Learning To Work: Making the Transition

From School to Work

September 1995

OTA-EHR-637

GPO stock #052-003-01439-4
Author Contacts: To contact the authors of the report, please write or call John Wirt at 234

E Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202-547-7168); or Gregg Jackson at 721 Upshur

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20011 (202-882-0375).

Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Learning to

Work: Making the Transition from School to Work, OTA-EHR-637 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1995).
iii

oreword

ver the past decade, public attention has been drawn to the difficulties

that many young adults are having in finding their way in the changing

economy and earning a decent living. A broad movement is emerging

across the country to better connect school with career opportunities

and further education to help these young adults succeed. In 1994 Congress responded by passing the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA), which

assists states and localities in establishing comprehensive school-to-work transition systems.

The expansion of work-based learning is one aspect of this reform movement. For those in fields of health where internships are common or in the

skilled trades where apprenticeships exist, work-based learning will be a familiar concept, but for many others it will not be. STWOA aims to combine

learning in school with learning in the workplace in new ways that make it a

common feature of the educational and career preparation of young people.

Soon after the school-to-work legislation was passed by Congress, OTA

was asked by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the

House Committee on Education and Labor (now the Committee on Economic

and Educational Opportunities) to assess the potential and problems of workbased learning as a component of school-to-work.

As the report shows, work-based learning has considerable promise but will

be difficult to implement. Work-based learning can potentially help students

see the relevance of their academic studies later in life, allow students to explore career options, and help them develop needed occupational skills. But

the implementation of good work-based learning programs will require considerable effort on the part of schools and participating businesses. Whether

many businesses can be recruited to participate remains to be seen.

Throughout this study, the advisory panel, contractors, and many other

people were very helpful in developing the issues addressed in the report, identifying sources of information, and providing feedback. OTA appreciates their

substantial contributions. Their participation, however, does not necessarily

represent an endorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bears

sole responsibility.

ROGER C. HERDMAN

Director
iv

dvisory Panel

Edward Donley, Panel Chair

Former Chairman

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

Allentown, PA

Thomas Bailey

Director, Institute on Education

and the Economy

Teachers College Columbia

University

New York, NY

Sue E. Berryman

Senior Education Specialist

The World Bank

Washington, DC

David Finegold

Policy Analyst

RAND Corporation

Santa Monica, CA

Douglas Fraser

Walter P. Ruther Library

Wayne State University

Detroit, MI

Daniel Gescheidle

President, Educational Foundation

Chicago, IL

Thomas Kane

Economic Studies

The Brookings Institution

Washington, DC

Robert Klabenes

Provost

Oklahoma State

University-Okmulgee

Okmulgee, OK

Alan Lesgold

Professor of Psychology

Learning Research and

Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, PA

Paul Osterman

Alfred P. Sloan School of

Management

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Cambridge, MA

Hilary Pennington

President and Chief Executive

Officer

Jobs for the Future

Boston, MA

Hillard Pouncy

Consultant

Wallingford, PA

Marilyn Raby

Director, Curriculum Services

Sequoia Union High School

District

Portola Valley, CA

Piedad Robertson

Superintendent and President

Santa Monica Community

College

Santa Monica, CA

Nan Skelton

Center for Democracy and

Citizenship

Hubert Humphrey Institute

Minneapolis, MN

David Stern

Professor of Education and

Executive Director

National Center for Research in

Vocational Education

Berkeley, CA

Susan Stucky

Associate Director

Institute for Research on Learning

Palo Alto, CA

Marina v.N. Whitman

Institute for Public Policy Studies

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI

Joan Wills

Director, Center for WorkForce

Development

Institute for Educational

Leadership

Washington, DC

Note: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.

The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report

and the accuracy of its contents.
v

roject Staff

Clyde Behney

Assistant Director, OTA

Industry, Commerce, and

International Security Division

Denise Dougherty

Program Director

Education and Human Resources

John Wirt

Project Director

Greg Jackson

Senior Analyst

Helima Croft

Research Analyst

OTHER CONTRIBUTING STAFF

Christine Ho

Research Assistant

Tabitha Jay

Research Assistant

Mark Cunningham

Research Assistant

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Cecile Parker1

Office Administrator

Linda Rayford

PC Specialist

Beckie Erickson2

Office Administrator

Madeline Gross

Inhouse contractor

PUBLISHING STAFF

Mary Lou Higgs

Manager, Publishing Services

Chip Moore

Production Editor

Cheryl Davis

Electronic Publishing Specialist

Chris Onrubia

Senior Graphic Designer

________________

1 Until July 1995.

2 Since August 1995.
vi

ontractors

Stephen Barley and Bonalyn Nelson

Stanford University

Kathryn Borman and Richard Lakes

University of South Florida

Georgia State University

Christopher Dede and Matthew Lewis

George Mason University

RAND Corporation

Rosella Gardecki and David Neumark

Michigan State University

Norton Grubb, Norrena Badway, and Jennifer Curry Villeneuve

University of California at

Berkeley

Amy Hightower, Robert Hallock, George Wimberly, John Breckenridge, and Lisa Weiner

Policy Studies Associates, Washington, DC

Priscilla Taylor

Editor, McLean, VA

Margaret Vickers, Riley Hart, and Amy Weinberg

TERC Cambridge, MA
vii

1 Summary and Findings 1

The Requested Study 1

Rationales for STWOA 3

Work-Based Learning 3

Findings About the Effectiveness of Work-Based

Learning 4

Findings About Technology-Assisted Learning 6

Findings About Employer Participation in Work-Based

Learning 6

Finding About Possible Incentives for Expanding

Employer Participation 7

Findings About STWOA 8

2 Background and Introduction 11

History of Work-Based Learning in the United

States 11

Problems With School-to-Work Transitions 14

Overview of STWOA 15

Overview of this Report 16

References 17

3 Processes of Work-Based Learning 19

Experiential Learning 22

Work-Group Learning 23

Mentoring 24

Workplace Instruction 26

Technology-Assisted Learning 28

Conclusion 34

References 34

4 Structuring Work-Based Learning 39

The Students to be Served 39

Objectives 42

Coordination With Schooling 43

Timing, Intensity, Duration, and Progression of Work

Experiences 45

Settings of Work-Based Learning 48

Pay for Work-Based Learning 53

Conclusion 53

References 54

ontents
viii

5 Work-Based Learning Models and

Evidence of Effectiveness 57

Youth Apprenticeships 61

Clinical Training 65

Cooperative Education 66

Other Models 69

Conclusion 70

References 71

6 Employer Participation in Work-Based

Learning 73

Data Sources 73

Growth of Employer Participation 76

”High-Quality Equilibrium” in Cincinnati 81

Major Benefits Influencing Employers’ Dcisions to

Participate 83

Major Barriers Influencing Employers’ Decisions to

Participate 87

Conclusions and Remaining Questions 97

References 100

APPENDIXES

A Boxes, Figures, and Tables 103

B Reviewers and Contributors 104

C Contractor Reports Prepared for This

Assessment 105
Summary

and

Findings

ongress passed the School to Work Opportunities Act

(STWOA) with bipartisan support in May 1994. The legislation aims to improve the preparation of young people

for their careers and to enhance the productivity of the

American workforce.

STWOA established a five-year effort to foster partnerships

among schools, employers, and other stakeholders for the creation of school-to-work transition systems. States and localities

will receive seed money to restructure existing education and

training programs within the broad framework provided by

STWOA. The systems are to include school-based components,

work-based components, and activities connecting the two.

Work-based learning is intended to foster the students’ academic

and career development in the context of work experience. The

appropriation for STWOA in fiscal year 1995 was $245 million

(see box 1-1 for a summary of the legislation).

THE REQUESTED STUDY

The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the

House Committee on Education and Labor (now the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities) asked OTA

to examine the potential opportunities and pitfalls of the workbased learning that would be supported by STWOA. The assessment addressed three main questions:

1. What are the alternative models of work-based learning and

how effective are they?

2. What new learning technologies could support work-based

learning?

| 1
2 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

State and local school-to-work transition systems are to be planned and developed by partnerships of school staff, business leaders, labor representatives, and other interested parties, Governors

are given considerable discretion in structuring and administering the partnerships for the state systems. At the local level} the lead entities may be schools, colleges, nonprofit organizations, and chambers of commerce.

STWOA encourages development of school-to-work transition systems that coordinate career

orientation, academic and occupational education, high school and postsecondary schooling, workbased learning, and skill credentialing, The legislation specifically divides these elements into the following three components:

L School-based Learning

1.

2

3.

4

5.

6.

Academic instruction in high school that meets the state standards for all students and the applicable standards of the National Education Goals;

Career exploration and counseling, beginning no later than the 7th grade for interested students;

Initial selection by interested students of a career major beginning no later than the 11th grade;

Instruction that integrates academic and occupational learning;

Arrangements to coordinate high school and postsecondary education and training; and

Regularly scheduled evaluations of students’ personal goals, progress, and needed learning

opportunities.

Il. Work-based Learning

1, Job training and work experiences aimed at developing preemployment skills and employment

skills at progressively higher levels, and leading to the award of skill certificates;

2. Broad instruction in “all aspects of the industry, ” to the extent practical; and

3. Workplace mentoring.

Ill. Connecting Activities

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Activities to encourage employers to participate and to aid them in doing so;

Assistance in the integration of school-based and work-based learning, and of academic and

occupational instruction;

Matching of students with the work-based learning opportunities offered by employers;

Liaison among the students, schools, employers, and parents;

Assistance for graduates in finding appropriate jobs, getting additional job training, or pursuing

further education;

Monitoring of participants’ progress after they complete the program; and

Linkage of these youth development activities with employer and industry strategies for upgrading the skills of incumbent workers.

SOURCE School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Title I.

3. How can employers be persuaded to provide school-based components and connecting activiwork-based learning experiences for students? ties of the larger STWOA framework. Unless

As a consequence of the request from Con- these other aspects of the framework succeed,

gress, this report focuses on work-based learning. work-based learning will be no more effective unit does so, however, within the context of the der STWOA than it has been in the past.
Chapter 1 Summary and Findings | 3

OTA’s findings about work-based learning and

STWOA are reported in this chapter. The supporting evidence is presented in chapters 3 to 6.

RATIONALES FOR STWOA

At least three perceived problems led Congress to

pass STWOA. First, scholars and educators have

concluded that because there are few clear pathways between school and careers in the United

States, many students are unmotivated in school

and spend years bouncing from one low-paying

job to another as they look for career opportunities. Second, experts and employers agree that

many young people are completing school with

low levels of basic academic skills, dysfunctional

attitudes and work habits, and little occupational

training; as a result, they are inadequately prepared for well-paid employment and career progression. Third, scholars indicate that because of

technological changes and international competition, increasing numbers of midlevel jobs now require complex thinking, close teamwork, and the

ability to learn continuously while on the job.

STWOA seeks to address these problems by

several means. Students are to be offered career

exploration and counseling opportunities beginning in the 7th grade so that they will have several

years to consider career options and to become familiar with the preparation required for occupations that interest them. Skill standards and

certification systems are to be developed to signal

the proficiencies required for various occupations

and to indicate which students have achieved

those proficiencies. Academic work and occupational preparation in schools are to be upgraded

and the two are to be integrated so that students

can see how academics will be applicable in their

work lives. Work-based learning experiences are

to extend the academic and occupational instruction of schools, offer opportunities for students to

learn the use of tools and equipment found in the

workplace, introduce students to the norms of

adult work environments, and give them chances

to market-test their capabilities. Workplace mentors are to provide guidance and support for the

students’ intellectual, skill, and career development. And both the school-based preparation and

the work-based preparation are to extend in a coordinated manner from high school into postsecondary education.

WORK-BASED LEARNING

Work-based learning is a major component of

STWOA. Although learning can occur during any

work, in the legislation and in this report the term

work-based learning refers to learning that results

from work experience that is planned to contribute

to the intellectual and career development of students. The work experience is to be supplemented

with activities that apply, reinforce, refine, or extend the learning that occurs during work, so that

students develop attitudes, knowledge, skills, and

habits that might not develop from work experience alone.

The STWOA approach to work-based learning

generally follows what has been called the youth

apprenticeship model, though the term is not used

in the legislation. This model (outlined in box 1-1)

differs from earlier models of work-based learning in several ways that are thought to make it

more effective, but its relative efficacy remains to

be demonstrated. The clinical training model is

similar to that of youth apprenticeship, but it rarely includes career exploration elements, it is used

primarily at the postsecondary level for study in

the medical fields, and it involves unpaid worksite

experience. Cooperative education (co-op) is

similar to youth apprenticeship, but while co-op

programs are operated at both the high school and

postsecondary levels, they do not span both levels; skill certification is also seldom involved.

School-to-apprenticeships allow high school

vocational education students to begin union and

employer apprenticeship programs on a part-time

basis during their senior year. School-based enterprises are school-owned businesses operated by

students who take elective classes designed to develop the needed occupational and entrepreneurial skills. Career academies are small,

career-oriented “schools within schools” that integrate academics, career exploration, occupational

preparation, and sometimes work experience. A
4 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

more detailed comparison of these models is provided in chapter 5, box 5-1.

OTA identified five learning processes that are

used in work-based learning. Experiential learning occurs from students’ reflections on their experiences. It can be guided by others who

encourage students to observe the workplace astutely and to reflect on those observations. Workgroup learning occurs when the students are

immersed in a work group, interacting with members who assist students to full-fledged participation. Mentoring is a one-on-one relationship in

which an experienced employee fosters the development of a less experienced person by providing

challenges, encouragement, guidance, and resources. Workplace instruction is the deliberate

conveyance of work knowledge and skills by

means of lectures, demonstrations, coaching, or

supervision. Technology-assisted learning, which

is increasingly computer based, has evolved rapidly from simple computerized textbooks to computerized simulations, “intelligent tutors,” and

other learning tools. Little is known about the relative effectiveness of these processes, but each appears to have advantages and disadvantages.

OTA identified seven forms of computer-assisted learning that appear to have potential for

work-based learning. Career information delivery

systems help students to determine their interests

and talents, understand the opportunities and demands of various occupations, and sometimes to

identify local job openings. Computer-based

training presents information, quizzes the students’ understanding, and automatically scores

the answers. Business application software consists of word-processing, database, spreadsheet,

accounting, computer-assisted design, and other

software that is widely used in workplaces; it

often comes with computerized “tutorials” and

“help” capabilities. Hypermedia are vast collections of text, images, and sound, with indexed

linkages between related items. Intelligent tutoring systems use “artificial intelligence” to guide

students through customized learning paths, tailoring the instruction to each student’s knowledge

and skills, diagnosing error patterns, and providing customized feedback. Simulations are functional models of mechanisms, processes, or

systems on which the students can practice operating, repairing, or redesigning. Computer-supported cooperative learning allows a group of

people to share information and insights, to reach

group decisions through a set of structured exchanges, and to engage in collaborative design efforts.

The success of work-based learning under

STWOA will depend on the willingness of employers to provide work experiences for students,

and this will be costly for employers. In Germany

and Japan, where work-based learning for adolescents is extensive, there are strong incentives for

employer involvement. In Japan, these incentives

are largely internal to companies, whereas in Germany they are embedded in labor laws and the system of industrial relations. No comparable

incentives exist in the United States. STWOA

seeks to create incentives by having employers

participate in the partnerships that plan and control the work-based learning systems and by providing limited assistance to employers in their

preparations for work-based learning.

FINDINGS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS

OF WORK-BASED LEARNING

A-1. Past work-based learning has yielded

mixed results. Evaluations of past programs have

found that most students are excited and motivated by work-based learning and that most employers have been quite satisfied with the

students. Work-based learning appears to offer

students better learning opportunities than the after-school and summer jobs that students find on

their own. Yet work-based learning has generally

had only small positive effects on the school attendance, grades, graduation rates, and postsecondary enrollments of participating students. And the

effects on students’ employment, mobility, and

earnings during the first few years after graduation

have ranged from modestly positive ones to a few

small negative results.

A-2. The work-based learning that is intended under STWOA will differ from past

work-based learning in ways that might im-
Chapter 1 Summary and Findings | 5

prove its effectiveness. The work-based learning

established under STWOA will be part of schoolto-work transition systems that are planned with

more input from employers, employees, parents,

and other stakeholders than has generally been the

case for older forms of work-based learning.

Work-based learning under STWOA is to be directed more broadly than in the past to career exploration and to the development of good work

habits, occupational skills, and problem-solving

abilities. It is to be more closely coordinated with

initiatives to improve academic instruction, career

orientation, and occupational instruction. It will

include mentoring to facilitate the young people’s

personal, intellectual, and occupational development. In addition, students’ progress is to be assessed more often and more thoroughly than was

common in the past. These differences could improve the effectiveness of STWOA-fostered

work-based learning, but they will also make implementation of the work-based learning more

complex and problematic.

A-3. Effective work-based learning appears

to require considerable effort and coordination on the part of the schools, employers, and

intermediary organizations. Effort and coordination are required to recruit and orient employers, to prepare students for the workplace, to

match students with work-based learning positions, to give students appropriate training and

guidance while in the workplace, to monitor the

students’ experiences, to assess the students’ development, and to provide constructive feedback.

A-4. Though the needs of young people vary

considerably, at the high school level workbased learning generally appears better suited

for the exploration of careers and development

of generic work skills, whereas at the postsecondary level it generally appears well suited

for the development of occupational skills. At

the high school level, some students have clear occupational objectives and plans to enter the workforce immediately following graduation, but

many students are undecided about their career

choices, or frequently change their minds, and

their parents are reluctant to have them make early

decisions. Most high school students who have

participated in work-based learning have reported

that its main value was as an exploration of careers

rather than development of occupational skills.

Because the development of occupational skills

requires greater effort on the part of employers,

the employers are more likely to make the investment for students who are relatively mature, sure

of their direction, and close to entering the labor

market. Such students provide employers with a

better chance of recouping their training costs.

A-5. At the high school level, the quality of

work-based learning experiences appears to

depend more on the nature of the work experience than on the kind of organization in which

the work is done. There is reason to think that the

industry, the style of management, the size of the

company, and the level of technology are less important than the nature of the work-based learning

opportunities at the high school level. Opportunities that appear to facilitate work-based learning

include:

 a broad introduction to the company and its industry;

 experiences that are coordinated with the students’ school-based instruction;

 a mix of at least some of the following: experiential learning, mentoring, work group learning, workplace instruction, and technologyassisted learning;

 responsibilities of increasing complexity and

importance, with the minimum assistance necessary for success;

 chances to exercise both autonomy and teamwork;

 assignments to solve problems, explore, and innovate;

 opportunities to assume some supervisory

functions;

 participation in trade, professional, and union

events; and

 guidance in reflecting on the implications of the

work experience.

A-6. Most work-based learning now occurs

in places of employment, but work in other settings could probably supplement those experiences and perhaps partially substitute for
6 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

them. School-based business enterprises run by

students, community service activities, occupationally-related extracurricular activities such as

Junior Achievement, and various work simulations probably could contribute to the occupational development of students. Some of the means

used to enhance students’ work-based learning experiences might also enhance the learning derived

from after-school and summer jobs that many students arrange on their own.

A-7. There has been little research on how

work-based learning actually takes place and

on how to best foster it. Most studies have focused on evaluating the effects of one model of

work-based learning—cooperative education.

Even those studies generally have not addressed

how variations in the model might affect students.

Hardly any attention has been given to the actual

experiences of students during their work-based

learning and to the ways those experiences contribute to, or hinder, the students’ intellectual and

occupational development.

FINDINGS ABOUT

TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED LEARNING

B-1. Several forms of technology-assisted

learning appear to have potential for facilitating work-based learning. The evaluation evidence suggests that the older forms of

computer-assisted learning have speeded the acquisition of knowledge and skills by 24 to 34 percent. Career information delivery systems,

computer-based training, and hypermedia have

been successfully commercialized and are available in some schools and workplaces. Intelligent

tutoring systems, computer-supported collaborative learning, and computerized simulations are

mostly in the development and testing stages.

B-2. Some of these technologies are expensive and cannot be easily modified locally; both

problems could be reduced by development of

better “authoring” tools. It can take several

hundred person-hours to prepare the software for

one hour of learning assistance. When that is the

case, the software must be sold at a high price unless there is a large market for it. Because teachers

and supervisors usually cannot modify the

instructional systems to accommodate local information or an individual organization’s practices, the utility and effectiveness of the systems are

limited. Both problems would be reduced if easier-to-use and more powerful “authoring tools”

could be developed. These tools would partially

automate the development and modification of

instructional software.

FINDINGS ABOUT EMPLOYER

PARTICIPATION IN WORK-BASED

LEARNING

C-1. So far, the rate at which employers are

participating in prototypes of STWOA’s workbased learning has been growing only modestly in most communities. According to the

findings of an OTA survey of 15 high school

school-to-work transition projects, the median

number of employer participants is 35 per program, and the median growth rate is about six employers per year. Because there are only about two

students per employer, this growth translates to an

increase of about a dozen students per community

per year. Other studies have revealed similar findings. Unless the rates of growth improve significantly, it will take a long time before most

school-to-work transition systems can serve substantial portions of students in their communities.

C-2. Most programs have found that it takes

considerable time and effort to recruit and retain employers. In the 15 communities included

in OTA’s survey, it has taken an average of onehalf full-time-equivalent staff member to recruit

six new employers each year.

C-3. A few communities have recruited large

numbers of employers. In a few communities,

substantial efforts over many years have been devoted to building strong partnerships between

educators and employers in which there are reciprocal commitments to quality on both sides. Employers provide high-quality training and work

experience opportunities for one semester or longer in order to attract the best students, while the

schools prepare students well so they can secure

the good placements. In a few other communities,
Chapter 1 Summary and Findings | 7

large numbers have been achieved by arranging

brief work-based learning experiences, such as

“job shadowing” experiences in which the student

follows one employee around for a half-day.

C-4. Employers’ decisions to become involved in work-based learning are influenced

by a range of potential benefits and disincentives. The main benefits appear to be recruiting

well-trained personnel and contributing to the improvement of education and the community, with

the former being of somewhat more importance to

employers. The main disincentives appear to be:

 inadequate preparation of students for work

placements;

 lack of coordinating support from the workbased learning program;

 the employer’s training costs, which include

student wages and the time and effort of supervisors and mentors;

 regulatory restrictions and extra insurance

costs, which include child labor and safety laws

and general liability and worker’s compensation insurance;

 organizational resistance to work-based learning from management or other employees in

the company; and

 economic uncertainty, due to slowdowns in the

local economy or changes in a company’s business fortunes.

All these disincentives appear to be of roughly

equal importance to employers.

FINDINGS ABOUT POSSIBLE

INCENTIVES FOR EXPANDING

EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION

D-1. Inasmuch as the disincentives enumerated in C-4 are of about equal importance to

employers, policies aimed at inducing employer participation should be directed at several of

the barriers simultaneously. One policy alone,

such as providing strong coordinating support or

a training wage, is unlikely to be very effective.

D-2. Better preparation of students probably would expand employer participation in

work-based learning. About one-quarter of the

employers in OTA’s survey reported some problems with the quality of preparation that students

received before their work experience, and 16 percent of the employers said that lack of student reliability was the most important disincentive to

participating in work-based learning. By reliability, employers primarily mean dependability, responsibility, and initiative for getting work done.

The OTA survey results are consistent with other

research findings.

D-3. Coordinating assistance, provided by

the school or an intermediary organization,

could be an inducement to employer participation. Nineteen percent of employers in the OTA

survey said that lack of coordinating support was

the most important disincentive to work-based

learning. More than 60 percent of employers rated

coordinating assistance as being “very” or “critically” important. Coordinating assistance typically includes helping the employer plan and start a

work-based learning program, screening students

and matching them with employers, providing

troubleshooting and technical assistance to individual supervisors and worksite mentors, and

coordinating student placements. It is through

these coordinating services that long-term partnerships between employers and school systems

are built.

D-4. Although evidence on the issue is

mixed, some financial inducements to reduce

employers’ training costs might expand employer participation in work-based learning.

Employers consistently report that the time required of supervisors and mentors of work-based

learning students is a much larger cost than the

wages paid to the students. Although employers

have not responded to federal tax credits for employment of disadvantaged young adults, available research indicates that student wage

subsidies have been effective in increasing employer participation in some work-based learning

programs. Nineteen states are currently planning

to implement one or more of the following:
8 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

 state subsidies or tax credits for employers’

costs of training students,

 subsidies for the development of training facilities to be used by more than one company,

 grants for the training of students by outside

vendors, or

 other training cost subsidies.

Evaluation of the effects of these inducements

on employer participation is needed and will require comparisons across states.

D-5. Regulatory reform and insurance pools

might expand employer participation, especially in some states and localities. In other

cases, providing employers with authoritative

information about regulatory and insurance

issues may be sufficient. Child labor and safety

laws are determined both by the federal and by the

state governments, and general liability and worker’s compensation insurance are regulated by

states and provided by many different companies,

thus creating substantial differences among the

states and localities. Many fears that employers

have about regulatory restrictions and extra insurance costs might be allayed by providing them

with authoritative information about the actual restrictions and costs in their communities. States in

which employers are found to be having difficulties with regulatory restrictions could review child

labor laws and safety regulations to determine

whether modification would facilitate workbased learning while retaining their intent. States

could also create special entities to provide employers with information about actual insurance

costs and to pool the costs of insurance.

D-6. Much remains to be learned about

strategies for creating partnerships between

businesses and schools that will accelerate the

growth of employer participation in workbased learning. Growth in employer participation may or may not speed up as a result of state

and local efforts to build comprehensive schoolto-work transition systems. Evaluations that

compare communities having large increases in

employer participation with other communities

are needed to identify strategies for expanding

employer involvement by an order of magnitude

or more. Otherwise, work-based learning is unlikely to succeed in the near future. States that

have ambitious efforts under way to adopt specific

incentives and to forge partnerships between business and education at the state level would be good

places to look for communities to evaluate. In the

absence of such research, the fate of work-based

learning under STWOA may largely ride on whatever leadership is forthcoming from the business

community.

FINDINGS ABOUT STWOA

E-1. STWOA is a coherent approach for dealing with the problems posed by the changing

workplace, the lack of career paths, and the

poor preparation of youth for careers. There are

several reasons to think that STWOA systems, if

implemented as intended, could improve the

school-to-work transition for youth. These reasons include:

 The systems are to provide more extensive career exploration and counseling than has previously been available to most students.

 The systems are to upgrade both academic and

occupational preparation in schools, and integrate both so that the importance and applicability of academic skills is more apparent to

students.

 The systems are to mobilize workplaces to provide work-based learning that reinforces students’ schooling, expands and extends the

career exploration and occupational preparation of students, offers mentoring for students’

personal and career development, and provides

students with progressively more challenging

work experiences.

 The systems are to adopt skill standards and

skill certification procedures for many occupations, signaling to students the needed proficiencies of various occupations and signaling

to employers which students have reached

those proficiencies.

E-2. The implementation of STWOA will be

difficult. STWOA is to foster systemic school reform targeted at major improvements in both aca-
Chapter 1 Summary and Findings | 9

demic and career preparation, but more modest

attempts at reform during the past decade have had

troubled histories. Successful implementation

will require effective partnerships between businesses and schools—institutions that operate with

different cultures and have little experience working together. STWOA systems are to provide students who choose a career major in high school

with instruction that integrates academic and occupational learning, and this will require organizing and teaching the curriculum in ways that differ

substantially from those used in the past. Highquality work-based learning opportunities will require the investment of considerable time and

resources by participating employers. Unprecedented coordination will be required within the

school curriculum, between schools and participating workplaces, and between high schools and

postsecondary institutions. STWOA will require

the development of skill standards and the

introduction of new assessment processes that accurately signal proficiencies needed for employment and fairly reflect young people’s knowledge

and skills. Finally, parents and students will need

to be convinced of the merits of these new arrangements, and many may respond initially with skepticism.

E-3. There is ambiguity in STWOA about

the extent to which all students in a community

should be included in a school-to-work system,

and this ambiguity could impede implementation. Congress apparently intended to support the

development of school-to-work transition systems that would be well suited for almost any interested students, including those who are

disabled and those who are academically gifted,

but some people have suggested that every student

should participate. Practitioners are justifiably

concerned that if STWOA is directed primarily at

students who are not headed to four-year colleges,

it will be stigmatized as a system for less able

youth. The fact that work-based learning is offered

by some prestigious prep schools suggests that it

can benefit academically gifted students. If, however, states require every student to take courses

that integrate academics and occupational education or to engage in work-based learning, some

educators, parents, and community members may

object strenuously.

E-4. Programs using approaches similar to

that of STWOA generally have served substantial portions of minority youth, but some gender stereotyping by occupation is apparent.

There had been fears that minority youth might

tend to be excluded from work-based learning, but

several studies of these early programs indicate

this has not been the case to date. Most boys and

girls, however, have received education and training in occupations that are common for their gender.

E-5. A few prototypes of STWOA have reported that large proportions of their high

school graduates have enrolled in postsecondary education, but whether most of these students were adequately prepared to complete

college programs is unknown. In some programs serving predominantly inner-city youth, 85

to 92 percent of the seniors have reported plans for

postsecondary enrollment, and in three programs

that tracked the students, 69 to 84 percent actually

did enroll in postsecondary programs. Very few of

the evaluation reports that OTA examined presented data on students’ high school achievement,

and several employers expressed concern to OTA

staff about the low level of students’ basic skills.

The impressive postsecondary enrollment rates

probably reflect stimulation of students’ desire to

seek further education and the provision of more

guidance on college admissions. Perhaps many of

the students will make it through the postsecondary program because of the motivation and work

habits they have acquired in the programs, but for

those students who fail, there could be considerable disillusionment.

E-6. Even the best school-to-work transition

programs have required at least five years of

implementation and refinement to operate effectively. Neither theory, nor research, nor expert

advice appears sufficient to assure quick success,

perhaps because success is partly dependent on establishing a reputation with employers, parents,

and students, and that takes time.
10 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

E-7. Evaluating the effects of STWOA systems on students’ success and workforce productivity will require more than a decade, but

interim assessments can provide important information. If the systems are given a few years to

refine their operations and if students are then followed from the 7th grade (when career exploration and counseling are to begin) through at least

one or two years of postsecondary education, a decade will pass before the first cohort receiving the

full treatment enters full-time employment. Ideally, the progress of the students in the work world

would then be followed for another decade to determine the long-term effects on their career success and on workplace productivity. In the

interim, it will be useful to assess several matters,

including:

 whether the intended STWOA system components and coordination among them are successfully implemented;

 how many students are being served by the systems and what their characteristics are;

 whether students’ attendance, discipline,

course taking, grades, test scores, and other assessments of progress show upward trends;

 whether evaluations of students’ work-based

learning are promising;

 whether high school graduation rates and postsecondary enrollment rates rise;

 whether substantial portions of the students do

earn the applicable skill certificates; and

 the extent to which employers expand, contract,

or terminate their participation.

Both interim and long-term evaluations will require program operators and students to cooperate

with the data collection, and that is by no means

assured.
Background

and

Introduction

ork-based learning is any learning that occurs when a

person is working, but in this report the term is used

more narrowly to mean learning that results from students’ experiences in a workplace or surrogate workplace that are planned at least partly for students’ career

orientation and occupational development. Work-based learning

includes opportunities to “shadow” employees for a few hours or

days, to learn what they actually do. It may involve opportunities

to assist various employees for a week or so, to gain some experience in several different jobs. It can provide work experience outside places of employment, as in community service settings or in

school-based enterprises that produce goods or services. It sometimes includes opportunities to participate in formal workplace

instruction designed to develop specific knowledge and skills. It

often includes opportunities to assume a job or a volunteer work

assignment for a semester or longer, with orientation and continuing guidance from a supervisor, to learn general work skills and

specific occupational skills while also producing goods or services. It may entail holding a planned sequence of increasingly

demanding jobs, in one or more workplaces, that are designed to

contribute to career development. Work-based learning can also

encompass participation in various forms of work simulations. 

HISTORY OF WORK-BASED LEARNING

IN THE UNITED STATES

Apprenticeships have been traced back as far as the Code of Hammurabi in the 18th century B.C. (9). The code required artisans to

teach their crafts to the young. Until the middle of the 19th century, most young people learned about work by working alongside | 11
12 | Information Technologies for Control of Money Laundering

their parents or in an apprenticeship with another

adult. Apprenticeships flourished during the early

history of the United States. Young people were

apprenticed from about the age of 14 until the age

of 21. The master practitioner was responsible not

only for their occupational training, but also for

their housing, food, clothing, general development, and sometimes a small stipend. In turn, the

apprentice worked for the master practitioner

about 60 hours per week (16).

Apprenticeships declined during the Industrial

Revolution, when mass production and its division of labor reduced the need for skilled craftspeople (10). In the early 20th century, unions and

businesses established formal apprenticeship programs in an effort to maintain high-quality workmanship in the skilled trades (7,10). The programs

usually involved several years of full-time work,

on-the-job training, and additional classroom

instruction in theory for a few hours per week. The

pay generally increased as the participants progressed, and successful completion of the apprenticeship resulted in “journeyman” status. These

apprenticeship programs expanded dramatically

in the years following World War II (20). In 1994,

there were 315,054 people receiving training in

federal and state registered apprenticeship programs (20). The programs cover about 800 occupations, but three-fourths of all apprentices are

in just 30 occupations, and about half of all apprentices are preparing for work in the construction trades (11). The mix of full-time work,

on-the-job training, and additional instruction in

theory remains similar to that established in the

early part of the century.

Although formal schools are known to have operated as early as 4,000 years ago in China, widespread schooling is a relatively new development

(25). Several forces contributed to the rapid expansion of schools in the United States during the

19th century. The decline of family homesteads

and self-employed craftsmen, and the rise of factories, meant that boys could no longer work

alongside their fathers to master skills. The urbanization of the population and improvements in

transportation made it much easier to assemble

many students in one building. Advances in printing technologies dramatically lowered the cost of

books. The advent of mechanization, industrialization, and regional commerce increased the demand for accurately transmitted information, and

thus the need for a workforce that could read and

write. Rising incomes made families less dependent on the labor of children, and thus permitted

extended periods of schooling. High rates of immigration to the United States during the 19th century resulted in a widespread need for instruction

in the English language and a public desire to “civilize” and “Protestantize” immigrant children. In

addition, advocates for child welfare supported

schooling as a means of countering the exploitation of child labor (4,5,8).

As soon as formal schooling had become universal, reformers and critics attacked it as illsuited to the needs of many students. As early as

the mid-1800s, there were complaints about the

emphasis on humanities and the didactic pedagogy. One of the most common criticisms was that

traditional academic education was not preparing

students for adult life, especially for their work

lives (14). A few educators responded by establishing the programs that are the precursors of

modern work-based learning programs.

In the 1820s several schools were established

to teach industrial arts. Some were operated by

charitable organizations for orphans; others were

established by organizations of craftspeople for

their members (1). Manual labor academies appeared at about the same time. These academies

hired out their students to local businessmen to

give the students practical experience and to reduce the tuition costs. During the late 1800s, high

schools of “mechanical arts” and “trade education” were established to keep young people in

school and to prepare them for their work lives (1).

These schools devoted about half the day to teaching academic skills and half the day to teaching

specific trades in the schools’ laboratories. That

arrangement, which has endured to this day, has

long been known as high school “vocational

education.” In 1913, at the behest of employers in

Dayton, Ohio, The Cooperative High School was

established. It allowed advanced students to spend

part of their day working and being trained by em-
Chapter 2 Background and Introduction | 13

ployers. This was, and is still, known as “cooperative education” (2,6).

In the 1870s the president of the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology observed that his institution had been producing engineers who were well

educated but unskilled. To remedy this shortcoming, he introduced shop courses that taught the use

of tools and manual skills that engineers commonly applied in the field (1). In 1906, the University

of Cincinnati adopted cooperative education for

its engineering college, with students rotating between a week of classes and a week of workplace

experience (13). These two approaches, incorporating practical skill training within schools and

coordinating schooling with outside practical experience, have endured in American education.

Cooperative education spread to several other

engineering colleges and then, in 1921, Antioch

College became the first liberal arts college to

adopt it (13). By 1940, some 30 institutions of

higher education offered cooperative education.

By 1970, the number had expanded to more than

200, and by 1980 there were 1,028 programs with

approximately 200,000 students—about 3 percent of the number of full-time enrolled students

in the United States (13).

In 1977 and 1978, the U.S. Department of Labor funded eight demonstrations of what were

then called youth apprenticeships but now are

often called school-to-apprenticeship programs.

High school seniors in vocational education programs were given the opportunity to start union

and employer apprenticeship programs on a parttime basis. Most went to school half time and participated in the apprenticeship program for 20 to

30 hours per week. This model did not gain popularity. In 1989, the Department of Labor estimated

that only about 1,500 high school students were

involved in school-to-apprenticeship programs

(24).

For the past decade, the German Marshall Fund

of the United States has supported study trips by

American educators, business leaders, elected officials, and journalists to examine the apprenticeship systems of Germany and other European

countries. The foundation has also supported trips

by European counterparts to the United States for

the exchange of ideas about school-to-work transitions and workforce development.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the W.T.

Grant Foundation’s Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship, and its successor, the American Youth Policy Forum, published about 20

reports that identified problems in the preparation

of youth for adulthood and employment, described various proposals for addressing those

problems, organized public discussions of policy

alternatives, and took federal and state policymakers on field visits to innovative programs. Several

reports dealt with school-to-work transitions,

youth apprenticeships, and other forms of workbased learning for young people (12,18,26,27).

In 1991, Jobs for the Future, a nonprofit organization with foundation funding, began providing support for several innovative school-to-work

transition programs with work-based learning.

The programs generally coordinated career

orientation, academic and occupational education, and work-based learning, with the aim of

preparing young people to assume entry-level

semiskilled jobs upon graduation or to proceed on

to postsecondary education and training. In 1992,

the U.S. Department of Labor provided support to

six states and several local jurisdictions for the development of school-based “youth apprenticeships” with characteristics similar to those of the

immediate foregoing programs, although a few

included at least one year of postsecondary education as an integral part of the program. In 1992, the

Council of Chief State School Officers provided

support to five states for similar purposes (17).

The School-to-Work Opportunities Act was

largely inspired by these efforts of the 1980s and

early 1990s, but the legislation extends these precedents in at least three ways:

1. It strives to link improved preparation for work

with current academic reform efforts.

2. It calls for more comprehensive services over

a longer period of time than was generally proposed in the past.

3. It seeks to establish school-to-work transition

systems operated by partnerships of schools,

employers, and other community organiza-
14 | Information Technologies for Control of Money Laundering

tions, rather than innovative programs operated

and controlled primarily by the schools, employers, or unions (19).

PROBLEMS WITH

SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITIONS

Congress enacted STWOA and included a workbased learning component mainly to address three

problems confronting school-to-work transitions

in the United States: rapid changes in technology

and organization of business and industry, obscured career pathways for youth, and the generally poor quality of career preparation offered to

youth in this country.

❚ Rapidly Changing Workplaces

Experts suggest that vast changes in how work

and technology are organized within companies

are leading to new kinds of work environments

where there is a need for a flexible workforce,

teamwork, and continual learning on the job. Rapid advancements in technology have changed the

nature of the workplace, which now often requires

the generation, manipulation, and interpretation

of text, graphs, and other symbolic information.

Furthermore, increased international competition, coupled with technological advancement,

has shortened production cycles and spurred customization in many workplaces. Thus in order to

compete effectively in the market, workers must

learn new technologies and techniques continually introduced into the workplace, and be flexible

and able to work as a team (3).

To encourage young people to acquire the intellectual and social skills they need to perform productively in the workplace, STWOA calls for:

 high academic standards of performance for all

students,

 the integration of academic and occupational

learning to motivate academic achievement by

demonstrating its relevance in the workplace,

and

 work-based learning to develop skills that are

advantageously learned in the workplace and to

reinforce knowledge that is acquired in school.

❚ Obscured Career Pathways

Many scholars and educators have concluded that

employers have few ways of signaling career opportunities to young people. In addition, students

have few ways of discerning the available options

in various occupations and industries and the

preparation required for them. Clear career pathways can encourage early and continuing career

exploration, structure career choices for students

at various points in their lives, and generate

motivation to work hard in pursuit of one’s objectives. Career “signposts” can inform young

people of their progress, and counseling can assist

them in making their decisions (15).

STWOA is designed to foster clear career pathways by:

 providing career exploration and counseling

beginning no later than the 7th grade;

 allowing selection of a career major no later

than the 11th grade;

 arranging work-based learning opportunities to

give students experience in different career

areas;

 providing mentoring for personal guidance and

support; and

 establishing skill standards and certification

systems to signal occupational skill requirements and to recognize the attainments of students.

❚ Generally Poor Preparation

of Youth for Careers

American youth have generally been poorly prepared for careers because of the gap between academic and career preparation. Historically,

students in the “general” track are characterized as

not prepared for anything; vocational education

students are typically not expected to achieve

academically or to pursue promising careers, and

college-bound students are seen as having little

knowledge of the workplace and work experience.

STWOA aims to bridge the gap between academic and work-related education by:
Chapter 2 Background and Introduction | 15

 making school-to-work transition systems part

of statewide comprehensive education reform,

 stressing the importance of rigorous academic

standards for students,

 using work environments to build students’

knowledge and skills and to demonstrate how

both are related to work and careers,

 using career counseling and mentors to encourage all students to obtain at least some postsecondary education or training, and

 connecting high school programs to postsecondary schools that have strong programs of

academic and occupational education.

OVERVIEW OF STWOA

In the spring of 1994, Congress passed the

School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA)

with bipartisan support. The legislation aims at

improving the productivity and competitiveness

of the nation’s workforce and preparing young

people for rewarding and satisfying work lives

(19).

STWOA does not seek to establish programs

but rather to develop comprehensive statewide

and local systems for facilitating school-to-work

transitions (Public Law 103-239, Sec. 3[1]).

STWOA directs seed money to interested statewide collaborations of the governor, state agencies, and representatives of the private sector

(Title II, Subtitle A, Sec. 203). At the local level,

the activities are to be undertaken by partnerships

of educators, employers, employees, and students

(Sec. 4[11] and Title III, Sec. 301). STWOA also

calls for coordination of the systems with other

education and training activities undertaken with

federal support (Title II, Subtitle B, Secs. 213[c]

and [d][6]). The main provisions of STWOA were

summarized in chapter 1, box 1-1.

STWOA received widespread support from numerous business, labor, education, and other organizations (21). Business associations supporting

it included the Business Roundtable, National Alliance of Business, National Association of

Manufacturers, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Labor organizations included the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, and the

United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry.

Educational organizations included the American

Federation of Teachers, American Association of

Community Colleges, Council of Chief State

School Officers, National Education Association,

and National Parent-Teacher Association. Other

organizations supporting the bill included the National Governors’ Association, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State

Legislatures, and U.S. Conference of Mayors.

There was some congressional opposition to

STWOA. Several members considered the anticipated costs (the first-year authorization was for

$300 million) to be imprudent at a time of large

federal deficits. Others thought that the federal

government ought to reduce the number of its

more than 150 job training programs and better

coordinate the remaining ones, rather than adding

another one. The House wanted to require that the

work experience be paid, while the Senate opposed that provision; the conference compromise

specified that preference be given to proposals

that include paid work experience. A few members and experts thought that the objective of the

legislation could not be achieved unless all the

services for youth began no later than the 9th

grade, but the act specifies that many of the services do not have to begin until the 11th grade.

Some educational associations opposed giving

the governors wide latitude in administration of

STWOA, preferring it to be handled by state and

local education agencies, but they did not prevail.

Several people were concerned that the local systems might tend to avoid enrolling students at risk

for academic failure, while others warned that the

systems would suffer if they were stigmatized as

being primarily for those students. Several experts

were concerned about the provision calling for

states to develop skill certificates, suggesting that

this task was better left to national organizations

so as to minimize duplication of effort and to allow the recipients of the certificates nationwide

mobility, but the provision was unchanged

(21,22,23).
16 | Information Technologies for Control of Money Laundering

Despite these concerns, STWOA passed. The

legislation authorizes $300 million for fiscal year

1995 and such sums as may be necessary in the fiscal years 1996 through 1999. A sum of $245 million was appropriated for fiscal year 1995, and the

Administration requested $400 million for fiscal

year 1996.

The National School-to-Work Opportunities

Office, which is jointly staffed by the Department

of Education and the Department of Labor, is administering STWOA. STWOA calls for four

types of grants:

1. State Development Grants support efforts to

plan statewide systems of school-to-work transitions (Title II, Subtitle A). All states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have already

received these grants.

2. State Implementation Grants support implementation of the plans (Title II, Subtitle B).

Eight states were awarded five-year grants in

1994. For the first year, the grants ranged from

$2 million to $10 million. The amounts were to

double in the second year and then drop substantially over each of the three following

years. Another 17 to 20 states are scheduled to

receive grants in the fall of 1995.

3. Federal Implementation Grants to Local

Partnerships support the development and

implementation of school-to-work transition

systems by local jurisdictions (Title III).

Thirty-six of these grants were awarded in

1994, in amounts from $184,280 to $1.2 million. Recipients were to receive up to four additional years of support, depending on

performance and availability of funds. Grants

are to be made to additional applicants in late

1995.

4. National Programs Grants support research,

evaluation, technical assistance, dissemination, and other cross-cutting efforts (Title IV).

A contract of $3 million per year for a “Learning Center” to provide technical assistance and

facilitate exchanges among the grantees was

awarded in the summer of 1995, and a contract

of $1.3 million per year for a five-year evaluation is scheduled to be made in August or September 1995.

As of August 1995, the House appropriation

bill would limit the 1996 funding for STWOA to

$240 million and the Senate had not yet acted on

the appropriation. In addition, there are bills pending that would consolidate STWOA with other

federal job training and workforce development

programs, scale back federal support for the programs, and give the states broad discretion in designing and administering the consolidated

programs (H.R. 1617 and S. 143). S. 143 has been

incorporated with changes as Title VII of S.1120.

Some observers believe that if the consolidation bills are enacted, the states will continue with

reforms similar to those supported by STWOA

because these reforms are a promising response to

serious problems and because several states had

begun the reforms before passage of STWOA.

Other observers fear that fierce fights for declining funding will break out at the state level, and

the STWOA-like reforms will loose to older programs which have larger and better organized constituencies.

OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT

The remainder of this report is organized into four

chapters. Chapter 3 describes and analyzes the apparent advantages and disadvantages of five learning processes that can be used in work settings:

experiential learning, work-group learning, mentoring, workplace instruction, and technology-assisted learning. Chapter 4 discusses various ways

that work-based learning can be structured with

respect to the types of students who are served; the

program objectives; the coordination with schooling; the timing, intensity, duration, and progression of work-based experiences; the settings of

work-based learning; and the issue of payment for

students. Chapter 5 describes various models of

school-to-work transition programs with workbased learning, and summarizes the evidence on

their effectiveness. These models are youth apprenticeships, clinical training, cooperative

education, school-to-apprenticeship programs,
Chapter 2 Background and Introduction | 17

school-based enterprises, and career academies.

The models vary in the ways that they are structured, but each can use any of the five work-based

learning processes. Finally, chapter 6 considers

the factors that influence whether or not employers will participate in work-based learning programs.

REFERENCES

1. Barlow, M.L., History of Industrial Education in the United States (Peoria, IL: Chas. A.

Bennett Co., Inc., 1967).

2. Barton, P., Educational Testing Service,

Princeton, NJ, personal communication, July

1995.

3. Berryman, S.E., and Bailey, T.R., The

Double Helix of Education and the Economy

(New York, NY: Institute on Education and

the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia

University, 1992).

4. Bowles, S., and Gintis, H., Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the

Contradictions of Economic Life (New York,

NY: Basic Books, 1976).

5. Cohen, D.K., “The American Common

School: A Divided Vision,” Education and

Urban Society 16(3):253-261, 1984.

6. Corson, W., and Silverberg, M., The Schoolto-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration: Preliminary Findings (Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research, 1994).

7. Cremin, L.A., The Transformation of the

School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876 - 1957 (New York, NY: Vintage

Books, 1964).

8. Cuban, L., Department of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, “Public

School Teachers Using Machines in the Next

Decade,” unpublished contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC,

October 1994.

9. Danaher, E., “Apprenticeship Practice in the

United States,” Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, 1945.

10. Edwards, K.R., “Background Information on

Apprenticeship in the United States,” unpublished paper presented at the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship Meeting,

Washington, DC, Nov. 29-Dec. 1, 1994.

11. Hamilton, S.F., Apprenticeship for Adulthood: Preparing Youth for the Future (New

York, NY: Collier Macmillan Publishers,

1990).

12. Hamilton, S.F., and Hamilton, M.A., Opening Career Paths for Youth: What Needs to Be

Done? Who Can Do It? (Washington, DC:

American Youth Policy Forum, 1994).

13. Hartley, M.P., “The Legacy: A History of

Cooperative Education,” 50 Views of Cooperative Education, 5th ed., D.C. Hunt (ed.)

(Detroit, MI: University of Detroit and ANR

Pipeline Co., 1987).

14. Kanter, H., and Tyack, D.B., Work, Youth,

and Schooling: Historical Perspectives on

Vocationalism in American Education (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982).

15. MacFarland, L., and Vickers, M., “The Contexts and Rationale for the Reform of Vocational Education and Work-Based Learning,”

Vocational Education and Training for

Youth: Toward Coherent Policy (Paris,

France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1994).

16. Mercer, N.A., “Apprenticeship,” Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, CT: Grolier, Inc.,

1986).

17. Reisner, E.R., et al., Using Youth Apprenticeship to Improve the Transition to Work (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School

Officers, 1993).

18. Rosenbaum, James E., et al., Youth Apprenticeship in America: Guidelines for an Effective System, Washington, DC: William T.

Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and

America’s Future, 1992.
18 | Information Technologies for Control of Money Laundering

19. School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,

May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239.

20. Stang, N., Program Analyst, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, Employment and

Training Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, Washington, DC, fax to Christine Ho,

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, Aug. 9, 1995.

21. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,

Committee on Education and Labor, H.R.

2882, School-to-Work Opportunities Act of

1993, hearing, Sept. 29, Oct. 20, 27, 1993,

Serial No. 103-57 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1994).

22. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,

School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,

Conference Report, H. Rpt. 103-480 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994).

23. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor

and Human Resources, The School-to-Work

Opportunities Act of 1993, hearing, Sept. 28

and Oct. 14, 1993, Serial No. 103-457 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).

24. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, “Work-Based

Learning: Training America’s Workers.”

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

1989).

25. Wilds, E.H., and Lottice, K.V., The Foundations of Modern Education (New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston, 1970).

26. William T. Grant Foundation Commission

on Work, Family, and Citizenship, et al.,

States and Communities on the Move: Policy

Initiatives to Create a World-Class Workforce

(Washington, DC: 1991).

27. William T. Grant Foundation Commission

on Work, Family, and Citizenship, The Forgotten Half: Pathways to Success for America’s Youth and Young Families (Washington,

DC: 1988).
Processes of

Work-Based

Learning

TA has identified several processes by which knowledge,

skills, attitudes, and habits develop during work-based

learning. These processes are experiential learning,

work-group learning, mentoring, workplace instruction,

and technology-assisted learning. The first can occur solely at the

learner’s initiative, but all the rest involve intentional efforts by

others to contribute to the young person’s development.

Work-based learning generally differs from school-based

learning in a number of ways. In school, students are involved primarily in individual activities, whereas in a work setting the students often undertake activities with other members of the work

group. In school, students are engaged primarily in mental activities, whereas in a work setting the students combine those abstract

activities with concrete ones. In school, students are directed toward developing competencies that are believed to be generalizable, whereas in a work setting most learning focuses on specific

tasks, equipment, and procedures. Finally, in school, students

generally use few tools, whereas in the workplace the use of tools

is pervasive (53). Several examples of work-based learning activities are described in box 3-1.

Good work-based learning has an authenticity that probably

cannot be replicated in school-based learning. The students are

expected to assume adult responsibilities, working in adult peer

groups united by a common enterprise of producing goods and

services. To succeed, the students depend on their co-workers,

and the co-workers, in turn, depend partly on the students. The

students must learn to use unfamiliar equipment, follow specific

work procedures, and adapt to the norms of the workplace. They

must coordinate both abstract thinking and hands-on activity.

They must also learn to deal with the emotional pressures that | 19
20 Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Help an experienced employee: The student helps an experienced employee with various tasks. The student

usually begins doing the simplest and least critical parts of the job, and gradually moves up to the more

skilled activities. The experienced employee explains, demonstrates, and guides the student in practicing.

Work under close supervision. The student assumes work responsibilities under close supervision. The supervisor may provide orientation to the responsibilities, directions, feedback on performance, warning of

impending problems, correction of mistakes, encouragement, and advice on handling unexpected contingencies.

Work with minimum supervision: The student works with minimum supervision, usually after proving himself

or herself when working under close supervision.

Participate in a “community of practice”: The student participates in informal exchanges of reformation and

assistance among employees with similar responsibilities. At first, the student is generally the beneficiary of

such exchanges, but with growing experience the student becomes increasingly a contributor.

Participate in “occupational communities”: The student participates in professional organizations, industry

associations, or unions that span more than one organization. The student may read the communities’ publi -

cations, attend their meetings, and socialize with their members.

Explore and innovate: The student seeks to develop superior work procedures, and then tests, refines, and

incorporates them into his or her work. The procedures may also be adopted by other workers or throughout

the organization.

Orient, tram, and supervise: The experienced student orients, trains, and supervises entering students and

perhaps other entering employees.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995.

result from high production goals, rush orders,

equipment breakdowns, nasty supervisors, feuding colleagues, irate customers, business slowdowns, and the possibility of layoffs.

“If you’ve accomplished this program, you could

do anything. ANYTHING. Try and stress me out—

you couldn’t do it. “-Student (28).

Work-based learning yields knowledge, skills,

attitudes, and habits that arise from interaction

with the organizational structure, equipment, materials, work procedures, and personalities of a

given workplace. An OTA contractor has identified seven types of knowledge and skill that are

necessary for most work (5):

1. Sensory interpretation involves making inferences based on colors, shapes, patterns,

sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile clues—perceived directly or with the aid of instruments.

For example, machinists who use the latest nu2.

3.

merically controlled machine tool still listen

for minute changes in pitch and tone that indicate problems in how the cutting surfaces are

contacting the raw materials. X-ray technicians

make three-dimensional inferences from twodimensional film images.

Sensorimotor dexterity is the “feel” for the

instruments, materials, and techniques used in

a given occupation—not just familiarity but,

rather, tactile sensitivity. For instance, laboratory technicians learn that when pipetting a cell

culture, just the right touch is required to avoid

destroying the sample.

Tricks of the trade are plans of action that

have been developed by practitioners from a

combination of experience, tacit understanding, and formal scientific knowledge. For

instance, sonographers, when scanning for the

presence of a suspected gallstone, know that

they can most easily identify the problem by

rolling the patient on his or her side and looking

for the stone to “drop” on the screen.
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 21

4. The local history of problems is the accumulated knowledge of the causes, timing, and

fixes of problems that have recurred over a period of time. For example, workers may have

learned that a particular piece of equipment will

tend to malfunction in unusually hot temperatures.

5. Work style is the set of work roles, social

skills, norms, and customs that guide how work

is conducted. For instance, emergency medical

technicians generally adopt a decisive, improvisational, and coolly detached work style to

cope with the life-threatening and chaotic circumstances under which they work. Work

styles vary considerably among occupations

and organizations. Even for a given occupation,

there will be modest differences across organizations and sometimes across work groups

within a single facility.

6. Coordinating activities organize and focus

the general knowledge, technical expertise, and

organizational status of different persons involved in a work task. For instance, emergency

medical technicians often must work closely

with fire fighters and police officers at emergency scenes, sometimes directing the coordination and sometimes responding to the

directions of others.

7. Linguistic skills involve the use of occupational jargon and its translation for nonspecialists. Automotive technicians use terms such as

“dogging,” “traming,” “zerk,” and “chuggle,”

when talking among themselves, but must

translate those terms into common English

terms when talking with customers.

Although school-based occupational education

can contribute to the development of each of these

types of knowledge and skills, it is rarely able to

fully prepare students for the workplace. Schools

cannot afford to have all the equipment and tools

that young workers must learn to use. Students

often underestimate the importance of knowledge

and skills until they experience their use in a real

workplace. The requisite knowledge and skills

will vary from one workplace to another, and even

among different work groups within a given facility. And the latter four types of knowledge and

skills just described require complex interactions

with other employees.

In addition to having several advantages, workbased learning has some potential disadvantages.

Workplaces are organized for efficient production, distribution, and customer service, not for efficient learning. American businesses historically

have provided relatively little training for their

nonmanagerial employees and have encountered

difficulties in preparing incumbent employees for

new technology (61,66). The supervisors and

mentors may be preoccupied with other responsibilities and unable to give the students the necessary encouragement, guidance, and feedback. The

easiest thing to do with low-skilled young people

is to give them the menial work that nobody else

wants to do. Although important lessons can be

learned from such work, most students will master

the lessons in a matter of weeks and learn little

thereafter. Even when a conscientious effort is

made to provide the young people with a variety

of learning opportunities, several of the types of

knowledge and skills cited above are likely to be

partly idiosyncratic to a given workplace, and thus

mastery of these in one worksite is not likely to

yield adequate preparation for other worksites.

One researcher noted, “Students do not seem to be

held to authentic workplace standards across the

board, although that seems to be the goal of each

employer” (28).

STWOA anticipated most of these problems,

but that does not assure they will be effectively

countered. STWOA calls for work-based learning

to include “a planned program of job training and

work experiences (including training related to

pre-employment and employment skills to be

mastered at progressively higher levels)” (Public

Law 103-239, Title I, Sec. 103[a][2]). It calls for

the provision of technical assistance and services

to employers to help them design the work-based

learning and to train workplace mentors (Title I,

Sec. 104[3]). The work-based learning is to in-
22 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

clude a “broad introduction, to the extent practicable, in all aspects of the industry” (Title I, Sec.

103[5]). And the work-based learning and schoolbased learning together are to prepare the youth to

earn “a portable, industry-recognized credential”

of skill (Title I, Sec. 103[a][2[ and Sec. 4[22]).

Five work-based learning processes (experiential learning, work-group learning, mentoring,

workplace instruction, and technology-assisted

learning) are discussed here. OTA found no reliable evidence on the extent to which each of the

processes is used in work-based learning or on

their relative effectiveness. Because each appears

to have both advantages and disadvantages, the

richest learning experiences probably will involve

combinations of several. Although STWOA

broadly stipulates the objectives and content of

the work-based learning, it leaves the actual processes to the discretion of the state and local systems, with the exception of mentoring, which is

required. In addition, the various models of workbased learning that are discussed in chapter 5 are

not differentiated by the processes of work-based

learning that they use. Each model can use any of

the processes.

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

In the broadest sense of the term, experiential

learning occurs when students learn from activities that are unintentionally instructive. When students observe how things are done in the

workplace, reflect on the reasons for those practices, assume new roles and note their consequences,

encounter a problem in their work and manage to

solve it, or experiment with improving some work

procedure, they are engaged in experiential learning.

Whereas the benefits of experiential learning

are widely recognized in the adage “Experience is

the best teacher,” the shortcomings are also recognized in the quip “The school of hard knocks is a

good teacher, but the tuition can be steep.” Experiential learning is limited by the range of firsthand

experiences available to the student, it is often

slow, it can easily lead to false inferences, and it

can result in harm to the learner or hazards to others (58). Hardly anyone becomes proficient in the

use of word processors without some instruction

or reference to a manual. And few people would

volunteer as subjects for nurses who are experientially learning to draw blood.

Work-based learning programs often try to

guide experiential learning in ways that harness

the benefits and minimize the limitations. One

way of doing this is to encourage experiential

learning only after conveying the fundamentals

and alerting students to common hazards by other

means of learning. A second way is to provide

structure to the experiential learning that will focus and accelerate it, for example, the use of learning plans that specify the objectives and sequence

of the workplace activities. A third way of optimizing experiential learning is to supplement it

with exercises that help students reflect on their

experience. In some programs the students are

asked to keep a journal of their work experience;

in other programs the students attend a seminar

that helps prepare them for their work-based

learning experiences, deal with problems that may

arise, reflect on what they have learned, and consider the social, economic, and ethical contexts of

work.

Todd

Todd had been doing well in the worksite, and

had earned the affection of his supervisor and coworkers. But he repeatedly failed to complete the assignments for the school seminar that accompanied

the work experience, and school officials eventually

removed him from the program. The supervisor was

dismayed, and responded by hiring him back as a

regular part-time employee (67).

The Cambridge Rindge and Latin School requires enrollment in such a seminar for all juniors

and seniors participating in internships. The students study the historical and social aspects of

work, reflect on their work experience in writing,

and plan their end-of year projects (67).

LaGuardia Community College in New York

City has developed an elaborate series of seminars
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 23

to accompany its cooperative education work

assignments. The seminars foster exploration of

careers, development of intellectual and occupational skills, and reflection on the social and ethical aspects of work. When students are nearing

eligibility for work-based learning, they attend a

12-hour preparation course that introduces them

to the co-op program, helps them assess their interests and skills, requires them to establish objectives for their career and work assignments, and

prepares them for the job search process (23). During the first semester of work-based learning, the

students attend an evening or weekend seminar to

plan activities in the workplace that will deepen

their understanding of how the organization is

structured and operated. These activities might include preparing organization charts, identifying

leadership styles, describing the document flow,

and analyzing ethical dilemmas. During the second semester of work, the students engage in several career exploration exercises and develop

strategies for deriving maximum learning from

their work experience. These strategies include

seeking challenging assignments, coping with

hardship, and requesting feedback on one’s

strengths and weaknesses. During the third semester of work, the seminar helps the students

prepare a research paper that draws on the theory

they have studied and the work experience (23).

WORK-GROUP LEARNING

Work-group learning is an immersion approach to

work-based learning. The learning comes from

sharing the activity and the distributed knowledge

of the group. Members of the group model the

work procedures and exert pressure on each other

to enforce the established norms. They attend to

important cues from their colleagues and supervisors and ignore the unimportant ones. They

converse—asking questions, responding, and offering unsolicited information necessary for the

group’s work. They tell “war stories” about work

crises, their responses, and the outcomes. They

help each other. They call on outside resources

when appropriate, and they coordinate with the

other work groups (47).

Newcomers to a work group usually begin on

the periphery, where the tasks are short and easy,

the costs of errors are small, and their responsibility for the activity as a whole is small. As the newcomers master the simpler tasks, they are given

more complex ones, thus moving from the periphery to the center of activity (39). Full participation

in a work group is characterized by having the

ability to access and contribute to the group’s collective memory, knowing when to disregard the

rules, being recognized as an “old hand,” and having power to affect the life of the group in important ways. Learning enables new people to enter

work groups and to move toward full participation.

Several types of work groups can be important

to work-based learning opportunities. The first is

an occupationally heterogeneous face-to-face

work group, for example, a physician’s office that

has a receptionist, a part-time bookkeeper, two

nurses, and a physician. The members of the

group have complementary skills and responsibilities. A second type of work group is an occupationally homogeneous face-to-face group, for

example, the equipment repair department of a

large hospital, which would be staffed with several electronic technicians who share responsibilities, though there may be some specialization

according to individual skills and preferences. A

third type of work group is an occupationally homogeneous group composed of people within a

given organization who seldom work face to face,

but communicate and associate informally to

share expertise and to experience camaraderie.

The second and third types of work group are increasingly referred to as “communities of practice.”

Another type of work group includes professional and trade organizations, the chambers of

commerce, unions, computer-user groups, and informal groups of people engaged in similar occupations. The members of these groups generally

do not work together, but they engage in similar

work, have common values and perspectives toward their work, and engage in social relationships that meld leisure activities and the
24 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

expansion of work knowledge and skill. These are

sometimes referred to as “occupational communities.”

Work groups offer many opportunities for

learning the types of work knowledge and skills

discussed earlier. New members can observe experienced members using their tricks of the trade.

The means of accessing the local history of problems can be overheard in conversations, observed,

or explained at the newcomer’s request. In one airline operations room it was observed that the staff

addressed their questions aloud to the whole

room, and anyone who knew the answer responded (32). The jargon of a work group and skill

in translating it for nonspecialists can be gleaned

by overhearing conversations and by listening to

pointers from the experienced members. The

coordination of work tasks can be learned by observation and by trial and error.

Adoption of the prevailing work style is crucial

to avoiding trouble and to becoming a full member of a work group. For example, a routine-obsessed and fastidiously clean work style is

necessary for medical technicians who deal with

cell cultures that can easily be contaminated (4).

New employees may receive formal orientation to

the key elements of the work style, but subtleties

are learned by observing the experienced workers,

interacting with them, asking questions, feeling

peer pressure, and sometimes suffering sanctions.

Two scholars have observed, “Work would be

practically impossible and unbearably stressful if

practitioners could not rely on one another to supply needed information” (5). That reliance provides reciprocal incentives for learning and for

facilitating learning. Newcomers depend on the

older members, but the older members will

eventually have to rely on the newcomers.

Sometimes the messages that work groups convey to new members are too subtle to be detected;

at other times the demands of the group can overwhelm the novice. In addition, the lessons learned

from work groups are not always positive. The

productivity and efficiency of work groups can

range from low to high. Some groups resist all

change, and others perpetuate racial and gender

discrimination. Participation in a good work

group can be a great learning experience; participation in a bad work group may teach dysfunctional lessons.

MENTORING

Mentoring is a relationship in which a more experienced person facilitates the broad development

of a less experienced person on a regular basis and

over an extended period of time. Mentoring in

work-based learning can be directed primarily toward occupational development, but usually it is

equally directed toward intellectual, personal, and

social maturation. The mentors in work-based

learning may be responsible for:

 acquainting the students with the formal rules

and informal norms of the workplace;

 introducing the students to the people and resources outside the immediate work area;

 inculcating positive attitudes and work habits;

 guiding the students in development of work

knowledge and skills;

 encouraging and helping the students to undertake challenges;

 encouraging the students to reflect on their experiences;

 serving as a confidant in times of stress;

 providing empathy, support, and encouragement when the students encounter difficulties;

 providing sympathetic but realistic feedback;

 helping the students to view things from other

people’s perspectives;

 serving as a protector, facilitator, and advocate;

 introducing the students to occupational and industry associations;

 helping the students plan for subsequent education and training; and

 serving as a personal and professional role

model.

One example of mentoring that is aimed at intellectual and occupational development is provided in the following account:

He [Peter, the mentor] lets him [Richard, the

student, ] first grapple with a problem and

stretch his resources, but intervenes before

Richard gets frustrated. When Richard does

come for help, he is not automatically given the
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 25

solutions, because Peter sees that as counterproductive in two ways. First, problems have several solutions. And second, solving the problem is

not the primary purpose of the dialogue for Peter; it is also to give Richard new ways to approach the problem so that in the future he might

become yet more resourceful because of a bigger knowledge base and understanding of the

variables in the problem (27).

STWOA specifies that the work-based learning

“shall include . . . workplace mentoring” (Title I,

Sec. 103[a][3]). In addition, each student is to be

provided with “a school site mentor to act as a liaison among the student and the employer, school,

teacher, school administrator, and parent of the

student, and if appropriate, other community partners” (Title I, Sec. 104[2]).

Indirect support for the benefits of mentoring

comes from at least four lines of research. Several

studies of unusually effective adults have found

that they more often report having had a mentor

than do less successful adults (33,43,54). Considerable evidence indicates that children who do

well despite a deprived childhood have had the

benefit of at least one caring and attentive adult

(21,56,68). Research indicates that the extent of

student contact with college faculty is associated

with college success (2,13,50,62,69). And a review of more than 100 reportedly successful programs for at-risk youth concluded that their

distinguishing features were intensive individualized attention by one or more adults and communitywide prevention and support services (17).

These studies, however, generally have not controlled for the possibility that young people who

establish strong relationships with adults may

have been psychologically and socially stronger

than others before establishing those relationships.

There is only scant mention in the literature

about negative effects of mentoring. One of the

few substantive discussions of possible adverse

effects is from the literature discussing the mentoring of adults. It suggests that although mentoring relationships can be quite positive

experiences, they can sometimes be ambiguous,

conflictual, and disappointing; they can minimize

the protégé’s contacts with others; they can create

an illusion of great caring that subsequently is

shattered; and they can lead to sexual exploitation

(5). The frequency of these problems is not reported.

Over the past decade many programs have used

volunteer mentors as buddies, confidants, and role

models for disadvantaged youth. There are credible accounts of how these mentoring relationships transformed the lives of some floundering

youth, but the overall picture has not been encouraging. The programs have frequently had difficulty recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of

mentors (20,27,44;45). Only about one-third to

two-thirds of the matches become significant relationships (20). For those few programs that have

been rigorously evaluated, the programs have

shown little or no effect on the students’ school

attendance, academic achievement, graduation

rates, or enrollment in postsecondary education

(29). When the volunteer mentoring has been

combined with tutoring or college orientation, the

results have been only modestly better (9,44,51,).

None of these evaluations report the potential

problems mentioned earlier. Rather, the disappointing results appear to have been due to difficulty in establishing and maintaining good

mentoring relationships, and to limited effects

even when good relationships are established.

In contrast, the four-year-long Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP)—with mentoring

done by full-time paid staff, in combination with

supplementary academic assistance, developmental activities, community service options, and financial incentives—had very strong effects in

four out of the five sites that succeeded in implementing the program. The program resulted in a

50 percent increase in high school graduation

rates, almost a threefold increase in postsecondary

enrollments, a 37 percent drop in childbearing,

and a 50 percent drop in arrests (24,25). These improvements are among the largest ever found for

a youth development program. Given the array of

services, it is impossible to know the extent to

which mentoring contributed to the outcomes, but
26 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

several observers agree that the personal ties with

the supportive adults were an important element.

There are reasons to think that the workplace

mentoring anticipated in STWOA will have advantages over the community-based mentoring

programs just described. Workplace mentoring

will be more convenient because the mentors will

be the students’ supervisors or other experienced

employees, and will not have to travel to and from

the protégés’ homes or deal with the frustration of

unanswered phone messages (a common problem

in community-based mentoring programs). There

will be a core of common interest as the young person tries to adapt to a work environment in which

the mentor is well established. The mentoring can

be provided as needed, rather than on a prearranged schedule. In addition, the mentoring is to

serve a broad cross section of youth, not just disadvantaged youth, who generally have the greatest needs and often are the most difficult to assist

(20).

Although the highly successful QOP had a very

limited work-based learning component, it is similar in several respects to the mentoring that is to

be provided under STWOA. QOP used mentoring

in the context of other educational and developmental activities. It used mentoring to address the

current needs of the youths and to raise their horizons. And it provided mentoring and other services on a sustained basis for several years.

A review of several ethnographic and case studies of school-to-work transition programs has

identified mentoring as commonly associated

with student development. The authors conclude:

Of unquestionable importance is the “vet,”

“master teacher,” or skilled mentor who situates

learning in authentic practice; has adequate resources; establishes a culture of achievement;

and understands how roles/relationships in the

workplace progress over time to enhance the

growth and development of the novice (7).

OTA staff found only one formal evaluation of

mentoring in work-based learning. Although it is

based solely on the perceptions of the young

people’s development, measured by students’ and

mentors’ responses on a rating form, both groups

agreed that mentoring contributed to the youths’

knowledge about workplace rules and behavior, to

their ability to follow directions and take initiative, and to improvements in their communication

skills (18).

Several tentative lessons for implementing

worksite youth mentoring can be drawn from the

general literature on mentoring and from the demonstrations cited earlier:

 Mentoring appears to work best when professional staff help prepare the mentors and protégés for mentoring and give them continued

support after the match-up (10,46,51).

 Matching of mentors with young people on the

basis of race/ethnicity and gender does not appear as important as popular opinion has suggested, but there should be an effort to assure

personal compatibility and correspondence in

interests (30,46,51).

 Mentors should be prepared to listen and provide emotional support to the protégés (20).

 Limited evidence suggests that relatively immature youth need a great deal of encouragement and guidance to develop and maintain

responsible behavior, whereas more mature

youth will benefit from a focus on career and

occupational issues (18).

 The mentoring should also help the youth explore new experiences, make contacts, assume

responsibility, gain self-discipline, learn jobseeking skills, and solve personal problems

(10,18,46).

WORKPLACE INSTRUCTION

Workplace instruction includes formal lectures

and presentations to large groups, informal talks

and demonstrations to small groups, and the

coaching of individuals. The training may be provided by management, supervisors, expert employees, or outside consultants.

One of the challenges facing American businesses is to prepare new and incumbent employees to deal with rapid change and complex

technology. Skills in innovating, organizing, troubleshooting, problem solving, and continuous

learning are needed to face these challenges. The

rest of this section discusses a new approach for
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 27

developing complex cognitive skills such as

these. This approach has come to be called “cognitive apprenticeship” (12).

The cognitive apprenticeship approach was

first used in school settings to teach advanced

skills in subjects such as reading, writing, and

mathematics. The approach has not yet been used

extensively in work-based learning, but it appears

to have potential for improving the teaching of intellectually demanding workplace skills.

Cognitive apprenticeship involves three

phases: modeling, coaching, and exploration. Although these phases may be introduced in that order, the mastery of complex skills often involves

moving back and forth among the three phases.

The expert usually begins by modeling the entire complex skill in the context that it would be

used, and then may repeat several components of

it. Because cognitive functions cannot be directly

observed and often cannot be correctly inferred by

observing a person’s behavior, the expert usually

gives a running commentary while modeling the

skill. Producing such commentary often takes

some practice, because experts rely heavily on

“tacit knowledge and processes” of which they are

not fully conscious.

In the coaching phase, the expert guides the student through the practice of the skill. The guidance can be in the form of verbalizations, physical

assistance, and emotional encouragement.

Through repeated trials and successive approximation, the student gradually reaches mastery and

automaticity. The initial guidance may be substantial, but once the student begins to grasp the

skill, the guidance is reduced to the minimum necessary for the student to succeed with effort.

Directions are replaced with hints and questions;

continuous feedback and detailed debriefings are

replaced with occasional comments; and effusive

encouragement may be replaced with a more reserved respect.

The extent of guidance is deliberately reduced

so as to require the student to develop and rely on

his or her own resources. These resources include

monitoring one’s own performance and correcting

shortcomings in performance. These capabilities

are so critical to mastery and maintenance of complex skills that the expert will deliberately guide

their development during the coaching phase.

To help monitor the student’s progress, the expert may ask the student to think out loud when

practicing. The expert’s own running commentary

during the modeling phase serves as an example

of how to do this.

The student is prepared for the exploration

phase by being given increasingly complex tasks

and more broadly defined assignments. In the exploration phase itself, the expert encourages the

student to choose problems he or she can tackle

with the knowledge and skills already acquired.

The student is asked to set the objectives, frame

the questions, and define the problems. At first,

exploration usually results in the student’s “reinventing the wheel,” but as he or she becomes more

knowledgeable and proficient, exploration sometimes results in innovative products, services, or

work processes.

The cognitive apprenticeship approach has not

yet been used enough in workplace instruction for

its effectiveness to be determined. Its obvious

strength is the emphasis on developing the complex cognitive skills that are thought to be increasingly needed in the workplace—an emphasis that

is missing from some other forms of training. A

potential limitation is that this emphasis on development of complex skills is at the expense of the

acquisition of extensive knowledge, which has

been found to be important for expert performance

in varied situations (22,60). As a result, the approach probably should be supplemented by other

instruction, except when the students are already

quite knowledgeable.

When cognitive apprenticeship strategies have

been used in developing advanced reading, writing, and mathematics skills in schools, they have

been moderately more effective than traditional

approaches (12,34,55). One of the reviews, however, found that the effects were greater when the

approach was combined with didactic teaching

(55).
28 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED LEARNING

Technology-assisted learning is based on a wide

range of equipment ranging from VCRs to computers. This section focuses exclusively on computer-based technologies because they have

undergone the most profound changes over the

past decade and appear to hold considerable promise for work-based learning and school-to-work

transitions. Computer-assisted learning can help

prepare students for work-based learning, assist

them during work experiences, and supplement

those experiences.

Computers, the software they use, and their peripheral displays permit many forms of computerassisted learning. Although the functioning varies

considerably, computer-assisted learning generally offers several advantages: Substantial expertise

can be enlisted in the planning and preparation of

instruction, and then delivered each time the

instruction is reused. The assistance can be used

as needed and when most convenient. There can

be considerable interaction, allowing the students

to actively apply what they have learned. Students

can proceed at their own pace, follow paths of

their own choosing, stop or backtrack when necessary, and review their past performance. The students’ understanding can be tested frequently and

corrective feedback can be provided immediately.

Increasingly, the technology can identify error

patterns and tailor instruction to the students’

knowledge, skills, and preferred learning proclivities.

Technology-assisted learning also has several

drawbacks: Most forms have high initial costs for

preparation of the software; one recent study

found that an average of 228 person-hours were

required to create one hour of computer-based

training (52). Widely commercialized software

can cost as little as $50, but custom software

sometimes costs several hundred thousand dollars. Some of the software cannot be modified by

teachers or supervisors to accommodate local information or an individual organization’s practices. Technology-assisted learning lacks the human

touch that encourages students and sometimes inspires them. And the technology is changing so

rapidly that obsolescence is assured every few

years, although older equipment and software can

be used in a diminished capacity for many years

after it has become dated.

In addition, many schools and small workplaces are ill-prepared to make widespread use of

technology-assisted learning. They lack the necessary electrical service, telephone lines, and network wiring. They also frequently do not invest in

the staff training and support needed to make good

use of the technology (64,66).

The reviews of research on various computerassisted learning technologies have repeatedly

found that students generally learn more in less

time than is the case with traditional teaching

(3,19,37). The evidence on cost-effectiveness also

is generally favorable (19,41). It should be noted

that most of these reviews are of technologies used

five to 15 years ago, which are most comparable

to the career information delivery systems and

computer-based training that are described in the

next section. Less is known about the effectiveness of the other technologies discussed there.

Yet, over the past decade the cost of computer

equipment has dropped dramatically; as a result,

the cost-effectiveness of all forms of computer-assisted learning has improved rapidly.

Technology-assisted learning for work-based

learning relies on products targeted at one of four

markets: high school and college students who are

engaged in career orientation and occupational

preparation, incumbent workers who need to upgrade their skills, experienced workers who use

computers as tools in their work, and the entire

computer-using population. School-to-work transition systems and work-based learning do not yet

amount to a distinct market. That situation might

change in the future, but even if it does not, the

other four expanding markets will drive further

developments and refinements that will be of use

for work-based learning.

OTA, with the assistance of contractors, has

identified the following computer-based technologies that appear to have good potential for use in

work-based learning: career information delivery

systems, computer-based training, intelligent tu-
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 29

toring systems, hypermedia, computer-supported

collaborative learning, computerized simulations,

and business applications software (15). Although each is discussed separately here, two or

more of the technologies are sometimes combined.

❚ Career Information Delivery Systems

A recent survey identified 25 computer-based career information delivery systems (48). Most of

them help students assess their interests, aptitudes, and generic work-related skills. Some use

the results of those assessments to suggest occupations that might be good choices for the students. Most provide a wealth of information on

hundreds of occupations. The information usually

covers the nature of the work, working conditions,

range of earnings, training requirements for entry

and advancement, and job prospects. Some provide information on local job prospects and local

training providers. Some also give guidance and

training in searching for jobs (15).

Career information systems have evolved considerably over the past two decades and are likely

to continue progressing, but several limitations

currently prevent widespread use. The limitations

include expensive software that generally is available only at some schools and training organizations, systems that are not particularly

attention-grabbing and thus require self-motivated students, the need for modest computer

fluency to operate the systems, a lack of connection to state and national job listings, and little assistance directed at helping students weigh the

advantages and disadvantages of alternative occupations that they have selected as good prospects. Because of these limitations, it is often

suggested that students should use the systems

with the assistance of a well-trained guidance

counselor. There also has been little rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of these systems (15).

❚ Computer-Based Training

Although this term is sometimes used broadly to

refer to all forms of computer-assisted learning

used for occupational development, it is also used

more narrowly to mean instruction that takes the

student through a didactic presentation of concepts, facts, and skills, interspersed with tests and

immediate feedback. Simple computer-based

training was first developed in the 1960s. It is like

a textbook with frequent quizzes that are automatically scored. A student who does poorly on a quiz

is told to go back and repeat the module. More

sophisticated computer-based training offers students some opportunities to choose among alternative approaches to instruction, such as a careful

explanation or a quick review.

Computer-based training is well suited to transferring knowledge of facts and specific procedures, and both are widely needed in the

workplace. Reviews of the extensive research on

the use of computer-assisted learning that is similar to computer-based training suggest that it has

reduced learning time by some 24 to 34 percent

(37).

Computer-based training generally cannot

judge constructed responses such as a sales speech

or a creative solution to a problem, and it has very

limited potential for developing teamwork skills.

In addition, local teachers and workplace mentors

generally cannot modify the presentations or add

new modules.

The development of simple computer-based

training can require as little as 10 hours of preparation per hour of instruction, but sophisticated

training can require 100 to 228 hours for an hour

of instruction (14,52). The high costs can be justified when traditional training is very expensive or

dangerous, or when the computer-based training

can be used by large numbers of students with

little assistance from teachers.

Computer-based training is already well commercialized, but development costs and the inability to modify the instruction locally are major

barriers to wider use. Several vendors have developed “authoring” tools that partially automate the

development of the software and make it modifiable by teachers, but these tools allow only a very

limited set of instructional strategies.
30 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

❚ Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Intelligent tutoring systems apply “artificial intelligence” for the purpose of effectively guiding human learning. The tutors are designed to detect

what the learner knows, compare that knowledge

with what is to be taught, create an optimal learning path, recognize patterns in the learner’s errors,

and provide error-specific feedback. For instance,

if a learner is having difficulty, the tutor might try

another approach that appears to be more appropriate, provide explanations of why certain answers are wrong, and give the learner more

encouragement.

A prominent example of intelligent tutors is

provided by SHERLOCK. This system trains Air

Force electronic technicians to diagnose problems

in a complex device used to service the avionics

of F-15 jets. SHERLOCK displays on the computer screen depiction’s of the device, schematic

diagrams of the electrical circuits, and system

documentation. The tutor “creates” a fault in one

or more of the circuits of the device and asks the

trainee to locate the problem. The trainee selects

the circuit diagram he or she thinks should be

tested, marks where the probes of the diagnostic

equipment are to be placed, “activates” the equipment, and receives simulated readouts. After considering the readouts, the trainee decides whether

there is a fault in that tested part of the circuit. The

process is usually repeated many times, attaching

the probes to various circuits, until the trainee determines the location of the fault. If the trainee is

clearly misdirected or proceeding inefficiently,

the computer provides feedback and guidance

based on constant monitoring of the progress. In

addition, whenever the trainee wants help, the

computer will provide it (38).

Intelligent tutors are well suited to developing

complex skills. When connected to mechanical

devices manipulated by the learner, such as control panels and steering wheels, intelligent tutors

can help students develop psychomotor skills.

They can also be used to teach social interaction

skills, such as customer service strategies, using

video clips to model customers and expert customer service agents. Intelligent tutors generally

cannot, however, judge the adequacy of a complex

response such as a memo or graphic design, although some progress is being made along these

lines.

Intelligent tutors are relatively new, and few

have been well evaluated. Of those few, some

have demonstrated dramatic results. A system for

teaching college students a computer programming language was found to be 30 to 40 percent

more effective in 30 to 60 percent less time (1).

With just 20 to 25 hours of use, SHERLOCK allowed the average novice technician to achieve

troubleshooting proficiencies exceeding the average for senior technicians with years of experience

(40). The effectiveness of SHERLOCK is due

partly to the speed with which the simulations can

be “worked” by the novice technicians, partly to

the “intelligence” of its tutor, and partly to the fact

that the system deals with complicated problems

that occur so infrequently that some senior technicians have never encountered them.

The cost of developing intelligent tutors is very

high because of the diagnostic, modeling, and tailored-response capabilities of the systems. Several efforts are under way to reduce the cost by

developing “common architecture’s,” reusable

software codes, or “authoring” tools, but none has

yet proved to be of general use. Another barrier to

widespread use is the fact that the systems usually

cannot be modified by the teachers or worksite

personnel. Though some stunning examples of intelligent tutors have been developed, considerable

advances will be needed if intelligent tutors are to

be widely commercialized (15).

❚ Hypermedia

Hypermedia comprises a vast collection of text,

still images, animation, video, voices, sounds,

and music, with linkages among all related items.

Rather than providing a learning path, it presents

the student with a “knowledge web” to navigate.

Hypermedia relies largely on experiential learning, with some applications providing moderate

guidance to the students..

Apple Computer has developed its ARPLE database to familiarize new and experienced sales-
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 31

people with the vast and ever-changing catalogue

of its own products and third-party software for

Apple machines. Multilevel menus access background information, instructions, competitive

analyses, “slide show” presentations, and demonstrations of various software. The CD-ROM version is distributed to approximately 5,000 Apple

employees and 25,000 retailers. A survey of field

employees judged ARPLE to be the best means

they have for keeping informed about new products (36).

The Institute for Learning Sciences at Northwestern University is combining hypermedia with

an intelligent tutoring system to teach social studies and journalism skills to high school students..

The “Broadcast News” program gives students a

rough draft of a television news story and access

to a hypermedia database that includes video clips

and reference works. Students are asked to edit the

video and voiceover to eliminate bias, correct factual errors, and fill in missing details. The students

mark the parts of the text that they wish to change

and then select among many offered options. At

any time the students can query the hypermedia

database, selecting questions they want answered

by experts, browsing among reference works, and

examining a collection of video clips. An “artificially intelligent supervisor” evaluates the students’ edited versions of the story, provides

detailed feedback, and determines whether the

stories are ready for prime time. If so, the system

allows the student to act as anchor of the news

broadcast. The system also creates a video of each

student’s broadcast, which then can be compared

with videos by other students and with professional news presentations of the same event (35).

Hypermedia can provide huge amounts of easily accessible information and can accommodate

students’ varying preferences for text, audio, and

graphic presentation of information. It allows all

the students to seek answers they need while bypassing other information. It is also relatively inexpensive to prepare, and often can be modified

by local teachers and supervisors. Until recently,

hypermedia databases have been stored on the

hard disks of computers or on CD-ROMs and videodisks. The Internet and the forthcoming National Information Infrastructure will allow

anyone with a properly equipped $1,500 microcomputer and a telephone line to access huge

collections of data, text, and graphics in the

world’s libraries.

Hypermedia has several shortcomings. The

systems are essentially passive, and to make good

use of them, students must be goal oriented and

able to work in an unstructured environment.

Even then, failure to select effective search strategies can leave the student browsing through large

quantities of low-priority information. “Webcrawler” and “knowbot” software is currently being developed to assist in the searches, but good

knowledge of both the subject matter and the indexing system will probably remain important to

conducting well-targeted and thorough searches.

In addition, some developers have focused more

on the pizzazz of impressive graphics than on the

substance of the database.

The research on hypermedia suggests that navigating these systems builds the valuable information-finding and information-filtering skills that

are increasingly necessary for effective functioning in high-tech workplaces. Independent learners

do well with hypermedia, but those who need

structure and guidance may flounder (15).

Hypermedia, as a reference mechanism, is already commercialized. As a tool for learning complex concepts and skills, it will need to be linked

to other technologies, such as intelligent tutoring

systems, and efforts to do that are still in the developmental phases (15).

❚ Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning

Computer-supported collaborative learning is accomplished by an array of technologies, most

prominently, “groupware” decision support systems, collaborative design tools, and telecommunications. These technologies allow a group of

people to exchange information and insights,

reach group decisions through a set of structured

exchanges, and collaborate on work projects.

With telecommunication links, the group can include people who are geographically dispersed.
32 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

At the University of Illinois, students studying

to be teachers spend a semester scattered across

the state, practice teaching under the guidance of

experienced teachers. E-mail, electronic bulletin

boards, remotely accessed databases, and computer conferencing allow the students to contact their

professors for advice and to discuss problems and

solutions with their peers (42).

The advantages of computer-supported collaborative learning include its handling of speech,

writing, and even design; the sharing of knowledge and skills; the opportunity for psychological

support among similarly situated persons; and

considerable flexibility within the frameworks established by the tools. Some users, however, express frustration with the constraints imposed by

the frameworks.

Computer-supported collaborative learning

could play an important role in school-to-work

transition systems by:

 linking the workplaces with the schools;

 helping the partnerships in their planning activities and allowing them to remain in contact

between time-consuming meetings;

 helping school officials and teachers coordinate

with the workplace supervisors and mentors;

 allowing students in the workplace to access the

various resources of the school;

 permitting school staff to monitor students’

progress with fewer trips to the workplace; and

 allowing students to take work-based learning

assignments far from school, while remaining

in contact with their teachers and peers.

The evaluations of computer-supported collaborative learning suggest that it helps the students

see things from multiple perspectives, builds their

interpersonal communication skills, and lends intellectual and emotional support. The technologies overcome the constraints of time and place

that are inherent in face-to-face communications,

but they do not convey the power of direct human

contact (15). According to some recent studies,

exchanges that promote individual learning in a

group may not necessarily produce the best group

performance (49).

Telecommunications technologies are rapidly

being commercialized. Only a few groupware and

collaborative design tools are on the market, but

others will follow and their evolution is expected

to be swift (31).

❚ Computerized Simulations

Computer simulations range from simplified representations of reality to realistic synthetic environments that envelop the user with visual,

auditory, and kinematic stimuli. Some are designed to be used by one person at a time; others

can be used by groups, even with participants

thousands of miles apart.

Classroom Inc. has prepared simulations of a

bank, a hotel, and a medical center that introduce

middle-school and high school students to the

world of work and reinforce their academic skills.

In the Chelsea Bank simulation, three or four students are trained as a team in the bank procedures

for a teller. Then the team works as a bank teller

in eight scenarios of problematic transactions, including a sweet old lady wanting to deposit a postdated check, a derelict wanting to cash a large

check, a friend of the teller wanting a small favor

that violates bank procedures, and a rude customer

giving the teller more cash than is recorded on the

deposit slip. The team must choose among four

possible responses to each scenario, and anticipate

the consequences of the choice for the customer,

the bank, and the teller. Then the team is debriefed

about the correct choice and the likely consequences of each possible response. After mastering the teller scenarios, the team works as a

customer service representative in seven more

scenarios. Selecting the correct responses requires

comprehending and applying the bank procedures, making simple computations, understanding the service and business aspects of banking,

putting aside personal concerns when appropriate,

using critical thinking skills, applying high ethical

standards, and engaging in problem solving.

Working through the full simulation takes about

twenty 50-minute periods, but a number of related

research, writing, and computational assignments

can be added (11).
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 33

Caterpillar Corporation has developed an

earth-moving equipment simulator that includes

a real steering wheel, gearshift, levers, pedals, and

other controls. The visuals are computer generated and provided by a head-mounted display that

is worn like a helmet (65).

The general advantages and disadvantages of

simulations are discussed in chapter 4 in the section on the “settings” of work-based learning. For

computer-based simulations, research has found

that students with a naive conception of the simulated phenomena and those who learn best in a

well-structured environment tend to flounder and

become frustrated (15). In remotely connected

group simulations, participants become less inhibited than in face-to-face groups; shy people

communicate more and risk “dumb” questions,

but politeness also declines (59). Moreover, some

users become addicted to computer simulations

(8,63).

The Office of Technology Assessment recently

examined virtual-reality technologies for combat

simulation and concluded that the advances have

been rapid, costs have been cut by about half every

two years, and the products of military investments have numerous commercial applications

(65). The challenges that were identified by OTA

included inadequate telecommunications infrastructure for distributed simulations, difficult and

time-consuming preparation of the software, and

the need for improved visual displays.

Gamelike simulations that rely on text can be

developed at modest cost. Those that create realistic visual and audio effects are expensive to develop, and those that add kinematic effects are still

experimental. Gamelike simulations are already

available on the Internet, but dialing up immersive

simulations will require major advances in telecommunications technologies (15).

Simulations for widely used skills, or ones

whose traditional development involves considerable risk or expense, are likely to evolve rapidly

during the rest of the decade. Smaller or less lucrative markets will probably experience less progress until advances in “authoring” tools reduce the

costs of developing the software.

❚ Business Applications Software

Perhaps the most dramatic advance in computerassisted work-based learning is a result of the

business world’s rapid switch from expensive

mainframes to inexpensive microcomputers for

word processing, typesetting, database, spreadsheet, computer-aided design, and other business

applications. A computer that 15 years ago cost

$500,000 and used $50,000 worth of software can

now be duplicated for a few thousand dollars. Fifteen years ago it could cost $100 per hour for a student to practice using a mainframe software

package; now it costs less than $1 per hour to practice with more powerful software on a microcomputer. As a result, schools and colleges can easily

afford to give students an introduction to widely

used business application software packages, and

employers can easily afford to have the students

practice and improve their skills in the workplace.

Most business application software now comes

with computerized tools to help people learn how

to use the program. These include computer-assisted training, help systems that explain how to

execute specific functions, and the ability to undo

one or more steps when things go awry. Microsoft

Word, in a bid to win over WordPerfect users, prepared a help menu with WordPerfect terminology

that retrieves explanations of how to execute the

same functions in Word.

“Some students have taught themselves to use

software that their supervisors do not know how to

use.”—Researcher’s observations at a worksite

(67).

Although these tools are welcome and occasionally have a clever twist, they have rarely made

use of the sophisticated computer-assisted learning technology that is now available. The computerized “tutorials” that accompany the software

generally do not have the “smarts” of the intelligent tutoring systems described earlier. The help

mechanism usually requires selecting the correct

term for a desired function (which is sometimes
34 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

unknown to the befuddled user) instead of allowing the user to specify a term and having the machine automatically access the corresponding

function. In addition, the “undo” functions sometimes apply only to the last command or two,

while mistakes often are not apparent until after

several commands have been executed. Despite

these shortcomings, further progress in the learning aids built into business software is likely. New

companies continue to introduce add-on products,

and the big developers continue to incorporate

more assistance.

❚ The Future of Technology-Assisted

Work-Based Learning

A recent OTA report documented that schools

have been slow to incorporate technology-assisted learning (64). There are at least three forces

that are likely to accelerate the adoption of computer-based learning in workplaces. First, computers are now common throughout many

workplaces. Second, today’s $1,500 microcomputer has about five times the speed, RAM, and

hard-disk storage capacity as a similarly priced

microcomputer of just five years ago. Third,

learning software is evolving from simple computerized textbooks to a variety of more sophisticated tutors, hypermedia with navigators,

collaborative learning systems, and simulations.

Computer-assisted learning is not a magical

guarantee of learning success. Some software has

given visual effects precedence over content;

some alleged “artificial intelligence” has been

closer to artificial stupidity; and some software is

“buggy” and operates improperly. Nevertheless,

the advances have been impressive and are likely

to continue.

CONCLUSION

There is little evidence concerning the relative effectiveness of the five identified work-based

learning processes, but each appears to have different advantages and disadvantages. Guided experiential learning requires flexibility on the part

of the guide, but can help the students hone their

experiential learning strategies for life-long use.

Mentoring is time-consuming, but provides the

students with comprehensive support, assistance,

and feedback over a sustained period of time.

Work-group learning is sometimes too subtle or

overwhelming, and low-performing groups can

teach students the wrong lessons, but this learning

process requires few additional resources and conveys essential knowledge and skills that often are

not taught by other means. Normal workplace

instruction often conveys facts and simple procedures efficiently, whereas cognitive apprenticeships are a time-consuming but potentially

powerful means of developing complex intellectual skills. Finally, technology-assisted learning is sometimes inflexible and expensive, but it

has produced some dramatic results and hardware

costs are declining rapidly.

Extensive research has shown that most people,

both adults and youths, are not adept at transferring skills learned in one situation to different situations (16). This is good reason for locating

students’ training for work within workplaces, but

the lack of transfer also ominously suggests that

no preparation will be adequate for a rapidly

changing world, and that career success will require continuous learning. Because learning

skills, like other skills, do not generalize well (16),

it appears desirable for students to become adept

with many processes and contexts of learning.

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, J.R., et al., “Cognitive Tutors:

Lessons Learned,” Journal of the Learning

Sciences 4(2):167-207, 1995.

2. Astin, A.W., Four Critical Years: Effects of

College on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge

(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1977).

3. Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, J.A., and Kulik, C.C., “Effectiveness of Computer-Based

Education in Secondary Schools,” Journal of

Computer-Based Instruction 12(2):59-68,

1985.

4. Barley, S.R., and Bechky, B.A., “In the Backrooms of Science: The Work of Technicians in

Science Labs,” Work and Occupations

21:85-126, 1994.
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 35

5. Barley, S.R., and Nelsen, B.J., Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and Cornell University,

Ithaca, NY, “The Nature and Implications of

Infrastructural Technological Change for the

Social Organization of Work,” unpublished

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, May, 1995.

6. Baum, H.S., “Mentoring: Narcissistic Fantasies and Oedipal Realities,” Human Relations

45:223-245, 1992.

7. Borman, K.M., and Lakes, R., University of

South Florida, Tampa, FL, and Georgia State

University, Atlanta, GA, “Review of Ethnographic Research Related to School-toWork,” unpublished contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May

1995.

8. Bruckman, A., Identity Workshops: Emergent Social and Psychological Phenomena in

Text-Based Virtual Reality (Cambridge, MA:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

1992).

9. Cave, G., and Quint, J., Career Beginnings

Impact Evaluation: Findings from a Program

for Disadvantaged High School Students

(New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration

Research Corp., 1990).

10. Churchill, A., Morales, D., and O’Flanagan,

M.K., School-to-Work Toolbook: School-toWork Program Tools (Boston, MA: Jobs for

the Future, 1994).

11. Classroom, Inc., The Chelsea Bank Teacher’s

Guide (New York, NY: 1994).

12. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Newman, S.E.,

“Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the

Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics,”

Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays

in Honor of Robert Glaser, L.B. Resnick (ed.)

(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 1989).

13. DeCoster, D., and Brown, R., “Mentoring

Relationships in the Educational Process,”

Mentoring Transcript Systems for Promoting

Student Growth, R. Brown and D. Decoster

(eds.) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

1982).

14. Dede, C., Professor in Graduate School of

Education, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, personal communication, July 1995.

15. Dede, C., and Lewis, M., George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, and Rand Corp., Santa

Monica, CA, “Assessment of Emerging

Educational Technologies That Might Assist

and Enhance School-to-Work Transitions,”

unpublished contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May 1995.

16. Detterman, D.K., and Sternberg, R.J., Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Congition, and

Construction (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1993).

17. Dryfoos, J., Adolescents At-Risk: Prevention

and Prevalence (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990).

18. Evenson, J.S., Mentors and Students in the

Workplace: Workplace Mentorship (San

Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for

Educational Research and Development,

1982), ERIC ED246181.

19. Fletcher, J.D., and Orlansky, J., “Cost Effectiveness of CBI in Defense Training,” unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting

of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA, 1986.

20. Freedman, M., The Kindness of Strangers:

Adult Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New Voluntarism (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

1993).

21. Garmezy, N., “Stress Resistant Children: The

Search for Protective Factors,” Recent Research in Developmental Psychopathology,

J.E. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford, UK: Pergamon,

1985).

22. Glaser, R., “Education and Thinking: The

Role of Knowledge,” American Psychologist

39:93-104, 1984.

23. Grubb, W.N., and Badway, N., University of

California, Berkeley, CA, “Linking SchoolBased and Work-Based Learning: The Implications of LaGuardia’s Co-op Seminars for
36 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

School-To-Work Programs,” unpublished

contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, June 1995.

24. Hahn, A., Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP): Did the Program

Work? Executive Summary (Waltham, MA:

Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School,

1994a).

25. Hahn, A., Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP): Did the Program

Work? A Report on the Post Secondary Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of the QOP

Program (1989-1993) (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School,

1994b).

26. Hamilton, S.F., and Hamilton, M.A., “Learning at Work,” Youth Apprenticeship in America: Guidelines for Building an Effective

System, J.E. Rosenbaum, et al. (eds.) (Washington, DC: William T. Grant Foundation

Commission on Youth and America’s Future,

1992).

27. Hamilton, S.F., and Hamilton, M.A., Teaching and Learning on the Job (Ithaca, NY: Human Development and Family Studies,

Cornell University, 1991).

28. Hollenbeck, K., In Their Own Words: Student

Perspectives on School-to-Work Opportunities (Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, 1995).

29. Huisman, C., Evaluation Report: Student

Mentoring Program 1989-1992 (Portland,

OR: Oregon Community Foundation, 1992).

30. Jacobi, M., “Mentoring and Undergraduate

Academic Success: A Literature Review,” Review of Educational Research 61:505-532,

spring 1991.

31. Joch, A., “Herd Instincts,” BYTE 20(8):

83-85, August 1995.

32. Jordan, B., “Technology and Social Interaction: Notes on the Achievement of Authoritative Knowledge in Complex Settings” (Palo

Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning,

April 1992).

33. Kanter, R.M., Men and Women of the Corporation (New York, NY: Basic, 1977).

34. Karweit, N., “Contextual Learning: A Review and Synthesis,” unpublished paper,

Center for Social Organization of Schools,

The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,

MD, 1995.

35. Kass, A., Dooley, S., and Luksa, F., The

Broadcast News Project: Using Broadcast

Journalism as a Vehicle for Teaching Social

Studies, Research Publication 40 (Evanston,

IL: Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, 1993).

36. Kind, S., ARPLE Team, Apple Computer

Company, Cupertino, CA, e-mail message to

Christine Ho, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, July 28, 1995.

37. Kulik, J.A., “Meta-analytic Studies of Findings on Computer-based Instruction,”

Technology Assessment in Education and

Training, E.L. Baker and H.F. O’Neil (eds.)

(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.,

1994).

38. Lajoie, S.P., and Lesgold, A., “Apprenticeship Training in the Workplace: ComputerCoached Practice Environment as a New

Form of Apprenticeship,” Machine-Mediated

Learning 3:7-28, 1989.

39. Lave, J., and Wenger, E., Situated Learning:

Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press, 1994).

40. Lesgold, A., “Assessment of Intelligent

Technology,” Technology Assessment in

Education and Training, E.L. Baker and H.F.

O’Neil (eds.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs., 1994).

41. Levin, H.H., “The Economics of ComputerAssisted Instruction,” Peabody Journal of

Education 64(1):52-66, 1989.

42. Levin, J., et al., “Teaching Teleapprenticeships: A New Organizational Framework for

Improving Teacher Education using Electronic Networks,” Machine-Mediated Learning

4(2 & 3):149-161, 1994.
Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 37

43. Levinson, D.J., et al., The Seasons of a Man’s

Life (New York, NY: Ballentine, 1978).

44. McPartland, J.M., and Nettles, S.M., “Using

Community Adults as Advocates or Mentors

for At-Risk Middle School Students: A TwoYear Evaluation of Project RAISE,” American Journal of Education 99:568-586, 1991.

45. Mecartney, C.A., Styles, M.B., and Morrow,

K.V., Mentoring in the Juvenile Justice System: Findings from Two Pilot Programs

(Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures,

1994).

46. Moloney, T.W., and McKaughan, M., Mentoring: Lessons Learned (New York, NY: The

Commonwealth Fund, 1990).

47. Nelsen, B.J., and Barley, S.R, “Toward and

Emic Understanding of Professionalism

Among Technical Workers—Working Paper”

(Philadelphia, PA: National Center for the

Educational Quality of the Workforce, University of Pennsylvania, 1993).

48. Olsen, G.T., Career Information Delivery

Systems Inventory and Needs Assessment,

California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (Sacramento, CA: California Occupational Information Coordinating

Committee, 1993).

49. O’Neil, H.F., and Chung, G.K., University of

Southern California and University of

California at Los Angeles, “Effectiveness of

Group Processes Within a Networked UnionManagement Negotiation Simulation” unpublished paper prepared in 1995 to be

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April

1996.

50. Pascarella, E.T., and Terenzini, P.T., “Patterns of Student Faculty Information Interaction Beyond the Classroom and Voluntary

Freshman Attrition,” Journal of Higher

Education 48:540-552, 1977.

51. Pringle, Beverly, et al., Peer Tutoring and

Mentoring Services for Disadvantaged Secondary School Students (Washington, DC:

Policy Studies Associates, 1993).

52. Reinhardt, A., “New Ways to Learn,” Byte

20(3):50-71, March 1995.

53. Resnick, L.B., “Learning In School and Out,”

Educational Researcher 16(9):13-20, 1987.

54. Roche, G.R., “Much Ado About Mentors,”

Harvard Business Review 57:14-16, 1979.

55. Rosenshine, B., and Meister, C., “Reciprocal

Teaching: A Review of Nineteen Experimental Studies, Technical Report No. 574” (Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading,

May 1993).

56. Rutter, M., and Giller, H., Juvenile Delinquency: Trends and Perspective (New York,

NY: Guilford Press, 1983.)

57. School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,

May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239.

58. Shulman, L.S., and Keislar, E.R., Learning

by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal (Chicago,

IL: Rand McNally, 1966).

59. Sproull, S., and Kiesler, S., Connections:

New Ways of Working in the Networked World

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991).

60. Sticht, T., “Functional Context Education,

Workshop Resource Notebook” (San Diego,

CA: Applied Behavioral and Cognitive

Sciences, Inc., March 1987).

61. Tan, H., Private Sector Training in the United

States (New York, NY: Institute on Education

and the Economy, Columbia University,

Teachers College, 1989).

62. Tracey, T.J., and Sedlacek, W.E., “The Relationship of Non-cognitive Variables to Academic Success: A Longitudinal Comparison

by Race,” Journal of College Student Personnel 26:405-410, 1985.

63. Turkle, S., The Second Self: Computers and

the Human Spirit (New York, NY: Simon and

Schuster, 1984).

64. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology: Making the

Connection, OTA-EHR-616 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April

1995).

65. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Virtual Reality and Technologies for
38 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work

Combat Simulation—Background Paper,

OTA-BP-ISS-136 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September

1994).

66. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Worker Training: Competing in the

New International Economy, OTA-ITE-457

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1990).

67. Vickers, M., Hart, R., and Weinberg, A.,

Technical Education Research Centers

(TERC), “The Work-Based Learning Experiences of Students in Two Boston-Based

Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration Sites,”

unpublished contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, June 1995.

68. Werner, E.E., and Smith, R.S., Vulnerable

But Invincible (New York, NY: Adams, Bannister, Cox, 1989).

69. Wilson, R.C., et al., College Professors and

Their Impact on Students (New York, NY:

Wiley, 1975).
Structuring

Work-Based

Learning

ork-based learning can be structured in various ways.

The systems can vary in respect to the student populations that are served; the learning objectives; the level

and means of coordination with school-based instruction; the timing, intensity, duration, and progression of the work

experiences; the settings in which the work-based learning takes

place; and the payment or nonpayment of the students. Each feature is discussed in this chapter. Variations in these features distinguish several models of work-based learning that are discussed in

the next chapter.

THE STUDENTS TO BE SERVED

Work-based learning programs can be mandatory for all students,

optional but suited for all students, or optional and targeted at a

subset of students. In the last two cases, the criteria for determining whether interested students will be allowed to participate may

be strict or lax. And in all three cases, the programs can choose to

emphasize, or not to emphasize, the matching of students with

employers’ wishes. These choices will significantly affect the

character of the work-based learning and probably its success.

Although the “Findings” section of STWOA indicates that the

legislation was prompted partly by problems in the noncollegiate

labor market, the legislation refers to serving “all students” at

least 12 times (35). Some people have interpreted that term to

mean that every student should participate in the system. Others

have said the term means that the systems should be suitable for

any student—from disabled ones to academically gifted ones—

but that participation should be voluntary.

| 39
40 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Congress contributed to the confusion by defining “all students” in a manner that does not clarify which of the two meanings was intended. The

statute states, “The term ‘all students’ means both

male and female students from a broad range of

backgrounds and circumstances. . . .“ (Public

Law 103-239, Sec. 4[2]). Congress also included

language in the act supporting both positions in

this dispute. The specified purposes of the act include creation of “statewide School-to-Work Opportunities systems that . . . are part of

comprehensive education reform” and establishment of “a universal, high-quality school-to-work

transition system,” both of which suggest all-inclusiveness (Secs. 3[a][1] and [2]). At the same

time, “all students” is often used in contexts such

as “offer opportunities for all students” or “provide all students with equal access” which do not

imply compulsion (Sec. 3[a][1][C]); Title I, Sec.

101[5]). In addition, the act specifies that career

awareness services and selection of an initial career major are to be available to “interested” students, which clearly indicates that Congress did

not intend all the components of STWOA to be

compulsory (Title I, Sec. 102[1] and [2]).

The people responsible for implementing the

STWOA-supported systems are concerned that

the systems will be stigmatized if they are perceived as primarily serving students who normally would not be bound for college. That fear

appears justified, but any effort to preclude the

stigma by designing compulsory systems is likely

to elicit a backlash from those parents who do not

want their children to make early career decisions

and who fear that occupational preparation in high

school and work-based learning will hurt their

children’s chances of going to college (2,30,39).

An alternative approach is to develop systems

that provide attractive learning opportunities for

students of various abilities and interests. There is

good reason to think that some of the most

academically talented students will welcome career exploration and work-based learning opportunities. The prestigious Phillips Academy, in

Andover, Massachusetts, requires all students to

work two periods a week at the school (31). In

addition, more than half of the students there select community service activities, and a modest

number choose a one-semester internship working in the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson High

School for Science and Technology, a public magnet school in Alexandria, Virginia, with more than

90 National Merit Semifinalists each year, releases interested seniors in the afternoon to do

research at local scientific and engineering organizations (37).

The criteria for permitting students to undertake work-based learning assignments can be lax

or demanding. Those who urge lax entry standards

say that students who have low academic achievement or have displayed problem behavior are the

ones who most need a second chance in a different

kind of learning environment. Those who urge

high standards say that employers will stop participating if presented with slow or troublesome students. There are also some who suggest that

although work-based learning should be open to

lower-achieving students, it is important to have

stronger students participate so that work-based

learning does not become stigmatized as a “low

track” or “dumping ground,” as has often been the

case for vocational education programs.

The screening criteria that some schools apply

include age, grade level in school, attendance record, disciplinary record, completion of prescribed courses, recommendation of an instructor

or guidance counselor, grade point average, test

scores, and the student’s motivation for workbased learning as indicated by special essays or

interviews. Some school-to-work transition programs apply several criteria and some have none.

When the criteria are applied, the standards are

seldom more than moderate. For instance, one inner-city high school program requires an 85 percent attendance rate and a C average or better; a

high school program in metalworking requires a

C average or better and completion of two courses

each in math, laboratory science, and language

arts, before starting the work-based learning component (17). The highest standards OTA found

were for an electronics and telecommunications

program, cosponsored by a large high-tech company, which required a grade point average of at

least B. In the first year of the program, however,
Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 41

there were not enough applicants who met that criterion, and the standard had to be lowered, at least

temporarily (8).

There had been concern that employers would

insist on high screening standards, and some

scholars and educators worried that those standards would preclude the participation of many

minority students (24,36). Recent studies suggest

this has not been the case. One study of 12 programs found that the proportion of participants

with mostly C or lower grades in math ranged

from 29 to 80 percent, and the proportion subject

to at least one disciplinary action ranged from 10

to 60 percent (30). In another study of 10 programs, the proportion of African American and

Latino students ranged from 7.1 percent to 85.4

percent of the participants, with an overall average

of 62 percent (17). In addition, OTA staff repeatedly heard employer representatives, especially

those from large companies, state that one of their

incentives for participating in school-to-work

transition programs was to recruit promising minority students as permanent employees.

There has also been concern that employers’

preferences would funnel girls into gender-stereotyped occupations and would minimize opportunities for disabled students. The available

evidence does show that male and female participants in work-based learning tend to be in occupations traditional for their gender (8,17), but it is

unclear whether that situation reflects the preferences of the employers or other factors, such as the

guidance provided by the schools or the preferences of the students and their parents. OTA did

not find data on the participation of disabled students except in programs that were designed specifically to serve such students (33).

Almost all of the studies that have investigated

employers’ satisfaction with work-based learning

students have found it to be high (13,22). A recent

study of 10 programs that are broadly inclusive

found high satisfaction among employers (17).

Another study of 16 high school programs that are

similarly inclusive found that the school coordinators and employers reported few problems with

disadvantaged or low-achieving students, and that

none of the programs was planning to tighten the

criteria for participation (30).

The widespread satisfaction of participating

employers does not necessarily mean that all

work-based learning assignments should be open

to any interested student. OTA staff visited some

programs that were broadly inclusive and others

that had moderate standards. In both cases there

appeared to be a high degree of satisfaction among

the employers who were participating, but the

types of job assignments differed. Where lowachieving students were common, they tended to

be helping incumbent employees or learning tasks

that did not require strong basic skills—tasks such

as measuring blood pressure and installing drywall. Higher standards for achievement were

common in work-based learning for precision machining and electronics technicians, where the students were participating in rigorous and expensive

training programs.

One coordinator told OTA staff flatly that she

could not arrange and retain work-based learning

in electronics without setting standards that many

students in her career center could not currently

meet. More than one employer, clearly committed

to continued participation, indicated that the students’ academic shortcomings, especially in

math, had slowed their training during workbased learning or made it more of a burden for the

staff. And one manager of a large plant in Appalachia, who was helping to establish a youth apprenticeship program, announced firmly that the

schools would have to ratchet up the academic

standards.
42 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Maria

Maria, a 17-year-old from a Spanish-speaking

family, speaks impeccable English and is poised bey y ggond her years. She has accumulated enough high

school credits to graduate at the end of her junior

year, and is headed to a well-known university to become a dietitian. This spring she assumed a workbased learning assignment in a hospital kitchen

where she undertook a range of functions. The kitchen sometimes prepares cakes for special events, and

b M i lik t b k h l t d t because Maria likes to bake, she volunteered to prepare one. She was given a recipe and told to triple it.

She did not know how to calculate the correct proportions and the mentor had to show her portions, and the mentor had to show her.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment field visit.

OTA staff visits to work-based learning sites

also revealed another side of the selection issue.

Over and over again, the students, the school coordinators, and the employers told of how lowachieving and mid-achieving students had risen to

the challenge of their work-based learning assignments. Many achieved commendable records of

punctuality despite difficult commutes; many

mastered skills and fulfilled responsibilities that

they had not thought possible; and many acquired

new career objectives and an understanding of

what would be necessary to achieve them.

Some work-based learning programs can probably thrive without standards for participation, but

it is doubtful that any can survive without matching students with employers’ wishes. Some civicminded employers will accept weak students and

be willing to give them extra help, whereas others

will not make that effort. As a result, programs

have some flexibility, but they cannot be oblivious

to the expectations and needs of the participating

businesses.

Employers are not passive players in the matching process. Some rely on the school coordinator

to make the match, but will refuse inadequate students. Some interview each proposed student before giving final approval. And some interview

two or three candidates for each opening.

A recent study of youth apprenticeship programs found that employers who had participated

in the program for a year or two reportedly became

more willing to take a chance with young people

who had obvious weaknesses—especially if they

had interviewed them (17). Another study, however, found that programs that served substantial

numbers of economically and academically disadvantaged youth generally raised their selection

standards after the first year of operation in the

hope of reducing problems in the workplace and

attrition rates (8).

While school coordinators and employers are

screening students, the students are also screening

employers. They use information provided by the

school coordinators and by students who have returned from work-based learning assignments.

One co-op coordinator in Cincinnati observed,

“There’s nothing that can kill a program quicker

than students coming back and complaining about

their co-op job. . . . The students really talk to one

another about these things—how much they

make, what they’re doing, and so forth” (13).

Although there are tradeoffs with respect to

screening standards, there may also be an important opportunity. If employers create work-based

learning positions that are highly attractive to students and then gradually raise their minimum requirements, the schools and students may rise to

the challenge. In such cases, both the students and

the employers would benefit.

OBJECTIVES

Work-based learning can be directed primarily toward academic enhancement, career exploration,

occupational development, or employers’ production. The priorities will affect the benefits to students and to participating employers.

Work-based learning can contribute to academic learning in at least three ways. It can motivate

learning by demonstrating the importance of academic skills in the workplace, by building work

habits and self-discipline in the workplace that
Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 43

transfer to school, and by raising aspirations and

understanding of the prerequisites for achieving

those aspirations (5,20,26). Work-based learning

can also reinforce and extend academic learning

by requiring students to apply their academic

skills to the tasks of the workplace.

“I’ve seen some people who aren’t satisfied with

their jobs. That’s helped me to learn that I

should take my education as far as I can so that

I won’t be doing just anything to survive.”

—Student (17)

Work-based learning can contribute to career

orientation in many ways. Experience in a productive work environment can help develop young

people’s attitudes and work ethic. A period of job

rotation—when the students assist in several different jobs and departments—can introduce the

students to the realities of various jobs and help

them determine which are most congruent with

their abilities, interests, and goals. Iterations of

training and progressively more challenging responsibilities can introduce students to “working

your way up.” Work-based learning also can provide personal contacts and references that will be

useful when the young people seek other job opportunities.

Work-based learning can address a number of

aspects of occupational development. Preemployment readiness instills the attitudes, habits, and

skills required in every job, such as punctuality,

reliability, adaptability, responsibility, relating

well to others, following directions, perseverance,

initiative, and loyalty. Occupational skills used to

be defined by the capacity to carry out specific

tasks common to a given occupation, but as many

American organizations have adopted flatter organizational structures, flexible production, and

continuous quality control, occupational skills are

now often considered to include competencies in

resource allocation, teamwork, the organization

and use of information, systems thinking, and the

use of technology (43). Organization-specific procedures are the rules, practices, and norms that

vary some from workplace to workplace. Problem

solving and creative thinking allow an employee

to deal effectively with nonroutine events and to

develop new products and processes. Understanding of an industry encompasses a knowledge of

the economic, technological, production, and

marketing structures that influence the companies

within a given industry.

Productive activities give students the satisfaction of having contributed to the creation and distribution of real goods and services and meeting

real-world standards. Productive activities are

also an employer’s payback for the expenses of

providing career orientation and occupational development. Without some contribution to the

workplace production, it is unlikely that many

employers would long participate in work-based

learning, especially when they are required to provide substantial training.

STWOA stipulates that the work-based learning should focus on all four objectives—academic

development, career orientation, occupational development, and production. It also seeks to prevent narrowly focused training and the use of

students as cheap labor. The legislation specifies

that work-based learning is to include not only

“work experience” but also “instruction in general

workplace competencies,” “training related to

pre-employment and employment skills to be

mastered at progressively higher levels . . . relevant to the career majors of students and lead[ing]

to the award of skill certificates.” Students are to

be given “broad instruction, to the extent practicable, in all aspects of the industry” (Title I, Sec.

103[a]) The act also indicates that the school-towork transition systems are to help students view

“a broad array of career opportunities,” “identify

and navigate paths to productive and progressively more rewarding roles in the workplace,” and

“attain high academic and occupational standards” (Sec. 3[a]).

COORDINATION WITH SCHOOLING

Work-based learning can be closely or loosely

coordinated with school-based instruction. Good

coordination can create synergistic effects be-
44 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

tween the classroom instruction and the workbased learning experiences.

The coordination can be directed at several purposes. It can help assure that students have the academic and occupational skills that are necessary to

meet the expectations of the employers and to

benefit fully from the work-based learning. It can

allow the schools to structure their instruction to

benefit from student interests that are sparked by

the work-based learning experiences. It can permit teachers to extend and reinforce what has recently been learned during the work-based

learning. And it can allow the work-based learning supervisors and mentors to reinforce and extend what has recently been taught in school.

Several strategies are used to achieve coordination. The school systems and employer community may plan the school-based and work-based

learning together. In some cases, representatives

of both also manage the program together.

Schools and employers may exchange several

staff members for a day or longer, so that each person can gain a realistic sense of the other’s environment. A school and an employer sometimes

negotiate a written training agreement specifying

the general responsibilities of each party. The

school coordinator, the worksite supervisor, and

the student may also negotiate a written training

plan that indicates the sequence of school-based

preparation, work-based learning activities, and

the skills to be mastered by the student at various

points in time. If several students will be in one

workplace, one employee may be appointed to

handle coordination with the school. High schools

may adopt flexible scheduling, such as early

morning and late afternoon classes to accommodate “parallel” worksite schedules, and many colleges must offer certain courses more often than

they would otherwise do, to make them available

to all students on “alternating semester” work

schedules (13). In addition, the school coordinator

may periodically visit the worksite to observe the

students’ activities and to talk with the supervisor

or mentor.

“My veterinarian tries to follow [the training

plan] and there are things for which she’s said,

‘If I didn’t know you were supposed to do this,

I would never have told you to go ahead and do

it’.” —Student (14)

There are a number of activities that teachers

can use to build on the students’ varied workbased learning experiences. These include having

students write essays about their experiences, encouraging students to discuss issues they have encountered in their workplaces, and having them

engage in self-study of topics that they will soon

need for their respective worksite assignments.

Similarly, the workplace supervisors and mentors

can ask the students what they are covering in

school, and give assignments that require application of that material. As discussed in chapter 3,

some schools offer an “integrative seminar” that

helps students prepare for the work-based learning, deal with problems encountered in the workplace, undertake research in their worksite, and

reflect on the implications of the work experience

for their future schooling. Schools of the future

might rely heavily on computerized tutorials and

simulations that would permit highly individualized “on demand” learning, which could further

facilitate coordination (9).

OTA was not able to locate evidence of the relative effectiveness of various coordination strategies. The existing literature, some of which is

discussed in chapter 5, amply demonstrates that

coordination of school-based and work-based

learning is difficult to accomplish but important

for the effectiveness of the program (2,3,8,30,

32,33,39). One of those studies discerned four

practices that appeared to be associated with better

coordination: having teachers visit the workplaces, grouping students in key classes by occupational clusters, giving teachers time to plan

new curricula, and encouraging teachers to adapt

their curricula frequently (8).
Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 45

In conversations with the high school coordinators of several school-to-work transition programs, OTA staff found that the coordinators

usually had extensive previous experience working in industry, they maintained almost daily contact with the employer community, and they

constantly made adjustments to meet the needs of

the students, schools, and employers. A recent

study of exemplary clinical training and cooperative education programs in two-year colleges reported the same finding (3). And a study of

programs in Cincinnati, which appears to have

more work-based learning at the two-year-college

level than any other city in the country, suggested

that “clear expectations on the part of employers

and educators alike, established in face-to-face

contact and constant discussion . . . appear to be

the most common mechanisms of establishing

and enforcing the high-quality equilibrium” (13).

Juan

Juan was proud of his accomplishments in

school. He was smart; he had studied hard, twice

skipped a grade, participated in a school-to-work

transition program toward the end of his junior year,

and graduated from school at the age of 16. When he

applied to college, he was rejected because of his

low math score on the SATs. So he enrolled at the local community college, where he is now taking Algebra I and doing well after a difficult start. When

an OTA staff member asked teachers at Juan’s high

school how such a student could graduate without

taking Algebra I, they said that it had been a “mistake.” Afterwards, the school-to-work program

coordinator approached the staffer and said, “The

teachers didn’t tell you the whole story. I messed up

too by not checking his transcript. That won’t happen again. Now I check the transcripts of all students

entering our program.”

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment field visit.

STWOA has several provisions that could help

facilitate coordination. It specifies that the schoolto-work transition systems should be planned and

developed by a partnership of schools, employers,

and others (Title II, Sec. 203). It calls for the development of a skill certification system, which, if

accomplished, should provide a common framework for the schools’ occupational curricula and

the work-based learning (Sec. 4[22]). It also specifies “connecting activities,” including a school

mentor to coordinate with the worksite, technical

assistance to employers for designing and implementing work-based learning, and linkages with

“employer and industry strategies for upgrading

the skills of their workers” (Title I, Sec. 104).

TIMING, INTENSITY, DURATION, AND

PROGRESSION OF WORK EXPERIENCES

Work-based learning activities can begin as early

as the first grade and extend through graduate

school. Activities at any point could have potential benefit, but with a limited amount of resources, there will be tradeoffs between the

number of grades for which work-based learning

is offered and the quality of the experiences.

In the early grades, most work-based learning

consists of field trips to workplaces. One elementary school program that provides more than that

is called Kids and the Power of Work (KAPOW).

Company employees of a participating business

take classes of students on a tour of the business

and then meet with them monthly throughout the

school year to discuss characteristics of different

jobs, work attitudes and habits, and the students’

career interests. The teachers sometimes build on

those sessions, using them as examples in academic course work (18).

At the middle-school or early high school level,

students are sometimes given opportunities to

“job shadow” an employee for a few hours. They

watch the employee go about his or her work and

then meet to discuss the job, the required education, and the rewards. Job shadowing is used

mostly for motivational and career exploration

purposes.

In the early high school years, community service activities are sometimes introduced. The student does volunteer work for charitable or public

purposes. The work is intended to develop a sense

of civic duty and to introduce generic work skills
46 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

and habits. Sometimes the community service is

an extracurricular activity, sometimes it is

awarded credit toward graduation, and sometimes

it is part of a “service learning” course in social

studies or civics.

At the high school level, interested students

may be given an opportunity to run school-based

enterprises that provide goods and services to other students (such as a student bookstore), to the

school district (such as a print shop), or to the public. Elective courses are used to prepare the students for the work assignments in the enterprise.

Generally the students participate during their later years of high school, but occasionally they can

begin in their first or second year.

In the later high school and college years, more

intensive work experiences are sometimes offered. In internships, students assume part-time or

full-time work positions, usually for only a few

weeks or months near the end of their schooling.

Work-study programs offer students part-time

paid jobs on campus. In cooperative education,

there is paid work experience over the last year or

two of high school or over the later years of college. The work-based learning is sometimes

closely coordinated with the schooling, and sometimes it is not. Clinical training is similar to cooperative education, except that it is almost always

closely coordinated with the schooling and with

the professional licensing requirements that prevail in the medical fields. Youth apprenticeships

closely coordinate schooling and paid work experiences over the last year or two of high school and

at least one year of postsecondary education or

training, and are aimed partly at preparing students to earn an industry-recognized skill credential.

At the high school level, work-based learning

often occurs for several hours, one to five times a

week, and may continue on a full-time basis during the summer. In most co-op and youth apprenticeship programs, students spend less time in

class than they would otherwise, but some of the

programs have minimized the lost class time by

rescheduling classes to start earlier or to continue

later into the afternoon. When class time is lost,

some programs compensate by giving students

additional assignments to be done outside class. A

common example is keeping a journal of the

workplace experiences. When OTA staff visited

youth apprenticeship programs, they repeatedly

heard students describe how they had adjusted to

leaving home at 6 a.m. or to going to bed at 11 p.m.

Some scholars worry that the arduous schedules

of students in youth apprenticeships are denying

them the joys and developmental benefits of extracurricular activities and informal socializing (3).

At the college level, the students may alternate

between going to school full time and going to the

workplace full time, or they may use the parallel

pattern common in high schools, going to the

workplace on a part-time basis several days a

week. In some college programs, participation in

work-based learning extends the time that students need to graduate; in others it does not, but

may require enrollment during the summer.

In the United States, work-based learning is

most pervasive at the graduate-school level. Students seek teaching assistantships and research assistantships for the income they provide and for

the opportunities to work closely with a professor.

Student editors exercise full control over the

selection and editing of articles published in most

American law review journals. Medical schools

require all students to participate in extensive internships, and a “residency” after graduation is

usually required for licensing and board certification.

Figure 4-1 illustrates one hypothetical progression of work-based learning through 16 years of

schooling. OTA knows of a few schools that incorporate two or more forms of work-based learning at different grade levels, but none that includes

a progression extending from elementary school

through college.

Would such a progression be desirable? There

is reason to think that some progression of workbased learning could benefit many students. The

evaluation studies summarized in chapter 5 consistently show that work-based learning opportunities excite and motivate many young people.

The early experiences could introduce them to the

world of work, stimulate career exploration, and

develop preemployment skills and habits. Work-
Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning 47

901

 60-

Advanced

 50-

 40 -

 30-

20-

l o -

0 1“ I I I I I

1-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16

Grade level in school

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995

based learning in the higher grades is thought to

help narrow career interests and develop occupational skills.

It is clear, however, that a progression would require considerable resources. As suggested earlier

in the discussion of coordination and again in the

next chapter, cooperative education, clinical training, and youth apprenticeships demand significant effort on the part of school staff and

workplace coordinators. Even cursory workbased learning experiences aimed at career exploration require substantial time to arrange. For

instance, the minimum arrangements required for

three-hour job shadowing experiences include recruiting organizations and employees who will

participate, setting up the appointments, giving

the students commuting directions, informing the

students about appropriate dress and conduct, preparing students to ask useful questions, and assuring that students write notes of thanks.

Work-based learning directed at occupational

skill development requires considerably more effort on the part of both the schools and the employers. Employers have to orient the students to the

workplace rules and procedures, periodically provide them with progressively more advanced

training for tools and equipment that may be expensive and dangerous to use, closely supervise

their initial work performance after each step up

the progression, and periodically evaluate their

performance and report it to both the student and

the school.

It is doubtful that employers would participate

to the extent necessary to support an extensive
48 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

progression. This country lacks the labor market

structures that, in Germany, Japan, and several

other countries, provide incentives for extensive

employer participation in work-based learning

(21). As chapter 6 discusses, prototype school-towork transition programs in this country have

generally found expanding work-based learning

opportunities for high school juniors and seniors

to be slow going. It is difficult to imagine how the

schools would simultaneously arrange for younger students to have opportunities for workplace

field trips, classroom speakers from the world of

employment, and job shadowing.

OTA found no evidence to suggest at which

grade levels work-based learning might be most

cost-effective. There is, however, evidence to suggest that work-based learning prior to high school

graduation should generally focus on reinforcing

academics, providing career exploration opportunities, and developing generic preemployment

skills, whereas work-based learning at the postsecondary level should focus on occupational skill

development. Five lines of evidence support this

suggestion:

1. Most high school students—even those who

have chosen to participate in school-to-work

transition programs—are undecided about

their career choice or change their minds rapidly (1,2,8).

2. Many parents do not want their children forced

into early career decisions (8,33).

3. High school students who have participated in

work-based learning generally report that its

main benefit has been with respect to career exploration rather than occupational skill development (17,30).

4. Many employers think youth make poor employees (see chapter 6 of this report).

5. Job shadowing and opportunities to assist in a

workplace require considerably less effort on

the part of employers than do clinical internships and youth apprenticeships that involve

substantial skills development.

It is possible that successful school-to-work

transition systems will change the first four factors: consequently, some systems that include

concerted skill development at the high school

level deserve to be tried. But given the hurdles to

success, it seems prudent to target most of the systems at more modest goals for the high schools.

A focus on academic reinforcement, career exploration, and generic work skills at the high

school level could include some general training

and limited work experience. The point is not to

avoid training or real work, but rather to reserve

the considerable expenditure of time and resources associated with learning semiskilled and

skilled occupations until the students are mature

enough to make the effort a good investment for

everyone concerned—the students, the schools,

and the employers. Because students mature at

different rates and come to career decisions at different times, flexibility is desirable. Some students may be ready to make good use of intensive

training in their junior and senior years of high

school, but others may not be ready even by the second year of postsecondary education.

STWOA has no specifications in respect to the

timing, intensity, and duration of work-based

learning, but it implies that the experiences are to

be substantial, by indicating that the systems are

to facilitate development of skills “to be mastered

at progressively higher levels . . . and lead to the

award of skill certificates” (Title I, Sec.

103[a][2]). In addition, interested students participating in school-to-work systems are to select a

career major by the beginning of the 11th grade

(Sec. 102[2]), but that does not necessarily mean

that work-based learning must begin at that point.

In addition, the work-based learning is to be relevant to the career major (Sec. 103[2]).

SETTINGS OF WORK-BASED LEARNING

Work-based learning can occur in places of employment (including for-profit firms, private nonprofits, and government agencies), in community

service settings, in school-based enterprises, in

school-related extracurricular activities, and even

in simulated work. OTA found little evidence of

the relative effectiveness of these options. Each

appears to have advantages and disadvantages. In
Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 49

addition, as is explained later in this section, there

is tentative reason to think that, at the high school

level, the setting is less important than the quality

of the learning opportunities within the setting.

❚ Places of Employment

Places of employment are not the only places

where real work is done, but they are the only

places where people are hired to do the work and

fired if they fail to do it well enough. For that reason, the workplace provides the most realistic setting for career exploration and occupational

development.

Work-based learning can occur in large, medium-size, and small places of employment; in

“Tayloristic” and “transformed” organizations; in

high-tech and low-tech workplaces, and in expanding and declining industries. Not all, however, are necessarily equally good prospects.

Large organizations offer a greater breadth of

opportunities and resources than small organizations, but when structured according to Tayloristic

principles, large organizations rely on assemblyline principles and narrowly defined jobs. Small

organizations usually give employees more responsibilities and flexibility but less training (42).

Most schools with extensive experience arranging

work-based learning have found that it takes considerably more work to arrange and monitor one

placement in each of 10 small organizations than

to arrange and monitor 10 placements in a single

medium-size organization. Nevertheless, they

continue to recruit small organizations because

sufficient numbers of work-based learning opportunities cannot be arranged with the larger ones.

 “Transformed” organizations have adopted

flatter organizational structures, flexible production, and continuous quality control. Employees

are often cross-trained in several occupations,

work in teams that have considerable discretion,

and are judged by continually raised standards of

productivity and quality. All this requires a high

degree of continuous learning on the part of all

employees (7,41).

Given the importance of learning in transformed organizations, and the move in American

business toward this form of organization, it

might appear preferable to provide work-based

learning in transformed organizations. This is not

yet possible on a large scale because many companies have not completed the transformation. In

addition, students can be trained more quickly for

the narrowly defined jobs of Tayloristic organizations and thus can soon pull their weight in the

semiskilled jobs of these organizations.

It is possible, of course, that work experience

in Tayloristic organizations makes it difficult for

people to adapt later to transformed organizations,

but some examples suggest this is not necessarily

the case. For instance, the joint GM and Toyota

automobile manufacturing facility in Fremont,

California, hired the same workers GM had formerly used with Tayloristic management and poor

results, and soon reached world-class productivity

and quality standards (46).

Inasmuch as the trend toward greater use of

technology in the workplace appears likely to continue well into the next century, low-tech workplaces are certainly less preferable for preparing

tomorrow’s workforce. Yet given the thousands of

low-tech workplaces remaining in the country, it

does not seem feasible for all work-based learning

to occur in high-tech settings. In addition, there is

little reason to think that low-tech workplaces

could not provide high school students with experiences that develop the good attitudes, work habits, and communication skills that so many

employers complain are lacking in young workers

(28,34).

Declining industries can be relatively poor

prospects for work-based learning. During decline, employers are reluctant to take on students

because of budget constraints and the labor problems that the students’ presence might create.

Layoffs hurt morale and usually elicit some dysfunctional behavior that impressionable youth

might imitate. In addition, part of the value of

work-based learning consists of the experience,

contacts, and references acquired in a given industry, and all of these are of less value when the number of job openings is dropping. Still, the declines

in many industries are slow enough that new hires
50 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

continue to be made, and some companies may

thrive by undertaking dramatic changes in organizational practices and technology.

Coordination of work-based learning in places

of employment can pose a considerable challenge.

Schools and places of employment are dramatically different types of organizations. Students are

usually scattered among several worksites that

have different organizational structures, equipment, and operating procedures. Large employers

may draw students from several schools, further

exacerbating coordination problems. Transporting the students between school and the various

workplaces consumes time and has associated

costs.

❚ Community Service Settings

Most communities have many opportunities for

community service. Students can help care for the

elderly in nursing homes, clean and preserve public lands, tutor younger children, feed the homeless, and teach adults how to read. This is real

work, often requiring punctuality, perseverance,

and the application of academic or occupational

skills. Students can be prepared for the work

through orientations and training. Their performance can be monitored and guided by supervisors. And their learning can be enhanced by

exercises that prompt and guide the students to reflect on their experience.

Many community service organizations rely on

volunteers and serve people who cannot afford to

pay for the services. As a result, poor or mediocre

performance might be tolerated. In addition, because community service organizations usually

operate with low budgets and limited staff, opportunities for training and mentoring in such organizations may be limited.

❚ School Settings

Schools can be the site of at least four kinds of

work-based learning: school chores, paid jobs for

needy college students, student-run school-based

enterprises, and occupationally oriented extracurricular activities.

Some schools—mostly private ones—require

all students to help with the clerical, cleaning, and

maintenance work of the school. This work may

develop some basic work habits, but there is usually little focus on career exploration or skills development. Rather, the purposes are to reduce

operating costs and to develop students’ sense of

responsibility to the school community.

Colleges and universities usually provide paid

jobs for some of the students requiring financial

assistance. The wages are partially subsidized

with federal “Work-Study” funds. These jobs are

supposed to be relevant to the students’ educational or vocational goals, but about half of the jobs are

clerical or low skilled ones (38).

Student-run school-based enterprises provide

products and services for people other than those

who run them. They permit close coordination of

classes and the work undertaken by students in the

enterprise. They also generally require no extra

transportation between the school and the place of

work. Some enterprises pay the students. A few

generate profits for the school, but most are subsidized.

Participation in extracurricular activities, such

as working on a school newspaper, participating

in a school band, and playing interscholastic

sports is intended mostly as recreation but can

give students opportunities to explore career options and develop occupational skills (25). Other

activities such as 4-H, Future Farmers of America,

Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA),

Vocational and Industrial Clubs of America

(VICA), Junior Achievement, and Distributive

Education Clubs of America (DECA) are specifically directed at developing occupational and entrepreneurial skills. Extracurricular activities

probably provide students with more opportunity

to exercise initiative and to display creativity than

any other form of work-based learning, but they

may be weak in developing efficient work habits

except when there are competitions that stress

speed.
Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 51

❚ Work-Based Learning in Simulations

Rich learning experiences can come from simulated work. War games have been used for centuries to help train battlefield commanders. The

Link Trainer, simulating the cockpit of an airplane

and the environment of flight, was first used in

1929 and helped train several generations of pilots

(29).

Simulations are operational models of mechanisms, processes, or systems. The systems can be

as small as an integrated circuit or as large as the

world economy. By operating the model, the

learner becomes familiar with how to design, control, or repair the represented phenomena. Most

simulations are used for initial training, which is

then followed with further training in the real system. Simulations may also be used periodically

for brushing up on critical situations that are not

frequently encountered during actual work. Simulations can use role playing, games, and mechanical representations. Increasingly they are

computer based, such as those briefly mentioned

in chapter 3.

The “Assembly Line” simulation has students

organize mass production units to manufacture

paper automobiles. The teacher specifies the number of cars to be produced in a given period of

time. The students must organize the assembly

line, train themselves to do the various assembly

tasks, and supervise their production run to meet

the imposed production and quality standards

(16).

Role playing is often used to teach interpersonal skills such as job interviewing and customer

service. In one example, the teacher plays an employer and a student plays the applicant interviewing for a job. Then the teacher asks the other

students whether they would have hired the applicant and why. Following the discussion, the teacher hands out a list of interviewing pointers, has the

students read and discuss them, and proceeds with

several more rounds of interviews and critiques of

the applicants’ performance. As the students get

better, the teacher asks more complex questions,

becomes condescending, or otherwise gives the

students a hard time, preparing them for the worst

possible scenarios.

Simulated Medical Cases

High school students at the Oakland Health and

Bioscience Academy have to diagnose and prescribe treatments for simulated cases. Small teams

are given the medical records of a patient indicating

the symptoms and results of initial tests. The students can ask the teacher further questions about

symptoms and test results, and the teacher responds

as directed in a guide. Each student uses medical

encyclopedias, textbooks, and journals to research a

hypothesized diagnosis. The students reassemble in

their teams to discuss the viability of each hypothesis and to decide which is the correct one. The teacher then tells them the correct answer and explains the

“doctor’s” reasoning, so that students can compare

their own thinking with that of an experienced physician (11).

Some teachers of occupational courses organize and conduct their classes in a manner that

partly simulates a workplace. The classroom may

be laid out and furnished like a workplace, students may have to “punch in” and “punch out,”

and they may lose points toward their grade if they

are late. In some classes, the students take turns

being the office manager—collecting the students’ work, grading it, and filing it (10). In a law

enforcement program, the students take turns assuming supervisory roles (45). Some teachers

help the students “construct an image that the corporate world will find palatable” and have them

practice the image when in school (15).

There are several potential advantages to simulated work. The most obvious ones are convenience, safety, and cost savings. The convenience

comes from access to work conditions without

disruption of real work. In addition, whereas

workplaces are structured for production efficiency, simulations can be structured to maximize

learning. Simulations eliminate the risks inherent

in operating large equipment, working with dan-
52 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

gerous substances, undertaking delicate procedures, handling crises situations, and operating a

business in the face of competition. They allow

students to become competent in meeting the demands of the situation without the risk of harm to

people, equipment, and the financial health of the

business.

 “My teacher treats it like a job. You know, she’s the

boss. You’re her employee, we work for her.” —Student (14)

Simulations can accelerate and extend learning

in several ways. They can motivate students who

are not interested in book-learning but become excited by the active involvement, the sense of realism, a degree of autonomy, and the opportunity for

immediate application of their knowledge and

skills (16). Simulations can begin by presenting

students with simplified representations of overwhelmingly complex systems and then gradually

add complications. They can initially operate at

less than normal speed and gradually be accelerated beyond normal to “overtrain” the student.

They can present students with challenges that are

rarely encountered with the real system but pose

serious consequences if not handled correctly

(16,29). Computerized simulations can store all

the input provided by the students and replay it, so

that the students can observe their handling of a

given situation. They also can compare the students’ responses with an expert’s handling of the

same situation (6).

Simulations also have several disadvantages. If

the simulation is too simple, the trainee may be illprepared for the real world. A simulation may inadvertently provide additional cues that are

unavailable in the real world (29). Simulation may

lack the sense of pressure that exists in many

workplaces. When used for work-based learning,

simulation usually lacks interaction with adults

and the positive socialization that may come from

that. It may also create false complacency about

the dangers involved, because the students are

confident of not doing major harm. Conversely,

the student may engage in “gaming” the simulation, focusing on maximizing performance by

means that would be ineffective or risky in real

life. It is also unclear to what extent simulations

can develop the attitudes and work habits that are

important in the workplace.

The cost of simulations can range from a few

dollars to many millions. Flight simulators are

among the most costly, but are justified because

the cost of operating most jet aircraft is several

thousand dollars an hour and mistakes can be catastrophic. Even when the “life cycle” cost of using

a simulation is greater than the cost of using the

real equipment, the simulation can sometimes be

justified by the convenience, risk reduction, and

accelerated rate of learning.

❚ Conclusions about Settings

A prudent reading of the research suggests that almost any work in a productive environment can

contribute to the occupational development of

adolescents, but when the work involves simple

tasks that are repeated day in and day out, there

will be little learning after the first few weeks or

months. Variety, progressive increases in difficulty with the minimum assistance necessary for success, and opportunities for both autonomy and

teamwork appear important for sustained learning

(4,19,23,26,44). These can be provided in a wide

range of businesses and other organizations, including small organizations, Tayloristic organizations (when there is job rotation), low-tech

companies, and companies in declining industries. They also can be provided in community

service, school-based enterprises, and extracurricular activities. In addition, simulated work can

give students a powerful introduction to various

work experiences that would otherwise not be

available to them.

STWOA does not specify the settings in which

the work-based learning is to take place. But the

frequent references to partnerships with employers (Sec. 3[a][3]), and the specification that workbased learning must include “broad instruction, to

the extent practicable, in all aspects of the industry” (Title I, Sec. 103[a][5]), suggest that Con-
Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 53

gress was expecting at least some of the

work-based learning to occur in places of employment operated by “both public and private employers” (Sec. 4[8]).

Several provisions in STWOA suggest that

Congress anticipated that work-based learning

could also occur outside of employment. “Schoolsponsored enterprises” are listed as “permissible”

work-based learning activities (Title I, Sec.

103[b]). The states’ plans for the school-to-work

transition systems are to describe how the systems

will be coordinated or integrated with the National

and Community Service Act of 1990 (Title II,

Subtitle B, Sec. 213[d][6][L]). And the funds

from STWOA can be used to “design and implement school-sponsored work experiences, such as

school-sponsored enterprises and community development projects” (Title II, Subtitle B, Sec.

215[c][11]).

PAY FOR WORK-BASED LEARNING

Work-based learning can be paid or unpaid. The

rate of pay can be the organization’s rate for fulltime entry employees with the same responsibilities, it can be the minimum wage, and in some

cases it may be legal to use a subminimum “training wage.” There is sometimes an increase in pay

after each year, and a few programs offer bonuses.

For students continuing into postsecondary

education or training, some employers also provide tuition reimbursement.

The matter of pay for work-based learning experiences was hotly debated during the drafting of

STWOA. The House passed a bill requiring paid

work-based learning, and the Senate passed a bill

with no such stipulation. The conference resolved

the difference by specifying that “priority [be given] to applications that require paid, high-quality

work-based learning experiences” (Title II, Subtitle B, Sec. 214 [a][2]). In four other places, the

act reiterates a preference for paid work-based

learning. STWOA also prohibits using federal

funds received under the act to subsidize the

wages of students in work-based learning or the

wages of their mentors (Title VI, Sec. 601[6]).

There were several rationales for paid workbased learning. One was that if employers have to

pay the students, they will have an incentive to demand high standards of performance from them

(40). Similarly, if the students are paid, they will

feel like real employees and rise to the occasion.

There was also concern that having students engage in productive activities without pay was exploitative, and would encourage employers to use

work-based learning students in place of regular

employees. Another reason for pay was that students who rely on earnings from part-time jobs

would generally be precluded from participating

in unpaid work-based learning.

The main argument against paid work-based

learning was that it raises the costs to employers

and thus reduces the number of employers who

will participate and the number of work-based

learning slots that are offered. It was pointed out

that, even without payments to students, workbased learning imposes several costs on employers—the costs of planning and coordinating with

the schools, the staff time spent training and closely supervising the young people, and the young

people’s lower outputs when beginning production activities.

OTA found little evidence about the effects of

pay on the students. The issue of employer incentives is complex and is discussed in chapter 6.

While STWOA strongly encourages paid workbased learning and prohibits the use of federal

funds received under the act to reimburse employer expenses, the act leaves the states free to use

other mechanisms to reduce employers’ costs and

to create incentives for their participation. These

include state subsidies for students’ wages or other expenses, state tax credits, authorization of subminimum training wages, and exemption from

having to provide state-mandated benefits and unemployment insurance for the students.

CONCLUSION

Work-based learning can be structured in respect

to at least six sets of alternative features. Although

there is no definitive evidence about the relative
54 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

effectiveness of the alternatives, there are some

findings that allow for informed speculations:

 The congressional intent appears to be that the

STWOA systems should target a wide spectrum of students but not be compulsory.

 The standards for screening students for workbased learning assignments do not have to be

uniformly high, but care should be taken to

match students with employers’ needs and expectations.

 Work-based learning can be focused on the objectives of academic enhancement, career

exploration, occupational development, and

productive activities. Although any production

work can be a valuable learning experience, after several weeks or months its benefits are

likely to decline unless the work involves progressively more challenging tasks.

 Considerable evidence indicates that coordination between the school and the workplace is

difficult to achieve. There are two basic approaches to coordination; one involves formal

planning and written agreements, and the other

involves continuing dialogue between representatives of both institutions. Many highly reputed programs have used both approaches, but

a few have used only the latter.

 A progression of work-based learning, beginning in elementary school and extending

through college would probably benefit students, but would require extensive resources.

Given that the opportunities for work-based

learning in workplaces are likely to be

constrained, it appears that intensive workplace

experiences focusing on occupational skill development should generally be reserved until

the postsecondary level.

 Paying students during their workplace experiences appears to have advantages and disadvantages. Payment and nonpayment are both

likely to result in tradeoffs.

These six sets of alternative features distinguish among several models of work-based learning. The models are discussed in the next chapter.

REFERENCES

1. Bidwell, C. et al., University of Chicago,

“Studying Career Choice: A Pilot Study,

Vols. I-III,” Washington, DC: Alfred P. Sloan

Foundation, 1992.

2. Bragg, D.D., Hamm, R.E., and Trinkle, K.,

Work-Based Learning in Two-Year Colleges

in the United States (Berkeley, CA: National

Center for Research in Vocational Education,

University of California, 1995).

3. Bragg, D.D., and Hamm, R.E., Linking

College and Work: Exemplary Practices in

Two-Year College Work-Based Learning Programs (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of

California, 1995).

4. Bronfenbrenner, U., The Ecology of Human

Development: Experiments by Nature and

Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1979).

5. Coleman, J., Youth: Transition to Adulthood

(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,

1974).

6. Collins, A., and Brown, J.S., “The Computer

As A Tool for Learning Through Reflection,”

Learning Issues for Intelligent Tutoring Systems, H. Maddl and A.M. Lesgold (eds.)

(New York, NY: Springer, Verlag, 1988).

7. Commission on the Skills of the American

Workforce, America’s Choice: High Skills or

Low Wages (Rochester, NY: National Center

on Education and the Economy, 1990).

8. Corson, W., and Silverberg, M., The Schoolto-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration: Preliminary Findings (Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research, 1994).

9. Dede, C., and Lewis, M., George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, and Rand Corporation,

Santa Monica, CA, “Assessment of Emerging

Educational Technologies that Might Assist

and Enhance School-to-Work Transitions,”

unpublished contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May 1995.
Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 55

10. Gaskell, J., Gender Matters from School to

Work (Toronto, Canada: OISE Press, 1992).

11. Goldberger, S., Kazis, R., and O’Flanagan,

M.K., Learning Through Work: Designing

and Implementing Quality Worksite Learning

for High School Students (New York, NY:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1994).

12. Greenberger, E., and Steinberg, L.D., When

Teenagers Work: The Psychological and Social Costs of Adolescent Employment (New

York, NY: Basic Books, 1986).

13. Grubb, W.N., and Villeneuve, J.C., University of California, Berkeley, CA, “Co-operative

Education in Cincinnati: Implications for

School-to-Work Programs in the U.S.,” unpublished contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May 1995.

14. Hollenbeck, K., In Their Own Words: Student

Perspectives on School-to-Work Opportunities (Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, 1995).

15. Hull, G., “Their Chances? Slim and None?”:

An Ethnographic Account of the Experiences

of Low-Income People of Color in a Vocational Program and at Work (Berkeley, CA: University of California, National Center for

Research in Vocational Education, 1992).

16. Jamieson, I., Miller, A., and Watts, A.G.,

Mirrors of Work: Work Simulations in

Schools (London: The Falmer Press, 1988).

17. Jobs for the Future, Promising Practices

(Boston, MA: 1995).

18. KAPOW: Kids and the Power of Work (Arlington, VA: Fu Assocs., undated).

19. Kohn, M.L., and Schooler, C., “The Reciprocal Effects of the Substantive Complexity of

Work and Intellectual Flexibility: A Longitudinal Assessment,” American Journal of Sociology 84:24-52, 1978.

20. Lerman, R.I,. and Pouncy, H., “The Compelling Case for Youth Apprenticeships,” The

Public Interest 101:62-67, fall 1990.

21. Lynch, L., Training and the Private Sector:

International Comparisons (Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press, 1994).

22. Lynn, I., and Wills, J., School Lessons: Work

Lessons (Washington, DC: The Institute for

Educational Leadership, 1994).

23. Mainquist, S., and Eichorn, D., “Competence

in Work Settings,” Adolescence and Work: Influences of Social Structure, Labor Markets,

and Culture, D. Stern and D. Eichorn (eds.)

(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.,

1989).

24. McKay, E.G., The Forgotten Two-Thirds: An

Hispanic Perspective on Apprenticeship, European Style (Washington, DC: National

Council of La Raza, 1993).

25. Mihalka, J.A., “Youth and Work,” New Roles

for Youth in the School and Community (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, National

Commission on Resources for Youth, 1974).

26. Mortimer, J.T., “The Transition to Adulthood: U.S. Research on Role Acquisition and

Attainment,” unpublished paper presented at

the National Research and Policy Symposium

on Youth in Transition to Adulthood, Kananaskis, Alberta, Apr. 25 - 29, 1995.

27. Mortimer, J.T., and Yamoor, C., “Interrelations and Parallels of School and Work as

Sources of Psychological Development,” Research in the Sociology of Education and Socialization 7:221-246, 1987.

28. Napier, D., Missouri University, Columbia,

MO, “Work Attitudes and Human Relations

in Business: Instructor’s Guide,” (Jefferson

City, MO: Division of Vocational and Adult

Education, Missouri State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, April

1987).

29. O’Neil, H.F., Jr., and Robertson, M.M.,

“Simulations: Occupationally Oriented” Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 6th ed.,

M.C. Alkin (ed.) (New York, NY: Macmillan

Publishing, 1992).
56 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

30. Pauly, E., Kopp, H., and Haimson, J., Home

Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking Work and High School (New York, NY:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,

1994).

31. Phillips Academy, “Andover,” Andover,

MA, 1994.

32. Rogers, A., and Hubbard, S., “Case Study

Report on Kalamazoo Valley Consortium

Education for Employment,” unpublished paper, National Institute for Work and Learning,

Academy for Educational Development,

1994.

33. Rogers, A., et al., Learning from Experience:

A Cross-Case Comparison of School-to-Work

Transition Reform Initiatives (Washington,

DC: National Institute for Work and Learning, Academy for Educational Development,

1995).

34. Ryerson, D.L., “A Review of the Literature:

The Transition of Youth from School to

Work,” C.M. Oinonen (ed.) September 1983.

35. School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,

May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239.

36. Simms, M.C. (ed.), Youth Apprenticeships:

Implications for Black Youth (Washington,

DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic

Studies, 1993).

37. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science

and Technology, “Mentor Handbook: Mentorship Program,” Alexandria, VA, undated.

38. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,

Student Financial Aid: Characteristics of

Jobs Provided Through the College WorkStudy Program, GAO/HRD-92-72BR (Washington, DC: February 1992).

39. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,

Transition from School to Work: Linking

Education and Worksite Training, GAO/

HRD-91-105 (Washington, DC: August

1991).

40. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,

School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,

Conference Report, H. Rpt. 103-480 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994).

41. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Worker Training: Competing in the

New International Economy, OTA-ITE-457

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1990).

42. U.S. Department of Labor, “BLS Reports on

Employer-Provided Formal Training” news

release (Washington DC: Bureau of Labor

Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Sept.

23, 1994).

43. U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills,

Learning a Living: A Blueprint for High Performance (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1992).

44. Vygotsky, L.S., Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Educational Processes, M.

Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E.

Souberman (eds. and translators) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).

45. Westra, N., Public Safety Program Manager,

Kalamazoo Valley Consortium, personal

communication, February 1995.

46. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D., The

Machine that Changed the World (New York,

NY: Harper, 1990).
Work-Based

Learning

Models and

Evidence of

Effectiveness

lthough work-based learning for students is not widespread in this country, a number of different models are in

use. The youth apprenticeship model encouraged by

STWOA is the newest and most comprehensive model,

and currently the least used. The clinical training model and the

cooperative education model are similar to youth apprenticeships, but somewhat less comprehensive. Each of these three

models is described here in relation to the structuring of workbased learning that was discussed in chapter 4. Evaluations of

each model’s effectiveness are summarized and the likely advantages and disadvantages of the models are described. Three other

models are discussed briefly. They are school-to-apprenticeship

programs (distinct from “youth apprenticeships”), school-based

enterprises, and career academies.

It should be noted that there are no established definitions of

these models—instead, they have evolved informally and even

experts disagree some on the important characteristics of each. In

addition, some work-based learning programs have intentionally

modified a model or developed their own. Finally, actual practice

seldom coincides exactly with the original intentions. The descriptions provided below are of ideal models, as they are commonly conceived. Key features of these models are summarized

in table 5-1.

The effectiveness of school-to-work transition programs with

work-based learning can be judged by several indicators. Early

indicators include the impressions and reactions of students,

teachers, employers, and parents, but these subjective measures

sometimes do not coincide with more objective ones. Interim objective measures include the students’ rate of participation in various work-based learning activities, school attendance and | 57
Model

Youth apprenticeship:

The students participate in a

coordinated program of school-based

and work-based learning that provides

career counseling, integrated academic

and occupational instruction, training

and mentoring in a workplace,

progressively higher levels of work

experience, and the opportunity to earn

an industry-recognized skill credential.

The programs extend from high school

through at least one year of

postsecondary education.

Clinical training:

The students undertake a course of

occupational study and assume a

series of coordinated worksite positions

that provide training and unpaid work

experience. The course of study, the

work experience, and adequate scores

on an external examination are required

for Iicensure and subsequent

employment in the field.

Students to be

served

Interested

students meeting

selection criteria

All students

admitted into

program of study

(mostly medically

related

occupations)

Objectives of

the work-based

learning

Academic

reinforcement,

Career

exploration,

Occupational

development,

Productive activity

Occupational

development,

Productive activity

Means of

coordinating the

work-based

learning with

schooling

Joint school and

employer planning,

Training

agreements,

Class schedule

flexibility,

Worksite visitation

by school

coordinator,

Integrative

seminars,

Skill credentialing

Joint school and

employer planning,

Training

agreements,

Class schedule

flexibility,

Worksite visitation

by school

coordinator,

Grades and

hours per

week of the Setting of the

work-based work-based Payment

learning learning for work

Grades: Workplaces Usually

11-14

Hours/week:

4-20

Grades: Workplaces Seldom

13-16

Hours/week:

10-30

Skill credentialing
Cooperative education:

The students engage in a coordinated

program of school-based learning and

career-related work experience during

the later year(s) of high school or

college. This is the oldest and most

widely used model of work-based

learning in the U. S., and actual

Implementation varies considerably,

especially in respect to the objectives

and extent of coordination.

School-to-apprenticeship programs:

In the senior year, the students begin

part-time participation in union and

employer apprenticeship programs

registered with the U.S. Department of

Labor.

School-based enterprises:

The students work part-time in a

school-owned business and take

elective classes that develop the

required occupational and

entrepreneurial skills.

Career academies:

The high school students attend a small

career-oriented “school within a school”

focused on one cluster of occupations.

It integrates academic learning, career

exploration, occupational preparation,

and sometimes part-time or summer

jobs.

Interested

students meeting

selection criteria

Interested

vocational

students meeting

selection criteria

(mostly skilled

trades)

Interested

students meeting

selection criteria

Interested

students in the

career academy

meeting selection

criteriae

Career Training Grades:

exploration, agreements, 11-12, 14-16

Occupational Worksite visitation

development, by school Hours/week:

Productive activity coordinator,b 6-40C

Integrative

seminars

Occupational Training

development, agreements

Productive activity

Career

exploration,

Occupational

development

Workplaces

Grade: Workplaces Usually

12

Hours:

20-30

Teacher supervision Grades:

of the enterprises 9-12, 13-16

Hours/week:

5-20

Career

exploration,

Occupational

Usually

Academic Joint school and Grades:

reinforcement, employer planning 11-12

development

Hours/week:

4-15

Schools d

Workplaces

Seldom

Sometimes

a There are varying definitions of these models. In addition, programs sometimes make intentional modifications to the models, and implementation often IS not fully consistent with the

retentions

b Seldom used for liberal arts students at postsecondary level

c Some co-op programs have students alternate between full-time schooling and full-time workplace assignments

d Also school-managed facilities outside of school sites

e Career academies have been established primarily for socioeconomically disadvantaged youth

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment analyses, 1995
60 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

conduct, course taking, grades, scores on academic tests and occupational performance assessments, graduation rates from high school,

adolescent pregnancy rates, crime rates, enrollment in postsecondary education or training,

completion of postsecondary education or training, and proportions earning the applicable skill

certificates. Employer satisfaction and the extent

to which employers expand or contract their participation also are important interim measures.

Longer-term student outcomes include employment history, career progression, earnings and

benefits, and career satisfaction. Longer-term labor force outcomes include worker productivity

and production quality indicators.

“When asked about what happens to students who

excel in their [work-based learning] jobs, one supervisor replied, ‘We hire them’.” (20).

Measures of these characteristics for program

participants alone would be inadequate to determine the effects of the programs on students. For

that purpose it is necessary to have a comparison

group of similar students who are not exposed to

the program. Otherwise, there is no way of knowing whether the observed changes in students

would have occurred because of natural maturation and other elements of their education.

Ideally, for purposes of assessing the effects of

a program, eligible applicants are assigned randomly to the program or to a control group receiving traditional instruction directed at the same

objectives, and then the success of the two groups

is compared over subsequent years. Although random assignment is desirable from an assessment

standpoint, it is unpopular with educators who

seek to serve all students with what they consider

to be the best available educational opportunities.

If, however, the growth in work-based learning

positions is slower than the growth in parent and

student interest, educators might be persuaded to

allocate program admission by lottery.

Randomization has rarely been used in past

evaluations of work-based learning. Rather, participating students have been compared with nonparticipants matched on the basis of family

background, ability, past performance in school,

and other characteristics that are commonly

associated with future school performance, postsecondary educational achievement, and early occupational success. These matching procedures

can control only for measured characteristics;

there are many others, such as initiative, ambition,

and foresight, that can affect the outcomes. Such

lack of initial comparability between matched

groups is particularly likely when the program

group is composed of volunteers and the comparison group is composed of those who did not volunteer. Evaluations using such matched

comparison groups will often overestimate the

positive effects of the studied programs.

For rigorous evaluations, the researchers must

have access to large percentages of the students in

the programs and in the comparison groups. If

several of the programs refuse to participate or if

many students in the program group or in the comparison group refuse to participate, the validity of

the results can be seriously undermined. In past

evaluations of work-based learning, gaining access to programs has sometimes been a problem,

gaining access to a large portion of the students

has commonly been a problem, and following students for five or 10 years has rarely been accomplished.

These evaluation difficulties are not unique to

work-based learning. They are common in the assessment of all types of education and training

programs. Occasionally, most of the problems

have been overcome, particularly in some evaluations sponsored by the Department of Labor during the past two decades (19), but such success has

taken considerable leadership and resources, and

often a mandate from the funding source.

Numerous evaluations and their findings are

discussed in this chapter. Very few of the evaluations randomly assigned students, many were not

able to include large proportions of the students,

and none followed students well into their adult

employment. Taking into account these limitations, a prudent interpretation of the evidence ac-
Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 61

cumulated from the cited studies suggests the

following findings about past work-based learning:

 School-to-work programs have arranged workbased learning that generally offers more learning opportunities than do the jobs that students

find on their own.

 Most students have been excited and motivated

by their work-based learning, feeling that it has

helped them make better use of their schooling

and become better prepared for employment.

 Most employers have been quite satisfied with

the students who participate in work-based

learning.

 Work-based learning has generally had small

positive effects on students’ attendance,

grades, graduation rates, and participation in

postsecondary education, but some of the new

youth apprenticeship programs appear to have

dramatically increased postsecondary enrollments.

 The effects of work-based learning on employment, career progression, and earnings during

the first few years after graduation have been a

mix of modest positive ones, no differences,

and a few small negative findings. The results

for college-level programs have been more

positive than those for high school programs,

and employment results from the youth apprenticeship programs are not yet available.

 Well-planned and supervised work-based

learning requires considerable effort to arrange,

coordinate, monitor, and sustain.

 Intermediary groups, especially employer organizations, have often been important in establishing work-based learning programs.

 Programs that have earned a reputation of excellence have done so only after several years

of adjustments and fine-tuning.

Each of these findings is supported by two or

more studies of several programs. Only the findings in respect to employment outcomes varied

substantially among the studies.

YOUTH APPRENTICESHIPS

Students in youth apprenticeships participate in a

coordinated learning program with the following

key elements:

 school-based learning that provides career

counseling, integrates academic and occupational instruction, and extends from the later

years of high school through some postsecondary education;

 progressively higher levels of paid work experience, accompanied by training and mentoring;

and

 the opportunity to earn an industry-recognized

skill certificate.

Youth apprenticeship is the newest model of

work-based learning. It is the model that STWOA

encourages, although the legislation never uses

the term “youth apprenticeship” (Public Law

103-239, Title I, Secs. 101-104). Before passage

of STWOA, there probably were only a few dozen

programs in the country using this model. Most of

those had been established in the early 1990s and

had not fully implemented the model by the time

the legislation was being considered.

Youth apprenticeship is the most ambitious,

coordinated, and sustained model of work-based

learning in the United States. It is directed at serving the widest spectrum of students—in terms of

academic performance and career interests. The

objectives are broader than those of other models,

encompassing the reinforcement of academics,

exploration of careers, occupational skill development, and productive activities. Youth apprenticeship involves extensive coordination between

academic and occupational instruction in school,

school-based instruction and work-based instruction, and high school and postsecondary education and training. In fact, youth apprenticeship is

the only model that spans the high school and

postsecondary levels, providing students with the

most extensive progression of learning opportunities. Some other models are used at both levels,

but not by a single program.

Youth apprenticeships differ from the apprenticeship programs operated by unions and em-
62 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

ployers in several ways. Youth apprenticeships

begin serving students in high school and continue to serve them for at least one year of postsecondary education, whereas union and employer

apprenticeships are targeted at young adults several years out of high school (the average age of participants is about 25). In youth apprenticeships,

the students work part time or rotate between fulltime work and full-time schooling, whereas in

union and employer apprenticeships the participants generally work full time and take two or

three hours of classes each week. In addition,

youth apprenticeships use high school and college

teachers to provide the formal instruction, whereas the unions and employers often use their own

personnel for that purpose.

❚ Evaluation Results

Youth apprenticeships are of such recent vintage

that there is little evaluation information available

on them. Most of the programs are still in the startup phase. Only a few have graduated cohorts from

high school, and none has operated long enough

for those cohorts to progress well into their careers. For those reasons, all the findings in this

section should be considered quite tentative and

subject to change as the programs refine their operations and become established in their communities.

The U.S. Department of Labor commissioned

a preliminary assessment of 15 youth apprenticeships that were begun with its support between

1990 and 1993 (4). At the time of the assessment,

a few of the programs were still in the planning

stage and had not yet accepted students. It was

found that the work-based learning usually began

in the junior or senior year and varied considerably in intensity from program to program. In a

few of the programs the employers offered a carefully structured sequence of training opportunities

but no real work experience. Conversely, when

students were given real work experience, they

usually received only informal training from their

supervisor and only as much as they needed for the

work (4).

The biggest difficulty that most of these youth

apprenticeship programs faced was arranging

enough work-based learning opportunities. Employer associations helped with that task, but individual employers ultimately based their decisions

to participate on their perceptions of the costs and

benefits.

Coordinating the work-based learning opportunities with schooling proved to be a challenge.

The school staff and employers’ representatives

usually met to discuss expectations at the start of

the school year. Continuing communications, either by scheduled meetings or informal communications, were spottier. Only a few schools tried

to link their class activities to the work-based

learning, and none of the employers made substantial efforts to link the worksite experiences

with the students’ academic or vocational curriculum. One program twice attempted to develop a

detailed training plan to be used by its large employers, but the plans required more staff time,

space, and equipment than the employers were

willing to commit (4).

In focus groups, sometimes selected randomly

and sometimes not, students from these youth apprenticeship programs generally said that the programs encouraged them to study harder in school

and to improve their attendance and grades. Many

found their schoolwork more interesting because

of team project assignments. Some were motivated to study harder in school to assure their eligibility for work-based learning assignments.

Students sometimes complained, however, of experiencing delays in the implementation of certain

program components, being isolated with the

same students for most of their schoolwork, receiving promises about pay rates that were subsequently broken, having to do mostly menial jobs,

being paid less than regular employees doing the

same work, having to constantly “act like adults,”

missing after-school social and extracurricular activities, and misunderstanding the postsecondary

tuition reimbursement offers of some employers

(4).
Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 63

Jobs for the Future, a nonprofit organization

with foundation funding, is supporting 10 innovative school-to-work transition programs with

work-based learning. Only two of the 10 had been

in operation prior to 1991. Six are youth apprenticeships and the other four include several elements of that model. A self-administered survey,

handed in by 226 seniors, about half of those at 8

of the 10 sites, found that 92 percent thought the

work-based learning was encouraging good work

habits, 83 percent thought it was providing at least

some chance to explore career options, 62 percent

said they spent one-third or more of their time in

the workplace learning new skills, 57 percent reported the assignments to be interesting and challenging most of the time, and 79 percent said they

would participate in the program again (6).

A subsample survey of 113 seniors at four of

the programs found that they most liked the career

exploration aspects of the program and least liked,

or found hardest to achieve, the level of skills required for tasks performed at the worksite. More

than half of the subsample thought that the program had improved their feelings toward school,

and less than 2 percent felt the opposite. The most

common suggestion for improvement, offered by

16 percent of the students, was for “better planned

activities at worksite that require more involvement by students” (6).

In three of the programs where actual postsecondary enrollments had been tracked, it was found

that between 69 and 84 percent of the students had

enrolled in some form of postsecondary education

or training soon after graduation from high

school—rates well above the national average.

The program with the highest rate serves an innercity population where postsecondary enrollments

are normally low. In three other programs, between 85 and 92 percent of the seniors in the programs reported they had plans for continuing their

education after graduation (6).

Jobs for the Future staff observed that programs

that began primarily as workforce improvement

efforts have since become “more committed to

significant school reform as a precondition for being able to deliver improved career preparation.”

Similarly, programs that began primarily as

school reform efforts have developed a “much

more serious commitment to structured, planned

learning experiences at the worksite and creative

approaches to linking school and work experiences”.

The major problems that have been encountered are rigid school schedules using 50-minute

periods, entrance requirements of four-year colleges that do not recognize credits for integrated

academic and occupational courses or work-based

learning, and the high costs of small programs that

result from the limited ability or willingness of

business to provide work placements and to hire

students who have completed the program. Incremental costs are estimated to range from minimal

to $2,000 per student, although there may be reductions after the implementation phase is completed and the operations have been scaled up (6).

Case studies of 14 innovative school-to-work

transition programs were recently completed by

the Academy for Educational Development (10).

Nine of the programs were youth apprenticeships

or had many of the components of that model.

Most of the 14 programs appear to have benefited

from strong leadership by a state or local school

administrator who provided vision, fostered collaborations, and set high standards while also expecting some mistakes to be made. Similarly,

most programs appear to have benefited from the

impassioned leadership of a teacher or coordinator

who knew curriculum, pedagogy, and the targeted

industry; was willing to take risks; and communicated well. Collaborations with business appear

essential for expanding the programs. The collaborations took different forms and required substantial investment by both the schools and the

industry.

The nature of the work-based learning in these

programs varied considerably. Important elements for success appear to be building on local

labor market needs, coordinating the schoolbased learning and work-based learning, allowing

students to assume new roles and shoulder responsibility, permitting students to do real work and receive feedback, and encouraging students to

reflect on their experiences and engage in self-assessment. Participating businesses apparently
64 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

needed and welcomed some orientation and support, particularly for their mentoring roles. Difficulties that were commonly encountered include

limited resources for the substantial start-up efforts, limited business participation, the unwillingness of four-year colleges to recognize some of

the high school credits earned in the programs,

and transportation difficulties in countywide systems and in inner cities that had lost most of their

jobs to the suburbs (10).

Another recent study of 16 school-to-work

transition programs in high schools, including

five youth apprenticeships and nine others with

similar components, concluded that most of the

programs appear to have induced the students to

take more advanced courses. Some of the programs were providing high-quality work-based

learning and some were not (9). Economically disadvantaged and low-achieving students were

found to be participating with few complaints

from employers, teachers, or the students themselves. Most program directors thought that these

students would be best served if the work-based

learning experiences began in the 9th or 10th

grade, rather than in the 11th or 12th grade, because by those later grades sizable portions of the

students have become disengaged from school or

dropped out. Parents were initially skeptical of the

programs, fearing that they would preclude a college education, but many parents whose children

participated have been pleased. Students appreciated the work-based learning mostly for the career exploration opportunities.

Planning and development of the programs

were very time-consuming, often requiring two

years. There were substantial costs for a coordinator, staff planning, curriculum development, staff

training, and equipment (sums up to $200,000 are

reported, but it is unclear whether those included

all, or only part of, the expenses actually incurred). Considerable time was also required to

recruit employers and to help them plan highquality work-based learning activities. For three

to five years after implementation, extensive revisions and fine-tuning were required. Operating

costs for the school were usually estimated to be

somewhat higher than regular schooling because

of the time needed to secure the work-based learning positions, to prepare the students for them, and

to monitor their progress. These costs do not include the costs that employers incurred.

Intermediary groups such as the chamber of

commerce, business and professional groups, and

trade associations apparently provided crucial

support for many of the programs. Even with their

contributions, there appears to be have been a

tradeoff between the number and the quality of

work-based learning positions that have been arranged. Providing a broad introduction to the organization and industry, planning a progression of

training and work experience, coordinating both

with the school-based instruction, and providing

supervision and mentoring are time-consuming.

Often the staff time devoted to these activities

costs employers more than the wages paid to the

students (9).

Jobs for the Future, drawing on the study just

described and on its experience in providing support to several youth apprenticeship programs, inferred 10 guidelines for high-quality work-based

learning:

1. The partners should agree on the goals and the

means of achieving them.

2. There should be a structured plan for the students’ learning in the workplace.

3. The work-based learning should focus on developing broad and transferable skills.

4. The school and workplace staffs should receive orientation and ongoing support as

needed.

5. The students should be oriented and prepared

for their workplace assignments.

6. The students should receive the support and

guidance of a caring adult in the workplace.

7. The school-based activities should help students distill and extend lessons from the

workplace.

8. Students learning in the workplace should be

documented and assessed.

9. There should be ongoing coordination between the schools and workplaces.

10. Quality control mechanisms should be used

(5).
Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 65

CLINICAL TRAINING

Students in clinical training programs take academic and occupational courses and assume a series of positions that provide work experience and

training. The course of study, the work experience, and a passing score on an examination administered by a professional body are usually

required for licensure and subsequent employment in the field. Clinical training is used primarily in medical occupations, including several fields

of medical technology, in both two-year and fouryear colleges.

The clinical training model is moderately selective. It focuses on occupational skill development and production activities in the workplace.

There is tight coordination between the occupational course work in school and the training and

work assignments in the workplace, and both are

partly guided by the licensure requirements. Most

programs begin at the postsecondary level. Work

assignments involve large numbers of hours—

often thousands of hours before one is eligible for

licensure. Most of the work is undertaken in hospitals, medical centers, and medical laboratories.

Every student in the program must participate in

the work-based learning, although the assignments may depend on satisfactory progress in

one’s class work. The students are seldom paid for

their time in the workplace (1,2).

The clinical training model is similar to the

youth apprenticeship model but less comprehensive. The main differences are that the objectives

of clinical training are more narrowly focused on

occupational development and productive activities, the programs do not span the high school and

postsecondary levels, and the work experiences

are usually unpaid. In addition, youth apprenticeship is a generic model applicable to any occupation, whereas clinical internships have been used

almost exclusively in medical fields.

The clinical training model has become the

norm for preparation in all the medical occupations—ranging from nurse’s aide through medical

technologist to brain surgeon. OTA calculations

based on data from a recent survey suggest that

about 50 to 65 percent of all two-year colleges

have at least one program that uses this model, and

virtually all the programs are in the medical fields

(2). The model is used almost universally in nursing programs in four-year colleges and in medical

schools.

The clinical training model appears to be expensive, having much lower students-to-teacher

ratios than cooperative education programs in the

same institutions. It is common, however, for the

industry to partially subsidize the expenses and to

provide political support for the programs (1).

❚ Evaluation Results

A major study recently asked two-year college administrators to report on their best health-related

program with work-based learning and their best

non-health-related program with work-based

learning. They were ask to judge “best” on the basis of being in full operation, having a formal

structure for linking the work-based learning with

the college courses, using innovative approaches,

and having a proven track record of preparing students for their career goals (2). The study did not

attempt to further assess the nature and extent of

the effects on the students, but rather sought to

identify common characteristics of the nominated

programs.

The most common characteristics of the programs designated as “best” were that they had

been in operation for more than 10 years, used the

clinical training model for health-related programs, and used the cooperative education model

for non-health-related programs (2). More than 80

percent of the clinical training programs used a

governing or advisory board with employers on it,

had formal agreements with employers, provided

career orientation for students, offered remedial

and other services to prepare students for workbased learning, coordinated school-based and

work-based learning, had regular consultation between college faculty and workplace mentors, engaged in periodic evaluation of student progress,

and prepared students for a skills certification process (2).

The college administrators indicated that the

highest levels of support for work-based learning
66 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

came from local boards and advisory committees,

college administrators, business representatives,

students, college trustees, and state licensing

agencies (2). The lowest levels of support came

from four-year colleges, labor unions, and parents. The most serious barriers to the expansion of

work-based learning were perceived to be the colleges’ lack of staff, time, and funds for arranging

and supporting work-based learning; the demands

of classroom instruction, which left students little

time for work-based learning; and the students’

lack of career orientation when entering college

(2).

The data from the survey described immediately above were supplemented with expert rankings

and a telephone survey of promising candidates to

identify eight exemplary work-based learning

programs in two-year colleges. The programs selected used the clinical training, youth apprenticeship, cooperative education, or union and

employer adult apprenticeship models. These programs were studied further (1). All of the programs had coordinators who had prior experience

working in industry and were widely acknowledged as strong leaders. They were known for

their political savvy, long work hours, attention to

details, setting of high standards, and effective

promotion of the program. All of the programs

were well funded, often with the assistance of the

industry and participating employers. Most of the

programs had direct links to an industry group that

was important to the local economy. The programs were usually the only source of training in

the area for the given occupation, or were overwhelmingly the largest source of that training. The

links with employers were both direct and close;

communication among program staff and industry personnel was frequent, and the staff (usually

the program coordinator) circulated among the

workplaces almost daily. These ties often resulted

in work-based learning slots for students; donations of supplies, equipment, and expertise; and

political advocacy and protection for the program.

Most of the exemplary programs:

 used two or more kinds of work-based learning—most commonly, a school-based enterprise for the earlier stages of training and then

work-based learning assignments with local

employers;

 included mentoring for the students;

 had the students document their own progress

with diaries or portfolios;

 had agreements with four-year colleges for

transfer of a considerable portion of the credits

that students earned in the program; and

 went through five or more years of adjustment

before achieving excellence (1).

COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

Students in cooperative education engage in

school-based learning that is coordinated with career-related work experience during the later years

of high school or college. Participating high

school students usually work part time in their senior year (and sometimes in their junior year),

often with a shortened school day. In college the

students usually alternate between a semester of

classes and a semester of work experience, a

schedule that accommodates working at sites beyond commuting distance. Co-op students are

usually paid for their time in the workplace.

Cooperative education varies considerably in

terms of the students who are served, the objectives, and the degree of coordination between the

school-based learning and the work-based learning. In some schools participation in the co-op

program is offered only to vocational education

students, whereas in other schools it is also available to students in the general track and the college

preparatory track (16). The formal model is targeted mainly at occupational skill development

and production activities, but in practice the objectives can sometimes also target academic enhancement and career exploration. The formal

model includes considerable coordination between schooling and the work-based learning,

usually by means of written agreements, worksite

training plans, and periodic visits to the worksites

by the school’s co-op coordinator. Because these

means of coordination require considerable staff

time, some schools forgo one or more of them.
Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 67

At the college level, the co-op programs are

usually moderately selective, requiring a minimum grade point average. In engineering and

business departments, co-op tends to be focused

on occupational skill development and production

activities. For liberal arts majors, the focus is more

often on career exploration and production activities. The engineering and business departments

tend to coordinate the courses and work-based

learning experiences more than do the liberal arts

departments. Colleges often make co-op work experiences available from the sophomore year

through the senior year. Many award limited credit toward graduation for the co-op work assignments, requiring students to enroll year-round or

to complete an extra year of schooling before

graduation. Students may apply for jobs with different employers each semester, or remain with

one employer who is to provide a progression of

training and work responsibilities.

Although the cooperative education model is

similar to the youth apprenticeship model in several respects, co-op programs often focus more

narrowly on the objectives of occupational development and work experience, academic and occupational courses in school are seldom

integrated, skill certification is not common, and

individual co-op programs rarely span the high

school and postsecondary levels.

Several recent studies suggest that although

about half of all high schools offer co-op programs, only about 8 percent of graduates have participated in them (15,16,17). It appears that

one-third to two-thirds of the two-year colleges

have co-op programs, but only about 2 percent of

the students participate (2,17). A recent survey indicates that about half of the engineering technology departments in two-year colleges and

two-thirds of the science technology departments

offer cooperative programs or other work-based

learning, but the survey did not ask about the percent of students participating (3). Co-op programs

are generally voluntary, but a few colleges require

all students, or all those in certain programs of

study, to participate.

❚ Evaluation Results

Cooperative education is the oldest and most

widely used model of work-based learning, and

the most extensively researched. The results of

evaluations at the high school and college level are

discussed separately in this section.

The High School Level

A recent review of the research and evaluations of

high school cooperative education found that former co-op students report favorable opinions of

the experience, believing that the programs helped

them to apply themselves in school, remain enrolled until graduation, quickly secure full-time

jobs after graduation, and find jobs consistent

with their career interests (13). One study

compared the quality of co-op work assignments

with part-time jobs that students arrange on their

own and found that the co-op students considerably more often reported having jobs that required

the application of academic skills, offered opportunities to learn new things, involved contact with

adults, and provided good supervision. The studies that examined the subsequent employment and

earnings of co-op students relative to similar nonco-op students have found a mix of positive, null,

and small negative results. The largest earnings

benefits accrued to students who were employed

by their former co-op employer.

The review by Stern and associates concludes

with their inferences about how to maximize the

positive effects of high school co-op. These include having written agreements between the

school and the employers that specify the responsibilities of each; using a written training plan for

each student specifying the progression of activities and objectives to be achieved; and having a

co-op coordinator in each school with responsibility for finding suitable job assignments, orienting

students, negotiating training plans, and monitoring the students’ workplace activities (13).

The U.S. General Accounting Office examined

high school and two-year-college cooperative

education programs nominated as being of “high
68 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

quality” by researchers and practitioners (16).

GAO identified several program characteristics

that were common in the programs and appear to

have been important for success. The characteristics are participation by employers who are willing to providing training in occupations with

promising career paths, screening of applicants to

assure that they are prepared to meet employers’

expectations, training plans with ambitious and

specific learning objectives, and, for high school

students, close monitoring of the worksite activities by school representatives. GAO also speculated that skill standards and certification, which

are not common in cooperative education, would

provide useful targets for the training plans and assessment of student progress.

Barriers to expanding cooperative education

that were identified by the GAO study include parents’ fears that co-op participation would hurt

their children’s chances of college admission, employers’ lack of knowledge about cooperative

education, insufficient school staffing, and difficulties in transportation to and from the worksites.

Despite these considerations, GAO concluded

that “high-quality cooperative education programs show strong potential to enable the United

States to better compete in global markets by improving work-force preparation and facilitating

youths’ transitions from schools to work” (16).

A recent study interviewed employers who had

participated in 18 high school work-based learning programs, most of which used the co-op model. The study found that the employers were quite

pleased with the students and thought that almost

all had been productive workers (7). The employers participated partly as a community service,

partly as a way to recruit permanent employees,

and partly as a way of filling low-paid part-time

positions with good workers.

The estimated effects of high school co-op on

employment and earnings have varied considerably from one evaluation to another, probably because the quality of the high school programs

varied considerably. High school co-op programs

have a widespread reputation for varying from

well-planned learning sequences for conscientious students to hastily arranged escapes for students unengaged in school. In addition, it is

possible that the program elements of high school

cooperative education are not powerful enough to

have consistent effects on the students’ subsequent labor market success.

The College Level

One of the most dramatic changes in American

education over the past three decades has been the

sevenfold expansion of enrollment in two-year

colleges, which now totals more than 5 million

students (18). Despite this trend, most research on

cooperative education at the postsecondary level

has been in four-year colleges. Those studies have

repeatedly found that participation in college-level cooperative education is associated with the establishment of more realistic career goals, higher

academic achievement, increased self-confidence, more “savvy” about the world of work, and

better job-seeking skills (23). An estimated 40

percent of college co-op graduates take jobs with

their former employers, and co-op students tend to

have somewhat higher starting salaries in their

first job after graduation (23). As with most evaluations of work-based learning, these probably

have not fully accounted for initial differences in

the co-op and non-co-op students.

Co-ops and internships that combine classroom

learning with real-world experiences were

among the most appealing features to students

when choosing a college or university. —Finding from a survey of 10,000 high school junior

and seniors (8).

A study of students at four two-year colleges

found that those in cooperative education reported

considerably more learning opportunities in their

work experience than those in non-co-op jobs,

even when the comparisons were limited to jobs

in the same occupations (15). For instance, co-op

students more frequently reported that their job

was related to their career interests (74 percent vs.

43 percent), that the job was challenging (74 percent vs. 55 percent), that the job provided chances
Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 69

to apply what they were learning in school (69 percent vs. 45 percent), and that they were learning

things that would be useful in their future work

(75 percent vs. 55 percent). The co-op students,

however, also reported making an average of one

dollar per hour less than did other college students

holding part-time jobs.

A 1977 congressionally mandated national

study of cooperative education programs at twoyear and four-year colleges found that co-op and

non-co-op students had similar background characteristics; co-op students and employers expressed strong support for the co-op program; the

co-op jobs of students helped pay their college expenses; and more co-op students than non-co-op

students reported acquiring job skills as they progressed through college, securing jobs in the field

of their training and consistent with their career interests, avoiding unemployment, and having

greater projected life-time earnings (22).

OTHER MODELS

The following three models differ more from

youth apprenticeships than do clinical training

and cooperative education. Still, they offer

instructive examples with respect to coordination,

settings, and screening.

❚ School-to-Apprenticeship Programs

In school-to-apprenticeship programs, high

school seniors in vocational education programs

participate part time in union- and employer-run

apprenticeship programs. The school program is

rarely altered, but a school coordinator usually

screens students for maturity and conduct. The

students often earn some credits toward graduation and are paid at the same rate as full-time participants in the apprenticeships.

School-to-apprenticeship programs concentrate on occupational development and production in the workplace. There is generally little

coordination between the school-based and workbased learning except that most students take

vocational education courses in the field of their

apprenticeship. The work-based learning is usually more intensive than in the other models, running 20 to 30 hours per week.

In 1977 and 1978, the U.S. Department of Labor initiated eight school-to-apprenticeship demonstrations, which were variously referred to as

New Youth Initiatives in Apprenticeship or Youth

Apprenticeship Projects. The evaluation was limited to the first three cohorts of students, who were

compared with a group of similar students. The

apprenticeship students were generally quite enthusiastic about the program. Employers were

also quite satisfied and their participation increased over each of the three successive years.

About half of the participating students left the apprenticeships within a year following high school

graduation—well before completion. Participating students had more stable employment and reported higher job satisfaction than the comparison

group, although they earned about the same wages

(21).

❚ School-Based Enterprises

In school-based enterprises the students work part

time in school businesses that produce goods or

services for people other than the students involved. The activities have included manufacturing, auto repair, construction, publishing,

retailing, and child care. Students acquire the necessary occupational and entrepreneurial skills in

elective classes. The students usually start in

entry-level positions and may move up into more

skilled positions and the managerial ranks. Participants earn credits toward graduation and sometimes are paid.

School-based enterprises focus on academic reinforcement, some career exploration, and occupational development. Coordination is

facilitated by the school’s control over both the

classroom courses and the work-based learning in

the enterprise, by the location of the enterprise on

the school grounds or nearby, and by the fact that

the teachers of the occupational courses often supervise the enterprise. Students usually work in

the enterprises during their later years of high

school or during college. Enterprises give the students more opportunities to assume managerial or
70 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

entrepreneurial roles than they have in regular

places of employment.

Stern and associates recently reviewed the literature on school-based enterprises (1994) and conducted 16 case studies. They found many

anecdotal accounts of how students became more

engaged in school, extended their academic skills

by applying them in the enterprise, and acquired

basic work habits and specific occupational skills.

Many enterprises were found to have endured for

years, although others did not. The review, however, did not find any rigorous evaluations of the

effects that the programs had on the students’ academic and occupational development, on their

subsequent schooling, or on their employment

and career success (14).

There have been cases in declining communities where the school-based enterprises have taken

over failed stores and run them successfully, to the

delight of the townspeople who were saved long

drives to distant shops (14). In other cases, the enterprises have sold services that had previously

not been offered by private businesses or public

entities. But usually the enterprises sell goods or

services that compete with local businesses, and

the business owners have sometimes complained

of unfair competition because the enterprises use

public buildings and personnel, and sometimes

unpaid student labor. Strategies that have been

used to minimize complaints include seeking the

support of local business associations, operating

on a small scale, not advertising, and setting prices

that do not undercut competitors (14). If schoolbased enterprises were to become widespread and

to involve substantial proportions of high school

students, it is doubtful that those strategies would

suffice.

❚ Career Academies

In career academies, high school students attend

a small career-oriented “school within a high

school.” Each academy focuses on one cluster of

occupations, integrating college-prep academic

education, occupational preparation, and career

orientation. The program of study is developed

with the assistance of local employers. Employees

from nearby companies serve as speakers, field

trip hosts, and sometimes as mentors for the

young people. Coordinated part-time jobs and

summer jobs may be offered, usually in the senior

year. Some graduates directly enter employment

and others continue on to postsecondary education.

Career academies were developed primarily to

serve economically disadvantaged or poorly performing students, and they continue to be targeted

at those groups. The academies concentrate on enhancement of academic achievement, exploration

of careers, and development of occupational

skills. Career academies are increasingly adopting

work-based learning, but it is often limited to a

few weeks during the school year or to a summer

job.

The first career academy was started in the late

1960s. There has been modest growth since then,

and in 1992 scholars estimated that there were

about 150 in the country (12).

A 1992 review of four evaluations of 14 career

academies found mixed results. The dropout rates

at the career academies were 7 to 15 percentage

points less than the rates for the matched comparison groups, and there was some evidence that the

lower dropout rates resulted from better attendance and grades. A year or two later, however,

there was little or no difference in the percent of

students employed, although the largest study did

find that the employed academy graduates worked

an average of 3 to 4 hours per week more than the

employed comparison students. Two evaluations

found that academy graduates were much more

likely to be enrolled in postsecondary education,

one found them much less likely to be enrolled,

and the fourth found no difference (12).

CONCLUSION

Prior models of work-based learning have motivated students, pleased employers, and often had

small positive effects on grades, graduation rates,

and postsecondary enrollments. Their effects on

early employment have been more mixed, and

their long-term effects on employment and career

satisfaction have not been assessed.
Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 71

The youth apprenticeship model that is to be

used in STWOA is more ambitious, coordinated,

and sustained than prior models of work-based

learning. These differences make the work-based

learning component of STWOA potentially more

effective than prior models. The focus is not just

on training, but on the broad development of

young men and women. The work-based learning

is not just for a year or two, but is to progress over

several years. And the work-based learning is to

be coordinated with several enhancements in

schooling.

The differences between the youth apprenticeship model and the prior models also present

daunting challenges to the implementing organizations. Ambitious goals are more difficult to

achieve than modest ones. Comprehensive systems are more expensive to operate than simple

and short programs. The extent of coordination

that STWOA calls for between members of the

partnerships, between academic and occupational

instruction, between school-based and workbased learning, and between high schools and

postsecondary institutions is probably unprecedented in the history of American education and

training programs.

Can the states and local jurisdictions meet these

challenges? Probably not on their own, but if

schools join in strong partnerships with American

business and labor, it might be possible.

REFERENCES

1. Bragg, D.D., and Hamm, R.E., Linking College and Work: Exemplary Practices in TwoYear College Work-Based Learning

Programs (Berkeley, CA: National Center for

Research in Vocational Education, University

of California, 1995).

2. Bragg, D.D., Hamm, R.E., and Trinkle, K.,

Work-Based Learning in Two-Year Colleges

in the United States (Berkeley, CA: National

Center for Research in Vocational Education,

University of California, 1995).

3. Burton, L., and Celebuski, C., “Technical

Education in Two-Year Colleges,” (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation,

1995).

4. Corson, W., and Silverberg, M., The Schoolto-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration: Preliminary Findings (Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research, 1994).

5. Goldberger, S., Kazis, R., and O’Flanagan,

M.K., Learning Through Work: Designing

and Implementing Quality Worksite Learning

for High School Students (New York, NY:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,

1994).

6. Jobs for the Future, Promising Practices

(Boston, MA: 1995).

7. Lynn, I., and Wills, J., School Lessons: Work

Lessons (Washington, DC: The Institute for

Educational Leadership, 1994).

8. Maguire Associates, Inc., “Student Priorities

in Picking a College,” America’s Best Colleges: 1994 College Guide, M. Elfin (ed.)

(Washington, DC: U.S. News and World Report, 1993).

9. Pauly, E., Kopp, H., and Haimson, J., Home

Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking Work and High School (New York, NY:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,

1994).

10. Rogers, A., et al., Learning from Experience:

A Cross-Case Comparison of School-to-Work

Transition Reform Initiatives (Washington,

DC: National Institute for Work and Learning, Academy for Educational Development,

1995).

11. School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,

May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239.

12. Stern, D., Raby, M., and Dayton, C., Career

Academies: Partnerships for Reconstructing

American High Schools (San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass, 1992).

13. Stern, D., et al., School-to-Work: Research on

Programs in the United States (Washington,

DC: Falmer Press, 1995).

14. Stern, D., et al., School-Based Enterprise:

Productive Learning in American High
72 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Schools (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

1994).

15. Stern, D., et al., “Quality of Work Experience

as Perceived by Two-Year College Students in

Co-op and Non-Co-op Jobs,” Journal of

Cooperative Education 28(1):34-47, 1992.

16. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,

Transition from School to Work: Linking

Education and Worksite Training, GAO/

HRD-91-105 (Washington, DC: August

1991).

17. U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Research, National Assessment of

Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress, Volume III, Program Improvement:

Education Reform, prepared by D. Boesel, M.

Rahn, and S. Deich, OR-94-3502-III (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1994).

18. U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest

of Education Statistics, 1993, NCES 93-292

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, October 1993).

19. U.S. Department of Labor, What’s Working

and What’s Not (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 1995).

20. Vickers, M., Hart, R., and Weinberg, A.,

Technical Education Research Centers

(TERC), “The Work-Based Learning Experiences of Students in Two Boston-Based

Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration Sites,”

unpublished contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, June 1995.

21. Williams, G.D. et al., Report on Impacts:

Study of New Youth Initiatives in Apprenticeship (Washington, DC: CSR Incorp., 1981).

22. Wilson, J.W., “Excerpts from the Commentary,” Cooperative Education—A National

Assessment: Executive Summary and Commentary (Boston, MA: National Commission

for Cooperative Education, undated).

23. Wilson, J.W., “Research in Cooperative

Education,” Journal of Cooperative Education 24(2-3):77-89, winter-spring 1988.
Employer

Participation

in Work-Based

Learning

ecause the eventual success of STWOA depends on recruiting large numbers of employers to provide workbased learning placements for students, Congress asked

OTA to investigate how employers can be encouraged to

provide those work-based learning experiences. This chapter reports on the current growth rates of their participation in workbased learning and on the factors affecting their willingness to

participate.

Unlike school-to-work systems in several European countries,

STWOA is notable for providing no financial incentives and few

other direct inducements for employer participation. OTA investigated whether sufficient incentives already exist or whether policymakers need to alter the incentive structure.

The first section describes the data sources on which the chapter is based. The second section considers the rate at which employer participation in work-based learning is growing and

analyzes the strategies being employed to recruit employers in

two cities, Boston, Massachusetts, and Kalamazoo, Michigan.

The third section focuses on one city, Cincinnati, Ohio, where

work-based learning for postsecondary students has successfully

gone “to scale,” and asks whether this experience could be replicated elsewhere and at the high school level. The fourth section

considers the benefits to employers of participating in workbased learning programs, and the fifth section considers disincentives to participation. A final section summarizes the main

findings of the chapter.

| 73
74 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

OTA’s telephone survey of employer participation in high school work-based learning was conducted in March and April 1995 A sample of 15 work-based learning programs in 10 states was selected through a two-step process from all programs in the country known to conform generally with the

definition of youth apprenticeship discussed in chapters 1 and 5. First, 21 work-based learning sites

exhibiting diversity by the age of the work-based learning program, duration of students’ work experience, type of entity coordinating the work-based learning, number of student participants, urbanicity,

and type of industry predominating in the community were identified, From this group, 15 sites were

chosen where the program coordinator reported in a telephone interview that the work-based learning

program Involves a progression of work experiences spanning two or more grades, requires work plans

that detail a student’s planned work experience, provides at least 50 hours per year of work-based

learning experiences, requires a designated school or workplace mentor or supervisor, and IS sponsored at least in part by a school or school district, In line with these criteria and comments of the coordinators, 10 of the sites were classified as youth apprenticeships, 3 as career academies, and 2 as

“other”

Stern estimated that no more than a few hundred such youth apprenticeships and career academies existed in 1992-93 (46), Therefore the OTA sample probably includes a significant proportion of all

the STWOA prototypes in the country with two or more years of operating experience,

The programs that were selected and the total number of employers that were involved, as reported by the coordinators, are shown in table 6-1, The date shown is the date reported by the coordinators as “when the program began, ” In some cases, the date is probably when the host institution was

established

For each program, interviews were conducted with the coordinator and a minimum of five employers nominated by the coordinator, Information was obtained from both groups of respondents about

the community context; the numbers of students and employers involved in different types of workbased learning activities today, three years ago, and planned for 1995-96; strategies for recruiting employers; and the factors affecting employers’ decisions to participate, In addition, employers were

asked about the characteristics of their company and the likely effectiveness of alternative policies of

inducing employer participation with external incentives,

The survey was administered to 86 employers in the 15 school-to-work transition programs. Fiftyfour of these employers were participating in one of the programs at the time of the interviews,

former participants, and 13 were once invited but refused to participate, The sample includes

of employers of different sizes in different industries.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 23,

19 were

a range

DATA SOURCES OTA’s survey differs from most previous surThe analyses of employer participation in the

chapter are based on data from several different

sources. One is an OTA telephone survey of employer participation in work-based learning in 15

communities, the second is OTA case studies in

three cities, and the third is results from existing

national and regional employer surveys, case

studies, and focus-group research.

veys in that it included both participating and nonparticipating employers and was designed to

compare the relative importance of different factors influencing employers’ decisions to participate in work-based learning. The telephone

survey is described in box 6-1, and the work-based

learning programs that were surveyed are listed in

table 6-1. Because the sample of communities and
Chapter 6 EmpIoyer Participation in Work-Based Learning 75

Year “program”

Program and community began

Pickens County Youth Apprenticeship (Easley, South Carolina) 1992-93

Fox Cities Education for Employment Council (Appleton, Wisconsin) 1992-93

Southern Maine Region Youth Apprenticeship Program 1992-93

(Cumberland County, Maine)

York County Area Vo-Tech (York County, Pennsylvania) 1992-93

Industrial Modernization Center (Lycoming County, Pennsylvania) 1991-92

Pasadena Graphic Arts Academy (Pasadena, California) 1991-92

Oakland Health and Bioscience Academy (Oakland, California) 1990-91

Career Partners, Inc. (Tulsa, Oklahoma) 1989-90

Kent County Technical Center (Kent County, Michigan) 1989-90

Baltimore Academy of Finance (Baltimore, Maryland) 1988-89

Education for Employment Consortium (Kalamazoo, Michigan) 1986-87

Partnership Project (Portland, Oregon) 1984-85

Academy of Finance (New York, New York) 1982-83

Dauphin County Technical School (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) 1970-71

Calhoun Area Technical Center (Battle Creek, Michigan) 1970-71

Number of employers

participating in

1994-95

80

30

24

14

23

6

150

14

2,070

35

792

30

50

43

53

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 23

employers is small, the results should be considered tentative.

OTA’s case studies of work-based learning

were conducted in Boston, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia. These were selected because of the substantial success that has apparently been achieved

in each city in recruiting employers for workbased learning. Kalamazoo was studied using existing case study materials and a telephone

interview with the director of the program (24,41).

The chapter also draws heavily on four other

studies of employer involvement in school-towork transition programs:

1. Lynn and Wills of the Institute for Educational

2

Leadership surveyed 224 employers participating in cooperative education in 18 different

high schools in six metropolitan areas across

the country (34).

Decision Information Resources (DIR) surveyed 70 employers in Texas who are involved

in workforce development programs involving

high school youth (48,49).

3.

4.

Zemsky of the Center for the Educational

Quality of the Workforce conducted eight focus

groups of employers in a cross section of cities

across the country; these employers were asked

about their attitudes toward youth and youth

apprenticeships (54).

The Manpower Research and Development

Corporation (MRDC) interviewed the program

staff of 15 school-to-work transition programs

about their experience with employer recruitment and reported the results as part of a larger

evaluation (40).

Each of the studies has important limitations.

All of the survey samples are small, so that care

must be taken not to ascribe importance to small

differences among groups. None of the studies includes comparable samples of both participating

and nonparticipating employers. Some studies focus on only one type of work-based learning,

while others cover several types. One is limited to

a single state, while the others are based on sites

from across the country. None is based on strati-
76 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

fied, randomly selected samples of employers, so

the results are not statistically representative.

Nevertheless, many of the survey questions are

similar among the studies, and where there is

overlap, the results are very similar. This consistency allows for additional confidence in the chapter findings despite the limitations.

The study by Zemsky has shown that nonparticipating employers’ attitudes toward workbased learning may be very different from those of

participating employers (54). In that study, employers in a cross section of eight large and small

communities across the country with little or no

experience with work-based learning were

brought together in focus groups to discuss their

attitudes toward hiring youth and participating in

youth apprenticeship programs. Their views

about young people, the bureaucracy of school

systems, and the potential value of participating in

work-based learning were much more negative

than those expressed by employers in OTA’s survey and in the other studies, which primarily questioned participating employers. The employers

who took part in Zemsky’s study were openly

angry about the lack of discipline and self-control

among youth and essentially had no interest in

participating in work-based learning programs.

How can this gulf in attitudes between participating and nonparticipating employers be explained? One possibility is that once employers

become involved in work-based learning, their

perceptions change. Another view is that the gulf

in attitudes reflects real differences among employers that are essentially unchangeable (54).

Neither case inspires much optimism that the future recruitment of employers will be very easy.

GROWTH OF EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION

STWOA aims to expand business participation in

work-based learning to the point that all students

choosing to participate in school-to-work programs would have work-based learning experiences. If a sizable proportion of the high school

student population is to be served, hundreds of

thousands of new employers must be recruited.

STWOA’s principal strategy for employer recruitment is to encourage the formation of partnerships among schools, employers, community

colleges, and other community institutions at the

state and local levels (see box 6-2). These partnerships are intended to engage employers in collaborative efforts to initiate and develop schoolto-work transition systems so that they feel they

have an important stake in the outcomes. The connecting activities called for in the legislation are

intended to provide employers with any assistance

they may need to participate in the partnerships

and to coordinate efforts between school systems

and employers. The STWOA legislation specifically prohibits the use of federal funds for wage

incentives or the employment of work-based

learning students as substitutes for incumbent

workers.

The rates at which student and employer participation have grown in communities where such

partnerships have been formed were investigated

in OTA’s survey by asking the 15 program coordinators about changes in the number of employers

and students participating in their prototype

school-to-work transition systems over the past

two school years.

The main finding is that the median growth rate

of employer participation in the 15 programs in

the past two years has been six employers per year.

In 1992-93, the median number of employers involved in the 15 programs was 23 and in 1994-95

the median was 35 employers.

This increased employer participation translated into a median increase of 11 students per

year in the 15 programs, from a median of 80 students per program in 1992-93 to a median of 100

students per program in 1994-95.1 This is a

growth rate of about 14 percent per year. With

these small starting sizes and rates of growth,

1 While the median increasd by 10 students per year, the actual median increase per program was 11 students per year.
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning 77

STWOA’s main strategy for employer recruitment is encouraging the formation of partnerships

among schools, employers, community colleges, and other community Institutions at the state and local

levels, to initiate and develop school-to-work transition systems The employer-educator partnerships

are intended to evolve into mutually rewarding relationships. Some hope that a long-term by-product of

these relationships will be broadened mutual understanding on the part of the business and the education communities.

Techniques for building these partnerships and for recruiting employers used by school systems

and connecting organizations include informing employers of the economic benefits of participation,

exercising moral suasion, generating peer pressure among employers to become involved, and

appealing to the collective interests of employers.

The connecting activities that are required by the legislation are intended to support the formation

of these partnerships by providing employers with a number of services. These services include assistance to employers in planning a work-based learning program, in training mentors and supervisors to

work with students, in matching students with the work-based learning opportunities of employers, and

in helping students who have completed their program to find jobs or to continue their education

The only other provisions in the legislation that bear on employer participation in work-based

learning are restrictions against using any STWOA funds for wage subsidies for students or mentors,

against using trainees to displace permanent employees, and against providing work-based learning

positions when any other employees are on layoff from the company.

SOURCES: School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994, May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239, and reference 23

many years will be required for school-to-work Although the median number of employers per

transition systems to reach substantial proportions of all the students in the school districts in

which those systems are located.

These growth rates may accelerate in the future

because of the passage of STWOA and state system-building efforts encouraged by it. Seventy

percent of the project coordinators in OTA’s survey said that employers are “more willing to participate in work-based learning” today than they

were three years ago. More than 90 percent of the

program coordinators are planning to increase the

number of student and employer participants in

their programs. The projected increase for

1995-96 is 35 students per prototype, or about

three times that prior to STWOA. However, even

if this higher rate can be achieved, work-based

learning will take many years to reach substantial

scale in most communities.

prototype is only 35, the range is broad. Three of

the prototypes in OTA’s sample reported 150 employers or more, and two had fewer than 20. The

remaining 10 are clustered between 20 and 50 employers. Of the three larger sites, one had 150 employers, one had 792, and one claimed more than

2,000 (23).2

The program with 792 employers is the Kalamazoo Valley Education for Employment Consortium in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. This

program is described in box 6-3. In this community of nine school districts and one community college, substantial progress has been made in

developing a full-fledged school-to-work transition system. The system sequence includes the

selection of a career major, preparation of a career

plan, traditional vocational education, and several

types of work-based learning opportunities.

2 The 2,000 employers were reported for the Kent County Technical Center; this number includes employers who have agreed to provide

work-based learning experiences but are not yet doing so.
78 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

In 1985, nine school districts in Kalamazoo County, Michigan, the local community college, and

the intermediate school district formed the Kalamazoo Valley Education for Employment Consortium

(EFE) to help students maximize their employment potential and to increase the contribution of education to the economic development of the county. The EFE Consortium was initially created to coordinate

vocational-technical education, but has expanded into a school-to-work transition system of integrated

academic and career preparation activities extending from elementary school through 12th grade. The

system is organized into 15 “career clusters, ” each with its own business and industry advisory committee,

EFE allows any student in any school the option of attending any career preparation programs in

any of the other schools. In 1994-95 there were 3,965 students in grades 11 and 12 in the nine school

districts. Over 2,241 of these students participated in EFE activities in 1994-95, which is an increase of

303 since 1992-93 and 452 since 1990-91.

EFE provides students with a progression of career development and program choices within the

overall system. The system components include:

■

■

●

■

Career guidance—Major emphasis is placed on career guidance, which starts with career awareness

activities in elementary school. In the 8th grade, guidance counselors meet with students to help them

develop a four-year Educational Development Plan (EDP), which the students update annually until they

graduate. Every 8th grader is also given the opportunity to visit the local community college (Kalamazoo

Valley Community College), where they learn about broad career alternatives from faculty and business

and industry representatives. The counselors receive extensive training in career counseling and meet

together monthly as a single group across the nine school districts to discuss problems and issues,

“Mentorship’’---ln the 10th grade, students have the opportunity to job-shadow for a half day with a volunteer from a local company. By the end of the 10th grade, students choose a career cluster as part of

their EDP. Growth in this component of the EFE program has reached the point where 757 students, or

about 45 percent of all 10th grade students in the county, had mentorships in 1994-95.

Worksite-based education—Over 216 students participated in worksite-based education programs in

1994-95. These programs, which start in the 11th grade, are conducted at the site of a local employer.

Programs were offered in health, law enforcement, hospitality, and plastics during 1994-95, In 1995-96, a

new program will be added in paper technology. The model for these worksite-based programs is provided by the Health Occupations. In the Health Occupations, classroom space and supporting instructors are provided by the Borgess and Bronson Hospitals, but the lead instructors are selected and

trained by EFE. The first year combines two hours per day of intensive academic study and core skills

learning with ten job-shadowing experiences. The academic subject matter is taught to emphasize

health applications—for example, each physiological system studied (the circulatory system) is accompanied by training in a diagnostic procedure (taking blood pressure). In the second year, students

choose a more specific occupational area within the health field. They spend three days a week working

for an employer in an unpaid, year-long externship and two days a week in classes at the offsite facility.

Students may then chose to continue on for a third year at the postsecondary level.

Cooperative education—Approximately 160 of the 1,887 students enrolled in school-based, career-technical education programs participate in paid, cooperative education with 102 different employers in

1994-95 in grades 11 and 12. Most of these are technical programs, including tech-prep options that

allow students to continue with their career preparation at the postsecondary level.

(continued)
82 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Cooperative education in Cincinnati was begun in 1906 by the dean of engineering at the University of Cincinnati. It spread to the Ohio College of Applied Science (OCAS) in 1937 and to Cincinnati

State and Community College in the late 1960s. For students in the associate degree programs of these

two institutions, participation in co-op is required. There are two patterns: the “alternating model, ” in

which a student goes to school for a 10- to 13-week term and then works for an employer for the same

length of time, repeating the cycle two to six times, and the “parallel model, “ in which the student splits

the day between school and work.

Co-op is ingrained in the culture of the colleges, employers, and community. “They have had

close to 100 years to practice, ” says one college coordinator, “and consequently the community is used

to the Idea. ” The Cincinnati economy is robust and diversified, but retains a strong engineering and

manufacturing base.

Many employers in Cincinnati view co-op as a major way of “growing their own new people. ” In

the words of one manager, co-op helps companies avoid “hiring mistakes” and teaches students the

technical knowledge and work skills specific to a business. Co-op placements improve students’ resumes and enable students see first hand whether they like the companies. Many companies in Cincinnati are so eager to get co-op students that they aggressively recruit them on the college campuses.

Employers know that if they do not provide good-quality jobs with good learning opportunities,

they will not be able to compete for the best students. The students learn where the best placements

are by talking among themselves. The community college coordinators know that if they do not provide

students who are well prepared, the employers will rapidly lose interest.

Employers tend to hire their co-op students as permanent workers when they graduate. More

than 93 percent of OCAS students have found employment within 10 weeks of graduation, most of them

with their co-op employer. Based on the size of graduating classes and the labor market, a plausible

estimate is that co-op students account for about one-third of all new hires at the subbaccalaureate

level in the Cincinnati area. In many companies, a substantial proportion of all employees are former

co-op students. As a result, most people understand and are familiar with co-op—and this familiarity

helps to perpetuate the demand for co-op students.

Co-op is sustained by an informal culture of close working relationships between the employers

and college coordinators. They stay in constant touch with each other over issues of screening and

matching students for placements, the changing needs of employers, the progress of individual students, and the need for changes in the college curriculum.

This whole system is maintained without wage subsidies or any other inducements for employers,

and without any formal or regulatory apparatus, such as formal contracts, skill standards, or a local

regulatory organization. The only external incentive that is operating benefits the colleges rather than

the employers; state policies allow colleges to continue receiving state formula aid while students are at

the worksite. That is the greatest lesson of the Cincinnati case: that work-based learning can be accomplished at the post-secondary level, under the right conditions, without external incentives for employer

participation. These conditions are a strong commitment to high-quality occupational preparation by the

educational institutions; a stable funding source for the activities of the co-op coordinators; a parallel

commitment by employers, particularly when they are committed to “grow your own” programs; and a

consistency between the work-based and school-based components created by ongoing interaction

between educators and employers.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 21
80 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Although 1,271 students and 792 employers in

the Kalamazoo area were involved in some form

of work-based learning in 1994-95, only about

312 of these students and 180 of the employers

were participating in cooperative education or

what are called externships, where an appreciable

amount of time is spent in workplaces. These 312

students constitute only 7 percent of all 11th- and

12th-graders in the county. Most of the other students and employers were involved in job-shadowing experiences that occur in the 10th grade and

last for only a few hours (see box 6-3).

Much of the numerical growth in employer involvement in work-based learning in Kalamazoo

over the past two years—from a total of 403 employers in 1992-93 to 792 in 1994-95—has been

in these job-shadowing experiences. The number

of outside employers involved in the externships

and cooperative education has remained about the

same or increased slightly.

A total of four full-time-equivalent staff members are employed to recruit employers for both

the job shadowing and externship activities. All of

the student placements in these externships are

unpaid (27).

Another example of a school-to-work transition program that has achieved substantial success

in recruiting employers for work-based learning is

the well-known ProTech Youth Apprenticeship

program in Boston, Massachusetts. Since the

1970s, the Boston Private Industry Council (PIC)

has created the Boston Jobs Collaborative and the

Boston Compact, served as the governing board

for the administration of Job Training Partnership

Act programs in the city, and launched a number

of citywide human resources development strategies. The PIC launched ProTech in 1991 and has

worked aggressively ever since to expand it (23).

ProTech started with five employers in one sector

(all hospitals) and 75 students. By 1992, the program had gained only one employer, but the number of students had increased to 108. By the

1994-95 school year, ProTech had 21 employers

in three industry sectors (health, finance, and utilities and communications) employing 375 students. The overall average growth rates for

participation between 1992 and 1994 were therefore 7.5 employers per year and about 135 students per year. ProTech’s goal is to increase the

number of participating employers to 100 within

three or four years (23).

Most of the employers involved in ProTech are

large, so the number of students placed with each

additional employer has been considerably greater than average. Progress in increasing student

involvement for a new ProTech program in environmental services has been slower because the

companies are small and each takes only one

student. Despite ProTech’s fast growth, the 375

students currently receiving work-based learning

represent only 6 percent of the 6,600 juniors and

seniors in the Boston public high school system (8).

The recruitment of employers for ProTech has

required considerable effort. Employers rarely

volunteer to participate; they have to be persuaded

to do so. The PIC’s industry coordinator, who is

primarily responsible for employer recruitment, is

a retired banker, whose private-sector background

gives him influence with employers. Fourteen

“career specialists” spend part of their time assisting the industry coordinator with employer recruitment. The career specialists also coordinate

student placements with participating ProTech

employers, visit each student regularly, and provide troubleshooting and technical assistance.

Recruitment initially involves meeting with the

chief executive officers of a selected group of

companies in an industry sector and familiarizing

them with the ProTech program. These meetings

are typically followed by meetings with individual companies to answer questions, persuade, obtain commitments to participate, and agree on the

number of slots to be provided. In recruiting employers, the PIC draws on the relationships that it

has built with employers through the Boston

Compact and other initiatives. Despite these contacts, ProTech has needed at least the equivalent of

one full-time employee—if not more—to recruit

the 7.5 new employers per year.

To determine the level of effort devoted to employer recruitment in the 15 programs surveyed

by OTA, the coordinators were asked to report the

total amount of staff time spent on employer recruitment in full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 81

years. Not including the Kalamazoo response, the

coordinators reported using a mean of 0.47 FTE

year of staff time per annum to recruit employers

(23). Including the 4 FTEs spent on recruiting in

Kalamazoo would increase this average to 1.15

FTEs. Eleven of the program coordinators reported spending between 0.2 and 0.8 FTE year of

staff time per year on the task.

In summary, an average of at least one-half FTE

year of staff time has been required in school-towork programs to recruit half a dozen employers

per year and to provide about a dozen additional

students with work-based learning experiences.

Some programs have done considerably better

than this, but some have found it even harder to recruit.

Ultimately, the goal must be to increase student

participation in work-based learning. Strategically, there are at least three possible ways to do this:

to increase the number of student placements per

employer, to increase the number of employers

per industry area, and to increase the number of industry areas per school-to-work transition system.

Growth may be easier to achieve in some of these

ways than in others.

According to OTA’s survey, the median number

of students per employer in work-based learning

programs is two, and this number is apparently

difficult to increase even marginally. An average

of about two was found by Lynn and Wills for

cooperative education (34). MDRC said that most

employers take “less than three” placements (40).

Attracting larger employers would increase this

rate, but the number of larger employers in a community is typically limited. In the OTA survey,

employers with more than 300 employees provided placements for an average of 20 students

each, whereas employers with fewer than 40 employees placed, on average, only 1.7 students

each. But nationwide, fewer than 1 percent of

firms employ more than 250 people, and about 50

percent employ between 20 and 250 employees.3

”HIGH-QUALITY EQUILIBRIUM”

IN CINCINNATI

One city where work-based learning has succeeded, at least at the postsecondary level, is Cincinnati, Ohio. Work-based learning operates

extensively and with little government involvement, as described in box 6-4. Both two-year colleges in the area and the University of Cincinnati

offer co-op. A large number of employers provide

co-op placements. This situation has created a

“high-quality equilibrium” in which there is competition among colleges for good work placements and between employers for good students.

This competition serves to maintain high standards: The colleges make a great effort to prepare

students for the work-based assignments and

match them well with employers’ needs, and employers strive to provide good learning opportunities.

The Cincinnati experience shows that once

cooperative education is up and running, incentives can exist for employers to continue participating, but it does not show how such incentives

can be created in areas where work-based learning

is currently rare. Once cooperative education becomes a mainstream recruitment method, companies have incentives to continue participating

because it provides them with access to a good

source of the best students. The fact that cooperative education has continued at a high level for a

long time in Cincinnati indicates that these incentives are self-sustaining. The only external support for employer participation is provided by

state policies that allow the colleges to receive the

same formula aid per student whether a student is

enrolled or at the worksite. In effect, this provides

state support for the connecting activities of the

co-op coordinators in the colleges.

3 Unpublished data from the Covered Employment and Wages Program of the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Firm

is defined in these data as a set of one or more business establishments sharing a single federal Employer Identification Number.
82 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Cooperative education in Cincinnati was begun in 1906 by the dean of engineering at the University of Cincinnati. It spread to the Ohio College of Applied Science (OCAS) in 1937 and to Cincinnati

State and Community College in the late 1960s. For students in the associate degree programs of these

two institutions, participation in co-op is required. There are two patterns: the “alternating model, ” in

which a student goes to school for a 10- to 13-week term and then works for an employer for the same

length of time, repeating the cycle two to six times, and the “parallel model, “ in which the student splits

the day between school and work.

Co-op is ingrained in the culture of the colleges, employers, and community. “They have had

close to 100 years to practice, ” says one college coordinator, “and consequently the community is used

to the Idea. ” The Cincinnati economy is robust and diversified, but retains a strong engineering and

manufacturing base.

Many employers in Cincinnati view co-op as a major way of “growing their own new people. ” In

the words of one manager, co-op helps companies avoid “hiring mistakes” and teaches students the

technical knowledge and work skills specific to a business. Co-op placements improve students’ resumes and enable students see first hand whether they like the companies. Many companies in Cincinnati are so eager to get co-op students that they aggressively recruit them on the college campuses.

Employers know that if they do not provide good-quality jobs with good learning opportunities,

they will not be able to compete for the best students. The students learn where the best placements

are by talking among themselves. The community college coordinators know that if they do not provide

students who are well prepared, the employers will rapidly lose interest.

Employers tend to hire their co-op students as permanent workers when they graduate. More

than 93 percent of OCAS students have found employment within 10 weeks of graduation, most of them

with their co-op employer. Based on the size of graduating classes and the labor market, a plausible

estimate is that co-op students account for about one-third of all new hires at the subbaccalaureate

level in the Cincinnati area. In many companies, a substantial proportion of all employees are former

co-op students. As a result, most people understand and are familiar with co-op—and this familiarity

helps to perpetuate the demand for co-op students.

Co-op is sustained by an informal culture of close working relationships between the employers

and college coordinators. They stay in constant touch with each other over issues of screening and

matching students for placements, the changing needs of employers, the progress of individual students, and the need for changes in the college curriculum.

This whole system is maintained without wage subsidies or any other inducements for employers,

and without any formal or regulatory apparatus, such as formal contracts, skill standards, or a local

regulatory organization. The only external incentive that is operating benefits the colleges rather than

the employers; state policies allow colleges to continue receiving state formula aid while students are at

the worksite. That is the greatest lesson of the Cincinnati case: that work-based learning can be accomplished at the post-secondary level, under the right conditions, without external incentives for employer

participation. These conditions are a strong commitment to high-quality occupational preparation by the

educational institutions; a stable funding source for the activities of the co-op coordinators; a parallel

commitment by employers, particularly when they are committed to “grow your own” programs; and a

consistency between the work-based and school-based components created by ongoing interaction

between educators and employers.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 21
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 83

MAJOR BENEFITS INFLUENCING

EMPLOYERS’ DECISIONS

TO PARTICIPATE

While cases such as Boston, Cincinnati, and Kalamazoo indicate that success can be achieved, they

do not provide much systematic knowledge of the

underlying reasons for employers’ decisions to

participate in work-based learning. Knowledge of

these reasons is needed to develop more effective

strategies for expanding employer involvement

that can be reliably employed in different community contexts. If strategies cannot be found that are

significantly more effective than those currently

being employed in most communities, the extent

of work-based learning in school-to-work transition systems will remain extremely limited. An

important policy issue is whether external inducements beyond persuasion and coordinating assistance will be needed.

A general framework for understanding employers’ reasons for participating in work-based

learning can be constructed by identifying the

benefits of and barriers to participation. Presumably, employers will participate only up to the

point at which the costs of overcoming the

associated barriers are perceived to be less than the

value of the benefits received. In this section, the

benefits perceived by employers are analyzed; in

the next section, the barriers are considered.

Broadly speaking, work-based learning provides participating employers with two main

benefits: to contribute to the improvement of education and the community and to recruit new

personnel. Employers’ specific reasons for contributing to the improvement of education and the

community can range from altruism and philanthropy to public relations or other self-interested

goals. In recruiting new personnel, companies may

similarly be motivated primarily by their own

needs for new workers, or by goals of working collectively with other companies to expand the pool

of workers available to their whole industry.

It is important to distinguish among these altruistic, self-interested, and collective motivations

for employer involvement in work-based learning

because of their implications for the extent to

which the government may need to be involved in

the development of work-based learning and to

provide external inducements to recruit employers on the scale envisaged in STWOA (2). If most

employers participate in work-based learning primarily for philanthropic reasons of improving

education and the community, the prospects for

the future expansion of work-based learning are

much dimmer than if they are motivated primarily

by collective or self-interested needs for recruiting

new personnel.

To gauge the relative importance of these different benefits and motivations, the OTA survey

asked current and former employers to respond to

a single, randomly ordered list of possible reasons

for their participation in work-based learning.

(Paraphrased versions of the actual statements are

shown in table 6-2.) Employers were asked to respond in two different ways: to select the “strongest benefit” (most important) of work-based

learning among all of the factors listed, and to rate

each factor as either a “primary benefit,” “strong

benefit,” “minor benefit,” or “not a benefit” of

work-based learning. The first response method

provides the clearest estimate of the relative importance of the factors, whereas the second provides information about secondary choices.

❚ Improvement of Education and the

Community

It is often suggested that most employers who

work with educators and students do so primarily

out of a sense of civic duty (2). Lynn and Wills

show that, among employers who are currently

participating in cooperative education, more than

70 percent “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree”

that they participate in order to perform a community service (34). Pauly and associates reached

similar conclusions in MDRC’s study of 15

school-to-work transition programs (40). Neither

of these studies assessed the relative importance
84 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Percent of employers selecting:

as a strong or as the strongest

Benefit primary benefit benefit

Employee recruitment 60 66

Concern about current or future skill shortages in industry 85 15

Opportunity to train future employees (for the company) 77 15

Need for higher-skilled entry-level workers 81 12

Current labor shortage 51 10

Opportunity to attract minorities to the company 47 6

Reduced costs from screening of potential employees 39 4

Opportunity to attract young workers for aging workforce 58 3

Opportunity to observe or try out potential employees 60 1

Opportunity to attract women to the organization 42 0

Desire to contribute to effort supported by other employers 62 0

Education and community improvement 76 25

Concern about the quality of education 77 7

Desire to become involved in school improvement 86 7

Creation of goodwill in the community toward the company 64 4

Opportunity to “network” with schools 73 3

Opportunity to invest in the community 82 3

Contribution to company’s positive image in the community 74 1

Otherc — 10

NOTE: There were a total of 54 usable responses from current employers and 19 from former employers (Percentages may not sum to 100 due to

rounding )

a The figures shown are the percentages of employers’ ratings in which the benefit was selected as being of “strong” or “primary” rather than of “no”

or “little” importance to their participation.

b The figures shown are the percentages of current and former employers who selected the benefit as the most important to their participation in

work-based learning.

c Employers could select “Other” rather than a specific item from the list read to them.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 23

that participating employers place on the community service in comparison with recruitment goals,

or explored the underlying motivations of employers for participating.

In OTA’s survey, nearly two-thirds chose recruitment goals as their most important reason for

participating, while only one-quarter chose

educational and community improvement goals.

At the same time, about three-fourths said that

educational and improvement goals were a

“strong” or “primary” benefit of work-based

learning, and somewhat fewer said that recruitment goals are a “strong” or “primary” benefit.4

OTA interprets these two sets of responses to

mean that recruitment is the most important benefit of employers who are currently involved in

work-based learning or have been involved in the

past, but that improvement of education and the

community also are quite important.

4

The percentage of employers rating each of these goals as a strong or primary benefit was measured by computing an index consisting of

the total number of factors rated by employers as a strong or primary benefit divided by the total number of ratings.
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 85

Employers also report that doing their civic

duty redounds to their own interests to a certain

extent. Current and former employers believe that

their public image and community relations are

improved by participating in work-based learning, but they attach much less importance to such

benefits than to the more altruistic reasons for participating. This is indicated by the results in table

6-2 showing that 17 percent of companies cited altruistic reasons related to education and the community improvement as the most important

benefit of participation while only 5 percent cited

“creation of goodwill in the community” and

“contribution to the company’s positive image in

the community.”5 Employers also rated these latter two factors as “primary” or “strong” benefits

about half as often as they did the more altruistic

reasons for participation.

It is possible, of course, that employers tend to

underrepresent their interest in public relations

and to overrepresent their altruism when answering a survey questionnaire.

It can be argued that employers’ concern about

the quality of education and desire to become involved in school improvement are also self-interested. This would be so if they see their

involvement as a good way of eventually improving the quality of entry-level workers available to

them in the labor market. However, the link between improving schools and actually being able

to hire better-qualified workers is long and indirect, and the success would benefit many employers in a community and not just those who

participate.

OTA’s survey also allows some comparison of

the extent to which current and former employers

differ in their views of the importance of contributing to the improvement of education and the

community. Although the number of former employers in OTA’s sample is not large, the data

show that former employers consider recruitment

goals to be significantly more important than current employers do, and that they rate improvement

of education and the community as far less important. Whereas 30 percent of current employers

consider philanthropic goals as the most important benefit of work-based learning, only 10 percent of former employers do. This suggests that

employers who drop out of work-based learning

programs after once participating place somewhat

higher priority on the economic benefits of workbased learning for their own company than do employers who continue to provide placements.

There are at least three implications of the finding that self-interested goals of recruitment are

more important to employers—but not greatly

so—than philanthropic goals of improving education and the community:

1. The finding offers more hope for the future expansion of employer participation than would

be the case if goals of improving education and

the community predominated. The number of

yet unapproached employers who would be

willing to participate in work-based learning

for philanthropic reasons only is likely to be

small, at least relative to the number of employers that will be needed to provide work-based

learning to substantial numbers of students.

The number who will be willing to participate

if work-based learning provides both philanthropic and practical business benefits should

be larger.

2. Whether employers view the benefits of personnel recruitment alone as greater than their

perceived costs of participation cannot be determined from the OTA survey. If they do not,

the only employers who might participate are

those who also value the civic improvement

benefits of work-based learning.

3. The finding suggests that, initially at least,

strategies of employer recruitment should be

directed at convincing employers of both the

opportunity for personnel recruitment and for

contributing to community improvement that

work-based learning offers. This dual appeal

5 An additional 3 percent cited “opportunity to ‘network’ with schools.”
86 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

could be one important aspect of “building a

partnership” for work-based learning between

educators and employers.

❚ Recruitment Needs

Just as employers may have philanthropic or selfinterested motives for wanting to improve education and the community, their reasons for

recruitment can be either self-interested or collectively oriented, toward expanding the pool of

qualified workers available to their industry. The

distinction is important because if employers are

interested only in recruiting personnel for their

own companies, they may be less willing to participate in work-based learning where they are engaged in a cooperative effort.

An example of collective support is the Wisconsin youth apprenticeship in printing. Printing

is a large and growing industry in Wisconsin; this

growth has created a need for more printing assistants and other technical personnel who can

install, operate, and maintain the increasingly sophisticated equipment coming into the industry.

In response, leaders in the printing industry

formed a consortium involving several companies, local school systems, and community colleges. The companies first established skill

standards, identifying the capabilities required to

enter the industry. Then the responsibility for providing the training necessary to develop these capabilities was divided up among the companies,

school systems, and community colleges involved, so that the supply of trained people and the

costs are proportionately shared. The students get

to see several companies and colleges in the

course of their apprenticeships and the companies

get to see many different students. Large companies no longer have to be concerned about lost

training costs due to turnover because a sufficient

worker supply is maintained within the industry.

The collective benefits are clear in this situation,

where each company, especially smaller ones,

could not support such comprehensive training on

its own (53).

Recruiting High-Skilled Workers

Of all the different recruitment factors listed in

table 6-2, those concerning current or future skill

needs are rated as most important. The four most

frequently cited motives were: “concern about future skill shortages in the industry,” an “opportunity to train future employees (for the company),”

a “need for higher-skilled entry-level workers,”

and a need to meet “current labor shortage.” Three

of those factors refer to companies’ individual

needs for personnel, and the fourth refers to the

needs of the industry as a whole. In addition, employers’ “desire to contribute to effort supported

by other employers” ranked last (it was not selected by any employers). In general, employers

apparently see less value in joining with other

companies to recruit new personnel for their industry than they do in proceeding on their own.

Some indication of the reason for this finding is

also evident in the results in table 6-2. Few employers see the opportunities to screen potential

employees or to try them out before hiring them to

be important benefits of participation, despite the

associated reduction in training costs. More see

the opportunities for training future employees

and meeting skill needs as the most important

benefit. This suggests that reduced training costs,

one of the main potential advantages of collective

approaches to training, apparently do not figure

very prominently in employers’ analyses of the

benefits of work-based learning. Research might

be done on what employers’ collection efforts

might achieve.

Recruiting Minorities and Women

Only 6 percent of employers cited the recruitment

of minorities as being their chief reason for involvement in work-based learning, but more than

40 percent rated such recruitment as a strong or

primary benefit of work-based learning. Although

no employer rated the recruitment of women as

the most important reason for participating in

work-based learning, it was rated as a strong or

primary benefit by about the same percentage.
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 87

Several of the Cincinnati employers interviewed by OTA said that they rely solely on cooperative education for college recruitment of

permanent hires, and clearly stated that they use

cooperative education for diversifying their work

forces. As one Cincinnati employer said, “Co-op

gives us the competitive edge in recruiting in that

we identify people early on, especially minorities

and females: We’re going to identify them in their

freshmen or sophomore year and not wait.

They’re not going to be there as seniors to recruit

(if we wait).”

Recruiting Low-Cost Labor

Most studies indicate that some employers are

motivated primarily by the desire to fill part-time

positions at low wages. Lynn and Wills found that

more than 25 percent of employers interviewed

were “quite forthright” in saying that cooperative

education was a way to fill part-time positions

with good, low-paid workers (34).

It can also be the case that components of both

high and lower quality work-based learning exist

side-by-side within the same program. In the lower quality component, students’ learning experiences are oriented more to production, while in the

higher quality component they are oriented more

to student learning and development. Cincinnati

provides an example of this. There is some evidence from the OTA case study that the quality of

the work-based learning in the “alternating” mode

of cooperative education in Cincinnati, where students alternate between school and work from one

quarter to the next, is higher than in the “parallel”

mode, where students spend half a day in school

and half in the workplace. Employers in the parallel mode are more likely to view placements as a

source of efficient labor for production, and to

provide fewer structured learning experiences.

Employers in the alternating mode are more likely

to view the cooperative education students as future workers for the company, and to provide them

with supporting educational activities and job

rotation. In effect, there may be two equilibria

alongside each other in Cincinnati, one of higher

quality than the other (21).

MAJOR BARRIERS INFLUENCING

EMPLOYERS’ DECISIONS

TO PARTICIPATE

In deciding whether to participate in work-based

learning, employers weigh the benefits of participation against the costs of overcoming the

associated barriers. These barriers can be clustered into the following categories:

 economic uncertainty, attributable to slowdowns in the local economy or changes in a

company’s business fortunes that limit the

availability of jobs;

 training costs, which include any student

wages paid and the valuation of the time spent

by supervisors and mentors planning workbased learning activities and working with the

students;

 organizational resistance to work-based learning within the company from management or

other employees;

 regulatory restrictions and extra insurance

costs, which include child labor and safety laws

and general liability and worker’s compensation insurance;

 lack of support from the work-based learning

program and difficulties in working with the

programs and school systems; and

 inadequate preparation of students for workbased learning placements.

The main finding from OTA’s survey is that all

of these barriers are of roughly equal importance

to employers. As shown in the right-hand column

of table 6-3, none of the six barriers appears to predominate or to be clearly less important than the

others. The only possible exception is regulatory

restrictions and insurance costs, which were reported as least important by employers.

This finding implies that no policy narrowly

targeted at one of these barriers would substantially affect the growth of employer participation in

work-based learning. This finding is consistent

with the STWOA strategy of expanding employer

participation by building partnerships, which in-
88 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Percent of employers selecting:

as a strong or as the strongest

Barrier primary barriera barrierb

Economic uncertainty 23 9

Slowdown in local economy

Downsizing or restructuring within the company

Training costs

Wages of supervisors or mentors to operate a program

Employee staff time required to plan and start the program

Loss of newly trained employees

Student wages paid

Resistance from within the company

Lack of top management support

Opposition of employees

Opposition of union

Regulatory restrictions and insurance costs

Worker’s compensation insurance

Child labor law regulations

Safety regulations

General liability insurance

Lack of support from the work-based learning program

Lack of technical assistance and troubleshooting support

Unreliable scheduling of student placements

Inflexibility of work-based learning program model

Bureaucracy of school system or work-based learning program

Poor quality of young workers 16

Unreliability

Low skills or productivity

Otherc — 14

12

12

9

13

9

17

14

6

23

NOTE: There were a total of 54 usable responses from current employers and 19 from former employers. (Percentages may not sum to 100 due to

rounding.)

a The figures shown are the percentages of employers’ ratings in which the barrier was selected as being of “strong” or “primary” rather than of “no”

or “little” importance to their participation.

b

The figures shown are the percentages of current and former employers who selected the barrier as the most important to their participation in

work-based learning.

cEmployers could select “Other” rather than a specific item from the list read to them.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; based on reference 23..

volves developing several aspects of the relation- ❚ Economic Uncertainty

ship between employers and schools over a period Economic uncertainty is a barrier to work-based

of time. States, employers, and school-to-work learning when either general economic hard

transition programs in local communities could times, falling product demand, or internal changes

each take steps to lower some or all of these barriers.
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 89

(such as restructuring) reduce the possibilities of

companies offering work-based learning opportunities to students. Although economic uncertainty

is rated in the OTA survey as the chief barrier to

work-based learning by only 9 percent of employers, it is rated as a strong or primary factor by more

than 23 percent of them (see table 6-3). This is a

higher proportion than was reported for any of the

five other groups of factors. This implies that economic uncertainty may be a more important secondary barrier to employer participation in

work-based learning than all others, in the same

way that improving education and the community

was found to be nearly as important a benefit of

employer participation as recruitment. Employers’ ratings of the importance of this factor are

likely to vary greatly over time as business conditions change.

The National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce found that companies, particularly older and larger ones experiencing the most

downsizing, were uninterested in any youth apprenticeship initiative that might divert attention

from the immediate task of making their enterprises leaner and more concentrated on their market strengths (54). In the DIR survey, “job

availability” was ranked as the most important of

the financial barriers (49). In the federal Youth Entitlement Demonstration Program, which guaranteed disadvantaged young people a job if they

stayed in school and offered wage subsidies to employers to provide jobs, more than 40 percent of

the employers who refused to participate reported

that they did so because they lacked jobs (3).

In European countries where large school-towork systems are part of the “social partnerships”

that exist, governments increase subsidies to employers in times of economic downturn, and employers tacitly agree to maintain or even to

increase the number of work-based learning

placements available at such times (19). In Germany, apprenticeship slots in the Handwerk sector

are increased when employers in the commercial

sector are unable to take as many apprentices (44).

The partnerships between schools and employers encouraged in STWOA could serve similar

purposes. Indeed, they have done so in the case of

ProTech. When student placements were threatened by hospital restructuring, most of the slots

were restored following conversations between

ProTech and hospital administrators.

❚ Training Costs

Training costs include the direct costs of wages

paid to students during training and the costs of

providing them with the training they receive. In

the case of work-based learning, these latter costs

include the wages paid to supervisors, mentors,

and any other employees who spend time planning and managing the work-based learning program or providing instruction.

Supervision Costs

Supervision costs include time spent by supervisors guiding the work of students and time spent

by mentors in counseling and assisting the students. The main distinction between supervisors

and mentors is that supervisors have responsibility for managing and assessing students’ performance as part of the work-based learning

program, whereas mentors advise students on personal and job-related matters (27). Often these

tasks overlap.

Finding or developing worksite personnel who

have the necessary management, teaching, and

counseling skills presents a challenge for workbased learning programs (27). Performing these

tasks for high school students is very different

from working with older entry-level workers, because often the students are being introduced to

the adult world and the work of the company at the

same time. Conflicts between the production responsibilities of the worksite personnel and the

need to train or mentor the students are inevitable

(40). Some of these supervision costs may be

borne by individual employees. One worksite supervisor interviewed by Policy Studies Associates

said that “my boss doesn’t pat me on the back,” adding that her work with ProTech did not come up

in her performance review (23).

Program Start-up and Management Cost

A related category of costs is the time spent by employer staff in planning a work-based learning
90 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

program, getting it organized and started, and

managing it on a continuing basis. Many decisions have to be made about how students will be

selected and matched with positions, what the

content of their learning experiences will be, who

will be responsible for any instruction that is provided, and how mentors and supervisors will be

selected and trained.

Another time-consuming task is developing individual student learning plans, which are used in

some programs to structure each student’s workbased learning experience and its relationship

with school-based activities. The plans typically

specify the student’s learning objectives and the

methods used to assess achievement (27). Each

plan has to be tailored to the individual student

and the individual employer.

Six participating employers in the Craftsmanship 2000 youth apprenticeship program in Tulsa,

Oklahoma, spent more than a year planning and

deciding on the core curriculum for a four-year

program in machining (40). Early on, the six companies discovered that they had six very different

definitions of what they wanted.

ProTech gives potential employers an “employee involvement sheet” that outlines the “baseline” commitment required to implement the

program. This minimum, not accounting for any

student supervision or mentoring, is estimated to

be 65 hours per year of employer staff time.

Student Wages

Student wages are one component of training

costs, especially the portion paid during time devoted to learning rather than productive activity.

One source reports that the students who are paid

receive $5 to $8 per hour (27). Thirty-seven percent of the students served in the 15 programs surveyed by OTA are unpaid (23).

Work-based learning practitioners generally

estimate supervision and management cost to be

much greater than the cost of student wages. The

first indication of this view came from discussions

in a focus group of employers involved in several

well-known youth apprenticeship projects, which

was conducted by the National Alliance of Business (38). The participants reported that the most

expensive element of youth apprenticeship was

the time supervisors spend planning and the time

“front-line workers” spend as mentors for students. OTA was unable to locate analyses based on

actual accounting to verify these costs.

Employers in the OTA survey ranked supervisor and staff time as having essentially the same

cost as loss of newly trained workers. The employers surveyed by DIR rated student wages as

the least important of eight financial costs considered, including supervision and program planning

(49). Eighty-six percent of employers in the DIR

survey said that student wages were of “little or

no” importance to their decisions to participate in

work-based learning. In comparison, 60 percent

said that supervision costs and time were of “little

or no importance.” Evaluators of the Department

of Labor’s In-School Youth Apprenticeship Program concluded that the subsidy of $2,100 per student offered to employers had little effect on their

willingness to participate (18). On the whole, employers were more attracted by the program’s emphasis on screening and training of entry-level

workers than by the subsidies offered.

Effectiveness of Training Cost Subsidies

There is a widely held opinion among experts in

the United States that financial incentives intended to reduce training costs would have little

effect on employers’ participation in work-based

learning. To support this conclusion, some observers cite the negative experience with using

wage incentives in federal programs to encourage

employers to hire out-of-school youths or economically disadvantaged workers (1). As discussed below, however, there are some reasons to

be skeptical about this inference concerning workbased learning, and some evidence directly from

work-based learning programs suggests that financial incentives may be effective.

Evaluation results generally show that federal

tax incentives have not significantly affected the

hiring or training decisions of employers (4). Several studies of the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit program show that employers use most of the credits
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 91

to pay the salaries of people who would have been

hired anyway. According to one of these evaluations, 70 percent of workers for whom credits are

claimed would have been hired even without the

subsidy (7). In the Youth Entitlement Demonstration mentioned earlier, the proportion of employers willing to provide jobs for disadvantaged

youth increased from only 5 percent to 18 percent

when the wage subsidy was doubled from 50 percent to 100 percent (3). However, these young

people were identified as being disadvantaged by

the fact that they were eligible for the subsidies,

and may have been stigmatized as a result. The unfavorable response of employers to job applicants

who are eligible for government programs serving

disadvantaged people has been shown in a controlled experiment in Dayton, Ohio, where employers proved to be significantly less likely to

hire disadvantaged workers when they knew that

the workers were eligible for a generous wage subsidy (11).

The implications of these evaluation results for

work-based learning are unclear. It is dangerous to

generalize from employers’ responses to wage incentives for one population group and purpose to

other populations and purposes. For example, the

evaluation evidence suggests that employers’ response to wage incentives targeted on disadvantaged groups is related to their unfavorable

perceptions of that population. Work-based learning under STWOA is not targeted at disadvantaged students.

The lack of employers’ enthusiasm for wage incentives in federal programs may also partly reflect their fears of becoming embroiled in red tape.

Once the government grants tax privileges, it insists on inspections and imposes rules that can be

cumbersome to deal with. There is some evidence

that employers may feel that the complications involved in wage incentive programs make them not

worth the effort (4).

There is also some contradictory evidence

showing that financial incentives can affect the

training behavior of employers. A new evaluation

of a state-financed program in Michigan shows

that one-time grants to employers for the training

of incumbent workers have significantly increased the amount of training provided (26).

The evidence available from research on workbased learning programs is piecemeal but suggests that financial incentives of different kinds

may be effective. One source of evidence is the

surveys of work-based learning on which this

chapter is based. The responses of employers to

some questions on these surveys indicate that they

might respond to financial incentives for workbased learning. For example, in the DIR survey of

employers in Texas, over 89 percent said that “tax

credits for training initiatives” would be “likely”

or “very likely” to increase youth employment opportunities, and more than 90 percent said that

wage subsidies would increase youth employment opportunities. Yet, this was the same group

of employers who overwhelmingly responded

that student wages were of “little or no importance” to their participation in work-based learning.

In the OTA survey, over 55 percent of employers similarly said that tax incentives for workbased learning would be a “very important or

primary” incentive affecting their decisions to become involved in work-based learning, but less

than 20 percent rated supervision and mentoring

time and student wage costs as having a “strong or

major” influence on their decisions to participate

(23).

There is also some anecdotal evidence from the

policies of school-to-work programs suggesting

that financial incentives may have a role to play.

Wage subsidies have been used in the Oakland Career Academies program to provide short-term

work experiences for students (40). Students are

paid with special city funds or, in some cases,

funds from the Job Training Partnership Act, so

that employers have no wage costs. Employers’

responses to the summer jobs component of the

Oakland program has been very positive. Most of

the employers interviewed by Mathematica

Policy Research staff in their current study of

youth apprenticeship programs said that they

would have offered many fewer or no summer

jobs to the students, if they had had to pay wages
92 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Incentive

Training costs

Provide or support

mentor/supervisor training

Subsidize incumbent worker

training for companies that train

youth

Provide grants/vouchers for

vendor-provided training of youth

Support development of facilities to

be used by multiple firms

Wage incentives

Allow state tax credit for student

wages

Establish a training wage

Subsidize student wages

Allow state tax credit for costs of

training students

Regulatory relief or insurance

Grant child labor law exemptions

Grant worker’s compensation relief

Administrative corporation

Create administrative corporation to

pool insurance and worker’s

compensation, and administer

wages

Number of

states

28

9

5

5

5

4

4

3

7

3

8

NOTE Fifty states plus D C responded

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 10

(43). In the Wisconsin youth apprenticeship program in printing mentioned earlier, employers receive a 50 percent wage subsidy, which they may

keep or give to the consortium office (53). The

Siemens Corporation reduced the number of

hours that students in its youth apprenticeship

program spend at the worksite when the company

learned that an expected grant from the Department of Labor could not be used to defray the cost

of student stipends (14). In OTA’s survey, nine of

the 54 current employers are receiving a student

wage subsidy, a subsidy for worker’s compensation, or a reimbursement for staff time spent planning or mentoring. And as noted earlier, 37

percent of the students in OTA’s sample are unpaid, which is a clear wage incentive for employers (23).

Twelve states are also in the process of implementing wage incentives of different kinds as part

of their STWOA strategies. As shown in table 6-4,

five states are implementing policies allowing tax

credits for student wages. Three states are implementing policies that allow states tax credits for

training costs other than student wages—for example, supervisor wages or mentoring time. Four

states are directly subsidizing student wages, and

four are establishing a training wage (1 O). (Several states are implementing more than one of these

wage incentives.)

The fact that 12 states are planning to implement wage incentives indicates that they have

concluded that wage costs are significant enough

to employers to influence their decisions. Appropriations will be required from state legislatures to implement these financial incentives.

In addition, 28 states are implementing some

form of support for supervisor and mentor training, and five states are in the process of establishing grant or voucher programs to enable

employers to purchase training for students. Some

of these policies may involve financial support,

while others may be primarily concerned with

technical or other forms of direct assistance. Five

other states are planning to support central facilities for training mentors and supervisors (10).

Several states also plan to create shell corporations for the administration of wage payments to

students and the pooling of insurance, which

could reduce the administrative burdens on employers. These corporations will act like temporary agencies, paying students out of funds

received from employers. Any financial incentives would then be deducted from the amounts

that employers are billed. Schools are to certify

that students are receiving the agreed-upon workbased learning opportunities.
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 93

Not counting support for mentor training, a total of 19 states intend to implement at least one of

the training cost or wage incentives shown in table

6-4, or to create an administrative corporation.

These new state policies provide an opportunity to obtain reliable information about the effectiveness of incentives for work-based learning.

The best way of obtaining this information would

be to conduct an evaluation within a common

framework, allowing comparisons to be made

across the states to the extent possible. Of particular interest are the relative effectiveness and the

administrative feasibility of financial incentives

directed at supervision costs in comparison to

those directed at student wages. Experimental

evaluation designs might be difficult to introduce

because they would require random assignment of

incentives, but the collection of longitudinal information within a common framework of analysis should prove valuable.

❚ Regulation and Insurance Costs

Some employers perceive federal and state child

labor and occupational safety laws as barriers to

work-based learning. Insurance costs also deter

some employers, who expect them to be higher

when young people are employed. OTA’s survey

shows that although these barriers are of great importance to some employers (6 percent selected

one of them as being the most important barrier affecting their decision), most employers view them

as less significant than training costs and other

types of barriers. More than 75 percent of the employers surveyed by OTA said that child labor

laws, safety regulations, and insurance costs had

no effect on their decisions to participate in workbased learning.

DIR found that employers in Texas are divided

over the importance of the regulatory and insurance cost barriers. Approximately half of the employers in the DIR survey rated child labor laws,

safety laws, worker’s compensation, and general

liability restrictions as being “highly” or “moderately important,” while the other half said they

were of “little or no importance.” This is a surprising finding in light of the fact that Texas has been

severely criticized in the past for its weak child labor law and enforcement (48).

Child Labor and Safety Laws

Child labor laws aim to eliminate the exploitation

of young people and to reduce their risk of injury

and death in the workplace. The laws typically restrict the age at which a young person may be

employed (generally not under 14 years of age),

the hours per week of employment, and the types

of work that may be performed. For example, employment in manufacturing may be precluded for

persons who are under the age of 15 or up to age

18 where there is dangerous machinery. Child labor laws pose barriers to work-based learning

when placements are restricted without good reason or when employers have a mistaken impression that jobs are precluded for people under a

certain age when in fact they are not (31). The U.S.

Department of Labor and the states are gradually

changing child labor and safety regulations to allow more “student learning” and to facilitate reasonable exceptions (49).

The evidence on the importance of child labor

laws is very mixed, which is not altogether surprising considering the variety of legislation (9).

Some states’ rules are stricter than federal laws,

while others are more permissive. Enforcement

of the law also varies widely between states.

Perceptions of these laws may vary between participating and nonparticipating employers; nonparticipating employers in Zemsky’s focus groups

often commented on the need to change child labor laws, usually to enable young people to work

longer hours (54).

Some employers in Zemsky’s focus groups

also said that the Occupational Safety and Health

Act acts as a deterrent to involvement. Companies

with more than 11 employees are required to

maintain accident records, and those with many

accidents may be inspected and fined. From discussions in focus groups of employers, DIR concluded that many respondents who perceived

OSHA regulations to be a barrier thought that

there were specific provisions for youth under 18

years of age. In fact, neither OSHA nor the Work-
94 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

er’s Compensation Act contains any specific provisions pertaining to youth (49). In the focus

groups, other employers who were more knowledgeable about the law suggested that hiring immature and inexperienced young people would

jeopardize the safety of their workplaces and thus

increase the employers’ risk of being penalized by

OSHA. This view reflects a subjective aspect of

the regulatory process that may be troublesome

for work-based learning: Accidents are deemed to

be serious violations of the law when there is “a

substantial probability that a death or serious

physical harm could result and that the employer

knew, or should have known, of the hazard” (49).

For example, a co-op supervisor in one program

does not refer students under age 18 to an employer who uses any hoisting equipment, because of

uncertainty regarding the employer’s liability if

the student were involved in an accident with such

equipment (40).

Worker’s Compensation

Some employers worry that their insurance costs

will increase if a student is injured on the job. Under the Worker’s Compensation Act, insurance

premiums are not directly affected by the number

of minors employed in the workplace, but there is

an “experience modifier” that is heavily affected

by frequency of injuries. Rates are computed according to a classification of the work environments and this experience rating. Employers fear

that youth are more likely to injure themselves on

the job and thus negatively affect the ratings.

Small employers are the most concerned because

one accident affects their experience rating much

more than it does that of a large employer. In these

circumstances, the real barrier to work-based

learning may not be worker’s compensation insurance but employers’ lack of knowledge of the actual injury rates for young workers in their

industry and state.

General Liability Insurance

General liability insurance covers third parties

who are injured on a business’ premises or become ill as the result of using that business’ product. Of those employers surveyed by DIR,

virtually the same number thought that this matter

was of no importance as thought that it was extremely important, with little opinion in between.

Whether the costs of general liability insurance

actually rise when employers participate in workbased learning, or whether some employers simply believe this, is unclear. In the same way that

inexperienced workers in an occupation are much

more at risk of injuring themselves or others, no

matter what their age, it may be that young people

are more likely to be responsible for third-party

accidents than other workers. The real questions

are how insurance companies take the presence of

work-based-learning students into account in setting rates, and whether employers know (or are

able to find out) what the effects of work-based

learning will be on their rates. DIR interviewed a

number of insurers in some depth and came to the

conclusion that it is difficult to say what their policies are with respect to the presence of youth in the

workplace.

The administrative corporations being set up in

some states to pool insurance and administer student wages may provide a good solution to these

problems. Under an administrative corporation,

students are not legally employees of their firms

and thus the insurance rates of the firms cannot go

up. For any insurance that is needed, the corporation would have the bargaining power to command good rates from insurance companies and

the resources to understand the basis for rates. The

administrative corporation could also assemble

reliable information for employers about child labor law and safety regulations and make it available to employers. Critics of these administrative

corporations are concerned that they could, in effect, become suppliers of low-cost temporary help

in competition with other temporary help agencies

in the community, and other workers in general.

❚ Organizational Resistance

Within the Company

The decisions employers make about participation in work-based learning may also be affected

by forces internal to companies. Permanent em-
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 95

ployees sometimes resent work-based learning

students, feeling that they are being undercut by

low student wages or that the students are receiving better training opportunities (40). Lack of support from top management can also deter

employees from committing themselves to workbased learning.

What stands out in OTA’s survey results is that

these organizational barriers are much more important to former participants and nonparticipants

than to current participants. Only 8 percent of the

latter reported them as their chief barrier,

compared with 33 percent of former participants

and 42 percent of nonparticipating employers. Because of the way the questionnaire was worded,

the results are ambiguous with respect to whether

employers were citing their reasons for dropping

out of work-based learning or for deciding whether to participate in the first place.

The obvious implication is that employer recruitment strategies should cultivate support for

work-based learning among both top management and other workers within the company.

Some states are offering subsidies for incumbent

worker training as one means to avoid employee

concerns about work-based learning (see table

6-4).

❚ Support from the Work-Based

Learning Program

The characteristics of students participating in

work-based learning and the nature of coordinating support provided to employers also are major

influences on employers’ decisions. These two

factors will be discussed together because they

both can be affected by the school side of the

work-based learning programs. Lack of support

from the school-based side of the work-based

learning program was ranked by 23 percent of employers as the most important barrier, while 16

percent said that student characteristics were the

major deterrent (table 6-3).

The support required by employers can be provided in many different ways. In many school-towork transition programs, much of it is provided

by a so-called connecting organization. Connecting organizations are introduced to bridge what

can be a very wide gap between the schools and

the employers. The connecting organization may

be the local private industry council, the local

chamber of commerce, a nonprofit educational assistance organization, the regional unit of a state

school system, or a community-based organization.

This support takes several forms. Providing

initial assistance to the employer in planning and

setting up a work-based learning program at the

worksite has already been discussed. A second

form is making sure that students are well prepared for their work experiences and screening

them for placements with different kinds of employers. Some employers only require students to

have general work skills, while others expect certain levels of academic and relevant technical

skills. All agree that general work preparation is

important. One program director said that when he

asked a student to confirm his appointment to jobshadow the president of Marriott Hotels, the student called the president, said, “Confirming my

job shadowing,” and hung up the phone. The program director commented, “We knew then that we

had some work to do” (27).

A third activity is matching students who are

ready for work experience with employers and job

placements. If the students are a good match for

the company, employer willingness to provide

placements improves. Students are usually asked

for their preferences, but the final selections are

made by the employer, the school, or the connecting organization. ProTech students have twoweek rotational assignments for one semester

before they enter their placement. This system allows students to gain an overview of the whole enterprise and to make informed choices of the kind

of placement they want, thus improving their

commitment to their eventual placement. It also

allows supervisors to size up the candidates.

A fourth means of support is providing technical and troubleshooting assistance to workplace

supervisors, who may need advice on working
96 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

Percent of employers rating

Percent of programs support as “very” or

Form of coordinating support providing this support “critically important”

Prescreen students for reliability 93 91

Troubleshoot for and offer technical assistance 93 68

Provide scheduling coordinator 80 59

Prescreen students for technical knowledge 80 46

Prescreen students for commitment to further work 80 25

NOTE: The number of employers responding was 86 and the number of programs was 15

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 23.

with students or assistance if problems arise with

particular students. Two important additional activities involve scheduling student placements.

One is coordinating the students’ and employers’

schedules so that students are in school when they

are required and in the workplace when supervisors are available to work with them and can observe important work activities when they occur

(40). Another is coordinating the timing of student

placements so that employers have just the number of students they need when they need them.

On the basis of OTA’s survey, employers are

generally pleased with the support they are currently receiving from work-based learning programs but there are some problems. Although 23

percent of employers surveyed reported that lack

of coordinating support is the most important barrier to work-based learning, more than 70 percent

of current and former employers ranked “lack of

technical assistance and troubleshooting support”

and “inflexibility of the program model” as not an

issue. More than 60 percent of employers surveyed said that “school system bureaucracy” is

not an issue. Nearly all of the dissatisfaction that

was reported lies in the “unreliability of scheduling student placements.” Employers are clearly

looking for smooth coordination of student availability for placements and dependable coordination of students’ schedules with the schedules of

supervisors and other employer personnel. More

currently participating employers think that

school system bureaucracy is a problem than do

former participants and nonparticipating employers.

Employers in the OTA survey were also specifically asked to rank the relative value of five different kinds of support from the work-based

learning program. As shown in table 6-5, employers place the greatest value on the screening of students for “reliability.” By reliable, employers

mean students who are prompt and dependable,

work hard, take initiative, and take responsibility

for their efforts (12,54). Technical assistance and

troubleshooting support from the program are

nearly as important as student reliability. The

screening of students for post-training commitment to working for the company is not given

much weight.

On the whole, employers also appear to be

pleased with the quality of students they are receiving from work-based learning programs.

More than 75 percent of the employers in OTA’s

survey reported no problems with the quality of

the preparation that students received prior to their

work experiences—which is consistent with other

6 For example, Lynn and ‘ills research findings.

6 In OTA’s survey more than 75 percent of current and former employers reported that lack of student productivity (meaning not having the

skills necessary to be productive in the workplace) and “prior, unsuccessful experiences with students” had no effect on their decision to participate in work-based learning.
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 97

have found that more than 90 percent of employers participating in high school cooperative

education either “agree” or “strongly agree” (the

top two of five categories) with the statement that

they are “satisfied with the quality of the students

(34).” But 16 percent of the employers surveyed

by OTA said that lack of student reliability is the

most important disincentive to participating in

work-based learning. None rated “lack of student

productivity or skills,” which was the other aspect

of student preparation considered, as the most important factor (see table 6-3).

Among Texas employers, DIR found that the

“quality of students’ work skills preparation” and

“educational preparation” were more important

than the “characteristics of young workers.”

About 40 percent of employers said that work

skills and general education preparation were of

“high importance,” and about 20 percent said that

“student characteristics” were of “high importance” to their participation in work-based learning (48). However, because of the way the

questions were worded, it is not possible to tell

whether these results indicate that employers view

a lack of these skills as a barrier to employer participation in work-based learning or that employers were indicating their criteria for selecting

students.

CONCLUSIONS AND

REMAINING QUESTIONS

The expansion of employer participation in workbased learning presents a major challenge for the

implementation of STWOA. Building the schoolto-work transition systems envisaged by the legislation will require substantial growth in the

number of employers who are willing to devote

substantial staff time and other resources to develop high-quality work-based learning opportunities for students. In the absence of such growth,

the work-based learning component of STWOA

will not be realized unless school-based enterprises, community service learning, computer

technology, or other forms of work experience are

substituted for employer-provided work experience and are shown to effectively replicate the

critical learning experiences of actual workplaces.

❚ Summary of Findings

So far, the growth of employer participation in

prototypes of STWOA work-based learning program has been modest in most communities and

considerably less than what will be required to

reach substantial numbers of students in most

communities in the near future. OTA’s survey of

15 high school programs that have been operating

since 1992 or longer indicates that the median

growth rates are about six employers and about a

dozen students per year per program.

Achieving these growth rates has required considerable amounts of time and effort from school

staff or a connecting organization, to contact employers and build partnerships between education

and the business community. In OTA’s survey an

average of approximately one-half of a full-timeequivalent staff person’s time has been required to

recruit these six new employers each year. This

level of staff effort represents a sizable marginal

cost relative to the number of additional students

served.

Employers’ decisions to become involved in

work-based learning are influenced by a wide

range of potential benefits and barriers, as they

have been called in this report. Employers report

participating in work-based learning for two main

reasons: to recruit and train new employees for

their company or the industry and to contribute to

the improvement of education and the community. The main potential disincentives to participation are lack of coordinating support from the

work-based learning program, training costs, inadequate preparation of students for work placements, organizational resistance to work-based

learning from management or other employees,

economic uncertainty, and regulatory restrictions

and extra insurance costs.

According to the results of OTA’s survey, employers perceive the recruitment of new personnel

to be a somewhat more important benefit of workbased learning than the betterment of education
98 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

and the community. This finding offers more

promise for expanding employer involvement in

work-based learning in the future than would be

the case if civic contributions were the predominant reason for employers’ participation; the direct economic benefit of personnel recruitment is

likely to entice many more nonparticipating employers than are the altruistic benefits.

OTA’s survey also shows that none of the disincentives to participation in work-based learning

predominates or appears to be significantly less

important than the others. This implies that inducements narrowly focused on overcoming one

of these disincentives are not likely to be very effective; hence, strategies focused on overcoming

multiple barriers should be pursued. The STWOA

strategy of encouraging partnerships between

school systems and employers is consistent with

this finding.

❚ Limitations

It is important to recognize the limitations of this

chapter. One weakness is that the number of nonparticipating employers included in the OTA survey was very small (only 13). As a result, the

findings of the survey concerning the benefits and

barriers of work-based learning to currently and

formerly participating employers cannot be generalized to all employers. The perceived benefits

presumably exceed the costs to employers who are

currently participating. Any nonparticipating employers who are contacted in the future may not

have the same perceptions. As was discussed earlier, Zemsky’s focus group results were that nonparticipating employers hold very negative

attitudes toward young people (54). This would

clearly make them very unwilling to participate.

In OTA’s survey, formerly participating employers proved to be similar to currently participating ones except in the instances that have been

noted. Generally the formerly participating employers appear to be even more economically oriented than the currently participating ones.

A second limitation is the chapter’s concentration on employer recruitment at the secondary level. Many employers may be more willing to

become involved in work-based learning at the

postsecondary level. As discussed in chapter 4,

postsecondary students are more employable, and

it may be easier for employers to recoup the cost of

training them.

A third limitation is that the analysis in this

chapter has not taken into account variations in the

mix of work-based learning. Under STWOA,

communities are encouraged to develop “systems” of work-based learning involving a progression of training and work-experiences, as

illustrated in figure 4-1. It is much easier for employers to provide students with cursory work experiences, such as job shadowing, which typically

lasts for only a half a day, than it is to provide the

much more extensive forms of work-based learning, such as youth apprenticeships. Consequently,

the growth of employer involvement in workbased learning is likely to depend on the mix of

different types of work-based learning in a community’s school-to-work transition system, as the

Kalamazoo example illustrates.

A fourth limitation is that variations in responses among employers of different size, industry sector, and other characteristics are not

reported. The OTA survey was administered to a

cross section of employers of different sizes and

industries, but the small sample size precludes reporting results for different subcategories. Employers’ perceptions of the benefits and liabilities

of work-based learning appear to vary considerably with such characteristics (34).

The fifth limitation is that the chapter focuses

mainly on the growth rate of employer participation in work-based learning rather than on the

quality of worksite learning experienced by students. Quality is harder to measure but certainly

critical to the effects of work-based learning on

students’ long-term employment prospects. The

kinds of training received in the workplace and the

kinds of jobs performed by students are two indicators of quality. Because approximately one-half

of all high school students work in some capacity

already, simply gaining some low-quality work

experience will not have the positive impact intended by STWOA.
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 99

❚ Needed Research on Strategy

for Building Partnerships

The critical question raised by the findings in this

chapter is whether strategies can be identified or

developed for greatly increasing the rate of growth

of employer participation in high-quality programs of work-based learning. Three apparent examples in Boston, Cincinnati, and Kalamazoo

have been described in this chapter, but there is no

conclusive evidence about the program quality in

any of these cities. Other examples need to be

identified and carefully studied to provide guidelines for building successful partnerships between

business and education. Intensive case studies

will probably be needed to identify these strategies. Strategies for increasing typical growth rates

by an order of magnitude or more are needed to

achieve significant progress in the near future.

States with strong employer recruitment strategies under STWOA may provide important cases

to study.

The success of work-based learning may largely depend on the level of leadership forthcoming

from the business community. Work-based learning was included in STWOA to help bridge the

gap between employers and schools. If enough

business leaders step forward to encourage industry participation, significant progress may be

made. If not, the growth of employer participation

may continue to be slow, and the bridges intended

between schools and business may not be built.

The introduction of external inducements for

employer participation also could turn out to be

critical for the successful growth of worksite

learning. Perhaps an American style of workbased learning requiring no external business incentives can emerge, but perhaps it cannot.

Cincinnati provides an example of a place where

no external business incentives exist, but the colleges receive funding from the state for the coordinating support they provide to employers—which

amounts to an incentive for employer participation. Any future case studies of strategies should

be carefully chosen to allow comparative judgments to be made about varying inducement structures.

❚ Implications from Foreign Countries

It may be instructive to look at the inducements in

foreign countries where work-based learning for

young entrants into the labor market is extensive.

In Japan, young people are prepared for careers

through processes of work-based learning that are

largely internal to firms and not influenced by

government interventions. This work-based

learning occurs through job rotation, participation

in problem-solving teams, and successive episodes of formal, on- and off-the-job training.

Through these processes, young workers develop

both the technical and “white-collar” skills they

need to progress within a “family” of occupations

in their company (28). Companies make these

training investments in young workers because of

the institutions of lifetime employment that have

been adopted by industry over the years (33).

Companies have also established contractlike

relationships with schools to gain ready access to

well-prepared students, thereby creating strong

incentives for high standards of academic

achievement within the school system, not unlike

the incentives for quality apparently operating in

Cincinnati (42).

In Germany, the incentives for the apprenticeship system are embedded in the society’s system

of industrial democracy that has evolved over the

years. This system is oriented to the high-valueadded production of diverse, customized goods

and services, requiring high skill levels to

succeed. It is based on a “social partnership”

among business, unions, and government that

controls many aspects of the economy and society,

including relations between management and labor at the national, state, and local levels, as well

as within companies. The web of relationships

that has been created bears on the apprenticeship

system. It includes the long-term financing of industry, nationally determined wages for most occupations and industries, a chartered structure of

industry associations and works councils, legal requirements on all companies with five or more

employers to hire professional trainers (Meister),

union involvement in setting aside certain jobs for

apprenticeship training, low training wages and
100 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

several other policies. These institutional relationships create a system of incentives in which

large and medium-size companies must train apprentices because that is the least costly way of

gaining access to the best-qualified workers,

whereas smaller companies train because the

training wage and other incentives make it profitable for them to do so (44). Even so, only one

small company in five in Germany participates in

the apprenticeship system, whereas nearly all

large companies and most medium-size firms do.

Still, more than one half of apprentices are trained

in small companies (44,45).

In the absence of incentives such as those in Japan or Germany, it remains an open question

whether large-scale systems of work-based learning can exist in the United States. The issue is not

whether the United States should adopt the Japanese or German systems because manifestly it

cannot. Rather, the question is whether an American-style apprenticeship system with very few external incentives, such as the one that apparently

exists in Cincinnati or that may eventually be fully

implemented in Boston and Kalamazoo, can be

replicated on a national scale or whether a system

of incentives will be needed.

REFERENCES

1. Bailey, T., “Can Youth Apprenticeship

Thrive in the United States?,” Educational

Researcher 22(3):4-10, 1993.

2. Bailey, T., “Barriers to Employer Participation in School-to-Work Transition Programs,” Classrooms and Workplaces:

Employer Involvement in School-to-Work

Transition Programs, T. Bailey (ed.) (Washington, DC: Brookings Dialogues on Public

Policy, Brookings Institution, 1995).

3. Ball, W.C., et al., “Participation of Private

Businesses as Work Sponsors in Youth Entitlement Demonstrations,” New York, NY:

Manpower Research and Demonstration

Corp., 1981.

4. Barnow, B., Chasnorov, A., and Pande, A.,

“Financial Incentives for Employer-Provided

Training: A Review of Relevant Experience

in the U.S. and Abroad,” Washington, DC:

Urban Institute Press, 1990.

5. Barton, P.E., “Partnerships Between Corporations and Schools,” Washington, DC: National Commission for Employment Policy,

1983.

6. Barton, P.E., “Employers and High Schools:

The Fit Between Learning and Working,”

New York, NY: The Committee for Economic

Development, March 1984.

7. Bishop, J., and Montgomery, M., “Does the

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Create Jobs at Subsidized Firms?” Industrial Relations 32:

289-306, fall 1993.

8. Boston Public Schools, Guidance Department, Personal communication, June 1995.

9. Beyer, D., “Understanding and Applying

Child Labor Laws to Today’s School-to-Work

Transition Programs,” Center Focus, No. 8,

Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research

in Vocational Education, April 1995.

10. Brown, D.E., and Brown, P., National Governors’ Association, Employment and Social

Services Policy Studies Division, Education

Policy Studies Division, “State Progress in

School-to-Work System Development,”

Washington, DC, July 29, 1995.

11. Burtless, G., “Are Targeted Wage Subsidies

Harmful? Evidence from a Wage Voucher Experiment,” Industrial and Labor Relations

Review 39(1):105-114, 1985.

12. Committee for Economic Development, An

Assessment of American Education: Views of

Employers, Higher Educators, the Public,

Recent Students, and Their Parents, New

York: Louis Harris Associates, 1991.

13. Conor, T.B., “Work-based Education: School

to Work,” Kalamazoo County Education for

Employment Consortium, Jan. 10, 1994.

14. Corson, W., and Silverberg, M., The Schoolto-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration: Preliminary Findings (Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research, 1994).

15. Farrar, E., and Copollone, A., “The Business

Community and School Reform: The Boston

Compact at Five Years,” Madison, WI: Na-
Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 101

tional Center on Effective Secondary

Schools, School of Education, University of

Wisconsin, March 1988.

16. Flynn, E., “Employer Participation in the

School-to-Work Transition,” Commentary,

17-23, spring 1994.

17. Fraser, B.S., et al., Minor Laws of Major Importance: A Guide to Federal and State Child

Labor Laws, Academy for Educational Development for U.S. Department of Education,

Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, January 1994.

18. Glover, R., “Collaboration in Apprentice

Programs: Experience with In-School Apprenticeships,” 1984 Yearbook of the American Vocational Association (Arlington, VA:

American Vocational Association, 1983).

19. Glover, R., et al., “School-to-Work Transition in the U.S.: The Case of the Missing Social Partners,” College Park, MD: Center for

Learning and Competitiveness, School of

Public Affairs, University of Maryland, June

1994.

20. Goldberger, S., Kazis, R., and O’Flanagan,

M., “Learning Through Work: Designing and

Implementing Quality Worksite Learning for

High School Students,” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation,

January 1994.

21. Grubb, W.N., and Villeneuve, J.C., “Co-operative Education in Cincinnati: Implications

for School-to-Work Programs in the U.S.,”

unpublished contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May 1995.

22. Hershey, A., and Silverberg, M., “Employer

Involvement in School-to-Work Transition

Programs: What Can We Really Expect?” unpublished paper presented at The Association

for Public Policy and Management Conference, Washington, DC, October 1993.

23. Hightower, A., Hallock, R., and Breckenridge, J.S., Policy Studies Associates, Washington, DC, “Employer Participation in

Work-based Learning,” unpublished contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington,

DC, July 1995.

24. Hollenbeck, K., “The Employment and Earnings Impacts of the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit,”

Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 1991.

25. Hollenbeck, K., “In Their Own Words: Student Perspectives on School-to-Work Opportunities,” Washington, DC: National Institute

for Work and Learning, Academy for Educational Development, June 1995.

26. Holzer, H.J., “Are Training Subsidies for

Firms Effective?: The Michigan Experience,”

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

46(4):625-636, July 1993.

27. Jobs for the Future, Promising Practices

(Boston, MA: 1995).

28. Koike, K., “Human Resource Development

and Labor-Management Relations,” The

Political Economy of Japan, Vol. 1, K. Yamamura and Y. Yasuba (eds.) (Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press, 1987).

29. Koike, K., “Learning and Incentive Systems

in Japanese Industry,” The Japanese Firm:

Sources of Competitive Strength, M. Aoki and

R. Dore (eds.) (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1994).

30. LeGrande, L., “The Targeted Jobs Tax

Credit,” Congressional Research Service,

87-616E, 1987.

31. Lightner, S., and Harris, E.L., “Legal Aspects

of Youth Apprenticeships: What You Should

Know,” unpublished paper, 1994, ED 368 081.

32. Lynch, L., “Payoffs to Alternative Training

Strategies at Work,” Working Under Different

Rules, R.B. Freeman (ed.) (New York, NY:

Russell Sage Foundation, 1994).

33. Lynch, L., Training and the Private Sector:

International Comparisons (Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press, 1994).

34. Lynn, I., and Wills, J., “School Lessons:

Work Lessons,” Washington, DC: Institute

for Educational Leadership, 1994.

35. McNeil, P.W., “The Role of Industry

Associations in School-to-Work Transition,

New York, NY: Manpower Research and

Demonstration Corp., 1993.
102 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

36. McNeil, P.W., and Kulick, C.D., “Employers’ Role in School-to-Work Opportunities,”

Washington, DC: National Institute for Work

and Learning, 1995.

37. National Alliance of Business, “Youth Apprenticeship: Business Incentives, Problems,

and Solutions,” Summary—Business Focus

Group Meeting on Youth Apprenticeship,

Washington, DC, 1993.

38. National Alliance of Business, “How Schoolto-Work Works for Business,” Annapolis,

MD, 1994.

39. Osterman, P., “Strategies for Involving

Employers in School to Work Programs”

Classrooms and Workplaces: Employer Involvement in School-to-Work Transition Programs, T. Bailey (ed.) (Washington, DC:

Brookings Dialogues on Public Policy,

Brookings Institution, 1995).

40. Pauly, E., Kopp, H., and Haimson, J.,

“Home-Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking School and Work,” New York,

NY: Manpower Demonstration Research

Corporation, 1994.

41. Rogers, A., and Hubbard, S., “Case Study

Report on Kalamazoo Valley Consortium

Education for Employment,” Washington,

DC: Academy for Educational Development,

Oct. 31, 1994.

42. Rosenbaum, J.E., and Kariya, T., “From High

School to Work: Market and Institutional

Mechanisms in Japan,” American Journal of

Sociology 94(6):1334-1365, May 1989.

43. Silverberg, M., Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, personal communication, Aug. 15, 1995.

44. Soskice, D., “Reconciling Markets and Institutions: The German Apprenticeship System,”

Training and the Private Sector: International Comparisons, L. Lynch (ed.) (Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press, 1994).

45. Steedman, H., “The Economics of Youth

Training in Germany,” Oxford Economic

Journal, 103:1279-1291, September 1993.

46. Stern, D., School-to-Work Programs and Services in Secondary Schools and Two-Year

Public Postsecondary Institutions (Berkeley,

CA: National Assessment of Vocational

Education, University of California, Berkeley, School of Education, 1992).

47. Stern, D., et al., School-to-Work: Research on

Programs in the United States (Washington,

DC: Falmer Press, 1995).

48. Strauss, R., Jackson, R., and Simmons-Neal,

M., “Employer Incentives and Technical Assistance,” Policy Report, Houston, TX: Decision Information Resources, Inc., August

1994.

49. Strauss, R., Jackson, R., and Simmons-Neal,

M., “Employer Incentives and Technical Assistance,” Final Report, Houston, TX: Decision Information Resources, Inc., January

1995.

50. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Worker Training: Competing in the

New International Economy, OTA-ITE-457

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1990).

51. U.S. Department of Education, Studies of

Education Reform, Office of Research, Office

of Educational Research and Improvement,

Minor Laws of Major Importance: A Guide to

Federal and State Child Labor Laws, prepared by B.S. Fraser, I. Charner, K.L. Rose, S.

Hubbard, and S. Menzel (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., January 1994).

52. U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Education, “School-to-Work Opportunities and the Fair Labor Standards Act: A

Guide to Work-based Learning, Federal Child

Labor Laws, and Minimum Wage Provisions,” Washington, DC, 1994.

53. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction,

School-to-Work Office, personal communiciation, August 1995.

54. Zemsky, R., “What Employers Want: Employer Perspectives on Youth, the Youth Labor Market, and Prospects for a National

System of Youth Apprenticeships,” Working

Paper No. 22, Philadelphia, PA: National

Center for the Educational Quality of the

Workforce, 1994.
Appendix A:

Boxes, Figures,

and Tables

BOXES

❚ Chapter 1

1-1: School-to-Work Opportunities Act

❚ Chapter 3

3-1: Examples of Work-Based Learning Activities

❚ Chapter 6

6-1: OTA’s Employer Survey

6-2: Employer Recruitment Strategy of STWOA

6-3: Kalamazoo Valley Education for Employment Consortium

6-4: Cooperative Education in Two-Year Colleges in Cincinnati

FIGURES

❚ Chapter 4

4-1: One Possible Progression Through Several Types of Work-Based Learning

TABLES

❚ Chapter 5

5-1: Several Models of Work-Based Learning

❚ Chapter 6

6-1: School-to-Work Transition Programs in OTA’s Survey

6-2: Benefits of Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning

6-3: Barriers to Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning

6-4: Employer Incentives That States Have Implemented or Intend to

Implement in Their STWOA Strategies

6-5: Forms of Coordinating Support Provided to Employers | 103
Appendix B:

Reviewers and

Contributors

Nancy Adelman

Policy Studies Associates

Paul Barton

Educational Testing Service

Howell Baum

University of Maryland

Charles Bidwell

University of Chicago

Ellen Biler

Academy for Educational

Development

William Bloomfield

School & Main

(Career Beginnings)

Deborah Bragg

University of Illinois

David Brown

National Governors’

Association

Lawrence Burton

National Science Foundation

Peter Cappelli

University of Pennsylvania

Ivan Charner

Academy for Educational

Development

Tom Conor

Kalamazoo Education for

Employment Consortium

Jack Conway

Community Housing

Association of Sarasota

Diana Durret

North Central Regional

Education Laboratory

Kenneth Edwards

International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers

Phyllis Eisen

National Association

of Manufacturers

Cheryl Evanciew

The University of Georgia

Robert W. Glover

University of Texas

Andrew Hahn

Brandeis University

Samuel Halperin

American Youth Policy Forum

Stephen Hamilton

Cornell University

Madeline Hemmings

National Association of

State Directors

of Vocational Education

Kevin Hollenbeck

W.E. Upjohn Institute

J.D. Hoye

School-to-Work Opportunities

Center

Dwayne Hunt

Comstock Auditorium

Lawrence Hutchins

Aurora, CO

Polly Hutchinson

National Commission for

Cooperative Education

Russell Jackson

Decision Information

Resources, Inc.

104 |
Appendix B Reviewers and Contributors | 105

Peter Joyce

National Alliance of Business

Richard Kazis

Jobs for the Future

Jeffrey King

The German Marshall Fund

of the United States

Jacob Klerman

Rand Corporation

Kenneth Komoski

EPIE Institute

Hilary Kopp

Jobs for the Future

Dawn Krusenark

American Federation of

Teachers

Rene Leger

Roosevelt Renaissance

Bret Lovejoy

American Vocational

Association

Lisa Lynch

Tufts University

Laurel McFarland

The Brookings Institutionn

James McKenny

American Association of

Community Colleges

David Meyers

Mathematica Policy Research

Richard Murnane

Harvard University

John Niles

Executive Board of Education

Commonwealth of

Massachusetts

Harry O’Neil

University of Southern

California

Tom Owens

Northwest Regional Education

Laboratory

Glenda Partee

American Youth Policy Forum

Lois Ann Porter

Boston Private Industry

Council

Beverly Pringle

Policy Studies Associates

Lawrence Rosenstock

Rindge School of Technical

Arts

Tony Sarmiento

AFL/CIO

Brian Shea

Training Technology Resource

Center

Marsha Silverberg

Mathematica Policy Research

Karen Springer

Cooperative Work Experience

Education Association

Nevzer Stacey

School-to-Work Opportunities

Office

Cathleen Stasz

Rand Corporation

James Stone

University of Minnesota

Neil Sullivan

Boston Private Industry

Council

John Tobin

Seimens Corporation

Mark Troppe

KAPOW

Raymond J. Uhalde

U.S. Department of Labor

Mary Weirsema

Kalamazoo Education for

Employment Consortium

Daniel Wiltrout

Council of Chief State School

Officers

Robert Zemsky

The University of Pennsylvania
Appendix C:

Contractor Reports

Prepared for

This Assessment

Stephen Barley and Bonalyn Nelson, Stanford University, “The Nature and Implications of Infrastructural Technological Change for the Social Organization of Work,” July 1995.

Kathryn Borman, University of South Florida, and Richard Lakes, Georgia State University, “Review

of Ethnographic Research Related to School-to-Work Transition,” May 25, 1995.

Christopher Dede, George Mason University, and Matthew Lewis, Rand Corporation, “Assessment of

Emerging Technologies That Might Assist and Enhance School-to-Work Transitions,” May 1995.

Rosella Gardecki and David Neumark, Michigan State University, “Early Labor Market Experiences and

Their Consequences for Adult Labor Market Outcomes,” June 1995.

W. Norton Grubb and Norena Badway, University of California, Berkeley, “Linking School-Based and

Work-Based Learning: The Implications of LaGuardia’s Co-op Seminars for School-to-Work Programs,” June 1995.

W. Norton Grubb and Jennifer Curry Villenuve, University of California, Berkeley, “Co-operative

Education in Cincinnati: Implications for School-to-Work Programs in the U.S.,” May 1995.

Amy Hightower, Robert V. Hallock, George Wimberly, John S. Breckenridge, Lisa K. Weiner, Policy

Studies Associates, “Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning,” July 14, 1995.

Margaret Vickers, Riley Hart, and Amy Weinberg, Technical Education Research Centers (TERC), “The

Work-based Learning Experiences of Students in Two Boston-Based Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration Sites,” May 17, 1995.

106 |