Linked Data Explorer
School-to-work implementation progress the state perspective in early 1996
One-hour telephone discussions with state school-to-work (STW) directors provided information on STW state governance, partnership formation and funding, and implementation progress in 27 states. The most obvious difference in structures at the state level for implementing STW was whether STW responsibilities were assigned to a governing entity with a broader policy mandate or with a narrower function relating specifically to STW matters. States created a single-tier system of local STW partnerships or a two-tier system of regional and local partnerships. The primary purpose of regional bodies was to provide technical assistance to local partnerships. All 27 states received federal development and implementation grants. The most common uses of development grant funds were for forming substate partnerships, developing a state plan and preparing an application for an implementation grant, and developing strategies for improving public awareness of STW concepts. Conformity to federal legislative requirements and encouragement of local innovation appeared to be priorities in STW development, influencing the success of implementation. Successes in building state-level cooperation, promoting of STW concepts among key players, and creating materials were identified. Obstacles included the following: lack of understanding of what STW means among parent and students, school staff, and some state agency staff and issues limiting employer involvement (employer liability, child labor laws, and lack of financial incentives). (YLB) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show.
- "One-hour telephone discussions with state school-to-work (STW) directors provided information on STW state governance, partnership formation and funding, and implementation progress in 27 states. The most obvious difference in structures at the state level for implementing STW was whether STW responsibilities were assigned to a governing entity with a broader policy mandate or with a narrower function relating specifically to STW matters. States created a single-tier system of local STW partnerships or a two-tier system of regional and local partnerships. The primary purpose of regional bodies was to provide technical assistance to local partnerships. All 27 states received federal development and implementation grants. The most common uses of development grant funds were for forming substate partnerships, developing a state plan and preparing an application for an implementation grant, and developing strategies for improving public awareness of STW concepts. Conformity to federal legislative requirements and encouragement of local innovation appeared to be priorities in STW development, influencing the success of implementation. Successes in building state-level cooperation, promoting of STW concepts among key players, and creating materials were identified. Obstacles included the following: lack of understanding of what STW means among parent and students, school staff, and some state agency staff and issues limiting employer involvement (employer liability, child labor laws, and lack of financial incentives). (YLB) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show."@en
- "School-to-work implementation progress the state perspective in early 1996"@en