Revitalizing High Schools: What the School-to-Career Movement Can Contribute

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 78, Issue APR, 1996, Pages 547-554

  Goldberger, Susan ^a   Kazis, Richard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1542475229     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Throughout this article, we use the term "school-to-career" rather than "school-to-work." For many, the term "school-to-work" has negative connotations because it implies a one-time transition to employment and because it is associated with entry-level work as opposed to progress into a career pathway. In the same spirit. Stephen F. Hamilton and Mary Agnes Hamilton of Cornell University suggest the term "career opportunity system" in order "to emphasize the distinction between finding work and entering a career path." See Stephen F. Hamilton and Mary Agnes Hamilton, Opening Career Paths for Youth: What Needs to Be Done? Who Can Do It? (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Youth and Work Program, Cornell University; American Youth Policy Forum; Jobs for the Future, 1994).
2. One practical argument for preparing every high school student simultaneously for both work and college is that most college students hold paid jobs while in school. If they have been prepared in high school to find jobs that pay a good wage, they will be in a much better position to survive financially during their college years. See Legislative Principles for Career-Related Education and Training: What Research Reports (Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California, 1995).
3. We do not argue here that relatively narrow, job-specific technical training should be eliminated from high schools. We have seen numerous high-quality programs that do a good job of accelerating the entry of young people into well-paying jobs as skilled technicians in the manufacturing, printing, and health fields. However, these programs by themselves are unlikely to be catalysts for significant reform or restructuring of secondary schooling.
4. Susan Goldberger, Creating an American-Style Youth Apprenticeship Program: A Formative Evaluation of Project ProTech (Boston: Jobs for the Future, 1993).
5. Edward Pauly, Hilary Kopp, and Joshua Haimson, Home-Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking School and Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995); and David Stern, Marilyn Raby, and Charles Dayton, Career Academies: Partnerships for Reconstructing American High Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992).
6. Edward Pauly, Hilary Kopp, and Joshua Haimson, Home-Grown Lessons: Innovative Programs Linking School and Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995); and David Stern, Marilyn Raby, and Charles Dayton, Career Academies: Partnerships for Reconstructing American High Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992).
7. David Boesel and Laurel McFarland, National Assessment of Vocational Education: Final Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 1994).
8. Theodore R. Sizer, Horace's School: Redesigning the American High School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992).
9. Implementation Assessment of the Commonwealth Fund and Johns Hopkins Hospital Youth Mentoring Program (Boston: Jobs for the Future, 1995).
10. Susan Goldberger, Richard Kazis, and Mary Kathleen O'Flanagan, Learning Through Work: Designing and Implementing Quality Worksite Learning for High School Students (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1994).
11. Peter Applebome, "Employers Wary of School System," New York Times, 20 February 1995, p. 1.
12. Hilary Kopp and Richard Kazis with Andrew Churchill, Promising Practices: A Study of Ten School-to-Career Programs (Boston: Jobs for the Future, 1995).