Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

Between May and July of 1996, members of the council were asked to participate in a series of interviews. The primary purpose of the interviews was to elicit council members' views of and expectations for Arizona's STW initiative. A second reason was to clarify the mission of the council itself. This paper highlights salient points from the interviews. Quotes are used verbatim.

Every year some Arizona students drop out of high school with the intention of acquiring a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Find out how many Arizonans receive a GED each year and how this alternative credential impacts their lifetime earning potential. Also visit Morrison Institute’s Web site to read about proposed funding cuts to GED training.

Raising Arizona was the challenge of the 20th century. Sustaining Arizona is now the challenge of the 21st. A crucial part of that task is not just understanding today’s knowledge economy, but mastering it.
If the state makes this fundamental transition, the brief history of Arizona’s future will read simply: They succeeded in the second stage. Human capital took its rightful place as a chief component of competitiveness. As a result, the story will go, Arizona moved into the top ranks of economic leadership after years in the second tier. Equity and prosperity resulted too. Most important, the state was ready for the next stage of competition. This happy ending for Arizona, of course, has been envisioned repeatedly over time. And in fact, a variety of human capital policies and programs to achieve it are in place. However, many would say that human capital is an area of unfinished business for Arizona. The Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center (AMEPAC) developed "To Learn and Earn" to highlight the issues and asked Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University to support the effort with research and analysis. In turn, AMEPAC will present the issues to Arizona stakeholders for their feedback. This process will kick off a multi-partner series of policy action projects. The first results will be presented in November 2009 at the next human capital conference presented by the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education.

This research study clearly articulates the critical need for industry to work in conjunction with educators in order to develop an emphasis on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) in our schools systems. This partnership is essential for creating a competitive global workforce in Arizona. Aggressive action must be taken now, to fuel the growth of our economy with a properly educated workforce that will improve our standard of living. Changing our culture to celebrate innovation requires a comprehensive plan and collaboration between business, academia and our government. We have an obligation to our children and our country to support this initiative with our time, funds and energy.

This report documents the activities of 18 state-funded partnerships in Arizona's school-to-work (STW) system: 10 regional partnerships, most in their fourth year of implementation, and 8 Maricopa County partnerships, all in their first year of implementation. The report is divided into two sections. The first section highlights the status of each of the 10 regional STW partnerships as of the midpoint of the state's fourth year of STW implementation. Profiles are provided in alphabetical order and provide a brief description of the changes and accomplishments in the past year. The second section profiles each of the 8 Maricopa County STW partnerships approximately three-quarters of the way through their first 13 months of STW implementation. Profiles are provided in alphabetical order and provide a brief description of the status of partnership activities and accomplishments to date. Each profile consists of the following seven components: (1) partnership name; (2) site visit date; (3) school profile; (4) employers/Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development representation; (5) goals 1-6: system governance and partnership development, program coordination and integration, technical assistance, community involvement, public awareness, and system evaluation; (6) discussion (partnership assets, partnership challenges); and (7) summary and suggestions.

The School-to-Work (STW) Opportunities Act of 1994 is intended to "offer opportunities for all students to participate in a performance-based education and training program." Nevertheless, certain populations remain hard to reach. In particular, out-of-school youth--students aged 16 through 24 who have not completed high school and are not currently enrolled in school--pose a unique challenge for emerging STW systems. This document explores the manner in which Arizona’s 13 state-funded STW partnerships (for FY 1996-97) are serving out-of-school youth. In addition, new system elements and regional STW plans for service expansion for this population are detailed. Innovative programs within the partnerships are also highlighted.

The fourth, and final, annual statewide public opinion polling is part of a multifaceted evaluation of Arizona's school to work (STW) initiative. Baseline data were established in spring 1996; comparative data have been collected annually since then. The polling assesses public attitudes toward STW, and determines their level of support or opposition to the initiative. Each year, three constituent groups were polled: parents, businesses, and educators. Sample sizes in 1999 yielded results comparable with those in 1996, 1997, and 1998 results. Findings indicate the following: public awareness of STW has grown significantly during the past 4 years; awareness of involvement in a regional partnership has grown; most Arizonans are satisfied with the overall quality of public schools, but are least satisfied with those aspects of education that relate more closely to STW, and are in favor of changes in public schools that support STW outcomes; and many Arizonans are skeptical that STW "can work." Clear majorities of Arizonans support STW on every indicator of support measured, including the following: willingness to pay taxes to support STW; willingness to vote for pro-STW elected officials; identification of STW participation as "very important" in the lives of students; indication that one would change schools to allow a child to participate in STW; and support to include STW in the state's budget.

One component of a multi-faceted evaluation of the state's STW initiative is the evaluation of public awareness and opinions of STW as a concept and a vehicle for education reform. In spring 1996, a statewide public poll of parents, businesses and educators was conducted to establish baseline measures of public attitudes toward STW prior to widespread implementation in the schools. In fall 1996, Arizona public school counselors were surveyed as an additional constituent group. This paper highlights findings from the state's baseline study of counselors' opinions toward STW -- especially as compared with the opinions of other constituent groups.

A study explored the issue of fiscal agency and its relationship to planning and implementing school-to-work (STW) systems to inform stakeholders in Arizona's emerging STW system about other states' experiences. A review of the STW Internet Gateway yielded a subset of states based on factors such as their history in implementing STW and similarities to Arizona. Interviews were conducted via telephone, fax, or e-mail with 61 individuals in 20 states. Participants were asked to relate their experiences with and as fiscal agents, how fiscal agents were chosen, and strengths and weaknesses of a particular type of fiscal agency. STW partnerships used four types of fiscal agents: educational institutions; training institutions; business and labor organizations; and "other" organizations. Effective fiscal agents had the following characteristics: existing mechanisms/structures, neutrality, experience in federal grant management, skill in fostering involvement, philosophy, and accessibility/central location. Educational institutions offered the advantages of being accustomed to handing federal monies and familiar with state-level policies and procedures. A major drawback was that their use contributed to "turf" issues. The other three types had geographic and size advantages, were able to coordinate function in multiple school districts, and were able to handle workload and manage cash flow. A disadvantage was a lack of knowledge regarding how schools operate.