Since the early 1900s, vocational education has maintained a specific focus, distinct from mainstream academic education. As Lazerson and Grubb (1974) argued, the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which established federal support for vocational education, introduced ". . . a narrow conception of vocational education, one which tended to further `the idea that instruction, to be effective, must be very specific and narrowly related to the occupational skills it seeks to develop' and which discouraged experimentation with a broader concept of vocational education" (pp. 30-31). Although significant in providing additional funding opportunities for vocational education, a major impact of the Smith-Hughes Act was that it "contributed to the isolation of vocational education from other parts of the comprehensive high school curriculum" and established a division between practical and theoretical instruction in U.S. public schools (Hayward & Benson, 1993, p. 3).
Though sometimes controversial and contested, vocational education maintained its distinctiveness throughout most of the 20th century. Federal legislation and associated education reform efforts in the 1980s and 1990s have begun to lay the groundwork for breaking down that sharp division. These developments have the potential to strengthen both academic education and preparation for work. Indeed, vocational education reform can now be viewed as an attempt to create, through the use of applied learning methods and student-centered educational strategies, a model for the general training and preparation of all students, not just an approach to workforce development or the education of students who are deemed academically untalented or "noncollege-bound."
This section discusses recent developments in federal education legislation as part of this general trend. The 1990 reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Applied Technology and Vocational Education Act ". . . represented the most significant policy shift in the history of federal involvement in vocational-technical funding. For the first time, emphasis was placed on academic as well as occupational skills" (Hayward & Benson, 1993, p. 3). In addition to the required integration of academic and technical skills, the 1990 Perkins reauthorization called for articulation and coordination between secondary and postsecondary educational institutions (including but not limited to programs funded under the Adult Education Act, Job Training Partnership Act, and National Apprenticeship Act). It was thought that students would be better served by a system that connected higher education and further technical training to both secondary education and the workplace. Both the integration and articulation promoted under the act were provided by one of the Act's major programmatic vehicles, Tech Prep (Title III, Part E). This represented an attempt to institutionalize the role of high school vocational education as a step in the preparation for continued learning and instruction.
Thus, Tech Prep is designed to forge strong and comprehensive links between secondary and postsecondary educational institutions, mainly community colleges. These linkages were structured so that high school students could avoid the redundancy often associated with a move from secondary to postsecondary education. While still in high school, students are able to start working toward an established credential, be it an associate degree, two-year certificate, or technical preparation certificate in a specified field (Ruhland, 1995).
Although the Perkins Act did attempt to move the worlds of vocational and academic education closer together through integration and coordination, its focus remained largely on special targeted populations, especially what had traditionally been considered under-served populations such as minorities, women, individuals with handicaps and of limited English proficiency, and the economically disadvantaged. The "2+2" formula for Tech Prep also focused mainly on the connection between the last two years of high school and the community college. Indeed, the 1990 Act itself continued the traditional definition of vocational education as "preparation of individuals in . . . occupations requiring other than a baccalaureate or advanced degree" (1990 Perkins Act, Public Law 101-392; Section 521(41)). Tech Prep linkages and a more integrated curriculum, it was believed, would motivate "at risk" students who were disaffected from their educational experiences, by allowing them greater access to postsecondary education while still in high school. These students could experience a college atmosphere and have a more efficient transition toward achieving an associate or technical degree.
The School-to-Work Opportunity Act (STWOA) of 1994 represents a further step toward integration of the vocational and academic education systems. First, STWOA explicitly calls for new STW opportunities to be made available for all students. Second, although the community or technical college was supported under the STW legislation as a feasible route to high quality careers, STWOA is also explicit in keeping open the path to four-year college or university.
Like the 1990 Perkins Amendments, STWOA had its roots in technical education as it evolved from President Clinton's interest in and subsequent campaign promise to create a national youth apprenticeship system. STW was subsequently expanded upon recommendation of a task force formed by U.S. Departments of Education and Labor Secretaries Reich and Riley. Part of the legislation mandated the inclusion of the best aspects from programs such as youth apprenticeship, school-to-registered apprenticeship, Tech Prep, cooperative education, career academies, and school-based enterprises (Hudelson, 1994a, p. 3).
STWOA has provided states with several hundred million dollars a year to develop and implement programs that will give all students better access to postsecondary education and to good jobs after high school. Anticipating enactment of STWOA, funds for demonstration and planning grants on STW were supplied under the demonstration grant authority in the Job Training Partnership Act and the Perkins Act and awarded in December and January of 1993. All fifty states, the District of Columbia, and seven U.S. territories received noncompetitive development grants totaling $24.3 million in 1994 to design statewide STW systems. Implementation grants are awarded on a competitive basis after the state has developed the system they feel is ready to compete for additional funding. As of November 1996, 37 states had received STW implementation grants.
Like the Perkins Act, STWOA requires that states structure their programs in line with several overarching principles. From a governance or structural standpoint, the Act requires collaboration in planning and implementation so that a wide array of "stakeholders" are actively involved in the programs. Indeed, STWOA ". . . provides a framework and supporting grants for systemic change, encouraging new roles for states, school districts, teachers, counselors, employers, students, and parents" (Haimson, Hall, Hershey, Hudis, & Jackson, 1996, p. 1). As mentioned above, a second governance provision invites states to coordinate their STW plans with other federal legislation such as JTPA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Adult Education Act, the Perkins Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program, and the National Apprenticeship Act. Coordination must also take place among the different institutions involved in STW education, including elementary, middle, and high schools, and postsecondary education, thus making STW more of a pre-K through 16 initiative than the Perkins Act, but still stressing the need for institutional linkages to benefit students, educators, and employers. Thirdly, the state must promote a decentralized structure in which communities are encouraged to develop and implement programs that meet their local priorities.
From a pedagogic standpoint, STWOA extends the call of the Perkins Act for contextual learning and the integration of academic and technical content. In the 1980s,
awareness grew that traditional methods of teaching, relying on lectures and rote exercises to improve skills, were often viewed by students as irrelevant to their adult lives, were ineffective for many students, and contributed to the dropout problem. By adding meaningful context from the world of work, educators hoped to engage the interest and intellect of otherwise disaffected students, keep them in school, and help them learn more effectively. (Haimson et al., 1996, p. 2)
This need to develop an integrated curriculum had a strong presence in the Perkins Act in its emphasis on providing coherent sequences of vocational courses ". . . in which vocational and academic education are integrated, and which directly relate to, and lead to, both academic and occupational competencies" (Levesque et al., 1995, p. 5). The focus on integration in Perkins has contributed to the connection that has developed between it and STWOA. Indeed, many Tech Prep programs around the country have served as building blocks for STW due to their experience in developing and implementing applied curricula.
Several important aspects of STWOA, however, make it different from previous legislation. The inclusion of "all students" has already been mentioned. In addition, the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor have both been given a role as administrators of the Act. This partnership is an important and well-publicized aspect of the STW movement.
A third difference between STWOA and Perkins is that federal funding for STW is temporary and supplementary, not continuing. It is set up as "venture capital" or "seed money" to create workable and well-developed state systems that will become self-sustaining. According to Congress, STWOA does not provide funds for "a new federal program." Instead, it is "a temporary effort using federal funds as venture capital to create a statewide system of school-to-work activities supported by public and private, local, state, and federal funding from existing programs" (Hudelson, 1994b, p. 17). This seed capital will give states the opportunity to learn from one another, and to build a knowledge base of effective practices that will promote systemic change, not just isolated programs (Haimson et al., 1996). STW funding at the federal level is scheduled to end in 2001.
Another major trend in education reform in the 1990s has been a new emphasis on performance standards for students. This trend also has the potential to reduce the barriers between occupational and academic education, although there is at the same time a danger that the standards movement will deepen the division between the two types of education.
Standards represent an attempt to improve program and service quality. This was particularly emphasized in the 1990 reauthorization of the Perkins Act (Levesque et al., 1995). Both Tech Prep and STW initiatives stress the need for strong and consistent data collection efforts by making state- and national-level evaluations an imperative. Moreover, the Perkins Act required that the National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) evaluate the integration of vocational and academic education. Similarly, STWOA requires state- and national-level program evaluations to look at systemwide change and its effects on student performance, including academic performance. In both cases, the achievement of further integration of vocational and academic education has now become one of the criteria against which the success of these initiatives will be judged.
Interest in the development of standards for the achievement of particular skills, both academic and vocational, emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was partly motivated by the conviction that technology and market changes require significant modifications in the types of skills and behaviors needed by workers (Bailey & Merritt, 1997a). Unlike Germany and Japan with strong connections established between educational institutions and the workplace, the connection in the United States between employers and educators was tenuous (Stern et al., 1996). It was and still is widely believed that skill standards are the best vehicle to communicate changing workplace needs--not only to educators and trainers, but to students, employers, parents, and the community at large.
By 1994, the United States, through a series of highly publicized meetings among educators, Governors, Legislators, and even Presidents, was given a series of eight educational goals. These National Educational Goals, subsequently incorporated by the 103rd Congress into the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, include (1) school readiness for all children; (2) a 90% high school graduation rate; (3) benchmarks for student achievement in English, math, science, foreign language, civics and government, economics, arts, and history and geography; (4) provisions for teacher education and professional development; (5) placement as first in the world in math and science; (6) adult literacy and lifelong learning; (7) safe, disciplined, and alcohol- and drug-free schools; and (8) parental participation--all to be accomplished by the year 2000. Under Title II of the Goals 2000 Act, the achievement of these goals was to be supported by the National Education Goals Panel that was to build a "national consensus for educational improvement" as well as become a reporting and reviewing agency for voluntary national content, performance, and opportunity-to-learn standards. In addition, Goals 2000 provided for the establishment of a National Education Standards and Improvement Council to certify and periodically review standards and assessment mechanisms that were being developed by state and national agencies; however, this attempt to establish a federal role in monitoring and organizing developments in academic standards was blocked by those in the 104th Congress who saw it as a threat to local control of education.
Nevertheless, Goals 2000 did succeed in establishing a federal coordination role in developing a system of standards for work-related skills. Title V--the National Skill Standards Act--called for the creation of a National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) (108 Stat 192, 20, U.S.C. 5933--Title V of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act). As stated in the Act, NSSB's purpose is "to serve as a catalyst in stimulating the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and of assessment and certification of attainment of skill standards: 1) that will serve as a cornerstone of the national strategy to enhance workforce skills; 2) that will result in increased productivity, economic growth, and American economic competitiveness; and 3) that can be used consistent with civil rights laws" by the stakeholders enumerated in the Act: "industries, employers, labor organizations, workers, students, entry-level workers, training providers, educators and the government." The Act also states that the voluntary national system will serve to facilitate the transition to high performance work organizations; increase opportunities for minorities and women; and facilitate linkages between other components of the national strategy to enhance workforce skills including the educational system, STW programs, welfare-to-work programs, job training programs, apprenticeship, occupational licensing and certification, literacy and basic skills programs, and one-stop career centers.
To carry out these purposes, the NSSB was created with the following charge:The mission of the NSSB is to encourage the creation and adoption of a national system of skill standards which will enhance the ability of the United States to compete effectively in a global economy. These voluntary skill standards will be developed by industry in full partnership with education, labor, and community stakeholders, and will be flexible, portable, and continuously updated and improved.
Although perhaps slow in coming, the skill standards movement has nurtured a growing connection between education and business communities through the standards themselves. Industry leaders and educators are now being asked to develop, implement, and create assessment mechanisms in line with the requirements of the high-performance workplace.
The connection between the skill standards and STW movements is based upon several of the requirements of both pieces of legislation and the policy perspectives that both Acts promote. First, both are strongly supportive of the career cluster concept whereby occupations are categorized to encompass more than simply one narrowly defined job. STW began this focus, perhaps as a way to minimize the negative stigma that was attached to traditional vocational education programs that trained students for specific, entry-level jobs. By broadening the concept of an occupation and tying it to an industry cluster, students are less likely to be trained for tasks that will be obsolete when labor market needs change. Instead of a focus on narrow job tasks and duties, "career majors" envisioned in STWOA would allow students to gain a deeper base of knowledge and an appreciation for that knowledge. STW has made this explicit by continuing the 1990 Perkins Act's insistence on teaching "all aspects of the industry." This concept allows students to expand their understanding and knowledge of the workplace, its requirements, and its opportunities. One of the advantages that NSSB gains from promoting broader career clusters and broad economic sectors instead of narrow occupations is an increased potential for bringing diverse industries together. Many industries, although often thought to be disconnected, employ individuals in similar occupations and can save time and money if cross-training were better developed. For example, computer programmers are necessary in health care, manufacturing, financial services, and other industries. It will benefit both industries and employees if individuals can gain skills that are truly portable across geographic as well as industry domains. NSSB has recently funded three broad industry groups to develop coalitions and work together to develop integrated standards.
While the industry skill standards movement has created the potential to improve the communication between educators and employers, what has been the effect on the integration of vocational and academic skills? Evidence relating to this can be found by examining the skill standards pilot projects funded by the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor in 1992 and 1993 for 22 industries. Bailey and Merritt (1995, 1997b) find that the evidence from these projects suggests a mixed conclusion. Some of the systems of standards developed by the projects have been written in such a way as to promote the integration of vocational and academic education and to encourage a movement to broaden vocational education, while some of the standards serve to reinforce the traditional divisions.
One important barrier to further coordination between the industry standards being developed and academic standards that have recently been written in various subject disciplines is that the two sets of standards have been created in almost complete isolation from each other. In May 1996, NCRVE sponsored a conference on integrating vocational and academic standards and invited representatives of eight of the industry standards projects and five of the academic standards projects. It became clear that, with one or two exceptions, the members of these two groups had had almost no previous contact with each other. Perhaps with the exception of math standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, academic standards were written with no input from industry or business interests and, therefore, have little, if any, connection to STW or other educational reform movements. At the conference, participants representing the academic and industry sides were grouped together and charged with the task of examining a series of academic and technical standards to determine the feasibility and necessity for integrating standards to better prepare both workers and students for future education and career goals. The conference participants reached an overall consensus that some academic and technical standards actually function better and can maintain their rigor when integrated, yet some need to stand alone. Based on their participation in that conference, some academic and industry representatives have made plans to coordinate their standards.
Some Evidence on Early Implementation of the 1994 School-to-Work Opportunities Act
In 1995, NCRVE conducted a telephone survey of 15 localities that had received STW grants directly from the U.S. Department of Labor (called Local Partnership Grants) or from the U.S. Department of Education (called Urban and Rural Opportunities Grants). Responses are shown in the Appendix. Given the very small scale of this survey, the findings are only suggestive. More definitive measures of the results of STWOA will be obtained by other studies, especially the official evaluation being conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (Hershey et al., 1997). Nevertheless, the responses to this survey suggest several observations about the early implementation of direct federal grants to localities under STWOA.
First, local partnerships vary in size, composition, and orientation. Some consist of only a single school and a few hundred students, while others encompass one or more entire school districts and more than ten thousand students (Questions 1 and 2). Some start with strong connections between schools and employers that facilitate WBL, but they have to work at bringing teachers on board (Questions 11, 12, 13). Other partnerships are built on previous school-based initiatives like Tech Prep, but have to build links with employers. The variation apparent even in this small sample of partnerships is testimony to the flexibility of STWOA in accommodating local circumstances.
A second observation from this survey is that career majors cannot be established instantaneously. STWOA requires that participating students be given the opportunity to complete a career major, which it defines explicitly in section 4(5) as follows:
The term "career major" means a coherent sequence of courses or field of study that prepares a student for a first job and that--
- integrates academic and occupational learning, integrates school-based and work-based learning, establishes linkages between secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions;
- prepares the student for employment in a broad occupational cluster or industry sector;
- typically includes at least 2 years of secondary education and at least 1 or 2 years of postsecondary education;
- provides the students, to the extent practicable, with strong experience in and understanding of all aspects of the industry the students are planning to enter;
- results in the award of--
- a high school diploma or its equivalent, such as--
- a general equivalency diploma; or
- an alternative diploma or certificate for students with disabilities for whom such alternative diploma or certificate is appropriate;
- a certificate or diploma recognizing successful completion of 1 or 2 years of postsecondary education (if appropriate); and
- a skill certificate; and
- may lead to further education and training such as entry into a registered apprenticeship program, or may lead to admission to a 2- or 4-year college or university.
Given the complexity of this definition, it is not surprising that few of the partnerships responding to our survey claimed they were involving all students in career majors yet (Questions 4, 6, 7). Furthermore, although some respondents included several elements in their definitions of career majors, most defined career majors essentially as a sequence of courses (Questions 3 and 5). Despite STWOA's stipulation that a career major "typically includes at least . . . 1 or 2 years of postsecondary education," only two of the partnerships we surveyed had programs that included postsecondary education for most students (Question 10).
Hershey et al. (1997) found that local partnerships funded through the states, rather than directly from the federal government, have also been slow to develop career majors, except in one or two states. They offer several possible reasons, which will be discussed in Section III.1.
Finally, responses to Question 9 indicate that these STW programs are seen primarily as preparation for work, and sometimes for two-year college, but not mainly as preparation for a four-year college or university. This question asked only about expected outcomes, however; the actual results will have to await the findings of the STWOA evaluation.
Conclusion: The Message of Federal Policy
Federal legislation has strongly encouraged the broadening of vocational education and the integration of vocational and academic instruction. Because the Perkins Act has no direct impact on academic programs, however, integration has been presented as a reform of vocational education rather than part of a broader reform agenda. Similarly, despite the language of STWOA that would give all students equal access to all program components, many people still see STW as a strategy that is most appropriate for the "noncollege bound." The structure of the Goals 2000 legislation also is somewhat neutral with respect to coordination between academic and industry skill standards. This coordination is further complicated by the absence of a national-level body for academic standards that could work toward better integration with the NSSB. Therefore, the extent to which this portfolio of federal legislation will encourage a broader view of vocational education and a stronger integration of vocational and academic instruction for all students depends very much on whether local communities and states embrace these goals as their own.
If new STW systems are to become institutionalized after the federal law expires, they will have to be embodied in state legislation and policy. Constitutionally, the states are responsible for education. In fact, states control curriculum, graduation requirements, testing, and teacher training. They either provide the bulk of funding from state revenues or control how local authorities raise money for schools. Although the federal government took an assertive stance toward education in the 1960s and 1970s, it retreated to a softer approach in the 1980s and 1990s. STWOA is an example: It did not mandate new federal programs for target populations, nor did it require the adoption of certain strategies to build on existing education and training programs. Rather, states were given "venture capital" to develop the most appropriate, effective systems for successful school-to-work transition for all students (National School-to-Work Office, 1996).
To give an account of how STW policy has been evolving at the state level before and after STWOA, we compare six states: Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, Oregon, and Wisconsin. These six states were chosen to illustrate some of the diversity of the national STW movement in terms of the conceptualization of STW. Some states are acknowledged early leaders in the STW movement that were actively engaged in youth apprenticeship (Wisconsin) or comprehensive educational reform (Colorado, Kentucky, and Oregon), while others have more recently emerged as taking leadership in particular areas such as economic development (Arizona) or employer involvement (Colorado). The states include a range of first- and second-year STWOA implementation grantees and they are located in various regions of the country.
These six states vary dramatically in the extent to which their STW policies are designed to affect all students, or only some. Where comprehensive STW systems are being built to accommodate all students the new systems link education with workforce preparation and economic development. At the comprehensive end of the continuum, Oregon incorporated STW concepts of Certificates of Initial Mastery and Advanced Mastery into its major K-12 education reform for all students, reflecting a workforce preparation strategy linked to economic development. In Kentucky, a court-ordered mandate for equitable K-12 educational funding also resulted in a comprehensive plan that built STW elements such as career majors into educational reform. All students in both states will be expected to have career majors and work experiences before they graduate (National Governors' Association, 1996). Wisconsin, while establishing career majors and requiring work experience of all students, has not linked its STW as closely to K-12 education reforms for all students, and has primarily focused in supporting specific workforce development programs such as youth apprenticeships, Tech Prep, and cooperative education (Hershey et al., 1997). As a result, it is less clear whether that educational system will make STW activities available to all students.
Less comprehensive approaches are illustrated by Colorado and New York, which have established uniform career majors, but will not require students to have work experience before they graduate. The STW components of school-based learning, work-based learning, and connecting activities, therefore, are not expected to be for all students.
Finally, Arizona, with its culture of decentralization and history of career education programs, does not have state legislation in place that connects STW to other systems, but has focused on expanding its existing vocational/technical education system to ensure opportunities for all students. Yet although all students will be prepared for postsecondary education, students will still have a choice in 12th grade exit placement tests that are workplace-specific or for higher education (DeLucca, 1996).
The description of state policies here relies on relevant legislation, executive orders, commission reports, and studies published between 1990-1996 in the six states. These documents describe each state's official rationale for STW, reflect their state's unique cultures in implementing complex systems change, and also help document the influence of the federal legislation on the states. It is important to note that evaluating the degree to which stated policies have been put into practice is beyond the scope of this report. How actual practices have been affected by state (or federal) policy will be known only through evaluation studies (Hershey et al., 1997; Reisner, Adelman, Breckenridge, Hallock, Hightower, & Kulick, 1995a; Reisner, Adelman, Breckenridge, & Kulick, 1995b).
Oregon's "School-to-Work" Transition System
Oregon is a leader in conceptualizing and implementing comprehensive, whole systems change so that all students have the opportunity to be prepared for college and work (Reisner et al., 1995a, 1995b; Tucker, Ruzzi, Kraemer, Wong, & Sacks, 1995). Since 1991, the state legislature has passed six extensive pieces of legislation to provide a framework for a comprehensive system of human resource development, representing an integrated approach to STW transition that has been crafted through state legislation while allowing for local discretion.
Oregon's approach to STW builds on its tradition of solid planning and consensus building in other social policy areas such as health care, environmental regulations, and welfare policy. Initiatives in vocational education have traditionally been supported in this historically timber- and fishery-based economy. However, an economic bust in the early 1980s provided the incentive to look again at economic development in the state, and correspondingly, to reexamine potential changes in workforce development (Tucker et al., 1995). With economic recovery in 1987 and 1988, the concern was to sustain the economic comeback, but with a larger task in mind: ". . . building statewide capacity for long-term, well managed growth, and taking a competitive role in the growing global economy. We are clear about what we want: well-paying, productive jobs for Oregonians, providing an economic base that enriches all aspects of Oregon life" (Oregon Economic Development Department, 1989 [Summary]).
In 1988, a major report was published that was the result of a year's work by 16 statewide committees of business, labor, education, and government leaders with a single charge: to examine and recommend how Oregon should shape its economic future (Oregon Economic Development Department, 1989). Oregon Shines: An Economic Strategy for the Pacific Century outlined a 20-year strategic plan for economic development. In 1989, the state legislature created the Oregon Progress Board to implement the plan, and two years later, the board's first report, Oregon's Benchmarks: Setting Measurable Standards for Progress, outlined the benchmarks Arizona would establish to help measure the state's progress toward achieving its goals.
One of the three key goals of the 20-year strategic plan was the creation of a world-class workforce by the year 2010. In 1991, the Oregon state legislature passed major pieces of legislation, very closely together, relating to education reform (H.B. 3565), workforce development (H.B. 3474), and economic development (H.B. 3133) to create a "seamless" system of education and workforce preparation to meet that goal. Education reform serves as the linchpin for workforce development, and "it is the economic development policy of the state to support and promote education and training for students, workers, and businesses" (H.B. 3133, Section 2, 1991).
Education Reform as Workforce Development
The capstone to educational reform, the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century (OEA), was passed with several goals, one of which was to have a "workforce equal to any in the world by the year 2010" (H.B. 3565, Section 2(3), 1991). Strongly influenced by the report, America's Choice: High Skills, Low Wages! (Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, 1990), the Act's objectives were to "establish the Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery as new high performance standards for all students; to establish alternative learning environments and services for those experiencing difficulties in achieving the knowledge and skills necessary to obtain the Certificate of Initial Mastery; . . . (and) to establish partnerships among business, labor and the educational community" (H.B. 3565, Section 2(5), 1991).
Interestingly, although educational restructuring clearly serves as one of the primary interests of workforce and economic development strategies, the goals of education do not articulate such specific and focused attention to the "world of work" (the ninth "characteristic of public schools" out of 13 listed). Rather than focus on specific "professional technical preparation," the Legislature intended for the educational system to build a high-quality workforce and citizenry by maintaining a system of schools with a broad range of characteristics that include building a "solid foundation in the skills of reading, writing, problem solving, listening, speaking, critical thinking and communication across the disciplines" (H.B. 3565, Section 3, 1991). The inclusion of business-education partnerships supported the development of the CIM (Certificate of Initial Mastery) and CAM (Certificate of Advanced Mastery) and strengthened these broader opportunities for students.
OEA was revised in 1995 (H.B. 2991, 1995), and language in this act emphasized the goals of "academic excellence" and "serious scholarship" for students while also giving them experiences in "applying knowledge and skills and demonstrating achievement" (H.B. 2991, Section 3(2), 1995). Of interest is the increasing emphasis on a "rigorous academic program," while one of the previous goals of "a workforce equal to any in the world" was deleted. CIM and CAM programs in schools are expected to meet both the "highest academic standards," while also offering "work-based learning experiences," defined as "opportunities for all students to participate in high quality programs that provide industry related and subject matter related learning experiences that prepare students for further education, future employment, and lifelong learning" (H.B. 2991, Section 2(13), 1995).
Workforce Development as Economic Development
Related to economic development, the Workforce Quality Act (H.B. 3133, 1991) was passed almost the same week as OEA with goals that included providing "comprehensive education and training programs, especially professional and technical programs, for students and workers" and "coordinating the delivery of all education, training, employment, apprenticeship, and related programs to eliminate needless duplication" (H.B. 3133, Section 2, 1991). The Act created the Oregon Workforce Quality Council (WQC) and fifteen Regional Workforce Quality Committees to oversee the implementation of workforce development strategies which include, at the top of the list, primary and secondary school reform. These committees would also eventually oversee the STWOA grants in their regions.
WQC's specific powers included that "all annual operating plans must be reviewed and approved before agencies may implement them" to be evaluated for their responsiveness to the Oregon benchmarks and other labor market forecasts (H.B. 3133, Section 9, 1991). Housed in the Oregon Office of Educational Policy and Planning within the Governor's office, the WQC was also designated as the Job Training Coordinating Council for JTPA purposes and as an advisory council to the Economic Development Department (EDD).
H.B. 3474 (1991), relating to workforce development, similarly articulated goals for "coordinated and complementary education, training and employment programs," "a high performance workforce characterized by diversity, technical competence and economic self-sufficiency," and also emphasized the need for "attainment of high academic standards for all students" (H.B. 3474, Section 2, 1991). The Act created the Work Force Development Fund to support the variety of activities outlined in the Act, and appropriated $8 million from state lottery funds to be administered by the Economic Development Department "in a manner that maximizes coordination with other economic and education development efforts." However, the power of the WQC remained advisory to the EDD regarding the Work Force Development Fund, and it mostly was an interagency body that coordinated workforce development programs in other state agencies.
In 1993, the Workforce 2000 package (S.B. 81, 1993) revised the 1991 laws and allocated $7.355 million in state lottery funds to support a variety of "STW transition" activities in several state agencies, including youth apprenticeships, America's Choice developmental sites, and expanded Tech Prep programs. The phrase "STW" remains in quotations as the term referred specifically to disabled students in the legislation, and not to the general school population. Rather, "work-based learning experiences" are emphasized for students in general. The WQC became the main administrative agency of Work Force Development funds (replacing the EDD) and also continued its previous coordinating function for workforce development programs. Also the Act explicitly noted that "assurance of workforce preparedness for all students through covenants between business and education" is a primary goal for the legislative assembly (S.B. 81, Section 2(5)(f), 1993, emphasis added).
These legislative actions form the basis of Oregon's STW system and there are several significant features of the legislation that promote a systemic, rather than programmatic, focus. First is the cross-referencing that occurs among the acts to demonstrate the development of coordinated education and workforce training. The Oregon WQC is cited in all three, as is the "restructuring" of primary and secondary schools for the goal of preparing a world-class workforce. From an administrative standpoint, state agencies that propose any activities relating to employment-related training and education are expected to coordinate with the WQC, and thus be coordinated with other related state agencies.
Also significant about the 1991 legislation was the lack of specific programs recommended for implementation. The intent was to build a system truly based on the CIM for all students, and giving students subsequent access to CAM, university, and/or college through a performance-based assessment for admission to the University of Oregon (PASS). Rather than a specific program model type that was expected to be shared statewide, funds were allocated to local communities to encourage the development of different models of STW transition, depending on the local resources and needs. For example, H.B. 3474 allocated funds for Tech Prep, youth apprenticeships, and applied academic curriculum among other options.
As a state, Oregon has clearly contributed to the federal STW movement. Since 1990, Oregon has focused on "systems-building" that integrated economic development, workforce development, and educational reform long before the federal government developed its guidelines. Most significantly, Oregon has pushed for greater federal coordination of education and training programs through a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (the Oregon Option) between the state of Oregon and federal agencies to coordinate state and federal resources and to be held accountable for mutually agreed upon results based on progress toward the Oregon Benchmarks. While such state leadership has helped to bring awareness to education and workforce development issues, local discretion in Oregon allows uneven implementation of reforms throughout the state. One Oregon high school that is in the forefront of reform is described in some detail in Section III.1.
Kentucky School-to-Work Initiative
One of the first eight STWOA implementation states, Kentucky has been a national leader in its efforts to restructure its schools (DeLucca, 1996; Tucker et al., 1995). While its involvement in career education and preparation for some students is long-standing, Kentucky's state court system provided the incentive to envision and implement systemic changes in education for all students. Spurred by state court decisions in the late 1980s that challenged unequal educational financing in Kentucky, the legislature passed the 1990 Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), a comprehensive act that has touched almost all aspects of the educational system. As a result, most educational initiatives, including the five-year $24 million STWOA grant in 1994, have the goals of KERA as their centerpiece. While rhetoric in 1993 and 1994 executive orders supported closer coordination among educational reform, workforce development, and economic development strategies through STW initiatives, the emphasis in Kentucky remains, for the most part, focused on educational reform with strong connections to workforce development.
Given the court-mandated urgency of KERA, it represented the primary legislation affecting Kentucky's STW transition initiative as an act "relating to the reform of the Commonwealth's system of common schools" (H.B. 940, 1990, p. 1). KERA focuses on building seven capacities in students, including "sufficient preparation to choose and pursue his life's work intelligently" (H.B. 940, Section 2(6), 1990). The Act articulates six goals for the schools, including Goal #6 that "schools shall be measured on the proportion of students who make a successful transition to work, postsecondary education and the military" (H.B. 940, Section 3, 1990). Administered by the Kentucky Department of Education, KERA restructured almost all aspects of the educational system, including the development of a performance-based assessment system, curriculum content standards, school-based decisionmaking, school performance standards, early childhood education, family resource/youth service centers, and teacher certification. In a systematic effort to prepare all students for work, students are expected to graduate with career portfolios.
In 1990, the state legislature also created a Workforce Development Cabinet as the state agency for employment-related education and training. The cabinet was composed of various "major organizational units," including the Department for Vocational Rehabilitation, the State Board for Adult and Technical Education, the Department for Employment Services, and the Office of Training and Reemployment (H.B. 814, 1990). The executive officer of the cabinet is the secretary of the Cabinet for Workforce Development, and is appointed by the Governor. Duties of the secretary (and thus the cabinet) include the promulgation and enforcement of "administrative regulations that are necessary to implement programs mandated by federal law, or to qualify for the receipt of federal funds, and that are necessary to cooperate with other state and federal agencies for the proper administration of the cabinet and its programs" (H.B. 814, 1990).
Because Kentucky's educational system did not "provide a comprehensive and coherent system to help students make effective transition from school to work," Executive Order No. 93-1163 in 1993 established the STW Partnership Council to "set policy for development and implementation of a STW transition system in Kentucky" (Executive Order No. 93-1163, 1993, p. 1). The order specifically referenced "workforce training" and the Kentucky Educational Reform Act as key reasons for the establishment of the Council. Essentially, the responsibilities of the Council, in addition to broadly setting policy, was to develop the state application for the STWOA implementation grant, to develop criteria and review local applications for the STWOA, and to provide oversight for the grants. The Council was reconstituted as the Kentucky Workforce Partnership Council in 1994.
In 1996, the issue of statutory power to support STW transition was addressed in Senate Bill 280, which created a STW office within the Workforce Development Cabinet. It was the intent of the General Assembly to "create and support a STW transition system that involves business, labor, education, and government in developing school curriculum and workplace training to prepare students for jobs in an ever-changing economy" (S.B. 280, Section 1, 1996). For the first time, it was directed that "agencies of state government shall participate in the development and implementation of the system" (S.B. 280, Section 1, 1996). The primary duty outlined for the STW Office was promulgating "administrative regulations establishing policy for the development and implementation of a STW transition system" (S.B. 280, Section 1, 1996).
Since 1990, Kentucky's STW transition efforts have become institutionalized within state statute, and formally ensconced within its workforce development strategies. Involving schools beyond Tech Prep consortia, the development of statewide articulation agreements in three career areas--Early Childhood Education, Electronics/Engineering Technology, and Computer Related Education--points to pathways that lead to both college and careers. The goals of KERA as the state's comprehensive educational reform strategy have been an explicit rationale to support the goals of STW, strengthening the concept of STW transition as a strategy for educational reform for all students.
Wisconsin School-to-Work Initiative: Connecting Learning and Work
While this report focuses on the period from 1990-1995, "Wisconsin has long made education and training reform a priority" (Tucker et al., 1995, p. 131). As one of the eight first-round implementation states, Wisconsin's School-to-Work Initiative is based on "local partnerships, youth apprenticeships, career counseling centers, tech prep and postsecondary enrollment options" (DeLucca, 1996, p. 200). Its goals when the Class of 2000 graduates include all students having a career plan, and at least having some exposure to the workplace (DeLucca, 1996). State legislation and executive orders form a foundation to achieve the vision, although much of the initial focus in STW funding and statutes have been to support specific programs for noncollege-bound students.
Changes in Education
In 1987, school districts were required to provide students with access to education-for-employment programs that include applied basic skills instruction, work-based experiences, and other vocational studies (DeLucca, 1996). Job Centers were also created to provide a statewide system of employment and training services, and a federal one-stop grant expanded and upgraded the Job Centers (Tucker et al., 1995).
In 1990, another Governor-appointed commission, the Commission on Schools of the 21st Century, had issued similar recommendations for education in its report, A New Design for Education in Wisconsin. This report recognized the significance of connecting workforce development to employers' needs with both a short-term objective of reskilling adults already in the workforce and a long-term objective of preparing youth for the workforce through educational reforms. These integrated strategies provided the basis for subsequent state plans.
Legislation in 1991 and 1992 mandated "new education standards and curriculum frameworks, a new assessment system to measure student achievement, and expanded technical training options for students not bound directly for college" (Tucker et al., 1995, pp. 132-133). In addition, the legislation also included provisions for site-based management of schools, school accountability for student performance, and funding to schools allowing linkages to agencies for health and social services for students.
In 1991, Wisconsin Act 39 budget bill outlined four major components of a school-to-work initiative. All of the following components were funded and administered by the Department of Public Instruction. The first, the Tenth Grade Gateway Assessment, provided $200,000 over two years "to develop a multidisciplinary (reading, science, mathematics, and language arts) test for tenth graders, which will measure pupil problem-solving and reasoning skills" (Act 39, 1993, p. 592). The Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program allowed any 11th- and 12th-grade student to attend an institution of higher education for the purpose of taking one or more courses for either high school or postsecondary credit (Act 39, 1993, p. 592). Fifty-thousand dollars was allocated to reimburse transportation costs. Third, all school districts were required to establish, with the assistance of Vocational/Technical Adult Education (VTAE) district boards, Tech Prep programs in each high school, but additional funds were not allocated. Finally, the Department of Industry Labor and Human Relations, in cooperation with the Department of Public Instruction and the State VTAE, was allocated $300,000 over two years to develop the first statewide youth apprenticeship program in the country.
During the same year, Wisconsin Act 339 modified the "education for employment" standard in order to incorporate the standard into the STW initiative. Starting in 1997-1998, school districts are required to incorporate applied curricula, guidance and counseling, technical and college preparation, youth apprenticeship, and other work experiences and instruction in employment skills (Act 339, 1993). Funding to implement the requirement, however, was not allocated. The education for employment standard also did not explicitly require all students to take such courses and participate in work experiences, but focused on creating access for all students.
Need for Statewide Coordination
Recognizing that Wisconsin needed a skills development policy, Governor Tommy Thompson in 1990 appointed the Commission for a Quality Workforce through Executive Order No. 84 (1990). The Commission's responsibilities included conducting research to "determine the present and future skill need of Wisconsin employers [and] to strengthen the partnership between business and education" as well as to make recommendations to address potential labor shortages and to strengthen the VTAE system. While the Commission did not have responsibility for funding, it was asked to present their recommendations to the State director of VTAE and to the Governor (Executive Order No. 84, 1990).
In 1991, the Commission was re-created through Executive Order No. 109. To fulfill its responsibilities, the Commission published a two-part report, A World Class Workforce for Wisconsin. The first section, "Building a World Class Workforce," focused on the "need to upgrade the skills of the existing adult workforce" (The Governor's Commission for a Quality Workforce, 1991, p. iii). The second portion of the report issued recommendations for "Educating the Workers of Tomorrow," which included outcome-oriented, standards-based education and improved technical education for noncollege bound students workers (The Governor's Commission for a Quality Workforce, 1991, emphasis added). Thus, the initial focus of youth apprenticeship and other STW-type activities had their roots in preparing a certain subset of the student population.
The Executive Cabinet for a Quality Workforce was created in 1991 through Executive Order No. 127 to "oversee implementation of a new workforce readiness initiative to ensure that Wisconsin's workforce will be world class by the end of the century" (Executive Order No. 127, 1991). Responsibilities of the Cabinet included the identification and implementation of "education and training policy options needed to prepare high school-age youth for entry into a skilled workforce and other postsecondary career options," and the development of requirements for a CIM. Funds for the Cabinet's travel and operating expenses were also allocated (Executive Order No. 127, 1991).
In 1993, Wisconsin Act 16 created the Governor's Office for Workforce Excellence, housed in the Department of Industry Labor and Human Relations. The office coordinated state and federal funds, and managed the youth apprenticeship program as well as the career counseling centers, which were established by the Act. $439,000 was approved to support the office, while the youth apprenticeship program received an additional $900,000 to administer training and technical assistance. Career counseling centers received $600,000, and state aid for Tech Prep to the Department of VTAE totaled $1.34 million (Wisconsin Act 16, 1993).
In 1994, the Governor signed an Executive Order creating a Human Resource Investment Council to "oversee all education, employment, and training programs in the state" (Tucker et al., 1995, p. 131). And in 1995, Wisconsin Act 27 re-created the state's job training coordinating council into the Governor's Council of Workforce Excellence to serve as an advisory council to STW and other employment initiatives. The Council is responsible for overseeing the "planning, coordination, administration and implementation of the employment and education programs" provided under a variety of state and federal programs and funding, including JTPA, Perkins, STWOA, and the state's youth apprenticeship programs (Wisconsin Act 27, 1995). Connections to the ongoing comprehensive educational initiatives, however, were not clearly stated in the Act.
As one of the leader states in the STW movement, Wisconsin has leveraged federal funds to strengthen and expand its efforts to support workforce development and educational reforms through STW. Recent revisions of university admission criteria to include performance-based exit standards have strengthened a systemic approach to preparing students for college and careers. Active support from the Governor and the state legislature bode well in developing and sustaining a STW system, although the coordination of multiple state and federal agencies, resources, and programs remains a challenge.
Colorado School-to-Career Partnership
In the early 1990s, Colorado represented a state that was mostly in the developmental stages regarding STW transition initiatives. A noteworthy history of educational reform has coalesced into a K-16 vision for education, however, and provides the foundation for the $4 million second-year implementation grant, and $24 million over five years, through STWOA. Without a specific focus on vocational education legislation, Colorado has passed state legislation and generated reports since 1981 that have clear implications for the "school-to-career" initiative in Colorado. Through STWOA, not all students are expected to engage in work experiences before graduating from high school, but all students are expected to graduate with an Individual Career Profile "demonstrating student attainment in academic and general workplace competencies" (DeLucca, 1996). It is also interesting to note that Colorado is the only state in our sample to articulate school-to-"career" and not "work," reflecting its more recent entry into the school-to-work movement.
Educational legislation since 1981 focused on improving students' transition from school-to-college. Due to concerns about the state economy in the 1990s, this emphasis on successful transition to higher education has expanded to include a focus on successful transition from school-to-career. In 1981, the High School Fast Track Program legislation (S.B. 248, 1981) was passed that allowed students who fulfilled requirements for graduation to take higher education courses during 12th grade. Legislation in 1985 required a core curriculum for community colleges that was transferable to four-year universities. In 1988, the "Postsecondary Enrollment Options Act" (H.B. 1244, 1988) increased options for students to take postsecondary courses during the 11th and 12th grades which also applied to high school graduation (DeLucca, 1996).
In 1993, Senate Bill 93-136 furthered the relationship between K-12 and higher education by ensuring transfer of community college credits to four-year institutions, and also allowing up to 20% of the incoming freshmen students to be "admitted based on criteria other than standardized test scores, high school class rank and high school grade point average" (S.B. 93-136, Section 23-1-113.5, 1993). Such admissions guarantees and policies potentially assist students involved in school-to-career initiatives by guaranteeing community college transfers to four-year institutions and by including nontraditional criteria for student admission to colleges and universities.
In the most sweeping changes proposed for education, House Bill 93-1313 (1993) declared that the "system of standards-based education will serve as an anchor for education reform" to enable all students to achieve the highest level of knowledge and skills (H.B. 93-1313, Section 22-53-401, 1993). While the focus of this act appeared to support a mostly "academic" agenda, it was clearly declared that "the ultimate goal (of standards-based education) . . . is to ensure that Colorado's schools have standards which will enable today's students of all cultural backgrounds to compete in a world economy in the twenty-first century" (H.B. 93-1313, Section 22-53-401, 1993). In short, successful transition to the world of work was the overarching goal which formed the basis, at least in rhetoric, for standards-based education in Colorado. Appropriately, the School-to-Career vision described "a standards-based educational system, tied to economic development, that ensures through partnerships that all of its young people are prepared to excel in the competitive and dynamic global marketplace" (Colorado School-to-Career Partnership Office, n.d.).
In addition to the activities of the state legislature in the area of educational reforms, leadership from the Governor and Lieutenant Governor was significant in building and sustaining interest in developing a comprehensive workforce strategy. In 1994, recognizing that the current employment and training systems needed "a coordinated strategy that incorporates the state's economic development goals," the Governor issued Executive Order No. 94-001 (1994) establishing the 21-member Colorado Workforce Coordinating Council as the state's Human Resources Investment Council. Housed within the Governor's office, the powers of the Council included review and coordination of federal human resources programs, and its primary responsibility was "to advise the Governor on matters regarding Colorado's workforce development strategy" (Executive Order No. 94-001, 1994, p. 2). This Council currently oversees the STWOA funds in Colorado.
Other duties and functions included developing a "comprehensive workforce development strategic plan which takes into consideration directions identified in the state's economic development plan and which . . . establishes goals for the development and coordination of the education, employment and training system in the state" (Executive Order No. 94-001, 1994, p. 2). Interestingly, opportunities for collaboration with "other economic development and human resource initiatives, such as school-to-work transition efforts" was specifically cited (p. 2), while the ground-breaking efforts in education to develop and implement "standards-based education" reforms were not clearly articulated as a priority.
In 1995, the state legislature again supported the state's school-to-career plans by passing a state joint resolution concerning the "improvement of the transition from school to work in Colorado" (Senate Joint Resolution 95-32, 1995, p. 1). The resolution was a general statement to "encourage and support statewide efforts to help students gain the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary for succeeding in today's dynamic economy and to help maintain a high quality competitive workforce for Colorado" (p. 2). The General Assembly additionally encouraged the "continued collaboration of the state agencies and organizations responsible for work force development, education, and economic development" (Senate Joint Resolution 95-32, 1995, p. 2), although many of the activities and resolutions specifically pertained to the educational system. Funding was not allocated to support such activities, and beyond language to "encourage and support" school-to-work transition, the resolution does not carry the strength of the law for specific statutory mandates.
With its history of policy decentralization and strong local control, Colorado represents a state with an articulated vision of increasing integration of economic development, workforce development, and educational reform strategies. The relationship of the School-to-Career system with each of these strategies in influencing state funding and policies, however, remains unarticulated in legislation.
School-to-Work in New York State
New York was one of the first states to receive an implementation grant from the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, receiving potentially $66 million over five years. The vision for STW "to ensure that all high school graduates will be prepared for college, work, or both" reflects a goal for all students to "acquire the skills and knowledge needed for employment and effective citizenship" (DeLucca, 1996, p. 125), yet does not require all students to participate in some STW components such as work experience before high school graduation (NGA, 1996). The primary impulse to support STW has come from the education sector.
Two major state initiatives allowed New York to take a lead role in the national school to work movement and become one of the first eight states to receive STWOA implementation grants. As Packer and Pines (1996) note, ". . . New York's political leaders and chief policy makers were heavily influenced by America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!" in the early 1990s (p. 249). Their initial state interest in preparing the future workforce and restructuring education to meet new and increasing performance requirements helped to shape its two major campaigns over the next few years.
New York developed and published A New Compact for Learning (The University of the State of New York Education Department, 1991), the state's blueprint for educational reform in 1991. Although this document contains no specifics about how STW can fit in with curriculum reform, it is significant in relation to the state's future STW activities because it formally adopted SCANS skills and pushed for their incorporation into the curriculum framework as part of all young people's learning. The skills, couched in the Regents' Goals for Elementary, Middle, and Secondary School Students, were named "Essential Skills and Dispositions."
A second initiative was the 1992 document, Education that Works: Creating Pathways for New York State Youth (The University of the State of New York, 1992), that resulted from a task force commissioned by Governor Mario Cuomo. The task force focused on how the state's education system must change to prepare youth for future high-performance workplaces. Perhaps the most important and long-lasting outcome of the task force was the funding of twelve workforce preparation pilot projects throughout the state "in anticipation of designing and implementing a broader, statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system" (New York State Education Department, 1994, p. 1). As the state moved toward formal STW activities and the application for federal funding of STW, the Career Pathways coalition gave the state continuity in that essentially the same broad-based coalition of major stakeholders were involved in both movements.
Although not all of their recommendations were followed, the Career Pathways committee advocated for the establishment of globally competitive standards so that youth will have the knowledge and ability to enter the workplace or postsecondary education; restructured schools that foster the development of thinking and problem-solving skills; certification of rigorous academic fundamentals and entry-level workplace skills leading to a Career Pathways Certificate (CPC), followed by the high school diploma and a Professional and Technical Certificate (PTC); business and labor involvement in the setting of standards; and state funding to ensure school reforms that benefit all students.
New York's STWOA implementation plan announced four broad strategies that integrate workplace knowledge and skills into curriculum for all students by developing a curriculum framework based on high content and performance standards and a set of career majors; incorporate skill standards, skill assessment, and skill certificates into the state's new Performance-Based Assessment System; prepare teachers, counselors, and administrators to implement new curriculum, instruction, and assessment strategies by collecting models and developing training materials for WBL strategies; and involve parents and employers and other community members in shared decisionmaking (New York State Education Department, 1995).
The state's overarching goal was to put in place a School-to-Work Opportunities system where "a number of existing State initiatives related to workforce preparation and school-to-work transition will be joined together and tied with New York's major systemic education reform effort--A New Compact for Learning" (New York State Education Department, 1994, p. 7). Through its proposal, the state demonstrated a "political and policy commitment to fold school-to-work into systemic educational reform . . . [by] integrating existing programs, resources, networks, and coalitions to create a comprehensive system, not adding a new program" (Packer & Pines, 1996, p. 249).
New York has been committed to establishing a decentralized system that will empower local partnerships through a bottom-up strategy. This has led, however, to a very diverse and often piecemeal pattern of activities. Furthermore, the politics of local implementation often result in money being divided up into many small parts to maximize the number of local districts and schools that receive some resources. This may impede the development of a broader school-to-work system that supports access for all students.
Arizona School to Work Initiative
While not one of the initial STW leader states, Arizona builds its school-to-work system on its history of career awareness and preparation programs. Employers have been involved in programs relating school and work since the early 1980s, and the state was one of the first to develop content standards (essential skills) and state assessments for all students. There is also a rich history of students involved in paid-work experience (DeLucca, 1996).
Given this strong foundation and the initial $3.6 million in second-year STWOA implementation funds (with $24 million over five years), the state's main challenge has been to coordinate existing programs and structures into a comprehensive system, including JTPA, Tech Prep, Arizona Workforce Compact, and the state's Vocational/ Technical Education (VTE) initiatives (DeLucca, 1996; Vandegrift, 1995). In this way, without comprehensive legislation in support of school-to-work, Arizona's situation is illustrative of many states with strong, existing programs that serve some students, yet who are seeking direction and validation from state policy sources to build a system for all students to be prepared for college and careers. Presently, the focus of the state is to prepare all 11th- and 12th-grade students for postsecondary education, and to have all students complete a career portfolio (DeLucca, 1996), so the focus in Arizona is clearly on access for all students. Students will select between a workplace-specific or higher education placement test at the end of 12th grade, and not all students will be involved in work experience before graduating (NGA, 1996). Overall, impulses to support STW have come from educational reforms and strategic planning for economic development.
Changes in Education
The foundation of Arizona's current STW initiatives rest on existing career education and VTE programs. In 1970, Career Education and Cooperative Education was established to provide WBL experiences through a state allocation of $100 million over ten years (DeLucca, 1996). Most of the efforts in vocational education, however, have been focused on noncollege-bound students. From 1987-1990, the VTE Comprehensive Model was developed by educators, business and industry representatives, and state community college and university staff: "Fully implemented, the state's VTE Comprehensive Model provides an infrastructure for enhancing school-to-work transitions" (Vandegrift, 1995, p. 31). The model has three dimensions: (1) career exploration and core skill development, (2) a coherent sequence of instruction, and (3) curricular content that develops a variety of skills.
Other initiatives in the realm of education reform support school-to-work transition activities for all students. The state was among the first to develop content standards, or "essential skills," and state assessments in 1990. Also administered by the Arizona Department of Education, the Arizona Workforce Compact (AWC) was developed in fall 1992 as a school-to-work demonstration project to provide high school students with "occupational preparation experiences not available through the regular high school curriculum" (Vandegrift, 1995, p. 32, emphasis added). Five alternative delivery systems were identified, including Bureau of Apprenticeship Training (sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Labor) apprenticeships, internships, youth apprenticeships, and technical training in private postsecondary institutions and community colleges. These alternatives were considered excellent opportunities for "integrating academic skills with occupational competencies while improving the transition from high school to work or advanced training" (p. 32). They remained, however, separate from the regular high school offerings. In 1994-1995, 360 students in eight of Arizona's fifteen counties participated in AWC sites.
Economic Development as Impetus
In 1992, concerns about an increasingly interdependent global economy and the lack of an economic development plan catalyzed a partnership of Arizona's leading economic development organizations to create the Arizona Strategic Plan for Economic Development, now the Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (ASPED/GSPED). The plan essentially outlined a framework of three basic elements: (1) quality jobs with rising real wages and opportunity for advancement; (2) economic clusters, or concentrations of firms, across several industries that create jobs; and (3) economic foundations that are the building blocks for economic clusters. Such economic foundations include "skilled human resources" among other things such as accessible technology, availability of capital, infrastructure, and tax policies (ASPED, 1992).
Strategies recommended in ASPED/GSPED to improve skilled human resources included the creation of a statewide workforce development policy and development of specific competencies in education, including science, math, and foreign/English language education. Although "the state's education and economic development agendas converge on improving the educational options and outcomes for all students toward the ultimate goal of increasing the state's standards of living and quality of life" (Vandegrift, 1995, p. 51), integration of economic development, workforce development, and education are still outside the realm of state statutes. The foundations for such an integrated strategy, however, are strong.
That same year, an Executive Order No. 95-3 (1995) was issued to establish the State Council for School-to-Work. Recognizing the need "to promote a comprehensive statewide School-to-Work system in which all young people have access . . . [and] to place new emphasis on career development and guidance" the Governor established the Governor's Council on School-to-Work to "advise and assist in the implementation of a comprehensive, statewide School-to-Work system" (p. 1). While language in the Executive Order had some implications for education through emphasis on "active learning in an occupational context" and pedagogy that reflects "cognitive science research on the power of learning-by-doing," the focus of the system appeared to be on better information dissemination to students, parents, and employers. Composed of 20-30 members representing state agencies, urban and rural business representatives, and postsecondary institutions, the Council monitors and offers guidance to benefit the implementation of Arizona's School-to-Work system. It makes specific recommendations on occupational skills certificates and integration of vocational and academic programs, but does not have statutory power over state policies or funding.
Arizona represents where many states are in the school-to-work movement in building systems with some strong components in place, including foundations in vocational education, various educational reform initiatives, economic development, and interest in workforce development. The extensive economic development plan includes specific mention of the vocational education initiatives, but does not clearly articulate connections with educational reform, except in the case of math, science, and technology. The vision of college and career preparation for all students remains vaguely articulated in state policies, perhaps reflecting the local, decentralized tradition of state governance in Arizona.
Implications of State Policy Contexts for STW
This summary of 1990s legislation and policy in six states illustrates some of the various directions the STW movement has taken. By piecing together statements of legislative intent, executive orders, and reports of official policy councils, it is possible to find language in each state that connects STW with educational reform, workforce preparation, and economic development. Some of these connections predate STWOA, but the 1994 enactment of STWOA at the federal level seems to have inspired a more comprehensive view in the states of what a STW system can be. Even after STWOA, however, most states still have not articulated this comprehensive vision clearly in one commanding policy document or piece of legislation. Therefore, local communities in most states continue to face a set of policies, programs, and incentives from the state and federal governments that are not fully tied together. As described in Part III, local schools and STW partnerships face many choices in designing new programs and systems, and these choices often are not tightly constrained by state or federal controls.
Interestingly, also notable in the review of enabling legislation and policies to support STW systems has been the low profile of vocational education programs and policies. For whatever reasons--perhaps turf issues at the state level, or perceived lack of interest on the federal level in perpetuating business as usual through existing vocational education--discussion about how vocational education fits into new STW systems was relatively subdued in the six states we examined. This leaves local vocational programs with little guidance about how to connect with STW.
Lack of consensus around whether STW should serve all students, or only some, is affecting activities in the states. Given this absence of agreement, STW may continue to exist as a set of programs for particular students in certain states, while in other states it becomes part of a framework that coordinates K-12 education, higher education, and other public agencies along with private employers in providing options that address the educational and economic aspirations of all students.