The study noted at the outset that the timing of the research and some known limitations in the legislation would likely work against finding strong effects of Perkins III implementation. These initial hypotheses seemed to hold and, along with some other observations, lead to the overall conclusion that Perkins III remains a relatively weak policy instrument for implementing a strong federal vision for vocational education.

Perkins III was at an early state of implementation in the states at the time the study was conducted. Nonetheless, the study found some progress toward implementation, but individual progress varied.

As anticipated, state reforms appeared to have more influence over vocational education than did Perkins III. State policy emphasized academic achievement and accountability. Vocational education was not part of any accountability systems, even in states with vocational education standards and assessments. This influence was positive when it helped raise the academic standards in vocational education—one of the goals of Perkins III. But it also sometimes detracted from the core mission of vocational education to teach technical and career-related skills.

As anticipated, the financial incentives in Perkins III and even the stronger threat of losing Perkins funds for poor performance may not be enough to counteract the greater influence of state general-education policies. The case studies provided evidence that some states have a long way to go to be able to comply with Perkins reporting requirements.

Some implementation problems identified in the study can be attributed to state and local conditions—for example, the relative level of centralization and coherence of the state education system, the history of education reform within the state and related policies and practices already in place, and the relative importance of vocational education within the state education policy sphere. Implementation was less varied in states with more-centralized governance structures; these states also had more coherent policies directed specifically at vocational education.

A second set of barriers to implementing the Perkins' vision of an integrated academic and vocational education is the historical separation between academic and more occupationally-oriented education, which has been discussed in many studies. Vocational education and its teachers are marginalized and in the minority in most high schools, yet at the same time bear the biggest burden in making the kinds of changes required to achieve curriculum integration or other improvements.

The Perkins legislation also has some weaknesses that help create implementation challenges, which also have been documented in earlier studies. These include its origin in vocational education, which isolates the reforms from other education programs, and poor definition of key concepts, such as curriculum integration.

Like previous federal legislation for vocational education, Perkins III provided inducements to states in the expectation that states will deliver services to special groups, especially the economically disadvantaged. Like Perkins II, it incorporated capacity building mechanisms that directed funds toward specific program improvements. Perkins III added stronger mandates than prior legislation by holding states accountable for performance targets in four areas. These policy instruments were intended to reduce the slippage between policymakers' expectations and local implementation, which is expected to vary by state and local government levels.

This study found that Perkins policies were being enacted consistent with state structure, policy and interests but not necessarily consistent with federal intentions. Perkins III and concerns about vocational education are overshadowed by state academic standards and assessments and by accountability systems that often ignore vocational and technical learning. While study sites were aware of and working toward most of the quality improvements described by Perkins II and III, these efforts were largely on the margins of other state reforms.

On the positive side, Perkins funding undoubtedly plays a crucial role in state and local efforts to improve the quality of vocational education, especially in some areas. It is too soon to tell whether the stronger mandates in Perkins III accountability will have the desired effect, and some of the philosophical, structural and incentive barriers will not likely be overcome by time alone.