The purpose of this investigation is to tell the story of how six states are developing Programs of Study (POS) as mandated by the Perkins IV federal legislation. The authors' effort focuses on how states' technical assistance systems evolved and what successes and challenges existed for states developing POS. There was no intent to compare one state with another; instead, they sought to identify those elements they have in common and those that are unique to each state. The report includes profiles of each state, which are located throughout the United States. States for the study were recommended from a group of states that had applied to a national organization to receive technical assistance on their POS. From that pool of states, three were selected from among those who received formal technical assistance; three were also selected from those that had not been included in the formal technical assistance program. All states agreed voluntarily to participate in the study. The overall findings were quite positive. No matter whether a state was described as "top-down," with major direction and impetus for POS coming from the state department of education, or "bottom-up," with a major focus on developing programs at the local level, all states had some mixture of involvement through advisory committees with the state for establishing the general guidelines and templates for program requirements, important program components, processes for program approval and validation, and systems for communicating among and between the various levels of institutional participation. Every state had excellent examples of good collaborations, alignment, inter-institutional articulation and matriculation between secondary and postsecondary, integration of academics with career and technical education (CTE) courses and activities, and long-term plans for achieving Perkins IV goals for 2013. Based on spoken and written comments, the trends for states updating and continuing their POS development efforts to align with Perkins IV goals were both positive and promising. Appendices include: (1) State A Report; (2) State B Report; (3) State C Report; (4) State D Report; (5) State E Report; (6) State F Report; and (7) Protocols/Questions. (Contains 2 footnotes.)