.76 11.90 33 39.29 75.00 21 25.00
Milford HS 62.34 12.99 36 46.75 80.52 15 19.48
Novi HS 56.82 6.82 11 25.00 59.09 18 40.91
South Lyon HS 62.50 15.63 14 21.88 87.50 8 12.50
South Lyon East HS 66.04 13.21 19 35.85 81.13 10 18.87
West Bloomfield HS 61.11 8.33 15 41.67 50.00 18 50.00
Walled Lake Central 65.56 10.00 22 24.44 65.56 31 34.44
Walled Lake Northern 63.79 6.90 19 32.76 70.69 17 29.31
Walled Lake Western 61.36 9.09 18 40.91 81.82 8 18.18
All Buildings 66.23 10.87 229 33.63 71.22 178 26.14
Appendix B2: Enrollment Attrition Timeline Data
1200
1048
1000 875
800 681
611 588
600
400
200 151
56 14 23 Series1
0
Appendix B3: General Ed vs. Special Populations Enrollment 2016-17 by School
OSTC-SW Enrollment Data 2016-17 (Fall)

Sending School General Ed Vs. Special Pops %
Special Pops % General Ed %

120
100
80 40
64 57 61 63 63 54
67 75 67
60 88 79 85 78
40
60
20 36 43 39 37 37 46
33 25 33
13 21 15 22
0
Appendix B4: Appendix B4: Percentage of Special Populations by Cluster
Total % of Students with IEP's and 504's by Cluster

in 2016-17
60
49
50
40 35 35
30 30 32
30 24 23
20
10
% of Students with IEP's
0
Appendix C1: Counselor Perception Survey of OSTC Enrollment Process
1.) What is your district?
2.) What is your high school?
3.) Which Technical Campus is aligned with your high school?
4.) What month do you initiate your scheduling process?
5.) What month do you conclude your scheduling process?
6.) How do you promote curriculum?
7.) Are OSTC program offerings listed in your curriculum guide?
If not, where is it listed?
8.) Do you use OSTC’s official program titles?
9.) What is your perception of the necessity of the following OSTC enrollment practices?
Very Necessary Necessary Not Necessary

a. Following a specified session A.M. or P.M.
b. Using Allocations
c. OSTC Timeline in Fall Vs Spring
d. Necessity of visiting OSTC before enrolling
e. Using an online enrollment process (such as Enroll Track)
10.) How would you rate the knowledge and support of other colleagues in your
building regarding OSTC?
Administrators:
a. Very Knowledgeable and supportive

b. Somewhat Knowledgeable, but not support
c. Knowledgeable, but not supportive
d. Supportive, but not knowledgeable
e. Neither Knowledgeable nor supportive
Counselors

Teachers
Special Education Staff

11.) There is a well-defined process at my school for determining “the right student in
the right program for the right reason.”
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
12.) If there is not a well -defined process, what do you feel are the barriers?
13.) Please rate the importance of the following considerations for scheduling
students at OSTC:
Extremely Important Somewhat Important Not that Important Not a consideration
a. Interest aligns to programs as evidenced by EDP or interest inventory
b. Student has taken related coursework at HS
c. Student is on track for diploma

d. Student has visited the campus
e. Student has demonstrated appropriate attendance at HS
f. Student has demonstrated appropriate discipline
g. Student has aptitude to be successful
h. Student may earn additional credit
i. Student would like to access OTEC
14.) Please check any of the following protocols that are used for placement into
OSTC as part of your HS process:
Always Sometimes Never Not Applicable to Placement
a. Rubrics to assess readiness
b. Interviews
c. Collaborative meetings with other Counselors
d. Collaborative meetings with Counselors and Special Educators
e. IEPS’ to place students
f. Review of program related materials-curriculum standards, career tree, teacher

syllabi
Comments
15.) Please rate the necessity of the following academic offerings at OSTC
a. Algebra 2 Exchange
b. Algebra 2 Year Pace
c. Algebra 1 Year Pace

d. Trig/Pre Calc
e. Physics
f. 3rd Science (embedded)
g. English 12
h. Online Recover Classes
16.) Would you like to serve on the OSTC Task force for the new Enroll Track
process?
Yes
No
Appendix C2: Counselor Perception Survey Results
1.-3. What is your district, High School, Campus?
District High School Campus

Clarenceville Clarenceville OSTC-SW
Huron Valley Milford OSTC-SW
Lakeland OSTC-SW
MHS and LHS OSTC-SW
Walled Lake WLC, WLN, WLW OSTC-SW
WLC OSTC-SW
WLW OSTC-SW
South Lyon South Lyon OSTC-SW
Farmington HHS OSTC-SW
FHS OSTC-SW
West Bloomfield WB OSTC-SW
Missing Districts: Novi

Missing Buildings: North Farmington, Walled Lake Northern, South Lyon East
4.-5. What month do you initiate/conclude scheduling?
Month Number of Districts Month Concluded

Initiated
February 6
March 1 4
April 1
May 1 1
6. How do you promote curriculum? (Check all that apply)
Curriculum Guide 7
Curriculum Day 3
Curriculum Night 1
Meetings with Students 2
List Serve or School Messenger 2
Web 4
Appendix C2: Counselor Perception Survey Results (Cont).
7. Are OSTC program offerings listed in your curriculum by your CTE offerings or in their own
section?
OSTC offerings with District CTE 4
OSTC offerings separate 4
8. Do you use OSTC’s official program titles?
Yes 7
No 0
I don’t know 1
9. What is your perception of the necessity of the following OSTC enrollment practices?
Tools for Schools Enrollment Process Necessary Not Necessary Not

and Timeline Necessary Necessary
Specified AM or PM Session by school 93.8 6.3 15 1
Adhering to Slotting 87.5 12.5 14 2
Fall vs. Spring Timeline 62.5 37.5 10 6
All 10th Grade Assembly 87.5 12.5 14 2
Visits to OSTC 75.0 25.0 12 4
Enroll Track Online System instead of 56.3 43.8 9 7
paper
10.) How would you rate the knowledge and support of other colleagues in your building
regarding OSTC?
Staff Knowledgeable Somewhat Knowledgeable Not Neither Both

and Supportive Knowledgeable but not Knowledgeable Knowledgeable K&
and Supportive Supportive but Supportive nor Supportive S
Admin 3 9 5 71%
Couns 10 6 1 94%
Teachers 1 7 1 4 4 47%
Sp Ed 2 11 1 3 76%
Staff
11. There is a well-defined enrollment process at my school
Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

There is a well-defined enrollment process 81.25 18.75 13 3
at my school
12. If there is not a well -defined process, what do you feel are the barriers?
“We are being overrun by the Special Education Department.”
“The enrollment timeline would work much better if it were more in line with when most
of the high schools schedule, which is typically January and February. November and
December is just too early.”
“I would like to see the timeline for enrollment change. It is too early.”
”I think asking kids to begin the application in Dec. is too early. Many sophomores
change their mind throughout the school year. I would prefer to have student apply in the
Spring of 10th grade.”
“I believe OSTC is progressive in stressing the need and benefit of enrolling the right
student in the right program for the right reason. It is time for districts to realize this as
well and to put something in place to ensure we are doing what's best for ALL students.”
13.) Please rate the importance of the following considerations for referring students to
OSTC:
Importance of considering the Extremely Important Not N/A to

following: Important Important enrollment
Aligned Interest/EDP 5 9 1 1
Related Coursework at HS 1 7 5 3
On Track for Diploma 9 6 1
Visit to Campus 10 4 2
Appropriate Attendance at HS 11 5
Appropriate Discipline at HS 9 7
Student has Aptitude to be Successful 9 7
Student can Earn Extra Credits 6 5 5
Student can Access OTEC 4 8 2 2
Appendix C2: Counselor Perception Survey Results (Cont).
14.) Please check any of the following protocols that are used for placement into OSTC as
part of your HS process:
District reported protocols used for Use Don't use

placements
Interest aligns to programs as evidenced 66.7 33.3
by EDP or interest inventory
Rubrics to assess readiness 42.9 57.1
collaborative meetings with other 87.5 12.5
colleagues
Using IEP to assist with placement 68.8 31.3
Using curriculum, career trees, 75.0 25.0
indispensable skill reviews
15.) Please rate the necessity of the following academic offerings at OSTC
Rate the necessity of the following Necessary Not Necessary

Academic offerings at OSTC to best
serve your population
Algebra 2 Exchange 81.3 18.8
Algebra 2 Two year pace 50.0 50.0
Algebra 2 One year pace 50.0 50.0
4th (Senior Math) 100.0 0.0
Trig/Pre-Calc 18.8 81.3
Physics 75.0 25.0
English 12 68.8 31.3
Online Recovery 68.8 31.3
16. Would you like to serve on the OSTC Task force for the new Enroll Track process?
Serve on Enroll Track Task Force Yes No

31.3 68.8
Appendix C3: Interview - Student Request for Program Change
Name_______________________________________Grade____________HS______________
Current Cluster:
_____________________________________________________________a.m./p.m.
Desired Cluster:
_____________________________________________________________a.m./p.m.
Students: Please complete all the steps to make a program change request.
1. Complete and Print “My Next Move” interest inventory. Please attach.
Go to https://ostconline.com/CurrentStudents/Pages/Career-Planning.aspx
2. Answer the following questions:

Briefly describe the reason that you are requesting a cluster change:
My ideal career would be….
What do you see yourself doing in the next 3-5 years (community college, university,
apprenticeship, military, work)
3. Arrange to visit/sit in on the new program. You must set an approved time/date
with the new program teacher.
Record Date of visit here________________________________
4. Plan to engage in the new program and then rate your impressions or interest level,
based on your experience:
(5 highly interested, 4 interested, 3 don’t care either way, 2, not interested, 1 not
interested at all)
Textbooks/Curriculum of new program 5 4 3 2 1

Interaction with students 5 4 3 2 1
Interaction with Teacher/IT 5 4 3 2 1
Lab time, projects, routines 5 4 3 2 1
I want to move to new program _______YES _______NO
Student comment here:

Teacher comment here:
5. Consider the following
 All changes must be completed within the first 10 days of school. (No midyear requests
allowed and no “change back” in the same school year.)
 Academic and/or Exchange credit is available with each cluster, but does vary by
program. Switching programs may affect credit needed for graduation, as academic credit
is dependent upon successful completion of 12 out of 12 curriculum segments.
 My Next Move/EDP/Career goals should align with the desired program.
 Change is dependent upon Program availability.
6. Get Approval Signatures (in this order)

New Program Teacher ______________________________________________
Parent Signature ______________________________________________
Mrs. Flynn’s Signature______________________________________________
(Will check availability at OSTC)
High school Counselor signature______________________________________
(Will note on homeschool schedule)
Completed paperwork with ALL signatures must be returned to Mrs. Flynn

Appendix C4: Counselor Change Requests (for Enrollment) 2016-17
Counselor Requests Number of Occurrences
Program Adds 52
Program Drops 108
Program Change 30
Session Change 30
Academic Requests (Adds/Drops) 168
Total 388
Reasons for Drops Cited:
Drops Number of Occurrences
Student reports that they are no longer interested 32
Student would like to pursue more rigorous classes 26

at sending school
Student needs academic classes 18
Student moved 8
Inappropriate placement per Counselor or IEP team 7
No Show-10 days 6
Student accepted into ACE program 4
Student is not fulfilling contract 2
Student can’t get transportation (out of quadrant) 2
Student will be doing Co-Op instead 1
Student wants to continue with dance and OSTC 1

conflicts
Student can’t fit AP class into schedule with OSTC 1
Total 108
Appendix C5: Student Support Team Referral Interviews (both staff and student)
Student Name________________________________ HS _________________________
Program/Session_________________________________________________A.M./P.M.
Light at the end of the Tunnel _______________________________________________
Overview of Concerns
Attendance: ___ Career Ready Habits: ___Technical Skills: ___ Academic Pullout: ___
Which of the following seem to be getting in the way of your learning?
____Course work is too challenging ____ Lab Performance
____Lack of interest/motivation/ Attitude ____Missing Work
____Problems organizing/follow through ____Other
____Work Completion
Comments:
What have you tried so far?
Have you met with your teacher regarding these concerns? ____yes ____no
Have the Teacher and your parent met/discussed concerns? ____yes ____no
Follow Up: SMART Goal

Running head: PERCEPTIONS ON ENROLLMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT 66
Appendix C6: Student Support Team Referral Results 2016-17
Student Support Team Interviews for Semester 1:
Themes Occurrences
Work Completion 20
Student is off task, doesn’t use time wisely 20
Course content is too challenging 18
Lacks organization 13
Is disengaged, appears disinterested in content 11
Attendance and Tardiness 11
Struggles with test taking 8
Struggles during lab time 7
Total Referrals 88 (62 students)
14
Disaggregated Student Support Team Referral Interviews for 2016-17
12
12
10 9 9
8
8 7 7
6
6 5 5 5 Series1
4 4
4 3 3
2 1
0
Appendix C7: Enrollment Concern Progression for 2016-17
Collaborative Conversations:
 41 Concerning Placements Flagged

 32 Collaborative Conversations (with CHS, FHS, HHS, Holly, LHS, MHS, NFHS, NHS, SLE, SLHS, WB,
WLC)
 7 Drops (no Collaborative Conversation needed)
Themes Occurrences
Students with 1.9 or below GPA 34
Students deficient 4.0 credits and above (8 + 15
classes)
Students deficient 2.5-3.5 (5 to 7 classes) 24
Returning Students in the “ D “ or “ E” range 19

(Performance Appraisals)
New Student enrollees 19

Identified Attendance Issues 20
Total Students Attended Despite Concerns 34
Progress and Planning Meetings with student, parent, district representative:
Themes Occurrences
Student returns to High School 20
Danger of Failing or Failing Grade at OSTC 9
Absences in excess of 25 days 7
Needs credits to graduate 11
Unsatisfactory Career Ready Habit Grade 14
Appendix C8: Community Perceptions Survey
Oakland Schools Technical Campus Southwest Community Perception Survey
The purpose of this 15 question short survey is to obtain data on the awareness and perceptions
of the education and opportunities available at the Oakland Schools Technical Campus
Southwest (OSTC-SW) in Wixom, by its local districts and community members.
The information gathered will be used to assess current enrollment practices, so that the OSTC-
SW can serve the students of SW Oakland County best by enrolling the "right student in the right
program for the right reason." Please read each statement carefully and choose the responses
that closely match your opinions and perceptions. There are comment boxes available, so please
feel free to use them.
All responses will remain anonymous. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.
1. Your primary role is?
a. Student at high school

b. Student at HS and OSTC
c. Parent of Student in elementary, middle or high school
d. Parent of student in high school and OSTC
e. Employee of a partner district high school
f. Taxpayer with no children
g. Business or Industry Partner with OSTC
2. With what high school are you /your children associated?
a. Clarenceville-CHS
b. Farmington-FHS
c. Harrison-HHS
d. Harbor
e. North Farmington-NFHS
f. Lakeland-LHS
g. Milford-MHS
h. Novi-NHS
i. South Lyon-SLHS
j. South Lyon East-SLE
k. Walled Lake Central-WLC
l. Walled Lake Northern-WLN
m. Walled Lake Western-WLW
n. West Bloomfield-WB
o. Other
3. Do you know anyone that attends or has attended the OSTC’s (either in Wixom or one of
the other three in Royal Oak, Clarkston, Pontiac?
4. How would you rate your knowledge of opportunities/educational offerings at the OSTC-
SW? (1 is least knowledge and 5 is most knowledge)
5. Check any of the items that you have participated in:
a. Formal presentation about OSTC

b. Visit to the campus: open house, tour, showcase
c. Luncheons or meetings held at OSTC
d. Conversations with OSTC staff about programming
e. Conversations with your high school staff about OSTC
f. Conversations with students about OSTC
g. Checked out OSTC on the web
h. Received a mailing or email
i. None
6. Please use the Likert scale to indicate how important the following are to you. (1=least
important, 5= most important)
a. Hands on learning
b. Gaining technical skills for employment
c. Earning academic credit/exchanges to assist with graduation
d. Career Readiness Preparation (industry certifications, work based learning,
portfolio, soft skills
e. College Readiness Preparation (researching aligned college programs, earning
college credits, filling out college applications)
f. Accessing Oakland Technical Early College (OTEC)
7. Which statement best reflects your perception of Career and Technical Education at
OSTC-SW? OSTC-SW is
a. An Alternate to college (for kids not going to college)

b. A Bridge to college (good preparation for college)
8. Do you think that OSTC has rigorous programming?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
9. Please rank the population you believe would be best served by the opportunities offered
below. 1= best served, 6 = least served. Please use each number (rank) only once.
a. Gifted and talented

b. College bound
c. At risk
d. Students with IEP’s
e. Students on track for graduation
f. Students who are credit deficient (not on track)
10. Would you recommend OSTC-SW to friends and family?
a. Yes
b. No
Please explain
11. Do you have any final comments or overall perceptions that you would like to briefly
share?
Appendix C9: Community Perceptions Survey Results
Oakland Schools Technical Campus Southwest Community Perception Survey
1. Your primary role is?

Role of Respondent Number
Student at high school 0
Student at HS and OSTC 6
Parent of Student in elementary, middle or 1
high school
Parent of student in high school and OSTC
Employee of a partner district high school 1
Taxpayer with no children 1
Business or Industry Partner with OSTC 20
Total 29
2. With what high school are you /your children associated?

High School (HS) Number
CHS 1
FHS 6
HHS
NFHS
LHS 2
MHS 1
NHS
SLE
SLHS 2
WLC 6
WLN 7
WLW
WB
Other 4
3. Do you know anyone that attends or has attended the OSTC’s (either in Wixom or one of
the other three campuses in Royal Oak, Clarkston, Pontiac?
Yes 26
No 2
I don’t know 1
4. How would you rate your knowledge of opportunities/educational offerings at the OSTC-
SW? (1 is least knowledge and 5 is most knowledge)
Least Most
Knowledge =1 Knowledge=5
Ranking 1 2 3 4 5
# of 2 5 6 9 7
Responses
5. Check any of the items that you have participated in:
Items Respondent Participated in: # of Responses

Formal presentation about OSTC 12
Visit to the campus: open house, tour, 5
showcase
Luncheons or meetings held at OSTC 0
Conversations with OSTC staff about 5
programming
Conversations with your high school staff 0
about OSTC
Conversations with students about OSTC 0
Checked out OSTC on the web 5
Received a mailing or email 2
6. Please use the Likert scale to indicate how important the following are to you:
Ranking 1=Least 2 3 4 5=Most

Important Important
Hands On Learning 0 0 1 10 18
Gaining technical 0 0 1 4 24
skills for
employment
Earning academic 2 0 7 10 9
credit/exchanges to
assist with
graduation
Career Readiness 0 0 1 2 21
Preparation (industry
certifications, work
based learning,
portfolio, soft skills)
College Readiness 0 1 8 6 14
Preparation
(researching aligned
college programs,
earning college
credits, filling out
college applications)
Accessing Oakland 0 0 7 4 15
Technical Early
College (OTEC)
7. Which statement best reflects your perception of Career and Technical Education at
OSTC-SW? OSTC-SW is:
An Alternative to college (for kids not going to college) 19

A Bridge to college (good preparation for college) 10
8. Do you think that OSTC has rigorous programming?

Yes 13
No 0
I Don’t Know 16
9. Please rank the population you believe would be best served by the opportunities offered
below. 1= best served, 6 = least served. Please use each number (rank) only once.
Population 1=Best 2 3 4 5 6=Least

Served Served
Gifted and 1 4 5 6 6 7
talented
College bound 2 1 12 2 7 5
At risk 4 8 4 1 6 6
Students with 2 6 4 6 5 6
IEP’s
Students on 9 7 2 3 6 2
track for
graduation
Students who 4 5 5 4 6 6
are credit
deficient (not
on track)
10. Would you recommend OSTC-SW to friends and family?
Yes 29
No 0
11. Do you have any final comments or overall perceptions that you would like to briefly
share?
“Students with IEP’s are favored.”

“Curriculum is watered down for those kids.”
“Kids never fail at OSTC.”
“Kids no longer need degrees to be successful.”
“Many kids come to OSTC and become successful.”
“Great career readiness program.”
“It’s a great opportunity for most students.”
“OSTC offers great hands on learning.”
“As many kids as possible should experience opportunities at OSTC.”

Appendix D1: State Achievement Data 2016-17
OSTC-SW Completer Status per State of Michigan

2016-2017
600 556
500 418
400
300
200
100 31 Total
0
Concentrator: 75% or Completer: Grade is 75% or Total Enrollment
better, completes 7 of 12 better
segments completes 12 of 12
segments
takes (doesn't need to
pass) state assessment
State Required Assessments

2016-2017
Building Name Assessment Name Program No Result Pass Fail % Fail

0STC-SW Electrical/Electronic Systems Mechatronics 7 4 36.4%
IC3 Networking 22 0.0%
Maintenance & Light Repair Automotive Technology 20 11 35.5%
MBA Research: Accelerated Marketing (3 Credit) Entrepreneurship/Marketing 3 19 86.4%
National Health Science Assessment - Single/Post Health Sciences 32 25 43.9%
Painting & Refinishing Collision 10 30 75.0%
Truck Electrical/Electronic Systems Heavy Equip 14 11 44.0%
Welding Welding 6 18 75.0%
0STC-SW Total 0STC-SW Total 22 92 118 50.9%
0SCT Regional Totals 0SCT Regional Totals 315 427 53.7%
Appendix D2: OSTC Student Awards for 2016-17
OSTC-SW Total Achievement Awards 2016-17

764
800
700
600
455
500 383
400
300
200 121 100 108
78 78
100 37 7
Total
0
2,131 Total Awards

597 Student
Enrolled
Academic Merit Award

· National Technical Honor Society (3.5 OSTC Grade, 3.0 Overall GPA, 5 or less
Absences/Tardies
· Dean’s List (3.5 OSTC GPA and 3 or less Absences/Tardies
Technical Skills Achievement

· National Certifications
· Technical Skill Award
· Work Based Learning- On the Job Training (OJT)
Career and College Readiness- Brushes of Preparation

· Monthly Attendance/Perfect Attendance for Year
· CCR Professional Association (Organization or Club Membership)
· CCR Student Ambassador (Student Leadership)
· CCR Work Habits (Student of the Month)
· Scholarship Recipient
· Technical Skills Competitor (Competed, but didn’t place)
· Work Based Learning-Field Experience/Trip, Job Shadow/Coaching
Appendix D3: Disaggregated Academic and Technical Skill Achievements
120
108
100
82 85
80
56
60
47 Academic Award
42
40 35 32 32 35 36 35 Technical Award
20 10
1 1 1 3
0

Impact of Perceptions On Enrollment Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Perceptions On Enrollment Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: PERCEPTIONS ON ENROLLMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT

A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF PERCEPTIONS ON ENROLLMENT AND

AT OAKLAND TECHNICAL CAMPUS SOUTHWEST

Dr. Lindson Feun

March 31, 2018

Assumptions and Limitations

Method of the Study

Overview of Study Conducted

Selection of the Subjects

Implications for Future Research

Appendix A: Consent Form…………………………………………………………………..49

Appendix B: Enrollment Data for 2016-17…………………………………………………..50

Appendix B1: Cumulative Initial Enrollment Data……………………………….....50

Appendix B2: Enrollment Attrition Timeline …………………………………….....51

Appendix B3: General vs. Special Populations by School…………………………..52

Appendix B4: General vs. Special Populations by Program………………………....53

Appendix C: Surveys, Interviews, Journal Entries…………………………………………..54

Appendix C1: Counselor Perception Survey on Enrollment Process………………..54

Appendix C2: Counselor Perception Survey Results………………………………..58

Appendix C3: Student Interview -Student Program Change Request……………….62

Appendix C4: Counselor Schedule Change Requests……………………………….64

Appendix C5: Student Support Team Referral Interviews…………………………..65

Appendix C6: Student Support Team Referral Results………………………………66

Appendix C7: Enrollment Concern Progression……………………………………...67

Appendix C8: Community Perceptions Survey………………………………………68

Appendix C9: Community Perceptions Survey Results……………………………...71

Appendix D: Achievement Data

Appendix D1: State Achievement Data……………………………………………...75

Appendix D2: OSTC Total Achievement Awards…………………………………..76

Appendix D3: Disaggregated Academic and Technical Achievements …………….77

applicable learning experiences of my career.

the Southwest campus population is skewed with a disproportionate number of Special

rather than the pursuit of industry/postsecondary specific curriculum and credentialing. A

the value and purpose of CTE as an option for all learners.

Campuses, approximately 16,899 students enroll in CTE courses countywide. Approximately 5,

maintain on their own.

effectiveness of career and technical education in matriculating to college:

beyond high school than their peers in traditional academic settings.

79% of CTE concentrators enrolled in postsecondary education within 2 years of high

80% of CTE concentrators persisted in postsecondary education

applications reflect a disproportionate number of students that have excessive attendance or

is there a correlation to achievement at the Oakland Schools Technical Campus Southwest?

The following assumptions are pertinent to the study:

great disparity of knowledge amongst the Counselor Liaisons, as it relates to OSTC

program offerings, curriculum, enrollment process, advocacy and value of CTE.

demographics, but collectively, there seems to be a general misunderstanding as to how

achievement is defined for CTE students vs. traditional students.

control. One of which could be barriers created by biased perceptions.

grade at OSTC, at minimum.

and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the other campuses.

that cooperated in sending out the survey on behalf of OSTC-SW.

revealed a “disproportionate number of Special Education students” attending the

be able to submit applications without demographic or special population information

learning environment from general education to special education. Inadvertently, this

mission and achievement standards to maintain relationships.

In 2000, the curriculum standards at the Technical Campus were vocational in

career success. In 2006, Perkins reauthorized vocational education, thereby renaming it

to align with postsecondary programs of study. This launched a formal relationship

The following inquiries guided the research:

(at OSTC) by sending schools/students/parents?

a. Is there an understanding of the value of CTE?

b. Is there an understanding of what achievement outcomes look like in CTE?

2. How do perceptions impact the referral/enrollment process?