We are experiencing rapid and sweeping societal and technological changes. The principal causes of these changes include the impact of technology, the changing nature of the US, Canadian, and world labor markets, the trend toward the need for lifelong learning, and the movement to a world economy. In tum, these advances have precipitated global economic competition, the restructuring of the workplace, insecurity among workers, demands by employers for more adaptable and team oriented workers, scrutiny of higher education and finding it wanting, and a developing "market" mentality among potential higher education students and their parents. Colleges and high schools today are not preparing students for the world of work.

The nature of the workplace is undergoing radical change and, consequently, the needs of the workplace are changing dramatically. As we have seen (see Gardner in this issue of the Journal) the number of workers needed is diminishing, the skills demanded are rapidly changing, and continued employment is no longer a function of hard work and loyalty. The worker cannot find security in the job; it must be found in his or her own competencies.

Employers today are demanding skills not developed in schools, according to the results of a national survey conducted by the National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce (Applebome, 1995; NCEQW, 1995). Employers, when hiring, in order of importance look for: attitude, commwlication skills, experience, recommendations from current and previous employers, industry-based credentials certifying skills, and finally years of schooling completed. Employers are looking for new employees with work experience as opposed to hiring students right out of school. In another study conducted by the Michigan State Board of Education (1991 ), the results revealed that employee requirements for the 1990's included: (1) logical and systematic problem solving skills, (2) team approaches involving the ability to identify and suggest new ideas and to lead or follow as needed, and (3) effective verbal and written business communication skills. The study further suggested that the best vehicle for teaching these skills was not the traditional classroom, but the world of work

While this is going on, and in part because of it, higher education is under increasing pressure to make significant change. Professional educators are proposing curriculum revisions, legislators are demanding accountability (with the threat of withholding funds for failure to comply), employers are seeking increased input into what is taught, and students and their parents want assurance that their investment has a payoff in terms of after-graduation employment. Of course, they want these benefits within the context of institutional cost containment. Further complicating this picture is the changing nature of the student served by higher educational institutions and the way these students appear to learn. Students appear to be no longer satisfied with learning as a didactic process, where knowledge is transmitted to them in the traditional college classroom, but rather, they are interested in being actively involved, self-directed, and responsible for their own learning. The earlier Van Gyn article in this issue of the Journal discusses the changing nature of the student learner and the subsequent need to adjust educational strategies.

There appears to be two possible and opposing consequences to these dramatic societal and technological changes and the pressures assailing higher education. First, logic suggests that cooperative education and other work-based learning strategies offer an effective remedy for the problems of the changing needs and demands of students, employers, institutions, and ultimately of society itself. Thus, one can imagine, as suggested in preceding articles of this issue, a potential for dramatic growth in both the number of cooperative education programs and student participation in them. Secondly, an opposing scenario is possible in which the pressure for cost containment and cutting could result in the curtailment or total abandonment of cooperative education in many colleges and universities. The rationale for this possibility lies in the oft noted institutional view that co-op is an "add-on" program. As such, and assuming as true, the generally held belief that most faculty are at best indifferent to co-op and at worst hostile, one can imagine the possible tenor of cost saving deliberations at many colleges and universities.

Despite efforts of cooperative education professionals to build a case for the institutional legitimacy of cooperative education, the notion of integrating work and learning is frequently viewed by many as a service to students with few connections to anything academic. Ryder (1987) noted this by observing that co-op education is considered by most traditional decision makers as "academically tainted." The Cooperative Education Association Ad Hoc Committee on Cooperative Education and the Curriculum identified three principal reasons to explain co-op's failure to become a main streamed component of higher education (Heinemann, et al., 1988):

" … teaching faculty do not recognize that learning, thinking, and general professional development can be achieved using the work environment as a "classroom" with the work itself serving as an instructional vehicle." (p. 113)

" … cooperative education practitioners tend to see themselves as operational people primarily concerned with the logistics and administration of programs …" (p. 114)

" … the cooperative education methodology for promoting learning is vague and underdeveloped." (p. 114)

The Ad Hoc Committee offered a series of recommendations for changing the institutional perception of cooperative education. In summary these recommendations were:

Conduct research that identifies and evaluates the kinds of learning outcomes attained through cooperative education; that relates cooperative education to various cognitive psychological concepts; that seeks to understand the impact of cooperative education on student development; that assesses the effectiveness of different instructional strategies that experiments with different instructional models that integrate work and academics; and that leads to the development of instructional materials.
Attend to issues of quality and standards for both programs and professionals. The Committee urged the development of criteria for assessing program quality, the awarding of academic credit with the caveat that such credit be awarded based on learning outcomes.
Training and professional development of practitioners should include, as current training programs do, instruction on the effective administration of co-op, but should also include instruction on" … providing an effective educational experience for students." (p. 118)
Efforts to disseminate materials and information to the cooperative education community must be intensified.

There is evidence that the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations have been taken seriously. For example, since publication of its report, several research articles have appeared in the Journal that contribute to the literature of cooperative education outcomes: impact on self-esteem (Fletcher, 1990), autonomy, sense of purpose and interpersonal relationships (Mueller, 1992, Smith-Eggeman and Scott, 1994), and student integration of work and academics (Eyler, 1993). It is noteworthy that each of these research efforts was undertaken within the context of an applicable theory. Other research efforts have examined factors contributing to meaningful work experiences (Stem, et al., 1992, Laycock, et al., 1992), comparative retention rates of co-op and non co-op students (Aveneso, 1994) and the influence of cooperative education participation on student adaptation to university life (Carrell and Rowe, 1993). Since the Ad Hoc Committee report, several essays have been published in the Journal that seek to establish a strong link between cooperative education and sound learning theory (Heinemann and Defalco, 1990, Branton, et al., 1990, Saltmarsh, 1992, Heinemann, Defalco, and Smelkinson 1992, Van Gyn, 1995). These articles present an academic rationale for cooperative education by connecting co-op to the early works of John Dewey and to a variety of widely accepted principles of learning.

Also consistent with the Committee's recommendations, training programs across the country have sought to broaden their offerings to include more than the "nuts and bolts" of cooperative education. Further, the Cooperative Education Association has made a valiant effort to disseminate materials and information to its constituency. Thus, within the field there is a sense of increased educational main streaming, but it appears to be only within the field. Co-op continues, despite contrary efforts, to be perceived mostly as an add-on service only peripherally related to the educational mission of colleges and universities. This notion is supported by the trend in cooperative education to merge or combine cooperative education with career service activities, most of which are managed in the student services side of the organization.

During the symposium described in the introduction to this Journal issue, participants became convinced that an overriding cause of co-op's acceptance problem is how we in the field think about and describe cooperative education. As noted in the introduction, we have devoted much of our energy to discussions of program design, management, and operations. We have asserted the most important behaviors and duties of co-op directors are the recruitment of employers, the development and initiation of cooperative education policies, and the development of support for the program (Stull, 1979). Our greatest concerns have been to obtain administrative and financial support and to establish a permanent funding base for our programs (Stull, et al., 1980, Stull, 1992). Our definitions and our concerns have centered on issues of procedure and form. Generally, we have failed to identify ourselves as intrinsic to the educational mission of our institutions and instead, we are often seen as career, service, and placement units (Page, et al, 1995). In our judgment, the absence of an internal permanent funding basis, and the failure of co-op personnel to integrate with academics, has made co-op very vulnerable.

If we are to change the predominant perception of cooperative education so that its potential for contributing educational excellence can be realized, we must first change our own way of thinking about it. We must conceive, define, and present cooperative education as a curriculum model that links work and academics - a model that is based on sound learning theory and one that will fit with the traditional academic curriculum. In this context, curriculum is understood to be an organized body of content (subject matter) and strategies (experiences) designed to help students achieve specified learning objectives. The principal strategy of cooperative education is a joint venture between the academy and the workplace with the latter providing work experiences to students. Most of the learning objectives to be achieved by students will be specific to individual student needs, their program of study, and their work experiences. The objectives must relate to the curriculum as a whole and include both the academic and work components.

This educational conception of cooperative education has many entailments.

Cooperative education is adaptable to a wide range of circumstances and to a host of different models and forms. We view the defining characteristic of cooperative education to be the linkage of work and academics within the curriculum. Structured work experiences for our students gained in co-op programs can and do enhance learning - learning that is meaningful, retained, and has future application in the work place.
Coordinators, whatever their institutional titles or status, are educators. They are engaged with the student in the educative process and help, with their educator colleagues, to guide students in that process. They are not placement officers or career counselors. As educators involved with student learning, they should be members of curriculum planning teams.
Administratively, cooperative education must report to the chief academic officer. Since co-op is a curriculum model, it belongs with other education entities. Co-op is not a student service.
Student work assignments are necessary but they are not the sole objective. It is understandable, particularly during times of layoffs and hiring freezes, for co-op professionals to believe that they have done their job successfully once all their students have co-op assignments. They must, however, continue to remind themselves that these work experiences are the means for students to learn, which is the ultimate goal of quality education.
The principal educative function of co-op professionals is to engage students in a process of reflective practice. This will entail the development of problems solving skills and the integration of academic and work experiences.
Cooperative education employers must be viewed as partners in the educative process. Thus, they should have input into curriculum planning.

Obviously, to recast cooperative education into this vision will require program change and institutional change. Some ideas that appear to make sense include:

Co-op professionals, to be accepted as educator colleagues to the teaching faculty, must have credentials equivalent to those of the teaching faculty. This cannot be a "quick fix," but over time, effort must be exerted to reverse the recent trend of moving academically qualified personnel out of co-op into other institutional positions and replacing them with persons having fewer academic credentials.
Co-op professionals must develop a comprehensive understanding of the educative process and of curriculum planning. This will not only help them to participate in curriculum planning, but will reinforce their thinking of cooperative education in educational terms. In this regard, we believe that the Cooperative Education Association and those regional training centers that continue to operate after Federal support ceases, should offer training in curriculum planning, the relationship between educational strategies and learning objectives, and the evaluation of learning outcomes.
Co-op professionals must attempt to impact on the value system of decision makers in higher education. The strong connection between cooperative education and sound learning theory presents a very interesting dilemma. Why, if cooperative education can be tied to sound learning theory, do most academic faculty and administrators still view it as an add-on activity that may only present some vocational and placement advantages to students? One explanation of this phenomenon is that most of the "academic types" of decision makers in our colleges and universities may not be well founded in sound educational pedagogy themselves. Many of these decision makers, including presidents, provosts, academic vice presidents, deans, and department heads are not trained educators, but rather highly skilled and accomplished in their academic disciplines. Co-op does not represent the way that they learned as undergraduate and graduate students, and it appears foreign to them to move part of the student's academic program from the classroom to a job environment. Thus, the benefits of co-op education, as a teaching pedagogy or methodology􀀒 is foreign to their educational value system. It does not represent the way they were taught, the way they have taught, and as an educational approach it may even appear to pose a threat to the purity of traditional classroom instruction. The dilemma facing the co-op community is how to effectively impact on the value system of academic decision makers so as to elicit their involvement and support.
Research into cooperative education and the dissemination of research information is imperative. In particular, research is needed to test the adequacy of the cooperative education principles postulated by Ricks (see Ricks in this issue). Additionally, we need evaluative research that examines innovative approaches and exemplary programs. To achieve this research agenda it will be necessary to reach beyond the current co-op community to include colleagues in other disciplines, especially in education and psychology.
As an expression of its academic endorsement, credit should be awarded to students who participate in cooperative education. Most programs (in the US) currently offer academic credit and we urge all programs to do so. But, we further believe that since academic credit is awarded based on learning outcomes that it is inappropriate to award co-op credit on the grounds that the work experience is judged creditable or on the basis of the number of hours of work completed. Furthermore, to integrate co-op into the mainstream of the curriculum, it is advised that credit be granted in the major academic study area of the student. Where possible credit should not be additive, but rather, it should be part of the total curriculum and count toward the student's graduation requirements.
Teaching faculty must be persuaded to collaborate with co-op professionals and co-op employers to develop unified curricula. Currently many faculty, even those who support the basic idea of co-op, are dissuaded from any overt participation because in their view the faculty reward system for promotion and tenure mitigates against it. We believe, however, that curriculum collaboration should amply satisfy the customary teaching criterion and that research and publication aimed at the understanding and enhancement of cooperative education should satisfy that criterion. Furthermore, co-op professionals should remain alert to the possibility of conducting collaborative research with faculty. Co-op professionals, with their many contacts with the employment community, may also be able to help faculty make research and consulting connections that in tum should enhance the relationship of faculty and co-op personnel.
Cooperative education, as with all institutional programs, needs to be adequately funded on a comparative basis to other academic programs and activities. Patchwork and start-up funding strategies such as Federal support, student co-op fee charges, and other strategies have been inadequate to sustain co-op programs in the past. Cooperative education professionals have spent far too much time in the past chasing outside funding at the expense of paying attention to the more immediate needs of internalizing their own programs. For cooperative education to endure, institutional decision makers must see that co-op is an integral strategy for achieving their educational mission. We believe this can occur only if co-op is viewed by all as an education strategy on par with other educational activities. If cooperative education is truly viewed on an equal basis as other academic programs, courses and activities, there is no reason that adequate funding is not provided. With limited, and sometimes decreasing overall funding, institutions need to be able to make hard funding reallocation decisions that will make more money available to co-op. For those institutions funded on a formula basis, the moneys generated by co-op credits need to follow the source of their generation.
nother consideration for cooperative education professionals is for them to broaden their definition of what is acceptable as a model for the integration of working and learning. Far too much time has been spent waxing eloquently about the merits of one model or approach over the other. If one looks at work-based learning programs across campuses nationwide, they will see a large variety of work-based learning activities taking place. These activities go by many different names including job shadowing, externships, field studies, practicums, independent studies, internships, apprenticeships, school-to-work, etc. But, all these activities have the integration of work and learning in common. Many of these activities will be controlled and coordinated by faculty. Co-op professionals should look for connections and collaborative relationships with these other work-based learning programs.
There is also a growing need for co-op professionals to understand and be able to elaborate on the institutional benefits of cooperative education and how these benefits fit into what is happening in society and in higher education. Cooperative education professionals need to refocus on the institutional benefits of cooperative education. Many of the benefits are obviously similar to claims made in the past (see Couch, 1984) but several have emerged as supportive of the changes happening in higher education.

Cooperative education provides the institution with an opportunity to consider transferring part of the educational responsibility and costs to the employment community. For example, if a student can earn 10% of his or her degree credits from participation in coop, then it is possible to reduce the costs of the student's program by a certain percentage. This would be the case primarily in institutions where credit is granted and where it is less expensive to generate the co-op credit than other traditional campus based academic credits.
Cooperative education has a strong tie to sound learning theory. It also appears that co-op supports and enhances the idea that learning should be self-directed and that students learn best when they are actively involved in the process.
The goals of cooperative education and other work-based programs directly address the accountability issue. There is strong public and political demand for programs in higher education that will develop work related attitudes and values identified by the employment community. There are also demands of students and their parents that their educational programs lead to employment after completion. Evidence exists that co-op enhances graduate placement prospects and that it may be one of the few educational vehicles that can teach work attitude, ethics, and other work values.
Cooperative education gives colleges an opportunity to have students learn on the most up-to-date equipment and technology available, thus perhaps saving large amounts of money by not having to invest in expensive laboratories on campus.
Cooperative education gives students an opportunity to earn moneys that in tum can be used to help them subsidize their education. With the continued decline in student financial aid it would appear that co-op could be one of the major replacement sources for student funding.
Cooperative education leads to a documented employment experience and placement upon graduation for students. There is a growing preference among employers to make hiring decision based on the work experience of students as opposed to solely on academic credentials.
Cooperative education has the potential to make a significant contribution to the general educational goals of the institution. Students who complete meaningful co-op experiences learn how to think independently, communicate and work with others, and learn how to solve problems in a real life environment.

The thrust of this article has been to suggest that because of the changing world economy, the changing workplace, and the pressures impinging on higher education cooperative education has the potential for exceptional growth. An opposite possibility also exists of co-op becoming the target of cost containment efforts and that a central reason for this is the perception of co-op as an add-on service. To become academically acceptable, cooperative education must be conceived and presented as a curriculum model that links work and academics. Academic decision makers, including faculty who have a huge impact on the value system of institutions of higher education, must be convinced of the benefits of this educational methodology. Without the support and active involvement of these individuals the future of cooperative education is uncertain at best as it continues to allow the academic community to view it as an add-on activity.

Nothing is quite so powerful as an idea whose time has come. Seldom has the time been better for cooperative education to take its rightful place in higher education. However, major changes in our approach must also be made. One way of viewing the problem of changing cooperative education is in terms of change and organizational development theory. [For a summary of this theory see Jackson and Addison (1992), and Duncan and Powers (1992). For a more complete, classic review see Rogers and Shoemaker (1971).] Change or innovation is most successful when the adopters view the change as: (1) having relative advantages over the current method, (2) being simple and easy to understand and integrate with the current system, and (3) having been successfully adopted by respected peers. Cooperative education appears to match up nicely with these change criteria. The advantages of cooperative education have been identified and are well documented throughout the literature. All of the stakeholders in the process, including students, employers, and the involved institutions, benefit from involvement in this type of educational activity and learning approach. Cooperative education appears to address many of the accountability and relevance challenges facing higher education today. Additionally, it helps educational programs in higher education more accurately meet the dynamic changing needs of today's labor market.