A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Research

Center Researchers Analyze Education-to-Work Transitions

In the United States, education-to-work transitions could be described as chaotic, but this chaos allows a lot of flexibility for individuals to attain personal, educational, and occupational goals. This is the thesis of the report, The Transition From Initial Education to Working Life in the United States of America. The PLLI-sponsored study was led by Professor Robert Zemsky of the University of Pennsylvania, a principal investigator for the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement (NCPI). This study was a part of a comparative study of transitions from initial education to working life in 14 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Zemsky et al. analyzed education-to-work transitions in the United States and found the following:

• The United States is a nation of remarkably decentralized authority and infrastructure. There is no national school-to-work system in the United States. Therefore, there are no well-defined pathways that direct students from educational institutions to the workplace. Instead, throughout this country, Americans face competing organizations and agencies dealing with school-to-work issues.

• Within the United States, education is at once vocational and academic. Curricula in American high schools and colleges frequently combine academic and vocational pursuits. Programs often include academic knowledge to be applied in the workplace. At the same time, workplace skills are often harnessed to reinforce academic pursuits.

• The changing nature of the labor market continues to have a profound impact on the nature of the educational experience and the transition from initial education to working life. In the United States, education and the economy are inextricably linked. The educational experiences of a student are influenced as much by the economy as by the educational institution in which the student enrolls.

• Americans often combine both education and work. There is rarely a clear transition from schooling to working in the United States. It is common to go to school part time and work full time, or vice versa. Students also may choose to intermittently undertake one activity or the other, or to re-engage in school or work after a long hiatus. The United States offers students not only second chances but also third chances and more. Therefore, if a student cannot arrive at a desired endpoint using one path, there are many other approaches that can be followed to achieve a personal educational or vocational goal.

The researchers conclude that demographic shifts in the United States in the near future may raise a need to reconsider the current decentralized nature of education-to-work transitions. For example, welfare reform movements are putting untrained workers in the economy, and in the upcoming decade larger numbers of students will move through the educational system. These trends will cause strains on America's employers and educational institutions.

Zemsky and his colleagues end the report with some interesting questions for future consideration: Should there be a more orderly transition from initial education to working life in the United States? If so, how should that effort be funded and organized? How could its success be measured? To what extent would such a system provide additional educational and vocational opportunities to Americans?

For more information about this study and how to obtain copies of the report, contact Nevzer Stacey at (202) 219-1324.

Instructional Technology Makes a Difference

With a 2-year grant from PLLI's Field-Initiated Study (FIS) Program, California State University economist Frank Jewitt has found that, given the right circumstances, distributed learning—defined as using technology to distribute educational programming to learners at locations other than the programming site—can provide equivalent learning outcomes and improve student access at a lower cost than traditional classroom instruction.

Jewitt developed eight case studies involving evaluations of mediated (technology-based) instruction. Five of the case studies examine different forms of television instruction, and three of the studies examine computer-based types of instruction. He also has developed a cost simulation model that can be used to compare the costs of a campus offering a substantial amount of its FTE in distributed instruction with the costs of a campus offering all of its instruction in classroom (lecture-laboratory) mode.

Learning outcomes for students enrolled in electronically mediated courses—as measured in various ways by grades, exam scores, student surveys, faculty surveys, field supervisor surveys, and alumni surveys—are equivalent to learning outcomes for regular classroom instruction. These results are consistent with other comparative studies (see Thomas Russell, "The No Significant Difference Phenomenon" [http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/].

Student access is improved for cases that involve delivery of instruction to sites remote from the campus classroom. "Improved access" for students is another way of describing "increased convenience" for students.

The estimated direct costs of distributed instruction differ from classroom instruction in two basic ways: (1) the fixed or "start up" costs of mediated instruction (whether television or computer based) are greater than the fixed costs of classroom instruction, and (2) the incremental or marginal costs of mediated instruction (the costs of adding more students to a given course in a given year) are less than the incremental costs of classroom instruction. Therefore, distributed instruction is subject to economies of scale (i.e., at some level of annual course enrollment, distributed instruction can be less expensive than classroom technology). In other words, the average costs per student for distributed instruction can be less than the average costs per student with classroom instruction.

The final reports of each of these case studies, the cost simulation model, and other information about this project, is contained in Case Studies in the Benefits and Costs of Mediated Instruction and Distributed Technology .

The educational institutions involved in this study included Old Dominion University (VA), Baruch College (NY), SUNY at Brockport, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, Cleveland State University, University of Akron, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, eight California State University campuses, and the Education Network of Maine-UNET. Six of the cases are now published and available at the project Web site (www.calstate.edu/special_projects/). For more information about this study, contact Barbara Humes at (202) 219-1376.

Conferences

First Annual Conference of PLLI's FIS Project Directors

The National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning held its first FIS project directors' meeting last year in Washington, DC, and the theme was "Research That Makes a Difference: Demonstrate, Document, and Disseminate." Kent McGuire, OERI's Assistant Secretary, shared his own experience as an FIS grantee and emphasized the importance of demonstration, documentation, and dissemination.

Highlights of ideas from presenters included:

• Understand your audiences. Different audiences require different products. Link up with associations that serve clients you are trying to reach. Think creatively about different media such as newspaper or audiotapes. Work with university publicists.

• Involve potential users early and often to make sure work is oriented in a way that will be most helpful.

• Remember education research is incremental, long-term work. This is in contrast with the short-term political issues that policymakers and associations must address.

Project directors offered the following strategies for the Department and FIS grantees as a way of working together to document and disseminate FIS research:

• Current and past grantees should periodically ask policymakers and practitioners to let them know how their research has made a difference to them.

• Current and past grantees should also let PLLI staff know who used their research and how it made a difference.
• PLLI should compile information about the importance and usefulness of its research. The Department should consider this a requirement for grantees—for example, 2 years after a project is completed, grantees would fill out a survey on the impact or utility of the project.

• The Department should fund an impact evaluation to gather data (empirical evidence) on outcomes of sponsored research.

Continuing Ties Between PLLI and OECD

As part of PLLI's continuing work with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Carole Lacampagne attended the 1998 Institutional Management in Higher Education General Conference, "The Lifelong Learning Challenge for Higher Education: Competition or Co-Operation." The theme of this international conference, "Research That Makes A Difference: Demonstrate, Document, and Disseminate," dovetailed PLLI's themes of equity, access, accountability in higher education, and the influence of technology on the educational delivery system.

Conference speakers and working groups tackled the following questions:

• To what extent can/should the traditional university change to meet the increasing demands for lifelong learning in a global economy?

• What is the university's role within the increasingly competitive for-profit market for the adult learner?

Conference participants discussed the rapid advancements in information technology that allow "virtual" modes of course delivery, sometimes tailored to individual or corporate needs. They were concerned with issues of access, equity, and quality. In short, many of the concerns that we have in the United States in guiding the use of these new technologies to serve traditional liberal arts education as well as specific career training were voiced by representatives of the OECD member countries.

While at the conference, Carole Lacampagne worked with OECD staff on mutual research concerns in postsecondary education and adult literacy, as well as plans for future joint international meetings and edited volumes of research papers.

PLLI Explores a National Library Research Initiative

PLLI and the National Library of Education (NLE) jointly convened a group of 24 leading library professionals representing federal agencies, universities, associations, and foundations. This meeting was called to explore the possibility of a national structure for fostering and supporting a national research agenda to improve and strengthen the nation's library services.

With rapid advances in technology drastically changing the way the nation's libraries serve their patrons, participants noted that research plays a vital role in helping librarians design and operate libraries of the future so that they provide information and services more effectively to their communities. While librarians recognize the need for research, few actually conduct research, and the research that is done in this field is often narrowly focused, isolated, and uncoordinated.

Five recommendations emerged from this meeting:

• Collaborate and coordinate any future endeavors to explore national library research needs with representatives from the public, private, foundation, academic, and industrial sectors;

• Consider forming a national library research roundtable that brings together representatives from various federal agencies and researchers from the library field and other disciplines;

• Create a vision that links research needs to the real world;

• Design a national agenda to help the library and information science fields focus both on research priorities and on determining where research dollars and efforts should be directed; and

• Explore the feasibility of calling for a national research center to study library issues.

In addition, participants pointed out that library research currently suffers from a lack of longitudinal studies and a lack of sufficient research funding. There also is a need for interdisciplinary research that connects with research that could be beneficial to library science, and a need for improved dissemination of research findings. For further information about this meeting, contact Barbara Humes at (202) 219-1376.

Technology and Learning Beyond the Schoolhouse

A live teleconference aired September 18, 1998, highlighting the application of distance learning and other technologies in places other than the traditional schoolhouse or classroom. A large number of potential learners are found in correctional facilities, community-based learning centers for adults, and early childhood education settings. Expert panelists described the programs, technologies, and impact of various educational opportunities that can be found in these settings. The panelists also addressed the fiscal and political realities of providing educational services in these settings, and what research has to say about such programs.

This teleconference was sponsored by the Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination's Star Schools Program in cooperation with PLLI, the National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education (ECI), and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Copies of the videotape are available by calling (202) 219-2194 or faxing your request to Geraldine Brewster at (202) 208-4042.

Visiting Scholars

PLLI's first OERI Visiting Scholar, Deborah Brandt, Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, joined our staff. She holds a Ph.D. in English from Indiana University, and has won many awards for research and teaching. The research project she will be developing while here at PLLI is "Pursuing Literacy: Writing and Learning to Write in the Twentieth Century." She will trace the changing conditions of literacy learning in order to understand what sharply rising standards for literacy have meant to successive generations of Americans. In October 1998, she was a featured speaker at the Thomas R. Watson Conference on Multiple Literacies for the 21st Century held at the University of Louisville. She also gave a seminar for OERI and invited guests, "Literacy, Opportunity, and Economic Change," that was held in Washington, DC, on November 17,1998.

OERI plans to sponsor a second competition for its Visiting Scholars Fellowship Program. On behalf of OERI, the National Research Council (NRC) will conduct a national competition to award one to three fellowships for each of the five National Research Institutes to scholars, researchers, policymakers, education practitioners, librarians, or statisticians who are engaged in the use, collection, and dissemination of information about education and educational research. Fellows will work in Washington, DC, in affiliation with an institute. In addition to PLLI, these Institutes are: the National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment; the National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students; the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management; and the National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education. For more information about the program, contact Carole Lacampagne at (202) 219-2207.

Publications

The Quality of Vocational Education: Background Papers From the 1994 NAVE

As part of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990, Congress mandated a National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE). This assessment was completed and presented to Congress in a five-volume National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, in July 1994. OERI published these background papers to furnish support for the NAVE findings and recommendations. The present volume contains five of the background papers on the topic of the quality of vocational education. Highlights include:

• Enrollment in teacher training programs in vocational education is declining in all fields.

• Occupational experience is not an adequate substitute for formal teacher preparation in vocational education.

• Test scores of vocational and academic students differ widely; most of the difference is due to differences in the characteristics of students, not in the nature of the programs.

Employment benefits of vocational education generally accrue only to students who find jobs in fields that match their vocational training, and less than half of vocational graduates have such jobs.

To obtain copies of The Quality of Vocational Education: Background Papers From the 1994 NAVE, call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or E-mail: edpuborders@aspensys.com. For more information about the report, contact Joe Teresa at (202) 219-2046.

How Does Your Public Library Compare?

Keri Bassman Stevens, formerly an intern with PLLI, developed an NCES Statistics in Brief while she worked at Westat, Inc. This Statistics in Brief, How Does Your Public Library Compare? Service Performance of Peer Groups, was written under the guidance of Carole Lacampagne and Barbara Humes. Keri tabulated and analyzed data from the Public Libraries Survey in order to help public library practitioners compare their library with its peers, when peer groups are defined in terms of library size and library expenditures. For more information, contact Barbara Humes at (202) 219-1376.

Transitions in the 90's: A Look at Programs and Practices in American High Schools

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that the American education system does not prepare students for the reality of the workplace, American high schools actually provide a substantial range of activities that help prepare students for the world of work and college. This is the major finding from a recent report sponsored by the School-to-Work Office of the U.S. Department of Education.

Transitions in the 90's contains research conducted by MPR Associates, who analyzed data from the 1996 Survey of School Administrators (administered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and found the following:

• Nearly all of the high schools report offering at least one program to all students that provides an opportunity to discover the world of work. These programs range from occupational awareness to parental involvement in career plans, from job site visits to conducting interest inventories. College awareness programs head the list—96 percent of high schools offer this program to all students.

• Nearly half of all schools report that they attempt to integrate academic and vocational curricula.
• One-fifth of all high schools offer skill certificates in at least one subject area, and 28 percent use skill standards in their curriculum.
• The most commonly offered work-based activities are instruction in the workplace competencies (offered by 57 percent of the schools); and inclusion of curriculum that builds on work experience (offered by 45 percent of the schools).
• Nearly half of all high schools offer job shadowing and one-fourth offer internships and mentoring relationships with employers.
• About one-fourth of all the high schools offer paid or unpaid internships to teachers.

Perhaps the most important findings of this report are that the availability of such programs is not related to the type of school, its location, or the demographic make-up of the students. Programs that introduce an awareness of labor markets are permeating schools of all types.

This study is available online at www.stw.ed.gov For further information about this study, contact Nevzer Stacey at (202) 219-1324.

PLLI Staff Carole Lacampagne, Director Telephone: (202) 219-2207 E-mail: carole.lacampagne@ed.gov Sandra Garcia Telephone: (202) 219-1597 E-mail: sandra.garcia@ed.gov Delores Monroe Telephone: (202) 219-2229 E-mail: barbara.humes@ed.gov Tammie Adams Telephone: (202) 219-2207 E-mail: tammie.adams@ed.gov Barbara Greenberg Telephone: (202) 219-2160 E-mail: barbara.greenberg@ed.gov Nevzer Stacey Telephone: (202) 219-1324 E-mail: nevzer.stacey@ed.gov Clifford Adelman Telephone: (202) 219-2251 E-mail: clifford.adelman@ed.gov Irene Harwarth Telephone: (202) 219-1756 E-mail: irene.harwarth@ed.gov Joe Teresa Telephone: (202) 219-2046 E-mail: joe.teresa@ed.gov Norman Brandt Telephone: (202) 219-1662 E-mail: norman.brandt@ed.gov Gregory Henschel Telephone: (202) 219-2082 E-mail: gregory.henschel@ed.gov Tina Williams Telephone: (202) 219-2208 E-mail: tina.williams@ed.gov Jim Fox Telephone: (202) 219-2234 E-mail:jim.fox@ed.gov Harold Himmelfarb Telephone: (202) 219-2031 E-mail: harold.himmelfarb@ed.gov Deborah Brandt (OERI Visiting Fellow) Telephone: (202) 219-0373 E-mail: deborah.brandt@ed.gov   Barbara Humes Telephone: (202) 219-1376 E-mail: barbara.humes@ed.gov

Cliff Returns

PLLI's Clifford Adelman recently served as a Visiting Fellow with the Washington office of the College Board. During this period, he designed two large-scale research and dissemination projects for the Board: "From Community College to Labor Market," a joint undertaking with the American Association of Community Colleges and the Institute on Education and the Economy at Teachers College, Columbia University; and "Assessing the Capacity of the U.S. Higher Education System," a joint undertaking with the Education Commission of the States. His duties with the College Board also involved reviewing papers for a forthcoming collection commissioned on the 25th anniversary of Pell Grants, and drafts of papers and publications on college costs and the challenges of virtual instruction. For more information about his work on these surveys and services, contact Cliff Adelman at (202) 219-2251.

College Access, Participation, and Completion Among Latino High School Graduates in Three Cohorts

As we trace the participation and success of Latino students in U.S. higher education over the past 25 years, we find good news and bad news. It is important to acknowledge both sides of the story.

The data in table 1 are from three age-cohort longitudinal studies of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972; High School & Beyond/Sophomore Cohort (class of 1982); and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (class of 1992). The data for the classes of 1972 and 1982 are taken from college transcripts collected at age 30; the data for the class of 1992 are taken from self-reports at age 20. The categories for the class of 1992 are thus not exactly parallel to those of the other two cohorts. Since the class of 1992 is not yet 30 years old, we cannot measure parallel completion rates for this group.

The data are based only on high school graduates. Compared with the high school graduation rate for other major race-ethnicity groups, the Latino high school graduation rate is comparatively low: the 10th- to 12th-grade dropout rate for Latinos in the class of 1982 was 16.8 percent; the 8th- to 12th-grade dropout rate for Latinos in the class of 1992 was 17.8 percent. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are one-half million Latino 16- through 24-year olds who never reached high school, though one can infer from the census data that a majority of this group was born outside the United States and had limited exposure to U.S. schools.

What is the good news? Among college-goers, Latinos were the only race-ethnicity group to increase its bachelor's degree attainment rate ("Completion III") between the high school classes of 1972 and 1982. The increase was accounted for entirely by women.

The good news must be tempered, as "access" has improved dramatically in recent years for Latino high school graduates, but "participation" has not kept pace. The "access gap" between Latinos and whites narrowed from 15 percentage points to 5 percentage points between the high school classes of 1982 and 1992. But the "participation gap" has remained stubbornly wide.

Of the major population groups, Latino students have the highest rate of attendance at community colleges. Thus, the community college experience is an extremely important context for an analysis of Latino student progress, and the associate's degree is of great importance in tracking changes in their educational attainment. We are not doing as well at the associate's degree level as we should be.

We will know a great deal more about the fate of the high school class of 1992, since they will be surveyed in the year 2000, when most of them will be 26-27 years old. If we follow the precedent of the other two longitudinal studies and gather college transcripts in the year 2001, we will be able to document in detail both difficult and smooth passages for the fast-growing and comparatively young Latino population in the 1990's.

NOTE: This table and commentary was originally presented by Clifford Adelman, PLLI, at the American Council on Education's 1997 "Educating One-Third of a Nation" Conference.

SOURCES: (1) For High School Class of 1972: National Center for Education Statistics, "National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972:" unnumbered CD-ROM; (2) For High School Class of 1982: National Center for Education Statistics, "High School and Beyond Sophomore Cohort;" CD-ROM (NCES 98-135); and (3) For High School Class of 1992: National Center for Education Statistics. "National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988-94 Data Analysis System" CD-ROM (NCES 96-127)

References

Berkner, L. and Chavez, L. 1997. Access to Postsecondary Education for the 1992 High School Graduates. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Kaufman, R, Chavez, L., and Lauen, D. 1998. Generational Status and Educational Outcomes Among Asian and Hispanic 1988 Eighth Graders. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

McMillen, M. and Kaufman, P. 1998. Dropout Rates in the United States 1998. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (This is an annual publication with a 2-year time lag.)

PLLI 1999-8016

-###-