Learning To Work: Making the Transition [610290]

Learning To Work: Making the Transition
From School to Work
September 1995
OTA-EHR-637
GPO stock #052-003-01439-4

Author Contacts: To contact the authors of the report, please write or call John Wirt at 234
E Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202-547-7168); or Gregg Jackson at 721 Upshur
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20011 (202-882-0375).
Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Learning to
Work: Making the Transition from School to Work, OTA-EHR-637 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1995).

iiioreword
ver the past decade, public attention has been drawn to the difficulties
that many young adults are having in finding their way in the changingeconomy and earning a decent living. A broad movement is emergingacross the country to better connect school with career opportunities
and further education to help these young adults succeed. In 1994 Congress re-sponded by passing the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA), whichassists states and localities in establishing comprehensive school-to-work tran-sition systems.
The expansion of work-based learning is one aspect of this reform move-
ment. For those in fields of health where internships are common or in theskilled trades where apprenticeships exist, work-based learning will be a fa-miliar concept, but for many others it will not be. STWOA aims to combinelearning in school with learning in the workplace in new ways that make it acommon feature of the educational and career preparation of young people.
Soon after the school-to-work legislation was passed by Congress, OTA
was asked by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and theHouse Committee on Education and Labor (now the Committee on Economicand Educational Opportunities) to assess the potential and problems of work-based learning as a component of school-to-work.
As the report shows, work-based learning has considerable promise but will
be difficult to implement. Work-based learning can potentially help students
see the relevance of their academic studies later in life, allow students to ex-plore career options, and help them develop needed occupational skills. Butthe implementation of good work-based learning programs will require con-siderable effort on the part of schools and participating businesses. Whethermany businesses can be recruited to participate remains to be seen.
Throughout this study, the advisory panel, contractors, and many other
people were very helpful in developing the issues addressed in the report, iden-tifying sources of information, and providing feedback. OTA appreciates theirsubstantial contributions. Their participation, however, does not necessarilyrepresent an endorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bearssole responsibility.
ROGER C. HERDMAN
Director

ivdvisory Panel
Edward Donley , Panel Chair
Former Chairman
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Allentown, PA
Thomas Bailey
Director, Institute on Education
and the Economy
Teachers College Columbia
University
New York, NY
Sue E. Berryman
Senior Education Specialist
The World Bank
Washington, DC
David Finegold
Policy Analyst
RAND CorporationSanta Monica, CA
Douglas Fraser
Walter P. Ruther Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI
Daniel Gescheidle
President, Educational FoundationChicago, IL
Thomas Kane
Economic Studies
The Brookings Institution
Washington, DCRobert Klabenes
ProvostOklahoma State
University-Okmulgee
Okmulgee, OK
Alan Lesgold
Professor of Psychology
Learning Research and
Development Center
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Paul Osterman
Alfred P. Sloan School of
Management
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Cambridge, MA
Hilary Pennington
President and Chief Executive
Officer
Jobs for the Future
Boston, MA
Hillard Pouncy
ConsultantWallingford, PA
Marilyn Raby
Director, Curriculum Services
Sequoia Union High School
District
Portola Valley, CAPiedad Robertson
Superintendent and President
Santa Monica Community
College
Santa Monica, CA
Nan Skelton
Center for Democracy and
Citizenship
Hubert Humphrey Institute
Minneapolis, MN
David Stern
Professor of Education and
Executive Director
National Center for Research in
Vocational Education
Berkeley, CA
Susan Stucky
Associate Director
Institute for Research on Learning
Palo Alto, CA
Marina v.N. Whitman
Institute for Public Policy StudiesUniversity of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Joan Wills
Director, Center for WorkForce
Development
Institute for Educational
Leadership
Washington, DC
Note: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.
The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report
and the accuracy of its contents.

vroject Staff
Clyde Behney
Assistant Director, OTA
Industry, Commerce, and
International Security Division
Denise Dougherty
Program Director
Education and Human ResourcesJohn Wirt
Project Director
Greg Jackson
Senior Analyst
Helima Croft
Research Analyst
OTHER CONTRIBUTING STAFF
Christine Ho
Research Assistant
Tabitha Jay
Research Assistant
Mark Cunningham
Research AssistantADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Cecile Parker1
Office Administrator
Linda Rayford
PC Specialist
Beckie Erickson2
Office Administrator
Madeline Gross
Inhouse contractor
PUBLISHING STAFF
Mary Lou Higgs
Manager, Publishing Services
Chip Moore
Production Editor
Cheryl Davis
Electronic Publishing Specialist
Chris Onrubia
Senior Graphic Designer
________________
1 Until July 1995.
2 Since August 1995.

viontractors
Stephen Barley and Bonalyn Nelson
Stanford University
Kathryn Borman and Richard Lakes
University of South Florida
Georgia State University
Christopher Dede and Matthew Lewis
George Mason UniversityRAND Corporation
Rosella Gardecki and David Neumark
Michigan State University
Norton Grubb, Norrena Badway, and Jennifer Curry Villeneuve
University of California at
Berkeley
Amy Hightower, Robert Hallock, George Wimberly, John Breckenridge, and Lisa Weiner
Policy Studies Associates, Washington, DC
Priscilla Taylor
Editor, McLean, VA
Margaret Vickers, Riley Hart, and Amy Weinberg
TERC Cambridge, MA

vii1 Summary and Findings 1
The Requested Study 1
Rationales for STWOA 3
Work-Based Learning 3
Findings About the Effectiveness of Work-Based
Learning 4
Findings About Technology-Assisted Learning 6
Findings About Employer Participation in Work-Based
Learning 6
Finding About Possible Incentives for Expanding
Employer Participation 7
Findings About STWOA 8
2 Background and Introduction 11
History of Work-Based Learning in the United
States 11
Problems With School-to-Work Transitions 14
Overview of STWOA 15
Overview of this Report 16
References 17
3 Processes of Work-Based Learning 19
Experiential Learning 22
Work-Group Learning 23
Mentoring 24
Workplace Instruction 26
Technology-Assisted Learning 28
Conclusion 34
References 34
4 Structuring Work-Based Learning 39
The Students to be Served 39
Objectives 42
Coordination With Schooling 43
Timing, Intensity, Duration, and Progression of Work
Experiences 45
Settings of Work-Based Learning 48
Pay for Work-Based Learning 53
Conclusion 53
References 54ontents

viii5 Work-Based Learning Models and
Evidence of Effectiveness 57
Youth Apprenticeships 61
Clinical Training 65
Cooperative Education 66
Other Models 69
Conclusion 70
References 71
6 Employer Participation in Work-Based
Learning 73
Data Sources 73
Growth of Employer Participation 76
”High-Quality Equilibrium” in Cincinnati 81
Major Benefits Influencing Employers’ Dcisions to
Participate 83
Major Barriers Influencing Employers’ Decisions to
Participate 87
Conclusions and Remaining Questions 97
References 100
APPENDIXES
A Boxes, Figures, and Tables 103B Reviewers and Contributors 104
C Contractor Reports Prepared for This
Assessment 105

Summary
and
Findings
ongress passed the School to Work Opportunities Act
(STWOA) with bipartisan support in May 1994. The leg-
islation aims to improve the preparation of young people
for their careers and to enhance the productivity of the
American workforce.
STWOA established a five-year effort to foster partnerships
among schools, employers, and other stakeholders for the cre-
ation of school-to-work transition systems. States and localitieswill receive seed money to restructure existing education and
training programs within the broad framework provided by
STWOA. The systems are to include school-based components,
work-based components, and activities connecting the two.
Work-based learning is intended to foster the students’ academicand career development in the context of work experience. The
appropriation for STWOA in fiscal year 1995 was $245 million
(see box 1-1 for a summary of the legislation).
THE REQUESTED STUDY
The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the
House Committee on Education and Labor (now the House Com-
mittee on Economic and Educational Opportunities) asked OTA
to examine the potential opportunities and pitfalls of the work-
based learning that would be supported by STWOA. The assess-ment addressed three main questions:
1. What are the alternative models of work-based learning and
how effective are they?
2. What new learning technologies could support work-based
learning?
|1

2 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
State and local school-to-work transition systems are to be planned and developed by partner-
ships of school staff, business leaders, labor representatives, and other interested parties, Governors
are given considerable discretion in structuring and administering the partnerships for the state sys-
tems. At the local level } the lead entities may be schools, colleges, nonprofit organizations, and cham-
bers of commerce.
STWOA encourages development of school-to-work transition systems that coordinate career
orientation, academic and occupational education, high school and postsecondary schooling, work-
based learning, and skill credentialing, The legislation specifically divides these elements into the fol-
lowing three components:
L School-based Learning
1.
2
3.
4
5.
6.Academic instruction in high school that meets the state standards for all students and the ap-
plicable standards of the National Education Goals;
Career exploration and counseling, beginning no later than the 7th grade for interested stu-
dents;
Initial selection by interested students of a career major beginning no later than the 11th grade;
Instruction that integrates academic and occupational learning;
Arrangements to coordinate high school and postsecondary education and training; and
Regularly scheduled evaluations of students’ personal goals, progress, and needed learning
opportunities.
Il. Work-based Learning
1, Job training and work experiences aimed at developing preemployment skills and employment
skills at progressively higher levels, and leading to the award of skill certificates;
2. Broad instruction in “all aspects of the industry, ” to the extent practical; and
3. Workplace mentoring.
Ill. Connecting Activities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.Activities to encourage employers to participate and to aid them in doing so;
Assistance in the integration of school-based and work-based learning, and of academic and
occupational instruction;
Matching of students with the work-based learning opportunities offered by employers;
Liaison among the students, schools, employers, and parents;
Assistance for graduates in finding appropriate jobs, getting additional job training, or pursuing
further education;
Monitoring of participants’ progress after they complete the program; and
Linkage of these youth development activities with employer and industry strategies for upgrad-
ing the skills of incumbent workers.
SOURCE School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Title I.
3. How can employers be persuaded to provide school-based components and connecting activi-
work-based learning experiences for students? ties of the larger STWOA framework. Unless
As a consequence of the request from Con-these other aspects of the framework succeed,
gress, this report focuses on work-based learning.work-based learning will be no more effective un-
it does so, however, within the context of theder STWOA than it has been in the past.

Chapter 1 Summary and Findings | 3
OTA’s findings about work-based learning and
STWOA are reported in this chapter. The support-
ing evidence is presented in chapters 3 to 6.
RATIONALES FOR STWOA
At least three perceived problems led Congress to
pass STWOA. First, scholars and educators haveconcluded that because there are few clear path-
ways between school and careers in the United
States, many students are unmotivated in school
and spend years bouncing from one low-paying
job to another as they look for career opportuni-
ties. Second, experts and employers agree that
many young people are completing school withlow levels of basic academic skills, dysfunctional
attitudes and work habits, and little occupational
training; as a result, they are inadequately pre-
pared for well-paid employment and career pro-
gression. Third, scholars indicate that because oftechnological changes and international competi-
tion, increasing numbers of midlevel jobs now re-
quire complex thinking, close teamwork, and the
ability to learn continuously while on the job.
STWOA seeks to address these problems by
several means. Students are to be offered career
exploration and counseling opportunities begin-ning in the 7th grade so that they will have several
years to consider career options and to become fa-
miliar with the preparation required for occupa-
tions that interest them. Skill standards and
certification systems are to be developed to signalthe proficiencies required for various occupations
and to indicate which students have achieved
those proficiencies. Academic work and occupa-
tional preparation in schools are to be upgraded
and the two are to be integrated so that students
can see how academics will be applicable in their
work lives. Work-based learning experiences areto extend the academic and occupational instruc-
tion of schools, offer opportunities for students to
learn the use of tools and equipment found in the
workplace, introduce students to the norms of
adult work environments, and give them chances
to market-test their capabilities. Workplace men-
tors are to provide guidance and support for thestudents’ intellectual, skill, and career develop-ment. And both the school-based preparation and
the work-based preparation are to extend in a coor-
dinated manner from high school into postsecond-
ary education.
WORK-BASED LEARNING
Work-based learning is a major component ofSTWOA. Although learning can occur during any
work, in the legislation and in this report the term
work-based learning refers to learning that results
from work experience that is planned to contribute
to the intellectual and career development of stu-
dents. The work experience is to be supplemented
with activities that apply, reinforce, refine, or ex-tend the learning that occurs during work, so that
students develop attitudes, knowledge, skills, and
habits that might not develop from work experi-
ence alone.
The STWOA approach to work-based learning
generally follows what has been called the youth
apprenticeship model, though the term is not used
in the legislation. This model (outlined in box 1-1)
differs from earlier models of work-based learn-
ing in several ways that are thought to make it
more effective, but its relative efficacy remains to
be demonstrated. The clinical training model is
similar to that of youth apprenticeship, but it rare-
ly includes career exploration elements, it is used
primarily at the postsecondary level for study in
the medical fields, and it involves unpaid worksite
experience. Cooperative education (co-op) is
similar to youth apprenticeship, but while co-op
programs are operated at both the high school and
postsecondary levels, they do not span both lev-
els; skill certification is also seldom involved.
School-to-apprenticeships allow high school
vocational education students to begin union and
employer apprenticeship programs on a part-timebasis during their senior year. School-based enter-
prises are school-owned businesses operated by
students who take elective classes designed to de-
velop the needed occupational and entrepreneur-
ial skills. Career academies are small,
career-oriented “schools within schools” that inte-
grate academics, career exploration, occupationalpreparation, and sometimes work experience. A

4 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
more detailed comparison of these models is pro-
vided in chapter 5, box 5-1.
OTA identified five learning processes that are
used in work-based learning. Experiential learn-
ing occurs from students’ reflections on their ex-
periences. It can be guided by others whoencourage students to observe the workplace as-
tutely and to reflect on those observations. Work-
group learning occurs when the students are
immersed in a work group, interacting with mem-
bers who assist students to full-fledged participa-tion. Mentoring is a one-on-one relationship in
which an experienced employee fosters the devel-
opment of a less experienced person by providing
challenges, encouragement, guidance, and re-
sources. Workplace instruction is the deliberate
conveyance of work knowledge and skills by
means of lectures, demonstrations, coaching, orsupervision. Technology-assisted learning, which
is increasingly computer based, has evolved rap-
idly from simple computerized textbooks to com-
puterized simulations, “intelligent tutors,” and
other learning tools. Little is known about the rel-ative effectiveness of these processes, but each ap-
pears to have advantages and disadvantages.
OTA identified seven forms of computer-as-
sisted learning that appear to have potential for
work-based learning. Career information delivery
systems help students to determine their interests
and talents, understand the opportunities and de-mands of various occupations, and sometimes to
identify local job openings. Computer-based
training presents information, quizzes the stu-
dents’ understanding, and automatically scores
the answers. Business application software con-
sists of word-processing, database, spreadsheet,
accounting, computer-assisted design, and other
software that is widely used in workplaces; it
often comes with computerized “tutorials” and
“help” capabilities. Hypermedia are vast collec-
tions of text, images, and sound, with indexed
linkages between related items. Intelligent tutor-
ing systems use “artificial intelligence” to guide
students through customized learning paths, tai-
loring the instruction to each student’s knowledge
and skills, diagnosing error patterns, and provid-
ing customized feedback. Simulations are func-tional models of mechanisms, processes, or
systems on which the students can practice operat-
ing, repairing, or redesigning. Computer-sup-
ported cooperative learning allows a group of
people to share information and insights, to reachgroup decisions through a set of structured ex-changes, and to engage in collaborative design ef-forts.
The success of work-based learning under
STWOA will depend on the willingness of em-ployers to provide work experiences for students,and this will be costly for employers. In Germanyand Japan, where work-based learning for adoles-cents is extensive, there are strong incentives for
employer involvement. In Japan, these incentives
are largely internal to companies, whereas in Ger-many they are embedded in labor laws and the sys-tem of industrial relations. No comparableincentives exist in the United States. STWOA
seeks to create incentives by having employers
participate in the partnerships that plan and con-trol the work-based learning systems and by pro-viding limited assistance to employers in theirpreparations for work-based learning.
FINDINGS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF WORK-BASED LEARNING
A-1. Past work-based learning has yielded
mixed results. Evaluations of past programs have
found that most students are excited and moti-vated by work-based learning and that most em-ployers have been quite satisfied with the
students. Work-based learning appears to offer
students better learning opportunities than the af-ter-school and summer jobs that students find ontheir own. Yet work-based learning has generallyhad only small positive effects on the school atten-dance, grades, graduation rates, and postsecond-
ary enrollments of participating students. And the
effects on students’ employment, mobility, andearnings during the first few years after graduationhave ranged from modestly positive ones to a fewsmall negative results.
A-2. The work-based learning that is in-
tended under STWOA will differ from pastwork-based learning in ways that might im-

Chapter 1 Summary and Findings | 5
prove its effectiveness. The work-based learning
established under STWOA will be part of school-
to-work transition systems that are planned with
more input from employers, employees, parents,
and other stakeholders than has generally been the
case for older forms of work-based learning.Work-based learning under STWOA is to be di-
rected more broadly than in the past to career ex-
ploration and to the development of good work
habits, occupational skills, and problem-solving
abilities. It is to be more closely coordinated withinitiatives to improve academic instruction, career
orientation, and occupational instruction. It will
include mentoring to facilitate the young people’s
personal, intellectual, and occupational develop-
ment. In addition, students’ progress is to be as-
sessed more often and more thoroughly than was
common in the past. These differences could im-prove the effectiveness of STWOA-fostered
work-based learning, but they will also make im-
plementation of the work-based learning more
complex and problematic.
A-3. Effective work-based learning appears
to require considerable effort and coordina-
tion on the part of the schools, employers, and
intermediary organizations. Effort and coor-
dination are required to recruit and orient employ-
ers, to prepare students for the workplace, to
match students with work-based learning posi-
tions, to give students appropriate training andguidance while in the workplace, to monitor the
students’ experiences, to assess the students’ de-
velopment, and to provide constructive feedback.
A-4. Though the needs of young people vary
considerably, at the high school level work-based learning generally appears better suited
for the exploration of careers and development
of generic work skills, whereas at the postsec-
ondary level it generally appears well suited
for the development of occupational skills. At
the high school level, some students have clear oc-
cupational objectives and plans to enter the work-force immediately following graduation, but
many students are undecided about their career
choices, or frequently change their minds, and
their parents are reluctant to have them make early
decisions. Most high school students who haveparticipated in work-based learning have reported
that its main value was as an exploration of careers
rather than development of occupational skills.
Because the development of occupational skills
requires greater effort on the part of employers,
the employers are more likely to make the invest-ment for students who are relatively mature, sure
of their direction, and close to entering the labor
market. Such students provide employers with a
better chance of recouping their training costs.
A-5. At the high school level, the quality of
work-based learning experiences appears to
depend more on the nature of the work experi-
ence than on the kind of organization in which
the work is done. There is reason to think that the
industry, the style of management, the size of the
company, and the level of technology are less im-
portant than the nature of the work-based learningopportunities at the high school level. Opportuni-
ties that appear to facilitate work-based learning
include:

a broad introduction to the company and its in-
dustry;

experiences that are coordinated with the stu-
dents’ school-based instruction;

a mix of at least some of the following: experi-
ential learning, mentoring, work group learn-
ing, workplace instruction, and technology-
assisted learning;

responsibilities of increasing complexity and
importance, with the minimum assistance nec-
essary for success;

chances to exercise both autonomy and team-
work;

assignments to solve problems, explore, and in-
novate;

opportunities to assume some supervisory
functions;

participation in trade, professional, and union
events; and

guidance in reflecting on the implications of the
work experience.
A-6. Most work-based learning now occurs
in places of employment, but work in other set-
tings could probably supplement those experi-
ences and perhaps partially substitute for

6 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
them. School-based business enterprises run by
students, community service activities, occupa-
tionally-related extracurricular activities such as
Junior Achievement, and various work simula-
tions probably could contribute to the occupation-
al development of students. Some of the meansused to enhance students’ work-based learning ex-
periences might also enhance the learning derived
from after-school and summer jobs that many stu-
dents arrange on their own.
A-7. There has been little research on how
work-based learning actually takes place and
on how to best foster it. Most studies have fo-
cused on evaluating the effects of one model of
work-based learning—cooperative education.
Even those studies generally have not addressed
how variations in the model might affect students.
Hardly any attention has been given to the actualexperiences of students during their work-based
learning and to the ways those experiences con-
tribute to, or hinder, the students’ intellectual and
occupational development.
FINDINGS ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED LEARNING
B-1. Several forms of technology-assisted
learning appear to have potential for facilitat-
ing work-based learning. The evaluation evi-
dence suggests that the older forms ofcomputer-assisted learning have speeded the ac-
quisition of knowledge and skills by 24 to 34 per-
cent. Career information delivery systems,
computer-based training, and hypermedia have
been successfully commercialized and are avail-
able in some schools and workplaces. Intelligent
tutoring systems, computer-supported collabora-tive learning, and computerized simulations are
mostly in the development and testing stages.
B-2. Some of these technologies are expen-
sive and cannot be easily modified locally; both
problems could be reduced by development of
better “authoring” tools. It can take several
hundred person-hours to prepare the software forone hour of learning assistance. When that is the
case, the software must be sold at a high price un-
less there is a large market for it. Because teachersand supervisors usually cannot modify the
instructional systems to accommodate local in-
formation or an individual organization’s practic-
es, the utility and effectiveness of the systems are
limited. Both problems would be reduced if easi-
er-to-use and more powerful “authoring tools”could be developed. These tools would partially
automate the development and modification of
instructional software.
FINDINGS ABOUT EMPLOYER
PARTICIPATION IN WORK-BASEDLEARNING
C-1. So far, the rate at which employers are
participating in prototypes of STWOA’s work-
based learning has been growing only modest-
ly in most communities. According to the
findings of an OTA survey of 15 high school
school-to-work transition projects, the median
number of employer participants is 35 per pro-
gram, and the median growth rate is about six em-
ployers per year. Because there are only about two
students per employer, this growth translates to an
increase of about a dozen students per communityper year. Other studies have revealed similar find-
ings. Unless the rates of growth improve signifi-
cantly, it will take a long time before most
school-to-work transition systems can serve sub-
stantial portions of students in their communities.
C-2. Most programs have found that it takes
considerable time and effort to recruit and re-
tain employers. In the 15 communities included
in OTA’s survey, it has taken an average of one-
half full-time-equivalent staff member to recruit
six new employers each year.
C-3. A few communities have recruited large
numbers of employers. In a few communities,
substantial efforts over many years have been de-
voted to building strong partnerships between
educators and employers in which there are recip-
rocal commitments to quality on both sides. Em-
ployers provide high-quality training and work
experience opportunities for one semester or long-er in order to attract the best students, while the
schools prepare students well so they can secure
the good placements. In a few other communities,

Chapter 1 Summary and Findings | 7
large numbers have been achieved by arranging
brief work-based learning experiences, such as
“job shadowing” experiences in which the student
follows one employee around for a half-day.
C-4. Employers’ decisions to become in-
volved in work-based learning are influencedby a range of potential benefits and disincen-
tives. The main benefits appear to be recruiting
well-trained personnel and contributing to the im-
provement of education and the community, with
the former being of somewhat more importance toemployers. The main disincentives appear to be:

inadequate preparation of students for work
placements;

lack of coordinating support from the work-
based learning program;

the employer’s training costs, which include
student wages and the time and effort of super-
visors and mentors;

regulatory restrictions and extra insurance
costs, which include child labor and safety laws
and general liability and worker’s compensa-
tion insurance;

organizational resistance to work-based learn-
ing from management or other employees in
the company; and

economic uncertainty, due to slowdowns in the
local economy or changes in a company’s busi-
ness fortunes.
All these disincentives appear to be of roughly
equal importance to employers.
FINDINGS ABOUT POSSIBLE
INCENTIVES FOR EXPANDING
EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION
D-1. Inasmuch as the disincentives enumer-
ated in C-4 are of about equal importance to
employers, policies aimed at inducing employ-
er participation should be directed at several ofthe barriers simultaneously. One policy alone,
such as providing strong coordinating support or
a training wage, is unlikely to be very effective.
D-2. Better preparation of students prob-
ably would expand employer participation inwork-based learning. About one-quarter of the
employers in OTA’s survey reported some prob-
lems with the quality of preparation that students
received before their work experience, and 16 per-
cent of the employers said that lack of student reli-
ability was the most important disincentive toparticipating in work-based learning. By reliabil-
ity, employers primarily mean dependability, re-
sponsibility, and initiative for getting work done.
The OTA survey results are consistent with other
research findings.
D-3. Coordinating assistance, provided by
the school or an intermediary organization,
could be an inducement to employer participa-
tion. Nineteen percent of employers in the OTA
survey said that lack of coordinating support was
the most important disincentive to work-based
learning. More than 60 percent of employers ratedcoordinating assistance as being “very” or “criti-
cally” important. Coordinating assistance typical-
ly includes helping the employer plan and start a
work-based learning program, screening students
and matching them with employers, providingtroubleshooting and technical assistance to indi-
vidual supervisors and worksite mentors, and
coordinating student placements. It is through
these coordinating services that long-term part-
nerships between employers and school systems
are built.
D-4. Although evidence on the issue is
mixed, some financial inducements to reduce
employers’ training costs might expand em-
ployer participation in work-based learning.
Employers consistently report that the time re-
quired of supervisors and mentors of work-basedlearning students is a much larger cost than the
wages paid to the students. Although employers
have not responded to federal tax credits for em-
ployment of disadvantaged young adults, avail-
able research indicates that student wage
subsidies have been effective in increasing em-
ployer participation in some work-based learningprograms. Nineteen states are currently planning
to implement one or more of the following:

8 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work

state subsidies or tax credits for employers’
costs of training students,

subsidies for the development of training facili-
ties to be used by more than one company,

grants for the training of students by outside
vendors, or

other training cost subsidies.
Evaluation of the effects of these inducements
on employer participation is needed and will re-
quire comparisons across states.
D-5. Regulatory reform and insurance pools
might expand employer participation, espe-
cially in some states and localities. In other
cases, providing employers with authoritative
information about regulatory and insurance
issues may be sufficient. Child labor and safety
laws are determined both by the federal and by the
state governments, and general liability and work-
er’s compensation insurance are regulated by
states and provided by many different companies,
thus creating substantial differences among the
states and localities. Many fears that employers
have about regulatory restrictions and extra insur-ance costs might be allayed by providing them
with authoritative information about the actual re-
strictions and costs in their communities. States in
which employers are found to be having difficul-
ties with regulatory restrictions could review childlabor laws and safety regulations to determine
whether modification would facilitate work-
based learning while retaining their intent. States
could also create special entities to provide em-
ployers with information about actual insurance
costs and to pool the costs of insurance.
D-6. Much remains to be learned about
strategies for creating partnerships between
businesses and schools that will accelerate the
growth of employer participation in work-
based learning. Growth in employer participa-
tion may or may not speed up as a result of state
and local efforts to build comprehensive school-
to-work transition systems. Evaluations thatcompare communities having large increases in
employer participation with other communities
are needed to identify strategies for expanding
employer involvement by an order of magnitudeor more. Otherwise, work-based learning is un-
likely to succeed in the near future. States that
have ambitious efforts under way to adopt specific
incentives and to forge partnerships between busi-
ness and education at the state level would be good
places to look for communities to evaluate. In theabsence of such research, the fate of work-based
learning under STWOA may largely ride on what-
ever leadership is forthcoming from the business
community.
FINDINGS ABOUT STWOA
E-1. STWOA is a coherent approach for deal-
ing with the problems posed by the changing
workplace, the lack of career paths, and the
poor preparation of youth for careers. There are
several reasons to think that STWOA systems, if
implemented as intended, could improve the
school-to-work transition for youth. These rea-
sons include:

The systems are to provide more extensive ca-
reer exploration and counseling than has pre-
viously been available to most students.

The systems are to upgrade both academic and
occupational preparation in schools, and inte-
grate both so that the importance and applica-bility of academic skills is more apparent to
students.

The systems are to mobilize workplaces to pro-
vide work-based learning that reinforces stu-
dents’ schooling, expands and extends thecareer exploration and occupational prepara-
tion of students, offers mentoring for students’
personal and career development, and provides
students with progressively more challenging
work experiences.

The systems are to adopt skill standards and
skill certification procedures for many occupa-tions, signaling to students the needed profi-
ciencies of various occupations and signaling
to employers which students have reached
those proficiencies.
E-2. The implementation of STWOA will be
difficult. STWOA is to foster systemic school re-
form targeted at major improvements in both aca-

Chapter 1 Summary and Findings | 9
demic and career preparation, but more modest
attempts at reform during the past decade have had
troubled histories. Successful implementation
will require effective partnerships between busi-
nesses and schools—institutions that operate with
different cultures and have little experience work-ing together. STWOA systems are to provide stu-
dents who choose a career major in high school
with instruction that integrates academic and oc-
cupational learning, and this will require organiz-
ing and teaching the curriculum in ways that differsubstantially from those used in the past. High-
quality work-based learning opportunities will re-
quire the investment of considerable time and
resources by participating employers. Unprece-
dented coordination will be required within the
school curriculum, between schools and partici-
pating workplaces, and between high schools andpostsecondary institutions. STWOA will require
the development of skill standards and the
introduction of new assessment processes that ac-
curately signal proficiencies needed for employ-
ment and fairly reflect young people’s knowledgeand skills. Finally, parents and students will need
to be convinced of the merits of these new arrange-
ments, and many may respond initially with skep-
ticism.
E-3. There is ambiguity in STWOA about
the extent to which all students in a community
should be included in a school-to-work system,and this ambiguity could impede implementa-
tion. Congress apparently intended to support the
development of school-to-work transition sys-
tems that would be well suited for almost any in-
terested students, including those who aredisabled and those who are academically gifted,
but some people have suggested that every student
should participate. Practitioners are justifiably
concerned that if STWOA is directed primarily at
students who are not headed to four-year colleges,
it will be stigmatized as a system for less able
youth. The fact that work-based learning is offeredby some prestigious prep schools suggests that it
can benefit academically gifted students. If, how-
ever, states require every student to take courses
that integrate academics and occupational educa-tion or to engage in work-based learning, some
educators, parents, and community members may
object strenuously.
E-4. Programs using approaches similar to
that of STWOA generally have served substan-
tial portions of minority youth, but some gen-der stereotyping by occupation is apparent.
There had been fears that minority youth might
tend to be excluded from work-based learning, but
several studies of these early programs indicate
this has not been the case to date. Most boys andgirls, however, have received education and train-
ing in occupations that are common for their gen-
der.
E-5. A few prototypes of STWOA have re-
ported that large proportions of their high
school graduates have enrolled in postsecond-
ary education, but whether most of these stu-dents were adequately prepared to complete
college programs is unknown. In some pro-
grams serving predominantly inner-city youth, 85
to 92 percent of the seniors have reported plans for
postsecondary enrollment, and in three programsthat tracked the students, 69 to 84 percent actually
did enroll in postsecondary programs. Very few of
the evaluation reports that OTA examined pres-
ented data on students’ high school achievement,
and several employers expressed concern to OTA
staff about the low level of students’ basic skills.
The impressive postsecondary enrollment ratesprobably reflect stimulation of students’ desire to
seek further education and the provision of more
guidance on college admissions. Perhaps many of
the students will make it through the postsecond-
ary program because of the motivation and workhabits they have acquired in the programs, but for
those students who fail, there could be consider-
able disillusionment.
E-6. Even the best school-to-work transition
programs have required at least five years of
implementation and refinement to operate ef-
fectively. Neither theory, nor research, nor expert
advice appears sufficient to assure quick success,
perhaps because success is partly dependent on es-
tablishing a reputation with employers, parents,
and students, and that takes time.

10 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
E-7. Evaluating the effects of STWOA sys-
tems on students’ success and workforce pro-
ductivity will require more than a decade, but
interim assessments can provide important in-
formation. If the systems are given a few years to
refine their operations and if students are then fol-lowed from the 7th grade (when career explora-
tion and counseling are to begin) through at least
one or two years of postsecondary education, a de-
cade will pass before the first cohort receiving the
full treatment enters full-time employment. Ideal-ly, the progress of the students in the work world
would then be followed for another decade to de-
termine the long-term effects on their career suc-
cess and on workplace productivity. In the
interim, it will be useful to assess several matters,
including:

whether the intended STWOA system compo-
nents and coordination among them are suc-cessfully implemented;

how many students are being served by the sys-
tems and what their characteristics are;

whether students’ attendance, discipline,
course taking, grades, test scores, and other as-
sessments of progress show upward trends;

whether evaluations of students’ work-based
learning are promising;

whether high school graduation rates and post-
secondary enrollment rates rise;

whether substantial portions of the students do
earn the applicable skill certificates; and

the extent to which employers expand, contract,
or terminate their participation.
Both interim and long-term evaluations will re-
quire program operators and students to cooperatewith the data collection, and that is by no means
assured.

Background
and
Introduction
ork-based learning is any learning that occurs when a
person is working, but in this report the term is used
more narrowly to mean learning that results from stu-
dents’ experiences in a workplace or surrogate work-
place that are planned at least partly for students’ career
orientation and occupational development. Work-based learning
includes opportunities to “shadow” employees for a few hours or
days, to learn what they actually do. It may involve opportunitiesto assist various employees for a week or so, to gain some experi-
ence in several different jobs. It can provide work experience out-
side places of employment, as in community service settings or in
school-based enterprises that produce goods or services. It some-
times includes opportunities to participate in formal workplaceinstruction designed to develop specific knowledge and skills. It
often includes opportunities to assume a job or a volunteer work
assignment for a semester or longer, with orientation and continu-
ing guidance from a supervisor, to learn general work skills and
specific occupational skills while also producing goods or ser-
vices. It may entail holding a planned sequence of increasingly
demanding jobs, in one or more workplaces, that are designed tocontribute to career development. Work-based learning can also
encompass participation in various forms of work simulations.
HISTORY OF WORK-BASED LEARNING
IN THE UNITED STATES
Apprenticeships have been traced back as far as the Code of Ham-
murabi in the 18th century B.C. (9). The code required artisans to
teach their crafts to the young. Until the middle of the 19th centu-
ry, most young people learned about work by working alongside |1 1

12 | Information Technologies for Control of Money Laundering
their parents or in an apprenticeship with another
adult. Apprenticeships flourished during the early
history of the United States. Young people were
apprenticed from about the age of 14 until the age
of 21. The master practitioner was responsible not
only for their occupational training, but also fortheir housing, food, clothing, general develop-
ment, and sometimes a small stipend. In turn, the
apprentice worked for the master practitioner
about 60 hours per week (16).
Apprenticeships declined during the Industrial
Revolution, when mass production and its divi-
sion of labor reduced the need for skilled craft-
speople (10). In the early 20th century, unions and
businesses established formal apprenticeship pro-
grams in an effort to maintain high-quality work-
manship in the skilled trades (7,10). The programs
usually involved several years of full-time work,on-the-job training, and additional classroom
instruction in theory for a few hours per week. The
pay generally increased as the participants prog-
ressed, and successful completion of the appren-
ticeship resulted in “journeyman” status. Theseapprenticeship programs expanded dramatically
in the years following World War II (20). In 1994,
there were 315,054 people receiving training in
federal and state registered apprenticeship pro-
grams (20). The programs cover about 800 oc-
cupations, but three-fourths of all apprentices are
in just 30 occupations, and about half of all ap-prentices are preparing for work in the construc-
tion trades (11). The mix of full-time work,
on-the-job training, and additional instruction in
theory remains similar to that established in the
early part of the century.
Although formal schools are known to have op-
erated as early as 4,000 years ago in China, wide-
spread schooling is a relatively new development
(25). Several forces contributed to the rapid ex-
pansion of schools in the United States during the
19th century. The decline of family homesteads
and self-employed craftsmen, and the rise of fac-tories, meant that boys could no longer work
alongside their fathers to master skills. The urban-
ization of the population and improvements in
transportation made it much easier to assemble
many students in one building. Advances in print-ing technologies dramatically lowered the cost of
books. The advent of mechanization, industrial-
ization, and regional commerce increased the de-
mand for accurately transmitted information, and
thus the need for a workforce that could read and
write. Rising incomes made families less depen-dent on the labor of children, and thus permitted
extended periods of schooling. High rates of im-
migration to the United States during the 19th cen-
tury resulted in a widespread need for instruction
in the English language and a public desire to “civ-ilize” and “Protestantize” immigrant children. In
addition, advocates for child welfare supported
schooling as a means of countering the exploita-
tion of child labor (4,5,8).
As soon as formal schooling had become uni-
versal, reformers and critics attacked it as ill-
suited to the needs of many students. As early asthe mid-1800s, there were complaints about the
emphasis on humanities and the didactic pedago-
gy. One of the most common criticisms was that
traditional academic education was not preparing
students for adult life, especially for their worklives (14). A few educators responded by estab-
lishing the programs that are the precursors of
modern work-based learning programs.
In the 1820s several schools were established
to teach industrial arts. Some were operated by
charitable organizations for orphans; others were
established by organizations of craftspeople fortheir members (1). Manual labor academies ap-
peared at about the same time. These academies
hired out their students to local businessmen to
give the students practical experience and to re-
duce the tuition costs. During the late 1800s, highschools of “mechanical arts” and “trade educa-
tion” were established to keep young people in
school and to prepare them for their work lives (1).
These schools devoted about half the day to teach-
ing academic skills and half the day to teaching
specific trades in the schools’ laboratories. That
arrangement, which has endured to this day, haslong been known as high school “vocational
education.” In 1913, at the behest of employers in
Dayton, Ohio, The Cooperative High School was
established. It allowed advanced students to spend
part of their day working and being trained by em-

Chapter 2 Background and Introduction | 13
ployers. This was, and is still, known as “coopera-
tive education” (2,6).
In the 1870s the president of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology observed that his institu-
tion had been producing engineers who were well
educated but unskilled. To remedy this shortcom-ing, he introduced shop courses that taught the use
of tools and manual skills that engineers common-
ly applied in the field (1). In 1906, the University
of Cincinnati adopted cooperative education for
its engineering college, with students rotating be-tween a week of classes and a week of workplace
experience (13). These two approaches, incorpo-
rating practical skill training within schools and
coordinating schooling with outside practical ex-
perience, have endured in American education.
Cooperative education spread to several other
engineering colleges and then, in 1921, AntiochCollege became the first liberal arts college to
adopt it (13). By 1940, some 30 institutions of
higher education offered cooperative education.
By 1970, the number had expanded to more than
200, and by 1980 there were 1,028 programs withapproximately 200,000 students—about 3 per-
cent of the number of full-time enrolled students
in the United States (13).
In 1977 and 1978, the U.S. Department of La-
bor funded eight demonstrations of what were
then called youth apprenticeships but now are
often called school-to-apprenticeship programs.High school seniors in vocational education pro-
grams were given the opportunity to start union
and employer apprenticeship programs on a part-
time basis. Most went to school half time and par-
ticipated in the apprenticeship program for 20 to30 hours per week. This model did not gain popu-
larity. In 1989, the Department of Labor estimated
that only about 1,500 high school students were
involved in school-to-apprenticeship programs
(24).
For the past decade, the German Marshall Fund
of the United States has supported study trips byAmerican educators, business leaders, elected of-
ficials, and journalists to examine the apprentice-
ship systems of Germany and other European
countries. The foundation has also supported trips
by European counterparts to the United States forthe exchange of ideas about school-to-work tran-
sitions and workforce development.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the W.T.
Grant Foundation’s Commission on Work, Fami-ly, and Citizenship, and its successor, the Ameri-can Youth Policy Forum, published about 20
reports that identified problems in the preparation
of youth for adulthood and employment, de-scribed various proposals for addressing thoseproblems, organized public discussions of policy
alternatives, and took federal and state policymak-
ers on field visits to innovative programs. Severalreports dealt with school-to-work transitions,youth apprenticeships, and other forms of work-
based learning for young people (12,18,26,27).
In 1991, Jobs for the Future, a nonprofit orga-
nization with foundation funding, began provid-ing support for several innovative school-to-work
transition programs with work-based learning.
The programs generally coordinated careerorientation, academic and occupational educa-tion, and work-based learning, with the aim ofpreparing young people to assume entry-level
semiskilled jobs upon graduation or to proceed on
to postsecondary education and training. In 1992,the U.S. Department of Labor provided support tosix states and several local jurisdictions for the de-
velopment of school-based “youth apprentice-
ships” with characteristics similar to those of theimmediate foregoing programs, although a fewincluded at least one year of postsecondary educa-
tion as an integral part of the program. In 1992, the
Council of Chief State School Officers providedsupport to five states for similar purposes (17).
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act was
largely inspired by these efforts of the 1980s and
early 1990s, but the legislation extends these pre-cedents in at least three ways:
1. It strives to link improved preparation for work
with current academic reform efforts.
2. It calls for more comprehensive services over
a longer period of time than was generally pro-posed in the past.
3. It seeks to establish school-to-work transition
systems operated by partnerships of schools,
employers, and other community organiza-

14 | Information Technologies for Control of Money Laundering
tions, rather than innovative programs operated
and controlled primarily by the schools, em-
ployers, or unions (19).
PROBLEMS WITH
SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITIONS
Congress enacted STWOA and included a work-
based learning component mainly to address three
problems confronting school-to-work transitions
in the United States: rapid changes in technologyand organization of business and industry, ob-
scured career pathways for youth, and the general-
ly poor quality of career preparation offered to
youth in this country.
zRapidly Changing Workplaces
Experts suggest that vast changes in how work
and technology are organized within companies
are leading to new kinds of work environments
where there is a need for a flexible workforce,
teamwork, and continual learning on the job. Rap-
id advancements in technology have changed thenature of the workplace, which now often requires
the generation, manipulation, and interpretation
of text, graphs, and other symbolic information.
Furthermore, increased international competi-
tion, coupled with technological advancement,
has shortened production cycles and spurred cus-
tomization in many workplaces. Thus in order tocompete effectively in the market, workers must
learn new technologies and techniques continual-
ly introduced into the workplace, and be flexible
and able to work as a team (3).
To encourage young people to acquire the intel-
lectual and social skills they need to perform pro-
ductively in the workplace, STWOA calls for:

high academic standards of performance for all
students,

the integration of academic and occupational
learning to motivate academic achievement by
demonstrating its relevance in the workplace,
and

work-based learning to develop skills that are
advantageously learned in the workplace and toreinforce knowledge that is acquired in school.zObscured Career Pathways
Many scholars and educators have concluded that
employers have few ways of signaling career op-
portunities to young people. In addition, students
have few ways of discerning the available optionsin various occupations and industries and the
preparation required for them. Clear career path-
ways can encourage early and continuing career
exploration, structure career choices for students
at various points in their lives, and generatemotivation to work hard in pursuit of one’s ob-
jectives. Career “signposts” can inform young
people of their progress, and counseling can assist
them in making their decisions (15).
STWOA is designed to foster clear career path-
ways by:

providing career exploration and counseling
beginning no later than the 7th grade;

allowing selection of a career major no later
than the 11th grade;

arranging work-based learning opportunities to
give students experience in different careerareas;

providing mentoring for personal guidance and
support; and

establishing skill standards and certification
systems to signal occupational skill require-
ments and to recognize the attainments of stu-
dents.
zGenerally Poor Preparation
of Youth for Careers
American youth have generally been poorly pre-
pared for careers because of the gap between aca-
demic and career preparation. Historically,
students in the “general” track are characterized asnot prepared for anything; vocational education
students are typically not expected to achieve
academically or to pursue promising careers, and
college-bound students are seen as having little
knowledge of the workplace and work experience.
STWOA aims to bridge the gap between aca-
demic and work-related education by:

Chapter 2 Background and Introduction | 15

making school-to-work transition systems part
of statewide comprehensive education reform,

stressing the importance of rigorous academic
standards for students,

using work environments to build students’
knowledge and skills and to demonstrate howboth are related to work and careers,

using career counseling and mentors to encour-
age all students to obtain at least some postsec-
ondary education or training, and

connecting high school programs to postsec-
ondary schools that have strong programs of
academic and occupational education.
OVERVIEW OF STWOA
In the spring of 1994, Congress passed theSchool-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA)
with bipartisan support. The legislation aims atimproving the productivity and competitiveness
of the nation’s workforce and preparing young
people for rewarding and satisfying work lives
(19).
STWOA does not seek to establish programs
but rather to develop comprehensive statewide
and local systems for facilitating school-to-work
transitions (Public Law 103-239, Sec. 3[1]).
STWOA directs seed money to interested state-
wide collaborations of the governor, state agen-
cies, and representatives of the private sector
(Title II, Subtitle A, Sec. 203). At the local level,the activities are to be undertaken by partnerships
of educators, employers, employees, and students
(Sec. 4[11] and Title III, Sec. 301). STWOA also
calls for coordination of the systems with other
education and training activities undertaken withfederal support (Title II, Subtitle B, Secs. 213[c]
and [d][6]). The main provisions of STWOA were
summarized in chapter 1, box 1-1.
STWOA received widespread support from nu-
merous business, labor, education, and other orga-
nizations (21). Business associations supporting
it included the Business Roundtable, National Al-liance of Business, National Association of
Manufacturers, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Labor organizations included the AFL-CIO, Ser-
vice Employees International Union, and theUnited Association of Journeyman and Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry.
Educational organizations included the American
Federation of Teachers, American Association of
Community Colleges, Council of Chief State
School Officers, National Education Association,and National Parent-Teacher Association. Other
organizations supporting the bill included the Na-
tional Governors’ Association, National Associa-
tion of Counties, National Conference of State
Legislatures, and U.S. Conference of Mayors.
There was some congressional opposition to
STWOA. Several members considered the antici-
pated costs (the first-year authorization was for
$300 million) to be imprudent at a time of large
federal deficits. Others thought that the federal
government ought to reduce the number of its
more than 150 job training programs and bettercoordinate the remaining ones, rather than adding
another one. The House wanted to require that the
work experience be paid, while the Senate op-
posed that provision; the conference compromise
specified that preference be given to proposalsthat include paid work experience. A few mem-
bers and experts thought that the objective of the
legislation could not be achieved unless all the
services for youth began no later than the 9th
grade, but the act specifies that many of the ser-
vices do not have to begin until the 11th grade.
Some educational associations opposed givingthe governors wide latitude in administration of
STWOA, preferring it to be handled by state and
local education agencies, but they did not prevail.
Several people were concerned that the local sys-
tems might tend to avoid enrolling students at riskfor academic failure, while others warned that the
systems would suffer if they were stigmatized as
being primarily for those students. Several experts
were concerned about the provision calling for
states to develop skill certificates, suggesting that
this task was better left to national organizations
so as to minimize duplication of effort and to al-low the recipients of the certificates nationwide
mobility, but the provision was unchanged
(21,22,23).

16 | Information Technologies for Control of Money Laundering
Despite these concerns, STWOA passed. The
legislation authorizes $300 million for fiscal year
1995 and such sums as may be necessary in the fis-
cal years 1996 through 1999. A sum of $245 mil-
lion was appropriated for fiscal year 1995, and the
Administration requested $400 million for fiscalyear 1996.
The National School-to-Work Opportunities
Office, which is jointly staffed by the Department
of Education and the Department of Labor, is ad-
ministering STWOA. STWOA calls for fourtypes of grants:
1.State Development Grants support efforts to
plan statewide systems of school-to-work tran-
sitions (Title II, Subtitle A). All states, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have already
received these grants.
2.State Implementation Grants support imple-
mentation of the plans (Title II, Subtitle B).
Eight states were awarded five-year grants in1994. For the first year, the grants ranged from
$2 million to $10 million. The amounts were to
double in the second year and then drop sub-
stantially over each of the three following
years. Another 17 to 20 states are scheduled toreceive grants in the fall of 1995.
3.Federal Implementation Grants to Local
Partnerships support the development and
implementation of school-to-work transition
systems by local jurisdictions (Title III).
Thirty-six of these grants were awarded in
1994, in amounts from $184,280 to $1.2 mil-lion. Recipients were to receive up to four addi-
tional years of support, depending on
performance and availability of funds. Grants
are to be made to additional applicants in late
1995.
4.National Programs Grants support research,
evaluation, technical assistance, dissemina-
tion, and other cross-cutting efforts (Title IV).
A contract of $3 million per year for a “Learn-
ing Center” to provide technical assistance and
facilitate exchanges among the grantees was
awarded in the summer of 1995, and a contractof $1.3 million per year for a five-year evalua-tion is scheduled to be made in August or Sep-
tember 1995.
As of August 1995, the House appropriation
bill would limit the 1996 funding for STWOA to$240 million and the Senate had not yet acted on
the appropriation. In addition, there are bills pend-
ing that would consolidate STWOA with other
federal job training and workforce development
programs, scale back federal support for the pro-
grams, and give the states broad discretion in de-
signing and administering the consolidatedprograms (H.R. 1617 and S. 143). S. 143 has been
incorporated with changes as Title VII of S.1120.
Some observers believe that if the consolida-
tion bills are enacted, the states will continue with
reforms similar to those supported by STWOAbecause these reforms are a promising response to
serious problems and because several states had
begun the reforms before passage of STWOA.
Other observers fear that fierce fights for declin-
ing funding will break out at the state level, and
the STWOA-like reforms will loose to older pro-
grams which have larger and better organized con-stituencies.
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT
The remainder of this report is organized into fourchapters. Chapter 3 describes and analyzes the ap-
parent advantages and disadvantages of five learn-
ing processes that can be used in work settings:
experiential learning, work-group learning, men-
toring, workplace instruction, and technology-as-sisted learning. Chapter 4 discusses various ways
that work-based learning can be structured with
respect to the types of students who are served; the
program objectives; the coordination with school-
ing; the timing, intensity, duration, and progres-sion of work-based experiences; the settings of
work-based learning; and the issue of payment for
students. Chapter 5 describes various models of
school-to-work transition programs with work-
based learning, and summarizes the evidence on
their effectiveness. These models are youth ap-
prenticeships, clinical training, cooperativeeducation, school-to-apprenticeship programs,

Chapter 2 Background and Introduction | 17
school-based enterprises, and career academies.
The models vary in the ways that they are struc-
tured, but each can use any of the five work-based
learning processes. Finally, chapter 6 considers
the factors that influence whether or not employ-
ers will participate in work-based learning pro-grams.
REFERENCES
1. Barlow, M.L., History of Industrial Educa-
tion in the United States (Peoria, IL: Chas. A.
Bennett Co., Inc., 1967).
2. Barton, P., Educational Testing Service,
Princeton, NJ, personal communication, July
1995.
3. Berryman, S.E., and Bailey, T.R., The
Double Helix of Education and the Economy
(New York, NY: Institute on Education andthe Economy, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1992).
4. Bowles, S., and Gintis, H., Schooling in Ca-
pitalist America: Educational Reform and the
Contradictions of Economic Life (New York,
NY: Basic Books, 1976).
5. Cohen, D.K., “The American Common
School: A Divided Vision,” Education and
Urban Society 16(3):253-261, 1984.
6. Corson, W., and Silverberg, M., The School-
to-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstra-
tion: Preliminary Findings (Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, 1994).
7. Cremin, L.A., The Transformation of the
School: Progressivism in American Educa-
tion, 1876 – 1957 (New York, NY: Vintage
Books, 1964).
8. Cuban, L., Department of Education, Stan-
ford University, Stanford, CA, “Public
School Teachers Using Machines in the Next
Decade,” unpublished contractor report pre-
pared for the Office of Technology Assess-
ment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC,
October 1994.9. Danaher, E., “Apprenticeship Practice in the
United States,” Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity, Graduate School of Business, 1945.
10. Edwards, K.R., “Background Information on
Apprenticeship in the United States,” unpub-
lished paper presented at the Federal Com-
mittee on Apprenticeship Meeting ,
Washington, DC, Nov. 29-Dec. 1, 1994.
11. Hamilton, S.F., Apprenticeship for Adult-
hood: Preparing Youth for the Future (New
York, NY: Collier Macmillan Publishers,1990).
12. Hamilton, S.F., and Hamilton, M.A., Open-
ing Career Paths for Youth: What Needs to BeDone? Who Can Do It? (Washington, DC:
American Youth Policy Forum, 1994).
13. Hartley, M.P., “The Legacy: A History of
Cooperative Education,” 50 Views of Coop-
erative Education, 5th ed., D.C. Hunt (ed.)
(Detroit, MI: University of Detroit and ANR
Pipeline Co., 1987).
14. Kanter, H., and Tyack, D.B., Work, Youth,
and Schooling: Historical Perspectives onVocationalism in American Education (Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982).
15. MacFarland, L., and Vickers, M., “The Con-
texts and Rationale for the Reform of Voca-
tional Education and Work-Based Learning,”Vocational Education and Training forYouth: Toward Coherent Policy (Paris,
France: Organization for Economic Coopera-tion and Development, 1994).
16. Mercer, N.A., “Apprenticeship,” Encyclope-
dia Americana (Danbury, CT: Grolier, Inc.,
1986).
17. Reisner, E.R., et al., Using Youth Apprentice-
ship to Improve the Transition to Work (Wash-
ington, DC: Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers, 1993).
18. Rosenbaum, James E., et al., Youth Appren-
ticeship in America: Guidelines for an Effec-
tive System , Washington, DC: William T.
Grant Foundation Commission on Youth andAmerica’s Future, 1992.

18 | Information Technologies for Control of Money Laundering
19. School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,
May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239.
20. Stang, N., Program Analyst, Bureau of Ap-
prenticeship and Training, Employment and
Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, DC, fax to Christine Ho,Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-
gress, Washington, DC, Aug. 9, 1995.
21. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Labor, H.R.
2882, School-to-Work Opportunities Act of1993, hearing, Sept. 29, Oct. 20, 27, 1993,
Serial No. 103-57 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1994).
22. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,
School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 ,
Conference Report, H. Rpt. 103-480 (Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, 1994).
23. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor
and Human Resources, The School-to-Work
Opportunities Act of 1993 , hearing, Sept. 28and Oct. 14, 1993, Serial No. 103-457 (Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-
fice, 1993).
24. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, “Work-Based
Learning: Training America’s Workers.”(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,
1989).
25. Wilds, E.H., and Lottice, K.V., The Founda-
tions of Modern Education (New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1970).
26. William T. Grant Foundation Commission
on Work, Family, and Citizenship, et al.,
States and Communities on the Move: Policy
Initiatives to Create a World-Class Workforce
(Washington, DC: 1991).
27. William T. Grant Foundation Commission
on Work, Family, and Citizenship, The For-
gotten Half: Pathways to Success for Ameri-
ca’s Youth and Young Families (Washington,
DC: 1988).

Processes of
Work-Based
Learning
TA has identified several processes by which knowledge,
skills, attitudes, and habits develop during work-based
learning. These processes are experiential learning,
work-group learning, mentoring, workplace instruction,
and technology-assisted learning. The first can occur solely at the
learner’s initiative, but all the rest involve intentional efforts by
others to contribute to the young person’s development.
Work-based learning generally differs from school-based
learning in a number of ways. In school, students are involved pri-
marily in individual activities, whereas in a work setting the stu-
dents often undertake activities with other members of the work
group. In school, students are engaged primarily in mental activi-
ties, whereas in a work setting the students combine those abstractactivities with concrete ones. In school, students are directed to-
ward developing competencies that are believed to be generaliz-
able, whereas in a work setting most learning focuses on specific
tasks, equipment, and procedures. Finally, in school, students
generally use few tools, whereas in the workplace the use of tools
is pervasive (53). Several examples of work-based learning acti-
vities are described in box 3-1.
Good work-based learning has an authenticity that probably
cannot be replicated in school-based learning. The students are
expected to assume adult responsibilities, working in adult peer
groups united by a common enterprise of producing goods and
services. To succeed, the students depend on their co-workers,
and the co-workers, in turn, depend partly on the students. The
students must learn to use unfamiliar equipment, follow specificwork procedures, and adapt to the norms of the workplace. They
must coordinate both abstract thinking and hands-on activity.
They must also learn to deal with the emotional pressures that
|1 9

20 Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
ș
ș
ș
ș
ș
ș
șHelp an experienced employee: The student helps an experienced employee with various tasks. The student
usually begins doing the simplest and least critical parts of the job, and gradually moves up to the more
skilled activities. The experienced employee explains, demonstrates, and guides the student in practicing.
Work under close supervision. The student assumes work responsibilities under close supervision. The su-
pervisor may provide orientation to the responsibilities, directions, feedback on performance, warning of
impending problems, correction of mistakes, encouragement, and advice on handling unexpected contin-
gencies.
Work with minimum supervision: The student works with minimum supervision, usually after proving himself
or herself when working under close supervision.
Participate in a “community of practice”: The student participates in informal exchanges of reformation and
assistance among employees with similar responsibilities. At first, the student is generally the beneficiary of
such exchanges, but with growing experience the student becomes increasingly a contributor.
Participate in “occupational communities”: The student participates in professional organizations, industry
associations, or unions that span more than one organization. The student may read the communities’ publi –
cations, attend their meetings, and socialize with their members.
Explore and innovate: The student seeks to develop superior work procedures, and then tests, refines, and
incorporates them into his or her work. The procedures may also be adopted by other workers or throughout
the organization.
Orient, tram, and supervise: The experienced student orients, trains, and supervises entering students and
perhaps other entering employees.
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995.
result from high production goals, rush orders,
equipment breakdowns, nasty supervisors, feud-
ing colleagues, irate customers, business slow-
downs, and the possibility of layoffs.
“If you’ve accomplished this program, you could
do anything. ANYTHING. Try and stress me out—
you couldn’t do it. “-Student (28).
Work-based learning yields knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and habits that arise from interaction
with the organizational structure, equipment, ma-
terials, work procedures, and personalities of a
given workplace. An OTA contractor has identi-
fied seven types of knowledge and skill that are
necessary for most work (5):
1.Sensory interpretation involves making in-
ferences based on colors, shapes, patterns,
sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile clues—per-
ceived directly or with the aid of instruments.
For example, machinists who use the latest nu-2.
3.merically controlled machine tool still listen
for minute changes in pitch and tone that indi-
cate problems in how the cutting surfaces are
contacting the raw materials. X-ray technicians
make three-dimensional inferences from two-
dimensional film images.
Sensorimotor dexterity is the “feel” for the
instruments, materials, and techniques used in
a given occupation—not just familiarity but,
rather, tactile sensitivity. For instance, labora-
tory technicians learn that when pipetting a cell
culture, just the right touch is required to avoid
destroying the sample.
Tricks of the trade are plans of action that
have been developed by practitioners from a
combination of experience, tacit understand-
ing, and formal scientific knowledge. For
instance, sonographers, when scanning for the
presence of a suspected gallstone, know that
they can most easily identify the problem by
rolling the patient on his or her side and looking
for the stone to “drop” on the screen.

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 21
4.The local history of problems is the accumu-
lated knowledge of the causes, timing, and
fixes of problems that have recurred over a peri-
od of time. For example, workers may have
learned that a particular piece of equipment will
tend to malfunction in unusually hot tempera-tures.
5.Work style is the set of work roles, social
skills, norms, and customs that guide how work
is conducted. For instance, emergency medical
technicians generally adopt a decisive, impro-visational, and coolly detached work style to
cope with the life-threatening and chaotic cir-
cumstances under which they work. Work
styles vary considerably among occupations
and organizations. Even for a given occupation,
there will be modest differences across orga-
nizations and sometimes across work groupswithin a single facility.
6.Coordinating activities organize and focus
the general knowledge, technical expertise, and
organizational status of different persons in-
volved in a work task. For instance, emergencymedical technicians often must work closely
with fire fighters and police officers at emer-
gency scenes, sometimes directing the coor-
dination and sometimes responding to the
directions of others.
7. Linguistic skills involve the use of occupa-
tional jargon and its translation for nonspecial-ists. Automotive technicians use terms such as
“dogging,” “traming,” “zerk,” and “chuggle,”
when talking among themselves, but must
translate those terms into common English
terms when talking with customers.
Although school-based occupational education
can contribute to the development of each of these
types of knowledge and skills, it is rarely able to
fully prepare students for the workplace. Schools
cannot afford to have all the equipment and tools
that young workers must learn to use. Students
often underestimate the importance of knowledgeand skills until they experience their use in a real
workplace. The requisite knowledge and skills
will vary from one workplace to another, and even
among different work groups within a given facil-ity. And the latter four types of knowledge and
skills just described require complex interactionswith other employees.
In addition to having several advantages, work-
based learning has some potential disadvantages.Workplaces are organized for efficient produc-tion, distribution, and customer service, not for ef-
ficient learning. American businesses historically
have provided relatively little training for theirnonmanagerial employees and have encountereddifficulties in preparing incumbent employees fornew technology (61,66). The supervisors andmentors may be preoccupied with other responsi-bilities and unable to give the students the neces-sary encouragement, guidance, and feedback. Theeasiest thing to do with low-skilled young peopleis to give them the menial work that nobody elsewants to do. Although important lessons can belearned from such work, most students will masterthe lessons in a matter of weeks and learn littlethereafter. Even when a conscientious effort ismade to provide the young people with a varietyof learning opportunities, several of the types ofknowledge and skills cited above are likely to bepartly idiosyncratic to a given workplace, and thusmastery of these in one worksite is not likely toyield adequate preparation for other worksites.
One researcher noted, “Students do not seem to be
held to authentic workplace standards across theboard, although that seems to be the goal of eachemployer” (28).
STWOA anticipated most of these problems,
but that does not assure they will be effectivelycountered. STWOA calls for work-based learningto include “a planned program of job training andwork experiences (including training related topre-employment and employment skills to bemastered at progressively higher levels)” (PublicLaw 103-239, Title I, Sec. 103[a][2]). It calls forthe provision of technical assistance and servicesto employers to help them design the work-basedlearning and to train workplace mentors (Title I,Sec. 104[3]). The work-based learning is to in-

22 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
clude a “broad introduction, to the extent practica-
ble, in all aspects of the industry” (Title I, Sec.
103[5]). And the work-based learning and school-
based learning together are to prepare the youth to
earn “a portable, industry-recognized credential”
of skill (Title I, Sec. 103[a][2[ and Sec. 4[22]).
Five work-based learning processes (experien-
tial learning, work-group learning, mentoring,
workplace instruction, and technology-assisted
learning) are discussed here. OTA found no reli-
able evidence on the extent to which each of theprocesses is used in work-based learning or on
their relative effectiveness. Because each appears
to have both advantages and disadvantages, the
richest learning experiences probably will involve
combinations of several. Although STWOA
broadly stipulates the objectives and content of
the work-based learning, it leaves the actual pro-cesses to the discretion of the state and local sys-
tems, with the exception of mentoring, which is
required. In addition, the various models of work-
based learning that are discussed in chapter 5 are
not differentiated by the processes of work-basedlearning that they use. Each model can use any of
the processes.
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
In the broadest sense of the term, experiential
learning occurs when students learn from activi-
ties that are unintentionally instructive. When stu-
dents observe how things are done in theworkplace, reflect on the reasons for those practic-
es, assume new roles and note their consequences,
encounter a problem in their work and manage to
solve it, or experiment with improving some work
procedure, they are engaged in experiential learn-
ing.
Whereas the benefits of experiential learning
are widely recognized in the adage “Experience is
the best teacher,” the shortcomings are also recog-
nized in the quip “The school of hard knocks is a
good teacher, but the tuition can be steep.” Experi-
ential learning is limited by the range of firsthand
experiences available to the student, it is often
slow, it can easily lead to false inferences, and itcan result in harm to the learner or hazards to oth-ers (58). Hardly anyone becomes proficient in the
use of word processors without some instruction
or reference to a manual. And few people would
volunteer as subjects for nurses who are experien-tially learning to draw blood.
Work-based learning programs often try to
guide experiential learning in ways that harnessthe benefits and minimize the limitations. One
way of doing this is to encourage experiential
learning only after conveying the fundamentalsand alerting students to common hazards by other
means of learning. A second way is to provide
structure to the experiential learning that will fo-cus and accelerate it, for example, the use of learn-ing plans that specify the objectives and sequence
of the workplace activities. A third way of opti-
mizing experiential learning is to supplement itwith exercises that help students reflect on their
experience. In some programs the students are
asked to keep a journal of their work experience;in other programs the students attend a seminar
that helps prepare them for their work-based
learning experiences, deal with problems that mayarise, reflect on what they have learned, and con-
sider the social, economic, and ethical contexts of
work.
Todd
Todd had been doing well in the worksite, and
had earned the affection of his supervisor and co-workers. But he repeatedly failed to complete the as-signments for the school seminar that accompaniedthe work experience, and school officials eventuallyremoved him from the program. The supervisor wasdismayed, and responded by hiring him back as aregular part-time employee (67).
The Cambridge Rindge and Latin School re-
quires enrollment in such a seminar for all juniors
and seniors participating in internships. The stu-dents study the historical and social aspects of
work, reflect on their work experience in writing,
and plan their end-of year projects (67).
LaGuardia Community College in New York
City has developed an elaborate series of seminars

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 23
to accompany its cooperative education work
assignments. The seminars foster exploration of
careers, development of intellectual and occupa-
tional skills, and reflection on the social and ethi-
cal aspects of work. When students are nearing
eligibility for work-based learning, they attend a12-hour preparation course that introduces them
to the co-op program, helps them assess their in-
terests and skills, requires them to establish objec-
tives for their career and work assignments, and
prepares them for the job search process (23). Dur-ing the first semester of work-based learning, the
students attend an evening or weekend seminar to
plan activities in the workplace that will deepen
their understanding of how the organization is
structured and operated. These activities might in-
clude preparing organization charts, identifying
leadership styles, describing the document flow,and analyzing ethical dilemmas. During the se-
cond semester of work, the students engage in sev-
eral career exploration exercises and develop
strategies for deriving maximum learning from
their work experience. These strategies includeseeking challenging assignments, coping with
hardship, and requesting feedback on one’s
strengths and weaknesses. During the third se-
mester of work, the seminar helps the students
prepare a research paper that draws on the theory
they have studied and the work experience (23).
WORK-GROUP LEARNING
Work-group learning is an immersion approach towork-based learning. The learning comes from
sharing the activity and the distributed knowledge
of the group. Members of the group model the
work procedures and exert pressure on each other
to enforce the established norms. They attend to
important cues from their colleagues and super-visors and ignore the unimportant ones. They
converse—asking questions, responding, and of-
fering unsolicited information necessary for the
group’s work. They tell “war stories” about work
crises, their responses, and the outcomes. They
help each other. They call on outside resources
when appropriate, and they coordinate with theother work groups (47).Newcomers to a work group usually begin on
the periphery, where the tasks are short and easy,the costs of errors are small, and their responsibil-
ity for the activity as a whole is small. As the new-
comers master the simpler tasks, they are givenmore complex ones, thus moving from the periph-ery to the center of activity (39). Full participationin a work group is characterized by having theability to access and contribute to the group’s col-lective memory, knowing when to disregard the
rules, being recognized as an “old hand,” and hav-
ing power to affect the life of the group in impor-tant ways. Learning enables new people to enterwork groups and to move toward full participa-tion.
Several types of work groups can be important
to work-based learning opportunities. The first is
an occupationally heterogeneous face-to-face
work group, for example, a physician’s office thathas a receptionist, a part-time bookkeeper, twonurses, and a physician. The members of thegroup have complementary skills and responsibi-lities. A second type of work group is an occupa-tionally homogeneous face-to-face group, for
example, the equipment repair department of a
large hospital, which would be staffed with sever-al electronic technicians who share responsibili-ties, though there may be some specializationaccording to individual skills and preferences. Athird type of work group is an occupationally ho-mogeneous group composed of people within a
given organization who seldom work face to face,
but communicate and associate informally toshare expertise and to experience camaraderie.The second and third types of work group are in-creasingly referred to as “communities of prac-tice.”
Another type of work group includes profes-
sional and trade organizations, the chambers of
commerce, unions, computer-user groups, and in-formal groups of people engaged in similar oc-cupations. The members of these groups generallydo not work together, but they engage in similarwork, have common values and perspectives to-
ward their work, and engage in social relation-
ships that meld leisure activities and the

24 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
expansion of work knowledge and skill. These are
sometimes referred to as “occupational communi-
ties.”
Work groups offer many opportunities for
learning the types of work knowledge and skills
discussed earlier. New members can observe ex-perienced members using their tricks of the trade.
The means of accessing the local history of prob-
lems can be overheard in conversations, observed,
or explained at the newcomer’s request. In one air-
line operations room it was observed that the staffaddressed their questions aloud to the whole
room, and anyone who knew the answer re-
sponded (32). The jargon of a work group and skill
in translating it for nonspecialists can be gleaned
by overhearing conversations and by listening to
pointers from the experienced members. The
coordination of work tasks can be learned by ob-servation and by trial and error.
Adoption of the prevailing work style is crucial
to avoiding trouble and to becoming a full mem-
ber of a work group. For example, a routine-ob-
sessed and fastidiously clean work style isnecessary for medical technicians who deal with
cell cultures that can easily be contaminated (4).
New employees may receive formal orientation to
the key elements of the work style, but subtleties
are learned by observing the experienced workers,
interacting with them, asking questions, feeling
peer pressure, and sometimes suffering sanctions.
Two scholars have observed, “Work would be
practically impossible and unbearably stressful if
practitioners could not rely on one another to sup-
ply needed information” (5). That reliance pro-
vides reciprocal incentives for learning and forfacilitating learning. Newcomers depend on the
older members, but the older members will
eventually have to rely on the newcomers.
Sometimes the messages that work groups con-
vey to new members are too subtle to be detected;
at other times the demands of the group can over-
whelm the novice. In addition, the lessons learnedfrom work groups are not always positive. The
productivity and efficiency of work groups can
range from low to high. Some groups resist all
change, and others perpetuate racial and gender
discrimination. Participation in a good workgroup can be a great learning experience; partici-
pation in a bad work group may teach dysfunc-
tional lessons.
MENTORING
Mentoring is a relationship in which a more expe-
rienced person facilitates the broad development
of a less experienced person on a regular basis and
over an extended period of time. Mentoring in
work-based learning can be directed primarily to-
ward occupational development, but usually it isequally directed toward intellectual, personal, and
social maturation. The mentors in work-based
learning may be responsible for:

acquainting the students with the formal rules
and informal norms of the workplace;

introducing the students to the people and re-
sources outside the immediate work area;

inculcating positive attitudes and work habits;

guiding the students in development of work
knowledge and skills;

encouraging and helping the students to under-
take challenges;

encouraging the students to reflect on their ex-
periences;

serving as a confidant in times of stress;

providing empathy, support, and encourage-
ment when the students encounter difficulties;

providing sympathetic but realistic feedback;

helping the students to view things from other
people’s perspectives;

serving as a protector, facilitator, and advocate;

introducing the students to occupational and in-
dustry associations;

helping the students plan for subsequent educa-
tion and training; and

serving as a personal and professional role
model.
One example of mentoring that is aimed at in-
tellectual and occupational development is pro-
vided in the following account:
He [Peter, the mentor] lets him [Richard, the
student, ] first grapple with a problem andstretch his resources, but intervenes beforeRichard gets frustrated. When Richard doescome for help, he is not automatically given the

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 25
solutions, because Peter sees that as counterpro-
ductive in two ways. First, problems have sever-al solutions. And second, solving the problem isnot the primary purpose of the dialogue for Pe-ter; it is also to give Richard new ways to ap-proach the problem so that in the future he mightbecome yet more resourceful because of a big-ger knowledge base and understanding of thevariables in the problem (27).
STWOA specifies that the work-based learning
“shall include . . . workplace mentoring” (Title I,
Sec. 103[a][3]). In addition, each student is to be
provided with “a school site mentor to act as a liai-
son among the student and the employer, school,
teacher, school administrator, and parent of the
student, and if appropriate, other community part-
ners” (Title I, Sec. 104[2]).
Indirect support for the benefits of mentoring
comes from at least four lines of research. Several
studies of unusually effective adults have found
that they more often report having had a mentor
than do less successful adults (33,43,54). Consid-erable evidence indicates that children who do
well despite a deprived childhood have had the
benefit of at least one caring and attentive adult
(21,56,68). Research indicates that the extent of
student contact with college faculty is associated
with college success (2,13,50,62,69). And a re-
view of more than 100 reportedly successful pro-grams for at-risk youth concluded that their
distinguishing features were intensive individual-
ized attention by one or more adults and commu-
nitywide prevention and support services (17).
These studies, however, generally have not con-trolled for the possibility that young people who
establish strong relationships with adults may
have been psychologically and socially stronger
than others before establishing those relation-
ships.
There is only scant mention in the literature
about negative effects of mentoring. One of thefew substantive discussions of possible adverse
effects is from the literature discussing the men-
toring of adults. It suggests that although mentor-
ing relationships can be quite positive
experiences, they can sometimes be ambiguous,
conflictual, and disappointing; they can minimizethe protégé’s contacts with others; they can create
an illusion of great caring that subsequently is
shattered; and they can lead to sexual exploitation
(5). The frequency of these problems is not re-
ported.
Over the past decade many programs have used
volunteer mentors as buddies, confidants, and role
models for disadvantaged youth. There are cred-
ible accounts of how these mentoring relation-
ships transformed the lives of some floundering
youth, but the overall picture has not been encour-aging. The programs have frequently had difficul-
ty recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of
mentors (20,27,44;45). Only about one-third to
two-thirds of the matches become significant rela-
tionships (20). For those few programs that have
been rigorously evaluated, the programs have
shown little or no effect on the students’ schoolattendance, academic achievement, graduation
rates, or enrollment in postsecondary education
(29). When the volunteer mentoring has been
combined with tutoring or college orientation, the
results have been only modestly better (9,44,51,).None of these evaluations report the potential
problems mentioned earlier. Rather, the disap-
pointing results appear to have been due to diffi-
culty in establishing and maintaining good
mentoring relationships, and to limited effects
even when good relationships are established.
In contrast, the four-year-long Quantum Op-
portunities Program (QOP)—with mentoring
done by full-time paid staff, in combination with
supplementary academic assistance, developmen-
tal activities, community service options, and fi-
nancial incentives—had very strong effects infour out of the five sites that succeeded in imple-
menting the program. The program resulted in a
50 percent increase in high school graduation
rates, almost a threefold increase in postsecondary
enrollments, a 37 percent drop in childbearing,
and a 50 percent drop in arrests (24,25). These im-
provements are among the largest ever found fora youth development program. Given the array of
services, it is impossible to know the extent to
which mentoring contributed to the outcomes, but

26 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
several observers agree that the personal ties with
the supportive adults were an important element.
There are reasons to think that the workplace
mentoring anticipated in STWOA will have ad-
vantages over the community-based mentoring
programs just described. Workplace mentoringwill be more convenient because the mentors will
be the students’ supervisors or other experienced
employees, and will not have to travel to and from
the protégés’ homes or deal with the frustration of
unanswered phone messages (a common problemin community-based mentoring programs). There
will be a core of common interest as the young per-
son tries to adapt to a work environment in which
the mentor is well established. The mentoring can
be provided as needed, rather than on a prear-
ranged schedule. In addition, the mentoring is to
serve a broad cross section of youth, not just dis-advantaged youth, who generally have the great-
est needs and often are the most difficult to assist
(20).
Although the highly successful QOP had a very
limited work-based learning component, it is sim-ilar in several respects to the mentoring that is to
be provided under STWOA. QOP used mentoring
in the context of other educational and develop-
mental activities. It used mentoring to address the
current needs of the youths and to raise their hori-
zons. And it provided mentoring and other ser-
vices on a sustained basis for several years.
A review of several ethnographic and case stud-
ies of school-to-work transition programs has
identified mentoring as commonly associated
with student development. The authors conclude:
Of unquestionable importance is the “vet,”
“master teacher,” or skilled mentor who situateslearning in authentic practice; has adequate re-sources; establishes a culture of achievement;and understands how roles/relationships in theworkplace progress over time to enhance thegrowth and development of the novice (7).
OTA staff found only one formal evaluation of
mentoring in work-based learning. Although it is
based solely on the perceptions of the young
people’s development, measured by students’ and
mentors’ responses on a rating form, both groups
agreed that mentoring contributed to the youths’knowledge about workplace rules and behavior, to
their ability to follow directions and take initia-
tive, and to improvements in their communication
skills (18).
Several tentative lessons for implementing
worksite youth mentoring can be drawn from thegeneral literature on mentoring and from the dem-
onstrations cited earlier:

Mentoring appears to work best when profes-
sional staff help prepare the mentors and proté-
gés for mentoring and give them continued
support after the match-up (10,46,51).

Matching of mentors with young people on the
basis of race/ethnicity and gender does not ap-
pear as important as popular opinion has sug-
gested, but there should be an effort to assure
personal compatibility and correspondence in
interests (30,46,51).

Mentors should be prepared to listen and pro-
vide emotional support to the protégés (20).

Limited evidence suggests that relatively im-
mature youth need a great deal of encourage-
ment and guidance to develop and maintain
responsible behavior, whereas more mature
youth will benefit from a focus on career and
occupational issues (18).

The mentoring should also help the youth ex-
plore new experiences, make contacts, assume
responsibility, gain self-discipline, learn job-
seeking skills, and solve personal problems
(10,18,46).
WORKPLACE INSTRUCTION
Workplace instruction includes formal lecturesand presentations to large groups, informal talks
and demonstrations to small groups, and thecoaching of individuals. The training may be pro-
vided by management, supervisors, expert em-
ployees, or outside consultants.
One of the challenges facing American busi-
nesses is to prepare new and incumbent em-ployees to deal with rapid change and complex
technology. Skills in innovating, organizing, trou-
bleshooting, problem solving, and continuous
learning are needed to face these challenges. The
rest of this section discusses a new approach for

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 27
developing complex cognitive skills such as
these. This approach has come to be called “cogni-
tive apprenticeship” (12).
The cognitive apprenticeship approach was
first used in school settings to teach advanced
skills in subjects such as reading, writing, andmathematics. The approach has not yet been used
extensively in work-based learning, but it appears
to have potential for improving the teaching of in-
tellectually demanding workplace skills.
Cognitive apprenticeship involves three
phases: modeling, coaching, and exploration. Al-
though these phases may be introduced in that or-
der, the mastery of complex skills often involvesmoving back and forth among the three phases.
The expert usually begins by modeling the en-
tire complex skill in the context that it would be
used, and then may repeat several components of
it. Because cognitive functions cannot be directlyobserved and often cannot be correctly inferred by
observing a person’s behavior, the expert usually
gives a running commentary while modeling the
skill. Producing such commentary often takes
some practice, because experts rely heavily on“tacit knowledge and processes” of which they are
not fully conscious.
In the coaching phase, the expert guides the stu-
dent through the practice of the skill. The guid-
ance can be in the form of verbalizations, physical
assistance, and emotional encouragement.
Through repeated trials and successive approxi-
mation, the student gradually reaches mastery andautomaticity. The initial guidance may be sub-
stantial, but once the student begins to grasp the
skill, the guidance is reduced to the minimum nec-essary for the student to succeed with effort.
Directions are replaced with hints and questions;
continuous feedback and detailed debriefings are
replaced with occasional comments; and effusive
encouragement may be replaced with a more re-served respect.
The extent of guidance is deliberately reduced
so as to require the student to develop and rely on
his or her own resources. These resources include
monitoring one’s own performance and correctingshortcomings in performance. These capabilities
are so critical to mastery and maintenance of com-
plex skills that the expert will deliberately guidetheir development during the coaching phase.
To help monitor the student’s progress, the ex-
pert may ask the student to think out loud whenpracticing. The expert’s own running commentary
during the modeling phase serves as an example
of how to do this.
The student is prepared for the exploration
phase by being given increasingly complex tasksand more broadly defined assignments. In the ex-
ploration phase itself, the expert encourages the
student to choose problems he or she can tacklewith the knowledge and skills already acquired.
The student is asked to set the objectives, frame
the questions, and define the problems. At first,
exploration usually results in the student’s “rein-
venting the wheel,” but as he or she becomes moreknowledgeable and proficient, exploration some-
times results in innovative products, services, or
work processes.
The cognitive apprenticeship approach has not
yet been used enough in workplace instruction forits effectiveness to be determined. Its obvious
strength is the emphasis on developing the com-
plex cognitive skills that are thought to be increas-ingly needed in the workplace—an emphasis that
is missing from some other forms of training. A
potential limitation is that this emphasis on devel-
opment of complex skills is at the expense of the
acquisition of extensive knowledge, which hasbeen found to be important for expert performance
in varied situations (22,60). As a result, the ap-
proach probably should be supplemented by otherinstruction, except when the students are already
quite knowledgeable.
When cognitive apprenticeship strategies have
been used in developing advanced reading, writ-
ing, and mathematics skills in schools, they havebeen moderately more effective than traditional
approaches (12,34,55). One of the reviews, how-
ever, found that the effects were greater when the
approach was combined with didactic teaching
(55).

28 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED LEARNING
Technology-assisted learning is based on a wide
range of equipment ranging from VCRs to com-
puters. This section focuses exclusively on com-
puter-based technologies because they haveundergone the most profound changes over the
past decade and appear to hold considerable prom-
ise for work-based learning and school-to-work
transitions. Computer-assisted learning can help
prepare students for work-based learning, assistthem during work experiences, and supplement
those experiences.
Computers, the software they use, and their pe-
ripheral displays permit many forms of computer-
assisted learning. Although the functioning varies
considerably, computer-assisted learning general-
ly offers several advantages: Substantial expertisecan be enlisted in the planning and preparation of
instruction, and then delivered each time the
instruction is reused. The assistance can be used
as needed and when most convenient. There can
be considerable interaction, allowing the studentsto actively apply what they have learned. Students
can proceed at their own pace, follow paths of
their own choosing, stop or backtrack when neces-
sary, and review their past performance. The stu-
dents’ understanding can be tested frequently and
corrective feedback can be provided immediately.
Increasingly, the technology can identify errorpatterns and tailor instruction to the students’
knowledge, skills, and preferred learning procli-
vities.
Technology-assisted learning also has several
drawbacks: Most forms have high initial costs for
preparation of the software; one recent study
found that an average of 228 person-hours wererequired to create one hour of computer-based
training (52). Widely commercialized software
can cost as little as $50, but custom software
sometimes costs several hundred thousand dol-
lars. Some of the software cannot be modified byteachers or supervisors to accommodate local in-
formation or an individual organization’s practic-
es. Technology-assisted learning lacks the human
touch that encourages students and sometimes in-
spires them. And the technology is changing sorapidly that obsolescence is assured every few
years, although older equipment and software canbe used in a diminished capacity for many yearsafter it has become dated.
In addition, many schools and small work-
places are ill-prepared to make widespread use oftechnology-assisted learning. They lack the nec-essary electrical service, telephone lines, and net-work wiring. They also frequently do not invest inthe staff training and support needed to make gooduse of the technology (64,66).
The reviews of research on various computer-
assisted learning technologies have repeatedlyfound that students generally learn more in less
time than is the case with traditional teaching
(3,19,37). The evidence on cost-effectiveness alsois generally favorable (19,41). It should be notedthat most of these reviews are of technologies usedfive to 15 years ago, which are most comparableto the career information delivery systems andcomputer-based training that are described in thenext section. Less is known about the effective-ness of the other technologies discussed there.Yet, over the past decade the cost of computerequipment has dropped dramatically; as a result,the cost-effectiveness of all forms of computer-as-sisted learning has improved rapidly.
Technology-assisted learning for work-based
learning relies on products targeted at one of fourmarkets: high school and college students who areengaged in career orientation and occupationalpreparation, incumbent workers who need to up-grade their skills, experienced workers who use
computers as tools in their work, and the entire
computer-using population. School-to-work tran-sition systems and work-based learning do not yetamount to a distinct market. That situation mightchange in the future, but even if it does not, theother four expanding markets will drive furtherdevelopments and refinements that will be of usefor work-based learning.
OTA, with the assistance of contractors, has
identified the following computer-based technol-ogies that appear to have good potential for use inwork-based learning: career information deliverysystems, computer-based training, intelligent tu-

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 29
toring systems, hypermedia, computer-supported
collaborative learning, computerized simulations,
and business applications software (15). Al-
though each is discussed separately here, two or
more of the technologies are sometimes com-
bined.
zCareer Information Delivery Systems
A recent survey identified 25 computer-based ca-
reer information delivery systems (48). Most of
them help students assess their interests, apti-tudes, and generic work-related skills. Some use
the results of those assessments to suggest oc-
cupations that might be good choices for the stu-
dents. Most provide a wealth of information on
hundreds of occupations. The information usuallycovers the nature of the work, working conditions,
range of earnings, training requirements for entry
and advancement, and job prospects. Some pro-
vide information on local job prospects and local
training providers. Some also give guidance and
training in searching for jobs (15).
Career information systems have evolved con-
siderably over the past two decades and are likely
to continue progressing, but several limitations
currently prevent widespread use. The limitations
include expensive software that generally is avail-
able only at some schools and training organ-
izations, systems that are not particularly
attention-grabbing and thus require self-moti-vated students, the need for modest computer
fluency to operate the systems, a lack of connec-
tion to state and national job listings, and little as-
sistance directed at helping students weigh the
advantages and disadvantages of alternative oc-cupations that they have selected as good pros-
pects. Because of these limitations, it is often
suggested that students should use the systems
with the assistance of a well-trained guidance
counselor. There also has been little rigorous eval-
uation of the effectiveness of these systems (15).
zComputer-Based Training
Although this term is sometimes used broadly to
refer to all forms of computer-assisted learningused for occupational development, it is also used
more narrowly to mean instruction that takes thestudent through a didactic presentation of con-cepts, facts, and skills, interspersed with tests andimmediate feedback. Simple computer-based
training was first developed in the 1960s. It is like
a textbook with frequent quizzes that are automat-ically scored. A student who does poorly on a quizis told to go back and repeat the module. Moresophisticated computer-based training offers stu-dents some opportunities to choose among alter-native approaches to instruction, such as a careful
explanation or a quick review.
Computer-based training is well suited to trans-
ferring knowledge of facts and specific pro-cedures, and both are widely needed in theworkplace. Reviews of the extensive research onthe use of computer-assisted learning that is simi-lar to computer-based training suggest that it has
reduced learning time by some 24 to 34 percent
(37).
Computer-based training generally cannot
judge constructed responses such as a sales speechor a creative solution to a problem, and it has verylimited potential for developing teamwork skills.In addition, local teachers and workplace mentors
generally cannot modify the presentations or add
new modules.
The development of simple computer-based
training can require as little as 10 hours of prepara-tion per hour of instruction, but sophisticatedtraining can require 100 to 228 hours for an hourof instruction (14,52). The high costs can be justi-
fied when traditional training is very expensive or
dangerous, or when the computer-based trainingcan be used by large numbers of students withlittle assistance from teachers.
Computer-based training is already well com-
mercialized, but development costs and the inabil-ity to modify the instruction locally are major
barriers to wider use. Several vendors have devel-
oped “authoring” tools that partially automate thedevelopment of the software and make it modifi-able by teachers, but these tools allow only a verylimited set of instructional strategies.

30 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
zIntelligent Tutoring Systems
Intelligent tutoring systems apply “artificial intel-
ligence” for the purpose of effectively guiding hu-
man learning. The tutors are designed to detect
what the learner knows, compare that knowledgewith what is to be taught, create an optimal learn-
ing path, recognize patterns in the learner’s errors,
and provide error-specific feedback. For instance,
if a learner is having difficulty, the tutor might try
another approach that appears to be more ap-propriate, provide explanations of why certain an-
swers are wrong, and give the learner more
encouragement.
A prominent example of intelligent tutors is
provided by SHERLOCK. This system trains Air
Force electronic technicians to diagnose problems
in a complex device used to service the avionicsof F-15 jets. SHERLOCK displays on the com-
puter screen depiction’s of the device, schematic
diagrams of the electrical circuits, and system
documentation. The tutor “creates” a fault in one
or more of the circuits of the device and asks the
trainee to locate the problem. The trainee selects
the circuit diagram he or she thinks should betested, marks where the probes of the diagnostic
equipment are to be placed, “activates” the equip-
ment, and receives simulated readouts. After con-
sidering the readouts, the trainee decides whether
there is a fault in that tested part of the circuit. Theprocess is usually repeated many times, attaching
the probes to various circuits, until the trainee de-
termines the location of the fault. If the trainee is
clearly misdirected or proceeding inefficiently,
the computer provides feedback and guidance
based on constant monitoring of the progress. In
addition, whenever the trainee wants help, thecomputer will provide it (38).
Intelligent tutors are well suited to developing
complex skills. When connected to mechanical
devices manipulated by the learner, such as con-
trol panels and steering wheels, intelligent tutorscan help students develop psychomotor skills.
They can also be used to teach social interaction
skills, such as customer service strategies, using
video clips to model customers and expert cus-
tomer service agents. Intelligent tutors generallycannot, however, judge the adequacy of a complex
response such as a memo or graphic design, al-
though some progress is being made along these
lines.
Intelligent tutors are relatively new, and few
have been well evaluated. Of those few, somehave demonstrated dramatic results. A system for
teaching college students a computer program-
ming language was found to be 30 to 40 percent
more effective in 30 to 60 percent less time (1).
With just 20 to 25 hours of use, SHERLOCK al-lowed the average novice technician to achieve
troubleshooting proficiencies exceeding the aver-
age for senior technicians with years of experience
(40). The effectiveness of SHERLOCK is due
partly to the speed with which the simulations can
be “worked” by the novice technicians, partly to
the “intelligence” of its tutor, and partly to the factthat the system deals with complicated problems
that occur so infrequently that some senior techni-
cians have never encountered them.
The cost of developing intelligent tutors is very
high because of the diagnostic, modeling, and tai-lored-response capabilities of the systems. Sever-
al efforts are under way to reduce the cost by
developing “common architecture’s,” reusable
software codes, or “authoring” tools, but none has
yet proved to be of general use. Another barrier to
widespread use is the fact that the systems usually
cannot be modified by the teachers or worksitepersonnel. Though some stunning examples of in-
telligent tutors have been developed, considerable
advances will be needed if intelligent tutors are to
be widely commercialized (15).
zHypermedia
Hypermedia comprises a vast collection of text,
still images, animation, video, voices, sounds,
and music, with linkages among all related items.
Rather than providing a learning path, it presents
the student with a “knowledge web” to navigate.Hypermedia relies largely on experiential learn-
ing, with some applications providing moderate
guidance to the students..
Apple Computer has developed its ARPLE da-
tabase to familiarize new and experienced sales-

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 31
people with the vast and ever-changing catalogue
of its own products and third-party software for
Apple machines. Multilevel menus access back-
ground information, instructions, competitive
analyses, “slide show” presentations, and demon-
strations of various software. The CD-ROM ver-sion is distributed to approximately 5,000 Apple
employees and 25,000 retailers. A survey of field
employees judged ARPLE to be the best means
they have for keeping informed about new prod-
ucts (36).
The Institute for Learning Sciences at North-
western University is combining hypermedia with
an intelligent tutoring system to teach social stud-
ies and journalism skills to high school students..
The “Broadcast News” program gives students a
rough draft of a television news story and access
to a hypermedia database that includes video clipsand reference works. Students are asked to edit the
video and voiceover to eliminate bias, correct fac-
tual errors, and fill in missing details. The students
mark the parts of the text that they wish to change
and then select among many offered options. Atany time the students can query the hypermedia
database, selecting questions they want answered
by experts, browsing among reference works, and
examining a collection of video clips. An “artifi-
cially intelligent supervisor” evaluates the stu-
dents’ edited versions of the story, provides
detailed feedback, and determines whether thestories are ready for prime time. If so, the system
allows the student to act as anchor of the news
broadcast. The system also creates a video of each
student’s broadcast, which then can be compared
with videos by other students and with profession-al news presentations of the same event (35).
Hypermedia can provide huge amounts of easi-
ly accessible information and can accommodate
students’ varying preferences for text, audio, and
graphic presentation of information. It allows all
the students to seek answers they need while by-
passing other information. It is also relatively in-expensive to prepare, and often can be modified
by local teachers and supervisors. Until recently,
hypermedia databases have been stored on the
hard disks of computers or on CD-ROMs and vi-
deodisks. The Internet and the forthcoming Na-tional Information Infrastructure will allow
anyone with a properly equipped $1,500 micro-
computer and a telephone line to access huge
collections of data, text, and graphics in theworld’s libraries.
Hypermedia has several shortcomings. The
systems are essentially passive, and to make gooduse of them, students must be goal oriented and
able to work in an unstructured environment.
Even then, failure to select effective search strate-gies can leave the student browsing through largequantities of low-priority information. “Web-crawler” and “knowbot” software is currently be-ing developed to assist in the searches, but good
knowledge of both the subject matter and the in-
dexing system will probably remain important toconducting well-targeted and thorough searches.In addition, some developers have focused moreon the pizzazz of impressive graphics than on the
substance of the database.
The research on hypermedia suggests that navi-
gating these systems builds the valuable informa-tion-finding and information-filtering skills thatare increasingly necessary for effective function-ing in high-tech workplaces. Independent learners
do well with hypermedia, but those who need
structure and guidance may flounder (15).
Hypermedia, as a reference mechanism, is al-
ready commercialized. As a tool for learning com-plex concepts and skills, it will need to be linked
to other technologies, such as intelligent tutoring
systems, and efforts to do that are still in the devel-opmental phases (15).
zComputer-Supported
Collaborative Learning
Computer-supported collaborative learning is ac-
complished by an array of technologies, most
prominently, “groupware” decision support sys-
tems, collaborative design tools, and telecommu-nications. These technologies allow a group ofpeople to exchange information and insights,reach group decisions through a set of structured
exchanges, and collaborate on work projects.
With telecommunication links, the group can in-clude people who are geographically dispersed.

32 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
At the University of Illinois, students studying
to be teachers spend a semester scattered across
the state, practice teaching under the guidance of
experienced teachers. E-mail, electronic bulletin
boards, remotely accessed databases, and comput-
er conferencing allow the students to contact theirprofessors for advice and to discuss problems and
solutions with their peers (42).
The advantages of computer-supported collab-
orative learning include its handling of speech,
writing, and even design; the sharing of knowl-edge and skills; the opportunity for psychological
support among similarly situated persons; and
considerable flexibility within the frameworks es-
tablished by the tools. Some users, however, ex-
press frustration with the constraints imposed by
the frameworks.
Computer-supported collaborative learning
could play an important role in school-to-work
transition systems by:

linking the workplaces with the schools;

helping the partnerships in their planning acti-
vities and allowing them to remain in contact
between time-consuming meetings;

helping school officials and teachers coordinate
with the workplace supervisors and mentors;

allowing students in the workplace to access the
various resources of the school;

permitting school staff to monitor students’
progress with fewer trips to the workplace; and

allowing students to take work-based learning
assignments far from school, while remainingin contact with their teachers and peers.
The evaluations of computer-supported collab-
orative learning suggest that it helps the students
see things from multiple perspectives, builds their
interpersonal communication skills, and lends in-
tellectual and emotional support. The technolo-
gies overcome the constraints of time and placethat are inherent in face-to-face communications,
but they do not convey the power of direct human
contact (15). According to some recent studies,
exchanges that promote individual learning in a
group may not necessarily produce the best group
performance (49).Telecommunications technologies are rapidly
being commercialized. Only a few groupware and
collaborative design tools are on the market, but
others will follow and their evolution is expected
to be swift (31).
zComputerized Simulations
Computer simulations range from simplified rep-
resentations of reality to realistic synthetic envi-ronments that envelop the user with visual,
auditory, and kinematic stimuli. Some are de-
signed to be used by one person at a time; others
can be used by groups, even with participants
thousands of miles apart.
Classroom Inc. has prepared simulations of a
bank, a hotel, and a medical center that introducemiddle-school and high school students to the
world of work and reinforce their academic skills.
In the Chelsea Bank simulation, three or four stu-
dents are trained as a team in the bank procedures
for a teller. Then the team works as a bank tellerin eight scenarios of problematic transactions, in-
cluding a sweet old lady wanting to deposit a post-
dated check, a derelict wanting to cash a large
check, a friend of the teller wanting a small favor
that violates bank procedures, and a rude customer
giving the teller more cash than is recorded on the
deposit slip. The team must choose among fourpossible responses to each scenario, and anticipate
the consequences of the choice for the customer,
the bank, and the teller. Then the team is debriefed
about the correct choice and the likely conse-
quences of each possible response. After master-ing the teller scenarios, the team works as a
customer service representative in seven more
scenarios. Selecting the correct responses requires
comprehending and applying the bank proce-
dures, making simple computations, understand-
ing the service and business aspects of banking,
putting aside personal concerns when appropriate,using critical thinking skills, applying high ethical
standards, and engaging in problem solving.
Working through the full simulation takes about
twenty 50-minute periods, but a number of related
research, writing, and computational assignments
can be added (11).

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 33
Caterpillar Corporation has developed an
earth-moving equipment simulator that includes
a real steering wheel, gearshift, levers, pedals, and
other controls. The visuals are computer gener-
ated and provided by a head-mounted display that
is worn like a helmet (65).
The general advantages and disadvantages of
simulations are discussed in chapter 4 in the sec-
tion on the “settings” of work-based learning. For
computer-based simulations, research has found
that students with a naive conception of the simu-lated phenomena and those who learn best in a
well-structured environment tend to flounder and
become frustrated (15). In remotely connected
group simulations, participants become less in-
hibited than in face-to-face groups; shy people
communicate more and risk “dumb” questions,
but politeness also declines (59). Moreover, someusers become addicted to computer simulations
(8,63).
The Office of Technology Assessment recently
examined virtual-reality technologies for combat
simulation and concluded that the advances havebeen rapid, costs have been cut by about half every
two years, and the products of military invest-
ments have numerous commercial applications
(65). The challenges that were identified by OTA
included inadequate telecommunications infra-
structure for distributed simulations, difficult and
time-consuming preparation of the software, andthe need for improved visual displays.
Gamelike simulations that rely on text can be
developed at modest cost. Those that create realis-
tic visual and audio effects are expensive to devel-
op, and those that add kinematic effects are stillexperimental. Gamelike simulations are already
available on the Internet, but dialing up immersive
simulations will require major advances in tele-
communications technologies (15).
Simulations for widely used skills, or ones
whose traditional development involves consider-
able risk or expense, are likely to evolve rapidlyduring the rest of the decade. Smaller or less lucra-
tive markets will probably experience less prog-
ress until advances in “authoring” tools reduce the
costs of developing the software.zBusiness Applications Software
Perhaps the most dramatic advance in computer-
assisted work-based learning is a result of thebusiness world’s rapid switch from expensivemainframes to inexpensive microcomputers forword processing, typesetting, database, spread-sheet, computer-aided design, and other businessapplications. A computer that 15 years ago cost$500,000 and used $50,000 worth of software cannow be duplicated for a few thousand dollars. Fif-teen years ago it could cost $100 per hour for a stu-dent to practice using a mainframe softwarepackage; now it costs less than $1 per hour to prac-tice with more powerful software on a microcom-puter. As a result, schools and colleges can easilyafford to give students an introduction to widelyused business application software packages, andemployers can easily afford to have the studentspractice and improve their skills in the workplace.
Most business application software now comes
with computerized tools to help people learn howto use the program. These include computer-as-
sisted training, help systems that explain how to
execute specific functions, and the ability to undoone or more steps when things go awry. MicrosoftWord, in a bid to win over WordPerfect users, pre-pared a help menu with WordPerfect terminologythat retrieves explanations of how to execute thesame functions in Word.
“Some students have taught themselves to use
software that their supervisors do not know how touse.”—Researcher’s observations at a worksite(67).
Although these tools are welcome and occa-
sionally have a clever twist, they have rarely madeuse of the sophisticated computer-assisted learn-ing technology that is now available. The comput-erized “tutorials” that accompany the softwaregenerally do not have the “smarts” of the intelli-gent tutoring systems described earlier. The helpmechanism usually requires selecting the correctterm for a desired function (which is sometimes

34 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
unknown to the befuddled user) instead of allow-
ing the user to specify a term and having the ma-
chine automatically access the corresponding
function. In addition, the “undo” functions some-
times apply only to the last command or two,
while mistakes often are not apparent until afterseveral commands have been executed. Despite
these shortcomings, further progress in the learn-
ing aids built into business software is likely. New
companies continue to introduce add-on products,
and the big developers continue to incorporatemore assistance.
zThe Future of Technology-Assisted
Work-Based Learning
A recent OTA report documented that schools
have been slow to incorporate technology-as-
sisted learning (64). There are at least three forcesthat are likely to accelerate the adoption of com-
puter-based learning in workplaces. First, com-
puters are now common throughout many
workplaces. Second, today’s $1,500 microcom-
puter has about five times the speed, RAM, and
hard-disk storage capacity as a similarly priced
microcomputer of just five years ago. Third,learning software is evolving from simple com-
puterized textbooks to a variety of more sophisti-
cated tutors, hypermedia with navigators,
collaborative learning systems, and simulations.
Computer-assisted learning is not a magical
guarantee of learning success. Some software has
given visual effects precedence over content;
some alleged “artificial intelligence” has been
closer to artificial stupidity; and some software is
“buggy” and operates improperly. Nevertheless,
the advances have been impressive and are likely
to continue.
CONCLUSION
There is little evidence concerning the relative ef-fectiveness of the five identified work-based
learning processes, but each appears to have dif-
ferent advantages and disadvantages. Guided ex-
periential learning requires flexibility on the part
of the guide, but can help the students hone theirexperiential learning strategies for life-long use.Mentoring is time-consuming, but provides the
students with comprehensive support, assistance,and feedback over a sustained period of time.Work-group learning is sometimes too subtle oroverwhelming, and low-performing groups canteach students the wrong lessons, but this learningprocess requires few additional resources and con-veys essential knowledge and skills that often arenot taught by other means. Normal workplaceinstruction often conveys facts and simple proce-dures efficiently, whereas cognitive apprentice-ships are a time-consuming but potentiallypowerful means of developing complex intel-lectual skills. Finally, technology-assisted learn-ing is sometimes inflexible and expensive, but ithas produced some dramatic results and hardwarecosts are declining rapidly.
Extensive research has shown that most people,
both adults and youths, are not adept at transfer-ring skills learned in one situation to different situ-ations (16). This is good reason for locatingstudents’ training for work within workplaces, butthe lack of transfer also ominously suggests thatno preparation will be adequate for a rapidlychanging world, and that career success will re-quire continuous learning. Because learningskills, like other skills, do not generalize well (16),it appears desirable for students to become adeptwith many processes and contexts of learning.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, J.R., et al., “Cognitive Tutors:
Lessons Learned,” Journal of the Learning
Sciences 4(2):167-207, 1995.
2. Astin, A.W., Four Critical Years: Effects of
College on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1977).
3. Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, J.A., and Ku-
lik, C.C., “Effectiveness of Computer-BasedEducation in Secondary Schools,” Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction 12(2):59-68,
1985.
4. Barley, S.R., and Bechky, B.A., “In the Back-
rooms of Science: The Work of Technicians inScience Labs,” Work and Occupations
21:85-126, 1994.

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 35
5. Barley, S.R., and Nelsen, B.J., Stanford Uni-
versity, Stanford, CA, and Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, “The Nature and Implications of
Infrastructural Technological Change for the
Social Organization of Work,” unpublished
contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, May, 1995.
6. Baum, H.S., “Mentoring: Narcissistic Fanta-
sies and Oedipal Realities,” Human Relations
45:223-245, 1992.
7. Borman, K.M., and Lakes, R., University of
South Florida, Tampa, FL, and Georgia State
University, Atlanta, GA, “Review of Eth-
nographic Research Related to School-to-
Work,” unpublished contractor report pre-
pared for the Office of Technology Assess-
ment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May1995.
8. Bruckman, A., Identity Workshops: Emer-
gent Social and Psychological Phenomena in
Text-Based Virtual Reality (Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,1992).
9. Cave, G., and Quint, J., Career Beginnings
Impact Evaluation: Findings from a Program
for Disadvantaged High School Students
(New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration
Research Corp., 1990).
10. Churchill, A., Morales, D., and O’Flanagan,
M.K., School-to-Work Toolbook: School-to-
Work Program Tools (Boston, MA: Jobs for
the Future, 1994).
11. Classroom, Inc., The Chelsea Bank Teacher’s
Guide (New York, NY: 1994).
12. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Newman, S.E.,
“Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the
Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics,”
Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays
in Honor of Robert Glaser, L.B. Resnick (ed.)
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1989).
13. DeCoster, D., and Brown, R., “Mentoring
Relationships in the Educational Process,”
Mentoring Transcript Systems for Promoting
Student Growth , R. Brown and D. Decoster(eds.) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
1982).
14. Dede, C., Professor in Graduate School of
Education, George Mason University, Fair-
fax, VA, personal communication, July 1995.
15. Dede, C., and Lewis, M., George Mason Uni-
versity, Fairfax, VA, and Rand Corp., Santa
Monica, CA, “Assessment of Emerging
Educational Technologies That Might Assist
and Enhance School-to-Work Transitions,”
unpublished contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-
gress, Washington, DC, May 1995.
16. Detterman, D.K., and Sternberg, R.J., Trans-
fer on Trial: Intelligence, Congition, and
Construction (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publish-
ing, 1993).
17. Dryfoos, J., Adolescents At-Risk: Prevention
and Prevalence (New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1990).
18. Evenson, J.S., Mentors and Students in the
Workplace: Workplace Mentorship (San
Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory forEducational Research and Development,
1982), ERIC ED246181.
19. Fletcher, J.D., and Orlansky, J., “Cost Effec-
tiveness of CBI in Defense Training,” unpub-
lished paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA, 1986.
20. Freedman, M., The Kindness of Strangers:
Adult Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New Vo-
luntarism (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
1993).
21. Garmezy, N., “Stress Resistant Children: The
Search for Protective Factors,” Recent Re-
search in Developmental Psychopathology,
J.E. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford, UK: Pergamon,
1985).
22. Glaser, R., “Education and Thinking: The
Role of Knowledge,” American Psychologist
39:93-104, 1984.
23. Grubb, W.N., and Badway, N., University of
California, Berkeley, CA, “Linking School-
Based and Work-Based Learning: The Im-
plications of LaGuardia’s Co-op Seminars for

36 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
School-To-Work Programs,” unpublished
contractor report prepared for the Office of
Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, June 1995.
24. Hahn, A., Evaluation of the Quantum Oppor-
tunities Program (QOP): Did the ProgramWork? Executive Summary (Waltham, MA:
Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School,
1994a).
25. Hahn, A., Evaluation of the Quantum Oppor-
tunities Program (QOP): Did the ProgramWork? A Report on the Post Secondary Out-
comes and Cost-Effectiveness of the QOP
Program (1989-1993) (Waltham, MA: Bran-
deis University, Heller Graduate School,
1994b).
26. Hamilton, S.F., and Hamilton, M.A., “Learn-
ing at Work,” Youth Apprenticeship in Ameri-
ca: Guidelines for Building an Effective
System, J.E. Rosenbaum, et al. (eds.) (Wash-
ington, DC: William T. Grant Foundation
Commission on Youth and America’s Future,
1992).
27. Hamilton, S.F., and Hamilton, M.A., Teach-
ing and Learning on the Job (Ithaca, NY: Hu-
man Development and Family Studies,
Cornell University, 1991).
28. Hollenbeck, K., In Their Own Words: Student
Perspectives on School-to-Work Opportuni-
ties (Washington, DC: Academy for Educa-
tional Development, 1995).
29. Huisman, C., Evaluation Report: Student
Mentoring Program 1989-1992 (Portland,
OR: Oregon Community Foundation, 1992).
30. Jacobi, M., “Mentoring and Undergraduate
Academic Success: A Literature Review,” Re-
view of Educational Research 61:505-532,
spring 1991.
31. Joch, A., “Herd Instincts,” BYTE 20(8):
83-85, August 1995.
32. Jordan, B., “Technology and Social Interac-
tion: Notes on the Achievement of Authorita-tive Knowledge in Complex Settings” (Palo
Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning,
April 1992).33. Kanter, R.M., Men and Women of the Corpo-
ration (New York, NY: Basic, 1977).
34. Karweit, N., “Contextual Learning: A Re-
view and Synthesis,” unpublished paper,
Center for Social Organization of Schools,
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,MD, 1995.
35. Kass, A., Dooley, S., and Luksa, F., The
Broadcast News Project: Using Broadcast
Journalism as a Vehicle for Teaching Social
Studies, Research Publication 40 (Evanston,
IL: Institute for the Learning Sciences, North-
western University, 1993).
36. Kind, S., ARPLE Team, Apple Computer
Company, Cupertino, CA, e-mail message to
Christine Ho, Office of Technology Assess-
ment, U.S. Congress, July 28, 1995.
37. Kulik, J.A., “Meta-analytic Studies of Find-
ings on Computer-based Instruction,”
Technology Assessment in Education and
Training, E.L. Baker and H.F. O’Neil (eds.)
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.,
1994).
38. Lajoie, S.P., and Lesgold, A., “Apprentice-
ship Training in the Workplace: Computer-
Coached Practice Environment as a New
Form of Apprenticeship,” Machine-Mediated
Learning 3:7-28, 1989.
39. Lave, J., and Wenger, E., Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University
Press, 1994).
40. Lesgold, A., “Assessment of Intelligent
Technology,” Technology Assessment in
Education and Training , E.L. Baker and H.F.
O’Neil (eds.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Assocs., 1994).
41. Levin, H.H., “The Economics of Computer-
Assisted Instruction,” Peabody Journal of
Education 64(1):52-66, 1989.
42. Levin, J., et al., “Teaching Teleapprentice-
ships: A New Organizational Framework forImproving Teacher Education using Electron-
ic Networks,” Machine-Mediated Learning
4(2 & 3):149-161, 1994.

Chapter 3 Processes of Work-Based Learning | 37
43. Levinson, D.J., et al., The Seasons of a Man’s
Life (New York, NY: Ballentine, 1978).
44. McPartland, J.M., and Nettles, S.M., “Using
Community Adults as Advocates or Mentors
for At-Risk Middle School Students: A Two-
Year Evaluation of Project RAISE,” Ameri-
can Journal of Education 99:568-586, 1991.
45. Mecartney, C.A., Styles, M.B., and Morrow,
K.V., Mentoring in the Juvenile Justice Sys-
tem: Findings from Two Pilot Programs
(Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures,1994).
46. Moloney, T.W., and McKaughan, M., Men-
toring: Lessons Learned (New York, NY: The
Commonwealth Fund, 1990).
47. Nelsen, B.J., and Barley, S.R, “Toward and
Emic Understanding of Professionalism
Among Technical Workers—Working Paper”(Philadelphia, PA: National Center for the
Educational Quality of the Workforce, Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, 1993).
48. Olsen, G.T., Career Information Delivery
Systems Inventory and Needs Assessment,California Occupational Information Coordi-
nating Committee (Sacramento, CA: Califor-
nia Occupational Information Coordinating
Committee, 1993).
49. O’Neil, H.F., and Chung, G.K., University of
Southern California and University of
California at Los Angeles, “Effectiveness ofGroup Processes Within a Networked Union-
Management Negotiation Simulation” un-
published paper prepared in 1995 to be
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri-
can Educational Research Association , April
1996.
50. Pascarella, E.T., and Terenzini, P.T., “Pat-
terns of Student Faculty Information Interac-
tion Beyond the Classroom and Voluntary
Freshman Attrition,” Journal of Higher
Education 48:540-552, 1977.
51. Pringle, Beverly, et al., Peer Tutoring and
Mentoring Services for Disadvantaged Sec-
ondary School Students (Washington, DC:
Policy Studies Associates, 1993).52. Reinhardt, A., “New Ways to Learn,” Byte
20(3):50-71, March 1995.
53. Resnick, L.B., “Learning In School and Out,”
Educational Researcher 16(9):13-20, 1987.
54. Roche, G.R., “Much Ado About Mentors,”
Harvard Business Review 57:14-16, 1979.
55. Rosenshine, B., and Meister, C., “Reciprocal
Teaching: A Review of Nineteen Experimen-
tal Studies, Technical Report No. 574” (Ur-
bana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading,
May 1993).
56. Rutter, M., and Giller, H., Juvenile Delin-
quency: Trends and Perspective (New York,
NY: Guilford Press, 1983.)
57. School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,
May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239.
58. Shulman, L.S., and Keislar, E.R., Learning
by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal (Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally, 1966).
59. Sproull, S., and Kiesler, S., Connections:
New Ways of Working in the Networked World
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991).
60. Sticht, T., “Functional Context Education,
Workshop Resource Notebook” (San Diego,
CA: Applied Behavioral and Cognitive
Sciences, Inc., March 1987).
61. Tan, H., Private Sector Training in the United
States (New York, NY: Institute on Education
and the Economy, Columbia University,
Teachers College, 1989).
62. Tracey, T.J., and Sedlacek, W.E., “The Rela-
tionship of Non-cognitive Variables to Aca-
demic Success: A Longitudinal Comparison
by Race,” Journal of College Student Person-
nel 26:405-410, 1985.
63. Turkle, S., The Second Self: Computers and
the Human Spirit (New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster, 1984).
64. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-
ment, Teachers and Technology: Making the
Connection, OTA-EHR-616 (Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April1995).
65. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-
ment, Virtual Reality and Technologies for

38 | Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work
Combat Simulation—Background Paper ,
OTA-BP-ISS-136 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, September
1994).
66. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-
ment, Worker Training: Competing in the
New International Economy , OTA-ITE-457
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1990).
67. Vickers, M., Hart, R., and Weinberg, A.,
Technical Education Research Centers(TERC), “The Work-Based Learning Experi-ences of Students in Two Boston-Based
Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration Sites,”
unpublished contractor report prepared for the
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-
gress, Washington, DC, June 1995.
68. Werner, E.E., and Smith, R.S., Vulnerable
But Invincible (New York, NY: Adams, Ban-
nister, Cox, 1989).
69. Wilson, R.C., et al., College Professors and
Their Impact on Students (New York, NY:
Wiley, 1975).

Structuring
Work-Based
Learning
ork-based learning can be structured in various ways.
The systems can vary in respect to the student popula-
tions that are served; the learning objectives; the level
and means of coordination with school-based instruc-
tion; the timing, intensity, duration, and progression of the work
experiences; the settings in which the work-based learning takes
place; and the payment or nonpayment of the students. Each fea-
ture is discussed in this chapter. Variations in these features distin-guish several models of work-based learning that are discussed in
the next chapter.
THE STUDENTS TO BE SERVED
Work-based learning programs can be mandatory for all students,
optional but suited for all students, or optional and targeted at a
subset of students. In the last two cases, the criteria for determin-
ing whether interested students will be allowed to participate maybe strict or lax. And in all three cases, the programs can choose to
emphasize, or not to emphasize, the matching of students with
employers’ wishes. These choices will significantly affect the
character of the work-based learning and probably its success.
Although the “Findings” section of STWOA indicates that the
legislation was prompted partly by problems in the noncollegiate
labor market, the legislation refers to serving “all students” atleast 12 times (35). Some people have interpreted that term to
mean that every student should participate in the system. Others
have said the term means that the systems should be suitable for
any student—from disabled ones to academically gifted ones—
but that participation should be voluntary.
|3 9

40 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Congress contributed to the confusion by de-
fining “all students” in a manner that does not clar-
ify which of the two meanings was intended. The
statute states, “The term ‘all students’ means both
male and female students from a broad range of
backgrounds and circumstances. . . .“ (PublicLaw 103-239, Sec. 4[2]). Congress also included
language in the act supporting both positions in
this dispute. The specified purposes of the act in-
clude creation of “statewide School-to-Work Op-
portunities systems that . . . are part ofcomprehensive education reform” and establish-
ment of “a universal, high-quality school-to-work
transition system,” both of which suggest all-in-
clusiveness (Secs. 3[a][1] and [2]). At the same
time, “all students” is often used in contexts such
as “offer opportunities for all students” or “pro-
vide all students with equal access” which do notimply compulsion (Sec. 3[a][1][C]); Title I, Sec.
101[5]). In addition, the act specifies that career
awareness services and selection of an initial ca-
reer major are to be available to “interested” stu-
dents, which clearly indicates that Congress didnot intend all the components of STWOA to be
compulsory (Title I, Sec. 102[1] and [2]).
The people responsible for implementing the
STWOA-supported systems are concerned that
the systems will be stigmatized if they are per-
ceived as primarily serving students who normal-
ly would not be bound for college. That fearappears justified, but any effort to preclude the
stigma by designing compulsory systems is likely
to elicit a backlash from those parents who do not
want their children to make early career decisions
and who fear that occupational preparation in highschool and work-based learning will hurt their
children’s chances of going to college (2,30,39).
An alternative approach is to develop systems
that provide attractive learning opportunities for
students of various abilities and interests. There is
good reason to think that some of the most
academically talented students will welcome ca-reer exploration and work-based learning oppor-
tunities. The prestigious Phillips Academy, in
Andover, Massachusetts, requires all students to
work two periods a week at the school (31). In
addition, more than half of the students there se-lect community service activities, and a modest
number choose a one-semester internship work-
ing in the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson High
School for Science and Technology, a public mag-
net school in Alexandria, Virginia, with more than
90 National Merit Semifinalists each year, re-leases interested seniors in the afternoon to do
research at local scientific and engineering organ-
izations (37).
The criteria for permitting students to under-
take work-based learning assignments can be laxor demanding. Those who urge lax entry standards
say that students who have low academic achieve-
ment or have displayed problem behavior are the
ones who most need a second chance in a different
kind of learning environment. Those who urge
high standards say that employers will stop partic-
ipating if presented with slow or troublesome stu-dents. There are also some who suggest that
although work-based learning should be open to
lower-achieving students, it is important to have
stronger students participate so that work-based
learning does not become stigmatized as a “lowtrack” or “dumping ground,” as has often been the
case for vocational education programs.
The screening criteria that some schools apply
include age, grade level in school, attendance re-
cord, disciplinary record, completion of pre-
scribed courses, recommendation of an instructor
or guidance counselor, grade point average, testscores, and the student’s motivation for work-
based learning as indicated by special essays or
interviews. Some school-to-work transition pro-
grams apply several criteria and some have none.
When the criteria are applied, the standards areseldom more than moderate. For instance, one in-
ner-city high school program requires an 85 per-
cent attendance rate and a C average or better; a
high school program in metalworking requires a
C average or better and completion of two courses
each in math, laboratory science, and language
arts, before starting the work-based learning com-ponent (17). The highest standards OTA found
were for an electronics and telecommunications
program, cosponsored by a large high-tech com-
pany, which required a grade point average of at
least B. In the first year of the program, however,

Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 41
there were not enough applicants who met that cri-
terion, and the standard had to be lowered, at least
temporarily (8).
There had been concern that employers would
insist on high screening standards, and some
scholars and educators worried that those stan-dards would preclude the participation of many
minority students (24,36). Recent studies suggest
this has not been the case. One study of 12 pro-
grams found that the proportion of participants
with mostly C or lower grades in math rangedfrom 29 to 80 percent, and the proportion subject
to at least one disciplinary action ranged from 10
to 60 percent (30). In another study of 10 pro-
grams, the proportion of African American and
Latino students ranged from 7.1 percent to 85.4
percent of the participants, with an overall average
of 62 percent (17). In addition, OTA staff repeat-edly heard employer representatives, especially
those from large companies, state that one of their
incentives for participating in school-to-work
transition programs was to recruit promising mi-
nority students as permanent employees.
There has also been concern that employers’
preferences would funnel girls into gender-stereo-
typed occupations and would minimize oppor-
tunities for disabled students. The available
evidence does show that male and female partici-
pants in work-based learning tend to be in occupa-
tions traditional for their gender (8,17), but it isunclear whether that situation reflects the prefer-
ences of the employers or other factors, such as the
guidance provided by the schools or the prefer-
ences of the students and their parents. OTA did
not find data on the participation of disabled stu-dents except in programs that were designed spe-
cifically to serve such students (33).
Almost all of the studies that have investigated
employers’ satisfaction with work-based learning
students have found it to be high (13,22). A recentstudy of 10 programs that are broadly inclusive
found high satisfaction among employers (17).
Another study of 16 high school programs that are
similarly inclusive found that the school coordi-
nators and employers reported few problems with
disadvantaged or low-achieving students, and thatnone of the programs was planning to tighten the
criteria for participation (30).
The widespread satisfaction of participating
employers does not necessarily mean that all
work-based learning assignments should be opento any interested student. OTA staff visited some
programs that were broadly inclusive and others
that had moderate standards. In both cases there
appeared to be a high degree of satisfaction among
the employers who were participating, but the
types of job assignments differed. Where low-
achieving students were common, they tended tobe helping incumbent employees or learning tasks
that did not require strong basic skills—tasks such
as measuring blood pressure and installing dry-
wall. Higher standards for achievement were
common in work-based learning for precision ma-chining and electronics technicians, where the stu-
dents were participating in rigorous and expensive
training programs.
One coordinator told OTA staff flatly that she
could not arrange and retain work-based learning
in electronics without setting standards that many
students in her career center could not currentlymeet. More than one employer, clearly committed
to continued participation, indicated that the stu-
dents’ academic shortcomings, especially in
math, had slowed their training during work-
based learning or made it more of a burden for thestaff. And one manager of a large plant in Appala-
chia, who was helping to establish a youth appren-
ticeship program, announced firmly that the
schools would have to ratchet up the academic
standards.

42 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Maria
Maria, a 17-year-old from a Spanish-speaking
family, speaks impeccable English and is poised be-
yond her years. She has accumulated enough highyy g g
school credits to graduate at the end of her junior
year, and is headed to a well-known university to be-
come a dietitian. This spring she assumed a work-
based learning assignment in a hospital kitchenwhere she undertook a range of functions. The kitch-
en sometimes prepares cakes for special events, and
b M i lik t b k h l t dtbecause Maria likes to bake, she volunteered to pre-
pare one. She was given a recipe and told to triple it.She did not know how to calculate the correct pro-
portions andthementorhadtoshowherportions, and the mentor had to show her.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment field visit.
OTA staff visits to work-based learning sites
also revealed another side of the selection issue.
Over and over again, the students, the school coor-dinators, and the employers told of how low-
achieving and mid-achieving students had risen to
the challenge of their work-based learning assign-
ments. Many achieved commendable records of
punctuality despite difficult commutes; many
mastered skills and fulfilled responsibilities that
they had not thought possible; and many acquirednew career objectives and an understanding of
what would be necessary to achieve them.
Some work-based learning programs can prob-
ably thrive without standards for participation, but
it is doubtful that any can survive without match-ing students with employers’ wishes. Some civic-
minded employers will accept weak students and
be willing to give them extra help, whereas others
will not make that effort. As a result, programs
have some flexibility, but they cannot be oblivious
to the expectations and needs of the participating
businesses.
Employers are not passive players in the match-
ing process. Some rely on the school coordinator
to make the match, but will refuse inadequate stu-
dents. Some interview each proposed student be-fore giving final approval. And some interview
two or three candidates for each opening.
A recent study of youth apprenticeship pro-
grams found that employers who had participated
in the program for a year or two reportedly became
more willing to take a chance with young peoplewho had obvious weaknesses—especially if they
had interviewed them (17). Another study, how-
ever, found that programs that served substantial
numbers of economically and academically disad-
vantaged youth generally raised their selectionstandards after the first year of operation in the
hope of reducing problems in the workplace and
attrition rates (8).
While school coordinators and employers are
screening students, the students are also screening
employers. They use information provided by the
school coordinators and by students who have re-turned from work-based learning assignments.
One co-op coordinator in Cincinnati observed,
“There’s nothing that can kill a program quicker
than students coming back and complaining about
their co-op job. . . . The students really talk to oneanother about these things—how much they
make, what they’re doing, and so forth” (13).
Although there are tradeoffs with respect to
screening standards, there may also be an impor-
tant opportunity. If employers create work-based
learning positions that are highly attractive to stu-
dents and then gradually raise their minimum re-quirements, the schools and students may rise to
the challenge. In such cases, both the students and
the employers would benefit.
OBJECTIVES
Work-based learning can be directed primarily to-ward academic enhancement, career exploration,
occupational development, or employers’ produc-
tion. The priorities will affect the benefits to stu-
dents and to participating employers.
Work-based learning can contribute to academ-
ic learning in at least three ways. It can motivate
learning by demonstrating the importance of aca-
demic skills in the workplace, by building work
habits and self-discipline in the workplace that

Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 43
transfer to school, and by raising aspirations and
understanding of the prerequisites for achieving
those aspirations (5,20,26). Work-based learning
can also reinforce and extend academic learning
by requiring students to apply their academic
skills to the tasks of the workplace.
“I’ve seen some people who aren’t satisfied with
their jobs. That’s helped me to learn that I
should take my education as far as I can so that
I won’t be doing just anything to survive.”
—Student (17)
Work-based learning can contribute to career
orientation in many ways. Experience in a produc-
tive work environment can help develop young
people’s attitudes and work ethic. A period of job
rotation—when the students assist in several dif-ferent jobs and departments—can introduce the
students to the realities of various jobs and help
them determine which are most congruent with
their abilities, interests, and goals. Iterations of
training and progressively more challenging re-
sponsibilities can introduce students to “working
your way up.” Work-based learning also can pro-vide personal contacts and references that will be
useful when the young people seek other job op-
portunities.
Work-based learning can address a number of
aspects of occupational development. Preemploy-ment readiness instills the attitudes, habits, and
skills required in every job, such as punctuality,
reliability, adaptability, responsibility, relating
well to others, following directions, perseverance,
initiative, and loyalty. Occupational skills used to
be defined by the capacity to carry out specific
tasks common to a given occupation, but as manyAmerican organizations have adopted flatter orga-
nizational structures, flexible production, and
continuous quality control, occupational skills are
now often considered to include competencies in
resource allocation, teamwork, the organization
and use of information, systems thinking, and the
use of technology (43). Organization-specific pro-cedures are the rules, practices, and norms thatvary some from workplace to workplace. Problem
solving and creative thinking allow an employee
to deal effectively with nonroutine events and to
develop new products and processes. Understand-
ing of an industry encompasses a knowledge of
the economic, technological, production, andmarketing structures that influence the companies
within a given industry.
Productive activities give students the satisfac-
tion of having contributed to the creation and dis-
tribution of real goods and services and meetingreal-world standards. Productive activities are
also an employer’s payback for the expenses of
providing career orientation and occupational de-
velopment. Without some contribution to the
workplace production, it is unlikely that many
employers would long participate in work-based
learning, especially when they are required to pro-vide substantial training.
STWOA stipulates that the work-based learn-
ing should focus on all four objectives—academic
development, career orientation, occupational de-
velopment, and production. It also seeks to pre-vent narrowly focused training and the use of
students as cheap labor. The legislation specifies
that work-based learning is to include not only
“work experience” but also “instruction in general
workplace competencies,” “training related to
pre-employment and employment skills to be
mastered at progressively higher levels . . . rele-vant to the career majors of students and lead[ing]
to the award of skill certificates.” Students are to
be given “broad instruction, to the extent practica-
ble, in all aspects of the industry” (Title I, Sec.
103[a]) The act also indicates that the school-to-work transition systems are to help students view
“a broad array of career opportunities,” “identify
and navigate paths to productive and progressive-
ly more rewarding roles in the workplace,” and
“attain high academic and occupational stan-
dards” (Sec. 3[a]).
COORDINATION WITH SCHOOLING
Work-based learning can be closely or loosely
coordinated with school-based instruction. Goodcoordination can create synergistic effects be-

44 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
tween the classroom instruction and the work-
based learning experiences.
The coordination can be directed at several pur-
poses. It can help assure that students have the aca-
demic and occupational skills that are necessary to
meet the expectations of the employers and tobenefit fully from the work-based learning. It can
allow the schools to structure their instruction to
benefit from student interests that are sparked by
the work-based learning experiences. It can per-
mit teachers to extend and reinforce what has re-cently been learned during the work-based
learning. And it can allow the work-based learn-
ing supervisors and mentors to reinforce and ex-
tend what has recently been taught in school.
Several strategies are used to achieve coordina-
tion. The school systems and employer communi-
ty may plan the school-based and work-basedlearning together. In some cases, representatives
of both also manage the program together.
Schools and employers may exchange several
staff members for a day or longer, so that each per-
son can gain a realistic sense of the other’s envi-ronment. A school and an employer sometimes
negotiate a written training agreement specifying
the general responsibilities of each party. The
school coordinator, the worksite supervisor, and
the student may also negotiate a written training
plan that indicates the sequence of school-based
preparation, work-based learning activities, andthe skills to be mastered by the student at various
points in time. If several students will be in one
workplace, one employee may be appointed to
handle coordination with the school. High schools
may adopt flexible scheduling, such as earlymorning and late afternoon classes to accommo-
date “parallel” worksite schedules, and many col-
leges must offer certain courses more often than
they would otherwise do, to make them available
to all students on “alternating semester” work
schedules (13). In addition, the school coordinator
may periodically visit the worksite to observe thestudents’ activities and to talk with the supervisor
or mentor.“My veterinarian tries to follow [the training
plan] and there are things for which she’s said,
‘If I didn’t know you were supposed to do this,
I would never have told you to go ahead and do
it’.” —Student (14)
There are a number of activities that teachers
can use to build on the students’ varied work-
based learning experiences. These include having
students write essays about their experiences, en-couraging students to discuss issues they have en-
countered in their workplaces, and having them
engage in self-study of topics that they will soon
need for their respective worksite assignments.
Similarly, the workplace supervisors and mentorscan ask the students what they are covering in
school, and give assignments that require applica-
tion of that material. As discussed in chapter 3,
some schools offer an “integrative seminar” that
helps students prepare for the work-based learn-ing, deal with problems encountered in the work-
place, undertake research in their worksite, and
reflect on the implications of the work experience
for their future schooling. Schools of the future
might rely heavily on computerized tutorials andsimulations that would permit highly individual-
ized “on demand” learning, which could further
facilitate coordination (9).
OTA was not able to locate evidence of the rela-
tive effectiveness of various coordination strate-gies. The existing literature, some of which is
discussed in chapter 5, amply demonstrates that
coordination of school-based and work-based
learning is difficult to accomplish but important
for the effectiveness of the program (2,3,8,30,32,33,39). One of those studies discerned four
practices that appeared to be associated with better
coordination: having teachers visit the work-
places, grouping students in key classes by oc-
cupational clusters, giving teachers time to plannew curricula, and encouraging teachers to adapt
their curricula frequently (8).

Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 45
In conversations with the high school coordina-
tors of several school-to-work transition pro-
grams, OTA staff found that the coordinators
usually had extensive previous experience work-
ing in industry, they maintained almost daily con-
tact with the employer community, and theyconstantly made adjustments to meet the needs of
the students, schools, and employers. A recent
study of exemplary clinical training and coopera-
tive education programs in two-year colleges re-
ported the same finding (3). And a study ofprograms in Cincinnati, which appears to have
more work-based learning at the two-year-college
level than any other city in the country, suggested
that “clear expectations on the part of employers
and educators alike, established in face-to-face
contact and constant discussion . . . appear to be
the most common mechanisms of establishingand enforcing the high-quality equilibrium” (13).
Juan
Juan was proud of his accomplishments in
school. He was smart; he had studied hard, twice
skipped a grade, participated in a school-to-work
transition program toward the end of his junior year,
and graduated from school at the age of 16. When he
applied to college, he was rejected because of hislow math score on the SATs. So he enrolled at the lo-
cal community college, where he is now taking Al-
gebra I and doing well after a difficult start. When
an OTA staff member asked teachers at Juan’s high
school how such a student could graduate withouttaking Algebra I, they said that it had been a “mis-
take.” Afterwards, the school-to-work program
coordinator approached the staffer and said, “The
teachers didn’t tell you the whole story. I messed up
too by not checking his transcript. That won’t hap-
pen again. Now I check the transcripts of all students
entering our program.”
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment field visit.
STWOA has several provisions that could help
facilitate coordination. It specifies that the school-
to-work transition systems should be planned anddeveloped by a partnership of schools, employers,and others (Title II, Sec. 203). It calls for the devel-
opment of a skill certification system, which, if
accomplished, should provide a common frame-
work for the schools’ occupational curricula andthe work-based learning (Sec. 4[22]). It also speci-fies “connecting activities,” including a schoolmentor to coordinate with the worksite, technicalassistance to employers for designing and imple-
menting work-based learning, and linkages with
“employer and industry strategies for upgradingthe skills of their workers” (Title I, Sec. 104).
TIMING, INTENSITY, DURATION, AND
PROGRESSION OF WORK EXPERIENCES
Work-based learning activities can begin as early
as the first grade and extend through graduate
school. Activities at any point could have poten-
tial benefit, but with a limited amount of re-sources, there will be tradeoffs between thenumber of grades for which work-based learningis offered and the quality of the experiences.
In the early grades, most work-based learning
consists of field trips to workplaces. One elemen-
tary school program that provides more than thatis called Kids and the Power of Work (KAPOW).Company employees of a participating businesstake classes of students on a tour of the businessand then meet with them monthly throughout the
school year to discuss characteristics of different
jobs, work attitudes and habits, and the students’career interests. The teachers sometimes build onthose sessions, using them as examples in aca-demic course work (18).
At the middle-school or early high school level,
students are sometimes given opportunities to“job shadow” an employee for a few hours. Theywatch the employee go about his or her work andthen meet to discuss the job, the required educa-tion, and the rewards. Job shadowing is used
mostly for motivational and career exploration
purposes.
In the early high school years, community ser-
vice activities are sometimes introduced. The stu-dent does volunteer work for charitable or publicpurposes. The work is intended to develop a sense
of civic duty and to introduce generic work skills

46 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
and habits. Sometimes the community service is
an extracurricular activity, sometimes it is
awarded credit toward graduation, and sometimes
it is part of a “service learning” course in social
studies or civics.
At the high school level, interested students
may be given an opportunity to run school-based
enterprises that provide goods and services to oth-
er students (such as a student bookstore), to the
school district (such as a print shop), or to the pub-
lic. Elective courses are used to prepare the stu-dents for the work assignments in the enterprise.
Generally the students participate during their lat-
er years of high school, but occasionally they can
begin in their first or second year.
In the later high school and college years, more
intensive work experiences are sometimes of-
fered. In internships, students assume part-time orfull-time work positions, usually for only a few
weeks or months near the end of their schooling.
Work-study programs offer students part-time
paid jobs on campus. In cooperative education,
there is paid work experience over the last year ortwo of high school or over the later years of col-
lege. The work-based learning is sometimes
closely coordinated with the schooling, and some-
times it is not. Clinical training is similar to coop-
erative education, except that it is almost always
closely coordinated with the schooling and with
the professional licensing requirements that pre-vail in the medical fields. Youth apprenticeships
closely coordinate schooling and paid work expe-
riences over the last year or two of high school and
at least one year of postsecondary education or
training, and are aimed partly at preparing stu-dents to earn an industry-recognized skill creden-
tial.
At the high school level, work-based learning
often occurs for several hours, one to five times a
week, and may continue on a full-time basis dur-
ing the summer. In most co-op and youth appren-
ticeship programs, students spend less time inclass than they would otherwise, but some of the
programs have minimized the lost class time by
rescheduling classes to start earlier or to continue
later into the afternoon. When class time is lost,
some programs compensate by giving studentsadditional assignments to be done outside class. A
common example is keeping a journal of the
workplace experiences. When OTA staff visited
youth apprenticeship programs, they repeatedly
heard students describe how they had adjusted to
leaving home at 6 a.m. or to going to bed at 11 p.m.Some scholars worry that the arduous schedules
of students in youth apprenticeships are denying
them the joys and developmental benefits of extra-
curricular activities and informal socializing (3).
At the college level, the students may alternate
between going to school full time and going to the
workplace full time, or they may use the parallel
pattern common in high schools, going to the
workplace on a part-time basis several days a
week. In some college programs, participation in
work-based learning extends the time that stu-
dents need to graduate; in others it does not, butmay require enrollment during the summer.
In the United States, work-based learning is
most pervasive at the graduate-school level. Stu-
dents seek teaching assistantships and research as-
sistantships for the income they provide and forthe opportunities to work closely with a professor.
Student editors exercise full control over the
selection and editing of articles published in most
American law review journals. Medical schools
require all students to participate in extensive in-
ternships, and a “residency” after graduation is
usually required for licensing and board certifica-tion.
Figure 4-1 illustrates one hypothetical progres-
sion of work-based learning through 16 years of
schooling. OTA knows of a few schools that in-
corporate two or more forms of work-based learn-ing at different grade levels, but none that includes
a progression extending from elementary school
through college.
Would such a progression be desirable? There
is reason to think that some progression of work-
based learning could benefit many students. The
evaluation studies summarized in chapter 5 con-sistently show that work-based learning opportu-
nities excite and motivate many young people.
The early experiences could introduce them to the
world of work, stimulate career exploration, and
develop preemployment skills and habits. Work-

Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning 47
90
1
60-
Advanced
50-
40-
30-
20-
lo-
01“ I I I I I
1-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16
Grade level in school
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995
based learning in the higher grades is thought to
help narrow career interests and develop occupa-
tional skills.
It is clear, however, that a progression would re-
quire considerable resources. As suggested earlier
in the discussion of coordination and again in the
next chapter, cooperative education, clinical train-
ing, and youth apprenticeships demand signifi-
cant effort on the part of school staff and
workplace coordinators. Even cursory work-
based learning experiences aimed at career explo-
ration require substantial time to arrange. For
instance, the minimum arrangements required for
three-hour job shadowing experiences include re-
cruiting organizations and employees who will
participate, setting up the appointments, giving
the students commuting directions, informing thestudents about appropriate dress and conduct, pre-
paring students to ask useful questions, and assur-
ing that students write notes of thanks.
Work-based learning directed at occupational
skill development requires considerably more ef-
fort on the part of both the schools and the employ-
ers. Employers have to orient the students to the
workplace rules and procedures, periodically pro-
vide them with progressively more advanced
training for tools and equipment that may be ex-
pensive and dangerous to use, closely supervise
their initial work performance after each step up
the progression, and periodically evaluate their
performance and report it to both the student and
the school.
It is doubtful that employers would participate
to the extent necessary to support an extensive

48 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
progression. This country lacks the labor market
structures that, in Germany, Japan, and several
other countries, provide incentives for extensive
employer participation in work-based learning
(21). As chapter 6 discusses, prototype school-to-
work transition programs in this country havegenerally found expanding work-based learning
opportunities for high school juniors and seniors
to be slow going. It is difficult to imagine how the
schools would simultaneously arrange for youn-
ger students to have opportunities for workplacefield trips, classroom speakers from the world of
employment, and job shadowing.
OTA found no evidence to suggest at which
grade levels work-based learning might be most
cost-effective. There is, however, evidence to sug-
gest that work-based learning prior to high school
graduation should generally focus on reinforcingacademics, providing career exploration opportu-
nities, and developing generic preemployment
skills, whereas work-based learning at the post-
secondary level should focus on occupational skill
development. Five lines of evidence support thissuggestion:
1. Most high school students—even those who
have chosen to participate in school-to-work
transition programs—are undecided about
their career choice or change their minds rapid-
ly (1,2,8).
2. Many parents do not want their children forced
into early career decisions (8,33).
3. High school students who have participated in
work-based learning generally report that its
main benefit has been with respect to career ex-
ploration rather than occupational skill devel-
opment (17,30).
4. Many employers think youth make poor em-
ployees (see chapter 6 of this report).
5. Job shadowing and opportunities to assist in a
workplace require considerably less effort on
the part of employers than do clinical intern-
ships and youth apprenticeships that involve
substantial skills development.
It is possible that successful school-to-work
transition systems will change the first four fac-tors: consequently, some systems that include
concerted skill development at the high school
level deserve to be tried. But given the hurdles to
success, it seems prudent to target most of the sys-
tems at more modest goals for the high schools.
A focus on academic reinforcement, career ex-
ploration, and generic work skills at the high
school level could include some general training
and limited work experience. The point is not to
avoid training or real work, but rather to reserve
the considerable expenditure of time and re-sources associated with learning semiskilled and
skilled occupations until the students are mature
enough to make the effort a good investment for
everyone concerned—the students, the schools,
and the employers. Because students mature at
different rates and come to career decisions at dif-
ferent times, flexibility is desirable. Some stu-dents may be ready to make good use of intensive
training in their junior and senior years of high
school, but others may not be ready even by the se-
cond year of postsecondary education.
STWOA has no specifications in respect to the
timing, intensity, and duration of work-based
learning, but it implies that the experiences are to
be substantial, by indicating that the systems are
to facilitate development of skills “to be mastered
at progressively higher levels . . . and lead to the
award of skill certificates” (Title I, Sec.
103[a][2]). In addition, interested students partici-pating in school-to-work systems are to select a
career major by the beginning of the 11th grade
(Sec. 102[2]), but that does not necessarily mean
that work-based learning must begin at that point.
In addition, the work-based learning is to be rele-vant to the career major (Sec. 103[2]).
SETTINGS OF WORK-BASED LEARNING
Work-based learning can occur in places of em-ployment (including for-profit firms, private non-profits, and government agencies), in community
service settings, in school-based enterprises, in
school-related extracurricular activities, and even
in simulated work. OTA found little evidence of
the relative effectiveness of these options. Each
appears to have advantages and disadvantages. In

Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 49
addition, as is explained later in this section, there
is tentative reason to think that, at the high school
level, the setting is less important than the quality
of the learning opportunities within the setting.
zPlaces of Employment
Places of employment are not the only places
where real work is done, but they are the only
places where people are hired to do the work and
fired if they fail to do it well enough. For that rea-
son, the workplace provides the most realistic set-
ting for career exploration and occupational
development.
Work-based learning can occur in large, me-
dium-size, and small places of employment; in
“Tayloristic” and “transformed” organizations; in
high-tech and low-tech workplaces, and in ex-
panding and declining industries. Not all, howev-
er, are necessarily equally good prospects.
Large organizations offer a greater breadth of
opportunities and resources than small organiza-
tions, but when structured according to Tayloristic
principles, large organizations rely on assembly-
line principles and narrowly defined jobs. Small
organizations usually give employees more re-
sponsibilities and flexibility but less training (42).Most schools with extensive experience arranging
work-based learning have found that it takes con-
siderably more work to arrange and monitor one
placement in each of 10 small organizations than
to arrange and monitor 10 placements in a singlemedium-size organization. Nevertheless, they
continue to recruit small organizations because
sufficient numbers of work-based learning oppor-
tunities cannot be arranged with the larger ones.
“Transformed” organizations have adopted
flatter organizational structures, flexible produc-
tion, and continuous quality control. Employeesare often cross-trained in several occupations,
work in teams that have considerable discretion,
and are judged by continually raised standards of
productivity and quality. All this requires a high
degree of continuous learning on the part of all
employees (7,41).
Given the importance of learning in trans-
formed organizations, and the move in Americanbusiness toward this form of organization, it
might appear preferable to provide work-basedlearning in transformed organizations. This is not
yet possible on a large scale because many compa-
nies have not completed the transformation. Inaddition, students can be trained more quickly forthe narrowly defined jobs of Tayloristic organiza-tions and thus can soon pull their weight in thesemiskilled jobs of these organizations.
It is possible, of course, that work experience
in Tayloristic organizations makes it difficult for
people to adapt later to transformed organizations,but some examples suggest this is not necessarilythe case. For instance, the joint GM and Toyotaautomobile manufacturing facility in Fremont,California, hired the same workers GM had for-merly used with Tayloristic management and poor
results, and soon reached world-class productivity
and quality standards (46).
Inasmuch as the trend toward greater use of
technology in the workplace appears likely to con-tinue well into the next century, low-tech work-places are certainly less preferable for preparingtomorrow’s workforce. Yet given the thousands of
low-tech workplaces remaining in the country, it
does not seem feasible for all work-based learningto occur in high-tech settings. In addition, there islittle reason to think that low-tech workplacescould not provide high school students with expe-riences that develop the good attitudes, work hab-its, and communication skills that so many
employers complain are lacking in young workers
(28,34).
Declining industries can be relatively poor
prospects for work-based learning. During de-cline, employers are reluctant to take on studentsbecause of budget constraints and the labor prob-lems that the students’ presence might create.
Layoffs hurt morale and usually elicit some dys-
functional behavior that impressionable youthmight imitate. In addition, part of the value ofwork-based learning consists of the experience,contacts, and references acquired in a given indus-try, and all of these are of less value when the num-
ber of job openings is dropping. Still, the declines
in many industries are slow enough that new hires

50 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
continue to be made, and some companies may
thrive by undertaking dramatic changes in orga-
nizational practices and technology.
Coordination of work-based learning in places
of employment can pose a considerable challenge.
Schools and places of employment are dramati-cally different types of organizations. Students are
usually scattered among several worksites that
have different organizational structures, equip-
ment, and operating procedures. Large employers
may draw students from several schools, furtherexacerbating coordination problems. Transport-
ing the students between school and the various
workplaces consumes time and has associated
costs.
zCommunity Service Settings
Most communities have many opportunities for
community service. Students can help care for the
elderly in nursing homes, clean and preserve pub-
lic lands, tutor younger children, feed the home-
less, and teach adults how to read. This is real
work, often requiring punctuality, perseverance,
and the application of academic or occupational
skills. Students can be prepared for the workthrough orientations and training. Their perfor-
mance can be monitored and guided by supervi-
sors. And their learning can be enhanced by
exercises that prompt and guide the students to re-
flect on their experience.
Many community service organizations rely on
volunteers and serve people who cannot afford to
pay for the services. As a result, poor or mediocre
performance might be tolerated. In addition, be-
cause community service organizations usually
operate with low budgets and limited staff, oppor-
tunities for training and mentoring in such orga-nizations may be limited.
zSchool Settings
Schools can be the site of at least four kinds of
work-based learning: school chores, paid jobs for
needy college students, student-run school-based
enterprises, and occupationally oriented extracur-ricular activities.
Some schools—mostly private ones—require
all students to help with the clerical, cleaning, andmaintenance work of the school. This work maydevelop some basic work habits, but there is usu-
ally little focus on career exploration or skills de-
velopment. Rather, the purposes are to reduceoperating costs and to develop students’ sense ofresponsibility to the school community.
Colleges and universities usually provide paid
jobs for some of the students requiring financialassistance. The wages are partially subsidized
with federal “Work-Study” funds. These jobs are
supposed to be relevant to the students’ education-al or vocational goals, but about half of the jobs areclerical or low skilled ones (38).
Student-run school-based enterprises provide
products and services for people other than thosewho run them. They permit close coordination of
classes and the work undertaken by students in the
enterprise. They also generally require no extratransportation between the school and the place ofwork. Some enterprises pay the students. A fewgenerate profits for the school, but most are subsi-dized.
Participation in extracurricular activities, such
as working on a school newspaper, participating
in a school band, and playing interscholasticsports is intended mostly as recreation but cangive students opportunities to explore career op-tions and develop occupational skills (25). Otheractivities such as 4-H, Future Farmers of America,Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA),
Vocational and Industrial Clubs of America
(VICA), Junior Achievement, and DistributiveEducation Clubs of America (DECA) are specifi-cally directed at developing occupational and en-trepreneurial skills. Extracurricular activitiesprobably provide students with more opportunityto exercise initiative and to display creativity than
any other form of work-based learning, but they
may be weak in developing efficient work habitsexcept when there are competitions that stressspeed.

Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 51
zWork-Based Learning in Simulations
Rich learning experiences can come from simu-
lated work. War games have been used for centu-
ries to help train battlefield commanders. The
Link Trainer, simulating the cockpit of an airplaneand the environment of flight, was first used in
1929 and helped train several generations of pilots
(29).
Simulations are operational models of mecha-
nisms, processes, or systems. The systems can beas small as an integrated circuit or as large as the
world economy. By operating the model, the
learner becomes familiar with how to design, con-
trol, or repair the represented phenomena. Most
simulations are used for initial training, which is
then followed with further training in the real sys-
tem. Simulations may also be used periodicallyfor brushing up on critical situations that are not
frequently encountered during actual work. Simu-
lations can use role playing, games, and mechani-
cal representations. Increasingly they are
computer based, such as those briefly mentionedin chapter 3.
The “Assembly Line” simulation has students
organize mass production units to manufacture
paper automobiles. The teacher specifies the num-
ber of cars to be produced in a given period of
time. The students must organize the assembly
line, train themselves to do the various assemblytasks, and supervise their production run to meet
the imposed production and quality standards
(16).
Role playing is often used to teach interperson-
al skills such as job interviewing and customer
service. In one example, the teacher plays an em-
ployer and a student plays the applicant interview-ing for a job. Then the teacher asks the other
students whether they would have hired the appli-
cant and why. Following the discussion, the teach-
er hands out a list of interviewing pointers, has the
students read and discuss them, and proceeds withseveral more rounds of interviews and critiques of
the applicants’ performance. As the students get
better, the teacher asks more complex questions,
becomes condescending, or otherwise gives thestudents a hard time, preparing them for the worst
possible scenarios.
Simulated Medical Cases
High school students at the Oakland Health and
Bioscience Academy have to diagnose and pre-scribe treatments for simulated cases. Small teamsare given the medical records of a patient indicatingthe symptoms and results of initial tests. The stu-dents can ask the teacher further questions aboutsymptoms and test results, and the teacher respondsas directed in a guide. Each student uses medicalencyclopedias, textbooks, and journals to research ahypothesized diagnosis. The students reassemble intheir teams to discuss the viability of each hypothe-sis and to decide which is the correct one. The teach-er then tells them the correct answer and explains the“doctor’s” reasoning, so that students can comparetheir own thinking with that of an experienced phy-sician (11).
Some teachers of occupational courses orga-
nize and conduct their classes in a manner that
partly simulates a workplace. The classroom may
be laid out and furnished like a workplace, stu-
dents may have to “punch in” and “punch out,”
and they may lose points toward their grade if they
are late. In some classes, the students take turnsbeing the office manager—collecting the stu-
dents’ work, grading it, and filing it (10). In a law
enforcement program, the students take turns as-
suming supervisory roles (45). Some teachers
help the students “construct an image that the cor-
porate world will find palatable” and have them
practice the image when in school (15).
There are several potential advantages to simu-
lated work. The most obvious ones are conve-
nience, safety, and cost savings. The convenience
comes from access to work conditions without
disruption of real work. In addition, whereasworkplaces are structured for production efficien-
cy, simulations can be structured to maximize
learning. Simulations eliminate the risks inherent
in operating large equipment, working with dan-

52 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
gerous substances, undertaking delicate proce-
dures, handling crises situations, and operating a
business in the face of competition. They allow
students to become competent in meeting the de-
mands of the situation without the risk of harm to
people, equipment, and the financial health of thebusiness.
“My teacher treats it like a job. You know, she’s the
boss. You’re her employee, we work for her.” —Stu-dent (14)
Simulations can accelerate and extend learning
in several ways. They can motivate students who
are not interested in book-learning but become ex-
cited by the active involvement, the sense of real-
ism, a degree of autonomy, and the opportunity for
immediate application of their knowledge andskills (16). Simulations can begin by presenting
students with simplified representations of over-
whelmingly complex systems and then gradually
add complications. They can initially operate at
less than normal speed and gradually be acceler-
ated beyond normal to “overtrain” the student.
They can present students with challenges that arerarely encountered with the real system but pose
serious consequences if not handled correctly
(16,29). Computerized simulations can store all
the input provided by the students and replay it, so
that the students can observe their handling of agiven situation. They also can compare the stu-
dents’ responses with an expert’s handling of the
same situation (6).
Simulations also have several disadvantages. If
the simulation is too simple, the trainee may be ill-
prepared for the real world. A simulation may in-
advertently provide additional cues that areunavailable in the real world (29). Simulation may
lack the sense of pressure that exists in many
workplaces. When used for work-based learning,
simulation usually lacks interaction with adults
and the positive socialization that may come from
that. It may also create false complacency about
the dangers involved, because the students areconfident of not doing major harm. Conversely,the student may engage in “gaming” the simula-
tion, focusing on maximizing performance by
means that would be ineffective or risky in real
life. It is also unclear to what extent simulations
can develop the attitudes and work habits that are
important in the workplace.
The cost of simulations can range from a few
dollars to many millions. Flight simulators are
among the most costly, but are justified because
the cost of operating most jet aircraft is several
thousand dollars an hour and mistakes can be cata-strophic. Even when the “life cycle” cost of using
a simulation is greater than the cost of using the
real equipment, the simulation can sometimes be
justified by the convenience, risk reduction, and
accelerated rate of learning.
zConclusions about Settings
A prudent reading of the research suggests that al-
most any work in a productive environment can
contribute to the occupational development of
adolescents, but when the work involves simple
tasks that are repeated day in and day out, there
will be little learning after the first few weeks or
months. Variety, progressive increases in difficul-
ty with the minimum assistance necessary for suc-cess, and opportunities for both autonomy and
teamwork appear important for sustained learning
(4,19,23,26,44). These can be provided in a wide
range of businesses and other organizations, in-
cluding small organizations, Tayloristic organiza-tions (when there is job rotation), low-tech
companies, and companies in declining indus-
tries. They also can be provided in community
service, school-based enterprises, and extracurric-
ular activities. In addition, simulated work can
give students a powerful introduction to various
work experiences that would otherwise not beavailable to them.
STWOA does not specify the settings in which
the work-based learning is to take place. But the
frequent references to partnerships with employ-
ers (Sec. 3[a][3]), and the specification that work-
based learning must include “broad instruction, to
the extent practicable, in all aspects of the indus-try” (Title I, Sec. 103[a][5]), suggest that Con-

Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 53
gress was expecting at least some of the
work-based learning to occur in places of employ-
ment operated by “both public and private em-
ployers” (Sec. 4[8]).
Several provisions in STWOA suggest that
Congress anticipated that work-based learningcould also occur outside of employment. “School-
sponsored enterprises” are listed as “permissible”
work-based learning activities (Title I, Sec.
103[b]). The states’ plans for the school-to-work
transition systems are to describe how the systemswill be coordinated or integrated with the National
and Community Service Act of 1990 (Title II,
Subtitle B, Sec. 213[d][6][L]). And the funds
from STWOA can be used to “design and imple-
ment school-sponsored work experiences, such as
school-sponsored enterprises and community de-
velopment projects” (Title II, Subtitle B, Sec.215[c][11]).
PAY FOR WORK-BASED LEARNING
Work-based learning can be paid or unpaid. The
rate of pay can be the organization’s rate for full-
time entry employees with the same responsibili-
ties, it can be the minimum wage, and in some
cases it may be legal to use a subminimum “train-ing wage.” There is sometimes an increase in pay
after each year, and a few programs offer bonuses.
For students continuing into postsecondary
education or training, some employers also pro-
vide tuition reimbursement.
The matter of pay for work-based learning ex-
periences was hotly debated during the drafting of
STWOA. The House passed a bill requiring paid
work-based learning, and the Senate passed a bill
with no such stipulation. The conference resolved
the difference by specifying that “priority [be giv-
en] to applications that require paid, high-qualitywork-based learning experiences” (Title II, Sub-
title B, Sec. 214 [a][2]). In four other places, the
act reiterates a preference for paid work-based
learning. STWOA also prohibits using federal
funds received under the act to subsidize the
wages of students in work-based learning or the
wages of their mentors (Title VI, Sec. 601[6]).There were several rationales for paid work-
based learning. One was that if employers have to
pay the students, they will have an incentive to de-
mand high standards of performance from them
(40). Similarly, if the students are paid, they will
feel like real employees and rise to the occasion.There was also concern that having students en-
gage in productive activities without pay was ex-
ploitative, and would encourage employers to use
work-based learning students in place of regular
employees. Another reason for pay was that stu-dents who rely on earnings from part-time jobs
would generally be precluded from participating
in unpaid work-based learning.
The main argument against paid work-based
learning was that it raises the costs to employers
and thus reduces the number of employers who
will participate and the number of work-basedlearning slots that are offered. It was pointed out
that, even without payments to students, work-
based learning imposes several costs on employ-
ers—the costs of planning and coordinating with
the schools, the staff time spent training and close-ly supervising the young people, and the young
people’s lower outputs when beginning produc-
tion activities.
OTA found little evidence about the effects of
pay on the students. The issue of employer incen-
tives is complex and is discussed in chapter 6.
While STWOA strongly encourages paid work-based learning and prohibits the use of federal
funds received under the act to reimburse employ-
er expenses, the act leaves the states free to use
other mechanisms to reduce employers’ costs and
to create incentives for their participation. Theseinclude state subsidies for students’ wages or oth-
er expenses, state tax credits, authorization of sub-
minimum training wages, and exemption from
having to provide state-mandated benefits and un-
employment insurance for the students.
CONCLUSION
Work-based learning can be structured in respect
to at least six sets of alternative features. Although
there is no definitive evidence about the relative

54 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
effectiveness of the alternatives, there are some
findings that allow for informed speculations:

The congressional intent appears to be that the
STWOA systems should target a wide spec-
trum of students but not be compulsory.

The standards for screening students for work-
based learning assignments do not have to beuniformly high, but care should be taken to
match students with employers’ needs and ex-
pectations.

Work-based learning can be focused on the ob-
jectives of academic enhancement, career
exploration, occupational development, and
productive activities. Although any productionwork can be a valuable learning experience, af-
ter several weeks or months its benefits are
likely to decline unless the work involves pro-
gressively more challenging tasks.

Considerable evidence indicates that coordina-
tion between the school and the workplace is
difficult to achieve. There are two basic ap-
proaches to coordination; one involves formal
planning and written agreements, and the other
involves continuing dialogue between repre-
sentatives of both institutions. Many highly re-
puted programs have used both approaches, buta few have used only the latter.

A progression of work-based learning, begin-
ning in elementary school and extending
through college would probably benefit stu-
dents, but would require extensive resources.
Given that the opportunities for work-based
learning in workplaces are likely to beconstrained, it appears that intensive workplace
experiences focusing on occupational skill de-
velopment should generally be reserved until
the postsecondary level.

Paying students during their workplace experi-
ences appears to have advantages and disad-
vantages. Payment and nonpayment are both
likely to result in tradeoffs.
These six sets of alternative features distin-
guish among several models of work-based learn-ing. The models are discussed in the next chapter.REFERENCES
1. Bidwell, C. et al., University of Chicago,
“Studying Career Choice: A Pilot Study,
Vols. I-III,” Washington, DC: Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation, 1992.
2. Bragg, D.D., Hamm, R.E., and Trinkle, K.,
Work-Based Learning in Two-Year Colleges
in the United States (Berkeley, CA: National
Center for Research in Vocational Education,
University of California, 1995).
3. Bragg, D.D., and Hamm, R.E., Linking
College and Work: Exemplary Practices in
Two-Year College Work-Based Learning Pro-
grams (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Re-
search in Vocational Education, University of
California, 1995).
4. Bronfenbrenner, U., The Ecology of Human
Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1979).
5. Coleman, J., Youth: Transition to Adulthood
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,1974).
6. Collins, A., and Brown, J.S., “The Computer
As A Tool for Learning Through Reflection,”
Learning Issues for Intelligent Tutoring Sys-
tems, H. Maddl and A.M. Lesgold (eds.)
(New York, NY: Springer, Verlag, 1988).
7. Commission on the Skills of the American
Workforce, America’s Choice: High Skills or
Low Wages (Rochester, NY: National Center
on Education and the Economy, 1990).
8. Corson, W., and Silverberg, M., The School-
to-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstra-
tion: Preliminary Findings (Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, 1994).
9. Dede, C., and Lewis, M., George Mason Uni-
versity, Fairfax, VA, and Rand Corporation,
Santa Monica, CA, “Assessment of Emerging
Educational Technologies that Might Assist
and Enhance School-to-Work Transitions,”unpublished contractor report prepared for the
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-
gress, Washington, DC, May 1995.

Chapter 4 Structuring Work-Based Learning | 55
10. Gaskell, J., Gender Matters from School to
Work (Toronto, Canada: OISE Press, 1992).
11. Goldberger, S., Kazis, R., and O’Flanagan,
M.K., Learning Through Work: Designing
and Implementing Quality Worksite Learning
for High School Students (New York, NY:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corpo-
ration, 1994).
12. Greenberger, E., and Steinberg, L.D., When
Teenagers Work: The Psychological and So-
cial Costs of Adolescent Employment (New
York, NY: Basic Books, 1986).
13. Grubb, W.N., and Villeneuve, J.C., Universi-
ty of California, Berkeley, CA, “Co-operative
Education in Cincinnati: Implications for
School-to-Work Programs in the U.S.,” un-
published contractor report prepared for the
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-gress, Washington, DC, May 1995.
14. Hollenbeck, K., In Their Own Words: Student
Perspectives on School-to-Work Opportuni-
ties (Washington, DC: Academy for Educa-
tional Development, 1995).
15. Hull, G., “ Their Chances? Slim and None?”:
An Ethnographic Account of the Experiences
of Low-Income People of Color in a Vocation-
al Program and at Work (Berkeley, CA: Uni-
versity of California, National Center for
Research in Vocational Education, 1992).
16. Jamieson, I., Miller, A., and Watts, A.G.,
Mirrors of Work: Work Simulations in
Schools (London: The Falmer Press, 1988).
17. Jobs for the Future, Promising Practices
(Boston, MA: 1995).
18. KAPOW: Kids and the Power of Work (Ar-
lington, VA: Fu Assocs., undated).
19. Kohn, M.L., and Schooler, C., “The Recipro-
cal Effects of the Substantive Complexity of
Work and Intellectual Flexibility: A Longitu-
dinal Assessment,” American Journal of So-
ciology 84:24-52, 1978.
20. Lerman, R.I,. and Pouncy, H., “The Compel-
ling Case for Youth Apprenticeships,” The
Public Interest 101:62-67, fall 1990.21. Lynch, L., Training and the Private Sector:
International Comparisons (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1994).
22. Lynn, I., and Wills, J., School Lessons: Work
Lessons (Washington, DC: The Institute for
Educational Leadership, 1994).
23. Mainquist, S., and Eichorn, D., “Competence
in Work Settings,” Adolescence and Work: In-
fluences of Social Structure, Labor Markets,
and Culture , D. Stern and D. Eichorn (eds.)
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs.,1989).
24. McKay, E.G., The Forgotten Two-Thirds: An
Hispanic Perspective on Apprenticeship, Eu-
ropean Style (Washington, DC: National
Council of La Raza, 1993).
25. Mihalka, J.A., “Youth and Work,” New Roles
for Youth in the School and Community (Co-
lumbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, National
Commission on Resources for Youth, 1974).
26. Mortimer, J.T., “The Transition to Adult-
hood: U.S. Research on Role Acquisition and
Attainment,” unpublished paper presented atthe National Research and Policy Symposium
on Youth in Transition to Adulthood , Kana-
naskis, Alberta, Apr. 25 – 29, 1995.
27. Mortimer, J.T., and Yamoor, C., “Interrela-
tions and Parallels of School and Work as
Sources of Psychological Development,” Re-
search in the Sociology of Education and So-cialization 7:221-246, 1987.
28. Napier, D., Missouri University, Columbia,
MO, “Work Attitudes and Human Relations
in Business: Instructor’s Guide,” (Jefferson
City, MO: Division of Vocational and AdultEducation, Missouri State Department of Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education, April
1987).
29. O’Neil, H.F., Jr., and Robertson, M.M.,
“Simulations: Occupationally Oriented” En-
cyclopedia of Educational Research, 6th ed.,
M.C. Alkin (ed.) (New York, NY: MacmillanPublishing, 1992).

56 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
30. Pauly, E., Kopp, H., and Haimson, J., Home
Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Link-
ing Work and High School (New York, NY:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,1994).
31. Phillips Academy, “Andover,” Andover,
MA, 1994.
32. Rogers, A., and Hubbard, S., “Case Study
Report on Kalamazoo Valley Consortium
Education for Employment,” unpublished pa-
per, National Institute for Work and Learning,Academy for Educational Development,
1994.
33. Rogers, A., et al., Learning from Experience:
A Cross-Case Comparison of School-to-Work
Transition Reform Initiatives (Washington,
DC: National Institute for Work and Learn-
ing, Academy for Educational Development,
1995).
34. Ryerson, D.L., “A Review of the Literature:
The Transition of Youth from School to
Work,” C.M. Oinonen (ed.) September 1983.
35. School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,
May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239.
36. Simms, M.C. (ed.), Youth Apprenticeships:
Implications for Black Youth (Washington,
DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic
Studies, 1993).
37. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science
and Technology, “Mentor Handbook: Men-
torship Program,” Alexandria, VA, undated.
38. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,
Student Financial Aid: Characteristics of
Jobs Provided Through the College Work-
Study Program, GAO/HRD-92-72BR (Wash-
ington, DC: February 1992).39. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,
Transition from School to Work: Linking
Education and Worksite Training, GAO/
HRD-91-105 (Washington, DC: August1991).
40. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,
School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 ,
Conference Report, H. Rpt. 103-480 (Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-
fice, 1994).
41. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-
ment, Worker Training: Competing in the
New International Economy , OTA-ITE-457
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1990).
42. U.S. Department of Labor, “BLS Reports on
Employer-Provided Formal Training” news
release (Washington DC: Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Sept.
23, 1994).
43. U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary’s Com-
mission on Achieving Necessary Skills,
Learning a Living: A Blueprint for High Per-formance (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, April 1992).
44. Vygotsky, L.S., Mind in Society: The Devel-
opment of Higher Educational Processes, M.
Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E.Souberman (eds. and translators) (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).
45. Westra, N., Public Safety Program Manager,
Kalamazoo Valley Consortium, personal
communication, February 1995.
46. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D., The
Machine that Changed the World (New York,
NY: Harper, 1990).

Work-Based
Learning
Models and
Evidence of
Effectiveness
lthough work-based learning for students is not wide-
spread in this country, a number of different models are in
use. The youth apprenticeship model encouraged by
STWOA is the newest and most comprehensive model,
and currently the least used. The clinical training model and the
cooperative education model are similar to youth apprentice-
ships, but somewhat less comprehensive. Each of these three
models is described here in relation to the structuring of work-based learning that was discussed in chapter 4. Evaluations of
each model’s effectiveness are summarized and the likely advan-
tages and disadvantages of the models are described. Three other
models are discussed briefly. They are school-to-apprenticeship
programs (distinct from “youth apprenticeships”), school-basedenterprises, and career academies.
It should be noted that there are no established definitions of
these models—instead, they have evolved informally and even
experts disagree some on the important characteristics of each. In
addition, some work-based learning programs have intentionally
modified a model or developed their own. Finally, actual practice
seldom coincides exactly with the original intentions. The de-scriptions provided below are of ideal models, as they are com-
monly conceived. Key features of these models are summarized
in table 5-1.
The effectiveness of school-to-work transition programs with
work-based learning can be judged by several indicators. Early
indicators include the impressions and reactions of students,
teachers, employers, and parents, but these subjective measuressometimes do not coincide with more objective ones. Interim ob-
jective measures include the students’ rate of participation in vari-
ous work-based learning activities, school attendance and
|5 7

Model
Youth apprenticeship:
The students participate in a
coordinated program of school-based
and work-based learning that provides
career counseling, integrated academic
and occupational instruction, training
and mentoring in a workplace,
progressively higher levels of work
experience, and the opportunity to earn
an industry-recognized skill credential.
The programs extend from high school
through at least one year of
postsecondary education.
Clinical training:
The students undertake a course of
occupational study and assume a
series of coordinated worksite positions
that provide training and unpaid work
experience. The course of study, the
work experience, and adequate scores
on an external examination are required
for Iicensure and subsequent
employment in the field.Students to be
served
Interested
students meeting
selection criteria
All students
admitted into
program of study
(mostly medically
related
occupations)Objectives of
the work-based
learning
Academic
reinforcement,
Career
exploration,
Occupational
development,
Productive activity
Occupational
development,
Productive activityMeans of
coordinating the
work-based
learning with
schooling
Joint school and
employer planning,
Training
agreements,
Class schedule
flexibility,
Worksite visitation
by school
coordinator,
Integrative
seminars,
Skill credentialing
Joint school and
employer planning,
Training
agreements,
Class schedule
flexibility,
Worksite visitation
by school
coordinator,Grades and
hours per
week of the Setting of the
work-based work-based Payment
learning learning for work
Grades: Workplaces Usually
11-14
Hours/week:
4-20
Grades: Workplaces Seldom
13-16
Hours/week:
10-30
Skill credentialing

Cooperative education:
The students engage in a coordinated
program of school-based learning and
career-related work experience during
the later year(s) of high school or
college. This is the oldest and most
widely used model of work-based
learning in the U. S., and actual
Implementation varies considerably,
especially in respect to the objectives
and extent of coordination.
School-to-apprenticeship programs:
In the senior year, the students begin
part-time participation in union and
employer apprenticeship programs
registered with the U.S. Department of
Labor.
School-based enterprises:
The students work part-time in a
school-owned business and take
elective classes that develop the
required occupational and
entrepreneurial skills.
Career academies:
The high school students attend a small
career-oriented “school within a school”
focused on one cluster of occupations.
It integrates academic learning, career
exploration, occupational preparation,
and sometimes part-time or summer
jobs.Interested
students meeting
selection criteria
Interested
vocational
students meeting
selection criteria
(mostly skilled
trades)
Interested
students meeting
selection criteria
Interested
students in the
career academy
meeting selection
criteriaeCareer Training Grades:
exploration, agreements, 11-12, 14-16
Occupational Worksite visitation
development, by schoolHours/week:
Productive activity coordinator,b 6-40C
Integrative
seminars
Occupational Training
development, agreements
Productive activity
Career
exploration,
Occupational
developmentWorkplaces
Grade: Workplaces Usually
12
Hours:
20-30
Teacher supervision Grades:
of the enterprises 9-12, 13-16
Hours/week:
5-20
Career
exploration,
OccupationalUsually
Academic Joint school and Grades:
reinforcement, employer planning 11-12
developmentHours/week:
4-15Schoolsd
WorkplacesSeldom
Sometimes
a
There are varying definitions of these models. In addition, programs sometimes make intentional modifications to the models, and implementation often IS not fully consistent with the
retentions
b
Seldom used for liberal arts students at postsecondary level
c
Some co-op programs have students alternate between full-time schooling and full-time workplace assignments
d
Also school-managed facilities outside of school sites
e
Career academies have been established primarily for socioeconomically disadvantaged youth
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment analyses, 1995

60 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
conduct, course taking, grades, scores on academ-
ic tests and occupational performance assess-
ments, graduation rates from high school,
adolescent pregnancy rates, crime rates, enroll-
ment in postsecondary education or training,
completion of postsecondary education or train-ing, and proportions earning the applicable skill
certificates. Employer satisfaction and the extent
to which employers expand or contract their par-
ticipation also are important interim measures.
Longer-term student outcomes include employ-ment history, career progression, earnings and
benefits, and career satisfaction. Longer-term la-
bor force outcomes include worker productivity
and production quality indicators.
“When asked about what happens to students who
excel in their [work-based learning] jobs, one su-pervisor replied, ‘We hire them’.” (20).
Measures of these characteristics for program
participants alone would be inadequate to deter-
mine the effects of the programs on students. For
that purpose it is necessary to have a comparison
group of similar students who are not exposed tothe program. Otherwise, there is no way of know-
ing whether the observed changes in students
would have occurred because of natural matura-
tion and other elements of their education.
Ideally, for purposes of assessing the effects of
a program, eligible applicants are assigned ran-
domly to the program or to a control group receiv-
ing traditional instruction directed at the same
objectives, and then the success of the two groups
is compared over subsequent years. Although ran-
dom assignment is desirable from an assessment
standpoint, it is unpopular with educators whoseek to serve all students with what they consider
to be the best available educational opportunities.
If, however, the growth in work-based learning
positions is slower than the growth in parent and
student interest, educators might be persuaded to
allocate program admission by lottery.
Randomization has rarely been used in past
evaluations of work-based learning. Rather, par-ticipating students have been compared with non-
participants matched on the basis of familybackground, ability, past performance in school,and other characteristics that are commonlyassociated with future school performance, post-
secondary educational achievement, and early oc-
cupational success. These matching procedurescan control only for measured characteristics;there are many others, such as initiative, ambition,and foresight, that can affect the outcomes. Suchlack of initial comparability between matchedgroups is particularly likely when the program
group is composed of volunteers and the compari-
son group is composed of those who did not vol-unteer. Evaluations using such matchedcomparison groups will often overestimate thepositive effects of the studied programs.
For rigorous evaluations, the researchers must
have access to large percentages of the students in
the programs and in the comparison groups. If
several of the programs refuse to participate or ifmany students in the program group or in the com-parison group refuse to participate, the validity ofthe results can be seriously undermined. In pastevaluations of work-based learning, gaining ac-cess to programs has sometimes been a problem,
gaining access to a large portion of the students
has commonly been a problem, and following stu-dents for five or 10 years has rarely been accom-plished.
These evaluation difficulties are not unique to
work-based learning. They are common in the as-sessment of all types of education and training
programs. Occasionally, most of the problems
have been overcome, particularly in some evalua-tions sponsored by the Department of Labor dur-ing the past two decades (19), but such success hastaken considerable leadership and resources, andoften a mandate from the funding source.
Numerous evaluations and their findings are
discussed in this chapter. Very few of the evalua-
tions randomly assigned students, many were notable to include large proportions of the students,and none followed students well into their adultemployment. Taking into account these limita-tions, a prudent interpretation of the evidence ac-

Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 61
cumulated from the cited studies suggests the
following findings about past work-based learn-
ing:

School-to-work programs have arranged work-
based learning that generally offers more learn-
ing opportunities than do the jobs that students
find on their own.

Most students have been excited and motivated
by their work-based learning, feeling that it has
helped them make better use of their schooling
and become better prepared for employment.

Most employers have been quite satisfied with
the students who participate in work-based
learning.

Work-based learning has generally had small
positive effects on students’ attendance,grades, graduation rates, and participation in
postsecondary education, but some of the new
youth apprenticeship programs appear to have
dramatically increased postsecondary enroll-
ments.

The effects of work-based learning on employ-
ment, career progression, and earnings duringthe first few years after graduation have been a
mix of modest positive ones, no differences,
and a few small negative findings. The results
for college-level programs have been more
positive than those for high school programs,and employment results from the youth appren-
ticeship programs are not yet available.

Well-planned and supervised work-based
learning requires considerable effort to arrange,
coordinate, monitor, and sustain.

Intermediary groups, especially employer orga-
nizations, have often been important in estab-lishing work-based learning programs.

Programs that have earned a reputation of ex-
cellence have done so only after several years
of adjustments and fine-tuning.
Each of these findings is supported by two or
more studies of several programs. Only the find-
ings in respect to employment outcomes varied
substantially among the studies.YOUTH APPRENTICESHIPS
Students in youth apprenticeships participate in acoordinated learning program with the following
key elements:

school-based learning that provides career
counseling, integrates academic and occupa-
tional instruction, and extends from the later
years of high school through some postsecond-
ary education;

progressively higher levels of paid work experi-
ence, accompanied by training and mentoring;
and

the opportunity to earn an industry-recognized
skill certificate.
Youth apprenticeship is the newest model of
work-based learning. It is the model that STWOA
encourages, although the legislation never uses
the term “youth apprenticeship” (Public Law
103-239, Title I, Secs. 101-104). Before passage
of STWOA, there probably were only a few dozen
programs in the country using this model. Most of
those had been established in the early 1990s andhad not fully implemented the model by the time
the legislation was being considered.
Youth apprenticeship is the most ambitious,
coordinated, and sustained model of work-based
learning in the United States. It is directed at serv-ing the widest spectrum of students—in terms of
academic performance and career interests. The
objectives are broader than those of other models,
encompassing the reinforcement of academics,
exploration of careers, occupational skill develop-
ment, and productive activities. Youth apprentice-
ship involves extensive coordination betweenacademic and occupational instruction in school,
school-based instruction and work-based instruc-
tion, and high school and postsecondary educa-
tion and training. In fact, youth apprenticeship is
the only model that spans the high school and
postsecondary levels, providing students with the
most extensive progression of learning opportuni-ties. Some other models are used at both levels,
but not by a single program.
Youth apprenticeships differ from the appren-
ticeship programs operated by unions and em-

62 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
ployers in several ways. Youth apprenticeships
begin serving students in high school and contin-
ue to serve them for at least one year of postsec-
ondary education, whereas union and employer
apprenticeships are targeted at young adults sever-
al years out of high school (the average age of par-ticipants is about 25). In youth apprenticeships,
the students work part time or rotate between full-
time work and full-time schooling, whereas in
union and employer apprenticeships the partici-
pants generally work full time and take two orthree hours of classes each week. In addition,
youth apprenticeships use high school and college
teachers to provide the formal instruction, where-
as the unions and employers often use their own
personnel for that purpose.
zEvaluation Results
Youth apprenticeships are of such recent vintage
that there is little evaluation information available
on them. Most of the programs are still in the start-
up phase. Only a few have graduated cohorts from
high school, and none has operated long enoughfor those cohorts to progress well into their ca-
reers. For those reasons, all the findings in this
section should be considered quite tentative and
subject to change as the programs refine their op-
erations and become established in their commu-
nities.
The U.S. Department of Labor commissioned
a preliminary assessment of 15 youth apprentice-
ships that were begun with its support between
1990 and 1993 (4). At the time of the assessment,
a few of the programs were still in the planning
stage and had not yet accepted students. It wasfound that the work-based learning usually began
in the junior or senior year and varied consider-
ably in intensity from program to program. In a
few of the programs the employers offered a care-
fully structured sequence of training opportunities
but no real work experience. Conversely, when
students were given real work experience, theyusually received only informal training from their
supervisor and only as much as they needed for the
work (4).The biggest difficulty that most of these youth
apprenticeship programs faced was arranging
enough work-based learning opportunities. Em-
ployer associations helped with that task, but indi-
vidual employers ultimately based their decisions
to participate on their perceptions of the costs andbenefits.
Coordinating the work-based learning oppor-
tunities with schooling proved to be a challenge.
The school staff and employers’ representatives
usually met to discuss expectations at the start ofthe school year. Continuing communications, ei-
ther by scheduled meetings or informal commu-
nications, were spottier. Only a few schools tried
to link their class activities to the work-based
learning, and none of the employers made sub-
stantial efforts to link the worksite experiences
with the students’ academic or vocational curricu-lum. One program twice attempted to develop a
detailed training plan to be used by its large em-
ployers, but the plans required more staff time,
space, and equipment than the employers were
willing to commit (4).
In focus groups, sometimes selected randomly
and sometimes not, students from these youth ap-
prenticeship programs generally said that the pro-
grams encouraged them to study harder in school
and to improve their attendance and grades. Many
found their schoolwork more interesting because
of team project assignments. Some were moti-vated to study harder in school to assure their eli-
gibility for work-based learning assignments.
Students sometimes complained, however, of ex-
periencing delays in the implementation of certain
program components, being isolated with thesame students for most of their schoolwork, re-
ceiving promises about pay rates that were subse-
quently broken, having to do mostly menial jobs,
being paid less than regular employees doing the
same work, having to constantly “act like adults,”
missing after-school social and extracurricular ac-
tivities, and misunderstanding the postsecondarytuition reimbursement offers of some employers
(4).

Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 63
Jobs for the Future, a nonprofit organization
with foundation funding, is supporting 10 innova-
tive school-to-work transition programs with
work-based learning. Only two of the 10 had been
in operation prior to 1991. Six are youth appren-
ticeships and the other four include several ele-ments of that model. A self-administered survey,
handed in by 226 seniors, about half of those at 8
of the 10 sites, found that 92 percent thought the
work-based learning was encouraging good work
habits, 83 percent thought it was providing at leastsome chance to explore career options, 62 percent
said they spent one-third or more of their time in
the workplace learning new skills, 57 percent re-
ported the assignments to be interesting and chal-
lenging most of the time, and 79 percent said they
would participate in the program again (6).
A subsample survey of 113 seniors at four of
the programs found that they most liked the career
exploration aspects of the program and least liked,
or found hardest to achieve, the level of skills re-
quired for tasks performed at the worksite. More
than half of the subsample thought that the pro-gram had improved their feelings toward school,
and less than 2 percent felt the opposite. The most
common suggestion for improvement, offered by
16 percent of the students, was for “better planned
activities at worksite that require more involve-
ment by students” (6).
In three of the programs where actual postsec-
ondary enrollments had been tracked, it was found
that between 69 and 84 percent of the students had
enrolled in some form of postsecondary education
or training soon after graduation from high
school—rates well above the national average.The program with the highest rate serves an inner-
city population where postsecondary enrollments
are normally low. In three other programs, be-
tween 85 and 92 percent of the seniors in the pro-
grams reported they had plans for continuing their
education after graduation (6).
Jobs for the Future staff observed that programs
that began primarily as workforce improvement
efforts have since become “more committed to
significant school reform as a precondition for be-
ing able to deliver improved career preparation.”
Similarly, programs that began primarily asschool reform efforts have developed a “much
more serious commitment to structured, planned
learning experiences at the worksite and creative
approaches to linking school and work experi-
ences”.
The major problems that have been encoun-
tered are rigid school schedules using 50-minute
periods, entrance requirements of four-year col-
leges that do not recognize credits for integrated
academic and occupational courses or work-based
learning, and the high costs of small programs thatresult from the limited ability or willingness of
business to provide work placements and to hire
students who have completed the program. Incre-
mental costs are estimated to range from minimal
to $2,000 per student, although there may be re-
ductions after the implementation phase is com-
pleted and the operations have been scaled up (6).
Case studies of 14 innovative school-to-work
transition programs were recently completed by
the Academy for Educational Development (10).
Nine of the programs were youth apprenticeships
or had many of the components of that model.Most of the 14 programs appear to have benefited
from strong leadership by a state or local school
administrator who provided vision, fostered col-
laborations, and set high standards while also ex-
pecting some mistakes to be made. Similarly,
most programs appear to have benefited from the
impassioned leadership of a teacher or coordinatorwho knew curriculum, pedagogy, and the targeted
industry; was willing to take risks; and communi-
cated well. Collaborations with business appear
essential for expanding the programs. The collab-
orations took different forms and required sub-stantial investment by both the schools and the
industry.
The nature of the work-based learning in these
programs varied considerably. Important ele-
ments for success appear to be building on local
labor market needs, coordinating the school-
based learning and work-based learning, allowingstudents to assume new roles and shoulder respon-
sibility, permitting students to do real work and re-
ceive feedback, and encouraging students to
reflect on their experiences and engage in self-as-
sessment. Participating businesses apparently

64 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
needed and welcomed some orientation and sup-
port, particularly for their mentoring roles. Diffi-
culties that were commonly encountered include
limited resources for the substantial start-up ef-
forts, limited business participation, the unwill-
ingness of four-year colleges to recognize some ofthe high school credits earned in the programs,
and transportation difficulties in countywide sys-
tems and in inner cities that had lost most of their
jobs to the suburbs (10).
Another recent study of 16 school-to-work
transition programs in high schools, including
five youth apprenticeships and nine others with
similar components, concluded that most of the
programs appear to have induced the students to
take more advanced courses. Some of the pro-
grams were providing high-quality work-based
learning and some were not (9). Economically dis-advantaged and low-achieving students were
found to be participating with few complaints
from employers, teachers, or the students them-
selves. Most program directors thought that these
students would be best served if the work-basedlearning experiences began in the 9th or 10th
grade, rather than in the 11th or 12th grade, be-
cause by those later grades sizable portions of the
students have become disengaged from school or
dropped out. Parents were initially skeptical of the
programs, fearing that they would preclude a col-
lege education, but many parents whose childrenparticipated have been pleased. Students appre-
ciated the work-based learning mostly for the ca-
reer exploration opportunities.
Planning and development of the programs
were very time-consuming, often requiring twoyears. There were substantial costs for a coordina-
tor, staff planning, curriculum development, staff
training, and equipment (sums up to $200,000 are
reported, but it is unclear whether those included
all, or only part of, the expenses actually in-
curred). Considerable time was also required to
recruit employers and to help them plan high-quality work-based learning activities. For three
to five years after implementation, extensive revi-
sions and fine-tuning were required. Operating
costs for the school were usually estimated to be
somewhat higher than regular schooling becauseof the time needed to secure the work-based learn-
ing positions, to prepare the students for them, and
to monitor their progress. These costs do not in-
clude the costs that employers incurred.
Intermediary groups such as the chamber of
commerce, business and professional groups, andtrade associations apparently provided crucial
support for many of the programs. Even with their
contributions, there appears to be have been a
tradeoff between the number and the quality of
work-based learning positions that have been ar-ranged. Providing a broad introduction to the or-
ganization and industry, planning a progression of
training and work experience, coordinating both
with the school-based instruction, and providing
supervision and mentoring are time-consuming.
Often the staff time devoted to these activities
costs employers more than the wages paid to thestudents (9).
Jobs for the Future, drawing on the study just
described and on its experience in providing sup-
port to several youth apprenticeship programs, in-
ferred 10 guidelines for high-quality work-basedlearning:
1. The partners should agree on the goals and the
means of achieving them.
2. There should be a structured plan for the stu-
dents’ learning in the workplace.
3. The work-based learning should focus on de-
veloping broad and transferable skills.
4. The school and workplace staffs should re-
ceive orientation and ongoing support as
needed.
5. The students should be oriented and prepared
for their workplace assignments.
6. The students should receive the support and
guidance of a caring adult in the workplace.
7. The school-based activities should help stu-
dents distill and extend lessons from the
workplace.
8. Students learning in the workplace should be
documented and assessed.
9. There should be ongoing coordination be-
tween the schools and workplaces.
10. Quality control mechanisms should be used
(5).

Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 65
CLINICAL TRAINING
Students in clinical training programs take aca-
demic and occupational courses and assume a se-
ries of positions that provide work experience and
training. The course of study, the work experi-ence, and a passing score on an examination ad-
ministered by a professional body are usually
required for licensure and subsequent employ-
ment in the field. Clinical training is used primari-
ly in medical occupations, including several fieldsof medical technology, in both two-year and four-
year colleges.
The clinical training model is moderately se-
lective. It focuses on occupational skill develop-
ment and production activities in the workplace.
There is tight coordination between the occupa-
tional course work in school and the training andwork assignments in the workplace, and both are
partly guided by the licensure requirements. Most
programs begin at the postsecondary level. Work
assignments involve large numbers of hours—
often thousands of hours before one is eligible for
licensure. Most of the work is undertaken in hos-
pitals, medical centers, and medical laboratories.Every student in the program must participate in
the work-based learning, although the assign-
ments may depend on satisfactory progress in
one’s class work. The students are seldom paid for
their time in the workplace (1,2).
The clinical training model is similar to the
youth apprenticeship model but less comprehen-
sive. The main differences are that the objectives
of clinical training are more narrowly focused on
occupational development and productive activi-
ties, the programs do not span the high school and
postsecondary levels, and the work experiencesare usually unpaid. In addition, youth apprentice-
ship is a generic model applicable to any occupa-
tion, whereas clinical internships have been used
almost exclusively in medical fields.
The clinical training model has become the
norm for preparation in all the medical occupa-
tions—ranging from nurse’s aide through medical
technologist to brain surgeon. OTA calculations
based on data from a recent survey suggest that
about 50 to 65 percent of all two-year collegeshave at least one program that uses this model, and
virtually all the programs are in the medical fields
(2). The model is used almost universally in nurs-
ing programs in four-year colleges and in medical
schools.
The clinical training model appears to be ex-
pensive, having much lower students-to-teacher
ratios than cooperative education programs in the
same institutions. It is common, however, for the
industry to partially subsidize the expenses and to
provide political support for the programs (1).
zEvaluation Results
A major study recently asked two-year college ad-
ministrators to report on their best health-related
program with work-based learning and their best
non-health-related program with work-basedlearning. They were ask to judge “best” on the ba-
sis of being in full operation, having a formal
structure for linking the work-based learning with
the college courses, using innovative approaches,
and having a proven track record of preparing stu-
dents for their career goals (2). The study did not
attempt to further assess the nature and extent ofthe effects on the students, but rather sought to
identify common characteristics of the nominated
programs.
The most common characteristics of the pro-
grams designated as “best” were that they hadbeen in operation for more than 10 years, used the
clinical training model for health-related pro-
grams, and used the cooperative education model
for non-health-related programs (2). More than 80
percent of the clinical training programs used a
governing or advisory board with employers on it,
had formal agreements with employers, providedcareer orientation for students, offered remedial
and other services to prepare students for work-
based learning, coordinated school-based and
work-based learning, had regular consultation be-
tween college faculty and workplace mentors, en-gaged in periodic evaluation of student progress,
and prepared students for a skills certification pro-
cess (2).
The college administrators indicated that the
highest levels of support for work-based learning

66 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
came from local boards and advisory committees,
college administrators, business representatives,
students, college trustees, and state licensing
agencies (2). The lowest levels of support came
from four-year colleges, labor unions, and par-
ents. The most serious barriers to the expansion ofwork-based learning were perceived to be the col-
leges’ lack of staff, time, and funds for arranging
and supporting work-based learning; the demands
of classroom instruction, which left students little
time for work-based learning; and the students’lack of career orientation when entering college
(2).
The data from the survey described immediate-
ly above were supplemented with expert rankings
and a telephone survey of promising candidates to
identify eight exemplary work-based learning
programs in two-year colleges. The programs se-lected used the clinical training, youth apprentice-
ship, cooperative education, or union and
employer adult apprenticeship models. These pro-
grams were studied further (1). All of the pro-
grams had coordinators who had prior experienceworking in industry and were widely acknowl-
edged as strong leaders. They were known for
their political savvy, long work hours, attention to
details, setting of high standards, and effective
promotion of the program. All of the programs
were well funded, often with the assistance of the
industry and participating employers. Most of theprograms had direct links to an industry group that
was important to the local economy. The pro-
grams were usually the only source of training in
the area for the given occupation, or were over-
whelmingly the largest source of that training. Thelinks with employers were both direct and close;
communication among program staff and indus-
try personnel was frequent, and the staff (usually
the program coordinator) circulated among the
workplaces almost daily. These ties often resulted
in work-based learning slots for students; dona-
tions of supplies, equipment, and expertise; andpolitical advocacy and protection for the program.
Most of the exemplary programs:

used two or more kinds of work-based learn-
ing—most commonly, a school-based enter-prise for the earlier stages of training and then
work-based learning assignments with local
employers;

included mentoring for the students;

had the students document their own progress
with diaries or portfolios;

had agreements with four-year colleges for
transfer of a considerable portion of the credits
that students earned in the program; and

went through five or more years of adjustment
before achieving excellence (1).
COOPERATIVE EDUCATION
Students in cooperative education engage inschool-based learning that is coordinated with ca-
reer-related work experience during the later years
of high school or college. Participating high
school students usually work part time in their se-
nior year (and sometimes in their junior year),often with a shortened school day. In college the
students usually alternate between a semester of
classes and a semester of work experience, a
schedule that accommodates working at sites be-
yond commuting distance. Co-op students are
usually paid for their time in the workplace.
Cooperative education varies considerably in
terms of the students who are served, the objec-
tives, and the degree of coordination between the
school-based learning and the work-based learn-
ing. In some schools participation in the co-op
program is offered only to vocational educationstudents, whereas in other schools it is also avail-
able to students in the general track and the college
preparatory track (16). The formal model is tar-
geted mainly at occupational skill development
and production activities, but in practice the ob-
jectives can sometimes also target academic en-
hancement and career exploration. The formalmodel includes considerable coordination be-
tween schooling and the work-based learning,
usually by means of written agreements, worksite
training plans, and periodic visits to the worksites
by the school’s co-op coordinator. Because these
means of coordination require considerable staff
time, some schools forgo one or more of them.

Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 67
At the college level, the co-op programs are
usually moderately selective, requiring a mini-
mum grade point average. In engineering and
business departments, co-op tends to be focused
on occupational skill development and production
activities. For liberal arts majors, the focus is moreoften on career exploration and production activi-
ties. The engineering and business departments
tend to coordinate the courses and work-based
learning experiences more than do the liberal arts
departments. Colleges often make co-op work ex-periences available from the sophomore year
through the senior year. Many award limited cred-
it toward graduation for the co-op work assign-
ments, requiring students to enroll year-round or
to complete an extra year of schooling before
graduation. Students may apply for jobs with dif-
ferent employers each semester, or remain withone employer who is to provide a progression of
training and work responsibilities.
Although the cooperative education model is
similar to the youth apprenticeship model in sev-
eral respects, co-op programs often focus morenarrowly on the objectives of occupational devel-
opment and work experience, academic and oc-
cupational courses in school are seldom
integrated, skill certification is not common, and
individual co-op programs rarely span the high
school and postsecondary levels.
Several recent studies suggest that although
about half of all high schools offer co-op pro-
grams, only about 8 percent of graduates have par-
ticipated in them (15,16,17). It appears that
one-third to two-thirds of the two-year colleges
have co-op programs, but only about 2 percent ofthe students participate (2,17). A recent survey in-
dicates that about half of the engineering technol-
ogy departments in two-year colleges and
two-thirds of the science technology departments
offer cooperative programs or other work-based
learning, but the survey did not ask about the per-
cent of students participating (3). Co-op programsare generally voluntary, but a few colleges require
all students, or all those in certain programs of
study, to participate.zEvaluation Results
Cooperative education is the oldest and most
widely used model of work-based learning, and
the most extensively researched. The results ofevaluations at the high school and college level arediscussed separately in this section.
The High School Level
A recent review of the research and evaluations ofhigh school cooperative education found that for-
mer co-op students report favorable opinions of
the experience, believing that the programs helpedthem to apply themselves in school, remain en-rolled until graduation, quickly secure full-timejobs after graduation, and find jobs consistentwith their career interests (13). One studycompared the quality of co-op work assignmentswith part-time jobs that students arrange on theirown and found that the co-op students consider-
ably more often reported having jobs that required
the application of academic skills, offered oppor-tunities to learn new things, involved contact withadults, and provided good supervision. The stud-ies that examined the subsequent employment andearnings of co-op students relative to similar non-co-op students have found a mix of positive, null,and small negative results. The largest earningsbenefits accrued to students who were employed
by their former co-op employer.
The review by Stern and associates concludes
with their inferences about how to maximize thepositive effects of high school co-op. These in-clude having written agreements between theschool and the employers that specify the respon-sibilities of each; using a written training plan foreach student specifying the progression of activi-ties and objectives to be achieved; and having a
co-op coordinator in each school with responsibil-
ity for finding suitable job assignments, orientingstudents, negotiating training plans, and monitor-ing the students’ workplace activities (13).
The U.S. General Accounting Office examined
high school and two-year-college cooperativeeducation programs nominated as being of “high

68 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
quality” by researchers and practitioners (16).
GAO identified several program characteristics
that were common in the programs and appear to
have been important for success. The characteris-
tics are participation by employers who are will-
ing to providing training in occupations withpromising career paths, screening of applicants to
assure that they are prepared to meet employers’
expectations, training plans with ambitious and
specific learning objectives, and, for high school
students, close monitoring of the worksite activi-ties by school representatives. GAO also specu-
lated that skill standards and certification, which
are not common in cooperative education, would
provide useful targets for the training plans and as-
sessment of student progress.
Barriers to expanding cooperative education
that were identified by the GAO study include par-ents’ fears that co-op participation would hurt
their children’s chances of college admission, em-
ployers’ lack of knowledge about cooperative
education, insufficient school staffing, and diffi-
culties in transportation to and from the worksites.Despite these considerations, GAO concluded
that “high-quality cooperative education pro-
grams show strong potential to enable the United
States to better compete in global markets by im-
proving work-force preparation and facilitating
youths’ transitions from schools to work” (16).
A recent study interviewed employers who had
participated in 18 high school work-based learn-
ing programs, most of which used the co-op mod-
el. The study found that the employers were quite
pleased with the students and thought that almost
all had been productive workers (7). The employ-ers participated partly as a community service,
partly as a way to recruit permanent employees,
and partly as a way of filling low-paid part-time
positions with good workers.
The estimated effects of high school co-op on
employment and earnings have varied consider-
ably from one evaluation to another, probably be-cause the quality of the high school programs
varied considerably. High school co-op programs
have a widespread reputation for varying from
well-planned learning sequences for conscien-
tious students to hastily arranged escapes for stu-dents unengaged in school. In addition, it is
possible that the program elements of high school
cooperative education are not powerful enough to
have consistent effects on the students’ subse-
quent labor market success.
The College Level
One of the most dramatic changes in American
education over the past three decades has been the
sevenfold expansion of enrollment in two-year
colleges, which now totals more than 5 million
students (18). Despite this trend, most research on
cooperative education at the postsecondary levelhas been in four-year colleges. Those studies have
repeatedly found that participation in college-lev-
el cooperative education is associated with the es-
tablishment of more realistic career goals, higher
academic achievement, increased self-confi-dence, more “savvy” about the world of work, and
better job-seeking skills (23). An estimated 40
percent of college co-op graduates take jobs with
their former employers, and co-op students tend to
have somewhat higher starting salaries in their
first job after graduation (23). As with most evalu-
ations of work-based learning, these probablyhave not fully accounted for initial differences in
the co-op and non-co-op students.
Co-ops and internships that combine classroom
learning with real-world experiences were
among the most appealing features to students
when choosing a college or university. —Find-
ing from a survey of 10,000 high school juniorand seniors (8).
A study of students at four two-year colleges
found that those in cooperative education reported
considerably more learning opportunities in their
work experience than those in non-co-op jobs,
even when the comparisons were limited to jobsin the same occupations (15). For instance, co-op
students more frequently reported that their job
was related to their career interests (74 percent vs.
43 percent), that the job was challenging (74 per-
cent vs. 55 percent), that the job provided chances

Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 69
to apply what they were learning in school (69 per-
cent vs. 45 percent), and that they were learning
things that would be useful in their future work
(75 percent vs. 55 percent). The co-op students,
however, also reported making an average of one
dollar per hour less than did other college studentsholding part-time jobs.
A 1977 congressionally mandated national
study of cooperative education programs at two-
year and four-year colleges found that co-op and
non-co-op students had similar background char-acteristics; co-op students and employers ex-
pressed strong support for the co-op program; the
co-op jobs of students helped pay their college ex-
penses; and more co-op students than non-co-op
students reported acquiring job skills as they prog-
ressed through college, securing jobs in the field
of their training and consistent with their career in-terests, avoiding unemployment, and having
greater projected life-time earnings (22).
OTHER MODELS
The following three models differ more fromyouth apprenticeships than do clinical training
and cooperative education. Still, they offer
instructive examples with respect to coordination,
settings, and screening.
zSchool-to-Apprenticeship Programs
In school-to-apprenticeship programs, high
school seniors in vocational education programsparticipate part time in union- and employer-run
apprenticeship programs. The school program is
rarely altered, but a school coordinator usually
screens students for maturity and conduct. The
students often earn some credits toward gradua-
tion and are paid at the same rate as full-time par-
ticipants in the apprenticeships.
School-to-apprenticeship programs concen-
trate on occupational development and produc-
tion in the workplace. There is generally little
coordination between the school-based and work-
based learning except that most students take
vocational education courses in the field of their
apprenticeship. The work-based learning is usual-ly more intensive than in the other models, run-
ning 20 to 30 hours per week.
In 1977 and 1978, the U.S. Department of La-
bor initiated eight school-to-apprenticeship dem-
onstrations, which were variously referred to as
New Youth Initiatives in Apprenticeship or YouthApprenticeship Projects. The evaluation was lim-
ited to the first three cohorts of students, who were
compared with a group of similar students. The
apprenticeship students were generally quite en-
thusiastic about the program. Employers werealso quite satisfied and their participation in-
creased over each of the three successive years.
About half of the participating students left the ap-
prenticeships within a year following high school
graduation—well before completion. Participat-
ing students had more stable employment and re-
ported higher job satisfaction than the comparisongroup, although they earned about the same wages
(21).
zSchool-Based Enterprises
In school-based enterprises the students work part
time in school businesses that produce goods or
services for people other than the students in-
volved. The activities have included manufactur-
ing, auto repair, construction, publishing,retailing, and child care. Students acquire the nec-
essary occupational and entrepreneurial skills in
elective classes. The students usually start in
entry-level positions and may move up into more
skilled positions and the managerial ranks. Partic-ipants earn credits toward graduation and some-
times are paid.
School-based enterprises focus on academic re-
inforcement, some career exploration, and oc-
cupational development. Coordination is
facilitated by the school’s control over both the
classroom courses and the work-based learning inthe enterprise, by the location of the enterprise on
the school grounds or nearby, and by the fact that
the teachers of the occupational courses often su-
pervise the enterprise. Students usually work in
the enterprises during their later years of high
school or during college. Enterprises give the stu-
dents more opportunities to assume managerial or

70 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
entrepreneurial roles than they have in regular
places of employment.
Stern and associates recently reviewed the liter-
ature on school-based enterprises (1994) and con-
ducted 16 case studies. They found many
anecdotal accounts of how students became moreengaged in school, extended their academic skills
by applying them in the enterprise, and acquired
basic work habits and specific occupational skills.
Many enterprises were found to have endured for
years, although others did not. The review, how-ever, did not find any rigorous evaluations of the
effects that the programs had on the students’ aca-
demic and occupational development, on their
subsequent schooling, or on their employment
and career success (14).
There have been cases in declining communi-
ties where the school-based enterprises have takenover failed stores and run them successfully, to the
delight of the townspeople who were saved long
drives to distant shops (14). In other cases, the en-
terprises have sold services that had previously
not been offered by private businesses or publicentities. But usually the enterprises sell goods or
services that compete with local businesses, and
the business owners have sometimes complained
of unfair competition because the enterprises use
public buildings and personnel, and sometimes
unpaid student labor. Strategies that have been
used to minimize complaints include seeking thesupport of local business associations, operating
on a small scale, not advertising, and setting prices
that do not undercut competitors (14). If school-
based enterprises were to become widespread and
to involve substantial proportions of high schoolstudents, it is doubtful that those strategies would
suffice.
zCareer Academies
In career academies, high school students attend
a small career-oriented “school within a high
school.” Each academy focuses on one cluster of
occupations, integrating college-prep academic
education, occupational preparation, and career
orientation. The program of study is developedwith the assistance of local employers. Employeesfrom nearby companies serve as speakers, field
trip hosts, and sometimes as mentors for the
young people. Coordinated part-time jobs and
summer jobs may be offered, usually in the senior
year. Some graduates directly enter employment
and others continue on to postsecondary educa-tion.
Career academies were developed primarily to
serve economically disadvantaged or poorly per-
forming students, and they continue to be targeted
at those groups. The academies concentrate on en-hancement of academic achievement, exploration
of careers, and development of occupational
skills. Career academies are increasingly adopting
work-based learning, but it is often limited to a
few weeks during the school year or to a summer
job.
The first career academy was started in the late
1960s. There has been modest growth since then,
and in 1992 scholars estimated that there were
about 150 in the country (12).
A 1992 review of four evaluations of 14 career
academies found mixed results. The dropout ratesat the career academies were 7 to 15 percentage
points less than the rates for the matched compari-
son groups, and there was some evidence that the
lower dropout rates resulted from better atten-
dance and grades. A year or two later, however,
there was little or no difference in the percent of
students employed, although the largest study didfind that the employed academy graduates worked
an average of 3 to 4 hours per week more than the
employed comparison students. Two evaluations
found that academy graduates were much more
likely to be enrolled in postsecondary education,one found them much less likely to be enrolled,
and the fourth found no difference (12).
CONCLUSION
Prior models of work-based learning have moti-
vated students, pleased employers, and often had
small positive effects on grades, graduation rates,
and postsecondary enrollments. Their effects on
early employment have been more mixed, and
their long-term effects on employment and careersatisfaction have not been assessed.

Chapter 5 Work-Based Learning Models and Evidence of Effectiveness | 71
The youth apprenticeship model that is to be
used in STWOA is more ambitious, coordinated,
and sustained than prior models of work-based
learning. These differences make the work-based
learning component of STWOA potentially more
effective than prior models. The focus is not juston training, but on the broad development of
young men and women. The work-based learning
is not just for a year or two, but is to progress over
several years. And the work-based learning is to
be coordinated with several enhancements inschooling.
The differences between the youth apprentice-
ship model and the prior models also present
daunting challenges to the implementing orga-
nizations. Ambitious goals are more difficult to
achieve than modest ones. Comprehensive sys-
tems are more expensive to operate than simpleand short programs. The extent of coordination
that STWOA calls for between members of the
partnerships, between academic and occupational
instruction, between school-based and work-
based learning, and between high schools andpostsecondary institutions is probably unprece-
dented in the history of American education and
training programs.
Can the states and local jurisdictions meet these
challenges? Probably not on their own, but if
schools join in strong partnerships with American
business and labor, it might be possible.
REFERENCES
1. Bragg, D.D., and Hamm, R.E., Linking Col-
lege and Work: Exemplary Practices in Two-
Year College Work-Based Learning
Programs (Berkeley, CA: National Center for
Research in Vocational Education, University
of California, 1995).
2. Bragg, D.D., Hamm, R.E., and Trinkle, K.,
Work-Based Learning in Two-Year Colleges
in the United States (Berkeley, CA: National
Center for Research in Vocational Education,
University of California, 1995).3. Burton, L., and Celebuski, C., “Technical
Education in Two-Year Colleges,” (Washing-ton, DC: National Science Foundation,
1995).
4. Corson, W., and Silverberg, M., The School-
to-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstra-tion: Preliminary Findings (Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, 1994).
5. Goldberger, S., Kazis, R., and O’Flanagan,
M.K., Learning Through Work: Designing
and Implementing Quality Worksite Learningfor High School Students (New York, NY:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,
1994).
6. Jobs for the Future, Promising Practices
(Boston, MA: 1995).
7. Lynn, I., and Wills, J., School Lessons: Work
Lessons (Washington, DC: The Institute for
Educational Leadership, 1994).
8. Maguire Associates, Inc., “Student Priorities
in Picking a College,” America’s Best Col-
leges: 1994 College Guide, M. Elfin (ed.)
(Washington, DC: U.S. News and World Re-port, 1993).
9. Pauly, E., Kopp, H., and Haimson, J., Home
Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Link-
ing Work and High School (New York, NY:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,1994).
10. Rogers, A., et al., Learning from Experience:
A Cross-Case Comparison of School-to-Work
Transition Reform Initiatives (Washington,
DC: National Institute for Work and Learn-ing, Academy for Educational Development,1995).
11. School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994,
May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239.
12. Stern, D., Raby, M., and Dayton, C., Career
Academies: Partnerships for Reconstructing
American High Schools (San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, 1992).
13. Stern, D., et al., School-to-Work: Research on
Programs in the United States (Washington,
DC: Falmer Press, 1995).
14. Stern, D., et al., School-Based Enterprise:
Productive Learning in American High

72 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Schools (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
1994).
15. Stern, D., et al., “Quality of Work Experience
as Perceived by Two-Year College Students in
Co-op and Non-Co-op Jobs,” Journal of
Cooperative Education 28(1):34-47, 1992.
16. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,
Transition from School to Work: LinkingEducation and Worksite Training, GAO/
HRD-91-105 (Washington, DC: August1991).
17. U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Of-
fice of Research, National Assessment of
Vocational Education: Final Report to Con-gress, Volume III, Program Improvement:Education Reform , prepared by D. Boesel, M.
Rahn, and S. Deich, OR-94-3502-III (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, July 1994).
18. U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Na-
tional Center for Education Statistics, Digest
of Education Statistics, 1993, NCES 93-292(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, October 1993).
19. U.S. Department of Labor, What’s Working
and What’s Not (Washington, DC: U.S. De-
partment of Labor, 1995).
20. Vickers, M., Hart, R., and Weinberg, A.,
Technical Education Research Centers(TERC), “The Work-Based Learning Experi-ences of Students in Two Boston-BasedYouth Apprenticeship Demonstration Sites,”unpublished contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-gress, Washington, DC, June 1995.
21. Williams, G.D. et al., Report on Impacts:
Study of New Youth Initiatives in Apprentice-ship (Washington, DC: CSR Incorp., 1981).
22. Wilson, J.W., “Excerpts from the Commen-
tary,” Cooperative Education—A National
Assessment: Executive Summary and Com-mentary (Boston, MA: National Commission
for Cooperative Education, undated).
23. Wilson, J.W., “Research in Cooperative
Education,” Journal of Cooperative Educa-
tion 24(2-3):77-89, winter-spring 1988.

Employer
Participation
in Work-Based
Learning
ecause the eventual success of STWOA depends on re-
cruiting large numbers of employers to provide work-
based learning placements for students, Congress asked
OTA to investigate how employers can be encouraged to
provide those work-based learning experiences. This chapter re-
ports on the current growth rates of their participation in work-
based learning and on the factors affecting their willingness to
participate.
Unlike school-to-work systems in several European countries,
STWOA is notable for providing no financial incentives and few
other direct inducements for employer participation. OTA inves-
tigated whether sufficient incentives already exist or whether po-
licymakers need to alter the incentive structure.
The first section describes the data sources on which the chap-
ter is based. The second section considers the rate at which em-
ployer participation in work-based learning is growing and
analyzes the strategies being employed to recruit employers in
two cities, Boston, Massachusetts, and Kalamazoo, Michigan.
The third section focuses on one city, Cincinnati, Ohio, where
work-based learning for postsecondary students has successfullygone “to scale,” and asks whether this experience could be repli-
cated elsewhere and at the high school level. The fourth section
considers the benefits to employers of participating in work-
based learning programs, and the fifth section considers disincen-
tives to participation. A final section summarizes the main
findings of the chapter.
|7 3

74 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
OTA’s telephone survey of employer participation in high school work-based learning was con-
ducted in March and April 1995 A sample of 15 work-based learning programs in 10 states was se-
lected through a two-step process from all programs in the country known to conform generally with the
definition of youth apprenticeship discussed in chapters 1 and 5. First, 21 work-based learning sites
exhibiting diversity by the age of the work-based learning program, duration of students’ work experi-
ence, type of entity coordinating the work-based learning, number of student participants, urbanicity,
and type of industry predominating in the community were identified, From this group, 15 sites were
chosen where the program coordinator reported in a telephone interview that the work-based learning
program Involves a progression of work experiences spanning two or more grades, requires work plans
that detail a student’s planned work experience, provides at least 50 hours per year of work-based
learning experiences, requires a designated school or workplace mentor or supervisor, and IS spon-
sored at least in part by a school or school district, In line with these criteria and comments of the coor-
dinators, 10 of the sites were classified as youth apprenticeships, 3 as career academies, and 2 as
“other”
Stern estimated that no more than a few hundred such youth apprenticeships and career acade-
mies existed in 1992-93 (46), Therefore the OTA sample probably includes a significant proportion of all
the STWOA prototypes in the country with two or more years of operating experience,
The programs that were selected and the total number of employers that were involved, as re-
ported by the coordinators, are shown in table 6-1, The date shown is the date reported by the coordi-
nators as “when the program began, ” In some cases, the date is probably when the host institution was
established
For each program, interviews were conducted with the coordinator and a minimum of five em-
ployers nominated by the coordinator, Information was obtained from both groups of respondents about
the community context; the numbers of students and employers involved in different types of work-
based learning activities today, three years ago, and planned for 1995-96; strategies for recruiting em-
ployers; and the factors affecting employers’ decisions to participate, In addition, employers were
asked about the characteristics of their company and the likely effectiveness of alternative policies of
inducing employer participation with external incentives,
The survey was administered to 86 employers in the 15 school-to-work transition programs. Fifty-
four of these employers were participating in one of the programs at the time of the interviews,
former participants, and 13 were once invited but refused to participate, The sample includes
of employers of different sizes in different industries.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 23,19 were
a range
DATA SOURCES OTA’s survey differs from most previous sur-
The analyses of employer participation in the
chapter are based on data from several different
sources. One is an OTA telephone survey of em-
ployer participation in work-based learning in 15
communities, the second is OTA case studies in
three cities, and the third is results from existing
national and regional employer surveys, case
studies, and focus-group research.veys in that it included both participating and non-
participating employers and was designed to
compare the relative importance of different fac-
tors influencing employers’ decisions to partici-
pate in work-based learning. The telephone
survey is described in box 6-1, and the work-based
learning programs that were surveyed are listed in
table 6-1. Because the sample of communities and

Chapter 6 EmpIoyer Participation in Work-Based Learning 75
Year “program”
Program and community began
Pickens County Youth Apprenticeship (Easley, South Carolina) 1992-93
Fox Cities Education for Employment Council (Appleton, Wisconsin) 1992-93
Southern Maine Region Youth Apprenticeship Program 1992-93
(Cumberland County, Maine)
York County Area Vo-Tech (York County, Pennsylvania) 1992-93
Industrial Modernization Center (Lycoming County, Pennsylvania) 1991-92
Pasadena Graphic Arts Academy (Pasadena, California) 1991-92
Oakland Health and Bioscience Academy (Oakland, California) 1990-91
Career Partners, Inc. (Tulsa, Oklahoma) 1989-90
Kent County Technical Center (Kent County, Michigan) 1989-90
Baltimore Academy of Finance (Baltimore, Maryland) 1988-89
Education for Employment Consortium (Kalamazoo, Michigan) 1986-87
Partnership Project (Portland, Oregon) 1984-85
Academy of Finance (New York, New York) 1982-83
Dauphin County Technical School (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) 1970-71
Calhoun Area Technical Center (Battle Creek, Michigan) 1970-71Number of employers
participating in
1994-95
80
30
24
14
23
6
150
14
2,070
35
792
30
50
43
53
SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 23
employers is small, the results should be consid-
ered tentative.
OTA’s case studies of work-based learning
were conducted in Boston, Cincinnati, and Phila-
delphia. These were selected because of the sub-
stantial success that has apparently been achieved
in each city in recruiting employers for work-
based learning. Kalamazoo was studied using ex-
isting case study materials and a telephone
interview with the director of the program (24,41).
The chapter also draws heavily on four other
studies of employer involvement in school-to-
work transition programs:
1. Lynn and Wills of the Institute for Educational
2Leadership surveyed 224 employers participat-
ing in cooperative education in 18 different
high schools in six metropolitan areas across
the country (34).
Decision Information Resources (DIR) sur-
veyed 70 employers in Texas who are involved
in workforce development programs involving
high school youth (48,49).3.
4.Zemsky of the Center for the Educational
Quality of the Workforce conducted eight focus
groups of employers in a cross section of cities
across the country; these employers were asked
about their attitudes toward youth and youth
apprenticeships (54).
The Manpower Research and Development
Corporation (MRDC) interviewed the program
staff of 15 school-to-work transition programs
about their experience with employer recruit-
ment and reported the results as part of a larger
evaluation (40).
Each of the studies has important limitations.
All of the survey samples are small, so that care
must be taken not to ascribe importance to small
differences among groups. None of the studies in-
cludes comparable samples of both participating
and nonparticipating employers. Some studies fo-
cus on only one type of work-based learning,
while others cover several types. One is limited to
a single state, while the others are based on sites
from across the country. None is based on strati-

76 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
fied, randomly selected samples of employers, so
the results are not statistically representative.
Nevertheless, many of the survey questions are
similar among the studies, and where there is
overlap, the results are very similar. This consis-
tency allows for additional confidence in the chap-ter findings despite the limitations.
The study by Zemsky has shown that nonpar-
ticipating employers’ attitudes toward work-
based learning may be very different from those of
participating employers (54). In that study, em-ployers in a cross section of eight large and small
communities across the country with little or no
experience with work-based learning were
brought together in focus groups to discuss their
attitudes toward hiring youth and participating in
youth apprenticeship programs. Their views
about young people, the bureaucracy of schoolsystems, and the potential value of participating in
work-based learning were much more negative
than those expressed by employers in OTA’s sur-
vey and in the other studies, which primarily ques-
tioned participating employers. The employerswho took part in Zemsky’s study were openly
angry about the lack of discipline and self-control
among youth and essentially had no interest in
participating in work-based learning programs.
How can this gulf in attitudes between partici-
pating and nonparticipating employers be ex-
plained? One possibility is that once employersbecome involved in work-based learning, their
perceptions change. Another view is that the gulf
in attitudes reflects real differences among em-
ployers that are essentially unchangeable (54).
Neither case inspires much optimism that the fu-ture recruitment of employers will be very easy.
GROWTH OF EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION
STWOA aims to expand business participation in
work-based learning to the point that all students
choosing to participate in school-to-work pro-
grams would have work-based learning experi-ences. If a sizable proportion of the high school
student population is to be served, hundreds of
thousands of new employers must be recruited.
STWOA’s principal strategy for employer re-
cruitment is to encourage the formation of partner-
ships among schools, employers, community
colleges, and other community institutions at thestate and local levels (see box 6-2). These partner-
ships are intended to engage employers in collab-
orative efforts to initiate and develop school-to-work transition systems so that they feel theyhave an important stake in the outcomes. The con-
necting activities called for in the legislation are
intended to provide employers with any assistancethey may need to participate in the partnerships
and to coordinate efforts between school systems
and employers. The STWOA legislation specifi-cally prohibits the use of federal funds for wage
incentives or the employment of work-based
learning students as substitutes for incumbentworkers.
The rates at which student and employer partic-
ipation have grown in communities where such
partnerships have been formed were investigatedin OTA’s survey by asking the 15 program coordi-
nators about changes in the number of employers
and students participating in their prototypeschool-to-work transition systems over the pasttwo school years.
The main finding is that the median growth rate
of employer participation in the 15 programs inthe past two years has been six employers per year .
In 1992-93, the median number of employers in-
volved in the 15 programs was 23 and in 1994-95the median was 35 employers.
This increased employer participation trans-
lated into a median increase of 11 students per
year in the 15 programs, from a median of 80 stu-
dents per program in 1992-93 to a median of 100
students per program in 1994-95.
1 This is a
growth rate of about 14 percent per year. Withthese small starting sizes and rates of growth,
1 While the median increasd by 10 students per year, the actual median increase per program was 11 students per year.

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning 77
STWOA’s main strategy for employer recruitment is encouraging the formation of partnerships
among schools, employers, community colleges, and other community Institutions at the state and local
levels, to initiate and develop school-to-work transition systems The employer-educator partnerships
are intended to evolve into mutually rewarding relationships. Some hope that a long-term by-product of
these relationships will be broadened mutual understanding on the part of the business and the educa-
tion communities.
Techniques for building these partnerships and for recruiting employers used by school systems
and connecting organizations include informing employers of the economic benefits of participation,
exercising moral suasion, generating peer pressure among employers to become involved, and
appealing to the collective interests of employers.
The connecting activities that are required by the legislation are intended to support the formation
of these partnerships by providing employers with a number of services. These services include assis-
tance to employers in planning a work-based learning program, in training mentors and supervisors to
work with students, in matching students with the work-based learning opportunities of employers, and
in helping students who have completed their program to find jobs or to continue their education
The only other provisions in the legislation that bear on employer participation in work-based
learning are restrictions against using any STWOA funds for wage subsidies for students or mentors,
against using trainees to displace permanent employees, and against providing work-based learning
positions when any other employees are on layoff from the company.
SOURCES: School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994, May 4, 1994, Public Law 103-239, and reference 23
many years will be required for school-to-work Although the median number of employers per
transition systems to reach substantial propor-
tions of all the students in the school districts in
which those systems are located.
These growth rates may accelerate in the future
because of the passage of STWOA and state sys-
tem-building efforts encouraged by it. Seventy
percent of the project coordinators in OTA’s sur-
vey said that employers are “more willing to par-
ticipate in work-based learning” today than they
were three years ago. More than 90 percent of the
program coordinators are planning to increase the
number of student and employer participants in
their programs. The projected increase for
1995-96 is 35 students per prototype, or about
three times that prior to STWOA. However, even
if this higher rate can be achieved, work-based
learning will take many years to reach substantial
scale in most communities.prototype is only 35, the range is broad. Three of
the prototypes in OTA’s sample reported 150 em-
ployers or more, and two had fewer than 20. The
remaining 10 are clustered between 20 and 50 em-
ployers. Of the three larger sites, one had 150 em-
ployers, one had 792, and one claimed more than
2,000 (23).2
The program with 792 employers is the Kala-
mazoo Valley Education for Employment Con-
sortium in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. This
program is described in box 6-3. In this communi-
ty of nine school districts and one community col-
lege, substantial progress has been made in
developing a full-fledged school-to-work transi-
tion system. The system sequence includes the
selection of a career major, preparation of a career
plan, traditional vocational education, and several
types of work-based learning opportunities.
2
The 2,000 employers were reported for the Kent County Technical Center; this number includes employers who have agreed to provide
work-based learning experiences but are not yet doing so.

78 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
In 1985, nine school districts in Kalamazoo County, Michigan, the local community college, and
the intermediate school district formed the Kalamazoo Valley Education for Employment Consortium
(EFE) to help students maximize their employment potential and to increase the contribution of educa-
tion to the economic development of the county. The EFE Consortium was initially created to coordinate
vocational-technical education, but has expanded into a school-to-work transition system of integrated
academic and career preparation activities extending from elementary school through 12th grade. The
system is organized into 15 “career clusters, ” each with its own business and industry advisory commit-
tee,
EFE allows any student in any school the option of attending any career preparation programs in
any of the other schools. In 1994-95 there were 3,965 students in grades 11 and 12 in the nine school
districts. Over 2,241 of these students participated in EFE activities in 1994-95, which is an increase of
303 since 1992-93 and 452 since 1990-91.
EFE provides students with a progression of career development and program choices within the
overall system. The system components include:
ș
ș
●
șCareer guidance—Major emphasis is placed on career guidance, which starts with career awareness
activities in elementary school. In the 8th grade, guidance counselors meet with students to help them
develop a four-year Educational Development Plan (EDP), which the students update annually until they
graduate. Every 8th grader is also given the opportunity to visit the local community college (Kalamazoo
Valley Community College), where they learn about broad career alternatives from faculty and business
and industry representatives. The counselors receive extensive training in career counseling and meet
together monthly as a single group across the nine school districts to discuss problems and issues,
“Mentorship’’–ln the 10th grade, students have the opportunity to job-shadow for a half day with a vol-
unteer from a local company. By the end of the 10th grade, students choose a career cluster as part of
their EDP. Growth in this component of the EFE program has reached the point where 757 students, or
about 45 percent of all 10th grade students in the county, had mentorships in 1994-95.
Worksite-based education—Over 216 students participated in worksite-based education programs in
1994-95. These programs, which start in the 11th grade, are conducted at the site of a local employer.
Programs were offered in health, law enforcement, hospitality, and plastics during 1994-95, In 1995-96, a
new program will be added in paper technology. The model for these worksite-based programs is pro-
vided by the Health Occupations. In the Health Occupations, classroom space and supporting instruc-
tors are provided by the Borgess and Bronson Hospitals, but the lead instructors are selected and
trained by EFE. The first year combines two hours per day of intensive academic study and core skills
learning with ten job-shadowing experiences. The academic subject matter is taught to emphasize
health applications—for example, each physiological system studied (the circulatory system) is accom-
panied by training in a diagnostic procedure (taking blood pressure). In the second year, students
choose a more specific occupational area within the health field. They spend three days a week working
for an employer in an unpaid, year-long externship and two days a week in classes at the offsite facility.
Students may then chose to continue on for a third year at the postsecondary level.
Cooperative education—Approximately 160 of the 1,887 students enrolled in school-based, career-tech-
nical education programs participate in paid, cooperative education with 102 different employers in
1994-95 in grades 11 and 12. Most of these are technical programs, including tech-prep options that
allow students to continue with their career preparation at the postsecondary level.
(continued)

82 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Cooperative education in Cincinnati was begun in 1906 by the dean of engineering at the Univer-
sity of Cincinnati. It spread to the Ohio College of Applied Science (OCAS) in 1937 and to Cincinnati
State and Community College in the late 1960s. For students in the associate degree programs of these
two institutions, participation in co-op is required. There are two patterns: the “alternating model, ” in
which a student goes to school for a 10- to 13-week term and then works for an employer for the same
length of time, repeating the cycle two to six times, and the “parallel model, “ in which the student splits
the day between school and work.
Co-op is ingrained in the culture of the colleges, employers, and community. “They have had
close to 100 years to practice, ” says one college coordinator, “and consequently the community is used
to the Idea. ” The Cincinnati economy is robust and diversified, but retains a strong engineering and
manufacturing base.
Many employers in Cincinnati view co-op as a major way of “growing their own new people. ” In
the words of one manager, co-op helps companies avoid “hiring mistakes” and teaches students the
technical knowledge and work skills specific to a business. Co-op placements improve students’ re-
sumes and enable students see first hand whether they like the companies. Many companies in Cincin-
nati are so eager to get co-op students that they aggressively recruit them on the college campuses.
Employers know that if they do not provide good-quality jobs with good learning opportunities,
they will not be able to compete for the best students. The students learn where the best placements
are by talking among themselves. The community college coordinators know that if they do not provide
students who are well prepared, the employers will rapidly lose interest.
Employers tend to hire their co-op students as permanent workers when they graduate. More
than 93 percent of OCAS students have found employment within 10 weeks of graduation, most of them
with their co-op employer. Based on the size of graduating classes and the labor market, a plausible
estimate is that co-op students account for about one-third of all new hires at the subbaccalaureate
level in the Cincinnati area. In many companies, a substantial proportion of all employees are former
co-op students. As a result, most people understand and are familiar with co-op—and this familiarity
helps to perpetuate the demand for co-op students.
Co-op is sustained by an informal culture of close working relationships between the employers
and college coordinators. They stay in constant touch with each other over issues of screening and
matching students for placements, the changing needs of employers, the progress of individual stu-
dents, and the need for changes in the college curriculum.
This whole system is maintained without wage subsidies or any other inducements for employers,
and without any formal or regulatory apparatus, such as formal contracts, skill standards, or a local
regulatory organization. The only external incentive that is operating benefits the colleges rather than
the employers; state policies allow colleges to continue receiving state formula aid while students are at
the worksite. That is the greatest lesson of the Cincinnati case: that work-based learning can be accom-
plished at the post-secondary level, under the right conditions, without external incentives for employer
participation. These conditions are a strong commitment to high-quality occupational preparation by the
educational institutions; a stable funding source for the activities of the co-op coordinators; a parallel
commitment by employers, particularly when they are committed to “grow your own” programs; and a
consistency between the work-based and school-based components created by ongoing interaction
between educators and employers.
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 21

80 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Although 1,271 students and 792 employers in
the Kalamazoo area were involved in some form
of work-based learning in 1994-95, only about
312 of these students and 180 of the employers
were participating in cooperative education or
what are called externships, where an appreciableamount of time is spent in workplaces. These 312
students constitute only 7 percent of all 11th- and
12th-graders in the county. Most of the other stu-
dents and employers were involved in job-shad-
owing experiences that occur in the 10th grade andlast for only a few hours (see box 6-3).
Much of the numerical growth in employer in-
volvement in work-based learning in Kalamazoo
over the past two years—from a total of 403 em-
ployers in 1992-93 to 792 in 1994-95—has been
in these job-shadowing experiences. The number
of outside employers involved in the externshipsand cooperative education has remained about the
same or increased slightly.
A total of four full-time-equivalent staff mem-
bers are employed to recruit employers for both
the job shadowing and externship activities. All ofthe student placements in these externships are
unpaid (27).
Another example of a school-to-work transi-
tion program that has achieved substantial success
in recruiting employers for work-based learning is
the well-known ProTech Youth Apprenticeship
program in Boston, Massachusetts. Since the1970s, the Boston Private Industry Council (PIC)
has created the Boston Jobs Collaborative and the
Boston Compact, served as the governing board
for the administration of Job Training Partnership
Act programs in the city, and launched a numberof citywide human resources development strate-
gies. The PIC launched ProTech in 1991 and has
worked aggressively ever since to expand it (23).
ProTech started with five employers in one sector
(all hospitals) and 75 students. By 1992, the pro-
gram had gained only one employer, but the num-
ber of students had increased to 108. By the1994-95 school year, ProTech had 21 employers
in three industry sectors (health, finance, and utili-
ties and communications) employing 375 stu-
dents. The overall average growth rates for
participation between 1992 and 1994 were there-fore 7.5 employers per year and about 135 stu-
dents per year. ProTech’s goal is to increase the
number of participating employers to 100 within
three or four years (23).
Most of the employers involved in ProTech are
large, so the number of students placed with eachadditional employer has been considerably great-
er than average. Progress in increasing student
involvement for a new ProTech program in envi-
ronmental services has been slower because the
companies are small and each takes only onestudent. Despite ProTech’s fast growth, the 375
students currently receiving work-based learning
represent only 6 percent of the 6,600 juniors and
seniors in the Boston public high school system (8).
The recruitment of employers for ProTech has
required considerable effort. Employers rarely
volunteer to participate; they have to be persuadedto do so. The PIC’s industry coordinator, who is
primarily responsible for employer recruitment, is
a retired banker, whose private-sector background
gives him influence with employers. Fourteen
“career specialists” spend part of their time assist-ing the industry coordinator with employer re-
cruitment. The career specialists also coordinate
student placements with participating ProTech
employers, visit each student regularly, and pro-
vide troubleshooting and technical assistance.
Recruitment initially involves meeting with the
chief executive officers of a selected group ofcompanies in an industry sector and familiarizing
them with the ProTech program. These meetings
are typically followed by meetings with individu-
al companies to answer questions, persuade, ob-
tain commitments to participate, and agree on thenumber of slots to be provided. In recruiting em-
ployers, the PIC draws on the relationships that it
has built with employers through the Boston
Compact and other initiatives. Despite these con-
tacts, ProTech has needed at least the equivalent of
one full-time employee—if not more—to recruit
the 7.5 new employers per year.
To determine the level of effort devoted to em-
ployer recruitment in the 15 programs surveyed
by OTA, the coordinators were asked to report the
total amount of staff time spent on employer re-
cruitment in full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 81
years. Not including the Kalamazoo response, the
coordinators reported using a mean of 0.47 FTE
year of staff time per annum to recruit employers
(23). Including the 4 FTEs spent on recruiting in
Kalamazoo would increase this average to 1.15
FTEs. Eleven of the program coordinators re-ported spending between 0.2 and 0.8 FTE year of
staff time per year on the task.
In summary, an average of at least one-half FTE
year of staff time has been required in school-to-
work programs to recruit half a dozen employersper year and to provide about a dozen additional
students with work-based learning experiences.
Some programs have done considerably better
than this, but some have found it even harder to re-
cruit.
Ultimately, the goal must be to increase student
participation in work-based learning. Strategical-ly, there are at least three possible ways to do this:
to increase the number of student placements per
employer, to increase the number of employers
per industry area, and to increase the number of in-
dustry areas per school-to-work transition system.Growth may be easier to achieve in some of these
ways than in others.
According to OTA’s survey, the median number
of students per employer in work-based learning
programs is two, and this number is apparently
difficult to increase even marginally. An average
of about two was found by Lynn and Wills forcooperative education (34). MDRC said that most
employers take “less than three” placements (40).
Attracting larger employers would increase this
rate, but the number of larger employers in a com-
munity is typically limited. In the OTA survey,employers with more than 300 employees pro-
vided placements for an average of 20 students
each, whereas employers with fewer than 40 em-
ployees placed, on average, only 1.7 students
each. But nationwide, fewer than 1 percent of
firms employ more than 250 people, and about 50
percent employ between 20 and 250 employees.
3”HIGH-QUALITY EQUILIBRIUM”
IN CINCINNATI
One city where work-based learning has succeed-
ed, at least at the postsecondary level, is Cincin-nati, Ohio. Work-based learning operates
extensively and with little government involve-
ment, as described in box 6-4. Both two-year col-
leges in the area and the University of Cincinnati
offer co-op. A large number of employers provideco-op placements. This situation has created a
“high-quality equilibrium” in which there is com-
petition among colleges for good work place-
ments and between employers for good students.
This competition serves to maintain high stan-
dards: The colleges make a great effort to prepare
students for the work-based assignments andmatch them well with employers’ needs, and em-
ployers strive to provide good learning opportuni-
ties.
The Cincinnati experience shows that once
cooperative education is up and running, incen-tives can exist for employers to continue partici-
pating, but it does not show how such incentives
can be created in areas where work-based learning
is currently rare. Once cooperative education be-
comes a mainstream recruitment method, compa-
nies have incentives to continue participating
because it provides them with access to a goodsource of the best students. The fact that coopera-
tive education has continued at a high level for a
long time in Cincinnati indicates that these incen-
tives are self-sustaining. The only external sup-
port for employer participation is provided by
state policies that allow the colleges to receive the
same formula aid per student whether a student isenrolled or at the worksite. In effect, this provides
state support for the connecting activities of the
co-op coordinators in the colleges.
3 Unpublished data from the Covered Employment and Wages Program of the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Firm
is defined in these data as a set of one or more business establishments sharing a single federal Employer Identification Number.

82 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Cooperative education in Cincinnati was begun in 1906 by the dean of engineering at the Univer-
sity of Cincinnati. It spread to the Ohio College of Applied Science (OCAS) in 1937 and to Cincinnati
State and Community College in the late 1960s. For students in the associate degree programs of these
two institutions, participation in co-op is required. There are two patterns: the “alternating model, ” in
which a student goes to school for a 10- to 13-week term and then works for an employer for the same
length of time, repeating the cycle two to six times, and the “parallel model, “ in which the student splits
the day between school and work.
Co-op is ingrained in the culture of the colleges, employers, and community. “They have had
close to 100 years to practice, ” says one college coordinator, “and consequently the community is used
to the Idea. ” The Cincinnati economy is robust and diversified, but retains a strong engineering and
manufacturing base.
Many employers in Cincinnati view co-op as a major way of “growing their own new people. ” In
the words of one manager, co-op helps companies avoid “hiring mistakes” and teaches students the
technical knowledge and work skills specific to a business. Co-op placements improve students’ re-
sumes and enable students see first hand whether they like the companies. Many companies in Cincin-
nati are so eager to get co-op students that they aggressively recruit them on the college campuses.
Employers know that if they do not provide good-quality jobs with good learning opportunities,
they will not be able to compete for the best students. The students learn where the best placements
are by talking among themselves. The community college coordinators know that if they do not provide
students who are well prepared, the employers will rapidly lose interest.
Employers tend to hire their co-op students as permanent workers when they graduate. More
than 93 percent of OCAS students have found employment within 10 weeks of graduation, most of them
with their co-op employer. Based on the size of graduating classes and the labor market, a plausible
estimate is that co-op students account for about one-third of all new hires at the subbaccalaureate
level in the Cincinnati area. In many companies, a substantial proportion of all employees are former
co-op students. As a result, most people understand and are familiar with co-op—and this familiarity
helps to perpetuate the demand for co-op students.
Co-op is sustained by an informal culture of close working relationships between the employers
and college coordinators. They stay in constant touch with each other over issues of screening and
matching students for placements, the changing needs of employers, the progress of individual stu-
dents, and the need for changes in the college curriculum.
This whole system is maintained without wage subsidies or any other inducements for employers,
and without any formal or regulatory apparatus, such as formal contracts, skill standards, or a local
regulatory organization. The only external incentive that is operating benefits the colleges rather than
the employers; state policies allow colleges to continue receiving state formula aid while students are at
the worksite. That is the greatest lesson of the Cincinnati case: that work-based learning can be accom-
plished at the post-secondary level, under the right conditions, without external incentives for employer
participation. These conditions are a strong commitment to high-quality occupational preparation by the
educational institutions; a stable funding source for the activities of the co-op coordinators; a parallel
commitment by employers, particularly when they are committed to “grow your own” programs; and a
consistency between the work-based and school-based components created by ongoing interaction
between educators and employers.
SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 21

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 83
MAJOR BENEFITS INFLUENCING
EMPLOYERS’ DECISIONSTO PARTICIPATE
While cases such as Boston, Cincinnati, and Kala-
mazoo indicate that success can be achieved, they
do not provide much systematic knowledge of the
underlying reasons for employers’ decisions to
participate in work-based learning. Knowledge ofthese reasons is needed to develop more effective
strategies for expanding employer involvement
that can be reliably employed in different commu-
nity contexts. If strategies cannot be found that are
significantly more effective than those currently
being employed in most communities, the extent
of work-based learning in school-to-work transi-tion systems will remain extremely limited. An
important policy issue is whether external induce-
ments beyond persuasion and coordinating assis-
tance will be needed.
A general framework for understanding em-
ployers’ reasons for participating in work-based
learning can be constructed by identifying the
benefits of and barriers to participation. Presum-
ably, employers will participate only up to the
point at which the costs of overcoming the
associated barriers are perceived to be less than the
value of the benefits received. In this section, thebenefits perceived by employers are analyzed; in
the next section, the barriers are considered.
Broadly speaking, work-based learning pro-
vides participating employers with two main
benefits: to contribute to the improvement of edu-
cation and the community and to recruit new
personnel. Employers’ specific reasons for con-tributing to the improvement of education and the
community can range from altruism and philan-
thropy to public relations or other self-interested
goals. In recruiting new personnel, companies may
similarly be motivated primarily by their ownneeds for new workers, or by goals of working col-
lectively with other companies to expand the pool
of workers available to their whole industry.
It is important to distinguish among these altru-
istic, self-interested, and collective motivationsfor employer involvement in work-based learning
because of their implications for the extent to
which the government may need to be involved in
the development of work-based learning and to
provide external inducements to recruit employ-
ers on the scale envisaged in STWOA (2). If mostemployers participate in work-based learning pri-
marily for philanthropic reasons of improving
education and the community, the prospects for
the future expansion of work-based learning are
much dimmer than if they are motivated primarilyby collective or self-interested needs for recruiting
new personnel.
To gauge the relative importance of these dif-
ferent benefits and motivations, the OTA survey
asked current and former employers to respond to
a single, randomly ordered list of possible reasons
for their participation in work-based learning.(Paraphrased versions of the actual statements are
shown in table 6-2.) Employers were asked to re-
spond in two different ways: to select the “stron-
gest benefit” (most important) of work-based
learning among all of the factors listed, and to rateeach factor as either a “primary benefit,” “strong
benefit,” “minor benefit,” or “not a benefit” of
work-based learning. The first response method
provides the clearest estimate of the relative im-
portance of the factors, whereas the second pro-
vides information about secondary choices.
zImprovement of Education and the
Community
It is often suggested that most employers who
work with educators and students do so primarily
out of a sense of civic duty (2). Lynn and Wills
show that, among employers who are currently
participating in cooperative education, more than70 percent “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree”
that they participate in order to perform a commu-
nity service (34). Pauly and associates reached
similar conclusions in MDRC’s study of 15
school-to-work transition programs (40). Neither
of these studies assessed the relative importance

84 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Percent of employers selecting:
as a strong or as the strongest
Benefit primary benefit benefit
Employee recruitment 60 66
Concern about current or future skill shortages in industry 85 15
Opportunity to train future employees (for the company) 77 15
Need for higher-skilled entry-level workers 81 12
Current labor shortage 51 10
Opportunity to attract minorities to the company 47 6
Reduced costs from screening of potential employees 39 4
Opportunity to attract young workers for aging workforce 58 3
Opportunity to observe or try out potential employees 60 1
Opportunity to attract women to the organization 42 0
Desire to contribute to effort supported by other employers 62 0
Education and community improvement 76 25
Concern about the quality of education 77 7
Desire to become involved in school improvement 86 7
Creation of goodwill in the community toward the company 64 4
Opportunity to “network” with schools 73 3
Opportunity to invest in the community 82 3
Contribution to company’s positive image in the community 74 1
Otherc— 10
NOTE: There were a total of 54 usable responses from current employers and 19 from former employers (Percentages may not sum to 100 due to
rounding )
a
The figures shown are the percentages of employers’ ratings in which the benefit was selected as being of “strong” or “primary” rather than of “no”
or “little” importance to their participation.b
The figures shown are the percentages of current and former employers who selected the benefit as the most important to their participation in
work-based learning.
c
Employers could select “Other” rather than a specific item from the list read to them.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 23
that participating employers place on the commu-
nity service in comparison with recruitment goals,
or explored the underlying motivations of em-
ployers for participating.
In OTA’s survey, nearly two-thirds chose re-
cruitment goals as their most important reason for
participating, while only one-quarter chose
educational and community improvement goals.
At the same time, about three-fourths said that
educational and improvement goals were a“strong” or “primary” benefit of work-based
learning, and somewhat fewer said that recruit-
ment goals are a “strong” or “primary” benefit.4
OTA interprets these two sets of responses to
mean that recruitment is the most important bene-
fit of employers who are currently involved in
work-based learning or have been involved in the
past, but that improvement of education and the
community also are quite important.
4
The percentage of employers rating each of these goals as a strong or primary benefit was measured by computing an index consisting of
the total number of factors rated by employers as a strong or primary benefit divided by the total number of ratings.

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 85
Employers also report that doing their civic
duty redounds to their own interests to a certain
extent. Current and former employers believe that
their public image and community relations are
improved by participating in work-based learn-
ing, but they attach much less importance to suchbenefits than to the more altruistic reasons for par-
ticipating. This is indicated by the results in table
6-2 showing that 17 percent of companies cited al-
truistic reasons related to education and the com-
munity improvement as the most importantbenefit of participation while only 5 percent cited
“creation of goodwill in the community” and
“contribution to the company’s positive image in
the community.”
5 Employers also rated these lat-
ter two factors as “primary” or “strong” benefits
about half as often as they did the more altruistic
reasons for participation.
It is possible, of course, that employers tend to
underrepresent their interest in public relations
and to overrepresent their altruism when answer-
ing a survey questionnaire.
It can be argued that employers’ concern about
the quality of education and desire to become in-
volved in school improvement are also self-inter-
ested. This would be so if they see their
involvement as a good way of eventually improv-
ing the quality of entry-level workers available to
them in the labor market. However, the link be-
tween improving schools and actually being ableto hire better-qualified workers is long and indi-
rect, and the success would benefit many employ-
ers in a community and not just those who
participate.
OTA’s survey also allows some comparison of
the extent to which current and former employers
differ in their views of the importance of contrib-
uting to the improvement of education and the
community. Although the number of former em-
ployers in OTA’s sample is not large, the data
show that former employers consider recruitment
goals to be significantly more important than cur-rent employers do, and that they rate improvementof education and the community as far less impor-
tant. Whereas 30 percent of current employers
consider philanthropic goals as the most impor-tant benefit of work-based learning, only 10 per-
cent of former employers do. This suggests that
employers who drop out of work-based learning
programs after once participating place somewhat
higher priority on the economic benefits of work-based learning for their own company than do em-
ployers who continue to provide placements.
There are at least three implications of the find-
ing that self-interested goals of recruitment are
more important to employers—but not greatlyso—than philanthropic goals of improving educa-
tion and the community:
1. The finding offers more hope for the future ex-
pansion of employer participation than would
be the case if goals of improving education and
the community predominated. The number of
yet unapproached employers who would be
willing to participate in work-based learningfor philanthropic reasons only is likely to be
small, at least relative to the number of employ-
ers that will be needed to provide work-based
learning to substantial numbers of students.
The number who will be willing to participate
if work-based learning provides both philan-
thropic and practical business benefits shouldbe larger.
2. Whether employers view the benefits of per-
sonnel recruitment alone as greater than their
perceived costs of participation cannot be de-
termined from the OTA survey. If they do not,the only employers who might participate are
those who also value the civic improvement
benefits of work-based learning.
3. The finding suggests that, initially at least,
strategies of employer recruitment should bedirected at convincing employers of both the
opportunity for personnel recruitment and for
contributing to community improvement that
work-based learning offers. This dual appeal
5 An additional 3 percent cited “opportunity to ‘network’ with schools.”

86 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
could be one important aspect of “building a
partnership” for work-based learning between
educators and employers.
zRecruitment Needs
Just as employers may have philanthropic or self-
interested motives for wanting to improve educa-tion and the community, their reasons for
recruitment can be either self-interested or collec-
tively oriented, toward expanding the pool of
qualified workers available to their industry. The
distinction is important because if employers are
interested only in recruiting personnel for their
own companies, they may be less willing to par-ticipate in work-based learning where they are en-
gaged in a cooperative effort.
An example of collective support is the Wis-
consin youth apprenticeship in printing. Printing
is a large and growing industry in Wisconsin; thisgrowth has created a need for more printing assis-
tants and other technical personnel who can
install, operate, and maintain the increasingly so-
phisticated equipment coming into the industry.
In response, leaders in the printing industry
formed a consortium involving several compa-
nies, local school systems, and community col-leges. The companies first established skill
standards, identifying the capabilities required to
enter the industry. Then the responsibility for pro-
viding the training necessary to develop these ca-
pabilities was divided up among the companies,school systems, and community colleges in-
volved, so that the supply of trained people and the
costs are proportionately shared. The students get
to see several companies and colleges in the
course of their apprenticeships and the companies
get to see many different students. Large compa-
nies no longer have to be concerned about losttraining costs due to turnover because a sufficient
worker supply is maintained within the industry.
The collective benefits are clear in this situation,
where each company, especially smaller ones,
could not support such comprehensive training on
its own (53).Recruiting High-Skilled Workers
Of all the different recruitment factors listed in
table 6-2, those concerning current or future skill
needs are rated as most important. The four most
frequently cited motives were: “concern about fu-
ture skill shortages in the industry,” an “opportu-
nity to train future employees (for the company),”
a “need for higher-skilled entry-level workers,”
and a need to meet “current labor shortage.” Threeof those factors refer to companies’ individual
needs for personnel, and the fourth refers to the
needs of the industry as a whole. In addition, em-
ployers’ “desire to contribute to effort supported
by other employers” ranked last (it was not se-lected by any employers). In general, employers
apparently see less value in joining with other
companies to recruit new personnel for their in-
dustry than they do in proceeding on their own.
Some indication of the reason for this finding is
also evident in the results in table 6-2. Few em-
ployers see the opportunities to screen potentialemployees or to try them out before hiring them to
be important benefits of participation, despite the
associated reduction in training costs. More see
the opportunities for training future employees
and meeting skill needs as the most importantbenefit. This suggests that reduced training costs,
one of the main potential advantages of collective
approaches to training, apparently do not figure
very prominently in employers’ analyses of the
benefits of work-based learning. Research might
be done on what employers’ collection efforts
might achieve.
Recruiting Minorities and Women
Only 6 percent of employers cited the recruitment
of minorities as being their chief reason for in-
volvement in work-based learning, but more than40 percent rated such recruitment as a strong or
primary benefit of work-based learning. Although
no employer rated the recruitment of women as
the most important reason for participating in
work-based learning, it was rated as a strong or
primary benefit by about the same percentage.

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 87
Several of the Cincinnati employers inter-
viewed by OTA said that they rely solely on coop-
erative education for college recruitment of
permanent hires, and clearly stated that they use
cooperative education for diversifying their work
forces. As one Cincinnati employer said, “Co-opgives us the competitive edge in recruiting in that
we identify people early on, especially minorities
and females: We’re going to identify them in their
freshmen or sophomore year and not wait.
They’re not going to be there as seniors to recruit(if we wait).”
Recruiting Low-Cost Labor
Most studies indicate that some employers are
motivated primarily by the desire to fill part-time
positions at low wages. Lynn and Wills found that
more than 25 percent of employers interviewed
were “quite forthright” in saying that cooperative
education was a way to fill part-time positions
with good, low-paid workers (34).
It can also be the case that components of both
high and lower quality work-based learning exist
side-by-side within the same program. In the low-
er quality component, students’ learning experi-
ences are oriented more to production, while in thehigher quality component they are oriented more
to student learning and development. Cincinnati
provides an example of this. There is some evi-
dence from the OTA case study that the quality of
the work-based learning in the “alternating” mode
of cooperative education in Cincinnati, where stu-
dents alternate between school and work from onequarter to the next, is higher than in the “parallel”
mode, where students spend half a day in school
and half in the workplace. Employers in the paral-
lel mode are more likely to view placements as a
source of efficient labor for production, and to
provide fewer structured learning experiences.
Employers in the alternating mode are more likelyto view the cooperative education students as fu-
ture workers for the company, and to provide them
with supporting educational activities and job
rotation. In effect, there may be two equilibria
alongside each other in Cincinnati, one of higherquality than the other (21).MAJOR BARRIERS INFLUENCING
EMPLOYERS’ DECISIONSTO PARTICIPATE
In deciding whether to participate in work-based
learning, employers weigh the benefits of partici-
pation against the costs of overcoming the
associated barriers. These barriers can be clus-
tered into the following categories:

economic uncertainty , attributable to slow-
downs in the local economy or changes in a
company’s business fortunes that limit the
availability of jobs;

training costs, which include any student
wages paid and the valuation of the time spent
by supervisors and mentors planning work-
based learning activities and working with the
students;

organizational resistance to work-based learn-
ing within the company from management or
other employees;

regulatory restrictions and extra insurance
costs, which include child labor and safety laws
and general liability and worker’s compensa-
tion insurance;

lack of support from the work-based learning
program and difficulties in working with the
programs and school systems; and

inadequate preparation of students for work-
based learning placements.
The main finding from OTA’s survey is that all
of these barriers are of roughly equal importance
to employers. As shown in the right-hand columnof table 6-3, none of the six barriers appears to pre-
dominate or to be clearly less important than the
others. The only possible exception is regulatory
restrictions and insurance costs, which were re-
ported as least important by employers.
This finding implies that no policy narrowly
targeted at one of these barriers would substantial-
ly affect the growth of employer participation in
work-based learning. This finding is consistent
with the STWOA strategy of expanding employer
participation by building partnerships, which in-

88 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Percent of employers selecting:
as a strong or as the strongest
Barrier primary barriera
barrierb
Economic uncertainty 23 9
Slowdown in local economy
Downsizing or restructuring within the company
Training costs
Wages of supervisors or mentors to operate a program
Employee staff time required to plan and start the program
Loss of newly trained employees
Student wages paid
Resistance from within the company
Lack of top management support
Opposition of employees
Opposition of union
Regulatory restrictions and insurance costs
Worker’s compensation insurance
Child labor law regulations
Safety regulations
General liability insurance
Lack of support from the work-based learning program
Lack of technical assistance and troubleshooting support
Unreliable scheduling of student placements
Inflexibility of work-based learning program model
Bureaucracy of school system or work-based learning program
Poor quality of young workers 16
Unreliability
Low skills or productivity
Otherc— 1412
12
9
13
917
14
6
23
NOTE: There were a total of 54 usable responses from current employers and 19 from former employers. (Percentages may not sum to 100 due to
rounding.)
a
The figures shown are the percentages of employers’ ratings in which the barrier was selected as being of “strong” or “primary” rather than of “no”
or “little” importance to their participation.b
The figures shown are the percentages of current and former employers who selected the barrier as the most important to their participation in
work-based learning.
c
Employers could select “Other” rather than a specific item from the list read to them.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; based on reference 23..
volves developing several aspects of the relation- ❚ Economic Uncertainty
ship between employers and schools over a period Economic uncertainty is a barrier to work-based
of time. States, employers, and school-to-work learning when either general economic hard
transition programs in local communities could times, falling product demand, or internal changes
each take steps to lower some or all of these barriers.

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 89
(such as restructuring) reduce the possibilities of
companies offering work-based learning opportu-
nities to students. Although economic uncertainty
is rated in the OTA survey as the chief barrier to
work-based learning by only 9 percent of employ-
ers, it is rated as a strong or primary factor by morethan 23 percent of them (see table 6-3). This is a
higher proportion than was reported for any of the
five other groups of factors. This implies that eco-
nomic uncertainty may be a more important sec-
ondary barrier to employer participation inwork-based learning than all others, in the same
way that improving education and the community
was found to be nearly as important a benefit of
employer participation as recruitment. Employ-
ers’ ratings of the importance of this factor are
likely to vary greatly over time as business condi-
tions change.
The National Center on the Educational Quali-
ty of the Workforce found that companies, particu-
larly older and larger ones experiencing the most
downsizing, were uninterested in any youth ap-
prenticeship initiative that might divert attentionfrom the immediate task of making their enter-
prises leaner and more concentrated on their mar-
ket strengths (54). In the DIR survey, “job
availability” was ranked as the most important of
the financial barriers (49). In the federal Youth En-
titlement Demonstration Program, which guaran-
teed disadvantaged young people a job if theystayed in school and offered wage subsidies to em-
ployers to provide jobs, more than 40 percent of
the employers who refused to participate reported
that they did so because they lacked jobs (3).
In European countries where large school-to-
work systems are part of the “social partnerships”
that exist, governments increase subsidies to em-
ployers in times of economic downturn, and em-
ployers tacitly agree to maintain or even to
increase the number of work-based learning
placements available at such times (19). In Ger-
many, apprenticeship slots in the Handwerk sector
are increased when employers in the commercial
sector are unable to take as many apprentices (44).
The partnerships between schools and employ-
ers encouraged in STWOA could serve similar
purposes. Indeed, they have done so in the case ofProTech. When student placements were threat-
ened by hospital restructuring, most of the slots
were restored following conversations between
ProTech and hospital administrators.
zTraining Costs
Training costs include the direct costs of wages
paid to students during training and the costs of
providing them with the training they receive. In
the case of work-based learning, these latter costs
include the wages paid to supervisors, mentors,
and any other employees who spend time plan-ning and managing the work-based learning pro-
gram or providing instruction.
Supervision Costs
Supervision costs include time spent by supervi-
sors guiding the work of students and time spent
by mentors in counseling and assisting the stu-
dents. The main distinction between supervisors
and mentors is that supervisors have responsibil-
ity for managing and assessing students’ perfor-mance as part of the work-based learning
program, whereas mentors advise students on per-
sonal and job-related matters (27). Often these
tasks overlap.
Finding or developing worksite personnel who
have the necessary management, teaching, and
counseling skills presents a challenge for work-
based learning programs (27). Performing these
tasks for high school students is very different
from working with older entry-level workers, be-
cause often the students are being introduced to
the adult world and the work of the company at thesame time. Conflicts between the production re-
sponsibilities of the worksite personnel and the
need to train or mentor the students are inevitable
(40). Some of these supervision costs may be
borne by individual employees. One worksite su-pervisor interviewed by Policy Studies Associates
said that “my boss doesn’t pat me on the back,” ad-
ding that her work with ProTech did not come up
in her performance review (23).
Program Start-up and Management Cost
A related category of costs is the time spent by em-
ployer staff in planning a work-based learning

90 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
program, getting it organized and started, and
managing it on a continuing basis. Many deci-
sions have to be made about how students will be
selected and matched with positions, what the
content of their learning experiences will be, who
will be responsible for any instruction that is pro-vided, and how mentors and supervisors will be
selected and trained.
Another time-consuming task is developing in-
dividual student learning plans, which are used in
some programs to structure each student’s work-based learning experience and its relationship
with school-based activities. The plans typically
specify the student’s learning objectives and the
methods used to assess achievement (27). Each
plan has to be tailored to the individual student
and the individual employer.
Six participating employers in the Craftsman-
ship 2000 youth apprenticeship program in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, spent more than a year planning and
deciding on the core curriculum for a four-year
program in machining (40). Early on, the six com-
panies discovered that they had six very differentdefinitions of what they wanted.
ProTech gives potential employers an “em-
ployee involvement sheet” that outlines the “base-
line” commitment required to implement the
program. This minimum, not accounting for any
student supervision or mentoring, is estimated to
be 65 hours per year of employer staff time.
Student Wages
Student wages are one component of trainingcosts, especially the portion paid during time de-
voted to learning rather than productive activity.
One source reports that the students who are paid
receive $5 to $8 per hour (27). Thirty-seven per-
cent of the students served in the 15 programs sur-
veyed by OTA are unpaid (23).
Work-based learning practitioners generally
estimate supervision and management cost to be
much greater than the cost of student wages. The
first indication of this view came from discussions
in a focus group of employers involved in several
well-known youth apprenticeship projects, which
was conducted by the National Alliance of Busi-ness (38). The participants reported that the most
expensive element of youth apprenticeship was
the time supervisors spend planning and the time
“front-line workers” spend as mentors for stu-
dents. OTA was unable to locate analyses based on
actual accounting to verify these costs.
Employers in the OTA survey ranked supervi-
sor and staff time as having essentially the same
cost as loss of newly trained workers. The em-
ployers surveyed by DIR rated student wages as
the least important of eight financial costs consid-ered, including supervision and program planning
(49). Eighty-six percent of employers in the DIR
survey said that student wages were of “little or
no” importance to their decisions to participate in
work-based learning. In comparison, 60 percent
said that supervision costs and time were of “little
or no importance.” Evaluators of the Departmentof Labor’s In-School Youth Apprenticeship Pro-
gram concluded that the subsidy of $2,100 per stu-
dent offered to employers had little effect on their
willingness to participate (18). On the whole, em-
ployers were more attracted by the program’s em-phasis on screening and training of entry-level
workers than by the subsidies offered.
Effectiveness of Training Cost Subsidies
There is a widely held opinion among experts in
the United States that financial incentives in-
tended to reduce training costs would have little
effect on employers’ participation in work-based
learning. To support this conclusion, some ob-
servers cite the negative experience with usingwage incentives in federal programs to encourage
employers to hire out-of-school youths or eco-
nomically disadvantaged workers (1). As dis-
cussed below, however, there are some reasons to
be skeptical about this inference concerning work-
based learning, and some evidence directly from
work-based learning programs suggests that fi-nancial incentives may be effective.
Evaluation results generally show that federal
tax incentives have not significantly affected the
hiring or training decisions of employers (4). Sev-
eral studies of the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit pro-
gram show that employers use most of the credits

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 91
to pay the salaries of people who would have been
hired anyway. According to one of these evalua-
tions, 70 percent of workers for whom credits are
claimed would have been hired even without the
subsidy (7). In the Youth Entitlement Demonstra-
tion mentioned earlier, the proportion of employ-ers willing to provide jobs for disadvantaged
youth increased from only 5 percent to 18 percent
when the wage subsidy was doubled from 50 per-
cent to 100 percent (3). However, these young
people were identified as being disadvantaged bythe fact that they were eligible for the subsidies,
and may have been stigmatized as a result. The un-
favorable response of employers to job applicants
who are eligible for government programs serving
disadvantaged people has been shown in a con-
trolled experiment in Dayton, Ohio, where em-
ployers proved to be significantly less likely tohire disadvantaged workers when they knew that
the workers were eligible for a generous wage sub-
sidy (11).
The implications of these evaluation results for
work-based learning are unclear. It is dangerous togeneralize from employers’ responses to wage in-
centives for one population group and purpose to
other populations and purposes. For example, the
evaluation evidence suggests that employers’ re-
sponse to wage incentives targeted on disadvan-
taged groups is related to their unfavorable
perceptions of that population. Work-based learn-ing under STWOA is not targeted at disadvan-
taged students.
The lack of employers’ enthusiasm for wage in-
centives in federal programs may also partly re-
flect their fears of becoming embroiled in red tape.Once the government grants tax privileges, it in-
sists on inspections and imposes rules that can be
cumbersome to deal with. There is some evidence
that employers may feel that the complications in-
volved in wage incentive programs make them not
worth the effort (4).
There is also some contradictory evidence
showing that financial incentives can affect the
training behavior of employers. A new evaluation
of a state-financed program in Michigan shows
that one-time grants to employers for the trainingof incumbent workers have significantly in-
creased the amount of training provided (26).
The evidence available from research on work-
based learning programs is piecemeal but sug-
gests that financial incentives of different kinds
may be effective. One source of evidence is thesurveys of work-based learning on which this
chapter is based. The responses of employers to
some questions on these surveys indicate that they
might respond to financial incentives for work-
based learning. For example, in the DIR survey ofemployers in Texas, over 89 percent said that “tax
credits for training initiatives” would be “likely”
or “very likely” to increase youth employment op-
portunities, and more than 90 percent said that
wage subsidies would increase youth employ-
ment opportunities. Yet, this was the same group
of employers who overwhelmingly respondedthat student wages were of “little or no impor-
tance” to their participation in work-based learn-
ing.
In the OTA survey, over 55 percent of employ-
ers similarly said that tax incentives for work-based learning would be a “very important or
primary” incentive affecting their decisions to be-
come involved in work-based learning, but less
than 20 percent rated supervision and mentoring
time and student wage costs as having a “strong or
major” influence on their decisions to participate
(23).
There is also some anecdotal evidence from the
policies of school-to-work programs suggesting
that financial incentives may have a role to play.
Wage subsidies have been used in the Oakland Ca-
reer Academies program to provide short-termwork experiences for students (40). Students are
paid with special city funds or, in some cases,
funds from the Job Training Partnership Act, so
that employers have no wage costs. Employers’
responses to the summer jobs component of the
Oakland program has been very positive. Most of
the employers interviewed by MathematicaPolicy Research staff in their current study of
youth apprenticeship programs said that they
would have offered many fewer or no summer
jobs to the students, if they had had to pay wages

92 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Incentive
Training costs
Provide or support
mentor/supervisor training
Subsidize incumbent worker
training for companies that train
youth
Provide grants/vouchers for
vendor-provided training of youth
Support development of facilities to
be used by multiple firms
Wage incentives
Allow state tax credit for student
wages
Establish a training wage
Subsidize student wages
Allow state tax credit for costs of
training students
Regulatory relief or insurance
Grant child labor law exemptions
Grant worker’s compensation relief
Administrative corporation
Create administrative corporation to
pool insurance and worker’s
compensation, and administer
wagesNumber of
states
28
9
5
5
5
4
4
3
7
3
8
NOTE Fifty states plus D C responded
SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on refer-
ence 10
(43). In the Wisconsin youth apprenticeship pro-
gram in printing mentioned earlier, employers re-
ceive a 50 percent wage subsidy, which they may
keep or give to the consortium office (53). The
Siemens Corporation reduced the number of
hours that students in its youth apprenticeship
program spend at the worksite when the company
learned that an expected grant from the Depart-
ment of Labor could not be used to defray the cost
of student stipends (14). In OTA’s survey, nine of
the 54 current employers are receiving a studentwage subsidy, a subsidy for worker’s compensa-
tion, or a reimbursement for staff time spent plan-
ning or mentoring. And as noted earlier, 37
percent of the students in OTA’s sample are un-
paid, which is a clear wage incentive for employ-
ers (23).
Twelve states are also in the process of imple-
menting wage incentives of different kinds as part
of their STWOA strategies. As shown in table 6-4,
five states are implementing policies allowing tax
credits for student wages. Three states are imple-
menting policies that allow states tax credits for
training costs other than student wages—for ex-
ample, supervisor wages or mentoring time. Four
states are directly subsidizing student wages, and
four are establishing a training wage (1 O). (Sever-
al states are implementing more than one of these
wage incentives.)
The fact that 12 states are planning to imple-
ment wage incentives indicates that they have
concluded that wage costs are significant enough
to employers to influence their decisions. Ap-
propriations will be required from state legisla-
tures to implement these financial incentives.
In addition, 28 states are implementing some
form of support for supervisor and mentor train-
ing, and five states are in the process of estab-
lishing grant or voucher programs to enable
employers to purchase training for students. Some
of these policies may involve financial support,
while others may be primarily concerned with
technical or other forms of direct assistance. Five
other states are planning to support central facili-
ties for training mentors and supervisors (10).
Several states also plan to create shell corpora-
tions for the administration of wage payments to
students and the pooling of insurance, which
could reduce the administrative burdens on em-
ployers. These corporations will act like tempo-
rary agencies, paying students out of funds
received from employers. Any financial incen-
tives would then be deducted from the amounts
that employers are billed. Schools are to certify
that students are receiving the agreed-upon work-
based learning opportunities.

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 93
Not counting support for mentor training, a to-
tal of 19 states intend to implement at least one of
the training cost or wage incentives shown in table
6-4, or to create an administrative corporation.
These new state policies provide an opportuni-
ty to obtain reliable information about the effec-tiveness of incentives for work-based learning.
The best way of obtaining this information would
be to conduct an evaluation within a common
framework, allowing comparisons to be made
across the states to the extent possible. Of particu-lar interest are the relative effectiveness and the
administrative feasibility of financial incentives
directed at supervision costs in comparison to
those directed at student wages. Experimental
evaluation designs might be difficult to introduce
because they would require random assignment of
incentives, but the collection of longitudinal in-formation within a common framework of analy-
sis should prove valuable.
zRegulation and Insurance Costs
Some employers perceive federal and state child
labor and occupational safety laws as barriers to
work-based learning. Insurance costs also deter
some employers, who expect them to be higherwhen young people are employed. OTA’s survey
shows that although these barriers are of great im-
portance to some employers (6 percent selected
one of them as being the most important barrier af-
fecting their decision), most employers view themas less significant than training costs and other
types of barriers. More than 75 percent of the em-
ployers surveyed by OTA said that child labor
laws, safety regulations, and insurance costs had
no effect on their decisions to participate in work-
based learning.
DIR found that employers in Texas are divided
over the importance of the regulatory and insur-
ance cost barriers. Approximately half of the em-
ployers in the DIR survey rated child labor laws,
safety laws, worker’s compensation, and general
liability restrictions as being “highly” or “moder-
ately important,” while the other half said they
were of “little or no importance.” This is a surpris-ing finding in light of the fact that Texas has beenseverely criticized in the past for its weak child la-
bor law and enforcement (48).
Child Labor and Safety Laws
Child labor laws aim to eliminate the exploitation
of young people and to reduce their risk of injury
and death in the workplace. The laws typically re-strict the age at which a young person may be
employed (generally not under 14 years of age),
the hours per week of employment, and the types
of work that may be performed. For example, em-
ployment in manufacturing may be precluded for
persons who are under the age of 15 or up to age
18 where there is dangerous machinery. Child la-bor laws pose barriers to work-based learning
when placements are restricted without good rea-
son or when employers have a mistaken impres-
sion that jobs are precluded for people under a
certain age when in fact they are not (31). The U.S.Department of Labor and the states are gradually
changing child labor and safety regulations to al-
low more “student learning” and to facilitate rea-
sonable exceptions (49).
The evidence on the importance of child labor
laws is very mixed, which is not altogether sur-
prising considering the variety of legislation (9).Some states’ rules are stricter than federal laws,
while others are more permissive. Enforcement
of the law also varies widely between states.
Perceptions of these laws may vary between par-
ticipating and nonparticipating employers; non-participating employers in Zemsky’s focus groups
often commented on the need to change child la-
bor laws, usually to enable young people to work
longer hours (54).
Some employers in Zemsky’s focus groups
also said that the Occupational Safety and Health
Act acts as a deterrent to involvement. Companieswith more than 11 employees are required to
maintain accident records, and those with many
accidents may be inspected and fined. From dis-
cussions in focus groups of employers, DIR con-
cluded that many respondents who perceived
OSHA regulations to be a barrier thought that
there were specific provisions for youth under 18years of age. In fact, neither OSHA nor the Work-

94 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
er’s Compensation Act contains any specific pro-
visions pertaining to youth (49). In the focus
groups, other employers who were more knowl-
edgeable about the law suggested that hiring im-
mature and inexperienced young people would
jeopardize the safety of their workplaces and thusincrease the employers’ risk of being penalized by
OSHA. This view reflects a subjective aspect of
the regulatory process that may be troublesome
for work-based learning: Accidents are deemed to
be serious violations of the law when there is “asubstantial probability that a death or serious
physical harm could result and that the employer
knew, or should have known, of the hazard” (49).
For example, a co-op supervisor in one program
does not refer students under age 18 to an employ-
er who uses any hoisting equipment, because of
uncertainty regarding the employer’s liability ifthe student were involved in an accident with such
equipment (40).
Worker’s Compensation
Some employers worry that their insurance costswill increase if a student is injured on the job. Un-
der the Worker’s Compensation Act, insurancepremiums are not directly affected by the number
of minors employed in the workplace, but there is
an “experience modifier” that is heavily affected
by frequency of injuries. Rates are computed ac-
cording to a classification of the work environ-ments and this experience rating. Employers fear
that youth are more likely to injure themselves on
the job and thus negatively affect the ratings.
Small employers are the most concerned because
one accident affects their experience rating much
more than it does that of a large employer. In these
circumstances, the real barrier to work-basedlearning may not be worker’s compensation insur-
ance but employers’ lack of knowledge of the ac-
tual injury rates for young workers in their
industry and state.
General Liability Insurance
General liability insurance covers third parties
who are injured on a business’ premises or be-
come ill as the result of using that business’ prod-uct. Of those employers surveyed by DIR,
virtually the same number thought that this matter
was of no importance as thought that it was ex-
tremely important, with little opinion in between.
Whether the costs of general liability insurance
actually rise when employers participate in work-based learning, or whether some employers sim-
ply believe this, is unclear. In the same way that
inexperienced workers in an occupation are much
more at risk of injuring themselves or others, no
matter what their age, it may be that young peopleare more likely to be responsible for third-party
accidents than other workers. The real questions
are how insurance companies take the presence of
work-based-learning students into account in set-
ting rates, and whether employers know (or are
able to find out) what the effects of work-based
learning will be on their rates. DIR interviewed anumber of insurers in some depth and came to the
conclusion that it is difficult to say what their poli-
cies are with respect to the presence of youth in the
workplace.
The administrative corporations being set up in
some states to pool insurance and administer stu-
dent wages may provide a good solution to these
problems. Under an administrative corporation,
students are not legally employees of their firms
and thus the insurance rates of the firms cannot go
up. For any insurance that is needed, the corpora-
tion would have the bargaining power to com-mand good rates from insurance companies and
the resources to understand the basis for rates. The
administrative corporation could also assemble
reliable information for employers about child la-
bor law and safety regulations and make it avail-able to employers. Critics of these administrative
corporations are concerned that they could, in ef-
fect, become suppliers of low-cost temporary help
in competition with other temporary help agencies
in the community, and other workers in general.
zOrganizational Resistance
Within the Company
The decisions employers make about participa-
tion in work-based learning may also be affected
by forces internal to companies. Permanent em-

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 95
ployees sometimes resent work-based learning
students, feeling that they are being undercut by
low student wages or that the students are receiv-
ing better training opportunities (40). Lack of sup-
port from top management can also deter
employees from committing themselves to work-based learning.
What stands out in OTA’s survey results is that
these organizational barriers are much more im-
portant to former participants and nonparticipants
than to current participants. Only 8 percent of thelatter reported them as their chief barrier,
compared with 33 percent of former participants
and 42 percent of nonparticipating employers. Be-
cause of the way the questionnaire was worded,
the results are ambiguous with respect to whether
employers were citing their reasons for dropping
out of work-based learning or for deciding wheth-er to participate in the first place.
The obvious implication is that employer re-
cruitment strategies should cultivate support for
work-based learning among both top manage-
ment and other workers within the company.Some states are offering subsidies for incumbent
worker training as one means to avoid employee
concerns about work-based learning (see table
6-4).
zSupport from the Work-Based
Learning Program
The characteristics of students participating in
work-based learning and the nature of coordinat-
ing support provided to employers also are major
influences on employers’ decisions. These two
factors will be discussed together because they
both can be affected by the school side of the
work-based learning programs. Lack of supportfrom the school-based side of the work-based
learning program was ranked by 23 percent of em-
ployers as the most important barrier, while 16
percent said that student characteristics were the
major deterrent (table 6-3).
The support required by employers can be pro-
vided in many different ways. In many school-to-work transition programs, much of it is providedby a so-called connecting organization. Connect-
ing organizations are introduced to bridge what
can be a very wide gap between the schools and
the employers. The connecting organization may
be the local private industry council, the local
chamber of commerce, a nonprofit educational as-sistance organization, the regional unit of a state
school system, or a community-based organiza-
tion.
This support takes several forms. Providing
initial assistance to the employer in planning andsetting up a work-based learning program at the
worksite has already been discussed. A second
form is making sure that students are well pre-
pared for their work experiences and screening
them for placements with different kinds of em-
ployers. Some employers only require students to
have general work skills, while others expect cer-tain levels of academic and relevant technical
skills. All agree that general work preparation is
important. One program director said that when he
asked a student to confirm his appointment to job-
shadow the president of Marriott Hotels, the stu-
dent called the president, said, “Confirming my
job shadowing,” and hung up the phone. The pro-gram director commented, “We knew then that we
had some work to do” (27).
A third activity is matching students who are
ready for work experience with employers and job
placements. If the students are a good match forthe company, employer willingness to provide
placements improves. Students are usually asked
for their preferences, but the final selections are
made by the employer, the school, or the connect-
ing organization. ProTech students have two-
week rotational assignments for one semester
before they enter their placement. This system al-lows students to gain an overview of the whole en-
terprise and to make informed choices of the kind
of placement they want, thus improving their
commitment to their eventual placement. It also
allows supervisors to size up the candidates.
A fourth means of support is providing techni-
cal and troubleshooting assistance to workplacesupervisors, who may need advice on working

96 Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
Percent of employers rating
Percent of programs support as “very” or
Form of coordinating support providing this support “critically important”
Prescreen students for reliability 93 91
Troubleshoot for and offer technical assistance 93 68
Provide scheduling coordinator 80 59
Prescreen students for technical knowledge 80 46
Prescreen students for commitment to further work 80 25
NOTE: The number of employers responding was 86 and the number of programs was 15
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on reference 23.
with students or assistance if problems arise with
particular students. Two important additional ac-
tivities involve scheduling student placements.
One is coordinating the students’ and employers’
schedules so that students are in school when they
are required and in the workplace when supervi-
sors are available to work with them and can ob-
serve important work activities when they occur
(40). Another is coordinating the timing of student
placements so that employers have just the num-
ber of students they need when they need them.
On the basis of OTA’s survey, employers are
generally pleased with the support they are cur-
rently receiving from work-based learning pro-
grams but there are some problems. Although 23
percent of employers surveyed reported that lack
of coordinating support is the most important bar-
rier to work-based learning, more than 70 percent
of current and former employers ranked “lack of
technical assistance and troubleshooting support”
and “inflexibility of the program model” as not an
issue. More than 60 percent of employers sur-
veyed said that “school system bureaucracy” is
not an issue. Nearly all of the dissatisfaction that
was reported lies in the “unreliability of schedul-
ing student placements.” Employers are clearly
looking for smooth coordination of student avail-
ability for placements and dependable coordina-tion of students’ schedules with the schedules of
supervisors and other employer personnel. More
currently participating employers think that
school system bureaucracy is a problem than do
former participants and nonparticipating employ-
ers.
Employers in the OTA survey were also specif-
ically asked to rank the relative value of five dif-
ferent kinds of support from the work-based
learning program. As shown in table 6-5, employ-
ers place the greatest value on the screening of stu-
dents for “reliability.” By reliable, employers
mean students who are prompt and dependable,
work hard, take initiative, and take responsibility
for their efforts (12,54). Technical assistance and
troubleshooting support from the program are
nearly as important as student reliability. The
screening of students for post-training commit-
ment to working for the company is not given
much weight.
On the whole, employers also appear to be
pleased with the quality of students they are re-
ceiving from work-based learning programs.
More than 75 percent of the employers in OTA’s
survey reported no problems with the quality of
the preparation that students received prior to their
work experiences —which is consistent with other6
For example, Lynn and ‘illsresearch findings.
6
In OTA’s survey more than 75 percent of current and former employers reported that lack of student productivity (meaning not having the
skills necessary to be productive in the workplace) and “prior, unsuccessful experiences with students” had no effect on their decision to partici-
pate in work-based learning.

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 97
have found that more than 90 percent of employ-
ers participating in high school cooperative
education either “agree” or “strongly agree” (the
top two of five categories) with the statement that
they are “satisfied with the quality of the students
(34).” But 16 percent of the employers surveyedby OTA said that lack of student reliability is the
most important disincentive to participating in
work-based learning. None rated “lack of student
productivity or skills,” which was the other aspect
of student preparation considered, as the most im-portant factor (see table 6-3).
Among Texas employers, DIR found that the
“quality of students’ work skills preparation” and
“educational preparation” were more important
than the “characteristics of young workers.”
About 40 percent of employers said that work
skills and general education preparation were of“high importance,” and about 20 percent said that
“student characteristics” were of “high impor-
tance” to their participation in work-based learn-
ing (48). However, because of the way the
questions were worded, it is not possible to tellwhether these results indicate that employers view
a lack of these skills as a barrier to employer par-
ticipation in work-based learning or that employ-
ers were indicating their criteria for selecting
students.
CONCLUSIONS AND
REMAINING QUESTIONS
The expansion of employer participation in work-
based learning presents a major challenge for the
implementation of STWOA. Building the school-
to-work transition systems envisaged by the legis-
lation will require substantial growth in the
number of employers who are willing to devotesubstantial staff time and other resources to devel-
op high-quality work-based learning opportuni-
ties for students. In the absence of such growth,
the work-based learning component of STWOA
will not be realized unless school-based enter-
prises, community service learning, computer
technology, or other forms of work experience aresubstituted for employer-provided work experi-ence and are shown to effectively replicate the
critical learning experiences of actual workplaces.
zSummary of Findings
So far, the growth of employer participation in
prototypes of STWOA work-based learning pro-gram has been modest in most communities and
considerably less than what will be required to
reach substantial numbers of students in most
communities in the near future. OTA’s survey of
15 high school programs that have been operating
since 1992 or longer indicates that the median
growth rates are about six employers and about adozen students per year per program.
Achieving these growth rates has required con-
siderable amounts of time and effort from school
staff or a connecting organization, to contact em-
ployers and build partnerships between educationand the business community. In OTA’s survey an
average of approximately one-half of a full-time-
equivalent staff person’s time has been required to
recruit these six new employers each year. This
level of staff effort represents a sizable marginal
cost relative to the number of additional students
served.
Employers’ decisions to become involved in
work-based learning are influenced by a wide
range of potential benefits and barriers, as they
have been called in this report. Employers report
participating in work-based learning for two mainreasons: to recruit and train new employees for
their company or the industry and to contribute to
the improvement of education and the communi-
ty. The main potential disincentives to participa-
tion are lack of coordinating support from the
work-based learning program, training costs, in-
adequate preparation of students for work place-ments, organizational resistance to work-based
learning from management or other employees,
economic uncertainty, and regulatory restrictions
and extra insurance costs.
According to the results of OTA’s survey, em-
ployers perceive the recruitment of new personnel
to be a somewhat more important benefit of work-based learning than the betterment of education

98 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
and the community. This finding offers more
promise for expanding employer involvement in
work-based learning in the future than would be
the case if civic contributions were the predomi-
nant reason for employers’ participation; the di-
rect economic benefit of personnel recruitment islikely to entice many more nonparticipating em-
ployers than are the altruistic benefits.
OTA’s survey also shows that none of the disin-
centives to participation in work-based learning
predominates or appears to be significantly lessimportant than the others. This implies that in-
ducements narrowly focused on overcoming one
of these disincentives are not likely to be very ef-
fective; hence, strategies focused on overcoming
multiple barriers should be pursued. The STWOA
strategy of encouraging partnerships between
school systems and employers is consistent withthis finding.
zLimitations
It is important to recognize the limitations of this
chapter. One weakness is that the number of non-
participating employers included in the OTA sur-
vey was very small (only 13). As a result, the
findings of the survey concerning the benefits and
barriers of work-based learning to currently andformerly participating employers cannot be gen-
eralized to all employers. The perceived benefits
presumably exceed the costs to employers who are
currently participating. Any nonparticipating em-
ployers who are contacted in the future may not
have the same perceptions. As was discussed ear-
lier, Zemsky’s focus group results were that non-participating employers hold very negative
attitudes toward young people (54). This would
clearly make them very unwilling to participate.
In OTA’s survey, formerly participating em-
ployers proved to be similar to currently partici-
pating ones except in the instances that have been
noted. Generally the formerly participating em-ployers appear to be even more economically ori-
ented than the currently participating ones.
A second limitation is the chapter’s concentra-
tion on employer recruitment at the secondary lev-
el. Many employers may be more willing tobecome involved in work-based learning at the
postsecondary level. As discussed in chapter 4,
postsecondary students are more employable, and
it may be easier for employers to recoup the cost of
training them.
A third limitation is that the analysis in this
chapter has not taken into account variations in the
mix of work-based learning. Under STWOA,
communities are encouraged to develop “sys-
tems” of work-based learning involving a pro-
gression of training and work-experiences, asillustrated in figure 4-1. It is much easier for em-
ployers to provide students with cursory work ex-
periences, such as job shadowing, which typically
lasts for only a half a day, than it is to provide the
much more extensive forms of work-based learn-
ing, such as youth apprenticeships. Consequently,
the growth of employer involvement in work-based learning is likely to depend on the mix of
different types of work-based learning in a com-
munity’s school-to-work transition system, as the
Kalamazoo example illustrates.
A fourth limitation is that variations in re-
sponses among employers of different size, indus-
try sector, and other characteristics are not
reported. The OTA survey was administered to a
cross section of employers of different sizes and
industries, but the small sample size precludes re-
porting results for different subcategories. Em-
ployers’ perceptions of the benefits and liabilitiesof work-based learning appear to vary consider-
ably with such characteristics (34).
The fifth limitation is that the chapter focuses
mainly on the growth rate of employer participa-
tion in work-based learning rather than on thequality of worksite learning experienced by stu-
dents. Quality is harder to measure but certainly
critical to the effects of work-based learning on
students’ long-term employment prospects. The
kinds of training received in the workplace and the
kinds of jobs performed by students are two indi-
cators of quality. Because approximately one-halfof all high school students work in some capacity
already, simply gaining some low-quality work
experience will not have the positive impact in-
tended by STWOA.

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 99
zNeeded Research on Strategy
for Building Partnerships
The critical question raised by the findings in this
chapter is whether strategies can be identified ordeveloped for greatly increasing the rate of growth
of employer participation in high-quality pro-
grams of work-based learning. Three apparent ex-
amples in Boston, Cincinnati, and Kalamazoo
have been described in this chapter, but there is noconclusive evidence about the program quality in
any of these cities. Other examples need to be
identified and carefully studied to provide guide-
lines for building successful partnerships between
business and education. Intensive case studies
will probably be needed to identify these strate-
gies. Strategies for increasing typical growth ratesby an order of magnitude or more are needed to
achieve significant progress in the near future.
States with strong employer recruitment strate-
gies under STWOA may provide important cases
to study.
The success of work-based learning may large-
ly depend on the level of leadership forthcoming
from the business community. Work-based learn-
ing was included in STWOA to help bridge the
gap between employers and schools. If enough
business leaders step forward to encourage indus-
try participation, significant progress may bemade. If not, the growth of employer participation
may continue to be slow, and the bridges intended
between schools and business may not be built.
The introduction of external inducements for
employer participation also could turn out to be
critical for the successful growth of worksite
learning. Perhaps an American style of work-based learning requiring no external business in-
centives can emerge, but perhaps it cannot.
Cincinnati provides an example of a place where
no external business incentives exist, but the col-
leges receive funding from the state for the coordi-nating support they provide to employers—which
amounts to an incentive for employer participa-
tion. Any future case studies of strategies should
be carefully chosen to allow comparative judg-
ments to be made about varying inducement struc-
tures.zImplications from Foreign Countries
It may be instructive to look at the inducements in
foreign countries where work-based learning foryoung entrants into the labor market is extensive.In Japan, young people are prepared for careers
through processes of work-based learning that are
largely internal to firms and not influenced bygovernment interventions. This work-basedlearning occurs through job rotation, participation
in problem-solving teams, and successive epi-
sodes of formal, on- and off-the-job training.Through these processes, young workers develop
both the technical and “white-collar” skills they
need to progress within a “family” of occupationsin their company (28). Companies make thesetraining investments in young workers because of
the institutions of lifetime employment that have
been adopted by industry over the years (33).Companies have also established contractlikerelationships with schools to gain ready access to
well-prepared students, thereby creating strong
incentives for high standards of academicachievement within the school system, not unlike
the incentives for quality apparently operating in
Cincinnati (42).
In Germany, the incentives for the apprentice-
ship system are embedded in the society’s system
of industrial democracy that has evolved over the
years. This system is oriented to the high-value-added production of diverse, customized goodsand services, requiring high skill levels to
succeed. It is based on a “social partnership”
among business, unions, and government thatcontrols many aspects of the economy and society,
including relations between management and la-
bor at the national, state, and local levels, as wellas within companies. The web of relationshipsthat has been created bears on the apprenticeship
system. It includes the long-term financing of in-
dustry, nationally determined wages for most oc-cupations and industries, a chartered structure ofindustry associations and works councils, legal re-
quirements on all companies with five or more
employers to hire professional trainers ( Meister),
union involvement in setting aside certain jobs for
apprenticeship training, low training wages and

100 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
several other policies. These institutional rela-
tionships create a system of incentives in which
large and medium-size companies must train ap-
prentices because that is the least costly way of
gaining access to the best-qualified workers,
whereas smaller companies train because thetraining wage and other incentives make it profit-
able for them to do so (44). Even so, only one
small company in five in Germany participates in
the apprenticeship system, whereas nearly all
large companies and most medium-size firms do.Still, more than one half of apprentices are trained
in small companies (44,45).
In the absence of incentives such as those in Ja-
pan or Germany, it remains an open question
whether large-scale systems of work-based learn-
ing can exist in the United States. The issue is not
whether the United States should adopt the Japa-nese or German systems because manifestly it
cannot. Rather, the question is whether an Ameri-
can-style apprenticeship system with very few ex-
ternal incentives, such as the one that apparently
exists in Cincinnati or that may eventually be fullyimplemented in Boston and Kalamazoo, can be
replicated on a national scale or whether a system
of incentives will be needed.
REFERENCES
1. Bailey, T., “Can Youth Apprenticeship
Thrive in the United States?,” Educational
Researcher 22(3):4-10, 1993.
2. Bailey, T., “Barriers to Employer Participa-
tion in School-to-Work Transition Pro-
grams,” Classrooms and Workplaces:
Employer Involvement in School-to-WorkTransition Programs, T. Bailey (ed.) (Wash-
ington, DC: Brookings Dialogues on Public
Policy, Brookings Institution, 1995).
3. Ball, W.C., et al., “Participation of Private
Businesses as Work Sponsors in Youth En-
titlement Demonstrations,” New York, NY:
Manpower Research and DemonstrationCorp., 1981.
4. Barnow, B., Chasnorov, A., and Pande, A.,
“Financial Incentives for Employer-Provided
Training: A Review of Relevant Experiencein the U.S. and Abroad,” Washington, DC:
Urban Institute Press, 1990.
5. Barton, P.E., “Partnerships Between Corpo-
rations and Schools,” Washington, DC: Na-
tional Commission for Employment Policy,
1983.
6. Barton, P.E., “Employers and High Schools:
The Fit Between Learning and Working,”
New York, NY: The Committee for Economic
Development, March 1984.
7. Bishop, J., and Montgomery, M., “Does the
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Create Jobs at Sub-
sidized Firms?” Industrial Relations 32:
289-306, fall 1993.
8. Boston Public Schools, Guidance Depart-
ment, Personal communication, June 1995.
9. Beyer, D., “Understanding and Applying
Child Labor Laws to Today’s School-to-WorkTransition Programs,” Center Focus , No. 8,
Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research
in Vocational Education, April 1995.
10. Brown, D.E., and Brown, P., National Gover-
nors’ Association, Employment and SocialServices Policy Studies Division, Education
Policy Studies Division, “State Progress in
School-to-Work System Development,”
Washington, DC, July 29, 1995.
11. Burtless, G., “Are Targeted Wage Subsidies
Harmful? Evidence from a Wage Voucher Ex-
periment,” Industrial and Labor Relations
Review 39(1):105-114, 1985.
12. Committee for Economic Development, An
Assessment of American Education: Views of
Employers, Higher Educators, the Public,
Recent Students, and Their Parents, New
York: Louis Harris Associates, 1991.
13. Conor, T.B., “Work-based Education: School
to Work,” Kalamazoo County Education for
Employment Consortium, Jan. 10, 1994.
14. Corson, W., and Silverberg, M., The School-
to-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstra-
tion: Preliminary Findings (Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, 1994).
15. Farrar, E., and Copollone, A., “The Business
Community and School Reform: The Boston
Compact at Five Years,” Madison, WI: Na-

Chapter 6 Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning | 101
tional Center on Effective Secondary
Schools, School of Education, University of
Wisconsin, March 1988.
16. Flynn, E., “Employer Participation in the
School-to-Work Transition,” Commentary,
17-23, spring 1994.
17. Fraser, B.S., et al., Minor Laws of Major Im-
portance: A Guide to Federal and State Child
Labor Laws , Academy for Educational De-
velopment for U.S. Department of Education,
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Com-pany, January 1994.
18. Glover, R., “Collaboration in Apprentice
Programs: Experience with In-School Ap-
prenticeships,” 1984 Yearbook of the Ameri-
can Vocational Association (Arlington, VA:
American Vocational Association, 1983).
19. Glover, R., et al., “School-to-Work Transi-
tion in the U.S.: The Case of the Missing So-
cial Partners,” College Park, MD: Center for
Learning and Competitiveness, School of
Public Affairs, University of Maryland, June
1994.
20. Goldberger, S., Kazis, R., and O’Flanagan,
M., “Learning Through Work: Designing and
Implementing Quality Worksite Learning for
High School Students,” New York, NY: Man-
power Demonstration Research Corporation,
January 1994.
21. Grubb, W.N., and Villeneuve, J.C., “Co-op-
erative Education in Cincinnati: Implications
for School-to-Work Programs in the U.S.,”
unpublished contractor report prepared for the
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-
gress, Washington, DC, May 1995.
22. Hershey, A., and Silverberg, M., “Employer
Involvement in School-to-Work Transition
Programs: What Can We Really Expect?” un-
published paper presented at The Association
for Public Policy and Management Confer-
ence, Washington, DC, October 1993.
23. Hightower, A., Hallock, R., and Brecken-
ridge, J.S., Policy Studies Associates, Wash-
ington, DC, “Employer Participation in
Work-based Learning,” unpublished contrac-
tor report prepared for the Office of Technolo-gy Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington,
DC, July 1995.
24. Hollenbeck, K., “The Employment and Earn-
ings Impacts of the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit,”
Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 1991.
25. Hollenbeck, K., “In Their Own Words: Stu-
dent Perspectives on School-to-Work Oppor-
tunities,” Washington, DC: National Institute
for Work and Learning, Academy for Educa-
tional Development, June 1995.
26. Holzer, H.J., “Are Training Subsidies for
Firms Effective?: The Michigan Experience,”
Industrial and Labor Relations Review
46(4):625-636, July 1993.
27. Jobs for the Future, Promising Practices
(Boston, MA: 1995).
28. Koike, K., “Human Resource Development
and Labor-Management Relations,” The
Political Economy of Japan , Vol. 1, K. Yama-
mura and Y. Yasuba (eds.) (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1987).
29. Koike, K., “Learning and Incentive Systems
in Japanese Industry,” The Japanese Firm:
Sources of Competitive Strength , M. Aoki and
R. Dore (eds.) (Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1994).
30. LeGrande, L., “The Targeted Jobs Tax
Credit,” Congressional Research Service,
87-616E, 1987.
31. Lightner, S., and Harris, E.L., “Legal Aspects
of Youth Apprenticeships: What You Should
Know,” unpublished paper, 1994, ED 368 081.
32. Lynch, L., “Payoffs to Alternative Training
Strategies at Work,” Working Under Different
Rules, R.B. Freeman (ed.) (New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1994).
33. Lynch, L., Training and the Private Sector:
International Comparisons (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1994).
34. Lynn, I., and Wills, J., “School Lessons:
Work Lessons,” Washington, DC: Institute
for Educational Leadership, 1994.
35. McNeil, P.W., “The Role of Industry
Associations in School-to-Work Transition,
New York, NY: Manpower Research and
Demonstration Corp., 1993.

102 | Learning To Work: Making the Transition From School to Work
36. McNeil, P.W., and Kulick, C.D., “Employ-
ers’ Role in School-to-Work Opportunities,”
Washington, DC: National Institute for Workand Learning, 1995.
37. National Alliance of Business, “Youth Ap-
prenticeship: Business Incentives, Problems,and Solutions,” Summary—Business Focus
Group Meeting on Youth Apprenticeship,
Washington, DC, 1993.
38. National Alliance of Business, “How School-
to-Work Works for Business,” Annapolis,
MD, 1994.
39. Osterman, P., “Strategies for Involving
Employers in School to Work Programs”Classrooms and Workplaces: Employer In-
volvement in School-to-Work Transition Pro-
grams, T. Bailey (ed.) (Washington, DC:
Brookings Dialogues on Public Policy,
Brookings Institution, 1995).
40. Pauly, E., Kopp, H., and Haimson, J.,
“Home-Grown Lessons: Innovative Pro-
grams Linking School and Work,” New York,
NY: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation, 1994.
41. Rogers, A., and Hubbard, S., “Case Study
Report on Kalamazoo Valley Consortium
Education for Employment,” Washington,
DC: Academy for Educational Development,Oct. 31, 1994.
42. Rosenbaum, J.E., and Kariya, T., “From High
School to Work: Market and InstitutionalMechanisms in Japan,” American Journal of
Sociology 94(6):1334-1365, May 1989.
43. Silverberg, M., Mathematica Policy Re-
search, Princeton, NJ, personal communica-
tion, Aug. 15, 1995.
44. Soskice, D., “Reconciling Markets and Insti-
tutions: The German Apprenticeship System,”
Training and the Private Sector: Internation-al Comparisons, L. Lynch (ed.) (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1994).
45. Steedman, H., “The Economics of Youth
Training in Germany,” Oxford Economic
Journal, 103:1279-1291, September 1993.
46. Stern, D., School-to-Work Programs and Ser-
vices in Secondary Schools and Two-YearPublic Postsecondary Institutions (Berkeley,
CA: National Assessment of Vocational
Education, University of California, Berke-ley, School of Education, 1992).
47. Stern, D., et al., School-to-Work: Research on
Programs in the United States (Washington,
DC: Falmer Press, 1995).
48. Strauss, R., Jackson, R., and Simmons-Neal,
M., “Employer Incentives and Technical As-sistance,” Policy Report, Houston, TX: Deci-
sion Information Resources, Inc., August
1994.
49. Strauss, R., Jackson, R., and Simmons-Neal,
M., “Employer Incentives and Technical As-sistance,” Final Report, Houston, TX: Deci-
sion Information Resources, Inc., January
1995.
50. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-
ment, Worker Training: Competing in the
New International Economy , OTA-ITE-457
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1990).
51. U.S. Department of Education, Studies of
Education Reform, Office of Research, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement,Minor Laws of Major Importance: A Guide to
Federal and State Child Labor Laws , pre-
pared by B.S. Fraser, I. Charner, K.L. Rose, S.Hubbard, and S. Menzel (Dubuque, IA: Ken-
dall/Hunt Publishing Co., January 1994).
52. U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, “School-to-Work Oppor-
tunities and the Fair Labor Standards Act: A
Guide to Work-based Learning, Federal ChildLabor Laws, and Minimum Wage Provi-
sions,” Washington, DC, 1994.
53. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction,
School-to-Work Office, personal communici-
ation, August 1995.
54. Zemsky, R., “What Employers Want: Em-
ployer Perspectives on Youth, the Youth La-
bor Market, and Prospects for a NationalSystem of Youth Apprenticeships,” Working
Paper No. 22, Philadelphia, PA: National
Center for the Educational Quality of theWorkforce, 1994.

Appendix A:
Boxes, Figures,
and Tables
BOXES
zChapter 1
1-1: School-to-Work Opportunities Act
zChapter 3
3-1: Examples of Work-Based Learning Activities
zChapter 6
6-1: OTA’s Employer Survey
6-2: Employer Recruitment Strategy of STWOA
6-3: Kalamazoo Valley Education for Employment Consortium
6-4: Cooperative Education in Two-Year Colleges in Cincinnati
FIGURES
zChapter 4
4-1: One Possible Progression Through Several Types of Work-Based Learning
TABLES
zChapter 5
5-1: Several Models of Work-Based Learning
zChapter 6
6-1: School-to-Work Transition Programs in OTA’s Survey
6-2: Benefits of Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning
6-3: Barriers to Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning
6-4: Employer Incentives That States Have Implemented or Intend to
Implement in Their STWOA Strategies
6-5: Forms of Coordinating Support Provided to Employers
| 103

Appendix B:
Reviewers andContributors
Nancy Adelman
Policy Studies Associates
Paul Barton
Educational Testing Service
Howell Baum
University of Maryland
Charles Bidwell
University of Chicago
Ellen Biler
Academy for Educational
Development
William Bloomfield
School & Main
(Career Beginnings)
Deborah Bragg
University of Illinois
David Brown
National Governors’
Association
Lawrence Burton
National Science FoundationPeter Cappelli
University of Pennsylvania
Ivan Charner
Academy for Educational
Development
Tom Conor
Kalamazoo Education for
Employment Consortium
Jack Conway
Community Housing
Association of Sarasota
Diana Durret
North Central Regional
Education Laboratory
Kenneth Edwards
International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers
Phyllis Eisen
National Association
of Manufacturers
Cheryl Evanciew
The University of Georgia
Robert W. Glover
University of TexasAndrew Hahn
Brandeis University
Samuel Halperin
American Youth Policy Forum
Stephen Hamilton
Cornell University
Madeline Hemmings
National Association of
State Directors
of Vocational Education
Kevin Hollenbeck
W.E. Upjohn Institute
J.D. Hoye
School-to-Work Opportunities
Center
Dwayne Hunt
Comstock Auditorium
Lawrence Hutchins
Aurora, CO
Polly Hutchinson
National Commission for
Cooperative Education
Russell Jackson
Decision Information
Resources, Inc.
104 |

Appendix B Reviewers and Contributors | 105
Peter Joyce
National Alliance of Business
Richard Kazis
Jobs for the Future
Jeffrey King
The German Marshall Fund
of the United States
Jacob Klerman
Rand Corporation
Kenneth Komoski
EPIE Institute
Hilary Kopp
Jobs for the Future
Dawn Krusenark
American Federation of
Teachers
Rene Leger
Roosevelt Renaissance
Bret Lovejoy
American Vocational
Association
Lisa Lynch
Tufts University
Laurel McFarland
The Brookings Institutionn
James McKenny
American Association of
Community Colleges
David Meyers
Mathematica Policy ResearchRichard Murnane
Harvard University
John Niles
Executive Board of EducationCommonwealth of
Massachusetts
Harry O’Neil
University of Southern
California
Tom Owens
Northwest Regional Education
Laboratory
Glenda Partee
American Youth Policy Forum
Lois Ann Porter
Boston Private Industry
Council
Beverly Pringle
Policy Studies Associates
Lawrence Rosenstock
Rindge School of Technical
Arts
Tony Sarmiento
AFL/CIO
Brian Shea
Training Technology Resource
Center
Marsha Silverberg
Mathematica Policy Research
Karen Springer
Cooperative Work Experience
Education AssociationNevzer Stacey
School-to-Work Opportunities
Office
Cathleen Stasz
Rand Corporation
James Stone
University of Minnesota
Neil Sullivan
Boston Private Industry
Council
John Tobin
Seimens Corporation
Mark Troppe
KAPOW
Raymond J. Uhalde
U.S. Department of Labor
Mary Weirsema
Kalamazoo Education for
Employment Consortium
Daniel Wiltrout
Council of Chief State School
Officers
Robert Zemsky
The University of Pennsylvania

Appendix C:
Contractor ReportsPrepared forThis Assessment
Stephen Barley and Bonalyn Nelson, Stanford University, “The Nature and Implications of Infrastruc-
tural Technological Change for the Social Organization of Work,” July 1995.
Kathryn Borman, University of South Florida, and Richard Lakes, Georgia State University, “Review
of Ethnographic Research Related to School-to-Work Transition,” May 25, 1995.
Christopher Dede, George Mason University, and Matthew Lewis, Rand Corporation, “Assessment of
Emerging Technologies That Might Assist and Enhance School-to-Work Transitions,” May 1995.
Rosella Gardecki and David Neumark, Michigan State University, “Early Labor Market Experiences and
Their Consequences for Adult Labor Market Outcomes,” June 1995.
W. Norton Grubb and Norena Badway, University of California, Berkeley, “Linking School-Based and
Work-Based Learning: The Implications of LaGuardia’s Co-op Seminars for School-to-Work Pro-
grams,” June 1995.
W. Norton Grubb and Jennifer Curry Villenuve, University of California, Berkeley, “Co-operative
Education in Cincinnati: Implications for School-to-Work Programs in the U.S.,” May 1995.
Amy Hightower, Robert V. Hallock, George Wimberly, John S. Breckenridge, Lisa K. Weiner, Policy
Studies Associates, “Employer Participation in Work-Based Learning,” July 14, 1995.
Margaret Vickers, Riley Hart, and Amy Weinberg, Technical Education Research Centers (TERC), “The
Work-based Learning Experiences of Students in Two Boston-Based Youth Apprenticeship Demonstra-
tion Sites,” May 17, 1995.
106 |