Work-Based Learning — Policymaker
Section
Policy makers at the federal, state, and local levels—and not just those
in education—must wrestle with the question of how to make the initial
preparation of youth for the world of work as effective as possible, preferably
during school but after high school if necessary. This is particularly true
for policy makers concerned with promoting the increased employment of youth
with disabilities and other at-risk groups.
Research shows that there are multiple, long-term benefits of work-based learning
for young people with and without disabilities. A nominal investment in a well-planned
school-to-work or transition program that includes work-based learning pays
for itself many times over through additional tax revenues generated by working
youth, savings on public benefits program, and opportunity costs from those
programs associated with unemployed youth.
Policy makers at all three levels of government need to consider many issues
when promoting and expanding work-based learning opportunities. First and foremost
is the need for facts to guide their decisions. Unfortunately, much of the information
about work-based learning is not organized to assist policy makers in making
informed choices about how to construct and sustain high quality work-based
learning opportunities for youth. Asking the right questions is a key part of
the data collection process, and policy makers are encouraged to make this their
first step.
Questions
1. What are the resources
available to develop a quality work-based learning infrastructure for all youth?
Creating a structure that supports young people in their preparation for work
requires effort at all levels of government and across a wide array of institutions
and organizations at the state and local levels. More knowledge is needed of
the current capacity of the workforce development system, and the systems to
which it must link to be effective. While this knowledge is being developed,
there are resources that can assist in the development of a quality work-based
learning system for youth.
States are in a pivotal position to develop the infrastructure for work-based
learning across agencies and institutions. The state Workforce Investment Boards
(SWIBs) are well positioned to document the current state of practice, as well
as propose new collaborative efforts to generate a more strategic approach.
Actions that states can take include:
- Organize a listing of occupations and industries that make sense
for both education and employers across all workforce development entities
in the state.
- Conduct an environmental scan to document programs, policies, and
procedures that can be used to recognize and promote work-based learning across
programs and agencies.
- Convene employer organizations to generate input on how to develop
and market work-based learning that will meet the needs of their memberships.
- Convene community organizations to assess the local barriers and
solutions to providing the full range of work-based learning opportunities
to all youth.
- Incorporate into state reporting systems information across institutions
regarding the use and results of work-based learning opportunities.
Local Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs), as the lead strategic
planning workforce development organizations, are also well-positioned to take
specific actions to promote work-based learning. Effective LWIBs have a wide
variety of members and partners with whom they coordinate information—including
a wide variety of service providers. Ensuring that workforce development providers
are collectively making maximum use of public resources is one way they sift
that information.
The role of LWIBs as intermediaries or “honest brokers” of information
is not as well known or as developed as it should be. LWIBs are required to
develop workforce development plans for their area or region based on solid
information in order to assist customers in making informed decisions about
job and training opportunities.
 |
|
Questions LWIBs should be able
to answer |
| |
- Which organizations and schools offer work-based learning
experiences and what youth populations do they serve?
- For what occupations and industries are work-based learning
experiences available?
- How do the work-based learning experiences link to classroom
or program content?
- What are the program outcomes for youth?
- Which programs provide educational credit for participation
in work-based or work simulated learning?
- Which programs lead to industry recognized licenses
or certifications?
- How the programs are organized and what kinds of workplace
materials are used?
- What are the satisfaction levels of employers and WBL
participants?
- How involved are employers in designing the WBL experiences?
- What information and outreach services are available
to expose youth (and their parents) to programs that include
work-based learning?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
LWIBs and their community partners should be able to:
- more effectively use current resources;
- develop common WBL materials (e.g. mentoring information material for employees
of firms);
- promote access to information about opportunities for use in the One-Stop
centers and school counseling offices;
- refine joint agreements and contracts to expand service to underserved groups
of youth;
- strengthen relationships with the employer community; and
- track and report results to the key stakeholders.
Developing a quality work-based learning infrastructure for youth will address
several capacity issues. Workforce development is a hit or miss process for
America’s youth. Too many leave high school, either as a dropout or a
graduate, with no knowledge of their career options or how to access them. Students
who are labeled as “college material” are routed to college prep
courses and are encouraged and assisted in the college application process.
Students who are “not college material” are routed to career and
technology programs or academies, if they’re available, or are ignored
by the system. Those who are ignored usually spend their early employment years
bouncing from one low-level, dead end job to another. After a while, if they’re
lucky and have the requisite skills, they find a field they like and start to
move forward on a career ladder. Much of this job market churning could be eliminated
through work-based learning experiences.
Work-based learning is valuable to all youth, regardless of whether they plan
to go to college upon high school graduation or not. However, this value may
not be immediately apparent since it is difficult to isolate work-based learning
from other school or program parameters in order to track and document it. A
work-based learning infrastructure will facilitate tracking and data collection.
The infrastructure will also address the piecemeal approach to work-based learning
for youth which currently exists. There is no system for sharing program materials,
tracking participants and outcomes, or for supporting staff. Because of the
variety of work-based learning options and the need to make the experiences
age and stage appropriate for each youth, information sharing is critical. It
is not uncommon for a teacher in one school to be completely unaware of what
another teacher in her school is doing. Schools may have stand-alone programs
that are not linked to private sector, community college programs, or the workforce
development system.
Programs or schools offering work-based learning opportunities contact employers
as needed to set up site visits, paid and unpaid work experiences, and so forth.
If the programs or schools are not aware of each other, employers may be bombarded
with requests and become less supportive. A cross-sector infrastructure would
greatly facilitate coordination of employer contacts.
2. What are some examples
of effective work-based learning infrastructures and programs?
For youth in school, work-based learning is an important part of systemic school
reform in a number of urban communities. In Boston, work has started on reforming
high schools following years of work in elementary schools. The Boston Private
Industry Council (PIC), in partnership with the Boston Public Schools, is organizing
companies by industry. Employers in industries such as health care, financial
services, travel and tourism, utilities, and communications provide work-based
opportunities to youth. In addition, a number of Boston Public Schools serve
as career academies to tie work requirements of a specific industry to academics
learned in school.
Career academies are high school programs organized around an industry or occupational
theme, in which a group of students stay together for several years. There are
career academies for health, finance, computers, and media that enables students
to fulfill requirements for college entrance, in addition to acquiring work-related
knowledge and skill. Employers from the industries or occupations help develop
the curriculum and provide work experiences. There are two organizations that
serve as networks of career academies: the National Academy Foundation and the
Career Academy Support Network for the state of California.
Second chance job training programs serve youth in the upper age ranges including
drop outs, welfare recipients, and adjudicated youth, etc. They are funded through
a variety of sources and frequently provide work-based learning opportunities,
both paid and unpaid. Although some programs “zero in” on specific
jobs and do not include time for career exploration activities, there are programs
that have successfully used work experiences to meet broader social purposes.
Two such programs are YouthBuild and Job Corps. Job Corps is a residential education
and job training program for at-risk youth, ages 16 through 24. YouthBuild programs
serve unemployed and under-educated young people ages 16-24 who divide their
time between working toward their GED or high school diploma and learning skilled
construction trades. Both teach workplace basic and occupation specific skills
through on-the-job training.
3. What special considerations
are needed for youth with disabilities to access and succeed in quality work-based
learning experiences?
Youth with disabilities need the same access and opportunities for as youth
without disabilities. Unfortunately, many youth with disabilities experience
profound discrimination in schools that carries over into the jobsite. Youth
with disabilities are often routed to separate career education programs in
school that focus on low skill, low wage jobs. They have limited exposure to
the wide variety of careers available in the job market due to inadequate career
exploration activities and vocational assessment resources. As a result, they
are unable to access high tech high wage career and technology programs or college
preparation programs.
Work-based learning experiences for youth with disabilities may be non-existent
or limited in scope. This is partially due to the low expectations of school
staff (and sometimes families), but also due to the fear of employers that youth
with disabilities are more fragile or expensive to employ than youth without
disabilities. In fact, employees with disabilities generally have better attendance
rates and greater loyalty than their non-disabled peers.
It is true that youth with severe disabilities may require extra time and support
to develop skills or learn how to perform a specific job function. Job site
accommodations may also be needed, but these are often inexpensive “low
tech” adjustments such as raising a desk or adjusting a schedule. Schedule
changes, job sharing/carving and accommodations are not new to the workplace;
they are done routinely for ALL individuals who comprise today's workforce,
not just those who have an identified disability. The ideal scenario for work-based
experiences for youth with severe disabilities would be a continuum of options
ranging from a sheltered workshop, as an interim step for learning skills and
work ethics, to supported employment with a job coach in an integrated work
setting, to unsubsidized, competitively paid employment with natural supports.
It should be emphasized that sheltered workshops, where people with disabilities
are employed at substandard wages, should be a progressive learning experience
and not a life sentence.
Expertise in serving youth with a range of disabilities is provided by a number
of agencies including rehabilitative services administration, developmental
disabilities agencies, centers for independent living, and a number of non-profit
groups. Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams in schools also have expertise
in working with students with disabilities. This expertise should be tapped
as needed in developing work-based learning experiences for students with disabilities.
To ensure that youth with and without disabilities are included in quality
work-based learning experiences, both youth groups should be included in the
strategic planning processes of state Workforce Investment Boards, Local Workforce
Investment Boards, youth service providers, and schools
Research Base
Because most studies do not separate the effects of work-based learning activities
from those of other program components and participant factors, it is difficult
to state conclusively what part work-based learning played in the positive effects
documented by the research (Wonacott, 2002). However, in his review of the literature,
Wonacott (2002, page 4) stated that “it appears reasonable to say that
approaches to CTE [Career and Technology Education] that integrate WBL with
traditional academics typically have positive effects on students’ educational,
attitudinal, and employment outcomes.” These positive effects were noted
at the both secondary and post-secondary levels.
Wonacott’s findings were similar to those of Medrich, Calderon &
Hoachlander (in press) who sampled the literature on contextual teaching and
learning, which included work-based learning and service learning. The limited
research base was not conclusive, but studies showed work-based learning and
service learning had positive impacts on student engagement and motivation,
classroom attitudes and behaviors, attendance and school retention, and grades
and achievement.
Other researchers found positive effects on post-school outcomes. For example,
in a postsecondary follow-up survey of the class of 1998, respondents were asked
about the value of various high school activities in helping them to decide
what kinds of careers interested or did not interest them. The most highly valued
work-based learning activities appeared to be those that involved an experience
tailored to the individual student. Students gave high marks to job shadowing,
as well as to paid jobs and unpaid internships obtained through school. (Haimson
& Bellotti, 2001)
Youth who participated in structured transition programs sponsored by schools
had better attendance and were less likely to drop out. This was especially
true of high risk youth. Other positive effects were that youth were prepared
for college, were able to more easily define their career interests and goals
for the future, did better in labor market outcomes than other high school graduates,
and the jobs they obtained tended to be of higher quality than jobs they would
have gotten without the structured program. (Hughes, Bailey, Mechur, 2001).
This study was also part of Medrich, Calderon & Hoachlander’s literature
review (in press.)
Grubb (1999) noted that the more education, the higher the salary. Higher educational
levels also mean higher productivity for employers. Raising the average educational
level of the workforce within an establishment by one year was associated with
an increase of productivity of five percent in manufacturing and six percent
in non-manufacturing establishments (Black & Lynch, 2002). Consequently,
better school attendance, lower dropout rates, and better preparation for college
resulting from structured exposure to the world of work will have significant
effects over time.
Structured exposure to the world of work is especially important for students
with disabilities. As noted in the High School-High Tech Program Manual (National
Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, 2003): “Substantial
evidence exists to support the value of work experience as a critical educational
intervention effective in improving the post-secondary employment of youth with
disabilities (Blackorby & Wagnor, 1996; Colley & Jamison, 1998; Kohler,
1993; Kohler & Rusch, 1995; Luecking & Fabian, 2000; Morningstar, 1997;
Rogan, 1997; Wehman, 1996).”
Since work-based learning experiences are often not available to youth with
disabilities or are limited in scope, increasing those opportunities should
have a positive effect on outcomes. Currently, only 27% of students in special
education who complete high school are enrolled in post-secondary education
compared to 68% of the general student population. And, three to five years
after exiting high school, only a little more than half are found to be employed
compared to 69% of their peers (Fabian, Lent & Willis, 1998).
In the United States, the number of individuals who never enter unsubsidized
employment by moving from school into publicly funded income and health support
programs remains stubbornly high. For example, the Social Security Administration
records (2002) show that children who receive benefits are likely to continue
receiving SSI for the rest of their lives. Employment rates among adults with
disabilities are low, relative to non-disabled persons. A national population-based
survey found that while three-fourths of all working age adults were employed,
less than one-third of adults with disabilities were employed. (McNeil, 2000).
Correlates of unemployment and underemployment among individuals with disabilities
include low educational attainment and lack of access to effective transition
services. While there will always be a need for a range of disability benefits
for some, career preparation costs considerably less than disability benefit
programs, particularly if done well during the initial preparation period.
Resources
State
Career Clusters Initiative
http://www.careerclusters.org
Career Clusters link what students learn in school with the knowledge and skills
they need for success in college and careers.
Boston Private
IndustryCouncil
http://www.bostonpic.org/school_career.htm
Information on the Boston PIC’s programs including jobs, internships and
other resources for youth.
The North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL)
http://www.ncrel.org/
NCREL is a member of the Regional Educational Laboratory Network that provides
research-based resources to educators and policymakers in the states of Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, through the website.
The
Career Academy Support Network
http://casn.berkeley.edu/
Resources supporting the growth and improvement of career academies around the
country, including theory, research, curricula, and partnerships with employers.
Housed at the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley
The National
Academy Foundation
http://www.naf.org/
Resources for career academies to support the development of America's youth
toward personal and professional success--in high school, in higher education,
and throughout their careers. NAF Academies represent business/school partnerships
that prepare young people for future careers through a combination of school-based
curricula and work-based experiences. Note: You do not need to log in to access
resources.
The
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/work/
Employment support for people with disabilities with information geared to several
audiences including youth, employers, advocates, and service providers.
The
High School/High Tech Program
http://www.highschoolhightech.net/
Provides opportunity for students with disabilities to explore careers in science,
mathematics and technology. The HS-HT program manual includes a chapter on work-based
learning with examples, sample forms and resources.
YouthBuild
USA
http://www.youthbuild.org/
YouthBuild USA gives low income youth the opportunity to learn skills to help
build low income housing in their communities. The YouthBuild website contains
information about the organization’s policy goals, program philosophy
and how to start a local program.
Job
Corps
http://jobcorps.doleta.gov/
Information for youth, employers, the workforce community and others on competitions,
individual centers, career choices and more.
Association
for Persons in Supported Employment (APSE)
http://www.apse.org/
Competencies, quality indicators and other information on Supported Employment.
Position paper on segregated employment.
References
Black, S.E. & Lynch, L.M. (2003). The New Economy and the Organization
of Work, in Derek C. Jones, ed., New Economy Handbook. London, U.K.:
Elsevier Science Academic Press.
Blackorby, J. & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal outcomes for youth
with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.
Exceptional Children, 62, 399-419.
Colley, D. A. & Jamison, D. (1998). Post school results for youth
with disabilities: Key indicators and policy implications. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 145-160.
Fabian, E.S., Lent, R.L. & Willis, S.P. (1998). Predicting work
transition outcomes for students with disabilities: Implications for counselors.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 76: 311-315.
Grubb. W. N. (1999). Learning and Earning in the Middle: The Economic
Benefits of Sub-Baccalaureate Education. New York: Community College
Research Center, Columbia University. (ED 431 459)
Haimson, J. & Bellotti, J. (2001). Schooling in the Workplace:
Increasing the Scale and Quality of Work-Based Learning. Princeton,
NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Hughes, K.L., Bailey, T.R. & Mechur, M.J. (2001). School-to-Work:
Making a Difference in Education. New York: Institute on Education
and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Kohler, P.D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or
implied? Career Development for Exceptional Children, 16, 107-115.
Kohler, P.D. & Rusch, F. (1995). School to work transition: Identification
of employment related outcomes and activity indicators. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 18, 33-50.
Luecking, R. & Fabian, E.S. (2000). Paid internships and employment
success for youth in transition. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 23(2), 205- 221.
McNeil, J.M. (2000). Employment, Earnings and Disability. Survey of
Income and Program Participation data, using a definition of disability based
on limitations in activities of daily living and instrumental activities of
daily living. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Medrich, E., Calderon, S. & Hoachlander, G. (In press). Contextual teaching
and learning Strategies in high schools: Developing a vision for support and
evaluation. In Brand, B. (Ed.), Alternative assessment and contextual
teaching and learning: Essentials of high school reform. Washington,
DC: American Youth Policy Forum and the Institute for Educational Leadership.
Morningstar, M. (1997). Critical issues in career development and employment
preparation for adolescents with disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 18, 307-320.
National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth. (2003). High
School/High Tech Program Manual. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational
Leadership.
Rogan, P. (1997). Review and analysis of post-school follow-up results:
1996-1997 Indiana post-school follow-up. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana
Department of Education.
Social Security Administration. (2002). Annual Statistical Supplement
to the Social Security Bulletin. Table 7.A1, page 276. Publication
information or link?
Wehman, P. (1996). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies
for young people with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wonacott, M.E. (2002). The Impact of Work-based Learning on Students.
ERIC Digest No. 242. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and
Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for Employment, The Ohio
State University. Available
at: http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-3/career.htm
|
