|
| Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Stone, J. R., III, Latting, J., & Dornsife, C. (1994). Research on School-to-Work Programs in the United States (MDS-771). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California. |
In this section, we describe recent attempts to revitalize the apprenticeship concept by using it to bridge the gap between high school, postsecondary education, and work. We discuss definitions of youth apprenticeship, assess the responsibilities of the parties involved, and raise the issue of balance between the goals of job preparation and academic upgrading. Individual programs, while similar in overall objectives, are unique as they account for career focus, budget limitations, and institutional partnerships. To make the discussion more concrete, we describe five ongoing projects. Two of these are local pilot programs, and three of these are directed and organized at the state level.
Our description of one of the pilot studies, Project ProTech in Boston, includes a first-year formative evaluation. This points out the kinds of opportunities and hurdles these programs may face as they develop. Most of the other youth apprenticeship efforts are too new to have been formally evaluated, so we report instead the views and opinions of individuals responsible for the efforts.
The definition of youth apprenticeship in the U.S. is still evolving. Some definitions deal with overall goals and vague aims of youth apprenticeship, while others are more detailed. Among the latter there is variation in the relative importance of work and school and the role of key participants.
The essential idea of youth apprenticeship is to provide structured, work-based learning for high school students, who are too young and too numerous to qualify for the small number of formal, registered apprenticeship programs that exist in the U.S. This is consistent with the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, which aims to catalyze the development of a school-to-work system in this country. Writing for Jobs for the Future, the leading organization in the development of youth apprenticeship for the U.S., Roditi (1991) explains the concept of youth apprenticeship as
apprenticeship because at the heart of these systems is the integration of school and workplace learning and an emphasis on learning-by-doing under the tutelage of experts; and youth, because these systems address the personal and professional development of young people. (p. 3)
Jobs for the Future has indicated the need to provide institutional supports for these programs that go beyond "program" elements. A system of work-based learning in the United States, instead, depends on transferable credentials in occupation-specific areas (Bailey & Merritt, 1993; Berryman, 1992). Further, Hamilton (1990) noted that a nationwide system to support youth apprenticeships would have to include "(1) a legal definition and basis; (2) institutional supports in the public and private sectors that reduce coordination, design, and implementation challenges; (3) curricula for school and work based learning; and (4) incentives for participation from key groups, particularly employers" (Jobs for the Future, 1993a, in "What is Youth Apprenticeship?" section).
The most important elements of youth apprenticeship are summarized by Jobs for the Future (JFF) (1993a) as follows:
Another proponent of the broad conception of youth apprenticeship is Nothdurft (1990), who outlines potential benefits for each key participant. For young students, it provides early exposure to the world of work, an opportunity to "broaden the base of their education in applied settings and mature gradually in the company of adults who care about them" (p. 13). Employers are expected to benefit from having an impact on building a quality workforce. Schools have an opportunity to bridge the world of work and the world of school, which in turn will "enliven the educational process, invigorate teachers and make students eager learners" (p. 14). Finally, communities should benefit from having more responsible citizens as manifested by less street crime, fewer dropouts, and less drug abuse. In its An Employer's Guide to Youth Apprenticeship, the National Alliance of Business (1992) provides a similarly broad list of anticipated benefits of youth apprenticeship programs for students, employers, schools, and communities (p. 13) as well as a list of various roles each of these participants will play in the process (p. 24).
Hoyt (1991) identifies three distinct "proposals" for youth apprenticeship. The first proposal refers to the application of the apprenticeship concept in entry-level training for traditionally non-apprenticeship occupations. It has been promoted by U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Work-Based Learning. The second proposal is grounded in Hamilton's (1990) Apprenticeship for Adulthood, which calls for a comprehensive educational system. The backbone is a 2 + 2 program combining the last two years of high school and the first two years of college with highly structured work experience. Finally, Hoyt recognizes Lerman and Pouncy's (1990) view as a third proposal, calling for formal contracts between eleventh graders and specific employers. The program would last three years, and time spent in on-the-job activities would gradually increase, up to at least 75% in the last year.
Roditi (1991) also describes three alternative models of youth apprenticeship, classified by degree of independence from the high school. Roditi refers to the first model as the independent teacher team, in which fifty to one hundred students are assigned to a team of three to five teachers as a self-contained unit. Teachers plan the curriculum and regularly visit students' workplaces. Teaching can occur inside or outside the high school. An example of this model is LaGuardia Middle College High School, where students get thirteen weeks unpaid work experience each year in high school. One feature of the Pennsylvania Youth Apprenticeship Program (see Appendix A) is that an increasing portion of students' time is spent at the workplace over the course of four years.
Roditi's second model is a partially independent teacher team in which (1) participating students take some special classes together and some with regular high school students and teachers, (2) some teachers might teach both regular high school students and youth apprentices, (3) the team has a limited administrative independence, and (4) the team is school-based (p. 16). Career academies like the Oakland Media Academy exemplify this model. Roditi suggests that the Fort Wayne Youth Apprenticeship program is expected to apply the principles of this model.
The third model is the one with no independent teacher team. Here (1) apprentices take most or all of their classes with regular high school students and teachers, (2) all participating teachers teach both high school students and youth apprentices, (3) the participating teachers have almost no administrative independence, and (4) the program is school-based. Tech Prep programs are an example of this model. In the Tech Prep Associate Degree Health Occupations Project, students in Paris, Texas, spend six hours a week in four-week hospital rotations. Some related curriculum is provided. Also representing this model is the Portland Partnership Project, where students work in the afternoons and during summers.
Youth apprenticeship sites in 1993 were sponsored by the Department of Labor through demonstration grants (10 sites), by Jobs for the Future (6 sites), some jointly (4 sites), and others independently (34 sites). Several states have recently initiated efforts to expand youth apprenticeship programs. While it is estimated that a few thousand students are currently enrolled, support through the proposed School to Work Opportunities Act is likely to result in enrollment increases in these programs. Many of these new programs will focus on the health care, machining, electronics, and hospitality industries. (Finkelstein & Latting, forthcoming).
In general, programs have targeted industries, employer contacts, and a plan for their students' course of training. They vary over a wide range of concentrations from aerospace (Middle Georgia Technical Institute, Warner Robins, GA) to metalworking (Craftsmanship 2000, Tulsa, OK), to health careers (Health Occupations Program, Kalamazoo, MI). McDonald's Youth Apprenticeship Program is in the planning stages in Indianapolis, Chicago, and Detroit as a four-year business management program with specialization in food service management. States are also capitalizing on momentum in this field. The California New Youth Apprenticeship Project (CNYAP) is a consortium of three programs in graphic arts, health, and construction in separate locations. While most of the programs are serving small numbers of students (12 to 50 annually), a few of the programs have plans in place for several hundred students annually. The descriptions that follow illustrate the variation in programs. The first example, that of Project ProTech in Boston, has been formally evaluated after year one and allows for some consideration of the relevant planning and implementation issues.
Project ProTech began in the fall of 1991 as a youth apprenticeship program in allied health careers. The program combines classroom learning from four high schools, clinical experiences in Boston's hospitals, and continuation to include at least two years of postsecondary education. The objective of the program is to train students who are thought to be noncollege bound in areas of high skill in health related fields. Further, the sponsors hope to enrich the instruction of high school courses to make them relevant in career development.
The formative evaluation of Project ProTech provided by Jobs for the Future (Goldberger, 1993) summarizes the findings from the first year in six areas: the partnership, learning through work, integrating school and work, unifying high school and postsecondary training, student selection and outcomes, and achieving a cost-effective design.
The first year of Project ProTech has demonstrated the complexity of the institutional partnerships that support the program. In this case, the Boston Private Industry Council (PIC) was valuable in representing the hospitals as a unified group. At the same time, the PIC was less successful as a broker between the hospitals and the schools. It was recommended that additional attention be paid to representing the schools and hospitals as equal partners in the ongoing development of ProTech as significant flexibility is required from both groups to accommodate the program's needs.
Clinical instruction was widely used to support the curriculum in Project ProTech. This has evolved over the first year as the most effective instruction provided by the hospital was in rotations through departments as on-the-job training. While the work-based component was generally successful, the quality of job placements varied. Good clinical instruction required a combination of supervision, support, development of a learning plan, and training for hospital staff.
The integration of vocational and academic curriculum was limited during the first year. Most of the recommendations called for curriculum and staff development to take advantage of a school-based curriculum that focuses on applications learned in the workplace. Teachers need greater understanding of the students' hospital experience to develop curriculum that is current and consistent. Changing scheduling at the school-site and promoting the program among other teachers were reported as other areas for improvement.
Project ProTech by design includes a postsecondary component that continues the secondary model. It is important that the transition be seamless from high school to college, which includes an entire new set of partnerships and curriculum alignment. At the end of the first year, these issues had not been worked out with postsecondary institutions.
The performance of students in Project ProTech varied considerably during the first year. Those students who did participate all year and had quality job placements appeared to develop greater confidence and showed increased motivation to perform on the job. Those students who entered with poor academic histories continued to have trouble with this program design. As a result, program designers concluded this model would not be accessible to students with severe academic and behavioral problems. Further, this lead to the conclusion that nearly half of the high school students in Boston would be unable to participate in a program of this kind.
Finally, the cost of ProTech in the first year was $450,000 and reached 88 students initially, 54 of whom stayed in the program the entire year. Costs incurred directly by the hospitals are not included. Project researchers concluded that costs will need to be evaluated for the program to be continued as part of a mainstream model of career education. Central staff were added to help in the development of the program in the first year. Streamlining the program by reducing staff or by substituting staff from school personnel could help reduce costs.
Another important youth apprenticeship initiative is in Broome County, New York (see Appendix A). This is a pilot project conceived and organized by Stephen and Mary Agnes Hamilton and their colleagues from Cornell University. The project started in the fall of 1991, when 22 eleventh graders enrolled in apprenticeships in health care, manufacturing and engineering technology, and administrative and office technology. Apprenticeships were provided by four employers. In the fall of 1992, 20 of these students went on to their second year of the program, and 20 more students were enrolled. Also, an additional two employers provided apprenticeships. The program recruits students whose grade point average is just above C and who are not considered at risk of dropping out of high school. After initial screening by school staff, students are screened by program staff and steering committee members.
The Hamiltons refer to their model as a work-based Tech Prep option. Students spend ten to twenty hours per week at work. Most of the work is done in the after-school hours and full-time during summers. In this respect, the project resembles a traditional cooperative vocational education program, except that work is more carefully planned than in most actual co-op programs, and the high school experience is formally linked with postsecondary education. In school, teachers and counselors provide a forum for discussing work related issues. In 1992-1993, special projects were added to the program. These are extended academic activities in which the youth apprentice explores in-depth an issue of importance at work.
The Broome County project is competency based. It is intended to include performance-based assessments rather than seat time as the evaluation base of the apprentices. The list of key competencies expected to be developed and evaluated at the workplace includes using proper procedures to accomplish a task, using computer technology, following rules, understanding principles and procedures, understanding organizational systems, communicating, working in teams, taking responsibility, and committing to excellence. The list is adapted to each apprentice.
The relationship with community colleges is still not clearly defined, as the project has not yet reached that stage of development. The employers have committed to four years of participation. Students are paid initially at the minimum wage, and wages are expected to increase each year.
Pennsylvania's initiative came from the State Department of Commerce and was started in 1991 with a pilot site that enrolled 12 students. This site served for observation and research. Five additional demonstration programs were launched in September 1992. There are presently 350 students participating at 16 sites across the state. They are placed with 148 employers, mainly small tool and die makers and machinery manufacturers. Recruitment is open to all students.
The criteria for acceptance includes recommendation of a guidance counselor, parents' approval, and being hired by a participating employer. Schoolwork requirements vary to meet local needs. Generally, students have classroom instruction on Mondays and Tuesdays, worksite training on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and more classroom instruction on Fridays. Such a design enables adequate communication and feedback. Students are taught by both vocational and academic teachers who are using an expanded and innovative curriculum. The assumption is that the youth apprenticeship curriculum represents an ever-evolving program and therefore needs to adapt continuously to the changing world.
Each student is assigned a mentor and a journeyperson. Students are paid a stipend by the employer. The time spent at the work site will gradually increase during the four years of the program. It is expected that in the second (senior) year of the program the format will be reversed to going to school two days and working three days. Students' progress will be assessed based on demonstrations of competencies. Regional employer groups, formed for the youth apprenticeship program, have taken part in developing training matrices for the work site curriculum. A training matrix covers approximately 5,050 hours of training.
Wisconsin's 1991 youth apprenticeship law created a program (see Appendix A) and designated the state's Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations to carry out the related activities in cooperation with the Department of Public Instruction and the Wisconsin Board of Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education. Wisconsin has the oldest registered apprenticeship system in the nation. Much of its youth apprenticeship model is based on elements of the traditional program.
The expected outcomes for the student participants will be (1) to enter work at a higher rate of pay, (2) to receive an advanced standing in a registered adult apprenticeship (up to one-and-a-half years), (3) to receive an advanced standing in a technical college, and (4) to master a curriculum that meets the admission requirements for the university system.
Implementation of youth apprenticeship began in the fall of 1992 with two programs, both in the printing industry. One site includes one school district and a single employer, with 12 students enrolled. Students spend four hours a day in school and four hours in the work-based learning site. Two days a week, they spend one to one-and-a-half hours attending courses at a technical college. Students will work full-time during the summer.
The other Wisconsin site included four school districts in a consortium arrangement with four participating employers. Nine students are enrolled in the program. They will rotate among the four employers. Students take all of their technical and academic courses at a technical college; academic teachers from the high school come to teach at the college. Students spend Mondays and Tuesdays in school, eight hours each day, and the rest of the week at the work site. Such scheduling and location arrangements help solve transportation and coaching problems.
Another printing program was scheduled to start in Milwaukee in 1993 for 25 students. Also in 1993, a finance curriculum--to be developed with the help of local banks, savings and loans institutions, and credit unions--will be implemented. Other programs in the utilities industry, hospitality industry, and motor vehicle equipment sales are scheduled to start in 1994.
To be eligible for youth apprenticeship, students must pass the tenth grade Gateway Assessment Exam (or a proxy) and complete an approved industry-specific survey course that includes an overview of the technology requirements, occupational options, and wage and employment expectations. The first generation of student participants is taking this course in their first semester of the program. All students are required to enter into a written agreement with their high school, parents, and employer. The agreement is approved by the Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, which is also responsible for approving agreements in the registered apprenticeship system.
In 1991, the state of Arkansas began a youth apprenticeship program with technical assistance from Jobs for the Future. Recruitment of tenth graders started in Spring 1992. Approximately 150 apprenticeships were awarded for Fall 1992. The program is expected to include the last two years of high school and the first two years of college. Approximately 70 firms are preparing apprenticeships in health services, industrial machinery maintenance and repair, small retail management, metalworking, and food service production and management. Firms will receive an incentive for cooperation in the form of tax breaks. Particularly good cooperation was established with firms that have their headquarters in Arkansas (e.g., Tyson and Wal-Mart). The program is set up to increase movement of apprentices from one employer to another. All apprentices will start at minimum wage with a possibility of advancement. Firms are not explicitly expected to hire apprentices after the end of their training.
Primary responsibility for oversight rests with the Vocational Technical Education Division of the Arkansas Department of Education in collaboration with the Arkansas Apprenticeship Coordinating Steering Committee. Six consortia, consisting of representatives from secondary and postsecondary institutions, from businesses and industry and from the legislature have been approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for implementation of youth apprenticeship.
This section summarizes the issues that emerged from discussions with individuals directly involved in the development and implementation of the youth apprenticeship concept.[1] One issue is the name, "youth apprenticeship." In the minds of many, apprenticeship is not related to academic education, and it is difficult to advocate or promote "apprenticeship" as a possible means of transition to college or university. It has been suggested that youth apprenticeship be developed in relatively attractive, high-prestige occupations that, possibly, would promote a favorable image of the program. Presently, it is difficult to convince parents of high school sophomores that their children will be able to go to college after having participated in an apprenticeship program.
Also important is to take into account flexibility or inflexibility of the high school districts to accommodate the new demands of youth apprenticeship programs. For apprenticeship to succeed, Tift (1992) claims, "Schools will have to change their methods, schedules and assumptions. Few teachers are familiar with local, regional and national job requirements; more flexible schedules need to be adopted to meet students' and employers' needs" (p. 4).
Major concerns on the part of the participating firms are labor issues, child labor laws, hazardous occupations, wages and stipends, incentives for participation, and long-term commitment to participation (JFF, 1993a). There is a widespread view that union resistance has been a limiting factor in the implementation of youth apprenticeship programs. The resistance of organized labor stems from concerns that young apprentices will displace older workers or undermine wage levels. It is therefore crucial that labor unions are represented in the process of developing youth apprenticeship programs.
Another issue related to employers is providing the right incentives for their participation. Some states are providing tax credits. However, the appropriateness of this is questionable if the benefits of youth apprenticeship programs accrue mainly to apprentices and employers themselves. Furthermore, there is a history in the U.S. of subsidized training being associated with disadvantaged workers whom employers often consider less desirable.
Child labor laws are of concern to management of the participating firms. It is important that advocates of youth apprenticeship programs do not put participating employers in jeopardy as a result of careless planning or negligence of state or national laws.
Long-term commitment by employers is vital to youth apprenticeship. However, some industries may not be appropriate for youth apprenticeship because of high turnover at the entry level of employment and short career ladders. Growing employment demand is also necessary to ensure that businesses will participate in the programs out of self-interest, rather than out of forced commitment.
State-level planning and coordination can help target programs to growing industries. It can also help deal with issues such as worker compensation, union concerns, child labor, and portability of credentials. On the other hand, local implementation is required to match particular employers and schools. Youth apprenticeship is therefore evolving as a set of local initiatives within a state and federal framework.
As the preceding review has shown, youth apprenticeship has come to mean different things to different people. These differences can be considered on a continuum with programs that prepare students for registered apprenticeships on one end and youth apprenticeship as a form of pedagogy at the other. This latter view is expressed by the notion of cognitive apprenticeship (Berryman, 1992). Between these ends of the continuum lie the programs reviewed in this report. Each offers a different balance of specific skill development and general academic development. We place the Wisconsin experiment closer to the traditional apprenticeship end of the continuum, particularly given the articulation potential with established, registered apprenticeships. Closely following is the Pennsylvania model. Both of these are state models that will address, at the state level, the portability of the credential to be earned. More toward the center of the continuum is the Hamiltons' Broome County demonstration, which combines vocational and academic education with the clear intent of continuing education beyond high school. In a similar location on the continuum are ProTech and the Arkansas program. Like Broome County, these efforts seek to incorporate the evolving Tech Prep 2 + 2 program. Also like Broome County, ProTech and the various efforts in Arkansas are locally initiated; they will have to face the problem of how portable their credentials will be.
Bailey and Merritt (1993) argue that a system of work-based learning ultimately will need to involve employers more than is currently the case. Further, they recommend long-range planning to develop an appropriate set of institutions and incentive systems to help in the replication of workplace education programs. In their view, youth apprenticeship programs will need to evolve over time to make them more consistent with economic and institutional dynamics in this country. Until that time, current initiatives will help to break down the barriers between education and work and provide useful information on program outcomes.
[1] We wish to thank the following individuals for their useful insights: Mr. LaMarr Billups, Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations; Professor Stephen Hamilton, Cornell University; Ms. Barbara Henrie, Minnesota Technology, Inc.; Mr. Peter Jay, University of Minnesota; Ms. Alicia Philipps, Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry; Mr. Ronald Schertzer, Arkansas Vocational and Technical Division; and Ms. Sharon Wherley, Pennsylvania Youth Apprenticeship Program.
|
| Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Stone, J. R., III, Latting, J., & Dornsife, C. (1994). Research on School-to-Work Programs in the United States (MDS-771). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California. |