DOCUMENT RESUME -ED 218 73'7 EA 014' 748 ... k AUTHOR Cates, Carolyn S., , ,.. TITLE .. Industry-Education Collaboration for School ImprovemegI. INSTITUTION Fa,r West Lab. for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, Calif. ,SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (,ED), Washington, DC. _ PUB DATE Dec 81 . CONTRACT 400 -80 -0103 NOTE ' 39p.; For related documents, see EA 014 745-747 and EA 014 749. EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. C . DESCRIPTORS *Cooperative Programs; *Educational Cooperation; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Eddcationr*Institutional Cooperation; Program c De scrilotions; *School Business Relationship; A -Unions f IDENTIFIERS *California (Santa Clara County)t."*Industry Education Councils . ABSTRACT impart o,a research project examining interargan izational arrangements (I0As)among educational agencies for school improvement, this study fodused on one type of "freestanding" IOA, the industry- educationcouncil(IEC). "Freestanding" means the IOA is supported chiefly by its member organizations, not outside agencies. The author first reviews information from a national survey investigating industry-education-labor collaboration. Such collaboration was found to-be recentir based on more traditional educational views, and , characterized by.common central purpos'es but diverse activities.' A brief profile of theIndustry-Education Council of California, a statewide network of IECs-,'is followed by a lengthy description of the Industry-Education Council of Santa Clara County (California). The author notes Focal educational needs, discusses the Santa, Clara' County IEC's origins, goals, staff, and activities, atd,reviews two of its projects, one on computer literacy and the other involving high school student employment resumes. The document concludes that successful industry-education collaboration is characterized' by feelings of mutual ownership and commitment among participants,. evidence of accomplishment, and involvement of non-members in some activities. Two appendices list the Santa Clara County IEC's membership and projects. (Author/RW) 4 A. , % **************************************************. t* *****4(************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made, * * from the origidal document. * *********************************************tft***************4****** m, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF. EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CENTER (ERIC) XThls document has been reproduced as Aka .0. /herd received from the person or organization originating it s Minor changes have been made to improve reproduf bon quality Points of vtew or opintons stated in this docu TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES men t do not necessarily represent official NIE INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)" Position or policy Indu'stry -- Education Collaboration for School Improvement ' 4, Carolyn S. Cates December, 1981 : ^ FAR WEST LABORATORy FOREDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 1855 FOL.:90M STREET. SAN FRANCISCO.CAL1FORNIA 94103 A' a V - A This 'project has been supported with federal ,funds from the-National,' .._ Eddrcation, under'Contract = Institute of Education, Department of No: 400-0-0103. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflkct tbe.views or policies of the DepartmentofEducation and the National Institute of Education, nor does mention of trade names, comMeraal .prodUcts,_or.organizations imply endorsement by theU. S. .Government or the Far West Laboratory. Table of,Cont6bts ,1 10, FOREWORD 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS tIntroduction A General Definition amdDistingikshing,Charactdristics 2 -"" An Overview ofCollaborative Councils 4 A Statewide Network in California The Industry-Education Council of Santa Clara County 9 Comparisons and Implitat tons 19 APPENDIX A: The Industry Education Council of Santa Clara County Memberhip List . .. , , . .e, ' r APPENDIX B: Examples of ACtivities. and Projects of the 8anta.Clara County IEC.- 29 -.. , . REFERENCES 33 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY t 35 p a \ FOREWORD This reportrepresents a portion of a larger effort, supported by the Research and Educational Practice Unit of the National Instilutey Education, to'develOp a marecomprehensive understanding of how /rious types of edkational organizations relate to one another in.accompli$h- ing school imprbvemirit projects. In a previous study* we identified, describedt and analyzed-the characteristics of 103 interorganizational arrangements (I0As) involving educational agencies, thAt were found in the 13..counties of the.Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Several unex- pected findings emerged from this study. First was the large number -- - of arrangements identified. Second was the frequency with which educa- tionalorganizations participated in arrangements: the range of fre- quency was between one and 18 arrangements; 67 percent of the 409 edu- cational agencies identified participated in two or more arrangement Third, all of the.231 Bay Area school districts were engaged to at /-1:(27aZI* one arrangement, and 90 percent were in two or more. These findings indicate much 'more frequent"formal connection among educational organi- zations than has been previously assumedor identified. ,A two-dimensional, nine-cell classificatidn system was developed to classify the arrangements. One dimension considered the legal status of the arrangement itself (mandated, enabled, or freestanding). When the 103 arrangements were classified by this two-ditensional system, no arrangements were found for two of the nine subclasses: a) marOated arrangement supporting a, freestanding school improvement effort and 41 O) enabled arrangement supporting a freestanding Improvement effort. Most of the arrangements (86 percent) were focused on supporting man- dated or enabled improvement efforts, and over three-fourths of .the 103 arrangeants belonged to one of the four classes in which therewas jpint external influence, mandated or enabled, on both the Wrangement itself and the school improvement effort the arrangement supported. Only 14 percent of the arrangements were freestanding arrangements supporting freestanding improvement' efforts. This report provides information on one example of these free- standing arrangements (in which member organizations contributed most or all of the resources of the arrangement and for which there was no signifi- cant external requirement provided) that were voluntarily formed by agencies to support school improvement efforts.. A second interesting aspect of this example ts that the arrangement involves participation by educational and busirleit organizations.. The particular arrangement, *C.S. Cates, P.D: Hood, and S. McKibbin, An Exploration of Interor9aniza- tional Arrangementkfthat Support School Improvement. San Francisco, CA: 'Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1981. rm. V iv ttiirndustry-Educatio6Council, was selected for sped-al study not only , to provide more detailed tnformatioh about this typeof interorganiza=i- tional arrangement, buJ als0 because this type of arrangement pftvides a promising model for successfulcollabor:ation betWeen school' districts and local business and industries, that can help toincrease school resources,-strengthen educationlprograms aimed at preparing students for.employment, and improve communication between school staff and leaders in the-local btisiness comMunity., / i his`study reviews findings of Oxecent national studyof industry - .education collaboration, briefly describes a statewide network,the Industry-Education Couriil of California, and then describes onepartic- ular arrangement, the Council of'Santa Clara County. 111.- Paul D. Hood Educational Dissemination Studies Program A 0 . 9 ar 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Much'of the information about Collaborative councils has been drawn from work conduct4d by the Center for Education and Work at the National Institute of Work and Learning. Information'about e6 Industry Educati6j1,Council .of Santa Clara Countywas generously and ' thouglitfully provided by the council's executive director, Ernie Hickson., Mark Malkas edited the report, andudith Haglund and Jan Larson Provided secretarial support in typi he manuscript and f61Towing. it through final publication. 4 1 Carolyn S. Cates' -, .1 O O 7 4 INDUSTRY-EDUCATIOCCOLeBbRATIO F SCHOOL IMPROVETT Introduction Since the mid-1960s, formal intergrganizatimal arrangementt (I0As) have begone an important mechanism for supporting improvement activities in education. Organizational participation in such arrange- ments has been based on the assumption that collaboration will enhance improvement efforts by extending or multiplying limited resources and by reducing or avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort. Although no one knows just how many arrangements exist today, one recent stud,', has estimated that there are from 2,000 to 4,000 nationwide (Cates, 1981). I Findings from another study (Cates, Hood, and McKibbin, 1981) suggest that most arrangements involve only educational organizations such as I school districts,, intermediate service agencies, and institutions of higher education. In additiiin, the findings suggest that molt arrange- . ments involve some form of requirement or enabling support from an Agency or agencies external to the o'rganizations participating in the arrangement. Usually, .the requirements and/or support emanate from ,} 1 , . federal or state agencies. Familiar examples include federally spon- . , < ,., 'sored Teacher C6rps Projects