DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 304 530 CE 052 033

TITLE The Job Training Partnership Act andComputer-Assisted Instruction. Research Report88-13.

INSTITUTION Education Turnkey Systems, Inc., Falls Church, Va.SPONS AGENCY National Commission for Employment Policy (DOL),

Washington, D.C.PUB DATE Aug 88CONTRACT J9M70071NOTE 130p.

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adult Basic Education; Case Studies; Computer

Assisted Instruction; Computer Managed Instruction;*Computer Uses in Education; Courseware; *EmploymentPrograms; *Federal Programs; *Job Training;Postsecondary Education; Program Effectiveness;*Program Improvement

IDENTIFIERS *Job Training Partnership Act 1982

ABSTRACT

A study sought to (1) determine the current andpotential instructional application of computers in Job TrainingPartnership Act (JTPA) Titles II, III, and IV programs; and (2)present policy options that would increase the effective use of thistechnology in employment and training programs. Research methodologyinvolved conducting an assessment of available data, obtaininginformation from iLlividuals involved in JTPA, and preparing abaseline report. The study found various degrees of use ofinstructional applications of this technology in the four JTPAprograms studied: in Title IIA, computers are used for bothinstructional management and computer-assisted instruction especiallywhen serviced by large school districts or national serviceproviders; in Title IIB, computer-assisted instruction is used moreoften than computer-managed instruction; in Title III DislocatedWorker programs, computer-related technology is seldom used; andunder Title IV, computers are being used to provide at least someeducation or occupational training in more than 90 percent of all JobCorps centers. Barriers to effective use of computers in JTPA includelack of information, funding contraints, lack of staff development,lack of software designed for adults, and the school-JTPArelationship. Recommendations were made to create investment fundingmechanisms to set up computer equipment and to create a nationaltechnology resource center. (More than half of the document containscase studies of five exemplary sites. References and site contactsare included.) (KC)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

The Job Training Partnership Act

co & Computer-Assisted Instructionl'eNin...*CIreNCZ11.1 Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc.

Research Report 88-13

August 1988

NCEPNational Commission for Employment Policy

1522 K Street N.W., Suite 300, Washin. ton, D.C. 200n5

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONp., P f d. annnal Resean h and /0,0,0vefnent

ED KA TtONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IEFPC)

Th,s dor urnent has been ,eproduced as'Pr eyed frbn, the person or OrgahltahonCl/ ymahng .1

L M.nhr r hanyes have been made 10 improverprphduchon quality

P,,rnts ,I,pe or orphonS staled $n frbsabcument do nol ne,essably represent officialof RI poshon ,r phi,r,

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

4

This report was written by Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. It was prepared undercontract/purchase order no..I9M70071 with the National Commission for EmploymentPolicy. Researchers undertaking studies for the National Commission for EmploymentPolicy are encouraged to freely express their own opinions. The policy views andopinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflectthe official opinions or positions of the National Commission for Employment Policy.

, .J

PREFACE

The National Commission for Employment Policy is charged under Section 473(11)

of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to "study and make recommendations onthe use of advanced technology in the management and delivery of services and ac-tivities conducted under this Act." As part of this mandate, the National Commissionfor Employment Policy contracted with Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. for this

initial assessment of the use of computer-assisted instruction and related technol-

ogy in JTPA employment and training programs.

Part of this research effort involved identifying barriers to the effective use of thistechnology in JTPA programs and developing policy options and recommendationsdesigned to overcome these barriers. The authors conclude that the major barriersto the effective use of this technology are (1) a lack of information about availablecomputer applications, (2) a lack of training in the skills necessary to operate thesesystems, and (3), especially in Titles II and III programs, an absence of a fundingmechanism which would allow amortization for investments in capital-intensive tech-nology. The authors propose the development of a "national technology resourcecenter" which, among other functions, would act as a clearinghouse for informationon this technology and provide a source of training and technical assistance to the

JTPA system.

The Commission feels that Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc.'s research hasmade a useful contribution to our understanding of the issues surrounding the use

of this technology in JTPA programs and will assist local, state and Federalpolicymakers in their deliberations. The author's innovative recommendations cer-tainly merit further discussion; however, the Commission urges that existing sour-ces of information, ternical assistance and funding also be examined during the

debate.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study owes much to many individuals who provided us with information, as-sistance, cooperation, and insight.

The Expert Panel spent much time deliberating on the topics at hand and providedus with valuable data (the study's mandate did not include any new data collection)and thoughtful insights. To our distinguished Panelists, we owe a debt of gratitude.

Officials at the project's case study sites were extremely hospitable and coopera-tive in facilitating the field work and reviewing preliminary case study reports. At

each of the sites, creative and often persistent individuals played a significant rolein the success achieved by their programs through the use of computers.

In addition to the TURNKEY staff, two other individuals played important project

roles. Dr. Arnold Packer, a Senior Research Fellow at the Hudson Institute, con-ducted several of the case studies and, building on his experience as AssistantSecretary of Labor for Policy Development, also took a lead role in developing policy

options that could result in more effective use of computers and related technologyin the JTPA system. Ms. Lori Strumpf, Director for the Center of Remediation Design,provided a wealth of information based on her extensive work with SDAs and PICsacross the country. Ms. Strumpf also contributed to Expert Panel deliberations andconducted field work for one case study site.

We reserve our final note of gratitude for Mr. David Stier of the National Commis-sion for Employment Policy, who helped guide the project from its outset and Mrs.Amy Pozzi Howard, also of the Commission, who contributed greatly to the project's

Final Report.

Charles L. Blaschke

Blair H. Curry

o

NCEP EXPERT PANEL

Mr. Bruce CornettDivision of Employment SecurityMissouri Dept. of Labor/Ind. RelationsPost Office Box 59Jefferson City, Missouri 65104

Jose FigueroaLabor AnalystNational Governor's Association444 No. Capital Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20001

Ms. Kathleen HurleyVice President, Education DivisionMindscape, Inc.3444 Dundee RoadNorthbrook, Illinois

Dr. Randy PenningtonManager, Market StrategiesApple Computer, Inc.20330 Stevens Creek Blvd. MS 36-ACupertino, California 95014

Dr. Walter PostleU.S. Department of Labor71 Stephenson Street, 9TGBISan Francisco, California 94119

Mr. John RumfordAcitng DirectorGov.'s Remediation InitiativesWinthrop College119 Withers BuildingRock Hill, S. Carolina 29733

U

Dr. Joseph SchererManager, National InitiativesControl Data Corporation6003 Executive BoulevardRockville, Maryland 20852

Mr. Bill SpeightsManager, Adult LiteracyEducation ProgramsIBM Corporation3301 Windy Ridge ParkwayMarietta, Georgia 30067

Ms. Lori StrumpfStrumpf Associates1015 15th St, N.W. Suite 600Washington, D.C. 20005

Mr. Mark Troppe & Mr. John AmosJob CorpsU.S. Department of Labor/ETA200 Constitution AvenueWashington, D.C. 20210

Dr. Arnold PackerSenior Research FellowHudson Institute4401 Ford Ave. Suite 200Alexandria, VA 22302

Ms. Kay AlbrightDeputy DirectorNCEP1522 K Street, N.W. Suite 300Washington, D.C. 20005

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/i

INTRODUCTION/1

CHAPTER I: COMPE1ENCY-BASED INSTRUCTION ANDMICROCOMPUTER TECHNOLOGY/3

CHAPTER II: INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS OF COMPUTERTECHNOLOGY IN JTPA/9

CHAPTER III: BARRIERS TO COMPUTER USE IN JTPA PROGRAMS/29

CHAPTER IV: POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS/39

REFERENCES/47

APPENDIX A: REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS USING COMPUTERS INJTPA TITLE 11/49

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES:

Methodology/53

Austin, Texas/59

South Carolina Governor's Remediation Initiative/75

Milwaukee, WI/87

Gary Job Corps Center,Texas/95

Phoenix Job Corps Center, AZ/107

Patterns Across Exemplary Sites/119

References/125

LISTS OF SITE CONTACTS/127

4

Executive Summary

Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. (TURNKEY), under contract to the NationalCommission for Employment Policy (NCEP), conducted this study of computer usein Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Titles II (A and B), Ill and IV (Job Corps)programs. The project had two principle components: (1) the determination of cur-rent and potential instructional application of computers in JTPA, and (2) the presen-tation of policy options that would increase the effective use of this technology in

employment and training programs.

The methodology of the project involved conducting an assessment of available

data; obtaining information from individuals who are knowledgeable about currentand potential technology use in JTPA; and preparing a base-line report describingthe current status of computer use in the various JTPA programs. Assisting in theseactivities was a distinguished panel of experts drawn from both the public anuprivate sectors. This Expert Panel was convened to review and update base-lineinformation, and then to react to barriers impeding use and options to increase theeffective use of this technology in JTPA programs.

This study was not intended to be a quantitative survey of computer use in JTPA.Rather, the study is a qualitative review of some of the ways computers are usedeffectively in JTPA and the conditions under which such effective use can be ex-pected to occur.

Background: The Basic Skills Crisis

All JTPA programs are designed to assist individuals who are experiencing one ormore barriers to employment. Until recently these programs usually concentratedon barriers related to the lack of specific job skills and work experience or to dis-crimination. However, as the economy started changing under the influences oftechnology and foreign competition, the nature of available jobs also changed.These new employment opportunities have revealed an alarmingly common newbarrier to employment for many JTPA participants: a deficiency in basic readingand math skills. Program experts and researchers are warning that the UnitedStates is facing a "basic skills crisis" where substantial numbers of youth and adultsare deficient in basic skills in an economy that is demanding proficiency not only inbasic skills, but also "higher order" thinking and problem solving skills.

The Job Training Partnership Act has made serious efforts to confront this crisis.

In 1986 the Act was amended to encourage the Summer Youth Employment andTraining Program (SYETP) funded under Title II-B to assess the reading and mathskills of eligible participants and to provide remedial training for those found to bedeficient. Two new programmatic goals, increasing services to at-risk individuals,

L.,

Executive Summary ii

especially youth, and encouraging increased provision of basic skills training, havebeen adapted by the Title II-A program for Program Year 1988. In addition, begin-ning in PY 1988, all Title II(A) participants will be assessed for reading skills.

The "basic skills crisis" and these programmatic changes are prolnpting the employ-ment and training system to provide much more remedial training to adults andyouths deficient in basic reading and math skills. In doing so, the system has cometo rely on competeny-based instructional programs, finding, as have instructionaltheory and experience, that a competency-based curriculum is one of the most ef-ficient methods of teaching basic skills. These types of curriculum are particularlyadaptable to computer-based instuctional technology.

Current Use of Computers

This paper found various degrees of utilization of instructional applications of thistechnology in the four JTPA programs studied.

Computers in Title II(A) are used for both instructional managemt nt and com-puter-assisted instruction and in relatively large configurations or local area net-works (LANs),particularly when services are provided by large school districtsor national service providers (e.g., 01C, SER, 70,001). In combination with con-tingency management techniques, several computer-based systems are usedeffectively in dropout prevention programs, often operated in school environ-ments oy community-based or national service providers.

In Title II(B), computer-assisted instruction is used more extensively than com-puter-managed instruction with one exception: if a Title 11(B) service provideruses computers for instructional management in a Title II(A) program, a similarconfiguration is often used to deliver the Title II(B) services.

In the Title III Dislocated Worker program, computer related technology use islimited to providing literacy programs and skill upgrading in only a small num-ber of programs, which often are operated by employers with existing technol-ogy-based systems.

Computers are being used to provide at least some education or occupationaltraining in over 90 percent of all Job Corps centers. Computer use focusesprimarily on math, GED preparation, reading/language arts, tool applications(word processing) and general computer literacy.

Barriers To Effective Use

While the use of computers in JTPA has grown remarkably in recent years, thereare a number of factors inherent in the complex system which have mitigated againstmore pervasive use. Chief among these are:

iii Executive Summary

Information/Orientation: Many employmentand training professionals are un-

aware of the potential benefits of using computers in remedial education and

other fur. lions. Because of the heterogeneity of the system, vendors who are

interested in designing programs and configurations to meet the needs of the

Title II(A) and (B) programs reported difficulties finding individuals who could

define specific program needs.

Funding Constraints: Both Title II(A) and Title II(B) face the problem of fund-

ing equipment purchases (with three to four year average lifetimes) out of operat-

ing budgets. Because equipment cannot be amortized, any such investment

drives up unit costs for the year in which the purchase is made. Such increased

short-term costs often act as a disincentive to investment, even when offsetting

long-term benefits are likely. In addition, while there is an increasing emphasis

on basic skills remediation in the Title II (B) summer youth programs, there have

not been any funds specifically earmarked for equipment purchases. There-

fore, many program operators are concerned about trends towards shiftinglimited resources away from programs to help pay for this technology.

Staff Development: Although the newer computer technology is far easier to

use than was equipment only a few years ago, many JTPA staff -- at SDAs and

service provider level -- do not have sufficient training to make the most effec-

tive use of their computers.

Software Designed for Adults: The lack of computer-aid related technology-

based programs designed for adults is a major barrier in itself. Adult programs

should be designed to teach basic skills in the context of work to avoid turning

off workers who will not admit to deficiencies in reading, for example.

School/JTPA Relationship: In the majority of SDAs remediation and instruc-

tional services are provided by educational institutions, most often the local

school district. It is, therefore, critical that JTPA program designers and school

representatives agree on the goals of the program before the appropriate tech-

nology can be applied.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are two primary recommendations made which would enhance the effective

use of this technology in JTPA programs.

Create Investment Funding Mechanisms: The report suggests the creation

of a one-time funding approval for a line item for each of the JTPA programs

earmarked for service delivery and management technology investments. This

mechanism could be similar to the revolving fund concept used in the past by

state employment service agencies, whereby investing agencies pay back, over

Executive Summery iv

time, funds initially provided by the revolving fund. Such an arrangement couldbe administered as part cf the National Technology Resource Center.

Create A National Technology Resource Center: One of the major draw-backs to effective technology use in JTPA is the lack of a useful base of infor-mation on matters relating to technology use. Based upon discussions with theExpert Panel, the establishment of a National Technology Resource Center isrecommended. The Center would have three major responsibilities: a) collectand disseminate information; b) facilitate/provide technical assistance; and c)facilitate/support software development.

Among the other policy options set forth are many which encourage more effectivecommunication among all of the participants in the JTPA community -- serviceproviders (including school districts), private industry councils (PICs), state JTPAand Employment Security (ES) officials, the Department of Labor (DOL) andhardware and software vendors.

INTRODUCTION

Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc.TURNKEY), under contract to the Na-

tional Commission for EmploymentPolicy (NCEP), conducted this study ofcomputer use in Job Training Partner-ship Act (JTPA) Titles II (A and B), IIIand IV (Job Corps) programs. Theproject had two principle components:(1) the determination of current andpotential instructional application ofcomputers in JTPA, and (2) the presen-tation of policy optic% that would in-crease the effective use of this technologyin employment and training programs.

The methodology of the project in-volved conducting an assessment ofavailable data; obtaining informationfrom individuals who are knowledgeableabout current and potential technologyuse in JTPA; and preparing a base-linereport describing the current status ofcomputer use in the various JTPAprograms. Assisting in these activitieswas a distinguished panel of expertsdrawn from both the public and privatesectors. This Expert Panel was convenedto review and update base-line informa-tion, and then to react to barriers imped-ing use and options to increase theeffective use of this technology in JTPAprograms.

Used primarily iL schools and militarytraining facilities in the past, computer-based instructional delivery systems arebeing applied rapidly in employment and

1

training programs. This growth has beenfueled by a proliferation of educationalsoftware and the focusing of the employ-ment and training system on illiteracyand remediation of basic skills.

Insights into the effective use of thistechnology in JTPA can be developedonly with a basic knowledge of the man-ner in which computer-based technologyoperates. Chapter One summarizes theimportant elements of this technologyand explains why this type of technologyhas found a niche in JTPA programs.Chapter Two discusses examples of theinstructional applications in Title H (Aand B), Title III and Title IV (Job Corps)programs. Chapter Three identifiesgeneral and program specific barriers tomore effective use of computer technol-ogy for the delivery of services. ChapterFour presents options and recommenda-tions designed to address these barriersand increase the effective use of thistechnology in JTPA programs.

Finally, this paper presents five casestudies exhibiting exemplary use of com-puter-based instructional delivery sys-tems in Austin, Texas; Milwaukee,Wisconsin; the Gary Job Corps Center,Texas; the Phoenix Job Corps Center,Arizona; and the State of South Carolina.

3

CHAP ITR I

Competency-Based In truction andMicrocomputer Technology

Enacted in 1982, the Job TrainingPartnership Act (JTPA) replaced theComprehensive Employment and Train-ing Act (CETA) as the primary vehiclefor federally funded employment andtraining programs. There ar,_. threeprimary employment and trainingprograms in JTPA. Title II fundsprograms designed to assist economical-ly disadvantaged adults and youths GC, to21 years) in attaining unsubsid;Ledemployment or improved employabilityskills. A sub-section of Title II also fundsthe Summer Youth Employment andTraining Program (SYETP). Title III ofthe Act funds programs for dislocatedworkers who have permanently lost theirjobs as a result of technological displace-ment, foreign competition, or structuralchanges to the economy. The othermajor employment and trainingprogram, funded under Title IV of JTPA,is the Jobs Corps, which provides long-term, intensive service to youth, usuallyin a residential environment.

All JTPA programs are designed to as-sist individuals who are experiencing oneor more barriers to employment. Untilrecently these programs usually con-centrated on 1 -iel related to the lackof specific jab skills and work experience

or to discrimination. However, as theeconomy started changing under the in-fluences of technology and foreign com-petition, the nature of available jobs alsochanged. These new employment op-portunities have revealed an alarminglycommon new barrier to employment formany JTPA participants: a deficiency inbasic reading, communication and mathskills. Increasingly, program experts andresearchers are warning that the UnitedStates is facing a "basic skills crisis" wh..resubstantial nu fibers of youth and adultsare deficient in basic skills in an economythat is demanding proficiency not only inbasic skills, but also "higher order" think-ing and problem solving skills. In fact,experts predict that "between now andthe year 2000, for the first time in history,a majority of all new jobs will requirepostsecondary education. Many profes-sions will require nearly a decade of studyfollowing high school, and even the leastskilled jobs will require a command ofreading, ,x)mputing, and thinking thatwas once necessary only to the profes-sions." (Johnston and Packer, 1987)

The Job Training Partnership Act hasmade serious efforts to confront thiscrisis. In 1986 the Act was amended toencourage the Summer Youth Employ-

3

CHAPTER I 4

ment and Training Program (SYETP)funded under Title II-n to assess thereading and math skills of eligible par-ticipants and to provide remedial train-ing for those found to be deficient. Twonew programmatic goals, increasing ser-vices to at-risk individuals, especiallyyouth, and encouraging increasedprovision of basic skills training, havebeen adapted by the Title II-A programfor program year 1988. In addition,beginning in program year 1988, all TitleII(A) participants will be assessed forreading skills.

The "basic skills crisis" and theseprogrammatic changes are promptingthe employment and training system toprovide much more remedial training toadults and youths deficient in basic read-ing and math skills. In doing so, the sys-tem has come to rely oncompetency-based instructionalprograms, which have proven to be an ef-ficient method for teaching basic skills.

Competency-based instruction em-phasizes student mastery of specific skillsby defining specific objectives and hold-ing the learner accountable tothem.(Rodenstein, 1984) Effective com-petency-based curriculums share thesecharacteristics:

the learning process should bestep-by-step, individualized, andself-paced;learning should be based onskill attainment, not on time ontask; and should be flexiblyscheduled and sequenced;frequent feedlr -k on progressand greater acountability forlearning efforts and outcomes

should direct the learningprocess; andlearners should strive for agreedupon goals to enhance a senseof "efficacy." (Taggart, 1988)

There are "natural" parallels betweenthe hallmarks of efft ctive competency-based curriculum and instructional ap-plications of computer technology. Forpurposes of describing instructional usesof computers, there are two basic typesof use:

computer-assisted instruction(CAI), involving "hands on"computer use by students forthe purposes of instruction;andcomputer-managed instruction(CMI), in which the teacher orclassroom manager uses thecomputer for diagnostic,prescriptive and monitoriikt;functions, including record keep-ing to tracking student's daily ac-complishments and problems.

Several characteristics of quality CAIsoftware include: "gaining the student'sattention; informing the learner of theobjectives of the instructional module;stimulating recall and assessing priorlearning; presenting learning stimuli toteach concepts and facts; guiding learn-ing; providing information feedback; as-sessing and evaluating performance; andenhancing retention and learning trans-fer". (Rodenstein, 1984) CAI softwarecan be used for drill-and-practice, forproblem solving, and for development ofhigher order, critical thinking skillsthrough such methods as simulation.

Computer-managed instruction allowsteachers and other staff to diagnose in-dividual students' learning difficu:ties,prescribe appropriate learning materials(which may include CAI lessons),monitor participant progress, andgenerally manage the curriculumprocess. The hallmarks that form thefoundation of CMI are: mastery le:rning,which divides the curriculum into smallunits of measurable learning objectivesthat identify the specific skills the studentneeds to learn; individualimtion, whichprovides the opportunity to learn at anindividualized pace; am tire teacherand/or student as manager, which allowsthe analysis of the student's progress andthe development of activities to enhancethe instruction. (Rodenstein, 1984)

In practice, CAI and CMI can par-ticipate independently in an instruction-al environment. CAI can deliverinstruction, while the teacher uses tradi-tional methods for testing, grading, andother classroom management functions.Exclusive CMI programs use the com-puter for these instructional manage-ment purposes while the teacherinstructs with traditional "paper andpencil" methods.

When both are present together and in-tegrated with one another, the system isreferred to as a "computer-baseddelivery system". An example of this iswhen CMI operates on a local area net-work (LAN) in which one computer(usually a microcomputer with expandedmemory capabilities) distributesprescribed CAI lessons to microcom-puter work stations where studentsreceive instrucion. Such networked CMIsystems are increasingly being used in

5 CHAPTER I

both schools and JTPA programs, espe-cially in situations in which: (1) the cur-riculum consists of a large number ofcompetencies to which a wide variety ofCAI and other lessons and materials arecorrelateu; and (2) the programs aredesigned for individualized, self-paced,and often student-directed instruction.The hallmarks of these systems matchthose that make a competency-basedbasic skills curriculum effective.

Evidence from dozens of studies ofprogrammed instruction, mastery learn-ing and CM demonstrate convincinglythat using these approaches can increasethe skills of disadvantaged students.(Berlin, 1986) A 1985 study of the effec-tiveness of computer-based instruction,conducted for the National Commissionfor Employment Policy, found thatCAI/CMI reduces student time inmastering objectives and/or results in sig-nificant gains in student achie7ement,particularly with low-achieving studentsin basic skills areas (TURNKEY, 1985).As reported by several national serviceproviders and Job Corps centers, JTPAparticipant gains in mathematics of wellover one grade equivalent for 25 - 50hours of instruction are not uncommon.

A number of arguments have also beenmade by the Office of Technology As-sessment (1987) for using computers inbilingual/English as a second language(ESL) instruction; these include:

the use of CM can speed uplearning rates, a critical factorfor limited English proficiency(LEP) students who have moreto learn;

11

CHAPTER I 6

CAI can motivate LEI) students,especially where high-interestsoftware exists;CAI allows students to "fail"privately without shame;the interactive nature of CAIprovides LEP students with asense of control; andsome CAI programs can comple-ment teachers with limited na-tive language skills, in localeswhere few language-proficientteachers are available.

Other technologies can enhance theftcomputer-based systems. For example,recent advances in videodisc and relatedtechnology can provide new oppor-tunities in the JTPA system. The num-ber of videodisc units used forinstructional purposes in public schoolshas increased from approximately 8,000units to nearly 15,000 over the last twoyears. (Instructional Delivery Systems,1988) Similarly, the number of videodisceducation and training programs has in-creased (from less than 150 to more than250) in the same period (MECC, 1987).Videodisc use in military a,,,: industrialtraining is considerably r.u, -xtensivethan in the schools.

An interactive videodisc s:.ni usuallyconsists of a videodisc i' -,3er unit, amicrocomputer which directs the playerunit, and a monitor. Videodisc programsmay include hundreds of thousands ofstill frames or pictures or several hoursof motion video. Multiple audio chan-nels provide unique capabilities foroverlaying different languages to teachspecific skills in ESL programs. Somevideodisc programs are deigned to beused only with the player (not the com

puter), providing the user with access toany one frame or video compont. .

within less than a second; others aremuch more comprehensive, using thecomputer for automated branching andprescribing of materials based onmastery test results. Interactive instruc-tional systems require the student to in-teract directly with the computer. Thisinteraction allows the CMI functions ofthe program to vary the pace of instruc-tion; select among different sequences ofpresentation; test for understanding; andadvance accordingly based on the in-dividual needs of the student. (Office ofTechnology Assessment, 1987)

Within the videodisc (or optical disc)storage family, Compact Disc-Read OnlyMemory (CD-ROM) can now be inter-faced with a microcomputer to allow al-most instantaneously access to, forexample, any page of a 23-volume en-cyclopedia (e.g., Grolier's Electronic En-cyclopedia). Some CMI networksystems use a CD-ROM player to storeup to 2,000 software programs which canbe distributed to work stations upon thedirection of an instructor or selection bythe learner. The most prevalent currentuse of CD-ROM is to access referencematerials or other data bases.

The convergence of microcomputers,interactive video technologies andtelecommunications has created anotherconfiguration, "interactive distancelearning," which has grown more rapidlyin public schools during the past yearthan did microcomputers during theearly 1980s (Blaschke, 1988). A typicalinteractive distance learning system con-sists of (a) a transmitting studio in whicha "master" instructor conducts a program

for teachers and students in remote loca-tions; (b) a satellite transponder whichreceives the studio's "uplink" signals andtransmits them to a "down link"; (c) Premote receiving station, either an in-dividual school or a cable system; (d) aclassroom in which live instruction oc-curs which is transmitted to a remoteclassroom which may use microcom-puter drill-and-practice; and (e) anaudio or data transmission capabilityfrom the remote site back to the masterinstructor to provide immediate feed-back on lessons completed.

Interactive distance learning is com-monly used to provide students andteachers in remote, isolated locations ac-cess to quality programming not other-wise available. In New York state,distance learning is one of the State'shigh priority delivery systems forprograms for at-risk populations. Dis-tance learning programs are being of-fered by several universities, publictelevision agencies, and a number ofprivate firms (e.g., TI-IN Network).

Another distance learning configura-tion is the use of instructional televisionsignals to transmit educational course-ware to individual schools which have ap-propriate receiving equipment).Currently being tested in Maryland andNew Jersey, such configurations offerpotential for reducing the cost ofsoftware distribution through the use ofexisting broadcasting capabilities.Eighteen states and four Canadianp-ovinces are members of the SoftwareCommunications Service (SCS), whichuses telecommunications to facilitatedistribution of video segments of

7 CHAPTER I

software for preview purposes to publictelevision stations and schools.

NonaNET, operated by the Computer-based Educational Research Lab(CERL) at the University of Illinois,transmits -- via satellite -- 2,000 PLATOlesson plans to individual student workstations where students receive in-dividualized, self-paced CAI. TheCERL mainframe computer providesinstructional management functions, in-cluding diagnosis and prescription, forthe remote classrooms.

In addition, many telecomputing sys-tems are used for administrative and re-lated information collection andreporting purposes. Over 40 statedepartments of education currentlyhave, or are developing, state-wide ad-ministrative networks linking the stateeducation agency (SEA) with localeducation agencies (LEAs). In the JTPAsystem, a number of similar systems arein used on a limited basis, while othersare being developed by service providersto link their state and local affiliates.

These technologies, especially themicrocomputer-based delivery systems,are beginning to find their way into JTPAprograms. Chapter Two discusses someof these ways these systems are used inTitle II (A and B), Title III, and the JobCorps programs.

9

CHAPTER II

Instructional Applications of ComputerTechnology hi JTPA Programs

This chapter reviews the extent of cur-rent instructional utilization of technol-ogy in Title II (A and B), Title III and JobCorps programs. There are threegeneral points to make at the outset.First, the use of computer-based technol-ogy in education and training is oftenmisunderstood. There is a tendency onthe parts of education and training offi-cials to take polarized views of the effectsof computers. Some take the viewpointthat computers can never be as effectiveas instructional staff and, therefore, arenot a necessary part of the educationalprocess. Others argue that computershave proven themselves effective meansof instruction and should assume themajor burden of teaching, with instruc-tors filling a classroom manager function.

In practice, computers are neither aplague nor a panacea. Comuters andrelated technology shoulc ie lookedupon as one of many tools available toteachers and education/training ad-ministrators. They should not be thefocus or guiding force behind any cur-riculum; rather, instructors shoulddeploy computer-assisted instructionwhen the pa ticular strengths of com-puters are especially called for (e.g.,repetitive drill-and-practice, student-

directed branching, self-pacing) by thecurriculum.

Secondly, one of the most rapid im-plementation of this technology is forcoupling literacy with occupational train-ing. Although the number of availableprograms is currently limited, availableresults appear to be promising and thenumber of groups developing suchprograms appears to be increasing. In anumber of sites described in this study,creative staff have been able to integrateskills in remedial programs into workprograms (e.g., in the Job Corps) or train-ing provided by service providers orfacilities operations (e.g., math instruc-tion integrated into the design and con-struction of a Job Corps dormitory).Adjustable CAI that can be adapted todifferent situations is most appropriatefor coupled literacy training. For ex-ample, a basic skills CAI program whichallows use of different word lists could beused with youth as well as with olderadults and dislocated workers.

Finally, the use of computers and re-lated technology for adults in JTPA TitleII and Title III programs is currently notas extensive as in Title II youth programs.Most of the original software in this field

CHAPTER II 10

was developed for children's use inschool environments. Until recentlythere have been few incentives todevelop adult-based instructionalsoftware packages. In addition, there islittle consensus among the few expertsworking on software for adults as to whattechnology approach is most effectivewith adult populations. Differences indegree and type of motivation, differen-ces in frame of reference and interests,and most adult's general avoidance ofschool environments dictate CAI ap-plications that are different than thosedesigned for youth.

In contrast with competency-basedprograms which have proven to be effec-tive with at-risk youth, other alternativeapproaches appear to be effective withadults. For example, several languageexperience-based programs build uponand use terminology and functional ac-tivities from the work place with whichthe adult is familiar. These programs canbe used in a computer-assisted instruc-tion or interactive videodisc format.Such programs are being developed anddemonstrated in several interactivevideodisc projects funded by the Depart-ment of Labor and operated by variousgroups, ranging from the United AutoWorkers to Domino's Pizza, as men-tioned later.

Even within the limited base of existingadult remediation software, there existsvery little information on how to usethem. For example, within the last twoyears, only five groups have publishedevaluations of software which could herecommended for use with adult popula-tions (e.g., the Northwest Regional

Education Lab in Oregon, the Cemid-ji/North Central Consortium in Min-nesota, Luzerne Intermediate Unit 18 inPennsylvania, the Alliance for AdultBasic Education in Nebraska, and theAdult Literacy and Technology Projectat Pennsylvania State University).

There is an increasing interest in usingcomputers for literacy programs foradults, particularly in conjunction withinteractive video technologies. The Cor-porate Model Program in Austin reliedheavily on a Steck-Vaughn 100 GED Sys-tem in its programs for welfare mothers.That PIC is seriously considering usingtool applications (e.g., word processing,spreadsheets) in their planned officetraining program for older workers. Alsoin Austin, the American Institute forLearning (AIL) program is developing apersonal budgeting program for use withadults in the InfoWindow PALsprogram. In Wisconsin, SER, a nationalservice provider, has a learning centerwhich will provide literacy training foradults, using the InfoWindow PALSprogram; PALS is also the major literacyprogram for LEP populations inMassachusetts' Title III programs.

However, discussions with JTPA prac-titioners during this project clearly indi-cate that technology use with adults,while growing, is still quite low comparedto its use with youth. For this reason thediscussion below is predominately onservice delivery to youth, except, ofcourse, in the Title III dislocated workerprograms.

1. Title H

JTPA's Title II(A) program authorizesfunding and sets requirements for localtraining services for disadvantaged youthand adults. These funds are provided ina single grant with few legal require-ments for particular types of activitiesother than a mandate that the SDA spendat least 40 percent of its source budget onyouth under age 22. Activities may in-clude job search assistance and counsel-ing, remedial education and basic skillstraining, on-the-job training, specializedsurveys, programs to develop workhabits, education-to-work transition ac-tivities, bilingual training, vocational ex-ploration, and the use of advancedlearning technology for education, jobpreparation, and skills training.

The Title II(B) summer youth programis for economically disadvantaged youthaged 14 through 21. One hundred per-cent of the funds are allocated by thestates to the SDAs. The funds may beused for remedial education, institu-tional and on-the-job training, work ex-perience, counseling, outreach, referral,job clubs, and other training activitiesdesigned to provide employment toeligible individuals or prepare them foremployment.

In 1986, Congress mandated that thesummer youth program require all SDAsto: (a) assess the reading and mathabilities of eligible youth; and (b) providebasic and remedial education programswhich, as noted later in this report, haveresulted in significant increases in fundsallocated by SDAs to remedialprograms.

11 CHAPTER II

In 1986, a survey of SDAs, conducted bythe Center for Remediation Design(CRD) as part of an NCEP study,reported that 51 percent of the SDAswere using some type of computer-as-sisted instruction (CAI) in their TitleII(B) programs. A year later, a parallelsurvey of 150 Title II(A) and (B) "youthplanners" reported that 70 percent of theprograms used computers as teachingtools and that 75 percent employed in-dividualized, computer-based techni-ques (NCEP, 1988). A GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) survey, con-ducted in the spring of 1987 on the TitleII(B) SYETP, found that 70 percent ofthe SDAs used computers as teachingtools during the 1986 summer program(see Exhibit 1). While the three surveyswere conducted at different points intime (two of them after the Congres-sional mandate), it would appear thatuse of computers is increasing in instruc-tional delivery, especially for youth.

We should note, however, that severalknowledgeable individuals, includingmembers of the project's Expert Panel,felt that the survey findings should be in-terpreted with caution. While 70 percentof the SDAs reported having serviceproviders or programs that use com-puters for remedial or basic skills instruc-tion, mcwt experts believe such use variesconsiderably, from one or two computersbeing used for placement/assessment, in-structional management, or wordprocessing instruction to extensive use ofnetworks. Most knowledgeable in-dividuals felt only a small number ofproviders within most SDAs are likely touse computers.

CHAPTER II 12

Exhibit

Delivery Approaches

Delivery approaches:

1

to Title II(B) Program

Percent of SDAs1986 1987

Taught individually 69 72Lecture and discussion only 13 7Individualized, self-pace only 21 26Both lecture/discussion andindividualized/self-paced 64 61Cuoiputers as teaching tools 70 73Instruction tied to work 57 60

Incentives for participants:Academic credit 56 55Wages, bonuses, stipends, orother payments 76 81

kGA0, 1987)

A number of other studies supportthese reservations. A recent TALMISsurvey indicated that only about 11 per-cent of the responding schools used com-puters more in their JTPA-fundedprograms than in their regular educationactivities (TALMIS, 1988). A survey ofmicrocomputer use in Florida schools,conducted by the Florida Department ofEducation, reported that computer usein JTPA-funded dropout preventionprograms was only 20 perent as high asin Chapter 1 programs (Florida Depart-ment of Education, 1988); and computeruse in Florida's JTPA programs is con-sidered to be higher than most otherstates.

Regardless of the extent of overall in-structional computer use in the JTPAsystem, it is clear that such use is grow-ing. Below we describe and provide ex-

amples of the three basic ways this tech-nology is used.

Computer-Assisted Instruction

Computer-assisted instruction is usedextensively by local school systems,small community-based organizationsand other organizations that provideTitle II(A & B) services. CAI generallyconsists of stand-alone microcomputers(most often Apt les) using commerciallyavailable educational software. CAIsoftware used by school-based JTPA ser-vice providers is often similar to that usedin Chapter 1 programs or related instruc-tion.

The content areas in which CAI systemsare most frequently used in Title II(A)and Title II(B) are reading, math, andwritten communications. In Appendix

A, we summarized data from ap-proximately 30 projects (many of whichuse Title II funding) drawn from the Na-tional Alliance of Business (NAB) na-tional data base (1984-87) and otherNAB publications. Of the projects sum-marized, most SDAs used computertechnology for such purposes as com-puter-aided instruction relating to basicskills acquisition, computer literacy, andfor pre-employment training. PLATOwas mentioned in two of the projects,with the CCP system mentioned in six.Five projects mentioned CAI but withoutspecifying the type of system used. Com-puter-assisted instruction was also usedfor training in word processing, officeautomation, and computer applications.Six of the 29 projects (mostly for Title IIIdislocated workers) mentioned moresophisticated uses of computers, includ-ing training in computer-aideddesign/computer-aided manufacturing(CAD/CAM) and instruction in robotics.

During this study we have identified anumber of for-profit and not-for-profitfirms that use computer-delivered andcomputer-assisted instruction extensive-ly in GED, remedial, and related skilldevelopment programs and who markettheir services to SDAs as serviceproviders for Title II programs. Thesefirms' estimated numbers include:70,001 (60 center locations), OIC (25),SER-Jobs for Progress, Inc. (14), ControlData Corporation (50), Employment andTraining Foundation, Inc. (6), Job Shop(13), Worldwide Education Services, Inc(22), and National Education Centers,Inc. (50 + ).

13 CHAPTER II

Computer - Managed Instruction

Computer-managed instruction --either with or without CAI -- has becomean important part of JTPA Title II in-structional service delivery. A smallnumber of Title II programs havedecided to use the computer to managethe instructional process, relying for in-struction on traditional workbooks,printed material, and only minor use -- ifat all -- of CAI. One such program is theCompetency Cabinet, marketed by PaceLearning Systems, which has an optionalcomputer management system operatingon Apple computers. The CompetencyCabinet is used in 110 Title II programsin Alabama and in approximately 50other programs across the country.

Developed initially to teach basic skillsat the Draper Correctional Center in El-more, Alabama, the program has alsobeen used in correctional institutionsthat provide Title II(A) literacyprograms in Georgia, Kentucky, andother states. The program relies heavilyon contingency management techniquesand attempts to change the learning en-vironment of the participant.

Developed by the Remediation andTraining Institute (RTI) with fundingsupport from the Ford Foundation, theComprehensive Competencies Program(CCP), now marketed by the U.S. BasicSkills Investment Corporation, is themost widely used computer managementsystem of its kind in JTPA Titles II(A)and (B) (in over 250 sites). The CCPprogram is individualized, self-paced,and student-directed. Since 1983, RTIhas franchised over 150 CCP "partners"

CHAPTER II 14

who operate JTPA Title II programs.These partners -- which include regularand special schools, postsecondary in-stitutions, community-based organiza-tions, and job-training organizations --have provided remedial education tomore than 50,000 participants, with acurrent enrollment of approximately25,000. A typical program serves 30 stu-dents at one time and has an average often microcomputers. All sites have atleast one Apple computer; approximate-ly ten percent have IBM PCs. Otherequipment includes Sony, Control Data,and Texas Instruments. CCP programsalso have printers, cartridge projectors,tape projectors, slide projectors, audiocassette players, Lnd a range ofaudiovisual and print materials (from ap-proximately 80 third-party vendors).

The Southeast Indiana PIC (Towil.lendCommunity Center) has developed aconcept of Zero Dropout and is current-ly working directly with the publicschools and the SDA to provide a varietyof services, using support and materialsprovided by 70001, a national serviceprovider. The CCP program is used in analternative school environment. Withrecent funding from the Lilly Founda-tion, it provides services in an elementaryand middle school to 60 students. TheSDA also has established a programunder Titles II(A) and II(B) for 14 to 21year old students and adults. Althoughthe program was only recently initiated(within the past year), participants in thebasic skills program are showing 1.5grade level gains after 60 hours of in-struction.

While reflecting different educationalapproaches, all computer managed sys-tems utilize the computer to diagnoseand place students in the program, iden-tify specific materials and lessons basedon deficiencies, moth:or studentprogress, and provide reports on masterytesting of lessons and preparations ofsummary reports. These systems tend tobe used in smaller programs, primarilybecause they are less expensive than themore comprehensive computer-baseddelivery systems.

Computer-Based Delivery System

Computer-based delivery systems usecomputers, usually in a local area net-work, for both instructional managementand delivery of instruction. These sys-tems are more prevalent in urban SDATitle II(A) and (B) programs operated bylocal school systems or other largeproviders of remedial education. Inmany cases, the computer configurationhas been designed to meet the specificneeds of the Title II program, often in-cluding counseling and assessment ser-vices beyond instructional managementand basic skills instruction.

Even though the computer delivery sys-tems can be expensive, ranging in costfrom $50,000 to $100,000, SDA officialsand providers of remedial educationprograms under Title II have stated anumber of reasons why such systems areadvantageous:

Independent evaluations ofthese systems find consistentlythat student achievement gainsare greater than in control

15 CHAPTER II

groups, and time savings of 20 to30 percent C411 general!) be ex-pected in achieving masterylevels when compared with con-trol groups.Many of the systems are relative-ly easy to operate; hence an in-dividual such as an instructionalaide (or peer tutor) who istrained in network operationcan be used to operate the sys-tem, thereby reducing the needfor higher-paid instructionalstaff.Most of the systems can providethe necessary information onstudent progress and otherreports necessary for complet-ing JTPA performance andother reports.While vendors often promotethe technical benefits of localarea networks (LANs), most ex-perts and service providers notethat the use of LANs (in con-junction with licensing arrange-ments) can reduce the costs perunit of software, provide moreoptions for staff, reduce discmanagement problems, andprovide motivation to par-ticipants who wish to perusehigh interest programs on thenetwork.Some of the vendors are willingto be paid, at least partially, on aparticipant performance basis,thereby reducing the risk to theservice providers who have tomeet performance standards.

A number of firms have developedcomputer-based delivery systems which

41,F, --./

are used extensively in JTPA Title II(A)and (B) instruction. Among the moreprevalent of such systems are:

Computer Curriculum Corporation.One of the first and most widely useddelivery systems throughout the countryin Title II programs, the CCC system wasdeveloped in the late 1960s and sub-sequently refined for use in public schoolsystems, parochial schools, correctionalinstitutions, and other market niches.The CCC Microhost System generally in-cludes 20 to 30 work stations whichprovide instruction in lt,sson "strands".Often the instructional staff is an aide ora "classroom manager" trained to operatethe system. In addition to traditional K-12 areas, CCC has: (a) expanded its func-tional literacy programs for adults; (b)expanded and updated its GED prepara-tion offerings in reading, math, and lan-guage arts; (c) introduced criticalthinking skills strands in reading; and (d)included ESL language strands (five lan-guages) for both youth and adults. Of thevendors selling "closed" instructionaldelivery systems, CCC has one of themost comprehensive set of offerings andcourses to meet the needs of participantsin JTPA programs and other at-riskyouth and adult markets.

Control Data Corporation:PLATO/BEST. The PLATO system isanother of the more widely known andused delivery systems in a variety ofeducation and training environments.The Basic Education Skills Teaching(BEST) program, a recent successor toPLATO, has many of the functionalcapabilities required by the Title IIprogram. BEST includes programs for

CHAPTER II 16

drop-out prevention, drop-out recovery,and adult literacy. The Local PLATODelivery System (LPDS) consists of asystem manager and an instructionallocal area network for up to 30 work sta-tions. The instructional managementsystem provides individual studentreports, class records, and other informa-tion used to manage instruction. The in-structional software includes not onlysome of the original 2,000 PLATOsoftware lessons, but also other vendorinstructional software. The PLATOEducation Services Division of CDC(which operates its JTPA programs) hasentered into performance-based agree-ments with school districts operatingJTPA programs whereby the schooldistrict's payments to CDC are reducedfor students who achieve less than ap-proximately one-half grade levelequivalent gain for every 20 hours on-task. In addition to outright purchase,service providers may also "lease/purchase" the system.

Prescription Learning Corporation.Another widely used computer deliverysystem is Prescription Learning's BasicSkills Program which is based on learn-ing cycle involving pretest placement,prescription, self-paced instruction, im-mediate knowledge of results, andevaluation of performance. The systemuses various other media and printmaterials in addition to CAI, and in-cludes testing, consulting, maintenance,furniture, and installation. Its "Har-mony" curriculum includes math, read-ing, language arts, and the popularEnglish as a Second Language programdeveloped originally for use in the Hous-ton (Texas) Independent School District.

WICAT Minicomputer InstructionalDelivery System. This system relies on aminicomputer with a variable number ofwork stations, depending on the programneeds. One of the unique features of theWICAT system is that its courseware hasbeen developed using an authoring sys-tem which can easily accommodaterevisions and refinements and allowsthe instructional staff to develop units ofinstruction that meet specific localneeds.

Ideal Learning, Inc. The IntegratedClassroom Learning System, originallydesigned to provide supplemental in-struction in math at the high school level,relies on a hard disc with 12 to 14 studentstations. Teachers usually conduct largegroup instruction and then divi..ie theclass into two groups: small group ac-tivities and direct computer-assisted in-struction. This system allows theincorporation of courseware and lessonsdeveloped by third-party publishers to beused on the instructional managementsystem.

IBM Corporation. The IBM Principleof Alphabet Literacy System (PALS) isan interactive instructional programwhich uses the IBM InfoWindow system,including an IBM personal computer in-terfaced with a non-IBM videodiscplayer. It is designed to assist adoles-cents and adults with reading and writingabilities below the sixth grade level. Atypical configuration includes four IBMInfoWindow systems, eight IBM PCjrs,four typewriters, and a learning facilityfor up to 16 students at a time. Studentswork in pairs and individually at the per-sonal computers. PALS is used in

several of this project's case study sites.The IBM Advance Network is also usedin several Title II programs, includingone of the case study sites. In addition toIBM "logoed" software designed to im-prove basic skills, some schools provid-ing Title II services also Use softwarefrom other publishers interfaced with theIBM PC CLASS instructional manage-ment system. In several of the IBM JobPartnership project sites (including theAustin case study site), the CCP is usedfor instructional management and is in-terfaced with the IBM network cour-seware.

Other delivery systems used in Title IIprograms include systems from Educa-tion System Corporation, UNISYS, andWasatch Education Systems. The fol-lowing paragraphs describe a number ofeffective uses of computer-baseddelivery systems in Title II programs.

A community-based organization(AIL) in Austin, Texas, operates theCreative Rapid Learning Center(CRLC), which makes extensive used ofcomputers in several functional areas asa service provider of Title II (A) and (B)remedial programs (see Case Studies).Another IBM Job Partnership Project,in West Virginia, uses both IBM andApple network configurations to teachbasic skills and GED preparation foradults (16 years and older). It was ex-panded during the summer of 1987 to 12sites with funding under Title TI(A). The12 replication sites relied on the AdvanceNetwork and, for the most part, IBM-logoed software. The program also usedESL materials and software to provideinstruction for Spanish-speaking par-

17 CHAPTER II

ticipants. Prospective administratorsznd teachers were asked to complete aninstrument which indicated "how theyfelt about using computers for instruc-tional purposes." While initial resultswere positive, even more positive at-titudes were reported at the completionof the program. SEA officials reportedsignificant student grade-equivalentgains, using standardized tests during thesix-week period. In addition to thereplication sites funded under TitleII(B), the initial pilot site also establishedclasses for school dropouts who had beenseparated from the community becauseof substance abuse or for other reasons(often requiring temporary incarcera-tion) in an attempt to help them re-enterthe community. Another CAI class wasestablished in a kidney dialysis unitwithin a local hospital where dialysispatients and their families were providedinstructional opportunities to preparefor the GED.

A New Haven (Connecticut) com-munity-based organization, the RegionalEducation Service Center, uses com-puters extensively for both Title II(A)mid (B) programs. Beginning with cleri-cal/secretarial training in 1984, which hassubsequently been partially funded (65percent) under Title II(A), the programhas expanded to include a literacyprogram which receives both Title II(A)and (B) funding. In both programs,equipment has been "loaned" to theproject by vendors, partially because theConnecticut Department of Educationdoes not allow the eight percent educa-tion coordination set aside funds to beexpended on hardware. The literacyprogram is targeted on three different

CHAPTER li 18

groups: (a) participants with less than afourth grade reading level; (b) those withreading levels between the fifth andeighth grades; and (c) pre-skill develop-ment programs, particularly for adults'the literacy programs provided by thecenter are accredited iy the school. Thehardware configuration is essentially alocal orea r.,- ',work which is set up as astructured classroom rather than a com-puter lab. Abcut half of instruction isprovided by teachers; during the remain-ing time, students receive supplementalCAI instruction relying heavily on IBMbasic skills software packages. The in-structional management system is usedextensively for initial testing, diagnosis,and prescription as well as for studentmonitoring, with mastery testing aftercompletion of specific lesson plans. Thecenter operates under performance con-tracts with predetermined competenciesspecified in advance by the SDA. In ad-dition to basic education competencies,the program also includes a number ofcompetencies related to pre-employ-ment skills development including atten-dance, dress codes, developing resumes,and related skills. A business atmos-phere is maintained in all trainingprograms. The placement rate for theclerical/secretarial program since 1984has averaged 95 percent, with significantgains achieved by participants in theliteracy program. In addition, the centerhas also contracted with other com-munity -based organizations to providespecific basic literacy skill developmentservices to their participants who are involved in on-the-job and otheroccupational training programs.

The West Orange (Texas) IndependentSchool District began an in-schoolremedial program for approximately 50youth in January 1987, using the CDCPLATO program. During the summer, itinitiated a Title II(B) program with ap-proximately 50 other students, using boththe PLATO LDS and PLATO stand-alone programs, focusing on basic skills.In September 1987, the school districtcontinued the Title II(A) program forapproximately 20 students who spendtwo hours, four days a week after school,in the program; in some cases, peer tutorsformerly in the Title II(B) program areused. In addition to the PLATO LDSconfiguration (consisting of ten ter-minals), five Apple computers are avail-able for diagnostic and assessmentpurposes. The PLATO LDS programobjectives are linked to the Texas Essen-tial Skills, the new, State-mandated cur-riculum objectives. The programincludes some third-party software. Stu-dents conduct their own test score track-ing and are provided opportunities tovisit local employers. During the sum-mer program, students averaged a .5grade equivalent gain in ten weeks inreading and a similar gain in math. Stu-dents received two hours of reading andrie hour of math instructic I per day. Inaddition, a local JTPA regional officeanalyzed the WRATscores and reportedthat the achievement gains in theprop-Lim were "exemplary" and sig-nificant (at the .01 level) in both mathand reading. The operating cost per stu-e it during the Title II(B) summerprogram was approximately $800.During last summer, the district foundthat the LES network is much more cost-

, - i

effective than the stand alone-PLATOconfiguration.

The Title II(A) program for adult readi-ness and occupational skills in Riverside,California has relied on the stand-alonePLATO system for several years. Aprimary focus of the program is GEDpreparation for which students are as-sessed every three weeks using theTABE. The program includes extensivesupport related to pre-employment skillsdevelopment and for personal problems.It also uses staff who were previously inthe program to provide instruction.Adult participants who enter theprogram with a sixth or seventh gradereading level and a fifth or sixth grademath level complete the program, on theaverage, in ten weeks, receiving 20 hoursof instruction per week. The placementrate over the last three years has been 80percent or higher with a cost per pupil tothe SDA of approximately $12.50 perhour. The actual cost of operating theprogram is significantly less since equip-ment costs have been amortized over along period of time.

Over the last two years, SDA No. 2 inFlorida has used CCC with Apple com-puters for Title II(A) remediation in twocounties. The program is funded in partby the eight percent setaside and uses anexcellent planning process with ruralschools. Their goal is 1.5 grade gain inreading and math or 2.0 gain in one sub-ject; 80 to 90 percent have achievedthese goals. The program focuses oncritical reading and higher order think-ing skills. Another CCC model project isin Pensacola, Florida, where the Escam-bia County school district has reduced

19 CHAPTER II

dropout rates from 39 percent to 2 per-cent in programs using the CCC system.

Some providers of remedial educationin the Title II(A) and (B) programs havedesigned their own CMI/CAI systems,integrating software from third partysuppliers. One such Title II program isoperated by the Governor's Remedia-tion Initiative (GRI), the state-wideSDA-contracted provider for SouthCarolina administered by Wint!--op Col-lege (see Case Studies). In 99 highschools across the State, there are morethan 100 computer-enhanced math labsand 85 reading labs and instructionalmanagement systems which operate onDigital Equipment Corporation's Rain-bow Computers (math) and Apple Com-puters with hard disc (reading).

2. Title III

The Dislocated Worker Program isdesigned to assist workers who have per-manently lost their jobs as a result oftechnological displacement, foreigncompetition, or structural changes in theeconomy. To be eligible, workers mustbe laid off or have received lay-offnotices. States are given broad authorityover who is to be served, how theprogram is planned and administered,how the resources are distributed, andwhat services are to be provided.Programs are usually established inresponse to major plant closings or touniquely high unemployment laborareas.

The types of activities which can befunded under Title III include: job searchassistance and job development; training

CHAPTER II 20

for job skills in high demand; support ser-vices, including travel and personal coun-seling; and early intervention programsconducted with employers or labor or-ganizat:ons to minimize the adverse im-pact of facility closures. Seventy percentof the allocation to the state is to be spenton training and related services, whichincludes remedial education, tuition andentrance fees, and limited work ex-perience.

Title III programs have a number ofmarked differences from JTP Title IIprograms. Because Title III services areoften required with little notice, a rapidresponse from the state's JTPA system isessential. The short lead time does notallow for extended program planning.As a consequence, Title III serviceproviders tend to offer custom-designedprograms tailored to specific industries,rather than the more general programsprovided under Title II. Because TitleIII participants are, in general, more ma-ture workers, they are usually moremotivated and more targeted in theircareer objectives than their counterpartsin Title II programs. All of thesedifferences have implications on the i;eof computer technology in the delivery ofservices to dislocated workers.

For the most part, technology-basedtraining systems used in Title III servicedelivery have been developed by private(usually large) employers, in some in-stances working in conjunction withunions. JTPA Title III funds are mostoften used to cover operational costs,usually in conjunction with state or otherfunding sources. Below we brieflydescribe a number of programs using

AK

various technologies focusing on dif-ferent occupational areas funded in partby JTPA Title III.

One of the first and largest of suchprograms, initially funded throughprivate, state, and Title II sources andsubsequently using Title III funding isGeneral Motors' new technologicaltraining program in Wentzville, Mis-souri. The program was designed to trainor retrain displaced GM workers who aiewilling to relocate to the company's ad-vanced technology plant in Wentzville.Workers in St. Louis, Detroit, California,Cleveland, Kansas City, and Saginawwere also sent to the Wentzville site fortraining and skills upgrading. Remedialand basic skills instruction emphasizeboth theoretical and hands-on trainingwith specific machines and use groupwork techniques. Opportunities forbrief refresher courses were alsoprovided. Training and upgradingfocused on hydraulics, maintenance, andwelding in the operations of robots andautomated manufacturing equipment.Basic skills and industrial electronics in-struction was provided through the CDCPLATO program.

The CDC learning center in Charles-ton, West Virginia has operated a TitleIII program for tne last two years for ap-proximately 25 individuals who were dis-located because of the Volkswagen plantclosing. These individuals received com-puter-based PLATO instruction in digi-tal and robotic electronics. From entrylevels of fourth to sixth grades, these in-dividuals received instruction throughcollege algebra. Similar PLATO-basedinstruction has been provided in other

, -...,.

, 4,

Title III programs in the pant. Eighty-one percent of the participants in theprogram were placed after approximate-ly 640 hours of instruction in electronicsand 85 hours in robotics. All participantsachieved a college entry level algebracourse. The cost per instructional hourwas $6.75 per participant.

The Stanislaus County (California) PICTitle III program is designed to teachbasic and remedial skills to approximate-ly 600 employees of a Contadina plantwhich is planning to close down in thenear future. The PIC operates the learn-ing center, which is equipped with 20CDC terminals using the PLATO LDS.Beginning in October 1987, the programprovides the following services: testing,placement, diagnosis and prescription,math or rea&ng instruction, and GED orhigh school diploma courses. Theproject provides on-the-job training andjol, development functions. Ap-proximately $180,000 of funding hascome from the state. The PIC director Isplanning to use the LDS in his Title IIprogram following completion of thisTitle III project.

California State University is currentlyoperating a Title III program for theFoothills Employment Council inPasadena. The target population in-cludes draftsmen affected by cutbacks atSanta Fe Braun, Inc. Draftsmen arebeing trained to operate expensive CAD-CAM equipment which costs ap-proximately $80,000 per work station.While over 200 participants are in-volved, only 15 receive training under theTitle III program. The contract withSanta Fe Braun covers operating costs

21 CHAPTER 11

primarily and not the cost of equipmentwhich the company has contributed.Most of the participants have languageproblems or are handicapped. Theuniversity developed the program, andone of its staff members actually con-ducts the training at the Santa Fe Braunfacilities. Participants often receive in-struction while working in pairs.

The Human Resources DevelopmentInstitnce of the AFL-CIO has recentlyestablished computer-using Title IIIprograms in Baton Rouge, Houston,Lake Charles, and New Orleans. Theseprograms use the CCP along with avariety of Apple, Sony, and Zenithhardware. RTI has designed the CCPprogram for use in these sites, trainedstaff, and will provide needed technicalassistance. The program is openentry/exit to accommodate the varyingschedules of the dislocated workers fromthe hard-pressed steel (Houston) and oiland gas industries (Louisiana).

The Indianapolis PIC relies heavily oncomputers and related technology in anumber of Title III programs. During1986, the PIC established a computer-based literacy program (Job Primer)which includes five sites, one of which isthe downtown UPwards site. TheUPwards location has space donated byBlue Cross/Blue Shield and is equippedwit'i the IBM PALS provided throughthe Indiana Department of Employmentand Training Services. This programaugments existing reinediation curriculaand targets the very low-functioningreader (fifth grade and below) who oftenspends a half day at the community siteand an additional one and a half hours at

CHAPTER 11 22

the UPwards site using the PALS equip-ment. It also provides remediation andtraining in reading, math, communica-tions, and specific job tasks for employedindividuals. The use of the PALSprogram, which includes a touch-sensi-tive videodisc system and the correlationcf literacy skills with occupational areasprovided by local employers, appears tobe effective. Individuals come to the siteeither as a result of self-referral oremployer referral. Approximately tenpercent of the participants in the newlyorganized program are classified as dis-located workers. During the currentyear, the program has served ap-proximately 200 individuals, of which 65positive terminations have occurred todate.

Since the early 1980s, the SouthCarolina Technical Education Center(TEC) has provided a number of skillstraining and continuing educationprograms in a range of technical dis-ciplines funded under JTPA Title III.Organized as a state-wide network, theTr- 2 colleges have developed certificateprograms for more than 60 businesses infields such as data processing, nurseaides, retail sales, carpentry, andelectronic machine operation. In someinstances, training takes place at com-pany sites, while in others it occurs at theparticipating college. Advisors from"high tech" industries have assisted col-lege resource centers in developingtraining curriculum.

A comprehensive dislocated workerprogram involving state and countygovernments, unions, and a variety ofsmall businesses was established in the

early 1980s in Niagara County, NewYork. The program's focus is on in-dividuals aged 35 to 50 (many of whomare minorities) whose unemploymentbenefits have been expired for at least sixmonths. Vocational skills, coupled withcomputer-assisted instruction forremedial education, are provided, as arepre-employment skills development,vocational counseling, and job clubs.Placement priorities are given to areasmall businesses.

A major dislocated worker trainingprogram has been established under theaegis of the Allegheny County (Pit-tsburgh, Pennsylvania) Community Col-lege. The program builds on a dislocatedworker's former skills, matching them toskills in high-demand occupationalareas, and provides training focused onthe participant's deficient skills. Therange of course offerings includes GEDpreparation and full two-year programsin computer science or engineering.

In addition to projects using differenttechr fogies as a method and/or the ob-ject of training, there are a number ofsingle-application, technology-basedprograms and packages that can be use-ful to Title III service providers.

The Secretary of Labor recently an-nounced funding of five interactivevideodisc projects. Two of these are cur-rently pilot testing the use of two existinginteractive videodisc programs --SKILLPAC, "English for Industry", andPALS -- to teach English as a second lan-guage to adults. The other projects in-volve the United Auto Workers (FordMotor Company and General Motors)

and Domino's Pizza Distribution Com-pany.

The SKILLPAC has also been used withTitle III programs for displaced shoeworkers in Massachusetts. Preliminaryresults indicate that the SKILLPACsoftware has been accepted by Por-tuguese and Spanish-speaking par-ticipants and that the course can beeffective in teaching listening/speakingskills. The program is operated locally bythe Massachusetts Industrial ServicesProgram (ISP), who contracted directlywith Interactive Training, Inc., thedeveloper of the interactive videodiscprogram.

3. JOB CORPS

Funded under Title IV(B), the JobCorps is an employment and trainingprogram for economically disadvantaged14 to 22 year old youth. The Corps dif-fers from Title II and III programs in twoprinciple ways. First, the Job Corps is anationally administered program, with amuch more hierarchical and uniform ad-ministrative structure. Programmatical-ly, this means that centers with similarprograms operate through the use of na-tionally developed manuals, guides andprocedures. This administrative unifor-mity has led to a relatively more stableprogram in terms of types and numbersof participants served.

Second, the Job Corps is designed foryouth who need "intensive programs ofeducation, vocational training, work ex-perience, counseling and other ac-tivities." (Sec. 421) Over 100 Job Corpssites are residential centers, where the

23 CHAPTER II

live-in environment facilitates thedelivery of services described in part bythis recent Job Corps RFP:

"Job Corps has adopted a com-prehensive, multilevel, self-pacedplacement and mastery-test-directed approach in an open-entryand open-exit individualized learn-ing system. It is comprised of JobCorps tests and learning objectivesand off-the-shelf instructionalmaterials. Component programsinclude reading, mathematics, highschool equivalency preparation,world of work (employability) skills,and health and hygiene instruction.Additional academic areas forwhich objectives have been definedand for which courseware is sought,are an advanced academic, pre-col-lege level program targeted on theCollege Level Entrance Placementtest (CLEP) and a functional com-petencies high school levelprogram. A separate vocationalprogram complements theacademic of basic educational cour-ses noted."

Computers are being used within theJob Corps in a number of innovativeways. A survey conducted by the Nation-al Job Corps Office in 1985 found that, atthat time, approximately 60 percent ofthe Job Corps Centers were using at leastone computer for computer-assisted in-struction or other educational activities.Job Corps officials estimate that over 90percent of the centers currently use oneor more microcomputers for instruction.This survey also found that approximate-ly 80 percent of the Job Corps centers

CHAPTER II 24

used computers for word processing,either in normal operations or for train-ing purposes.

A number of computer-based con-figurations are being used in Job Corpscenters. The Gary Job Corps Center(San Marcos, Texas), operated by theTexas Education Foundation (TEF),currently uses a computer learning cen-ter which services between 300 and 400participants. The network configurationis a University of Illinois "ClusterProgram" similar to the PLATO systemused previously but discontinued be-cause of its high on-line telecom-munication costs. The Cluster Programincludes 130 lessons, previously taughtmanually, which have beenmodified/programmed for use on aMotorola computer. CAI programs inreading, math, and GED (readiness andgrammar) supplement traditional JobCorps workbooks and materials, with les-sons correlated by levels to the 1977 JobCorps workbooks. The diagnos-tic/prescriptive capability of the readingCluster Program, as refined over time, isconsidered by some to be unique to theJob Corps. One of the five staff memberswho operate the computer learning cen-ter at Gary, discussed later, actively par-ticipated in reviewing courseware for theJob Corps evaluation project, andtrained other Job Corps staff in im-plementing CAI programs. The centerhas also conducted evaluations and field-test validations of commercial software.Center officials are planning to expandthe use of computers to such instruction-al management functions as monitoringstudent progress, diagnosis of deficien-

cies, and prescription of remediation.(see Case Studies)

Unlike the Gary center, the Phoenix(Arizona) Job Corps Center, operated byTeledyne Corporation, has a variety ofcomputer-based programs that are usedin specific areas. A small local area net-work operating on Commodore com-puters is used to provide remedialinstruction in mathematics. Center staffhave programmed the Job Corps instruc-tional management system on the localarea network and, using a Scantron scan-ner, provide opportunities for automateddiagnosis, prescription, and studentprogress monitoring. The center also hasa Control Data Corporation PLATOprogram operational on a network toprovide supplemental reading instruc-tion and test review for more advancedCorps members. The center also usesstand-alone Apple computers for avariety of functions, including remedia-tion for limited English-proficient par-ticipants. Center staff plan to use thestand-alone Apple computers in the fu-ture for developing higher order thinkingskills. Computers are also used exten-sively in test scoring; tests are ad-ministered to participants every 90 days.For math students, reports are generatedwith item skill analyses and provided toinstructors within described CM sup-plemental, remedia', or other traditionallesson plans. Computer -based scoringdiagnosis and prescription does not cur-rently occur with reading.

The Jacksonville (Florida) Job CorpsCenter, also operated by Teledyne Cor-poration, is a small center with ap-proximately 250 participants. The GED

instructional software is based on JobCorps workbooks and manuals and isused as a substitute, where appropriate,for traditional materials. Officials planto expand the math and reading programbeyond the GED (level ten) in the nearfuture. They also plan to rurchase theMcGraw-Hill Instructional Manage-ment System and a scanner to automatethe test scoring, diagnosis, and prescrip-tion functions in the GED program. Theevaluation project is being conducted ina computer lab with ten Apple com-puters.

The Wolf Creek (Oregon) Conserva-tion Corps Center, operated by theForest Service/Department of Agricul-ture (under an interagency agreementwith DOL), is using computers inselected areas and exploring use inothers. The center has established acomputer learning lab which providescomputer literacy to all participants andinstruction in programming for student:,with interest in the area. Computers arealso used for CAI instruction in math,language arts, reading, GED prepara-tion, and development of writing skills.Center officials are also exploring(through hands-on use) computer as-sisted design (CAD) and a number ofdata base and tool applications. In addi-tion to the Apple computers used forCAI and tool applications, the center isalso planning to acquire Macintosh com-puters, to be used for administration andinstructional management purposes andto interface with a proposed DataGeneral Management Information Sys-tem planned for implementation in thenear future. Center officials are ex-...emely interested in purchasing an in-

25 CHAPTER ,,

structional management system which istechnically and philosophically designedto meet the specific diagnostic, prescrip-tive, and reporting specifications re-quired in Job Corps operations. Centerofficials feel that the availability of an ef-fective instructional management systemwill allow the center to structure existingcommercial software (which is designedprimarily for group instruction) for in-dividual, self-paced instruction.

A pilot program funded by the nationalDOL office is the Penobscot (Maine) JobCorps Center, operated by the Trainingand Development Corporation whichalso operates another Job Corps centerand other JTPA programs in the Nor-theast. The program is using a refinedand expanded version of the CCP toteach basic education (rather than GEDpreparation) and traditional Job Corpsmath and reading. Six teachers are in-volved, working in pairs with groups of 15to 25 students. Four computers are usedto implement the refined CCP manage-ment system, while six computers areused to deliver supplemental instructionin three different locations. Apple, Sony,and CDC hardware systems are used.The CCP program has an expandedcapability for the writing portion of theGED (in anticipation of the new GEDversion) and expanded materialsreferences for reading. Generally, be-cause of the pilot nature of the program,instructional staff have greater flexibilityto focus on individual student needsdepending on projected career path (e.g.,post secondary education, employment).

As an outgrowth of the steadily increas-ing use of computers in Job Corps

CHAPTER II 26

centers, the National Job Corps officehas undertaken an extensive evaluationof such computer use. This CAI evalua-tion project, currently being conductedin ten sites, has several objectives:

to determine whether a com-puter-assisted program of basiceducation in the Job Corps ismore effective in raising studentacademic levels than the currentunassisted paper-and-pencilprogram;to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of using CAI in theJob Corps; andto identify the principal deter-minants of the variation in out-comes between the CAIprogram and the paper-and-pen-cil program.

Several important design features of theevaluation project are noteworthy. First,the ten centers were selected randomlywithin cells defined by geographic loca-tion, average entry reading levels of JobCorps members served, and centeroperators. Second, sample enrollees ateach center are assigned to treatment(CAI) and control (paper-and-pencil)groups at random in order to minimizeselectioi. biases. Approximately 2,500enrollees are participating in proportionto the enrollments at each of the centers.Third, the TABE test is being ad-ministered to evaluate Corps member'sprogress. The period of observation willbe approximately ten months.

The courseware selection process wasvery lengthy, involving knowledgeableJob Corps center staffacross the country.

Listed in Exhibit 3, these publishers in-clude both traditional educationalsoftware publishers and publisherswhose orientation is specifically towardJob Corps objectives. It is noteworthythat two of the publishers -- Courses byComputers and Hartley Courseware --supply software developed, in part, bydevelopers who were involved indeveloping some of the original JobCorps materials (such as the PLATOMath Program and WestinghouseLearning Corporation Project Plan)during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Exhibit 2

Publishers for Job CorpsMicrocomputer CAI Project

HartleyHRMBLSInstructivisionComputer Age EducationKrellContinental PressMCECourses By CortiiutersRegentsGAKCOSouth West Eu. Psych.Houghton-Mifflin

One of the participating sites is theClearfield (Utah) Job Corps Center,operated by Management Training Cor-poration. This center is using prescribedsoftware on Apple computers, whichwere provided at no cost to the center forits participation. In the experimentalCAI group, the typical student spends

.4,...

about one-fourth of his or her class timereceiving instruction in a CAI mode andthe remaining time with the traditionalworkbook lessons cui rently used in theprogram. One of the unique features ofthis center is that it has been designated

27 CHAPTER II

as an alternative school for potentialdropouts by the Utah Department ofEducation. All but one of the participat-ing centers are using computer con-figurations which are integrated intoclassroom activities.

)

29

CHAPTER III

Barriers To Computer Use

While the use of computers in JTPA hasgrown remarkably in recent years, thereare a number of factors inherent in thecomplex system which have mitigatedagainst more pervasive use. Based upondiscussions with the Expert Panel andothers with an acknowledged under-standing of computer use in servicedelivery, we have identified a series ofbarriers to effective cuidputer use. In thediscussions which follow, we describebriefly these barriers for the three prin-cipal JTPA programs. The reader shouldnote that many of the barriers identifiedunder Title II may be equally applicableto Title III or Job Corps programs as well.

1. TITLE II BARRIERS

As the largest and most diverse of theJTPA programs being discussed, Title IIfaced the greatest number of obstacles toeffective computer use for servicedelivery.

Information /Orientation

Many SDAs and PICs are unaware ofthe potential benefits of using computersin remedial education and other SDAfunctions. Most rely heavily on advicefrom local school district staff and,without knowledge, many SDA decisionmakers are intimidated by computers.

Many PIC officials and staff have ex-pressed a need for information which:(1) provides details on the myriad ap-plications of computers in a Title IIprogram; (2) summarizes the effective-ness of different computer-based con-figurations for in-school, out-of-school,GED, adult, and other programs underTitle II; (3) evaluates information aboutspecific software packages and assess-ment/placement system which could beused in both Title II(A) and II(B)programs; and (4) describes vendorpolicies on hardware and software (e.g.,networks, licenses).

Many hardware and software providersalso expressed the need for informationabout the JTPA system, particularly TitleII programs. During a meeting of theSoftware Publishers Association in Oc-tober 1987, only five of the 65 leadingeducation software publishers indicatedthey knew anything about JTPA Be-cause of the heterogeneity of the system,vendors who are interested in designingprograms and configurations to meet theneeds of the Title II(A) and (B) programsreported difficulties finding individualswho could define specific programneeds. Several hardware vendors, whowere interested in providing discounts(up to 40 percent) similar to thoseprovided to school districts, felt the need

.,...t i

CHAPTER III 30

for lists of approved (by state or localJTPA officials) service providers whocould be given such educational dis-counts without creating legal problems.

Schc illJTPA Relationship

In the majority of SDAs remediationand instructional services are providedby educational institutions, most oftenthe local school district. Naturally, thedesign of the educational componentwould be shared with, or at least in-fluenced by, representatives of theschool district. It is, therefore, criticalthat JTPA program designers and schoolrepresentatives agree on the goals of theprogram before the appropriate technol-ogy can be applied.

The GAO study found that, in about aquarter of the SDAs, there are conflict-ing mind-sets which, in some cases,reduce the probability of computer use,particularly for remedial programs. Forexample, some SDARIC officials feelthat local school districts have failed toprovide adequate education, especiallyfor at-risk students, resulting in the needfor Title II in-school and out-of-schoolremedial programs. These peoplebelieve that, if the schools are to provideTitle II services, they should provide analternative service delivery to what theyare currently doing inadequately in theregular school program (e.g., Chapter 1).The alternative often proposed is com-puter-based instruction.

On the other hand, some school offi-cials, particularly those whose JTPAfunding levels are significantly less thanunder CETA, feel that the requirements

of performance-based contracts forproducing basic skills achievementresults are too narrow and believe thatChapter 1 programs which might attemptto develop "higher order of thinkingskills" should be included in the Title IIprogram, particularly for potentialdropouts. These disagreements overTitle II remedial education programdesigns often result in lengthy negotiat-ing processes over the selection ofspecific computer systems and softwareto be used for Title II programs. Wherethis process has been effective (e.g.,South Carolina), successful programshave evolved over time.

Funding Level

The impact of funding and changes infunding levels in the Title 1I(A) programon computer use is difficult to ascertain.No recent study similar to the GAOreport on Title II(B) exists. Discussionswith service providers and SDA officialswho use computers to deliver basic skills,remedial literacy, dropout prevention,and related services indicate that chan-ges in funding levels have a less seriousimpaCt in Title II(A) for a number ofreasons. Computer-using serviceproviders report that additional sourcesof funding -- such as the eight percent set-aside, foundation grants, state-fundedprograms, vendor "equipment loanpartnerships", etc.--were available tocushion the impact of reduction in TitleII(A) allocations. This is especially trueof the 8% set-aside which has been usedoften as a source of funding for this tech-nology. They also indicated that firmswere more likely to provide "on-loaneqipment" for Title 11(A) than for Title

2

II(B) programs because of Title II(A)'syear-round operation. Some serviceproviders indicated that Title II(A) in-school programs to prevent dropouts, forexample, which used effective computer-based programs, were easier "to sell" tothe school district and, hence, providedmore readily in-kind and financial sup-port from the district.

The same is not true for Title II(B)programs. The GAO estimated that, be-tween 1986 and 1987, funds allocated toTitle II(B) remedial services would in-crease from $36.7 mylion to $67.2 mil-lion and increase from five to 12 percentof the total Title II(B) program. In theaverage SDA, approximately $57,000was allocated to the II(B) program toserve approximately 120 youths. For ap-proximately one-fourth of the SDAs, theTitle II(B) allocation per youth was as lit-tle as $200, while for another fourth, itwas as much as $1,200 per youth. Theaverage funding level for remediationper youth in 1986 was $773 and in 1987anticipated to be $677. A recent study ofnetwork computer delivery systemsfound the cost to be approximately $1.20per hour per student (CATE, 1986). Ifone uses the GAO figure of 12 hours perweek spent on remediation per youth andassumes the summer program operatesfor 12 weeks, then the per-youth require-ment for hardware and software wouldbe approximately $228, or approximate-ly 40 percent of the total Title II(B) fund-ing allocation for remediation. Giventhis situation, it is clear that fundsprovided under the Title II(B) programare not sufficient to cover all of the costsof computer-based delivery systems andthat such programs would in most cases,

31 CHAPTER PI

have to be operated year round or haveadditional sources of revenue to justifyinvestments by service providers.

Both Title II(A) and Title II(B) face theproblem of funding equipment pur-chases (with three to four year averagelifetimes) out of operating budgets. Be-cause equipment cannot be amortized,any such investment drives up unit costsfor the year in which the purchase ismade. Such increased short-term costsoften act as a disincentive to investment,even when offsetting long-term benefitsare likely.

The importance of these funding issuesmay be amplified because six percent ad-ministrative funding can no longer beused for equipment purchases as it oncewas.

Funding Uncertainty /Timing

The GAO report found that ap-proximately 60 percent of SDAs felt thatuncertainty regarding Title II(B) fundinglevels was a problem in developingremedial education plans. More than 40percent felt that uncertainty about whenfunds would arrive was also a problem.

While the funding of Title II(A) 78%programs is fairly consistent both inamount and timing, Title 1I(B) programsface a much less stable funding environ-ment. Congressional and administrativedelays can result in funds for summeryouth programs being made available toolate for coordinated equipment pur-chases. Similarly, the distribution ofeight percent "unding is subject to

CHAPTER III 32

decisions at state level which are oftennot made in a timely manner.

Staff Development

Although the newer computer technol-ogy is far easier to use than was equip-ment only a few years ago, many JTPAstaff -- at SDAs and service providers --do not have sufficient training to makethe most effective use of their com-puters. Specifically, service delivery staffdo not, in general, have sufficient skillsfor integrating CAI or CMI into educa-tion and training curricula nor are theyfully capable of establishing or operatingthe networks used in computer-baseddelivery systems.

Perhaps more critical than the lack ofhighly technical expertise is the generallack of computer awareness by manyJTPA staff. Improved staff training isneeded to eliminate the underlying"computerphobia" evident in some staffand to reinforce the notion that, ratherthan a burden, computers are a valuabletool.

Performance-Based Contracts

JTPA programs operate as a perfor-mance driven system. Many SDAsemploy performance-based contractswhich are designed to withhold the bulkof the payment until participants areplaced in unsubsidized employment orachieve some other program goal. Theseagreements call for full payments only ifstated objectives are met. The inherentfinancial uncertainty, from thestandpoint of the service provider, is astrong incentive for the service provider

to operate at the lowest possible short-run cost. Such conditions are not con-ducive to investn ents in computerequipment (particularly unamortizableequipment) which could drive up short-run costs.

Reliance on Standardized Tests

A number of service providers (as wellas school officials, publishers, and re-searchers) argue that performance-based contracts and program designs inremedial education, which are based onnational, norm-referenced, standardizedtest scores, provide disincentives for twoemerging uses of computers for targetpopulations such as dropout and poten-tial dropouts: (1) development of higherorder of thinking skills (HOTS); and (2)development of tool application skillssuch as word processing and data basesearchers (Resnick, 1987). Whileseveral HOTS programs, using a varietyof software packages, have been success-ful in demonstrating some gains on na-tional norm- referenced math andreading tests, these instruments do notadequately assess development of criti-cal thinking skills (Pogrow, 1986). Someproviders feel that the "competencies"agreed upon are too low or limiting forsome participants (e.g., potentialdropouts in Title II(A)) and do not ad-dress important other skit ; and be-havioral changes. With the possibleexception of assessing writing skills, noneof the traditional national norm-referenced tests adequately measuretool application skills development,which would appear to be critical for in-dividual success in the info: ation age(Hunter, 1987; Resnick, 198'').

Federal and State Restrictions

As described in the discussion of fund-ing barriers above, Federal restrictionscan have a significant impact on theavailability of resources for computer-re-lated purchases. State JTPA agenciescan also restrict (whether throughregulation or interpretation) funding forcomputer purchases and use. For ex-ample, the Act sets aside eight percent ofthe funds allocated to states under TitleII(A) for use in coordinating job trainingservices with state education and ti- iningagencies. In a number of states (e.g.,Florida, New Jersey, South Carolina),the state education agency has allowedSDAs to use 90 percent of the eight per-cent set-aside fund for purchasinghardware and/or software for the TitleII(A) program. Connecticut, with stric-ter interpretations of Chapter 1 "supple-ment not supplant" provisions, has ruledthat the use of eight percent set-asidefunds for purchasing computer and (oberhardware for use in Title II(A) progi ,.msis not allowed.

Many experts, service providers, andsome SDAs/PICs feel that states shouldbe encouraged to review existing policieson allowable costs and other regulationswhich reduce the flexibility of funding forthe use of computer-based programs inthe Title H program.

Differential Constraints

The wide range of barriers describedabove constrains the use of computersgenerally in JTPA service delivery.There are a number of other factors that

33 CHAPTER III

serve as barriers only to certain types ofservice providers -- most often privatesector providers. To the extent that anyrestriction on provider participationreduces the diversity of program offer-ings available in JTPA, the system suffersand the likelihood of effective computeruse is reduced.

As noted earlier, many SDAs and ser-vice providers rely on school-ad-ministered tests for initial appraisal,screening, and, in some cases, placementof participants in Title II(A) and (B)programs. The GAO reported that someSDAs l!ave difficulty obtaining test infor-mation from schools. This can be partlyattributed to different states' interpreta-tions of Federal legislation regarding ex-perimentation in programs using Federalfunds. This factor is a disincentive for theSDA to select as service providers groupsother than the local school district.

In the accreditation area, states applydifferent standards to JTPA programs, afactor that could have an impact on thetypes of delivery systems and serviceprovider an SDA selects. In some states,providers have been awarded contractsunder the provision that they must usecertified teachers from the school sys-tem, limiting the range of serviceprovider options.

2. TITLE III BARRIERS

While some barriers to use of com-puters and related technology in Title IIIare similar to those in other JTPAprograms, there are a number of specificbarriers which make computer use fortraining, remedial education, and other

4 k

CHAPTER III 34

services more d:fficult in Title IIIprograms.

Lack of Information

State Title III administrators are ofteneven more unaware (and less interested)than Title II officials about potential usesof current technologies in theirprograms, except when the focus ofretraining is in "high tech" occupationalareas. Because of the timing and shortduration of many Title III programs, typi-cal sources of information -- such as ven-dors, journals, and technologyconferences -- are not as readily availableto state-level Title III program officials.Systematic information about availabletechnologies and technology expertise issorely needed, as is information abouthow technology can serve a ustful role inTitle III programs.

Short Lead Time

The short lead time usually accompany-ing plant closing and the types of trainingneeded creates problems for planners,who are usually faced with two alterna-tives: (1) attemptin: to find "canned"packages which focus on general needs,but which might not be ideally suited tothe needs of individual workers; or (2)finding a local service provider who canmeet minimal servir delivery require-ments. To some e tent, the lead timeproblem can be minimized in situationswhere ( ,liployers, particularly largecompantP,., with technology-based train-ing systems, take an active role in supportof the mining and skill upgrading ser-vices.

Program Design

Programs should be designed to mini-mize installation and implementationtime, including in-service training. Tothe extent programs are participaiit-directed (perhaps in conjunction withpeer tutoring), the requirement for cer-tified staff during implementation will beeased. If programs require a highlyskilled instructor, for example, with thecomplex equipment, the Title IIIprogram should be integrated into an ex-istin7, program which could be modifiedfor use with Title III participants. Moreso than with Title II programs, programsfor dislocated workers require openentry/exit to accommodate schedulingrequirements of participants and the useof equipment. The technology should berelatively transportable; effectiveschedulhig may require movement tomore than one site in a program areaafter a TiCe III program has been com-pleted for use in other programs outsidethe local area.

An increasing number of Title IIIprograms have involved limitei Englishproficient participants. Design of suchprograms must take into account newdelivery systems to provide basic skills in-struction with these heterogeneouspopulations light of the shortages of ESLteachers. Videodisc technology canprovide the flexibility to serve suchheterogeneous populations, while othertechnologies such as distance learningcan, with relatively low cost, use existinginfrastructures (e.g., closed cable,employer-based TV, etc.) for specificpopulations for which resident technol-ogy and teachers are not available.

4 A:

Disincentives for Technology Invest-ments

The typically short durations of Title IIIprograms provide disincentives, par-ticularly for local service providers :o in-vest in capital-intensive, computer-basedtechnology, because it may be difficult toamortize the purchase over a number ofyears. For local service providers whotraditionally charge tuition, JTPA TitleIII funds usually cannot pay full tuitionfees, a disincentive for capital-intensiveinvestments, especially where tuitionfees reflect operating costs. In other in-stances where traditional education andoccupational institutions are serviceproviders, new technology-oriented oc-cupational training (e.g., robotics,CAD/CA M) may not be included incourses which can be quickly accreditedby appropriate state agencies. The in-ability of participants to receive credit fortraining is a disincentive for some par-ticipants to enroll. Another disincentivefor investment in capital-intensive in-struction is the availability of participanttime to receive instruction in centralizedlocations, which is compounded by com-muting and transportation costs.

Software Designed for Adults

The lack of computer and related tech-nology-based programs designed foradults is a major barrier in itself. Manyadults feel that they do not need instruc-tion in reading and certainly are not in-terested in attending community-basedor other programs designed for remedialskills development for youth dropouts.In virtually all cases, programs should bedesigned to teach basic skills in the con-

35 CHAPTER III

text of work to avoid turning off workerswho will not admit to deficiencies inreading, for example. In other cases, thebasic skill components may have to betied into high prestige courses and topics,such as fiber optics, CAD-CAM, andother high tech areas.

3. JOB CORPS BARRIERS

A number of barriers to expanded ormore effective use of computers in JobCorps service delivery are similar tothose for other JTPA programs; otherare uniquely related to the Job Corps.

Funding

While funding uncertainty is less of aproblem with the Job Corps than withJTPA Title II, the level of funding avail-able to purchase hardware and, to alesser extent, software is a problem withmany facets. Cost competition for JobCorps contracts is so fierce that contrac-tors cannot afford to invest heavily incomputer-based systems. The budgetaryprocess often causes a problem. For ex-ample, computer purchases may be in-cluded in capital equipment andmaintenance line items that also includeheavy duty and costly equipment such asbulldozers and facilities maintenance,etc. which, during the budgetary process,get a higher priority at regional DOL of-fices. As a result, most of the centerscurrently using computers for instruc-tional and related purposes obtainedtheir equipment through such special ac-tivities as the evaluation project, pre-vious pilot and demonstration projects(e.g., Education Improvement EffortProject), special approvals by supportive

CHAPTER III 36

regional offices who place high prioritieson educational reform (Region IX), orlocal resources. Funding levels also limitstaff training in computer use, which canbe costly in remote locations where usersmust be trained in distant sites.

Lengthy Approval Process

Several officials reported that the over-all approval process, including procure-ment procedures, is very lengthy,sometimes resulting in the purchase ofequipment that is outdated. Others notethat the approval process is so cumber-some that it serves as a significant disin-centive for many vendors. In many cases,centers are using hardware that is asmuch as seven years old and, due to lackof maintenance funds, some stations areno longer operational. Moreover, thelevel at which approval must be obtainedfor computer-based education purchase'varies among the DOL regions, whichcan create planning and relatedproblems.

Compatibility

A major concern in the Job Corps (aswell as in many other education/. .iningprograms) is the necessary trade offs be-tween diversity and compatibility ofhardware. While technology has greatlyimproved the ability of different type ofcomputers to talk with one another, full-scale compatibility across brandsA not areality. This factor place special burdenson Job Corps decision makers to plantheir technology-related decisions,recognizing that any type of computerwill have both advantages and draw-backs.

Most center officials perceive the needfor a variety of computers in order totake advantage of the best software avail-able. On the other hand, as Job Corpscenters increasingly 'mplement manage-ment information systems (MIS), there isa tendency toward standardization to en-sure that the MIS can be interfaced withinstructional management systems usedin the classroom. Several officials indi-cated a desire to use software developedat other centers, particularly thoseoperated by the same corporation.However, in certain cases, incom-patibility of hardware at the differentsites precluded such opportunities.

Software Availability

Although most centers participating inthe evaluation project are satisfied withthe quality of software used in the treat-ment groups, some felt a need for highquality packages in GED preparation(especially the new 1988 GED version)and ESL. M-Jst felt that, in contrast tothe current use of CAI to supplement in-struction, it would be difficult to find acomputer-based delivery system whichhas the total instructional softwarecapabilities to meet Job Corps needs.Most center officials expressed the needfor new or improved instructionalmanagement systems designed for JobCorps use. A recent survey of centereducation directors identified somecharacteristics of an instructionalmanagement system which would satisfytheir needs:

CAI lessons should be corre-lated with competencies and in-

cluded in a computer-baseddirectory;the system should do test-scor-ing and record test results;the system should print outspecific lesson prescriptionsbased on test score results andteacher judgment;the system should allow for easyupdating, particularly CAIsoftware lesson plans; the sys-tem should also be able torecord and report on participanttime-on-task; andthe instructional managementsystem should be able to beinterfaced with largermainframe computer forgeneral MIS purposes.

Most of the current instructionalmanagement systems being used haveinadequate diagnostic and prescriptivecapabilities or do not have the memorycapacity to incorporate adequate skillcorrelations with materials.

37 CHAPTER III

Program Design Rigidity

Several barriers to effective use of com-puters perceived by center officials relateto program design rigidity reflected inJob Corps manuals, guidelines, etc. Forexample, several officials felt that the1983 "manual" skill range was too limited,resulting in a propensity to teach onlywhat is required in the curriculum.Several expressed a desire to use thecomputer to teach higher order thinkingskills not currently included in the mini-mal requirements. Others felt the needfor greater flexibility in selecting tests forassessment purposes.Several officials participating in the

evaluation project felt constrained by theprescribed program design and wouldhave liked to use computers for addition-al purposes and in different ways. Mostexpressed their intention to expand theproject's applications after the evalua-tion project ends.

1

39

CHAPTER IN

Policy Options and Recommendations

In this chapter we describe severalpolicy options based on project findings.These recommendations have beenderived from discussions with ExpertPanel member, SDA/PIC staff, serviceproviders, vendors, and other individualsknowledgeable about the JTPA system.The first general set of recommendationsapply primarily to service delivery acrossall JTPA titles. The second set of recom-mendations address issues unique to aspecific program.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of the identified policy op-tions would provide technical assistancefor programs supported under JTPATitle II(A), Title II(B), Title III, and JobCorps.

1CREATE INVESTMENT FUNDINGMECHANISMS

Based upon extensive discussions withmembers of the Expert Panel and otherindividuals knowledgeable about thepotential for increased use of technologyin JTPA, it became clear that one of thegreatest barriers to such use is theavailability of "up front" funds to suppoi tinitial implementation.

Most knowledgeable JTPA officials, ex-perts, and vendors argue that the existingprocedures bias the system against largeinitial i vestments in capital-intensivedelivery systems because of: (a) the in-ability of SDAs/PICs to amortize capitalexpenditures; and (b) policies andregulations which restrict the use offunds for investments in hardware andsoftware. A number of experts haverecommended the creation of a fundingmechanism for investment in capital-in-tensive technology.

One possible approach would be thecreation of a line item for each of theJTPA programs earmarked for servicedelivery and management technology in-vestments. This mechanism could besimilar to the revolving fund conceptusein the past by state employment ser-vice agencies, whereby investing agen-cies pay back, over time, funds initiallyprovided by the revolving fund. Such anarrangement could be administered aspart of the National TechnologyResource Center.

2CREATE A NATIONAL TECHNOLOGYRESOURCE CENTER

One of the major drawbacks to effectivetechnology use in JTPA is the lack of auseful base of information on matters

CHAPTER IV

relating to technology use. Based upondiscussions with the Expert Panel, the es-tablishment of a National TechnologyResource Center is recommended.

The National Technology Resource:,enter would receive funding from theDepartment of Labor to cover core cen-ter operations. Additional funding couldbe sought from foundations, employers,employer associations, unions, and othersources. The Center would be operatedas an autonomous entity, with a Board ofDirectors representing both public andprivate organizations. Policies would beestablished to ensure continuity of fund-ing. Management would be selected bythe Board of Directors. The focus of theCenter would include computer-basedand related emerging technologies suchas interactive videodisc, distance learn-ing, instructional software systems, andartificial intelligence.

The Center would have three majorresponsibilities: (a) to collect and dis-seminate information to the variouslevels of the JTPA system and the tech-nology community (including vendorsand researchers); (b) to provide technol-ogy-related assistance; and (c) to sup-port directly related research andsoftware development through contractswith appropriate groups. Below wedescribe some of these proposed func-tions in greater detail.

Collect and Disseminate Information

The Center would collect (or facilitatethe collection of) information, compilesuch information, and disseminate theinformation across JTPA programs -- co

40

local SDAs/PICs, service providers, stateJTPA offices, JTPA officials in DOLregional offices, and technology liaisonofficials within national DOL officesresponsible for JTPA programs. Thetypes of information to be collected anddisseminated would include:

Technology-Related Resources:Resources including individuals,groups, and clearinghouseswhich could provide useful andtimely information to users. In-formation could be compiledand disseminated in updatabledirectories and on electronicbulletin boards using telecom-munication gateways or anelectronic network establishedby the Center.Guidelines and Checklists:Center staff could compileand/or develop guidelines andchecklists for use at the SDAand service providers levels toassist in the design of technol-ogy-based programs and in com-munication with serviceproviders. Center s,iff wouldrely (to the extent possible) onexisting guidelines, checklists,etc. developed by groups such asthe National Center forResearch in Vocational Educa-tion, the International Councilfor Computers in Education,and other organizations con-cerned with technology use inliteracy and related programs.Exemplary Programs UsingTechnology: Program could beidentified on an ongoing basis,relying on existing reports and

case studies. Project descrip-tions would be compiled andpresented in such a way as to as-sist SDAs/PICs and serviceproviders in deciding how toreplicate (and adapt, if neces-sary, to local needs) such tech-nology-based programs.Evaluations ofSoftware/Hardware: While theCenter would not conductevaluations of specific sc clwareand/or hardware components, itwould compile evaluations con-ducted by independent evalua-tion groups. More than 20 suchgroups now exist as interstateconsortia, associations, etc.;moreover, more than 500 state,local, and intermediate educa-tion agencies conduct softwareevaluations. The Center wouldalso be responsible for compil-ing and disseminating softwareevaluation ff -ms and criteriawhich could be used by SDAsand service providers forsoftware preview purposes.

Facilitate /Provide Technical Assistance

Because technology-related needs willvary across states and programs, theCenter would design and implement atechnical assistance program based onthe different needs. It would have a corestaff of technology experts; technologyliaisons would be appointed within thenational JTPA program offices and ineach of the DOL regional offices; stateJTPA offices could also be encouraged todesignate technology liaison individuals.In addition to the Center's core staff, two

41 CHAPTER IV

to three regional technical assistancecenters would be funded in part byCenter funds (matched by funds and in-kind contributions from state consortia).The technology assistance and supportsystem would facilitate (or provide) thefollowing services:

Program Planning and Design:The Center would encouragethe use of existing programdesign resources. Given thelevel of need across programs,the Center would also provideplanning and design services in-cluding: (a) research and assess-ments with employers to ensurethat programs meet potentialemployees' needs to performsuccessfully in t' ie work place;(b) development of models ofdifferent technology-basedconfigurations which could beused for planning purposes; (c)development of model programdesign specifications whichcould be used in negotiatingperformance-based contractswith service providers; and (d)on-call program design servicesranging from telephone assis-tance to workshops.Technology SystemsIntegration: Because of emerg-ing, sophisticated, computer-based systems and networkswhich offer potential for the sys-tem, there is a need for assis-tance in integrating technologyinto effective program con-figurations. Technology integra-tion services, which the Centercould provide, would include:

CHAPTER IV 42

(a) serving as an intermediarybetween program planners andthe technology community; (b)identifying components whichare commercially available andassisting in their integration intocost-effective delivery systems;and (c) assisting in the develop-ment of RFPs and/or negotiat-ing with vendors and/or serviceproviders.Forums for Service andTechnology Providers: TheCenter could facilitate, sponsor,or conduct forums, symposia,and/or workshops. Dependingon meeting focus, attendeescould include SDAs, PICs,employers, service providers,technology providers, and ven-dors. Meetings would bedesigned to improve com-munications among all parties(through orientation briefingsand "give and take" sessions)and provide opportunities foremployers to communicat.projected work force needs.Identification of FundingSources: Center staff would as-sist in designing programs toutilize JTPA funding flexibilitiesand communicate programneeaN to technology vendors.Such an activity could identifybusiness practices (includinglease - purchase options and al-ternative distribution channels,and support policies) which ven-dors might consider to accom-modate the unique organization-al structures and constraints ofthe JTPA system.

Monitoring of AdvancedTechnologies: Center staff couldcontinually monitor technologyadvances which could be used inJTPA programs and disseminateinformation about these advan-ces to planners, technologyliaison staff, and serviceproviders.Facilitate /Support Software

Development

The Center would also have contractingauthority to support (or facilitate supportof) the development of software applica-tions and other development activitiesdesigned to meet some of the uniqueunmet needs of JTPA service delivery.For example, the Center could serve acatalytic role in the creation of consortiaof potential users with similar unmetneeds (e.g., software for limited Englishproficient participants). These consortiacould contract for the development ofsoftware, with the resulting productsmade available to consortia members atno cost. Subsequent distribution mightbe through low -cost channels underlicense with the publishers/developers.As priority unmet needs are identified,the Center itself could also contract fordevelopment of products.

One area in which a general need hasbeen identified by Expert Panelists andknowledgeable officials is the develop-ment of assessment instruments, includ-ing: (a) instruments which assesshigher-order and critical thinking skillsdevelopment as part of remedialprograms, particularly for dropouts andpotential dropouts; (b) literacy instru-ments which assess basic skills as they re-

4:

late to clusters of occupational areas; and(c) instruments which accurately andreliably assess the development of skillsthrough the use of computer-based tools(e.g., word processing).

PROGRAM-SPECIFICRECOMMENDATIONS

A number of policy activities relate tospecific JTPA program activities.

1. TITLE II

Several options/initiatives which couldexpand or improve the use of computersand related technology in the Title IIprogram include:

encourage the creation ofregional consortia ofSDAs/PICs and community-based service providers in orderto aggregate markets forhardware and software to obtaingreater vendor discounts and tofund software development tomeet common, unmet needs;encourage hardware andsoftware vendors to developlease-purchase policies whichcan accommodate the needs andconstraints of the existing JTPAsystem and encourage states toprovided to local public .,chools;encourage states to review exist-ing state laws and regulations(e.g., state-wide hardware con-tracts, program and teachercertification, use of eight per-cent set-aside) and eliminatethose that unreasonably restrict

43 CHAPTER IV

technology use; andencourage states to provideSDAs and service providerswith reasonable access to exist-ing assessment informationwhich can be used in the par-ticipant appraisal/screening/as-sessment process and facilitatecoordination, in the assessmentarea, between ES offices andSDAs/PICs to minimize un-necessary duplication of test ad-ministration.

2. JOB CORPS

Policies/initiatives that would result inexpanded or more effective use of com-puters in the Job Corps include:

Create a line item with an ap-propriate level of funding forinstructional equipmentseparate from the capital equip-ment line item; this optionwould reduce time andproblems in the budgetary ap-proval process and wouldprovide greater opportunitiesfor uniform use of computersamong different types of JobCorps centers.Modify existing Job Corpsmanuals to provide greaterflexibility in the use of new, crea-tive software to teach higherorder thinking skills and toprovide greater flexibility inusing appropriate assessment in-struments.Establish policies and proce-dures that would allow the JobCorps to serve as a national

CHAPTER IV 44

laboratory for developing, adapt-ing, and pilot testing computer-based instru ional tech-nologies; the focus of such ac-tivities would include improvingJob Corps operations as well asfield-testing and evaluatingtraining programs that could beused in JTPA Title II(A), TitleII(B), and Title III programs.

This policy would be consistent with theoriginal legislation and policies whichcreated the Job Corps in the mid-1960s.These procedures would also include ap-propriate funding for dissemination ofinformation about Job Corps servicedelivery and pilot tests to appropriateJTPA officials.

Encourage sharing of informa-tion about computer use in ap-propriate programs among JobCorps contractors, including in-formation about DOL-fundedpilot programs, DOL-supportedsoftware development and adap-tation, and alternative uses of ex-isting assessment instruments.Establish mechanisms by whichES and labor market informa-tion from many areas can bemade available to Job Corps of-ficials to enhance placements ofCorps members in their homelocales.Conduct a review of existing in-structional management systemsused in Job Corps and else-where to determine appropriate-ness of their use in Job Corpsprograms and disseminate find-ings to Job Corps center staff.

3. TITLE III

Many of the barriers to effective com-puter use in Titles II(A) and II(B) aresimilarly evident in Title III programs fordislocated workers. The unique natureof Title III, however, suggests that at leastone program-specific strategy might beappropriate.

Among the characteristics of a goodTitle III program are "fast roll out andrapid ending" after the plant closing crisisis over. This suggests that the state, orbetter yet, a region have hardware andsoftware materials that it can quicklydeploy and then redeploy in a new situa-tion. This may mean leasing equipmentto a provider or making it available onsome other basis. For this approach tobe successful, the repository would needan assigned staff person who would knowwhat was available and who couldprovide the "institutional memory" aboutwhat courses work in alternative situa-tions.

One of the first initiatives to be under-taken by the National TechnologyResource Center we id be the design oftwo or three hardware/software con-figurations which could be used toprovide remedial and skill developmentin most Title III programs. Based on areview of exemplary technology sites,some of the important characteristics ofthese configurations would include:

open entry/exit to accommodateflexible participant scheduling;self-paced and self-directedinstruction (including peertutors);

high interest-level materialsand/or basic skills tied tospecific occupational clusters;specific technology which can ac-commodate the needs of limitedEnglish proficient populationsthrough audio and graphic over-lays;specific technology deliverywhich can build upon existinguse infrastructures (e.g., instruc-tional television receivingfacilities, cable systems, interac-

45 CHAPTER IV

tive telecommunicationnetworks);technology which can be easilytransported to locations withminimal cost and technicaldown time (e.g., the hand-heldtutor for English as a SecondLanguage developed by theArmy Research Institute); andtechnology configuration whichcan be implemented without theneed for skilled staff and/or in-structors.

47

References

Berlin, Gordon and Sum, Andrew, Toward a More Perfect Union: Basic Skills. PoorFamilies. And Our Economic Future, Occasional Paper Number Three, Ford Foun-dation Project on Social Welfare and the American Future, Ford Foundation, NewYork, New York, 1988.

Blaschke, Charles L., "Educational Telecomputing: The Need for Managerial andPolitical Innovation", Learning Series for Tomorrow. Apple Computer, Inc., 1988.

"Can Computers Answer America's Training Needs?", Instructional Deliverytems. January/February 1988.

Center for Advanced Technology in Education, University of Oregon, Costs. Ef-fects. and Utility of Microcomputer-Assisted Instruction, 1986.

Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc., UsesDf Computers in Education, March 1985.

Florida Department of Education, Survey of Micrcomputer Use, January 1988.

Hunter, Beverly, Computer-Based Tools in Learning and Teaching: A ResearchAgenda, 1987.

Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, Videodics in Education: A Direc-tory, 1987.

National Commission for Employment Policy, Survey of Basic Skills RemediationPractices in JTPA Youth Programs, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1988.

National Governors' Association, Center for Policy Research and Analysis, Manag-ing Information at the State Level: Opportunity and Challenge, March 1983.

National Governors' Association, Center for Policy Research, Specifications for In-tegrated Management Information Systems for the Job Training Partnership Act.,May 1984.

Packer, Arnold E. and Johnson, William B., Workforce 2000;_Work and Workers forthe Twenty-first Century, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1987.

Resnick, Lauren, Testimony before Subcommittee on Education and Health of theJoint Economic Committee, October 5, 1987.

48

Rodenstein, Judith M., "Microcomputers in the Classroom: Are There Unique Is-sues for Vocational Educators to Consider?", instructional Strategies for using.Microcomputers in Vocational Education, The Vocational Studies Center, Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984.

Southeastern Educational Improvement Laboratory, National Survey of the JobTraining Partnership Act Eight Percent Set-Aside, October 1987.

Taggart, Robert, The Comprehensive Competencies Program A New Way toTeach., A New Way to Learn, The United States Basic Skills Investment Corpora-tion, 1988.

TALMIS, Annual Survey of Microcomputer Use in Schools, 1987.

TALMIS, Annual Survey of Microcomputer Use in Schools, 1988.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, EmploymentService Program Letter No. 8-87, May 15, 1987.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Job Training Partnership Act: Summer YouthPrograms Increase Emphasis on Education, June 1987.

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Science, Education, and TransportationProgram, Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programsand Use with Limited English Proficient Students, March 13, 1987.

49 APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Representative Projects Using Computersin JTPA Title II

General Motors New TechnologyTraining (Wentzville, OH) receivesfunding from the State, J'1 PA Title II,and General Motors Corp.Uses of the technology:

Training to operate and main-tain robotsCAI in industrial roboticsPLATOBasic skills

Dislocated 'Yorker Retraining (Al-legheny Community College PA)receives funding from JTPA Title III, andthe County.Uses of the technology:

Repair robotics

Learning Opportunities Center (Cor-vallis, OR) receives funding from theState Dept. of Vocational Ed. and JTPA.Uses of the technology:

Remedial basic skills

Elliot Training Center (Greenburg,PA) receives funding from JTPA TitlesII and III.Uses of the technolog":

Teach programmingTeach CAD/CAMTeach computer application

Program to Reach Employment Poten-tial (PREP) (Dayton, OH) receivesfunding from JTPA Title II and DaytonBoard of Education.Uses of the technology:

Computer literacy

South Carolina Technical EducationSystem (Columbia, SC) receives fundingfrom state funds, industry in-kind con-tributions, and JTPA Titles II and III.Uses of the technology:

Advanced office operationAdvanced machine toolingMicroelectronicsComputer ApplicationsRobotics

Before Employment Skills Training(Rock Island, IL) receives funding fromJTPA Title II.Uses of the technology:

CAI to teach pre-employmentand work maturity comprehen-sion (CCP programs)

New Horizons (Richmond, VA)receives funding from JTPA, The EdnaMcConnel Clark Foundation, RichmondPublic Schools, and VA CommunityUniversityUses of the technology:

APPENDIX A 50

Basic skillsComputer literacyInterpersonal skillsWorld of work training

Comprehensive Countywide Dislo-cated Worker (Niagara County, NY)receives funding from the State.Uses of the technology:

CAI in basic and remedial skillsVocational skills training

Options, A School for New Skills(Washington, D.C.) receives fundingfrom DES and the Ford Foundation.Uses of the technology:

CAIJob search skills

Retail Training Course (Atlanta, GA)receives funding from JTPA.Uses of the technology:

CAIJob search skills

Learning and Career Center (Mt.Clemens, MI) receives funding fromJTPA, L'Anse Creuse and PublicSchools.Uses of the technology:

Diagnostic testingCAI

Summer Youth Remediation Program(Newark, DE) receives funding fromJTPA Title II.Uses of the technology:

CAI (CCP programs)

SER Learning Center (San Antonio,TX) receives funding from JTPA Title II.Uses of the technology:

CAI (PLATO)

ESL, Adult basic education,GED

Adult Prevocational Remediation(Wilmington, DE) i eceives funding fromJTPA.Uses of the technology:

CAI (CCP Programs)

Teen Parent Assistance Program (Oak-land, CA) receives funding from Title II.Uses of the technology:

CAI for basic skills (CCPprograms)

Dropout Prevention (Newark, DE)receives funding from JTPA.Uses of the technology:

CAI for remedial skills (CCPprogram)

Student Career Introduction Program(Louisville, KY) receives fune'ng fromJTPA and the State.

Uses of the technology:Computer science trainingComputer literacy

Pre-Employment Skills for Women(Sturgeon Bay, WI) receives fundingfrom Title II.Uses of the technology:

.-. Computer literacyInformation management

College Motivation Program (Dayton,OH) receives funding from Title II andWright State University.Uses of the technology:

Computer literacyComputer math

College Preparatory Program (Dayton,OH) receives funding from Title II andPublic schools.Uses of the technology:

Computer literacy

Computer Industry TechnologyProgram receives assistance from Statefunds.Uses of the technology:

Computer technology training

Huffy Corporation Training Programreceives funding from the State and theVocational Education Act.Uses of the technology:

CAD/CAM trainingComputer awareness

Custom Tailored Industrial TrainingUses of the technology:

MicroelectronicsRoboticsCAD/CAM

Upward Bounds's NI o CenterProgram (NY, NY) recei% -s assistancefrom Educational funding.Uses of the technology:

Basic computer skills

Information Processing SpecialistProgram (Twin Falls, ID) receives fund-ing from Title II, Department of LaborWomen's Bureau and IBM Corporation.

51 APPENDIX A

Uses of the technology:Office automation trainingWord processing, .raining

Partners in Education (Cincinnati,OH) receives funding from the ArmyCorps of Engineers.Uses of the technology:

Computerized weather forecast-ing

Youth Competencies Programs (Louis-ville, KY) receives funding from theLouisville and Jefferson CountiesPrivate Industry Council.Uses of the technology:

Computer literacyPre-employment and workmaturity

Tampa Private Industry Council(Tampa, FL) receives funding fromJTPA, IBM Corporation, and businessdonations.Uses of the technology:

Computerized job placementCAI for br.,ic skills

Data Source: NAB Clearinghouse

53

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES

Methodology

A series of five case studies were con-ducted to describe exemplary JTPAcomputer applications and identify anypatterns across JTPA programs that usetechnology effectively. In theparagraphs below are outlined: (a) thecriteria and procedures by which casestudy sites were identified; (h) thehypotheses tested during the casestudies; and (c) the approach to datagathering and analysis during casestudies.

4. SITE SELECTION

The identification of sites to be used forcase studies adhered to a number ofcriteria and followed a set of proceduresdescribed below.

1. CRITERIA

The selection process, in actuality, in-volved two sets of criteria. The first wasprogram criteria -- that is, characteristicsthat must be present in selectedprograms. The second set of criteria aredescriptions of the group of sites as awhole, often representing factors ofselection "balance".

Program Criteria

The preliminary criteria were discussedand refined as part of the Expert Panelmeeting. A overriding criterion was theavailability of existing information,either through interviews or reports,describing the program and its im-plementation process. Specific programcriteria included:

demonstrated performance inmastery of skills and/or com-petencies achieved by par-ticipants, as measured by an ap-propriate assessment instru-ment;innovative use of technologywhich fully utilized the capacityof the technology;ease of replication, implementa-tion, and use by appropriateproviders of service;availability of hardware andhuman resources to replicatethe model program or key com-ponents in other potential sites;anddemonstrated or potential costeffectiveness in the long- orshort run.

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES 54

Ongoing contacts with regional andstate officials indicated tha zany offi-cials have quite clear views of exemplary,computer-based programs within theirpurviews.

Many of them could not, however, ar-ticulate within the framework of objec-tive criteria the reasons for theirdesignations. As part of our site selec-tion process, we attempted to fit recom-mended programs into our set ofprogram criteria. We did not lose sightof the fact that the subjective impressionsof these officials could be extremely valu-able and should not be ignored even iftheir rationale does not fit a neatlydefined set of criteria.

Group Criteria

The group of five case study sites wereselected to provide a fair representationof the types of programs we wished to ex-plore and to achieve a balance in termsof a number of exogenous factors.

Our plan for site selection called for thefollowing distribution of program types;

one local (SDA and serviceprovider) Title II(A) and TitleII(B) combined program;one local Title II(A) programonly;one local Title II(B) programonly;two Job Corps delivery systems(with one tied to Job CorpsMIS);

The relatively small number of sitesmade it impossible to achieve any sys-

tematic selection across a large numberof variables. However, a number of fac-tors were considered in the final selec-tion of sites; these included:

geography: care was taken toensure that one region of thecountry was not overly repre-sented among the case studysites;demographics: local servicedelivery sites were drawn fromcommunities representing avariety of urban, suburban, andrural settings;gate governance: local siteswere chosen to reflect variationin the nature and strength ofstate governance of JTPA; andcomputer type: the final set ofcase study sites includedvariation in the types (brands)of hardware and software beingused.

2. PROCEDURES

TI-se process by which case study siteswere selected followed a series of formaland informal steps:

Preliminary criteria werepresented to the Expeft Paneland NCEP staff.Based on this consultation withthe Panel and NCEP staff. ati nal case study design wasdeveloped, including programcriteria, group criteria, andcriteria measures.Suggestions for exemplary siteswere solicited from NCEP staff,Panel members, state and

regional contracts, national ser-vice providers and other groupsserving at-risk populations.For the case study "slots"described above, more than 30candidate sites were identified.Preliminary information on can-didate sites were collectedthrough telephone contacts andinformal document requests. Ef-fort was taken not to impose anyreporting burden on candidatesites.A preliminary site selection --along with :he selection ration-ale -- was presented to theNCEP Project Officer.Based on NCEP approval, theselection of five case studies wasfinalized and the selected siteswere notified.

B. HYPOTHESES

Below we list a number of hypothesesinvestigated in the case studies, alongwith some explanatory variables as-sociated with the hypotheses. Thegeneral hypotheses to be tested acrossprograms included the following:

Thz initial impetus to use com-puters and related technologycame from an advocate whochampiolicti the idea, both ini-tially and then through the im-plementation process. Ex-planatory variables usually in-cluded: (1) the advocate hadcomputer-related knowledgeand expertise or had direct ac-cess to individuals with such ex-

55 APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES

pertise; (2) the advocatepromoted the use of technologyas a means to benefit either ex-isting staff and/or participants inachieving program goals; and(3) while the advocate was a risktaker, he/she sought to mini-mize risks at critical pointswithin the organization.Priority support at the policylevel for technology use existedinitially or was generated overtime. High-level support wasmaintained throughout the im-plementation process as technol-ogy demonstrated success inmeeting benchmarks and mile-stones in the accomplishment ofthe program's overall goals andobjectives.The program using technology(and/or the primary ir,titutionresponsible for the program)had organizational and fundingstability. To the extent fundinguncertainty existed, keypromoters of technology soughtto reduce this uncertaintythrough additional sources ofrevenue, promoting theprogram benefits to"stakeholders", and taking ap-propriate m asures to ensurec ,,-+: -iuity of appropriate keystaff throughout the implemen-tation process.Prior to the use of technology,there was a program design withstated goals, performance-basedobjectives, and major operation-al procedures such that technol-ogy could be used as a means toprovide efficient implementa-

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES 56

tion. Variables 4..zsociated withthis hypotheses would include:(1) key policy makers and ad-ministrators who "knew whatthey wanted"; and (2) carefullydesigned specifications thatwere effectively communicatedto service providers.Appropriate levels of staffdevelopment and ongoing sup-port were provided throughoutthe implementation process.Variables associated with effec-tive staff training include: (1)orientation to the technology, in-cluding functionality and utility;(2) hands-on equipment train-ing at appropriate times; and (3)refresher training to update andexpand technology applications.Characteristics of ongoing fol-low-up support include: (1) ven-dor support for serviceproviders; (2) development ofan internal care of staff toprovide maintenance and othersupport; and (3) staff and fund-ing allocated to support ac-tivities.service provider staff was in-volved in designing the overallprogram if not the specific useof technology;perceived benefits to staff andparticipants were communi-cated and understood by staff inan attempt to reduce anxieties;use of technology was effective-ly integrated into acceptableprocedures followed by staff, in-cluding variables such as ap-propriate integration of cour-seware into curricula, correla-

tions of courseware with objec-tives, and accreditation ofprograms by recognizedauthorities (e.g., state depart-ment of education or localschool district); andappropriate incentives wereprovided to staff who activelysupported and used technologyin an effective manner.

C. CASE STUDY APPROACH

The general case study approach con-sists of two components: (1) descriptiveanalyses of individual cases; and (2)cross-site comparisons to identify pat-terns and test hypotheses.

1. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

The purpose of this case study com-ponent is to describe successful uses oftechnology, with the intent of providinguseful information for replication inother programs nationally. For each ofthe cases, the following types of informa-tion are included in a descriptiveanalysis.

Context

Contextual information is primarilylimited to variables which could havehad an impact on computer-based tech-nology use:

6 i

general political andsocioeconomic environment inwhich the program was plannedand implemented;

state laws and regulations whichinfluenced program design andtechnology we;local program administrators' in-terpretations of JTPA programguidelines, regulations, etc. af-fecting decisions to use technol-ogy;overall local program priorities,goals, and objectives; anddemographic information onparticipants (e.g., urban/rural,etc.).

Program Description/Implementation Variables

The program description and im-plementation variables included:

history of the program and/orthe evolution of technology usein it;services/functions provided bythe organization;specific uses of computer-re-lated technologies;barriers encountered duringplanning and implementationphases and actions taken toovercome barriers; andfactors contributing to the over-all success of technology use inthe program.

57 APPE' 'DIX B: CASE STUDIES

2. CROSS-SITECOMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the cross-site analysis isto test the study's general hypotheses, toidentify any patterns or trends related totechnology use across JTPA programs,and to provide insights into the intendedand unintended consequences of variouspolicy options. The analytical techniqueis one used by TURNKEY for the Officeof Technology Assessment in conductingstudies of successful Federal R&Dprograms supporting education technol-ogy (1987), in the case studies of the im-plementation of P.L. 94-142, and in otherrelated case study projects.

Basically, the procedure involves link-ing successful program outcomes to fac-tors contributing to the success, many ofwhich could be aggregated at certainlevels to relate to study hypotheses. Theprocedure begins with a review of thecase studies; descriptive analyses andnotes and offers preliminary identifica-tion of certain patterns and trends. Dis-cussions between the Project Directorand site visit team leaders were held toreview critical items and responses toprepare further analysis. Fiially, thecross-site analysis component of the casestudy report waF prepared highlightingtrends, patterns, and common factorsacross case study sites.

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Introduction

In this section we provide backgroundinformation on the Austin/Travis Coun-ty Private Industry Council (PIC) anddescribe the general use of technology inthe PIC.

Background

The Austin/Travis County PIC servesthe Austin metropolitan area, which has,since 1985, experienced a significant in-crease in unemployment. Today, un-employment is over seven percent.While services and government sectorshave improved, the industrial sectorsmost severely affected over the last yearare the manufacturing, construction, andrestaurant trades. Construction activityhas been hurt by low occupancy, an abun-dance of new office buildings. and a stag-nant residential market. The tradeindustries have felt pressure from theslowdown; eating and drinking estab-lishments have been especially hard hit.Local government and Joule health set-vice industries have, on the other hand,posted moderate gains over the last year.

The local PIC board has seven repre-sentatives from large private firms, onefrom a small business, and six from smallminority businesses. Also on the boardare representatives from veterans'groups, organized labor, local com-munity-based organizations, the AustinBusiness League, Austin Independent

59

School District, Texas EmploymentCommission (TEC), community col-leges, senior citizens groups, andrehabilitation agencies.

The PIC staff consists of ten full-timeemployees including an executive direc-tor, deputy director, fiscal officers, con-tract compliance specialist, MISspecialist, planner, program coordinator,vocational evaluator, and administrativestaff. The PIC executive director hasbeen in his current position for abouttwo years; before that, he directed therehabilitation and personnel division ofGoodwill Industries, a key subcontractorfor the PIC JTPA program.

Because of the worsening economicsituation over the last two years, theSDA's JTPA allocation has increased toapproximately $1.7 million, of which ap-proximately $250,000 is devoted to ad-ministrative staff and budget. Thisincrease has provided some funds for in-vestments in computers for administra-tive use.

The major programs/providers andtheir funding allocations are displayed inExhibit A-1. In addition to the threeprograms which have been selected forcase study review, other major programsinclude:

o Goodwill Industries, whichprovides remedial educationand training options for youthand adults, including work ad-

AUSTIN, TEXAS 60

justment training, personal/so-cial adjustment, vocational ESL,job readiness training, andelectronics assembly training,under both Title II(A) and (B).Middle Earth, which operatesTitle II(A) and II(B) programsto develop independent livingand life skills; specifically, theprogram is designed to: (a) im-prove the educational level andemployability of youth throughcounseling, career assessment,and work experience; (b) in-crease the motivational level ofyouth; and (c) provide direct ser-vices benefiting the elderly com-munity.SER-Jobs for Progress, whichhas operated Title II(A) andII(B) programs for several yearsand currently is providing basiceducation and on-the-job train-ing programs; the SER programis currently expanding its use ofcomputers to provide, remedialinstruction and office skills train-ing.Youth Employment Service,which provides training services,under Titles TI(A) and II(B), in-cluding work experience, jobreatlinebN job JC,c11 kli dbbistance,part-time work experience, class-room training, and office skillsunder Titles II(A) and (B).

In 1986, the PIC served 722 Blacks, 660Hispanics, and 465 Whites, for a totalpopulation served of 1,847. The Blackand Hispanic populations served by thePIC are approximately 25 percent higherthan their incidence within the generalpoverty population in the Austin area.

Over the last year and a half, the PIC hasdeveloped a number of high priority ac-tivities:

It has increasingly focused onsingle parents. In 1986, almosthalf of the 707 participantsplaced in full-time employmentwere single female parents, withchildren under age six.It has focused on "at-risk youth";three of the eight majorprograms are in dropoutrecovery, dropout prevention,and/or related activities.It has made a concerted effortto focus on economic develop-ment by forming a Business Ad-visory Committee with repre-sentatives from major corpora-tions and government agencies.Within the last year, the PIC hastaken a proactive role inmarketing its services (e.g., as-sessment and counseling) tocorporations and expanded itsservices that would normally beprovided by service providers.The assessment and counselingservice is computer based (asdescribed below). This prioritycan be attributed to the PIC'sperceived need to diversify itssources of revenue beyond theJTPA and to provide services tocorporations willing to assistworkers and potentialemployees who do not qualifyfor participation in JTPA-funded programs.

61

Exhibit A-1

Major Program Providers

Total Funding

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Funding Source

AAUL (Urban League) $112,074 Title II(B)

CISA (Community in Schools) 105,500 Title II(A)

Creative Rapid Learning Center 390,000 210,000 Title I (A)125,000 Title II(B)

55,000 Section 123

David, Beverely 77,698 Title III

Goodwill Industries 385,000 250,000 Title II(A)135,000 Title II(B)

Huston-Tillotson 122,150 71,750 Title II(A)50,400 Title II(B)

Middle Earth 258,698 125,000 Title II(A)133,698 Title II(B)

SER 530,862 227,000 Title II(A)303,862 Title II(B)

Texas Employment Commission 270,750 200,000 Title II(A)7,750 Title III

Texas School for the Blind 24,000 Section 123

Youth Employment Service 2124 215,000 Title II(A)170,584 Title II(B)

TOTAL $2,599,316

In addition, the PIC has implemented anumber of provisions to ensure that theJTPA program is even more perfor-mance driven than in the past. For ex-ample, a 15 percent "hold back" clausehas been included in all recent Title II(A)contracts to ensure that contractors en-roll the contracted number of eligibleout-of-school youth. It has alsodeveloped several othc..r contractorpolicies, including: (1) no payment forenrollment until 30 hours of training hadbeen completed; and (2) payment for job

placement after 21 days of employmentfor adults and after seven days of employ-ment for youth. As a result, the PICproudly points to its success over the lastyear, as displayed in Exhibit A-2.

The Austin/Travis County PIC usescomputers and related technology exten-sively in both program administrationand service delivery. Each of the ten staffmembers has his or her own IBM-com-patible computer.

AUSTIN, TEXAS 62

Exhibit A-2

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

(FY86 PIC: July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987)

Plita ActualTotal Served 800 1,117

Total Entered Unsubsidized 42c 711Employment

Total Youth Served 425 508Total Youth Entered 200 274

Unsubsidized UnemploymentSchool Dropout 303 367Adult Cost/Positive Termination $3,242.44 $1,753.46Youth Cost/Positive Termination $3,610.83 $2,626.10

Average Starting Wage at Placement 4.58 5.01

Use of Technology

LOTUS 1..2-3 (one of the most widelyused spreadsheet programs) is used byseveral staff to negotiate and monitorperformance contracts. All staff have ac-cess to the data base, which includes in-formation on the current status of eachprogram by service provider. This sys-tem is used for monitoring and selectingservice providers and negotiating con-tinuation contracts.

A dais base program is used to providedata to the Texas Department of Com-merce (TDOC), under which the Trp.A.office was recently placed. The PIC canaccess the TDOC data base. However,since the TDOC is currently se' 'cting anew computer for state-level use, the PICis not planning to develop an on-1;ne ac-cess capability until that decision ismade. Another reason the PIC relies onits own data bases is that the TDOCprogram cannot report on individualprograms.

As described below, computers andscanners are used extensively in the PIC'sassessment and counseling program.

The PIC has the capability to access theTEC job bank in order to determine, forexample, eligibility of participants for theTitle III program. However, it decidedto contract with the TEC to provide theseservices and does not use this capability.The PIC MIS generates numerousreports for internal management pur-poses, including: enrollments, trainingcompletions, placements, wage rates,employment retention, performancepayment tn providers, end employmentreimbursements. These reports can beaccessed by the LOTUS 1-2-3 programto monitor service providers, determinepayments, and report data to other agen-cies.

The PIC is planning to expand technol-ogy use in both administration and ser-vice delivery. For example, it isestablishing, as part of its businesseconomic development thrust, a small

business bid procurement system, similarto one recently developed by the Hous-ton PIC. This system will provide cus-tomized information to small business onprocurement announced in the Com-merce Business Daily, as well as on con-tract awards which may provide smallbusiness subcontract opportunities. ThePIC is also interested in reviewing theCCP ESL program being developed atthe Multi-Cultural Interim Program (atechnology development group) inWashington, D.C. for possible use in itsplanned services. The PIC plans to in-itiate, in the near future, an olderworkers program in cooperation with alocal service provider. In this program,the PIC will assess the effectiveness ofcomputer-based instruction, particularlyrelated to word processing and spread-sheets, which will be used as part of theinstructional program.

Senior PIC staff and board membersbelieve that computer use in PIC ad-ministration and service delivery hasbeen extremely beneficial, esulting inreduced staff time in preparing reports.They believe it has enabled them to im-plement and monitor performance-based contracts, has improved theper foillidlice-driven nature of theprogram, and has freed staff time fromadministrative duties to such an extentthat PIC staff can now reallocate time tomarketing its services to private corpora-tions and other groups outside the JTPAsystem. Because of the PIC staffs suc-cessful use of computers in administra-tion, they are even more convinced thanbefore that computers and related tech-nology can be used effectively in servicedelivery areas.

63 AUSTIN, TEXAS

Description of Programs

Generally, computers are used moreextensively in the Austin SDA that inother SDAs. Below we describe severalprograms which use technology in an ex-emplary manner.

Service Providers

Since 1984, the American Institute forLearning (AIL) has operated self-helpprograms for dropout youth for the Aus-tin/Travis County PIC. AIL's flagshipprogram is the Creative Rapid LearningCenter (CRLC) which provides servicesunder both Title II(A) and II(B); adropout prevention program has alsobeen established in Johnston HighSchool, modeled after the CRLC.

Having worked with at-risk youth formore than a decade and having estab-lished a model creative arts readingprogram, AIL is a nationally recognized,community-based program. It has a longrecord of providing effective programsfor inmates of correctional institutionsand other hard-to-serve populations. Inaddition to JTPA-funded services, AILprovides set vices to other groups and in-stitutions, some of which relate to tech-nology use. For example, as part of theIBM Study Partnership, AIL hasdeveloped courseware and has testedand validated additional coursewaredeveloped and marketed by IBM for usewith at-risk populations. Also, it is help-ing to design correlations between IBMsoftware and the CCP program. It isdeveloping a videodisc-based programon budgeting for functionally illiterateyouth and adults and is helping IBM and

, ......ir,

r

AUSTIN, TEXAS 64

Interactive, Inc. to correlate segments ofthe "What's Next?" videodisc program toCCP objectives and competencies.Under a grant from the Mott Founda-tion, AIL also conducts policy researchon at-risk populations. In 1984, AIL F :affactively participated in the design of a

state-wide study of dropouts and sub-sequently submitted a report to the statelegislature which led to recently passedlegislation (H.B. 1010). AIL receivesfunding from a variety of sources, asdescribed in Exhibit A-3.

Exhibit A-3

AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR LEARNING

1987-88 Proposed Budget

Funding Sources Over $5,000

Revenue Sources 1986-87 1987-88City of Austin $ 85,790 $ 85,790Travis Coun:y 83,251 83,251PIC (86-87, 87-88) 113,830 227,625Mott 60,000 50,000IBM 21,500 11,500Meadows 0 40,000Texas Comm. for Arts 6,500 6,500RGK 0 10,000PIC Title II(B) Summer 125,000 55,500Tuition 12,278 22,500Donations 1160 17.500TOTAL $510,309 $610,166

AIL has a full-time equivalent staff ofapproximately 18 including certifiedteachers, assistant instructors, andspecialists for counseling, intake, out-reach, job development, and creativearts. Many of the staff have backgroundsin liberal and creative arts. Most staffreceived training in technology use afterjoining AIL.

AIL staff, particularly the executivedirector, have developed strong profes-sional relationships with important com-munity groups. For exai-..1ple, the

chairman of the board of AIL, a fennerI ockheed executive, is on a sabbatical toserve as Chairman of the Austin Cham-ber of Commerce and Chairman of theGovernor's Task Force on VocationalEducation. Another AIL board mem-ber serves as a director for the Aus-tin/Travis County PIC.

AIL's unique attributes include priorstaff experience in the use of technology.The entire staff is totally dedicated to thephilosophical approach underlying theprograms operated by AIL. AIL began

using microcomputers in the early1980's, when several microcomputerswere donated; training was provided by avariety of grolps. In 1984, AIL becameheavily involv, i in developing the CCPprogram and received extensive supportfrom the Remediation and Training In-stitute (RTI), in which recently created anew marketing group (U.S. Basics, Inc.).Subsequently, some key AIL staff havebecome seasoned trainers for other CCPusers and participate in RTI's NationalAcademy training programs.

In addition to technology use in servicedelivery, AIL also uses computers and re-lated technology in management andsupport function,. Eighty percent of AILstaff have their own computers whichthey use for word processing, internalreporting, and analysis of student recordsand program effects. Scantron data scan-ning equipment is used extensively toenter data into the CCP program. Apr 19.Macintosh and IIe equipment is usedheavily in developing proposals andquarterly reports to R11. Plans are un-derway to expand the use of computers,particularly Macintosh and IBM System2, to other administrative and reportingfunctions, including an electronicmail/bulletin board system to link all AILsites and possibly s.11 CCP sites in Texas.AIL has taken a lead role in a joint effortbetween the newly formed Texas Basics,Inc. and the Texa, Association of PICs,which received a $100,000 grant todevelop training program linkagesamong service providers and PICsthroughout the State.

65 AUSTIN, TEXAS

Technology-Based Services

Three separate JTPA programsoperated by AIL and two operated by thePIC provide technology-based services.

(1) Creative Rapid Learning Cente,(CRLC) -- Title 11(A) Youth

,'he CRLC is designed to assist highschool dropouts aged 14 to 21 in acquir-ing basic employment, as well asacademic and functional like skill com-petencies to prepare them for entry intosuccessful employment in the Austinlabor market. In the current year, ap-proximately 135 youth are participatingin this multifaceted program. Most par-ticipants enter the program with readingcapabilit.es below the seventh gradelevel. The program provides a com-prehensive mix of services, including:

academic remediation andGED preparation, using theCCP;communication, creativity, andself-esteem building;pre-employment and life skillstraining, which follow thestate-approved youth competen-cy and occupational knowledgeregimen;job placement and ongoing fol-low-up; andcounseling and network servicesprovided by CRLC staff,employers health and child careprofessionals, social serviceagencies, vocational ti 'lining in-stitutes, and local colleges anduniversities.

AUSTIN, TEXAS 66

The nucleus of the CRLC is the CCPprogram, a competency-based andstructured curriculum including lessonplans, benchmarks, master tests, and in-structional aids. The CCP system in-cludes CAI lessons operating onstand-alone Apple computers. CRLC isthe first Texas site to use the IBM Ad-vance Netw, irk system, operating on anAT file server with eight enhanced IBMPCjrs. In addition, the program includesabout 100 IBM software titles designedto improve basic skills.

One of the unique aspects of thisprogram is the "mapped" correlations ofthe IBM software to the CCP program.AIL staff developed these correlationsand the taxonomy which interfaces thetwo systems.

The CCP has three tiers of instruction:

. Tier 1: basic competenciesdirectly equivalent to readingand math instruction in gradesone through four; this tier em-phasizes CAI and print ap-proaches including fife andemployability skills.

. Tier 2: an intermediate com-petency level which coversremedial academic instructionfor approximately grades fivethrough eight; CAI and printmaterials are primarily used,supplemented by audiovisualmaterials.

. Tier 3: advanced competencieswhich are designed to prepareparticipants for high schooltests, GED, armed servicesvocational aptitude battery, orcollege hoards; a comprehen-

sive array of employability andlife skills materials are used ex-tensively in this tier.

The CCP instructional managementsystem is the heart of the program for stu-dent- directed, self-paced, openentry/open exit instruction. Reports onattendance, pre- and post-tests, masterytests, competency achievements, grade-level gains, and hours on task are createdautomatically by the Apple computer.Prescriptive lesson plans, availablethrough the IBM network, are also builtinto this system. The Test of Adult BasicEducation (TABE) is used as a pre-testfor dez5...rmining a learner's entry gradelevel. It is readministered after ap-proximaely 100 hours of study time todetermine grade gains. If reading levelsare below the third grade level or if alearning disability is suspected, the par-ticipant is referred to the Austin literacyCouncil for instruction. Each participantis interviewed by the training directorand/or counselor to determine educa-tional, career, employment, and other in-terests and needs, and an EmployabilityDevelopment Plan (EDP) is developed.In addition to the TABE, CCP diagnos-tic tests are used to place an individual inthe program and prescribe lessons forthat individual.

Depending on the participant's place-ment in the program, other tests beyondmastery tests (including pre-GED tests)are administered, evaluated, and docu-mented within the CCP system. TheCCP instructional management systemcaptures all test scores and provides op-portunities for analyses of strengths andweaknesses by instructors and programadministrators. One ci ideal element in

4 t,'

the CCP is training for both teachers andstudents. CCP instructors have to be cer-tified by RTI (now U.S. Basics) and, inmany cases, the teachers in the CRLC arealso certified by the State of Texas. TheCCP program is also certified by theTexas Department of Commerce, as theCCP lesson plans have been correlatedto the 1 I;xas Essential Skills, the recent-ly mandated State objectives for all Texasschools.

Participants in the program receive ap-proximately five days of training in theuse of the CCP system, including theinstructional management system, testscoring packages which use Scantronscanning equipm,at interfaced with theApple computer, and the IBM network.In a very real sense, the participants aretrained to teach themselves as the entireapproach is participant-directed andself-paced. During the site visit, thestudy team staff person was briefed onthe CCP by a recent graduate who "justdropped into the Center to see if he couldhelp out." At a recent national con-ference on technology and adult literacy,sponsored by Pennsylvania State Univer-sity, a participant in the program (notAIL staff) briefed conference attendeeson the operation of the CCP and the IBMAdvance Netware system. AIL staffbelieve that such training is not onlymotivational and educational, but alsodevelops a sense of value and accoun-tability.

Of CRLC'S 125 Title II(A) participantsserved last year, 95 percent receivedpositive termination compared to 71 per-cent for the PIC as a whole. Participantsduring the second quarter of 1987averaged 1.24 grade equivalent gain in

67 AUSTIN, TEXAS

reading and a 1.66 gain in math. Of the82 youth involved in the 1987 summerprogram 70 percent demonstrated "sig-nificant grade level gain:, in math andEnglish", while 98 percent returned toschool and 95 percent completed train-ing.

(2) Dropout Prevention Title 11(A)

Since January 1987, AIL has operated adropout prevention program atJohnston High School. Each semester,approximately 40 students, ages 14 to 16,identified as potential dropouts, arereferred to the program by school coun-selors and other staff. The object of thisprogram is to increase academic gains,motivate students to remain enrolled inschool, and to master youth competen-cies and occupational knowledge.During a five-month period last spring,40 students participated in the program;only two dropped out and 37 were en-rolled in school in September, 1987.During the five-month period of instruc-tion, the average reading grade gain was1.24, while the math grade level gain was1.66.

The program used at Johnston High isvery similar to the technology configura-tions used at the CRIE, with several ex-ceptions:

in addition to stand-along Ap-ples and the IBM network,other stand-alone microcom-puters (e.g., Apple II + andTexas Instruments) are usedwith such commercial softwareas PLATO;AIL coordinates their activitiesmore closely with regular

AUSTIN, TEXAS 68

teachers, counselors, andparents to assist participantsovercome their barriers to highschool success; andin addition to IBM, Lcckheedsupports the program by provid-ing periodic assistance throughdonation of staff to serve astutors and mentors.

There are a number of, not insurmount-able, problems with a standard schoolsystem and a self-paced, student-ceniered program operated together.For example, students who go beyond thegrade level materials assigned to themmay, upon approval by the principal,receive testing provided by local univer-sities for advanced placement credit.Some older students may not continue inthe program after they reached age 21because they were no longer permittedlegally to go to school. Indeed, one of thethree individuals who dropped out did sofor this reason. Another problem re-lates to determining participants'eligibility for the dropout preventionprogram funded under JTPA. In aprogram for 14 and 15 year olds,operated by Huston-Tillotson College,PIC staff indicated that only 35 to 50 stu-dents in need would or could provide thenecessary information to determineprogram eligibility.

(3) Summer Youth EmploymentProgram -- Titlt, MB)

In 1987, AIL operated a summer youthprogram for 82 youth. Of this total, 98percent returned to school, 95 percentcompleted training, and more than 90percent demonstrated significant gradegains in math and English. The goal of

7',

the program was to increase acadei.:xabilities, computer literacy skills, lifeskills, and work experience of in-schoolyouth ages 14 through 21. In addition tothe regular academic remediation andpre-employment job readiness training,a program component (conducted byIBM instructors) provided work ex-perience and intensive computer skillstraining in office occupations for ten par-ticipants.

The program which has been proposedfor follow-on funding for the summer of1988 occur at both the CRLC andJohnston High School, with ap-proximately 30 participants at each site.

As with last summer's program,remediation, life skills, and educationalenhancement will be provided threehours daily over a six-week period forparticipants aged 14 through 16; 16 to 21year-old participants who are belowgrade level will also be eligible forremediation. Classes will also be avail-able six hours a day for pre-employmentand job readiness training. Eligible par-ticipants will receive specific skills train-ing by IBM instructors in the ComputerOffice Skills Training (COST) program.To be eligible, students must have aninth grade proficiency level and be in-terested in office careers. The coursewill include an introduction to com-puters, computer keyboard training inwork processing, spreadsheets, and database management programs.

One relatively unique aspect of theCRLC program, including the summeryouth program, is its emphasis on thedevelopment of lii,: skills. The life skillsinstructor is an extremely competent in-

dividual who has dealt with at-risk youthin public school environments and ex-emplifies the CRLC philosophy ofhands-on learnir , with strategiesdesigned for each individual. The Jain-ing program which he developed buildsheavily on work experiences within theCRLC, where he attempts to instill inparticipants the value of basic skills asthey relate to on-the-job success. Lastsummer, for example, the basic skillsmath program emphasized drill-and-practice lessons from the building trades;participants assisted in building a kitchenand other facilities at the Center. Thelife skills instructor has also trained anui.nber of participants to operate theIBM Advance Netware system; in doingso he has carefully selected lessons re-lated to office occupations and equip-ment maintenance and repair. He hasattempted to integrate basic skills andremedial education into Jccupationalareas in a novel way, building on the ex-periences available at the CRLC

(4) PIC Corporate Model Program

In 1986, the PIC initiated the CorporateModel Program in cooperation with theDepartment of Human Services (DHS)and the Texas Employment Commission.The model was designed to improvecoordination among DHS, TEC, and PICprograms involving single parents receiv-ing AFDC to provide them opportunitiesto attain employment and become finan-cially independent.

During the last year, 96 participants(aged 16 to 42) were served. While themajority had high school diplomas, theirlevel of functional achievement wasslightly above the seventh grade level.

69 AUSTIN, TEXAS

Unlike many programs operated undersubcontract with service providers, thisprogram was operated by the PIC in itsheadquarters office.

The technology nucleus of the instruc-tional program was the Steck-VaughnGED-100 system. In some respects, it issimilar to the CCP; however, the initialprice of the system is a great deal lowerthan CCP. The GED-100 system uses acombination of computer-managed in-struction and CAI supplemental instruc-tion, in combination with a variety ofprint and audiovisual materials.

The curriculum and lesson plans in-clude a variety of print materials fromsuch publishers as Cambridge Publish-ing, materials from a university-baseprogram (e.g., University of Kentucky),and a variety of software made availableto the program by the Austin CommunityCollege (ACC). The instructor washired part-time from her employment atthe ACC to direct the GED program.

Initially, some participants resistedusing the computer for instructionalpurposes. Over time, however, thisproblem was overcome through thepatience of the instructor, the acquisitionof highly motivational software (focusingon areas of high interest to adults), and afocus on practical life skills (e.g., wordprocessing) relevant to el.iployment.

In additional to the instructionaldelivery, the PIC also uses a sophisti-cated, computer-based assessment andcounseling program with the par-ticipants. Marketed by Pesco, ofPleasantville (New York), the JOBS sys-tem is quite comprehensive including ap-

AUSTIN, TEXAS 70

titudes, physical demands, environmen-tal conditions, temperaments, and inter-est patterns, among other factors. Avariety of tests are administered indeveloping an individual evaluationplan for the participants.

One of the more widely used tests is theValpar series. As participants completethe appropriate batteries, the results areentered into a computer which im-mediately displays the results for reviewwith the individual by the counselor.One unique capability of the JOBS sys-tem is that Pesco provided, for the Aus-tin PIC, a locally customized data base onlocal employers which have availablepositions keyed to DOT classifications.The assessment and counseling servicesprovided by the PIC are being marketedto private corporations for a fee of ap-proximately $500 per participant.

(5) Broyhill Dislocated WorkerProgram Title III

The PIC recently initiated a dislocatedworker program, funded under Title III($75,000), for 150 of the 280 formeremployees of Broyhill Manufacturingwhich recently closed its Austin plant.Sixty of these workers have limitedEnglish proficiency and approximately75 percent are functionally illiterate.Several also have handicapping condi-tions.

The PIC administers the program andprovides assessment and counseling ser-vices similar to those used in the Cor-porate Model Program. The PIC hasalso subcontracted to a group respon-sible for outreach and appropriateremedial/training programs. Operated

at the DeWittee center, l'ie program'sprimary training objectives thus far havebeen pre-employment skills develop-ment. Another group involved in thisprogram is the Texas Employment Com-mission, which is responsible for all of theintake processing of participants andcoordination with the Office of Un-employment Insurance. One of the keyfunctions provided by the TEC is deter-mining eligibility of participants for theTitle III program. The TEC relies on itsMIS, which maintains records on in-dividuals who are considered for par-ticipation in the program.

Barriers To Technology

Use Or Technology-UsingPrograms

Barriers to technology use which haveoften plagued other PICs and serviceproviders are few and minor in Austin.Most of the potential funding problems,especially for initial investment in tech-nology, were minimal as AIL receivedthe hardware and software at no cost forparticipation in the joint IBM study; AILalso provided direct services (e.g.,software development, correlations,mapping) to IBM for which they werereimbursed. A, one of the initial CCPsites, AIL, also received materials and ex-tensive technical assistance and training.The purchase of hardware and softwarefor administrative and other functions bythe PIC was funded through the large in-crease in JTPA allocations over the lasttwo or three years. Most of the serviceproviders also had additional sources ofrevenue to cover or to share some of theinitial costs of investment in technology.

7 .

There are, on the other hand, a numberof current or potential barriers to con-tinued or expanded use of technology.The PIC has expressed the need for moreinformation on hardware and softwarewhich could be used in the program.The PIC staff have relied on word-of-mouth for such information and, untilrecently, had travel funds to go to con-ferences or other sites using technology.Because of travel and related budgetreductions, PIC staff feel they will haveto rely heavily on service providersand/or vendors (IBM, RTI, or Steck-Vaughn) as primary information sources.The AIR also expressed the need for ac-cess to useful information to assist themin selecting software, for txample, to up-date the CCP. Since AIL plans to beginusing the IBM Info Window videodiscsystem, there is an expressed need for ad-ditional information on videodiscprograms and model programs usingvideodiscs. AIL officials also want to es-tablish an information network amongPICs and service providers which focuseson technology-related products, sub-jects, and issues.

Both the PIC and service providers haveexpressed concern about the JTPAeligibility criteria and feel that theprocess for determining participanteligibility is unduly time-consuming :Indburdensome on both staff and par-ticipants. As a resuit, it unnecessarilyreduces the number of participants whocould and should participate in suchprograms. For example, when theJohnston High School dropout preven-tion program received JTPA funding, in-take officials found that many studentsoriginally in the program were unable toprovide the necessary information to

71 AUSTIN, TEXAS

determine eligibility (many parents wereleery of providing such information).Other PIC-administered programs suf-fered similar reductions in participationfor the same reason.

Observers of the Johnston High Schooldropout prevention program have ap-plauded AIL's introduction of a student-directed, self-paced learning system intoa school facility with a traditional, time-based environment. Attempts have beenmade to minimize several certificationproblems (i.e., certifying teachers,providing opportunities for advancedplacement, testing for students who ad-vance beyond their grade level). Thereare also a host of minor problems whichconstrain the effectiveness of technologyuse in this type of setting and the realiza-tion of its full potential. To varyingdegrees, all concerned parties (includingthe PIC, AIL, the school, IBM, and Lock-heed) have expressed a desire to resolveas many of these problems as possible.Alternative models are being designedfor use in planned expansion of this con-cept in additional schools in the near fu-ture by AIL, IBM, and U.S. Basics.

PIC and AIL officials recognize apotential problem resulting from the suc-cess of the program and its selection as amodel national site -- namely, how tohandle the projected requests fir infor-mation and on-site visits from interestedparties around country. The AIL direc-tor expressed intent to seek funding as-sistance from a local foundation or groupto cover staff to provide these services, inorder to minimize disruption to opera-tional programs. PIC officials alsobelieve that national demonstrationprojects have the potential of creating

AUSTIN, TEXAS 72

similar problems and burdens placed onthem. They expressed a desire forgreater cooperation between hardwarevendors, service providers, and othergroups to minimize this burden, while atthe same time providing opportunitiesfor visitors to view their programs.

Success Factors

The success of the technology-usingprograms in Austin can be attributed toa number of factors.

First, the performance-driven nature ofthe overall PIC program, building onperformance contracts with appropriateincentives for providers, encouragesproviders to use the most effective andappropriate technology to achieve par-ticipant objectives. Moreover, it addsobjectivity to the service provider selec-tion process, thereby minimizing politi-cal influence (e.g., to select certainproviders).

Second, the partnership nature of theprogram goes beyond formal require-ments. PIC administrative support toservice providers has been one importantaspect; the roles of AIL's president andexecutive director in obtaining com-munity, state, business, and other sup-port has been significant; and theservices and support provided by suchvendors as RTI and IBM have also con-tributed to overall success.

Third, in the eyes of outside observers,the most critical factor contributing tothe successful use of technology has beenthe dedication and capabilities of the ser-

vice provider and PIC staff. The AIL ex-ecutive directe not only has extensiveexperience and a track record in operat-ing successful programs for at-risk youth,but also is extremely capable of raisingfunds to purchase technology (or obtainit on a loan basis). All instructional staffcome from nontraditional teaching back-grounds and are dedicated to serving at-risk youth populations. All have alsobeen effectively trained in the use of theappropriate technology configurations.

Fourth and last, the technology con-figurations used in Austin have uniquefeatures which contribute significantly tothe program's success. The self-paced,student-directed CCP system integratedwith Apple stand-alone and IBM net-work configurations contribute to suc-cess by: (a) empowering students,thereby increasing self esteem; (b) in-stilling values of personal accountability;(c) providing an environment in whichstudents succeed rather than fail; and (d)developing competency skills in whichparticipants can measure their own suc-cess. As AIL staff members note,however, while technology is important,a comprehensive program designed tomeet the needs of each individual is thehallmark of success.

Closing Comment

Below we summarize some of the les-sons learned in Austin and importantconsiderations for possible adoption inother sites:

A partnership must be built onmutual interest with appropriateincentives for all parties. Strong

leadership roles for all partiesalso appear to be critical.Multiple sources of funding(e.g., foundations, vendor dona-tions, JTPA, among others)which provide opportunities forboth the PIC and serviceprovider to diversify and pur-chase/obtain initial hardwareand software are critical. Non-JTPA funding for programs arealso needed to serve those par-ticipants in need but not eligiblefor JTPA programs.Dedicated staff with necessaryexpertise to use the techno!ogyeffectively is important; staff ex-perience and/or expertise inmotivating at-risk youth iscritical.While technology can facilitatethe implementation of an in-structional program, it is onlyone of several importantcomponents of a comprehensiveservices program to meet theindividual needs of participants.

73 AUSTIN, TEXAS

Implicit in these leFsons are the condi-tions which should exist in other sitescontemplating the use of such a com-petency-based instructional deliveryprogram as CCP and the use of networksfor instructional purposes. These impor-tant conditions might include: (a) posi-tive attitudes among teachers and schoolstaff for in-school dropout preventionprograms (i.e., that at-risk youth can suc-ceed); (b) availability of incentives forservice providers to do a good job,reflected in future RFP criteria and ap-propriate incentives for staff and par-t icip ant s; (c) a student-directedphilosophy of individualized instruction;and (d) a facility and environment whichis conducive to learning. In short, mostobservers of technology-using programsin Austin believed that computer-baseddelivery was an important ingredient, butthat these other conditions and factorscontributed more to overall programsuccess.

75

SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR'SREMEDIATION INITIATIVE

Introduction

The State of South Carolina operatesthe majority of its JTPA programsthrough a single-state service deliveryarea called the Governor's RemediationInitiative (GRI). The State is a recipientof JTPA Federal funds and is the ad-ministrative entity for the programs.

The Division of Employment andTraining, housed in the Office of theGovernor, is responsible for JTPAprograms. The Division is undergoingchanges -- re-assignment of existing staffand an influx of new staff. The recently-elected Governor is in the process of as-sessing current programs andestablishing new priorities. The exact fu-ture direction of the State's JTPAprogram is, therefore, rather unclear.

The State's single service delivery agen-cy operates seven programs, including:(a) classroom training; (b) skills training,including occupational, with some basicskills; (c) on-the-job training; (d) in-dividual work experience; (e) programsfor in-school use, including pre-employ-ment, work maturity, and related train-ing; (f) job search assistance; and (g)remediation services included in theGRI.

The current budget for all JTPAprograms in South Carolina includes:

Title II(A) -- $21 million;Title II(B) -- $9 million;Title III -- $1.8 million;JTPA eight percent set-aside --$2.3 million; andJTPA six percent incentive --$2 million.

In South Carolina, as in many otherstates, there exists a strong correlationbetween low student achievement andpoverty. An analysis conducted in 1985by GRI staff found that in seven countieswhere the percentage of poverty was lessthan 20 percent, the percentage of stu-dents below standard in reading was al-ways under 30 percent. In countieswhere the percentage of poverty wasgreater than 20 percent, the percentagebelow standard in reading was always inexcess of 30 pc -cent.

Another prevalent problem withinSouth Carolina has been the high in-cidence of teen-age pregnancy. In 1986,approximately 3,400 babies weremothered by young women under the ageof 18. Another 5,300 pregnancies wereaborted or miscarried. Eighty perccnt ofteen-age mothers do not complete theireducation. These and other trendswithin the State, including educationreform initiatives, have contributed to

SOUTH CAROLINA 76

the creation of the Governor's Remedia-tion Initiative.

Description Of Programs

Below we describe the GRI, ir-ludingthe subcontractor (Winthrop College)which administers the program, the his-torical evolution of the program, and thecurrent technology-based programsbeing used.

Winthrop College

The GRI is administered by WinthropCollege, one of Sc ith Carolina's four-year public colleges. The decision toplace. the program at Winthrop, was, ac-cording to officials, made because of theCollege's substantial leadership andcommitment to teacher preparation andexpertise in technology.

The Winthrop College unit responsiblefor the GRI has an Acting Director, anevaluator/MIS specialist, administrationassistant, and clerical staff. Under a sub-contract, the Sumter Area TechnicalCollege provides technical assistance toschool staff on hardware and softwareusage. The two staff persons involvedunder this technical assistance sub-contract also monitor the implementa-tion of the program design to ensure thatit is being implemented as planned.

The objective of the program is todevelop and implement a collaborativeremediation system, to be jointly used byschool districts and the technical educa-tion system, which will enhance theemployability of students. The system isbased upon reading and math curricula

in a learning-resource laboratory setting,which is competency based, prescriptive,individualized, and measurable. Thereare 99 high schools involved in the GRIprogram, housing more that 100 mathlabs and 85 reading labs.

In 1984, the initial GRI was funded bythe Office of the Governor's Division ofEmployment and Training. Total fund-ing was $4.5 million (from State fundsand the eight percent set-aside) which es-tablished the program at Winthrop Col-lege. It was funded for a three-yearperiod, commencing July 1, 1984 and en-ding June 30, 1987.

The target population of the GRI is at-risk youth who score in the lowest quar-tile on the California Test of Basic Skills(CTBS) or are below standard on a SouthCarolina state-wide test, the Basic SkillsAssessment Program (BSAP). Both ofthese instruments are used to assessreading comprehension, vocabulary,reference skills, math computation, andmath concepts. The CTBS was used asboth the pre- and post-test during 1986-87. Approximately 10,000 students wereserved in the program last year, withabout 13,000 students being providedservices this year.

While Winthrop has attempted to tar-get development on those schools withthe highest proportion of economicallydisadvantaged youth, it appears as if themain criterion for selection has been thewillingness of the schools to implementthe programs. As noted later, determin-ing income eligibility for students hasbeen a general problem affecting theprogram recently.

il:

Technology

In the mid-1970's, the first Director ofthe GRI began developing an in-dividualized program within the techni-cal school system. The primary foci ofthe curriculum were reading, math, andEnglish. The system relied very heavilyon paper and pencil, print, andaudiovisual materials. CETA and otherfunds were used to develop this initialcurriculum.

In 1976-77, the technical schools in-tegrated this individualized curriculuminto the overall teaching strategy of allthe technical colleges in the State. Overthe next eight to nine years, the cur-riculum was refined and revised.

During the ear!), 1980s, initiatives wereundertaken to begin using computers forboth instruction and instructionalmanagement. Computer-assisted in-struction was designed to supplement,not replace, the print and audiovisualmeans of delivery. Officials state that theselection of Apple hardware was basedlargely on the rapidly increasing base ofeducational software which executed onApple equipment.

In 1982, the instructional ma, agementsystem, which included diagnostic andprescriptive capabilities, wasprogrammed for use on DEC Rainbowmicrocomputers and was provided to 13sites for their use. More than $150,000was received under a Ford Foundationgrant to develop the system. Interfacedwith a scanner, this system was used fortest scoring and student record keeping.The instructional management system

77 SOUTH CAROLINA

focused primarily on math and includedvarious audiovisual materials which wereused to supplement existing materialsand reinforce concepts.

In 1983, the Governor's office begandeveli -ping a state-wide initiative to testthe resulting technology-based instruc-tion management system as a teachingtool in high schools in the State. A keyofficial in the Office of the Governorconvinced others in the office that thesystem should be targeted for at-risk highschool students to upgrade their basicskills.

Shortly thereafter, the State legislaturepassed the Education Improvement Actof 1984, which required competency test-ing for all high school students beforegraduation. Through the efforts of theindividual noted above and his participa-tion in the education improvementmovement in South Carolina, programswere established to ensure that at-riskyouth would not fall even further behindand drop out of school. Since July 1,1984, the Office of the Governor hascommitted approximately $5.2 millionof JTPA eight percent funds to estab-lished and implement the GRI program.

In 1985, when Winthrop College be-came ',.he subcontractor for the GRIprogram, a major effort was undertakenby the staff and consultants to evaluatemore than 800 software titles that couldbe used in the curriculum and to corre-late these titles with objectives in the in-structional management system. Theinstructional objectives were also corr:.-lated with the State competency testingprogram. The six-volume compilation

r

SOUTH CAROLINA 78

of software evaluations of math and read-ing titles represented the first major ef-fort to identify software that not onlycould be used with at-risk youth, but also

was related to State competencies/objec-tives. Growth of the program is dis-played in Exhibit B-1.

Exhibit B-1

GROWTH OF GRI

Number ofYear Type Labs Funded

Cumulat ieNo. of Labs

SchoolDistricts

1984-85 Math 9 9 4

1984-85 Reading 6 6 2

1985-86 Math 73 82 43

1985-86 Reading 0 6 2

1986-87 Math 22 104 58

1986-87 Reading 51 57 39

1986-88 Math 0 104 58

1986-88 Reading 12 69 46

The total cost for setting up these labshas been approximately $45,000 for mathand $60,000 for reading, includingteacher costs. The GRI, using JTPAeight percent set-aside funds, providesapproximately $16,500 for math and$25,000 for reading. In most situations,laboratories are designed to have ratiosof one teacher per 12 students, with fourcomputers. Three computers are typi-cally provided by the school and onethrough GRI funding. initial fundingwas spent on hardware and software.

Through negotiations, schools, for ex-ample, provided hardware and the GRIfunds were used to provide othermaterials and equipment.

Initial grants also provided for trainingof approximately 140 teachers in thesummer of 1985 on the Winthrop cam-

pus. The college provides approximate-ly 40 hours of teacher training for labteachers participating in the GRIprogram. State certificates (includingcollege credits) were awarded to thosesuccessfully completing the training.Teacher training included the used ofprogram materials, instructionalmanagement software, and computer usefor instruction. In 1986-87, as new mathand reading labs were added to the net-work, an additional 60 math teachers and120 reading teachers were trained atWinthrop College.

Exemplary Technology Use

The GRI currently uses three ex-emplary technology applications toprovide remediation instruction and sup-port.

(1) Math Labs

In the math labs, four stand-aloneApple computers are used to providesupplemental CAI instruction. A varietyof commercial software, which has beencorrelated to State and program objec-tives, is used. Most of the software titleswere purchased from ten or so differentsoftware publishers. The diagnos-tic/prescriptive system, operating onDEC Rainbow microcomputers, is avail-able to diagnose, assign levels, and assigntasks. This diagnostic/prescriptive sys-tem was developed under the Ford Foun-dation grant in the 1980s and is usedextensively in the 16 technical schoolsacross the State. It does not, however,have the capacity to monitor studentprogress.

In addition to this system, which is usedin all of the math labs, there are 15 labsnow using the Learning ManagementSystem (LMS) available from Com-puter-Based Training System (CBTS) ofCalgary (Canada). This comprehensivesystem is designed for basic skills and oc-cupational training. The LMS operateson a DEC computer located in highschool labs funded under the GRIprogram.

The CBTS has licensed the technicalschools to use the program and has al-lowed any high schools which can be con-nected through local telephone lines tohave access to the system. This systemincludes test banks and correlationswhich were custom developed for SouthCarolina by the GRI. As new materialsare identified and as test items on theState competency test change, GRI staff

79 SOUTH CAROLINA

can make appropriate changes in theLMS. The one-time cost of the LMSlicense is $15,000 per site (technicalschool). Plans had been underway to ex-pand the LMS to all of the 16 technicalschools within the state in the future;however, funding uncertainties and thelimited capability of some technical col-leges to accommodate the system couldlimit expansion.

(2) Reading Labs

In each of the reading labs there are ap-proximately four Apple He microcom-puters; Apple IIgs's microcomputers areuse for CAI instruction in a sup-plementary manner. The diagnos-tic/prescriptive system is on an Applecomputer connected to a 20-megabytehard disc. It can provide diagnos-tic/prescriptive capabilities and assists inmonitoring student progress. Readingteachers do most record keeping, testscoring, etc. by hand rather than by com-puter.

Students may receive prescription,which includes lessons available to themon Du Kane audiovisual equipment orfrom print material. Typically, as a stu-dent finishes a particular module, she istested for mastery and, if she passes fourout of five items, the student proceeds tothe next learning module. Most instruc-t;on is individualized, self-paced, andstudent- directed.

The instructional management systemused in reading is a customized versionof the Prescription LearningCorporation's IMS. Approximately halfof the CAI lessons are published by

SOUTH CAROLINA 80

Prescription Learning System, with theremainder available from other commer-cial third-party software publishers.Most of the reading curriculum (includ-ing some software selected for theprogram) was developed by a committeecomposed of GRI high school teachers.The committee was headed by a rea,::ngfaculty member at Winthrop. The "map-ping" of lessons to state objectives wasthen made available to PrescriptionLearning, which integrated them intotheir IMS. Hence, this instructionalmanagement system is custom-designedfor South Carolina use.

Most observers and staff expressed theneed for a more sophisticated instruc-tional management system in reading,particularly one which could automatethe scheduling, testing, and scoringprocess and provide other opportunitiesto reduce staff time and paper work,thereby allowing or increased teacher-student contact time.

(3) Telecommunication Network

One of the most unique features of theGRI is the communication network be-tween Winthrop College and each lab.initially, a technical college mainframe

computer was the hub of the network.Subsequently, the GRI acquired its ownmainframe. Each school has toll-free ac-cess to the Winthrop mainframe threedays a week. A computer inquiry aboutthe curriculum, its management, themotivation of students, or any problem(e.g., curricula-checking, hardware) re-lated to the math and reading labs isusually answered with the same day byWinthrop staff.

An estimated 16,000 pieces ofelectronic mail will travel annually oversix toll-free WATTS lines into GRI'selectronic post office. About a quarter ofthis electronic mail will be addressed tothe project director and the WinthropCollege staff. The other 12,000 messageswill be passed among teachers who shareinformation, ideas, and experience in acollegial environment. The GRI net-work is building team spirit among asint)le corps of tea& 3rs committed tothe success of computer-assisted instruc-tion in South Carolina.

In Exhibit B-2, the number and brandsof microcomputers and relatedhardware used in the GRI program is dis-played.

81

Exhibit B-2

GRI TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY

Computer Equipment JTPA(Title II(A))FundsApple He 124 (reading)

106 (math)230

Modems

Hard Discwith Mgmt. System

Rainbow

Printers

Apple Its

Benefits

110

67

106 (Math)

40

12

Participants' test results for the first twoyears of the program, measured by theNormal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scoreon the CIES math and math conceptstest, have improved. The expectation forall students is zero NCEs per year, sincegain is relative to their counterparts onnormal curve tables. The goal of theprogram is to show gains greater than oneNCE. As stated in GRI's 1987 finalreport, 'The overall gains'-,y students farexceeded the usual expectations,proclaiming a successfully effort". Whiletest results for the 1986-87 year are cur-rently being calculated, preliminaryfindings indicate that the average NCEmath gain in grades 10 through 12averaged 5.0 NCEs on computation and4.9 NCEs on concepts. A similaraveraged NCE gain for reading was 1.5NCEs for the same grade levels. Gainscores in reading comprehension rangedup to 3.2 NCEs for 11th grade students.Reading lab student gain scores were lessconsistent than math. This may be at-

SOUTH CAROLINA

School-Purcha3e372 (reading)273 (math)645

0

0

0

55

0

tributed partially to variations in districtimplementation policies. In some cases,the units are used for English credit,which diminished the time and effort forreading.

The Cicl nas been one of the most cost-effective Title II(A) pro/am, as far asJTPA funding is concerned. Over thelast four years, the total JTPA cost perparticipant, including original invest-ment and subsequent operating costs,has been approximately $100. Duringthe last year, the JTPA operating cost perparticipant has been approximately $40.

In addition, and perhaps because ofGRI's success in increasing studentachievement, particularly in math, 32schools outside of the Title II(A) JTPA-supported program have adopted theG RI computer-based learning system foruse in regular education programs. Inthe 1987-88 school year, it is estimatedthat the :. nancial commitment by theadopting school districts will amount tomore than a half million dollars. A State

SOUTH CAROLINA 82

Department of Correction facility hasalso adopted the lab at their own ex-pense.

In addition to expansion of the programinto other school districts, the GRI hasundertaken or is planning to undertakeseveral initiatives related to further cur-riculum development, network support,and systems evaluation. These initiativesinclude:

development of an authoringsystem for new math lessonswhich allows nonprogrammersto develop the software;continued development of thereading curriculum which beganin 1984;continued software evaluationin English, math, reading, andcritical thinking skills.continued refinement of mathcurriculum by correlating CAIand other materials with BSAPstate tests; andexpanded field-testing of theLearning Management Systemusing DEC-based system.

Major Barriers toProgram and

Technology Use

Over time, through an evolutionaryprocess, a number of barriers (e.g., staffresistance, lack of technical expertise,funding level uncertainty) have beenovercome by GRI staff. Currently, thereare still a number of major harriers.

One problem centers on JTPA incomeeligibility. As noted earlier, at-risk youthare identified for participation in theprogram based on educational deficien-cies. At that time, they can be enrolledin a lab. In order to identify those whoare economically disadvantaged andtherefore eligible for JTPA, GRI staffuse school lunch eligibility. Later, self-reported income levels were used. Theproblem has been that school districtsand the JTPA system define "economi-cally disadvantaged" at different levels,with the JTPA definition being morestrict than the Department of Agricul-ture, which allows a higher income levelfor school lunch eligibility.

As directed by the State, the GRI is nowrequiring individual certification data forparticipation. Because the GRI useseight percent set-aside money, only 75percent of the participants must be JTPAincome eligible. However, for the GRIto complete intake forms (for determin-ing income eligibility) and certify morethan 10,000 youth is, in the words of ob-servers, a "management nightmare". TheState and GRI have worked out a com-promise which requires a one-page formfor each youth with self-reported in-come levels to determine the percent ofcertification at that level. However,school staff and program administratorsare unhappy wit,i this additional paperwork requirement. Responses of low -in-conies families are often markea by skep-ticism. Moreover, GRI staff believe thatmany schools will elect not to participatein the GRI program if a similar programvery has been adopted in the district'sregular Chapter 1 program, for example,because of this additional paper work

LI

and sensitivities related to collecting in-come-level data directly or indirectlyfrom parents or guardians.

A second barrier, which has only recent-ly arisen, is a decision by the JTPA stateoffice to fund the GRI on a three-monthrather than annual basis. Observers notethat such funding allocations create threeto four times the amount of reporting, in-cluding justifications for subsequentquarterly funding. Such budgeting alsocreates funding anxieties on the part ofparticipating schools and staff, which inturn, affects the nature and continuity ofdevelopment plans and initiatives.

Another concern is the GRI telecom-munications network, which allows GRIand individual teachers to communicatewith one another. Administrative staffand superintendents have expressed con-cern that communications with theirschools should be conducted throughproper channels, especially Nk hen they re-late to hardware problems which couldhave cost implications. Observers feelthat such anxieties will be allayed, overtime, as the effectiveness of the systemfor encouraging teacher communication(in resolving hardware/software-relatedproblems) can be adequatelydemonstrated.

Coordination between the Office of theGovernor, which has ultimate respon-sibility for the JTPA Title II programadministered by Winthrop College andthe South Carolina Department ofEducation, is also important. Increasedpolicy coordination on such matters aseligibility criteria could resolve some is-sues. Over time, as the new Governor

83 SOUTH CAROLINA

more clearly defines JTPA priorities anddirections for the GRI program, greatercoordination with the South CarolinaDepartment of Education can be ex-pected to occur. Both the Governor andthe State Superintendent of Educationare elected officials.

Success Factors

A number of factors have contributed tothe success of the GRI program andtechnology use.

First, critical to the successful use oftechnology initially has been the leader-ship of at least two key individuals. Ap-pointed in 1984, the GRI Director tookthe major leadership role in developingthe computer-based instructionalmanagement and the CAI system, builtaround earlier manually-operated sys-tems which she and other staffdeveloped. In addition to dedication,she and other key staff brought to thedevelopment effort experience and tech-nical expertise related to computer-based e.ducation. During the early 1980s,the other key individual (located in theOffice of the Governor) played a leader-ship role in focusing the program on at-risk youth to provide them with remedialeducation for subsequent employmentand to reduce dropout rates. These twocombined leadership roles led to effec-tive initial implementation and success.

Second, the lengthy planning and sub-sequent development, redesign, and ex-pansion process related to technologyuse provided an opportunity for plannedimplementation of the program. Initial-ly, this was facilitated by GRI's long-term

SOUTH CAROLINA 84

funding commitment. However, asnoted earlier, the lack of long-term fund-ing continuation has created some uncer-tainty and related problems over the lastfew months.

Third, the type of technology configura-tion has also contributed to the success ofthe educational program, particularly inmathematics. The instructional manage-ment systems, combined with sup-plermntal CAI, integrated effectivelyinto an overall curriculum which can becontinually updated, has been a positivecomponent.

In addition, opportunities wereprovided for extensive orientation andtraining prior to implementation; train-ing focused on the very specific systemsthat teachers would be implementing innew labs.

Ongoing technical assistance, throughsubcontracts with the Sumter Area Tech-nical College, recently provided thenecessary problem-solving support tostaff; the GRI telecomminications sys-tems also provided on -caul assistance onan as-needed basis.

And last, the fact that the GRI is a state-wide initiative under the leadership ofthe Governor also has contributed to suc-cessful technology use. The GRI hasimplemented a state-wide purchasing ar-rangement with publishers and vendorswhich has resulted in discounts benefit-ing not only the GRI, but also participat-ing schools that have elected toimplement the system. Rather than in-dividual schools having to evaluatesoftware, the state-wide initiative

provides the necessary economies ofscale to justify a centralized softwareevaluation, mapping, and correlation ac-tivity which has been critical to the suc-cess of the program. Reliance on theState SAP testing program for designingthe curriculum resulted in more uniformimplementation of the program acrosssites.

Closing Comments

The GRI is an excellent example of howcomputers can be used in a cost-effectivemanner with a combination of computer-managed and computer-assisted instruc-tion. It is a prime example of how JTPAeight percent set-aside funds can be usedto implement a technology-based, state-wide effort creating opportunities foreconomies of scale which benefit localprograms.

The potential replication of the systemis very high on a state-wide basis for thosestates interested in state-wide JTPAprograms. Moreover, a number of com-ponents of the system are currently avail-able for use. For example, thesix-volume set of software evaluations isavailable from GRI for $85. The com-puter- managed instructional mathprogram has been adopted by a numberof sites outside the State, in addition to32 adopting schools within SouthCarolina. Some of the pilot demonstra-tion/development efforts currentlyunder way will, in the near future, likelybecome available for use in other JTPAsites for a reasonable cost through eitherassociated vendors or the GRI. And cur-rent GRI staff, some school staff respon-sible for labs. and other individuals

formerly associa' ed with V-e program areavailable -- at a reasonable cost -- toprovide technical assistance, training,

85 SOUTH CAROLINA

and related support activities for im-plementing one or more of the com-ponents of the GRI program.

MILWAUKEE

Introduction

Below we describe the background in-formation and describe the technologyused in the Milwaukee PIC JTPAprogram.

Background

The turnaround in manufacturing,caused by the falling dollar, has begun toaffect manufacturing in the Milwaukeelabor mrket that has already adjusted tothe service economy. Labor conditionsare the tightest they have been in thisdecade, with an unemployment ratebelow five percent. As a result, accord-ing to the Milwaukee PIC Director,"Business is beginning to seek out JTPAprograms". This is a phenomena of onlythe last three or four months. Anotherresult is that "the cream" is gone andinost JTPA enrollees require enhancedbasic skills and workplace literacy toperform on the job.

The Director of the Executive Officefor Economic Resource Development(EOERD) generally favors the Ilse oftechnology for delivering service andpermits arrangements to facilitate thisuse (see the discussion of OIC below).However, the SDA has little leverage toencourage this trend. If the results weretruly overwhelming (i.e., providers usingtechnology were d...nonstrably more ef-fective in moving enrollees into jobs orbetter paying jobs), then the Director

87

could gradually shift funds to thoseproviders. The data he has seen on learn-ing gains has convinced him that technol-ogy will be part of most successfulprograms that teach basic and vocationalskills to youth and adults.

Examining the lis, of JTPA providers inMilwaukee supports this conclusion.SER and OIC, which are exemplary tech-nology users, are the biggest contract.,: s;the others include ITT (skill training futword prxessing), the Office Technol-ogy Academy, and PC Learning systems(automated bookkeeping). In the finalanalysis, the SDA must ensure that it ser-ves the various groups and neighbor-hoods in Milwaukee and that the basicJTPA standards -- placement rates, costper placement, and wage at placement --are met. Job retention and career advan-cement, as well as achievement of basicskills, are only secondary measures.

The Milwaukee PIC

JTPA Title II(A) funds ($4.1 million)and Title II(B) funds ($2.5 million) areadministered in Milwaukee County bythe EOERD. Last year, EOERD alsoreceived $200,000 in six percent incen-tive funds. EOERD's staff of ten isresponsible for program planning, con-tract management, flow of funds, finan-cial and programmatic reporting,program monitoring, and staffing thePIC. The PIC has 11 private sector rep-

)-4

MILWAUKEE 88

resentatives and ten from the public sec-tor.

The EOERD funds 49 separateprograms operated by almost as manyorganizations; Goodwill, fIT, OIC, SER,and others run multiple programs.EOERD collects data in written formfrom these organizations and transmits itin electronic form to Madison for Statedata processing. The State's WIMS(Wisconsin Information ManagementSystem) then reports to the Federalgovernment and returns management in-formation to the EOERD. While theState system is reported to be not fullyuser-friendly, the local agency could notafford to keep their own automated sys-tem, which they used for MIS until lastyear. The EOERD now uses someMacintosh units for their own purposesand clearly would like the capacity, oncemore, to operate their own MIS.

Intake, assessment, and certification isperformed by Careers, Inc. for the year-round JTPA program under a $446,000grant from EOERD. This activity ismanual; the Test of Adult Basic Educa-tion (TABE) is the assessment instru-ment.

Since program operators generallymust take referrals from Careers, Inc.,this organization has important influenceover the providers' success (e.g.,Careers, Inc. determines which providerwill get the learning disabled enrollees).SER's door-to-door outreach mustreport to Careers in order to enter thesystem.

Description of ExemplaryPrograms

.

The Milwaukee OIC

(1)Background

During the current year, the Oppor-tunities Industrialization Center (OIC)of Greater Milwaukee is running fourprograms for EOERD:

Basic Education ($227,000);Occupational Skill Training($227,000);VICI Construction Training($125,000); andSummer Youth ($42,875).

OIC-Milwaukee has established the----

Learning Opportunities Center (LOC)as a wholly-owned subsidiary to providebasic skills education for the OIC opera-tion in Milwaukee. The Milwaukee OICoperation must comply with the perfor-mance based on placement per dollar,but LOC is paid on a "potential-slot hour"basis. As long as LOC has an enrolledstudent, they are paid $7.70 per hour ir-respective of attendance. average atten-dance is about 60 percent. The overallconcern with placement per dollar drivesthe OIC-Milwaukee to encourage theLOC to terminate those not attending.Dropouts are unlikely to be placed and,therefore, OIC's costs are maintainedwhile placements fall. To avoid thissituation, OIC-Milwaukee pressures theLOC to fill the slots with students whowill advance and be placed in jobs.

(2) Description of Service

OIC's Learning Center was the firstCCP site in Wisconsin, and the Center'sDirector is an important person in theCCP network, helping other providers toestablish CCP and technology in theirprograms. JTPA is the Center's primaryclient, but they have other students fromMilwaukee Public Schools (MPS) andfrom the State. These latter two con-tracts are approximately $70,000 and$100,000, respectively, bringing theCenter's total budget to about $400,000.

The Learning Center is established in arefurbished movie house in the Blacksection of the city. Most of its clienteleare Black, although some Hispanic andWhite students attend. The Center ser-ves youth exclusively. The Center direc-tor is a strong believer in professionalismand uses a certified teacher to work alongwith an aide in each class. However, shepays her teachers about 15 percent lessfor a 12-month year than local schoolspay a teacher for a ten-month schoolyear.

The Center currently has the capacity toserve 39 students per session and runsthree-hour sessions daily (currently, theyhave 97 slots filled). On this basis, theCenter's potential income is about$8,000 daily or about $2,000,000 annual-ly.

(3) The Technology

This LOC was a pioneer CCP site. Theoperation is a typical open-entry, open-

89 MILWAUKEE

exit CCP arrangement. It has both Appleand Computer Curriculum Corporation(CCC) equipment and courseware.The fact that the "cream is gone" is

beginning to impact the OIC LearningCenter. The director is, as a result,beginning to investigate IBM's Prin-cipals of Alphabetic Literacy (PALS), aninteractive videodisc program designedto teach the most basic literacy to adults.The key barrier is funding, and the direc-tor is looking tc a foundation or otheroutside support for the $60,000 requiredto outfit a PALS lab. The first attemptwill be to return to the Ford Foundation,which provided the initial funds to equiptheir CCP lab. Failing that, the business-community that supports the MilwaukeeOIC will be asked to help.

SER Job for Progress

(1) Background

The importance of "having the right guyin the right place at the right time" isclearly illustrated by the SER ex-perience. A decade ago, the currentDirector of the Information Center cameto Milwaukee from South Texas to workfor SER. After a few years he left to pur-sue his education in marketing at theUniversity of Wisconsin at Madison.One of his last class assignments was todevelop a marketing plan for a nonprofitor public agency. He chose SER andsubmitted his paper both to his profes-sors and to the SER Director. Bothrecipients were pleased and the "stu-dent" was invited to return to SER to im-plement his plan. Currently, SER has ahighly diversified client base; has movedinto an impressive, newly renovated

e

MILWAUKEE 90

facility; and uses technology in a verysophisticated way.

(2) Program

SER is providing alternative educationfor the MPS, runs youth programs forWisconsin's Social Development Com-mission (SDC); is negotiating with theState Department of Health and SocialServices to work with welfare clientsunder the State's new welfare reformprogram; has contracts with the Mil-waukee Area Technical College(MATC); provides training for some ofthe homeless on work relief; and has anumber of private clients.

As a result of diversifying, JTPA fundsare only about 40 percent of SER's in-come of $1.1 million, and JTPA clientsare about 40 percent of the 500 servedannually by SER. Based on this diver-sified income base, SER was able tonegotiate a long-term lease in a newlyrenovated building in the Hispanic partof town. As described below, SER alsoseeks to sell MIS services to the SERnetwork and other's.

SER serves as a major resources toteach English as a Second Language, aswell as serving some Black and Whiteclients. The total client body is about 50percent Hispanic, 25 percent White, 20percent Black, and 5 percent otherminorities

SER also runs programs for seniorcitizens (Title V) and has ambitiousplans for a day care center to servechildren of enrollees, children of those

placed by SER, and as an after schoolprogram for MPS. SER also intends toinitiate a Family Learning Center at thissite, as described below.

Technology

SER's experience with computer-basedinstruction began during CETA, usingPLATO. IBM was one of the Friends ofSER in Milwaukee and supported themwith a grant of IBM typewriters to estab-lish a program under the business planthat had been drafted. SER has now es-tablished a CCP program and is install-ing network IBM PS-25s in theirLearning Center.

SER has evidently decided to make amajor push with technology, both fordelivering instruction and to serve theSER network and others. With assis-tance from a Department of Labor grantto national SER for workplace literacy,they are establishing a Family LearningCenter (FLC) to serve both singleparents and their preschool and school-age children. The FLC is expected to beoperational in February.

Parents will he presented with PALS onIBM's Info Window system (two unitsare installed) and will have access to IBMPS-25s to do writing and other exercisesin the PALS program. While the parentsare learning to read, their preschool,kindergarten, and grade children will heusing PS-25s in another room with Writ-ing-to-Read (developed by the same per-son who developed PALS for adults).These PS-25s will he networked to a PS-

60 file server, along with the CCP Learn-ing Center machines.

SER will provide a rich day care andafter school program with technology-supported education for the youngsters,along with state-of-the-art training forparents and youth. Programmatically,SER will serve JTPA, the MPS, andState's welfare reform effort, and otherson SER-owned hardware with a diverseset of courseware.

In addition to serving their own clientbase, SER wishes to market their grow-ing capability to help other providers usetechnology to support instruction. Thus,SER is developing a capacity to helpothers implement computer-based andinteractive videcdisc-based curriculum,select appropriate course materials, andmodify mate ials so that it can be tailoredto local conditions and requirements.

Finally, the Milwaukee SER is usingpart of a DOL grant to establish a SERNational Information Center. They haveacquired an IBM 4381 with networkingcapacity to serve, through modems, SERaffiliates and others who wish to buy avariety of services. Program tools in-clude: (a) Professional Office System(PROFS); (b) an electronic mail, timemanagement, and document search sys-tem that works with DisplayWrite 370word processing; and (c) a user-friendly"application system" designed to helpusers create decision support systems.Users will be charged a combination ofsubscriber fees and utilization charges.

91 MILWAUKEE

Major Barriers

Four important barriers to the use oftechnology are described below, alongwith the solutions found in Milwaukee.In addition to these specific solutions,there were two overarching reasons whythese barriers were overcome. In boththe OIC and SER cases, there was a"champion" for a vision in which technol-ogy played a part. In the case of SER, thevision was a diversified clientele and in-come base; for OIC, it was profes-sionalism. Thus, technology was a tool,not an end in itself.

In both cases, there was support frommanagement for the overall vision. Thatsupport provided time for the neededdevelopment processes. Both organiza-tions also benefited from a supportiveboard and a supportive environment inthe SDA, Both organizations had beenoperating in Milwaukee for a long periodof time and have good working relation-ships with their respective nationalorganizations.

The first major barrier was findingresources -- money, time, and expertise,In both cases, outside sources providedfunds and expertise and connections witha network of other technology users, ForSER, it was IBM and most recently, theDOL literacy grant through nationalSER. For OIC, it was the Ford Founda-tion and the Remediation and TrainingInstitute.

Next in importance was a lack offlexibility barrier to using the resour-ces to get the job of training effectively.SER and OIC were able to be flexible in

MILWAUKEE 92

the use of the equipment they obtainedbecause the hardware was purchasedwithout JTPA program funds. That is,they could increase the utilization rate byletting both JTPA and non-clients usethe machines.

The third barrier was the lack of a set ofperformance criteria that measuredprogress against a realistic objective.Grade-level reading, for example, oftendoes not correlate well with job perfor-mance. On the other hand, the place-ment per dollar criterion does not reflectcompetencies gained. Because theirrespective overall programs were strong,the technology-based programs at OICand SER could stay alike in the place-ment/dollar environment. Paradoxical-ly, the tighter labor marker may make itmore difficult if the parent organizationis forced to serve more of those whoneed lengthy training in basic skills. Thatis, as "the cream is gone", so is that poolthat could be easily (and inexpensively)placed.

Fourth was the absence of stability inJTPA 1,or predecessor) programs or in-centives to invest in a new way of doingthings that requireci up front expendi-tures and promised delayed benefitsafter a difficult de"elopment period.OIC got around JTPA's lack of stabilityby becoming a premiere site for CCPwith stable funding from Ford. SERdiversified its client base. The next fewyears may indicate which the supe-rior strategy.

Success Factors

A variety of factors must come togetherfor those who pioneer. "Serendipity"says one pioneer, but it also neededsomeone there to take advantage of theopportunity and a supportive manage-ment environment. "A dedication toprofessionalism" says another, but shetoo needed support and good fortune.

The "champion" must have thepsychological and institutional capacityto take risks and do things differentlythan they have been done before. Risk-taking is not a hallmark of governmentprograms in general and JTPA in par-ticular. As technology becomes moreand more familiar, the need to be a risk-taker will become less stringent, but it iscrucial today.

The two successes had managementsupport, a necessary but no sufficientcondition for success. This support waspartially achieved by the risk-taker'sability to bring in outside resourcesand/or funding. There must be resour-ces that are not tied to day-to-day jus-tification nor bound with detailedbureaucratic restrictions. The two suc-ceKes had untied funds from a founda-tion (e.g., Ford) or company (e.g., IMB).A network for both technical and moralsupport (e.g., the CCP network) is alsohelpful.

Perhaps the most important elementfor success is a goal that the championholds and that is shared by the organiza-tional management. Technology shouldbe seen as an important tool towardachieving the goal and part of the solu-

tion to a perceived problem, not an endto be sought by itself. Thus, OIC seeksPALS because their student body needsmore basic literacy training; not the otherway around. In Wall Street parlance, theorganization must be market -- not tech-nology -- driven.

Final Comments

Success requires patience to work outthe bugs, the capacity to evolve with thetechnology, and flexibility.

These organizations (SER/IBM andOIC/RTI) expect replication to occurelsewhere in the TITA system. Therehas to be some capacity for localmodification to give the local operator asense of participation, as well as to meetlocal conditions. Yet the basic technol-ogy configuration that is being tested inboth organizations can be used again andagain if the organizaticia can find an out-

93 MILWAUKEE

side, generally unrestricted, source offunds.

The important variables are the abilityto obtain technical and financial sup-port, the characteristics of the studentbody (e.g., limited English proficient ornative Americans), and the degree andkind of independence sought. Buyinginto IBM moves the organization alongone road for technology and software,but also provides room for evolutionregarding objectives and evaluation.Buying into RTI moves the organizationinto a specific system s.ructure for obje,--fives (i.e., the CCP strands) but provideshardware flexibility anti some ability tointegrate new third-party software as itbecomes available.

The configuration used in each of thesetwo modes can be replicated andmodified, but the constraints eachpresent should be carefully evaluated.

4

95

GARY JOB CORPS CENTER

Introduction

Located in the foothills of central Texas,the Gary Job Corps Center is the secondlargest in the country, servingapproximately 2,200 Corpsmembers.Education and training is provided in sixareas:

Automotive TradesBuilding TradesConstruction TradesManufacturing TradesOffice OccupationsService Occupations

Established in the mid-1960s at theformer Camp Gary Air Force Base, guiltduring World War II, the Center has atradition of stability and good com-munity relations.

Since its creation, the Gary Job CorpsCenter has been operated by the nor,profit Texas Education Foundation(TEF), which also operates Texas JobCorps centers in McKinney and El Paso.TEF has a staff of more than 700employees involved in Job Corps ac-tivities. It has a special relationship V, iththe national Job Corps office in that itoperates the Data Center which collectsdata and reports on Corpsmembers andtheir placement for all of the Job Corpscenters. Recently, several former TEFstaff (with its blessitig) recently estab-lished a firm, Data5, which hasdeveloped a Job Corps Ma iagement In-

formation System (MIS), designed foruse on microcomputers, which is similarto the MIS originally developed for useon a mainframe at Gary. Over the years,both the TEF and Gary have developedstrong ties with the surrounding com-munity, including the city of San Marcoswhich owns land -- used for an airportand country club -- adjacent to the 900acre Job Corps facility. Over the last fewyears, the Texas Employment Commis-sion (TEC) and Gary have alsodeveloped a cooperative relationship.The TEC, which is a major recruitmentcontractor and provides placement ser-vices for the Job Corps Center, has a full-time person assigned to a field office atGary. The Gary TEC office has on-lineaccess to the TEC state job hank. GaryJob Corps officials are active with thestate, serving on the Governor's TaskFoie,. on Literacy, and have madenumerous presentations relating to tech-nology use at state and local educationconferences focusing on computer use ineducation and training.

Administration

The Gary Joh Corps Center providescomprehensive services for Corps-members, including room and hoard,health, education, training, recruitment,and placement. The Education andTraining Division Director has been in-volved in Job Corps activities for almosttwo decades and has eight years of ser-vice at Gary. In addinon to mole than

. ,

GARY JOB CORPS 96

130 instructors for occupational areas,the Education and Training Division hastwo vocational counselors, two systemsanalysts, and 20 additional staff whoprovide placement, special programs,and other support activities for the over-all education and training program. TheEducation and Training Division hasseveral facilities which are primarilydedicated to GED, reading, and mathprograms. Reading and math programsare also conducted in facilities whichprovide occupational training. All of theadministrators at Gary have extensive ex-perience in operating Job Corpsprograms, a factor which has contributedto the team approach used to solve themyriad of problems Corpsmembersbring to the Center when they enroll.Most Gary staff have had prior ex-perience dealing with at-risk youth whilethey were in the armed services or withTexas public schools.

General Use of Technology

The Gary Job Corps Center was one ofthe first to use computers and relatedtechnology in its education and trainingprograms. During the late 1970s, underthe national Job Corps Education Im-provement Effort (EIE), Gary served asa pilot site for the original PLATO sys-tem, which was used on a time-sharedbasis. Subsequently, the Center ac-quired lessons similar to PLATO whichoperated on the University of Illinois'sComputer-based Educational Rest.27chLab (CERL) "cluster program", whichconsisted of PLATO CAI lessons con-verted to operate on CERL equipment.In the early 1980s, Gary purchased a

Honeywell microcomputer which is usedin GED math and reading programs.

Computer technology is also used in oc-cupational training, including businesstrades (e.g., data entry, typing/wordprocessing) and other areas. Today,Gary has more than 100 computersand/or terminals.

The comprehensive Gary Job CorpsMIS, developed several years ago by theTEF, was the first of its kind. The typesof reports (required by Job Corps) whichcan be generated by the Gary MIS are:

Corps Members AccountabilitySystem for anticipated arrivalsand new arrivals, includingvarious demographic data;Daily Accountability Morningreports, including Daily StatusReports, AWOL lists, probationlists, separations, AWOL letterto next-of-kin, among others;Various statistical summary andon-line reports such as Corpsmember demographic informa-tion, output by residential areaand categories, and Corps mem-ber occupancy summaries;Performance StandardsReports, including reports onlosses, summary statistics, andprojections;Corps member Class SchedulingSystem, including class rosters,counselor schedules, and classassi,;i-illICIIL !lads;Corps member Testing System,including TA EL progress

reports, schedules, and GEDenrollment lists;Corps member Profile/TrainingAchievement Records, includ-ing training achievementrecords (TARs), progressrosters, profile records;Utility Update, including mastercourse list, TABE, testingschedule, TAR element listing.

In addition to its MIS, Gary has on-lineaccess, through the TEC field office, tothe TEC state data base, which is wed fortwo purposes: (1) assistance in jobplacement; and (2) conducting follow-upon placements three months after ter-mination from Gary. This lattercapability represents an early attempt byGary to establish a program evaluationfor assessing job performance and reten-tion of its Corpsmembers after jobplacement. While Gary staff have con-sidered accessing employment servicejob banks in other states, their priority tois ensure that Corpsmembers' resumesand other information is included in ap-propriate job banks prior to a

Corpsmember returning to his or herhome state. Plans are underway to for-malize this process for Arkansas,Louisiana, Mexico, and Oklahoma, all ofwhich are in ti l, Gary Job Corps region.

The Gary MIS, and specifically theCorpsmember Information System(CIS), has an on-line capacity to provideinformation to, and access informationfrom, the TEF Job Corps Data Center,which is maintained on the TEFHoneywell mainframe computer.Various types of information aboutCorpsmembers progress is reported

97 GARY JOB CORPS

directly to the Data Center, includingweekly reports on TABE administration.The Gary Center has direct, on-linecapability for updating student recordsdirectly with the TEF Data Center. TheTEF is currently assessing the feasibilityof direct, on-line linkages with other Jc.Corps centers around the country and tolink the Data Center to the ArmyFinance Center, which is the payroll dis-tribution center for Job Corpsmembers.The TEF-operated Data Center is alsoassessing (with various Job Corpsscreening placement coordinators) thefeasibility of on-line access to the 200plus recruitment and placement agenciesunder contract to the 106 Job Corpscenters across the country. Ap-proximately 30 Job Corps centers haveinstalled the Data5 Job Corps MIS. Thiseffort by Data5 is being supported by thenational Job Corps office, even thoughno specific funds have been made avail-able to centers for installing the system.

The use of computers in assessment andcounseling varies and is determinedafter .students are placed in programs.For example, when Corpsmembers en-roll at Gary and receive the one- to two-week vocational selection program, theTABE is scored (with Scantron test-scor-ing equipment) and the results are sentto the Data Center. Later, when stu-dents are placed in reading programs,Job Corps screening and diagnostic testsfor reading are computer-scored andprescriptions provided to teachers forstudent placement in the program. TheScantron equipment is also used with theHoneywell network software to conductaudit checks on TABE results beforethey are transmitted to the Data Center.

1

GARY JOB CORPS 98

The program will detect whether a stu-dent has followed directions or had dif-ficulty marking the responses heavilyenough to be scanned by the equipment.

Descriptioni iorOE:1Program

The objective of the education andtraining program at Gary, as in most JobCorps centers, is to prepare Corpsmem-bers for, and place them in, jobs. In ad-dition to occupational training in the sixcluster areas, Corpsmembers receivebasic skills instruction and GEDpreparation services.

Corpsmembers receive a minimum ofsix months of training and related ser-vices, up to a maximum of 24 months(plus an additional four months, in cer-tain cases, when waivers are provided).The length of training depends on thetrace selected and the participant's rateof progress.

During the first two weeks, theCorpsmember receives orientation, in-cluding career counseling to select an oc-cupational cluster, and various types oftesting and assessment. Counseling andassessment rely heavily on the PictureInterest Exploratory Survey (PIES), aninstrument which includes more than160 slides of activities occurring in dif-ferent occupational clusters which themember rates in terms of personalpreference. With assistance from acounselor, the results are used to focuson specific vocational areas for eachCorpsmember.

Each Corpsmember also takes the RJS(reading) and MJS (math) tests,

described below, for initial screeningpurposes. Additional tests are ad-ministered for placement in specificmath or reading program, as describedlater. In addition, the Corpsmember isalso administered the TABE within aweek after the RJS or MJS. Then, theTABE is administered three timesduring the year at each scheduled inter-view.

GAce the Corpsmember is assigned to avocational cluster, he or she usuallyspends half of each day in nonvocationalsubjects including reading, math, and (ifappropriate) ESL supplementalprograms. In addition, the memberreceives instruction related to the worldof work, including basic skills related tohis or her specific vocational cluster.Additional information and instruction isprovided in such areas as cultural aware-ness and health.

Depending on the trade selected, theCorpsmember progresses to an inter-mediate vocational program for one-halfday, at a minimum. At this point, if themember does not have a high schooldiploma or GED equivalency, he or s"participates in a GED preparationprogram not tied to any specific voca-tional cluster. In addition, he or shereceives health-related instruction (e.g.,physical education), driver education ifappropriate, vocational area instruction(e.g., crafts), and/or leadership training(up to one week) designed forCorpsmembers who become active incampus student government activities.

The Corpsmember then enters the ad-vanced vocational training phase, which

typically includes three-fourths of a dayheavily involved in vocational clustertraining. In many instances, theCorpsmember may serve as an aide tothe instructor.

Usually one week before be ing assignedto work experience activities, theCorpsmember receives advanced joborientation focusing on specific skills re-quired for holding jobs. Upon comple-tion of this phase, the Corpsmemberserves approximately six weeks in a workexperience environment, usuallyprovided by a local employer who treatsthe Corpsmember as an (unpaid)employee.

During these latter two phases, JobCorps and TEC placement specialistswork with Corpsmembers to provideplacement services.

Description ofComputer Use

Computer-based instructional deliveryhas existed at the Gary Job Corps Centersince the early 1980s. The EIE pilotprogram used the PLATO CAI lessonsto provide GED, as well as basic mathand reading instruction, on a time-shared basis. PLATO hardware andsoftware were provided to Gary for thepilot program by the national Job Corpsoffice. After the pilot program, Centerstaff decided the on-line telecommunica-tions costs for the PLATO system werenot affordable and, hence, acquired the"cluster system" which included severalhundred PLATO lessons. Through theefforts of CERL and Gary, more than

99 GARY JOB CORPS

130 lessons were converted to operate onthe CERL system, which consists of 28CDC terminals tied into a Motorola(EXORACS) computer with a hard disc.This equipment is being used in GEDpreparation, reading, and mathematicsprograms.

In addition to the cluster system andCDC equipment, Gary currently hasapproximately 20 ADDS terminals com-mitted to the Honeywell minicomputer,which is used for both instruction andMIS.

Program Impact

The impact of technology use at Garyhas been both multifaceted and variableover time. When the PLATO on-lineprogram was used in the GED program,class sizes were increased from 15 to 25students, with between 95 and 98 per-cent of the Corpsmembers successfullypassing the test the first time. Accord-ing to staff and observers, CAI lessonshave been most effective in preparinglimited English proficient participants --particularly Hispanics and Asians forthe GED. A 1984 evaluation of theCAI/CMI program, conducted by Centerstaff, reported additional impacts whichare indications of improved instructionalprograms (NCEP, 1985):

1t) .

increased student time on taskas a result of increased studentmotivation and ability tomeasure success in discrete skilldevelopment.a 60 percent increase in thenumber of students served per

GARY JOB CORPS 100

year, particularly in the GEDprogrard;creation of an environment inwhich students proceed at theirown rates and becomemotivated to succeed; and

9 increased teacher-participantcontact time as a result of thecomputer-managed instruction-al system.

The specific impact of computer-basedinstruction is difficult to ascertain fromexisting records. Only recently haveGary officials been able to track thenumber of hours of computer-based in-struction students receive. Moreover,because of the lack of hardware, less than50 percent of members who participatein the GED reading programs have ac-cess to computer -based instruction. Therecent education report for Gary indi-cates that the average entry-level gradeis 5.8 for reading and 6.2 for math. Inreading, members aver age over onemonth gain per month in the programand in math almost two months gain foreach month. Approximately 75 percentof the Corpsmembers at Gary areplaced. Slightly more than 80 percent ofCorpsmembers eligible (i.e., academi-cally prepared) for the GED passed thetest.

GED Program

The GED program is not integratedinto or operated physically in the oc-cupational cluster sites, but rather inthree nearby facilities. Twelve of theterminals used in the GED program aretied to the cluster program while five ter-minals are linked to the Honeywell corn-

puter. Ninety-five percent of the clusterprograms' CAI lessons were developedby the CERL, with the remainderdeveloped locally by Gary staff. Most ofthe GED lessons on the Honeywell weredeveloped by Gary staff. In addition tothe above equipment, three Apple com-puters are available for use in the GEDprogram. Gary staff have access to someof the same software that has been pur-chased by the national office for use inthe ten sites involved in the CAI evalua-tion project. Commonly used titles in-clude "Oregon Trail", "Where in theWorld is Carmen San Diego?", andothers. The Gary GED program is un-dergoing some significant changes as aresult of the new GED test which isbeing administered beginning in January1988.

Currently, there are approximately 12CAI lessons for each of the five GEDareas (grammar, social studies, science,math, and reading). Gary GED teachers-- who were involved in reviewingsoftware for the CAI evaluation project-- expressed their desire to use newsoftware titles in the GED program;however, because of the lack of funds,not enough hardware is currently avail-able. A Gary staff member is on the JobCorps GED Advisory Group.

Reading

As described the most innova-tive use of technology at Gary is in thereading program, which uses computersfor both direct instruction and instruc-tional management, including scoring oftests using Scantron equipment. Ap-proximately 40 CAI lessons, developed

by Gary staff for use on the Honeywellnetwork, are used extensively for drill-and-practice and tutorial purposes.They are designed to motivate studentsthrough the use of high-interest materialand build upon situations related toCorps life at Gary. Computer responsesand questions are designed specificallyfor at-risk youth living in Job Corps en-vironments. In addition to the locally-developed programs, approximately 70CERL CAI lessons are used extensivelyin the reading program.

Some of the most extensive users of theCAI programs are the 200 plusCorpsmembers who have limitedEnglish proficiency, including HispanicAmericans, Mexican nationals, andAsians, among others. Instructorsbelieve that the primary advantages ofCAI with these populations are: (1) thecomputer's infinite patience to ad-minister repetitious lessons; and (2) thelack of stigmatization and intimidationoften associated with teacher-providedinstruction.

In all instances, the CAI system is usedto supplement the traditional print andother materials included in the Job Corpsreading program manual, which allCenters must follow. Integration of CAIinto the Job Corps' reading program wasfacilitated by an instructional manage-ment system developed by Gary staff fiveyears ago. For the typical Corpsmem-ber, the RJS-1 screening test (reading) isadministered during orientation, alongwith the JCRP. Information from thesetwo tests is provided to the readingprogram staff, who in turn determinewhich level of diagnostic test is to be ad-

101 GARY JOB CORPS

ministered to the students for placement.Once administered, the diagnostic testsare scored automa,ically. Class assign-ments are then keyed to specific lessonsplans for the Corpsmember and printedon DEC writers.

In addition to the instructional manage-ment system, Gary staff also developedsoftware to interface with the CenterMIS. This set of software routines al-lows the staff to monitor student progresson a weekly basis and track student flowon an hour-by-hour basis. This systemwas developed in response to a need forimproved student tracking to relate stu-dent progress to time on task.

The reading program at Gary is one ofthe most innovative in the Job Corps.Integration of CAI lessons is facilitatedby the instructional management systemwhich prescribes lessons and activities ata much more specific level than suchother widely used instructional manage-ment systems as the CCP.

Math Program

The math program at Gary, located intwo facilities, has approximately ten ter-minals. Four terminals are linked to thecluster program while five terminals areon the Honeywell network. The CAI les-sons are a combination of thosedeveloped by CERL and Center staff.

The CERL CAI lessons used in Garyare very similar to the PLATO mathprogram used in the EIE project duringthe early 1980s. CAI lessons cover suchtraditional math curriculum as fractions.decimals, ratios, geometry, and measure-

GARY JOB CORPS 102

ment. Supplementing the CERL lessonsare approximately 40 CAI lessons (txLsi-cally drill-and-practice) developed byGary staff. The content of drill-and-practiLe CAI lessons is designed to relateto Corpsmembers' experiences at theGary Job Corps Center, and occupation-al areas that Corpsmembers will likelyexperience after being placed on the job.These drill-and-pratice lessons coversuch topics as whole numbers, fractions,and measurement.

Unlike in the reading program, themath program does not use computersfor instructional management to diag-nose Corpsmembers' strengths andweaknesses or describe individualizedlesson plans. However, prior to beingplaced in the math program, Corpsmem-bers who take the MJSI (initial screen-ing) and MJS2 (placement) tests havetheir tests scored by Scantron's equip-ment interfaced with the computer.

The Gary Center education and train-ing staff have considered developing amath instructional management systemsimilar to that in reading. However, theyhave postponed development for a num-ber of reasons, including: (a) inade-quate staff resources; and (h) limitedbenefits of such a system because theywould have to use outdated equipment.They would prefer to purchased and/oradapt such an instructional managementsystem for use on newer equipment,when and if it becomes available.

Occupational Training

Gary has attempted to integrate basicskills into occupational training. Corn-

puter-assisted instruction is used to sup-plement regular Job Corps readingmaterials in these occupational areas.

One prime example is the data entrytrade skills areas, where approximately16 terminals, tied into the Honeywell, areused to provide data entry training. In-termediate level students who need toimprove reading skills prior to continua-tion in the thia entry program can do soin the readin, lab, or can use sup-plemental CAI software on five MS-DOS machines in the data entry facility.Some of the software packages used inthis program are those published byElectronic Arts, McGraw-Hill, South-west Publishing, and Steck-Vaughn. Inseveral other occupational cluster areas,Corpsmembers can access reading Les-sons, available through the Honeywell,to improve reading skills, while they areconcurrently receiving vocational train-ing. While computers are not currentlyused in the world-of-work programs, in-structors have modified the basic world-of-work program to use terminology,skills, and activities from specific occupa-tional areas which are the focus of worldof work orientation and job preparationactivities.

Barriers

At Gary, there are two major barriers totechnology use.

Funding

Through the EIE project, the Centerwas provided PLATO hardware andsoftware. However, due to the high on-line data transmission and telecom-

munications costs associated withPLATO (lessons were available onlythrough telephone lines to CDC in Min-neapolis) and the lack of national fund-ing to cover this cost, at the completionof the project Gary was forced to adoptthe cluster CAI lessons which CERL waswilling to convert.

Funding is a major problem constrain-ing the purchase of new computerhardware. While the TEF contractcovers many operations and main-tenance costs, capital equipment fundsare allocated to centers at the nation-al/regional level. Periodically, the JobCorps conducts facilities surveys and,based on relative needs within a region,allocates funds to "capital equipment".It is extremely difficult to get approval forcomputer and related technology equip-ment purchases when other equipment(e.g., bulldozers), facilities refurbishing,and other higher priority requirementsexist. As a result, instructional equip-ment usually receives a lower priority inthe budget allocation process.Moreover, Gary equipment prioritieschange because of advances in technol-ogy or breakdowns in existing equip-ment. The reprogramming processcould be very time consuming and, inmany cases, serves as a disincentive tochanges in computer-related equip-ment.

In an attempt to overcome this problemand obtain funding support for technol-ogy in the future. Gary officials have at-tempted to identify more clearly theirneeds and justifications to ensure thatsuch needs are clearly stated prior to

103 GARY JOB CORPS

funding allocation decisions at theregional DOL office.

Obsolete Equipment

The cluster system design is more thanfive years old. Although the hardware isonly three and a half years old, it suffersfrom hardware obsolescence and in-creased maintenance and repair costs,which put a significant strain on bothteachers (frustrations related to equip-ment down time) and support staff (whoare responsible for maintaining theequipment). Use of obsolete equipmenthas presented a problem for Gary staff.Few new software packages are availablefor existing hardware; so Gary staff con-tinue to develop CAI lessons whilerealizing that their use will be limited be-cause of hardware obsolescence.

Because of high equipment downtime,costs and staff time associated withmaintenance and repair have increaseddramatically. Some of these costs arebeing covered by the department respon-sible for MIS. As a result, fewer andfewer terminals networked within theMIS are being used for instructional pur-poses since "he who pays the bill gets thepriority."

Given these problems, Gary officialsare considering a variety of alternativeapproaches to overcoming them. First,education and training officials have at-tempted to desirn a new facility to mini-mize operating and related costs (e.g.,air conditioning, security system, wiring)of computer-based delivery systems. Bydoing so, they hope to reduce the over-all investment needed for technology.

1 i ) ,..1 .-4.

GARY JOB CORPS 104

Second, officials have contacted theGeneral Services Administration,hoping to identify surplus equipmentwhich could be used to replace existing,obsolete equipment. Third, discussionshave been conducted with University ofIllinois (CERL) to assess the feasibilityof further lessons development and con-version of CAI lessons. The use ofCERL's NovaNET, which distributesPLATO lessons via satellite, has alsobeen discussed. While this alternativecould result in the use of familiar andproven CAI courseware, it would re-quire the purchase of new hardware be-cause CERL no longer supports clusterhardware.

Success Factors

A number of staff characteristics havecontributed significantly to theprogram's success and its effective use oftechnology. Gary staff are veryknowledgeable about Job Corps' basicskills programs and have a wide range ofexperience and expertise. Of the ad-ministrative staff, most have had be-tween 15 and 20 years of experience inJob Corps center operations across thecountry and virtually all key staff havebeen at Gary for the last ten years.Moreover, key administrators are ex-perienced teachers and keep abreast ofcurrent developments in the use of tech-nology and basic skills instruction. As aresult of this in-depth staff experienceand expertise, program administration isrelatively informal and based on teamwork with significant administrative sup-port. Considerable fexibility is allowedfor experienced staff to experiment and

modify programs to meet their own orCorpsmembers' specific needs.

Staff are dedicated, not only to JobCorps programs, but also to the ap-propriate use of technology. Staff are en-couraged to participate in experimentalefforts which are considered importantin personnel evaluations. Currently,Gary staff: (1) are involved in the nation-al GED Advisory Committee, which isredesigning Job Corps programs to meetrequirements of the new GED test; (2)have participated in the developmentand field-testing of the culinary artstraining manual; (3) have recently as-sisted in the validation of a readingprogram for a major publisher; (4) haveparticipated in numerous experimentalcontrol studies funded by the Job Corps,including the Educational Initiative Ef-fort; and (5) have taken an active role indeveloping the courseware evaluationform and conducting software evalua-tions involved in the design of the CAIevaluation project.

Key Staff Roles

Gary staff have played roles over tunewhich have resulted in an expanded andmore effective use of technology in theireducation and training programs.During the early 1980s, the administratorof the program served as an advocate forappropriate use of technology and en-couraged staff participation in nationalJob Corps experiments and the develop-ment of CAI lessons on the Honeywellequipment. While this leadership at .hehighest level has not waned, the nature ofproblems has created a need for addi-tional roles which have been largely filled

by the Director of the Computer Learn-ing Center. This individual, who hasconsiderable programming expertise, as-sists instructia.,a1 staff either by cus-tomizing lessons to fit better into theirprograms or by developing "gap filling"drill-and-practice and other lessons atthe request of individual instructors.Over time, this individual has also beenresponsible for trouble shooting ob-solete equipment tn minimize downtime, particularly since the vendor(CERL) of the cluster system no longerprovides direct system support. Thistrouble-shooting role has increasinglybecome critical as two or three terminalstypically "crash" each day; there wouldbe even more frustration, if it were notfor his timely repairing of equipment.This individual has also taken the initia-tive to develop programs which will allowthe education and training staff to accessthe overall MIS and use existing datamore effectively for student tracking andprogram evaluation. This individual alsocontinues to develop simple drill -and-practice lessons when a need is per-ceived. This individual is, of course, alsoresponsible for operating the ComputerLearning Center.

Special Relationships

Another factor contributing to the suc-cess of Gary's programs and, in certaincases, the use of technology is the specialrelationships it has developed with otherkey groups. Due to Gary's willingness toparticipate in Job Corps pilotdemonstrations and experiments, it hasreceived a great deal of free hardwareand software. The Texas EducationFoundation, which operates Gary, has a

105 3ARY JOB CORPS

unique relationship with the national JobCorps office in that it currently operatesthe Data Center for all Job Corpscenters. Even though Data5 is a separatecompany, it remains closely associatedwith TEF and enjoys a unique relation-ship with the national Job Corps office,which encourages other centers to estab-lish management information systems.The Center has also developed a specialrelationship with the Texas Employ-ment Commission, which has a staffmember physically located at Gary.These relationships, developed overtime, are based on mutually beneficialarrangements which have contributed toan environment in which financial andether support, including expansion ofcomputer-based activities, has beenprovided at critical times.

Closing Comments

One of the lessons learned from theGary experience is th,1 there exist aprice associated with being an innovator.Gary was One of the first centers to usecomputers in education, as part of theEIE pilot demonstration, through whichit was provided free PLATO hardwareand software. However, because fundswere not available to defray data trans-mission costs, Gary was forced to adopt areconfigured version of the PLATO sys-tem which is no longer supported by thevendor. Maintenance and repairproblems have dra!ned Gary staff andbudgets; existing commercial software,which Gary staff would like to use doesnot execute on their outdated hardware.On the other hand, were it not for theEIE demonstration project, funding

GARY JOB CORPS 106

constraints may have kept technology useat Gary at a lower level than it is now.

Another related lesson is that staff whoare dedicated and have the necessary ex-pertise can make maximum use of equip-ment, even if it is obsolete andincompatible with current software.Moreover, a persistent staff dedicated tothe appropriate and effective use of tech-nology can harness the resources and ex-pertise to expand the use of computer forboth instruction and instructionalmanagement.

Gary staff have identified a number ofdesign features of computer-based con-figurations which would be most effec-tive in a Job Corps setting, including:

an instructional managementsystem with the capacity to diag-nose and prescribe lessons in anautomated manner, track the in-dividual progress of students,and provide access to thegeneral MIS; this would reducestaff time and paper work bur-den and would increase studentcontact time;network configurations whichare open and provide oppor-tunities for vendor, as well asthird-party, software to be in-tegrated and used on the net-work; this would reducesoftware costs through licensingarrangements, and allow staff toupdate the program as newsoftware becomes available;andcommercially-available softwarewhich lends itself to individual-

ized, student-directed instruc-tion and can be correlated, on alesson level, with Job Corpsreading and math programmanuals.

Replication of the Gary instruction andinstructional management software inits current form would be difficult be-cause of the lack of vendor-supportedhardware. Several components,however, could he replicated for use inother centers or elsewhere. For ex-ample, the reading instructionalmanagement system, which operates onHoneywell hardware, would only re-quire the development of appropriatedocumentation for use elsewhere. Withminimal funding support, Gary staffargue that the CAI reading lessons couldbe converted to operate on otherhardware.

While tht cluster CAI lessons are notavailable fcr commercial, stand-alonehardware, CERL has established Nova-Net, a satellite-based telezommunica-tions system for distributing the clusterlessons to remote locations. Ap-proximately 200 cluster lessons and anadditional 1,500 former PLATO lessons,many of which were used initially atGary, are now available for distributionthrough NovaNet. Indeed, CERL offi-cials recently met with the DOL nation-al Job Corps office to discuss thepossibility of testing NovaNet in one ormore Job Corps centers. Due to therecent development of NovaNet, t''efeasibility of this approach is worth as-sessing.

107

PHOENIX JOB CORPS CENTER

Introduction

The Phoenix Job Corps Center, estab-lished in the late 1960s, is located indowntown Phoenix, with five sitesthroughout the city. In the central ad-ministrative office, the computer-basedmath and reading program -- the focusof this study -- is operated. Occupation-al training programs occur in four an-nexes. Phoenix is somewhat unique inthat approximately half of the Job Corpsmembers are residential -- two facilitieshave dormitories for Corps members --while the remaining live in the area.

The Center is operated by the TeledyneCorporation, which was the initial con-tractor. Teledyne also operates addi-tional centers located in Tucson(Arizona), Gainesville (Florida), Jack-sonville (Florida), Alburquerque (NewMexico), and Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania).Teledyne has operated additional JobCorps centers over the last two decades.Observers noted that the Phoenix Centeris the "showcase" of Teledyne's centers.

The Phoenix Center has a contractedcapacity of 415 Corns members. Of the420 currently enrolled, approximately 25percent are Caucasian, MexicanAmerican, or American Indian, with theremainder Black and Asian. Between 15and 20 percent of the Corps membershave limited English proficiency. Overthe last five years, the number of AsianCorpsmen has incre:Ised rather dramati-

cally, as the Center has developed areputation for serving this populationvery effectively, especially in theelectronics assembly training program.

The Center administration has recentlybeen decentralized to 16 separatedepartments; it provides training in 11occupational areas, the largest of whichis electronics assembly, followed byhealth occupations, business and cleri-cal, retail sales, and word processing.Members involved in the building andapartment maintenance, carpentry,brick-laying, plastering, masonry, andpainting trade training areas are receiv-ing on-the-job training in a three-yearproject to build a new center dormitory.

The programs are administered by aCenter Director and an Assistant CenterDirector, with 16 years of prior experien-ces at Phoenix, who is responsible for allprograms. Within the central office is anexecutive secretary, an administrative as-s i st ant , employee relations ad-ministrator, Center standards officer,and specialist for placement, records,and recruitment. The Center is respon-sible for all of its placement and recruit-ment functions and does not rely onoutside contractors or other publicagencies. The Manager of Basic Educa-tion Programs, under the AssistantCenter Director for Programs, super-vises 18 staff, 15 of which are instructors,including four for reading, three formath, two for GED, and one each for

PHOENIX JOB CORPS 108

driver's education, health education,special programs, and cultural aware-ness.

The Assistant Center I _rector,Manager of Basic Education Programs,and Special Programs instructor have ap-proximately 45 years of experience inoperating the programs at Phoenix.

Program operations at P:-.oenix aresimilar to those in most other Job Corpscenters. The student intake processbegins with assessment and counseling,followed by a combination reading andmath instruction concurrent with voca-tional training, followed by more ad-vanced training and job preparationactivities, with work experience provided'with local employers where possible.Unlike most other centers, as describedlater, the computer-based math andreading programs are in a separate labfacility rather than being integrated intooccupational cluster training areas. Un-like other centers., Phoenix also providesan advanced math program, particularlyfor college-bound youths. many of whomhave limited English experience.

General Use Of

Technologyhr291l,Ny____Computer-related technology is used

extensively in the Phoenix Center forboth management and service deliverypurposes. Below, we describe the use inMIS and then some of the unique ap-plications used in math and reading in-struction.

Management InformationSystem

During the early 1980s, as Phase 2 of theEducation Improvement Effort (EIE).the Center obtained the BTI 5000 sys-tem, which is a mainframe computer net-work configuration and "simple"management information system.Center administrators felt the need todevelop a much more extensive and com-prehensive MIS, which they did by hiringa part-time undergraduate studeilt whodeveloped the MIS program over a threeto four year period.

The BTI 5000 is connected, via cableand telephone lines, to remote s"nboth the Phoenix and Tucscn Job CupsCenters. Data is enter :J, retrieved, andprinted at these sites.

The data-based systems programs aremanaged by the system itself. Data struc-tures are defined in the data dictionaryand are accessed by all programs, ratherthan defining within programs themsel-ves. This allows changes to be made tothe data structures without requiringsoftware alternations, and new systemscan be created without reprogramming.-fix menu, for exampie, will adjust toprogram additions and deletionswithout the program itself needing to berevised, thus saving valuable program-ming time.

The Corps member data base includes32 programs which can be used forvarious types of report generation. TheCorps member master record includes32 data elements, ranging from SocialSecurity Number to specicic staff to

1 1 ;J. , t.,

whom he or she is assigned. White theMIS is used extensively to developreports and/or data for transmission tothe Job Corps Data Center, more criti-cally it is used extensively by the Centerdirectors and the 16 decentralizeddepartments. As a result, a number ofcustom reports can be generated fromthe data bases within the general MIS.These include attendance reports foreach of the clerical area, class loads, dor-mitory head counts, the instructionalmanagement system ref. )rts used in themath program (discussed later), and per-formance management reports, amongothers.

In addition to the general MIS databases and the customized reporting,staff in the basic education program havedeveloped numerous additionalprograms for accessing, manipulating,and reporting data within the MIS. Forexample, using a multi-plan package, theManager of Basic Education Programscan generate reports on Corps memberswhich include termination dates, mathand reading gains, and GED-related in-formation and can use this information asa means for evaluating programs. Infor-mation is also provided to counselorsand instructors, who can assess theprogress of their members. In additionto administrative use by the manager, in-structors use general MIS and cus-tomized reports for a variety of purposes,including attendance, scheduling, etc.Within the Basic Education Program,seldom does one see a staff person or in-structor from one office going to anotherwithout a piece of paper- 1iich, in the vastmajority of cases, is a computer printout

109 PHOENIX JOB CORPS

generated by the MIS and/or :nterfaceprogram.

The MIS is so integrated into programareas and used extensively by programstaff that it is difficult, in many cases, toseparate the MIS functions from the ser-vice delivery functions. This will becomeapparent in the discussion of computeruse to score tests and generate reportsand the math instructional managementsystem.

Center staff are planning to replace theexisting hardware which was purchasedover eight years ago, but will continueusing the MIS. This will most likely re-quire extensive reprogramming andother conversion activities. Staff feelthat this alternative will be very cost-ef-fective in the long run because of stafffamiliarity with the existing system ,:ndits capabilities.

Reading and Math Programs

The focus of this study is the reading andmath computer lab, which uses a varietyof hardware and software, much of whichhas been developed for instruction andinterface with the general MIS.

The computer lab is operated by theSpecial Programs Instructor, with assis-tance from a Testing Coordinator. Asidefrom being operated as a separate lab(rather than being integrated into oc-cupational cluster training), theprogram is operated in accordance withthe general Job Corps manuals, guides,etc. Practically all Corps membersreceive some instruction in either mathor reading, depending on identified

PHOENIX JOB VORPS 110

needs. With open-entry/exit and a self-paced schedule, participants may receiveinstruction for brief periods of time, exitthe program, and then come back forspecific skill-building, test review, orother purposes.

The Special Programs Instuctor, aformer GED preparation teacher, hasbeen with the Job Corns for 19 years. Al-though his formal education is in English,he has become extremely active in math-ematics content areas. After being ap-pointed to his ciirreni position, hedeveloped programming skills and hasbecome the primary instructionalprogram developer. Currently, he is onsabbatical to the national Job Corps of-fice to provide a number of services, in-cluding: (1) using WordPerfect todevelop a program which maintains theJob Corps Math Manual, to improve easeof updating: (2) rewriting the Job CorpsMath Supplement, replacing an olderversion; (3) developing additional formsfor Job Corps tests for metrics; and (4)conducting a needs assessment related toinstructional management needs amongJob Corps centers. He also serves on theGED Advisory Committee, which isrecommending various changes in JobCorps GED programs to be consistentwith the new GED test. He and theManager of Basic Education Programsparticipated in the national CAI Evalua-tion Project by evaluating software andproviding training to several sites. Theirparticipation in these projects is one in-dication of the respect that the nationaland regional Job Corps offices havedeveloped for both of these individuals.

In addition to the services key Centerstaff individuals have provided to na-tional and regional Job Corps activities,Phoenix has a long tradition of participa-tic 1 in projects supported by the JobCorps. For participation in the EIEproject during the early 1980s, centraladministrative, as well as educational,staff were provided the stand-alonePLATO system, and they received addi-tional financial support for the purchaseand implementation of the MIS.

For a variety of reasons, as describedlater, Center staff purposely establisheda separate computer-based lab for mathand reading instruction. Numerous in-terfaces have been developed with theMIS and various means of coordinationexist between administrative staff andthe training instructors and counselors.

Innovative TechnologyApplications

A number of unique applications anduses of technology are used at thePhoenix Center, particularly in the read-ing and math laboratory.

(1) Job Corps Math ManagementSystem

One of t:-.: most innovative programs isthe Math Management Systemdeveloped by the Special Programs In-structor in 1984. The current systemoperates on the BTI 5000 network and isinterfaced with the overall MIS.

The Math Management System allowsscoring of all 148 tests in the Job CorpsMath Program (which consists of print

and audiovisual materials, lesson plans,manuals, and other components)through an interface with Scantron test-scoring equipment. For the MJS1 (mathscreening test), it checks the tests andprints out the score with other scoresfrom the same testing group. For theMJS2, it checks tests and responds withscores and appropriate diagnostic test tobe taken. If a person fails the diagnostictest, the system responds with the scoreand code for the appropriate assignmentchec%list. For a failed unit test, the sys-tem responds with the score and a listingfrom the Job Corps Math Skills Direc-tory of each item type missed, includingthe number of questions missed. Eachentry includes a written description andexample and a list of materials fromwhich an instructor may select a remedia-tion assignment. The system also allowsinstructors, counselors, and other staff toaccess the system and obtain the follow-ing types of reports: (a) Update TestRecords; (b) Update Skills Directory,which allows the user to change the datain the Skills Directory; (c) Test and Scor-ing Diagnostics, which alloys tie. user ininput marked Scantron anE..,,, , Beets;and (d) Change Item Type .,--o(;;-., --hichallows the user to change '...i, I:ci,_ ; ype

Code without losing the 1.:,, - s oredunder that code.

The instruction program tbes 12 Com-modore 64 microcomputers, some ofwhich are networked for use with Speed-Check, described later, and an Apple lIc.

In addition to the Apple-compatiblesoftware included in the CAI evaluationproject, the Center has purchased from amajor software publisher (Gamco) an ex-

111 PHOENIX JOB CORPS

tensive array of math drill-and-practiceprograms and has access to severalhundred public domain Commodoreprograms. Prior to the purchase of theCommodore configuration, drill-and-practice math lesson plans weredeveloped by the Special Programs In-structor for use on the BTI 5000mainframe network. The mainframeterminals are now used primarily forMIS purposes.

(2) PLATO Reading and TestingProgram

Through the EIE project, the Centerreceived three CDC 110 microcom-puters , which were initially used to teachreading in the pilot program. More than800 lesson plans were available at thattime. The CDC microcomputers andPLATO system w.-a e used primarily toteach certain reading skills and providemajor test review functions forCorpsmembers. Virtually all of thelimited English proficient (LEP)Corpsmembcrs initially receive Disc 1,designed for elementary reading (i.e., 30lessons that focus or word reading andprogress to higher 1,_ vel reading skills).A student in GR (grade) level 3 mightstart on Disc 1, while a student in GR(grade) level 8 might start on Disc 10.

About 70 percent of PLATO use,however, is for test review. For ex-ample, if a Corpsmember takes the GEDtest but does not pass, the teacher usual-ly refers the Corpsmember to the lab,where he or she receives additional testreview and drill-and-practice instruction.After a Corpsmember has been in thereading program for 60 hours, he or she

1 ! Z

PHOENIX JOB CORPS 112

is usually assigned to the PLATOprogram for test review and drill andpractice.

The reading program does not have aninstructional management system likethe Math Management System describedabove. Although the regional DOL JobCorps office has suggested that theCenter develop an instructional manage-ment system for reading, Center staffhave been hesitant to develop such aprogram for use on current equipmentbecause of expectations that Centerhardware may change in the near future.

(3) Speed Checks

In 1985, the Special Programs Instruc-tor developed a "speed check" programfor the Job Corps math program. Speedchecks are used extensively in Job Corpscenters across the country as confidencebuilders and a means of accelerating slowwork habits. The speed check programoperates on the Commodore 64.

The computer program has improvedthe administration of speed checks byscoring the drills and maintaining nece:,-sary records. The software has the fol-lowing features:

Etudents use a joy stick to inter-act with the computer, thus notrequiring keyboard skills;the program can be used by non-readers, requiring nonverbaldirections;the program stores test scoreson each drill level -- the numberof times the drill has been doneand the date of the last drill;

motivational features such asmusic and graphic displays, arebuilt in;the program is networked forsimultaneous use by up to eightstudents; andthe program provides multipleforms -- up to 4,000 differentforms

(4) TABE Scheduling program

The TABE is administered at theCenter every 90 days. As well as duringinitial assessment and counseling.Center staff have developed a schedulingprogram for the administration of theTABE program. The schedulingprogram generates a memorandum foreach Corpsmember, indicating the timeand place he or she should take the test,how long it will take, and notes that theCorpsmember's paycheck will be with-held until he or she completes the test.It provides reports for staff indicating theCorpsmember's TABE status and thenumber of timeshe or she has taken it.

It also provides summary reports ofCorpsmembers' TABE gains and canprovide reports for Corpsmembers whotook tests on specific dates, indicatingpercentage gain or percentage loss, totalgains, average gains, detailed analysis,etc. by individual departments and by in-dividual staff. These reports are main-tained on a data base which is usedextensively by the Manager of BasicEducation Programs.

In addition to TABE reporting, theCenter has developed and uses exten-sively a program for scoring TABE

1 i 0.

results, using Scantron equipment. Foreach Corpsmember who takes theTABE, the system reports scores for eachlevel of math computation and readingcomprehension in grade equivalents andpercentile rankings and presentsdetailed analyses which can be used bystaff to focus on specific areas of weak-ness. This system provides a printout toeach counselor and instructor toproscribe additional materials forCorpsmembers to remediate deficien-cies identified on the TABE. Staffbelieve that such a test scoring andreporting system is necessary to provideimmediate feedback both to the studentsand to the counselors/instructors; it alsoprovides the administration with usefulinformation in assessing the relative ef-fectiveness of the math, reading, andGED programs.

(5) IBM PALS Program

Beginning in January 1988, someCorpsmembers are receiving instructionon a 14 work station IBM PALS con-figuration, which includes bothmicrocomputers and videodiscs, usingthe IBM InfoWindow. Job Corpsmem-bers are assigned instruction for two andone-half hours per day, three days aweek, for eight weexs. For ..?, most part,Corpsmembers who receiv _ this instruc-tion are those with low entry level read-ing skills, including a large number ofLEP students. The cost of instruction tothe Center is virtually zero. Center staffhave to pay for transportation costs toand from the PALS site arid pay for a discto accompany the student.

113 PHOENIX JOB CORPS

Benefits of Technologyand Planned Chances

Center staff and observers attribute anumber of impacts to the various tech-nology applications used in Phoenix.Member's monthly gains in math are ap-proximately twice as high as the nationalJob Corps average. Staff note that thesescores are understated because the olderversion (i.e., pre-April 1987) of theTABE was not sensitive to gains by stu-dents who enter the program with rela-tively high entry reading levels. MostPhoenix Center Corpsmembers havehigh entry reading skills and tend to "topout" on TABE reading scores.

In addition to technology's impact onstudent achievement, a number of otherpositive effects have been noted byCenter staff, including:

computer-based, self-placed,and student-directed instructionin the math program is not onlyeducationally sound but alsomotivates both students andteachers as they can see theprogress being accomplished;this, in turn, enhances studentself-esteem;the math management system al-lows for greater student output,increased student-teacherratios, and increased time forteacher- student contact as thesystem reduces paper work andadministrative time; increasedteacher-student contact time isfrequently associated with im-proved student achievement;

PHOENIX JOB CORPS 114

increased student time-on-taskis also attributed to the use ofthe computer-based drill-and-practice program used in themanagement system: time-on-task is an important instruction-al variable; andthe management system andadapted MIS programs permiteffective coordination betweenthe education staff and the oc-cupational training instructorsand counselors.

Several minor problems were also iden-tified. Center staff who wish to introducehigher order thinking skills software intothe math and reading program believethat it would be difficult to do so withoutthe development of a reading instruc-tional management system. They alsoexpressed concern that there is a tenden-cy to teach only those minimal com-petencies outlined in the Job Corpsmanuals, which have not been updatedover the last ten years. They also believethat if the entire TABE battery could beused (Job Corps allows the use of onlytwo components), this would encourageintroduction of higher order thinkingskills. They believe that the inclusion ofcritical thinking skills on new GED willencourage future use of CAI tutorialsand simulations.

On several occasions, Center staff havehad problems getting permission fromcommercial software publishers tomodify their software for use in the mathmanagement system. Some publishersproduce software to operate only onstand-alone microcomputers and refuseto publish network versions which could

reduce copyright protection and, hence,saleF, potential. Should the Center net-work all of its Commodores, somepublishers may be hesitant to allow thema) use certain software packages on thenetwork.

Since changes for the immediate futurerevolve around the MIS Center, educa-tion staff believe that the funds allocatedto the acquisition of hardware and thedevelopment/conversion of the existingMIS software will absorb any excess dol-lars, limiting possibilities for upgradingthe technology used in math and readingprograms. On the other hand, the staffwere encouraged that some oppor-tunities for using CAI in the GEDprogram may be created as a result of thenew written communications and criticalthinking domains that have been addedto the GED test.

Tf Center staff had adequate funding,one of its first major changes would be topurchase a network with a large hard disccapacity to link all of the Commodore 64computers. They would also like to pur-chase or develop a comprehensive in-structional management system whichcould be used on a network configura-tion. Most staff believe that an instruc-tional management system, linked to theMIS, is important because it couldreduce staff requirements and minimizeduplication of data entry. The staff alsoexpressed great interest in the use of in-teractive videodisc programs, such as the"w"at's next?" program which is beingreformatted for use on the IBM Info-Window. Future decisions will dependon the results of Corpsmembers' use ofPALS.

Barriers to Technology

Use

Certain barriers to technology use haveoccurred at Phoenix, but key staff weresuccessful in turning some of theseproblems into opportunities for expand-ing the use of technology.

First, the BTI mainframe's instruction-al component relied heavily on the MIS,which often received administrationpriority. Instructional staff were able toconvince central administration that theBTI terminals could be freed up for usein MIS activities if the Center would pur-chase the Commodore computer lab.

Second, funding to acquire instruction-al hardware had been difficult to obtainbecause instructional equipment com-petes with much larger industrial equip-ment purchased in the budgetaryapproval process. However, staff havebeen able to obtain instructional equip-ment through participation in suchprojects as the EIE or to obtain discountsthrough State bids and/or corporate dis-count programs or otherwise obtain ac-cess to instructional technology used insuch other projects as PALS.

Third, staff resistance to using com-puters for both MIS and instructionalpurposes has dissipated as individualstaff saw the benefits accruing to thempersonally (e.g., reduced staff time,paper work,) and to participants.Moreover, Center staff believe that self-training not only is extremely effective,but also develops a sense of ownershipwhich will result in effective and ap-

115 PHOENIX JOB CORPS

propriate use of the technology. There-fore, the Center has not provided exten-sive in-service training, but rather allowsample opportunities for self-training orindividual tutoring by knowledgeableCenter staff. The creation of the Center'sinstructional computer laboratory alsominimized the need to train all occupa-tional instructors in computer use;rather, only the two staff who operate thelab required training.

Fourth, a lack of information abouthardware and software constituted amoderate barrier in the Phoenix Center.Most information is obtained throughpublisher catalogs, journals (e.g., T.H.E.Journal, Electronic Learning), and as-sociation (e.g., AEDS, ICCE) publica-tions. Hardware information is usuallysupplied through vendors; during the sitevisit the local IBM branch office con-ducted a briefing on IBM configurationswhich could be used to replace the BTI5000 MIS. Center staff have been able tokeep abreast of related developments by;(a) serving as software evaluators for theArizona Department of Education,which provides them access to thesoftware library maintained at thedepartment; and (h) actively participat-ing on the technology advisory commit-tees for local school districts. The staffexpressed a need for evaluations of com-mercially available software, alternativenetwork configurations, and instruction-al management systems which could beused in Center operations.

iAl- ' ./

PHOENIX JOB CORPS 116

Factors Contributing toSuccess

Factors which have contributed to suc-cess in Phoenix are both similar and dif-ferent from those contributing to successin other Job Corps centers.

First, Center administration has, overthe last decade, been a strong proponentof technology use, both in the MIS andinstructional service delivery. In addi-tion to allocation funds for technology,they provided opportunities for Centerstaff to develop software and gave en-couraged staff to participate in nationalJob Corps research and developmentprojects.

Second, the Phoenix Center ad-ministration has received, over time,considerable support from the regionalDOL office. The funds approval processfor hardware and software purchases,based on mutual trust, has been veryresponsive and positive. Indeed, theregional office has discouraged retrench-ment of computer-based activities onseveral occasions when tight budgetconsiderations were uppermost in theminds of Center staff and the national of-fice. It has encouraged the Center todevelop a reading instructional manage-ment system, similar to that used in math,and has provided, on numerous oc-casions, constructive criticism designedto improve the effective use of technol-ogy in the Center.

Third, the Center has received equip-ment for little or no cost and has other-wise benefited from its participation in

special projects. For example, theoriginal PLATO program, still used inthe Center laboratory, was acquiredthrough participation in the EIE project;the RT1 MIS was acquired for participa-tion in a subsequent phase of that project.The Center purchased its Applehardware under an Arizona Departmentof Education state-wide contract arran-gement, which was less expensive thanthe GSA schedule schedule price. InJanuary 1988, Corpsmembers will havefree access to the relatively expensivePALS program The original Com-modore 64 equipment was purchasedunder a special education discount arran-ge me nt from Commodore. WhileCenter staff agree that the Center wouldlikely have purchased hardware through"regular channels", the opportunities forfree or discounted equipment certainlyprompted their initial decisions todevelop technology.

Fourth, a number of staff considera-tions also contributed to the success ofthe program. Staff quality and stabilityhave played an important role. They arededicated to serving at-risk youththrough the use of technology. Mosthave been with the Phoenix Center forbetween ten al 4 19 years and havedeveloped the necessary expertise. Mostof the staff have been motivated to trainthemselves to operate the MIS and in-structional programs. Indicative of thisexpertise is the fact that Phoenix staffwere used extensively in training severalstaff who participated in the nationalCAI evaluation project at other sites.

Fifth, the concept of using computers ina laboratory configuration (where

Corpsmembers go to a separate facility)is somewhat different from the GaryCenter, which uses computers in occupa-tional training areas. In addition toproviding greater control over the use ofcomputer, the laboratory has providedincreased opportunities to serve studentsfrom all areas based on their needs. Thescheduling packages for TABE ad-ministration and PLATO test reviews,developed by Center staff, can organizestudent use of the computers, focusing onspecific needs as they are identified inthe occupational training areas and soensures more uniform implementationof reading and math instruction whencompared to decentralized computer usein occupational areas. Moreover, theoperation of the laboratory can rely onself-trained and highly motivated in-structional Center staff (thus minimizingthe need to overcome staff resistance).On the other hand, Center staff acknow-ledge that the lab concept does not en-hance the integration of reading andmath skills into occupational trainingareas and has often been ci'ed as"problematic" by DOL review teams.However, they argue convincingly thatthe advantages of the lab concept out-weigh its limitations.

Closing Comment

The Center's education staff has takenadvantage of many opportunities some ofwhich resulted in some minor problemswhich were, however, less serious thanthose at the Gary Center. They wouldlike to have had additional technologyopportunities, such as the developmentof a reading instructional managementsystem.

1

117 PHOENIX JOB CORPS

1

For other JTPA program staff consider-ing replication of the Phoenix model,consideration should be given to both thetechnology and the concepts followed inPhoenix. Conceptually, a number of im-portant procedures were followed in es-tablishing and operating a computermath and reading lab designed tofacilitate occupational training, includ-ing:

providing opportunities for self-training, as staff perceived theneed;the development of instruction-al programs to interface withthe general MIS, which, in turn,ensured effective communica-tion and coordination betweenthe computer lab staff and in-dividual counselors and occupa-tional instructors; andincreased use of MIS studentdata for monitoring participantprogress and evaluation of staffand program components.

Several of the technology applicationsoffer high replication potential. First,the Speed Check program, which isowned by the developer, could be usedin other programs with access to Com-modore 64 equipment. Because theSpeed Check program is only used peri-odically, staff believe that inexpensivehardware, such as Commodore 64, is ap-propriate, rather than converting toother operating systems. On the otherhand, the Math Management System,currently on the BT1 5000, would verylikely have to be converted to the opera-tional environments available in other

PHOENIX JOB CORPS 118

JTPA programs. An MS-DOS version islikely to become available over time.CAI lessons developed for the BTI sys-tem also require some conversion.

For a variety of reasons, including therelatively high cost of maintenance andrepair, the PLATO system is not beingused as extensively as it has been used in

the past and is generally limited to testreviews and for Level 1 reading instruc-tion, particularly with LEP populations.Like Gary, Teledyne is currently explor-ing the feasibility of obtaining access tothe PLATO lessons through the satellite-based Nova Net system, associated withCERL at the University of Illinois.

119

PATTERNS ACROSS EXEMPLARYTECHNOLOGY-USING PROGRAMS

The case studies of exemplary technol-ogy -using programs support mostpreliminary findings on the barriers totechnology use and the policy optionspreviously identified by the Expert Paneland knowledgeable JPTA officials. Thefindings also confirmed a number ofhypotheses generated prior to the sitevisits, as well as some of the factors con-tributing to program success and effec-tive use of technology. Below wesummarize some of the major findings.

Hypotheses

Champions

One of the important hypotheses to betested was: "The initial impetus to usecomputers and related technology camefrom an advocate who championed theidea both initially and then through theimplementation process". One or morechampions were found in virtually everysite, although the nature of the advocateand his/her role differed somewhat. Atthe two Job Corps centers, champions ex-isted at both the operational level (e.g.,education or computer lab) and at the ad-ministrative level. In two of the threeTitle II programs, champions who advo-cated technology use were in key posi-tions within the service provider. In theremaining Title II site, technology advo-

cates could he found within the PIC andthe service provider, with each playingdifferent roles (e.g., supporting theprovider, raising funds from additionalsources, generating awareness) in acomplementary manner. In all sites, atleast one champion had computer-re-lated expertise or access to individualswith such expertise. While technologyuse was risky in each site and multiplebarriers had to be overcome, championsminimized risks and obstacles by (a) ob-taining initial funding or loan equipmentfrom non-JPTA funding sources, ven-dors, or partnerships which provided in-kind (often hardware) support; (b)generating a sense of ownership on thepart of technology-using staff and/or PICdirectors; (c) participating in nationalpilot demonstrations which providedfree equipment; and/or (d) tying technol-ogy-using programs to state policies andstate leadership. A corollary to this find-ing is that the JTPA system currentlydoes not place priority on the usetechnology. Neither does it provioenecessary financial assistance (e.g., ini-tial capital investment) or have an in-frastructure for supporting technologyimplementation. The barriers which oc-curred at most sites were overcomeprimarily by the champion and the rolehe or she played.

1 Z. 0

FINDINGS 120

Policy-Level Support

Another hypothesis was that prioritysupport at the policy level for technologyuse existed initially or was generatedover time. In the vast majority of cases,policy support at the PIC or regional JobCorps office contributed to initial andcontinued use of technology. In at leastone site, a change in leadership is havingan impact upon the direction of theprogram, although technology use withinthe program will most likely continue atcurrent or expanded levels.

Performance Incentive

Another hypothesis was that a programdesign with stated goals, performance-based objectives, and major operationalprocedures created unique opportunitiesfor technology as a critical component ofthe total delivery system. In both JobCorps' centers, the national Job Corpsmath and reading program designs in-cluded individualized, self-paced in-struction which is ideally suited forsupplemental CAI. They also generateda need for instructional management sys-tems. In the Title II programs, agree-ments between PIC's and serviceproviders were competency-based re-quiring open entry/exit, thereby creatinga need for programs (such as the CCP)and related CMI-CAI systems, which arenot only self-paced, but also student-directed. The program designdeveloped in South Carolina encouragedthe development and use of an instruc-tional managemeiii. system which wouldallow for a variety of instructionalsoftware packages to be used in a sys-tematic manner which would focus on

the state's basic skills assessmentprogram. In Milwaukee, the serviceproviders' overall program design todevelop competencies among variousLEP and minority participants, on anopen-exit/entry basis, created a need fora multimedia configuration using bothvideodisc and microcomputer-based net-works.

Staff Development/Support

Another hypothesis postulated that ap:propriate levels of staff developmentand ongoing support were providedthroughout the implementation process.Such support was provided by a hardwarevendors' providers' national offices,training subcontractors, and Job Corpscenter staff. Most sites provided peri-odic in-service training. One site reliedheavily on staff self-training and peertutoring when perceived needs arose.Extensive follow-up support has beenprovided by vendors or subcontractorsin all Title II programs, while, in JobCorps centers, a lack of vendor supportfor "obsolete" equipment has made itnecessary for center staff to provide thissupport. In at least one case, this has be-come a serious problem.

Effective Integration

As hypothesized, exemplary use of tech-nology occurs when it is effectively in-tegrated into acceptable procedures,program designs, and curriculum objec-tives. The heart of the CCP program isthe taxonomy of lessons correlated withcompetencies which, in turn, are mappedto instructional materials, includingsoftware. In at least one of the IBM

sites, IBM network software has beenmapped to the CCP competencies. InSouth Carolina, extensive staff time andresources were initially allocated to theidentification of more than 800 commer-daily available software packages, whichwere then correlated to the basic skillsobjectives of the state, as reflected in theBSAP assessment instrument. The in-structional management systemsdeveloped by the two Job Corps center'sstaff rely on CAI lessons, which are in-tegrated into the overall Job Corpsmanagement information systems usedin the two sites. One of the Milwaukeeservice providers has developed an inter-face between the instructional manage-ment and an overall MIS which cm:1.1 beused by other centers operated by the na-tional group.

Virtually all of the instructional staff inthe Title II programs were certified notonly by the service provider's national of-fice, but also by the SEA. In other instan-ces, the instructional programs werecertified by the state or the local schooldistrict with whom the program is beingconducted.

Other Findings

Funding

In the study's findings, the majority ofPICs and service providers indicrted thatfunding levels and the unit cost standardswere t at sufficient to warrar t significantinvestments in technology unless: (a)non-JTPA sources of funds could begenerated to cover the shortfall for initialinvestment; and (b) funding certainty

121 FINDINGS

and stability were probable. In virtuallyall of the exemplary sites, multiple sour-ces of funding were used to capitalize theprogram initially or service providerswere successful in obtaining equipmentat little or no cost under vendor partner-ship programs or other arrangements.The Ford Foundation appears to havebeen an important source of funding forall of the Title II programs; several ser-vice providers are likely to be solicitingnew funding from the Ford Foundationand other sources in the near future asthey plan to upgrade and/or expand theirprograms.

Upgrading Technoloyg

Virtually all sites are in the process ofmodifying or expanding their technologyconfigurations because:

Certain configurations (particularlyin the Job Corps centers) are be-coming obsolete; maintenance andrepair costs are increasingly becom-ing a major problem. One of theproblems confronting the innovatoris the risk he or she takes when freeequipment is made available and/orthe hardware which is selected is nolonger supported by the originalvendor. However, as program staffnoted, the advantages of such uni-que opportunities often offset thedisadvantages.

Staff at the SDA-level sites are in-creasingly focused on those par-ticipants most "at risk" and hope totake advantage of promising tech-nologies. For example, computer-assisted instruction was felt to be

FiNDINGS 122

most effective with LEP students inthe Job Corps center sites; threeTitle II program sites areexperimenting or planning to ex-periment with videodisc technolo7,particularly for participants withlower readini, capabilities, and/orLEP participants.

In the preliminary findings, increaseduse of computers interfaced with scan-ning equipment was noted. In most ofthe sites, such equipment is current],being used and, through the develop-ment of software programs by site staff,more extensive use can be expected inthe future in such areas as: (a) enteringparticipant data; (b) scoring screeningtests; and (c) scoring mastery tests andprescribing lessons.

Information Needs

Program staff also confirmed the needfor objective information about pilotprogram results, software evaluations,and related activities which would assistthem in planning their hardware andsoftware configurations. From the na-ture of questions posed by site staffduring site visits, as well as their directstatements, it is also apparent that thereis a need for technical assistance forSDAs and service providers in the areaof technology use. While serviceproviders indicated that their nationalcorpoi ate offices or "partners" providedexcellent technical assistance and train-ing, they also felt that the availabili'y ifsuch assistance was limited.

Many site officials believed that theirinformational needs would increase in

the immediate future. In two sites, tralelbudgets for staff to attend national orregional conferences were being cutback. Several SDA staff felt that theywould increasingly have to rely on cd-rviceproviders, hardware vendors, and localaffiliates of national organizations for in-formation about commercially availablesoftware.

Future Needs

Even though site staff had differenttechnology configurations and focusedupon somewhat different populations,there appeared to be consensus acrosssites regarding future technology needs.Staff who use the CCP system felt a needfor improvement in such areas as net-working work stations and developingappropriate interfaces between the CCPmanagement system and other networkmanagement systems. Across sites, stafffelt the need for additional supplementalmaterials, including CAI programs foruse in GED programs(primarily as aresult of the recent changes in the GEDtest) and for LEP populations. Virtuallyall staff currently without instructionalmanagement systems and networksbelieved a substantial need for such sys-tems. This was particulai*y evident at theJob Corps, thus confirming the recentsurvey finding that over 70 percent of JobCorps center educational staff felt thethe development and/or adaptation of aninstructional management system whichcould be used with the Job Corps mathand reading programs was the highestpriority need across the country.

And finally, across sites, staff indicatedthat computer-based instructional

1 )

management systems were making sig-nificant contributions to overall programsuccess. All staff agreed that individual-ized, self-paced, student-directed in-struction -- with built-in participantincentives -- is most effective with at-riskyouth, particularly LEP populations,when supplemented with CAI lessons

123 FINDINGS

and a computer-based,diagnos-tic/prescriptive, student monitoringcapability. They also felt that acompetency-based curriculum which ismodular in nature, with extensivemastery testing, is not only educationallysound, but also extremely motivationalfor this population.

125

References

Education TURNKEY, Inc., Case Study of the Implementation of P.L. 94-142, 1978.

Education TURNKEY systems, Inc., Use of Computers in Education. March 1985.

Packer, Arnold and Grognet, "An Experiment in the Use of Interactive Videodisc toTeach English for Workplace Problem Solving," January 1988.

Packer, Arnold, "Transforming the Way Adults Learn", paper presented to theSociety for Applied Learning Technology, Orlando, Florida, February 24, 1988.

Stich, T., Cast-Off Youth, Prager, 1987.

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Science, Education, and TransportationProgram, Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programsand Use with Limited English Proficient Students, March 13, 1987.

127

APPENDIX 1

LISTS OF SITE CONTACTS

1

129

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWEDAUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

December 1987

State Representative Garlick Barrientos

Penny Brim ley

Gerald Briney, IBM

Bill Demestihas, Exec. Dir., Private Industry Council

Gustavo Garcia, Sr., Attorney

Dr. Robert Glover, Center for Human Resources

Richard Hap lin, American Institute for Learning

Paul Hilgers, Administrator for Cong. Pickle

Larry E. Jenkins, American Institute for Learning

Irma Novoa, Johnson High School

Arnold Rosenfeld, Austin American-Statesman

Tina Tab ler

Sondra Whitlow

Leroy Worm ley, Jr., IBM

Dick Young, Dick Young Productions

130

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWEDSOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR'S

REMEDIATION INITIATIVE

December 1987

Governor's Office - Executive Office of Policy and Programs

Marion Parrish, Education Division

Governor's Office - Division of Employment and Training

Jessie Byrd

Ishmael Holly

Janet Lockhart

Northwestern High

Susie Hanners, Reading Teacher

Earl Lovelace, Principal

Judy Tarleton, Math Teacher

SItaterAraaiefilaralfgffitca.Marjorie McDonald

Don Rogers

Anna Strange

Winthrop College

James F. Fouche, PhD, Dean

Ann Maletic

John Rumford

Other G.R.I. Staff

Chris Berardi

Jennifer Helsel

Sovannia Patton

Telephone Interview

Sandy MacCaskill, former director

1 :-I- :. , ...)

131

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWEDGARY JOB CORPS CENTER

December 1987

Harriet Caldwell, GED Instructor

Jonell Cisneros, Assistant MMIS Analyst

Danielle Davila, Data Entry Instructor

Charles Harris, Director of Computer Learning Center

Mary Livers, Director of Education and Training

Idella Minor, Data Entry Instructor

Linda Pruitt, Graded Reading Instructor

Bobby Sanford, GED Instructor

Doug Sheedy, Graded Reading Instruclor

Harry Stewart, MIS Analyst

Ted Turman, Assistand Director

Al Wiesen, Texas Education Foundation

IC.: r1,-/

132

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED PHOENIXJOB CORPS CENTER

December 1987

Pat Banks-Huckleby, Instructor, Electronics Assembly

Jerry Carlton, Assistant Center Director

Linda Cunningham, Instructor, Retail Sales

Leroy Mobley, Instructor, Special Programs; Computer Lab Director

Don Screes, Center Director

Dale Volz, Manager, Basic Education Program

LIST OF PRINCIPLE INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWEDMILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

December 1987

Lawrence Jankowski, Director, Milwaukee County,

Executive Office for Economic and Resource Development

Miguel Berry, Director, SER Jobs for Progress

*U '", Government Printing off, 1988-220-90