A review of interviewee responses concerning issues and concerns that have been voiced about implementing a STW curriculum at the middle school level revealed four categories of responses:
Participant "Buy-In"
Interview responses indicated that STW curriculum participants (teachers, parents, guidance counselors, community members, and business representatives) needed to be "sold" on the idea of STW for middle-level students. Students appeared to be the only stakeholder group that did not exhibit initial resistance to and apprehension about the curriculum.
Interviewee responses indicated that classroom teachers were overwhelmingly the most reluctant curriculum participants. According to the interview responses, many classroom teachers originally viewed the STW curriculum as a "fad" or "just one more thing" but in due time came to recognize its value for their students. Those educators "selling" the curriculum needed to show reluctant teachers how it was an ongoing, integrated process and would change the way they taught. A STW program evaluator discussed how teacher concerns lessened as they became more familiar with the integration aspect of the curriculum:
We were doing a sell, a hard sell, you know, to get teachers to buy-in. We did, but we were holding our breath for awhile. As they moved along with integration in the content areas, then concern diminished; but in the beginning, there were concerns.
Eventually teachers recognized that integration of the STW focus throughout the existing curriculum was not an additional "chore" but an integral part of the curriculum. A seventh-grade teacher discussed the acceptance process at his school:
Well, two years ago when it [the school-to-work curriculum] was first introduced, it was like "How are we going to put it in there?" But then, we [the teachers] realized that it's part of, it's to be included from the beginning all the way through. If you feel like you've got to plug it in somewhere, you're not doing it right. It has to be part of the curriculum, not just a segment that you're going to teach for a couple of weeks.
Another issue raised concerning teacher "buy-in" was the concept that the STW curriculum was intended to be integrated into all subject areas and therefore was meant to be implemented by all teachers, academic and vocational. Traditionally, this career focus was strictly a vocational teacher's or counselor's domain and responsibility. Interviewees indicated that the academic teachers needed additional convincing that career concepts were applicable and valuable to their class content and goals. A district vocational director suggested that teacher "buy-in" would be an ongoing and difficult process in his school system. He stated:
Inservice [education] in this area will continue for the next four years as this is a tough transition. All teachers will need to integrate team-working skills, technical writing and communication skills, and career awareness activities into curriculum.
Some sites had STW programs that encompassed only a portion of the students in a school. This arrangement led to another teacher "buy-in" issue. Teachers working within the STW programs were often specially chosen for their positions and were enthusiastic about the career integration notion. However, teachers working outside the program were often unfamiliar with the innovative methods used to stimulate learning and resented the commotion it caused in the school environment. An academy principal provided an example of this conflict:
Teachers who are outside the program--some like it, some don't. It's a different way of working. We have kids in the hall at certain periods when they are going back and forth between the various businesses. For the teachers who are more traditional, they're not comfortable with that.
While the majority of interviewees indicated that the parents of students in the STW curriculum were pleased with its conception and implementation, respondents did acknowledge some minor concerns on the part of individual parents. Some parents were concerned with the number of field trips and time spent outside the school building. Others were concerned about the possibility of the school-to-work/careers programs "tracking" their children into a particular career path at too early an age. A city school principal explained her experience with parent concerns:
Every once in a while, when we ask for written feedback, we'll have somebody say "These are children. They don't need to know about the world of work." But that's a lone voice or something expressed by one or two.
This concern appeared to be more prevalent in schools that did not provide STW opportunities for all students.
Since guidance counselors often encourage or discourage student participation in STW programs and experiences based on their understanding and acceptance of such innovations, the interviewees indicated that the counselors needed to be "on board" for the curriculum to be truly successful. According to one district administrator, "All guidance counselors must accept the model and facilitate the selection of classes and educational plans accordingly."
Community members voiced some opposition to the teaching and learning methods used in the STW curriculum. Interview responses revealed that a majority of the community members were very supportive of the out-of-school student experiences and ingression into the community and business world. However, other community members were adamant about maintaining the "status quo" and retaining "the way it was." A community education director shared the discussion that emerged in his local community:
We've got the age-old dialog in our community like I'm sure everywhere between people that think rote learning and memorization is the way to go and that's considered by some the basics. We've had discussions around that and some disagreements. There's another group, pretty strong group, and that actually emerged in our school improvement discussions as the strongest, where basic skills really meant something different. It meant creative problem-solving. It meant being able to apply skills to the real world and understand the real world. All those other things that had a little more to do with practical sense. The business community was really looking for more practical applied skills; that was the voice that we definitely heard in our community. I think maybe the older community really felt the old way of teaching was better. In essence, we still are fundamentally in a factory mode of education.
Interviewees revealed that there had been some "detractors" who felt that the STW curriculum was strictly a high school and beyond initiative. These community members believed the time and resources used to put students in the workplace would be better spent when the students were older. Several interviewees commented that they had anticipated a greater outcry against the STW initiative from certain groups of individuals in their community. A rural site administrator shared his thoughts:
I thought I would hear people express more concerns about teaching kids to think critically about their world and question and really problem-solve and look at community issues. I thought there might be more that thought it was dangerous, where people are real sensitive and don't really want to present students with choices.
Interviewee responses indicated that members of the business community were very supportive of the concept behind STW for the middle-level student but very apprehensive about the student's educational and emotional maturity levels. Most of the business participants had never worked with middle school students and did not know what to reasonably expect. Business members were also very concerned about the worksite safety and liability issues surrounding a program for underage "workers." These issues are addressed further in the next section.
Program Logistics
Many of the concerns voiced by the curriculum participants centered around the logistics or practical day-to-day implementation of the curriculum. Interviewees' concerns focused on four subcategories: (1) time, (2) scheduling, (3) legalities, and (4) transportation.
The majority of interviewees commented on the "time-consuming" aspect of implementing a comprehensive STW curriculum. It was seen to be time consuming from both the administrative and teacher viewpoint. An inner-city site principal highlighted this concern:
It's very labor intensive on the part of the adults because you are taking on so many other roles and functions. So teachers who are preparing for their academic arena also have to be preparing for the school-to-work arena. That's very intensive.
Activity and work-experience scheduling was a concern that appeared frequently in the interviews. As one academy principal suggested, "The whole scheduling arm of this--it's not impossible, but it's certainly an issue that needs one's attention because if it's going to be real, then it can't be Mickey Mouse." Some interviewees indicated that they were "hamstrung" by their schedules, particularly those working in schools functioning within the traditional eight-period school day. These sites indicated that the schedule limited their options and fostered departmentalism rather than interdisciplinary activities. A seventh- and eighth-grade math teacher described her frustration with the eight-period day. She said, "As a matter of fact, the programming and scheduling did not facilitate my implementation of this [STW] program, it opposed it. I mean, that sounds kind of harsh, but that's the reality."
Block scheduling was viewed by other interviewees as a "lifesaver." Although block scheduling was not seen as a reason for establishing a STW program, it was frequently cited as being "valuable," "beneficial," and "helpful." Interviewees claimed that block scheduling supported more integrative curricula; flexible programming; in-depth exploration; extensive community and workplace visits; and in-school speakers, films, and workshops. Block scheduling also gave schools more time for teacher-development activities such as inservice education and new materials review. A rural site STW program coordinator described one benefit of block scheduling:
We found with an eight-period day we weren't able to achieve the type of hands-on activities that we felt students should participate in. So by implementing the school-to-work program, we found that we could offer students almost a two hour course. We can allow them to leave school early and go to a business and be there at two o'clock or be there at the beginning of the day. A lot of them are involved in agriculture, so they'll do morning milking, and they're able to come to school at ten o'clock. They are also able to work around the noon hour. We have two students, one works in the hotel industry and the other works for the local newspaper. They go down in the afternoon over their lunch period and can stretch it out to a three-hour work experience.
Planning around school-wide testing schedules was also mentioned as an obstacle to implementing a work-experience program. A STW program evaluator highlighted this concern:
There is a problem with the accountability testing in April. Having the kids out of the building for the build-up for that test in the Spring puts pressure on the teachers. So what we're trying to do next year is plan all the units for everybody for the fall, or most of them, so that there is no problem with interfering with testing. It's high stakes testing, really.
The legalities of implementing a STW curriculum that included worksite visits or on-the-job training (internships, apprenticeships) were commonly cited as concerns. The legal concerns most frequently mentioned in the interviews were business and school liability, student safety, and "things dealt with through child labor laws." A seventh-grade language arts teacher revealed the legal concerns at his school:
I know there have been some concerns about safety on the job, that's with any situation like this. I know they have those concerns at the high school as well in their work programs--safety on the job and making sure students are being treated fairly at the jobsite.
Transporting students to jobsites, on field trips, and to area high schools in a safe and timely fashion was viewed as a significant curriculum implementation challenge by many of the respondents.
Resources
Resources were frequently cited by interviewees as the number one issue or concern in implementing a middle school STW curriculum. Interviewee responses concerning resources were divided into two sub-categories, financial resources and human resources.
Interviewees were particularly concerned with two financial situations: (1) maintaining the curriculum "as is" after grant funds dried up, and (2) locating funding for the expansion of a component of the STW curriculum (e.g., internships). Several interviewees commented on trying to maintain and build on a nonmandated program during a time of "reduced school spending" and "district budget cuts." Guidance counselors from two different sites addressed the concerns about continued funding. One counselor stated, "We're not mandated, so we have to continue to demonstrate progress to the board. The budget gets tight, and they start looking at things that aren't mandated and start to eliminate them." The second counselor echoed this concern:
This happens to be a time when resources at the superintendent's level seem to be quite diminished. So they are looking at ways to reduce administrative personnel and reduce budgets. So there's a great deal of talk about programs that are of additional cost to the system being pared down or not being funded.
A city school principal explained how finding additional funding sources was essential to running a successful STW program:
Resources are the key. What we're trying to do could not be done by us alone on the traditional school budget. I think more people are cognizant and aware that we have to have additional resources and that it's going to take more than one or two people writing grants if we are to be fully successful in what we're trying to do. Resources are constantly an obstacle. . . . [I]n order to do project-based learning, which is critical to school-to-work, you can't simulate a career using textbooks in the classroom.
Interviewees noted that personnel needs were an area of concern. Finding qualified and willing business people to oversee and supervise students on the worksites and act as mentors and role models was reported to be "a challenging aspect of the school-to-work program." As reported by one principal, "[T]he most important thing in doing an internship is finding a workplace mentor that loves kids, that cares about kid's learning and having a good opportunity." In addition, convincing business partners and community members to continue supplying the local STW program with speakers, mentors, job coaches, and so on was viewed by some interviewees as a possible future concern. One city school principal described the need for business participation in the STW effort at her school:
There's a real challenge to get the human resources, the community, the business community, government agencies. We're tremendously dependent on them in order to make what we're doing real. We don't have the expertise. So that is something that is a constant challenge and something that has to be an ongoing focus.
Interviewees from some sites were concerned that certain essential in-school personnel positions such as a STW coordinator position, would be eliminated when grant money disappeared and that the classroom teachers would be burdened with the responsibilities of that position. A rural site administrator described the need for additional STW personnel in his school:
I think a lot of things that would be really good to do can't be done in a larger classroom as effectively as we could if we could work in small groups on some relatively serious projects. You know, get them out doing hands-on work and visiting different places and doing some regional research.
Some interviewees were concerned with "leveraging resources" and "combining what [they] had to avoid the duplication of programs and services" as a way to limit personnel and material needs. A guidance counselor explained the efforts made to minimize program duplication at his school:
[The] school-to-work [program] has maybe some redundancy in there in that we were stressing things that other programs were stressing. So we've had to be aware of what's going on in the total curriculum, with the total school environment, and that we had to coordinate our efforts and have a team approach to [the] school-to-work [program], career guidance, and curriculum development.
Program Quality and Outcomes
Many of the interviewees mentioned concerns about improving the STW classroom instruction and expanding the work-experience opportunities each year.
A seventh-grade academic teacher explained the importance of delivering positive experiences for the middle school student:
Making sure we're always giving the kids a good experience, that they don't go out and get disenchanted because for some reason that particular job experience was not the greatest or did not live up to their expectations--that's what's important.
Other interviewees were concerned about the consistency of quality in student work produced in the STW program. An inner city school principal commented,
Some of the tasks that the students are doing are not as sophisticated as what I would like to see them doing. So if they are in a business--some of the things they are making--we need to upgrade the things they are making and I think that's an issue. There's a quality control issue.
Another program quality concern voiced by interviewees consisted of expectations some parents, teachers, and administrators had that the STW curriculum would "solve the world's problems," or at least solve the students' problems. One city site principal shared her concern about the unrealistic expectations surrounding the STW program at her school:
Now, one issue I would say is that because it's [the school-to-work curriculum] designed to be so totally different is that we've gotten a number of students with increased risk. Not just based on academics but increased risk based on their social and emotional development. Parents say "Aha, my child has been disinterested in the past in school; this is going to do it; this is going to turn them on." So while the program is designed to meet the needs of a divergent group of kids and to reinvigorate them with their education, for it to be an excessive number of kids becomes problematic. We've had a number of behavioral issues that we have had to address.
The measurement of growth and progress by analyzing changes in individual student test scores is a common practice in many school systems. A few of the interviewees were concerned because the progress students had made in the STW program was not necessarily evident to teachers outside of the STW program or in standardized test scores. Academic teachers from two different city schools shared their concerns about student evaluation:
Other teachers don't see the progress of the kids through actual test scores, and they may not perform better in other classes. So teachers outside the program, don't run to me and say, "Oh, thank you; it's a miracle." I knew this was not going to raise the standardized test scores; it simply is not. It is a great activity to hook kids into learning and doing research and all the subjects are integrated into this program. But now, the thrust is we must raise reading and math scores. That seems to be the measure for how good a school is. So, anyway, my point is, that this program takes time away from teaching to the test specifically. The evidence was that test scores did not raise from this program.