School-to-Work for the College Bound
A Forum — October 24, 1997
Introduction
School-to-work grew from an anxiety during the 1980's that America's youth were not prepared for the rapidly changing world of work. Complaints arose from business and from well- publicized reports, such as A Nation at Risk, that American youth had weak skills and could not compete in the work place. At the same time, a strategy was being sought to increase opportunities for the "forgotten half" or "non-college bound." Policymakers turned to European and Japanese examples of effective education and workforce development strategies that emphasized high-skilled, well-paying jobs that didn't necessarily require a four-year college education. The resulting U.S.-adapted strategy seemed an ideal way to better prepare all young people for the workplace and, especially but not exclusively, to help out the "non-college bound."
Although the National School-to-Work Act of 1994 intended school-to-work to be for all youth and to encourage and facilitate pursuits of post-secondary education, many teachers, parents and others believe that school-to-work is not for young people who plan to attend college. They fear that school-to-work: is a strategy that diverts students from academic learning and college preparation; forces students to make early career choices; and is designed to prepare students for narrowly-defined employment in non-professional jobs immediately upon graduation from high school. However, Dr. Thomas Bailey, Director of the Institute on Education and the Economy at Teacher's College, Columbia University, Professor of Economics and Education and co-author of School-to-Work for the College Bound argues that school-to-work can emphasize academic skills, can introduce broad career concepts that are transferable so that youth are not locked in and is an effective strategy for college preparation en route to careers.
School-to-Work and Education Reform
Although they are often in agreement, the education reform and school-to-work movements unfortunately have very little interaction. If teachers and parents who support education reform were more aware of the similarities between education reform and school-to-work they might see that school-to-work does not compromise academic skills or reduce college opportunities. School-to-work and education reform both involve increases in "authentic" and "student-centered" learning; guided educational experiences outside of the classroom including work experience; and a systemic exploration of student interests.
School-to-Work as a College Entry and Retention Strategy
The school-to-work approach has the potential to teach the academic skills needed for college entry as well as, or possibly even better than, more traditional approaches. Students who participate in internships are often more competitive in the college admissions process.
School-to-work could also assist students once they are in college, as a large percentage of college students work part of the time they are in school (the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 47% of full-time college students were employed in 1992), but the work they do is unskilled, low paying, and often has little or nothing to do with the field they are studying. High school programs that help students define their goals could assist these young people in finding jobs that are better paying (which could reduce the number of hours), connect with their field of study and contribute to their overall education.
Is College Prep Good Enough As It Is?
Some may argue that while school-to-work is needed for the non-college bound, college-bound students are well-prepared through traditional methods. Bailey, however, indicates that there is no basis for Americans to be complacent with the current college prep system. In comparison studies on math and science skills (Steinberg 1996; Berliner and Biddle 1995), the "best" American students do not do as well as their European counterparts. Today's youth are also not as interested in the hard work and academic achievement necessary for college prep courses as they were several decades ago (Steinberg 1996). In addition, the number of college dropouts is high: 33% of freshmen leave college after their first year (American College Testing Program, 1996). This means that high schools could do a much better job of preparing students for college. Dropping out could be reduced if more students defined their goals and aspirations early on and tried them out in work-based learning experiences. Bailey says, "There is a tremendous amount of wheel spinning and wasted effort in college."
Efforts to Make College Admissions More Consistent with School-to-Work
Often, participation in school-to-work activities can preclude extracurricular activities and advanced placement (AP) courses, which are necessary for college admission. In cases like this, counselors, teachers, and parents often recommend the AP courses even though the school-to-work activities would benefit the student's career experiences and decision-making. Reformers are working on reducing the conflicts between admission to selective colleges and participation in school-to-work activities in three ways: 1) Accommodating school-to-work within the existing college admissions system; 2) Enhancing the communication between individual schools and colleges; 3) Attempting broad change in assessment and college admissions procedures.
This last point addresses "authentic assessment" which includes complex materials such as papers, projects, and portfolios, which school-to-work students from a well-designed program produce to showcase their competencies.
Conclusion
STW strategies are continuously evolving and the education reform movement is just beginning to look at its techniques for better preparing students for college. The data collection must continue as skeptics keep asking for systematic evidence. In the end, STW has tremendous potential to benefit all students by preparing them for college and career opportunities.