![[Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
The primary implication of AED/NIWL's study for policy and practice are summarized in the twelve elements that we identified as critical building blocks of school-to-work systems. The cross-site comparison report, "Learning from Experience," explains the twelve elements in detail, offering examples from the case study sites to document each one.
Implementers of school-to-work reform commonly encounter legal and regulatory barriers, only some of which are the product of secondary school systems, especially in creating workplace learning opportunities: FTEs, seat time, occupational safety issues, regulations for grants disbursement, and child labor laws. In many cases, sound reasons exist for these regulations, and they should not be easily dismissed. Others interfere in arbitrary ways with creative, thoughtful approaches to placement development for students.
Another type of barrier is presented by postsecondary admission requirements. The case studies document examples of colleges that have entered into articulation agreements with high school STW programs, which have made it much easier for young people to achieve this transition. We heard of other instances, however, of postsecondary systems arbitrarily deciding which high school courses would be considered for credit, sustaining invidious distinctions between academic and vocational course work. It will be important for state postsecondary institutions to cooperate with state STW and K-12 systems to ensure that these artificial barriers are eliminated. A key issue will be the stance that postsecondary systems take on alternate assessment, such as portfolios.
Effective STW programs require pedagogical and curricular approaches that are not usually accorded much consideration in teacher training programs. Both preservice and inservice teacher training will require reform in order to prepare instructors for the contextual, interactive, more flexible approaches demanded by STW programs. Teacher training programs should incorporate STW into instruction concerning curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. They should offer internships and other opportunities for teachers and prospective teachers to explore firsthand a variety of workplaces.
The AED/NIWL study documented cases of business partners making important contributions to STW. Policy makers and practitioners cannot expect that businesses, especially those operating on a close margin of profit--as most do--will participate in STW out of altruism, however. Incentives, such as tax credits, should be devised to help businesses balance bottom-line demands with the desire to assist in the educational system. Also important will be efforts to educate businesses to the range of benefits that can accrue to them through STW participation, outlined in section J of this volume, which include new community and school connections, improvements to internal business systems of training and career path structures, student workers who sometimes bring new problem solving or technological skills as well, the opportunity to influence the training of future workers, good public relations, and so forth.
The basis of STW system building is partnership, yet the AED/NIWL study found one group of partners conspicuous by their absence: parents. Only one site effectively engaged a substantial proportion of parents in STW. Because parents are so important in their children's lives, and because they often emphasize admission to a baccalaureate program above other career and educational goals, it is crucial for policy makers and practitioners to devise and implement strategies to engage parents in school-to-work. The bottom line is to convince parents that STW can be an effective strategy for both students who go directly to work after high school and those who go on to two- and four-year colleges.
Another implication of the AED/NIWL study is the need for more widespread and effective publicity about STW--locally, nationally, and at the state level. Parents, teachers, and employers often do not understand STW, let alone how it could benefit themselves and their children, students, and prospective employees, respectively. Policy makers, who do not understand STW, cannot appreciate how regulatory or financing systems create arbitrary and unnecessary barriers. These informational campaigns should recognize the distinctions among these prospective audiences and incorporate the principles and techniques of "social marketing," a marketing approach that attempts to influence people to voluntarily change their behavior, through persuasion, incentives, or social norms.
As these recommendations indicate, STW system building requires practitioners and policy makers to simultaneously assemble new systems and disassemble old barriers. Needless to say, it also requires collaboration among practitioners and policy makers, who bring such different perspectives to system building.
-###-
[Implications for Future Research]