oversight

Training Strategies: Preparing Noncollege Youth for Employment in the U.S. and Foreign Countries

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-05-11.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                        ---”   -.--~-
    May 1!HO
I                              TRAINING
41                             STRATEGIES
                               Preparing Noncollege
                               Youth for Employment
                               in the U.S. and Foreign
                               Countries




                                                     -
    GAO/H ICI)-!WEIEI
Comptroller General
of the United States

B-238820

May 11,199O

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
Executive Summq


                       The United States is renowned worldwide for its college and university
Purpose                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. edu-
                       cation 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 Commit-
                       tee to ask GAO to compare how the United States and competitor coun-
                       tries prepare noncollege youth for employment. Specifically, GAO was
                       asked to

                   . review U.S. education and training strategies and identify likely weak-
                     nesses and
                   l examine selected countries’ strategies for preparing noncollege youth
                     for employment.


                       Experts are concerned that U.S. international competitiveness is being
Background             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.

                       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 US. and foreign
                       strategies, and visited the foreign countries to meet with knowledgeable
                       persons and view the education and training systems firsthand. GAO cau-
                       tions 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.


                       Insufficient attention is devoted to preparing U.S. noncollege youth for
Results in Brief       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-


                       Page 2                            GAO/HRD99438   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                               Executive   Summary




                               level positions-6.6 million dropouts and 3.8 million high school gradu-
                               ates who lack high school competency (see pp. 23 and 24-26).

                               The four competitor nations have national policies that emphasize pre-
                               paring 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:

                           i Foreign countries expect &ll Studgints to rio ~~11in school, pa~%GlWly in
                             the early school years. SomeU.S. schools, confronted with dii’ficult
                             social ills, often accept that many will lag behind (see pp. 25-27 and 33-
                               34).
                           l Foreign schools and the employment community guide students’ transi-
                             tion 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 (see pp. 27-29 and 34-38).
                           9 Competitor nations establish competency-based national training stan-
                             dards that they use to certify skill competency. The common U.S. prac-
                             tice is to certify only program completion (see pp. 3 1,32 and 38-39).
                           . 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 (see
                             pp. 29-30 and 39-41).



GAO's Analysis

U.S. Shortchanges              The foreign countries tend to invest proportionately more than does the
Noncollege Youth               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          Young adults in the foreign countries have higher literacy levels than
Students Will Do Well in       those in the United States. In the United States, academic difficulties
                               frequently are evident in the early years, with many children unpre-
School                         pared for school entry and many in school not keeping pace with


                               Page 3                             GAO/IlRD-80-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategim
                             Exwutive   Summnry




                             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 regard-
                             less 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 (see p. 34).
                           . Sweden gives extra resources to needy schools, such as those in remote
                             rural areas or with large immigrant populations (see p. 34).


Assistance in Transition     The foreign countries help students learn about job requirements and
From School to Work          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 (see pp. 34-36).
                             Japanese employers recruit high school seniors through the schools, bas-
                             ing hiring decisions on schools’ recommendations (see pp. 37-38).
                             Employers train over two-thirds of youth in the Federal Republic of Ger-
                             many through apprenticeships that usually last 3 years. Employers pro-
                             vide on-the-job skill training for 3 or 4 days a week, and apprentices
                             attend school the remaining 1 or 2 days for instruction in mathematics,
                             language, other academic subjects, and vocational skills (see p. 36).


Establishment of Skill       Germany in particular, and more recently England, seek to maintain
Training Standards           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 (see pp. 38-39).


Extensive Inyestment in      The foreign countries seek to assist most youth who encounter employ-
Jobless Youth                ment problems. For example, Sweden guarantees education, training, or
                             work to every jobless teenager upon leaving school. England guarantees



                             Page 4                              GAO/IXRMWSS   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                            Executive   Summary




                            every jobless 16- and 17-year-old out-of-school youth up to 2 years’
                            work experience and training (see pp. 39-41).


                            Shortcomings in the U.S. system for preparing noncollege youth for
Policy Considerations       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 for-
                            eign approaches may not be entirely appropriate or readily transferable
                            because of cultural and other 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:

                        l Strive to ensure that all children attain the academic skills necessary to
                          perform effectively in postsecondary education or the workplace. Nota-
                          bly, greater emphasis should be given to providing needed early inter-
                          vention programs and adequate educational resources for all children.
                        . Develop more school-employer linkages, particularly to expand com-
                          bined 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 competitive-
                            ness will require strong leadership and an active federal role. The execu-
                            tive 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 busi-
                            ness and labor representatives work more effectively to equip US.
                            noncollege youth to meet the nation’s need for well-qualified future
                            workers. (GAO did not analyze potential costs or funding sources.)


                                did not obtain written agency comments on this report, but dis-
Agency Comments             GAO
                            cussed the matters described in the report with officials from the
            u               Departments of Education and Labor. Their comments have been incor-
                            porated where appropriate.




                            Page 6
Executive Summary                                                                                                2

Chapter 1                                                                                                        8
Introduction             Background
                         Foreign Education and Training
                                                                                                              8
                                                                                                             12
                         Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                                  18

Chapter 2                                                                                                   21
U.S. Strategies for      Overview of U.S. System
                         Levels of Educational Attainment
                                                                                                            21
                                                                                                            23
Preparing Youth for      Public Investment for College and Noncollege Youth                                 23
Employment               Weaknesses in US. System                                                           24

Chapter 3                                                                                                   33
Foreign Strategies for   Emphasis on All Youth Doing Well
                         Structured School-to-Work Transition
                                                                                                            33
                                                                                                            34
Job Preparation          Recognized Skill Standards                                                         38
                         Extensive Investment in Jobless Youth                                              39

Chapter 4                                                                                                   42
Conclusions and Policy
Considerations
Appendixes               Appendix I: Methodology for Estimating Investment in                               44
                             Youth and Training
                         Appendix II: Training for Non-College-Bound Youth                                  63
                         Appendix III: Major Contributors to This Report                                    66

Bibliography                                                                                                66
                         United States                                                                      66
                         Foreign                                                                            62

Related GAO Products                                                                                        68

Tables                   Table 1.1: Fastest Growing Occupations (1988-2000)                                   9
                         Table 1.2: Occupations With Largest Job Growth (1988-                               10
                             2000)
                         Table 1.3: Selected Characteristics of the Five Countries                           12


                         Page 6                             GAO/HRD-BO.88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Stmtegiea
          Contents




          Table 2.1: Estimated Level of Education Completed                                   23
               Through Age 24 (Youth Age 16-24 in 1988)
          Table 2.2: Average Public Investment Per Youth for                                  24
              Education and Training (Ages 16-24)
          Table 3.1: West Germany’s 10 Leading Training                                     37
              Occupations by Sex (1987)
          Table I. 1: Second-Chance Programs’ Annual Expenditures                           48
              for Youth
          Table 1.2: Postsecondary Noncollege Training: Public                              61
              Annual Expenditure for Youth Age 16-24
          Table 1.3: Estimated U.S. Public Investment in Youth                              62
              Education and Training During 9 Years From Age 16
              Through 24 by Level of Education
                                                                                         --
Figures   Figure 1.1: International Expenditures on Education:                                13
               Preprimary Through Secondary Education (1986)
          Figure 1.2: International Expenditures for Special Youth                            14
               Measures ( 1987)
          Figure 1.3: International Expenditures on Education:                                14
               Preprimary Through Higher Education (1986)
          Figure 1.4: Federal Republic of Germany, Type of School                             16
               Attended (1986)
          Figure 1.6: High School Attendance in Japan (1986)                                  17
          Figure 2.1: Long-Term Effects of Head Start                                       26




          Abbreviations

          GAO        General Accounting Office
          JTPA       Job Training Partnership Act
          NCES       National Center for Education Statistics
          OECD       Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development


          Page 7                           GAO/HRD@O-S8   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
  Chapter 1

i Introduction


                                      Increasing international competition and advancing technology require a
  Background                          more highly skilled US. work force. But recent studies and widespread
                                      reports from employers indicate that many youth are ill-prepared for
                                      employment1 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 educa-
                                      tion 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 ele-
                                      ment 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
  -.--I-__-----   --_.. ehen Worker
                  Rc?t.wt             The basic skills gap between what business needs and the qualifications
  Skills and Job Demands              of entry-level workers is widening in the United States. Jobs are
                                      demanding increasingly skilled workers at the same time that many
                                      workers are inadequ&ely prepared for the work force.

                                      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 dec-
                                      ade. Opportunities in many of these occupations are limited for those
                                      without higher levels of education.




                                      ‘Michael Dertouzos, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT Commission on Industrial Productiv-
                                      ity. 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 Pro-
                                      gress, 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.



                                      Page 8                                        GAO/HRD-90-88    U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                         Chapter 1
                                         Intraduction




Table 1.1: Faatert Growing Occupation8
(1968-2000)                              Number of iobs in thousands
                                                                                                                         Projecte$F;rease in
                                                                                                                                  1
                                         OccuDation                                                                      Number Percentaae
                                         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
                                         Phvsical theraoists                                                                   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
                                         Phvsical and corrective theraov 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 iailers                                                      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.


                                         In addition, while many low-skill occupations will continue to employ
                                         many people (see table l-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.z




                                         2Dale Parnell, The Neglected Majority (Washington, DC.: Community College Press, 1986), p. 14.



                                         Page 9                                           GAO/HRD-90-98      U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                          Chapter 1
                                          Introduction




Table 1.2: Occupations With Largest Job
Growth (1988-2000)                        Number of jobs in thousands
                                                                                                                          Projecte$frease in
                                                                                                                                   I
                                          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. SO.


                                          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 1 lth or 12th grade reading level. Yet an estimated 20 per-
                                          cent of young American adults cannot read at the 8th grade level and 40
                                          percent cannot read at the 1 lth or 12th grade levels3 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 disad-
                                          vantaged, who traditionally have had lower levels of educational
                                          achievement than others. About 86 percent of young white adults are
                                          literate at the 8th grade level, as compared with 70 percent of Hispanics
                                          and 60 percent of blacks.5



                                          3Literacy rates for young adults, age 26 to 29. Kirsch and Jungeblut, Literacy: Profiles of America’s
                                          Young Adults.

                                          4Building a Quality Workforce.

                                          “Literacy: Profiles of America’s Young Adults.



                                          Page 10                                          GAO/HRD-90-88      U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                      Chapter 1
                      Introduction




Costs of Inadequate   The inadequate preparation of young noncollege workers has both indi-
Preparation           vidual and social costs. The unprepared individual forgoes considerable
                      earnings over a lifetime while contributing to lagging national produc-
                      tivity growth and social welfare cost increases. One year’s cohort of
                      high school dropouts and deficient high school graduates may forgo an
                      estimated $160 billion to $300 billion in earnings over their lifetimes, or
                      about $136,000 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 billion7 To what extent these losses could be recouped 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      Our economic competitors face similar economic pressures, but experts
Competitors Do?       perceive Japan, for example, as being ahead of the United States in pre-
                      paring noncollege youth for the labor force and providing them with
                      adequate academic skills.

                      A comparison of literacy levels finds that over 86 percent of young peo-
                      ple in England and over 90 percent in Japan, Sweden, and West Ger-
                      many 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 han-
                      dle problem solving or other higher-order thinking tasks. Comparing the
                      educational abilities of American youth with those of foreign youth sug-
                      gests problems for future U.S. competitiveness.




                      ‘The r~angescited are based on differing assumptions of the portion of the income differential attribu-
                      table to differences ln educational attainment.

                      ‘The 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 esti-
                      mates that the 973,000 dropouts from the nation’s high school “Class of 1981” will lose $228 billion
                      ln personal earnings over their lifetimes, while society will lose $68.4 billion ln taxes (James S. Catter-
                      all, “On the Costs of Dropping Cut.” California: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and
                      Governance, December 1986). 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 social services disproportionately required for ill-prepared youth (Children ln
                      Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged. Committee for Economic Develop
                      ment. New York, 1987).



                      Page 11                                           GAO/HRD4O-S8       U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategtea
                                               Chapter 1
                                               Introductiou




                                               The four countries we reviewed-England,     the Federal Republic of Ger-
Foreign Education and                          many, Japan, and Sweden-are more homogeneous in population than
Training                                       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.)

Table 1.3: Selected Characterlrtlcs   of the
Flvo Countrler                                                                                       United                                         Weet
                                                                                                     States      England        Japan     Sweden Germany
                                               Population 1988 (millions)                                264           48          122         8.4            61
                                               Youth (1524) 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            70*
                                               Postsecondarv enrollment rates                              57%         2 1%a        30%         37%           30%
                                               University enrollment ratese                                36%          8%”         24%         26%           26%
                                               Vnited   Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland).
                                               bPreliminary data.

                                               c1987 for West Germany.
                                               *The approximate     percentage   participating   in apprenticeship.

                                               “Conferring    baccalaureate   level degrees or higher.


                                               According to a recent study: the countries spend proportionately more
                                               of their Gross Domestic Products than does the United States for prepri-
                                               mary, 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 expendi-
                                               tures for college education are combined with precollege education
                                               expenditures, the United States spends proportionately more than any
                                               other industrial country except Sweden. (See fig. 1.3.)




                                               *The Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper, Shortchanging Education: How U.S. Spending on
                                               Grades K-12 Lags Behind Other Industrial Nations, 1900.

                                               OGrossDomestic Product is similar to Gross National Product, which is the value of all fiial goods and
                                               services produced in an economy in a given year.



                                               Page 12                                                GAO/HRD-90-M         US. and Foreign   Youth Strate&a
                                           chapter 1
                                           Introduction




Figure 1.1: Intematlonal ExpendIturea on
Education: ProprImary Through
Secondary Education (1985)                 10    PomontofaDP

                                            9

                                            9

                                            7

                                            6

                                            5

                                            4

                                            2

                                            2

                                            1

                                            0
                                                          L         L           L          L
                                                 U.S.         Jpn       SW.         U.K.       W Oar

                                           Adjustedfor the 1985U.S. enrollmentrate

                                           Source: Economic Policy Institute.




                     Y




                                           Page 12                                               GAO/HRD9O-S8   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategkw
                                            Chapter 1
                                            IntroducUon




Flgun 1.2: International Expondlturea for
Special Youth Mesawer (1987)
                                            0.5 PoNwntofQDP


                                            0.4



                                            0.2



                                            0.2



                                            0.1



                                                                          r-i
                                                OL                                     L               ,7
                                                      U.S.        Jpn           SW.         U.K.            W&r

                                            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: lnkmatlonal Expenditures on
Education: Preprlmaty Through Higher
                                            10       PercmtotQDP
Education ( 1985)
                                             9

                                             8
                                             7

                                             6

                                             5

                                             4

                                             2

                                            2

                                            1
                                                                                      7-l
                                            0
                                                             A           A            A            L
                                                     U.S.        Jpn         SW.        U.K.           WON

                                            Source: Economic Policy Institute.




                                            Page 14                                                          GAO/lXRD90-88      U.S. and Foreilpl   Youth Strategies
                              Chapter 1
                              Introduction




                              Following is a brief description of the countries’ education and training
                              systems.

England: Investment in        Schooling in England is compulsory until age 16. At 16, English youth
Jobless Youth                 may
                          l 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 com-
                            munity college in the United States), sometimes continuing on to a uni-
                            versity 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 OECD countries10 and produces a much smaller number of
                              school leavers educated to the standards required by a modern economy. . . .“l l

                              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

                          l 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           Primary school in the Federal Republic of Germany serves children from
Germany: Training             age 6 to 10 (or 11 in some states), after which the young people are
                              separated into three discrete curricular paths:
Through Apprenticeships

                              “‘Britain consistsof England,Scotland,and Wales.The Organizationfor EconomicCooperationand
                              Development(OECD)is composedof 24 countries,largely of westernEurope,plus Australia, Canada,
                              Japan,New Zealand, and the United States. It seeks to promote world and member country economic
                              growth policies.
                              “Towards a Skills Revolution - A Youth Charter, Interim Report of the Vocational Education and
                              Training Task Force, Confederation ot tlnttah Industry, July 1989.



                              Page 16                                       GAO/HRD-90-88    U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                               Chapter 1
                                               Introduction




                                           . Hauptschule, leading primarily to blue collar apprenticeships.
                                           l Realschule, offering training for higher level but nonacademic occupa-
                                             tions, with many of the graduates entering white collar apprenticeships.
                                             The graduates also can gain admission to a senior technical school.
                                           l 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 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 per-
                                               cent in 1976.


Figure 1.4: Federal Republic of Germany,
Type of School Attended (1986)
                                                      j                                Gymnasium
                                                                                       4%
                                                                                       Comprehensive School




                                                                                       Hauptschule




                                                                                       Realschule


                                               At age 16 or 16, upon completion of compulsory full-time schooling,
                                               most youth enter apprenticeships that usually last 3 years. The appren-
                                               ticeship 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.



                                               Page 16                            GAO/HRD90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                        Chapter 1
                                        Introduction




                                        Dual system training actively involves industry, unions, and govern-
                                        ment. Employers pay training and wage costs.12About 400,000 firms,
                                        nearly one-fourth of all the firms in the country, sponsor apprentices,
                                        Training curricula, examinations, and certification procedures are devel-
                                        oped nationally through tripartite collaboration.


Japan: Recruitment                      School in Japan is compulsory for 9 years beginning at age 6, with 6
Through the Schools                     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. 1.6.)


Figure 1.5: High School Attendance in
Japan (1985)




                                                               940/a-                   -        Go on to high school




                                        ‘2Smaller firms that join together to form interfirm trainii   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 stu-
                                        dents are persons who were not accepted to day school, persons having to go to work, or
                                        homemakers.



                                        Page 17                                             GAO/HRD-90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                         Chapter 1
                         Intxoduction




                         About 36 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 are youth who are not accepted to college
                          and are studying to take the college entry test again. Others are inter-
                         ested 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 Japa-
                         nese 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 cen-
                         ters organized by the firms; correspondence courses; and worker partici-
                         pation in group activities aimed at improving the firm’s performance.


Sweden: Emphasis on      In Sweden, school is compulsory for 9 years starting at age 7, but chil-
Education and Training   dren 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 60 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 col-
                         lar 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.


                         The Joint Economic Committee and the House Education and Labor
Objectives, Scope,and    Committee expressed concern about international competitiveness and
Methodology              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.


                         Page 18                            GAO/HRBBO-S8   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
    Chapter 1
    Introduction




    Specifically, they asked us to identify weaknesses in the US. 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 US. 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 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. shortcom-
    ings 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

l 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 Ger-
    many), Japan, and Sweden prepare their noncollege youth for employ-
    ment, 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 govern-
    ment, 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,

    140ur 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, Learn-
    ing 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.



    Page 19                                       GAO/HRLb90-88     U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
Chapter 1
Introduction




although we recognize that successful school performance and the tran-
sition 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 desir-
able, and we provide broad characterization rather than extensive
detail. Because of cultural and other differences, such as in demography
and political systems, the foreign approaches may not be entirely appro-
priate 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 develop-
ing a skilled labor force. England, after economic recession and dissatis-
faction 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.




Page 20                            GAO/HELD-90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
U.S. Strategiesfor Preparing Youth
for mployment

                   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 grad-
                   uates-are ill equipped to meet employer requirements for entry-level
                   positions.


                   Youth are generally required to attend school until age 16, but are
Overview of U.S.   encouraged to continue their secondary education until age 17 or 18 to
System             complete high school. The federal government does not set U.S. educa-
                   tion 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 govern-
                   ments, 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 stu-
                   dent 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 prepara-
                   tion for college entry. High schools link their curricula to college require-
                   ments, advise youth on the connection between school achievement and
                   college entry, and offer assistance on finding and being accepted to col-
                   lege. 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 opportuni-
                   ties and to motivate them to do well.’ Much less 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 defi-
                   cient in the basic academic skills needed by many employers.2 In addi-
                   tion, too few youth are taught about the world of work. Educational

                   1John 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. Rosen-
                   baum, “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.

                   2The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Pathways to Successfor America’s Youth and
                   Young Families, Final Report, Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship, November 1988.



                   Page 21                                       GAO/IUtJMW8      U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
Chapter 2
U.S. Strategies for Preparing   Youth
for Employment




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.“3

The schools generally do not help noncollege youth obtain suitable post-
school 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 them-
selves, many dropouts and high school graduates flounder in the labor
market, jobless or obtaining jobs with little opportunity for
advancement.4

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.6

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 employ-
ers 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




3Statementof W. Willard Wirtz, Secretaryof Labor,to GeneralSubcommitteeon Education,House
Committeeon Educationand Labor, February 28,1968.
4William T. Grant Foundation,Commissionon Work, Family and
Non-CollegeYouth in America,Interim Reporton the Schoolto
William T. Grant Foundation,January 1988.
“Job Trainii    PartnershipAct: Servicesand Outcomesfor Participants With Differing Needs(GAO/
     _89 - ti, June 9,198Q) and Job Trainiig Partnership Act: Youth Participant Characteristics, !kr-
vices, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD9046BR, Jan. 24,lQQO).



Page 22                                         GAO/HRD-90-M      U.S. and Fore&~   Youth Strategh~
                                          Chapter 2
                                          U.S. Stxateglea for Freparlng   Youth
                                          for Employment




                                          skilled employment. In addition, they offer remedial courses and occu-
                                          pational training for participants in programs such as JTPA.~


                                          Under the educational system, about half of U.S. youth attend college by
Levels of Educational                     the time they reach age 26 (although only about one-fifth of all U.S.
Attainment                                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 Ago 24 (Youth Age                                                                                      Number         Percent
16-24 in 1988)8                           College graduate                                                              5,900,OOO                18
                                          Some college (l-3 ycsars)                                                     Q,QOO,OOO                30
                                          Hiah
                                            Y school araduate
                                                      1         with comoetencv~,                                       7.8100,000               24
                                          High school graduate lacking competency                                       38 00.000                12
                                          High school dropout                                                           5,500,000                17
                                          Total                                                                       32,900,OOO             100b
                                          aSee app. I.
                                          bNumbers do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.



                                          Examination of public investment for college and noncollege youth
Public Investment for                     reflects the high priority the United States places on college education
College and Noncollege                    and the comparatively limited attention to youth taking the employment
Youth                                     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 US.
                                          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.


                                          “We do not further discuss training by the military or by community colleges. Some regard commu-
                                          nity colleges essentially as providing a college education. Some others, however, would contend that
                                          community colleges undertake some mJor occupational Mning functions that under ideal circum-
                                          stances would be performed by secondary schools.



                                          Page 23                                         GAO/HUD-SOW       U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                           chapter 2
                                           U.S. stmteglea for Preparing   Youth
                                           for Employment




Table 2.2: Average Public lnvertmsnt Per
Youth for Education and Training (Ages                                                                                             Po;t-“hl$t
16-24)                                     Level of education                                                          Total
                                           College youth                                                            $19,940           $10,440
                                              Collene maduate                                                        24.700            15.200
                                              Sotnicoiege _. (l-3 yrs.)                                              l&O                 7;600
                                           Non-college youth                                                           9,130             1,460
                                              High school graduate                                                    10,640             1,340
                                              Dropout                                                                  5,520             1,720
                                           All youth                                                                  141230             5,770



                                           If we exclude high school expenditures to examine investment in educa-
                                           tion 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. F’tmding
                                           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. More-
                                           over, program costs for such youth tend to be seen essentially as a “cur-
                                           rent budget” issue and not as an investment that may be recouped both
                                           from economic returns from work-force improvement and from reduc-
                                           tions in the costs of welfare, crime, and other social problems.7


                                           The U.S. system for preparing noncollege youth for employment has
Weaknessesin U.S.                          shortcomings. In the early school years, many children enter school
System                                     already behind, or quickly fall behind, and are not adequately helped to
                                           catch up. These early lags in basic academic skills hamper progress



                                           7Ft.ayMarshall. “A New Labor Market Agenda.” In Workforce Policies for the 19909. Paper Presented
                                           to an Economic Policy Institute Seminar on Labor Market Policy, April 29,1988.



                                           Page 24                                      GAO/HRDBO-SS     U.S. ad   Foreign   Youth Strateglea
                           Chapter 2
                           U.S. Strat.egb for Preparing   Youth
                           for Employment




                           throughout the school years and in subsequent work life.8 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 pro-
                           vide youth with only limited academic remediation and skill traininga
                           Post-high school noncollege training is often haphazard and of poor
                           quality.


Many Lag Behind in Early   Children from low-income families often are not ready for school entry
School Years               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 6-year-olds. Head Start provides edu-
                           cational, social, medical, nutritional, and other services, with parental
                           involvement, to overcome start-up handicaps and prevent school failure.

                           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
                           460,000 children each year with federal appropriations of about
                           $1 billion,




                           *Gordon 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. 2438.
                           ‘Sax A. Levitan and Frank Gallo, A Second Chance: Training for Jobs, W. E. Upjohn Institute for
                           Employment Research, 1988, pp. 66-73.



                           Page 25                                        GAO/HRD-90-88     U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                              Chapter 2
                                              U.S. Stratigtee for Preparlng    Youth
                                              for Employment




PliiuH   P,li Long-T4rm   Hf44?4 Q! I?Q!!t!
stm
                                              70




                                                                          High School      Enrolled in       Boon Arrwtod
                                                                          Gmduates         cOllOgO
                                                   Partlclpnts   At Age 19


                                                   1         Head Start
                                                             Control Group


                                              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 assis-
                                              tance, 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 serv-
                                              ing 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




                                              Page 20                                       GAO/HRD-90-98   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                  Chapter 2
                                  U.S. Stratqjb3 for Prepnring   Youth
                                  for Employment




                                  the school years, which often means an inability to maintain progresslO
                                  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 behav-
                                  ioral problems. In addition, some school systems in poorer areas lack the
                                  financial resources to meet the particularly sizable educational handi-
                                  caps of their student populationsll


Schools Not Linked      to        The education system does not adequately prepare youth for entry to
Labor Market                      employment after leaving school. U.S. schools are generally isolated
                                  from the labor market and traditionally have not been responsible for
                                  assisting non-college-bound youth to make an effective transition from
                                  school to work.12 They are not expected to provide orientation to job
                                  requirements and opportunities or to help such youth obtain
                                  employment.

Limited Orientation to World of   Students who plan to look for employment immediately after high
Work                              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 employ-
                                  ers generally do not check school grades when hiring for entry jobs rein-
                                  forces students’ lack of motivation.13

                                  Many teenagers seek and hold part-time employment, but their jobs cus-
                                  tomarily 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.


                                  “The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America, Interim
                                  Report.
                                  r ‘Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged, Committee for Eco
                                  nomic Development, 1987, pp. 6-10.
                                  r2The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Pathways to Successfor America’s Youth
                                  and Young Families, Final Report.
                                  ‘“John H. Bishop, “The Motivation Problem in American High Schools”; and James E. Rosenbaum,
                                  “Empowering Schools and Teachers: A New Lii to Jobs for Non-College Bound,” in Investing in
                                  People: A Strategy to Address America’s Workforce Crisis, Background Papers.



                                  Page 27                                       GAO/HRD-90-M      U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
chapter 2
U.S. strategies for Preparing   Youth
for 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. 14About 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 many
fields.‘6 Other criticisms include: vocational education neglects academic
skill development, trains for occupations not in demand, teaches with
outmoded equipment, and offers limited placement assistance.16

Additionally, the quality of vocational education available to students in
poor school districts is significantly lower than that available to stu-
dents in wealthier communities, according to the National Assessment of
Vocational Education.17 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 stu-
dents’ 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.18 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.

14Michael Dertouzos, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT Commission on Industrial Productiv-
ity, Made in America: Regain@ the Productive Edge, 1989, p. 86.

16“Shaping Tomorrow’s Workforce: A Leadership Agenda for the 90’s,” National Alliance of Busi-
ness, 1988, p. 16; 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.

‘*John H. Bishop, “Vocational Education for At-Risk Youth: How Can It Be Made More Effective?’
Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working Paper #88-l 1, 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. 42-61.

17Pursuant 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.

IsThe William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America, Interim
Report.



Page 28                                        GAO/HRD-90-88    U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                           Chapter 2
                           us. StrateIpes for Preparing   Youth
                           for Employment




Haphazard School-to-Work   The schools and employer community generally provide little systematic
Transition                 assistance to help noncollege youth obtain employment. Left to them-
                           selves, many young people flounder in the labor market, remaining job-
                           less or obtaining jobs that do little to improve their skills for future
                           employment. I0

                           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 increas-
                           ingly established ties with schools to encourage improved student per-
                           formance and to offer employment to higher performing youth.20 One
                           attempt is the Boston Compact, a collaborative agreement between Bos-
                           ton’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”    Second chance programs for poorly prepared youth are generally inade-
                           quate. They train less than 10 percent of needy youth, tend not to
Programs                    devote much attention to literacy skills, and usually provide only brief
                           job skill training. A variety of programs have been undertaken, princi-
                           pally 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 6 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

                           ?I’he Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America, Interim Report.
                           2oBusinesapartnerships with local schools have grown to about 84,000 by 1988, according to The
                           Conference Board. Andrew Ashwell and Frank Caropreso, eds. “Business Jmdership: The Third
                           Wave of Education Reform,” The Conference Board, Inc., 1989, p. xiii.



                           Page 29                                       GAO/~90-88        U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategks
Chapt43r 2
U.S. Strateghs for Preparing   Youth
for Employment




July 1988 and June 1989, Title IIA 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 par-
ticipants receive remedial education2l Average occupational training is
brief (usually less than 4-l/2 months).22

JTPA Title IIB provides for a subsidized summer employment and train-
ing 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.“~

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
86 percent of its enrollees are dropouts, Its dropout participants include
about 6 percent of the pool of eligible low-income dropouts. Adminis-
tered directly by the Department of Labor through contracts to govern-
mental, 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 $16,000 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.24




                               : Youth Participant Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes (GAO/


22SarA. Levitan and Frank Gallo, A Second Chance: Training for Jobs, W. E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, 1988.

23The administration has proposed a number of amendments to JTPA, lncludii increased targeting
of the hard-to-serve, the provision of more intensive services, and a separate “youth” title.

24Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps Program:
Third Follow-up Report, September 1082.



Page 30                                       GAO/HRD-90-33     U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                        chapter 2
                        U.S. Strategtw for Preparing   Youth
                        for Employment




Limited Postsecondary   Noncollege youth may turn to private sector sources of training to build
Training                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. Apprentice-
                        ship 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 recog-
                        nized skill standards guiding curriculum and desired competency out-
                        comes. 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 particu-
                        lar occupational groups, such as in secretarial, health, computer, and
                        repair fields. In 1986, about 763,000 students were enrolled in approxi-
                        mately 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 proprie-
                        tary school programs improve the stability of employment but do not
                        significantly upgrade students’ skill levels.26In contrast, company train-
                        ing 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 admis-
                        sion and academic progression standards, low completion rates, and
                        faulty use of federal financial aid programs.26 Three-quarters of the stu-
                        dents admitted without a high school degree and half of the students
                        with a high school degree dropped out of proprietary schools before
                        completing the programs in which they had enrolled. Lack of attention
                        to academic standards in admissions and progress is a factor in the high



                        ‘“This analysis was done for GAO by Duane E. Leigh, Professor of Economics at Washington State
                        University.

                        26Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply With Department of Education’s Pell Grant Program
                        Requirements (GAOm      -84 - 17, Aug. 20,1984).



                        Page 31                                      GAO/HRD-90-38    U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                          Chapter 2
                          U.S. strategies for Preparing   Youth
                          for Employment




                          dropout rates from these programs. There is limited government moni-
                          toring 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 appli-
                          cants’ 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 pro-
                          grams through which apprentices receive formalized training over sev-
                          eral 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 cur-
                          rently 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, devel-
                          oping, and conducting apprenticeship programs. Federal and state
                          involvement is generally limited to program registration and apprentice-
                          ship 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 appren-
                          ticeship programs either in the last years of high school or after high
                          school graduation2’ Additionally, the Department proposes a series of
                          demonstrations, including new projects on school-to-apprenticeships and
                          Job Corps preapprenticeship training.


                          27School-to-apprenticeship projects began in the late 1970s as Department of Labor-
                          sponsored demonstration projects. Departmental support ended in the 19809,but some local projects
                          continued. Currently about 1,600 high school students are involved in such apprenticeship programs
                          nationwide.



                          Page 32                                       GAO/HRD-90-88     U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
Chapter 3

Foreign Strategiesfor Job Preparation


                   The four countries selected for review-England,    the Federal Republic
                   of Germany, Japan, and Sweden-have national policies aimed at effec-
                   tive 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 trans-
                   ferable. 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 US. 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 compe-
                   tency on nationally determined skill levels.

                   4. Governments make extensive investment in remedial education, train-
                   ing, or job placement for jobless out-of-school youth.


                   Some of the foreign countries emphasize giving all young people an even
Emphasis on All    start. Notable approaches are to avoid grouping youth by ability in the
Youth Doing Well   early grades, devote special attention to students with learning difficul-
                   ties, allocate similar basic resources to all schools, with an additional
                   supplement for those in poorer areas, and attract and maintain a rela-
                   tively well-paid teaching force.

                   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


                   Page 33                            GAO/HRDSO-88   U.S. end Foreign   Youth Strategies
                             Chapter 3
                             Foreign Strategies   for Job Preparation




                             grouped by ability before high school. Student achievement tends to be
                             viewed as changeable. Each student is expected to value the achieve-
                             ment 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 con-
                             tribute 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 per-
                             formance. Swedish schools do not give grades in primary school, believ-
                             ing 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 immi-
                             grant youth.


                             Each country seeks in some structured fashion to smooth the transition
Structured School-to-        from school to work by giving students occupational information and
Work Transition              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 Repub-
                             lic of Germany, and formal school-employer linkages for job placement
                             of most youth in Japan.


Work Orientation in School   The foreign schools provide orientation to the world of work and build
Years                        monitored work experience and occupational guidance into the secon-
             w               dary school years. In 1983, England introduced the Technical and Voca-
                             tional Education Initiative into the secondary school curriculum to
                             prepare youth for “better working life by making what they learn at



                             Page 34                                    GAO/HRD-90-38   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                              Chapter 3
                              Foreign Strategies   for Job Preparation




                              school, and the way they learn it, more relevant to the world of work.“’
                              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
                              199Os, 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 informa-
                              tion. 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 peo-
                              ple 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 years2


Schools Are Lin .ked to the    The foreign schools systematically facilitate the students’ transition
Labor Market                   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 Compact (see p. 29).” Unlike in the United States,
                              however, all jobs obtained through compacts in England have formal

                              “‘Employment for the 1990s” (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Cn 640, Dec. 1988).
                              ‘The 3-year program also provides modular and credentialed occupational courses as well as more
                              theoretical studies to allow students to enter a university.
                              “William J. Spring, “Youth Unemployment and the Transition from School to Work Programs in Hes-
                              ton, Frankfurt, and London,” in New England Economic Review, March/April 1987.



                              Page 36                                       GAO/HRD-9048     U.S. aud Foreign    Youth Strategies
Chapter 3
Foreign Strategies   for Job Preparation




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 pro-
vided 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 cate-
gories representing over 20,000 occupations. Table 3.1 lists the leading
apprenticeship occupations in 1987.




Page 36                                    GAO/HRD90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                       Chapter 3
                                       Foreign   Strategies   for Job Preparation




Table 3.1: Went Qermany’s 10 Leading
Training Occupations by Sex (1987)                                                                                             Percent of
                                       Trainees                                                                           apprenticeships
                                       Men:
                                       Vehicle mechanic                                                                                 7.7
                                       Electrical fiiter                                                                                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
                                        Total                                                                                          36.1
                                       Women:
                                       Hairdresser                                                                                      8.4
                                       Office clerk                                                                                     6.8
                                       Sales assistant (staae 1la                                                                       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
                                       %tage 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 grad-
                                       uates. 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 gradu-
                                        ation In the beginning of each school year, Japanese high schools, acting
                                        as agents of the public employment service, nominate and rank their



                                       Page 37                                         GAO/HRD-N-38    U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                  chapter   3
                  Foreign   Strategies   for Job Preparation




                  graduating students for each of the job offers, using grades and “behav-
                  ior” (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 t,rained 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 26.


                  Some foreign countries seek to maintain quality occupational training by
RecognizedSkill   testing and certification to meet national standards. Participants who
Standards         pass competency tests receive nationally recognized credentials, which
                  employers look to as evidence of skill levels of potential hires.4
                  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 achieve-
                  ment 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


                  4Notwithstanding 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.



                  Page 38                                        GAO/HRD9O-S8      U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                       Chapter 3
                       Foreign Strategies   for Job Preparation




                       apprenticeship training. Employers must be approved for training capa-
                       bility 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 are
                       trained and certified through the chamber as qualified to teach appren-
                       tices. Also to assure quality, apprentices must pass national final exami-
                       nations. 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.


                       The countries generally provide extensive assistance to jobless youth.
Extensive Investment   The programs vary, but reflect a national policy that youth who are
in Jobless Youth       unable to gain employment should be given further preparation so that
                       they may become better qualified workers. England and Sweden guaran-
                       tee further education, skill training, and/or placement in a job to most
                       unemployed out-of-school youth. The programs are generally compre-
                       hensive and long-term.

                       England has two major education and training programs, the Youth
                       Training Scheme for out-of-school youth ages 16 and 1’7, and Employ-
                       ment 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.” The program provides 2 years of work expe-
                       rience and on-the-job training to 18year-olds, and 1 year to l’l-year-
                       olds. It also provides classroom training, much of which takes place in
                       “further education colleges.“” 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 pro-
                       gram (during 198%89), four-fifths of the participants were in a job,
                       training, or further education.


                       “The 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.
                       “Run by local education authorities, further education colleges offer a range of courses specifically
                       geared to local labor market needs.



                       Page 39                                          GAO/HRD90-88      U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
chrpter   8
Foreign   StraWee    for Job Preparation




Government, employer, and union representatives assert that the pro-
gram’s skills training needs improvement. Although 38 percent of pro-
gram 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 flexi-
ble program in 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 1996 all young people attain...level II or its
academic equivalent [and] all young people should be given an entitlement to struc-
tured training, work experience or education leading to...level III or its academic
equivalent.“’

 The Employment Training program, initiated in 1988, offers up to a
year’s training for persons aged 18 to 69 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 find-
ing 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 teen-
agers. 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 educa-
tion, 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 sub-
 sidized by state grants for about 60 percent of the wage cost. The jobs
typically run 4 days a week, with the 6th day used for education. Young
people needing more assistance than offered by the youth opportunities

7Competency level II, which involves more individual responsibility than level I, includes skilled oper-
ative, word-processing, and sales clerk positions. Level III requires competence in a wide range of
work activities, many of which are complex and nonroutlne. In some cases, supervisory competence
may be required.



Page 40                                         GAO/HRD-90-88      U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
Chapter 3
Fore&u Strategies    for Job Preparation




jobs are provided education and training in vocational workshops in
 community youth centers and also are given guidance in solving per-
 sonal problems.

For 18- and 19-year-olds, the local employment service provides an indi-
vidual plan of action. This includes job search activities for 7 weeks,
with stipends the last 4 weeks if the youth are unable to find employ-
ment. The youth also are counseled on education and training opportuni-
ties. Those who cannot find employment are 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 work-
shops, 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
“AMLJ” training center.8 Persons receive a grant while in AMU training.




8In 1986, the Swedish-government established a self-financing organization, the AMU Group, which
sells training services to both the public and private sectors. AhIU 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). AhKJ provides academic and vocational curricula primarily at
the upper secondary level, but also offers university and remedial subjects.



Page 41                                         GAO/~90-38         U.S. and Foreigu   Youth Strategies
Conclusionsand 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 pre-
                 pare 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 con-
                 sider for improving U.S. education and training. In fact, similar
                 approaches are being tried in some US. 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
             l 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.




                 Page 42                            GAO/HRD9O-t38   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
    Chapter 4
    C!mclusiona   and Policy Cbudderations




    For youth who do encounter employment difficulty after leaving school,
    the countries’ systems seek to reach most of them. They provide educa-
    tion, training, or jobs. The assistance typically is intensive and long
    term.

    These practices in the foreign countries suggest the following policy
    directions: US. 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.
l Expanding compensatory programs such as Chapter 1 through the
  school years so that availability of continuing special support maintains
  student progress.
l 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 develop-
    ing 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 certifi-
    cations that can be applied to school and industry training programs,

    Adopting effective education and training strategies nationwide to
    improve national productive capability and international competitive-
    ness will require strong leadership and an active federal role. The execu-
    tive 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.)




    Page 43                                  GAO/HRD90-98   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
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 out-
               lines the methodology, then presents the basic data and calculations,
               and concludes with the resulting estimates.


               The basic elements involved are (1) the youth population, by levels of
Methodology    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 mil-
               lion in 1988.1 That population is divided into college and noncollege
               youth: Those out of school are classified by the level of education com-
               pleted, and it is assumed that those still in school or college will com-
               plete 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
               (5.6 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.2 It is assumed that
               these current rates of expenditure were in effect for each year of educa-
               tion or training that the youth have had since age 16 and will continue
               through their age 24.


               %ctober 1988 Current Population Survey. This is civilian noninstitutional youth, thus excluding
               youth in military service and in prisons.

               ‘Investment by the military services in occupational training and college education is not included.



               Page 44                                         GAO/JBD90-88      U.S. and Foreign Youth Strategies
                        AppendLx I
                        Iii&hodology for Estimaung   Investment   in
                        Youth and Tnainhq




                        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-l/2 years of high school education
                        investment (from age 16 through 18-l/2).

                        For the high school graduates not going to college, we also assume
                        receipt of 2-l/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-l/2 years from average graduation
                        age 18-l/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-l/2 (from age 18-l/2 through 21).
                        Finally, they receive the similarly calculated postsecondary noncollege
                        training investment in high school graduates (average annual expendi-
                        ture multiplied by 6-l/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.


                        We use an estimate of $3,800 as the public expenditure per year of col-
Investment in College   lege education. This is derived from an estimate of total public invest-
Education               ment of $46.3 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 reve-
                        nues of higher education institutions from government (federal, state,


                        Page 45                                        GAO/HRD-90-W   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                     Appendix I
                     Methodology  for Estimating   Investment   in
                     Youth and Training




                     and local) sources were $30.7 billion in 1986, according to the Depart-
                     ment of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
                     report on Conditions of American Education, 1988 (Vol. II, p. 96).

                     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 col-
                     leges 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 (indi-
                     rect) investment in higher education. The $6.6 billion, plus the $38.7 bil-
                     lion for direct support and student aid, makes the annual expenditure
                     total $46.3 billion, the estimate we use.

                     As to the number of college students over whom this investment is
                     spread, NCEX~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 NCEStotal 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.


                     For each student year of high school education, we used an estimate of
Investment in High   $3,800 public expenditure (coincidentally the same as that for college
School Education     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 ele-
                     mentary and secondary schools. Extending this public expenditure to


                     Page 46                                         GAO/HRD-90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                       Appendix I
                       Methodology  for Estimating   Investment   in
                       Youth and Tminlng




                       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 $160 billion a
                       year,” or about $3,760 per student year.


                       Table I.1 presents the data on annual public expenditures for youth in
Investment in Second   education, training, and employment programs conducted essentially
Chance Programs        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 Pro-
                       grams: 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 gradu-
                       ates and dropouts while understating that in college youth.)




                       Page 47                                         GAO/HRD90-88   U.S.end Foreign Youth Strategies
                                                 Appendix I
                                                 Methodology  for Estimating       Investment   in
                                                 Youth and Training




Table 1.1: Second-Chance Prowarns’ Annual Expenditures for Youth
Dollars in millions
                                                                                                          Estimated           Share esti;i;ip        for high
                                                                                 Total          appropriations for
Program                                                               appropriations            eligible-aae youth             Graduates             Drooouts
 Part 1. Programs for youth aged 16-21:
----~
JTPA    Title II-A training for out-of-school youth
--.------...--___                                                                $1,79oa                         $418                  $222b               $1 96b
JTPA Job Corps                                                                      740                           740                   150                 590
JTPA Summer Youth Employment Program                                                71oc                          430c                  3456                  85d
State and local youth conservation and service corps
proarams                                                                             15oe                          15oe                   1ooe                 50”
Total                                                                                                         $1,738                   $817              -$921
 Part 2. Program for in-school youth aged 16-21:
JTPA Title II-A training for in-school youthb                                    $1,79OS                         !§302Q                $201                $1019
Part 3. Program for youth aged 22-24:
..--.--~.--____
JTPA Title II-A training
-.-.--I_                                                                         $1,790                          $175b                 $125’                $50’
Part 4. Programs for youth aged 16-24:
Vocational Rehabilitation                                                        $1,440                          $120’                  $80’                $40'
Adult
.~      Education (federal)                                                         136                            45k                    23k                22k
--.-- Education (state and local)
Adult                                                                               175’                           58”                    29”                29k
Food Stamp Employment and Trainina                                                  116                            38k                    19k                19”
Welfare
-.-.---- Recipient Employment and Training                                          130”                           65”                   33”                33”
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit                                                            210”                          125”                   83”                42”
Miscellaneous other federal, state, and local broarams                              N/A0                          1oop                    75p               25”
Total                                                                                                           $551                   $342               $210
                                                 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.
                                                . ‘Program 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.

                                                 ‘Includes some youth age 14-15, but all expenditures    assigned here to ages 16-21
                                                 g0f 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 enroll-
                           Y                     ees 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




                                                 Page 48                                             GAO/HRD-!+0-88      U.S. and Fore@     Youth Strategies
Appendix I
Methodology   for Eetimatiug    Investment    in
Youth aud Training




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.

‘Based 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.

‘GAO 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 rnillion 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.

‘Estimate from Sar Levitan and Frank Gallo, Uncle Sam’s Helping Hand: Education, Training, and
Employing the Disadvantaged, p. 10.
“Combination 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.
“Estimated 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 aver-
age expenditure of the second-chance programs per youth during ages
16 through 24.

For high school graduates, the average total expenditure is estimated as
$610 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-l/2 through age 21) equals $245 total average expen-
diture per graduate.

2. The Part 2 in-school program appropriation of $201 million divided
by the 11.6 million graduate equals $17 per graduate times 2-l/2 years
in school (at ages 16 through 18-l/2) equals $43 total per graduate.

3. Part 3 programs’ appropriation of $126 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.




Page 49                                            GAO/HRD-99-98      U.S. aud Foreign    Youth Strategies
                      Appendix I
                      Methodology  for Estimating   Investment   in
                      Youth and Training




                      4. Part 4 programs’ appropriations of $342 million divided by the 11.6
                      million graduates equals $29 a year per graduate times 6-l/2 years from
                      graduation (at age 18-l/2 through age 24) equals $189 total per
                      graduate.

                      Combining the total average expenditures per graduate of each of these
                      four sets of programs ($246, $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 $92 1 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 $836 total      per dropout.

                      2. The Part 2 program appropriation of $101 million divided by 5.5 mil-
                      lion 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 mil-
                      lion 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.


                      Appreciable portions of federal financial assistance to students for
Investment in         higher education are used to attend noncollege occupational training
Postsecondary         schools. Table I.2 presents estimates of how much of the three principal
Noncollege Training   federal assistance programs are going to youth to attend proprietary
                      (noncollege) schools, with a 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 insti-
                      tutes (sometimes attached to colleges), so the data totals here understate
                      the extent of investment in postsecondary noncollege training.



                      Page 60                                         GAO/HID-90-88   U.S. aud Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                                   Appendix I
                                                   Methodology  for Estimating     Invemnent       in
                                                   Youth and Tmining




Table 1.2: Portrecondary         Noncollege Training: Public Annual Expenditure for Youth Age 16-24
Dollars in millions
_.--...-l-_.--_
                                                                                    Estlmated               Estimated         Share est;im;eoy foP high
                                                            Total          appropriations for               portion for
Program
--..-.__--                                       appropriations          proprietary schools              youth 16-24’          Graduates             Dropouts
Pell grants   for higher educafiorP                          $4,484                      $1,12lC                  $841                  $682                $170
Higher   educa%on     insured   loansd                        3,554                        1 ,280d                  960                  768                 192
Supplemental  educational  opportunity
grants@
-______-_...______
                 -_.-__-.____-                                438                            57%                    43                   34                   9
Totals                                                     58.476                        $2.458                 $1.044               $1.404                $371
                                                   ‘Of appropriations estimated as going to proprietary    school students, the portion going to youth age 16.
                                                   24 is estimated arbitrarily at 75 percent.

                                                   bAssumes 80 percent for high school graduates, 20 percent for dropouts.

                                                   ‘GAO report on training programs (p. 22) estimates 25 percent used for proprietary        noncollege school
                                                   students.
                                                   dGAO report on training programs (p. 23) estimates 36 percent used for proprietary        noncollege school
                                                   students.

                                                   eGAO 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 invest-
                                                   ment in postsecondary noncollege training for youth, as calculated
                                                   below,

                                                   For high school graduates, the average total expenditure per youth for
                                                   such training in proprietary schools through age 24 by those major fed-
                                                   eral 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-l/2 years
                                                   (from graduation age 18-l/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                                Table III presents the estimates, from the preceding data and calcula-
Investment                                         tions, of the U.S. public investment in education and training for youth
                                                   during ages 16 through 24, distinguishing between college and noncol-
                           Y                       lege youth. The estimates should be recognized as approximate, for they
                                                   would shift a bit with changes in assumptions or further refining, but



                                                   Page 51                                              GAO/HRD90-88      U.S. and Foreign     Youth Strategies
                                      Appmdix     I
                                      Methodology   for Estimating   Investment   in
                                      Youth and Trabing




                                      they can serve as sound indicators of orders of magnitude of current
                                      U.S. public investment practice.

Table 1.3: Estimated U.S. Public
Investment In Youth Education and                                                                           Average in;w;tment        per
Trainlng During 9 Years From Age 16                                                                                       Y
Through 24 by Level of Education                                                                                                     BY
                                      Level of education and investment component                                   Total     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-l/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-l/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-l/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 proarams                                                                        1.180
                                        Postsecondary noncollege training                                                               540




                     Y




                                      Page ii2                                         GAO/HRD-90-88   U.S. and Foreigu   Youth Strategies
Appendix   II

Training for Non-College-BoundYouth


                          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.’ Leigh examined youth’s participation in training pro-
                          vided by proprietary schools, by apprenticeship programs, and formally
                          by companies. He analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Survey
                          of Youth2 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.


                          Leigh examined how participation in occupational training varied by
Participation in          ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, and type of training provider.
Postschool Training       This analysis showed that:
Programs              l 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 partici-
                        pating 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 pro-
                        grams 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 partici-
                        pate in apprenticeship programs, but about as likely to participate in
                        proprietary school and company training.
                      . With one exception, there seems to be no sizable difference between His-
                        panics and whites in the likelihood of participation in any of the three
                        postschool training categories. Hispanic females are less likely to partici-
                        pate in proprietary school programs than are white women.




                          ‘Duane Leigh, What Kinds of Training “Work” for Noncollege Bound Youth? October 1989. Paper
                          prepared for GAO.

                          ‘The 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.



                          Page 53                                       GAO/HRD-90448     U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                          AppendixII
                         ‘IMning   for Non-College-Bound    Youth




                         A related GAO analysis, using data from the 1984 Current Population
                         Survey,3 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 60 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.


                         Leigh also examined what impact training had on wages and earnings
Impact on Wagesand       and whether the impact varied by ethnicity or type of training received.
Earnings                 These findings of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth analysis
                         showed that:

                     . Company programs and apprenticeship training have positive and sig-
                       nificant impacts on both wages and earnings. Apprenticeship programs
                       have nearly twice the impact of company training.
                     l The evidence for proprietary schooling is mixed. Participation in propri-
                       etary 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.
                     l Only company training is as significant for blacks as it is for whites in
                       terms of annual earnings and wage rates. Proprietary schooling appears
                       to have a positive and significant impact for whites, but no positive
                       impact for blacks and Hispanics.




                         “This GAO analysis was done using matched data files of the January 1984 supplement to the Cur-
                         rent Population Survey and the March 1984 Current Population Survey. The January 1984 survey
                         included supplementary questions on training. This survey asked respondents about classroom train-
                         ing, classroom basic education, on-the-job training, and job search; length of training; and source of
                         training funds.



                         Page 64                                         GAO/HRD-90-M      U.S. and Foreigu   Youth Strategies
Appe’ndix III

Major Contributors to This Report


                  Sigurd R. Nilsen, Assistant Director, (202) 623-8701
Human Resources   Ellen B. Sehgal, Senior Evaluator                                                      a
Division,         Gloria E. Taylor, Evaluator
Washin&on, DC.    Holly A. Van Houten, Evaluator
                  Hannah F. Fein, Writing Specialist
                  Joyce W. Smith, Secretary


                  Becky Kithas, Evaluator
European Office

                  Richard Meeks, Evaluator
Far East Office




                  Page 56                           GAO/HRD90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
; Bibliography


                  Altbach, Philip G. “Needed: An International Perspective.” Phi Delta
  United States   Kansan, 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 Man-
                  agement, October 27-29,1988.

                  Bishop, John H. “Incentives for Learning: Why American High School
                  Students Compare So Poorly to Their Counterparts Overseas,” in Invest-
                  ing in People: A Strategy to Address America’s Workforce Crisis, Back-
                  ground 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 Uni-
                  versity. 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.



                  Page 66                           GAO/EIRBfJO-SS   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strateglea
Bibliography




-.       “Vocational Education for At-Risk Youth: How Can It Be Made
More Effective?” Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies Work-
ing Paper #88-l 1. 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 Com-
mission 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. Invest-
ing in People: A Strategv 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, 1986.

Dertouzos, Michael, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT Commis-
sion on Industrial Productivity. Made In America: Regaining the Produc-
tive 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.


Page 67                           GAO/HRIMO-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
Evans, Angela. “Education: Federal Concerns,” Issue Brief. Congres-
sional Research Service, Updated May 11, 1989. 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. 306. The National Center for Research in Vocational Educa-
tion, 1986.

-.      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 Assess-
ment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. IV. U.S. Department of
Education, August 1989.

Hayward, Becky Jon, and John G. Wirt. Handicapped and Disadvan-
taged Students: Access to Quality Vocational Education, National
Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. V. U.S. Depart-
ment’of Education, August 1989.

Hodgkinson, Harold L. All One System: Demographics of Education, Kin-
dergarten Through Graduate School. The Institute for Educational Lead-
ership, Inc., 1986.

-,      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 Com-
pany, 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, Fam-
ily and Citizenship, June 1987.




Page 58                           GAO/I3RD9O-SS   U.S. and Fore&n   Youth Strategle~
Bibliography




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 Test-
ing Service, 1986.

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 Differ-
ences: An International Assessment of Mathematics and Science. Educa-
tional 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 Massachu-
setts 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 Poli-
cies.” Statement before the Committee on Education and Labor, Septem-
ber 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.

Mathematics 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).



Page 59                          GAO/IiRD-90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
Bibliography




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 Lead-
ership.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.

Redd, Kenneth, and Wayne Riddle. Comparative Education: Statistics on
Education in the United States and Selected Foreign Nations. Congres-
sional 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. Com-
mission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency, U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, 1989.

Rumberger, Russell, and Henry Levin. “Schooling for the Modern Work-
place,” 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.




Page 60                           GAO/HRD-80-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
t



    Bibliography




    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 Net-
    work 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.

    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, GAOIHRD-89-132BR,Sept. 13, 1989.

    -.       Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Par-
    ticipants With Differing Needs, GAO/HRD-89-62, June 9, 1989.

    -.      Job Training Partnership Act: Summer Youth Programs
    Increase Emnhasis on Education. GAOIHRD-87-101. June 30. 1987.
                   *                I




    -.       Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant Characteris-
    tics. Services. and Outcomes. GAO/HRD-90-46BR.Jan. 24. 1999.


    Page 61                             GAO/HRDM-S8   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
          Bibliography




          -.       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/
          ~R~-86-106~~, 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,
          GAOjHRD-89-66, May 10, 1989.

          Wetzel, James. American Youth: A Statistical Snapshot. The William T.
          Grant Foundation, June 1987.

          Whittaker, William. Apprenticeship Training in America: The 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 Cit-
          izenship, January 1988.

          -.       The Forgotten Half: Pathways to Success for America’s Youth
          and Young Families, Final Report, Commission on Work, Family and Cit-
          izenship, November 1988.


          American Embassy, Bonn. “Labor Trends in the Federal Republic of Ger-
Foreign   many, 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.




          Page 62                                 GAO/I-IRD9O-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
American Embassy, Stockholm. “Labor Trends in Sweden, 1987.” For-
eign Labor Trends. 889-2 1. United States Department of Labor. Bureau
of International Labor Affairs, 1988.       -

Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft. Vocational Training-Investment  for the
Future, The Dual Training &stem in the Federal Republic of Germanv,
1983.

Commission of the European Communities. United Kingdom: Institu-
tions, 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 640,
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.

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 US. Gen-
eral Accounting Office, August 1989.)

Gordon, Margaret S., and Martin Trow. Youth Education and Unemploy-
ment 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.



Page 63                           GAO/IIRDB3-33   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                                                            ,


Bibliography




Jangenas, Bo. The Swedish Approach to Labor Market Policy. The Swed-
ish Institute, 1986.

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 Educa-
tion, 1978.

Krekeler, Norbert. Learning for the Working World-Vocational   Train-
ing 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 Swe-
den” (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 19909, 1988.

National Labour Market Board. Young Persons and Employment. Swed-
ish Labour Market Policy, 1987.

Nothdurft, William E. Schoolworks: Reinventing Public Schools to Cre-
ate the Workforce of the Future, Innovations inEducation and Job
Training from Sweden, West Germany, France, Great Britain and Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania. The German Marshall Fund of the United States,
1989.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Eco-
nomic Outlook. December 1988.

-.             OECD Employment Outlook, September 1988.

-.             OECD Employment Outlook, September 1987.

-.             OECD Employment Outlook, September 1986.



Page 04                               GAO/HRD-90-88U.S. and Foreign Youth Strategks
Bibliography




-.             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 Con-
ference at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell Univer-
sity, September 1987.

Reubens, Beatrice G., John AC. 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 Pro-
cess in Japan” (Draft paper prepared for the U.S. General Accounting
Office, May 16, 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. “Back-
ground Notes: Japan,” Feb. 1989.




Page 05                                GAO/HRD-90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
Page 66   GAO/HRD9O-S8   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
.
.




    Y




        Page 07   GAO/HRD-90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies
                                                                                           .


RelatedGAO Products


             Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant Characteristics, Ser-
             vices, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-Qo-46~R,Jan. 24, 1996).

             Effective Schools Programs: Their Extent and Characteristics (GAO/
             HRD-89-132BR,&?pt. 13, 1989).

             Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participants
             With Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-62, June 9, 1989).

             Vocational Education: Opportunity to Prepare for the Future (GAO/
             ~~~-89-66, May 10, 1989).

             Training Programs: Information on Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990 Appro-
             priations (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-
             ~O~BR,June 23, 1986).

             Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply With Department of Educa-
             tion’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).




(206117)     Page 08                          GAO/HRD-90-88   U.S. and Foreign   Youth Strategies