ERIC ED365798: Cooperative Education as a Strategy for School-to-Work Transition.

5 Pages·0.23 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 365 798
CE 065 403
AUTHOR
Ascher, Carol
TITLE
Cooperative Education as a Strategy for
School-to-Work Transition.
INSTITUTION
National Center for Research in Vocational Education,
Berkeley, CA.
SPONS AGENCY
Office of Vocational and Adult Education (ED),
Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
Jan 94
NOTE
5p.
AVAILABLE FROM
NCRVE, 1995 University Avenue, Suite 375, Berkeley,
CA 94704-1058.
PUB TYPE
Collected Works
Serials (022)
JOURNXL CIT
Centerfocus; n3 Jan 1994
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Cooperative Education; Educational Practices;
Educational Strategies; *Education Work Relationship;
High Schools; *Instructional Development; Instructor
Coordinators; *Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in
Education; Postsecondary Education; Program Costs;
School Business Relationship; Student
Characteristics; Teacher Education; *Transitional
Programs
ABSTRACT
Despite the proven record of cooperative education
(CE) in high school vocational
programs and professional
college-level programs, several barriPrs must be
overcome before CE
can be spread in its current form or used as a model for enlarged
school-to-work transition efforts. Among the barriers
identified are
the following: the diminished status of high school
CE because of its
links to vocational education, which is perceived
as a dumping ground
for low-achieving students; the high cost of CE
because of the large
amount1; of time teacher/coordinators must spend marketing
cooperative
programs and screening, placing, and monitoring students; the gradual
disappearance of preservice courses to train CE teacher/coordinators;
and difficulties in gaining employer support for either
CE or
apprenticeship programs. Cooperative education has been
demonstrated
to produce measurable benefits in the following
areas: social
development, school persistence, and economic outcomes.
The insights
cf several studies suggest features of successful
CE programs: high
quality placements, teacher/coordinators with
appropriate
occupational experience, close supervision at the worksite,
strong
links between job training and related instruction,
frequent and
specific informal and formal evaluations of students'
progress,
parent/guardian involvement, and strong administrative
support.
(Contains 23 references.)
(MN)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that
can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
0Asty
National Center tor Research in
Vocational
Education
University of California at Berkeley
.ALIono
tuNIP.-
'1111110011
Number 3/January 1994
COOPERATIVE
Today, cooperative education is con-
a positive attitude, and no disciplinary
centrated in the vocational areas of
problems (U.S. General Accounting
EDUCATION AS A
marketing, trade and industry, and
Office,
1991).
Moreover,
while
a
STRATEGY FOR
business. Although the program is na-
greater proportion of coop studcnts
tional,
arrangements
specific
are
are from low income homes and have
SCHOOL-TO-WORK
worked out locally between individual
lower test scores than all seniors, 41
TRANSITION
employers and school staff, subject to
percent are from the upper half of in-
state laws and local customs. In contrast
come groups and 30 percent are from
to German apprenticeships, to which
As the nation struggles with develop-
the upper half of the test score distribu-
they are often compared, high school
ing policies for a system for school-to-
tion (U.S. General Accounting Office,
cooperative education in this country
work transition, it may be helpful to
according to High
In
1991).
fact,
draw on lessons from education and
generally only lasts a year or less (U.S.
School and Beyond data, about 76 per-
General Accounting Office, 1991). Al-
training strategies already in place. Co-
cent of all coop students are white, 12
though a few coop programs alternate
percent black, and 10 percent His-
operative education ("coop") is the old-
days or weeks of school with work, or
est of these programs. As the report of
panicabout the same as in the gen-
allow students to work in the morning,
the William T. Grant Foundation. The
eral student population. Among all
the most common arrangement is to
seniors in 1980, 23 percent of
Forgotten Half, concludes, cooperative
voca-
schedule the morning at school and the
education "has a solid achievement re-
tional education students were in coop,
cord and merits far more attention
afternoon in a paid job. Coop students
ten percent of general track students
usually take traditional academic and
than it has received" (1988, p. 96). Yet
were in coop, and four percent of col-
vocational classes with non-coopera-
the coop experience also suggests that
preparatoly students were in
lege
tive-education students, although par-
there are a number of barriers to either
coop. Finally, most coop programs are
ticular courses may be recommended
spreading this program in its current
in the inner cities or suburbs, with rural
form or using it as a model for an en-
to the students by the school coop coor-
youth having the least access to these
dinator. In addition, good coop pro-
programs (U.S. General Accounting
larged school-to-work transition effort.
grams include a special related class, in
Office, 1991).
which students are able to reflect on
This brief considers several critical
Program Costs
and integrate their job experiences.
policy issues in cooperative education
While Federal funds have not been
as it is practiced at the high school level:
Cooperative education is not an in-
program costs,
the preparation of
specifically designated for cooperative
expensive program. Typically, coop-
education, the program can be mini-
teachers and the training of employers
erative education teacher/coordinators
to participate in the program, and the
mally supported by Federal vocational
are given only three courses )f which
education funds. In fact, cooperative
effect of the program on students'
em-
one is a special coop course related to
education declined significantly at the
ployment, school persistence, and
so-
students work assignments. In return
secondary level during the 1980s be-
cial development.
for three periods of released time, the
cause of a loss of both Federal and state
teacher/coordinators are responsible
The Nature of Cooperative
funds. While about 11 percent of all
for screening students for eligibility, as
Education
juniors and seniors were in cooperative
well as developing employment agree-
education in 1981-82, by the end of the
Cooperative education is a program
ments and training plans, finding jobs,
decade this percentage had decreased
which combines academic study with
and monitoring the field experience
to about 8 percent (U.S. General Ac-
paid, monitored and credit-bearing
(for the 15-20 students for whom they
counting Office, 1990).
work. It. was established around the
are ultimately responsible), through
turn of the century as part of a move-
monthly or even hi-weekly visits (U.S.
The Cooperative Education Student
ment to create experience-based edu-
General Accounting Office, 1991). In
In contrast to cooperative education
cation. In fhct; the first coop program
periods of budget constraints, such
as
at the college level, which has become
looked more like what we now would
the last years have been for districts
an intrinsic part of professional pro-
apprenticeships. The four-year
call
across the nation, high schools have
grams like engineering or architecture,
program, which led to beginning jour-
found it increasingly difficult to absorb
the status of high school coop has suf-
neyman status, began with a year in
the costs of this released time. As a con-
fered from its links to vocational educa-
hich students studied only academic
sequence, coop programs have dimin-
subjects; in the following three years,
tion, which is often cc asidered a clump-
ished in size and effectiveness.
ing ground for
students
alternated weeks between
lc w achieving, low
Budget cuts have also made it more
shop and school (Bailey & Merritt,
income,
..lority students. Yet, most
difficult
for
teacher/coordinators
to
cooperative education programs have
market their coop programs to pro-
I 993).
0 a. CaPARTWIIIIT Oa OUCATVON
admissions requirements, such as a 2.0
spective employers. Ironically, success-
Jac* a Edwunara *ammo, *ea imonfronwor
CrAnOtiAl_PEMMUNFORMATION
grade point average, good at tendance,
ful programs. in which students be-
ff tf)
Tha oocunam ,a 0.0/. fOt011uCed
...vv. I pl. tn
aKrnalog ft
UMW civ.r.lei Po. oaew mac* SO whom.
..oraiumon
0 0.*Ofeelstuf
2
IlleffledM
wont Op 1411
taI maolOn
110K1
come permanent employees after com-
Nevertheless, for coop or any other
than the best. All adolescents today can
pleting their coop experience, involve
workplace training program to suc-
be considered at risk of not becoming
the most work for coordinators, who
ceed, it is important to have someone at
successful workers, but coop's screen-
must find new placements each year
the worksite responsible for workplace
ing process makes it a good choice for
General
Accounting
(U.S.
learning. This includes mentoring and
Office,
those employers who decide to partici-
1991).
pate in a school-based work-training
coaching to pass on the culture of the
Finally, there are also professional
program.
workplace, as well as the transmitting of
costs associated with training, as the
real knowledge and skills.
The Effects of Coop on Students
next two sections make clear.
The Role of Employers
To understand the effects of coop-
Professional Preparation of the
In the German system, employers
erative education on students, it is use-
Coop Teacher/Coordinator
ful to begin by comparing coop or
have traditionally been eager to take
In the most effective and common
apprentices, in large part because these
other supervised work experiences to
high
cooperative
school
education
young workers remained in the same
unsupervised jobs
that
adolescents
model, a teacher/coordinator handles
firm for most of their work lives. By
might otherwise have.
all the work placements, and teaches a
contrast, employment patterns in the
Adolescent Work and Coop. Although
course related to the students' work as-
United States are characterized by high
over 90 percent of all high school stu-
sigmnent. The traditional preparation
dents have worked by the time they
mobility; thus, it has been assumed that
for becoming a teacher/coordinator has
few employers will spend time and
graduate, most of this work is unskilled
been through a special vocational edu-
and repetitive, as well as segregated
money on training young workers who
cation course offered in teacher train-
from adult workers. Indeed, one study
will noT stay with the company, and will
ing institutions. However, such courses
take their training somewhere else. At
found that less than 10 percent of ado-
are generally disappearing, largely be-
the same time, while unions in Ger-
lescents' time in unsupervised work is
cause there have been so few openings
many arc strong and play a central role
spent reading, writing, calculating, ex-
for new coop teacher/coordinators. In
in operating apprenticeships, in the
ercising judgment or making decisions
United States the unions have been
(Greenberger & Steinberg,
fact, because few new teachers are be-
1986).
ing hired in any subject area, if coop-
weaker, particularly in areas where
Given thesc conditions, it is not surpris-
erative education is to be expanded, or
coop programs have been most promi-
ing that unsupervised youth work ex-
if apprenticeships or other school-to-
nent, and they have not been part of
periences offer students few technical
work programs are to be a serious op-
skills and are apparently unrelated to
the design of coop.
tion, existing teachers must be trained
According to the U.S. Government
school learning. Moreover, working
for the coordinator role. This means
Accounting Office (1991, p. 30), the
more than twenty hours a week is asso-
major barrier to employer participa-
creating in-service courses which incor-
ciated with reduced school comple-
porate the content of the preservice vo-
non--although it is not clear whether
tion has simply been a "lack of aware-
cational education courses that were
ness about programs."
However, a
or not those students who work more
close second has been the image of
once delivered in teacher training insti-
arc
already
alienated
from
school
mnons. These courses would give
coop as a dumping ground for aca-
(Stern, Hopkins, Stone, McMillion, Ca-
teacher/coordinators the skills to con-
gampang, & Klein,
demically-poor high school students.
1992).
Finally,
nect schools to the workplace, and
while some youth in unsupervised
In the 1970s, when employers were
would teach them how to develop ob-
work develop "worker virtues," espe-
paid 100 percent wage subsidies to pro-
jectives for curriculum, materials, stu-
vide part-time jobs to disadvantaged
cially in the area of social skills, they ac-
(lent behavior, and institutional links,
students under the Youth Incentive
tually show a higher incidence of petty
as well as their own effectiveness in all
theft, tardiness, and so on than stu .
Entitlement Pilot Project, only 18 per-
dents who do not work (Hamilton,
these areas (Armstrong, 1988).
cent of employers were willing to par-
ticipate (Ball & Wolfhogan, 1981). Dur-
1990).
Training Employers for Coop
ing the 1980s, the Targeted Job Tax
If coop only provided students with
Programs
Credit (TJTC) perpetuated the stigma'
money, it would be no better than these
of coop as a program for low-income
unsupervised youth employment ex-
Many high school programs in the
students, since this program only al-
U.S. once had training programs for
periences. I lowever, one five-year lon-
empk)yers to teach them how to be
lowed tax credits for those students on
gitudinal study comparing students in
unsupervised jobs with students en-
welfare or with other serious disadvan-
trainers on the job. Unfortunately, the
tages. In fact, because of the stigma,
rolled in school-supervised work (pre-
dwindling of coop, combined with the
many employers actually underesti-
presumed reluctance of employers to
dominantly coop) programs found that
mated the skills that TJTC participants
students in supervised programs have
participate even without training, has
higher-quality jobs with more contact
could bring to the job (Bishop, 1986).
madc employer training appear a uto-
with adas. These coop and other
If either coop or youth apprentice-
pian dream.
ships are to succeed, they must throw
work experiences
school-supervised
provide students more supervision on
off the image of offering employers less
3
the job, more challenge, and more
and that students in "higb quality"
the primary weaknesses of cooperative
coop programs are more likely than
work that is meaningful (Stone, Stern,
education has been the absence of any
Hopkins, & Mcmillion, 1991). Both
other vocational education students to
systematic way for students' work-ex-
stay in school and pursue additional
students and employers in these super-
periences to be converted into creden-
vised jobs more frequently report that
tials or actual job placements (Berry-
education (U.S. Government Account-
man, et al,
the students' work involves assuming
1993). Fortunately, this
ing Office, 1991). Indeed, because stu-
responsibility, as well as reading, writ-
problem may be soon be solved, since
dents in work-supervised jobs are more
likely to connect what they learn at
ing, problem-solving and other prac-
the Perkins Act of 1990 requires states
tices related to school learning (Stone.
to develop standards and measures of
school with what is and will be needed
at work, these jobs are "more likely to
performance for vocational education.
Stern, Hopkins, & Mc Million, 1990). As
Berryman, Flaxman and Inger con-
or less likely to undermine
reinfoi
The Components of a Quality Coop
the sn dents' commitment to school"
clude, although no coherent vision of
Program
the curriculum and pedagogy of the
(Stern, Hopkins, Stone, McMillion, Ca-
gampang, & Klein, 1992, p. 10). Not
work place has emerged from coopera-
Accepting that the quality of a coop
education
surprisingly,
tive education, "on average, the quality
cooperative
program can vary because of local fi-
of cooperative education jobs is supe-
students also tend more often to claim
nancing arrangements and initiatives,
rior to tile standard jobs that students
that their jobs have positively affected
we can ask what makes a good coop
not in cooperative education obtain"
their decisions to stay in school, and to
work experience. The insights of sev-
attend classes during their senior year
(1993, p. 80, 81).
eral studies suggest a number of fea-
Does this higher quality work expe-
(Herrnstadt, Horowitz, & Sum, 1979).
tures (Laycock, Herman, & Laetz,
rience influence the students' social de-
As for postsecondary education, only
1992; Lynch, Price, & Burrow, 1992;
a quarter of all coop students are in
velopment, school persistence and eco-
U.S. General Accounting Office, 1991):
nomic future?
two- and four-year colleges two years
1. Quality coop placements in which
after high school, which is a lower rate
Social Develofnnent. Cooperative edu-
the student is allowed to perform work
cation students usually express more
than all seniors. However, three-quar-
that both provides opportunities to de-
satisfaction with school, and a more
ters of coop students are working for
velop new competencies and contrib-
pay, which is significantly more than
positive attitude toward work, but they
utes to the productivity of the organiza-
do not necessarily have more occupa-
those seniors who were not in a super-
tion.
vised work program. Obviously, infor-
tional knowledge or "affective" compe-
2. Teacher/coordinators with appro-
mation is needed on how these stu-
tence (Stern, Hopkins, Stone, & Mc Mil-
priate occupational experience related
five or ten
dents fare
years after
lion, 1990). There is also no consistent
to the industry associated with their
evidence that cooperative education
araduation.
program, as well as professional prepa-
students show
delinquency or
Economic Outcomes. While having a
ration for operating a school-super-
less
higher voting rates (Berryman, et al,
job may be beneficial to students' short-
vised work education program.
term earnings, jobs which interfcre
to stu-
1993). Nevertheless, relative
3. Close supervision at the worksite
with schooling have a negative effect
dents in regular classrooms, students in
by a training supervisor, as well as a
experiential education programs like
because educational attainment has a
mechanism by which the supervisor
coop make gains on moral reasonir g,
much more powerful and long-lasting
can share his own professional exper-
social and personal re-
influence on employment than actual
self-esteem,
tise with the coop studcnt.
work experience (Hamilton,
sponsibility, auitudes towards adults
1990).
4. At the onset, an accurate and real-
and others, career exploration, and
Generally, the economic benefits of a
istic description of the job for the stu-
job are insubstantial if the student does
empathy/complexity of thought. Equally
dent as well as accurate expectations by
imporumt, the single strongest factor
not enter a job in the area in which hc
the employer of the skills thc student
explaining these changes is the weekly
or she was trained, and less than half of'
brings to it.
all high school vocational education
reflective learning session in their re-
5. Strong links between job training
training-related jobs
lated class, during which students inte-
graduates
get
and related instruction, which might
grate their learning on the job with
1988). Moreover, earnings
(Bishop,
include
individualized, written
an
and labor force participation rates are
classroom learning (Armstrong, 1988).
training plan that is correlated to the
not consistently better for cooperative
students' in-school curriculum.
education graduates than for other vo-
School Persistence. It. is commonly be-
6. Frequent and specific informal
lieved that relating education to work
education
students,
even
cational
and formal evaluations of the students'
"enhances motivation to perform well
though cooperative education students
progress by the teacher/coordinator,
tend more often than regular high
and increases school retention and the
with feedback and follow-up to im-
likelihood of pursuing postsecondary
school vocational education students to
prove performance.
education" (U.S. General Accounting
find jobs related to their training, have
7. Involvement of parents or guardi-
a better work orientation, and more
Office, 1091, p. 4). It has been argued
ans.
that vocational education in general
job
(I Ierrnstadt,
marketable
skills
8. Placement of graduates in full-
lowers the dropout rate (Bishop, 1988)
I Iorowitz, & Sum. 1979). In fat I, one of
time positions, or referrals for addi-
4
National Center tor Research in
ocanonal Elocation
Una ersav ot Califon:as at Berkeley
tional instruction, and follow-up of
Working Paper 88-11. State University of
vised and non-supervised. Journal of Voca-
New York, Ithaca, School of Industrial and
graduates after three and five years.
tional Education Research, 15(2), 31-53.
Labor Relations. ED 297 150
Stone." R., III, Schaff, L., Hopkins. C., Stern.
9. Strong administrative support for
Bishop, J. (1986. June). The effects of TITC au
D., & McMillion, M. (1992). What adolescents
the program.
Employees. Task 4 Final Report, Revised.
leant from working. Paper presented at the
Ohio State University, Columbus. National
annual meeting of the American Educa-
Conclusion
Center for Research on Vocational Educa-
tional Research Association. San Francisco.
tion. ED 297 155
The recent drive to create appren-
Stone, J. R.; III. Stern, D., Hopkins. C., &
The William T. Grant Foundation Commis-
McMillion, M. (1991, April). Learning from
ticeships and work-based education for
sion on Work. Family and Citizenship.
school-based work experiena! programs. Paper
high school students makes it. impera-
(1988). The forgotten half. ,VIlways to success
presented at the American Education Re-
tive that the long and largely fruitful
for Anienca's youth and young f amille.s. Wash-
search Association, Chicago.
experience of cooperative education be
ington. DC: Author.
Stone, J. R. III. Stern, D. Hopkins. C.. &
taken seriously. This experience has
Greenberger, F.. &Steinberg, L. (1986). W1h-n
McMillion, M. (1990, March 24). Adoles-
teenager; work The psy;:hologiad and social
shown that worthwhile coop programs
cence and Work: Employers' and Adolescent
ants of adolescent employment. New York: Ba-
Employees' Perceplimcs. Paper presented at
have not been cheap, that there must
sic Books.
the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Society
be money for promotion and recruit-
Hamilton. S. F. (1990). Apprenticeship for a4ult-
for Research on Adolescence, Adanut, GA.
ment, as well as
training of both
hood: Preparing youth for the future. New
t'.S. General Accounting Office. (1991). Tran-
teacher/coordinators and employers.
York: The Free Press.
sition from school to work: Linking education
Teachers need to know how to work
Herrnstadt, 1. L., Horowitz, NI. A.. & Sum. A.
and worksite training. Washington. DC: Gov-
with industry, and employers have to
(1979). The trausihon front a fowl to work: ThP
ernment Printing Office.
ontribution
aloperative edluation programs
General Accounting Office.
U.S.
understand the benefits of hiring-and
(1990).
at the Ap«mdary level. Boston, MA: North-
Trahung strategies. Washington. DC: Gov-
with-these
working
students.
Al-
eastern University. Department of Eco-
ernment Printing Office.
though strong evidence supports the
nomics.
benefits of school-supervised work ex-
Laycock. A. B.. Hermon. NI. V., & Laetz. V.
periences, we know little about what
(1992. Spring). Cooperative education:
Key factors related to a quality experience.
learning goes on in the workplace and
lounud of Cooperative Education, 27(3). 36-
how to maximize it. Finally, some form
56.
of certifici.don inust recognize skill at-
Lynch. R.
Price. W. T., & Bunow. J. (1992.
tainment in coop education or any new
Spring). School-to-work unnsition through
work
school-ill ipervised
experience
school-supervised work pogroms: A state
program for it to be part of a school-to-
policy study. Immo] of
amnia! and Ter h-
mad Mut (than, 8(2). 29-48.
work transition strategy.
Stern. D.. Hopkins, C.. Stonc. J.
III.
R.,
This publication was published
McMillion. M.. Cagarnpang, H., & Klein. S.
- Carol Ascher
pursuant to a grant from
(1992. July). Does a hool-supenu.sed work expe-
riena
the Office of Vocational and
the tradeoff between present earn-
1111prrwe
James R. Stone, Ill. Associate Profes-
ing, and likely future iareer sue res1 for high
Adult Education,
sor. Department of Vocational and
schuo/ %indents? Berkeley. CA. National Cen-
U.S. Department of Education,
ter for Research in Vocational Education.
Technical Education, the L *niversity of
authorized by the Carl D. Perkins
t'Mversity of California. Berkeley.
Ntinnesota.
Ntinneapolis.
provided
Vocational Education Act
Stern, D.. Hopkins. C.. Stone. J.
III.
R..
generous assistance with this brief.
McM illion. NI. (1090, December). Quality
of Students' Work Experience and Orien-
CENTERFOCUS
Works Consulted
tation Toward Work. Youth and Society,
National Center fix Research
22(2), 263-282.
Armstrong. B.A. (1988). Evaluating t'-e coop-
in Vocational Education
Stern. D.. McMillion, M.. Hopkins. C., &
eraUve education program. bon-nal of Coop.
University of California
Stone. J. R., III. (1990, March). Work ex-
erative Elba alum, 25(3). 44-55.
at Berkeley
perience for students in high school and
Bailey. T.. & Merritt. D. (1993, March )..tir /ford-
college. Youth and So( ray, 21. 353-89.
to-rerak irflUstilM1 rind you!, opprento mlup
Stone. J.R.. III.. Hopkins, C.. Stern. D., &
Address all comments, questions,
the United Stales. N('W York: Nlanpowei
alma/
McMillion. (1992). (:ooperolaw
Demonstration Research Corpotation.
and requests tkir additional
eduailion: Who enodls? Paper presented at
Ball, J.. & Wonogen. C. (1981). l'artu
copies to:
if
die annual meeting of t he American Edu-
IVIV1.1" /ozsmpss as work spmsors al the youth
cation Research Association. San Francisco.
NCRVE
enudement denanntration. New York: Man-
Stone. J. R., III.. Hopkins. C.. Stern. D.. &
power Demonstration Research Corpoi a-
1995 University Ave., Suite 375,
McMillion. (1091). feanapg from a hoot-
non.
Berkeley, CA 94704-1058
programs. Paper pre-
based
k Miler:MU
Berryman.
Flaxman. E.. & Inger, NI.
sented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
(19)3,
February).
Our toll-free number is
Budding
weldle.
the
can
Educational
Research
Association,
Berkeley. CA: National Cemet for Re-
800-762-4093
Chicago.
search in Vocational Education, University
Stone. J. R., III, I lopkins. C.. Stern, D., &
at California. Berkeley.
McMillion. (1990, Spring). Adolescents'
Bishop. J. (1988). I 'of ahowd edw atom for at-rnis
perceptions of then work: school super-
youth- Dow
Hill
fir Mode sum,
le, Inv,