INTRODUCTION

In 1994, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act articulated an education reform strategy that included innovative approaches to classroom teaching, guided learning experiences outside of the classroom, usually at work, and increased career counseling and guidance. The original impetus for this reform was a growing anxiety during the 1980s that America's youth were not prepared for the rapidly changing world of work, a view that gained support from well-publicized complaints by business about the quality of many of their applicants (Bassi 1996; Smith 1996). Initially, the school-to-work strategy was seen as appropriate for the "non-college bound" or the "forgotten half." It was this middle half--those who were not headed for college but who did not have such serious problems--who had been forgotten. [1]

The problems with the education of the "middle half" had particularly serious economic consequences since these were the individuals who actually carried out the work in the core manufacturing and service industries.[2] Thus, school-to-work programs have tended to focus on developing a strategy for this segment of the student population. Indeed, a recent Department of Labor (1995) report stated that current school-to-work programs tend to recruit students from the "middle . . young people who probably would not enroll in college and do not have severe academic or behavioral problems (p17)."

Since the early 1990s, views about the school-to-work strategy have evolved. Advocates now argue that the approach has the potential to serve as a basic model for all secondary schools.[3] The 1994 Act emphasizes that its funded programs should prepare students for high-quality careers but also maintain student options for postsecondary education. Thus, school-to-work should prepare young people for work and college.

The school-to-work model as it was originally conceived appears to have wide support from a variety of constituencies.[4] Many parents, teachers, educational administrators and counselors, college admissions personnel, and employers, however, are skeptical about its potential as a means to prepare students for college. For example, in 1995 the polling organization, Public Agenda, conducted a series of focus groups in Westchester County, a suburban New York county with many academically successful school districts that pride themselves on substantial Ivy League admissions from every high school class. The parents and teachers in these focus groups were uncertain of the strategy because they believed that it diverted students from academic learning and college preparation. "It's great for some kids, but not the college bound," observed one teacher. School-to-work was viewed as an approach which forces early career choices and is designed to prepare young people for employment in a specifically defined nonprofessional occupation immediately upon graduation from high school. School-to-work activities, especially work experiences or internships, would divert students from learning the academic skills and taking the competitive honors and Advanced Placement courses that they need to get into college. Extracurricular activities, another important consideration in college admissions, would also suffer. Even if the reform could be used to teach the skills required for a successful transition to college, parents feared that college admissions procedures and standards would not recognize that competence. Indeed, this fear has considerable justification since college admissions requirements are still based on the Carnegie units developed in the early 1900s as the standard unit of credit required for entrance to college.[5] The classroom teaching strategy and work-based learning that characterize school-to-work do not fit easily into the traditional Carnegie structure.

So far, advocates have not systematically made the case for school-to-work as a college preparatory strategy. The purpose of this report is to make that case by presenting relevant evidence and by suggesting policies that will facilitate the college preparatory potential of school-to-work. To be sure, there are many potentially important benefits to school-to-work other than teaching academic skills and preparing students for college. These include learning marketable occupational skills, learning what is expected on a job, and defining and understanding personal goals and aspirations. In addition, students can receive psychological and developmental benefits from having the experience of working in an adult world, being given responsibility, and being treated as an adult. One important conclusion of this report is that many of these "skills" are important in preparing students for college, but many parents, teachers, and college admissions officers and professors have the impression that these benefits can be gained only by compromising academic skills and by reducing college opportunities. We argue that compromising academic skill is not necessary and that the school-to-work approach has the potential to teach academic skills as well as and possibly even better than more traditional approaches.

We begin by explaining why parents, students, and educators should care whether school-to-work can successfully prepare students for college. We then describe the basic characteristics of school-to-work, emphasizing how those characteristics differ from other more school-based reform efforts. Following this description, the report presents some examples of school-to-work programs that emphasize academic skills and discusses how they enhance college opportunities. The next section presents empirical evidence that school-to-work programs have been successful in teaching academic skills and preparing students for college. We then discuss the college admissions process and review strategies that reformers are using to help school-to-work students gain access to selective colleges. The report ends with conclusions and recommendations.

We argue in this report that school-to-work can be an effective strategy for teaching academic skills and preparing students for selective colleges. Nevertheless we do not want to understate the important advantages that the school-to-work approach can have for students who are not succeeding in traditional education or academically oriented students who choose to go to work immediately after high school graduation. We emphasize the college bound not because we believe that the school-to-work strategy should be exclusively for these students but because so many teachers, parents, and students are skeptical of its potential for providing the academic training necessary to gain admissions to college and be successful there. By making the case to this audience, we hope to expand the use of school-to-work so that all students have the opportunity to benefit from it.

The material used in this report is based on published and unpublished reports as well as extensive interviews with educators, analysts, researchers, and policy makers. In addition, during the past year, we have been engaged in field work at ten school-to-work sites where we have interviewed program administrators, teachers, counselors, and students. Many of the examples used in the report are drawn from this field work.[6]

[1] According to this view, the American education system served the college-bound student well (the "top quarter") and while there was still much to be done for students who faced serious economic, social, and educational problems (the "lower quarter"), at least this group had not been "forgotten" since a quarter century of social policy had attempted to address the educational barriers they faced.

[2] This position was articulated by W.T. Grant Foundation (1988) and Commission on Skills in the American Workforce (1990).

[3] See Kazis and Goldberger (1995) for examples. Prominent examples of school-to-work strategies were also showcased at a 1996 conference titled "The New American High School" that was organized by the Department of Education and the National Center for Research in Vocational Education. See also, Business Week (1996) for descriptions of ten "new American high schools" that use an integrated academic-vocational curriculum as the basis for whole-school reform.

[4] Researchers at Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation discuss the recognition among policy makers, educators and the public that students need programs such as school-to-work to help them make transitions from high school to postsecondary learning opportunities and to meaningful, productive, high-skill work (Pauly, Kopp, and Haimson 1994). Jobs for the Future, an organization that does extensive research in and offers support for school-to-work programs, began one of its recent publications by noting the consensus that has emerged in favor of building a school-to-career system in this country that offers well-defined learning pathways beginning in high school, integrated classroom and worksite learning, and high-skill employment (Goldberger and Kazis 1995).

[5] Carnegie units were first established by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and presented to colleges in their second annual report in 1907. Based upon the recommendations of panels set up by the National Education Association, the foundation advocated that 14 standard units of credit, each representing a minimum of 130 instructional hours, be required as evidence of substantial preparation for college admission (Maeroff 1994).

[6] The ten programs were LaGuardia Community College in New York City; the Education for Employment School-to-Careers program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the Kalamazoo County Education for Employment program in Michigan; the Greater Lehigh Valley Youth Apprenticeship Program in Pennsylvania; City-As-School in New York City; the Shell Youth Services Academy in Los Angeles; the New York City High School of Economics and Finance; the Genesee Area Skills Center in Flint, Michigan; the Madison-Oneida BOCES (Board of Cooperative Educational Services) Manufacturing Technologies Program in Verona, New York; and the Monroe I BOCES New Visions Medical Careers Program in Rochester, New York. We also interviewed by telephone the 10 showcase schools chosen for the New American High Schools conference sponsored by the Department of Education and the National Center for Research in Vocational Education.