United States General Accounting Office
__________________________________________________________________
GAO Report to Congressional Requestors
__________________________________________________________________
May 1990 TRAINING STRATEGIES
Preparing Noncollege Youth
for Employment in the U.S.
and Foreign Countries
Some of the information in this report--e.g., pictures, charts,
and tables--was not in ASCII text format and not included. If you
wish to obtain a complete report, call GAO report distribution
at 202/275-6241 (7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. EST) or write to GAO, P.O.
Box 6015, Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
__________________________________________________________________
GAO/HRD-90-88
This U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report is 1 of 7
available over the Internet as part of a test to determine
whether there is sufficient interest within this community to
warrant making all GAO reports available over the Internet.
The file REPORTS at NIH lists the 7 reports.
So that we can keep a count of report recipients, and your
reaction, please send an E-Mail message to
[email protected] and
include, along with your E-Mail address, the following
information:
1) Your organization.
2) Your position/title and name (optional).
3) The title/report number of the above reports you have
retrieved electronically or ordered by mail or phone.
4) Whether you have ever obtained a GAO report before.
5) Whether you have copied a report onto another bulletin
board--if so, which report and bulletin board.
6) Other GAO report subjects you would be interested in.
GAO's reports cover a broad range of subjects such as
major weapons systems, energy, financial institutions,
and pollution control.
7) Any additional comments or suggestions.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jack L. Brock, Jr.
Director,
Government Information and Financial
Management Issues
Information Management and Technology Division
May 11, 1990
The Honorable James H. Scheuer
Chairman, Subcommittee on Education and Health
Joint Economic Committee
Congress of the United States
The Honorable Augustus F. Hawkins
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor
House of Representatives
This report, prepared at your request, contains information
on (1) the weaknesses in the U.S. education and training
system for preparing noncollege youth for employment and (2)
foreign strategies that appear relevant to the U.S.
shortcomings. It also includes policy actions that might be
considered by the federal government and by state and local
governments.
As requested, we did not obtain written comments from the
Departments of Education or Labor. We did, however, discuss
matters described in this report with officials in these
agencies, and their comments have been incorporated where
appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to other
congressional committees and subcommittees, the Secretaries
of Labor and Education, and other interested parties.
This report was prepared under the direction of Franklin
Frazier, Director, Education and Employment Issues, who may
be reached on (202) 275-1793 if you or your staffs have any
questions. Other major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Charles A. Bowsher
Comptroller General
of the United States
1
B-238820
__________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
__________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The United States is renowned worldwide
for its college and university system,
which provides extensive opportunity for
higher education. Yet only about half
of U.S. youth go to college. For the
other half, U.S. education and training
often provide inadequate preparation for
employment.
The perception that foreign competitors
excel in world trade partly because
their workers are better educated and
trained prompted the Joint Economic
Committee and the House Education and
Labor Committee to ask GAO to compare
how the United States and competitor
countries prepare noncollege youth for
employee. Specifically, GAO was asked
to
-- review U.S. education and training
strategies and identify likely
weaknesses and
-- examine selected countries'strategies
for preparing noncollege youth for
employment.
___________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
Experts are concerned that U.S.
international competitiveness is being
eroded because (1) many jobs are
requiring greater skills and (2) youth
are unprepared to meet the new labor
market demands. Required skill levels
are increasing in both the occupations
with the fastest rate of growth and
those projected to add most new jobs in
the next decade. Poor literacy skills
and employer reports that many youth
applicants are unqualified for entry-
level positions point up inadequacies in
the preparation of youth for
employment.
2
B-238820
For this study GAO examined four
countries--England, the Federal
Republic of Germany, Japan, and Sweden--
that try to develop a well-qualified
noncollege youth work force. GAO
reviewed literature on how the United
States and these countries prepare
noncollege youth for employment,
consulted with experts who assessed the
U.S. and foreign strategies, and visited
the foreign countries to meet with
knowledgeable persons and view the
education and training systems
firsthand. GAO cautions that
necessarily succinct contrasts between
U.S. weaknesses and foreign strengths in
education and training often conceal
U.S. strengths and foreign weaknesses in
this area.
__________________________________________________________________
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Insufficient attention is devoted to
preparing U.S. noncollege youth for
employment. About 9 million of the
nation's 33 million youth aged 16 to 24
will not have needed skills to meet
employer requirements for entry-level
positions--5.5 million dropouts and 3.8
million high school graduates who lack
high school competency.
The four competitor nations have
national policies that emphasize
preparing noncollege youth for
employment. Specific approaches vary by
country, are rooted in different
traditions, and may be accompanied by
problems of their own. Still, the
following approaches used by some or all
of the countries may be relevant for
the United States:
-- Foreign countries expect all students
to do well in school, particularly in
the early school years. Some U.S.
schools, confronted with difficult
social ills, often accept that many
will lag behind.
3
B-238820
-- Foreign schools and the employment
community guide students' transition
from school to work to a greater
degree than in the United States.
Noncollege students leaving school
receive more directed assistance in
finding jobs than their U.S.
counterparts.
-- Competitor nations establish
competency-based national training
standards that they use to certify
skill competency. The common U.S.
practice is to certify only program
completion.
-- Competitors invest extensively in
jobless out-of-school youth to assure
them a job or further education and
training. U.S. employment and
training programs reach only a modest
proportion of youth in need.
GAO's ANALYSIS
U.S. Shortchanges
Noncollege Youth
The foreign countries tend to invest
proportionately more than does the
United States in noncollege education
and training. The United States invests
heavily in college education but does
not do equally well by its young people
who seek immediate employment. From the
customary end of compulsory education at
age 16 through age 24, less than half as
much is invested in education and
training for each noncollege youth as
for each college youth (see pp. 12 and
23-24).
Expectations That
All Students Will
Do Well in School
Young adults in the foreign countries
have higher literacy levels than those
in the United States. In the United
States, academic difficulties frequently
4
B-238820
are evident in the early years, with
many children unprepared for school
entry and many in school not keeping
pace with expected levels of progress.
Certain practices of the other
countries, such as providing comparable
educational resources to all schools,
emphasize providing equal educational
opportunity to all youth regardless of
differences in socioeconomic status and
academic talent. For example:
-- Japan provides uniform teacher
salaries and per capita school
funding, so that poorer areas have
educational resources that are
comparable to more affluent ones.
-- Sweden gives extra resources to needy
schools, such as those in remote
rural areas or with large immigrant
populations.
Assistance in
Transition From
School to Work
The foreign countries help students
learn about job requirements and assist
them in finding employment to a greater
extent than does the United States. One
major element is the involvement of
employers. For example:
-- Joint school-employer programs
provide work experience for secondary
school students.
-- Japanese employers recruit high
school seniors through the schools,
basing hiring decisions on schools'
recommendations.
-- Employers train over two-thirds of
youth in the Federal Republic of
Germany through apprenticeships that
usually last 3 years. Employers
provide on-the-job skill training for
3 or 4 days a week, and apprentices
attend school the remaining 1 or 2
5
B-238820
days for instruction in mathematics,
language, other academic subjects,
and vocational skills.
Establishment of
Skill Training
Standards
Germany in particular, and more recently
England, seek to maintain quality
occupational training by testing and
certification to meet national
standards. Trainees who attain tested
levels of competency receive nationally
recognized certification, which
employers look to as evidence of
particular levels of skill. In the
United States, certificates for trainees
often certify course completion and not
necessarily attainment of specific skill
levels.
Extensive
Investment in
Jobless Youth
The foreign countries seek to assist
most youth who encounter employment
problems. For example, Sweden
guarantees education, training, or work
to every jobless teenager upon leaving
school. England guarantees every
jobless 16- and 17-year-old out-of-
school youth up to 2 years' work
experience and training.
POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS
Shortcomings in the U.S. system for
preparing noncollege youth for
employment, and some apparently
effective approaches identified in
foreign systems, point to types of
action that might be considered to
improve education and training in the
United States. However, the foreign
approaches may not be entirely
appropriate or readily transferable
because of cultural and other
6
B-238820
differences. Also, alternate mechanisms
for applying the approaches may be
needed. In addition, directing more
attention to youth who seek employment
rather than go on to college should not
detract from widely available college
opportunity in the United States, a
practice in which the United States
generally surpasses its foreign
competitors. Notwithstanding these
cautions, the following appear to
warrant consideration by the federal,
state, and local governments:
-- Strive to ensure that all children
attain the academic skills necessary
to perform effectively in
postsecondary education or the
workplace. Notably, greater
emphasis should be given to providing
needed early intervention programs
and adequate educational resources
for all children.
-- Develop more school-employer
linkages, particularly to expand
combined education and work
(apprenticeship-type) programs and to
assist youth to obtain suitable
entry-level employment.
Adopting effective education and
training strategies nationwide to
improve national productive capability
and international competitiveness will
require strong leadership and an active
federal role. The executive branch is
the logical focal point for national
responsibility. The Department of
Education, in combination with the
Department of Labor, can play a
leadership role in helping state and
local officials and business and labor
representatives work more effectively to
equip U.S. noncollege youth to meet the
nation's need for well-qualified future
workers. (GAO did not analyze potential
costs or funding sources.)
7
B-238820
AGENCY COMMENTS
GAO did not obtain written agency
comments on this report, but discussed
the matters described in the report with
officials from the Departments of
Education and Labor. Their comments
have been incorporated where
appropriate.
8
B-238820
CONTENTS Page
-------- ----
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 12
Background 12
Foreign Education and Training 16
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 21
CHAPTER 2 U.S. STRATEGIES FOR PREPARING YOUTH FOR 24
EMPLOYMENT
Overview of U.S. System 24
Levels of Educational Attainment 26
Public Investment for College and 27
Noncollege Youth
Weaknesses in U.S. System 28
CHAPTER 3 FOREIGN STRATEGIES FOR JOB PREPARATION 37
Emphasis on All Youth Doing Well 37
Structured School-to-Work Transition 38
Recognized Skill Standards 42
Extensive Investment in Jobless 43
Youth
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 46
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX I: Methodology for Estimating Investment 48
in Youth and Training
APPENDIX II: Training for Non-college- 59
Bound Youth
APPENDIX III: Major Contributors to 62
This Report
BIBLIOGRAPHY 63
9
B-238820
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS 72
TABLES
Table 1.1: Fastest Growing 13
Occupations (1988-2000)
Table 1.2: Occupations with Largest 14
Job Growth (1988-2000)
Table 1.3: Selected Characteristics 17
of the Five Countries
Table 2.1: Estimated Level of 26
Education Completed Through Age 24
(Youth Age 16-24 in 1988)
Table 2.2: Average Public Investment 27
Per Youth for Education and
Training (Ages 16-24)
Table 3.1: West Germany's 10 Leading 41
Training Occupations by Sex (1987)
Table I.1: Second-Chance Programs' 52
Annual Expenditures for Youth
Table I.2: Postsecondary Noncollege 56
Training: Public Annual
Expenditure for Youth Age 16-24
Table I.3: Estimated U.S. Public 58
Investment in Youth Education and
Training During 9 Years From Age 16
Through 24 by Level of Education
FIGURES (The following figures are not included because
they could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
Figure 1.1: International
Expenditures on Education:
Preprimary Through
Secondary Education (1985)
Figure 1.2: International
Expenditures for Special Youth
Measures (1987)
10
B-238820
Figure 1.3: International
Expenditures for Education:
Preprimary Through
Higher Education (1985)
Figure 1.4: Federal Republic of
Germany, Type of School Attended (1986)
Figure 1.5: High School Attendance
in Japan (1985)
Figure 2.1: Long-Term Effects of
Head Start
ABBREVIATIONS
GAO General Accounting Office
JTPA Job Training Partnership Act
NCES National Center for Education Statistics
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development
11
B-238820
CHAPTER 1
---------
INTRODUCTION
------------
BACKGROUND
----------
Increasing international competition and advancing technology
require a more highly skilled U.S. work force. But recent studies
and widespread reports from employers indicate that many youth are
ill-prepared for employment.#1 A skill-deficient young work force
hampers the nation's economic growth, productivity, and ability to
compete with foreign countries. Some foreign competitors may excel
in part because they more effectively prepare their work force,
paying close attention to the education and training of their
noncollege youth.
The United States provides extensive opportunity for a college
education for a large proportion of its youth. Our colleges and
universities are the envy of the world. Yet with work-force
quality becoming a key element in U.S. competitiveness, the
education and training of noncollege youth become increasingly
critical. This report addresses how nations prepare for work those
youth who do not go to college, exploring the relevant educational
practices of the United States and of four countries selected for
their experiences in training a skilled work force.
Mismatch Between Worker Skills
------------------------------
and Job Demands
---------------
The basic skills gap between what business needs and the
qualifications of entry-level workers is widening in the United
States. Jobs are demanding increasingly skilled workers at the
same time that many workers are inadequately prepared for the work
force.
1Michael Dertouzos, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT
Commission on Industrial Productivity. Made in America: Regaining
the Productive Edge. The MIT Press, 1989; Irwin Kirsch and Ann
Jungeblut. Literacy: Profiles of America's Young Adults. National
Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service,
1986; U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Education, and
U.S. Department of Commerce, A Joint Initiative. Building a
Quality Workforce, July 1988.
12
B-238820
Many jobs of the future will demand more skilled labor. Most of
the occupations projected to grow fastest require moderate to high
skills (see table 1.1). For example, health service and computer
technology-related occupations are projected to increase by half
over the next decade. Opportunities in many of these occupations
are limited for those without higher levels of education.
Table 1.1: Fastest Growing Occupations (1988-2000)
Number of jobs in thousands
Projected increase in jobs
--------------------------
Occupation Number Percentage
---------- ------ ----------
Paralegals 62 75
Medical assistants 104 70
Home health aides 160 68
Radiologic technologists
and technicians 87 66
Data-processing equipment
repairers 44 61
Medical records technicians 28 60
Medical secretaries 120 58
Physical therapists 39 57
Surgical technologists 20 56
Operations research
analysts 30 55
Securities and financial
services sales workers 109 55
Travel agents 77 54
Computer systems analysts 214 53
Physical and corrective
therapy assistants 21 52
Social welfare service
aides 47 52
Occupational therapists 16 49
Computer programmers 250 48
Human services workers 53 45
Respiratory therapists 23 41
Correction officers and
jailers 76 41
Source: George Silvestri and John Lukasiewicz, "Projections of
Occupational Employment, 1988-2000," Monthly Labor Review
(Vol. 112, No. 11, Nov. 1989), p. 60.
13
B-238820
In addition, while many low-skill occupations will continue to
employ many people (see table 1.2), their skill requirements are
expected to increase to some extent even, for example, in
janitorial and messenger jobs. Skills increasingly needed to
perform many jobs include the ability to connect practice and
theory; identify problems; and then analyze, test and
troubleshoot, and adapt to new technology.#2
Table 1.2: Occupations with Largest Job Growth (1988-2000)
Number of jobs in thousands
Projected increase in jobs
--------------------------
Occupation Number Percentage
---------- ------ ----------
Salespersons, retail 730 19
Registered nurses 613 39
Janitors and cleaners 556 19
Waiters and waitresses 551 31
General managers and top
executives 479 16
General office clerks 455 18
Secretaries, except legal
and medical 385 13
Nursing aides, orderlies,
and attendants 378 32
Truck drivers 369 15
Receptionists and information
clerks 331 40
Source: George Silvestri and John Lukasiewicz, "Projections of
Occupational Employment, 1988-2000," Monthly Labor Review
(Vol. 112, No. 11, Nov. 1989), p. 60.
As skill levels are increasing, employers are finding that many
young workers are inadequately prepared for many entry-level as
well as most higher-skilled jobs. Employers largely agree that
entry-level workers should read at least at the 8th grade level.
Many hold, moreover, that the increased technological content of
instruction manuals, coupled with greater demands on workers to
maintain the equipment they operate, requires an 11th or 12th grade
reading level. Yet an estimated 20 percent of young American
adults cannot read at the 8th grade level and 40 percent cannot
2Dale Parnell, The Neglected Majority (Washington, D.C.:
Community College Press, 1985), p. 14.
14
B-238820
read at the 11th or 12th grade levels.#3 In a joint report of the
Departments of Labor, Education, and Commerce, two-thirds of the
employers consulted assessed the current pool of entry-level
applicants as insufficiently prepared in academic skills.#4
This is a particular concern for minorities and the economically
disadvantaged, who traditionally have had lower levels of
educational achievement than others. About 85 percent of young
white adults are literate at the 8th grade level, as compared with
70 percent of Hispanics and 50 percent of blacks.#5
Costs of Inadequate Preparation
-------------------------------
The inadequate preparation of young noncollege workers has both
individual and social costs. The unprepared individual forgoes
considerable earnings over a lifetime while contributing to
lagging national productivity growth and social welfare cost
increases. One year's cohort of high school dropouts and deficient
high school graduates may forgo an estimated $150 billion to $300
billion in earnings over their lifetimes, or about $135,000 to
$300,000 per individual.#6 In addition, the government is likely
to incur increased expenditures to address social problems, such as
crime, drug abuse, prison, and welfare, estimated conservatively at
$10 billion.#7 To what extent these losses could be recouped
3Literacy rates for young adults, age 25 to 29. Kirsch and
Jungeblut, Literacy: Profiles of America's Young Adults.
4Building a Quality Workforce.
5Literacy: Profiles of America's Young Adults.
6The ranges cited are based on differing assumptions of the
portion of the income differential attributable to differences in
educational attainment.
7The costs of inadequate preparation were estimated by GAO using
methodologies developed by James S. Catterall, Professor of
Education, University of California at Los Angeles. Catterall
estimates that the 973,000 dropouts from the nation's high school
"Class of 1981" will lose $228 billion in personal earnings over
their lifetimes, while society will lose $68.4 billion in taxes
(James S. Catterall, "On the Costs of Dropping Out." California:
Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance,
December 1985). Similarly, the Committee for Economic
Development estimated that each year's class of dropouts costs
the nation more than $240 billion in lost earnings and forgone
taxes over their lifetimes. Additionally, billions more will be
spent on crime control and on welfare, health care, and other
15
B-238820
through increased investment in education and training is unclear;
however, that significant costs will be incurred because of an ill-
prepared work force is indisputable.
How Do Our Trade Competitors Do?
--------------------------------
Our economic competitors face similar economic pressures, but
experts perceive Japan, for example, as being ahead of the United
States in preparing noncollege youth for the labor force and
providing them with adequate academic skills.
A comparison of literacy levels finds that over 85 percent of young
people in England and over 90 percent in Japan, Sweden, and West
Germany have the equivalent of at least eighth grade literacy. In
contrast, only 80 percent of their U.S. counterparts function at an
eighth grade level or higher. Also, national and international
tests show that many U.S. students, while able to grasp basic
mathematics skills, cannot handle problem solving or other higher-
order thinking tasks. Comparing the educational abilities of
American youth with those of foreign youth suggests problems for
future U.S. competitiveness.
FOREIGN EDUCATION AND TRAINING
------------------------------
The four countries we reviewed--England, the Federal Republic of
Germany, Japan, and Sweden--are more homogeneous in population than
the United States, although each has some immigrant subgroups.
Their populations are also considerably smaller than the United
States' 246 million. (See table 1.3.)
social services disproportionately required for ill-prepared
youth (Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the
Educationally Disadvantaged. Committee for Economic Development.
New York, 1987).
16
B-238820
Table 1.3: Selected Characteristics of the Five Countries
United West
States England Japan Sweden Germany
------ ------- ----- ------ -------
Population 1988
(millions) 264 48 122 8.4 61
Youth (15-24) as
percentage of
population 15 14 15 14 17
Unemployment rate,
1988 (percent):
Adult (25 +) 4.2 7.6a,b 2.2 1.3 6.7c
Youth (Under 25) 11.0 12.8a,b 4.9 3.3 7.6c
Percentage of youth in
vocational curriculum 30 18 28 50 70d
Postsecondary
enrollment rates 57% 21%a 30% 37% 30%
University
enrollment rates#e 36% 8%a 24% 26% 26%
aUnited Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland).
bPreliminary data.
c1987 for West Germany.
dThe approximate percentage participating in apprenticeship.
eConferring baccalaureate level degrees or higher.
According to a recent study,#8 the countries spend
proportionately more of their Gross Domestic Product#9 than does
the United States for preprimary, primary, and secondary
schooling. (See fig. 1.1.) Similarly, they spend more for
special measures to help youth enter the work force, such as
subsidized work experience, remedial education and training, and
direct job creation for youth. (See fig. 1.2.) However, when
expenditures for college education are combined with precollege
8The Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper, Shortchanging
Education: How U.S. Spending on Grades K-12 Lags Behind Other
Industrial Nations, 1990.
9Gross Domestic Product is similar to Gross National Product,
which is the value of all final goods and services produced in an
economy in a given year.
17
B-238820
education expenditures, the United States spends proportionately
more than any other industrial country except Sweden. (See fig.
1.3.)
Figure 1.1: International Expenditures
on Education: Preprimary Through
Secondary Education (1985)
(Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
Source: Economic Policy Institute.
Figure 1.2: International Expenditures
for Special Youth Measures (1987)
(Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
Note: Japan has no special youth measures. Over 90 percent of
youth finish high school.
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Figure 1.3: International Expenditures
on Education: Preprimary Through
Higher Education (1985)
(Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
Source: Economic Policy Institute.
Following is a brief description of the countries' education and
training systems.
England: Investment in Jobless Youth
-------------------------------------
Schooling in England is compulsory until age 16. At 16, English
youth may
-- continue their education for 2 more years in high school
for an "advanced level" certificate, sometimes with the
aim of going on to a university or a polytechnic
institute;
-- enter a technical or other "further education" college
(similar to a community college in the United States),
sometimes continuing on to a university or a polytechnic
institute; or
-- enter the work force.
About half of British youth leave full-time schooling at age 16.
A 1989 report by a Confederation of British Industry task force
states that:
"Britain has one of the lowest rates of participation
in post compulsory education and training of all the
18
B-238820
OECD countries#10 and produces a much smaller number of
school leavers educated to the standards required by a
modern economy . . . ."#11
Concern about inadequacies in the preparation of young workers
led England in the 1980s to adopt a series of major revisions in
its education and training system. Notably, it has undertaken to
establish
-- requirements for world of work orientation, including
work experience for all secondary students;
-- national skills standards developed by industry and
government, together with tests for certifying competence
levels; and
-- a Youth Training Scheme guaranteeing up to 2 years of
work experience and job training for all 16- and 17-year-
old jobless out-of school youth.
Federal Republic of Germany: Training Through Apprenticeships
--------------------------------------------------------------
Primary school in the Federal Republic of Germany serves
children from age 6 to 10 (or 11 in some states), after which the
young people are separated into three discrete curricular paths:
-- Hauptschule, leading primarily to blue collar
apprenticeships.
-- Realschule, offering training for higher level but
nonacademic occupations, with many of the graduates
entering white collar apprenticeships. The graduates
also can gain admission to a senior technical school.
-- Gymnasium, leading to university admission.
A few "lander" (states) have established comprehensive schools in
response to pressures to alleviate the rigidity of the triple-
track system. Also, in recent years a larger proportion of youth
10Britain consists of England, Scotland, and Wales. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is
composed of 24 countries, largely of western Europe, plus
Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States. It
seeks to promote world and member country economic growth policies.
11Towards a Skills Revolution - A Youth Charter, Interim Report
of the Vocational Education and Training Task Force,
Confederation of British Industry, July 1989.
19
B-238820
have been attending realschule and gymnasium. Thirty- nine
percent of eighth graders attended hauptschule in 1986 (see fig.
1.4), in contrast to over 50 percent in 1975.
Figure 1.4: Federal Republic of
Germany, Type of School
Attended (1986) (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
At age 15 or 16, upon completion of compulsory full-time
schooling, most youth enter apprenticeships that usually last 3
years. The apprenticeship system is known as the "dual system,"
because it provides training both on the job and in compulsory
part-time school. Youth who initially are unable to obtain an
apprenticeship typically attend 1 year of vocational school
before trying again to enter the dual system.
Dual system training actively involves industry, unions, and
government. Employers pay training and wage costs.#12 About
400,000 firms, nearly one-fourth of all the firms in the country,
sponsor apprentices. Training curricula, examinations, and
certification procedures are developed nationally through
tripartite collaboration.
Japan: Recruitment Through the Schools
---------------------------------------
School in Japan is compulsory for 9 years beginning at age 6,
with 6 years of elementary school and 3 years of junior high
school. Ninety-four percent of young people continue on to high
school for another 3 years.#13 (See fig. 1.5.)
Figure 1.5: High School Attendance In
Japan (1985) (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
About 35 percent of high school graduates go directly on to
work. Employers hire virtually all of these youth based on the
schools' recommendations.
About 30 percent of the high school graduates continue on to
university, junior college, or technical college, and about 28
percent attend schools outside the regular school system,
primarily proprietary schools. Many attending the latter schools
12Smaller firms that join together to form interfirm training
workshops receive some funding from the federal and state governments.
13The relatively few persons who attend high school at night
attend for 4 years. Night school students are persons who were
not accepted to day school, persons having to go to work, or
homemakers.
20
B-238820
are youth who are not accepted to college and are studying to
take the college entry test again. Others are interested in
obtaining a specific qualification, such as for computer
programmer.
Japanese employers take on much of the responsibility for
developing the occupational skills of the work force. About
three-fourths of Japanese firms provide some training to their
workers. The main training components provided by the firms are:
on-the-job training, including rotating workers among
assignments; training off the job, such as in centers organized
by the firms; correspondence courses; and worker participation in
group activities aimed at improving the firm's performance.
Sweden: Emphasis on Education and Training
-------------------------------------------
In Sweden, school is compulsory for 9 years starting at age 7,
but children also are entitled to 1 year of preschool. Over 90
percent of youth go on to "upper secondary" school at age 16,
which they attend for 2, 3, or 4 years depending on their
vocational or "theoretic" lines of study. About 50 percent of
the youth are in vocational lines. Out-of-school teenagers who
are jobless are guaranteed further education, training, or a job.
Worker training and retraining is extensive. A recent survey of
Swedish workers asked whether they had participated in any form
of education during the preceding year. Over one-half of
professional and white collar workers, and over two-fifths of
unskilled workers, said they had. Sweden's investment in
education and other human resource activities is proportionately
larger than practically any other country, including Japan and
the United States.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
----------------------------------
The Joint Economic Committee and the House Education and Labor
Committee expressed concern about international competitiveness
and the adequacy of U.S. employment preparation. They asked us
to examine the United States' and selected competitor nations'
education and training strategies for preparing noncollege youth
for employment. Specifically, they asked us to identify
weaknesses in the U.S. strategy for educating and training
noncollege youth and assess whether other countries used
approaches with this population that might be relevant to the
United States.
In a simplified description of U.S. weaknesses and foreign
strengths, however, there is a danger that the U.S. education and
training outlook may be seen as unduly bleak because the
emphasis is on shortcomings. Similarly, the foreign approaches
21
B-238820
that appear attractive often are accompanied by disadvantages.
Also, the U.S. system is diverse, so that any generalization has
limitations. Finally, focusing on U.S. shortcomings and
apparently effective foreign practices does not necessarily get
at their complexities, interrelationships, or the context of
which they are a part.
Our objectives were to:
1. Describe how the United States prepares its noncollege
youth for employment, including
-- educational attainment levels by the youth population,
-- the investment of public funds in education and training
for noncollege as compared with college youth, and
-- the shortfalls in the U.S. education and training system.
2. Examine how England, the Federal Republic of Germany
(West Germany), Japan, and Sweden prepare their
noncollege youth for employment, to determine whether
they share significant approaches that the United States
may want to consider.
Our methodology involved examining literature on the U.S. and
foreign education and training strategies; consulting with
experts who described and assessed the U.S. and foreign
systems;#14 and visiting the selected countries, where we
observed school activities and interviewed government, industry,
and union officials, educators, and researchers.
As to the scope of the report, we did not seek to probe factors
other than education and training that influence development for
employment, although we recognize that successful school
performance and the transition into the labor force are
influenced by a variety of economic and social factors. Also, in
describing apparently effective approaches of the selected
countries, we do not imply that all aspects are necessarily
desirable, and we provide broad characterization rather than
14 Our consultants were (1) Seymour Brandwein, former Director of
the Office of Evaluation in the Department of Labor's Employment
and Training Administration; (2) Norman Evans, Director, Learning
From Experience Trust, London, England; (3) Robert W. Glover,
Research Associate, University of Texas, Austin; (4) Ray
Marshall, Professor, University of Texas, Austin, and former
Secretary of Labor; and (5) James E. Rosenbaum, Professor of
Sociology, Northwestern University.
22
B-238820
extensive detail. Because of cultural and other differences,
such as in demography and political systems, the foreign
approaches may not be entirely appropriate or readily
reproducible in the United States. Precisely how or to what
extent the foreign practices might be transferable was beyond the
scope of the report.
We selected the four countries for the following reasons: Japan
and the Federal Republic of Germany have enjoyed substantial
economic growth and international competitiveness gains, in part,
because of the quality of their work force. Sweden, a much
smaller country, also has achieved international economic success
and has extensive experience in developing a skilled labor force.
England, after economic recession and dissatisfaction with its
employment development system, has undertaken in the 1980s to
upgrade its youth education and training activities.
Our work was performed between August 15, 1988, and December 18,
1989, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
23
B-238820
CHAPTER 2
---------
U.S. STRATEGIES FOR PREPARING YOUTH FOR EMPLOYMENT
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. system for preparing youth, particularly noncollege
youth, for employment has evolved without a coherent overall
strategy. The U.S. stresses the importance of a college
education without providing similar emphasis to preparing
noncollege youth for employment. Weaknesses, such as the
inadequate development of academic skills, are apparent in the
early school years, in high school, and after departure from
school. About 9 million U.S. youth--both school dropouts and
high school graduates--are ill equipped to meet employer
requirements for entry-level positions.
OVERVIEW OF U.S. SYSTEM
-----------------------
Youth are generally required to attend school until age 16, but
are encouraged to continue their secondary education until age 17
or 18 to complete high school. The federal government does not
set U.S. education policy. The education system is primarily
locally controlled, with each school district determining
priorities, budgeting, and staffing. Schools receive about 50
percent of their funding from state governments, 44 percent from
local governments, and 6 percent from federal sources. As a
consequence, resources spent per pupil and for teachers' salaries
vary significantly across school districts. Local annual per
student funding ranges from about $2,000 to about $6,000.
Most school districts direct education through high school
primarily toward developing academic skills, gearing their
education to preparation for college entry. High schools link
their curricula to college requirements, advise youth on the
connection between school achievement and college entry, and
offer assistance on finding and being accepted to college.
Opportunities for college education generally are extensive.
For the noncollege oriented students, assistance is often
lacking to enable them to recognize the relevance of schooling to
work opportunities and to motivate them to do well.#15 Much less
15John H. Bishop, "The Motivation Problem in American High
Schools," Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working
Paper #88-13, Cornell University, October 28, 1988; and James E.
Rosenbaum, "Empowering Schools and Teachers: A New Link to Jobs
for Non-College Bound," in Investing in People: A Strategy to
Address America's Workforce Crisis, Background Papers, Vol. 1.
Commission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency,
1989.
24
B-238820
attention is devoted to preparation and assistance for noncollege
youth's entry to work. Many youth who drop out, and some who
graduate from high school are deficient in the basic academic
skills needed by many employers.#16 In addition, too few youth
are taught about the world of work. Educational instruction on
the work world has not appreciably changed from 2 decades ago.
"By and large, young people [in the United States] leave
school without having learned about the nature of the jobs
which exist in a community, the different opportunities in
different industries, what employers expect from employees,
and the agencies which can give them help."#17
The schools generally do not help noncollege youth obtain
suitable postschool employment. Such assistance traditionally
has not been their responsibility. Nor is there any other
"institutional bridge" to help noncollege youth make the
transition from school to work. Left to themselves, many
dropouts and high school graduates flounder in the labor market,
jobless or obtaining jobs with little opportunity for
advancement.#18
For young people who leave school with inadequate academic and
work skills, programs supported principally by the federal
government offer a "second chance." Directed primarily to the
economically disadvantaged, these programs, most notably under
the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), offer generally brief
skill training and job placement assistance.#19
16The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Pathways to
Success for America's Youth and Young Families, Final Report,
Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship, November 1988.
17Statement of W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, to General
Subcommittee on Education, House Committee on Education and
Labor, February 28, 1968.
18William T. Grant Foundation, Commission on Work, Family and
Citizenship, The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America,
Interim Report on the School to Work Transition. Washington,
D.C., William T. Grant Foundation, January 1988.
19Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for
Participants With Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989)
and Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant
Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan.
24, 1990).
25
B-238820
The United States looks to a variety of sources, in addition to
employer training of its employees, to provide occupational
training to develop a skilled young work force. These include
proprietary vocational schools; apprenticeship training programs,
usually conducted jointly by employers and unions; the military
services; and public community colleges principally offering mid-
level occupational training along with academic education. The
2-year community colleges also serve as a route for going on to
4-year colleges for preparation for the professions and other
skilled employment. In addition, they offer remedial courses and
occupational training for participants in programs such as
JTPA.#20
LEVELS OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
--------------------------------
Under the educational system, about half of U.S. youth attend
college by the time they reach age 25 (although only about one-
fifth of all U.S. youth graduate). Of the noncollege youth,
most complete high school, but over one-fourth of all the youth,
or about 9 million, do not attain high school competency, because
they either drop out of high school or stay on to graduate
without mastering academic skills assumed for high school
graduates. (See table 2.1.)
Table 2.1: Estimated Level of Education Completed Through Age 24
(Youth age 16-24 in 1988)a
Number Percent
------ -------
College graduate 5,900,000 18
Some college (1-3 years) 9,900,000 30
High school graduate
with competency 7,800,000 24
High school graduate
lacking competency 3,800,000 12
High school dropout 5,500,000 17
--------- ---
Total 32,900,000 100b
========== ===
aSee app. I.
bNumbers do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
20We do not further discuss training by the military or by
community colleges. Some regard community colleges essentially
as providing a college education. Some others, however, would
contend that community colleges undertake some major occupational
training functions that under ideal circumstances would be
performed by secondary schools.
26
B-238820
PUBLIC INVESTMENT FOR COLLEGE AND NONCOLLEGE YOUTH
--------------------------------------------------
Examination of public investment for college and noncollege
youth reflects the high priority the United States places on
college education and the comparatively limited attention to
youth taking the employment rather than college route. During
the 9 years from age 16 through 24, the average public investment
for education and training at current rates of expenditure totals
about $14,000 per youth. We recognize that the duration and
skill level of college education and training require a greater
investment than development for lower skill employment. Still,
the disparity in public investment indicates a likely shortfall
in U.S. commitment to noncollege youth. For each college youth,
the U.S. invests about $20,000, more than twice the roughly
$9,000 investment for noncollege youth (see table 2.2), which
covers mostly high school education.
Table 2.2: Average Public Investment Per Youth for Education and
Training (Ages 16-24)
Post-
Level of education Total high school
------------------ ----- -----------
College youth $19,940 $10,440
College graduate 24,700 15,200
Some college (1-3 yrs.) 17,100 7,600
Noncollege youth 9,130 1,460
High school graduate 10,840 1,340
Dropout 5,520 1,720
All youth 14,230 5,770
If we exclude high school expenditures to examine investment in
education and training only after departure from high school,
the disparity is much larger. The average public expenditure for
college youth is more than seven times larger than the average
post-high school investment for the noncollege population. (App.
I discusses the methodology used to develop these estimates.)
By citing the gap between investment in college and noncollege
youth, we do not intend to question the desirability of the
investment in college youth, but to point out the significantly
smaller investment in youth who lack skills necessary for
effective employment. The gap appears rooted not merely in the
higher costs of a college education, but in part in different
underlying attitudes. Funding for higher education is largely
regarded as vital long-term national and economic investment.
27
B-238820
Funding for employment training for noncollege youth,
particularly those least equipped to perform effectively in the
labor market, has tended to be viewed more as a social, rather
than an economic, responsibility. Moreover, program costs for
such youth tend to be seen essentially as a "current budget"
issue and not as an investment that may be recouped both from
economic returns from work-force improvement and from reductions
in the costs of welfare, crime, and other social problems.#21
WEAKNESSES IN U.S. SYSTEM
-------------------------
The U.S. system for preparing noncollege youth for employment has
shortcomings. In the early school years, many children enter
school already behind, or quickly fall behind, and are not
adequately helped to catch up. These early lags in basic
academic skills hamper progress throughout the school years and
in subsequent work life.#22 While in high school, youth receive
little assistance in making the transition from school to work,
including little orientation to employment opportunities and job
requirements. After leaving school, second chance programs reach
only modest proportions of youth needing them and generally
provide youth with only limited academic remediation and skill
training.#23 Post-high school noncollege training is often
haphazard and of poor quality.
Many Lag Behind in Early School Years
-------------------------------------
Children from low-income families often are not ready for school
entry and, in the absence of special preschool preparation, tend
to fall behind in school. This problem has been recognized and
tackled by the federal government, primarily through financing of
the Head Start program for economically disadvantaged 3- to 5-
year-olds. Head Start provides educational, social, medical,
nutritional, and other services, with parental involvement, to
overcome start-up handicaps and prevent school failure.
21Ray Marshall. "A New Labor Market Agenda." In Workforce
Policies for the 1990s. Paper Presented to an Economic Policy
Institute Seminar on Labor Market Policy, April 29, 1988.
22Gordon Berlin and Andrew Sum. "Toward a More Perfect Union:
Basic Skills, Poor Families and Our Economic Future," Occasional
Paper 3, Ford Foundation Project on Social Welfare and the
American Future, 1988, pp. 24-38.
23Sar A. Levitan and Frank Gallo, A Second Chance: Training for
Jobs, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1988, pp.
65-73.
28
B-238820
Evidence of the relative effectiveness of Head Start (see fig.
2.1) has led to some expansion of such efforts. Head Start,
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services,
serves about 400,000 to 450,000 children each year with federal
appropriations of about $1 billion.
Figure 2.1: Long-Term Effects of Head
Start (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
Source: Harold Hodgkinson, The Same Client, p. 16.
Once in school, many children do not keep pace with expected
levels of progress, and special attention or compensatory efforts
are necessary if they are to catch up. Here, too, recognizing
the need for additional assistance, the federal government
finances programs for the educationally disadvantaged. Most
notably, under Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, federal funds are channeled to schools serving
low-income areas to provide supplemental instruction. The
program reaches about 5 million students, most in the early
grades. Federal financing amounts to roughly $4.5 billion a
year.
The magnitude of the problem of educationally disadvantaged
children is such that even the significant investment in Head
Start and Chapter 1 falls far short of reaching the bulk of the
children in need. Only about 20 percent of eligible youngsters
are served by Head Start and about 50 percent by Chapter 1.
Moreover, assistance is not continued throughout the school
years, which often means an inability to maintain progress.#24
Further, school systems do not regularly channel state and local
funds to help youngsters headed for failure in high school as
forewarned by lack of academic achievement, excessive school
absenteeism, or behavioral problems. In addition, some school
systems in poorer areas lack the financial resources to meet the
particularly sizable educational handicaps of their student
populations.#25
Schools Not Linked to Labor Market
----------------------------------
The education system does not adequately prepare youth for entry
to employment after leaving school. U.S. schools are generally
isolated from the labor market and traditionally have not been
24The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Non-
College Youth in America, Interim Report.
25Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally
Disadvantaged, Committee for Economic Development, 1987, pp. 5-10.
29
B-238820
responsible for assisting non-college-bound youth to make an
effective transition from school to work.#26 They are not
expected to provide orientation to job requirements and
opportunities or to help such youth obtain employment.
Limited Orientation to World of Work
------------------------------------
Students who plan to look for employment immediately after high
school typically do not recognize the relevance of schooling to
work opportunities; hence, many are not motivated to do well in
school. Many youth do not gain a realistic awareness of the
requirements of the work world and the opportunities available to
them. While they are likely to recognize the importance of a
diploma for future employment, they do not see school grades as
relevant for labor market success. That employers generally do
not check school grades when hiring for entry jobs reinforces
students' lack of motivation.#27
Many teenagers seek and hold part-time employment, but their
jobs customarily are not linked to their schooling. Although the
employment serves as an opportunity to earn income and obtain
some exposure to work demands, the educational system makes few
efforts to develop this experience as instruction or pathways to
future adult employment.
While the objective of vocational education programs is to
prepare youth for employment careers not requiring a college
degree, many employers do not view vocational education overall
as an effective and viable training system.#28 About 30 percent
of high school students are in vocational education programs.
Some programs are excellent and are turned to by employers as a
key source of young workers. But often, vocational education has
lower status. Many employers believe that the continuous
technological innovations in the workplace have outpaced
educators' efforts and limited resources to remain current in
26The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Pathways
to Success for America's Youth and Young Families, Final Report.
27John H. Bishop, "The Motivation Problem in American High
Schools"; and James E. Rosenbaum, "Empowering Schools and
Teachers: A New Link to Jobs for Non-College Bound," in Investing
in People: A Strategy to Address America's Workforce Crisis,
Background Papers.
28Michael Dertouzos, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT
Commission on Industrial Productivity, Made in America:
Regaining the Productive Edge, 1989, p. 85.
30
B-238820
many fields.#29 Other criticisms include: vocational education
neglects academic skill development, trains for occupations not
in demand, teaches with outmoded equipment, and offers limited
placement assistance.#30
Additionally, the quality of vocational education available to
students in poor school districts is significantly lower than
that available to students in wealthier communities, according to
the National Assessment of Vocational Education.#31 Students in
poor neighborhoods are half as likely to have access to an area
vocational center, and the schools they attend offer fewer
vocational courses and fewer advanced vocational classes.
Relatively few formal school programs link work experience to the
students' school activities and occupational interests. Only an
estimated 3 percent of high school students are enrolled in
formal combined school-work programs, such as cooperative
education.#32 Cooperative education and related programs combine
school and work, through either part-time employment while in
school or alternating periods of school and work. Employers are
expected to observe specified standards and to provide
supervision and instruction.
Haphazard School-to-Work Transition
-----------------------------------
The schools and employer community generally provide little
systematic assistance to help noncollege youth obtain employment.
29"Shaping Tomorrow's Workforce: A Leadership Agenda for the
90's," National Alliance of Business, 1988, p. 15; and U.S.
Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S.
Department of Commerce, A Joint Initiative. "Building A Quality
Workforce," July 1988.
30John H. Bishop, "Vocational Education for At-Risk Youth: How
Can It Be Made More Effective?" Center for Advanced Human
Resource Studies Working Paper #88-11, Cornell University, August
1, 1988; and The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half:
Non-College Youth in America, Interim Report, Commission on Work,
Family and Citizenship, January 1988, p. 42-51.
31Pursuant to section 403 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
Education Act of 1984, the Department of Education established
the National Assessment of Vocational Education to conduct an
independent national assessment of vocational education. The
Assessment issued its final report in July 1989.
32The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Non-
College Youth in America, Interim Report.
31
B-238820
Left to themselves, many young people flounder in the labor
market, remaining jobless or obtaining jobs that do little to
improve their skills for future employment.#33
Our society regards the departing students' progress in the
labor market as the responsibility of the students or their
families. Schools rarely know what jobs youth obtain after
graduation or even if they obtained employment.
Employers provide a major part of American work-force training
both formally and informally, but generally have been reluctant
to train youth to overcome academic deficiencies. However, they
have increasingly established ties with schools to encourage
improved student performance and to offer employment to higher
performing youth.#34 One attempt is the Boston Compact, a
collaborative agreement between Boston's public school system and
business community to meet measurable goals for improving
education and linking such improvements to increased employment
opportunities. The Boston Compact has now been replicated in 12
other cities.
Limited "Second Chance" Programs
--------------------------------
Second chance programs for poorly prepared youth are generally
inadequate. They train less than 10 percent of needy youth, tend
not to devote much attention to literacy skills, and usually
provide only brief job skill training. A variety of programs
have been undertaken, principally the federally funded JTPA, to
aid youth with difficulties in obtaining employment. These
programs are conducted principally through state and local
channels and are directed primarily to low-income youth. JTPA
encompasses three principal programs for youth: training
services for economically disadvantaged youth (Title IIA), the
summer youth employment and training program (Title IIB), and Job
Corps (Title IVB).
JTPA Title IIA programs train about 5 percent of the eligible
low-income youth population. Title IIA programs are required to
target at least 40 percent (about $700 million annually) of their
budget to youth. Between July 1988 and June 1989, Title IIA
33The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America, Interim
Report.
34Business partnerships with local schools have grown to about
84,000 by 1988, according to The Conference Board. Andrew
Ashwell and Frank Caropreso, eds. "Business Leadership: The Third
Wave of Education Reform," The Conference Board, Inc., 1989, p. xiii.
32
B-238820
enrolled about 324,000 youth (ages 14-21). About 87,000, or 27
percent, of these enrollees were school dropouts.
Title IIA programs devote relatively little attention to
literacy skills and provide brief job skill training. About 10
percent of all JTPA youth participants receive remedial
education.#35 Average occupational training is brief (usually
less than 4-1/2 months).#36
JTPA Title IIB provides for a subsidized summer employment and
training program primarily for disadvantaged youth. Some
700,000 youth are provided jobs each summer under the program.
The importance of basic academic skills as a prerequisite for
most employment has led to coupling the youth's work experience
with a basic education component to bolster literacy capability
and combat student "summer learning loss."#37
Although expensive, Job Corps is effective in assisting
individuals with severe educational deficits and other employment
barriers. Job Corps is primarily a residential program for poor
dropout youth; approximately 85 percent of its enrollees are
dropouts. Its dropout participants include about 5 percent of
the pool of eligible low-income dropouts. Administered directly
by the Department of Labor through contracts to governmental,
nonprofit, and private, for-profit organizations, Job Corps
provides intensive, long-term job training and remedial
education, as well as health care, counseling, and job placement
assistance. At an annual cost of $15,000 per participant, Job
Corps enrolls about 70,000 youth a year. Evaluation of the
program has found substantial positive outcomes, including
improvements in educational attainment, gains in employment and
earnings, and declines in welfare dependency, with long-term
benefits exceeding costs.#38
35Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant
Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan.
24, 1990).
36Sar A. Levitan and Frank Gallo, A Second Chance: Training for
Jobs, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1988.
37The administration has proposed a number of amendments to
JTPA, including increased targeting of the hard-to-serve, the
provision of more intensive services, and a separate "youth" title.
38Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Evaluation of the Economic
Impact of the Job Corps Program: Third Follow-up Report,
September 1982.
33
B-238820
Limited Postsecondary Training
------------------------------
Noncollege youth may turn to private sector sources of training
to build necessary job skills, yet each of the major sources of
postsecondary noncollege training has weaknesses. Proprietary
schools serve many youth, but many schools do not provide
effective training. Apprenticeship programs can significantly
upgrade skills, but are limited in the numbers of youth served.
Regardless of the training source, however, training quality is
often uncertain because of a general lack of recognized skill
standards guiding curriculum and desired competency outcomes. In
the absence of competency-based standards and tests for
certifying competency, employers may lack measures of skill
attainment in deciding whether to hire training program
graduates.
Proprietary Schools
-------------------
These schools serve many noncollege youth, with substantial
federal student aid assistance. Proprietary schools offer skill
training in particular occupational groups, such as in
secretarial, health, computer, and repair fields. In 1986, about
763,000 students were enrolled in approximately 3,000 proprietary
schools. Such schools rely heavily on federal college assistance
programs, most notably the Pell program, which extends financial
assistance to proprietary school students.
Much of the proprietary school training is not as effective as
some other types of training for noncollege youth. A 1989 study
found that proprietary school programs improve the stability of
employment but do not significantly upgrade students' skill
levels.#39 In contrast, company training appeared to pay off in
terms of both wages and employment. (See app. II.)
Some operating practices of proprietary schools have caused
concern about the quality of their programs. Our 1984 study
found patterns of misrepresentation to prospective students, lack
of attention to admission and academic progression standards, low
completion rates, and faulty use of federal financial aid
programs.#40 Three-quarters of the students admitted without a
high school degree and half of the students with a high school
degree dropped out of proprietary schools before completing the
39This analysis was done for GAO by Duane E. Leigh, Professor of
Economics at Washington State University.
40Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply With Department of
Education's Pell Grant Program Requirements (GAO/HRD-84-17, Aug.
20, 1984).
34
B-238820
programs in which they had enrolled. Lack of attention to
academic standards in admissions and progress is a factor in the
high dropout rates from these programs. There is limited
government monitoring of proprietary schools' operating
practices, despite findings of weak performance.
Certificates from many proprietary school courses have little
reliability. In the absence of generally accepted skill
standards, and standardized testing and certified competency
levels, employers often rely on applicants' program completion as
a proxy for skill competence.
Apprenticeship Programs
-----------------------
Apprenticeships generally provide high-quality skills training,
but serve few youth. Apprenticeships are formal industry-based
training programs through which apprentices receive formalized
training over several years. Theory taught in classrooms is
combined with practical experience on the job. At the end of the
training period, the apprentice receives certification as a
journeyman, which is recognized throughout the industry.
Formal apprenticeships train only a small proportion of the work
force, primarily in the building trades. Less than 2 percent of
American high school graduates become apprentices. About 300,000
persons are currently enrolled in programs registered by the
Department of Labor. Apprenticeship programs primarily train
adults in their mid-twenties. In 1989, less than 20 percent of
apprentices nationwide were under the age of 23. Competition for
training programs is often quite fierce, allowing employers to
select more skilled and mature workers as apprentices.
Employers and unions have primary responsibility for financing,
developing, and conducting apprenticeship programs. Federal and
state involvement is generally limited to program registration
and apprenticeship promotion. The Department of Labor has
recently reviewed the role that apprenticeship-type training
might play in raising the skill levels of workers, and
recommends expansion of such training. Among the Department's
recommendations are expansion of local school-to-apprenticeship
efforts that are designed to bring students into apprenticeship
programs either in the last years of high school or after high
school graduation.#41 Additionally, the Department proposes a
41School-to-apprenticeship projects began in the late 1970s as
Department of Labor-sponsored demonstration projects.
Departmental support ended in the 1980s, but some local projects
continued. Currently about 1,500 high school students are involved
in such apprenticeship programs nationwide.
35
B-238820
series of demonstrations, including new projects on school-to-
apprenticeships and Job Corps preapprenticeship training.
36
B-238820
CHAPTER 3
---------
FOREIGN STRATEGIES FOR JOB PREPARATION
--------------------------------------
The four countries selected for review--England, the Federal
Republic of Germany, Japan, and Sweden--have national policies
aimed at effective employment preparation of noncollege youth. The
judgment that a well-prepared young work force is vital for
national economic growth and international competitiveness appears
to underlie these policies.
Several significant approaches that are shared by some or all of
the four countries appear relevant to shortcomings in the U.S.
strategy for noncollege youth. The different institutions and
cultural values among the selected countries and those of the
United States caution against an assumption that the practices are
entirely appropriate or easily transferable. The foreign
practices also have problems of their own and are often the subject
of policy debate in their own countries. Still, certain practices
merit consideration, and indeed similar practices have been used in
some U.S. localities and demonstration programs. In brief, the
approaches are:
1. Schools emphasize student effort rather than ability and,
therefore, expect all students to attain the academic
skills necessary to perform effectively in postsecondary
education or the workplace. The schools do not take it as
a matter of course that many students will lag behind.
2. Schools and the employment community play a more active
role in guiding the transition from school to work,
including an orientation to the world of work built into
the school curriculum.
3. Training is accompanied by certification of achievement of
competency on nationally determined skill levels.
4. Governments make extensive investment in remedial
education, training, or job placement for jobless out-of-
school youth.
EMPHASIS ON ALL YOUTH DOING WELL
--------------------------------
Some of the foreign countries emphasize giving all young people an
even start. Notable approaches are to avoid grouping youth by
ability in the early grades, devote special attention to students
with learning difficulties, allocate similar basic resources to
all schools, with an additional supplement for those in poorer
areas, and attract and maintain a relatively well-paid teaching
force.
37
B-238820
Japanese schools demand high achievement, and all students are
expected to achieve. The schools emphasize student effort rather
than ability as a critical element to academic success, with
students not grouped by ability before high school. Student
achievement tends to be viewed as changeable. Each student is
expected to value the achievement of the entire class, thereby
helping assure that classmates do not lag behind. Teachers pay
much attention to slower learners to help them keep up with the
rest of the class. Such attitudes and efforts likely contribute
to a low variation in Japanese students' test scores. Japanese
youth score high in international tests not only because of high
scores by the better performers but also because students in the
lower half of the test group also do relatively well.
The Japanese government tries to ensure uniform standards of
quality in schools by providing them with similar resources (with
somewhat more for vocational schools to meet additional costs of
equipment), by providing uniform teacher salaries across all
elementary schools, and by paying teachers well. Beginning
teachers' salaries are higher than those of beginning engineers.
Moreover, most teachers come from the top 30 percent of their
college graduating class.
As with schools in Japan, Swedish schools emphasize all youth's
performance. Swedish schools do not give grades in primary school,
believing that they can damage children's motivation and self-
esteem. Additional resources are provided to needy schools, such
as those in remote rural areas and those having relatively high
proportions of immigrant youth.
STRUCTURED SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION
------------------------------------
Each country seeks in some structured fashion to smooth the
transition from school to work by giving students occupational
information and guidance while in school, by combining schooling
with work experience and on-the-job training, and by offering job
placement assistance. Employers play a significant role in
youth's transition to work. This includes structured work
experience for secondary students in the four countries,
apprenticeship training for most youth in the Federal Republic of
Germany, and formal school-employer linkages for job placement of
most youth in Japan.
Work Orientation in School Years
--------------------------------
The foreign schools provide orientation to the world of work and
build monitored work experience and occupational guidance into the
secondary school years. In 1983, England introduced the Technical
and Vocational Education Initiative into the secondary school
38
B-238820
curriculum to prepare youth for "better working life by making what
they learn at school, and the way they learn it, more relevant to
the world of work."#42 Objectives of this initiative include
relating the curriculum to the world of work, providing students
with such workplace skills as teamwork and problem solving, and
giving them direct knowledge of working life through work
experience. The government set a goal that by the early 1990s,
every person aged 14-18 in full-time education will have access to
this initiative.
Schools in the Federal Republic of Germany provide orientation to
the world of work, with courses offered in the seventh, eighth, and
ninth grades. This includes 1 to 2 weeks of work experience
arranged by the schools, with schools setting work standards and
employers providing information on students' performance. Also,
classes visit the local employment service office to obtain
occupational and training information. In the ninth grade,
employment service staff provide information at the schools about
local jobs and apprenticeships, and interested youth visit the
local employment service office for individual career counseling.
Sweden provides work orientation early in the school years. From
age 7 through 15, students complete 6 to 10 weeks of work
orientation. In addition, in each of the first and second years
of high school, young people majoring in vocational fields spend
10 percent of their time at a work site. A 1988 program adding a
third year to school includes work experience for 60 percent of
the year.#43
Schools Are Linked to the Labor Market
--------------------------------------
The foreign schools systematically facilitate the students'
transition from school to work. In England, for example, special
teachers work with "careers officers" from the employment service
to give students job information and placement assistance. Also,
England funds school-employer linkages whereby employers offer
employment and training to students who, at age 16 (the completion
of the compulsory school years), achieve certain academic and
attendance and other behavioral goals. England adopted this
"compact" approach from the United States, specifically the Boston
42"Employment for the 1990s" (Her Majesty's Stationery Office Cn
540, Dec. 1988).
43The 3-year program also provides modular and credentialed
occupational courses as well as more theoretical studies to allow
students to enter a university.
39
B-238820
Compact.#44 Unlike in the United States, however, all jobs
obtained through compacts in England have formal provisions for
training, leading to certificates of recognized competency. Forty
compacts are now in operation, targeted on England's inner city
areas.
In the Federal Republic of Germany, the school-employer link is
provided through an extensive apprenticeship system that guides
almost all 15- or 16-year-old non-college-bound youth from school
to employment. Apprenticeships usually are 3 years long. The
youth typically spend one to two days a week studying vocational
and academic subjects, such as mathematics, German, and social
studies, in state-run vocational schools and the remainder of the
week receiving on-the-job training with employers.
The primary purpose of the West German apprenticeship system (also
called the dual system) is to develop a high-quality skilled work
force. Trainees are expected to be taught more than they may
actually use on a specific job. For example, a sales clerk trainee
learns about selling, product quality, and pricing and obtains some
accounting and computer knowledge. The training is the basis for
higher-skill middle management positions should the apprentice want
to progress further. In addition to imparting specific skills, the
apprenticeship system seeks to socialize youth into the world of
work, providing a slow introduction into the labor market. Also,
experts on the dual system note that training is needed to keep up
with technological progress, for example, mechanics apprentices
must now learn electronics.
West Germany's apprenticeships are available in 380 occupational
categories representing over 20,000 occupations. Table 3.1 lists
the leading apprenticeship occupations in 1987.
44William J. Spring, "Youth Unemployment and the Transition from
School to Work: Programs in Boston, Frankfurt, and London," in New
England Economic Review, March/April 1987.
40
B-238820
Table 3.1: West Germany's 10 Leading Training Occupations
By Sex (1987)
Percent of
Trainees apprenticeships
-------- ---------------
Men:
---
Vehicle mechanic 7.7
Electrical fitter 4.8
Machine fitter 4.0
Painter and varnisher 3.2
Joiner 3.1
Wholesale and export clerk 2.8
Gas-fitter and plumber 2.8
Bank clerk 2.7
Industrial clerk 2.5
Baker 2.5
----
Total 36.1
=====
Women:
-----
Hairdresser 8.4
Office clerk 6.8
Sales assistant (stage 1)a 6.8
Sales assistant in foods 6.6
Industrial clerk 5.8
Doctor's receptionist 4.8
Retail sales clerk 4.6
Dentist's receptionist 4.1
Bank clerk 4.0
Wholesale and export clerk 3.0
----
Total 54.9
=====
aStage 1 refers to completion of a 2-year apprenticeship.
Source: West German Federal Ministry of Education and Science,
Basic and Structural Data 1988/89.
Youth in Japan obtain employment almost exclusively through
school-employer linkages. High schools are ranked academically
within each school district, and students take a high school
entrance examination to determine which school they can attend.
Each school has ties with employers who assign a certain number of
jobs to the school for its graduates. More prestigious employers
with better job offers recruit from the higher ranked schools.
Almost all Japanese high school students seeking work are placed in
jobs through their schools, and they start work immediately upon
graduation. In the beginning of each school year, Japanese high
41
B-238820
schools, acting as agents of the public employment service,
nominate and rank their graduating students for each of the job
offers, using grades and "behavior" (such as attendance records) as
their main criteria. The use of grades as a selection criterion
motivates students to do well and helps them realistically assess
their career options. The schools know the employers' expectations
and nominate students whom they think will fulfill them. The
employers then interview and hire all or most of the nominees.
In Sweden, the schools usually manage occupational training.
Students choosing a vocational field are typically trained in
school, not by an employer as in West Germany. Swedish students
also have practical training with an employer. Apprenticeship
skill training is limited to construction fields, where teachers
monitor the youth's activities at the work site.
Many youth find jobs through contacts they have made with
employers during their work experience or through family contacts.
Others are provided placement assistance by school teachers, school
counselors, and special employment service staff who work with
youth up to age 25.
RECOGNIZED SKILL STANDARDS
--------------------------
Some foreign countries seek to maintain quality occupational
training by testing and certification to meet national standards.
Participants who pass competency tests receive nationally
recognized credentials, which employers look to as evidence of
skill levels of potential hires.#45 England's National Council for
Vocational Qualifications works with industry to develop national
skills standards. The standards are expected to guide training
content and to measure competencies attained from vocational
training in schools, training programs such as the Youth Training
Scheme, and company training. Levels of achievement are intended
to establish career progression to serve as a guide and motivator
for youth.
Under West Germany's dual system, committees of government,
employer, and union representatives develop apprenticeship
curricula, examinations, and certification procedures at the
national level. The contents of the training, and its length,
remuneration, and examination requirements, are part of the
contract between the employer and the apprentice. Several
measures seek to assure and check the quality of the apprenticeship
training. Employers must be approved for training capability by
the local Chamber of Handicrafts or Chamber of Industry and
Commerce (self-governing national industrywide boards) before they
are able to hire apprentices. In addition, in-company instructors
45Notwithstanding the advantages of having training standards, there
may be difficulties in their implementation. For example, they may
be costly to apply and difficult to keep up to date.
42
B-238820
are trained and certified through the chamber as qualified to teach
apprentices. Also to assure quality, apprentices must pass
national final examinations. The examinations typically include
written, oral, and practical tests and are administered before a
committee of employer and employee representatives and vocational
instructors. Employers can lose their status as trainers if an
apprentice is determined to have failed the final examination
because of inadequate preparation by the employer.
EXTENSIVE INVESTMENT IN JOBLESS YOUTH
-------------------------------------
The countries generally provide extensive assistance to jobless
youth. The programs vary, but reflect a national policy that youth
who are unable to gain employment should be given further
preparation so that they may become better qualified workers.
England and Sweden guarantee further education, skill training,
and/or placement in a job to most unemployed out-of-school youth.
The programs are generally comprehensive and long-term.
England has two major education and training programs, the Youth
Training Scheme for out-of-school youth ages 16 and 17, and
Employment Training for older youth and adults. These programs
are regarded as advances, but they have encountered operational
problems leading to national debate as to desirable revision.
The Youth Training Scheme guarantees training for every 16- and
17-year-old who is not in full-time education or employment.#46
The program provides 2 years of work experience and on-the-job
training to 16-year-olds, and 1 year to 17-year-olds. It also
provides classroom training, much of which takes place in "further
education colleges."#47 The youth are provided a weekly stipend
while in the program. Since its initiation in 1983, the Youth
Training Scheme has had about 2 million participants. About 70
percent of out-of-school youth aged 16 have enrolled. Three months
after leaving the program (during 1988-89), four-fifths of the
participants were in a job, training, or further education.
Government, employer, and union representatives assert that the
program's skills training needs improvement. Although 38 percent
of program participants and 66 percent of completers achieve
vocational qualifications, the level of qualifications has been
low. Most youth have been qualified at only "level 1," that is,
training for jobs that require minimum responsibility, such as
file clerk and stock clerk. A 1989 report by a Confederation of
British Industry task force suggested a more flexible program in
46The Youth Training Scheme is open to all out-of-school 16- and 17-
year-olds, but the guarantee applies only to those who are
jobless.
47Run by local education authorities, further education colleges
offer a range of courses specifically geared to local labor market
needs.
43
B-238820
which "entitlement to a level of learning would replace
entitlement to two years of training." The task force also
recommended
"immediate moves to ensure that by 1995 all young people
attain...level II or its academic equivalent [and] all young
people should be given an entitlement to structured training,
work experience or education leading to...level III or its
academic equivalent."#48
The Employment Training program, initiated in 1988, offers up to a
year's training for persons aged 18 to 59 who have been unemployed
for at least 6 months. The participants receive classroom
training, on-the-job training, and work experience. They also
receive assistance in finding a permanent job. As of July 1989, 38
percent of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 24.
Among these younger participants are youth who missed out on the
Youth Training Scheme.
Sweden guarantees employment and training services to all jobless
teenagers. Programs vary with the age of the youth. Municipal
authorities are responsible for following up all young persons aged
16 and 17 not in school or working and pursuing an individualized
plan for their education, training, and employment. Once youth are
18, they become the responsibility of the public employment
service, which provides such services as placement in training
programs and jobs.
Programs for 16- and 17-year-old school leavers assist the young
people in going back to school or in obtaining employment. Youth
who are "fed up" with school and who cannot find regular jobs are
offered public or private sector "youth opportunities" employment.
These are temporary jobs, lasting about 6 months, paying less than
the market wage, and subsidized by state grants for about 60
percent of the wage cost. The jobs typically run 4 days a week,
with the 5th day used for education. Young people needing more
assistance than offered by the youth opportunities jobs are
provided education and training in vocational workshops in
community youth centers and also are given guidance in solving
personal problems.
For 18- and 19-year-olds, the local employment service provides an
individual plan of action. This includes job search activities for
7 weeks, with stipends the last 4 weeks if the youth are unable to
find employment. The youth also are counseled on education and
training opportunities. Those who cannot find employment are
48Competency level II, which involves more individual
responsibility than level I, includes skilled operative, word-
processing, and sales clerk positions. Level III requires
competence in a wide range of work activities, many of which are
complex and nonroutine. In some cases, supervisory competence may
be required.
44
B-238820
guaranteed an "induction opportunity," usually a full-time job with
private employers that lasts for 6 months.
Jobless youth aged 20 and older are included in a program for
adults. Persons registered with the local employment service who
are unable to find jobs may be referred to a community center with
vocational workshops, education courses, and social services.
Employment service or community center staff also may refer them to
temporary public jobs. In addition, the employment service may
refer jobless persons to an "AMU" training center.#49 Persons
receive a grant while in AMU training.
49In 1986, the Swedish government established a self-financing
organization, the AMU Group, which sells training services to both
the public and private sectors. AMU provides training to about
80,000 persons each year. It uses a modular training system, and
its training is "results based" (that is, no set time is required
for completion). AMU provides academic and vocational curricula
primarily at the upper secondary level, but also offers university
and remedial subjects.
45
B-238820
CHAPTER 4
---------
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
-------------------------------------
The United States has a worldwide reputation for giving its youth
extensive opportunities to attend college. Its preparation of non-
college-bound youth for employment, however, is inadequate.
Unlike some of its economic competitors, the United States has no
national policy to prepare noncollege youth systematically for the
labor market. The United States falls short in significant
respects in employment preparation of many youth, most notably in
equipping them with necessary literacy skills and providing for
effective transition from school to work.
Based on our review, we conclude that several or all of four
foreign countries share certain approaches that the United States
might consider for improving U.S. education and training. In
fact, similar approaches are being tried in some U.S. localities
and demonstration programs. However, caution should be exercised
in adopting the foreign approaches--their implementation must be
tailored to the United States' social and political
characteristics.
The approaches we see as significant in the foreign countries
appear to be rooted in a national judgment that a well-prepared
young work force is vital for national economic performance and
international competitive ability.
The countries have developed literacy of a relatively high level
for all students by such practices as
-- assuring comparable resources to all schools, with more
for those with needy populations;
-- making teaching a relatively high-status, well-paying
profession; and
-- providing extra attention and help to lagging youth.
The foreign nations customarily provide structured transition from
school to work. They offer students orientation to work,
monitored work experience, apprenticeship training, career
guidance, and direct job placement through the schools.
The roles and relationships of the schools, public employment
agencies, and employers--while differing in each country--tend to
be integrated and clear. Thus, most youth know where to turn, and
relatively few fall between the cracks in the path from school to
work.
For youth who do encounter employment difficulty after leaving
school, the countries' systems seek to reach most of them. They
provide education, training, or jobs. The assistance typically is
intensive and long term.
46
B-238820
These practices in the foreign countries suggest the following
policy directions: U.S. federal, state, and local governments
should strive to ensure that all children attain the academic
skills necessary to perform effectively in postsecondary education
or the workplace. This could include:
-- Expanding preschool and early intervention programs such
as Head Start to reach more needy youth.
-- Expanding compensatory programs such as Chapter 1 through
the school years so that availability of continuing
special support maintains student progress.
-- Providing adequate educational resources for all children
as a means to improve the opportunity for them to achieve
academic skills competency.
U.S. federal, state, and local governments should also consider
developing and promoting more school-employer linkages,
particularly to expand combined education and work
(apprenticeship-type programs) and to assist youth to obtain
suitable entry employment. In addition, they should explore ways
to develop standards and competency certifications that can be
applied to school and industry training programs.
Adopting effective education and training strategies nationwide to
improve national productive capability and international
competitiveness will require strong leadership and an active
federal role. The executive branch is the logical focal point for
national responsibility. The Department of Education, in
combination with the Department of Labor, should take the lead in
helping state and local officials and industry and labor
representatives work more effectively to equip U.S. noncollege
youth to meet the nation's need for well-qualified future workers.
(We did not analyze potential costs or funding sources.)
47
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING
--------------------------
INVESTMENT IN YOUTH AND TRAINING
--------------------------------
This summary paper, prepared by Seymour Brandwein (consultant to
GAO), describes how estimates have been developed of the current
rate of public investment by the United States in education and
training for college youth as compared to noncollege youth, in the
9 years from the end of compulsory education upon age 16 through
age 24. It first outlines the methodology, then presents the basic
data and calculations, and concludes with the resulting estimates.
METHODOLOGY
-----------
The basic elements involved are (1) the youth population, by
levels of education; (2) the four broad types of education and
training; and (3) the current annual public investments
(expenditures) in each type. More specifically:
1. Focus is on the youth population aged 16-24, which totaled
32.9 million in 1988.#50 That population is divided into
college and noncollege youth: Those out of school are
classified by the level of education completed, and it is
assumed that those still in school or college will complete
various levels at the same rate as those who have already
left school. The resulting estimate is that before age 25,
nearly half, 15.8 million, have gone or will go to
college, while 17.1 million will not. A further
distinction is drawn for the college youth, between those
(5.9 million) who graduate from college (4 years'
attendance) and those (9.9 million) who go for 3 years or
less, and for the noncollege youth, between high school
graduates (11.6 million) and high school dropouts (5.5
million).
2. The four types of education and training (and related
employment assistance) covered are: college education (at
4- and 2-year colleges), high school education, "second-
chance" programs basically outside the school system, and
postsecondary noncollege training.
3. Current (or recent) annual public investment (federal,
state, and local government expenditures) are estimated for
youth aged 16-24, by level of education, for each type of
education and training.#51 It is assumed that these
current rates of expenditure were in effect for each year of
50October 1988 Current Population Survey. This is civilian
noninstitutional youth, thus excluding youth in military service
and in prisons.
51Investment by the military services in occupational training
and college education is not included.
48
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
education or training that the youth have had since age 16
and will continue through their age 24.
To come up with the total investment for a college youth as
compared to a noncollege youth, the basic procedure is to apply
the annual per youth expenditure for each type of education and
training to the number of years in the 16- to-24-year age period
that each group of youth (college or noncollege) gets that type of
education and training.
Key assumptions for college youth are that "graduates" get 4 years
of the annual public investment in college education (though some
may get more than 4 years before age 25), and that college
attendees who do not graduate get an average of 2 years of college
investment. All the college graduates and attendees also have 2-
1/2 years of high school education investment (from age 16 through
18-1/2).
For the high school graduates not going to college, we also assume
receipt of 2-1/2 years of high school education investment. In
addition, they receive the average annual investment in second-
chance programs for high school graduates for the number of years
they are out of high school through age 24, generally 6-1/2 years
from average graduation age 18-1/2 through age 24. This period
varies by specific programs: for programs with eligibility only
through age 21, the number of years their per youth investment is
made is 3-1/2 (from age 18- 1/2 through 21). Finally, they receive
the similarly calculated postsecondary noncollege training
investment in high school graduates (average annual expenditure
multiplied by 6-1/2 years from high school graduation through age
24).
For the high school dropouts, the assumption is 1 year of the
annual high school education investment (on the basis of average
dropout age of 17). To that is added the average annual
investment of second-chance programs for dropouts multiplied by
the number of years dropouts are out of school and eligible.
Finally, they receive the average annual investment in
postsecondary noncollege training for dropouts for an assumed 8
years from dropout at age 17 through age 24.
49
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
INVESTMENT IN COLLEGE EDUCATION
-------------------------------
We use an estimate of $3,800 as the public expenditure per year of
college education. This is derived from an estimate of total
public investment of $45.3 billion a year for college education,
divided by an estimated annual enrollment of 12 million students of
all ages in public and private colleges.
The $45.3 billion is developed from the following components: The
revenues of higher education institutions from government
(federal, state, and local) sources were $30.7 billion in 1986,
according to the Department of Education's National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) report on Conditions of American
Education, 1988 (Vol. II, p. 95).
In addition, revenue from student and tuition fees is supported in
part by government financial aid for college students. In the year
1988-89, the cost of federal grant and loan assistance for college
students was approximately $7 billion, with state student aid
assistance appearing to be about another $1 billion. The two
estimates (direct appropriations of $30.7 billion and student aid
of $8 billion) combine to total $38.7 billion.
Added to this is part of indirect governmental support provided to
colleges through grants and contracts for research and other
activities. The NCES estimates total such grant and contract
funding in 1986 at $13.3 billion. We consider half of this
funding, or $6.6 billion, to be an (indirect) investment in higher
education. The $6.6 billion, plus the $38.7 billion for direct
support and student aid, makes the annual expenditure total $45.3
billion, the estimate we use.
As to the number of college students over whom this investment is
spread, NCES estimates (Vol. II, p. 109) total enrollment in 1987
in public and private colleges at 12.5 million. We believe this
total unduly high for our expenditure estimating and
(conservatively) reduce it to 12 million for our estimates. We do
this because the NCES total includes many enrollees with limited
attendance (42 percent are part-time enrollees) and because it
includes enrollees who were in military service and receive
military postservice college education assistance not included in
our estimates.
Our estimate of $3,800 public expenditure per student year of
college education is less than has been estimated by others.
Thus, the Grant Foundation November 1988 report, The Forgotten
Half, indicates (p. 130) about $40 billion in public expenditures
for 9 million students, or some $4,400 a year per student,
appreciably higher than our estimate.
INVESTMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION
-----------------------------------
For each student year of high school education, we used an estimate
of $3,800 public expenditure (coincidentally the same as that for
50
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
college education). NCES's Condition of Education does not present
a specific overall estimate. It provides (Vol. I. p. 92) an
estimate of $4,300 in total expenditures (current expenditures,
capital outlays, and interest on school debt) per pupil in average
daily attendance in 1987 at public elementary and secondary
schools. Extending this public expenditure to cover the 11 percent
of students in private schools, the average public investment per
student year in public and private schools is about $3,800.
Available data do not break down expenditures for elementary
versus high school education. Although average expenditures are
probably greater for a high school than an elementary school
student, we assume equal average expenditures of $3,800 for each.
Approximately the same estimate is indicated by Anthony Carnevale
and Leila Gainer of the American Society for Training and
Development in The Learning Enterprise report prepared for the
Department of Labor. They state that "the nation's public
and private elementary schools currently serve 40 million students
at a cost of $150 billion a year," or about $3,750 per student
year.
INVESTMENT IN SECOND CHANCE PROGRAMS
------------------------------------
Table I.1 presents the data on annual public expenditures for
youth in education, training, and employment programs conducted
essentially outside the school system, commonly called (and labeled
here as) the "second-chance" programs. Unless otherwise indicated
by a footnote, these are appropriations data from GAO's 1989
report, Training Programs: Information on Fiscal Years 1989 and
1990 Appropriations (GAO/HRD-89-71FS).
The table is in four parts, each showing programs for a different
age period (years of age in which youth are eligible). The data
are broken into estimates separately for high school graduates and
high school dropouts. (It is assumed that no enrollees in these
programs have attended college, although some in fact have been
college attendees, so the final estimates overstate a bit the
investment in high school graduates and dropouts while understating
that in college youth.)
51
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Table I.1:
Second-Chance Programs'
Annual Expenditures for Youth
Dollars in millions
Estimated
approps. for Estimated for
Total eligible-age ___high school__
Program approps. youth Grads. Dropouts
------- -------- ------------ ------ --------
Part 1. Programs for youth aged 16-21:
------- -----------------------------
JTPA Title II-A training for
out-of-school youth $1,790a $ 418 $222b $196b
JTPA Job Corps 740 740 150 590
JTPA Summer Youth Employment
Program 710c 430c 345d 85d
State and local youth
conservation and service
corps programs 150e 150e 100e 50e
------ ---- ----
Total $1,738 $817 $921
====== ==== ====
Part 2. Program for in-school youth aged 16-21:
------- --------------------------------------
JTPA Title II-A training for
in-school youth#b $1,790g $ 302g $201 $101g
Part 3. Program for youth aged 22-24:
------- ----------------------------
JTPA Title II-A training $1,790 $ 175b $125i $ 50i
Part 4. Programs for youth aged 16-24:
------- -----------------------------
Vocational Rehabilitation $1,440 $ 120j $ 80j $ 40j
Adult Education (federal) 136 45k 23k 22k
Adult Education (state and
local) 175l 58k 29k 29k
Food Stamp Employment and
Training 116 38k 19k 19k
Welfare Recipient Employment
and Training 130m 65m 33m 33m
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit 210n 125n 83n 42n
Miscellaneous other federal,
state, and local programs N/Ao 100p 75p 25p
------ ---- ----
Total $ 551 $342 $210
====== ==== ====
52
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
aOf total appropriation for JTPA Title II-A, 40 percent ($720
million) is allocated for youth age 16-21; 58 percent of
enrollees are out of school, so 58 percent of allocation is
estimated for such youth.
bBased on estimates of the Department of Labor's Job Training
Quarterly Survey (JTQS) for 1987, 48 percent of age 16-21
enrollees out of school are dropouts; the remainder are
considered high school graduates (including 10 percent who had
attended college). Assumes average expenditure is the same for
both graduates and dropouts.
cProgram is for age 14 through 21: 39 percent of enrollees are
age 14-15, so expenditure for ages 16-21 is estimated at 61
percent of total appropriation.
dMost enrollees age 16-21 are still students. The proportion of
appropriations estimated for dropouts has been calculated by
adding the number of enrollees who have already dropped out and
the number (17 percent) who it is estimated will drop out, and
applying the resulting percentage of total enrollment to
appropriations, with the remaining percentage assigned here to
high school graduates.
eEstimate of appropriations is from Grant Foundation November
1988 report, The Forgotten Half, p. 132. Arbitrarily assumes
two-thirds of enrollees are high school graduates and one-third
are dropouts.
fIncludes some youth age 14-15, but all expenditures assigned
here to ages 16-21.
gOf total appropriation for JTPA Title II-A, 40 percent ($720
million) is allocated for youth age 16-21; 42 percent of
allocation is estimated for such youth. Assumes arbitrarily
that two-thirds of in-school enrollees become graduates and one-
third become dropouts.
hPortion of over-age-21 funding estimated as allocated to
enrollees age 22 through 24. Based on data from JTQS indicating
proportion of enrollees age 22 or older who are 22 to 24 and
assuming average Title II-A expenditures for each enrollee in
this age group.
iBased on JTQS survey estimates that 27 percent of enrollees age
22 or older are high school dropouts, the remainder are
considered high school graduates (including 23 percent who had
attended college). Assumes average expenditure is the same for
both graduates and dropouts.
53
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
jGAO report on training programs (p. 21) estimates 15 percent of
appropriation is for training. Allowing for job-finding
assistance and other employment-related aid, estimate here is
arbitrarily raised to 25 percent, so that $360 million may be for
education, training, and employment. Of that, assume one-third
is for youth, resulting in $120 million estimate. Assumes two-
thirds is for high school graduates and one-third for dropouts.
kAssumes one-third of appropriation is for youth, with half of
that for high school graduates and half for dropouts.
lEstimate from Sar Levitan and Frank Gallo, Uncle Sam's Helping
Hand: Education, Training, and Employing the Disadvantaged, p.
10.
mCombination of WIN Program and new JOBS Program. Assumes half
of appropriation goes for youth, with half of that for high
school graduates and half for dropouts.
nEstimated foregone tax revenue (rather than appropriations).
From Sar Levitan and Frank Gallo. "The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit:
An Uncertain and Unfinished Experiment," Labor Law Journal, Oct.
1987.
oNot applicable.
pArbitrary estimate for various other relatively limited
assistance programs (Employment Service for example) and small or
pilot federal, state, and local government-financed programs.
Assumes three-fourths for high school graduates and one-fourth
for dropouts.
The Table I.1 data are the bases for calculation of the
estimates of average expenditure of the second-chance programs
per youth during ages 16 through 24.
For high school graduates, the average total expenditure is
estimated as $510 per graduate not going on to college. The
calculations are:
1. Part 1 programs' total annual appropriations of $817
million for graduates divided by the 11.6 million high
school graduates equals $70 average expenditures per
graduate per year times 3.5 years (from graduation age 18-
1/2 through age 21) equals $245 total average expenditure
per graduate.
2. The Part 2 in-school program appropriation of $201
million divided by the 11.6 million graduate equals $17 per
54
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
graduate times 2-1/2 years in school (at ages 16 through 18-
1/2) equals $43 total per graduate.
3. Part 3 programs' appropriation of $125 million divided by
the 11.6 million graduates equals $11 a year per graduate
times 3 years (from age 22 through 24) equals $33 total per
graduate.
4. Part 4 programs' appropriations of $342 million divided
by the 11.6 million graduates equals $29 a year per graduate
times 6-1/2 years from graduation (at age 18-1/2 through age
24) equals $189 total per graduate.
Combining the total average expenditures per graduate of each of
these four sets of programs ($245, $43, $33, and $189) yields the
estimated total investment of $510 in second-chance programs for
a high school graduate.
For high school dropouts, the per youth total expenditure in
second-chance programs is $1,180, the rounded addition of the
totals calculated below:
1. Part 1 program total annual appropriations of $921
million directed to dropouts divided by the 5.5 million
dropouts equals $167 average per dropout per year times 5
years (from dropout age 17 through age 21) equals $835 total
per dropout.
2. The Part 2 program appropriation of $101 million divided
by 5.5 million dropouts equals $18 per dropout per year
times 1 year in school (from age 16 to dropout age 17)
equals $18.
3. The Part 3 program appropriation of $50 million divided
by 5.5 million dropouts equals $9 times 3 years (from age 22
through 24) equals $27.
4. Part 4 program appropriations of $210 million divided by
5.5 million dropouts equals $38 times 8 years (from dropout
at age 17 through age 24) equals $304.
INVESTMENT IN POSTSECONDARY
---------------------------
NONCOLLEGE TRAINING
-------------------
Appreciable portions of federal financial assistance to students
for higher education are used to attend noncollege occupational
training schools. Table I.2 presents estimates of how much of
the three principal federal assistance programs are going to
youth to attend proprietary (noncollege) schools, with a
55
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
breakdown into the estimated shares going to high school
graduates and to dropouts. Those proprietary schools account for
about 75 percent of postsecondary noncollege training enrollment.
The data do not include financing for public vocational
institutes (sometimes attached to colleges), so the data totals
here understate the extent of investment in postsecondary
noncollege training.
Table I.2:
Postsecondary Noncollege Training:
Public Annual Expenditure for Youth Age 16-24
Dollars in millions
Estimated
approps. Extimated Estimated for#b
Total proprietary for youth ___high school___
Program approps. schools 16-24#a Grads. Dropouts
------- -------- ----------- --------- ------ --------
Pell grants for higher
education#c $4,484 $1,121c $ 841 $ 682 $170
Higher education insured
loans#d 3,554 1,280d 960 768 192
Supplemental educational
opportunity grants#e 438 57e 43 34 9
------ ------ ------ ------ ----
Totals $8,476 $2,458 $1,844 $1,484 $371
======= ======= ======= ======= =====
a)Of appropriations estimated as going to proprietary school students,
the portion going to youth age 16-24 is estimated arbitrarily at 75
percent.
b)Assumes 80 percent for high school graduates, 20 percent for
dropouts.
c)GAO report on training programs (p. 22) estimates 25 percent used for
proprietary noncollege school students.
d)GAO report on training programs (p. 23) estimates 36 percent used for
proprietary noncollege school students.
e)GAO report on training programs (p. 23) estimates 13 percent used for
proprietary noncollege school students.
The table I.2 data are the bases for the estimates of the
average investment in postsecondary noncollege training for
youth, as calculated below.
For high school graduates, the average total expenditure per
56
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
youth for such training in proprietary schools through age 24 by
those major federal assistance programs is $830: the annual
appropriations of $1,484 going to high school graduates divided
by the 11.6 million graduates under age 25 equals $128 average a
year per graduate times 6-1/2 years (from graduation age 18-1/2
through age 24) equals $830.
For high school dropouts, the average total expenditure by
programs per dropout is $540: annual appropriations of $371
million divided by the 5.5 million youth dropouts equals over $67
a year per dropout times 8 years from dropout age 17 through age
24 equals $540.
Estimates of Public Investment
------------------------------
Table III presents the estimates, from the preceding data and
calculations, of the U.S. public investment in education and
training for youth during ages 16 through 24, distinguishing
between college and noncollege youth. The estimates should be
recognized as approximate, for they would shift a bit with
changes in assumptions or further refining, but they can serve as
sound indicators of orders of magnitude of current U.S. public
investment practice.
57
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Table I.3:
Estimated U.S. Public Investment
in Youth Education and Training
During 9 Years From Age 16 Through 24
by Level of Education
Average investment per youth
Level of education ----------------------------
and investment component Total By component
------------------------ ----- ------------
All college youth $19,940
College graduate (4 years) 24,700
College education, 4 yrs. x $3,800 a yr. $15,200
High school education, 2-1/2 yrs. x $3,800 a yr. 9,500
College attendee (1 to 3 years) 17,100
College education, 2 yrs. x $3,800 a yr. 7,600
High school education, 2-1/2 yrs. x $3,800 a yr. 9,500
All noncollege youth $9,130
High school graduate not attending college 10,840
High school education, 2-1/2 yrs. x $3,800 a yr. 9,500
Second-chance programs 510
Postsecondary noncollege training 830
Dropout from high school 5,520
High school education, 1 yr. x $3,800 a yr. 3,800
Second-chance programs 1,180
Postsecondary noncollege training 540
58
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
TRAINING FOR NON-COLLEGE-BOUND YOUTH
------------------------------------
We examined non-college-bound youth's participation in
postsecondary occupational training programs and the impact of such
training on employment and earnings. This analysis is based
primarily on a paper prepared for GAO by Duane Leigh, Professor of
Economics, Washington State University.#52 Leigh examined youth's
participation in training provided by proprietary schools, by
apprenticeship programs, and formally by companies. He analyzed
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth#53 to determine
(1) how likely individuals are to receive various types of training
and (2) what impact such training had on wages and stability of
employment.
PARTICIPATION IN POSTSCHOOL TRAINING PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------
Leigh examined how participation in occupational training varied by
ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, and type of training
provider. This analysis showed that:
-- There is a strong relationship between the amount of formal
schooling obtained and the likelihood of receiving
postschool training. High school graduation was found to
significantly increase the likelihood of participating in a
proprietary school program, company, or apprenticeship
training. But college attendance and graduation further
increase the likelihood of receiving company training.
-- Women are less likely than men to gain access to
apprenticeship programs and are more likely to participate
in proprietary school training programs. Women and men
appeared to be equally likely to participate in company
training.
-- All else constant, blacks are somewhat less likely than
whites to participate in apprenticeship programs, but about
as likely to participate in proprietary school and company
training.
52Duane Leigh, What Kinds of Training "Work" for Noncollege Bound
Youth? October 1989. Paper prepared for GAO.
53The survey has collected data annually since 1979, when
respondents were 14 to 21 years of age. It surveys a nationally
representative sample of over 12,000 males and females. The
sample Leigh used contains information from 1979 through 1987.
59
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
-- With one exception, there seems to be no sizable difference
between Hispanics and whites in the likelihood of
participation in any of the three postschool training
categories. Hispanic females are less likely to
participate in proprietary school programs than are white
women.
A related GAO analysis, using data from the 1984 Current
Population Survey,#54 found of all the respondents aged 16 to 24,
12 percent had received private or public occupational training
during 1982-84. Of these, 7 percent were high school dropouts, and
3 percent received Aid to Families With Dependent Children welfare
benefits.
About 50 percent of those receiving training received classroom
skills training. About 30 percent received on-the-job training.
Fifty percent of the respondents receiving training had it paid for
by employers, and about 30 percent paid for the training
themselves.
IMPACT ON WAGES AND EARNINGS
----------------------------
Leigh also examined what impact training had on wages and earnings
and whether the impact varied by ethnicity or type of training
received. These findings of the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth analysis showed that:
-- Company programs and apprenticeship training have positive
and significant impacts on both wages and earnings.
Apprenticeship programs have nearly twice the impact of
company training.
-- The evidence for proprietary schooling is mixed.
Participation in proprietary school programs has a positive
impact on annual earnings, but no impact on wage rates.
This suggests that proprietary schooling increases time
employed, but does not significantly upgrade skills.
-- Only company training is as significant for blacks as it is
for whites in terms of annual earnings and wage rates.
54This GAO analysis was done using matched data files of the
January 1984 supplement to the Current Population Survey and the
March 1984 Current Population Survey. The January 1984 survey
included supplementary questions on training. This survey asked
respondents about classroom training, classroom basic education,
on-the-job training, and job search; length of training; and source
of training funds.
60
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
Proprietary schooling appears to have a positive and
significant impact for whites, but no positive impact for
blacks and Hispanics.
61
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
---------------------------------
HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
------------------------------------------
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Assistant Director, (202) 523-8701
Ellen B. Sehgal, Senior Evaluator
Gloria E. Taylor, Evaluator
Holly A. Van Houten, Evaluator
Hannah F. Fein, Writing Specialist
Joyce W. Smith, Secretary
EUROPEAN OFFICE
---------------
Becky Kithas, Evaluator
FAR EAST OFFICE
---------------
Richard Meeks, Evaluator
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY
------------
UNITED STATES
-------------
Altbach, Philip G. "Needed: An International Perspective." Phi
Delta Kappan, Nov. 1989.
Anderson, Bernard E., and Isabel Sawhill, eds. Youth Employment
and Public Policy. The American Assembly, Columbia University,
1980.
Ashwell, Andrew and Frank Caropreso, eds. "Business Leadership: The
Third Wave of Education Reform," The Conference Board, Inc., 1989.
Banerjee, Neela. Unfair at Any Price: Welfare Recipients at New
York Proprietary Schools. Interface Development Project, 1989.
Berlin, Gordon, and Andrew Sum. "Toward a More Perfect Union:
Basic Skills, Poor Families and Our Economic Future," Occasional
Paper 3, Ford Foundation Project on Social Welfare and the American
Future, 1988.
Berreuta-Clement, John R., and others. Changed Lives: The Effects
of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 19.
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 1984.
Berryman, Sue E. "The Economy and American High Schools: What
Should We Teach? When? How? To Whom?" Paper prepared for Panel,
"Making High School Work for Non-College Youth," Tenth Annual
Research Conference, Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management, October 27-29, 1988.
Bishop, John H. "Incentives for Learning: Why American High
School Students Compare So Poorly to Their Counterparts Overseas,"
in Investing in People: A Strategy to Address America's Workforce
Crisis, Background Papers, Vol. 1. Commission on Workforce Quality
and Labor Market Efficiency, U.S. Department of Labor, 1989.
-----. "The Motivation Problem in American High Schools." Center
for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working Paper #88-13, Cornell
University. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual Research
Conference, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management,
October 28, 1988.
-----. "The Productivity Consequences of What Is Learned in High
School." Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working Paper
#88-18. Cornell University, June 20, 1989.
63
-----. "Vocational Education for At-Risk Youth: How Can It Be
Made More Effective?" Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies
Working Paper #88-11. Cornell University, August 1, 1988.
Prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education, U.S.
Department of Education.
Bitney, JoAnn P. "Leave None Behind--Youth-at-Risk." National
Commission for Employment Policy, Vol. 1, No. 8, September 1987.
The Business Roundtable Ad Hoc Committee on Education. The Role of
Business in Education Reform: Blueprint for Action, April 1988.
Carnevale, Anthony P., and Leila J. Gainer. The Learning
Enterprise. The American Society for Training and Development,
1988.
Carnevale, Anthony P., Leila J. Gainer, and Ann S. Meltzer.
Workplace Basics: The Skills Employers Want. The American Society
for Training and Development, 1989.
Children's Defense Fund. A Call for Action to Make Our Nation Safe
for Children: A Briefing Book on the Status of American Children
in 1988, 1988.
Commission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency.
Investing in People: A Strategy to Address America's Workforce
Crisis. U.S. Department of Labor, 1989.
Committee for Economic Development. CED and Education: National
Impact and Next Steps, A CED Symposium, 1988.
-----. Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the
Educationally Disadvantaged, 1987.
-----. "Investing in Our Children, Business and the Public
Schools," A Statement by the Research and Policy Committee, 1985.
Dertouzos, Michael, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT
Commission on Industrial Productivity. Made In America: Regaining
the Productive Edge. The MIT Press, 1989.
Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper, Shortchanging Education:
How U.S. Spending on Grades K-12 Lags Behind Other Industrial
Nations, 1990.
Evans, Angela. "Education: Federal Concerns," Issue Brief.
Congressional Research Service, Updated May 11, 1989.
64
Fullerton, Howard, Jr. "New Labor Force Projections, Spanning 1988
to 2000." Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 112, No. 11 (Nov. 1989).
Glover, Robert. Apprenticeship Lessons From Abroad, Information
Series No. 305. The National Center for Research in Vocational
Education, 1985.
-----. Integrating Work, Apprenticeships, and School for Youths at
Risk, Unpublished paper, Center for the Study of Human Resources,
Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin,
Oct. 1988.
Goodwin, David. Postsecondary Vocational Education, National
Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. IV. U.S.
Department of Education, August 1989.
Hayward, Becky Jon, and John G. Wirt. Handicapped and
Disadvantaged Students: Access to Quality Vocational Education,
National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. V.
U.S. Department of Education, August 1989.
Hodgkinson, Harold L. All One System: Demographics of Education,
Kindergarten Through Graduate School. The Institute for
Educational Leadership, Inc., 1985.
-----. The Same Client: The Demographics of Education and Service
Delivery Systems. The Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc.,
1989.
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement. The Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing U.S. School
Mathematics From an International Perspective. Stipes Publishing
Company, 1987.
Johnston, William, and Arnold Packer. Workforce 2000: Work and
Workers for the Twenty-first Century. Hudson Institute, June 1987.
J.R. Reingold and Associates, Inc. Current Federal Policies and
Programs for Youth. The William T. Grant Foundation, Commission on
Work, Family and Citizenship, June 1987.
Kagan, Sharon L. "Early Care and Education: Tackling the Tough
Issues." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 70, No. 6 (Feb. 1989).
Kennedy, Mary M., Richard K. Jung, and Martin E. Orland. Poverty,
Achievement and the Distribution of Compensatory Education
Services, An Interim Report from the National Assessment of Chapter
1. U.S. Department of Education, January 1986.
Kirsch, Irwin, and Ann Jungeblut. Literacy: Profiles of America's
Young Adults. National Assessment of Educational Progress,
Educational Testing Service, 1986.
65
Kutscher, Ronald. "Projections Summary and Emerging Issues."
Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 112, No. 11 (Nov. 1989).
Lapointe, Archie, Nancy Mead, and Gary Phillips. A World of
Differences: An International Assessment of Mathematics and
Science. Educational Testing Service, 1989.
Levitan, Sar A., and Frank Gallo. A Second Chance: Training for
Jobs. W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1988.
Lynton, Ernest A. "A New Pathway From School to Work." New
England Resource Center for Higher Education, University of
Massachusetts at Boston, Feb. 1989.
Markey, James P. "The Labor Market Problems of Today's High School
Dropouts." Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 111, No. 6 (June 1988).
Marshall, Ray. "The JTPA and National Employment and Training
Policies." Statement before the Committee on Education and Labor,
September 29, 1988.
-----. "A New Labor Market Agenda," In Workforce Policies for the
1990s. Paper Presented to an Economic Policy Institute Seminar on
Labor Market Policy, April 29, 1988.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Evaluation of the Economic Impact
of the Job Corps Program: Third Follow-up Report, September 1982.
Moy, Joyanna. "Unemployment and Other Job Indicators in 10
Nations." Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 111, No. 4 (Apr. 1988).
National Alliance of Business. "The Fourth R: Workforce
Readiness," A Guide to Business-Education Partnerships, Nov. 1987.
National Alliance of Business. Shaping Tomorrow's Workforce: A
Leadership Agenda for the 90's, 1988.
Parnell, Dale. The Neglected Majority. Community College Press,
1985.
Quality Education for Minorities Project, Education That Works:
An Action Plan for the Education of Minorities. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Jan. 1990.
66
Rredd, Kenneth, and Wayne Riddle. Comparative Education:
Statistics on Education in the United States and Selected Foreign
Nations. Congressional Research Service, November 14, 1988.
Rees, Albert. "An Essay on Youth Joblessness." Journal of
Economic Literature, Vol. XXIV (June 1986).
Romero, Carol Jusenius. Past Is Prologue: Educational
Deficiencies and the Youth Labor Market Problem. National
Commission for Employment Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3, April 1987.
Rosenbaum, James E. "Empowering Schools and Teachers: A New Link
to Jobs for Non-College Bound," in Investing in People: A Strategy
to Address America's Workforce Crisis, Background Papers, Vol. 1.
Commission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency, U.S.
Department of Labor, 1989.
Rumberger, Russell, and Henry Levin. "Schooling for the Modern
Workplace," in Investing in People: A Strategy to Address
America's Workforce Crisis, Background Papers, Vol. 1. Commission
on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency, U.S. Department
of Labor, 1989.
Silvestri, George T., and John Lukasiewicz. "Projections of
Occupational Employment, 1988-2000." Monthly Labor Review, Vol.
112, No. 11 (Nov. 1989).
Sklar, Morton H. In-School Employment and Training Programs for
Vocationally At-Risk Youth in New York State, A Briefing Paper for
Policymakers. Center for Public Advocacy Research, Inc., April
1988.
Spar, Karen. "Job Training Partnership Act: Pending Legislation
and Budget Issues," Issue Brief. Congressional Research Service,
Updated Dec. 1, 1989.
Spring, William J. "A Public/Private Careers Service: Building a
Network of Opportunity for the Majority of Our Young People," in
School Success for Students at Risk. Harcourt, Brace, and
Jovanovich, 1988.
State of New York Job Training Partnership Council. "A Statement of
Policy on Youth Employment Investment in New York State," 1988.
United Nations. Department of International Economic and Social
Affairs, Statistical Office. 1986 Demographic Yearbook, 1988.
U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office. Educational
Achievement: Explanations and Implications of Recent Trends,
August 1987.
67
U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee. The Education Deficit,
A Report Summarizing the Hearings on "Competitiveness and the
Quality of the American Workforce," Dec. 14, 1988.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
Statistics. Dropout Rates in the United States: 1988, Analysis
Report, September 1989.
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration.
Work-Based Learning: Training America's Workers, 1989.
U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S.
Department of Commerce, A Joint Initiative. Building a Quality
Workforce, July 1988.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Effective Schools Programs: Their
Extent and Characteristics, GAO/HRD-89-132BR, Sept. 13, 1989.
-----. Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for
Participants With Differing Needs, GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989.
-----. Job Training Partnership Act: Summer Youth Programs
Increase Emphasis on Education, GAO/HRD-87-101, June 30, 1987.
-----. Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant
Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes, GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan. 24,
1990.
-----. Labor Market Problems of Teenagers Result Largely From
Doing Poorly in School, GAO/PAD-82-06, March 29, 1982.
-----. Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply With Department of
Education's Pell Grant Program Requirements, GAO/HRD-84-17, Aug.
20, 1984.
-----. School Dropouts: Survey of Local Programs, GAO/HRD-87-108,
July 20, 1987.
-----. School Dropouts: The Extent and Nature of the Problem,
GAO/HRD-86-106BR, June 23, 1986.
-----. Training Programs: Information on Fiscal Years 1989 and
1990 Appropriations, GAO/HRD-89-71FS, April 14, 1989.
-----. Vocational Education: Opportunity to Prepare for the
Future, GAO/HRD-89-55, May 10, 1989.
Wetzel, James. American Youth: A Statistical Snapshot. The
William T. Grant Foundation, June 1987.
Whittaker, William. Apprenticeship Training in America: The
68
Fitzgerald Act (1937-1987). Congressional Research Service,
November 16, 1987.
The William T. Grant Foundation. The Forgotten Half: Non-College
Youth in America, Interim Report. Commission on Work, Family and
Citizenship, January 1988.
-----. The Forgotten Half: Pathways to Success for America's
Youth and Young Families, Final Report. Commission on Work, Family
and Citizenship, November 1988.
FOREIGN
-------
American Embassy, Bonn. "Labor Trends in the Federal Republic of
Germany, 1987." Foreign Labor Trends, 89-6. United States
Department of Labor. Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1987.
American Embassy, London. "Labor Trends in the United Kingdom,
1987." Foreign Labor Trends, 89-4. United States Department of
Labor. Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1987.
American Embassy, Stockholm. "Labor Trends in Sweden, 1987."
Foreign Labor Trends, 889-21. United States Department of Labor.
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1988.
Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft. Vocational Training--Investment for
the Future, The Dual Training System in the Federal Republic of
Germany, 1983.
Commission of the European Communities. United Kingdom:
Institutions, Procedures and Measures, 1988.
Confederation of British Industry. Towards A Skills Revolution--A
Youth Charter, Interim Report. Vocational Education and Training
Task Force, July 1989.
Employment for the 1990s. (Her Majesty's Stationary Office Cn 540,
Dec. 1988.)
Evans, Norman. "England: Strategies for Preparing Youth for the
Labor Market" (Draft paper prepared for the U.S. General Accounting
Office, May 8, 1989.)
The Federal Minister of Education and Science. Vocational
Training Act, 1969. Last amended by the Vocational Training
Promotion Act of December 23, 1981. Bildung und Wissenschaft, Nov.
1984.
Federal Ministry of Education and Science. Basic and Structural
Data 1988/89, 1988.
69
Ginsburg, Helen. Full Employment and Public Policy: The United
States and Sweden. Lexington Books, 1983.
Glover, Robert W. "Youth Employment, Education and Training in the
Federal Republic of Germany" (Draft paper prepared for the U.S.
General Accounting Office, August 1989.)
Gordon, Margaret S., and Martin Trow. Youth Education and
Unemployment Problems, An International Perspective. A Study
prepared for the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher
Education, 1979.
Ishikawa, Toshio. Vocational Training. Japanese Industrial
Relations Series. The Japan Institute of Labour, 1987.
Jangenas, Bo. The Swedish Approach to Labor Market Policy. The
Swedish Institute, 1985.
Jonzon, Bjorn, and Lois Recascino Wise. "Getting Young People to
Work: An Evaluation of Swedish Youth Employment Policy."
International Labour Review, Vol. 128, No. 3 (1989).
Kato, Hidetoshi. Education and Youth Employment in Japan. A study
prepared for the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher
Education, 1978.
Krekeler, Norbert. Learning for the Working World--Vocational
Training in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bildung und
Wissenschaft, 1986.
Maclure, Stuart. Education and Youth Employment in Great Britain.
A Study prepared for the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in
Higher Education, 1979.
Marshall, Ray. "Youth Employment, Education, and Training in
Sweden" (Draft paper prepared for the U.S. General Accounting
Office, June 1989.)
Ministry of Labour, Sweden. "The Labour Market and Labour Market
Policy in Sweden," A discussion paper for the 1990s, 1988.
National Labour Market Board. Young Persons and Employment.
Swedish Labour Market Policy, 1987.
Nothdurft, William E. Schoolworks: Reinventing Public Schools to
Create the Workforce of the Future, Innovations in Education and
Job Training from Sweden, West Germany, France, Great Britain and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The German Marshall Fund of the United
States, 1989.
70
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD
Economic Outlook, December 1988.
-----. OECD Employment Outlook, September 1988.
-----. OECD Employment Outlook, September 1987.
-----. OECD Employment Outlook, September 1986.
-----. OECD Surveys: United Kingdom, 1988.
-----. The Nature of Youth Unemployment, An Analysis for Policy-
Makers, 1984.
Rehn, Gosta, and K. Helveg Petersen. Education and Youth
Employment in Sweden and Denmark. A study prepared for the
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1981.
Reubens, Beatrice G. Bridges to Work: International Comparisons
of Transition Services. Conservation of Human Resources Series; 3.
Landmark Studies, 1977.
Reubens, Beatrice G. "A Comparative View of High School Education
and Workforce Needs for a Competitive Economy." Prepared for a
Conference at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell
University, September 1987.
Reubens, Beatrice G., John A.C. Harrisson, and Kalman Rupp. The
Youth Labor Force, 1945-1995: A Cross-National Analysis.
Conservation of Human Resources Series; 13. Landmark Studies,
1981.
Riddle, Wayne. "Public Secondary Education Systems in England,
France, Japan, the Soviet Union, the United States, and West
Germany: A Comparative Analysis." Congressional Research Service,
Dec. 1984.
Romer, Karl, Ulrich K. Dreikandt, and Claudia Wullenkord, eds.
Facts About Germany: The Federal Republic of Germany.
Verlagsgruppe Bertelsman GmbH, 1988.
Rosenbaum, James E. "High School Education and the Work-Entry
Process in Japan" (Draft paper prepared for the U.S. General
Accounting Office, May 15, 1989.)
Spring, William J. "Youth Unemployment and the Transition from
School to Work: Programs in Boston, Frankfurt, and London." New
England Economic Review, March/April 1987.
United States Department of State. Bureau of Public Affairs.
"Background Notes: Japan," Feb. 1989.
71
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
--------------------
Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant Characteristics,
Services, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan. 24, 1990).
Effective Schools Programs: Their Extent and Characteristics
(GAO/HRD-89-132BR, Sept. 13, 1989).
Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for
Participants With Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989).
Vocational Education: Opportunity to Prepare for the Future
(GAO/HRD-89-55, May 10, 1989).
Training Programs: Information on Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990
Appropriations (GAO/HRD-89-71FS, Apr. 14, 1989).
School Dropouts: Survey of Local Programs (GAO/HRD-87-108, July
20, 1987).
Job Training Partnership Act: Summer Youth Programs Increase
Emphasis on Education (GAO/HRD-87-101, June 30, 1987).
School Dropouts: The Extent and Nature of the Problem (GAO/HRD-86-
106BR, June 23, 1986).
Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply With Department of
Education's Pell Grant Program Requirements GAO/HRD-84-17, Aug. 20,
1984).
Labor Market Problems of Teenagers Result Largely From Doing Poorly
in School (GAO/PAD-82-06, Mar. 29, 1982).
(205117)
72
