A School-to-Work System for Arizona:
Final Evaluation of the State and Federal Initiative
A School-to-Work System for Arizona:
Final Evaluation of the State and Federal Initiative
By Rebecca L. Gau S e n i o r Management Research Analyst Morrison Institute for Public Policy
With Assistance From: Howard Sullivan, Ph.D., Professor, College of Education, ASU Morrison Institute Policy Research Associate Michelle Reimann, Graduate Assistant Morrison Institute for Public Policy Rob Melnick, Ph.D., Director Morrison Institute for Public Policy
For: Arizona Department of Commerce School-to-Work Division Ju n e 2001
This report was made possible by the previous work of Dr. Judith A. Vandegrift. Her dedication and enormous contribution to public education and School-to-Work in particular was inspirational to all of her colleagues.
M O R R I S O N INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY ? School of Public Affairs ? College of Public Programs ? Arizona State University P.O. Box 874405, Tempe, AZ 85287-4405 ? (480) 965-4525 voice ? (480) 965-9219 fax ? www.asu.edu/copp/morrison
This document is ?2001 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University and its Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
Table of Contents
In t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 School-to-Work in Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Evaluation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Appendix A: Planned Activities for Implementing Arizona School-to-Work Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix B: Morrison Institute For Public Policy School-to-Work Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix C: Repor ted Activities for Implementing Arizona's School-to-Work Goals and Objectives . . . . . . 25
Tables and Figures
Table 4.1: School-to-Work Goals and Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 4.2: Effects of School-to-Work on Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 4.3: Effects of School-to-Work on School Services, Involvement, and GSPED Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 1: School-to-Work Activities Employers Have Been Involved In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 4.4: Public and Employer Perceptions and Involvement in School-to-Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
2
Introduction
In 1995, Arizona's School-to-Work Division hired Morrison Institute for Public Policy as the evaluator of the state's implementation of a federal grant, given under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. This is the final report of that evaluation. School-to-Work involves the use of school activities and courses to develop student knowledge and skills that are relevant in today's working world. This concept has been a popular one for decades, culminating most recently at the federal level in the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. This Act provided venture capital to states over five years to develop comprehensive statewide systems to strengthen students' transitions from school to work. A great deal has been written about concepts and practices that link work and school. Three perspectives on what makes a good system ? one each from the state level (the National Governors Association), the federal level (the National School-to-Work Office), and the business point of view (National Alliance of Business) ? show how different constituents with different perspectives want a School-to-Work system that incorporates academic and technical stan dards into the curriculum, exposing students to career options and working-world skills without the use of vocational "tracks" and avoiding any detriment to academic achievement. The National Governors Association (NGA) and the National Alliance of Business (NAB) discuss a broad concept of School-to-Work fitting into an educational reform program that unites academic standards with skill standards and puts a high priority on student achievement whether in an academic or a technical field. The NAB's approach is slightly more process-oriented than the NGA's. It not surprisingly emphasizes employer participation and input regarding student knowledge and skills, with local communities leading the development of activities. The NGA says little about process and much about content, advocating required performance levels and teaching "all aspects of a n industry." The National School-to-Work Office emphasizes four features of School-to-Work based on the f e d eral legislation: student experience, local support, stakeholder participation, and evidence of success. All three approaches are focused on student achievement and attainment of a defined set of skills, with input from employers. The federal School-to-Work initiative was designed to create a system consistent with the perspectives of the NGA and the NAB. According to the National School-to-Work Office, the system is intended to help students attain high academic standards through contextual, applied, and focused learning. To help students direct their education, School-to-Work encourages exposure to a broad variety of career options, starting with speakers and field trips in elementary school and progressing to internships in a student's field of interest at the high school level. The underlying goal is to provide students with knowledge and skills that will allow them to opt for college, additional training, or a well-paying job directly out of high school (National School-to-Work Office, 1/30/01). School-to-Work was intended to improve workforce development by creating strong links to the local business community, uniting what local employers need with what schools teach by integrating work skills into the curriculum. The desired result would be a transition of the workforce development system currently in place into a more unified system touted by the NGA and others. This report discusses the performance of the Arizona School-to-Work system in meeting the six goals established by the state School-to-Work Division and examines the effects of the system on the involvement and perceptions of Arizona students, school personnel, the public, and employers. The remainder of the report is divided into four sections. These sections provide a brief background of School-to-Work in Arizona, describe Morrison Institute's method of evaluation of the School-to-Work program over the past five years, present the results of the evaluation, and discuss the results and their meaning.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 3
School-to-Work in Arizona
With the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Congress established the School-to-Work Opportunities State Implementation Grants Program. Its purpose was to provide "financial assistance to States to establish comprehensive, statewide, School-to-Work Opportunities systems. These systems are intended to offer young Americans access to education and training programs designed to prepare them for a first job in high-skill, high-wage careers, and to increase their opportunities for further education" (Federal Register Part V 1994). Federal selection criteria for the funding of state plans were: ? A comprehensive statewide system ? Commitment of employers and other interested parties ? Participation of all students ? Stimulating and supporting local School-to-Work Opportunities systems ? Resources ? Management plan (Federal Register Part VI, 1995) The most ambitious criteria ? development of a comprehensive statewide system ? called for systemic change, including components of school-based learning, work-based learning, and connecting activities in schools. In 1995, Arizona submitted its state plan, "System Building: Developing and Implementing Arizona's School-to-Work Opportunities Initiative," for which it received approximately $23 million over a five-year period from the U.S. Department of Labor. (School-to-Work was funded for a sixth year through a no-cost extension granted by the U.S. Department of Labor.) This plan listed eight detailed goals to establish a statewide School-to-Work system. By 1997, however, the School-to-Work Division changed the plan in response to a new call to be part of a state comprehensive workforce development system. Now housed in the Department of Commerce Office of Workforce Development Policy, the School-to-Work Division was placed alongside the Division of Workforce Development and the Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (GSPED). This move put all Divisions under the same state-level advisory council, the Governor's Council on Workforce Development Policy (GCWDP), eliminated a duplication of councils, and laid the groundwork for better alignment of School-to-Work with workforce and economic development. The revised plan, which was approved by the U.S. Department of Labor, had a new set of six goals that superseded the original eight. These six goals were: G o a l 1 (System Governance and Partnership Development): Cre a t e a self-sustaining system of governance, management, and oversight at state and regional levels. Goal 2 (Program Coordination and Integration): Identify, coordinate, and integrate K-16 School-to-Work opportunities and other state/private sector training/retraining programs. Goal 3 (Technical Assistance): Continuously identify state and regional partnership development needs, particularly in the areas of curriculum and professional development, and implement strategies to meet identified needs. G o a l 4 (Community Involvement): Involve public and private sector business/industry, community-based organizations, parents, and the public-at-large as partners.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 4
Goal 5 (Public Awareness): Target key stakeholders and implement publicity strategies that promote the awareness of and support for state and local School-to-Work and workforce development efforts. Goal 6 (System Evaluation): Implement data collection and reporting procedures at state and local levels which yield both uniform and customized, qualitative and quantitative information. After the revision, Arizona's plan for implementing its School-to-Work grant was composed of the six goals, related objectives, and planned activities based on the goals. These components were developed by and for the School-to-Work Division, and were also used by local partnerships to guide their activities. A complete set of the goals, related objectives, and planned activities for implementing the School-to-Work goals is contained in Appendix A. The state implemented its six goals by dividing Arizona into partnership regions. Each partnership functioned like an overarching school district, encompassing all educational institutions in its area (public schools, charter schools, community colleges, etc.) in order to help develop and implement School-to-Work programs in the schools. There were two types of partnerships. Regional partnerships were formed using the geographic boundaries of the fourteen Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Tech Prep regions. Ten of the original fourteen School-to-Work regional partnerships existed throughout the initiative. In 1998 the other four, representing Maricopa County, reorganized as seven GSPED industry cluster partnerships. Because of their different organization, these seven sometimes operated differently than the regional School-to-Work partnerships. The School-to-Work Division used a procurement process to award contracts to partnerships in each region. It distributed funds to each partnership as a yearly lump sum, most of which came from the federal grant. The partnership then had the authority to decide how it would manage its funds and deliver proposed services. The partnerships were organized around a director and a governing board comprised of both business and education representatives. Directors managed the daily business of the partnership, while the governing board provided general guidance and help in funding decisions. Directors encouraged schools to become "active" in their partnerships: that is, to officially commit to implementing School-to-Work programs and curricula. The partnerships also promoted b u s i n e s s participation in schools and public awareness, collected data on implementation, and fulfilled other administrative functions. Partnerships delivered School-to-Work to schools in two ways: a mini-grant process and site coordinators. In the minigrant process partnerships received applications from schools and districts. Criteria for the acceptance and approval of applications were specific to each partnership. The partnership office, its governing board, or a partnership committee reviewed the applications and made approval decisions. If an application was approved, funds were set aside for the school or district to use for its programs. Whereas the mini-grant process funded programs, the site-coordinator option funded people. Site coordinators supported coordination and development of a school's School-to-Work programs. Some partnerships disbursed Schoolto-Work funds to schools based on enrollment in order to hire a site coordinator, either as a full-time position in large schools or as add-on duties with a stipend for a school counselor or a teacher in small schools. Other partnerships set a stipend for a site-coordinator regardless of the school's size. A few site-coordinators were volunteers. Some partnerships combined the mini-grant and site coordinator processes. In these cases, the site coordinators submitted mini-grant applications to partnerships, requesting funds for specific programs that were not provided through normal coordination with business partners.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 5
Evaluation Method
This section briefly describes the methods used in collecting and analyzing data for the final evaluation report and for earlier project reports.
Fi n a l Evaluation Report
This final evaluation report focuses on the extent to which the Arizona School-to-Work system met the initiative's six goals and on the results of the initiative with various stakeholder groups. As the final report for the initiative, this document has a stronger summative evaluation emphasis than Morrison Institute's earlier reports on the initiative. The earlier reports had a greater formative evaluation orientation and were designed to identify and recommend potential improvements in the Arizona School-to-Work system during its formative years. Morrison Institute used a number of resources in conducting this final evaluation. These included the original School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, the initial Arizona state plan and the re-application by the state, and the final six state goals adopted in 1997. The Institute based its evaluation heavily on these six goals, as listed in Section 2, and on the related objectives and planned activities generated by the School-to-Work Division and contained in Appendix A. Analyzing the activities provided the primary evidence for how each goal was met. The evaluators determined how each activity was completed based on those identified for 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 in the State Management Plan and Continuation Grant Application for each year. Reports written by each partnership, supplemental interviews, and progress reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor by the School-to-Work Division were used as evidence of the activities conducted and of the effects of the School-to-Work goals. Data from the surveys, studies, and site visits conducted by Morrison Institute and briefly described later in this section also were an important source of information. The state's success in meeting the goals was based primarily on an analysis of the ten regional partnerships because they were in operation longer than the seven cluster-based partnerships in Maricopa County. Therefore, they had deeper implementation related to the goals. A secondary analysis of the seven cluster-based partnerships in Maricopa County was also conducted.
E a r l i e r Evaluation Reports and Activities
The Institute conducted technical assistance activities through site visits and focus groups in the beginning years that helped to guide the development of the system and assess the progress of implementation. Additionally, over the five-year period that it served as the evaluator, the Institute produced research reports on system building and a comparison of high school graduation requirements and Arizona university and community college admissions. Appendix B lists the 25 reports that the Institute has published in its study of School-to-Work since 1992. In addition to the technical assistance and research reports, the Institute also designed and conducted a number o f studies, surveys and site visits as a part of its overall evaluation. These investigations are described on the following page.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
6
Seventh and Tenth Grade Surveys
Between 1997 and 2000, Morrison Institute conducted yearly surveys of all seventh- and tenth-graders throughout the state. These are benchmark years according to the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The surveys were designed by a cadre of evaluators from each of the state-funded regional School-to-Work partnerships. The partnership evaluators expected that the overall impact of the system would be that, as the project progressed, students would participate in more career-related activities, be better able to define career interests, receive more adult mentoring, and become more interested in high school classes that teach job skills. A study in Maricopa County compared students in schools active in School-to-Work activities to those not in active schools.
L e v e l of Involvement Study
This survey conducted in 1998 and 1999 was based on the hypothesis that as the Arizona system was built, more schools would become involved, the intensity of involvement would increase, and school-level measures of student performance would be higher for schools that had greater formal activity with School-to-Work. The survey was based on the Progress Measures of the national evaluation conducted by MPR Associates, Inc. and was adapted to meet Arizona's needs. The survey respondents were school site coordinators or administrators in schools that were active members of a School-to-Work partnership.
Pu b l i c Opinion Survey
An annual statewide public opinion poll was conducted from 1996 to 1999 to assess public attitudes toward School-to-Work and the level of support for the School-to-Work initiative. Morrison Institute collaborated with the independent firm of Wright Consulting Services, which conducted the polling of parents, businesses and educators.
C o u n s e l o r Survey
From 1996 to 1998, Wright Consulting Services conducted annual polls designed by Morrison Institute and the School-to-Work Division with input in the later years by the Arizona Counselors' Academy. The purpose of the sur vey was to determine whether the Arizona School-to-Work initiative resulted in a shift in counselors' roles to reflect more time spent on counseling activities related to career guidance.
Site Visits
By visiting each partnership site, the Institute created profiles of the status of each of the ten regional partnerships and the seven Maricopa County cluster-based partnerships. These profiles included the partnerships' setting and status in relation to the states' six goals. Information was derived from interviews, observations, and written documentation provided by each partnership, as well as enrollment data from the Arizona Department of Education (ADE).
E m p l o y e r Survey
In Spring 2001, Morrison Institute developed a statewide survey in collaboration with the School-to-Work Division of the Arizona Department of Commerce to assess employers' experience with the School-to-Work initiative and their attitudes about it. The independent consulting firm of O'Neil and Associates, Inc. fielded the survey to two groups, a random sample of employers and a sample drawn from a known list of employer participants, to ensure that enough members of each group were polled.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
7
Evaluation Results
The evaluation results are reported in this section, first for attainment of the state's goals by the ten regional par tnerships and the seven Maricopa County cluster-based partnerships, and then for School-to-Work's effects on groups who participated in the initiative or otherwise had a stake in its success.
"Show young Arizonans the choices there are to make in different fields and different occupations/professions. Give them options."
A t t a i n m e n t of State Goals T h e Ten Regional Partnerships
Table 4.1 on page 9 shows the six state goals for the School-to-Work initiative and the major activities conducted for each goal. The goals and activities are summarized below. A more detailed listing of the School-to-Work goals, objectives, and activities reported by the partnerships is contained in Appendix C. Goal 1 (System Governance and Partnership Development): Goal 1 was to create a self-sustaining School-to-Work system at both the state and regional levels. As Table 4.1 shows, the state developed policy intended to align education and training with workforce development, increased the number of businesses and government agencies associated with School-to-Work, and contributed to a School-to-Work information system. The state also created and funded ten regional partnerships to help develop and implement School-to-Work programs in schools throughout the state. The regional partnerships recruited business partners in their regions, increased the number of organizations with which to network, and (most) developed their own websites. However, the system of a state office and ten regional partnerships will not be sustained in any substantial way because of lack of funding. Although the Arizona legislature has appropriated a modest $50,000 each year for two years for School-to-Work purposes, after December 2001 most partnerships and the state office are likely to close. This will leave the administration of School-to-Work programs up to the discretion of local schools and school districts. The principles of School-to-Work will be sustained in some locations where schools take on functions similar to a School-to-Work partnership office. However, this is not "systematic." Two partnerships have secured additional funds to remain open somewhat longer. Goal 2 (Program Coordination and Integration): The purpose of Goal 2 was to unite the various training programs in the state with School-to-Work programs and make them accessible for as many students as possible. Table 4.1 shows that to help implement School-to-Work statewide, the state School-to-Work system was represented on the GCWDP. Most partnerships expanded School-to-Work by enhancing existing School-to-Work programs and offering new ones, increasing student involvement in career-related activities, offering career awareness opportunities, and other such activities. Most partnerships continued to work mainly with the types of businesses and programs that they had worked with previously. Most used articulation agreements to integrate School-to-Work with universities and community colleges and also promoted career pathways in community colleges. Goal 3 (Technical Assistance): Goal 3 focused on identifying areas where School-to-Work needed support, and on meeting those needs, especially in developing and implementing curriculum and professional development. Table 4.1 indicates that the state and partnerships provided technical assistance to schools most frequently through site visits and meetings. The state held meetings of the partnerships at least twice annually and also kept records of Schoolto-Work "best practices." Most needs assessments were conducted by the individual partnerships. The partnerships t y p i c a l l y used one-time school-based events, such as in-service meetings, conferences, and presentations, for p ro f e s sional development of their faculty and staff.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 8
Ta b l e 4 . 1 : S c h o o l - t o - W o r k G o a l s a n d A c t i v i t i e s
Goal 1 Activities S y s t e m Governance and Partnership Development ? Create a self-sustaining system of governance, management, and oversight at state and regional levels. Th e state developed policy intended to better align education and training with workforce development, i n c r e a s e the number of businesses and government agencies associated with STW, and contribute to an STW information system through a website and public awareness logs. The state created and funded ten regional partnerships that recruited new interagency partners such as postsecondary institutions, and increased the number of organizations with which to network. Most partnerships established a website with links to education and economic databases, but only a few aligned their programs with economic and workforce development. The system of a state office and ten regional partnerships will not be sustained in any substantial way because of lack of funding. Although the Arizona legislature has appropriated a modest $50,000 each year for two years for STW purposes, after December 2001 most partnerships and the state office will likely close. This will leave the administration of STW programs up to the discretion of local schools and school districts. The principles of STW will be sustained where some schools take on functions similar to an STW partnership office. Two partnerships have secured additional funds to remain open somewhat longer. Goal 2 Activities P r o g r a m Coordination and Integration ? Identify, coordinate and integrate K-16 School-to-Work opportunities and other state/private sector training/retraining programs. STW was implemented statewide through the partnerships in all counties. Most partnerships expanded STW by enhancing existing school programs and offering new ones, increasing student involvement in career activities, offering careerawareness activities, and training teachers and counselors on GSPED or career awareness. About half of the partnerships had policies and programs available to non-traditional students. The state focused its efforts in this area through system representation on the GCWDP. Most partnerships worked mainly with the types of businesses and programs they had worked with previously. Very few partnerships directed funding to build upon state-funded and maintained programs. Most integrated STW with universities and community colleges through articulation agreements and promoted career pathways in community colleges. Goal 3 Activities Te c h n i c a l Assistance ? Continuously identify state and regional partnership development needs, particularly in the areas of curriculum and professional development, and implement strategies to meet identified needs. The state and partnerships most often provided technical assistance to schools by conducting site visits or meetings. The state held partnership meetings at least twice yearly. The state kept records of STW best practices, but not in a form that was easily used by the partnerships. N e e d s assessments were conducted primarily by individual partnerships rather than in collaboration with ADE. M o s t partnerships used one-time school-based events (in-service meetings, conferences, or presentations) for professional d e v e l opment of teachers and counselors. Goal 4 Activities C o m m u n i t y Involvement ? Involve public and private sector business/industry, community-based organizations, parents, and the public-at-large as partners. Businesses were involved at the state level through the GCWDP. Partnerships recruited businesses through public awareness efforts, promoting attendance at STW conferences, and membership on STW governing boards. Partnerships also used public awareness efforts to target parents for support. P u b l i c Awareness ? Target key stakeholders and implement publicity strategies that promote the awareness of and support for state and local STW and workforce development efforts. Th e state and all partnerships used the media, b r o c h u r e s, w e b s i t e s, a n d public addresses to publicize STW. P u b l i c i t y was most often used locally. A few partnerships focused on a broad range of stakeholders, such as state legislators and the public. S y s t e m Evaluation ? Implement data collection and reporting procedures at state and local levels which yield both uniform and customized, quantitative and qualitative information. Evaluation data were collected at both the state and local levels. All partnerships collected data and submitted annual r e p o r t s to the state and the evaluation team. Th e STW Division and the state evaluator maintained databases on partnerships, schools, finances, and student achievement. The state evaluator provided feedback through written reports on partnership involvement, student perceptions, public awareness, and other factors.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 9
Goal 5 Activities
Goal 6 Activities
Goal 4 (Community Involvement): The intent of Goal 4 was to bring together different stakeholder groups (business and industry representatives, parents, the public) to partner with the School-to-Work partnerships and schools. At the state level, businesses were involved through the GCWDP. To increase involvement from key industries, several par tnerships used public awareness campaigns and encouraged attendance at School-to-Work conferences. All par tnerships had business representation on their governing boards and in school programs. Community participants were mainly parents, with few partnerships reporting involvement from community-based organizations. Goal 5 (Public Awareness): This goal was targeted at key stakeholders to promote their awareness of School-to-Work and get their support for it. The School-to-Work Division and all partnerships used the local media to publicize School-to-Work, distributed materials such as brochures, built websites, and addressed public audiences. Many local Arizona newspapers printed articles that mentioned School-to-Work activities. Only a few partnerships specifically targeted a broad range of stakeholders, including state legislators and the public. G o a l 6 (System Evaluation): The purpose of this goal was to provide information and data for developing and evaluating the School-to-Work system. Table 4.1 shows the focus on maintaining databases at the School-to-Work Division and at partnerships in order to track implementation and supply feedback. All partnerships collected data and submitted yearly reports to the state School-to-Work Division and the evaluator. The evaluator and the state used this information to create databases, and feedback was provided to the partnerships through written progress reports.
" I t's becoming a world of specialties and the students need to know how to cope out there."
T h e Seven Maricopa County Cluster-based Partnerships
An analysis of the activities of the Maricopa County cluster-based partnerships was also conducted to investigate their performance on the state's goals. For Goal 1, two of the seven cluster-based partnerships took steps to ensure sustainability through business partners, curriculum integration, or established school procedures, but most did not. For Goal 2, most increased the number of schools involved, although few partnerships addressed universal access for special populations of students. For Goal 3, most held one or more professional development seminars, but only a few developed and integrated curriculum or developed a relationship with the ADE. For Goal 4, getting businesses involved was an integral and successful task for each partnership because of the cluster/industry focus. Only a few partnerships took specific steps to involve parents and the community. For Goal 5, most partnerships c r e a t e d some sort of public awareness through newsletters or brochures, but few actively used the media to p r o m o t e events. Finally, for Goal 6, a few partnerships conducted independent internal evaluations of their p a r t n e r s h i p s and special surveys for participating schools, while others fulfilled the goal by coordinating d a t a collection with the School-to-Work Division.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
10
E f f e c t s of School-to-Work on Stakeholder Groups
Data on School-to-Work collected from surveys and other studies shed light on its effects on students, school personnel, the public, and employers. These data were based on evaluation questions asked in a total of six studies over the course of the initiative. The evaluation questions in the surveys were applicable either to all students in Arizona, only to active School-to-Work schools in Arizona, or to both active and non-active schools in Maricopa County as part of a comparison study.
" H i g h school students often have no idea: they choose careers they think sound good, but they have no idea what it involves. Hands on experience is great."
Students
The results for questions asked of students on the seventh-grade and tenth-grade surveys administered annually from 1997 to 2000 are shown by grade level in Table 4.2 on page 12. The table shows that seventh-grade students in Arizona who participated in more career-related activities were better able to define their career interests. Over the course of the initiative, students in School-to-Work schools participated more than those in non-School-to-Work schools in certain career-related activities such as career fairs, field trips, using a computer to learn about jobs, and taking a career inventory test. Data from the year 2000 revealed a strong positive relationship between the number of career-related activities par ticipated in by Grade 7 students and their ability to define a personal career interest. The percentage of students who could define a career interest was only 49% for participants in 0-1 career activities, but increased to 76% for 2-3 activities, 85% for 4-7 activities, and 93% for 8 or more activities. Students in School-to-Work schools also reported more often that they understood the relationship between their career activities and their possible career choices. Ta b l e 4.2 also shows that tenth-grade students in Arizona participated in more career-related activities in the year 2000 than did tenth-graders in 1997. These activities included career fairs, career-related portfolios, and using a computer to learn about jobs. Career activities that students reported to be most useful, such as job shadowing and business mentors, were used less frequently by schools than in-house activities such as guest speakers and career fairs. Tenth-grade students overall did not take more courses related to their career interests in later years of the project than in earlier years. However, compared to tenth-graders not in active School-to-Work schools, those in active schools took more courses related to career interests, better articulated their career interests, saw business as a helpful resource for learning about careers, and were more likely to have a business mentor. Statistical analyses yielded no reliable e v i dence that School-to-Work programs either increased student achievement or reduced school dropout rates.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
11
Ta b l e 4 . 2 : E f f e c t s o f S c h o o l - t o - W o r k o n S t u d e n t s
G r a d e Level and Topic Grade 7 Student Perception of Careers Career-Related Activities ? Students who participated in more career-related activities were better able to identify their career interests. ? Students participated more in certain career-related activities such as career fairs, using computers to learn about jobs, field trips and career inventory tests. Fewer students participated in job shadowing than in these other activities. ? S t u d e n t s in active schools (schools in an STW program) participated in more career-related activities (guest speakers, field trips, class projects, computer use, career inventories, and career fairs) than those in schools that were not active (not in an STW program). ? Students in an active STW school tended to understand the relationship between their career-activities and possible career choice more than those from non-active schools. Adult Mentoring & Counseling in School G r a d e 10 Student Perception of Careers Career-Related Activities ? Students found job shadowing, business mentors, and using computers to learn about careers most useful, but these were used less frequently than in-house and one-time activities such as guest speakers. ? Some STW activities increased, including using a computer to learn about jobs, career fairs, and career related portfolios. ? Students did not take more courses related to their career interests over the duration of STW. ? Th e percentage of students selecting a career pathway did not increase, b u t it was consistently high at a b o u t 80%. ? Students in active schools were more likely than those not in active schools to: ? take courses related to career interests ? be able to articulate career interests ? see business as a helpful resource and had a business mentor ? have a career portfolio ? work at an internship. Adult Mentoring & Counseling in School A l l Grades Student Performance ? T h e r e is no reliable evidence that STW programs increased student achievement or reduced the d r o p o u t rate. ? Career guidance did not increase over the duration of the project, but it was consistently high at 80%. ? Students perceived an increase in counselor career mentoring, but did not receive more career advice from other adults. Results
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
12
"...there needs to be a correlation between the curriculum and the work skills t hat are needed in the local areas."
School Involvement
At the school level, the evaluators examined counseling services under the School-to-Work initiative, other school involvement in School-to-Work, and school ties to GSPED clusters. These data are reported in Table 4.3.
Ta b l e 4 . 3 : E f f e c t s o f S c h o o l - t o - W o r k o n S c h o o l S e r v i c e s , Involvement, and GSPED Ties
To p i c Services Results ? Counselors spent the most time on behavior and counseling of students followed by curriculum-related activities, responding to crises, family problems, higher education, and work and career issues. The time spent on work and career issues remained about the same from 1996 through 1998. ? There were only minor changes in STW involvement at the school level over time. Middle schools reported m o r e teacher and counselor involvement. E l e m e n t a r y schools reported more formal coordination with m i d dle schools. ? Most active schools reported that they had STW activities at least monthly, but less than one-third h a d institutionalized these activities. Ties to GSPED ? S o m e individual schools aligned curriculum with GSPED clusters, b u t there was little evidence of broad cluster-based curriculum in the schools. ? O v e r half of active high school administrators surveyed knew what GSPED clusters were, t h o u g h less than half of elementary and middle school administrators did.
School Involvement
Table 4.3 reveals that on the survey of all school counselors, respondents reported that they spent most of their time working directly with students, a finding that remained consistent between 1996 and 1998. Behavior counseling received the most counselor attention, and increased by about 10% over the three-year period. Work and career issues received about the same amount, less than 20% of counselor time, in all three years of the study. School-to-Work involvement in active schools changed relatively little over time. Middle schools reported more teacher and counselor involvement and elementary schools reported more coordination with middle schools. Only a few schools aligned their curriculum with GSPED clusters. Most high school administrators in active School-to-Work schools knew what clusters were, but most elementary and middle school administrators did not.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
13
"Get students better prepared to understand the demands of the employer in terms of integrity, dedication and basic skills."
The Public and Employers
Ta b l e 4.4 on page 15 summarizes the results evaluators received from the public and employers. Employer p e r c e p t i o n s are based on both the random survey of all state employers and on the surveys of employers p a r t i c i p a t i n g in School-to-Work. Table 4.4 reveals that the public tended to support the concept of School-to-Work. Public awareness, involvement, and support for School-to-Work increased over time, and the public favored continued state funding of School-to-Work. However, the public did not perceive School-to-Work as a comprehensive reform, as was the intention in the federal School-to-Work Act, but rather as a more narrow vocational program. Employers viewed School-to-Work as a more comprehensive workforce development program than the general public. They believed it could have a strong or moderate impact on improving the quality of Arizona's workforce and that their School-to-Work activities made a contribution helping students prepare for college and careers. More than 90% of employers favored continued funding for School-to-Work, and nearly half the employers active in School-to-Work indicated that they would help fund it themselves. About half of Arizona employers, whether or not they participated in School-to-Work, reported that they regularly helped schools or students with careerrelated activities. However, less than half of the employers were aware of School-to-Work, and only about 20% were involved in School-to-Work activities. Mo s t employers involved with School-to-Work interacted with a partnership less than once a quarter. Figure 1 shows that more than half of these employers r e p o r t e d participating in job shadowing, guest s p e a k e r s , and career fairs, while less than half par ticipated in internships, curriculum development and professional development.
F i g r 1 : S c h o o l - t o Activities Employers Figureu1:eSchool-to-Work- W o r k A c t i v i t i e s E m p l o y e r s H a Been e n I n v o In Have v e B eInvolved l v e d I n
(Responses from employers who reported participating in School-to-Work) 50% 81% 64% 52% 57% 45% 47% 28% 18% 24% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 35% 56%
Job Shadowing Guest Speakers Career Fairs Internships Curriculum Development Prof. Development/ Internships for Teachers 0%
Random Sample of All State Employers Sample of Known STW Participants
There was also support from employers not involved in School-to-Work. Employers who were not involved in 2000 but had been in the past reported that the barriers were lack of contact, not knowing about the initiative, and not enough resources. Of those who were never involved, half wished that they had been after hearing about School-to-Work.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
14
Ta b l e 4 . 4 : P u b l i c a n d E m p l o y e r P e r c e p t i o n s a n d I n v o l v e m e n t in School-to-Work
To p i c Public Perceptions Results ? Th e public tended to support the concept of STW, b u t doubted that it would work in practice. P u b l i c awareness, involvement, and support increased over time, and the public favored continuation of state funding for an STW initiative. However, they saw STW as a rather narrow career preparation program instead of a comprehensive school reform program. ? Awareness of STW increased from 29% in 1996 to 46% in 1999 for parents, 47% to 75% for teachers, and 84% to 98% for school administrators. Employer Perceptions and Involvement ? Awareness of STW increased from 27% in 1996 to 43% in 1999 for employers. ? Representatives of employers ? Owners/Presidents, Operations Administrators (e.g. CEO's or COO's), Human Resources Administrators, Community Outreach Administrators, Managers, etc. ? were surveyed in 2001 to assess their attitudes towards STW. The same survey was administered to two groups. One survey group included a random sample of employers throughout the state (N=400), and another survey group included those randomly selected from a list of employers pre-determined to have been involved with STW (N=401). ? Almost all employers believed that STW could strongly or moderately improve the quality of Arizona's workforce. Almost all who were involved in STW believed that their activities contributed to student preparation for college and careers. Most felt that ease of participation for employers was very important for STW's success. ? Over 90% of employers surveyed, whether or not they were involved in STW, reported that they would like the state to provide funding for an STW initiative. Nearly half the employers involved in STW reported that they would help to fund it themselves. ? Less than half of Arizona employers were aware of STW, and about 20% were involved in STW activities. However, about half of Arizona employers, whether or not they participated in STW, reported that they regularly helped schools or students with career activities. Most involved with STW interacted less than once a quarter with a partnership. ? More than half of those involved reported participating in job shadowing, guest speakers, and career fairs, and less than half reported participating in internships, curriculum development and professional development. ? Employers not involved in STW in the year 2000 cited lack of contact (about 30%), lack of resources (about 20%), not knowing about it (19% of the sample of all state employers survey and 9% of the STW participants), and not thinking it was useful (about 14%) as reasons for not participating. ? Of those who were not involved, half wished that they had been after hearing about STW.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
15
Discussion
The evaluation of the School-to-Work initiative in Arizona is discussed below by attainment of the state goals, effects of the initiative on various stakeholders, and conclusions of the evaluators about the initiative.
St a t e Goals
Goal 1 (System Governance and Partnership Development): The state created a statewide School-to-Work system essentially as called for in Goal 1 through the Arizona School-to-Work Division (Arizona Department of Commerce), by developing state policies and goals, and by providing funding for partnerships statewide to assist in their implementation. The School-to-Work system was successful in increasing the number of schools and businesses involved in School-toWork activities over the life of the initiative. However, while Arizona's Workforce Development Comprehensive Plan addresses the future of students' involvement in workforce training and development, the School-to-Work system was not successful in extending itself (sustainability) beyond the life of the initiative, another focus of Goal 1. The state and most partnerships did not obtain adequate funding to continue the partnership system after the federal funding period ended, although some partnerships made provisions for programs to continue in the future. Goal 2 (Program Coordination and Integration): The state directed its efforts on Goal 2 by providing funds for the partnerships and through the School-to-Work system's participation in the GCWDP. Most partnerships implemented School-to-Work by expanding their school programs, increasing student involvement in career activities, and training teachers and counselors on career awareness or GSPED. Generally, the partnerships worked with businesses and programs that they had worked with previously, and did not align their programs well with those of other workforce-development agencies. Thus, the partnerships were able to implement School-to-Work with some success by expanding their career-related programs and activities, but were less successful at coordinating and integrating their efforts with other workforce-related organizations in Arizona. Goal 3 (Technical Assistance): There was not a highly organized or comprehensive effort to implement Goal 3 during the initiative. The schools received technical assistance from the state or partnerships mostly during site visits or meetings. Needs assessments, which were considered part of technical assistance, normally were conducted locally and not collaboratively with ADE as called for in this goal. Professional development was also considered part of technical assistance, and the partnerships typically used one-time school-based events (in-service meetings, conferences, presentations) to provide career-related information to school personnel. The state's management plan calls for the state to deliver training on School-to-Work curriculum. To address this, the state's records of curriculum best practices were a small part of the Five-Star Outstanding Practices notebooks that were distributed to partnerships. Otherwise, state training on curriculum best practices was limited. Goal 4 (Community Involvement): The state and partnerships addressed Goal 4 most directly by recruiting local businesses and industries to School-to-Work through public awareness activities targeted at employers, promoting initiatives to businesses at School-to-Work conferences, and securing business representation on School-to-Work partnership governing boards and school groups. These efforts helped to increase the participation of businesses and industries in School-to-Work programs at the local level. However, many other employers reported that they would have participated in School-to-Work, but they were not contacted by a School-to-Work source or did not know about School-to-Work.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 16
Goal 5 (Public Awareness): The School-to-Work Division and all partnerships used the media, brochures and other materials, websites, and public presentations to address Goal 5. The partnerships targeted their publicity activities mostly at the local level. The state and partnership efforts related to this goal were undoubtedly a factor in the s ubstantial increases in public awareness of School-to-Work from 1996 to 1999 among parents, businesses, teachers, and school administrators, as shown on Table 4.4. Goal 6 (System Evaluation): This goal was implemented through a variety of activities. At first the evaluator maintained databases on schools active in School-to-Work and on partnership information. Later, the School-to-Work Division maintained them. All partnerships collected data and submitted reports to the state and the School-to-Work evaluators. The evaluators conducted several evaluation studies, analyzed data from the state and the partnerships, and wrote annual evaluation reports that provided information and feedback on School-to-Work to the state and its partners. The seven industry cluster-based partnerships created in Maricopa County also worked toward the six goals of the state School-to-Work initiative. Their overall performance on the goals and activities was similar to that of the regional partnerships, except that the cluster partnerships were in existence for a shorter time and therefore tended to not implement the goals and activities as completely as their regional counterparts. The state and partnership efforts at implementing the six goals and their related activities had several positive effects. The state created a statewide School-to-Work system by developing state policies and goals and by funding a statewide system of partnerships. The state and its partnerships increased the number of businesses, schools, and students involved in career-related activities. They were successful in recruiting more local businesses to participate in Schoolto-Work and in increasing the public awareness about it. They provided databases and regular reports that contributed to evaluation of the system. Certain other efforts at implementing the state School-to-Work goals were less successful. Although the state and its partnerships created a statewide School-to-Work system, this system will not be sustained in a comprehensive form beyond the life of the initiative because not enough funding has been generated to continue it. Also, the programs a n d activities of the partnerships were not well aligned with those of other state career-related programs or workforce-development organizations. Further, while technical assistance was one of the six goals, neither technical assistance, curriculum development, nor direct training in good School-to-Work practices were a strong component of the actual initiative. Examination of the School-to-Work goals and reported activities (Appendix C) reveals that they emphasized system building by state and partnership personnel. That is, the goals, objectives and activities listed things for School-toWork personnel to do. However, they did not indicate expectations, either in the form of desired outcomes or careerrelated activities, for students or other School-to-Work stakeholders.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
17
Students
There were several positive findings related to School-to-Work participation by students. Students in active Schoolto-Work schools participated in more career-related activities than students who attended schools that were not active in School-to-Work. Students who participated in more career-related activities were better able to define their own career interests. Compared to their counterparts not in active schools, tenth-grade students in active schools were more able to articulate their career interests, took more courses related to these interests, saw business as more helpful, and were more likely to work at internships. The student survey data also yielded certain less positive results. Although students participated in more career-related activities, most of these activities were one-time at-school events that the students thought were less useful than work-based activities such as job shadowing and having business mentors. Overall, tenth-grade students did not take more courses related to their career interests in the later years of School-to-Work than in its earlier years, nor did the percentage of students selecting a career pathway increase in the later years. There was no reliable evidence that School-to-Work programs either increased student achievement or reduced the student dropout rate, although both of these possible results may well be unreasonable expectations of a School-to-Work program.
Schools
School administrators and counselors reported only minor changes in the schools as a result of School-to-Work. Most schools active in School-to-Work reported having career-related activities at least once monthly, though less than onethird had made these activities an integral part of their school's regularly planned events. Administrators at middle schools reported an increase in teacher and counselor involvement in School-to-Work over time, and elementary school administrators reported more coordination with middle schools. Counselors did not increase the amount of time they spent on work and career issues during the School-to-Work initiative, and there was little evidence of broad career-based curricula in the schools.
T h e Public
As might be expected, the public was not heavily involved in School-to-Work. However, the public supported the School-to-Work concept, and their awareness and involvement in School-to-Work increased over the duration of the project. The public favored continued funding of School-to-Work by the state, but perceived of it as a rather narrow career-related program instead of a more comprehensive education reform effort.
E m p l o ye r s
Employers, certainly a key group in the School-to-Work initiative, showed strong support for the School-to-Work concept. Nearly all employers who were surveyed believed that School-to-Work could improve the quality of the workforce in Arizona, and almost all employers who participated in the School-to-Work initiative felt that their activities contributed to the preparation of students for college or careers. More than 90% of the employers surveyed, including those who were not involved in School-to-Work, would like the state to provide funding to continue it, and nearly half of those involved in School-to-Work indicated that they would help to fund it themselves. Despite their general support for School-to-Work, less than half of Arizona employers were aware of the state's Schoolto-Work program at the time of the year 2000 survey, and only about 20% were involved in School-to-Work activities. Two of the most common reasons cited by employers for not being involved in School-to-Work were not being con tacted about it and not knowing about it. This suggests that more comprehensive efforts at recruitment and public awareness by School-to-Work personnel might have increased business participation in School-to-Work activities. Nevertheless, about half of Arizona employers, whether or not they participated in the School-to-Work program, reported that they regularly helped schools or students with career-related activities.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
18
Conclusions
The evaluators reached four major conclusions about School-to-Work based on their extensive involvement with the initiative in Arizona over its duration. 1. School-to-Work had a modest positive impact on the involvement of students, schools, and businesses in career-related activities in Arizona. 2. Implementation of the School-to-Work system varied considerably across partnerships. 3. The amount of money available for School-to-Work severely limited its statewide potential. 4. Strong leadership at the state level is critical to development and implementation of the most effective statewide School-to-Work system. Each of these conclusions is discussed below. 1. Impact of School-to-Work: Overall, the School-to-Work system developed by the state of Arizona had a modest positive impact on career-related activities and workforce development in the state. More students, schools, and businesses became involved in career-related activities under School-to-Work, and students who participated in more activities were better able to define their career interests. Favorable attitudes and support from the business community were also a positive aspect associated with the initiative. Several factors limited the impact of the School-to-Work system. The state and its partnerships did not obtain the resources to sustain the system beyond the life of the initiative, and the School-to-Work Division will close for that reason, thus reducing the potential longer-term impact of the initiative. The increase in career-related activities for students mainly involved one-time in-school activities rather than more in-depth workplace experiences that students judged to be more useful. There was no increase for students in career and job guidance from school counselors and other adults during the initiative. And despite strong support for School-to-Work from employers, less than half of Arizona employers were aware of School-to-Work at the end of the initiative. 2. School-to-Work Implementation Across Partnerships: It was clear to the evaluators from the partnership reports, the School-to-Work surveys, and interactions with School-to-Work personnel and programs that the depth and quality of implementation of the School-to-Work system varied considerably among partnerships. A small number of partnerships had strong leadership and were very active in planning and implementing programs in their schools. These partnerships were more successful at recruiting businesses to School-to-Work, and they accounted for most of the student involvement in career-related activities. They also tended to be more successful in identifying financial support that will permit the continuation of some School-to-Work programs. These same few partnerships had more schools reporting School-to-Work activities at least monthly and more students involved in career-related activities. 3. School-to-Work Finances: Arizona received approximately $23 million in federal School-to-Work funds over the six-year period of the initiative. About $4 million of this amount was spent on a wide variety of allowable state activities such as evaluation, and about $19 million was distributed to the partnerships. While $23 million is a lot of money, this amount must also be considered in the context of the size of Arizona's education system. Allowing for modest administrative costs at the partnership level, the amount available per school averaged less than $4000 per year for the approximately 800 schools annually that were active in a School-to-Work partnership in the state.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
19
Four thousand dollars per year for a school is not much money. It is approximately 10% of an experienced teacher's annual salary and benefits, or about the amount required to finance one class for 30 students for one semester. At the student level, it amounts to $5 per student per year in a school with 800 students or $10 per year in a school with 400 students. Considered in this context, the modest overall impact of Schoolto-Work in Arizona may well be as strong an effect as one could expect given the limited financial resources. Certainly, the amount of funding at the school or student level was not sufficient to produce a major effect on the career-related education and involvement of students. Given such limited funding, a more economical alternative approach may have involved initial development and testing of a model School-to-Work program, followed by an effort to implement the model program statewide. 4. S c h o o l - t o - Wo rk Leadership: The state created its School-to-Work system with a commitment to local control of School-to-Work programs and practices. The system of goals and related objectives and planned activities was essentially a high-level framework for what School-to-Work personnel at the state and regional partnership levels should do. The system did not deal explicitly with desired student outcomes or preferred student activities. These considerations were left to School-to-Work personnel at the regional and local school levels. The evaluation of the School-to-Work initiative suggests that if it were to continue beyond December 2001, strong leadership at the state level could be instrumental in establishing an effective School-to-Work system while still allowing for considerable local control. Potential improvements that could benefit from strong direction at the state level include those listed below. ? Focus more on desired student outcomes and workplace-based student activities. ? Develop at least a basic curriculum that includes the student outcomes and recommended student activities for implementation statewide. ? Incorporate ADE's Workplace Skill Standards into the curriculum at the state level. ? Provide for technical assistance as needed to install the curriculum statewide and to help less-active partnerships adopt the successful practices of the more productive ones. ? Provide leadership to ensure that as many Arizona businesses as possible are aware of School-to-Work and the opportunity to participate in it. In summary, the evaluators found that the state of Arizona created a statewide School-to-Work system that had a modest positive impact on the involvement of students, schools, and businesses in career-related activities in Arizona. Implementation of the system varied considerably across the regional partnerships, with a few partnerships being quite successful at involving students and businesses in beneficial activities. Though the overall impact of the School-toWork system was modest, the amount of money available for it was not sufficient for the system to produce a strong effect on students' career-related education and involvement. And finally, strong leadership and direction at the state level is critical to development and implementation of a highly effective statewide School-to-Work system.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
20
References
Federal Register Part VI, Vol. 60, No. 96, Thursday, May 18, 1995, Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education; School-to-Work Opportunities Act; State Implementation Grants; Notices. Federal Register Part V, Vol. 59 No. 23, Thursday, February 3, 1994, Department of Education, Department of Labor Cooperative Demonstration ? School-to-Work Opportunities State Implementation Grants Program; Notices. "Implementation State Site Visit Continuation Matrix Narrative." Arizona's Department of Commerce, Governor's School-to-Work Division, August 1997. National Governor's Association. "Preparing Students for the Twenty-First Century." Retrieved 1/23/01, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nga.org/center/divisions/1,1188,C ISSUE BRIEF^D 1004,00.html. National School-to-Work Learning and Information Center. "Business Statement on School-to-Career Initiative." Retrieved 1/23/01, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stw.ed.gov/ht/schoolca.htm. National School-to-Work Learning and Information Center. "What is School-to-Work." Retrieved 1/30/01, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stw.ed.gov/general/whatis.htm. National School-to-Work Learning and Information Center. "School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994." Retrieved 1/31/01, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stw.ed.gov/factsht/act.htm. Olson, Lynn. The School-to-Work Revolution. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts 1997. "System Building: Developing and Implementing Arizona's School-to-Work Opportunities Initiative." Office of the Governor, State of Arizona, June 1995. United States Department of Education. "The Context: The Impact of Economic, Political, and Technological Change." Retrieved 1/22/01, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/SchoolWork/study4a.html.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
21
Appendix A: Planned Activities for Implementing Arizona School-to-Work Goals and Objectives
Goals System Governance & Partnership Development Objectives Govern, Manage, & Oversee P l a n n e d Activities ? Promote better alignment between education/training and economic/workforce development ? Recruit new interagency partners to provide programs and services ? Increase the number of organizations formally networked with STW ? Develop an information system linking education and economic development databases Create Self-Sustainability ? Identify funding sources, and how they are directed and used to plan for sustainability ? Seek financial support on an on-going basis from the private sector and others Program Coordination & Integration Focus on K-16 & Other STW, Training, & Retraining Programs ? Align and direct funds to create a workforce development system that includes STW ? Update the inventory of programs maintained by state -funded and -approved organizations ? Integrate STW in four-year universities ? Promote "career pathways" in the community colleges Implement STW ? Expand STW at all school levels ? Identify best practices ? Increase involvement ? Track availability of career awareness activities, including exploration and counseling ? Encourage training of school practitioners ? Implement STW statewide ? Compare counselors' perceptions in Arizona Schools Create Universal Access ? Actively engage all schools and determine the accessibility of STW for gifted, LEP, handicapped and out-of-school youth ? Ensure access for special populations and transition services for youth with disabilities ? Integrate STW in all Department of Economic Security "One Stop" career centers Technical Assistance Conduct On-Going Needs Assessment Develop & Implement Curriculum Promote Professional Development ? Document technical assistance needs ? Develop relationships with ADE to implement "career pathways" ? Maintain a database of model curriculum ? Track GSPED curriculum implementation ? Provide teacher shadowing & internships ? Deliver training to partnerships on incorporating skills into the curriculum ? Promote professional development strategies Other Partnership Development Strategies ? Hold partnership meetings to share information and review best practices
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 22
Appendix A
Goals Community Involvement
(continued)
Objectives Promote Business & Industry Participation
P l a n n e d Activities ? Continue public awareness efforts targeting key constituent groups ? Promote initiatives to businesses that increase awareness of STW ? Recruit GSPED businesses ? Ensure business representation at all levels of the system
Promote Community & Public Participation
? Promote public awareness ? Maintain efforts to gain support and involvement of key constituent groups and parents ? Use the media such as radio and television public service announcements to publicize STW ? Publish articles in newspapers and magazines ? Publish and distribute materials such as newsletters, brochures, and briefing papers ? Maintain a web site ? Address public audiences or the media regarding the state's STW initiative
Public Awareness
Implement Publicity & Advertising Strategies
Develop & Disseminate Promotional Materials Target Key Stakeholders
? Publicize STW locally and nationally ? Report best practices to the Resource Bank ? Increase awareness and support of all constituent groups and stakeholders
System Evaluation
Collect & Report Data
? Maintain data collection and reporting procedures ? Maintain databases for partnership comparison ? Track partnerships' implementation of school-based, work-based and connecting activities
Develop Databases Maintain Continuous Feedback
? Compile customized databases to compare partnerships and track compliance with goals ? Produce progress reports on STW implementation, activities and perceptions
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
23
A p p e n d i x B: Morrison Institute for Public Policy School-to-Work Publications
1992
An Arizona Initiative for School-to-Work
1996
Conversations with Arizona's School-to-Work Advisory Council Phoenix School-to-Work Colloquium: Focus Group Results A Comprehensive Baseline Analysis of Public Perceptions and Arizona's School-to-Work Initiative Public Perceptions of School-to-Work: Baseline Results School-to-Work: Information System Support Issues and Conceptual Design Arizona's School-to-Work System: Report on Thirteen Funded Partnerships
1997
Tenth Grade Students' Perceptions of Career Preparation and Work Experience in Arizona Schools Seventh Grade Students' Perceptions of Career Awareness and Exploration Activities in Arizona Schools Public Perceptions of School-to-Work: First Year Progress Arizona's School-to-Work Solutions For Out-of-School Youth Arizona Counselors' Perceptions of School-to-Work: Baseline Results Arizona Public School Counselors ? How Do They Spend Their Time? School-to-Work Fiscal Agents: Profiles of Twenty States
1998
Tenth Grade Students' Perceptions of Career Preparation and Work Experience in Arizona Schools: Two Year Trends Seventh Grade Students' Perceptions of Career Awareness and Exploration Activities in Arizona Schools: Two Year Trends Arizona's School-to-Work System Suppor t for School-to-Work Remains Strong ? Three Year Trends in Public Opinion How Arizona Public School Counselors Spend Their Time: 1997 Update Arizona's School-to-Work System: Site Visit Reports (1996-1997) Ensuring the Safety of Students in School-to-Work Activities: Who's Liable?
1999
Arizona School-to-Work Initiative: Four Year Trends in Public Opinion Are Arizona Public Schools Making Best Use of School Counselors?: Three Year Results
2000
Tenth Grade Students' Perceptions of Career Preparation and Work Experience in Arizona Schools: Three Year Trends and 1999 Results Seventh Grade Students' Perceptions of Career Preparation and Work Experience in Arizona Schools: Three Year Trends and 1999 Results
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a
24
A p p e n d i x C : R e p o r t e d A c t i v i t i e s f o r I m p l e m e n t i n g A r i z o n a 's School-to-Work Goals and Objectives
Goals System Governance & Partnership Development Objectives Govern, Manage, & Oversee R e p o r t e d Activities The state worked on system governance and partnership development issues by: ? Developing policy to better align education, training and retraining programs with economic and workforce development, but no data is available on how well this was implemented. ? Increasing the number of organizations such as businesses and other government agencies associated with STW through the GCWDP. ? Contributing to an information system through public awareness logs and the web site with links to education and economic development databases. Partnerships focused on forming networks and collaborations: ? Only a few aligned programs with economic and workforce development in their collaborations with business partners (this was most true for those that worked on curriculum development). ? Almost all established a website with links to education and economic development databases, but there is no data on how well they worked as an information system or their link to GCWDP. ? All recruited new interagency partners such as post-secondary institutions. ? All increased the number of organizations such as other education boards and businesses that formally networked with them. Create Self-Sustainability While the system, itself, and most partnerships will not be sustained because they haven't identified funding sources, some partnerships plan to sustain various programs through: ? Seeking financial support by incorporating as non-profits to apply for grants. ? Seeking financial support from business partners who will continue programs such as job shadowing, field trips, and speakers. ? Continuing school-based enterprises that are self-sustaining. ? Seeking financial support from the local community college. ? Passing STW functions to a different local entity such as schools or community colleges. The state focused its program coordination and integration efforts by aligning and directing funds through the STW system's representation on the GCWDP. Partnerships generally worked through programs and entities they had dealt with in the past: ? Very few aligned and directed training and employment funds, or provided training to other workforce-related organizations. ? Very few aligned resources with state-funded and state-maintained programs, although the state prepared a report on Arizona Employment Programs that updated the inventory of programs. ? Almost all integrated STW into four-year universities and community colleges through articulation agreements or partnering for services. ? Almost all promoted "career pathways" in community colleges and other post-secondary institutions. Most partnerships implemented STW by integrating STW concepts into specific career activities and teacher training at the school level: ? Most expanded STW by enhancing existing school programs and offering new ones. ? Most identified best practices through internal audits and the Five-Star process. ? Most increased the level of involvement of students in career activities. ? Most made efforts to offer career awareness activities with career portfolios, interest inventories, and career counseling. ? Most trained school personnel (teachers, staff, and counselors) on GSPED or career awareness. ? STW has been implemented statewide through partnerships in all counties. ? A study was completed to compare counselor's perceptions over time. About half of the partnerships had policies and programs to make STW available to non-traditional students: ? Almost half actively engaged all schools ? in total there were about 800 active schools in Arizona ? and determined the accessibility for gifted, LEP, handicapped, and out-of-school youth. ? Almost half made some efforts to ensure access for special populations, though only one established transition services for youth with disabilities. ? Half integrated STW into DES One-Stops by providing programs and database materials.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 25
Program Coordination & Integration
Focus on K-16 & Other STW, Training, & Retraining Programs
Implement STW
Create Universal Access
Appendix C:
Goals Technical Assistance
(continued)
Objectives Conduct On-Going Needs Assessment
R e p o r t e d Activities Needs assessments were a large part of technical assistance and were conducted locally rather than through collaboration with ADE. While both ADE and GCWDP prepared documents anticipating collaboration, there is little evidence of a relationship with ADE such as sharing information or assessing implementation of career pathways. The state and partnerships most often gave technical assistance to schools by conducting site visits or meetings: ? The state kept records of curriculum best practices in the Five-Star process, but not in a specific or easily-accessible database. ? Most partnerships tracked GSPED curriculum implementation through cluster representation on boards, programmatic activities, etc. Partnerships tended to use one-time, school-based events for technical assistance in professional development: ? Only a few provided teachers with job shadowing or internships. ? Almost all delivered training in GSPED, career pathways, or workplace skills to partnerships, teachers, and/or counselors. ? Almost all promoted professional development such as in-service, conferences or presentations. Both partnerships and the State Office held collaborative meetings for partnership development: ? Half of the partnerships held partnership meetings, peer evaluations of best practices, and/or round table discussions to determine best practices. ? The state held partnership meetings at least twice a year. At the state level business was involved through the GCWDP. All partnerships addressed community involvement by actively recruiting business at some level: ? Almost half targeted public awareness efforts to key industries. ? Half actively promoted initiatives to business through attendance at STW conferences or linking educators to employers. ? Half recruited GSPED businesses. ? All had businesses representation on their Governing Boards and at the school level. Partnerships tended to focus community involvement toward parents: ? Almost half promoted participation through public awareness, targeted mostly toward parents. ? Most targeted parents to gain support and involvement. STW was actively publicized: ? All partnerships as well as the state used the media to publicize STW, published articles, distributed materials such as brochures, built websites, addressed public audiences, etc. Publicity materials were most often used locally: ? Almost all partnerships publicized STW locally and some attempted national publicity, while the state also did both. ? All partnerships reported best practices through the Five-Star process. Most partnerships did not focus on awareness of a broad range of stakeholders: ? A few targeted all groups ? students, teachers, parents, employers, and legislators and the general public ? to increase awareness and support. Public opinion and employer surveys show that support was high. Data to evaluate the system was collected at both the state and local level: ? All partnerships collected data for the evaluation team and state. ? The state evaluator and the STW Division maintained databases of active schools, partnership information, and finances. Databases helped track implementation: ? Partnership implementation was tracked through yearly reports. ? The state evaluator and the STW Division compiled customized databases on student achievement, level of involvement, and partnership-based information. Feedback occurred mostly through written reports: ? The state evaluator produced progress reports on level of involvement, student perceptions, public awareness, and others as necessary.
A S c h o o l - t o - Wo r k S y s t e m f o r A r i z o n a 26
Develop & Implement Curriculum
Promote Professional Development
Other Partnership Development Strategies
Community Involvement
Promote Business & Industry Participation
Promote Community & Public Participation
Public Awareness
Implement Publicity & Advertising Strategies Develop & Disseminate Promotional Materials Target Key Stakeholders
System Evaluation
Collect & Report Data
Develop Databases
Maintain Continuous Feedback
Morrison Institute for Public Policy
Morrison Institute for Public Policy conducts research which informs, advises, and assists Arizonans. A part of the School of Public Affairs (College of Public Pro g r a m s ) at Arizona State University, the Institute is a bridge between the university and the community. Through a variety of publications and forums, Morrison Institute shares research results with and provides services to public officials, private sector leaders, and community members who shape public policy. A nonpartisan advisory board of leading Arizona business people, scholars, public o f f i c i a l s , and public policy experts assists Morrison Institute with its work. Morrison Institute was established in 1981 through a grant from Marvin and June Morrison of Gilbert, Arizona and is supported by private and public funds and contract research.
w w w. a s u . e d u / c o p p / m o r r i s o n
