SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L.

& Pol'y 429

8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy

Summer, 2001

Focus: What's Wrong with Education in America?

Feature
Thomas Spiggle a1

Copyright (c) 2001 by Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy; Thomas Spiggle

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1993, Congress enacted the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA), legislation designed to inspire a nationwide
school-to-career curriculum. 1 STWOA codified the central objective of the “school-to-career” movement: to provide all
students 2 nationwide with an education that integrates learning in both the classroom and the workplace. Unfortunately,
the school-to-career movement, while initially emboldened by the passage of STWOA, will not succeed in the present
political environment because it is fundamentally incompatible with the overriding educational policy of the past decade
— standards-based reform grounded on the so-called “accountability” approach. The standards-based reform seeks
to hold schools and teachers accountable by measuring student performance with end-of-course testing. In contrast,
STWOA attempts to integrate workplace and classroom learning; as a result, it clashes with a focus on basic educational
skills that has become the hallmark of the present standards-based reform movement.

This paper begins by briefly tracing the history of the school-to-career movement and its development into a progressive
education reform. Next, I argue that a progressive school-to-career policy is at odds with the current conservative
policy focus on basic skills and accountability, in part because a deep philosophical divide separates conservative and
progressive education policymakers. Conservatives favor a focus on traditional classroom teaching techniques that
provide for basic knowledge acquisition while progressives believe experiential learning is a better pedagogy. I then
examine how current education policy has adopted the conservative accountability approach, and thus has become
incompatible with the school-to-career movement's use of experiential learning. Section three considers the claims that
despite the gap between conservatives and progressives, STWOA is nevertheless compatible with the accountability
education policy used to advance standards-based reform. I argue that the similarities between school-to-career and
current education policies are purely superficial. I end by briefly considering the long-term trends that offer hope for a
resurgence of *430 the school-to-career movement despite STWOA's failure to promulgate workplace-based learning
across the country.

II. THE ROOTS OF “SCHOOL-TO-CAREER” EDUCATION REFORM

Policymakers in the United States have long-recognized that the traditional educational model of schooling - focused
exclusively on classroom learning - does not adequately prepare students for transition into a modern workforce. 3
Economic growth during and after World War II enabled high school graduates across the country to find employment
that supported a middle-class lifestyle. It became increasingly difficult for individuals without a college education to
obtain such employment, however, as the United States began losing manufacturing jobs in the 1970s. 4 At the same
time, overseas competition placed downward wage pressure on U.S. jobs requiring only basic skills. More and more,

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

people with only a high school diploma found themselves unable to find well-paying work that provided opportunities
for advancement. This crisis triggered a wave of school reform initiatives intended to tailor U.S. educational curriculum
to the requirements of a changing workplace. 5

The events of the 1970s were a harbinger of things to come. Today white-collar workers no longer enjoy jobs that last an
entire career. 6 More and more, workers change jobs frequently and must acquire skills on an on-going basis throughout
their careers. 7 As a result of such changes in the U.S. economy, educators and policymakers have begun to focus on the
need for schools to give students marketable job skills. 8 Indeed, these changes have led some policymakers to suggest
that students be equipped to become “lifelong learners” - workers capable of learning completely new skills several times
during their careers. 9

*431 The School-to-Work Opportunities Act

Some policymakers allied with the school-to-career movement have recently promoted a more comprehensive version of
workplace-based education. 10 Instead of focusing on basic education or limiting workplace programs to non-college-
bound students, these policymakers assert that preparing students for work should be a central focus of the educational
experience. 11 As one school-to-career practitioner put it, “[school-to-career] [r]eform must be systemic, altering the way
schools are organized and the way major systems - school, employers, government - interact and interrelate.” 12

The School-to-Work Opportunities Act, passed in 1993 with broad bipartisan support, codified the school-to-career
approach. 13 STWOA established a 6-year grant program to provide “venture capital” to states for the purpose of
establishing school-to-career initiatives. 14 As part of this effort, the statute directs schools to develop a school-to-career
program that coordinates both school-based and workplace-based learning. 15 Two distinctive elements of STWOA are
its progressiveness and its “venture capital” approach to implementing those ideals. 16

STWOA demonstrates its progressiveness by its emphasis on workplace-based learning activities as a fundamental
part of public education, its focus on all students, and its goal to place school-to-work at the center of public school
curricula. STWOA's text reflects a broad policy designed to reach all students. Instead of focusing on vocational
education, the Act proposes to “offer opportunities for all students to participate in performance-based education and
training programs” that will provide students with an opportunity to obtain high-skill, high-wage jobs and provide
opportunities for higher education. 17 Section 3(a)(C)(7) states that schools should offer “opportunities for all students
to participate in a performance-based education and training program.” 18 In Section 4(2) of the Act the term “all
students” is defined as including “male and female students from a broad range of backgrounds and circumstances
including disadvantaged students and ... academically talented students.” 19 Provisions like *432 these significantly
broaden the reach of school-to-work activities beyond those provided in other federal programs like the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education Act 20 or the Workforce Investment Act, 21 both of which are targeted at special
populations of students.

In addition to targeting a much larger group of students, STWOA focuses on making school-to-career activities an
integral part of public education. It mandates that career awareness and career exploration activities should begin no
later than 7th grade, and that interested students should select a career major no later than the beginning of 11th
grade. 22 Moreover, STWOA requires that interested students be offered work experience and that these experiences
be linked with school-based learning components. 23 These provisions dramatically expand the role of workplace-based
learning in public schools. Finally, the Act states that its provisions are designed to “utilize workplaces as active learning

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

environments in the educational process by making employers joint partners with educators.” 24 These elements - a
focus on all students, extensive workplace-based learning and joint employer/educator efforts - reflect STWOA's bold,
progressive approach.

STWOA also incorporates a unique method of implementing federal policy: the use of venture capital to fund states'
efforts to build a policy infrastructure. Congress has traditionally implemented federal programs either directly - by
establishing federal bureaucracies (for example, social security) - or through programs that provide grant money to
states but limit the use of those dollars to meet federally defined goals 25 (for example, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act 26 ). In contrast, policymakers envisioned STWOA as a catalyst to prompt a nationwide school-to-career
program. As the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Labor remarked in a joint statement in hearings on the
legislation that became STWOA:

This new system is designed to be “bottom-up” and outcome oriented, and, through “venture capital,”
is intended to bring to bear resources from other Federal, State, and local programs to leverage systemic
reform ... These *433 [school-to-career] systems would be driven by State and local decision makers and
ultimately be maintained with other Federal, State, local and private resources. 27

Thus policymakers viewed STWOA as providing a framework and capital to help establish a nationwide school-to-career
initiative that would eventually be maintained by states. For example, this approach might guide states in establishing a
coordinated state-based school-to-career program but without mandating specific goals.

Interestingly, despite the Act's lack of enforcement mechanisms and limited funding, policymakers evidently intended
it to help create a defined national school-to-career program. The first purpose stated in STWOA is “to establish a
national framework within which all States can create statewide School-to-career Opportunities systems that ... are part
of a comprehensive education reform.” 28 Moreover, the statute requires that states include a school-based learning
and worked-based learning component in addition to focusing on special needs students. 29 Thus STWOA represents a
marked departure from traditional federal programs by stating a goal of establishing a national program with specific
objectives, yet not providing a long-term funding stream to enforce policy goals. Accordingly, the success of STWOA's
venture capital approach depends largely on whether states collectively agree with the underlying policy goals.

III. STWOA AND THE CONSERVATIVE EDUCATION MOVEMENT

Unfortunately, STWOA is likely to fail. Not only is there no national consensus that school-to-career programs should
play a central part in U.S. education policy, but the policy rationale underlying STWOA directly conflicts with the
prevailing conservative philosophy of education that favors direct instruction in basic skills over workplace-based
learning. This philosophy's preference for teaching basic skills is reflected in the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) which provides the bulk of federal funding for public education. 30 By first understanding the prevailing
conservative education policy and how it relates to ESEA, and then by considering the staunch opposition conservatives
have demonstrated to STWOA, one can understand how ESEA and the philosophy preclude STWOA's success.

*434 Conservative education policymakers consistently demonstrate a strong preference for curricula that focus on
teaching basic skills like reading, writing, and computation. For example, a publication by the Heritage Foundation,
a conservative think tank, criticized the Department of Education for ignoring a study which “found that the teaching
method that achieved greatest positive impact on improving basic reading and computation abilities, problem-solving
skills and self esteem was direct instruction.” 31 The Heritage Foundation author attributed the Department's lack of

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

interest in direct instruction to the fact that “this finding contradicted the rhetoric of many progressive educators who
promote less structured, non-direct styles of education.” 32 The difference between direct and indirect styles of teaching
illustrates a deep philosophical divide between conservative education policymakers and progressive education policy.

Static Versus Applied Knowledge

Many of the debates in education policy center on the difference between “static” versus “applied” knowledge.
Traditional educational models, the ones with which most Americans are familiar, center on transmission of knowledge
in a static manner: the teacher, standing at the front of the class, lectures to students who (ideally) absorb that knowledge.
Students learn facts (for instance, about biology or civics) and basic skills readily taught in the classroom, such as reading,
writing and arithmetic. The goal is to provide students with a set of basic skills upon which they can then build in the
“real world.”

The applied model of learning contrasts sharply with the static model of learning. Made popular in the early 20th Century
by philosopher John Dewey, the applied model teaches students basic knowledge and life skills by presenting them with
real problems which they must apply knowledge to solve. 33 For example, to teach kids math, physics, and how to work
as part of a team, a curriculum might have students first read about physics and mathematical theories of flight and then
require them to work together to build a working model glider. This sort of curriculum involves novel, time consuming
teaching methods; teachers must design and then coordinate the experiential learning component with the classroom
learning components. 34

*435 Testing methods used with experiential and static learning also differ. Multiple choice or short answer tests
can measure static learning, 35 but an experiential learning curriculum relies on direct observation by a teacher or the
submission of a portfolio of student work in order to measure progress. 36 The use of different testing methods has
significant ramifications for standardizing student scores. Multiple choice and short answer test yield raw scores that
are relatively easy to tabulate and compare. On the other hand, the results of tests used with experiential learning are
difficult to reduce to a simple score, which makes comparisons of students' achievements difficult. 37 These differences
in the ease of both measuring the effectiveness of different learning methods as well as standardizing the results of testing
make static learning more compatible with ESEA's standards-based education policy.

The standards-based education policy embodied by ESEA supports the establishment of defined curriculum standards
upon which schools can evaluate students. As a practical matter, this translates into an emphasis on testing students
to measure their progress. Unfortunately, this emphasis has led to a strong bias among powerful conservative interests
towards a static learning approach that, as explained above, is fundamentally incompatible with the applied model of
learning advocated by the school-to-career movement. Thus, as detailed below, the standards-based reform movement
and the legislation it has wrought together ultimately represent a barrier to the success of STWOA.

*436 Standards-Based Reforms

During the 1990s educators focused heavily on raising student performance. Federal policymakers sought to develop
policies that would first establish academic standards and then test students to determine whether schools were
succeeding in getting students to meet those standards. 38 This standards-based approach was a belief that in order to
truly help students learn, educational reform had to identify effective educational methods. 39 Education policymakers
further believed that this could be accomplished by first establishing standards - a set of clearly defined learning objectives
- on which educational institutions could focus, and then to use testing to determine if students at a given institution were

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

in fact meeting those standards. Standards and testing would together identify the educational methods that “worked”
and those that did not. 40

The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) essentially codified this approach.
Originally enacted as part of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, ESEA provides approximately eight billion
dollars to states for education programs and is the largest federal education program. 41 Most of ESEA funding is
distributed through Title I, 42 which is intended to help school districts provide funds for educational programs that
target low-income children. 43

Local education agencies - e.g., school districts - must distribute Title I funds to schools with high poverty rates. 44
Historically, federal policymakers have concentrated on ensuring such funds were spent exclusively on low-performing,
low-income students. 45 However, this approach produced few measurable benefits. 46

As a result, Congress in 1994 fundamentally changed Title I. Instead of *437 tailoring services to low-performing, low-
income students, the re-authorized Title I required schools to implement a standards-based reform curriculum for all
students. 47 Low-performing students continued to receive additional resources in the form of teachers and assistants
paid out of Title I. 48

This new standards-based approach rested on an unquestioned belief in the merits of requiring schools to first establish
clear standards for all children and then to test children to see if they met them. 49 Indeed, ESEA prompted many
states to enact their own standards-based reform initiatives. 50 By the mid-1990s, the re-authorized ESEA and the state
movements it inspired had firmly entrenched standards-based reform as a powerful educational movement. 51

Standards-based reform, like workplace-based learning, is compatible with either static or experiential learning. Indeed,
Kentucky tried combining standards-based reform with experiential learning in the early 1990s by organizing an
integrated curriculum based on various themes (for example, “the ocean” or “art”). 52 Students were tested with a
combination of multiple-choice tests and on portfolios of their work. 53 Nevertheless, standards-based reform fits more
easily within a static-learning curriculum that concentrates on direct instruction of basic skills. As explained above,
student performance in such a curriculum is easily measured using traditional testing techniques.

School-to-career approaches, however, are consonant with only the experiential learning model. In school-to-career
programs, students learn basic skills and subject matter knowledge while on the job (in a manner analogous to students
learning math, physics, and teamwork while building a glider). Thus, depending on the learning approach used to
implement standard-based reform policies, there might be a significant conflict between such policies and experiential
learning method relied upon by school-to-career policies.

ESEA, Standards-Based Reform, and Conservatives

The standards-based reforms embodied in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, while not inspired by right-
wing republicans, meshed closely with their philosophies in several ways. First, the re-authorized ESEA focused sharply
on measuring *438 student performance to gauge the policy's effectiveness. 54 This focus on outcomes instead of inputs
addressed the frequent right-wing complaints that federal education programs merely pump funds into schools without
requiring any results. It also resonated with conservative beliefs that schools will push students to perform if the schools
are accountable for student progress and that low-income students needed high expectations, not special programs, to
help them improve student performance. 55 , 56

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

ESEA's emphasis on accountability also bolstered a conservative approach to education policy. Under ESEA and
associated regulations promulgated by the Department of Education, states were required to establish uniform testing
procedures to determine how teachers and schools were performing. 57 Schools and states were encouraged to create
school report cards that would provide school performance information to parents and policymakers. 58 Such measures
are in line with conservative beliefs that school and teacher evaluation measures help to ensure that students learn.

It is important to note that the re-authorized ESEA is not a conservative piece of legislation per se. Many liberals want
students to perform well and educators to be held accountable. Still, ESEA's provisions fit more easily into a conservative
basic skills framework than does the school-to-career program promoted by STWOA. The uniform statewide testing
promoted by ESEA is more easily accomplished by using standardized testing, which in turn favors testing students
in basic knowledge acquisition. 59 Thus, ESEA lends itself more easily to the back-to-basics approach favored by
conservatives; the more ESEA tends towards such an approach, the more it is fundamentally at odds with STWOA.

The Conservative Attack and the Inadequate Response

The incompatibility between STWOA and ESEA was highlighted in the campaign that conservative activists launched
against STWOA soon after its *439 passage. 60 Described as an “orchestrated grassroots campaign, led by Phyllis
Schlafly and the Eagle Forum and advanced by Lynne Cheney and other opinion leaders,” 61 the attack continues: as
recently as June of 2000, House Republicans held a hearing that featured vociferous denunciations of STWOA, even
though its funding will sunset this year. One witness, a businessman who entitled his testimony Educational Fascism in
Minnesota, testified that:

School-to-Work is a dangerous shift in education policy in America. It moves public education's mission
from the transfer of academic knowledge to simply training children for specific jobs ... I don't need work
skills ... I need people who can think of great ideas and be willing to put their knowledge to the test. 62

Similar hostility towards STWOA was voiced by Republican House members: in a speech from the House floor the same
summer, Colorado Republican Congressman Bob Schaefer criticized STWOA for threatening student career choice and
local control of education and derided experiential learning as “radical.” 63 These statements demonstrate the staunch
opposition of many conservative Republicans to the aggressive version of school-to-career embodied by STWOA. They
view it as antithetical to a back-to-basics education policy. Their sustained efforts against STWOA have succeeded in
stalling the momentum of the fledgling school-to-career movement. 64

STWOA's lack of enforcement suggests that policymakers did not perceive the tension between school-to-career policies
and conservatives' preference for a basic-skills pedagogy. 65 Had policymakers anticipated opposition to STWOA, they
might have built a coalition to forcefully support the school-to-career approach. 66 Instead, when conservatives attacked,
the Administration evidently believed that the attacks would simply die down 67 and few *440 supporters of STWOA
were willing to defend it or its promotion of school-to-career approach.

Those allies that did respond - such as the national business organizations that in 1997 issued statements defending
the school-to-career initiative 68 - proved ineffective. This failure to respond quickly and effectively to the attacks
allowed conservatives to succeed in fatally undermining STWOA; without a strong champion of experiential learning,
conservatives directed standards-based-reform efforts away from education policies that might be compatible with

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

STWOA's experiential learning approach. STWOA was out of step with the conservative agenda for ESEA, and
policymakers at the Department of Education were therefore forced to downplay the more progressive elements of
school-to-career policy. 69

Sadly, the structure of STWOA proved incapable of protecting the school-to-career approach against conservative
antipathy. Permissive language in STWOA, originally designed to give states flexibility, allowed use of federal funds
for traditional school-to-work programs or standards-based reform initiatives, 70 and other language resulted in uneven
implementation of school-to-career goals. 71 The wide latitude that STWOA gave to states to implement school-to-work
programs 72 ultimately undermined not only the school-to-career movement's goal of reforming traditionally narrow
school-to-work programs into mainstream curriculum, but also its objective of establishing a national standard for school-
to-career curricula. Without effective enforcement mechanisms to prevent schools from using STWOA to fund existing
school-to-work programs, STWOA could not prompt a transition to an approach centering on school-to-career. 73
Instead of creating a new school-to-career movement, STWOA merely funds the status quo and can give rise only to
isolated school-to-career programs.

IV. CAN STWOA BE RECONCILED WITH ESEA?

The Case for STWOA Being Compatible With ESEA

The ascendancy of the conservative approach to standards-based reform has created a political environment that favors
the static model of learning. It is *441 therefore perhaps tempting for supporters of the school-to-career movement to
try to portray STWOA as compatible with the re-authorized ESEA. One might emphasize how STWOA can support
ESEA's goals by motivating students, or point out how STWOA is consistent with other existing education policies.

Both ESEA and STWOA aim to improve student performance. School-to-career programs seek to help motivate students
by providing a “real-world” focus to classroom learning. There is evidence that such programs succeed; for instance,
according to the National School to Work Office:

Compared to their non-participating peers, students participating in School-to-Work initiatives are more
likely to take honors courses in math and science, lab science courses, and more advanced computer
courses ... Students participating in School-to-Work have more optimistic educational and occupational
expectations than their non-participating peers. They are more likely to believe that they will graduate from
high school, obtain a college degree, and be employed full-time at the age of 30. 74

School-to-career initiatives thus tend to help students perform better in school by motivating them to participate more
fully in their course work and to take more challenging classes. This fits perfectly with the standards-based reform
movement codified by ESEA. ESEA sets standards and tests the ability of children to meet those standards. But setting
standards and testing do not necessarily motivate students to learn. STWOA, by providing a link between classroom
learning and work-based activities, can help motivate students to achieve established standards.

In fact, STWOA arguably helps motivate students perhaps most likely to need encouragement: students who receive
Title I services and have no plans to attend post-secondary institutions. 75 Students bound for higher education already
have a strong motivation to take difficult classes and do well in them: to increase the chance of admission to a post-
secondary institution. Students not bound for college are more likely to perform if they see a link between academic
performance and career prospects. 76 STWOA, by more fully integrating school-to-career reforms in public schools,

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

makes clearer an effective incentive to motivate for students to strive for academic success. Thus, STWOA furthers the
student performance objectives sought by the ESEA.

*442 Proponents of the school-to-career movement can also champion STWOA by pointing out that it works in
harmony with many other federal programs. Under section 213(d)(6) of STWOA, states that submit applications for
STWOA grants must specify how school-to-career programs will be coordinated with 12 other federal programs, 77
including the programs that constitute the cornerstone of the standards-based reform movement - ESEA and the Goals
2000: Educate America Act. 78 Thus, STWOA's own provisions explicitly require states to link school-to-career efforts
to existing standards-based reforms.

Indeed, some key policymakers may advocate that Congress include current STWOA provisions in the next
reauthorization of ESEA in 2001, 79 to keep STWOA alive after its original term of authorization expires. Given the
close connection between improving student performance and school-to-career programs, ESEA is a natural home for
the provisions contained in the STWOA.

Finally, there is no conservative bias against school-to-career. STWOA was passed with broad bipartisan support 80 and
enjoyed the backing of business organizations including the National Tooling & Machining Association, the Kentucky
Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Round Table. 81 The Business Roundtable voiced support in congressional
hearings on STWOA:

One of our country's greatest challenges in the area of workforce development is to restructure the transition
from school to work. The Competitiveness Policy Council concluded in March 1993 that because of our
failure to better integrate school and work, “we are producing a substantial cohort of workers with poor
basic skills, little understanding of what work demands, and limited grasp of how to find a good job or
get good training.” 82

The Business Round Table also advocated that school-to-work efforts “be based on systemic reforms of schools.” 83
This suggests that it supports an expansive vision of school-to-career. This support from business organizations and
the broad bipartisan support suggest that STWOA is not necessarily inherently incompatible with more conservative
educational philosophies.

Furthermore, the use of venture capital funding seems likely to work in the school-to-career context. Specifically, it would
unite large existing federal job training programs that serve youth (such as the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and *443
Technical Education Act of 1998) 84 with the scores of school-to-career programs implemented at the state and local
level (including youth apprenticeships, state tech-prep programs, career academies, cooperative education and school-
based enterprises). A new permanent federal youth employment program, on the other hand, would duplicate existing
legislation and thus contravene an explicit goal of STWOA: to avoid duplication of such initiatives. 85 STWOA can
succeed as a temporary measure that establishes the school-to-career pedagogy and then allows existing federal education
programs (for example, the Vocational Education 86 and the Workforce Investment Act) 87 and state funds 88 to support
school-to-career programs on an on-going basis. The venture capital approach represents an effective and politically
feasible model for establishing a national, comprehensive school-to-career program; the role of the federal government
under STWOA is limited, aimed at transforming the significant resources are already being put into school-to-career
efforts through existing programs.

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

The Case Against STWOA's Compatibility with ESEA

Unfortunately for the school-to-career movement, the apparent similarities between ESEA and STWOA do not persist
in the face of scrutiny. The philosophical differences underlying STWOA and the re-authorized ESEA described above
make school-to-career programs inconsistent with conservative-minded reforms. STWOA and ESEA both seek to
improve student performance, but STWOA focuses on teaching students using experiential techniques to deal with real
work situations, while ESEA relies on traditional classroom techniques to teach basic skills. These involve different
methods of student instruction that are simply not compatible. Ironically, one of the business groups that advocated
passage of STWOA even spoke to the basis of this incompatibility; the president of the National Tooling and Machining
Industry, testifying in support of STWOA, focused exclusively on tech-prep programs and emphasized the traditional
school-to-work model, rather than the school-to-career model envisioned in STWOA. 89

*444 Such testimony also undercuts the argument that the endorsement of STWOA by business groups should dispel
conservatives' hostility to the school-to-career movement. The harsh truth is that the business community's support
for traditional school-to-work programs cannot fairly be described as support for the more ambitious school-to-career
movement advocated by the STWOA. Also, to the extent that some business interests did back STWOA, their support
was hardly sufficient to sustain a school-to-career movement. The businesses and associations that supported STWOA
did not represent the full range of business interests. Supporters - the Business Round Table and associations such as the
National Tooling and Machining Association - represent mainly large businesses. These firms are more able to absorb the
costs of participating in school-to-work programs 90 and their high level management are more likely to play an influential
role in education policy when compared to smaller businesses. Smaller firms have less time and fewer resources for
participation in school-to-work or school-to-career initiatives, and thus are less likely to see the benefits of STWOA. 91

Finally, STWOA's use of the venture capital approach may actually undermine support for STWOA among proponents
of a conservative version of standards-based reforms, given the different education philosophies underlying STWOA
and the re-authorized version of ESEA. Federal education funding for public education constitutes only 6% of national
public education funding 92 and ESEA is the largest federal program administering funds to elementary and secondary
education. 93 With such a small share of education funding, the federal government needs to coordinate initiatives around
a few ideas to effectively set a national education policy. Any program that is inconsistent with the goals of ESEA is
therefore unlikely to be viewed as helpful to federal efforts to set national education policy.

Moreover, achieving the ambitious school-to-career goals envisioned by STWOA would require significant human and
capital resources from the federal government. It takes considerable effort and resources in order to provide students
with a curriculum that combines meaningful work experience with classroom learning. 94 Even without the major policy
conflict between STWOA and ESEA, a school-to-career model that extended beyond the traditional tech *445 prep
program would be difficult to implement. When such a program has to compete with another major federal policy,
success is extremely unlikely.

V. WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR SCHOOL-TO-CAREER?

The school-to-career movement failed to enact federal legislation capable of coexisting with or displacing conservative
education policies. The advocates of STWOA failed to appreciate the difficulty of changing public education from
a classroom learning model to one based on experiential education. This left STWOA vulnerable to attack from
conservatives opposed to the objectives of school-to-career learning. Failure to garner broad political support for the
progressive objectives of STWOA and to include less flexible statutory language handicapped the implementation of
programs advanced the goals of the school-to-career movement.

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

Bad luck also contributed: the standards-based reform initially movement appeared to compliment workplace-based
learning, but after the Republicans' congressional victories in 1994, the focus shifted away from workplace-based learning
and towards a strong accountability model that relies on testing. Policymakers failed to anticipate the possibility of such
a shift in power, and had no response ready for the sustained conservative attack on STWOA that followed. Conservative
activists were able to discredit STWOA even as they reoriented ESEA towards a strong accountability model.

The school-to-career movement may seem moribund, but it is not dead. STWOA provided resources to districts willing
to experiment with ground-breaking programs; some of these programs will survive and the lessons gleaned from them
will be available to future advocates of school-to-career programs. Long-term trends arguably favor school-to-career
efforts. 95 If the need for lifelong learning continues to grow, businesses may begin to increase pressure on schools to
implement school-to-career programs. This would favor both the experiential learning approach as well as school-to-
career curriculum. The school-to-career movement may survive until the political winds are again blowing in support of
progressive education reform. Until then, and as long as school-to-career programs remain in the shadows of education
policies such as ESEA, the movement will enjoy little progress.

Footnotes
a1 The author received a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 2001.
1 See H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 1 (1994).
2 The movement's goal of reaching all students distinguishes it from “school-to-work” policies primarily aimed at students not
bound for college.
3 See DAVID C. BERLINER & BRUCE J. BIDDLE, THE MANUFACTURED CRISIS: MYTHS, FRAUD, AND THE
ATTACK ON AMERICA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS 92 (1995).
4 See id.
5 See id. at 173.
6 See Peter Cappelli, Career Jobs Are Dead, 42 CAL. MANAGEMENT REV. 146, 163 (Fall 1999).
7 See Rene Wisely, Making a Change Midlife: More People Try Career Hopping to Find Their Dreams, DETROIT NEWS, April
18, 2000, at Features 1.
8 See Center for Law and Education, All Aspects of Industry: A Key Element of the Perkins Act and the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act, available at http://www.cleweb.org/issues/voced/aspects.htm (quoting the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee report on the Perkins Ad Amendments of 1990: “The accelerated rates of change in industries and in
the skills required by those industries demand that vocational education prepare students not only for a job but for a lifetime
of work ... Vocational education's mission, therefore, must be that of ensuring that students graduate with both the vocational
and the academic skills upon which they can rely time and time again as they learn new skills, new trades, or wholly different
vocations in adapting to these changes”).
9 See White House Press Release, Remarks by the President at Opportunity Skyway School-to-Work Program in Georgetown,
Delaware (Sept. 1993).
10 See Richard Kazis & Hilary Pennington, What's Next for School-to-Career? in JOBS FOR THE FUTURE at 28 (October
1999) (arguing that the long term vision for school-to-career includes a radical restructuring of the current educational system
that is “as much a dinosaur as the factory model of production it mimics”).
11 See id.
12 See Kazis, supra note 10.

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

13 See U.S. CONGRESS, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, LEARNING TO WORK: MAKING THE
TRANSITION FROM SCHOOL TO WORK, S.REP. NO. OTA-HER-637, at 1 (1995).
14 See H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 3(a) (1994).
15 See generally H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. §§ 102 & 103 (1994).
16 See H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. §§ 211 & 212(a) (1994).
17 H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 3(a)(C) (1994).
18 H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 3(a)(C)(7) (1994).
19 See H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 4(2) (1994).
20 See H.R. 1853, 105th Cong. (1998). The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act is, in part, designed to help
prepare students who choose not to go to college receive training in a vocation. Often these programs provide students with
a special curriculum that allows them to attend school half day and work half day. Under vocational education curricula,
teachers conduct classes for students in workplace-related skills and supervise student work experiences.
21 See H.R. 1385, 105th Cong. (1998). The Workforce Investment Act passed in 1998 requires states to establish one-stop delivery
systems to provide core employment-related services. The one-stop service delivery locations also help special needs youth
find employment. Youth services are developed by youth councils established for the purpose of identifying and serving youth
employment needs.
22 See H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. §§ 102(1), (2) (1994).
23 See id. at §§ 103(a)(1), (a)(2).
24 See id. at § 3(a)(3).
25 See 20 U.S.C. 6311(a) & (b)(1).
26 See H.R. 1884, 103d Cong. (1994).
27 See Hearings on H.R. 2884, School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 before the Committee on Education and Labor House
of Representatives, 103d Cong. 57 (1993) (Joint Statement of Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education and Robert B. Reich,
Secretary of Labor).
28 H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 3(a)(1)(A) (1994).
29 See Hearings on H.R. 2884, School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 before the Committee on Education and Labor House
of Representatives, 103d Cong. 63-65 (1993) (Joint Statement of Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education and Robert B.
Reich, Secretary of Labor).
30 See Richard Riley, Improving America's Schools Act and Elementary and Secondary Education Reform, 24 JOURNAL OF
LAW AND EDUCATION 523 (“[Title I of ESEA] is the nation's most substantial elementary and secondary education
program at the federal level.”)
31 Nina Shokraii Rees, 25 Reasons ESEA Would Benefit From Reforms in the Straight A's Act, THE HERITAGE FOUND.,
OCT. 1999, at 7.
32 See id.
33 See generally JOHN DEWEY, EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION (1997).
34 See Peggy Walker Stevens and Anthony Richards, Changing Schools Through Experiential Education, in CLEARINGHOUSE
ON RURAL EDUCATION AND SMALL SCHOOLS (March 1992) (“Experiential education is the process of actively
engaging students in an experience that will have real consequences. Students make discoveries and experiment with knowledge

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

themselves instead of hearing or reading about the experiences of others. Students also reflect on their experiences, thus
developing new skills, new attitudes, and new theories or ways of thinking ... This type of learning differs from much traditional
education in that teachers first immerse students in action and then ask them to reflect the experience. In traditional classrooms,
teachers begin by setting knowledge ... before students. They hope students will later find ways to apply the knowledge in
action. Despite the efforts of many would-be reformers, recent reports by researches ... suggest that most teaching, particularly
at the high school level, still involves the teacher as purveyor of knowledge and the student as passive recipient of it.”).
35 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 26 (“For reasons of simplicity, cost, and validity, the standardized tests introduced in most states
do not incorporate communication, teamwork and other skills that people need to succeed ... State tests focus on what people
should know, not what they can do, more importantly, will do when faced with a new situation or real problem. [[Kentucky]
[a]fter a few years, faced with high costs and legal challenges, the state retreated toward simpler, more standardized paper -
and -pencil tests, with an increasing number of multiple choice questions.”)
36 See id.
37 It is interesting to note that this experiential/static learning divide also taps into another fundamental difference in educational
philosophies - some people think education should be fun, others take the view that learning is, and should be, inherently
uncomfortable. Experiential learning can be viewed as a soft educational experience. Children may have fun learning through
experience, in fact they may not be aware they learned anything. In opposition, the static model of learning takes on a harder
tone. Memorizing times tables is not fun for most children. After successfully completing such a task, most children are well
aware that they were involved in difficult and not necessarily enjoyable activity.
It is interesting to speculate that when proponents of static learning advocate a back-to-basic approach, what they are really
after is not the static learning that occurs. After all, how many of those proponents actually remember most of what they
learned in school? In fact, what these proponents may be getting at is that static learning is difficult and as such requires a
certain amount of discipline. It is not difficult to image a disgruntled employer viewing an experiential learning curriculum as
the reason behind why his young adult employees talk back at work or do not show up on time. In the employer's mind, these
employees lack discipline, the kind instilled by educational activities such as sitting in a desk for hours learning times tables.
38 See Riley, supra note 29, at 516 (“The IASA does this in part by more clearly tying the administration of federal programs
to the emergence of challenging state content and performance standards and assessments aligned to those standards ... The
new ESEA has become a standards-based set of federal programs, as a result of the changes made by IASA”).
39 See id. at 514-516 (describing changes to ESEA that tied federal education funding to reforms that called for the development
of curriculum content standards and the use of assessment tools tied to those standards).
40 See Department of Education, Education Excellence for All Children Act of 1999: An Overview of the Clinton Administration's
Proposals to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, available at http:// www.atcal.org/thesis/research/
eseaprospce.pdf.
41 See id.
42 See Riley, supra note 29.
43 See id. at 526 (“The amended ESEA calls upon LEAs [Local Education Agencies] to distribute Title I funds to schools on
the basis of poverty”); ESEA § 1113(a)(5).
44 See id.
45 See id. at 527.
46 See Center for Law and Education, Title I - Opportunities for Improving the Quality of Education of Students, available at
http:// www.cleweb.org/issues/title1/quality.htm (citing the fact that pre-1994 federal legislation encouraged the use of pull-out
programs to provides separate services to low-income children but that “[a]lthough Title I was established in 1965 to provide
‘extra’ educational services to the nation's poorest and lowest achieving students, history indicates that for over 30 years, the
program has failed to meet its potential”).

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

47 See Riley, supra note 29, at 522 (“To do this, the IASA asks a state's Title I students to meet the challenging content and
performance standards that the state sets for all of its students.”); ESEA § 1111(b).
48 See id. at 513.
49 See id. at 516.
50 See Riley, supra note 29, at 524, 541 (stating that re-authorized ESEA requires states applying for funds to submit a plan
demonstrating that it has or will develop content and performance standards and that all states have submitted such plans).
51 Id.
52 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 38.
53 See id.
54 See Riley, supra note 29, at 525 (indicating that ESEA requires that “each state must use a set of high quality assessments to
measure the progress of children served relative to the state's standards”); ESEA § 1111(b)(3).
55 See Berliner, supra note 2, at 137 (“Neoconservatives also prescribe various steps that should be taken to meet these problems:
schools should recommit themselves to academic excellence and require a larger number of basic-skills courses; higher
academic standards should be encouraged through tougher grading procedures and national tests of student achievement.”).
56 See Riley, supra note 29, at 524-25.
57 See id. at 8.
58 See id.
59 Certainly it is possible to implement tests that support a more progressive or holistic pedagogy, but this type of testing is
expensive and difficult to maintain in the face of conservative opposition. For example, in the early 1990s Kentucky attempted
to use a testing method that used student portfolios as a means to measure student performance. This testing model meshed
more closely with the state's progressive curriculum, a curriculum that used themes around which students would learn all
subjects in an integrated manner. Kentucky has recently, however, had to abandon these testing models and many of the
accompanying pedagogical reforms due to the difficulty and expense of implementation. See Kazis, supra note 10, at 26-27.
60 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 23 (“Some observers blame the declining support for school-to-career on the intense attack from
the radical right [[beginning in 1994], a high-profile campaign that has sent a chill through many communities and silenced
high-visibility political advocates who touted school-to-career just a few years ago.”).
61 See id.
62 See Business Publishers, Inc, STW Critics in Force At House Hearing, 9 SCHOOL-TO-WORK REPORT 52 (July 2000).
63 See id.
64 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 23 (“The orchestrated grassroots campaign ... has been a barrier in some communities to local
innovation and experimentation. It has undercut the bipartisan political enthusiasm that once existed in Congress and has
had a similar impact in some state legislatures and local school boards.”).
65 See id. at 13 (“The broad agreement around defining school-to-career, while advantageous for passing legislation, concealed
many tensions within the movement: permissive legislative language about allowable activities also encouraged diverse
interpretations and designs.”).
66 See id. at 23 (noting that “when the campaign against school-to-career took shape, advocates were slow to respond”).
67 See White House Press Release, supra note 10, at 23 (“The Administration hoped the furor would die down”).

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

68 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 23 (pointing out that only mainstream national business organizations like the National Alliance
of Business, the Committee for Economic Development and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - organizations that did not
represent smaller businesses tending to be more hostile to STWOA - defended STWOA).
69 See id.
70 See Center for Law and Education, Letter to the Department of Education on School-to-Work Progress Measures, available at
http:// www.cleweb.org/issues/voced/letter.htm (highlighting the lack of enforcement measures in STWOA.).
71 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 13.
72 See id.
73 See id. at 14 (citing the fact that permissive legislative language prevented the school-to-career movement from speaking with
one unified voice).
74 National Office, National Good News Facts and Figures, available at http://www.stw.ed.gov/research/goodfacts2.htm.
75 See id. (“[N]on-college bound students in school-to-work programs, particularly African American students, are more likely
to see a connection between their course work and career interests than those in traditional academic programs.”).
76 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 12 (“I heard students at a conference explain how their participation in various school-to-
work activities had literally ‘turned their lives around for the better.’ They spoke of how school to academics became more
meaningful and how they now had goals and a purpose for the future.”).
77 See H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 213(d)(6) (1994).
78 See id.
79 See Business Publishers, Inc, STW Enters Transition Year Facing a Balancing Act, School-to-Work Report, 3 (Vol. 9(1))
(January 2000).
80 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 2 (School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 was enacted by “a broad bi-partisan coalition of
Republicans and Democrats”).
81 Hearings on H.R. 2884, School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 before the Committee on Education and Labor House of
Representatives, 103d Cong. 82, 546, and 623 (1993).
82 See id. at 82 (Statement submitted by The Business Roundtable).
83 Id.
84 See H.R. 1853, 105th Cong. (1998).
85 See H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 3(b)(B) (1994) (stating that Congress intends STWOA will “eliminate duplication in education
and training programs for youths”).
86 See H.R. 1853, 105th Cong. (1998).
87 See H.R. 1385, 105th Cong. (1998).
88 See H.R. 2884, 103d Cong. § 3(a)(C)(iii)(4) (1994) (stating that the purpose of STWOA is “to use Federal funds under this
Act as venture capital, to underwrite the initial costs of planning and establishing statewide School-to-Work Opportunities
systems that will be maintained with other Federal, State, and local resources”).
89 See Hearings on H.R. 2884, School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993 before the Committee on Education and Labor House
of Representatives, 103d Cong. 623 (1993) (“We very much support the tech-prep program as the natural mechanism to
expand into apprenticeship training. As a nationally recognized provider of such training, we appreciate the opportunity ...
to contribute to the debate on this vitally important program.”).

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14

SCHOOL-TO-WORK: A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS, 8 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 429

90 Businesses participating in school-to-work programs often have to absorb some costs associated with training young,
inexperienced employees. However, they may also realize some cost-savings to the extent that some students decide to take
full-time employment. See Peter Cappelli, Youth Apprenticeship in Britain: Lessons for the United States, INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, Vol. 35, No. 1 (January 1996).
91 See id. at 19 (small employers resisted school to work efforts to merge training and classroom work and “resisted efforts to
have trainees rotated to other organizations for broader work experience”).
92 See YUDOF, KIRP AND LEVIN, EDUCATION POLICY AND THE LAW 674.
93 See Riley, supra note 29, at 523.
94 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 24 (“in some communities it has been difficult to move beyond planning or implementation of a
few modest innovations, given real resource, time and capacity constraints”); Office of Technology Assessment, supra note 7,
at 5 (successful school-to-work programs require significant coordination between public schools, employers, and intermediary
organizations).
95 See Kazis, supra note 10, at 29 (“Technology, work organization, the more networked economy, the growth of
entrepreneurship - changes in these spheres will ultimately drive changes in our system of educating and preparing people for
productive careers and rewarding lives.”).

8 GEOJPLP 429

End of Document © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government

Works.

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15