Homegrown Lessons:
Innovative Programs Linking Work and High School

A Forum — April 4, 1994

Background

Two years ago a foundation officer suggested to the Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation (MDRC) that it undertake a study to document the effectiveness of school-to-work transition programs. Though MDRC is in the business of making such studies, it turned down the suggestion, Senior Research Associate Edward Pauly told the American Youth Policy Forum luncheon.

At that time, Pauly explained, there were no mature, established youth apprenticeship programs MDRC could usefully evaluate: promising programs were only then emerging on the educational landscape.

Rather than extensively evaluate the results of nascent school-to-work programs, MDRC decided to take a qualitative look at a handful of the most promising initiatives: what lessons were emerging from their implementation, and what did these lessons say about the feasibility of replicating high quality school-to-work programs across the nation?

Two years later MDRC has just completed this study, Homegrown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking Work and High School. Before elaborating on its methodology or detailing its findings, Pauly explained that the study brought excellent news for advocates of the school-to-work concept. "It established beyond doubt the feasibility and promise of school-to-work programs."

The Study

MDRC's Homegrown Lessons report is based on extensive study of 16 of the nation's most promising and best developed school-to-work programs. Though there is wide variation among the 16 programs, each falls under one of five program categories: career academies, occupational-academic cluster programs (in which all students in a high school take courses related to one of several career fields); restructured vocational education programs (including expanded cooperative education); tech prep; and youth apprenticeship.

Each of the 16 programs studied shares four common characteristics: (1) each offers both work-based learning and an enhanced academic curriculum with extensive "applied learning"; (2) all are broadly inclusive and include at least some disadvantaged and formerly low-achieving students; (3) all include at least two years of high school-based instruction; and (4) all include an important role for employers.

MDRC sought answers to a range of programmatic and policy questions, such as: What are the content and programmatic characteristics of model school-to-work programs? What types of students are being served? What are the resource requirements to launch and to operate high quality school-to-work programs?  What are the major implementation issues for schools in designing and operating a school-to-work program? What are the major implementation issues for employers?

Major Findings

1) Program Diversity.  The initiatives studied by MDRC exhibit a variety of designs customized to local conditions and preferences. "It's really a mix and match process going on here," Pauly explained. "Ideas that are clearly identified with one school-to-work approach are being adapted for use in other approaches."

This program flexibility and diversity fosters local creativity and ownership, and it allows programs to be dynamic and to add components and evolve over time. Provided they adhere to core principles that promote high quality, "localities should have the flexibility to customize their own school-to-work strategy."

2) Preparation for College.  "School-to-work programs are capable of and in many cases do actually increase college preparation," Pauly said. "Programs can increase students' preparation for post-secondary education by boosting the number of math and science courses they take and by actively engaging them in school."

An open pathway to college is a concern particularly for parents. Even if their children do not take all the math, science, and other classes required for college admission, many parents want to know that the programs do not preclude college. Though a handful of the programs studied make it difficult for students to schedule needed classes, most are finding "big payoffs when they make math and science classes available for all students."

3) Student Diversity.  One of the most heartening findings of the study is that the programs studied involve a broad cross-section of students -- including disadvantaged and low-achieving students -- without sacrificing standards or watering down course content.

4) Starting Early.  School-to-work programs are more successful if they begin in grades 9 or 10 than if they begin in grade 11.  Starting early allows programs to reach students before they drop out or mentally disengage from school, and it allows schools to provide students a range of career exploration and experiential learning opportunities before they choose a specific occupational track and begin work-based learning. This early start is especially important for disadvantaged students -- getting them excited about the learning process and providing them a clearer sense of mission and identity in their studies.

5. Resource Requirements.  It takes resources and considerable staff time to get a high quality school-to-work program started. Planning a good program -- developing curricula, involving employers, recruiting students, forging partnerships with post-secondary institutions -- can take a year or more. Resources to support this planning (and the operating costs later on) can come from a variety of state and federal sources, though sweat equity and (unpaid) extra effort are critical to the success of many programs.

6. Employer Participation.  The most difficult challenge facing school-to-work programs is employer involvement. "Expanded employer participation is needed to provide the level of intensive work-based learning that's needed," Pauly said. "[Yet] early indications are that few employers are willing to offer intensive training to more than three students [at a time]." As a result, educators are often faced with the "tough choice" between intensive work-based learning for a few students and a lesser experience for larger numbers of students.

Core Principles of High Quality Programs

While praising the diversity of school-to-work program models and advocating flexibility for localities to customize their programs to local conditions, Pauly stressed that high quality programs all adhere to a handful of "core principles":

Strong Instruction. The first of these principles is the need for strong and innovative instructional programs that integrate academic and vocational learning. School-to-work programs must deliver challenging, high expectations curricula that increase the number of math and science courses students take. These curricula must be geared to achieving competence in skills rather than memorizing information, and they must use instructional techniques designed to help a wide range of students succeed. Lessons must apply academic skills to real-world problems in a way that engages students, shows them the value of academic learning, and increases their familiarity with the world of work. In order to develop such curricula, teachers need paid time to familiarize themselves with workplaces and develop relevant lesson plans.

High Quality Work-Based Learning. Students also require effective instruction at the workplace. Because work-based learning is such a new concept in America, providing intensive, high quality work-based learning remains a serious problem for school-to-work programs.

The challenge is two-fold: recruiting employers for participation; and then structuring effective work-based instruction. MDRC's study yielded no easy answers to the employer recruitment challenge, but Pauly did mention several useful strategies. One is to use business leaders to recruit their peers and to rely also on intermediary organizations respected by the business community. Another is to involve employers early in the planning process in order to maximize their commitment and assure that the program meets their needs.

Pauly next described the three elements necessary for high quality work-based learning once employers are involved: careful planning, strategic design, and ongoing support. Schools and employers should agree formally on the goals of instruction and how to achieve them, and they should agree to written learning plans for all students. Students should be exposed to a range of different jobs, and they should develop broad, transferable skills rather than preparing for any single job. School-based and work-based learning should be coordinated and mutually reinforcing, and there must be mechanisms in place for the ongoing modification and improvement of work-based learning.

Extra Support. "In order to attract and retain students in a demanding, high-expectations program it's necessary to build in additional supports," Pauly said. "A strong curriculum and challenging work assignments are not enough."

Effective school-to-work programs generally provide this needed support by placing students in a supportive small group environment -- i.e., an occupational cluster, or a school-within-a-school. Frequent visits from school teachers to the worksite are another valuable technique for enhancing student support, as are employer mentors and students work teams that join together for school-based or work-based learning. When these elements were left out, Pauly said, programs found they had to add them.

Career Exposure and Preparation for Work. A final important means of providing extra support for students is to begin programs in grades 9 or 10 -- thereby giving students the chance to adapt to new expectations and master basic academic and work skills. Beginning early is also an important tool to give students a chance to explore career options and develop the awareness and skills necessary to succeed in the workplace.

If students are asked to choose an occupational cluster before going through an extensive career exploration process they often become disappointed with their choices and drop out of programs -- frustrating both themselves and the employers who have invested in their training. "Giving students career exposure before they make that occupational choice is a big plus," Pauly said, "that prevents a big minus later on."

Professional Development. Because school-to-work programs often require teachers and other participating school staff (plus employer personnel) to assume new roles and master new knowledge and instructional techniques, the programs' effectiveness depends significantly on professional development. Unfortunately, Pauly explained, traditional approaches to professional development (relying on one-time lectures and workshops) have not proven effective. New strategies for professional development are badly needed, he said, particularly strategies that bring teachers and employers together and provide for ongoing support via team-based brainstorming and problem-solving.

Broad Buy-in. The last critical element Pauly mentioned was strong support for programs both within the school staff and from the community. Guidance counselors and non-participating teachers shape the program's reputation within a school and provide information to potential applicants, Pauly said, so its critical that they be informed and supportive. Community support is likewise crucial, Pauly said, "to insulate programs from the criticism and skepticism that a work-based education program will inevitably receive." Two-year technical and community colleges should also be closely involved as planners and participants in school-to-work programs. Unfortunately, Pauly said, this post-secondary connection was weak in many of the programs studied.

Serving Low-Achieving Youth

When it came to student representation, Pauly reported, MDRC was "very impressed" with the ability of most programs studied "to avoid being labeled as elitist or being stigmatized as only for disadvantaged children." Success in attracting and retaining low-achieving students in high expectations school-to-work programs depended on several factors:

Begin Early. As noted above, MDRC found strong benefits for programs that begin early in high school. Starting in grade 9 or 10 allows programs to reach low-achieving students before they drop out or fall too far behind. It also allows students to begin career exploration and take classes such as applied math and applied technology that improve their chances of success later on.

Open Eligibility and Aggressive Recruitment. Broad marketing can enhance student interest in school-to-work programs and reduce any stigma about them. Publicizing the programs with guidance counselors and with math and English teachers at the middle school level is an effective recruitment strategy for involving disengaged students.

School-to-work programs ought not have eligibility requirements like a gateway assessment or a certificate of initial mastery, Pauly said. These entry requirements will likely screen out many students who can succeed in school-to-work programs, and they are unfair given the less-than-engaging curricula many students receive before entering a school-to-work program. Skill mastery should be an outcome of school-to-work programs, not a prerequisite for entry.

Preparation for Work. Rather than applying a test for entry, many successful programs accept all applicants but then require students to acquire work readiness skills before being placed with an employer. This two-stage process seems effective, allowing for broad inclusion in the programs, maintaining high standards, and providing strong motivation for students to work hard and master basic skills.

Use Existing Resources. School-to-work programs should draw on existing programs to support disadvantaged and low-achieving students. Partnerships with existing federal, state, and community-based youth programs should be encouraged to assist students needing extra support.

School-to-Work Program Costs

Start-up Costs. Depending on program size, the amount of curriculum development and employer involvement, and the decision whether or not to hire a dedicated full-time coordinator, MDRC found that the start-up costs for new school-to-work programs fall into one of three categories: (1) minimal costs (where planning is conducted exclusively with donated staff time and existing resources); (2) use of small grants ($10,000-50,000), typically allocated to planning time for staff, and to basic equipment; and (3) use of larger grants ($100,000-200,000), typically used for more extensive planning and curriculum development, hiring a coordinator, staff training, and equipment purchases.

Operating Costs. For schools, additional per student operating costs ranged from $0 to $1,500, depending mostly on whether the programs hired a program coordinator and used smaller-than-typical class sizes. For employers, the costs of supervising and training students in the workplace seem to be in the $1,000-2,000 range for new programs, perhaps less than that over time. Student wages, an additional expense, were generally between $4.25 and $6.00 per hour.

Funding Sources. Funds for the programs can come from a variety of sources: school districts (often through federal/state vocational education); the federally funded, locally administered Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA); special state appropriations; federal demonstration project funding; and philanthropic grants from foundations and corporations.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org