Research Made Simple: Building Equitable CTE Programs That Work for Every Student

Why equity in CTE matters (and why research helps)

Career and Technical Education (CTE) can be a powerful pathway to graduation, postsecondary success, and meaningful careers. But CTE only delivers on that promise when every student can truly participate and thrive—not just the students who already have the easiest access to information, transportation, equipment, or support.

That is where research becomes a practical tool, not an academic exercise. Research helps schools and districts move from good intentions (“CTE is for everyone”) to measurable actions (“Here is where access is uneven, here is where outcomes are uneven, and here is what we will change”).

As TinyEYE partners with schools through online therapy services, we see the same big idea across student supports and CTE design: equity improves when systems are built intentionally, barriers are identified early, and services are delivered consistently—especially for students who need accommodations, language supports, or flexible access to succeed.

Module 5 in plain language: what this equity-focused training is about

The CTE Research Network’s Module 5,

Using Research to Design Your CTE Program for Equity

, is designed for state and local CTE administrators and teams. It focuses on how to use research and data to close opportunity gaps for students identified in Perkins V—especially students in “special populations.”

The module’s core message is simple: you can design CTE programs that promote equity when you use data to find gaps, disaggregate results by student group, and apply research-based strategies to remove barriers.

Key terms you need (without the jargon)

Before you can improve equity, you need shared language. Here are the key ideas the module emphasizes.

Equity

Equity includes both

access

and

outcomes

. It means all students have access to high-quality opportunities and are supported to achieve strong results—regardless of race, gender, income, disability, language background, or geography.

CTE concentrators

Perkins V tracks outcomes for students who reach a defined threshold of coursework in a single CTE program or program of study. These students are often called “CTE concentrators.” Their performance is a key part of accountability reporting.

Special populations (Perkins V)

Perkins V identifies student groups who may face barriers and who may need additional services and supports. The module highlights that these categories include students experiencing economic disadvantage, disability, homelessness, and other circumstances that can limit opportunity if schools do not plan intentionally.

Nontraditional fields

A “nontraditional field” is an occupation where one gender makes up less than 25% of the workforce. Perkins V requires states to track participation and outcomes connected to programs leading to these fields.

Opportunity gaps and bias

CTE opportunity gaps can come from many sources. The module names several that are important to address directly:

• Institutional bias

  : policies or practices that systematically advantage some groups over others

• Implicit bias

  : unconscious assumptions that can influence referrals, encouragement, discipline, or expectations

• Cultural competence

  : whether educators recognize and respect differences in culture, communication, and experience

Equitable access vs. equitable outcomes: the difference that changes decisions

This distinction is one of the most useful parts of the module because it prevents a common mistake: assuming “open enrollment” automatically equals equity.

Equitable access

Equitable access means students can

enter

and

participate

in CTE programs. That includes recruitment materials they can understand, facilities they can physically access, schedules they can realistically attend, and admission practices that do not screen out students unfairly.

Examples the module points to include:

• Ensuring spaces are accessible (for example, ramps or adaptive equipment for students with physical disabilities)
• Recruiting in ways that reach families who do not speak English at home (not just English-only flyers or websites)
• Reviewing counseling and advising practices so students are not “sorted” into programs based on assumptions tied to race, gender, or special population status

Equitable outcomes

Equitable outcomes means students have the

supports

needed to succeed once they are in the program. This does not mean every student gets the same result; it means every student has a fair chance to achieve strong results.

In special education terms, this is the difference between “being present” and “being able to access learning.” A student may be enrolled in a lab, but without language supports, assistive technology, or appropriate accommodations, they may not be able to demonstrate what they know or build skills at the same pace.

Perkins V makes equity a requirement, not a suggestion

Module 5 explains that equity is a cornerstone of Perkins V. The law expects state and local recipients to reduce or eliminate equity gaps across student subgroups (including gender and race/ethnicity) and special populations.

The CLNA: your built-in opportunity to find gaps

A major driver of this work is the

Comprehensive Local Needs Assessment (CLNA)

, completed every two years. The CLNA is not just a compliance task—it is a structured moment to ask:

• Who is participating in CTE programs?
• Who is not participating—and why?
• Which student groups are underperforming on accountability indicators?
• What barriers are lowering access or outcomes?
• What strategies will we implement in our local plan to close gaps?

The module emphasizes that data should be

disaggregated

—broken out by subgroup—so you can see patterns that averages hide.

Using data beyond your district: why national sources can help

The module encourages programs to use resources like the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to compare local patterns to broader trends. National data can help you sanity-check assumptions and spot gaps you may have normalized over time.

One example shared in the module: NCES data on 2013 high school graduates suggested that about 20% completed a three-credit concentration in a single CTE program area, with differences by gender and student characteristics. Patterns like these are a reminder to ask: are our local participation rates and outcomes equitable—and if not, what is driving the difference?

What research suggests about impact (and why equity is central)

Module 5 summarizes research showing that CTE concentration can be associated with positive outcomes such as graduation, employment, and earnings. Importantly, one study highlighted in the module found especially strong benefits for students from low-income families—suggesting that high-quality CTE can be a powerful equity lever when access and supports are designed well.

The module also notes that credentials can matter, but equity questions remain—such as whether costs, exam access, or the type of credential create uneven benefits for low-income students. The practical takeaway is not “credentials are good” or “credentials are bad,” but rather: track who earns them, who does not, and what barriers may be shaping those results.

Best practices for closing CTE opportunity gaps

The module offers a set of practical, research-informed actions districts and colleges can take. Here are key strategies, written in an easy-to-use way.

1) Start by naming inequity clearly

• Acknowledge inequity is happening (or could be happening) in access, participation, or outcomes
• Commit to transparency: share what you find in disaggregated data
• Focus on high-quality programs—not just more seats in low-opportunity pathways

2) Expand access by removing real barriers

• Target resources to communities and schools with the greatest need
• Provide accommodations for students with disabilities so labs, equipment, and instruction are usable
• Address transportation and scheduling barriers that quietly block participation
• Review entrance requirements and identify who is disproportionately screened out

3) Improve recruitment and retention with targeted supports

Promising practices noted in the module include:

• Creative, targeted outreach to build more diverse enrollment
• Individualized coaching and support networks to help students persist
• Nontuition financial supports (which can matter when fees, equipment, or exams create hidden barriers)

4) Engage stakeholders in ways that build trust

Equity work fails when the “right people” are not at the table, or when meetings and materials are inaccessible. The module encourages leaders to consider:

• Who is being engaged (teachers, counselors, workforce partners, community college staff, families, students)
• How engagement happens (language access, meeting times, formats that families can use)
• Who communities already trust—and how to enlist them as champions (often counselors, teachers, and students themselves)

5) Treat equity as ongoing system design, not a one-time training

One of the strongest lines in the module is the reminder that equity is a marathon. Culture change and barrier removal take time, repetition, and follow-through. That means revisiting data regularly, checking whether strategies are working, and adjusting supports when they are not.

A practical “next step” checklist for your team

If you want to apply Module 5 ideas quickly, here is a simple sequence to use with your CTE team:

1. Pull your CLNA participation and performance data.
2. Disaggregate by student subgroup and special population status.
3. Identify one access gap and one outcome gap that feel urgent and actionable.
4. Do a root cause discussion: institutional barriers, implicit bias patterns, cultural/linguistic access issues, scheduling/transportation, cost.
5. Select 2–3 strategies to implement and assign owners, timelines, and measures.
6. Re-check data at set intervals and document what changes.

For more information, please follow this link.