Economic Development. ISBN 0-87186-132-1 United States. 3

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by IssueLab

https://core.ac.uk/display/71356277?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Committee for Economic Development. Research and Policy Committee.The employer’s role in linking school and work / a statement by

the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical referencesISBN 0-87186-132-11. Industry and education — United States. 2. School-to-work transition —

United States. 3. Career education — United States.I. Title.

LC1085.2.C65 1998371. 19' 5' 0973 — dc21 97-51686

CIP

First printing in bound-book form: 1998Paperback: $18.00Printed in the United States of AmericaDesign: Rowe & Ballantine

COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT477 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022(212) 688-2063

2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 296-5860

http://www.ced.org

iii

CONTENTS

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CED STATEMENTS ON NATIONAL POLICY v

PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT viii

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1Roles for Employers 4The Role of Schools 6The Role of Government 6Conclusion 7

CHAPTER I: YOUTH AND CAREERS 8What Is Different About Today’s Youth Labor Market 8Why Young People Are Having More Trouble Finding Good Jobs 9How Employer Skill Requirements Are Changing 10The Challenge for Schools and Society 11The Costs of the Skills Gap 12Conclusion 14

CHAPTER II: LEARNING FOR THE NEW ECONOMY 15The First Priority: Raising Academic Achievement 15Motivation and Instruction: The Keys to Achievement 16School-to-Career: A Strategy for Motivation and Instruction 18Evidence on the Effectiveness of Programs Linking School and Work 22The Challenge of Moving to Scale 25

CHAPTER III: EMPLOYER ROLES IN IMPROVING LEARNING 27Promoting Academic Achievement Through High Standards and Supportive Company Practices 27Advocating School-to-Career Reforms 30Providing Work Experience for Students and Teachers 31The Critical Role of Intermediaries in Facilitating Employer Participation 37Conclusion 40

CHAPTER IV: RECOMMENDATIONS 41The Role of Employers 41The Role of Schools 44The Role of Government 45Conclusion 47

APPENDIX: SCHOOL-TO-CAREER RESOURCES LIST 48

ENDNOTES 49

MEMORANDA OF COMMENT, RESERVATION, OR DISSENT 54

OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 57

The Committee for Economic Developmentis an independent research and policy organi-zation of some 250 business leaders and educa-tors. CED is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and non-political. Its purpose is to propose policies thatbring about steady economic growth at highemployment and reasonably stable prices, in-creased productivity and living standards,greater and more equal opportunity for everycitizen, and an improved quality of life for all.

All CED policy recommendations must havethe approval of trustees on the Research andPolicy Committee. This committee is directedunder the bylaws, which emphasize that “allresearch is to be thoroughly objective in char-acter, and the approach in each instance is tobe from the standpoint of the general welfareand not from that of any special political oreconomic group.” The committee is aided by aResearch Advisory Board of leading social sci-entists and by a small permanent professionalstaff.

The Research and Policy Committee doesnot attempt to pass judgment on any pending

specific legislative proposals; its purpose is tourge careful consideration of the objectives setforth in this statement and of the best means ofaccomplishing those objectives.

Each statement is preceded by extensive dis-cussions, meetings, and exchange of memo-randa. The research is undertaken by a sub-committee, assisted by advisors chosen for theircompetence in the field under study.

The full Research and Policy Committeeparticipates in the drafting of recommenda-tions. Likewise, the trustees on the draftingsubcommittee vote to approve or disapprove apolicy statement, and they share with theResearch and Policy Committee the privilegeof submitting individual comments for publica-tion.

Except for the members of the Research andPolicy Committee and the responsible subcommit-tee, the recommendations presented herein are notnecessarily endorsed by other trustees or by theadvisors, contributors, staff members, or othersassociated with CED.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CED STATEMENTS ON NATIONAL POLICY

v

RESEARCH AND POLICY COMMITTEE

vi

REX D. ADAMSDeanThe Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityALAN BELZERRetired President and Chief

Operating OfficerAlliedSignal Inc.PETER A. BENOLIELChairman, Executive CommitteeQuaker Chemical CorporationGORDON F. BRUNNERSenior Vice President and DirectorThe Procter & Gamble CompanyFLETCHER L. BYROMPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMICASU CorporationDONALD R. CALDWELLPresident and Chief Operating OfficerSafeguard Scientifics, Inc.PHILIP J. CARROLLPresident and Chief Executive OfficerShell Oil CompanyJOHN B. CAVEPrincipalAvenir Group, Inc.CAROLYN CHINExecutive Vice PresidentReuters AmericaA. W. CLAUSENRetired Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBankAmerica CorporationJOHN L. CLENDENINRetired ChairmanBellSouth CorporationGEORGE H. CONRADESExecutive Vice PresidentGTE Corporation and PresidentGTE Internetworking

ChairmanJOSH S. WESTONHonorary ChairmanAutomatic Data Processing, Inc.

Vice ChairmenIAN ARNOFPresident and Chief Executive OfficerFirst Commerce CorporationROY J. BOSTOCKChairman and Chief Executive OfficerThe MacManus GroupBRUCE K. MACLAURYPresident EmeritusThe Brookings InstitutionCLIFTON R. WHARTON, JR.Former Chairman and Chief Executive

OfficerTIAA-CREF

RONALD R. DAVENPORTChairman of the BoardSheridan Broadcasting CorporationFRANK P. DOYLERetired Executive Vice PresidentGET.J. DERMOT DUNPHYChairman and Chief Executive OfficerSealed Air CorporationW. D. EBERLEChairmanManchester Associates, Ltd.WILLIAM S. EDGERLYChairmanFoundation for PartnershipsWALTER Y. ELISHARetired Chairman and Chief Executive

OfficerSprings Industries, Inc.EDMUND B. FITZGERALDManaging DirectorWoodmont AssociatesHARRY L. FREEMANPresidentThe Freeman CompanyRAYMOND V. GILMARTINChairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerMerck & Co., Inc.BOYD E. GIVANSenior Vice President and Chief

Financial OfficerThe Boeing CompanyBARBARA B. GROGANPresidentWestern Industrial ContractorsRICHARD W. HANSELMANRetired ChairmanGenesco Inc.RODERICK M. HILLSPresidentHills Enterprises, Ltd.MATINA S. HORNERExecutive Vice PresidentTIAA-CREFGEORGE B. JAMESSenior Vice President and Chief

Financial OfficerLevi Strauss & Co.JOSEPH E. KASPUTYSChairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerPrimark CorporationCHARLES E.M. KOLBPresidentCommittee for Economic DevelopmentALLEN J. KROWERetired Vice ChairmanTexaco Inc.RICHARD KRUIZENGAPresidentISEM, Southern Methodist University

CHARLES R. LEEChairman and Chief Executive OfficerGTE CorporationA. V. LIVENTALSVice President, Strategic PlanningMobil CorporationALONZO L. MCDONALDChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAvenir Group, Inc.HENRY A. MCKINNELLExecutive Vice PresidentPfizer Inc.JOSEPH NEUBAUERChairman and Chief Executive OfficerARAMARK CorporationJOHN D. ONGChairman EmeritusThe BF Goodrich CompanyJAMES F. ORR IIIChairman and Chief Executive OfficerUNUM CorporationVICTOR A. PELSONSenior AdvisorSBC Warburg Dillon Read Inc.PETER G. PETERSONChairmanThe Blackstone GroupDEAN P. PHYPERSNew Canaan, ConnecticutEDWARD V. REGANThe Jerome Levy Economics InstituteJAMES J. RENIERRenier & AssociatesJAMES Q. RIORDANStuart, FloridaMICHAEL I. ROTHChairman and Chief Executive OfficerThe Mutual Life Insurance Company

of New YorkHENRY B. SCHACHTChairmanLucent Venture PartnersROCCO C. SICILIANOBeverly Hills, CaliforniaMATTHEW J. STOVERGroup President, Information

Services GroupBell Atlantic CorporationARNOLD R. WEBERChancellorNorthwestern UniversityLAWRENCE A. WEINBACHChairman and Chief Executive OfficerUnisys CorporationMARTIN B. ZIMMERMANExecutive Director, Governmental

Relations and Corporate EconomicsFord Motor Company

*Voted to approve the policy statement but submitted memoranda of comment, reservation, or dissent. See page 54.

*

*

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EMPLOYER’S ROLE IN LINKINGSCHOOL AND WORK

vii

*Voted to approve the policy statement but submitted memoranda of comment, reservation, or dissent. See page 54.

*

ChairmanFRANK P. DOYLERetired Executive Vice PresidentGE

DONALD R. CALDWELLPresident and Chief Operating OfficerSafeguard Scientifics, Inc.ROBERT B. CATELLPresident and Chief Executive OfficerKeySpan CorporationMARY ANN CHAMPLINRetired Senior Vice PresidentAetna Inc.NANCY S. COLEPresidentEducational Testing ServiceFERDINAND COLLOREDO-MANSFELDChairman and Chief Executive OfficerCabot Partners Limited PartnershipJOHN DIEBOLDChairmanJohn Diebold IncorporatedWILLIAM D. EBERLEChairmanManchester Associates, Ltd.WALTER Y. ELISHARetired Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerSprings Industries, Inc.PATRICIA O’DONNELL EWERSPresidentPace UniversityANDREW G. GALEFChairmanMagneTek, Inc.JOSEPH GANTZHarrison, New YorkCAROL R. GOLDBERGPresidentThe Avcar Group, Ltd.JOHN R. HALLRetired ChairmanAshland Inc.RICHARD W. HANSELMANRetired ChairmanGenesco Inc.LEON C. HOLT, JR.Retired Vice ChairmanAir Products and Chemicals, Inc.EAMON M. KELLYPresidentTulane UniversityRICHARD J. KRUIZENGAPresidentISEM, Southern Methodist UniversityLEE L. MORGANFormer Chairman of the BoardCaterpillar Inc.

DIANA NATALICIOPresidentThe University of Texas at El PasoJAMES J. O’NEILLChief Executive OfficerOnex Food Services, Inc.STEFFEN E. PALKOVice Chairman and PresidentCross Timbers Oil CompanyWESLEY D. RATCLIFFPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAdvanced Technological Solutions, Inc.LANDON H. ROWLANDPresident and Chief Executive OfficerKansas City Southern Industries, Inc.ROGER W. STONEChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerStone Container CorporationTHOMAS J. TIERNEYWorldwide Managing DirectorBain & CompanyHAROLD M. WILLIAMSRetired PresidentThe J. Paul Getty TrustLINDA SMITH WILSONPresidentRadcliffe CollegeWILLIAM S. WOODSIDEChairmanLSG Sky ChefsCHARLES J. ZWICKCoral Gables, Florida

Ex-Officio MembersROY J. BOSTOCKChairman and Chief Executive OfficerThe MacManus GroupCHARLES E.M. KOLBPresidentCommittee for Economic DevelopmentJOSH S. WESTONHonorary ChairmanAutomatic Data Processing, Inc.

Non-Trustee MembersMITCHELL S. FROMSTEINChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerManpower Inc.HILARY PENNINGTONPresidentJobs for the Future

PROJECTDIRECTORRICHARD KAZISVice President for PolicyJobs for the Future

SENIOR PROJECTADVISORSSANDRA K. HAMBURGVice President and Director of Education and Special ProjectsCommittee for Economic DevelopmentVAN DOORN OOMSSenior Vice President and Director of ResearchCommittee for Economic Development

ADVISORSMARC BENDICK, JR.Bendick and EganEconomic Consultants, Inc.AUGUSTA SOUZA KAPPNERPresidentBank Street College of EducationPAUL OSTERMANSloan SchoolMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyDAVID R. PIERCEPresidentAmerican Association of Community CollegesROBERT SCHWARTZLecturerGraduate School of EducationHarvard UniversityWILLIAM SPRINGVice PresidentPublic and Community AffairsFederal Reserve Bank of BostonPAT STONEExecutive DirectorNational Employer Leadership Council

PROJECTASSOCIATEROBERT L. FLEEGLERResearch AssociateCommittee for Economic Development

*

Rapid technological change and globaliza-tion have dramatically raised the value of brainrelative to brawn in the U.S. labor market. Work-ers with education beyond high school and withpreparation for managerial, professional, or tech-nical jobs will prosper in the new economy, buthigh school dropouts and many who end theirtraining with high school will fall behind. Un-fortunately, nearly half of American youth are inthe latter category, often because they fail to seethe relevance of traditional classroom educationto their economic future.

The national school-to-career movement re-cently has sought to bridge this gap betweenlearning and work. Employers and schools, as-sisted by intermediary organizations, are try-ing to bring greater purposefulness, higher as-pirations, and increased motivation to youngpeople, while giving employers new optionsfor meeting their future work force needs. Un-like older forms of vocational education, school-to-career programs have the potential to raisethe academic achievement of all participatingstudents, which has been an underlying goal ofthe larger education reform movement for thepast fifteen years.

LINKING ACADEMICS ANDEXPERIENCE

As an organization of business leaders andeducators, CED believes that school reform ef-forts to raise academic achievement for all stu-dents can be strengthened through coordina-tion with school-to-career programs. We havedeveloped this policy statement, The Employer’sRole in Linking School and Work, to guide em-ployers and intermediary groups which wish

to foster school-to-career programs in theirfirms and communities. It provides practicalinformation on ways that different types ofemployers can participate in these programs,both individually and through intermediaryorganizations. In addition, this report offerseducators and parents a clear rationale for con-textual and work-related learning as a meansof improving academic achievement and open-ing up previously unknown career opportuni-ties for young people.

A FOUNDATION OF KNOWLEDGEThe Employer’s Role in Linking School and Work

is the second product of a major CED programon work and change in the American economyand owes much to more than a decade of CEDpolicy work in education. Please see page 56for a list of CED policy statements in theseareas.

I would like thank the dedicated group ofCED Trustees and advisors who served on thesubcommittee that prepared this report (seepage vii). Very special thanks go to thesubcommittee’s chairman Frank P. Doyle, Re-tired Executive Vice President of General Elec-tric, for his wisdom and leadership. We arealso indebted to Project Director Richard Kazis,Vice President for Policy at Jobs for the Future,for the knowledge, experience, and clarity hebrought to this important issue. Thanks arealso due CED Senior Vice President and Direc-tor of Research, Van Doorn Ooms, and RobertFleegler, CED Research Associate, who playeda major role in the research and drafting of thepolicy statement. Additional thanks go toSandra Kessler Hamburg, Vice President and

viii

Purpose of This Statement

Director of Education and Special Projects andRonald S. Boster, former Vice President andDirector of Business and Government Policy.

Finally, we would gratefully acknowledgethe important financial and intellectual con-tributions made by the private and corporatefoundations listed on page 56 that have sogenerously supported this CED project.

Josh S. WestonChairmanCED Research and Policy Committee

ix

1

Introduction and Summaryof Recommendations

The dramatic changes sweeping the UnitedStates economy have benefited the majority ofAmericans, but they have left young, less-skilledworkers behind. During the past two decades,the real earnings of young men with a highschool education or less have fallen signifi-cantly, and those of comparable young womenhave stagnated. Education and skills have be-come a more stark dividing line between suc-cess and failure in the new labor market. Skillsthat were sufficient to earn a good living 20years ago are inadequate today.

This problem is among the most pressingfacing our society today. Our nation cannotafford to waste the productive potential of itsmost valuable resource, its young people. Norcan we afford a society sharply divided into“haves” and “have nots” by differences in edu-cation and skills. Widening inequality threat-ens social cohesion and stability. Moreover,the political viability of the market-orientedpolicies that have helped revitalize the Ameri-can economy could be compromised by suchdivision.

There are no immediate or simple solu-tions. In its 1996 policy statement, AmericanWorkers and Economic Change, CED recom-mended a combination of policies to promotegrowth with opportunity for all Americans, butwe acknowledged that this would remain a long-term challenge.1 At the same time, we identi-fied one important element of any solution:improving the marketable skills of youngpeople, particularly those who end their for-mal education with a high school diploma orless.

We believe that one of the most promisingstrategies for helping young people improveacademic achievement and labor market con-nections is to strengthen the links betweenlocal employers and schools, with the help ofintermediary organizations that connect thetwo. Exciting efforts to do this are taking rootin cities and towns across the country, bringingemployers and schools into active partnershipsto improve both academic achievement andpreparation for careers. In this policy state-ment, we recommend constructive actions foremployers—large and small, in the public, pri-vate, and non-profit sectors—to strengthen theconnections between school and work.

Our primary focus in this statement is highschool, although we recognize that high schoolis already too late for some young people. Diffi-cult family environments and poor prepara-tion in elementary and middle school leavemany youths with a weak academic foundationthat is hard to overcome. As CED has stressedin previous policy statements, strong parentalsupport and consistently high-quality learningin the early grades are critical to later successin school.2 *

However, it is in high school that youngpeople make their first important career deci-sions. And it is in high school that youngpeople’s economic and educational choices firstbecome intertwined. Will they complete highschool? What will their early work experiencesbe? How will those experiences shape theircareer plans? Is their school program rigorousenough to prepare them to pursue theirdreams?

*See memorandum by ROBERT B. CATELL, (page 54).

2

The Employer’s Role in Linking School and Work

The decisions made for and by high schoolstudents have become more critical as long-term economic success has become moreclosely tied to education and skills. Because ofthis, we believe that our businesses and com-munities must collaborate more closely withschools and must do so in new, more activeways. In our view, such collaboration will re-quire creating and strengthening organizationsthat aggregate employer and school interestsand reduce the burdens of collaboration onboth.

For most of the 20th century, Americanhigh schools have sorted students into the work-bound and the college-bound. Until the 1970s,the social costs of this tracking system werelimited. Schools focused attention and re-sources on those who performed well academi-cally. Employers were generally satisfied withthe quality of high school graduates. Most youngpeople who entered the labor market immedi-ately after high school could, within a few years,secure relatively stable employment that even-tually paid enough to support a family.

This arrangement no longer works for manyyoung people or for their employers. As a re-sult of new technologies, increased global com-petition, and other factors, the limited-skill,high-paying jobs that were so important a gen-eration ago have all but vanished. Today, there islittle difference between the skills needed for highereducation and those needed for success in the labormarket.

Yet, while labor market realities havechanged rapidly, the American educational sys-tem has been slow to respond. Our schoolscontinue to provide adequate academic andpersonal preparation to the college-bound, butthey have made little progress in raising achieve-ment for the rest of their students. For thoseyoung people, poor educational preparationhas become a serious economic disadvantage.

The challenge facing our nation’s schools isto extend to all students the quality of aca-demic preparation traditionally provided only

to the college-bound. This is no easy task. Asone scholar has written:

Although it is not new to include thinking,problem-solving and reasoning in someone’sschool curriculum, it is new to include it ineveryone’s curriculum. . . . It is a new chal-lenge to develop educational programs thatassume that all individuals, not just an elite,can become competent thinkers.3

The changing economy demands not onlysolid academic preparation, but also an expandedset of skills. In today’s workplaces, all but theleast-skilled, dead-end jobs require working ingroups, communicating with others, solvingproblems, and facility with basic computer tech-nologies. These skills, too, must become partof the core curriculum for all students.

These new realities demand far-reachingreform of the way the nation’s schools, particu-larly its high schools, are organized for learn-ing. In our view, high schools should incorpo-rate the following:

• A rigorous academic program effectivelydelivered to all students

• An end to distinctions between the academicpreparation needed for college and thatneeded for employment

• Work as a learning experience for youngpeople

• Classroom curricula and methods relatedto students’ work experience

• Connections among high schools, employ-ers, and postsecondary educational institu-tions to improve young people’s academicand career options

Specifically, we recommend the melding oftwo promising education reform efforts—themovement for high academic standards andthe school-to-career movement—into a single,coordinated strategy. The two complement oneanother. School-to-career, with its emphasis oncontextual, experiential learning and on com-

3

Introduction and Summary of Recommendations

bining school and work-based learning oppor-tunities, provides young people with motiva-tion and opportunities for developing skillsthat are both work-related and prerequisites tofurther education.4* The standards movement,built on state systems for setting high academicgoals and assessing student and school progresstoward those goals, raises expectations and cre-ates new incentives for academic achievement.Each needs the other if it is to reach its fullpotential.

The school-to-career approach recently hascome under sharp attack from a number ofobservers, including Lynne Cheney, formerchairwoman of the National Endowment forthe Humanities, and Phyllis Schlafly, chair-woman of the Eagle Forum. They contend thatthe School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994is an attempt by the federal government tousurp local control of education and train stu-dents for specific occupations, rather than edu-cate them broadly in the liberal arts. They viewthe school-to-career approach as “a plan totrain children for specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy instead of edu-cate them so they can make their own lifechoices.”5

We believe these criticisms are unjustified.School-to-career initiatives are designed to mo-tivate all students to attain a higher level ofacademic achievement than was expected oftheir parents. These programs seek to expandyoung people’s choices, not limit them, by pre-paring students to succeed both in college andin today’s complex workplaces. By combiningimproved classroom instruction with learningexperiences outside school, these programsencourage students to take more demandingmath, science, English, and history courses thanare found in the traditional curriculum.

Other critics interpret calls for closer con-nections between school and work as a pro-posal to “import” European models for prepar-ing young people for work. This is not ourgoal. Training systems in countries such as Ger-many, Denmark, and Switzerland are certainly

impressive in their scale and quality: a majorityof 16-to-19-year-olds in these countries spendmost of the work week in structured worksitetraining, augmented by one or two days ofrelated school studies. In Germany, for ex-ample, more than 20 percent of employersparticipate in the national youth training sys-tem, and about 60 percent of young peoplefind careers through its apprenticeships.6 Theprofessionalism and stability of the institutionsthat link these nations’ education and employ-ment systems are also noteworthy.

The United States is not Europe, however.We cannot and do not wish to replicate therigidities, early career decisions, centralized la-bor markets, and heavily subsidized govern-ment services of European youth training sys-tems. Moreover, these systems are themselvesshowing signs of severe stress in the face ofglobal economic forces.7

In our view, an American system of effectivelinks between schools and employers shouldbe embedded in the educational system of highschools and postsecondary institutions, ratherthan in European-style firm-led training pro-grams. High school curricula should includeworkplace learning experiences in addition torigorous academic studies, but these shouldremain more varied and less intensive than inEuropean systems. Work-related learning inAmerica’s high schools should concentrate onbroadly applicable and increasingly important“soft” skills, such as communication and prob-lem solving, and leave most occupation-spe-cific technical training to postsecondary insti-tutions such as community colleges andproprietary schools. Options for employer par-ticipation should also remain more diverse thanin European apprenticeship models.

The seeds of a uniquely American systemfor linking school and work have been planted.Pockets of innovation exist in states and com-munities around the country. But links betweenemployers and schools are still largely ad hoc,the quality of local programs is uneven, andwork opportunities linked to academically rig-

*See memorandum by PETER BENOLIEL, (page 54).

4


orous school curricula remain the exception.While a number of these early initiatives haveshown encouraging results, the ultimate out-comes from such programs at larger scale willbe in doubt for some time.

We believe, however, that the potential ben-efits warrant our efforts, investments, andhopes. Therefore, to advance this importantagenda, we urge employers to:

• Support high academic achievement throughpolicy and company practice

• Join and support intermediary organizationsthat link employers and employer groupswith schools

• Participate in programs that use work expe-rience to promote academic learning andcareer exploration

In this statement, we ask employers to com-bine state and national policy advocacy withparticipation as partners with school districtsand individual schools. We propose ways foremployers to become more involved in thereform of school practice and to align com-pany practices with school reform goals. Theresult is a blueprint for new, more comprehen-sive school-business partnerships built aroundhigh standards for achievement, engaging in-structional methods, exposure to work and toadults, and incentives for students to succeed.

A larger employer role will require commit-ment not only from employers and their asso-ciations, but also from educational institutionsand governments. Careful program design willbe necessary to ensure that employers are notexpected to contribute more than is feasibleand that educators and parents do not feel thatthe social and civic purposes of schooling arebeing compromised. We believe, however, thatthe effort is critically important for our youthand our communities. Moreover, we are con-vinced that significant progress is possible.

We first propose actions by which employ-ers can advance high academic performanceand effective labor market connections. We

then recommend ways that schools and gov-ernment can promote effective employer in-volvement in linking school and work.

ROLES FOR EMPLOYERS

Top Priority: Support High AcademicAchievement

Promote rigorous academic content and perfor-mance standards.* CED has consistently sup-ported voluntary national standards in a rangeof academic subjects. Although we recognizethe political and technical challenges involved,we urge employers to support the implementa-tion of voluntary national educational tests,particularly those that assess progress in lit-eracy and numeracy. At the same time, we rec-ommend that employers continue to encour-age and help states to develop, refine, andimplement their own academic performanceand content standards. These standards shouldencompass other skills needed in the work-place, such as communicating with others, us-ing technology, and working in teams. Theyshould be written to encourage contextualteaching methods and the ability to apply knowl-edge learned in school.

Change hiring and employment practices to rec-ognize academic achievement. CED urges employ-ers to link their hiring practices more closely tostudent performance by using information onstudent performance in hiring, such as thatcontained in high school transcripts and teacherrecommendations. Legal obstacles to the con-sideration of student records by employersshould be relaxed, while protecting prospec-tive employees from discrimination. We alsourge employers to work with schools to makestudent records more understandable and todevelop additional means of documenting stu-dent achievement, including certification ofskills and portfolios of student work.

Provide employed students with incentives towork hard in school. CED recommends that em-ployers voluntarily limit employment of high


5

school students during the school year to nomore than 20 hours a week. In addition, werecommend that, whenever feasible, employ-ers require working students to maintain schoolattendance and a minimum grade point aver-age.

Join and Support IntermediariesThat Link Employers and Schools

Very few of the more than five million em-ployers in the United States are large enoughto have the internal staff resources and scaleeconomies for sustaining effective, ongoing re-lationships with schools and to provide a widevariety of high quality, educationally relevantpart-time jobs. These large firms (as defined bythe Fortune 1000) employ only about one-fifthof the work force.8

Large-scale efforts to connect school andwork will therefore require effective and sus-tainable brokering organizations that simplifyemployer participation and structure the rela-tionships among schools, employers, and youngpeople. These intermediaries can increase the criti-cal mass of any effort and are especially important forthe small and medium-sized firms that are at theheart of local economic activity and employment.Such organizations lower the burdens on indi-vidual employers and schools of coordination,administration, and supervision, thereby en-couraging them to participate. CED urges em-ployers to become active members of interme-diary organizations in their communities. Webelieve chambers of commerce, trade associa-tions, and other private-sector organizationsshould support the creation of intermediariesand the expansion of the activities of existinginstitutions that employers respect and trust.

Participate In Programs That PromoteLearning and Career Exploration

CED enthusiastically supports contextuallearning through the integration of academicand applied curricula. A coherent sequence ofwork experiences related to academic studiesshould become part of the core curriculum for

high school students. To the extent possible,employers should contribute to these efforts inthe following ways:

Provide students with quality work experiencesrelated to their academic studies. CED recom-mends that employers participate in local ini-tiatives that encourage work-based learning.Employers should try to offer students high-quality and varied work experiences, rangingfrom job shadowing to brief rotations throughdifferent departments and more intensive in-ternships and employment. To the extent pos-sible, they should match students with mentorsand provide regular assessments of theirprogress.

Enrich the learning content of youth jobs. Tradi-tional youth jobs, such as those in fast-foodenterprises, provide the first work experiencesfor most young people. CED urges employersin industries that rely on young workers, par-ticularly regional or national chains, to workwith schools to enrich the learning content ofyouth jobs and to integrate work-related les-sons into school curricula.

Provide work experience to teachers and counse-lors. CED recommends that employers makeavailable to teachers and other high schoolstaff, particularly during the summer months,a variety of work experiences that can enhanceschool-to-career programs for their students.These experiences can usefully be incorporatedinto school and district professional develop-ment initiatives.

Support work-like learning opportunities in set-tings other than workplaces. CED recommendsthat employers support career-related, experi-ential learning programs in non-workplace set-tings, including school-based enterprises andrelated entrepreneurship programs, commu-nity service activities linked to school curricula,and career-oriented youth organizations.

Help schools and teachers use experiential, con-textual instructional methods. CED strongly rec-ommends that employers and their organiza-tions help local school systems introduce moreexperiential and contextual learning. One way


6

to do this is for employers to serve as coachesand judges of student projects, particularly offield studies combining research done insideand outside school that culminate in a formalpresentation to students and adults.

THE ROLE OF SCHOOLSThe following strategies can help school

systems address the needs of employers andstudents by accelerating standards-based andschool-to-career reforms:

Eliminate lower-track programs. CED recom-mends that high schools eliminate rigid distinc-tions between academic and vocational tracks.They should provide all students with both arigorous academic foundation and opportuni-ties to apply academic learning in non-schoolcontexts. We also urge high schools to endnarrow occupational programs that train stu-dents only for low-skill jobs or for employmentthat no longer reflects labor market require-ments.

Expand public school choice and charter schools.In the past, CED has urged expansion of pub-lic school choice and publicly funded charterschools to increase educational options andcreate incentives for public schools to improvetheir performance. We reaffirm this recom-mendation, noting that school-to-career initia-tives can benefit from policies that encouragenew, non-traditional schools.

Provide incentives and support for teachers tolearn about modern workplaces and to use contex-tual instruction. CED recommends that initialteacher training and in-service professionaldevelopment place greater emphasis on con-textual instruction and work-based learning.Certification should be awarded for work in-ternships, and teachers should be provided withthe time to gain work experience or exposure.We also recommend more accessible alterna-tive routes to teacher certification, which willallow a more diverse group of individuals topursue second careers in teaching.

Hire staff to broker relations with employers.CED recommends that school systems hire “job

developers” or “career coaches” to match stu-dents and employers for part-time and sum-mer jobs during high school and for perma-nent placements after graduation.

Facilitate the transition from high school to two-year and four-year colleges. CED strongly encour-ages high schools and colleges to collaborate inschool-to-career programs. Two- and four-yearcolleges should become members of schoolreform partnerships and should assess the waysin which their admissions and other policiescan encourage more rigorous high school learn-ing. In this context, we urge four-year statecolleges and universities to complement tradi-tional course-based admission requirementswith other competency-based measures.

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTGovernments at the state, local, and federal

levels can provide, in different ways, importantsupport for the start-up, expansion, and insti-tutionalization of employer-school collabora-tions. Such support is consistent with CED’scall for government to promote wider economicopportunity and human capital development.We believe that public activities should includethe following:

Support intermediaries that link employers withschools. These organizations may be developedand funded entirely by employers. However, inmany cases public funds may be needed tosupport such activities, and CED supports suchpublic funding. State and federal governmentsshould use incentive grants and competitionsto stimulate their creation and growth. We donot favor the expansion of tax incentives orwage subsidies to attract employers, believingdirect support for intermediaries to be a moreeffective use of public resources. However, wedo recommend careful evaluation of existingstate financial incentives to gain a better un-derstanding of their effects.

Incorporate school-to-career principles into main-stream education and workforce development fund-ing. We strongly believe that continued publicfunding for school-to-career reforms is justi-


7

fied by a public interest in their benefits foreducation and workforce preparation. How-ever, we recognize that the School to WorkOpportunities Act is likely to sunset, as planned,in 2001. CED therefore urges states to providesuch funding. We also recommend that thefederal government incorporate the central fea-tures of school-to-career programs into itsguidelines for funding mainstream education,training, and youth programs, such as Title I,vocational education, and the Job Training Part-nership Act or its successor. Legislation andregulatory guidelines for programs that com-bine workplace experiences with classroomstudies should emphasize high academic stan-dards, encourage experiential learning, andcreate strong and stable partnerships amongschools, employers, and postsecondary institu-tions. We also recommend that governmentsmake it easier to pool resources from differentfunding sources for initiatives that combineschool and work.

Revise child labor and other laws that discour-age work-based learning. CED recommends thatstate and federal governments reassess theirchild labor, workers’ compensation, and otherworkplace-related laws and regulations with theobjective of removing unnecessary obstacles towork-based learning for students. We believe

this can be done without compromising youngpeople’s health and safety protections or ex-posing employers to unnecessary risk. Childlabor laws should encourage employment re-lated to school learning and discourage exces-sive hours of work for high school students.

Support evaluations of school-to-career programs.While encouraging evidence on school-to-career initiative is emerging, little is knownabout the long-term effects on students’ educa-tion, employment, and incomes of differentprogram models. Even less is known about em-ployers’ assessments of program costs and ben-efits or the effectiveness of local intermediar-ies. CED recommends that the Office ofEducational Research and Information andother research organizations, in collaborationwith national foundations, continue to supportresearch on these questions and disseminatethe findings.

Provide work experience. We urge our state,local, and federal governments, in their capac-ity as employers, to provide work experiencelinked to academic programs for students andteachers.

Use the bully pulpit. We also urge the Presi-dent, governors, and other political leaders tochampion the integration of high academic stan-dards and school-to-career learning.


The steadily increasing demand for moreand different skills in the labor market is put-ting productive, well-paying jobs out of thereach of a growing number of our youngpeople. These economic changes make it im-perative that we strive for high academicachievement by all students. To this end, schoolsystems, employers and their organizations, andcommunity leaders must join to support a neweducational strategy that combines high edu-

CONCLUSION

cational standards and closer connections be-tween schools and employers. The success ofthis strategy will depend upon the develop-ment of effective intermediary organizationsto create and nurture these connections. Newpartnerships in support of this agenda areneeded both to help more young people suc-ceed economically and to help employers findand develop a more qualified work force.

8

Chapter I

Youth and Careers

The new economy—with its greatly in-creased valuation of education and skills—pre-sents daunting challenges to growing numbersof young Americans. The skill requirements ofnew jobs are rising steadily, even for manyentry-level positions. At the same time, realwages for workers with limited skills have de-clined during the past quarter century. With-out better preparation for the future, as manyas one-third to one-half of young people willfind themselves unable, even by age 30, to find“good jobs” that pay family-supporting wages.9

This stark reality is the backdrop for CED’scall for new and more effective linkages be-tween employers and schools. In our 1996 policystatement American Workers and Economic Changewe warned that the loss to society and theeconomy from underdeveloped human capitalis rising dramatically in the new knowledge-intensive, skill-based economy. We remain es-pecially concerned about the declining oppor-tunities for low-skilled workers, particularly theroughly 40 percent of Americans who have noformal education beyond high school. In ourview, reshaping schools and workplaces to pre-pare all young people for lives of productiveemployment and continuous learning is one ofour society’s most pressing responsibilities.

WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUTTODAY’S YOUTH LABOR MARKET

Virtually all young people begin their work-ing lives in low-skill and low-paying jobs. Youthjobs are usually part time, often seasonal, andoffer limited potential for advancement. They

are concentrated in a few industries and occu-pations, such as eating and drinking establish-ments, retail sales, and personal services. Youngpeople also change jobs, employers, and indus-tries frequently. Many work while in school,and many alternate periods of education andemployment through their twenties. By age 29,the average American worker has held morethan seven jobs.10

This early experimentation with jobs, some-times called “churning,” is nothing new, andhas been relatively stable during the past twodecades.11 While the effects of youthful churn-ing on later adult earning capacity are unclear,for many young workers it serves the very use-ful purpose of matching individuals with jobs.12

Young people test their interests against avail-able work opportunities. They learn about var-ied management styles and work tasks. Theydevelop skills, maturity, job-seeking contacts,and valuable experience.

However, recent changes in both the youthand adult labor markets have made the transi-tion from school into well-paying jobs moredifficult for increasing numbers of youngpeople. Traditional routes out of low-wage, low-skill entry-level employment are harder to find.13

Postsecondary credentials have become a pre-requisite for many jobs that high school gradu-ates once filled. Career ladders in many firmsand industries have become more truncatedand less regular. In the adult labor market, towhich youth jobs have been a natural stepping-stone, rates of job loss have increased, even forwhite-collar jobs that were previously relativelyinsulated from economic downturns.14

9

Youth and Careers

Skills acquired through education increas-ingly hold the key to higher earnings and ca-reer advancement. The most dramatic deterio-ration in labor market prospects in recent yearshas been that of high school dropouts. Be-tween 1979 and 1995, the real annual earningsof 25-to-34-year-old male dropouts declined 26percent, while those of female dropouts of thesame age declined 15 percent.15 In addition,dropouts are the one group for whom labormarket churning has increased.16

However, dropouts are not alone in encoun-tering serious difficulties in the labor market.In the past two decades the earnings premiumfor those with a college degree relative to thosewith a high school diploma or less rose to itshighest level since the 1930s.17 Furthermore,the value of a high school education has fallenin absolute as well as relative terms. Between1979 and 1995, real average annual earnings ofyoung, male high school graduates workingyear-round and full-time dropped 18 percent,while the earnings of young male college gradu-ates rose 8 percent.18

Although these developments affect allAmericans, they have had their most dramaticimpact on minority youth, and especially onurban youth, who are disproportionately Afri-can-American and Hispanic. Official unemploy-ment rates for African-American and Hispanicyouths run two to three times those of whiteyouths. Furthermore, many minority youths aresimply dropping out of the labor market be-cause of their poor earnings prospects. Thelabor force participation rate for 20-to-24 year-old black men fell from 81 percent in 1979 to72 percent in 1997.19

WHY YOUNG PEOPLE AREHAVING MORE TROUBLEFINDING GOOD JOBS

On balance, America's relatively flexible la-bor and capital markets serve workers well,particularly those qualified for technical, pro-fessional, and managerial occupations. How-ever, some of the very factors that have sparkedeconomic progress in recent years—rapid tech-

nical change, information-driven work pro-cesses, economic deregulation, and global in-tegration—have also contributed to the col-lapse of wages in low-skill jobs.

A dramatic shift of employment out of rela-tively low-skill industries and occupations thatpaid well is one factor making it much harderfor less-educated youths to succeed. Manufac-turing is the most prominent example. Between1981 and 1997, the proportion of payroll em-ployees working in manufacturing fell from 23percent to 15 percent. A similar, though lesssteep, decline occurred in transportation, utili-ties, and other relatively high-wage/low-skillindustries. The service sector has accountedfor most of the growth in employment and hasbeen a boon to the economy overall. However,although some service occupations that payabove-average wages have grown very rapidly,the largest numerical increase has been in low-wage service jobs.20

The weakening of some traditional wage-setting institutions, while increasing firms’adaptability and economic efficiency, also hascontributed to shrinking real wages in low-skilljobs. The steady drop in union representationhas restrained compensation in industrieswhere unions once had a major wage-settingrole.21 In addition, the real value of the federalminimum wage has declined steadily: even af-ter increases enacted in 1996, the real value ofthe minimum wage is 17 percent lower than in1979. Finally, government deregulation of tra-ditionally high-paying industries, such as air-lines, bus transportation, trucking, and tele-communications, has promoted competitionand restrained wages in those industries.

The earnings of low-skilled workers havealso been affected by the globalization of laborand product markets. Both trade with low-wageeconomies and immigration have increased theeffective supply of low-skilled workers in theUnited States. The demand for low-skilled work-ers has not kept pace with supply, and theirwages have fallen. Immigration and trade to-gether appear to be responsible for almost halfthe decline in the relative wages of U.S. highschool dropouts over the past two decades.22

10

HOW EMPLOYER SKILLREQUIREMENTS ARE CHANGING

More and more businesses seek workers whohave mastered what researchers RichardMurnane and Frank Levy have called the “newbasic skills.”23 In addition to those qualitiesemployers have traditionally sought, such asreliability, a positive attitude, and a willingnessto work hard, employers now look for “hard”and “soft” skills that applicants would not haveneeded 20 years ago. These skills include:

• The ability to read and to do math at theninth-grade level or higher

• The ability to solve semi-structured prob-lems for which hypotheses must be formedand tested

• The ability to work in groups with people ofvaried backgrounds

• The ability to communicate effectively, bothorally and in writing

• The ability to use personal computers for atleast elementary tasks, such as basic wordprocessing

Just how quickly skill demands are increas-ing has been the subject of much debate. Esti-mates differ sharply regarding the pace at whichfirms are moving from old, low-skill forms ofwork organization to a “high-performance” or-ganization requiring from workers more team-work, greater communications skills, and com-plex problem solving and decision making.24

As major employers, we have no doubt thatthe rising demand for skills is real—and that itwill increase in the coming years. Recent re-search supports our experience. A 1992 na-tional survey reported the introduction of high-performance practices in as many as 35 percentof surveyed firms. A 1997 repeat of that surveyfound substantial increases in the ensuing fiveyears.25

In our businesses, we have observed firsthand the “two-pronged” increase in the de-mand for skills that Murnane and Levy identi-

fied through interviews with leading U.S. firms.The first prong is a shift toward hiring collegegraduates rather than high school graduates.Employers are seeking relatively more workerswith college-level skills. Many are also using col-lege diplomas as a screen for high school-levelskills because they lack confidence in the qual-ity represented by the typical high school di-ploma.

The second prong is a demand for more,and more varied, cognitive and interactive skillsfrom all workers, including those in entry-leveljobs. Murnane and Levy compare the “warmbody” hiring practices used by the Big Threeautomakers into the 1970s, in which they hiredalmost any applicant who appeared physicallyfit, with the demanding interviews and testsused today by Diamond-Star Motors, theMitsubishi-Chrysler joint venture. Diamond-Starassesses applicants for production and mainte-nance jobs for their ability to read and performmath at a “high school level,” to solve semi-structured problems, to originate improve-ments, to work in teams and communicateorally, and to handle inspection and qualitycontrol.

Diamond-Star is not an anomaly in theAmerican economy. Brawn is rarely a sufficientqualification for any employment, let alone awell-paid position. A recent survey of morethan 3,000 employers in metropolitan Boston,Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Detroit concludedthat “the vast majority of jobs for non-collegegraduates require daily use of at least somemajor cognitive skills, such as reading/writingparagraphs, doing arithmetic, or using com-puters.”26 Only 5 to 10 percent of jobs for non-college graduates in these four cities did notrequire either cognitive skills or work creden-tials.27

The “hurdle bar” for success is rising. In a1995 survey of employers conducted by theNational Center for the Educational Quality ofthe Workforce, 56 percent of employers re-ported that the skill requirements for theirjobs were increasing; only 5 percent said theywere decreasing.28 Trends are similar in entry-


11

level employment. In a study of Los Angelesand Detroit metropolitan-area employers, morethan 60 percent of managers reported increasesin skill requirements for entry-level jobs.29 Theabove box illustrates the skills that business isdemanding.

THE CHALLENGE FOR SCHOOLSAND SOCIETY

Employers have argued for some years thatAmerica's public schools do not adequately pre-pare the average high school student for today'sand tomorrow's workplaces. CED commis-

sioned a Louis Harris poll in 1991 to ask par-ents, students, and employers whether highschool graduates were well-prepared in read-ing, writing, and math. The differences in re-sponse were dramatic: 71 percent of parentsand 63 percent of students said yes—but only21 percent of employers agreed. 30 Four yearslater, only 4 percent of business leaders saidpublic schools do a good job of preparing youngpeople for the world of work, compared with44 percent of high school teachers and 68 per-cent of school superintendents.31

Data from the National Assessment of Edu-cational Progress (NAEP) support these em-

Youth and Careers

In 1991, the Secretary (of Labor’s) Com-mission on Achieving Necessary Skills(SCANS), a blue-ribbon group representingbusiness, labor, education, and government,issued the landmark study, What Work Requiresof Schools.* In it, the commission specified aset of skills and competencies that modernworkplaces demand from all workers. TheSCANS report has become a widely acceptedbenchmark for employer expectations of itsentry-level workforce.

The report organized “workplace know-how” into five competencies and a three-partfoundation of skills and qualities needed forsolid job performance. The foundation in-cluded basic skills in reading, writing, math-ematics, speaking, and listening; thinking skills,such as problem solving, decision making, andknowing how to learn; and personal qualities,such as responsibility, self-esteem, and integ-rity. The five competencies emphasized theability to collect, analyze, and organize infor-mation; identify and use resources; work withothers; use technology; and understand anddesign systems.

In 1993, a coalition of local community andbusiness organizations in Kalamazoo, Michi-gan, undertook to identify the workplace skills

expected by its local employers. Through focusgroups with over 100 employers in a range ofmanufacturing and service industries, theKalamazoo County Education for EmploymentOutcomes Task Force identified 23 skills andcharacteristics that map the SCANS skills. Theseincluded:**

• Basic academic skills;

• Personal characteristics (honesty, integrity,willingness to learn, and motivation);

• Task achievement competencies (punctuality,problem solving, time management, and at-tention to quality);

• Behaviors with respect to organization (e.g.,understands and embraces mission, under-stands “big picture,” takes ownership in job,feels responsible for organization’s success);and

• Interpersonal skills (teamwork skills, cus-tomer orientation, and respect for diversity).

DEFINING THE ENTRY-LEVEL SKILLS EMPLOYERS VALUE MOST

* The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.U.S. Department of Labor. What Work Requires of Schools. ASCANS Report for America 2000. (Washington DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Labor, 1991).

** Kevin Hollenbeck, The Workplace Know-How Skills Needed tobe Productive. (Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 1994).p. 29.

12

ployer concerns. According to NAEP, fewerthan half the nation’s eleventh and twelfthgraders read and write “proficiently”; four often 17-year-olds have not mastered such basichigh school math skills as computing with frac-tions or decimals and solving simple equations.More important, the tests reveal that althoughmost students succeed in learning lower-levelrote skills, such as performing simple arith-

metic computation and recalling facts in sci-ence, many fewer can solve problems that re-quire several steps and have no obvious orimmediate answers. The former head of theEducational Testing Service, Gregory Anrig,noted that 20 years of NAEP tests have “docu-mented a critical shortage of effective reason-ing skills among our young people.”32

The problem is not that the education ofmost young Americans is inferior to that oftheir parents. Educational attainment in theUnited States—the average number of years ofschool completed—has risen significantly dur-ing the past 20 years. Over the same period,educational achievement—the quality of studentlearning as measured by independent testing—has risen slightly. (See Figure 1). However,very slow improvement in student achievementis not enough. To match the continuing in-creases in the skill requirements of the work-place, significant improvements in youngpeople’s mastery of academic and other skillswill be required.

THE COSTS OF THE SKILLS GAPThe costs of the gap between the skills

needed for economic success and those oftoday’s youth burden not only those youngpeople, but also employers, consumers, andtaxpayers.

Youths who do not learn the “new basicskills” and cannot compete successfully even inthe entry-level labor market are very likely asadults to work less than they would like, atlower wages, with few or no fringe benefits,and with little job stability. Overrepresented injobs that provide minimal training and fewstructured opportunities for advancement, theirproductive capacity goes underdeveloped andtheir future prospects are dim. The lost in-come of non-working high school dropoutsmay be as much as $177 billion each year.33

Immediate costs to employers, the bulk ofwhich are ultimately passed on to consumersand workers, show up in remedial training andexcess turnover in entry-level jobs, as well as in

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

Educational Achievement in Math andReading Has Barely Improved Over thePast Generation

Year1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996

Scores

Figure 1

Year

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP) Scores, 1971-1996

MATH

READINGScores320

300

280

260

240

220

200

13 year-olds

9 year-olds

17 year-olds

13 year-olds

9 year-olds

17 year-olds

SOURCE: J.R. Campbell, K. Voelkl, P.L. Donahue, Report inBrief, NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress (Washington,D.C. National Center for Education Statistics, 1997), p. 5-6.


13

less-visible expenditures, such as the need formore supervision and more intensive screen-ing of new employees. According to a 1995survey in Training magazine, the proportion ofAmerican businesses providing remedial basiceducation for employees rose from 18 percentin 1984 to 43 percent just 11 years later.34 Asignificant amount of such activity could beavoided if schools did a better job.

High turnover due to poor matches betweenjob requirements and the skills and attitudes ofnew hires imposes additional costs. Recruit-ment, testing, and screening, as well as feespaid to temporary firms for suitable applicants,all affect the bottom line. The Marriott Corpo-ration estimates that entry-level turnover costsit $1,100 a year in recruitment, hiring, andorientation for each entry-level job.35

McDonald’s puts its annual turnover cost peremployee at about $700. According to Merck& Co., Inc., it costs about 1.5 times annualsalary to replace a manager and about 75 per-cent of salary to replace a technical or clericalemployee.36 These costs are especially heavy inlow-wage industries like retail trade, food ser-vice, and hospitality, where annual labor turn-over can reach 300-400 percent.

To compensate for the difficulty they facefinding workers with the skills they want, firmsfrequently change work organization, revisecompany procedures, or hire additional super-visory staff. According to John Tobin, the Di-

rector of Vocational Education for SiemensCorporation, his company could reduce costsfor trainers, mentors, managers, and supervi-sors if front-line workers were better preparedto take on more complex work responsibili-ties.37

Taxpayers ultimately foot part of the bill forinadequate education and its consequences.Taxpayers contribute twice to the education ofmany young people—once for an inadequatehigh school experience and again for remedialcourses in college. Estimates of $1 billion ayear for remediation by public colleges anduniversities are considered conservative.38 Tax-payers also pay the costs of public assistanceand crime related in some degree to the factthat many young people have become effec-tively unemployable or alienated from the worldof work when they reach working age.39 Theseproblems are particularly acute among youthswho have dropped out of high school. We rec-ognize that the obstacles to effective learningfor this population often stem from family andcultural factors that transcend the educationaland economic issues addressed in this state-ment. Nevertheless, the advantages of school-to-career programs in motivating learningthrough concrete, work-related experiencesand through mentoring are particularly rel-evant to many of these young people. (See box,page 14: “Linking Academic Achievement andWork for Out-of-School Youths”)

Youth and Careers

14

CONCLUSIONAs the demands of the new economy raise

the hurdle for economic success for our youngpeople, they also raise the standard for accept-able performance by our schools. A high schooldiploma based on a watered-down curriculumis no longer adequate. In the future, all stu-dents leaving school will need to be adequatelyprepared to make informed choices between

employment and further education—and tosucceed at either. Raising educational stan-dards—and meeting them—will require newpartnerships among schools, employers andother community stakeholders, new teachingpedagogies, and new incentives for helpingyoung people link school and work effectively.

Out-of-school youths have been generally ill-served by public education, training, and em-ployment programs. The “second-chance” sys-tem for out-of-school populations is essentially a“second-class” system, dominated by short-dura-tion programs that at best have short-durationimpacts.40 Given the multiple barriers that sepa-rate these young people from both school andwork, it is not surprising that short-durationprograms have proven inadequate.

Improvements in earning and learning forout-of-school youths require unique and flexibleinstitutions. Academic instruction must be pro-vided in venues that are accessible and withoutstigma, such as community colleges, alternativediploma programs, and other community set-tings. Case management support is typicallyneeded while young people with little labor mar-ket experience or success search for, and be-come acclimated to, work. Out-of-school youthsalso tend to need some assurance of future paidwork while enrolled in learning programs.

Nonetheless, the principles that inform“best-practice” efforts linking typical schools andemployers also guide some of the most success-ful programs for out-of-school youths. Theseinclude the residential Job Corps, alternativediploma programs, and work-and-learningmodels such as the Center for Employment andTraining and YouthBuild.41 These principlesinclude:

• Centrality of work-based learning

• Pedagogy that is active and experiential

• Emphasis on youth development,responsibility, and empowerment

• Strong relationships with adults and peers

• Support that is consistent over time

• Standards for accomplishment that arerigorous and respected by bothpostsecondary institutions and employers.

LINKING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND WORK FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTHS


15

Chapter II

Learning ForThe New Economy

As employers who have restructured in-dustries and firms, we know that major changesin schools to meet the challenges described inChapter I will not be easy. Significant improve-ments in school performance will requiresupport and pressure from outside the educa-tional system as well as strong leadership fromwithin.

Schools are complex institutions, difficultto change and, like many organizations, oftenresistant to it. Conflicting mandates, guidelines,incentives, and sanctions encourage a “protec-tive confusion” that reinforces conventionalpractice.42 Many teachers and administratorsare skeptical of reform initiatives, having seenmany come and go, typically with little long-term impact. School personnel who supportreform often are unable to change a school’sorganization or curriculum. This is especiallytrue of high schools, which are hemmed in bystate and local requirements for graduation,rigid schedules, isolated and inexperiencedteachers, and the conflicting priorities of mul-tiple stakeholders. In many low-income com-munities, inadequate resources for professionaldevelopment, materials, and technology com-pound these problems.

CED’s proposed strategy for achievingneeded change is to strengthen and integratetwo education reform movements that haveseparately taken root in recent years. The firstis the academic standards movement, which hasmade strides in building public consensus onwhat young people should know when theygraduate from high school and in urging

schools to make it happen. The second, theschool-to-career (or school-to-work) movement, hasengaged employers and schools in changingboth classroom instruction and the connec-tion of students to the labor market.*

THE FIRST PRIORITY: RAISINGACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

We noted in our 1994 policy statement, Put-ting Learning First, that our nation had lost itssense of priorities in public education—thatour schools must return to their fundamentalmission of raising academic achievement. Ourview has not changed. But raising academicachievement has proven exceedingly difficult.Student achievement as measured by standard-ized tests has risen only slightly during the lastthree decades, even though real per-pupilspending has more than tripled and publicschool student-teacher ratios have fallen by one-third.43

In the 1980s, the nation turned its attentionto the need for reform in K-12 public educa-tion. In 1983, A Nation at Risk focused emerg-ing public and business attention on the inad-equate academic preparation in high schools.In the ten years that followed, 44 states imple-mented the report’s recommendations andstrengthened minimum course requirementsfor graduation. The proportion of students tak-ing four years of English and three years eachof mathematics, science, and social studies rosefrom 12 percent for the class of 1982 to almosthalf of the class of 1992.44

*See memorandum by JOHN DIEBOLD, (page 54).

16

While this curricular reform achieved manyof its specific targets, the impact on studentachievement was disappointing. Increased en-rollment in academic core subjects too oftenreflected little more than a renaming of unde-manding courses. Educational inputs such ascourses taken and hours of instruction wereraised, but improved outcomes did not auto-matically follow.

In the late 1980s, top-down reform strate-gies based on strengthening state educationregulations were augmented by increased at-tention to school-level issues such as school“climate,” decision-making autonomy, and pro-fessional development. Proponents argued thatdecentralizing authority and making individualschools and their staffs accountable would ac-celerate academic improvement.

Today, a third wave of standards-based re-form is under way that combines the most prom-ising aspects of these two earlier strategies. Thisapproach combines state coordination, stan-dard setting, and accountability with local flex-ibility in organizing learning to raise achieve-ment. In this model, states have responsibilityfor crafting a public consensus on what stu-dents should know and be able to do upongraduation, with standards defined in terms ofcompetencies needed for success rather thancourse requirements. States also design andimplement long-range instructional goals, ma-terials development, professional training, andthe assessment of school and student outcomes.Individual schools are encouraged to focus onthe heart of the learning enterprise: instruc-tional content and pedagogy. Schools can or-ganize instruction as they choose, but they areresponsible for meeting high state standardsfor academic achievement.45

The standards movement has gathered re-markable momentum since the 1989Charlottesville Education Summit, when thenation’s governors and President George Bushagreed to national goals that included “dem-onstrated competency in challenging subjectmatter.”46 Almost all states have launched ef-

forts to define what schools should teach andhow outcomes should be measured. (See box,page 17: “Kentucky’s Ambitious Approach toRaising Academic Standards”) The federal gov-ernment has accelerated this activity throughstate and local grants under the Goals 2000legislation. By January 1997, 47 states had de-veloped or were in the process of developingcontent standards in English, math, science,and history.47

While this progress is promising, much re-mains to be done before state academic stan-dards will have a significant impact. Teachersmust be able to understand the new standardsand be prepared to teach to them. The qualityand rigor of most states’ standards are stilluntested. Development of assessments to mea-sure student progress has lagged, leaving moststates unprepared to hold either schools orstudents accountable for meeting new stan-dards.48

However, the emerging consensus amongeducators, the public, business leaders, andpolicymakers on the need for rigorous aca-demic standards and accountability is encour-aging. As the American Federation of Teach-ers has put it, “Just as businesses can’t measureimprovements in production without knowingwhat they want their products to look like,schools can’t change without first determiningwhat they want children to learn.”49

MOTIVATION AND INSTRUCTION:THE KEYS TO ACHIEVEMENT

High standards are essential, but no guar-antee of learning. Students must be motivatedto learn, and new instructional strategies arerequired to reach those young people for whomabstract, passive learning is relatively ineffec-tive. We believe that school-to-career practicescan address both these challenges.

Motivation: The sad reality today is that, ex-cept for those competing for entry into thebest colleges and universities, many high schoolstudents lack the motivation to learn. In a 1994


17

national survey of more than 20,000 high schoolstudents from all backgrounds, nearly 40 per-cent admitted they were “just going throughthe motions” in school. The study concludedthat student commitment to school is at an all-time low in both urban and suburban set-tings.53*

If students could learn more in school, whydon’t they? Why is their commitment so weak?Unfortunately, students are to some degreeresponding rationally to society’s signals aboutthe limited value of achieving in school. Innumerous surveys, high school students haveexpressed their belief that their future successin the job market depends only on whether theygraduate, not on their grades or what they

learn.54 This lesson is reinforced in school andin the labor market. In school, the achieve-ment demanded of most students is modest,and no significant consequences result fromfailing to meet even those limited expectations.In the labor market, hiring for youth jobs doesnot depend upon academic achievement. Stu-dents see few signs that doing well in schoolimproves their prospects for employment orhigher earnings in their first jobs.55

Of course, young people’s economic per-spectives are limited by short time horizons.Working hard today for a payoff tomorrow isoften far less compelling than the immediaterewards of social and extracurricular activities.In this context, class time is seen less as time

In 1990, after the Kentucky Supreme Courtdeclared the state’s education system unconsti-tutional because of gross funding disparitiesamong districts, Kentucky began an ambitiousstatewide reform effort that focused on raisingacademic standards. The Kentucky EducationReform Act (KERA) enacted several radicalchanges: funding equalization, increasedschool-based management through parent-teacher councils, curricular reforms stressinghigh academic standards, and an accountabilitysystem that rewards and penalizes schools onthe basis of student performance on annualstatewide tests.

The Kentucky business community, led byLouisville-area firms such as Humana, Ashland,and United Parcel Service, played a leadingrole in the evolution and passage of KERA. In1991, they formed the Partnership for Ken-tucky School Reform to promote and sustainpublic support.

Early results are instructive. Achievementscores on state assessments have improved, withthe largest gains among fourth graders. Ken-tucky has moved from the bottom into the“middle of the pack” among states.50 Improve-

ments in middle and high school scores haveproven harder to achieve. Across the grades,the greatest improvements are still at the lowerrungs of proficiency.”51

The situation in Louisville, Kentucky’s larg-est city, illustrates the challenges and opportu-nities presented by KERA. Some JeffersonCounty middle and high schools are among thelowest performers in the state, and the penetra-tion of KERA standards into everyday teachinghas been slowed by inadequate professionaldevelopment and limited state guidance. Yet,two middle schools that have made a school-wide commitment to setting higher standardsand changing school practices to help studentsmeet the standards have bucked the local trendand have edged into the “successful” categoryin the state assessment.52 The school system islooking to professional development, expan-sion of work-based learning, and other strate-gies to help middle and high school teachersand students raise achievement levels. (For aprofile of employer involvement in JeffersonCounty’s school reform and school-to-careerefforts, see the volume of case studies publishedseparately by CED.)

KENTUCKY’S AMBITIOUS APPROACH TO RAISING ACADEMIC STANDARDS


Learning For The New Economy

18

for learning than as “the price [students] payto join their peers in the hallways, lunchrooms,and practice fields, and eventually to reach theritual of graduation.”56

Moreover, the incentive and reward struc-tures of the typical large high school impartvalues that are inimical to success in today’sworld of work.57 Many high school studentslearn from daily school experience: that justshowing up, avoiding negative behavior, andworking only a few minutes an hour are accept-able; that advance preparation for work is rarelynecessary; that excuses remove the conse-quences of failure; that relations with authorityconcern winning and losing, rather than work-ing together productively; and that anythingthat goes wrong is the responsibility of some-one further up the hierarchy. These lessonsare no preparation for the initiative, self-moti-vation, and autonomy required for successfulcareers.

Instruction: Cognitive scientists recently havediscovered much about how people learn. Ineducation, this new knowledge is being used toimprove instruction. One important finding isthat the passive, fragmented, and abstract learn-ing common in high schools impedes masteryof material and its application in non-schoolsettings for many students. Applied, experien-tial learning that enables students to learn com-plex concepts through real-world problem solv-ing and to use what they learn in real-worldcontexts is often more effective.

Passive learning undercuts the developmentof higher-order cognitive skills that govern prob-lem solving. Instruction without context worksagainst the natural drive to make sense of theworld. It also limits the transfer of learningfrom schools to settings where people workand live.58

Increasingly, success at work requires rapidand creative responses to unexpected situa-tions, particularly those in which normal rou-tines break down. School-learned strategies forsolving problems are often of limited use in theworkplace, where most problems arise in thecontext of time and resource constraints and

incomplete information. Instruction that placesinordinate emphasis on individual learning,abstract thinking, and context-free skills maynot provide students with the tools they needto become accomplished out-of-school learn-ers.59

In contrast, contextual instruction can bet-ter align school learning with the demands ofcomplex work settings. Group work, projectsthat involve clients from business and the com-munity, feedback from employers and otheradults, and classes that reflect on lessons learnedoutside school can make schoolwork more likereal work. These instructional practices canhelp students learn communication, negotia-tion, and other problem-solving skills that areof increasing importance to economic success.(See box, page 19: “Applied Learning TakesRoot in Fort Worth”)

SCHOOL-TO-CAREER:A STRATEGY FOR MOTIVATIONAND INSTRUCTION

We believe that the school-to-careerapproach can help our schools and youngpeople address these issues of motivation andinstruction. School-to-career initiatives com-bine:

• Applied learning in the classroom

• Work experiences in workplace or commu-nity settings

• Coordination between learning at schooland at work

• Strong relationships between young peopleand adults outside school.By forging closer links between in-school

and out-of-school learning and promoting con-textual learning, this approach can motivatestudents and help them achieve the higherstandards demanded of them. (See box, page20: “Work as a Context for Academic Learn-ing”)

Like the movement for higher standards,the school-to-career movement originated in


19

the 1980s. Early in that decade, a number ofhigh-profile studies directed attention to thelabor market problems of job seekers withoutcollege education.60 At the same time, manyemployers had become frustrated with scatter-shot and largely superficial partnerships withthe public schools that failed to produce re-sults. The poor results from vocational educa-tion prompted Congress in 1990 to rewrite theVocational Education Act (PL 101-392), put-ting much more emphasis on academic stan-dards, connections with employers, and linksto postsecondary institutions, particularly two-year colleges. In addition, with support fromfoundations and the federal government,

schools and businesses across the countrylaunched or expanded innovative efforts toconnect school and work more effectively. En-thusiasm for these models provided the cata-lyst for the 1994 federal School to Work Op-portunities Act (See box, page 21: “The Schoolto Work Opportunities Act”) Its passage hasled to further program experimentation andgrowth through developmental grants to inno-vative states and localities.

The design of school-to-career programsvaries greatly:

• Some programs are small and intensive, tar-geting the labor needs of a few local em-ployers. For example, the Wisconsin Youth

The Fort Worth Independent School District is a leader in professional development strategiesdesigned to help teachers understand and use applied learning methods. The district has developedthe following comparison between student and teacher roles in traditional versus applied learningmethods:

APPLIED LEARNING TAKES ROOT IN FORT WORTH

(For a detailed examination of employer involvement in Fort Worth’s school-to-career program, see the volumeof case studies published separately by CED).

Traditional Teaching Methods

Teacher knows answer.

Students routinely work in isolation.

Teacher plans all activities and projects.

Teacher decides method of assessment.

Information is organized, interpreted, andcommunicated by teacher to students.

Reading, writing, and mathematics are treatedas separate disciplines; listening and speakingare often missing.

Thinking is usually theoretical and syllogistic.

Applied Learning

No one knows answer (i.e. problem isill-defined).

Students routinely work with others, includingteachers, peers, and community members.

Students and teacher plan and negotiateactivities and projects.

Students routinely assess themselves andnegotiate summative evaluations.

Information is acquired, organized, inter-preted, and communicated by students toappropriate audience(s).

Integrated real-world merging of alldisciplines is necessary for problem solving;listening and speaking are a fundamentalpart of learning.

Thinking involves problem solving, reasoning,and decision making.


20

Apprenticeship Program in Printing is serv-ing 129 students in five sites in the 1997-98school year.

• Others are designed to change the learningexperience of an entire school. At RooseveltHigh School in Portland, Oregon, all ninthgraders have job shadowing experiences aspart of a mini-course in career exploration,followed by a tenth-grade curriculum orga-nized around one of six broad career clus-ters.

• Career academies, pioneered in the late1960s, are schools-within-schools that group

125 to 250 students with their own teachersin a program frequently organized aroundan occupational theme, such as health care,graphic arts, or finance. Academies usuallyadmit ninth- or tenth-grade students andemphasize interdisciplinary learning,projects, employer involvement in curricu-lum, and internships in the eleventh andtwelfth grades.

• Many vocational education programs havetried to improve student outcomes throughcloser connections to employers and/orcommunity colleges. Tech Prep vocational

Just as medical, business, and other profes-sional schools use projects and work-basedexperience to structure learning, innovativehigh schools are using hands-on learning inclassrooms, workplaces, and the community tohelp students master academic skills. Thesestrategies are proving as effective for top stu-dents in elite suburban high schools as they arefor at-risk inner-city youths.

At the highly competitive Thomas JeffersonSchool for Science and Technology in north-ern Virginia, contextual learning and otherschool-to-career principles are appliedthroughout the school, including in advancedplacement classes. For example, students studyscience through hands-on projects that requireteamwork (e.g., working in small groups tobuild a vehicle that can climb a hill). Theseactivities culminate in a major senior project.Although most students do their projects in theschool’s labs, one in five opts for a 15-hour-a-week unpaid internship, usually with one of theregion’s premier science and technology firms.Thomas Jefferson’s success belies the fear thatschool-to-career programs distract studentsfrom academic learning. Ninety-six percent ofstudents at Jefferson scored high enough ontheir advanced placement exams to earn col-lege credit.

Boston’s Fenway Middle College High

School attracts a very different student popula-tion, many of whom are returning dropouts orstudents who have been held back in tradi-tional high schools.61 Yet, Fenway also useswork to motivate academic learning. Fenway isorganized into three houses, each linked to abroad career area and to local business part-ners. In the ninth and tenth grades, interdisci-plinary courses incorporate workplace situa-tions, such as following a patient’s medicalhistory or exploring clinical and ethical dilem-mas that arise in treatment decisions. Eleventh-grade students undertake projects for a busi-ness firm and rotate through differentdepartments. To help the CVS pharmacy chaindecide where to locate a new store, for ex-ample, students analyzed demographic andeconomic data, sought the advice of accoun-tants and architects, made site visits, projecteddesign costs, and presented written and oralreports to company executives.

In their senior year, students spend part ofeach day on the job. In the final semester, theyundertake a full-time, five-week internship andcomplete a work-related paper. Fenway assessesinternships and senior projects according tothe same criteria used for other course work,focusing on how well the student has demon-strated five “habits of mind:” perspective, evi-dence, relevance, supposition, and connection.

WORK AS A CONTEXT FOR ACADEMIC LEARNING: A TALE OF TWO SCHOOLS


21

programs promote smooth transitions be-tween high school and community college,and some have added work experience. Co-op programs provide young people withwork placements, but only a minority ofthem link work experience with reforms inclassroom learning.

• School-based, youth-run enterprises andcommunity service programs are the pri-mary “real world” learning experiences forstudents in many high schools. As many as18 percent of U.S. high schools house oneor more student-run enterprises. These in-clude restaurants, graphic arts and printshops, car repair businesses, and other re-tail establishments.62 Students in servicelearning programs might conduct environ-mental quality checks in their neighbor-hoods, serve as translators for non-English-

speaking patients at community health clin-ics, or tutor elementary school children.

• In some communities, school-to-career strat-egies are being used to reform curriculumand learning activities in entire schools andacross the district. For example, the fivecommunities in Jobs for the Future’s Bench-mark Communities Initiative—Boston, Lou-isville/Jefferson County, Milwaukee, Phila-delphia, and North Clackamas, Oregon—have agreed to a common set of measurablefive-year goals for changes in instructionalpractice, work-and community-based learn-ing opportunities, and school and districtpolicies that are designed to extend school-to-career opportunities to all high schoolstudents.63

Whatever their specific program elements,school-to-career initiatives are designed to helpyoung people overcome the cynicism and nega-

The School to Work Opportunities Act of1994 (PL 103-239) provides five-year federal“seed grants” to help states develop and imple-ment school-to-career programs. These pro-grams are required to involve broad collabora-tion among employers, organized labor,educators, and public agencies responsible foreconomic and workforce development, educa-tion, and human services. Key design elementsinclude:

• School-Based Learning: Integration of high-quality academic and vocational instruction,improved links between high school andrelated postsecondary programs, and strate-gies for introducing students to all aspectsof a broadly defined industry.

• Work-Based Learning: Opportunities for stu-dents to obtain work experience, on-the-jobtraining, and adult mentoring coordinatedwith school studies.

• Connecting Activities: Activities to recruit

employer partners, match students withworkplace opportunities and mentors, andhelp schools and employers strengthentheir collaboration.

• Career Development: Activities in schools andworkplaces to help students become awareof their interests and strengths, learn aboutcareer options, formulate goals, and makewise choices about their educational pro-gram.

The Act provides a temporary infusion ofstart-up resources to states and localities. Byearly 1997, the federal government had pro-vided $643 million to 37 states, which are re-quired to pass the majority of these funds tolocal and regional partnerships. More than1,000 local partnerships have received federallyfunded grants. Further grants from the $1.345billion authorized by Congress will be awardedover the next several years. The Act is sched-uled to expire after 2001.

THE SCHOOL TO WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT


22

tive lessons about working that they currentlylearn in school. When young people engage inreal work, they learn lessons they are oftenunwilling to accept from teachers in school.Work-based learning provides conditions forlearning that schools cannot easily simulate,including real deadlines, customer feedback,and problem solving with limited resources.Seeing that their work matters to others andthat its quality has consequences can motivateyoung people not just to do an assigned job butalso to rethink their commitment to schooland learning. (See box: “How Students ViewWork-Based Learning Experiences”)

An important benefit of work-based learn-ing is the opportunity for young people todevelop constructive relationships with adults.Research on youths who overcome adversity

indicates that strong adult relationships areessential to healthy development and success.64

According to Harvard psychologist HowardGardner, work-based learning can “permit as-piring youngsters to work directly alongsideaccomplished professionals, hence establish-ing personal bonds as well as a sense of progresstowards an end.”65

EVIDENCE ON THEEFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMSLINKING SCHOOL AND WORK

Anyone who visits a well-run school-to-career program immediately senses that some-thing positive is going on. The classroom isalive. Students and teachers are engaged andproud of their accomplishments.

Young people can be very articulate aboutthe value of learning experiences outside theclassroom—and about the differences betweenexpectations and performance in school and atworksites. Anecdotal comments such as theones presented here are remarkably consistentacross effective programs linking school andwork.66

One student intern at a commercial televi-sion station was impressed by the value employ-ees placed on learning from mistakes. Henoted that his supervisor “showed us a roomwhere they kept tapes back to 1984 . . . becauseit helps them figure out what mistakes weremade in the past and how to improve.”

Another student attributed a renewed inter-est in academic learning to her senior-yearwork placement: “You know how it is with teen-agers. We think we know everything. Andschool doesn’t really do anything to changethat. But at Polaroid I saw that there werethings I didn’t know and skills I needed tolearn. And when I got back to school, I realized

I could pick up a lot of those things backthere.”

A high school senior in a program that com-bined several days a week of work-based learn-ing with a solid academic curriculum noted adissonance between the values and messagesshe learned at work and those she got at school.In school, she explained, “We always say, ‘It’sgood enough.’ Mr. Pierce [her supervisor at theworksite] always says, ‘There’s no such thing asgood enough.’”

A student enrolled in a program that fea-tured a team-oriented community serviceproject had a similar realization. “My attitudewas always, ‘Take this class, work hard, and getan A,’ or ‘Forget it. I’ll take the zero.’ [But inour community project, there] is too much atstake. If you say you’re going to do something,you have to be committed. People depend onit.”

This is exactly the kind of attitude and un-derstanding that employers seek—and thatschools have a hard time teaching.

HOW STUDENTS VIEW WORK-BASED LEARNING EXPERIENCES


23

However, there has been little rigorousevaluation of the outcomes of programs thatlink school and work. Most programs are rela-tively new, and many are still changing theirstructure and organization. Different defini-tions of “school-to-career” models make it diffi-cult to compare outcomes across programs orbetween school-to-career and traditional learn-ing curricula.

Program design and implementation varygreatly. Moreover, large-scale controlled stud-ies are hard to implement in education. Ran-dom assignment evaluations are costly and canbe controversial because the research designoften requires that some students be deniedthe option of choosing a potentially beneficialprogram. Following participants long enoughto assess the success of their transition intopostsecondary learning and adult employmentis both expensive and difficult. In recognitionof these circumstances, a panel of evaluationexperts convened by the federal governmenthas recommended against a rigorous random-assignment evaluation of the outcomes ofschool-to-career programs at this time.67

Nevertheless, existing research and prac-tice are encouraging with respect to the valueof integrating work and learning. Positive signscome from studies of learning in context at theworkplace, work experience among high school stu-dents, and recent school-to-career initiatives.

Workplace Learning. Contextual learning hasbeen successful with low-skill adults. A study ofcontextual instruction for U.S. armed forcesrecruits in reading, writing, and mathematicsconcluded that workplace literacy instructionthat combines work and learning is significantlymore effective than typical “up-front” adult ba-sic education classes.68 A control group wastrained in the traditional way, with several weeksof literacy classes before entering job-relatedmilitary training. A second group received lit-eracy and job training simultaneously, usingmaterials drawn from recruits’ specific workassignments. The experimental group had su-

perior literacy gains and achieved those gainsfaster.

One of the few federally funded job train-ing programs that has improved employmentand earnings for disadvantaged individuals isthe Center for Employment Training (CET)in San Jose, California.69 CET provides trainingof three to six months to a population of whichabout 65 percent are high school dropouts.The program emphasizes close connectionswith employers, recruitment of staff with expe-rience in industry, and training in specific skillsdemanded in the labor market. CET promotesthe integration of basic education and voca-tional skills in an environment simulating real-work settings. One rigorous evaluation foundimpressive earnings gains for graduates, includ-ing an unprecedented $6,000 earnings gain inthe third and fourth years after graduation,more than 40 percent higher than that for thecontrol group.70

High School Work Experiences. Most youngpeople work at some time while in high school.Work experience can be economically, devel-opmentally, and educationally valuable, espe-cially if the hours of work while in school arelimited and the work experience is of highquality.71 However, academic performance ap-pears to suffer if students work more than 20hours per week.72

Work experience programs for at-risk stu-dents that do not link work to an academiclearning program have few lasting effects onemployment or educational attainment. Thiswas the primary finding of the Youth IncentiveEntitlement Pilot Project, a multi-site demon-stration that guaranteed full-time summer jobsand part-time, school-year, minimum-wage jobsto disadvantaged 16-to-19 year-olds who stayedin school. Although the program raised em-ployment rates significantly during the subsi-dized period, neither school enrollment norhigh school graduation rates rose.73 These re-sults are consistent with those from studies ofother “work experience only” programs, in-


24

cluding the Supported Work Demonstrationsand Neighborhood Youth Corps.74

At the same time, working while in schoolappears to have economic benefits for youngpeople who enter the work force immediatelyafter high school. Among these youth, thosewho worked while in high school seek workmore actively and earn higher wages than theircounterparts who did not work. These effectsoccur in the first few years after graduationand even seven to ten years later.75

The value of working in high school de-pends to a great extent on the quality of thestudent’s work experiences. High-quality work-place experiences can improve attitudes andperformance. When young people use cogni-tive skills and perceive opportunities to learnin their work experience, they have a highercommitment to quality on the job and are lesscynical about the world of work.76 Likewise,students who work at more complex jobs andhave an opportunity to develop skills reporthigher wages and lower unemployment for atleast the first three years after high school.77

Work experiences in “school-supervised”programs appear to be of higher quality thantypical youth jobs. Those in school-supervisedjobs rate them higher in terms of three impor-tant developmental goals that correlate withgreater employment and earnings: using skillsand abilities, learning new skills, and getting toknow adults.78

School-to-Career Initiatives. Results to datefrom formal evaluations of school-to-career pro-grams are limited. As Education Week senioreditor Lynn Olson puts it, “At present, we areleft relying largely upon argument and anec-dote.”79 Perhaps the most systematic review ofevaluations that include work-based learning isa 1995 congressional Office of Technology As-sessment (OTA) report. While noting the limi-tations of existing research, OTA presentedthe following “prudent interpretation of theevidence”:80

• Work-based learning in school-to-work pro-

grams generally offers more learning op-portunities than do the jobs that studentsfind on their own.

• Most students have been excited and moti-vated by their work-based learning, feelingthat it helps them make better use of theirschooling and prepares them for employ-ment.

• Most employers have been quite satisfiedwith the students who participate in work-based learning.

• Work-based learning has generally producedsmall positive effects on attendance, grades,graduation rates, and participation inpostsecondary education, and some pro-grams appear to have dramatically increasedpostsecondary enrollments.

• Work-based learning has shown modest tonegligible effects on employment, careerprogression, and earnings during the firstfew years after graduation, with a few smallnegative findings. The results for college-level programs have been more positive thanthose for high school programs.

• Programs with a reputation for excellencehave achieved it only after several years ofadjustment and fine-tuning.

Although definitive evidence is lacking, re-cent research points to at least four ways thatschool-to-career programs may improve studentlearning and preparation. We believe that intime these changes will lead to significant im-provements in learning.

(1) More Academic Focus. Many critics chargethat school-to-work initiatives produce a wa-tered-down curriculum. However, the evidencesuggests just the opposite. A study of 16 innova-tive school-to-career programs conducted bythe Manpower Demonstration Research Cor-poration (MDRC) found that students in theseinitiatives took more college prerequisitecourses than their peers enrolled in the gen-eral curriculum, particularly in math and sci-ence.81


25

(2) Improved Reading and Math. Some school-to-career programs appear to accelerate im-provements in reading and math. Students withlow reading scores prior to grade nine whowere randomly assigned to career-magnet highschools in New York City were more likely topass the state regents exam in math than stu-dents who “lost the lottery” for admission tothe magnet schools. Career magnet studentswith average initial reading scores increasedtheir scores up to 50 percent faster than stu-dents in regular schools.82 At the seven highest-performing High Schools That Work programsassisted by the Southern Regional EducationBoard, National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) test scores rose over a three-year period by 65 percent in reading, 36 per-cent in math, and 70 percent in science.83

(3) Fewer Dropouts. Studies of California ca-reer academies have found a higher gradua-tion rate than that for matched students in thesame schools. The three-year dropout rateamong students who entered academy pro-grams as sophomores was 7.3 percent, com-pared with 14.6 percent for students in a com-parison group.84 In some sites, most notablythe Oakland Health and Biosciences Academyat Oakland Technical High School, academystudents had better attendance, more credits,higher grade-point averages, and fewer failinggrades. The research team concluded: “It ispossible to achieve the goals of dropout pre-vention and college preparation at the sametime, in the same program.”85

(4) More College Enrollments. Students in ef-fective school-to-career programs frequently de-velop new career goals that require higher edu-cation. One study of four programs whosestudents had initially been identified by theirteachers as “non-college-bound” reported col-lege entrance rates of 77 to 84 percent.86 NewYork City’s career-magnet high schools appearto induce students to attend college, and gradu-ates earn more college credits than do theirpeers from the city’s traditional high schools.87

THE CHALLENGE OF MOVINGTO SCALE

While these findings are encouraging, re-search on the effectiveness of small, individualprograms provides limited guidance on how toproduce similar results for large numbers ofstudents. “Hothouse” programs of manageablesize, developed under special conditions withextra resources and strong leadership, are bydefinition exceptional. The challenge to anyreform effort is improving the routine educa-tional experience of large numbers of studentsin a significant proportion of schools.

Like most reforms, school-to-career prac-tice is evolving unevenly toward higher qualityand larger scale. A study of early efforts ineight states funded under the School to WorkOpportunities Act highlights this unevennessand the difficulties of changing schools, work-places, and the connections between them. Thestudy found that: 88

• States have begun building systems by creat-ing employer incentives, promoting careerdevelopment, facilitating college enroll-ment, and defining appropriate career clus-ters, but none of the eight states have doneall these things. In some cases, school-to-career priorities have been peripheral to orinconsistent with other education reforms.

• Activities to improve career awareness arethe most common feature of these pro-grams; but few schools deliver a coherentcareer development sequence.

• Changes in school curriculum (such as cre-ating career majors and integrating aca-demic and vocational instruction) have re-ceived lower priority than others.

• Many local partnerships have concentratedon promoting workplace activities, but ob-stacles to expanding structured activitieslinked to school curriculums remain.

• Student participation in individual school-to-career activities is common, but only two


26

percent of 1996 seniors took part in a fullprogram of career development, school-based career majors, and workplace activitylinked to school curriculum.

• Many local partnerships have been created;but those that include multiple districts andmany employers have typically taken onlymodest steps toward common policies andpractices.

More rapid progress will be needed if school-to-career reforms are to affect a significant

proportion of high school students. Designingeffective programs is only the first step. Wemust then go on to build and strengthen insti-tutions that bring employers and schools to-gether across schools and districts. Moving toscale while preserving quality will requiregreater efforts both within schools and betweenschools and their community partners, includ-ing employers and their organizations. Theroles of employers in this enterprise are dis-cussed in the following chapter.


27

Chapter III

Employer Roles inImproving Learning

The changes we advocate for our nation’sschools and communities will require the ac-tive engagement of employers from the pri-vate, public, and nonprofit sectors. The busi-ness community has long been active both inpromoting efforts to raise academic achieve-ment and in providing work experiences andjobs for young people. However, employersrarely see any connection between their activi-ties in these two areas. The central emphasis ofthis policy statement is that the two effortsshould be firmly linked.

Toward this end, this chapter explores fourmajor roles that employers can play to improvelearning and strengthen the links betweenschool and work.

1. Promoting academic achievement inpolicy and practice

2. Advocating school-to-career reforms toimprove academic achievement and careerpreparation

3. Providing work experience for studentsand teachers

4. Participating in and supporting interme-diaries that facilitate school-business collabora-tion.

PROMOTING ACADEMICACHIEVEMENT THROUGH HIGHSTANDARDS AND SUPPORTIVECOMPANY PRACTICES

Supporting High Academic StandardsFor most of this century, employers did not

take a particularly active role in elementaryand secondary education policy. Most employ-ers in our industrial system were satisfied withhiring graduates from local high schools andfitting them into relatively low-skill, low-au-tonomy jobs. Parents and young people sawlittle reason to object, as long as a high schooldiploma remained a ticket to well-paid work.

By the late 1970s, this complacency beganto disappear in the face of stronger competi-tion for educated and skilled workers. Employ-ers became more actively engaged in state andnational policy debates on education, both in-dividually and through their national leader-ship groups. In 1985, CED issued the policystatement, Investing in our Children: Business andthe Public Schools, which called for higher stan-dards, curriculum changes to increase the

28

employability of graduates, and greater deci-sion-making power for teachers, principals, andlocal boards of education.89 Throughout thepast two decades, CED and other business or-ganizations have persistently promoted higheracademic standards and a more effective sys-

tem for assessing school and student perfor-mance.90 These priorities were underscored atthe 1996 National Education Summit. (Seebox: The 1996 National Education Summit.)

Business community advocacy has begun topay off. The progress that states have made insetting academic standards and promotingschool-level accountability is due in large partto the political support provided by businesses,large and small.

However, classroom practice is neverchanged by public policy alone. State reformshave yet to be translated broadly into improve-ments in instruction and practice that moti-vate the typical student to meet these higherexpectations. Improved instruction will requireassessment tools to guide teachers, as well asprofessional development opportunities to ex-pand teachers’ instructional repertoires. In ad-dition, progress toward meeting higher stan-dards will require employers and others in thecommunity to become more involved withschool and classroom practice, a role employ-ers have traditionally resisted but have recentlybegun to embrace. (See box, page 29: “School-Business Partnerships Evolve Toward More Sys-temic Change”.)91

Adopting Employment Practices ThatEncourage School Achievement

As noted in Chapter II, current hiring prac-tices reinforce many young peoples’ beliefsthat effort and achievement in school will notimprove their job prospects. Potential employ-ers rarely ask about courses or grades, andalthough they often request references, theyseldom ask specifically for a teacher’s recom-mendation.

There are reasons for this lack of connec-tion between high school performance andhiring decisions. Based on past experience,employers have little faith that transcripts anddiplomas can help them identify productiveworkers. Moreover, many employers have beendeterred by legal rulings that high school gradu-ation and grades can be used to screen job

In March 1996, President Clinton gatheredwith 41 governors, 49 business leaders, and 34others in Palisades, New York, for the secondNational Education Summit. Participantsdrafted a strategy for joint efforts to align thestandards for achievement that guide schoolswith the skills required for work in the neweconomy.

Business participants made several commit-ments designed to help promote studentachievement at and following the Summit.They agreed to make location decisions con-tingent on the educational performance ofstates and localities. They promised to changetheir firms’ hiring policies within one year toincorporate the review of transcripts or otherschool-based records such as diplomas, skillcertificates, or portfolios. They also made acommitment to direct education-related phi-lanthropy aimed at raising academic stan-dards and improving student achievement.Since the Summit, the Business Roundtable,National Alliance of Business, and U.S. Cham-ber of Commerce have launched a ”schoolrecords initiative” to promote the review oftranscripts and other school records in hiringdecisions.

In the fall of 1996, the Education Summitplanning committee created ACHIEVE, anindependent organization for monitoringprogress toward these and other commit-ments made at the Summit. ACHIEVE servesas a clearinghouse for information on statestandards, enabling states and localities tocompare and coordinate their efforts.

THE 1996 NATIONAL EDUCATIONSUMMIT


29

applicants only if employers can demonstratethat transcripts and diplomas are valid predic-tors of performance for the specific jobs beingfilled.94

Some companies are trying to change thesignals they send to schools and young peopleby making school achievement count in hir-ing. BellSouth Corporation has begun to givepriority in recruitment for entry-level careerjobs to graduates of the 650 high schools in theSouthern Regional Education Board’s HighSchools That Work initiative who earn the SREBCertificate of Educational Achievement. Thiscertificate confirms that a recipient has com-pleted an upgraded academic core curriculumas well as a vocational major and has met per-formance goals in reading, math, and science.95

Other employers are moving to use tran-scripts in hiring decisions. (See box on IBM’suse of transcripts, page 30.)

More than 250 Delaware employers have

joined the state Business/ Industry/ EducationAlliance’s campaign to encourage firms to con-sider transcripts when hiring. When a statewidesurvey found that schools took too long to re-spond to employer requests for transcripts, theAlliance provided every high school in the statewith a fax machine.

Since 1989, the Eastman Chemical Company,a major employer in Kingsport, Tennessee, hasasked applicants to provide high school or col-lege transcripts, thereby encouraging studentsto complete college prep-level courses in math,science, and English. Eastman has enlistedschool personnel from local high schools tohelp employees who make hiring decisions un-derstand the transcripts, which are rarely “user-friendly.” According to Eastman, enrollmentsin higher-level math and science courses haveincreased, the failure rate among entry-levelemployees has declined, and less remedial edu-cation has been needed for new workers.96

There are more than 200,000 one-on-onecollaborations between individual employersand schools across the nation.92 The ambitionsof most of these partnerships have been mod-est. An employer might “adopt-a-school”—donating old computers, sponsoring awardsdinners, or serving as a principal for a day.However, some partnerships recently havebegun to engage employers in improving class-room instruction and learning, rather thanmerely as “deep pockets.” Since 1992, for ex-ample, the National Association of Partnershipsin Education (NAPE) has promoted moreextensive partnerships and coalitions of schools,employers, and other community leadersamong its 7,500 member programs, with par-ticular emphasis on their involvement in stan-dards reform and school-to-career initiatives.

In 1994, the National Employer LeadershipCouncil (NELC) was formed to support em-

ployer efforts to improve the school-to-careertransition. With advice from its member compa-nies, NELC has developed an “employer partici-pation model” that describes more than 50options for employer involvement with schools.This model emphasizes comprehensive partner-ships that target academic achievement andworkforce preparation by:93

• Working with students and teachers by pro-viding information and experiences to pre-pare students for challenging careers and byworking with teachers to improve studentskills and academic performance;

• Strengthening company practice by support-ing new and closer relations with educationproviders;

• Building more effective and efficient work-force development systems in partnershipwith policymakers and other stakeholders.

SCHOOL-BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS EVOLVE TOWARD MORE SYSTEMIC CHANGE

Employer Roles in Improving Learning

30

If employers begin to request evidence ofschool performance from young job applicants,the behavior of students, teachers, counselors,and school administrators will change. How-ever, employers will have to be quite explicit indefining their needs and expectations; andschools will have to make transcripts and otherevidence of school performance easier to un-derstand, readily accessible, and relevant toemployer priorities. This will take time, but acollaborative effort to improve this informa-tion and change the signals it conveys can sig-nificantly improve incentives for learning.

Employers can also encourage the studentsthey already employ to value academic achieve-ment and work hard in school. Voluntary lim-its on long work schedules and on shifts thatinterfere with homework can make it easier foryoung people to juggle school and work re-sponsibilities—and to put school first. Require-ments that student employees maintain a mini-mum grade-point average or school attendancerecord can also provide a strong incentive foryoung people to concentrate on school stud-ies. Employers can demonstrate a commitment

to student achievement through other benefitsfor their working students, including tuitionassistance and additional incentives to pursuepostsecondary education, setting aside time atthe worksite for students to do homework, andsimple gestures such as Student of the Monthawards.

ADVOCATING SCHOOL-TO-CAREER REFORMS

School-to-career principles and practiceshold great promise. When designed effectively,these initiatives provide a combination of highacademic standards, engaging instruction strat-egies, exposure to work and to adults, andincentives for hard work. They are particularlywell-suited to young people who have beenuninspired and ill-prepared in school.

Unfortunately, this message has not alwaysbeen clearly articulated and promoted by thebusiness community. Some employers havefeared that emphasizing work-based learningcould compromise the campaign for higheracademic achievement. Others have collabo-

Acting upon a commitment made at the1996 National Education Summit, IBM haschanged its hiring criteria for entry-level manu-facturing jobs to include high school transcriptsfor individuals with less than five years of workexperience.

IBM has addressed legal barriers by identify-ing those aspects of transcripts that predict jobsuccess. The company performed a nationwideanalysis to determine the skills required in itsentry-level jobs, including communication,logical reasoning, and teamwork. The researchdetermined that academic performance incertain courses correlated with attainment ofthese skills. IBM also determined that classessuch as chemistry, physics, and math impart

knowledge directly applicable to entry-levelmanufacturing jobs. For example, a basic com-mand of statistics and algebra is required tointerpret Statistical Process Control (SPC) data.Finally, IBM demonstrated that the correlationbetween academic and job performance isstrongest for workers with limited employmentexperience.

As a result of this careful process, IBM hascreated a new employment application formthat incorporates school transcripts along withjob experience and other relevant information.By June 1997, it was being used in IBM’s manu-facturing sites in Vermont, California, Minne-sota, New York, North Carolina, and Texas.

IBM REQUESTS HIGH SCHOOL TRANSCRIPTS FOR MANUFACTURING HIRES


31

rated actively with local schools but have stayedon the sidelines of state and national policydebates. Some employers question whethertheir firms will benefit from partnerships withschools. Many simply have no experience withthese issues. A stronger and clearer public mes-sage from the business community is needed ifinitiatives linking schools and employers are toexpand. Employers and their organizationsmust become more aggressive in promotingreform—and in defending it from its critics.

A powerful political attack has beenlaunched recently against school-to-career ef-forts and their proponents. This campaign hashad a chilling effect on policy and practice inmany localities and states and on the legislativedebate in Congress. Although some of the mo-tivation for this attack stems from reasonableconcerns about academic tracking and inap-propriate government intervention, the criti-cism is based largely on misguided and ill-in-formed assessments of both the School to WorkOpportunities Act and the activities it promotes.Critics argue that the Act is a centralizing powergrab by the federal government that endan-gers local control of schools. They contendthat school-to-career programs reduce educa-tional and employment opportunities by steer-ing young people into specific vocations iden-tified by federal bureaucrats.

These criticisms are far off the mark, asexplained in Chapter II. More effective tiesbetween schools and employers improve stu-dent motivation to learn, make young peoplemore active learners, and provide experiencesand tools for more informed choices abouttheir lives. Fortunately, business leaders andtheir organizations have begun to respond pub-licly and to articulate a positive vision of thesereforms. A number of business groups, includ-ing the American Business Conference, theNational Alliance of Business, the National As-sociation of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Cham-ber of Commerce, joined CED in issuing astatement in late 1997 that champions school-to-career as a critical component of the nation’s

education reform agenda. This message de-serves wide distribution—to employers, educa-tors, policymakers, and the public. (See box,“School-to-Career Initiatives: The BusinessView” for an excerpt from the full statement,page 32).97

PROVIDING WORK EXPERIENCEFOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Options for Employers and StudentsEmployers control access to jobs and work-

places. In effective programs linking schooland work, employers open their workplaces tostudents for a range of experiences. Some pro-grams provide job shadowing for students whoare too young for paid employment. Othersengage employers in summer jobs for youth.Short internships of one to two weeks form thecore of initiatives in some cities, while othersemphasize year-round internships. StephenHamilton, director of the Cornell Youth andWork Program, suggests the following typologyto describe the range of work experiences thatcan be incorporated into a school-to-careersystem.

• Visits to Workplaces

Field trips: one-time visits to observe work-places

Job shadowing: longer-term, sometimes mul-tiple visits to observe by following a workerthrough his or her daily routine

• Work-Like Experience

Service learning and unpaid internships: volun-tary service, not necessarily with a careerfocus

Youth-run enterprises: workplaces created togive young people employment and man-agement experience

• Employment

Youth jobs: jobs ordinarily open to teens buttraditionally not rich learning opportuni-ties


32

Subsidized employment training: paid work aspart of a training program

Cooperative education and paid internships:school-related work experience

Youth apprenticeship: several years of workand learning leading to certification.

Work-based learning offers students manybenefits that are difficult to provide in class-room settings, including:

• Exposure to the daily routines and expecta-tions of different workplaces and jobs;

• A laboratory for exercising complex prob-lem-solving skills in an environment of real-world constraints and pressures;

• Demonstration of how learning is used andvalued in work environments; and

• Personal connections to employers, adultmentors, and careers.

Successful school-to-career initiatives:

• Are part of the main, academically rigorouspath of education for all students

• Expose students to career options they mightnot know about otherwise

• Give participants skills that can be appliedand adapted to any career of their choice

• Prepare students to choose any course ofendeavor including further education.

School-to-career initiatives are not:

• Plans to divert students away from schoolinto the workplace

• Separate paths designed for “slow learners”

• Tracking systems that force students intocertain jobs

• Dependent on federal funding or program-matic direction.

We believe that an effective school-to-careerinitiative emphasizes the following:

• A Primary Goal is Higher Academic Achieve-ment. School-to-career programs are in-tended to ensure that all students, collegeand non-college bound, meet challengingacademic standards. Students who completea school-to-career program should be pre-pared to succeed in an associate or baccalau-reate degree program. In the best of theseprograms, students can only participate inthe work experience component if they stayin school, take a core curriculum, maintain

satisfactory grades, and make reasonableprogress toward completing a degree.

• Local Communities Design the Programs. Aschool-to-career initiative can only succeed ifbased on voluntary, local decisions in part-nerships between educators, local officials,and ultimately parents and students.

• School-Based and Work-Based Learning AreCoordinated. Academic curriculum andworkplace experiences reinforce each otherto enhance overall educational achieve-ment. Work-site learning involves practicaldemands for mathematics, science, reading,writing, social studies, and computer skills.Work-site learning also develops skills thattraditional classroom learning does not doas well, such as problem solving, manage-ment of time and resources, responsibility,initiative, and communication skills. Stu-dents participating in effective school-to-career programs tend to take more coursesin advanced math and science, increasetheir grades, graduate at higher rates, go onto postsecondary education at higher rates,and are better prepared to succeed in jobs.In addition, youth who might otherwisedrop out of school are more likely to stay inschool and complete their education.

• Employer Participation Adds Relevance.Employers should inform schools of theknowledge and skills demanded by theeconomy of the future and provide thenecessary learning experiences.

SCHOOL-TO-CAREER INITIATIVES: THE BUSINESS VIEW


33

According to a recent survey, the numberof high school seniors in programs that com-bine the three key elements of school-to-ca-reer—work experience linked to school, anintegrated curriculum organized along careerthemes, and comprehensive career develop-ment activities—is small, perhaps about 50,000students nationally. 98

However, the same survey reported thatabout 400,000 seniors, almost 1 in 6, are in-volved in paid or unpaid work experiencelinked to their school program, either throughclass assignments that draw on their experi-ence or inclusion of work experience as a fac-tor in determining grades. Between 600,000and 800,000 high school juniors and seniorsparticipate each year in work experiences thatbear some relationship to their school curricu-lum.

Employers who provide work-based learn-ing opportunities to high school students aregenerally pleased. (See box: “Why Do Employ-ers Participate in Work-Based Learning?”) Onestudy concluded that most firms participatingin a national sample of intensive work-basedlearning partnerships with schools were satis-fied with student performance, found the pro-gram beneficial, would continue their involve-ment, and would recommend it to peers.99

Participating employers appear to maintaintheir involvement even in the face of mergersor downsizing.100 There is also evidence thatemployer assessments of the costs and benefitsof work-based learning become more positiveover time, as firms come to appreciate enhancedmorale and other unexpected advantages.101

In a number of cities, structured work expe-riences have become a central part of the highschool learning program on an impressive scale.In Boston, more than 1,200 out of 6,700 jun-iors and seniors (about 18 percent) are in-volved in programs that include paid work.104

In Cambridge, Massachusetts, about 13 per-cent of high school seniors at the Rindge Schoolof Technical Arts participate in paid and un-paid internships annually.105 In Philadelphia,

the number of students with paid work experi-ence rose from 400 in 1994 to 2,200 by the endof the 1996-97 school year. 106 (See box, page34: “Moving Toward Scale in Philadelphia”).Each of these communities believes it can fur-ther expand both the number of employersproviding work-based learning experiences andthe pool of interested students.

Employers give three reasons for partici-pating in work-based learning programs foryoung people: (1) philanthropic or commu-nity interest, (2) the firm’s business interests;and (3) the collective interest of improving acommunity’s or industry’s labor supply.102

Employers note the following benefits:

• Gaining productive workers After a lim-ited training period, most students areproductive enough to justify their wages.

• Trying out young workers prior to hiringThe screening function is particularlyimportant in industries where entry-levelhiring needs are large and employers areconcerned about high costs of turnover.

• Positive public relations Employers inindustries rooted in communities, such ashospitals, utilities, and local telecommu-nications companies, are especially inter-ested in good public—and customer—relations.

• Boosting the morale of regular employeesEmployers are frequently surprised by thepositive effects of working with youngpeople on morale and supervisory skills.According to one Procter and Gamblesupervisor, “For me, it’s hard to put intowords, just seeing the kids mature, be-coming part of the workforce, becomingsuccessful. I personally haven’t found anyof it hard, it’s so damn interesting. Itmakes you feel young again.”103

WHY DO EMPLOYERS PARTICIPATEIN WORK-BASED LEARNING?


34

These innovative communities, however,remain the exceptions. They are the beneficia-ries of years of close business-school relation-ships, strong school-system leadership, and theallocation of staff and other resources to em-ployer involvement. In most school districtsthe expansion of employer-provided work ex-periences has been far slower. In 15 work-basedlearning partnerships analyzed by the congres-sional OTA in 1995, the annual median growthin employer involvement averaged only sixemployers per program, each of which pro-duced about two new student placements peryear.107 Most employers who provide intensivework experiences for young people, particu-larly the small and mid-sized employers whorepresent the bulk of any community’s busi-nesses, employ between one and three stu-dents.108 (While these data were collected be-fore School to Work Opportunities Act fundsbecame available, and the growth rate has ac-

celerated, in most communities employer par-ticipation is still too low to have affected asignificant proportion of high school youth.)

What level of employer participation wouldbe needed to make work experience a signifi-cant element of the mainstream high schoolcurriculum? To provide one-quarter of highschool juniors and seniors nationwide withwork-based learning, about 1.5 million place-ments would be needed each year.109 This isnot impossible, given that there are more than6.5 million private and not-for-profit businessestablishments in the United States.110 Yet, thetask is formidable, for there are many obstaclesto such a substantial expansion. Many smalland medium-sized employers are wary of thetime demands on supervisors and managers.In some urban and rural communities, schoolsare located far from potential employers. Somefirms are deterred by child labor laws and work-ers’ compensation liability. Labor unions have

In the early 1990s, reformers in Philadelphiabegan using school-to-career programs as a wayto leverage improvements in educationalachievement. With the arrival of Superinten-dent David Hornbeck in 1994, the troubledsystem made school-to-career an element in itsambitious Children Achieving system-wide reformstrategy. The Philadelphia public school systemhas now become one of the few school districtsto provide several thousand young people withintensive work-based learning closely linked totheir academic programs.

In 1996-97, the Philadelphia School Districtprovided paid, one- and two-day-a-week work-based learning opportunities to 2,200 highschool juniors and seniors. The district hopes toexpand ultimately to 6,000 paid placementsannually, which would serve about 25 percent ofthe district’s eleventh and twelfth graders.

Over 240 Philadelphia employers participate.Half are private firms, and the other half repre-sent government, academia, and non-profit

health care. Nearly half of the participatingemployers have fewer than 50 workers, andabout a quarter employ more than 500. To fa-cilitate such a large-scale program, the schoolsystem employs staff whose sole job is to contactemployers, explain the work-based learningoptions, and solicit their participation.

Juniors and seniors not eligible or selectedfor paid work placements are offered otherwork-like experiences, including unpaid intern-ships, community service, special projects, andschool-based enterprises. These efforts have alsogrown significantly. About 1,000 students par-ticipate in community service learning activities.The district also promotes an annual City-WideJob Shadowing Day for ninth graders that in-volved 2,000 students and 150 employers in1996. (For a more detailed examination of em-ployer involvement in Philadelphia’s program,see the volume of case studies published sepa-rately by CED.)

MOVING TOWARD SCALE IN PHILADELPHIA


35

spearheaded school-to-career efforts in somecommunities and industries, but in othersunions have been hesitant, fearing memberdisplacement and watered-down craft training.

For these reasons, we believe that signifi-cant expansion of work-based learning will re-quire not only more one-by-one recruitment ofnew employers but also innovative ways to ex-pand and “stretch” employer involvement. Sev-eral promising strategies to accomplish this aredescribed below.

Providing Work-Based LearningOpportunities for Teachers

The high school, whose work organizationhas changed little in the past 50 years, is theonly work environment that many teachersknow first-hand. Having spent their lives inschools, first as students and then as teachers,many of them have only limited experience ofthe world of work outside and cannot transmitknowledge of that world to their students.

Employers can help teachers overcome thisinsularity by offering internships, sabbaticals,and summer jobs that illustrate the changingnature of work processes and the range of skillsvalued in modern firms. These arrangementsare attractive to employers, because they arefrequently easier to arrange and demand a lessintensive commitment than many placementsfor students. Such modest investments in teach-ers have the potential to change the classroomexperience for large numbers of young people.Teachers who have had such experience fre-quently report introducing new instructionalmethods and materials into their classroomsand establishing new collaborative relationshipswith local employers. (See box: “Portland’sTeacher Internship Program,” page 36.)

Alternatives to Employment ThatProvide Similar Learning Benefits

Instead of bringing students into their fa-cilities for work, employers can help studentsgain similar experience in employment-like set-tings in schools or the community. Employer

involvement with a school-based enterprises canmake these activities more business-like andhelp students appreciate the pressures and chal-lenges of management. Employers can also sup-port service learning programs, in which stu-dents provide needed services in theircommunities, acquiring especially the impor-tant “soft skills” of responsibility, initiative, com-munication, and problem solving. In time, thedevelopment of computer-based simulation tech-nologies may also capture some of the realism ofwork settings and the expertise of employers.

At the Health and Biosciences Academy ofOakland Technical High School, an exemplaryhigh school program for at-risk youths thatsends a majority of its graduates to two-andfour-year colleges, health employers not onlyprovide work experiences but also are involvedin students’ academic projects. Each studentundertakes a sequence of projects that movefrom short-term, clearly-defined, school-basedprojects to longer, more complex and open-ended projects, many of which involve fieldresearch in workplaces or community settings.The projects, which draw on the expertise ofindustry partners as well as teachers at the acad-emy, require teamwork, research and writing,project design and management, and atten-tion to audience. Representatives of local healthcare employers serve as project advisors andresources and also help assess the presenta-tions and products. Academy teachers dependon employers for expert knowledge and fordemonstrating standards of quality expectedin business.

Replication of Promising Strategiesby National Employers

National employers with networks of localfacilities are well positioned to replicate prom-ising programs widely and quickly. McDonald’sis testing and replicating a youth apprentice-ship model that the company hopes will be-come a route into management training acrossthe nation. The Ciba Specialty Chemicals Cor-


36

poration provided seed funding through itseducational foundation for the creation andexpansion of almost a dozen innovative part-nerships between local school systems, post-secondary educational institutions, and manu-facturing employers in communities where itsfacilities are located.

General Motors has created an automotiveservice technician program that is expandingnationally with the help of other U.S. manufac-turers and their dealers. Automotive Youth Edu-cation Services (AYES) will help the industrymeet its projected need for 60,000 new autotechnicians in the next decade. Over 60 schoolsand 300 dealerships are involved in 1998, twicethe 1996 participation levels. Car manufactur-ers contribute vehicles and technical serviceinformation, while dealers offer paid intern-ships and/or part-time work to high schooljuniors and seniors who take automotive tech-nology classes in school. Upon graduation,qualified students can continue intopostsecondary education or work for the deal-

ers, where annual salaries range from $30,000to $50,000.

Another creative partnership linking na-tional employers and local school districts in-volved Microsoft, Manpower, and Dell Com-puters. In 1996, 34 teachers from five schooldistricts were trained both in Microsoft Officeapplications and in Manpower’s quality servicetraining program. Their students created tech-nology-rich projects, which they exhibited pub-licly. Manpower offered to place both teachersand students in jobs that would further de-velop their software and workplace skills.

Upgrading and EnrichingOrdinary Youth Jobs

About one-third of American high schoolstudents—over 2 million teenagers—are em-ployed at any given time during the schoolyear.111 Youth employers and high schools mightturn some of these “naturally occurring” jobsinto higher-quality learning experiences. Amulti-city pilot project called WorkPlus experi-

In Oregon, the Portland Business-EducationCompact, a group of 60 business leaders andeducators founded in 1984 to “create betterconnections between the world of educationand the world of work,” serves as a broker be-tween employers offering summer internshipsand interested teachers. Each teacher works ina participating firm and is assigned a businessmentor who provides orientation and supervi-sion. The internships typically cost an employerbetween $2,500 and $5,200 in wages, in returnfor which the employer receives productivework. There are a large variety of assignments.For example, one teacher helped a televisionproduction firm with lighting remote produc-tions and editing, while another implementedStatistical Process Control (SPC) practices in amanufacturing plant.

Upon returning to the classroom, educators

find numerous ways to translate their experi-ences into curricular and pedagogical innova-tions. Between 60 and 70 percent of participat-ing teachers said they would increase theiremphasis on work habits, introduce new tech-nologies to the classroom, and assign projectsbased on “real-world” problems. As one teachersaid, “I’ve become more aware of [firms’] ex-pectations that employees take charge of theirown careers and get additional training so theyremain employable and employed. I will makea point of passing this on to my [students].”

Teacher internships can also cement school-business relations. Of the Portland mentors, 41percent planned to invite the teacher intern’sclass to their worksite, 38 percent planned tobe a guest presenter to the class, and another16 percent planned to develop a formal part-nership with the intern’s school.

PORTLAND’S TEACHER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM


37

mented several years ago with ways to encour-age fast food and other youth employers toassess their employees’ skills, to help youngpeople with references, resumes, and other jobsearch skills, and to connect them with off-the-job services and supports.112

THE CRITICAL ROLE OFINTERMEDIARIES INFACILITATING EMPLOYERPARTICIPATION

The Strengths of School-to-CareerIntermediaries

We believe the most effective means of ex-panding employer participation in school-to-career reforms is the creation, strengthening,and sustaining of intermediary organizations.Such organizations can manage employer re-cruitment, reduce administrative burdens onparticipating employers, and maintain ongo-ing relationships among schools, employers,students, and the community.113 These inter-mediaries are especially important for smalland medium-sized firms that have minimal hu-man resource or community relations staff ca-pacity. In addition, they can reduce the coordi-nation burden for participating schools.

The school-to-career efforts that have ex-panded most rapidly and have integrated schooland work experiences most effectively have typi-cally been supported by two distinct employer-oriented bodies. One is a community-wide steer-ing or governance group representingemployers, K-12 school systems, higher educa-tion, local government, parents, and other com-munity interests. These governing partnershipsare essential to consensus-building and are theheart of any long-term community-wide effortto link school and work.

On a day-to-day basis, vibrant school-to-career initiatives are usually guided by a stable,funded intermediary organization that has cred-ibility among both employers and schools.These brokering organizations perform much

of the coordination, administration, and re-cruitment that are too time-consuming for in-dividual employers or schools to undertake ontheir own. Whether housed in independentnonprofit organizations or, as they sometimesare, in the school district central office, theseintermediaries reduce the costs and risks toindividual employers by aggregating the inter-ests of firms in the same industry, recruitingnew employers, working with young people toplace them with interested employers, and pro-viding students and employers with post-place-ment support. (See box: “The Boston PrivateIndustry Council,” page 38.)

In one survey of a national sample of school-to-career programs, employers identified lackof support from school personnel as the mostserious barrier to work-based learning and the“unreliability of scheduling student placements”as their most common dissatisfaction.114 Effec-tive intermediary organizations address thesepractical concerns.

A review of school-to-career efforts in Bos-ton, Tulsa, and Austin identified several sharedcharacteristics of these communities’ strongintermediaries.115 In each community, an inde-pendent organization has taken responsibilityfor recruiting employers. In Tulsa it is the localchamber of commerce; in Boston, the PrivateIndustry Council; and in Austin, the CapitalArea Training Foundation. Each organization:

• Is chartered as a nonprofit corporation thatcan raise tax-exempt contributions fromgovernment and foundations

• Employs full-time staff specifically to workwith employers on recruitment and coordi-nation

• Works with existing business networks andassociations, especially in trying to reachsmall and mid-sized firms

• Organizes the participation of employers bygrouping them in broad industry clusters,such as health care, finance, travel and tour-ism, and manufacturing, which enables em-ployers to meet and work with peers andfacilitates recruitment of new employers.


38

Some local intermediaries are independent,freestanding organizations. Others have beenassociated with PICs, regional workforce boards,or local chapters of national employer organi-zations. As national groups such as the U.S.Chamber of Commerce, the National Associa-tion of Manufacturers, and the National Alli-ance of Business encourage local chapters topursue these reforms, these efforts are likely tospread.

Local brokering organizations usually workwith firms in a variety of industries. However,employers can also be represented and coordi-nated by individual industry trade associations,most of which operate at the national and state

levels. Most trade associations focus primarilyon member services, such as lobbying and pub-lic relations, and have had limited involvementin practices of individual firms, including edu-cation and training. There are, however, ex-ceptions, as noted in the following examples.

The National Tooling and Machining Asso-ciation has long made workforce preparationand training an important service to members.The National Retail Federation has launchednew efforts to help improve the quality of cus-tomer service employees. The Edison ElectricInstitute and the American Gas Association re-cently formed the Utility Business EducationCoalition (UBEC), which organizes member

For 15 years, the Boston Private IndustryCouncil (PIC) has helped firms and schoolswork together to improve education and em-ployment. Created in 1979 to promote businessinvolvement in the governance of federal jobtraining programs, the Boston PIC has evolvedinto a powerful convening and connecting insti-tution.

The PIC was a central party to the 1982 Bos-ton Compact among the city’s schools, the busi-ness community, local labor unions, and highereducation institutions. In this signed compact,the public schools agreed to meet specific goalsfor increased attendance, academic achieve-ment, and school retention in return for in-creased opportunities for students and gradu-ates in private-sector jobs and expanded accessto local colleges and universities. The PIChelped monitor the agreement and its renego-tiation in 1988 and 1994.

In the 1980s, the PIC expanded the city’ssummer jobs initiative from 300 to 3,000 jobs,enlisting more than 670 employers. Looking tolink employer commitments more effectively tohigh school reform, the PIC took the lead indesigning and managing ProTech, an innova-tive school-to-career program that began in the

THE BOSTON PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL: CONNECTING EMPLOYERSAND SCHOOLS

health industry in 1991 and has since expandedto financial services, utilities, communications,and environmental services. The PIC has alsomanaged the establishment of career acad-emies in three high schools.

Since 1994, the PIC has worked with employ-ers and the public schools to create a systemthat includes ProTech and the career acad-emies, as well as an annual job-shadowing dayinvolving over 300 employers. The city has des-ignated 10 high schools as “school-to-careerschools” with special resources for professionaldevelopment and employer outreach. The PICemploys a staff of career specialists in the city’shigh schools who help young people find workand plan their careers. It also coordinates em-ployer recruitment and customer service.

Although the Boston PIC has been a remark-ably active and effective intermediary, it stilldepends significantly on government and foun-dation resources. Its future will depend on thewillingness of firms and the school system toabsorb a larger share of operational costs. (Fora more detailed examination of employer in-volvement in Boston’s program, see the volumeof case studies published separately by CED.)


39

utilities nationally to join local school-to-careerand other business-education partnerships.UBEC has also formed a national partnershipwith the Southern Regional Education Board(SREB), and the two are collaborating in east-ern Pennsylvania to increase employer involve-ment in SREB’s High Schools That Work initia-tive, which attempts to improve student learningat school and at work sites. UBEC and SREBhope that their efforts to build intermediarieswill be replicated in other communities whereSREB’s 650 participating high schools are lo-cated.

The costs associated with the convening andconnecting activities of local intermediary or-ganizations are significant. As information tech-nology becomes more sophisticated and ubiq-uitous, some intermediary functions, includinginformation dissemination and labor marketanalysis, should become easier. However, theconnecting role is by nature labor-intensive.Significant public and private resources will beneeded to create and sustain these entities.

Federal funds through the School to WorkOpportunities Act have helped launch and sus-tain many intermediaries. For example, Mary-land used a portion of its federal school towork grant to create the innovative EmployerIncentive Fund, which makes competitive grantsto industry groups to create or strengthen em-ployer collaboration models. Grants of up to$100,000 were made in the first year to consor-tia of industry-specific employers, trade asso-ciations, and other brokering organizations.116

In anticipation of the end of its five-yearfederal grant, Massachusetts has taken steps toinstitutionalize intermediaries. In 1996, the statelegislature passed a bill to provide a regularrevenue source for connecting activities relatedto work-based learning programs. The legisla-tion makes partnerships eligible for state fund-ing for intermediary activities in the amount of$0.50 for every $1.00 in student wages paid bylocal businesses that provide mentoring andworkplace learning. In its first year, statewidefunding was capped at $500,000. For 1997-98,the authorization was $2.8 million.

Limitations of Financial IncentivesSome observers have proposed that direct

financial incentives be used to induce employ-ers to provide work experience to high schoolstudents. In Europe, such incentives are fre-quently embedded in national labor marketpolicies. High minimum wages combined withyouth training wages and regulations that makeit costly to lay off permanent employees, en-courage employers to hire young people andto use work-based learning programs to screenpotential permanent hires.117 While these poli-cies would increase employer interest in re-cruiting young workers, we believe their posi-tive effects would be swamped by the rigiditiesthey would introduce into U.S. labor markets.

In the United States, corporate income taxcredits and wage subsidies have been used toencourage employer participation in trainingprograms. However, there is extensive evidencethat tax credits and wage subsidies have littleeffect on employer decisions and simply createa revenue windfall for participating firms.118

While over 90 percent of employers in onesurvey said that wage subsidies would encour-age them to employ more students in school-supervised programs, an overwhelming major-ity of the same respondents reported thatstudent wages were of little or no importanceto their decisions about providing work-basedlearning opportunities.119 Either these employ-ers overstated the burden of wages and train-ing costs, or they felt that the likely financialincentive would be insufficient compensation.In either case, financial incentives would beunlikely to alter their decisions. In interviewsand surveys, employers are consistent in theirdesire to avoid government “red tape.” Smalleremployers in particular are concerned aboutpaperwork and government monitoring relatedto tax liability. Financial incentives enacted bystate and federal legislators have typically beentoo modest to outweigh these concerns.

Historical experience with employer subsi-dies for hiring disadvantaged populations rein-forces our skepticism. In the Youth Entitle-


40

ment Demonstrations of the 1970s, even dou-bling wage subsidies from 50 percent to 100percent encouraged only modest increases inparticipation, as employers resisted hiring in-dividuals stigmatized as being less qualified byvirtue of their participation in the governmenttraining program.120

Furthermore, tax credits appear to be a par-ticularly inefficient way to encourage employerinvolvement. Studies of the federal TargetedJob Tax Credit concluded that employers wouldhave hired as many as 70 percent of the disad-vantaged youths for whom they claimed credits

had there been no tax incentive.121 Employ-ment tax credits create a windfall for those whoalready hire from the target population andhave limited power to entice other employersto change their behavior.

In the past few years, more than 15 stateshave introduced employer wage subsidies andtax credits to partially offset the supervisory,training, and wage costs of student work expe-rience.122 These policy experiments should bewatched closely and assessed for their impactson employer behavior.

The business community has a large stakein the outcome of education reform. It also hasunique expertise and resources to contribute.Close and long-term collaborations among highschools, employers, colleges and universities,and other community interests are needed toimprove the academic achievement and careerpreparation of our young people.

To this end, the business community shouldprovide clear and confident political supportfor both higher academic standards and school-to-career programs, stressing that the two ap-

proaches complement each other in the questfor high academic achievement. Employers ofall sizes should do what they can to extendwork-based learning opportunities to youngpeople. They should also continue to cham-pion high academic standards through bothpolicy efforts and company practices. Finally,the business community should actively sup-port labor market intermediaries that will fa-cilitate and sustain school-to-career programsover the long run.

CONCLUSION


41

In light of our analysis of American second-ary education, CED’s overarching recommen-dation is that the academic standards andschool-to-career reform movements should beredefined as elements of a single coordinatedstrategy to improve education and career out-comes. The two strategies complement andstrengthen each other. More rigorous standardscan raise parent, teacher, and student expecta-tions and make it possible to evaluate progresstoward high academic goals. School-to-careerprograms can motivate learning and developskills that are needed both in the workplaceand in higher education. We believe this com-bination can spark significant improvement inhigh school performance. Employers at thelocal, state, and national levels should be strongadvocates for integrating these two approachesto reform.

There are more than five million employersin the United States. Only a small fraction ofthem, who employ about one-quarter of thework force, are large enough to have the inter-nal staff resources and scale economies forsustaining effective, ongoing relationships withschools and to provide a wide variety of highquality, educationally relevant, part-time jobsfor students. Large-scale efforts to connectschool and work will therefore require effec-tive and sustainable intermediary organizationsthat simplify employer participation and struc-ture the relationships among schools, employ-ers, and young people.

The focus of this policy statement is on therole of employers. However, effective learning

is the mutual responsibility of employers, schoolleaders, public officials, parents, and others.The primary responsibility rests with our schoolsto plan and implement improvements, but gov-ernment can provide incentives and support toexpedite promising approaches. We begin withrecommendations to employers and then turnto those for schools and government.

THE ROLE OF EMPLOYERS

Support High Academic AchievementThrough Policy and Company Practice

Employers can provide important supportto schools as they work to raise academic stan-dards. Through their involvement in educa-tion policy, employers can encourage furtherprogress in the development of sound stan-dards and assessments. In addition, employerscan use their own company practices to rein-force the message to students and parents thatacademic performance has important conse-quences.

We recommend that employers continue tohelp the states develop, refine, and implementrigorous standards for academic performanceand content. In previous policy statements,CED has consistently supported rigorous na-tional standards and assessments in a range ofacademic subjects.123 Standards can be a pow-erful lever for reform if they are explicit, linkedto assessments of student mastery, and used tohold schools accountable for improvement.However, higher standards are more likely to

Chapter IV

Recommendations

42

be met in schools where administrative andteaching staff have the commitment, resources,and support required to improve instruction.

The states have taken the lead in settinghigh academic standards. Experience has shownthat employers can contribute to these effortsin a number of ways. They can describe anddemonstrate the “hard” and “soft” skills re-quired to succeed in modern workplaces. Theycan help draft and review proposed standards.Employers can also play a major role in build-ing public consensus for high standards, asthey have done in Kentucky, Massachusetts,and other states.

CED recommends that state standards in-corporate skills valued in the workplace, suchas communicating effectively, working produc-tively in teams, and using up-to-date technol-ogy. Academic standards are frequently writ-ten in ways that ignore these increasinglyimportant and complex “soft skills.” We recog-nize that early efforts to incorporate these skillsinto academic standards have been problem-atic, but we believe standards that encouragethese competencies and their assessment canand should be developed. The Applied Learn-ing standards for high schools created by theNew Standards project provide helpful guid-ance. Proposed academic standards should alsobe reviewed to ensure that they are not exces-sively prescriptive and do not discourage theuse of contextual learning.*

We also urge employers and their organiza-tions to support voluntary nationwide educa-tional achievement tests. Although proposalsto implement voluntary national testing havebeen a political lightning rod in Congress, webelieve that employment of a few national as-sessments would help states, schools, students,and parents strive for high academic achieve-ment and monitor progress towards it. We rec-ognize that national tests must be designedcarefully, with the primary purpose of assess-ing progress in basic literacy and numeracy.They should be designed to encourage prob-lem-solving and understanding and not drive

classroom learning back to rote memorization.With respect to company practice, CED

strongly urges employers to use informationon student performance, such as that containedin high school transcripts and teacher recom-mendations, in hiring for summer, school-year,and full-time jobs. We also urge employers towork with schools to make student records moreunderstandable and to develop additionalmeans of documenting student achievement,including certification of skills and portfoliosof students’ work. Employers should use theirhiring and employment practices to create in-centives for students and schools to improveacademic performance. We reaffirm our rec-ommendation in previous CED policy state-ments that legal obstacles to the considerationof student records by employers should berelaxed, while protecting prospective employ-ees from discrimination. 124

CED also recommends that employers—par-ticularly those in industries that rely on youthlabor—voluntarily refrain from employing highschool students more than 20 hours a week (aworkload that appears to interfere with aca-demic performance) and minimize late shiftsfor students working on school nights. We alsourge employers, whenever feasible, to requireworking students to maintain school attendanceand a minimum grade-point average.

Join and Support IntermediaryOrganizations That Link Employersand Schools

Arranging work opportunities for studentsand their teachers can be time-consuming andcostly, especially for smaller employers. Thesecosts and the risks associated with working withschools and students can be reduced throughthe efforts of intermediary organizations thatare trusted by both schools and employers.These intermediaries and the governing part-nerships that guide them convene schools andemployers for program planning and evalua-tion and resolve inevitable tensions betweenthem. They can reduce employer burdens by



43

preparing young people for work, matchingstudents with work opportunities, and simplify-ing administrative arrangements.

CED urges employers to become activemembers of partnerships governing localschool-to-career efforts in their communitiesand to join and use the services of their localintermediaries. We also urge chambers of com-merce, trade associations, and other private-sector organizations to support the creation ofnew intermediaries and the expansion of theactivities of existing institutions that employ-ers respect and trust.

Participate in Programs that Use WorkExperience to Promote AcademicLearning and Career Exploration

CED enthusiastically supports contextuallearning through the integration of academicand applied curricula. A coherent sequence ofwork and community experiences related toacademic studies should become part of thecore curriculum for high school students. Tothe extent possible, employers should contrib-ute to these efforts in the following ways:

Employers should try to offer students highquality and varied work experiences to the ex-tent feasible. These experiences range fromjob shadowing to brief rotations through dif-ferent departments and more intensive intern-ships and employment. While learning can takeplace in even the most low-skill, repetitive as-signments, we encourage employers to provideopportunities for students to learn new skillsand deepen their understanding of adult worksettings. Where possible, students should bematched with supportive mentors who provideregular assessment of student performance.

We urge employers who have not yet par-ticipated in these programs to do so, and oth-ers to increase the number of young peoplethey bring into their workplaces. Employersshould actively recruit other firms in their in-dustries and communities and publicize theresults of bringing students into their own work-places.

With respect to the quality of youth jobs,CED also urges employers in industries thatrely on young workers, especially regional ornational chains and franchises, to work withschools to enrich the learning content of youthjobs and to integrate work-related lessons intoschool curricula. Traditional youth jobs—suchas those in fast-food establishments—are wheremost young people find their first paid work.These jobs typically provide limited learningopportunities, but their potential for learningcan in some cases be increased by modestchanges in the jobs themselves and/or by con-necting the jobs to students’ academic pro-grams.

We recognize that there are major obstaclesto expanding employer participation in school-to-work programs and that innovative ap-proaches are required to “stretch” employerparticipation in ways that will extend programbenefits of the programs to more students. Wetherefore suggest the following ways to increasethe effectiveness of employer involvement:

Employers can use their expertise and re-sources to support career-related, experientiallearning programs that take place outside theworkplace. For work-based learning to becomea core component of high school studies, acreative and broad mix of work experienceswill be needed. Examples include school-basedenterprises and related entrepreneurship pro-grams, community service programs tied toschools, and career-oriented youth organiza-tions such as Junior Achievement. Employerscan promote the effectiveness of student expe-riences through participation in advisory groupsand assessments of student work.

We also recommend that employers opentheir workplaces to teachers and other highschool staff for job shadowing, rotationsthrough different departments, and summerinternships and jobs. Firms that hesitate to pro-vide work experiences to students may be will-ing to provide teachers and other school staffwith opportunities to learn about the demandsand expectations of modern workplaces. These

Recommendations

44

experiences frequently prompt curricular andinstructional innovations.

Employers should partner with local schooldistricts and individual schools to help teach-ers introduce experiential and contextual learn-ing into the classroom. Employers can makeemployees and resources available to help stu-dents design and undertake such projects andserve as coaches and judges of student presen-tations. High quality academic learning inschool-to-career initiatives requires the integra-tion of workplace experiences into school cur-ricula and instruction. Employers can helpteachers bring “real world” standards and learn-ing-by-doing into their classrooms. For example,a growing number of school-to-career programsrequire students to undertake rigorous, inter-disciplinary, academic “field studies,” often inteams, which combine research done in andoutside of school and culminate in a formalpresentation to other students and adults.

In the future, it may be possible to substi-tute computer simulations of work situationsand problems for certain kinds of actual workexperience, thereby reducing the burden onemployers and making it easier to expand work-based learning programs. We urge employersto participate in the creation, review, and dis-semination of such products for use in highschools and technical colleges.*

THE ROLE OF SCHOOLSWe believe that the following strategies can

help schools integrate their pursuit of academicachievement through standards-based reformwith the benefits to motivation and experien-tial learning provided by school-to-career ini-tiatives.

Schools should eliminate rigid distinctionsbetween academic and vocational tracks. Theyshould provide all students with both a rigor-ous academic foundation and opportunities toapply academic learning in “real-world” workenvironments. Translating high standards forall students into practice is a formidable un-dertaking. It will take time for assessments,

curricula, teaching practices, and professionaldevelopment to improve. In the interim, highschools can introduce visible organizationalchanges that demonstrate to parents, teachers,and employers their commitment to preparingstudents successfully for colleges or careers.The integration of high-quality academics withvocational instruction is central to both the1990 Perkins Vocational Education Act andthe 1994 School to Work Opportunities Act.We urge schools to implement these reforms.We also urge high schools to eliminate narrowoccupational programs that prepare studentsonly for low-skill jobs or for employment thatno longer reflects labor market requirements.

In previous policy statements, CED hasurged expansion of public school choice andpublicly-funded charter schools. We believesuch institutions can increase educational op-tions and create incentives for public schoolsto improve their performance.125 We reaffirmthis recommendation, noting that school-to-ca-reer initiatives can benefit from policies thatencourage new, non-traditional schools. School-to-career reforms typically require high schoolsto change basic features of their operations,including curriculum, staffing, relations withoutside partners, and daily schedules. Suchchanges have often taken root in schools-within-a-school or small learning communities thathave purposely relaxed bureaucratic rules toencourage innovation. These initiatives fre-quently have been part of broader efforts toexpand public school choice. In this same con-text, new charter schools frequently look toschool-to-career and contextual learning prin-ciples to guide their design.

School officials should encourage the useof contextual learning in high schools. Thesuccess of any strategy for improving studentperformance depends on the skills and motiva-tion of classroom teachers. We therefore rec-ommend that initial teacher training and in-service professional development place greateremphasis on contextual instruction and work-based learning. We also urge schools to pro-vide professional development certification for

*See memorandum by JOHN DIEBOLD, (page 55).


45

work internships and study and release timefor workplace experience. In addition, we rec-ommend more accessible alternative routes toteacher certification, which will allow a broaderand more diverse set of individuals to pursuesecond careers in teaching.

CED recommends the employment of “jobdevelopers” or “career-coaches” in high schoolsand urges that these positions be institutional-ized through predictable annual funding. Mosthigh schools provide limited career counselingand have minimal infrastructure for connect-ing young people with employment and workexperience. However, some high schools havehired “job developers” or “career coaches” whowork with both students and employers to fa-cilitate job matching and to provide supportand case management for students’ work place-ments. In some cases the positions are fundedby the local intermediary organization, withstaff housed within the school.

CED strongly encourages high schools andcolleges to collaborate in facilitating the transi-tion from high school to college. Although thefocus of this policy statement is the relation-ship between high schools and employers, in-stitutions of higher education should also beengaged in school-to-career reforms. Two-yearcolleges are specified in the School to WorkOpportunities Act as important partners inthese efforts. TechPrep programs that link highschool and community college occupationalprograms are beginning to provide ladders topostsecondary learning and to improve peda-gogy in both secondary and postsecondary in-stitutions. Links with postsecondary institutionsinclude formal agreements that coordinate highschool technical programs and related curriculain community colleges, counseling on collegeapplications and financial aid forms, arrange-ments that enable high school students to takecollege courses, and granting of college creditfor qualifying high school work experiences.

College-entrance requirements that put un-due emphasis on specific courses and examscan put at a disadvantage those who take non-traditional routes in high school. Flexible ad-

missions policies that recognize acquiredcompetence can encourage high school ex-perimentation with work-based learning, inter-disciplinary curricula, and assessments basedon portfolios or work and other evidence ofachievement.

We urge two- and four-year colleges to joinschool reform governance partnerships andassess the ways in which their admissions andother policies can encourage improvements inhigh school learning. In this context, we alsourge four-year state colleges and universities tocomplement traditional course-based admissionrequirements with new competency-based mea-sures. Oregon, Wisconsin, and other states haveresponded to the growth of charter schools,school-to-career initiatives, and other innova-tive high school programs with new compe-tency-based admissions policies.126

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTThe ultimate test of the effectiveness of

school-to-career programs will be whether em-ployers, schools—and students—see sufficientbenefits to invest their own time, energy, andresources. However, in certain areas public poli-cies are needed to provide critical support forthe start-up, expansion, and institutionaliza-tion of employer-school partnerships.

In previous policy statements, CED hascalled for government to promote wider eco-nomic opportunity, particularly through invest-ments in human capital.127 We believe that pub-lic investments that encourage employers andschools to participate in school-to-career initia-tives are consistent with that call. We suggestthe following public policies:

Employer participation in school-to-careerprograms can be greatly facilitated by interme-diary organizations that “broker” employer-school relationships. For many small employ-ers such intermediaries are essential. Theseorganizations may be developed and fundedentirely by employers. However, in many casespublic funds may be needed to support suchactivities, and CED supports such public fund-

Recommendations

46

ing. We believe public support for intermediar-ies is justified because individual employerswill usually invest too little in school-to-careertraining and the organization of intermediar-ies. This is because individual employers re-ceive very little of the higher lifetime produc-tivity of the young people they train, andorganization and free-rider problems im-pede collaboration with other employers. How-ever, once these intermediary institutions arein place and serving a significant proportion oflocal employers, obstacles to private supportare likely to diminish.

Governments should use incentive grantsand competitions to stimulate the creation andgrowth of these intermediaries. We do not rec-ommend expanding tax incentives or wage sub-sidies to attract employers, believing that di-rect support for intermediaries is a moreeffective use of public resources. However, wedo recommend careful evaluation of existingstate financial incentives of this kind to gain abetter understanding of their effects.

We urge government to encourage experi-mentation with intermediaries that serve out ofschool/out of work populations as well as highschool students and that serve adults as well asyouths. Students are not the only group thatneeds help in connecting with employers; highschool dropouts and the unemployed alsowould benefit from assistance by local interme-diaries. Moreover, as the pressure increases oncommunities and their employers to hire andsupport former welfare recipients, it will provemore efficient to house employment servicesto multiple client groups within the same orga-nization. We advocate thoughtful experimen-tation with intermediary models that serve bothstudents and out-of-school, harder-to-employpopulations.

We believe that continued public supportfor school-to-career reforms is justified by apublic interest in their benefits for educationand workforce preparation. However, we rec-ognize that the School to Work OpportunitiesAct is likely to sunset, as planned, in 2001. CEDtherefore urges states to provide such support.

We also recommend that the federal govern-ment incorporate the central features of school-to-career programs into its guidelines for fund-ing mainstream education, training, and youthprograms, such as Title I, vocational educa-tion, and the Job Training Partnership Act orits successor. Legislation and regulatory guide-lines for programs that combine workplace ex-periences with classroom studies should em-phasize high academic standards, encourageexperiential learning, and create strong andstable partnerships among schools, employers,and postsecondary institutions. We also recom-mend that governments make it easier to poolresources from different funding sources forinitiatives that combine school and work.

State and federal laws regarding child la-bor, workers’ compensation, and insurance didnot contemplate programs linking school andwork. These laws sometimes contain unneces-sary obstacles to employer participation. CEDrecommends that state and federal govern-ments reassess their child labor, workers’ com-pensation, and other workplace-related lawsand regulations with the objective of removingunnecessary obstacles to work-based learningfor students. We believe this can be done with-out compromising health and safety protec-tions or exposing employers to unnecessaryrisk. Child labor laws should encourage em-ployment tied to school learning programs anddiscourage excessive hours for high school stu-dents.*

CED recommends that the Office of Educa-tional Research and Information and other re-search organizations support additional re-search on program effectiveness and costs anddisseminate information on best practices indesign and implementation. Too little is knownabout the long-term effects on students’ educa-tion, employment, and incomes of differentmodels for linking school and work. This lackof longitudinal data inhibits improvements indesign and implementation. There is relativelylittle research on the assessments of programcosts and benefits by different types of employ-ers, for instance those related by industry, size,

*See memorandum by CHARLES LEE, (page 55).


47

hiring practices, or geographic location. Thereis even less research on the effectiveness ofdifferent types of intermediaries. Researchshould be undertaken through a public-pri-vate initiative to which national foundationscontribute leadership and funding.

We also urge federal, state, and local gov-ernments, in their capacity as employers, toprovide work experience and jobs for studentsand teachers. Local, state, and federal govern-ments are large employers. In many communi-ties, governments have been slow to open theirown workplaces to young people in school-based learning programs. The public sectorcan provide a positive example for other em-

As the American economy enters the twenty-first century, a strong back and a good workethic are insufficient to secure a job that pays amiddle-class wage. Those with only a high schooldiploma or less have not shared the fruits ofthe economic changes that have benefited somany Americans. This is neither fair to theseindividuals nor productive for the nation. Themost effective—indeed, perhaps the only—so-lution to this problem is to raise the academicachievement and skill development of theyoung people who are now being left behind.Only then will all high school graduates beadequately prepared to choose their future oc-cupational paths, whether those paths involvehigher education, immediate entry into a ca-

ployers and expand the opportunities avail-able to students, as the federal government isnow beginning to do in the welfare-to-workarena.

Finally, CED urges the President, governors,and other political leaders to champion theintegration of high academic standards andschool-to-career learning. Some governors havedelivered clear and consistent messages abouttheir states’ commitment to young people andtheir futures. Others should join them. Theirmessage should emphasize that stronger con-nections between school and the world of workwill benefit students, employers, states and com-munities, and our nation.

reer, or a combination of work and learning.This task is daunting. Schools need help.

Employers around the country have shown thatthey can contribute significantly in partner-ship with schools and local communities. Overtime, a uniquely American system of qualityeducation can evolve, based on high academicstandards for all, closer links between schooland work, and preparation of all students forproductive social and economic futures.

Building this system will take time, patience,leadership, and creative collaborations. We be-lieve that our nation’s economic progress andits social cohesion depend upon the success ofthis effort. The policies recommended in thisstatement will advance this critical agenda.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations

48

ACHIEVE1280 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02138617-496-6300

American Federation of Teachers555 New Jersey Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20001-2029202-393-6373

Automotive Youth EducationalServicesGeneral MotorsMail Code 482-102-2183044 W. Grand BoulevardDetroit, MI 48202313-556-9368

Boston Private Industry Council2 Oliver Street, 7th FloorBoston, MA 02109617-423-3755

Business/Industry/EducationAllianceUniversity of Delaware305C Willard HallNewark, DE 19716302-831-3101

Business Roundtable1615 L Street, NWSuite 1100Washington, DC 20036202-872-1260

Capital Area Training Foundation800 Brazos StreetP.O. Box 2026Austin, TX 78701512-474-2710

Appendix:

Jobs for the Future1 Bowdoin SquareBoston, MA 02117617-742-5995

High Schools That WorkSouthern Regional Education Board592 10th Street, NWAtlanta, GA 30318-5790404-875-9211

National Alliance of Business1201 New York AvenueWashington, DC 20005202-289-2888

National Association ofManufacturers1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWSuite 600 North TowerWashington, DC 20004202-637-3000

National Association of Partnersin Education901 North Pitt StreetSuite 320Alexandria, VA 22314703-836-4880

National Association of PrivateIndustry Councils1201 New York AvenueWashington, DC 20005202-289-2950

National Employer LeadershipCouncil1001 Connecticut AvenueSuite 310Washington, DC 20036202-822-8027

National Retail Federation325 7th Street, NWSuite 1000Washington, DC 20004202-783-7971

National School-to-WorkOffice400 Virginia Avenue, SWSuite 210Washington, DC 20024202-401-6222

Portland Business EducationCompact5825 NE Ray CircleHillsboro, OR 97124503-614-1637

Tulsa Chamber ofCommerce616 South BostonSuite 100Tulsa, OK 74119918-560-0241

United States Chamberof Commerce1615 H StreetWashington, DC 20062202-659-6000

Utility Business EducationCoalition1035 Sterling RoadSuite 203-AHerndon, VA 20170-3838703-435-6676

School-to-Career Resources List

49

1. Committee for Economic Development. American Work-ers and Economic Change. (New York, NY: Committee forEconomic Development, 1996).

2. See the following Committee for Economic Develop-ment policy statements: Investing in Our Children: Businessand the Public Schools (1985), Children in Need: InvestmentStrategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged (1987), TheUnfinished Agenda: A New Vision for Child Development andEducation (1991), and Why Child Care Matters (1994).

3. Lauren Resnick. Education and Learning to Think. (Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press, 1987). p. 7.

4. The term “school-to-career” is used in this statement inplace of “school-to-work.” This is a conscious decisionand reflects the evolution of usage in the field. For many,“school-to-work” has negative connotations. It is seen asmisleading because it implies a one-time transition toemployment and because it conjures an association withentry- level jobs rather than progress toward a career thatcan support a middle-class standard of living.

5. “School-to-Work and Goals 2000,” The Phyllis SchlaflyReport, April 1997. Emphasis in the original.

6. Stephen Hamilton, Apprenticeship for Adulthood. (NewYork: The Free Press, 1990).

7. Pepper Culpepper, and David Feingold, eds., The Ger-man Skills Machine (Berghanen Books, 1998)

8. The Fortune 1000 employed 26.3 million people in1997. CED private communication with Fortune.

9. Paul Osterman and Maria Iannozzi. Youth Apprentice-ships and School-to-Work Transition: Current Knowledge andLegislative Strategy. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-nia, National Center on the Educational Quality of theWorkforce, 1993), p. 4; Robert. Lerman “Building Hope,Skills and Careers: Making a U.S. Youth ApprenticeshipSystem,” in Hochschild, Jennifer, Irwin Garfinkel, andSara McLanahan, eds. Social Policies for Children. (Wash-ington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1996).

10. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor.Work and Family: Turning Thirty: Job Mobility and LaborMarket Attachment. Report 862. (Washington, DC: Bureauof Labor Statistics, 1993).

11. Jacob Klerman and Lynn Karoly. The Transition toStable Employment: The Experience of U.S. Youth in their EarlyLabor Market Career. (Berkeley: National Center for Re-search in Vocational Education, 1995), pp. 7-8. Highschool dropouts are a crucial exception to this pattern.They appear less and less able to form stable connectionsto the labor market.

12. Rosella Gardecki and David Neumark. Order from Chaos?The Effects of Early Labor Market Experiences on Adult LaborMarket Outcomes. Working Paper 5899. (Cambridge: Na-tional Bureau of Economic Research, 1997). pp. 20-21;David Neumark, “Youth Labor Markets in the U.S.: Shop-ping Around versus Staying Put,” unpublished manu-script, July, 1997.

13. Peter Cappelli et al. Change at Work. (New York: Ox-ford University Press, 1997). Chapter 1.

14. Henry S. Farber, “The Changing Face of Job Loss,”Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Micreconomics 1997.

15. CED calculations using Current Population Survey.

16. Klerman and Karoly, The Transition to Stable Employ-ment: The Experience of U.S. Youth in Their Early Labor MarketCareer.

17. Claudia Goldin, and Robert Margo, “The Great Com-pression: The Wage Structure in the United States at Mid-Century,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (February1992):1-34.

18. CED calculations using Current Population Survey.

19. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,private communication.

20. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

21. See Richard B. Freeman and James L. Medoff, WhatDo Unions Do? (New York: Basic Books, 1984).

22. George J. Borjas, Richard B. Freeman, and LawrenceF. Katz, “How Much Do Immigration and Trade AffectLabor Market Outcomes?” Brookings Papers on EconomicActivity 1(1997):1-67.

23. Richard J. Murnane and Frank Levy, Teaching the NewBasic Skills (New York: The Free Press, 1996), pp. 31-32.

24. See Paul Osterman. “How Common Is WorkplaceTransformation and Who Adopts It?” Industrial and LaborRelations Review 47, no. 2 (January 1994):173; also,Lawrence Mishel, “Comment: Skill Requirements andthe Workforce,” Urban Labor Markets and Job Opportunity,ed. George E. Peterson and Wayne Vroman (Washing-ton, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1992), pp. 67-76.Some analysts assert that the shift to more demandingforms of work organization is incremental and slow andhas primarily created a gap between the skills employersneed and skill levels they would like from new employees.In this view, employers think they need more and higherskill levels than in fact they do, given their current workorganization and use of technology. See Cathleen Stasz,The Economic Imperative Behind School Reform: A Review of the

Endnotes

50

Literature (Berkeley, Calif.: National Center for Researchin Vocational Education, 1996).

25. Osterman, “How Common Is Workplace Transforma-tion and Who Adopts It?”; also, personal communicationfrom the author to CED concerning 1997 survey findings.

26. Harry Holzer, What Employers Want: Job Prospects forLess-Educated Workers (New York: Russell Sage, 1996), p.69.

27. Holzer, What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers, p. 127

28. National Center on the Educational Quality of theWorkforce, First Findings from the EQW National EmployerSurvey (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1995).

29. Philip Moss and Chris Tilly, Raised Hurdles for BlackMen: Evidence from Employer Interviews (Lowell, Mass.: Uni-versity of Massachusetts at Lowell, 1995).

30. Harris Education Research Center, An Assessment ofAmerican Education: The Views of Employers, Higher Educa-tors, the Public, Recent Students, and Their Parents (NewYork: Committee for Economic Development, 1991).

31. National Alliance of Business and Scholastic, Inc.Education in the U.S. (Washington, D.C.: NAB and Scho-lastic, Inc. 1995).

32. Quoted in John T. Bruer, Schools for Thought: A Scienceof Learning in the Classroom (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1993), p. 6.

33. Committee for Economic Development. ConnectingInner-City Youth to the World of Work. (New York, NY: Com-mittee for Economic Development, 1996). p. 2.

34. Nelson Smith, Standards Mean Business (Washington,D.C.: National Alliance of Business, 1996), p. 6.

35. Presentation by Donna Klein, Director of Work LifePrograms, Marriott Corporation, to the National Gover-nors Association Workforce Development Policy Forum,Cleveland, Ohio, November 21, 1996.

36. Ellen Galinsky and Dana F. Friedman, Education BeforeSchool: Investing in Quality Child Care (New York: Scholas-tic, Inc., 1993), pp. 66-67.

37. Smith, Standards Mean Business, p. 7.

38. David W. Breneman, “Remediation in Higher Educa-tion: Its Extent and Cost,” in Brookings Papers on EducationPolicy, ed. Diane Ravitch(Washington, D.C.: Brookings,1998), pp. 359-370.

39. Richard Freeman, “Why Do So Many Young Ameri-can Men Commit Crimes and What Might We Do AboutIt?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, no. 1 (Winter 1996):25-42.

40. W. Norton Grubb, Learning to Work: The Case for Reinte-grating Job Training and Education (New York: Russell Sage,1966), Chapter 5.

41. Richard Kazis and Hilary Kopp, Both Sides Now: NewDirections in Promoting Work and Learning for DisadvantagedYouth (Boston: Jobs for the Future, 1997); Pines, A Genera-tion of Challenge: Toward a Policy for Out-of-School and Out-of-Work Youth.

42. Marshall S. Smith and Jennifer O’Day, “SystemicSchool Reform,” in Politics of Education Association Year-book, (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1990), p. 238.

43. Student teacher ratios fell from 26:1 in 1960 to 17:1 in1964. Department of Education, National Center for Edu-cation Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1995, pp. 74,165.

44. Diane Ravitch, National Standards in American Educa-tion: A Citizen’s Guide, (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Insti-tution Press, 1995).

45. Smith, and O’Day. “Systemic School Reform,” pp.233-267.

46. The standards-setting strategy has three components:content standards for academic subjects, which providebroad descriptions of what students should know and beable to do at broadly defined grade levels; performancestandards that provide guidance to teachers and studentson what constitutes a demonstration of proficiency in therequired knowledge and skills; and resource standards thatdescribe the teacher development requirements and otherresources needed to ensure that every student has theopportunity to learn in ways that can meet higher aca-demic standards.

47. Peter Galusza, “Kentucky’s Class Act,” Business Week, 7April 1997, pp. 90-92.

48. Roger Pankratz, Summary of the Effects of School Reformin Kentucky Supported by Research (Frankfort: Kentucky In-stitute for Education Research, 1997).

49. Changing Schools in Louisville. 1:1. Winter 1996/97.(Atlanta: The Focused Reporting Project, 1997).

50. “Quality Counts,” supplement of Education Week, 22January 1997.

51. Changing Schools in Louisville, p. 3.

52. American Federation of Teachers, Reaching the NextStep: How School to Career Can Help Students Reach HighAcademic Standards and Prepare for Good Jobs (Washington,D.C.: American Federation of Teachers, 1997).

53. Laurence Steinberg, B. Bradford Brown, and SanfordM. Dornbusch, Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform HasFailed and What Parents Need to Do (New York: Simon andSchuster, 1996), p. 13.

54. Laurence Steinberg, “Standards Outside the Class-room.” Brookings Papers on Education Policy 1998 (Wash-ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998) pp. 323-24.

51

55. There are positive returns to academic achievementin high school. However, these rewards do not tend tomaterialize until young people have been in the laborforce for several years. According to one study, for stu-dents who do not attend college, mastery of basic math-ematics correlates with higher wages six years after highschool (age 24) compared with peers with weaker mathskills. See Richard J. Murnane and Frank Levy, Teachingthe New Basic Skills (New York: The Free Press, 1996), pp.42-46.

56. Adria Steinberg, Real Learning, Real Work: School-to-Work as High School Reform, (New York: Routledge, 1997),p. 16.

57. Martin Haberman, “Unemployment Training: TheIdeology of Nonwork Learned in Urban Schools,” PhiDelta Kappan (March 1997):499-503.

58. Sue E. Berryman, “Apprenticeship as a Paradigm ofLearning” in, Education Through Occupations in AmericanHigh Schools, vol. 1, ed. W. Norton Grubb (New York:Teachers College Press, 1995). pp. 192-214.

59. Lauren Resnick, “Presidential Address: Learning inSchool and Out.” Educational Researcher 16 (1987):13-20.

60. Dale Parnell, The Neglected Majority (Washington, D.C.:The Community College Press, 1985); William T. GrantFoundation Commission on Work, Family, and Citizen-ship, The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America: AnInterim Report on the School-to-Work Transition, (Washing-ton, D.C.: William T. Grant Commission, 1988); Commis-sion on Skills of the American Workforce, America’s Choice:High Skills or Low Wages! (Rochester, N.Y.: National Cen-ter on Education and the Economy, 1990).

61. Kathleen Cushman, Adria Steinberg and Rob Riordan,Connecting School and Work as a Means to Whole-School Change(Providence, R.I.: The Coalition of Essential Schools,1997), pp. 10-13.

62. David Stern, et al., School-Based Enterprise: ProductiveLearning in American High Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).

63. Jobs for the Future, Jobs for the Future’s BenchmarkCommunities Initiative, (Boston: Jobs for the Future, 1997).

64. Gary Walker, “Out of School and Unemployed: Prin-ciples for More Effective Policies and Programs,” in AGeneration of Challenge: Toward a Policy for Out-of-School andOut-of-Work Youth, ed. Marion Pines (Baltimore, Md.: SarLevitan Center for Policy Studies of Johns Hopkins Uni-versity, 1997). pp.73-85.

65. Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How ChildrenThink and How Schools Should Teach (New York: BasicBooks, 1991), p. 122.

66. These student anecdotes are from Steinberg, Adria.Real Learning, Real Work: School-to-Work as High School Re-form. (New York: Routledge, 1997).

67. U.S. Department of Labor, Evaluating the Net Impact ofSchool to Work: Proceedings of a Roundtable (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1997).

68. Thomas G. Sticht, W. B. Armstrong, D. T. Hicky, andJ. S. Caylor, Cast-off Youth: Policy and Training Methods fromthe Military Experience (New York: Praeger, 1987).

69. U.S. Department of Labor, Evaluating the Net Impact ofSchool to Work: Proceedings of a Roundtable.

70. George Cave, Hans Bo, Fred Doolittle, and CyrilToussaint, JobStart: Final Report on a Program for School Drop-Outs (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Cor-poration, 1993).

71. Thomas Smith, and Michelle Gambone, “Effective-ness of Federally Funded Employment Training Strate-gies for Youth,” in U.S. Department of Labor, Dilemmas inYouth Employment Programming: Findings from the Youth Re-search and Technical Assistance Project (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Labor, 1992), pp. 36-37.

72. Laurence Steinberg, B. Bradford Brown and SanfordDornbusch, Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform HasFailed and What Parents Need to Do (New York: Simon andSchuster, 1996).

73. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Chief Econo-mist, What’s Working (and What’s Not): A Summary of Re-search on the Economic Impacts of Employment and TrainingPrograms. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor,1995); American Youth Policy Forum, Some Things DoMake a Difference for Youth: A Compendium of Evaluations ofYouth Programs and Practices (Washington, D.C.: AmericanYouth Policy Forum, 1997.

74. Smith and Gambone. “Effectiveness of FederallyFunded Employment Training Strategies for Youth,” p.35. These studies make comparisons among young peoplewith no substantial postsecondary education, all of whomare likely to have lower earnings than college graduates.

75. Andrew Sum, Neeta Fogg, and Neal Fogg, “Confront-ing the Demographic Challenge: Future Labor MarketProspects of Out-of-School Adults,” in Pines, A Generationof Challenge: Toward a Policy for Out-of-School and Out-of-Work Youth, pp. 40-41.

76. David Stern, et al., “Work Experience for Students inHigh School and College.” Youth and Society 21, no. 3(1990):355-389.

77. David Stern and Y. Nakata, “Characteristics of HighSchool Students’ Paid Jobs, and Employment ExperienceAfter Graduation,” in Adolescence and Work: Influences ofSocial Structure, Labor Markets, and Culture, ed. David Sternand D. Eichorn (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1989). Thisstudy could suffer from selection bias. Young people whocan find jobs that make better use of their skills mightalso be able to find better jobs after high school, indepen-dent of skills they developed while working

52

78. Stern et al., “Work Experience for Students in HighSchool and College,” Youth and Society.

79. Lynn Olson, The School-to-Work Revolution: How Employ-ers and Educators Are Joining Forces to Prepare Tomorrow’sSkilled Workforce (Reading, M.A.: Addison Wesley, 1997).

80. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Learn-ing to Work, Making the Transition from School-to-Work, OTA-EHR-637 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1995). Each of these findings is supported by twoor more studies of several programs. Only the findingsconcerning employment outcomes varied substantiallyamong the studies.

81. Edward Pauly, Hilary Kopp, and Joshua Haimson,Home-Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking Work andSchool (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995).

82. Robert Crain, et al., Effectiveness of New York City’sCareer Magnet Schools: An Evaluation of Ninth Grade Perfor-mance Using an Experimental Design (Berkeley, Calif.: Na-tional Center for Research on Vocational Education,1992).

83. Gene Bottoms and Pat Mikos, Seven Most ImprovedHigh Schools That Work Sites Raise Achievement in Read-ing, Mathematics, and Science (Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Re-gional Education Board, 1995).

84. Charles Dayton, Alan Weisberg and David Stern, Cali-fornia Partnership Academies, 1987-88 Evaluation Report (Ber-keley, Calif.: Policy Analysis for California Education,University of California, 1989).

85. David Stern, et al., “Benefits and Costs of DropoutPrevention in a High School Program Combining Aca-demic and Vocational Education: Third-Year Results fromReplications of the California Peninsula Academies,” Edu-cation Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11, no. 4 (1989):405-416.

86. Hilary Kopp, Richard Kazis, and Andrew Churchill,Promising Practices: A Study of Ten School-to-Career Programs.

87. Crain, et al., Effectiveness of New York City’s Career Mag-net Schools: An Evaluation of Ninth Grade Performance Usingan Experimental Design.

88. Alan Hershey et al., Partners in Progress: Early Steps inCreating School-to-Work Systems (Princeton, N.J.:Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1997).

89. Committee for Economic Development. Investing inour Children: Business and the Public Schools.

90. Business Roundtable, A Business Leader’s Guide to Set-ting Academic Standards (Washington, D.C.: BusinessRoundtable, 1996), pp. 10-11.

91. Maris A. Vinovskis, “An Analysis of the Concept andUses of Systemic Educational Reform,” American Educa-tional Research Journal 33, no. 1 (Spring 1996):66.

92. James C. Dick, Business/Education Partnerships: WhatWe’re Learning (West Covina, Calif.: California EducationalResearch Cooperative, 1996), pp. 1-2.

93. National Employer Leadership Council, The EmployerParticipation Model (Washington, D.C.: National EmployerLeadership Council, 1996).

94. The Equal Employment Advisory Council has pre-pared a discussion of the legal issues related to the use ofschool records in hiring decisions. The paper concludesthat “the issues of what minimum qualifications and edu-cational standards an employer may require of its entrylevel workforce, and what legitimate business concernsare sufficient justification for practices that may have adisproportionate effect on groups protected by Title VII,may ultimately require a legislative or regulatory solu-tion.” See Equal Employment Advisory Council, AnEmployer’s Guide to Using School Transcripts in Hiring Deci-sions (Washington, D.C.: Equal Employment AdvisoryCouncil, 1997), p. 37.

95. Southern Regional Education Board, “Employers andSchools Working Together to Improve Student Achieve-ment,” Business and Education (Atlanta, Ga.: SouthernRegional Education Board, 1996), pp. 10-11.

96. Business Coalition for Education Reform. MakingAcademics Count: How Employers Can Motivate Students toWork Hard in School. (Washington DC: Business Coalitionfor Education Reform, 1996).

97. National Alliance of Business et al., School-to-CareerInitiatives: The Business View (Washington, D.C.: NationalAlliance of Business, 1997).

98. Calculations by CED based on national survey in AlanHershey et al., Partners in Progress: Early Steps in CreatingSchool-to-Work Systems (Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica PolicyResearch, 1997).

99. Robert Zemsky. What Employers Want: Employer Perspec-tives on Youth, the Labor Market, and Prospects for a NationalSystem of Youth Apprenticeships. (Philadelphia: NationalCenter on the Educational Quality of the Workforce,1994). p. 8.

100. Richard Kazis and Susan Goldberger. “The Role ofEmployers: The Integration of Work-Based Learning.” InW. Norton Grubb, ed. Education Through Occupations inAmerican High Schools (Vol. 2). (New York: Teachers Col-lege Press, 1995). p. 188.

101. Robert Zemsky, What Employers Want: Employer Per-spectives on Youth, the Labor Market, and Prospects for a Na-tional System of Youth Apprenticeships (Philadelphia: Na-tional Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce,1994), p. 8.

102. Katherine L. Hughes, Employer Participation in School-to-Work Programs: Helping to Train Our Future Workforce

53

(New York: Institute on Education and the Economy,1997), pp. 4-5; see also Basil Whiting and Wade Sayer,School-to-Work or School-to-What? Exploring Prospects for Build-ing Employer Capacity in School-to-Work Programming, (Phila-delphia: Public/Private Ventures, 1995).

103. Lynn Olson, The School-to-Work Revolution: How Em-ployers and Educators Are Joining Forces to Prepare Tomorrow’sSkilled Workforce (Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1997),p. 94.

104. Anthony Alongi, “Boston: Making Work-Based Learn-ing A Core Component of Systemic Reform” (paper pre-pared for CED project on the Employer’s Role in LinkingSchool and Work, Boston, Jobs for the Future, 1997).

105. Hilary Kopp and Richard Kazis. Promising Practices.(Boston: Jobs for the Future, 1995). p. 41; also informalcommunication with Cambridge school system.

106. Basil Whiting, Philadelphia: Integrating School-to-Careerwith the “Children Achieving” Agenda. Draft paper preparedfor CED Project on the Employer’s Role in Linking Schooland Work. (Boston: Jobs for the Future, 1997).

107. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Learning to Work, Making the Transition from School to Work(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1995), p. 76.

108. Edward Pauly, Hilary Kopp, and Joshua Haimson,Home-Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking Work andSchool. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995), p. 122; IreneLynn and Joan Wills, School Lessons, Work Lessons (Wash-ington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership, 1994).

109. Paul Osterman, “Involving Employers in School-to-Work Programs,” in Learning to Work: Employer Involvementin School-to-Work Transition Programs, ed. Thomas Bailey(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1995), pp.75-76.

110. A 1997 employer survey administered by the U.S.Bureau of the Census found that one in four employersnationally are involved in school-to-work initiatives in-volving high schools and/or community college studentsand that 91 percent of these are providing internships,job shadowing, mentoring, or apprenticeships to students.The survey was administered to over 7,000 private-sectoremployers with 20 or more employees. See Institute forResearch on Higher Education, Bringing School-to-Work toScale: What Employers Report (Philadelphia: IRHE, Univer-sity of Pennsylvania, 1997).

111. Laurence Steinberg, “Standards Outside the Class-room” (paper for Brookings Institution conference onthe State of Student Performance in American Schools,May 29-30, 1997), pp. 22-23.

112. Keith MacAllum and Patricia Ma. Skill, Standards andEntry-Level Work: Elements of a Strategy for Youth EmployabilityDevelopment (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of La-bor, 1995), pp. 47-48.

113. Kazis and Kopp, Promising Practices: A Study of TenSchool-to-Career Programs, pp. 89-94.

114. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Learning to Work, Making the Transition from School to Work,p. 96.

115. Lynn Olson, The School-to-Work Revolution: How Em-ployers and Educators Are Joining Forces to Prepare Tomorrow’sSkilled Workforce. pp. 149-186.

116. Andrew Sum et al., A Generation of Challenge: Pathwaysto Success for Urban Youth (Baltimore, Md.: Sar LevitanCenter for Social Policy Studies, Johns Hopkins Univer-sity, 1997), p. 135.

117. Paul Osterman, “Involving Employers in School-to-Work Programs,” pp. 80-81.

118. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Learning to Work, Making the Transition from School to Work,pp. 90-93.

119. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Learning to Work, Making the Transition from School to Work,p. 91.

120. W.C. Ball et all, “Participation of Private Business asWork Sponsors in Youth Entitlement Demonstrations,”(New York: MDRC, 1981).

121. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Learning to Work, Making the Transition from School to Work,pp. 90-91.

122. National Governors Association, State School-to-WorkSystem Development-1996 (Washington, D.C.: National Gov-ernors Association, 1996), pp. 3-4.

123. Putting Learning First, p. 37

124. Connecting Inner-City Youth to the World of Work, p. 24.

125. Putting Learning First, p. 17.

126. David T. Conley, and Christine A. Tell, “AdmissionStandards: Content and Process Areas, Proficiency andIndicators,” Eugene, Oregon, Oregon System of HigherEducation, 1996. Larry Rubin, “The Development of NewApproaches to College Preparation and Admission inWisconsin, “Responding to School Reform, Education Com-mission of the States.

127. American Workers and Economic Change, p. 10.

54

Page 1, ROBERT B. CATELL, with which JOHNDIEBOLD has asked to be associated

The CED does not go far enough in help-ing employers to recognize their role in educa-tion BEFORE the high school level.

It is understood that the primary focus ofthe Statement is high school, but the CEDrecognizes that “high school is already too latefor some young people.”

It is important to point out that many habitsconcerning a work ethic, study habits, or ten-dency to be at risk of “dropping out” are formedas early as the elementary level. Employers canand should partner with the education com-munity to develop and implement strategiesfor early intervention which can lay the groundwork for future success at the high school level.It is important for employers to recognize thatthey do have a role in linking school and workeven at the elementary and middle school lev-els.

Pages 3, PETER BENOLIEL

Does not this sentence and the accompany-ing note strongly suggest that “Career” be sub-stituted for “Work” in the title?

Pages 4 and 42, PETER BENOLIEL

I could not agree more with the recom-mendation to “promote rigorous academic con-tent and performance standards,” but take ex-ception to the notion that “These shouldencompass other skills needed in the work-

place, such as communicating with others, us-ing technology, and working in teams.” Theseskills are best developed through rigorous aca-demic preparation (reading, writing, sciencestudies) supplemented by the socialization pro-cess that starts early in life. The difficultiesalluded to in incorporating “soft skills” are real,and only compromise needed focus on rigor-ous academic preparation.

Page 15, JOHN DIEBOLD

Implementation of the recommendationsin this paper will be occurring against the back-ground of a third important educational re-form—the growing number of market-orientededucational efforts—from voucher programsto charter schools and including both for-profitand not-for-profit initiatives.

This development presents an enhancedopportunity for action supportive of the pro-grams advocated in this paper. It is in the inter-est of the operators of these market-orientedschools to implement many of our recommen-dations. Business in areas served by market-oriented schools should help such local schoolsby pointing out to the community leaders andparents the job enhancement opportunitiesthe business programs provide.

Page 17, PETER BENOLIEL

The role of parental involvement is an im-portant factor in high school just as in the earlygrades, as cited on p.2.

Memoranda of Comment, Reservation, or Dissent

55

Page 44, JOHN DIEBOLD

When it comes to adopting innovations ofthe kind recommended throughout this pa-per, it is important to structure such programsin a way that they rely on a demand pull ratherthan a supply push (of, for example, technol-ogy).

A demand pull, such as that emanating frommarket-oriented schools, can make a big differ-ence. The educational establishment has a longhistory of being very slow to adopt many newideas and procedures. Trying to change cur-riculum and teaching methods can be a littlelike pushing a string, thus making it difficult toimplement recommendations of the kind weare proposing unless a demand pull is made anintegral part of such programs.

Page 46, CHARLES LEE, with which JOHNDIEBOLD has asked to be associated

I am concerned that such a recommenda-tion, if misinterpreted or taken out of context,could compromise the credibility of the overallstatement. I respectfully submit the followingcomment for publication as a footnote to theabove referenced recommendation:

“That in removing unnecessary obstacles to work-based learning for students, we do not negate ordiminish the protection of individuals, conditions orwork practices for which these laws and regulationswere originally intended.”

56

We wish to give special thanks to the followingfoundations and companies whose generoussupport made this policy statement possible.

Aetna Foundation, Inc.AmeritechCarnegie Corporation of New YorkThe Chase Manhattan FoundationThe Commonwealth FundGE FundIBM CorporationThe Pew Charitable TrustsSafeguard Scientifics FoundationSHRM FoundationThe Travelers FoundationWilliam T. Grant Foundation

FUNDERS

A number of recent CED policy statements contributed significantly toThe Employer’s Role in Linking School and Work. These include:

American Workers and Economic Change (1996)

Connecting Inner-City Youth to the World of Work (1996)

Rebuilding Inner-City Communities: A New Approach to the Nation’s Urban Crisis (1995)

Connecting Students to a Changing World: A Technology Strategy for Improving Mathematics and Science Education (1995)

Putting Learning First: Governing and Managing the Schools for High Achievement (1994)

The Unfinished Agenda: A New Vision for Child Development and Education (1991)

An America that Works: The Life-Cycle Approach to a Competitive Work Force (1990)

Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged (1987)

Investing in Our Children: Business and the Public Schools (1985)

57

For more than 50 years, the Committee forEconomic Development has been a respectedinfluence on the formation of business andpublic policy. CED is devoted to these twoobjectives:

To develop, through objective research andinformed discussion, findings and recommenda-tions for private and public policy that will contributeto preserving and strengthening our free society, achiev-ing steady economic growth at high employment andreasonably stable prices, increasing productivity andliving standards, providing greater and more equalopportunity for every citizen, and improving the qual-ity of life for all.

To bring about increasing understanding bypresent and future leaders in business, government,and education, and among concerned citizens, of theimportance of these objectives and the ways in whichthey can be achieved.

CED’s work is supported by private volun-tary contributions from business and industry,

foundations, and individuals. It is independent,nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nonpolitical.

Through this business-academic partner-ship, CED endeavors to develop policy state-ments and other research materials thatcommend themselves as guides to public andbusiness policy; that can be used as texts incollege economics and political science coursesand in management training courses; thatwill be considered and discussed by newspaperand magazine editors, columnists, and com-mentators; and that are distributed abroad topromote better understanding of the Ameri-can economic system.

CED believes that by enabling businessleaders to demonstrate constructively their con-cern for the general welfare, it is helping busi-ness to earn and maintain the national andcommunity respect essential to the successfulfunctioning of the free enterprise capitalistsystem.

OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

*Life Trustee

Chairman

FRANK P. DOYLE, Retired Executive Vice PresidentGE

Vice ChairmenPHILIP J. CARROLL, President and Chief

Executive OfficerShell Oil CompanyALFRED C. DECRANE, JR., Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerTexaco Inc.RAYMOND V. GILMARTIN, Chairman, President

and Chief Executive OfficerMerck & Co., Inc.MATINA S. HORNER, Executive Vice PresidentTIAA-CREFHENRY A. MCKINNELL, Executive Vice PresidentPfizer Inc.

TreasurerJOHN B. CAVE, PrincipalAvenir Group, Inc.

REX D. ADAMS, DeanThe Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityPAUL A. ALLAIRE, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerXerox CorporationIAN ARNOF, President and Chief Executive OfficerFirst Commerce CorporationIRVING W. BAILEY II, Vice ChairmanAEGON Insurance GroupRICHARD BARTH, Former ChairmanCiba Inc.BERNARD B. BEAL, Chief Executive OfficerM.R. Beal & Co.HANS W. BECHERER, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerDeere & CompanyHENRY P. BECTON, JR., President and

General ManagerWGBH Educational FoundationALAN BELZER, Retired President and Chief

Operating OfficerAlliedSignal Inc.PETER A. BENOLIEL, Chairman, Executive CommitteeQuaker Chemical CorporationMELVYN E. BERGSTEIN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerDiamond Technology PartnersC. ROBERT BLACK, Senior Vice PresidentTexaco Inc.

CED BOARD OF TRUSTEES

ROY J. BOSTOCK, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer

The MacManus GroupC. L. BOWERMAN, Executive Vice President,

Planning and Corporate Relations & ServicesPhillips Petroleum CompanyRICHARD J. BOYLE, Retired Vice ChairmanChase Manhattan Bank, N.A.JOHN BRADEMAS, President EmeritusNew York UniversityWILLIAM E. BROCK, ChairmanThe Brock Group, LTDSTEPHEN L. BROWN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerJohn Hancock Mutual Life Insurance CompanyGORDON F. BRUNNER, Senior Vice President

and DirectorThe Procter & Gamble CompanyJOHN H. BRYAN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerSara Lee CorporationMICHAEL BUNGEY, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBates Worldwide, Inc.J. GARY BURKHEAD, Vice ChairmanFMR CorporationJEAN B. BUTTNER, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerValue Line Inc.FLETCHER L. BYROM, President and Chief

Executive OfficerMICASU CorporationDONALD R. CALDWELL, President and Chief

Operating OfficerSafeguard Scientifics, Inc.FRANK C. CARLUCCI, ChairmanThe Carlyle GroupPHILIP J. CARROLL, President and Chief

Executive OfficerShell Oil CompanyROBERT B. CATELL, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerKeySpan Energy CorporationJOHN B. CAVE, PrincipalAvenir Group, Inc.JOHN S. CHALSTY, ChairmanDonaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.RAYMOND G. CHAMBERS, Chairman of the BoardAmelior FoundationMARY ANN CHAMPLIN, Retired Senior Vice

PresidentAetna Inc.CAROLYN CHIN, Executive Vice PresidentReuters AmericaA. W. CLAUSEN, Retired Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBankAmerica Corporation

*

*Life Trustee

JOHN L. CLENDENIN, Retired ChairmanBellSouth CorporationNANCY S. COLE, PresidentEducational Testing ServiceFERDINAND COLLOREDO-MANSFELD, Chairman

and Chief Executive OfficerCabot Industrial TrustGEORGE H. CONRADES, Executive Vice President GTE Corporation and PresidentGTE InternetworkingKATHLEEN COOPER, Chief EconomistExxon CorporationGARY L. COUNTRYMAN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanySTEPHEN A. CRANE, President and Chief

Executive OfficerGryphon Holdings, Inc.RONALD R. DAVENPORT, Chairman of the BoardSheridan Broadcasting CorporationALFRED C. DECRANE, JR., Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerTexaco Inc.JOHN DIEBOLD, ChairmanJohn Diebold IncorporatedJOHN T. DILLON, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerInternational Paper CompanyREGINA DOLAN, Vice President and Chief

Financial OfficerPaineWebber Group Inc.HERBERT P. DOOSKIN, ChairmanAtlantic Health SystemFRANK P. DOYLE, Retired Executive Vice PresidentGEE. LINN DRAPER, JR., Chairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerAmerican Electric Power CompanyT. J. DERMOT DUNPHY, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerSealed Air CorporationCHRISTOPHER D. EARL, Senior Vice PresidentPerseus Capital LLCW. D. EBERLE, ChairmanManchester Associates, Ltd.WILLIAM S. EDGERLY, ChairmanFoundation for PartnershipsWALTER Y. ELISHA, Retired Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerSprings Industries, Inc.JAMES D. ERICSON, President and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance CompanyWILLIAM T. ESREY, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerSprintPATRICIA O’DONNELL EWERS, PresidentPace UniversityKATHLEEN FELDSTEIN, PresidentEconomic Studies, Inc.RONALD E. FERGUSON, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerGeneral RE CorporationE. JAMES FERLAND, Chairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerPublic Service Enterprise Group Inc.

EDMUND B. FITZGERALD, Managing DirectorWoodmont AssociatesHARRY L. FREEMAN, PresidentThe Freeman CompanyANDREW G. GALEF, ChairmanMagneTek, Inc.JOHN W. GALIARDO, Vice Chairman and

General CounselBecton Dickinson and CompanyJOSEPH GANTZHarrison, New YorkTHOMAS P. GERRITY, DeanThe Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaRAYMOND V. GILMARTIN, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerMerck & Co., Inc.SUE LING GIN, President and Chief Executive OfficerFlying Food Fare, Inc.BOYD E. GIVAN, Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial OfficerThe Boeing CompanyFREDERICK W. GLUCK, Vice Chairman and DirectorBechtel Group, Inc.CAROL R. GOLDBERG, PresidentThe Avcar Group, Ltd.ELLEN R. GORDON, President and Chief

Operating OfficerTootsie Roll Industries, Inc.JOSEPH T. GORMAN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerTRW Inc.RICHARD A. GRASSO, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerNew York Stock Exchange, Inc.EARL G. GRAVES, SR., Publisher and Chief

Executive OfficerBlack Enterprise MagazineWILLIAM H. GRAY, III, President and Chief

Executive OfficerUnited Negro College FundROSEMARIE B. GRECOCoreStates BankGERALD GREENWALD, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerUAL CorporationBARBARA B. GROGAN, PresidentWestern Industrial ContractorsPATRICK W. GROSS, Founder and Chairman,

Executive CommitteeAmerican Management Systems, Inc.CLIFFORD J. GRUM, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerTemple-Inland Inc.JUDITH H. HAMILTON, President and Chief

Executive OfficerFirst Floor SoftwareRICHARD W. HANSELMAN, Retired ChairmanGenesco Inc.WILLIAM F. HECHT, Chairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerPP&L Resources, Inc.NOAH T. HERNDON, PartnerBrown Brothers Harriman & Co.RODERICK M. HILLS, PresidentHills Enterprises, Ltd.

**

*Life Trustee

HAYNE HIPP, President and Chief Executive OfficerThe Liberty CorporationMATINA S. HORNER, Executive Vice PresidentTIAA-CREFAMOS B. HOSTETTER, ChairmanPilot House Associates, LLCWILLIAM R. HOWELL, Retired Chairman of the BoardJ. C. Penney Company, Inc.ROBERT J. HURST, Vice ChairmanGoldman, Sachs & Co.ALICE STONE ILCHMAN, PresidentSarah Lawrence CollegeGEORGE B. JAMES, Senior Vice President and Chief

Financial OfficerLevi Strauss & Co.JAMES A. JOHNSON, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerFannie MaeROBBIN S. JOHNSON, Corporate Vice President,

Public AffairsCargill, IncorporatedPRES KABACOFF, President and Co-ChairmanHistoric Restoration, Inc.JOSEPH J. KAMINSKI, Corporate Executive

Vice PresidentAir Products and Chemicals, Inc.EDWARD A. KANGAS, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveDeloitte Touche Tohmatsu InternationalJOSEPH E. KASPUTYS, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerPrimark CorporationEAMON M. KELLY, PresidentTulane UniversityJAMES P. KELLY, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerUnited Parcel Service of America, Inc.THOMAS J. KLUTZNICK, PresidentThomas J. Klutznick CompanyCHARLES F. KNIGHT, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerEmerson Electric Co.CHARLES E.M. KOLB, PresidentCommittee for Economic DevelopmentALLEN J. KROWE, Retired Vice ChairmanTexaco Inc.RICHARD J. KRUIZENGA, PresidentISEM, Southern Methodist UniversityHEIDI KUNZ, Senior Vice President and Chief

Financial OfficerITT Industries, Inc.C. JOSEPH LABONTEThe Vantage GroupCHARLES R. LEE, Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerGTE CorporationA.V. LIVENTALS, Vice President, Strategic PlanningMobil CorporationEDWIN A. LUPBERGER, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerEntergy CorporationJOSEPH T. LYNAUGH, President and Chief

Executive OfficerNYLCare Health Plans, Inc.BRUCE K. MACLAURY, President EmeritusThe Brookings Institution

COLETTE MAHONEY, RSHM, President EmeritusMarymount Manhattan CollegeALONZO L. MCDONALD, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerAvenir Group, Inc.EUGENE R. MCGRATH, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerConsolidated Edison Company of New YorkHENRY A. MCKINNELL, Executive Vice PresidentPfizer Inc.DAVID E. MCKINNEYThomas J. Watson FoundationDEBORAH HICKS MIDANEK, PrincipalJay Alix & AssociatesNICHOLAS G. MOORE, ChairmanCoopers & Lybrand L.L.P.DIANA S. NATALICIO, PresidentThe University of Texas at El PasoMARILYN CARLSON NELSON, Vice Chair and Chief

Operating OfficerCarlson Holdings, Inc.JOSEPH NEUBAUER, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerARAMARK CorporationBARBARA W. NEWELL, Regents ProfessorFlorida State UniversityJAMES J. O’CONNOR, Retired Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerUnicom CorporationDEAN R. O’HARE , Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerChubb CorporationJAMES J. O’NEILL, Chief Executive OfficerOnex Food Services, Inc.JOHN D. ONG, Chairman EmeritusThe BF Goodrich CompanyANTHONY J. F. O'REILLY, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerH.J. Heinz CompanyJAMES F. ORR III, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerUNUM CorporationROBERT J. O'TOOLE, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerA.O. Smith CorporationSTEFFEN E. PALKO, Vice Chairman and PresidentCross Timbers Oil CompanyROBERT B. PALMER, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerDigital Equipment CorporationVICTOR A. PELSON, Senior AdvisorSBC Warburg Dillon Read Inc.PETER G. PETERSON, ChairmanThe Blackstone GroupDEAN P. PHYPERSNew Canaan, ConnecticutARNOLD B. POLLARD, President and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Chief Executive GroupS. LAWRENCE PRENDERGAST, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerAT&T Investment Management Corporation

HUGH B. PRICE, President and ChiefExecutive Officer

National Urban League

*Life Trustee

ROBERT A. PRITZKER, President and ChiefExecutive Officer

The Marmon GroupWESLEY D. RATCLIFF, President and Chief

Executive OfficerAdvanced Technological Solutions, Inc.EDWARD V. REGANThe Jerome Levy Economics InstituteJAMES J. RENIERRenier & AssociatesWILLIAM R. RHODES, Vice ChairmanCiticorp/Citibank, N.A.JAMES Q. RIORDANStuart, FloridaE. B. ROBINSON, JR., ChairmanDeposit Guaranty National BankIAN M. ROLLAND, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerLincoln National CorporationDANIEL ROSE, PresidentRose Associates, IncHOWARD M. ROSENKRANTZ, President and

Chief Operating OfficerUnited States Surgical CorporationJOHN A. ROTH, President and Chief

Executive OfficerNorthern Telecom LimitedMICHAEL I. ROTH, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Mutual Life Insurance Company

of New YorkLANDON H. ROWLAND, President and Chief

Executive OfficerKansas City Southern Industries, Inc.NEIL L. RUDENSTINE, PresidentHarvard UniversityGEORGE E. RUPP, PresidentColumbia UniversityGEORGE F. RUSSELL, JR., ChairmanFrank Russell CompanyARTHUR F. RYAN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Prudential Insurance Company of AmericaSTEPHEN W. SANGER, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerGeneral Mills, Inc.JOHN C. SAWHILL, President and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Nature ConservancyHENRY B. SCHACHT, Director and Senior AdvisorLucent Technologies Inc.JONATHAN M. SCHOFIELD, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerAirbus Industrie of North America, Inc.DONALD J. SCHUENKE, ChairmanNorthern Telecom LimitedWALTER V. SHIPLEY, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Chase Manhattan CorporationWALTER H. SHORENSTEIN, Chairman of the BoardThe Shorenstein CompanyGEORGE P. SHULTZ, Distinguished FellowThe Hoover InstitutionStanford University

ROCCO C. SICILIANOBeverly Hills, CaliforniaRUTH J. SIMMONS, PresidentSmith CollegeFREDERICK W. SMITH, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerFederal Express CorporationRAYMOND W. SMITH, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBell Atlantic CorporationTIMOTHY P. SMUCKER, ChairmanThe J.M. Smucker CompanyHUGO FREUND SONNENSCHEIN, PresidentThe University of ChicagoALAN G. SPOON, PresidentThe Washington Post CompanyJOHN R. STAFFORD, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerAmerican Home Products CorporationSTEPHEN STAMAS, ChairmanThe American AssemblyJOHN L. STEFFENS, Vice ChairmanMerrill Lynch & Co., Inc.PAULA STERN, PresidentThe Stern Group, Inc.DONALD M. STEWART, PresidentThe College BoardROGER W. STONE, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerStone Container CorporationMATTHEW J. STOVER, Group President,

Information Services GroupBell Atlantic CorporationJAMES N. SULLIVAN, Vice Chairman of the BoardChevron CorporationRICHARD J. SWIFT, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerFoster Wheeler CorporationRICHARD F. SYRON, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerAmerican Stock ExchangeALISON TAUNTON-RIGBY, President and Chief

Executive OfficerAquila Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.RICHARD L. THOMAS, Retired ChairmanFirst Chicago NBD CorporationJAMES A. THOMSON, President and Chief

Executive OfficerRANDCHANG-LIN TIEN, NEC Distinguished Professor of

EngineeringUniversity of California, BerkeleyTHOMAS J. TIERNEY, Worldwide Managing DirectorBain & CompanyALAIR A. TOWNSEND, Vice President and PublisherCrain’s New York BusinessALEXANDER J. TROTMAN, Chairman, President

and Chief Executive OfficerFord Motor CompanyDONALD C. WAITE, III, Managing DirectorMcKinsey & Company, Inc.

*

*Life Trustee

ARNOLD R. WEBER, ChancellorNorthwestern UniversityLAWRENCE A. WEINBACH, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerUnisys CorporationROBERT E. WEISSMAN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerCognizant CorporationJOHN F. WELCH, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerGEJOSH S. WESTON, Honorary ChairmanAutomatic Data Processing, Inc.CLIFTON R. WHARTON, JR., Former Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerTIAA-CREFDOLORES D. WHARTON, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Fund for Corporate Initiatives, Inc.MICHAEL W. WICKHAM, President and Chief

Executive OfficerRoadway Express, Inc.HAROLD M. WILLIAMS, Retired PresidentThe J. Paul Getty TrustJ. KELLEY WILLIAMS, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerChemFirst Inc.LINDA SMITH WILSON, PresidentRadcliffe CollegeMARGARET S. WILSON, Chairman of the BoardScarbroughsKURT E. YEAGER, President and Chief Executive

OfficerElectric Power Research InstituteMARTIN B. ZIMMERMAN, Executive Director,

Governmental Relations and Corporate EconomicsFord Motor Company

RAY C. ADAM, Retired ChairmanNL IndustriesO. KELLEY ANDERSONBoston, MassachusettsROBERT O. ANDERSON, Retired ChairmanHondo Oil & Gas CompanyROY L. ASHLos Angeles, CaliforniaSANFORD S. ATWOOD, President EmeritusEmory UniversityROBERT H. B. BALDWIN, Retired ChairmanMorgan Stanley Group Inc.GEORGE F. BENNETT, Chairman EmeritusState Street Investment TrustHAROLD H. BENNETTSalt Lake City, UtahJACK F. BENNETT, Retired Senior Vice PresidentExxon CorporationHOWARD W. BLAUVELTKeswick, VirginiaMARVIN BOWERDelray Beach, FloridaALAN S. BOYDWashington, D.C.ANDREW F. BRIMMER, PresidentBrimmer & Company, Inc.HARRY G. BUBB, Chairman EmeritusPacific Mutual Life InsuranceTHEODORE A. BURTIS, Retired Chairman

of the BoardSun Company, Inc.PHILIP CALDWELL, Chairman (Retired)Ford Motor CompanyEVERETT N. CASEVan Hornesville, New YorkHUGH M. CHAPMAN, Retired ChairmanNationsBank SouthE. H. CLARK, JR., Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Friendship GroupDOUGLAS D. DANFORTH, Retired ChairmanWestinghouse Electric CorporationJOHN H. DANIELS, Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerArcher-Daniels Midland Co.RALPH P. DAVIDSONWashington, D.C.ARCHIE K. DAVIS, Chairman of the

Board (Retired)Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A.DOUGLAS DILLONNew York, New YorkROBERT R. DOCKSON, Chairman EmeritusCalFed, Inc.LYLE EVERINGHAM, Retired ChairmanThe Kroger Co.THOMAS J. EYERMAN, PresidentDelphi Associates LimitedJOHN T. FEYPark City, Utah

CED HONORARY TRUSTEESJOHN M. FOXSapphire, North CarolinaDON C. FRISBEE, Chairman EmeritusPacifiCorpRICHARD L. GELB, Chairman EmeritusBristol-Myers Squibb CompanyW. H. KROME GEORGE, Retired ChairmanAluminum Company of AmericaWALTER B. GERKEN, Chairman, Executive CommitteePacific Mutual Life Insurance CompanyPAUL S. GEROTDelray Beach, FloridaLINCOLN GORDON, Guest ScholarThe Brookings InstitutionKATHARINE GRAHAM, Chairman of

the Executive CommitteeThe Washington Post CompanyJOHN D. GRAY, Chairman EmeritusHartmarx CorporationJOHN R. HALL, Retired ChairmanAshland Inc.ROBERT A. HANSON, Retired ChairmanDeere & CompanyROBERT S. HATFIELD, Retired ChairmanThe Continental Group, Inc.ARTHUR HAUSPURG, Member, Board

of DirectorsConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.PHILIP M. HAWLEY, Retired Chairman

of the BoardCarter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.WILLIAM A. HEWITTRutherford, CaliforniaROBERT C. HOLLAND, Senior FellowThe Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaLEON C. HOLT, JR., Retired Vice ChairmanAir Products and Chemicals, Inc.SOL HURWITZ, Retired PresidentCommittee for Economic DevelopmentGEORGE F. JAMESPonte Vedra Beach, FloridaHENRY R. JOHNSTONPonte Vedra Beach, FloridaGILBERT E. JONES, Retired Vice ChairmanIBM CorporationGEORGE M. KELLER, Chairman of the

Board, RetiredChevron CorporationJAMES R. KENNEDYManalapan, FloridaCHARLES M. KITTRELLBartlesville, OklahomaPHILIP M. KLUTZNICK, Senior PartnerKlutznick InvestmentsFRANKLIN A. LINDSAY, Retired ChairmanItek CorporationROY G. LUCKSSan Francisco, CaliforniaROBERT W. LUNDEEN, Retired ChairmanThe Dow Chemical Company

AXEL G. ROSIN, Retired ChairmanBook-of-the-Month Club, Inc.WILLIAM M. ROTHPrinceton, New JerseyGEORGE RUSSELLBloomfield, MichiganJOHN SAGAN, PresidentJohn Sagan AssociatesRALPH S. SAUL, Former Chairman of the BoardCIGNA CompaniesGEORGE A. SCHAEFER, Retired Chairman

of the BoardCaterpillar, Inc.ROBERT G. SCHWARTZNew York, New YorkMARK SHEPHERD, JR., Retired ChairmanTexas Instruments, Inc.RICHARD R. SHINN, Retired Chairman

and Chief Executive OfficerMetropolitan Life Insurance CompanyNEIL D. SKINNERIndianapolis, IndianaELLIS D. SLATERLandrum, South CarolinaDAVIDSON SOMMERSWashington, D.C.ELMER B. STAATS, Former Controller

General of the United StatesELVIS J. STAHR, JR.Chickering & Gregory, P.C.FRANK STANTON, Former PresidentCBS, Inc.EDGAR B. STERN, JR., Chairman of the BoardRoyal Street CorporationJ. PAUL STICHT, Retired ChairmanRJR Nabisco, Inc.ALEXANDER L. STOTTFairfield, ConnecticutWAYNE E. THOMPSON, Past ChairmanMerritt Peralta Medical CenterCHARLES C. TILLINGHAST, JR.Providence, Rhode IslandHOWARD S. TURNER, Retired ChairmanTurner Construction CompanyL. S. TURNER, JR.Dallas, TexasTHOMAS A. VANDERSLICETAV AssociatesJAMES E. WEBBWashington, D.C.SIDNEY J. WEINBERG, JR., Limited PartnerThe Goldman Sachs Group, L.P.ROBERT C. WINTERS, Chairman EmeritusPrudential Insurance Company of AmericaARTHUR M. WOODChicago, IllinoisRICHARD D. WOOD, DirectorEli Lilly and CompanyWILLIAM S. WOODSIDE, ChairmanLSG Sky ChefsCHARLES J. ZWICKCoral Gables, Florida

RAY W. MACDONALD, Honorary Chairmanof the Board

Burroughs CorporationIAN MACGREGOR, Retired ChairmanAMAX Inc.RICHARD B. MADDEN, Retired Chairman

and Chief Executive OfficerPotlatch CorporationFRANK L. MAGEEStahlstown, PennsylvaniaSTANLEY MARCUS, ConsultantStanley Marcus ConsultancyAUGUSTINE R. MARUSILake Wales, FloridaWILLIAM F. MAY, ChairmanStatue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc.OSCAR G. MAYER, Retired ChairmanOscar Mayer & Co.GEORGE C. MCGHEE, Former U.S.

Ambassador and Under Secretary of StateJOHN F. MCGILLICUDDY, Retired Chairman

and Chief Executive OfficerChemical Banking CorporationJAMES W. MCKEE, JR., Retired ChairmanCPC International, Inc.CHAMPNEY A. MCNAIR, Retired Vice ChairmanTrust Company of GeorgiaJ. W. MCSWINEY, Retired Chairman of the BoardThe Mead CorporationROBERT E. MERCER, Retired ChairmanThe Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.RUBEN F. METTLER, Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerTRW Inc.LEE L. MORGAN, Former Chairman of the BoardCaterpillar, Inc.ROBERT R. NATHAN, ChairmanNathan Associates, Inc.ALFRED C. NEALHarrison, New YorkJ. WILSON NEWMAN, Retired ChairmanDun & Bradstreet CorporationLEIF H. OLSEN, PresidentLeif H. Olsen Investments, Inc.NORMA PACENew York, New YorkCHARLES W. PARRY, Retired ChairmanAluminum Company of AmericaWILLIAM R. PEARCE, President and

Chief Executive OfficerIDS Mutual Fund GroupJOHN H. PERKINS, Former PresidentContinental Illinois National Bank and Trust CompanyRUDOLPH A. PETERSON, President and

Chief Executive Officer (Emeritus)BankAmerica CorporationEDMUND T. PRATT, JR., Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerPfizer Inc.ROBERT M. PRICE, Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerControl Data CorporationR. STEWART RAUCH, Former ChairmanThe Philadelphia Savings Fund Society

CED RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARDChairmanISABEL V. SAWHILLSenior FellowThe Brookings Institution

GEORGE A. AKERLOFSenior FellowThe Brookings InstitutionProfessor, Department of EconomicsUniversity of California, Berkeley

ELIZABETH E. BAILEYJohn C. Hower Professor of Public Policy

and ManagementThe Wharton SchoolUniversity of Pennsylvania

ALAN S. BLINDERGordon S. Rentschler Memorial

Professor of EconomicsPrinceton University

JOHN COGANSenior FellowHoover InstitutionStanford University

RUDI DORNBUSCHFord Professor of Economics and

International ManagementMassachusetts Institute of Technology

RONALD F. FERGUSONProfessorJohn F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard University

LINDA YUEN-CHING LIMProfessorUniversity of Michigan Business School

ROBERT D. REISCHAUERSenior FellowThe Brookings Institution

CHRISTINA D. ROMERProfessor, Department of EconomicsUniversity of California, Berkeley

JOHN B. SHOVENDean, School of Humanities and SciencesStanford University

MURRAY WEIDENBAUMChairman, Center for the Study

of American BusinessWashington University

DAVID WESSELChief Economics CorrespondentThe Wall Street Journal

SIDNEY G. WINTERDeloitte and Touche Professor

of ManagementThe Wharton SchoolUniversity of Pennsylvania

CHARLES E.M. KOLBPresident

CED PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

VAN DOORN OOMSSenior Vice President and

Director of Research

WILLIAM J. BEEMANVice President and Director

of Economic Studies

CLAUDIA P. FEUREYVice President for Communications

and Corporate Affairs

Administration – New York OfficeDOROTHY M. STEFANSKIDeputy Comptroller

KAREN CASTROAssistant Comptroller

ARLENE M. MURPHYExecutive Assistant to the President

PETER E. COXOperations Assistant

Administration – Washington, D.C. OfficeSHARON A. CLATTERBAUGHExecutive Assistant to the President

SHIRLEY R. SHERMANOffice Manager

AMANDA TURNERAssistant Office Manager

DevelopmentJAMES WRIGHTAssociate Director

ANA SOMOHANOCampaign Coordinator

WILFORD V. MALCOLMCampaign Production Administrator

KATHLEEN EDMONDSONContributions Secretary

ConferencesVALERIE MENDELSOHNManager

PublicationsDARCY TUCKERCoordinator

THOMAS R. FLAHERTYComptroller and Director of

Operations

SANDRA KESSLER HAMBURGVice President and Director of Education and Special Projects

TIMOTHY J. MUENCHVice President and Director of Finance and Administration

MICHAEL J. PETROVice President and Director of Business and Government Policy

EVA POPPERVice President, Director of

Development, and Secretaryof the Board of Trustees

Advisor on InternationalEconomic PolicyISAIAH FRANKWilliam L. Clayton Professor

of International EconomicsThe Johns Hopkins University

ResearchSCOTT MORRISSenior Economist

SUE SOMMERFIELDSecretary of the Research and

Policy Committee

ROBERT FLEEGLERResearch Associate

CHRIS DREIBELBISStaff Assistant

Special ProjectsJESSICA B. ORKINAssistant Director, Special Projects and Communications

PETER DAVISStaff Associate

DEOKI PESTANOGrants Coordinator

STATEMENTS ON NATIONAL POLICY ISSUED BY THECOMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:

America’s Basic Research: Prosperity Through Discovery (1998)Modernizing Government Regulation: The Need For Action (1998)U.S. Economic Policy Toward The Asia-Pacific Region (1997)Connecting Inner-City Youth To The World of Work (1997)Fixing Social Security (1997)Growth With Opportunity (1997)American Workers and Economic Change (1996)Connecting Students to a Changing World: A Technology Strategy for Improving Mathematics and

Science Education (1995)Cut Spending First: Tax Cuts Should Be Deferred to Ensure a Balanced Budget (1995)Rebuilding Inner-City Communities: A New Approach to the Nation’s Urban Crisis (1995)Who Will Pay For Your Retirement? The Looming Crisis (1995)Putting Learning First: Governing and Managing the Schools for High Achievement (1994)Prescription for Progress: The Uruguay Round in the New Global Economy (1994)*From Promise to Progress: Towards a New Stage in U.S.-Japan Economic Relations (1994)U.S. Trade Policy Beyond The Uruguay Round (1994)In Our Best Interest: NAFTA and the New American Economy (1993)What Price Clean Air? A Market Approach to Energy and Environmental Policy (1993)Why Child Care Matters: Preparing Young Children For A More Productive America (1993)Restoring Prosperity: Budget Choices for Economic Growth (1992)The United States in the New Global Economy: A Rallier of Nations (1992)The Economy and National Defense: Adjusting to Cutbacks in the Post-Cold War Era (1991)Politics, Tax Cuts and the Peace Dividend (1991)The Unfinished Agenda: A New Vision for Child Development and Education (1991)Foreign Investment in the United States: What Does It Signal? (1990)An America That Works: The Life-Cycle Approach to a Competitive Work Force (1990)Breaking New Ground in U.S. Trade Policy (1990)Battling America's Budget Deficits (1989)*Strengthening U.S.-Japan Economic Relations (1989)Who Should Be Liable? A Guide to Policy for Dealing with Risk (1989)Investing in America's Future: Challenges and Opportunities for Public Sector Economic Policies

(1988)Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged (1987)Finance and Third World Economic Growth (1987)

Reforming Health Care: A Market Prescription (1987)Work and Change: Labor Market Adjustment Policies in a Competitive World (1987)Leadership for Dynamic State Economies (1986)Investing in Our Children: Business and the Public Schools (1985)Fighting Federal Deficits: The Time for Hard Choices (1985)Strategy for U.S. Industrial Competitiveness (1984)Productivity Policy: Key to the Nation's Economic Future (1983)Energy Prices and Public Policy (1982)Public-Private Partnership: An Opportunity for Urban Communities (1982)Reforming Retirement Policies (1981)Transnational Corporations and Developing Countries: New Policies for a Changing World Economy

(1981)Stimulating Technological Progress (1980)Redefining Government's Role in the Market System (1979)Jobs for the Hard-to-Employ: New Directions for a Public-Private Partnership (1978)

*Statements issued in association with CED counterpart organizations in foreign countries.

CE Circulo de Empresarios

Madrid, Spain

CEDA Committee for Economic Development of Australia

Sydney, Australia

EVA Centre for Finnish Business and Policy Studies

Helsinki, Finland

FAE Forum de Administradores de Empresas

Lisbon, Portugal

FDE Belgian Enterprise Foundation

Brussels, Belgium

IDEP Institut de l’Entreprise

Paris, France

IW Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft

Cologne, Germany

Keizai Doyukai

Tokyo, Japan

SMO Stichting Maatschappij en Onderneming

The Netherlands

SNS Studieförbundet Naringsliv och Samhälle

Stockholm, Sweden

CED COUNTERPART ORGANIZATIONS

Close relations exist between the Committee for Economic Development andindependent, nonpolitical research organizations in other countries. Such counter-part groups are composed of business executives and scholars and have objectivessimilar to those of CED, which they pursue by similarly objective methods. CEDcooperates with these organizations on research and study projects of commoninterest to the various countries concerned. This program has resulted in anumber of joint policy statements involving such international matters as energy,East-West trade, assistance to developing countries, and the reduction of nontariffbarriers to trade.

Documents

Economic Development. ISBN 0-87186-132-1 United States. 3