Arizona's School to Work System. Site Visit Reports (1996-97).

Autor/inn/en	Vandegrift, Judith A.; Larson, Elizabeth Hunt
Institution	Arizona State Univ., Tempe. Morrison Inst. for Public Policy.
Titel	Arizona's School to Work System. Site Visit Reports (1996-97).
Quelle	(1998), (128 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Articulation (Education); Community Involvement; Consortia; Coordination; Delivery Systems; Education Work Relationship; High Schools; Information Dissemination; Junior High Schools; Labor Force Development; Middle Schools; Partnerships in Education; Program Effectiveness; Public Relations; Regional Planning; School Business Relationship; Statewide Planning; Systems Approach; Technical Assistance; Two Year Colleges; Arizona + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Articulation; Artikulation (Ling); Artikulation; Aussprache; Vereinigung; Koordination; Auslieferung; High school; Oberschule; Informationsverbreitung; Sekundarstufe I; Arbeitskräftebestand; Middle school; Mittelschule; Mittelstufenschule; Hochschulpartnerschaft; Public relation work; Öffentlichkeitsarbeit; Regionalplanung; Planwirtschaft; Systemischer Ansatz; Technische Hilfe
Abstract	This document profiles the following 13 regional partnerships that together constitute Arizona's school-to-work (STW) system: Cochise STW Partnership; Coconino County STW Partnership; Eastern Arizona STW Partnership; East Valley STW Initiative; Mohave Workforce Development Partnership; Northeast Valley School to Work Consortium; Northland School to Work Opportunities System; Phoenix STW Initiative; Pima and Santa Cruz Counties STW Partnership; Pinal County STW Partnership; Western Maricopa Consortium; Yavapai County STW Partnership; and Yuma/LaPaz STW Partnership. The introduction explains how, in January 1996, Arizona embarked on implementation of its state STW system by awarding roughly $2.4 million to 13 partnerships consisting of business groups, educators, community organizations, and parents so that the partnerships could develop and manage a range of school-based, work-based, and connecting activities. The remainder of the document consists of the profiles, which each contain some or all of the following: fiscal 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 budgets; school profile; total student enrollment for the partnership; progress made toward meeting the six state-specified partnership goals (system governance and partnership development; program coordination and integration; technical assistance; community involvement; public awareness; system evaluation); discussion of partnership assets and challenges; and summary and suggestions. Twenty-seven tables/figures are included. Appended are excerpts from the national instrument "Progress Measures." (MN)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC