 
 
 
                                     United States General Accounting Office
          __________________________________________________________________
          GAO                        Report to Congressional Requestors
 
 
 
          __________________________________________________________________
          May 1990                   TRAINING STRATEGIES
 
 
                                     Preparing Noncollege Youth
                                     for Employment in the U.S.
                                     and Foreign Countries
 
 
 
        Some of the information in this report--e.g., pictures, charts,
        and tables--was not in ASCII text format and not included.  If you
        wish to obtain a complete report, call GAO report distribution
        at 202/275-6241 (7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. EST) or write to GAO, P.O.
        Box 6015, Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
 
 
 
          __________________________________________________________________
          GAO/HRD-90-88
 
 
 
         This U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report is 1 of 7
         available over the Internet as part of a test to determine
         whether there is sufficient interest within this community to
         warrant making all GAO reports available over the Internet.
         The file REPORTS at NIH lists the 7 reports.
 
         So that we can keep a count of report recipients, and your
         reaction, please send an E-Mail message to KH3@CU.NIH.GOV and
         include, along with your E-Mail address, the following
         information:
 
              1)   Your organization.
 
              2)   Your position/title and name (optional).
 
              3)   The title/report number of the above reports you have
                   retrieved electronically or ordered by mail or phone.
 
              4)   Whether you have ever obtained a GAO report before.
 
              5)   Whether you have copied a report onto another bulletin
                   board--if so, which report and bulletin board.
 
              6)   Other GAO report subjects you would be interested in.
                   GAO's reports cover a broad range of subjects such as
                   major weapons systems, energy, financial institutions,
                   and pollution control.
 
              7)   Any additional comments or suggestions.
 
         Thank you for your time.
 
 
         Sincerely,
 
         Jack L. Brock, Jr.
         Director,
         Government Information and Financial
         Management Issues
         Information Management and Technology Division
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                 May 11, 1990
 
                 The Honorable James H. Scheuer
                 Chairman, Subcommittee on Education and Health
                 Joint Economic Committee
                 Congress of the United States
 
                 The Honorable Augustus F. Hawkins
                 Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor
                 House of Representatives
 
                 This report, prepared at your request, contains information
                 on (1) the weaknesses in the U.S. education and training
                 system for preparing noncollege youth for employment and (2)
                 foreign strategies that appear relevant to the U.S.
                 shortcomings.  It also includes policy actions that might be
                 considered by the federal government and by state and local
                 governments.
 
                 As requested, we did not obtain written comments from the
                 Departments of Education or Labor.  We did, however, discuss
                 matters described in this report with officials in these
                 agencies, and their comments have been incorporated where
                 appropriate.  We are sending copies of this report to other
                 congressional committees and subcommittees, the Secretaries
                 of Labor and Education, and other interested parties.
 
                 This report was prepared under the direction of Franklin
                 Frazier, Director, Education and Employment Issues, who may
                 be reached on (202) 275-1793 if you or your staffs have any
                 questions.  Other major contributors to this report are
                 listed in appendix III.
 
 
 
 
 
                 Charles A. Bowsher
                 Comptroller General
                 of the United States
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          1
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          __________________________________________________________________
          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
 
          __________________________________________________________________
          PURPOSE
                                     The United States is renowned worldwide
                                     for its college and university system,
                                     which provides extensive opportunity for
                                     higher education.  Yet only about half
                                     of U.S. youth go to college.  For the
                                     other half, U.S. education and training
                                     often provide inadequate preparation for
                                     employment.
 
                                     The perception that foreign competitors
                                     excel in world trade partly because
                                     their workers are better educated and
                                     trained prompted the Joint Economic
                                     Committee and the House Education and
                                     Labor Committee to ask GAO to compare
                                     how the United States and competitor
                                     countries prepare noncollege youth for
                                     employee.  Specifically, GAO was asked
                                     to
 
                                     -- review U.S. education and training
                                        strategies and  identify likely
                                        weaknesses and
 
                                     -- examine selected countries'strategies
                                        for preparing noncollege youth for
                                        employment.
          ___________________________________________________________________
          BACKGROUND
                                     Experts are concerned that U.S.
                                     international competitiveness is being
                                     eroded because (1) many jobs are
                                     requiring greater skills and (2) youth
                                     are unprepared to meet the new labor
                                     market demands.  Required skill levels
                                     are increasing in both the occupations
                                     with the fastest rate of growth and
                                     those projected to add most new jobs in
                                     the next decade.  Poor literacy skills
                                     and employer reports that many youth
                                     applicants are unqualified for entry-
                                     level positions point up inadequacies in
                                     the preparation of youth for
                                     employment.
 
                                          2
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                     For this study GAO examined four
                                     countries--England, the Federal
                                     Republic of Germany, Japan, and Sweden--
                                     that try to develop a well-qualified
                                     noncollege youth work force.  GAO
                                     reviewed literature on how the United
                                     States and these countries prepare
                                     noncollege youth for employment,
                                     consulted with experts who assessed the
                                     U.S. and foreign strategies, and visited
                                     the foreign countries to meet with
                                     knowledgeable persons and view the
                                     education and training systems
                                     firsthand.  GAO cautions that
                                     necessarily succinct contrasts between
                                     U.S. weaknesses and foreign strengths in
                                     education and training often conceal
                                     U.S. strengths and foreign weaknesses in
                                     this area.
 
          __________________________________________________________________
          RESULTS IN BRIEF
                                     Insufficient attention is devoted to
                                     preparing U.S. noncollege youth for
                                     employment.  About 9 million of the
                                     nation's 33 million youth aged 16 to 24
                                     will not have needed skills to meet
                                     employer requirements for entry-level
                                     positions--5.5 million dropouts and 3.8
                                     million high school graduates who lack
                                     high school competency.
 
                                     The four competitor nations have
                                     national policies that emphasize
                                     preparing noncollege youth for
                                     employment.  Specific approaches vary by
                                     country, are rooted in different
                                     traditions, and may be accompanied by
                                     problems of their own.  Still, the
                                     following approaches used by some or all
                                     of the countries may be relevant for
                                     the United States:
 
                                     -- Foreign countries expect all students
                                        to do well in school, particularly in
                                        the early school years.  Some U.S.
                                        schools, confronted with difficult
                                        social ills, often accept that many
                                        will lag behind.
 
 
                                          3
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                     -- Foreign schools and the employment
                                        community guide students' transition
                                        from school to work to a greater
                                        degree than in the United States.
                                        Noncollege students leaving school
                                        receive more directed assistance in
                                        finding jobs than their U.S.
                                        counterparts.
 
                                     -- Competitor nations establish
                                        competency-based national training
                                        standards that they use to certify
                                        skill competency.  The common U.S.
                                        practice is to certify only program
                                        completion.
 
                                     -- Competitors invest extensively in
                                        jobless out-of-school youth to assure
                                        them a job or further education and
                                        training.  U.S. employment and
                                        training programs reach only a modest
                                        proportion of youth in need.
 
 
          GAO's ANALYSIS
 
          U.S. Shortchanges
          Noncollege Youth
                                     The foreign countries tend to invest
                                     proportionately more than does the
                                     United States in noncollege education
                                     and training.  The United States invests
                                     heavily in college education but does
                                     not do equally well by its young people
                                     who seek immediate employment.  From the
                                     customary end of compulsory education at
                                     age 16 through age 24, less than half as
                                     much is invested in education and
                                     training for each noncollege youth as
                                     for each college youth (see pp. 12 and
                                     23-24).
 
          Expectations That
          All Students Will
          Do Well in School
 
                                     Young adults in the foreign countries
                                     have higher literacy levels than those
                                     in the United States.  In the United
                                     States, academic difficulties frequently
 
                                          4
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                     are evident in the early years, with
                                     many children unprepared for school
                                     entry and many in school not keeping
                                     pace with expected levels of progress.
                                     Certain practices of the other
                                     countries, such as providing comparable
                                     educational resources to all schools,
                                     emphasize providing equal educational
                                     opportunity to all youth regardless of
                                     differences in socioeconomic status and
                                     academic talent.  For example:
 
                                     -- Japan provides uniform teacher
                                        salaries and per capita school
                                        funding, so that poorer areas have
                                        educational resources that are
                                        comparable to more affluent ones.
 
                                     -- Sweden gives extra resources to needy
                                        schools, such as those in remote
                                        rural areas or with large immigrant
                                        populations.
 
          Assistance in
          Transition From
          School to Work
 
                                     The foreign countries help students
                                     learn about job requirements and assist
                                     them in finding employment to a greater
                                     extent than does the United States.  One
                                     major element is the involvement of
                                     employers.  For example:
 
                                     -- Joint school-employer programs
                                        provide work experience for secondary
                                        school students.
 
                                     -- Japanese employers recruit high
                                        school seniors through the schools,
                                        basing hiring decisions on schools'
                                        recommendations.
 
                                     -- Employers train over two-thirds of
                                        youth in the Federal Republic of
                                        Germany through apprenticeships that
                                        usually last 3 years.  Employers
                                        provide on-the-job skill training for
                                        3 or 4 days a week, and apprentices
                                        attend school the remaining 1 or 2
 
                                          5
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                        days for instruction in mathematics,
                                        language, other academic subjects,
                                        and vocational skills.
 
          Establishment of
          Skill Training
          Standards
 
                                     Germany in particular, and more recently
                                     England, seek to maintain quality
                                     occupational training by testing and
                                     certification to meet national
                                     standards.  Trainees who attain tested
                                     levels of competency receive nationally
                                     recognized certification, which
                                     employers look to as evidence of
                                     particular levels of skill.  In the
                                     United States, certificates for trainees
                                     often certify course completion and not
                                     necessarily attainment of specific skill
                                     levels.
 
          Extensive
          Investment in
          Jobless Youth
 
                                     The foreign countries seek to assist
                                     most youth who encounter employment
                                     problems.  For example, Sweden
                                     guarantees education, training, or work
                                     to every jobless teenager upon leaving
                                     school.  England guarantees every
                                     jobless 16- and 17-year-old out-of-
                                     school youth up to 2 years' work
                                     experience and training.
 
          POLICY
          CONSIDERATIONS
 
                                     Shortcomings in the U.S. system for
                                     preparing noncollege youth for
                                     employment, and some apparently
                                     effective approaches identified in
                                     foreign systems, point to types of
                                     action that might be considered to
                                     improve education and training in the
                                     United States.  However, the foreign
                                     approaches may not be entirely
                                     appropriate or readily transferable
                                     because of cultural and other
 
                                          6
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                     differences.  Also, alternate mechanisms
                                     for applying the approaches may be
                                     needed.  In addition, directing more
                                     attention to youth who seek employment
                                     rather than go on to college should not
                                     detract from widely available college
                                     opportunity in the United States, a
                                     practice in which the United States
                                     generally surpasses its foreign
                                     competitors.  Notwithstanding these
                                     cautions, the following appear to
                                     warrant consideration by the federal,
                                     state, and local governments:
 
                                     -- Strive to ensure that all children
                                        attain the academic skills necessary
                                        to perform effectively in
                                        postsecondary education or the
                                        workplace.  Notably, greater
                                        emphasis should be given to providing
                                        needed early intervention programs
                                        and adequate educational resources
                                        for all children.
 
                                     -- Develop more school-employer
                                        linkages, particularly to expand
                                        combined education and work
                                        (apprenticeship-type) programs and to
                                        assist youth to obtain suitable
                                        entry-level employment.
 
                                     Adopting effective education and
                                     training strategies nationwide to
                                     improve national productive capability
                                     and international competitiveness will
                                     require strong leadership and an active
                                     federal role.  The executive branch is
                                     the logical focal point for national
                                     responsibility.  The Department of
                                     Education, in combination with the
                                     Department of Labor, can play a
                                     leadership role in helping state and
                                     local officials and business and labor
                                     representatives work more effectively to
                                     equip U.S. noncollege youth to meet the
                                     nation's need for well-qualified future
                                     workers.  (GAO did not analyze potential
                                     costs or funding sources.)
 
 
 
                                          7
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          AGENCY COMMENTS
 
                                     GAO did not obtain written agency
                                     comments on this report, but discussed
                                     the matters described in the report with
                                     officials from the Departments of
                                     Education and Labor.  Their comments
                                     have been incorporated where
                                     appropriate.
 
 
 
                                          8
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
 
                                       CONTENTS                        Page
                                       --------                        ----
 
 
          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                              2
 
          CHAPTER 1          INTRODUCTION                               12
 
                              Background                                12
 
                              Foreign Education and Training            16
 
                              Objectives, Scope, and Methodology        21
 
          CHAPTER 2           U.S. STRATEGIES FOR PREPARING YOUTH FOR   24
                                   EMPLOYMENT
 
                              Overview of U.S. System                   24
 
                              Levels of Educational Attainment          26
 
                              Public Investment for College and         27
                                   Noncollege Youth
 
                              Weaknesses in U.S. System                 28
 
          CHAPTER 3           FOREIGN STRATEGIES FOR JOB PREPARATION    37
 
                              Emphasis on All Youth Doing Well          37
 
                              Structured School-to-Work Transition      38
 
                              Recognized Skill Standards                42
 
                              Extensive Investment in Jobless           43
                                   Youth
 
          CHAPTER 4           CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS     46
 
          APPENDIXES
 
          APPENDIX I:         Methodology for Estimating Investment     48
                                   in Youth and Training
          APPENDIX II:        Training for Non-college-                 59
                                   Bound Youth
          APPENDIX III:       Major Contributors to                     62
                                   This Report
 
          BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                  63
 
                                          9
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
 
          RELATED GAO PRODUCTS                                          72
 
          TABLES
                              Table 1.1:  Fastest Growing               13
                                   Occupations (1988-2000)
 
                              Table 1.2:  Occupations with Largest      14
                                   Job Growth (1988-2000)
 
                              Table 1.3:  Selected Characteristics      17
                                   of the Five Countries
 
                              Table 2.1:  Estimated Level of            26
                                   Education Completed Through Age 24
                                   (Youth Age 16-24 in 1988)
 
                              Table 2.2:  Average Public Investment     27
                                   Per Youth for Education and
                                   Training (Ages 16-24)
 
                              Table 3.1:  West Germany's 10 Leading     41
                                   Training Occupations by Sex (1987)
 
                              Table I.1:  Second-Chance Programs'       52
                                    Annual Expenditures for Youth
 
                              Table I.2:  Postsecondary Noncollege      56
                                    Training:  Public Annual
                                    Expenditure for Youth Age 16-24
 
                              Table I.3:  Estimated U.S. Public         58
                                    Investment in Youth Education and
                                    Training During 9 Years From Age 16
                                    Through 24 by Level of Education
 
          FIGURES     (The following figures are not included because
                       they could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
 
                              Figure 1.1:  International
                                   Expenditures on Education:
                                   Preprimary Through
                                   Secondary Education (1985)
 
 
                              Figure 1.2:  International
                                   Expenditures for Special Youth
                                   Measures (1987)
 
 
                                         10
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
 
                              Figure 1.3:  International
                                   Expenditures for Education:
                                   Preprimary Through
                                   Higher Education (1985)
 
                              Figure 1.4:  Federal Republic of
                                   Germany, Type of School Attended (1986)
 
                              Figure 1.5:  High School Attendance
                                   in Japan (1985)
 
                              Figure 2.1:  Long-Term Effects of
                                   Head Start
 
          ABBREVIATIONS
 
                    GAO       General Accounting Office
                    JTPA      Job Training Partnership Act
                    NCES      National Center for Education Statistics
                    OECD      Organization for Economic Cooperation and
                              Development
 
 
 
                                         11
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                       CHAPTER 1
                                       ---------
                                     INTRODUCTION
                                     ------------
          BACKGROUND
          ----------
          Increasing international competition and advancing technology
          require a more highly skilled U.S. work force.  But recent studies
          and widespread reports from employers indicate that many youth are
          ill-prepared for employment.#1  A skill-deficient young work force
          hampers the nation's economic growth, productivity, and ability to
          compete with foreign countries.  Some foreign competitors may excel
          in part because they more effectively prepare their work force,
          paying close attention to the education and training of their
          noncollege youth.
 
          The United States provides extensive opportunity for a college
          education for a large proportion of its youth.  Our colleges and
          universities are the envy of the world.  Yet with work-force
          quality becoming a key element in U.S. competitiveness, the
          education and training of noncollege youth become increasingly
          critical.  This report addresses how nations prepare for work those
          youth who do not go to college, exploring the relevant educational
          practices of the United States and of four countries selected for
          their experiences in training a skilled work force.
 
          Mismatch Between Worker Skills
          ------------------------------
          and Job Demands
          ---------------
          The basic skills gap between what business needs and the
          qualifications of entry-level workers is widening in the United
          States.  Jobs are demanding increasingly skilled workers at the
          same time that many workers are inadequately prepared for the work
          force.
 
 
 
 
         1Michael Dertouzos, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT
          Commission on Industrial Productivity.  Made in America:  Regaining
          the Productive Edge.  The MIT Press, 1989; Irwin Kirsch and Ann
          Jungeblut.  Literacy: Profiles of America's Young Adults.  National
          Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service,
          1986; U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Education, and
          U.S. Department of Commerce, A Joint Initiative.  Building a
          Quality Workforce, July 1988.
 
 
 
 
                                         12
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          Many jobs of the future will demand more skilled labor.  Most of
          the occupations projected to grow fastest require moderate to high
          skills (see table 1.1).  For example, health service and computer
          technology-related occupations are projected to increase by half
          over the next decade.  Opportunities in many of these occupations
          are limited for those without higher levels of education.
 
          Table 1.1:  Fastest Growing Occupations (1988-2000)
 
          Number of jobs in thousands
                                                  Projected increase in jobs
                                                  --------------------------
          Occupation                              Number          Percentage
          ----------                              ------          ----------
          Paralegals                               62                 75
          Medical assistants                      104                 70
          Home health aides                       160                 68
          Radiologic technologists
            and technicians                        87                 66
          Data-processing equipment
            repairers                              44                 61
          Medical records technicians              28                 60
          Medical secretaries                     120                 58
          Physical therapists                      39                 57
          Surgical technologists                   20                 56
          Operations research
            analysts                               30                 55
          Securities and financial
            services sales workers                109                 55
          Travel agents                            77                 54
          Computer systems analysts               214                 53
          Physical and corrective
            therapy assistants                     21                 52
          Social welfare service
            aides                                  47                 52
          Occupational therapists                  16                 49
          Computer programmers                    250                 48
          Human services workers                   53                 45
          Respiratory therapists                   23                 41
          Correction officers and
            jailers                                76                 41
 
          Source:   George Silvestri and John Lukasiewicz, "Projections of
                    Occupational Employment, 1988-2000," Monthly Labor Review
                    (Vol. 112, No. 11, Nov. 1989), p. 60.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                         13
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          In addition, while many low-skill occupations will continue to
          employ many people (see table 1.2), their skill requirements are
          expected to increase to some extent even, for example, in
          janitorial and messenger jobs.  Skills increasingly needed to
          perform many jobs include the ability to connect practice and
          theory; identify problems; and then analyze, test and
          troubleshoot, and adapt to new technology.#2
 
          Table 1.2:  Occupations with Largest Job Growth (1988-2000)
 
          Number of jobs in thousands
                                                  Projected increase in jobs
                                                  --------------------------
          Occupation                              Number          Percentage
          ----------                              ------          ----------
          Salespersons, retail                     730                19
          Registered nurses                        613                39
          Janitors and cleaners                    556                19
          Waiters and waitresses                   551                31
          General managers and top
            executives                             479                16
          General office clerks                    455                18
          Secretaries, except legal
            and medical                            385                13
          Nursing aides, orderlies,
            and attendants                         378                32
          Truck drivers                            369                15
          Receptionists and information
            clerks                                 331                40
 
          Source:   George Silvestri and John Lukasiewicz, "Projections of
                    Occupational Employment, 1988-2000," Monthly Labor Review
                    (Vol. 112, No. 11, Nov. 1989), p. 60.
 
          As skill levels are increasing, employers are finding that many
          young workers are inadequately prepared for many entry-level as
          well as most higher-skilled jobs.  Employers largely agree that
          entry-level workers should read at least at the 8th grade level.
          Many hold, moreover, that the increased technological content of
          instruction manuals, coupled with greater demands on workers to
          maintain the equipment they operate, requires an 11th or 12th grade
          reading level.  Yet an estimated 20 percent of young American
          adults cannot read at the 8th grade level and 40 percent cannot
 
 
 
 
 
         2Dale Parnell, The Neglected Majority (Washington, D.C.:
          Community College Press, 1985), p. 14.
 
                                         14
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          read at the 11th or 12th grade levels.#3  In a joint report of the
          Departments of Labor, Education, and Commerce, two-thirds of the
          employers consulted assessed the current pool of entry-level
          applicants as insufficiently prepared in academic skills.#4
 
          This is a particular concern for minorities and the economically
          disadvantaged, who traditionally have had lower levels of
          educational achievement than others.  About 85 percent of young
          white adults are literate at the 8th grade level, as compared with
          70 percent of Hispanics and 50 percent of blacks.#5
 
          Costs of Inadequate Preparation
          -------------------------------
          The inadequate preparation of young noncollege workers has both
          individual and social costs.  The unprepared individual forgoes
          considerable earnings over a lifetime while contributing to
          lagging national productivity growth and social welfare cost
          increases.  One year's cohort of high school dropouts and deficient
          high school graduates may forgo an estimated $150 billion to $300
          billion in earnings over their lifetimes, or about $135,000 to
          $300,000 per individual.#6  In addition, the government is likely
          to incur increased expenditures to address social problems, such as
          crime, drug abuse, prison, and welfare, estimated conservatively at
          $10 billion.#7  To what extent these losses could be recouped
 
 
         3Literacy rates for young adults, age 25 to 29.   Kirsch and
          Jungeblut, Literacy: Profiles of America's Young Adults.
 
         4Building a Quality Workforce.
 
         5Literacy: Profiles of America's Young Adults.
 
         6The ranges cited are based on differing assumptions of the
          portion of the income differential attributable to differences in
          educational attainment.
 
         7The costs of inadequate preparation were estimated by GAO using
          methodologies developed by James S. Catterall, Professor of
          Education, University of California at Los Angeles.  Catterall
          estimates that the 973,000 dropouts from the nation's high school
          "Class of 1981" will lose $228 billion in personal earnings over
          their lifetimes, while society will lose $68.4 billion in taxes
          (James S. Catterall, "On the Costs of Dropping Out."  California:
          Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance,
          December 1985).  Similarly, the Committee for Economic
          Development estimated that each year's class of dropouts costs
          the nation more than $240 billion in lost earnings and forgone
          taxes over their lifetimes.  Additionally, billions more will be
          spent on crime control and on welfare, health care, and other
 
                                         15
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          through increased investment in education and training is unclear;
          however, that significant costs will be incurred because of an ill-
          prepared work force is indisputable.
 
          How Do Our Trade Competitors Do?
          --------------------------------
          Our economic competitors face similar economic pressures, but
          experts perceive Japan, for example, as being ahead of the United
          States in preparing noncollege youth for the labor force and
          providing them with adequate academic skills.
 
          A comparison of literacy levels finds that over 85 percent of young
          people in England and over 90 percent in Japan, Sweden, and West
          Germany have the equivalent of at least eighth grade literacy.  In
          contrast, only 80 percent of their U.S. counterparts function at an
          eighth grade level or higher.  Also, national and international
          tests show that many U.S. students, while able to grasp basic
          mathematics skills, cannot handle problem solving or other higher-
          order thinking tasks.  Comparing the educational abilities of
          American youth with those of foreign youth suggests problems for
          future U.S. competitiveness.
 
          FOREIGN EDUCATION AND TRAINING
          ------------------------------
          The four countries we reviewed--England, the Federal Republic of
          Germany, Japan, and Sweden--are more homogeneous in population than
          the United States, although each has some immigrant subgroups.
          Their populations are also considerably smaller than the United
          States' 246 million.  (See table 1.3.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          social services disproportionately required for ill-prepared
          youth (Children in Need:  Investment Strategies for the
          Educationally Disadvantaged.  Committee for Economic Development.
          New York, 1987).
 
                                         16
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          Table 1.3:  Selected Characteristics of the Five Countries
 
                              United                                  West
                              States    England   Japan     Sweden    Germany
                              ------    -------   -----     ------    -------
      Population 1988
      (millions)                264       48       122        8.4        61
 
      Youth (15-24) as
      percentage of
      population                 15       14        15         14        17
 
      Unemployment rate,
      1988 (percent):
         Adult (25 +)           4.2      7.6a,b    2.2        1.3       6.7c
         Youth (Under 25)      11.0     12.8a,b    4.9        3.3       7.6c
 
      Percentage of youth in
      vocational curriculum      30       18        28         50        70d
 
      Postsecondary
      enrollment rates           57%      21%a      30%        37%       30%
 
      University
      enrollment rates#e         36%       8%a      24%        26%       26%
 
      aUnited Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland).
      bPreliminary data.
      c1987 for West Germany.
      dThe approximate percentage participating in apprenticeship.
      eConferring baccalaureate level degrees or higher.
 
          According to a recent study,#8 the countries spend
          proportionately more of their Gross Domestic Product#9 than does
          the United States for preprimary, primary, and secondary
          schooling.  (See fig. 1.1.)  Similarly, they spend more for
          special measures to help youth enter the work force, such as
          subsidized work experience, remedial education and training, and
          direct job creation for youth.  (See fig. 1.2.)  However, when
          expenditures for college education are combined with precollege
 
 
         8The Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper, Shortchanging
          Education: How U.S. Spending on Grades K-12 Lags Behind Other
          Industrial Nations, 1990.
 
         9Gross Domestic Product is similar to Gross National Product,
          which is the value of all final goods and services produced in an
          economy in a given year.
 
 
                                         17
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          education expenditures, the United States spends proportionately
          more than any other industrial country except Sweden.  (See fig.
          1.3.)
 
          Figure 1.1:  International Expenditures
          on Education: Preprimary Through
          Secondary Education (1985)
                   (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
          Source:  Economic Policy Institute.
 
          Figure 1.2:  International Expenditures
          for Special Youth Measures (1987)
                   (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
          Note:  Japan has no special youth measures.  Over 90 percent of
          youth finish high school.
 
          Source:  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
 
          Figure 1.3:  International Expenditures
          on Education:  Preprimary Through
          Higher Education (1985)
                   (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
          Source:  Economic Policy Institute.
 
          Following is a brief description of the countries' education and
          training systems.
 
          England:  Investment in Jobless Youth
          -------------------------------------
          Schooling in England is compulsory until age 16.  At 16, English
          youth may
 
               -- continue their education for 2 more years in high school
                  for an "advanced level" certificate, sometimes with the
                  aim of going on to a university or a polytechnic
                  institute;
 
               -- enter a technical or other "further education" college
                  (similar to a community college in the United States),
                  sometimes continuing on to a university or a polytechnic
                  institute; or
 
               -- enter the work force.
 
          About half of British youth leave full-time schooling at age 16.
          A 1989 report by a Confederation of British Industry task force
          states that:
 
               "Britain has one of the lowest rates of participation
               in post compulsory education and training of all the
 
                                         18
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
               OECD countries#10 and produces a much smaller number of
               school leavers educated to the standards required by a
               modern economy . . . ."#11
 
          Concern about inadequacies in the preparation of young workers
          led England in the 1980s to adopt a series of major revisions in
          its education and training system.  Notably, it has undertaken to
          establish
 
               -- requirements for world of work orientation, including
                  work experience for all secondary students;
 
               -- national skills standards developed by industry and
                  government, together with tests for certifying competence
                  levels; and
 
               -- a Youth Training Scheme guaranteeing up to 2 years of
                  work experience and job training for all 16- and 17-year-
                  old jobless out-of school youth.
 
          Federal Republic of Germany:  Training Through Apprenticeships
          --------------------------------------------------------------
               Primary school in the Federal Republic of Germany serves
          children from age 6 to 10 (or 11 in some states), after which the
          young people are separated into three discrete curricular paths:
 
               -- Hauptschule, leading primarily to blue collar
                  apprenticeships.
 
               -- Realschule, offering training for higher level but
                  nonacademic occupations, with many of the graduates
                  entering white collar apprenticeships.  The graduates
                  also can gain admission to a senior technical school.
 
               -- Gymnasium, leading to university admission.
 
          A few "lander" (states) have established comprehensive schools in
          response to pressures to alleviate the rigidity of the triple-
          track system.  Also, in recent years a larger proportion of youth
 
 
        10Britain consists of England, Scotland, and Wales.  The
          Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is
          composed of 24 countries, largely of western Europe, plus
          Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States.  It
          seeks to promote world and member country economic growth policies.
 
        11Towards a Skills Revolution - A Youth Charter, Interim Report
          of the Vocational Education and Training Task Force,
          Confederation of British Industry, July 1989.
 
                                         19
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          have been attending realschule and gymnasium.  Thirty- nine
          percent of eighth graders attended hauptschule in 1986 (see fig.
          1.4), in contrast to over 50 percent in 1975.
 
          Figure 1.4:  Federal Republic of
          Germany, Type of School
          Attended (1986)  (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
 
          At age 15 or 16, upon completion of compulsory full-time
          schooling, most youth enter apprenticeships that usually last 3
          years.  The apprenticeship system is known as the "dual system,"
          because it provides training both on the job and in compulsory
          part-time school.  Youth who initially are unable to obtain an
          apprenticeship typically attend 1 year of vocational school
          before trying again to enter the dual system.
 
          Dual system training actively involves industry, unions, and
          government.  Employers pay training and wage costs.#12  About
          400,000 firms, nearly one-fourth of all the firms in the country,
          sponsor apprentices.  Training curricula, examinations, and
          certification procedures are developed nationally through
          tripartite collaboration.
 
          Japan:  Recruitment Through the Schools
          ---------------------------------------
          School in Japan is compulsory for 9 years beginning at age 6,
          with 6 years of elementary school and 3 years of junior high
          school.  Ninety-four percent of young people continue on to high
          school for another 3 years.#13  (See fig. 1.5.)
 
          Figure 1.5:  High School Attendance In
          Japan (1985)   (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
 
          About 35 percent of high school graduates go directly on to
          work.  Employers hire virtually all of these youth based on the
          schools' recommendations.
 
               About 30 percent of the high school graduates continue on to
          university, junior college, or technical college, and about 28
          percent attend schools outside the regular school system,
          primarily proprietary schools.  Many attending the latter schools
 
 
        12Smaller firms that join together to form interfirm training
          workshops receive some funding from the federal and state governments.
 
        13The relatively few persons who attend high school at night
          attend for 4 years.  Night school students are persons who were
          not accepted to day school, persons having to go to work, or
          homemakers.
 
                                         20
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          are youth who are not accepted to college and are studying to
          take the college entry test again.  Others are interested in
          obtaining a specific qualification, such as for computer
          programmer.
 
          Japanese employers take on much of the responsibility for
          developing the occupational skills of the work force.  About
          three-fourths of Japanese firms provide some training to their
          workers.  The main training components provided by the firms are:
          on-the-job training, including rotating workers among
          assignments; training off the job, such as in centers organized
          by the firms; correspondence courses; and worker participation in
          group activities aimed at improving the firm's performance.
 
          Sweden:  Emphasis on Education and Training
          -------------------------------------------
          In Sweden, school is compulsory for 9 years starting at age 7,
          but children also are entitled to 1 year of preschool.  Over 90
          percent of youth go on to "upper secondary" school at age 16,
          which they attend for 2, 3, or 4 years depending on their
          vocational or "theoretic" lines of study.  About 50 percent of
          the youth are in vocational lines.  Out-of-school teenagers who
          are jobless are guaranteed further education, training, or a job.
 
          Worker training and retraining is extensive.  A recent survey of
          Swedish workers asked whether they had participated in any form
          of education during the preceding year.  Over one-half of
          professional and white collar workers, and over two-fifths of
          unskilled workers, said they had.  Sweden's investment in
          education and other human resource activities is proportionately
          larger than practically any other country, including Japan and
          the United States.
 
          OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
          ----------------------------------
          The Joint Economic Committee and the House Education and Labor
          Committee expressed concern about international competitiveness
          and the adequacy of U.S. employment preparation.  They asked us
          to examine the United States' and selected competitor nations'
          education and training strategies for preparing noncollege youth
          for employment.  Specifically, they asked us to identify
          weaknesses in the U.S. strategy for educating and training
          noncollege youth and assess whether other countries used
          approaches with this population that might be relevant to the
          United States.
 
          In a simplified description of U.S. weaknesses and foreign
          strengths, however, there is a danger that the U.S. education and
          training outlook may be seen as unduly bleak because the
          emphasis is on shortcomings.  Similarly, the foreign approaches
 
                                         21
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          that appear attractive often are accompanied by disadvantages.
          Also, the U.S. system is diverse, so that any generalization has
          limitations.  Finally, focusing on U.S. shortcomings and
          apparently effective foreign practices does not necessarily get
          at their complexities, interrelationships, or the context of
          which they are a part.
 
          Our objectives were to:
 
               1. Describe how the United States prepares its noncollege
                  youth for employment, including
 
               -- educational attainment levels by the youth population,
 
               -- the investment of public funds in education and training
                  for noncollege as compared with college youth, and
 
               -- the shortfalls in the U.S. education and training system.
 
               2. Examine how England, the Federal Republic of Germany
                  (West Germany), Japan, and Sweden prepare their
                  noncollege youth for employment, to determine whether
                  they share significant approaches that the United States
                  may want to consider.
 
          Our methodology involved examining literature on the U.S. and
          foreign education and training strategies; consulting with
          experts who described and assessed the U.S. and foreign
          systems;#14 and visiting the selected countries, where we
          observed school activities and interviewed government, industry,
          and union officials, educators, and researchers.
 
          As to the scope of the report, we did not seek to probe factors
          other than education and training that influence development for
          employment, although we recognize that successful school
          performance and the transition into the labor force are
          influenced by a variety of economic and social factors.  Also, in
          describing apparently effective approaches of the selected
          countries, we do not imply that all aspects are necessarily
          desirable, and we provide broad characterization rather than
 
 
       14 Our consultants were (1) Seymour Brandwein, former Director of
          the Office of Evaluation in the Department of Labor's Employment
          and Training Administration; (2) Norman Evans, Director, Learning
          From Experience Trust, London, England; (3) Robert W. Glover,
          Research Associate, University of Texas, Austin; (4) Ray
          Marshall, Professor, University of Texas, Austin, and former
          Secretary of Labor; and (5) James E. Rosenbaum, Professor of
          Sociology, Northwestern University.
 
                                         22
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          extensive detail.  Because of cultural and other differences,
          such as in demography and political systems, the foreign
          approaches may not be entirely appropriate or readily
          reproducible in the United States.  Precisely how or to what
          extent the foreign practices might be transferable was beyond the
          scope of the report.
 
          We selected the four countries for the following reasons:  Japan
          and the Federal Republic of Germany have enjoyed substantial
          economic growth and international competitiveness gains, in part,
          because of the quality of their work force.  Sweden, a much
          smaller country, also has achieved international economic success
          and has extensive experience in developing a skilled labor force.
          England, after economic recession and dissatisfaction with its
          employment development system, has undertaken in the 1980s to
          upgrade its youth education and training activities.
 
          Our work was performed between August 15, 1988, and December 18,
          1989, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
          standards.
 
 
 
                                         23
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                      CHAPTER 2
                                      ---------
                 U.S. STRATEGIES FOR PREPARING YOUTH FOR EMPLOYMENT
                 --------------------------------------------------
          The U.S. system for preparing youth, particularly noncollege
          youth, for employment has evolved without a coherent overall
          strategy.  The U.S. stresses the importance of a  college
          education without providing similar emphasis to preparing
          noncollege youth for employment.  Weaknesses, such as the
          inadequate development of academic skills, are apparent in the
          early school years, in high school, and after departure from
          school.  About 9 million U.S. youth--both school dropouts and
          high school graduates--are ill equipped to meet employer
          requirements for entry-level positions.
 
          OVERVIEW OF U.S. SYSTEM
          -----------------------
          Youth are generally required to attend school until age 16, but
          are encouraged to continue their secondary education until age 17
          or 18 to complete high school.  The federal government does not
          set U.S. education policy.  The education system is primarily
          locally controlled, with each school district determining
          priorities, budgeting, and staffing.  Schools receive about 50
          percent of their funding from state governments, 44 percent from
          local governments, and 6 percent from federal sources.  As a
          consequence, resources spent per pupil and for teachers' salaries
          vary significantly across school districts.  Local annual per
          student funding ranges from about $2,000 to about $6,000.
 
          Most school districts direct education through high school
          primarily toward developing academic skills, gearing their
          education to preparation for college entry.  High schools link
          their curricula to college requirements, advise youth on the
          connection between school achievement and college entry, and
          offer assistance on finding and being accepted to college.
          Opportunities for college education generally are extensive.
 
          For the noncollege oriented students, assistance is often
          lacking to enable them to recognize the relevance of schooling to
          work opportunities and to motivate them to do well.#15  Much less
 
 
        15John H. Bishop, "The Motivation Problem in American High
          Schools," Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working
          Paper #88-13, Cornell University, October 28, 1988; and James E.
          Rosenbaum, "Empowering Schools and Teachers: A New Link to Jobs
          for Non-College Bound," in Investing in People: A Strategy to
          Address America's Workforce Crisis, Background Papers, Vol. 1.
          Commission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency,
          1989.
 
                                         24
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          attention is devoted to preparation and assistance for noncollege
          youth's entry to work.  Many youth who drop out, and some who
          graduate from high school are deficient in the basic academic
          skills needed by many employers.#16  In addition, too few youth
          are taught about the world of work.  Educational instruction on
          the work world has not appreciably changed from 2 decades ago.
 
               "By and large, young people [in the United States] leave
               school without having learned about the nature of the jobs
               which exist in a community, the different opportunities in
               different industries, what employers expect from employees,
               and the agencies which can give them help."#17
 
          The schools generally do not help noncollege youth obtain
          suitable postschool employment.  Such assistance traditionally
          has not been their responsibility.  Nor is there any other
          "institutional bridge" to help noncollege youth make the
          transition from school to work.  Left to themselves, many
          dropouts and high school graduates flounder in the labor market,
          jobless or obtaining jobs with little opportunity for
          advancement.#18
 
          For young people who leave school with inadequate academic and
          work skills, programs supported principally by the federal
          government offer a "second chance."  Directed primarily to the
          economically disadvantaged, these programs, most notably under
          the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), offer generally brief
          skill training and job placement assistance.#19
 
 
 
        16The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Pathways to
          Success for America's Youth and Young Families, Final Report,
          Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship, November 1988.
 
        17Statement of W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, to General
          Subcommittee on Education, House Committee on Education and
          Labor, February 28, 1968.
 
        18William T. Grant Foundation, Commission on Work, Family and
          Citizenship, The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America,
          Interim Report on the School to Work Transition.  Washington,
          D.C., William T. Grant Foundation, January 1988.
 
        19Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for
          Participants With Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989)
          and Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant
          Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan.
          24, 1990).
 
 
                                         25
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          The United States looks to a variety of sources, in addition to
          employer training of its employees, to provide occupational
          training to develop a skilled young work force.  These include
          proprietary vocational schools; apprenticeship training programs,
          usually conducted jointly by employers and unions; the military
          services; and public community colleges principally offering mid-
          level occupational training along with academic education.  The
          2-year community colleges also serve as a route for going on to
          4-year colleges for preparation for the professions and other
          skilled employment.  In addition, they offer remedial courses and
          occupational training for participants in programs such as
          JTPA.#20
 
          LEVELS OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
          --------------------------------
          Under the educational system, about half of U.S. youth attend
          college by the time they reach age 25 (although only about one-
          fifth of all U.S. youth graduate).  Of the noncollege youth,
          most complete high school, but over one-fourth of all the youth,
          or about 9 million, do not attain high school competency, because
          they either drop out of high school or stay on to graduate
          without mastering academic skills assumed for high school
          graduates.  (See table 2.1.)
 
          Table 2.1:  Estimated Level of Education Completed Through Age 24
          (Youth age 16-24 in 1988)a
 
                                        Number      Percent
                                        ------      -------
          College graduate              5,900,000      18
          Some college (1-3 years)      9,900,000      30
          High school graduate
            with competency             7,800,000      24
          High school graduate
            lacking competency          3,800,000      12
          High school dropout           5,500,000      17
                                        ---------     ---
          Total                         32,900,000    100b
                                        ==========    ===
         aSee app. I.
         bNumbers do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
 
 
        20We do not further discuss training by the military or by
          community colleges.  Some regard community colleges essentially
          as providing a college education.  Some others, however, would
          contend that community colleges undertake some major occupational
          training functions that under ideal circumstances would be
          performed by secondary schools.
 
 
                                         26
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
 
 
          PUBLIC INVESTMENT FOR COLLEGE AND NONCOLLEGE YOUTH
          --------------------------------------------------
          Examination of public investment for college and noncollege
          youth reflects the high priority the United States places on
          college education and the comparatively limited attention to
          youth taking the employment rather than college route.  During
          the 9 years from age 16 through 24, the average public investment
          for education and training at current rates of expenditure totals
          about $14,000 per youth.  We recognize that the duration and
          skill level of college education and training require a greater
          investment than development for lower skill employment.  Still,
          the disparity in public investment indicates a likely shortfall
          in U.S. commitment to noncollege youth.  For each college youth,
          the U.S. invests about $20,000, more than twice the roughly
          $9,000 investment for noncollege youth (see table 2.2), which
          covers mostly high school education.
 
          Table 2.2:  Average Public Investment Per Youth for Education and
          Training (Ages 16-24)
 
                                        Post-
          Level of education            Total          high school
          ------------------            -----          -----------
          College youth                 $19,940        $10,440
            College graduate             24,700         15,200
            Some college (1-3 yrs.)      17,100          7,600
 
          Noncollege youth                9,130          1,460
               High school graduate      10,840          1,340
               Dropout                    5,520          1,720
 
          All youth                      14,230          5,770
 
          If we exclude high school expenditures to examine investment in
          education and training only after departure from high school,
          the disparity is much larger.  The average public expenditure for
          college youth is more than seven times larger than the average
          post-high school investment for the noncollege population.  (App.
          I discusses the methodology used to develop these estimates.)
 
          By citing the gap between investment in college and noncollege
          youth, we do not intend to question the desirability of the
          investment in college youth, but to point out the significantly
          smaller investment in youth who lack skills necessary for
          effective employment.  The gap appears rooted not merely in the
          higher costs of a college education, but in part in different
          underlying attitudes.  Funding for higher education is largely
          regarded as vital long-term national and economic investment.
 
                                         27
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          Funding for employment training for noncollege youth,
          particularly those least equipped to perform effectively in the
          labor market, has tended to be viewed more as a social, rather
          than an economic, responsibility.  Moreover, program costs for
          such youth tend to be seen essentially as a "current budget"
          issue and not as an investment that may be recouped both from
          economic returns from work-force improvement and from reductions
          in the costs of welfare, crime, and other social problems.#21
 
          WEAKNESSES IN U.S. SYSTEM
          -------------------------
          The U.S. system for preparing noncollege youth for employment has
          shortcomings.  In the early school years, many children enter
          school already behind, or quickly fall behind, and are not
          adequately helped to catch up.  These early lags in basic
          academic skills hamper progress throughout the school years and
          in subsequent work life.#22  While in high school, youth receive
          little assistance in making the transition from school to work,
          including little orientation to employment opportunities and job
          requirements.  After leaving school, second chance programs reach
          only modest proportions of youth needing them and generally
          provide youth with only limited academic remediation and skill
          training.#23  Post-high school noncollege training is often
          haphazard and of poor quality.
 
          Many Lag Behind in Early School Years
          -------------------------------------
          Children from low-income families often are not ready for school
          entry and, in the absence of special preschool preparation, tend
          to fall behind in school.  This problem has been recognized and
          tackled by the federal government, primarily through financing of
          the Head Start program for economically disadvantaged 3- to 5-
          year-olds.  Head Start provides educational, social, medical,
          nutritional, and other services, with parental involvement, to
          overcome start-up handicaps and prevent school failure.
 
 
 
        21Ray Marshall.  "A New Labor Market Agenda." In Workforce
          Policies for the 1990s.  Paper Presented to an Economic Policy
          Institute Seminar on Labor Market Policy, April 29, 1988.
 
        22Gordon Berlin and Andrew Sum. "Toward a More Perfect Union:
          Basic Skills, Poor Families and Our Economic Future," Occasional
          Paper 3, Ford Foundation Project on Social Welfare and the
          American Future, 1988, pp. 24-38.
 
        23Sar A. Levitan and Frank Gallo, A Second Chance: Training for
          Jobs, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1988, pp.
          65-73.
 
                                         28
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          Evidence of the relative effectiveness of Head Start (see fig.
          2.1) has led to some expansion of such efforts.  Head Start,
          administered by the Department of Health and Human Services,
          serves about 400,000 to 450,000 children each year with federal
          appropriations of about $1 billion.
 
          Figure  2.1: Long-Term Effects of Head
          Start    (Could not be viewed as ASCII text.)
 
          Source:  Harold Hodgkinson, The Same Client, p. 16.
 
          Once in school, many children do not keep pace with expected
          levels of progress, and special attention or compensatory efforts
          are necessary if they are to catch up.  Here, too, recognizing
          the need for additional assistance, the federal government
          finances programs for the educationally disadvantaged.  Most
          notably, under Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary
          Education Act, federal funds are channeled to schools serving
          low-income areas to provide supplemental instruction.  The
          program reaches about 5 million students, most in the early
          grades.  Federal financing amounts to roughly $4.5 billion a
          year.
 
          The magnitude of the problem of educationally disadvantaged
          children is such that even the significant investment in Head
          Start and Chapter 1 falls far short of reaching the bulk of the
          children in need.  Only about 20 percent of eligible youngsters
          are served by Head Start and about 50 percent by Chapter 1.
          Moreover, assistance is not continued throughout the school
          years, which often means an inability to maintain progress.#24
          Further, school systems do not regularly channel state and local
          funds to help youngsters headed for failure in high school as
          forewarned by lack of academic achievement, excessive school
          absenteeism, or behavioral problems.  In addition, some school
          systems in poorer areas lack the financial resources to meet the
          particularly sizable educational handicaps of their student
          populations.#25
 
          Schools Not Linked to Labor Market
          ----------------------------------
          The education system does not adequately prepare youth for entry
          to employment after leaving school.  U.S. schools are generally
          isolated from the labor market and traditionally have not been
 
 
        24The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Non-
          College Youth in America, Interim Report.
 
        25Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally
          Disadvantaged, Committee for Economic Development, 1987, pp. 5-10.
 
                                         29
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          responsible for assisting non-college-bound youth to make an
          effective transition from school to work.#26  They are not
          expected to provide orientation to job requirements and
          opportunities or to help such youth obtain employment.
 
               Limited Orientation to World of Work
               ------------------------------------
          Students who plan to look for employment immediately after high
          school typically do not recognize the relevance of schooling to
          work opportunities; hence, many are not motivated to do well in
          school.  Many youth do not gain a realistic awareness of the
          requirements of the work world and the opportunities available to
          them.  While they are likely to recognize the importance of a
          diploma for future employment, they do not see school grades as
          relevant for labor market success.  That employers generally do
          not check school grades when hiring for entry jobs reinforces
          students' lack of motivation.#27
 
          Many teenagers seek and hold part-time employment, but their
          jobs customarily are not linked to their schooling.  Although the
          employment serves as an opportunity to earn income and obtain
          some exposure to work demands, the educational system makes few
          efforts to develop this experience as instruction or pathways to
          future adult employment.
 
          While the objective of vocational education programs is to
          prepare youth for employment careers not requiring a college
          degree, many employers do not view vocational education overall
          as an effective and viable training system.#28  About 30 percent
          of high school students are in vocational education programs.
          Some programs are excellent and are turned to by employers as a
          key source of young workers.  But often, vocational education has
          lower status.  Many employers believe that the continuous
          technological innovations in the workplace have outpaced
          educators' efforts and limited resources to remain current in
 
 
        26The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Pathways
          to Success for America's Youth and Young Families, Final Report.
 
        27John H. Bishop, "The Motivation Problem in American High
          Schools"; and James E. Rosenbaum, "Empowering Schools and
          Teachers: A New Link to Jobs for Non-College Bound," in Investing
          in People: A Strategy to Address America's Workforce Crisis,
          Background Papers.
 
        28Michael Dertouzos, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT
          Commission on Industrial Productivity, Made in America:
          Regaining the Productive Edge, 1989, p. 85.
 
 
                                         30
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          many fields.#29  Other criticisms include:  vocational education
          neglects academic skill development, trains for occupations not
          in demand, teaches with outmoded equipment, and offers limited
          placement assistance.#30
 
          Additionally, the quality of vocational education available to
          students in poor school districts is significantly lower than
          that available to students in wealthier communities, according to
          the National Assessment of Vocational Education.#31  Students in
          poor neighborhoods are half as likely to have access to an area
          vocational center, and the schools they attend offer fewer
          vocational courses and fewer advanced vocational classes.
 
          Relatively few formal school programs link work experience to the
          students' school activities and occupational interests.  Only an
          estimated 3 percent of high school students are enrolled in
          formal combined school-work programs, such as cooperative
          education.#32  Cooperative education and related programs combine
          school and work, through either part-time employment while in
          school or alternating periods of school and work.  Employers are
          expected to observe specified standards and to provide
          supervision and instruction.
 
               Haphazard School-to-Work Transition
               -----------------------------------
          The schools and employer community generally provide little
          systematic assistance to help noncollege youth obtain employment.
 
 
        29"Shaping Tomorrow's Workforce: A Leadership Agenda for the
          90's," National Alliance of Business, 1988, p. 15; and U.S.
          Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S.
          Department of Commerce, A Joint Initiative.  "Building A Quality
          Workforce," July 1988.
 
        30John H. Bishop, "Vocational Education for At-Risk Youth:  How
          Can It Be Made More Effective?"  Center for Advanced Human
          Resource Studies Working Paper #88-11, Cornell University, August
          1, 1988; and The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half:
          Non-College Youth in America, Interim Report, Commission on Work,
          Family and Citizenship, January 1988, p. 42-51.
 
        31Pursuant to section 403 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
          Education Act of 1984, the Department of Education established
          the National Assessment of Vocational Education to conduct an
          independent national assessment of vocational education.  The
          Assessment issued its final report in July 1989.
 
        32The William T. Grant Foundation, The Forgotten Half: Non-
          College Youth in America, Interim Report.
 
                                         31
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          Left to themselves, many young people flounder in the labor
          market, remaining jobless or obtaining jobs that do little to
          improve their skills for future employment.#33
 
          Our society regards the departing students' progress in the
          labor market as the responsibility of the students or their
          families.  Schools rarely know what jobs youth obtain after
          graduation or even if they obtained employment.
 
          Employers provide a major part of American work-force training
          both formally and informally, but generally have been reluctant
          to train youth to overcome academic deficiencies.  However, they
          have increasingly established ties with schools to encourage
          improved student performance and to offer employment to higher
          performing youth.#34  One attempt is the Boston Compact, a
          collaborative agreement between Boston's public school system and
          business community to meet measurable goals for improving
          education and linking such improvements to increased employment
          opportunities.  The Boston Compact has now been replicated in 12
          other cities.
 
          Limited "Second Chance" Programs
          --------------------------------
          Second chance programs for poorly prepared youth are generally
          inadequate.  They train less than 10 percent of needy youth, tend
          not to devote much attention to literacy skills, and usually
          provide only brief job skill training.  A variety of programs
          have been undertaken, principally the federally funded JTPA, to
          aid youth with difficulties in obtaining employment.  These
          programs are conducted principally through state and local
          channels and are directed primarily to low-income youth.  JTPA
          encompasses three principal programs for youth:  training
          services for economically disadvantaged youth (Title IIA), the
          summer youth employment and training program (Title IIB), and Job
          Corps (Title IVB).
 
          JTPA Title IIA programs train about 5 percent of the eligible
          low-income youth population.  Title IIA programs are required to
          target at least 40 percent (about $700 million annually) of their
          budget to youth.  Between July 1988 and June 1989, Title IIA
 
 
        33The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America, Interim
          Report.
 
        34Business partnerships with local schools have grown to about
          84,000 by 1988, according to The Conference Board.  Andrew
          Ashwell and Frank Caropreso, eds. "Business Leadership: The Third
          Wave of Education Reform," The Conference Board, Inc., 1989, p. xiii.
 
 
                                         32
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          enrolled about 324,000 youth (ages 14-21).  About 87,000, or 27
          percent, of these enrollees were school dropouts.
 
          Title IIA programs devote relatively little attention to
          literacy skills and provide brief job skill training.  About 10
          percent of all JTPA youth participants receive remedial
          education.#35  Average occupational training is brief (usually
          less than 4-1/2 months).#36
 
          JTPA Title IIB provides for a subsidized summer employment and
          training program primarily for disadvantaged youth.  Some
          700,000 youth are provided jobs each summer under the program.
          The importance of basic academic skills as a prerequisite for
          most employment has led to coupling the youth's work experience
          with a basic education component to bolster literacy capability
          and combat student "summer learning loss."#37
 
          Although expensive, Job Corps is effective in assisting
          individuals with severe educational deficits and other employment
          barriers.  Job Corps is primarily a residential program for poor
          dropout youth; approximately 85 percent of its enrollees are
          dropouts.  Its dropout participants include about 5 percent of
          the pool of eligible low-income dropouts.  Administered directly
          by the Department of Labor through contracts to governmental,
          nonprofit, and private, for-profit organizations, Job Corps
          provides intensive, long-term job training and remedial
          education, as well as health care, counseling, and job placement
          assistance.  At an annual cost of $15,000 per participant, Job
          Corps enrolls about 70,000 youth a year.  Evaluation of the
          program has found substantial positive outcomes, including
          improvements in educational attainment, gains in employment and
          earnings, and declines in welfare dependency, with long-term
          benefits exceeding costs.#38
 
 
 
        35Job Training Partnership Act: Youth Participant
          Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan.
          24, 1990).
 
        36Sar A. Levitan and Frank Gallo, A Second Chance: Training for
          Jobs, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1988.
 
        37The administration has proposed a number of amendments to
          JTPA, including increased targeting of the hard-to-serve, the
          provision of more intensive services, and a separate "youth" title.
 
        38Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Evaluation of the Economic
          Impact of the Job Corps Program:  Third Follow-up Report,
          September 1982.
 
                                         33
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          Limited Postsecondary Training
          ------------------------------
          Noncollege youth may turn to private sector sources of training
          to build necessary job skills, yet each of the major sources of
          postsecondary noncollege training has weaknesses.  Proprietary
          schools serve many youth, but many schools do not provide
          effective training.  Apprenticeship programs can significantly
          upgrade skills, but are limited in the numbers of youth served.
          Regardless of the training source, however, training quality is
          often uncertain because of a general lack of recognized skill
          standards guiding curriculum and desired competency outcomes.  In
          the absence of competency-based standards and tests for
          certifying competency, employers may lack measures of skill
          attainment in deciding whether to hire training program
          graduates.
 
               Proprietary Schools
               -------------------
          These schools serve many noncollege youth, with substantial
          federal student aid assistance.  Proprietary schools offer skill
          training in particular occupational groups, such as in
          secretarial, health, computer, and repair fields.  In 1986, about
          763,000 students were enrolled in approximately 3,000 proprietary
          schools.  Such schools rely heavily on federal college assistance
          programs, most notably the Pell program, which extends financial
          assistance to proprietary school students.
 
          Much of the proprietary school training is not as effective as
          some other types of training for noncollege youth.  A 1989 study
          found that proprietary school programs improve the stability of
          employment but do not significantly upgrade students' skill
          levels.#39  In contrast, company training appeared to pay off in
          terms of both wages and employment. (See app. II.)
 
          Some operating practices of proprietary schools have caused
          concern about the quality of their programs.  Our 1984 study
          found patterns of misrepresentation to prospective students, lack
          of attention to admission and academic progression standards, low
          completion rates, and faulty use of federal financial aid
          programs.#40  Three-quarters of the students admitted without a
          high school degree and half of the students with a high school
          degree dropped out of proprietary schools before completing the
 
 
        39This analysis was done for GAO by Duane E. Leigh, Professor of
          Economics at Washington State University.
 
        40Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply With Department of
          Education's Pell Grant Program Requirements (GAO/HRD-84-17, Aug.
          20, 1984).
 
                                         34
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          programs in which they had enrolled.  Lack of attention to
          academic standards in admissions and progress is a factor in the
          high dropout rates from these programs.  There is limited
          government monitoring of proprietary schools' operating
          practices, despite findings of weak performance.
 
          Certificates from many proprietary school courses have little
          reliability.  In the absence of generally accepted skill
          standards, and standardized testing and certified competency
          levels, employers often rely on applicants' program completion as
          a proxy for skill competence.
 
               Apprenticeship Programs
               -----------------------
          Apprenticeships generally provide high-quality skills training,
          but serve few youth.  Apprenticeships are formal industry-based
          training programs through which apprentices receive formalized
          training over several years.  Theory taught in classrooms is
          combined with practical experience on the job.  At the end of the
          training period, the apprentice receives certification as a
          journeyman, which is recognized throughout the industry.
 
          Formal apprenticeships train only a small proportion of the work
          force, primarily in the building trades.  Less than 2 percent of
          American high school graduates become apprentices.  About 300,000
          persons are currently enrolled in programs registered by the
          Department of Labor.  Apprenticeship programs primarily train
          adults in their mid-twenties.  In 1989, less than 20 percent of
          apprentices nationwide were under the age of 23.  Competition for
          training programs is often quite fierce,  allowing employers to
          select more skilled and mature workers as apprentices.
 
          Employers and unions have primary responsibility for financing,
          developing, and conducting apprenticeship programs.  Federal and
          state involvement is generally limited to program registration
          and apprenticeship promotion.  The Department of Labor has
          recently reviewed the role that apprenticeship-type training
          might play in raising the skill levels of workers, and
          recommends expansion of such training.  Among the Department's
          recommendations are expansion of local school-to-apprenticeship
          efforts that are designed to bring students into apprenticeship
          programs either in the last years of high school or after high
          school graduation.#41  Additionally, the Department proposes a
 
 
        41School-to-apprenticeship projects began in the late 1970s as
          Department of Labor-sponsored demonstration projects.
          Departmental support ended in the 1980s, but some local projects
          continued. Currently about 1,500 high school students are involved
          in such apprenticeship programs nationwide.
 
                                         35
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          series of demonstrations, including new projects on school-to-
          apprenticeships and Job Corps preapprenticeship training.
 
 
 
                                         36
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                       CHAPTER 3
                                       ---------
                        FOREIGN STRATEGIES FOR JOB PREPARATION
                        --------------------------------------
          The four countries selected for review--England, the Federal
          Republic of Germany, Japan, and Sweden--have national policies
          aimed at effective employment preparation of noncollege youth. The
          judgment that a well-prepared young work force is vital for
          national economic growth and international competitiveness appears
          to underlie these policies.
 
          Several significant approaches that are shared by some or all of
          the four countries appear relevant to shortcomings in the U.S.
          strategy for noncollege youth.  The different institutions and
          cultural values among the selected countries and those of the
          United States caution against an assumption that the practices are
          entirely appropriate or easily transferable.  The foreign
          practices also have problems of their own and are often the subject
          of policy debate in their own countries.  Still, certain practices
          merit consideration, and indeed similar practices have been used in
          some U.S. localities and demonstration programs.  In brief, the
          approaches are:
 
               1. Schools emphasize student effort rather than ability and,
                  therefore, expect all students to attain the academic
                  skills necessary to perform effectively in postsecondary
                  education or the workplace.  The schools do not take it as
                  a matter of course that many students will lag behind.
 
               2. Schools and the employment community play a more active
                  role in guiding the transition from school to work,
                  including an orientation to the world of work built into
                  the school curriculum.
 
               3. Training is accompanied by certification of achievement of
                  competency on nationally determined skill levels.
 
               4. Governments make extensive investment in remedial
                  education, training, or job placement for jobless out-of-
                  school youth.
 
          EMPHASIS ON ALL YOUTH DOING WELL
          --------------------------------
          Some of the foreign countries emphasize giving all young people an
          even start.  Notable approaches are to avoid grouping youth by
          ability in the early grades, devote special attention to students
          with learning difficulties, allocate  similar basic resources to
          all schools, with an additional supplement for those in poorer
          areas, and attract and maintain a relatively well-paid teaching
          force.
 
                                         37
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
 
          Japanese schools demand high achievement, and all students are
          expected to achieve.  The schools emphasize student effort rather
          than ability as a critical element to academic success, with
          students not grouped by ability before high school.  Student
          achievement tends to be viewed as changeable.  Each student is
          expected to value the achievement of the entire class, thereby
          helping assure that classmates do not lag behind.  Teachers pay
          much attention to slower learners to help them keep up with the
          rest of the class.  Such attitudes and efforts likely contribute
          to a low variation in Japanese students' test scores.  Japanese
          youth score high in international tests not only because of high
          scores by the better performers but also because students in the
          lower half of the test group also do relatively well.
 
          The Japanese government tries to ensure uniform standards of
          quality in schools by providing them with similar resources (with
          somewhat more for vocational schools to meet additional costs of
          equipment), by providing uniform teacher salaries across all
          elementary schools, and by paying teachers well.  Beginning
          teachers' salaries are higher than those of beginning engineers.
          Moreover, most teachers come from the top 30 percent of their
          college graduating class.
 
          As with schools in Japan, Swedish schools emphasize all youth's
          performance.  Swedish schools do not give grades in primary school,
          believing that they can damage children's motivation and self-
          esteem.  Additional resources are provided to needy schools, such
          as those in remote rural areas and those having relatively high
          proportions of immigrant youth.
 
          STRUCTURED SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION
          ------------------------------------
          Each country seeks in some structured fashion to smooth the
          transition from school to work by giving students occupational
          information and guidance while in school, by combining schooling
          with work experience and on-the-job training, and by offering job
          placement assistance.  Employers play a significant role in
          youth's transition to work.  This includes structured work
          experience for secondary students in the four countries,
          apprenticeship training for most youth in the Federal Republic of
          Germany, and formal school-employer linkages for job placement of
          most youth in Japan.
 
          Work Orientation in School Years
          --------------------------------
          The foreign schools provide orientation to the world of work and
          build monitored work experience and occupational guidance into the
          secondary school years.  In 1983, England introduced the Technical
          and Vocational Education Initiative into the secondary school
 
                                         38
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          curriculum to prepare youth for "better working life by making what
          they learn at school, and the way they learn it, more relevant to
          the world of work."#42  Objectives of this initiative include
          relating the curriculum to the world of work, providing students
          with such workplace skills as teamwork and problem solving, and
          giving them direct knowledge of working life through work
          experience.  The government set a goal that by the early 1990s,
          every person aged 14-18 in full-time education will have access to
          this initiative.
 
          Schools in the Federal Republic of Germany provide orientation to
          the world of work, with courses offered in the seventh, eighth, and
          ninth grades.  This includes 1 to 2 weeks of work experience
          arranged by the schools, with schools setting work standards and
          employers providing information on students' performance.  Also,
          classes visit the local employment service office to obtain
          occupational and training information.  In the ninth grade,
          employment service staff provide information at the schools about
          local jobs and apprenticeships, and interested youth visit the
          local employment service office for individual career counseling.
 
          Sweden provides work orientation early in the school years.  From
          age 7 through 15, students complete 6 to 10 weeks of work
          orientation.  In addition, in each of the first and second years
          of high school, young people majoring in vocational fields spend
          10 percent of their time at a work site.  A 1988 program adding a
          third year to school includes work experience for 60 percent of
          the year.#43
 
          Schools Are Linked to the Labor Market
          --------------------------------------
          The foreign schools systematically facilitate the students'
          transition from school to work.  In England, for example, special
          teachers work with "careers officers" from the employment service
          to give students job information and placement assistance.  Also,
          England funds school-employer linkages whereby employers offer
          employment and training to students who, at age 16 (the completion
          of the compulsory school years), achieve certain academic and
          attendance and other behavioral goals.  England adopted this
          "compact" approach from the United States, specifically the Boston
 
 
 
        42"Employment for the 1990s" (Her Majesty's Stationery Office Cn
          540, Dec. 1988).
 
        43The 3-year program also provides modular and credentialed
          occupational courses as well as more theoretical studies to allow
          students to enter a university.
 
 
                                         39
 
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          Compact.#44  Unlike in the United States, however, all jobs
          obtained through compacts in England have formal provisions for
          training, leading to certificates of recognized competency.  Forty
          compacts are now in operation, targeted on England's inner city
          areas.
 
          In the Federal Republic of Germany, the school-employer link is
          provided through an extensive apprenticeship system that guides
          almost all 15- or 16-year-old non-college-bound youth from school
          to employment.  Apprenticeships usually are 3 years long.  The
          youth typically spend one to two days a week studying vocational
          and academic subjects, such as mathematics, German, and social
          studies, in state-run vocational schools and the remainder of the
          week receiving on-the-job training with employers.
 
          The primary purpose of the West German apprenticeship system (also
          called the dual system) is to develop a high-quality skilled work
          force.  Trainees are expected to be taught more than they may
          actually use on a specific job.  For example, a sales clerk trainee
          learns about selling, product quality, and pricing and obtains some
          accounting and computer knowledge.  The training is the basis for
          higher-skill middle management positions should the apprentice want
          to progress further.  In addition to imparting specific skills, the
          apprenticeship system seeks to socialize youth into the world of
          work, providing a slow introduction into the labor market.  Also,
          experts on the dual system note that training is needed to keep up
          with technological progress, for example, mechanics apprentices
          must now learn electronics.
 
          West Germany's apprenticeships are available in 380 occupational
          categories representing over 20,000 occupations.  Table 3.1 lists
          the leading apprenticeship occupations in 1987.
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        44William J. Spring, "Youth Unemployment and the Transition from
          School to Work: Programs in Boston, Frankfurt, and London," in New
          England Economic Review, March/April 1987.
 
                                         40
 
 
          B-238820
 
          Table 3.1:  West Germany's 10 Leading Training Occupations
          By Sex (1987)
 
                                        Percent of
          Trainees                      apprenticeships
          --------                      ---------------
          Men:
          ---
          Vehicle mechanic                    7.7
          Electrical fitter                   4.8
          Machine fitter                      4.0
          Painter and varnisher               3.2
          Joiner                              3.1
          Wholesale and export clerk          2.8
          Gas-fitter and plumber              2.8
          Bank clerk                          2.7
          Industrial clerk                    2.5
          Baker                               2.5
                                             ----
               Total                         36.1
                                             =====
 
          Women:
          -----
          Hairdresser                         8.4
          Office clerk                        6.8
          Sales assistant (stage 1)a          6.8
          Sales assistant in foods            6.6
          Industrial clerk                    5.8
          Doctor's receptionist               4.8
          Retail sales clerk                  4.6
          Dentist's receptionist              4.1
          Bank clerk                          4.0
          Wholesale and export clerk          3.0
                                             ----
               Total                         54.9
                                             =====
 
          aStage 1 refers to completion of a 2-year apprenticeship.
 
          Source:  West German Federal Ministry of Education and Science,
          Basic and Structural Data 1988/89.
 
          Youth in Japan obtain employment almost exclusively through
          school-employer linkages.  High schools are ranked academically
          within each school district, and students take a high school
          entrance examination to determine which school they can attend.
          Each school has ties with employers who assign a certain number of
          jobs to the school for its graduates.  More prestigious employers
          with better job offers recruit from the higher ranked schools.
 
          Almost all Japanese high school students seeking work are placed in
          jobs through their schools, and they start work immediately upon
          graduation.  In the beginning of each school year, Japanese high
 
 
                                         41
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          schools, acting as agents of the public employment service,
          nominate and rank their graduating students for each of the job
          offers, using grades and "behavior" (such as attendance records) as
          their main criteria.  The use of grades as a selection criterion
          motivates students to do well and helps them realistically assess
          their career options.  The schools know the employers' expectations
          and nominate students whom they think will fulfill them.  The
          employers then interview and hire all or most of the nominees.
 
          In Sweden, the schools usually manage occupational training.
          Students choosing a vocational field are typically trained in
          school, not by an employer as in West Germany.  Swedish students
          also have practical training with an employer.  Apprenticeship
          skill training is limited to construction fields, where teachers
          monitor the youth's activities at the work site.
 
          Many youth find jobs through contacts they have made with
          employers during their work experience or through family contacts.
          Others are provided placement assistance by school teachers, school
          counselors, and special employment service staff who work with
          youth up to age 25.
 
          RECOGNIZED SKILL STANDARDS
          --------------------------
          Some foreign countries seek to maintain quality  occupational
          training by testing and certification to meet national standards.
          Participants who pass competency tests receive nationally
          recognized credentials, which employers look to as evidence of
          skill levels of potential hires.#45  England's National Council for
          Vocational Qualifications works with industry to develop national
          skills standards.  The standards are expected to guide training
          content and to measure competencies attained from vocational
          training in schools, training programs such as the Youth Training
          Scheme, and company training.  Levels of achievement are intended
          to establish career progression to serve as a guide and motivator
          for youth.
 
          Under West Germany's dual system, committees of government,
          employer, and union representatives develop apprenticeship
          curricula, examinations, and certification procedures at the
          national level.  The contents of the training, and its length,
          remuneration, and examination requirements, are part of the
          contract between the employer and the apprentice.  Several
          measures seek to assure and check the quality of the apprenticeship
          training.  Employers must be approved for training capability by
          the local Chamber of Handicrafts or Chamber of Industry and
          Commerce (self-governing national industrywide boards) before they
          are able to hire apprentices.  In addition, in-company instructors
 
 
        45Notwithstanding the advantages of having training standards, there
          may be difficulties in their implementation.  For example, they may
          be costly to apply and difficult to keep up to date.
 
 
                                         42
 
 
          B-238820
 
          are trained and certified through the chamber as qualified to teach
          apprentices.  Also to assure quality, apprentices must pass
          national final examinations.  The examinations typically include
          written, oral, and practical tests and are administered before a
          committee of employer and employee representatives and vocational
          instructors.  Employers can lose their status as trainers if an
          apprentice is determined to have failed the final examination
          because of inadequate preparation by the employer.
 
          EXTENSIVE INVESTMENT IN JOBLESS YOUTH
          -------------------------------------
          The countries generally provide extensive assistance to jobless
          youth.  The programs vary, but reflect a national policy that youth
          who are unable to gain employment should be given further
          preparation so that they may become better qualified workers.
          England and Sweden guarantee further education, skill training,
          and/or placement in a job to most unemployed out-of-school youth.
          The programs are generally comprehensive and long-term.
 
          England has two major education and training programs, the Youth
          Training Scheme for out-of-school youth ages 16 and 17, and
          Employment Training for older youth and adults.  These programs
          are regarded as advances, but they have encountered operational
          problems leading to national debate as to desirable revision.
          The Youth Training Scheme guarantees training for every 16- and
          17-year-old who is not in full-time education or employment.#46
          The program provides 2 years of work experience and on-the-job
          training to 16-year-olds, and 1 year to 17-year-olds.  It also
          provides classroom training, much of which takes place in "further
          education colleges."#47  The youth are provided a weekly stipend
          while in the program.  Since its initiation in 1983, the Youth
          Training Scheme has had about 2 million participants.  About 70
          percent of out-of-school youth aged 16 have enrolled.  Three months
          after leaving the program (during 1988-89), four-fifths of the
          participants were in a job, training, or further education.
 
          Government, employer, and union representatives assert that the
          program's skills training needs improvement.  Although 38 percent
          of program participants and 66 percent of completers achieve
          vocational qualifications, the level of qualifications has been
          low.  Most youth have been qualified at only "level 1," that is,
          training for jobs that require minimum responsibility, such as
          file clerk and stock clerk.  A 1989 report by a Confederation of
          British Industry task force suggested a more flexible program in
 
 
        46The Youth Training Scheme is open to all out-of-school 16- and 17-
          year-olds, but the guarantee applies only to those who are
          jobless.
 
        47Run by local education authorities, further education colleges
          offer a range of courses specifically geared to local labor market
          needs.
 
 
                                         43
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          which "entitlement to a level of learning would replace
          entitlement to two years of training."   The task force also
          recommended
 
               "immediate moves to ensure that by 1995 all young people
               attain...level II or its academic equivalent [and] all young
               people should be given an entitlement to structured training,
               work experience or education leading to...level III or its
               academic equivalent."#48
 
          The Employment Training program, initiated in 1988, offers up to a
          year's training for persons aged 18 to 59 who have been unemployed
          for at least 6 months.  The participants receive classroom
          training, on-the-job training, and work experience.  They also
          receive assistance in finding a permanent job.  As of July 1989, 38
          percent of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 24.
          Among these younger participants are youth who missed out on the
          Youth Training Scheme.
 
          Sweden guarantees employment and training services to all jobless
          teenagers.  Programs vary with the age of the youth.  Municipal
          authorities are responsible for following up all young persons aged
          16 and 17 not in school or working and pursuing an individualized
          plan for their education, training, and employment.  Once youth are
          18, they become the responsibility of the public employment
          service, which provides such services as placement in training
          programs and jobs.
 
          Programs for 16- and 17-year-old school leavers assist the young
          people in going back to school or in obtaining employment. Youth
          who are "fed up" with school and who cannot find regular jobs are
          offered public or private sector "youth opportunities" employment.
          These are temporary jobs, lasting about 6 months, paying less than
          the market wage, and subsidized by state grants for about 60
          percent of the wage cost.  The jobs typically run 4 days a week,
          with the 5th day used for education.  Young people needing more
          assistance than offered by the youth opportunities jobs are
          provided education and training in vocational workshops in
          community youth centers and also are given guidance in solving
          personal problems.
 
          For 18- and 19-year-olds, the local employment service provides an
          individual plan of action.  This includes job search activities for
          7 weeks, with stipends the last 4 weeks if the youth are unable to
          find employment.  The youth also are counseled on education and
          training opportunities.  Those who cannot find employment are
 
 
        48Competency level II, which involves more individual
          responsibility than level I, includes skilled operative, word-
          processing, and sales clerk positions.  Level III requires
          competence in a wide range of work activities, many of which are
          complex and nonroutine.  In some cases, supervisory competence may
          be required.
 
                                         44
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
          guaranteed an "induction opportunity," usually a full-time job with
          private employers that lasts for 6 months.
 
          Jobless youth aged 20 and older are included in a program for
          adults.  Persons registered with the local employment service who
          are unable to find jobs may be referred to a community center with
          vocational workshops, education courses, and social services.
          Employment service or community center staff also may refer them to
          temporary public jobs.  In addition, the employment service may
          refer jobless persons to an "AMU" training center.#49   Persons
          receive a grant while in AMU training.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        49In 1986, the Swedish government established a self-financing
          organization, the AMU Group, which sells training services to both
          the public and private sectors.  AMU provides training to about
          80,000 persons each year.  It uses a modular training system, and
          its training is "results based" (that is, no set time is required
          for completion).  AMU provides academic and vocational curricula
          primarily at the upper secondary level, but also offers university
          and remedial subjects.
 
                                         45
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
                                       CHAPTER 4
                                       ---------
                         CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
                         -------------------------------------
          The United States has a worldwide reputation for giving its youth
          extensive opportunities to attend college.  Its preparation of non-
          college-bound youth for employment, however, is inadequate.
          Unlike some of its economic competitors, the United States has no
          national policy to prepare noncollege youth systematically for the
          labor market.  The United States falls short in significant
          respects in employment preparation of many youth, most notably in
          equipping them with necessary literacy skills and providing for
          effective transition from school to work.
 
          Based on our review, we conclude that several or all of four
          foreign countries share certain approaches that the United States
          might consider for improving U.S. education and training.  In
          fact, similar approaches are being tried in some U.S. localities
          and demonstration programs.  However, caution should be exercised
          in adopting the foreign approaches--their implementation must be
          tailored to the United States' social and political
          characteristics.
 
          The approaches we see as significant in the foreign countries
          appear to be rooted in a national judgment that a well-prepared
          young work force is vital for national economic performance and
          international competitive ability.
 
          The countries have developed literacy of a relatively high level
          for all students by such practices as
 
               -- assuring comparable resources to all schools, with more
                  for those with needy populations;
 
               -- making teaching a relatively high-status, well-paying
                  profession; and
 
               -- providing extra attention and help to lagging youth.
 
          The foreign nations customarily provide structured transition from
          school to work.  They offer students  orientation to work,
          monitored work experience, apprenticeship training, career
          guidance, and direct job placement through the schools.
 
          The roles and relationships of the schools, public employment
          agencies, and employers--while differing in each country--tend to
          be integrated and clear.  Thus, most youth know where to turn, and
          relatively few fall between the cracks in the path from school to
          work.
 
          For youth who do encounter employment difficulty after leaving
          school, the countries' systems seek to reach most of them.  They
          provide education, training, or jobs.  The assistance typically is
          intensive and long term.
 
                                         46
 
 
 
          B-238820
 
 
          These practices in the foreign countries suggest the following
          policy directions: U.S. federal, state, and local governments
          should strive to ensure that all children attain the academic
          skills necessary to perform effectively in postsecondary education
          or the workplace.  This could include:
 
               -- Expanding preschool and early intervention programs such
                  as Head Start to reach more needy youth.
 
               -- Expanding compensatory programs such as Chapter 1 through
                  the school years so that availability of continuing
                  special support maintains student progress.
 
               -- Providing adequate educational resources for all children
                  as a means to improve the opportunity for them to achieve
                  academic skills competency.
 
          U.S. federal, state, and local governments should also consider
          developing and promoting more school-employer linkages,
          particularly to expand combined education and work
          (apprenticeship-type programs) and to assist youth to obtain
          suitable entry employment.  In addition, they should explore ways
          to develop standards and competency certifications that can be
          applied to school and industry training programs.
 
          Adopting effective education and training strategies nationwide to
          improve national productive capability and international
          competitiveness will require strong leadership and an active
          federal role.  The executive branch is the logical focal point for
          national responsibility.  The Department of Education, in
          combination with the Department of Labor, should take the lead in
          helping state and local officials and industry and labor
          representatives work more effectively to equip U.S. noncollege
          youth to meet the nation's need for well-qualified future workers.
          (We did not analyze potential costs or funding sources.)
 
 
 
 
                                         47
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
                              METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING
                              --------------------------
                           INVESTMENT IN YOUTH AND TRAINING
                           --------------------------------
          This summary paper, prepared by Seymour Brandwein (consultant to
          GAO), describes how estimates have been developed of the current
          rate of public investment by the United States in education and
          training for college youth as compared to noncollege youth, in the
          9 years from the end of compulsory education upon age 16 through
          age 24.  It first outlines the methodology, then presents the basic
          data and calculations, and concludes with the resulting estimates.
 
          METHODOLOGY
          -----------
          The basic elements involved are (1) the youth population, by
          levels of education; (2) the four broad types of education and
          training; and (3) the current annual public investments
          (expenditures) in each type.  More specifically:
 
               1. Focus is on the youth population aged 16-24, which totaled
                  32.9 million in 1988.#50  That population is divided into
                  college and noncollege youth:  Those out of school are
                  classified by the level of education completed, and it is
                  assumed that those still in school or college will complete
                  various levels at the same rate as those who have already
                  left school.  The resulting estimate is that before age 25,
                  nearly half, 15.8 million, have gone or will go to
                  college, while 17.1 million will not.  A further
                  distinction is drawn for the college youth, between those
                  (5.9 million) who graduate from college (4 years'
                  attendance) and those (9.9 million) who go for 3 years or
                  less, and for the noncollege youth, between high school
                  graduates (11.6 million) and high school dropouts (5.5
                  million).
 
               2. The four types of education and training (and related
                  employment assistance) covered are:  college education (at
                  4- and 2-year colleges), high school education, "second-
                  chance" programs basically outside the school system, and
                  postsecondary noncollege training.
 
               3. Current (or recent) annual public investment (federal,
                  state, and local government expenditures) are estimated for
                  youth aged 16-24, by level of education, for each type of
                  education and training.#51  It is assumed that these
                  current rates of expenditure were in effect for each year of
 
 
        50October 1988 Current Population Survey.  This is civilian
          noninstitutional youth, thus excluding youth in military service
          and in prisons.
 
        51Investment by the military services in occupational training
          and college education is not included.
 
                                         48
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
                  education or training that the youth have had since age 16
                  and will continue through their age 24.
 
          To come up with the total investment for a college youth as
          compared to a noncollege youth, the basic procedure is to apply
          the annual per youth expenditure for each type of education and
          training to the number of years in the 16- to-24-year age period
          that each group of youth (college or noncollege) gets that type of
          education and training.
 
          Key assumptions for college youth are that "graduates" get 4 years
          of the annual public investment in college education (though some
          may get more than 4 years before age 25), and that college
          attendees who do not graduate get an average of 2 years of college
          investment.  All the college graduates and attendees also have 2-
          1/2 years of high school education investment (from age 16 through
          18-1/2).
 
          For the high school graduates not going to college, we also assume
          receipt of 2-1/2 years of high school education investment.  In
          addition, they receive the average annual investment in second-
          chance programs for high school graduates for the number of years
          they are out of high school through age 24, generally 6-1/2 years
          from average graduation age 18-1/2 through age 24.  This period
          varies by specific programs:  for programs with eligibility only
          through age 21, the number of years their per youth investment is
          made is 3-1/2 (from age 18- 1/2 through 21).  Finally, they receive
          the similarly calculated postsecondary noncollege training
          investment in high school graduates (average annual expenditure
          multiplied by 6-1/2 years from high school graduation through age
          24).
 
          For the high school dropouts, the assumption is 1 year of the
          annual high school education investment (on the basis of average
          dropout age of 17).  To that is added the average annual
          investment of second-chance programs for dropouts multiplied by
          the number of years dropouts are out of school and eligible.
          Finally, they receive the average annual investment in
          postsecondary noncollege training for dropouts for an assumed 8
          years from dropout at age 17 through age 24.
 
 
 
 
                                         49
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
          INVESTMENT IN COLLEGE EDUCATION
          -------------------------------
          We use an estimate of $3,800 as the public expenditure per year of
          college education.  This is derived from an estimate of total
          public investment of $45.3 billion a year for college education,
          divided by an estimated annual enrollment of 12 million students of
          all ages in public and private colleges.
 
          The $45.3 billion is developed from the following components:  The
          revenues of higher education institutions from government
          (federal, state, and local) sources were $30.7 billion in 1986,
          according to the Department of Education's National Center for
          Education Statistics (NCES) report on Conditions of American
          Education, 1988 (Vol. II, p. 95).
 
          In addition, revenue from student and tuition fees is supported in
          part by government financial aid for college students.  In the year
          1988-89, the cost of federal grant and loan assistance for college
          students was approximately $7 billion, with state student aid
          assistance appearing to be about another $1 billion.  The two
          estimates (direct appropriations of $30.7 billion and student aid
          of $8 billion) combine to total $38.7 billion.
 
          Added to this is part of indirect governmental support provided to
          colleges through grants and contracts for research and other
          activities.  The NCES estimates total such grant and contract
          funding in 1986 at $13.3 billion.  We consider half of this
          funding, or $6.6 billion, to be an (indirect) investment in higher
          education.  The $6.6 billion, plus the $38.7 billion for direct
          support and student aid, makes the annual expenditure total $45.3
          billion, the estimate we use.
 
          As to the number of college students over whom this investment is
          spread, NCES estimates (Vol. II, p. 109) total enrollment in 1987
          in public and private colleges at 12.5 million.  We believe this
          total unduly high for our expenditure estimating and
          (conservatively) reduce it to 12 million for our estimates.  We do
          this because the NCES total includes many enrollees with limited
          attendance (42 percent are part-time enrollees) and because it
          includes enrollees who were in military service and receive
          military postservice college education assistance not included in
          our estimates.
 
          Our estimate of $3,800 public expenditure per student year of
          college education is less than has been estimated by others.
          Thus, the Grant Foundation November 1988 report, The Forgotten
          Half, indicates (p. 130) about $40 billion in public expenditures
          for 9 million students, or some $4,400 a year per student,
          appreciably higher than our estimate.
 
          INVESTMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION
          -----------------------------------
          For each student year of high school education, we used an estimate
          of $3,800 public expenditure (coincidentally the same as that for
 
 
                                         50
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
          college education).  NCES's Condition of Education does not present
          a specific overall estimate.  It provides (Vol. I. p. 92) an
          estimate of $4,300 in total expenditures (current expenditures,
          capital outlays, and interest on school debt) per pupil in average
          daily attendance in 1987 at public elementary and secondary
          schools.  Extending this public expenditure to cover the 11 percent
          of students in private schools, the average public investment per
          student year in public and private schools is about $3,800.
 
          Available data do not break down expenditures for elementary
          versus high school education.  Although average expenditures are
          probably greater for a high school than an elementary school
          student, we assume equal average expenditures of $3,800 for each.
 
          Approximately the same estimate is indicated by Anthony Carnevale
          and Leila Gainer of the American Society for Training and
          Development in The Learning Enterprise report prepared for the
          Department of Labor.  They state that "the nation's public
          and private elementary schools currently serve 40 million students
          at a cost of $150 billion a year," or about $3,750 per student
          year.
 
          INVESTMENT IN SECOND CHANCE PROGRAMS
          ------------------------------------
          Table I.1 presents the data on annual public expenditures for
          youth in education, training, and employment programs conducted
          essentially outside the school system, commonly called (and labeled
          here as) the "second-chance" programs.  Unless otherwise indicated
          by a footnote, these are appropriations data from GAO's 1989
          report, Training Programs:  Information on Fiscal Years 1989 and
          1990 Appropriations (GAO/HRD-89-71FS).
 
          The table is in four parts, each showing programs for a different
          age period (years of age in which youth are eligible).  The data
          are broken into estimates separately for high school graduates and
          high school dropouts.  (It is assumed that no enrollees in these
          programs have attended college, although some in fact have been
          college attendees, so the final estimates overstate a bit the
          investment in high school graduates and dropouts while understating
          that in college youth.)
 
 
 
 
                                         51
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
                                     Table I.1:
                               Second-Chance Programs'
                            Annual Expenditures for Youth
 
                                 Dollars in millions
                                               Estimated
                                               approps. for   Estimated for
                                     Total     eligible-age  ___high school__
     Program                        approps.      youth      Grads.  Dropouts
     -------                        --------   ------------  ------  --------
     Part 1.  Programs for youth aged 16-21:
     -------  -----------------------------
     JTPA Title II-A training for
        out-of-school youth           $1,790a      $  418      $222b     $196b
 
     JTPA Job Corps                      740          740       150       590
 
     JTPA Summer Youth Employment
        Program                          710c         430c      345d       85d
 
     State and local youth
        conservation and service
       corps programs                    150e         150e      100e       50e
                                                   ------      ----      ----
          Total                                    $1,738      $817      $921
                                                   ======      ====      ====
     Part 2.  Program for in-school youth aged 16-21:
     -------  --------------------------------------
     JTPA Title II-A training for
        in-school youth#b             $1,790g      $  302g     $201      $101g
 
     Part 3.  Program for youth aged 22-24:
     -------  ----------------------------
     JTPA Title II-A training         $1,790       $  175b     $125i     $ 50i
 
     Part 4.  Programs for youth aged 16-24:
     -------  -----------------------------
     Vocational Rehabilitation        $1,440       $  120j     $ 80j     $ 40j
     Adult Education (federal)           136           45k       23k       22k
     Adult Education (state and
        local)                           175l          58k       29k       29k
     Food Stamp Employment and
        Training                         116           38k       19k       19k
     Welfare Recipient Employment
        and Training                     130m          65m       33m       33m
     Targeted Jobs Tax Credit            210n         125n       83n       42n
     Miscellaneous other federal,
        state, and local programs        N/Ao         100p       75p       25p
                                                   ------      ----      ----
      Total                                        $  551      $342      $210
                                                   ======      ====      ====
 
 
                                         52
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
          aOf total appropriation for JTPA Title II-A, 40 percent ($720
          million) is allocated for youth age 16-21; 58 percent of
          enrollees are out of school, so 58 percent of allocation is
          estimated for such youth.
 
          bBased on estimates of the Department of Labor's Job Training
          Quarterly Survey (JTQS) for 1987, 48 percent of age 16-21
          enrollees out of school are dropouts; the remainder are
          considered high school graduates (including 10 percent who had
          attended college).  Assumes average expenditure is the same for
          both graduates and dropouts.
 
          cProgram is for age 14 through 21:  39 percent of enrollees are
          age 14-15, so expenditure for ages 16-21 is estimated at 61
          percent of total appropriation.
 
          dMost enrollees age 16-21 are still students.  The proportion of
          appropriations estimated for dropouts has been calculated by
          adding the number of enrollees who have already dropped out and
          the number (17 percent) who it is estimated will drop out, and
          applying the resulting percentage of total enrollment to
          appropriations, with the remaining percentage assigned here to
          high school graduates.
 
          eEstimate of appropriations is from Grant Foundation November
          1988 report, The Forgotten Half, p. 132.  Arbitrarily assumes
          two-thirds of enrollees are high school graduates and one-third
          are dropouts.
 
          fIncludes some youth age 14-15, but all expenditures assigned
          here to ages 16-21.
 
          gOf total appropriation for JTPA Title II-A, 40 percent ($720
          million) is allocated for youth age 16-21; 42 percent of
          allocation is estimated for such youth.  Assumes arbitrarily
          that two-thirds of in-school enrollees become graduates and one-
          third become dropouts.
 
          hPortion of over-age-21 funding estimated as allocated to
          enrollees age 22 through 24.  Based on data from JTQS indicating
          proportion of enrollees age 22 or older who are 22 to 24 and
          assuming average Title II-A expenditures for each enrollee in
          this age group.
 
          iBased on JTQS survey estimates that 27 percent of enrollees age
          22 or older are high school dropouts, the remainder are
          considered high school graduates (including 23 percent who had
          attended college).  Assumes average expenditure is the same for
          both graduates and dropouts.
 
 
                                         53
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
          jGAO report on training programs (p. 21) estimates 15 percent of
          appropriation is for training.  Allowing for job-finding
          assistance and other employment-related aid, estimate here is
          arbitrarily raised to 25 percent, so that $360 million may be for
          education, training, and employment.  Of that, assume one-third
          is for youth, resulting in $120 million estimate.  Assumes two-
          thirds is for high school graduates and one-third for dropouts.
 
          kAssumes one-third of appropriation is for youth, with half of
          that for high school graduates and half for dropouts.
 
          lEstimate from Sar Levitan and Frank Gallo, Uncle Sam's Helping
          Hand:  Education, Training, and Employing the Disadvantaged, p.
          10.
 
          mCombination of WIN Program and new JOBS Program.  Assumes half
          of appropriation goes for youth, with half of that for high
          school graduates and half for dropouts.
 
          nEstimated foregone tax revenue (rather than appropriations).
          From Sar Levitan and Frank Gallo.  "The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit:
          An Uncertain and Unfinished Experiment," Labor Law Journal, Oct.
          1987.
 
          oNot applicable.
 
          pArbitrary estimate for various other relatively limited
          assistance programs (Employment Service for example) and small or
          pilot federal, state, and local government-financed programs.
          Assumes three-fourths for high school graduates and one-fourth
          for dropouts.
 
          The Table I.1 data are the bases for calculation of the
          estimates of average expenditure of the second-chance programs
          per youth during ages 16 through 24.
 
          For high school graduates, the average total expenditure is
          estimated as $510 per graduate not going on to college.  The
          calculations are:
 
               1. Part 1 programs' total annual appropriations of $817
               million for graduates divided by the 11.6 million high
               school graduates equals $70 average expenditures per
               graduate per year times 3.5 years (from graduation age 18-
               1/2 through age 21) equals $245 total average expenditure
               per graduate.
 
               2. The Part 2 in-school program appropriation of $201
               million divided by the 11.6 million graduate equals $17 per
 
 
                                         54
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
               graduate times 2-1/2 years in school (at ages 16 through 18-
               1/2) equals $43 total per graduate.
 
               3. Part 3 programs' appropriation of $125 million divided by
               the 11.6 million graduates equals $11 a year per graduate
               times 3 years (from age 22 through 24) equals $33 total per
               graduate.
 
               4. Part 4 programs' appropriations of $342 million divided
               by the 11.6 million graduates equals $29 a year per graduate
               times 6-1/2 years from graduation (at age 18-1/2 through age
               24) equals $189 total per graduate.
 
          Combining the total average expenditures per graduate of each of
          these four sets of programs ($245, $43, $33, and $189) yields the
          estimated total investment of $510 in second-chance programs for
          a high school graduate.
 
          For high school dropouts, the per youth total expenditure in
          second-chance programs is $1,180, the rounded addition of the
          totals calculated below:
 
               1. Part 1 program total annual appropriations of $921
               million directed to dropouts divided by the 5.5 million
               dropouts equals $167 average per dropout per year times 5
               years (from dropout age 17 through age 21) equals $835 total
               per dropout.
 
               2. The Part 2 program appropriation of $101 million divided
               by 5.5 million dropouts equals $18 per dropout per year
               times 1 year in school (from age 16 to dropout age 17)
               equals $18.
 
               3. The Part 3 program appropriation of $50 million divided
               by 5.5 million dropouts equals $9 times 3 years (from age 22
               through 24) equals $27.
 
               4. Part 4 program appropriations of $210 million divided by
               5.5 million dropouts equals $38 times 8 years (from dropout
               at age 17 through age 24) equals $304.
 
          INVESTMENT IN POSTSECONDARY
          ---------------------------
          NONCOLLEGE TRAINING
          -------------------
          Appreciable portions of federal financial assistance to students
          for higher education are used to attend noncollege occupational
          training schools.  Table I.2 presents estimates of how much of
          the three principal federal assistance programs are going to
          youth to attend proprietary (noncollege) schools, with a
 
                                         55
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
          breakdown into the estimated shares going to high school
          graduates and to dropouts.  Those proprietary schools account for
          about 75 percent of postsecondary noncollege training enrollment.
          The data do not include financing for public vocational
          institutes (sometimes attached to colleges), so the data totals
          here understate the extent of investment in postsecondary
          noncollege training.
 
                                    Table I.2:
                        Postsecondary Noncollege Training:
                   Public Annual Expenditure for Youth Age 16-24
 
  Dollars in millions
                                     Estimated
                                     approps.     Extimated  Estimated for#b
                             Total   proprietary  for youth  ___high school___
  Program                  approps.  schools      16-24#a    Grads.   Dropouts
  -------                  --------  -----------  ---------  ------   --------
  Pell grants for higher
     education#c           $4,484    $1,121c      $  841    $  682    $170
 
  Higher education insured
     loans#d                3,554     1,280d         960       768     192
 
  Supplemental educational
     opportunity grants#e     438        57e          43        34       9
                           ------    ------       ------    ------    ----
       Totals              $8,476    $2,458       $1,844    $1,484    $371
                           =======   =======      =======   =======   =====
 
   a)Of appropriations estimated as going to proprietary school students,
     the portion going to youth age 16-24 is estimated arbitrarily at 75
     percent.
 
   b)Assumes 80 percent for high school graduates, 20 percent for
     dropouts.
 
   c)GAO report on training programs (p. 22) estimates 25 percent used for
     proprietary noncollege school students.
 
   d)GAO report on training programs (p. 23) estimates 36 percent used for
     proprietary noncollege school students.
 
   e)GAO report on training programs (p. 23) estimates 13 percent used for
     proprietary noncollege school students.
 
          The table I.2 data are the bases for the estimates of the
          average investment in postsecondary noncollege training for
          youth, as calculated below.
 
          For high school graduates, the average total expenditure per
 
 
                                          56
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
          youth for such training in proprietary schools through age 24 by
          those major federal assistance programs is $830:  the annual
          appropriations of $1,484 going to high school graduates divided
          by the 11.6 million graduates under age 25 equals $128 average a
          year per graduate times 6-1/2 years (from graduation age 18-1/2
          through age 24) equals $830.
 
          For high school dropouts, the average total expenditure by
          programs per dropout is $540:  annual appropriations of $371
          million divided by the 5.5 million youth dropouts equals over $67
          a year per dropout times 8 years from dropout age 17 through age
          24 equals $540.
 
          Estimates of Public Investment
          ------------------------------
          Table III presents the estimates, from the preceding data and
          calculations, of the U.S. public investment in education and
          training for youth during ages 16 through 24, distinguishing
          between college and noncollege youth.  The estimates should be
          recognized as approximate, for they would shift a bit with
          changes in assumptions or further refining, but they can serve as
          sound indicators of orders of magnitude of current U.S. public
          investment practice.
 
 
 
 
                                         57
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
 
                                    Table I.3:
                         Estimated U.S. Public Investment
                          in Youth Education and Training
                       During 9 Years From Age 16 Through 24
                               by Level of Education
 
                                                   Average investment per youth
       Level of education                          ----------------------------
    and investment component                            Total      By component
    ------------------------                            -----      ------------
  All college youth                                   $19,940
     College graduate (4 years)                        24,700
       College education, 4 yrs. x $3,800 a yr.                        $15,200
       High school education, 2-1/2 yrs. x $3,800 a yr.                  9,500
 
     College attendee (1 to 3 years)                   17,100
       College education, 2 yrs. x $3,800 a yr.                          7,600
       High school education, 2-1/2 yrs. x $3,800 a yr.                  9,500
 
  All noncollege youth                                 $9,130
     High school graduate not attending college        10,840
       High school education, 2-1/2 yrs. x $3,800 a yr.                  9,500
       Second-chance programs                                              510
       Postsecondary noncollege training                                   830
 
     Dropout from high school                           5,520
       High school education, 1 yr. x $3,800 a yr.                       3,800
       Second-chance programs                                            1,180
       Postsecondary noncollege training                                   540
 
 
                                          58
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX II                                             APPENDIX II
 
                         TRAINING FOR NON-COLLEGE-BOUND YOUTH
                         ------------------------------------
          We examined non-college-bound youth's participation in
          postsecondary occupational training programs and the impact of such
          training on employment and earnings.  This analysis is based
          primarily on a paper prepared for GAO by Duane Leigh, Professor of
          Economics, Washington State University.#52  Leigh examined youth's
          participation in training provided by proprietary schools, by
          apprenticeship programs, and formally by companies. He analyzed
          data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth#53 to determine
          (1) how likely individuals are to receive various types of training
          and (2) what impact such training had on wages and stability of
          employment.
 
          PARTICIPATION IN POSTSCHOOL TRAINING PROGRAMS
          ---------------------------------------------
          Leigh examined how participation in occupational training varied by
          ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, and type of training
          provider.  This analysis showed that:
 
               -- There is a strong relationship between the amount of formal
                  schooling obtained and the likelihood of receiving
                  postschool training.  High school graduation was found to
                  significantly increase the likelihood of participating in a
                  proprietary school program, company, or apprenticeship
                  training.  But college attendance and graduation further
                  increase the likelihood of receiving company training.
 
               -- Women are less likely than men to gain access to
                  apprenticeship programs and are more likely to participate
                  in proprietary school training programs.  Women and men
                  appeared to be equally likely to participate in company
                  training.
 
               -- All else constant, blacks are somewhat less likely than
                  whites to participate in apprenticeship programs, but about
                  as likely to participate in proprietary school and company
                  training.
 
 
 
        52Duane Leigh, What Kinds of Training "Work" for Noncollege Bound
          Youth? October 1989.  Paper prepared for GAO.
 
        53The survey has collected data annually since 1979, when
          respondents were 14 to 21 years of age. It surveys a nationally
          representative sample of over 12,000 males and females.  The
          sample Leigh used contains information from 1979 through 1987.
 
 
 
                                          59
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX II                                             APPENDIX II
 
               -- With one exception, there seems to be no sizable difference
                  between Hispanics and whites in the likelihood of
                  participation in any of the three postschool training
                  categories.  Hispanic females are less likely to
                  participate in proprietary school programs than are white
                  women.
 
          A related GAO analysis, using data from the 1984 Current
          Population Survey,#54 found of all the respondents aged 16 to 24,
          12 percent had received private or public occupational training
          during 1982-84.  Of these, 7 percent were high school dropouts, and
          3 percent received Aid to Families With Dependent Children welfare
          benefits.
 
          About 50 percent of those receiving training received classroom
          skills training.  About 30 percent received on-the-job training.
          Fifty percent of the respondents receiving training had it paid for
          by employers, and about 30 percent paid for the training
          themselves.
 
          IMPACT ON WAGES AND EARNINGS
          ----------------------------
          Leigh also examined what impact training had on wages and earnings
          and whether the impact varied by ethnicity or type of training
          received.  These findings of the National Longitudinal Survey of
          Youth analysis showed that:
 
               -- Company programs and apprenticeship training have positive
                  and significant impacts on both wages and earnings.
                  Apprenticeship programs have nearly twice the impact of
                  company training.
 
               -- The evidence for proprietary schooling is mixed.
                  Participation in proprietary school programs has a positive
                  impact on annual earnings, but no impact on wage rates.
                  This suggests that proprietary schooling increases time
                  employed, but does not significantly upgrade skills.
 
               -- Only company training is as significant for blacks as it is
                  for whites in terms of annual earnings and wage rates.
 
 
        54This GAO analysis was done using matched data files of the
          January 1984 supplement to the Current Population Survey and the
          March 1984 Current Population Survey.  The January 1984 survey
          included supplementary questions on training.  This survey asked
          respondents about classroom training, classroom basic education,
          on-the-job training, and job search; length of training; and source
          of training funds.
 
 
                                          60
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX II                                             APPENDIX II
 
                  Proprietary schooling appears to have a positive and
                  significant impact for whites, but no positive impact for
                  blacks and Hispanics.
 
 
 
 
                                          61
 
 
 
 
          APPENDIX III                                           APPENDIX III
 
                           MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
                           ---------------------------------
          HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
          ------------------------------------------
          Sigurd R. Nilsen, Assistant Director, (202) 523-8701
          Ellen B. Sehgal, Senior Evaluator
          Gloria E. Taylor, Evaluator
          Holly A. Van Houten, Evaluator
          Hannah F. Fein, Writing Specialist
          Joyce W. Smith, Secretary
 
          EUROPEAN OFFICE
          ---------------
          Becky Kithas, Evaluator
 
          FAR EAST OFFICE
          ---------------
          Richard Meeks, Evaluator
 
 
 
 
                                          62
 
 
 
 
                                     BIBLIOGRAPHY
                                     ------------
          UNITED STATES
          -------------
          Altbach, Philip G.  "Needed:  An International Perspective."  Phi
          Delta Kappan, Nov. 1989.
 
          Anderson, Bernard E., and Isabel Sawhill, eds.  Youth Employment
          and Public Policy.  The American Assembly, Columbia University,
          1980.
 
          Ashwell, Andrew and Frank Caropreso, eds. "Business Leadership: The
          Third Wave of Education Reform," The Conference Board, Inc., 1989.
 
          Banerjee, Neela.  Unfair at Any Price:  Welfare Recipients at New
          York Proprietary Schools.  Interface Development Project, 1989.
 
          Berlin, Gordon, and Andrew Sum.  "Toward a More Perfect Union:
          Basic Skills, Poor Families and Our Economic Future," Occasional
          Paper 3, Ford Foundation Project on Social Welfare and the American
          Future, 1988.
 
          Berreuta-Clement, John R., and others.  Changed Lives:  The Effects
          of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 19.
          High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 1984.
 
          Berryman, Sue E.  "The Economy and American High Schools:  What
          Should We Teach?  When?  How?  To Whom?"  Paper prepared for Panel,
          "Making High School Work for Non-College Youth,"  Tenth Annual
          Research Conference, Association for Public Policy Analysis and
          Management, October 27-29, 1988.
 
          Bishop, John H.  "Incentives for Learning:  Why American High
          School Students Compare So Poorly to Their Counterparts Overseas,"
          in Investing in People: A Strategy to Address America's Workforce
          Crisis, Background Papers, Vol. 1.  Commission on Workforce Quality
          and Labor Market Efficiency, U.S. Department of Labor, 1989.
 
          -----.  "The Motivation Problem in American High Schools."  Center
          for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working Paper #88-13, Cornell
          University.  Paper presented at the Tenth Annual Research
          Conference, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management,
          October 28, 1988.
 
          -----.  "The Productivity Consequences of What Is Learned in High
          School."  Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies Working Paper
          #88-18.  Cornell University, June 20, 1989.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          63
 
 
 
 
          -----.  "Vocational Education for At-Risk Youth:  How Can It Be
          Made More Effective?"  Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies
          Working Paper #88-11.  Cornell University, August 1, 1988.
          Prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education, U.S.
          Department of Education.
 
          Bitney, JoAnn P.  "Leave None Behind--Youth-at-Risk."  National
          Commission for Employment Policy, Vol. 1, No. 8, September 1987.
 
          The Business Roundtable Ad Hoc Committee on Education.  The Role of
          Business in Education Reform:  Blueprint for Action, April 1988.
 
          Carnevale, Anthony P., and Leila J. Gainer.  The Learning
          Enterprise.  The American Society for Training and Development,
          1988.
 
          Carnevale, Anthony P., Leila J. Gainer, and Ann S. Meltzer.
          Workplace Basics:  The Skills Employers Want.  The American Society
          for Training and Development, 1989.
 
          Children's Defense Fund.  A Call for Action to Make Our Nation Safe
          for Children:  A Briefing Book on the Status of American Children
          in 1988, 1988.
 
          Commission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency.
          Investing in People:  A Strategy to Address America's Workforce
          Crisis.  U.S. Department of Labor, 1989.
 
          Committee for Economic Development.  CED and Education:  National
          Impact and Next Steps, A CED Symposium, 1988.
 
          -----.  Children in Need:  Investment Strategies for the
          Educationally Disadvantaged, 1987.
 
          -----.  "Investing in Our Children, Business and the Public
          Schools," A Statement by the Research and Policy Committee, 1985.
 
          Dertouzos, Michael, Richard Lester, Robert Solow, and the MIT
          Commission on Industrial Productivity.  Made In America:  Regaining
          the Productive Edge.  The MIT Press, 1989.
 
          Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper, Shortchanging Education:
          How U.S. Spending on Grades K-12 Lags Behind Other Industrial
          Nations, 1990.
 
          Evans, Angela.  "Education: Federal Concerns," Issue Brief.
          Congressional Research Service, Updated May 11, 1989.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          64
 
 
 
 
          Fullerton, Howard, Jr. "New Labor Force Projections, Spanning 1988
          to 2000."  Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 112, No. 11 (Nov.  1989).
 
          Glover, Robert.  Apprenticeship Lessons From Abroad, Information
          Series No. 305.  The National Center for Research in Vocational
          Education, 1985.
 
          -----.  Integrating Work, Apprenticeships, and School for Youths at
          Risk, Unpublished paper, Center for the Study of Human Resources,
          Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin,
          Oct. 1988.
 
          Goodwin, David.  Postsecondary Vocational Education, National
          Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. IV.  U.S.
          Department of Education, August 1989.
 
          Hayward, Becky Jon, and John G. Wirt.  Handicapped and
          Disadvantaged Students:  Access to Quality Vocational Education,
          National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report, Vol. V.
          U.S. Department of Education, August 1989.
 
          Hodgkinson, Harold L.  All One System:  Demographics of Education,
          Kindergarten Through Graduate School.  The Institute for
          Educational Leadership, Inc., 1985.
 
          -----.  The Same Client:  The Demographics of Education and Service
          Delivery Systems.  The Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc.,
          1989.
 
          The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
          Achievement.  The Underachieving Curriculum:  Assessing U.S. School
          Mathematics From an International Perspective.  Stipes Publishing
          Company, 1987.
 
          Johnston, William, and Arnold Packer.  Workforce 2000:  Work and
          Workers for the Twenty-first Century.  Hudson Institute, June 1987.
 
          J.R. Reingold and Associates, Inc.   Current Federal Policies and
          Programs for Youth.  The William T. Grant Foundation, Commission on
          Work, Family and Citizenship, June 1987.
 
          Kagan, Sharon L.  "Early Care and Education: Tackling the Tough
          Issues."  Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 70, No. 6 (Feb. 1989).
 
          Kennedy, Mary M., Richard K. Jung, and Martin E. Orland.  Poverty,
          Achievement and the Distribution of Compensatory Education
          Services, An Interim Report from the National Assessment of Chapter
          1.  U.S. Department of Education, January 1986.
 
          Kirsch, Irwin, and Ann Jungeblut.  Literacy:  Profiles of America's
          Young Adults.  National Assessment of Educational Progress,
          Educational Testing Service, 1986.
 
                                          65
 
 
 
 
 
          Kutscher, Ronald.  "Projections Summary and Emerging Issues."
          Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 112, No. 11 (Nov. 1989).
 
          Lapointe, Archie, Nancy Mead, and Gary Phillips.  A World of
          Differences:  An International Assessment of Mathematics and
          Science.  Educational Testing Service, 1989.
 
          Levitan, Sar A., and Frank Gallo.  A Second Chance:  Training for
          Jobs.  W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1988.
 
          Lynton, Ernest A.  "A New Pathway From School to Work."  New
          England Resource Center for Higher Education, University of
          Massachusetts at Boston, Feb. 1989.
 
          Markey, James P.  "The Labor Market Problems of Today's High School
          Dropouts."  Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 111, No. 6 (June 1988).
 
          Marshall, Ray.  "The JTPA and National Employment and Training
          Policies."  Statement before the Committee on Education and Labor,
          September 29, 1988.
 
          -----.  "A New Labor Market Agenda," In Workforce Policies for the
          1990s.  Paper Presented to an Economic Policy Institute Seminar on
          Labor Market Policy, April 29, 1988.
 
          Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Evaluation of the Economic Impact
          of the Job Corps Program:  Third Follow-up Report, September 1982.
 
          Moy, Joyanna.  "Unemployment and Other Job Indicators in 10
          Nations."  Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 111, No. 4 (Apr. 1988).
 
          National Alliance of Business. "The Fourth R:  Workforce
          Readiness," A Guide to Business-Education Partnerships, Nov. 1987.
 
 
          National Alliance of Business.   Shaping Tomorrow's Workforce:  A
          Leadership Agenda for the 90's, 1988.
 
          Parnell, Dale.  The Neglected Majority.  Community College Press,
          1985.
 
          Quality Education for Minorities Project,  Education That Works:
          An Action Plan for the Education of Minorities.  Massachusetts
          Institute of Technology, Jan. 1990.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          66
 
 
 
 
          Rredd, Kenneth, and Wayne Riddle.  Comparative Education:
          Statistics on Education in the United States and Selected Foreign
          Nations.  Congressional Research Service, November 14, 1988.
 
          Rees, Albert.  "An Essay on Youth Joblessness."  Journal of
          Economic Literature, Vol. XXIV (June 1986).
 
          Romero, Carol Jusenius.   Past Is Prologue:  Educational
          Deficiencies and the Youth Labor Market Problem.  National
          Commission for Employment Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3, April 1987.
 
          Rosenbaum, James E.  "Empowering Schools and Teachers:  A New Link
          to Jobs for Non-College Bound," in Investing in People:  A Strategy
          to Address America's Workforce Crisis, Background Papers, Vol. 1.
          Commission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency, U.S.
          Department of Labor, 1989.
 
          Rumberger, Russell, and Henry Levin.  "Schooling for the Modern
          Workplace," in Investing in People:  A Strategy to Address
          America's Workforce Crisis, Background Papers, Vol. 1.  Commission
          on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency, U.S. Department
          of Labor, 1989.
 
          Silvestri, George T., and John Lukasiewicz.  "Projections of
          Occupational Employment, 1988-2000."   Monthly Labor Review, Vol.
          112, No. 11 (Nov. 1989).
 
          Sklar, Morton H.  In-School Employment and Training Programs for
          Vocationally At-Risk Youth in New York State, A Briefing Paper for
          Policymakers.  Center for Public Advocacy Research, Inc., April
          1988.
 
          Spar, Karen.  "Job Training Partnership Act:  Pending Legislation
          and Budget Issues," Issue Brief.  Congressional Research Service,
          Updated Dec. 1, 1989.
 
          Spring, William J.  "A Public/Private Careers Service:  Building a
          Network of Opportunity for the Majority of Our Young People," in
          School Success for Students at Risk.  Harcourt, Brace, and
          Jovanovich, 1988.
 
          State of New York Job Training Partnership Council. "A Statement of
          Policy on Youth Employment Investment in New York State," 1988.
 
          United Nations.  Department of International Economic and Social
          Affairs, Statistical Office.  1986 Demographic Yearbook, 1988.
 
          U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office.  Educational
          Achievement:  Explanations and Implications of Recent Trends,
          August 1987.
 
 
 
                                          67
 
 
 
 
          U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee.  The Education Deficit,
          A Report Summarizing the Hearings on "Competitiveness and the
          Quality of the American Workforce," Dec. 14, 1988.
 
          U.S. Department of Education.  National Center for Education
          Statistics.  Dropout Rates in the United States:  1988, Analysis
          Report, September 1989.
 
          U.S. Department of Labor.  Employment and Training Administration.
          Work-Based Learning:  Training America's Workers, 1989.
 
          U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S.
          Department of Commerce, A Joint Initiative.  Building a Quality
          Workforce, July 1988.
 
          U.S. General Accounting Office.  Effective Schools Programs:  Their
          Extent and Characteristics, GAO/HRD-89-132BR, Sept. 13, 1989.
 
          -----.  Job Training Partnership Act:  Services and Outcomes for
          Participants With Differing Needs, GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989.
 
          -----.  Job Training Partnership Act:  Summer Youth Programs
          Increase Emphasis on Education, GAO/HRD-87-101, June 30, 1987.
 
          -----.  Job Training Partnership Act:  Youth Participant
          Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes, GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan. 24,
          1990.
 
          -----.  Labor Market Problems of Teenagers Result Largely From
          Doing Poorly in School, GAO/PAD-82-06, March 29, 1982.
 
          -----.  Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply With Department of
          Education's Pell Grant Program Requirements, GAO/HRD-84-17, Aug.
          20, 1984.
 
          -----.  School Dropouts:  Survey of Local Programs, GAO/HRD-87-108,
          July 20, 1987.
 
          -----.  School Dropouts:  The Extent and Nature of the Problem,
          GAO/HRD-86-106BR, June 23, 1986.
 
          -----.  Training Programs:  Information on Fiscal Years 1989 and
          1990 Appropriations, GAO/HRD-89-71FS, April 14, 1989.
 
          -----.  Vocational Education:  Opportunity to Prepare for the
          Future, GAO/HRD-89-55, May 10, 1989.
 
          Wetzel, James.  American Youth:  A Statistical Snapshot.  The
          William T. Grant Foundation, June 1987.
 
          Whittaker, William.  Apprenticeship Training in America:  The
 
 
                                          68
 
 
 
 
          Fitzgerald Act (1937-1987).  Congressional Research Service,
          November 16, 1987.
 
          The William T. Grant Foundation.  The Forgotten Half:  Non-College
          Youth in America, Interim Report.  Commission on Work, Family and
          Citizenship, January 1988.
 
          -----.  The Forgotten Half:  Pathways to Success for America's
          Youth and Young Families, Final Report.  Commission on Work, Family
          and Citizenship, November 1988.
 
 
          FOREIGN
          -------
          American Embassy, Bonn.  "Labor Trends in the Federal Republic of
          Germany, 1987." Foreign Labor Trends, 89-6.  United States
          Department of Labor.  Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1987.
 
 
          American Embassy, London.  "Labor Trends in the United Kingdom,
          1987." Foreign Labor Trends, 89-4.  United States Department of
          Labor.  Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1987.
 
          American Embassy, Stockholm.  "Labor Trends in Sweden, 1987."
          Foreign Labor Trends, 889-21.  United States Department of Labor.
          Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1988.
 
          Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft.  Vocational Training--Investment for
          the Future, The Dual Training System in the Federal Republic of
          Germany, 1983.
 
          Commission of the European Communities.  United Kingdom:
          Institutions, Procedures and Measures, 1988.
 
          Confederation of British Industry.  Towards A Skills Revolution--A
          Youth Charter, Interim Report.  Vocational Education and Training
          Task Force, July 1989.
 
          Employment for the 1990s.  (Her Majesty's Stationary Office Cn 540,
          Dec. 1988.)
 
          Evans, Norman. "England:  Strategies for Preparing Youth for the
          Labor Market" (Draft paper prepared for the U.S. General Accounting
          Office, May 8, 1989.)
 
          The Federal Minister of Education and Science.   Vocational
          Training Act, 1969.  Last amended by the Vocational Training
          Promotion Act of December 23, 1981.  Bildung und Wissenschaft, Nov.
          1984.
 
          Federal Ministry of Education and Science.  Basic and Structural
          Data 1988/89, 1988.
 
                                          69
 
 
 
 
 
          Ginsburg, Helen.  Full Employment and Public Policy:  The United
          States and Sweden.  Lexington Books, 1983.
 
          Glover, Robert W.  "Youth Employment, Education and Training in the
          Federal Republic of Germany" (Draft paper prepared for the U.S.
          General Accounting Office, August 1989.)
 
          Gordon, Margaret S., and Martin Trow.  Youth Education and
          Unemployment Problems, An International Perspective.  A Study
          prepared for the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher
          Education, 1979.
 
          Ishikawa, Toshio.   Vocational Training.  Japanese Industrial
          Relations Series.  The Japan Institute of Labour, 1987.
 
          Jangenas, Bo.  The Swedish Approach to Labor Market Policy.  The
          Swedish Institute, 1985.
 
          Jonzon, Bjorn, and Lois Recascino Wise. "Getting Young People to
          Work:  An Evaluation of Swedish Youth Employment Policy."
          International Labour Review, Vol. 128, No. 3 (1989).
 
          Kato, Hidetoshi.  Education and Youth Employment in Japan.  A study
          prepared for the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher
          Education, 1978.
 
          Krekeler, Norbert.   Learning for the Working World--Vocational
          Training in the Federal Republic of Germany.  Bildung und
          Wissenschaft, 1986.
 
          Maclure, Stuart.  Education and Youth Employment in Great Britain.
          A Study prepared for the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in
          Higher Education, 1979.
 
          Marshall, Ray.  "Youth Employment, Education, and Training in
          Sweden"  (Draft paper prepared for the U.S. General Accounting
          Office, June 1989.)
 
          Ministry of Labour, Sweden.  "The Labour Market and Labour Market
          Policy in Sweden," A discussion paper for the 1990s, 1988.
 
          National Labour Market Board.   Young Persons and Employment.
          Swedish Labour Market Policy, 1987.
 
          Nothdurft, William E.  Schoolworks:  Reinventing Public Schools to
          Create the Workforce of the Future,  Innovations in Education and
          Job Training from Sweden, West Germany, France, Great Britain and
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The German Marshall Fund of the United
          States, 1989.
 
 
 
                                          70
 
 
 
 
          Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.  OECD
          Economic Outlook, December 1988.
 
          -----.  OECD Employment Outlook, September 1988.
 
          -----.  OECD Employment Outlook, September 1987.
 
          -----.  OECD Employment Outlook, September 1986.
 
          -----.  OECD Surveys:  United Kingdom, 1988.
 
          -----.  The Nature of Youth Unemployment, An Analysis for Policy-
          Makers, 1984.
 
          Rehn, Gosta, and K. Helveg Petersen.  Education and Youth
          Employment in Sweden and Denmark.  A study prepared for the
          Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1981.
 
          Reubens, Beatrice G.  Bridges to Work:  International Comparisons
          of Transition Services.  Conservation of Human Resources Series; 3.
          Landmark Studies, 1977.
 
          Reubens, Beatrice G.  "A Comparative View of High School Education
          and Workforce Needs for a Competitive Economy."  Prepared for a
          Conference at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell
          University, September 1987.
 
          Reubens, Beatrice G., John A.C. Harrisson, and Kalman Rupp.  The
          Youth Labor Force, 1945-1995:  A Cross-National Analysis.
          Conservation of Human Resources Series; 13.  Landmark Studies,
          1981.
 
          Riddle, Wayne.  "Public Secondary Education Systems in England,
          France, Japan, the Soviet Union, the United States, and West
          Germany: A Comparative Analysis."  Congressional Research Service,
          Dec. 1984.
 
          Romer, Karl, Ulrich K. Dreikandt, and Claudia Wullenkord, eds.
          Facts About Germany:  The Federal Republic of Germany.
          Verlagsgruppe Bertelsman GmbH, 1988.
 
          Rosenbaum, James E.  "High School Education and the Work-Entry
          Process in Japan"  (Draft paper prepared for the U.S. General
          Accounting Office, May 15, 1989.)
 
          Spring, William J.  "Youth Unemployment and the Transition from
          School to Work:  Programs in Boston, Frankfurt, and London."  New
          England Economic Review, March/April 1987.
 
          United States Department of State.  Bureau of Public Affairs.
          "Background Notes:  Japan," Feb. 1989.
 
 
                                          71
 
 
 
 
                                  RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
                                  --------------------
          Job Training Partnership Act:  Youth Participant Characteristics,
          Services, and Outcomes (GAO/HRD-90-46BR, Jan. 24, 1990).
 
          Effective Schools Programs:  Their Extent and Characteristics
          (GAO/HRD-89-132BR, Sept. 13, 1989).
 
          Job Training Partnership Act:  Services and Outcomes for
          Participants With Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-52, June 9, 1989).
 
          Vocational Education:  Opportunity to Prepare for the Future
          (GAO/HRD-89-55, May 10, 1989).
 
          Training Programs:  Information on Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990
          Appropriations (GAO/HRD-89-71FS, Apr. 14, 1989).
 
          School Dropouts:  Survey of Local Programs (GAO/HRD-87-108, July
          20, 1987).
 
          Job Training Partnership Act:  Summer Youth Programs Increase
          Emphasis on Education (GAO/HRD-87-101, June 30, 1987).
 
          School Dropouts:  The Extent and Nature of the Problem (GAO/HRD-86-
          106BR, June 23, 1986).
 
          Many Proprietary Schools Do Not Comply With Department of
          Education's Pell Grant Program Requirements GAO/HRD-84-17, Aug. 20,
          1984).
 
          Labor Market Problems of Teenagers Result Largely From Doing Poorly
          in School (GAO/PAD-82-06, Mar. 29, 1982).
 
 
 
 
          (205117)
 
 
 
                                                 72

