Now, we had to take this process some steps further. Because employers are no longer in need of employees who can merely follow step-by-step instructions, or take their places along an assembly line, we can no longer educate students with a system that was designed to produce factory workers. The need for employees who can adapt and understand all aspects of the industry in which they are involved, whether it be manufacturing or medicine, publishing or public safety, is critical.
One way to produce such employees may be through experiential project-based learning such as that which we developed for PYAP. Many programs throughout the country are experiencing success by combining project-based group learning with an apprenticeship. The PYAP is a partnership of, and has been developed by, government officials, local business leaders, educators, parents, and community leaders. In reflecting about our progress, we realized that, in many ways, it is an answer to a crucial state and national need for self-directed workers who are team players, who have the knowledge and motivation to learn and continue learning throughout their lives. In such a program, school and work go together. The integrated high school course is centered on the work-related projects and traditional academic disciplines necessary to help students become smart workers. Technology courses are coordinated with a work setting component designed by a school-to-work facilitator and a worksite mentor.
Since its inception, PYAP has evolved and is structured differently at each site, depending on staffing restrictions and local needs. For example, the Peabody site has a team of academic teachers who work together with the school-to-work facilitator to blend academics and address worksite issues in the classroom. Their teaching assignments also include traditionally scheduled classes in addition to their work with PYAP. Assignments may contain components which can be interpreted and assessed by all disciplines, including the facilitator, worksite mentor, and employers. Unlike traditional curricular approaches, an additional emphasis is based on the assumption that the curriculum is a continuously evolving entity; the teaching team feels free to adapt and change to fit its needs and those of its students.
Writing a curriculum to support PYAP required not only a shift in our thinking but a completely different approach to learning. It also required the formation of a team which had to learn to discuss, disagree, brainstorm, and reach consensus with minimal violence! Coincidentally, this is exactly what employers say they need in their employees, and something teachers are ill-equipped to do, owing to the isolation built into current school structures. This curriculum team worked for two years to develop a curriculum for use in PYAP sites. The work included about forty visits to workplaces in order to help us learn about the industries in which PYAP students would be involved. The curriculum is used merely as a guide, allowing teams to adapt to local needs.
In thinking about AAI we realized the most basic element to planning a project that incorporated these aspects of industry was shifting from just presenting information to targeting a "product." What will the students produce? Along with the project, we must develop the criteria by which the product will be judged. Instead of a traditional mindset in which assessment is the last step, planning must begin with the assessment and work backwards. As in industry, standards must be set, as well as a plan for dealing with products that do not meet the standards.
At least as important as the product, however, is the answer to the question, "Why?" Every teacher has been treated to the inquiry, "Why do we have to do this?" And while it may be delivered in a whine that provokes an instinctive "Because I said so," it is a legitimate question. The product should have a real-life quality about it; students should be able to see a connection between the project and their work and to appreciate the efforts of their work. The multidisciplinary team approach, as well as the work component, helped us to answer this question.
Flexibility is the other key element. Most teachers overplan, a result of years of habit. Project learning not only takes away the burden of being the major resource in the classroom, it also allows plans to develop even as they are being implemented. Variations may occur as students begin their projects, and some means must be incorporated to deal with these changes. Some of the best projects begin with the question posed to students, "What are some ways that you can prove to me that you know this?"
One of the hardest changes to incorporate is the involvement of students in planning. Teacher guidance is critical, but student input is also necessary. At the least, discussion must occur which allows students to analyze their own suggestions. A method we found useful when writing for PYAP was to hang up a paper which contains the goal of the project and use it to refocus discussions when necessary.
The Bridge to Learning Project
During the AAI project, the science teacher at the Peabody site suggested a Bridge Project, which although it contained some of the intent of AAI, did not provide the type of full engagement of all the disciplines we were attempting to address in PYAP. As we reviewed the AAI documents and set ourselves to the task of writing the case study, we realized that AAI actually synthesized much of what we were trying to accomplish in PYAP but had never been articulated in that way.
We realized that teaching AAI was actually the goal of programs such as PYAP, and that the most effective way to incorporate AAI into the program was as an assessment vehicle. We developed an assessment rubric based on AAI and intended to use it for assessing any senior work-based project. When we completed the rubric, we realized that it was not only applicable to Senior Projects, but to any work-based project. Our confidence in what we had developed was validated when it was used by the teachers at Peabody. They were in the process of developing a Bridge Project, and when presented with our AAI rubric, they accepted its value and incorporated it into their planning. Using the AAI-based rubric allowed the teachers to see clearly how the diverse components of the project tied together. The AAI framework changed the project from a loosely connected set of tasks to a single, integrated project driven by AAI and the student outcomes. (See "The AAI Project" in the Pennsylvania Youth Apprenticeship Program section of the Supporting Materials.)
The Bridge Project itself started out with a simple science-/math-based project in which teams of students are tasked to build a bridge that holds the maximum amount of weight possible. Classroom teachers using the project model usually specify the materials to be used, the amount of material permissible, and hold a competition upon the completion of the bridges.
The PYAP brought in AAI to the Bridge Project by assigning the students to teams and defining roles for them, for example, engineer, accountant, foreman, and so on (See "The Bridge Project" in the Pennsylvania Youth Apprenticeship Program section of the Supporting Materials). The students were taken on a field trip to observe bridge design around Pittsburgh. (Pittsburgh's rivers and topography made this facet particularly easy: we boast more than 750 bridges within Allegheny County of many different styles and designs.) This was also an opportunity to teach some local history concerning our rivers and bridges, and the role they played in industry and the community.
Student teams researched all the steps necessary in planning the building of a bridge, including environmental impact, community relations, and budgeting; they also were required to complete facsimiles of forms submitted to nine government agencies during this process:
The appropriate forms and agencies used depended on the project and location. Teams were then required to develop a budget for the project and complete the project within the budget, or suffer the appropriate consequences.
English skills were necessary in all of the communication portions of the project itself, as well as the interpersonal skills necessary for functioning as a team. The importance of the aesthetics involved in bridge design was also a natural opening for a discussion of the symbolic meaning of bridges, as well as the introduction of literature which dealt with bridges as a topic or theme. The students also produced concrete poems (shape poems) which they read at their portfolio presentations.
We found that the concept was as expandable as we wished to make it and saw that it could easily be turned into a long-term project in which students could develop skills in a variety of areas. This was also viewed by some of the teachers as a negative, since closure was expected according to a schedule, and time constraints were a problem, as is always true in schools. With AAI as the driving force, project learning was used to help students learn skills which were both in demand by employers and transferable to many different jobs and industries.
A committee of stakeholders, including educators, business, industry, and community representatives conducted the actual assessment of the Bridge Project. They based their assessment on guidelines which had been developed and agreed to by students and the teaching team in accordance with AAI guidelines and student outcomes.
Following this project, we created a general guide to designing such projects.