![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
This white paper focuses on "taking stock" of how standards, most specifically how skill standards, are being used within the education enterprise and the ways they could be used more efficiently and effectively. It builds upon lessons learned over the past five years from 22 national pilot projects charged with the development of skill standards. Lessons are drawn from states' efforts to build standards into education reform efforts, with a special emphasis on the systemic change efforts promulgated under the School-To-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) of 1994. To some extent, states' lessons in developing more connected workforce development systems are appraised. The beginning efforts of the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) are considered and the roles of various federal and state agencies are explored. The purpose is to look to the future.
Why skill standards matter to the education enterprise is best summed up in the following quotation.
"The primary objective of any skill standards initiative should be to improve the content and instructional quality of education programs. Skill standards have been promoted as a way of motivating all students to learn by focusing their attention on the academic knowledge and skills they will need for success in the workplace, at home, and in their community. Beyond simply increasing the caliber of instruction, a skill standards system should help students select from a number of career and life pathways. Standards should introduce students to the range of educational options and careers available, and provide them with information on the type of academic and workforce preparation they will need to find employment in the industry and occupation of their choice. At their most specific, industry standards can help students gain the advanced skills they will need to find immediate employment in the occupation of their choice" (MPR,1996).
A central feature of the National Skill Standards Act of 1994 is that a range of interested parties must be involved in the development and implementation of a voluntary skill standards system. This paper is about one of those stakeholder groups -- the education enterprise. The legislation assumes the education enterprise shall simultaneously be:
Explicit criteria in the STWOA drives home the need for state and publicly funded education institutions to adapt and adopt nationally validated skill standards for multiple purposes; such as, development of integrated curriculum, constructing career pathways information systems, engaging the private sector in STW efforts, and issuing certificates of competencies. This initiative builds upon prior work undertaken by state vocational education agencies that have developed an array of industry based standards materials.
Rich lesson exists due to funding in the past five years of 22 national skill standards pilot projects by the U.S. Departments of Labor (6) and Education (16). An array of organizations were given lead responsibility to organize stakeholder groups to help determine the potential of developing a national voluntary skill standards system. One of the most fundamental lessons was the need to develop a common language. The word standards has several different meanings within the education enterprise. Clarity is essential. A growing consensus is emerging that it is essential to recognize several different types of skill standards: core academic, generic workplace readiness, industry core, occupational family, and occupational or job specific. For the education enterprise such distinctions help in the organization of curriculum and instructional materials.
The paper probes the following specific standards-related issues and their relationship to the education enterprise.
An important assumption is that some form of clustering of occupations and industries is a prerequisite for standards to become powerful tools in education reform and strengthening the workforce development systems in our country. This assumption has taken many forms. For example: 1) the legislation required the first task of NSSB to be the establishment of broad occupational clusters for which skill standards will be developed; and, 2) states could not receive STW implementation grants without developing strategies to establish career majors/clusters and programs of study.
The education enterprise has long used the tool of clustering for a variety of purposes. The renewed emphasis on clustering connected to standards can be considered as a "back to basics" strategy. It is simply a way to organize information about career pathways and educational and workplace requirements. Clusters can help focus career exploration activities of students. For faculty and institutional managers, clusters are tools for use in the development coherent programs of study within a single institution and across institutional levels. For state government clusters can be tools used by several agencies to promote coordination of their work.
In an economy as complex and dynamic as the United States' there is no perfect occupational and industry clustering approach. Grey areas will exist. The exact clustering schema is probably of less importance than having one and using it to help organize standards based programs of study based upon the five distinct types of standards.
Information from the states show the mix of clusters and the use of them varies widely. Also there are indications that clusters tentatively identified by the NSSB are being treated with a "wait and see" attitude by educators. They want to know if industry will embrace the economic sectors as their own. The short term implications of this lack of coherence across state lines regarding occupation clusters is that it can seriously hamper the development of portable credentials called for in the STWOA and National Skill Standards Act.
The term career major is one that should be dropped. In hindsight a substantial miscue occurred in some of the STWOA wording. Specifically the clause that states a career major is to "prepare a student for a first job" can, at best, be viewed as a misnomer. In this country a distinct youth labor market exists and a high proportion of youth are employed in these high turnover positions, mostly in the retail and food services sectors. While there are many long term career opportunities in these industries, any clustering schema should never be based only on a first job strategy. The term career major itself has proven to be problematic conjuring up the image that high school students would be expected to make decisions too early in life. The term occupational/industrial cluster provides a better image of what needs to considered by states and others for a wide range of purposes.
There are growing and positive efforts to integrate academic and occupation related curricula. However, there are some serious problematic undercurrents impeding integration. These include, at least the following.
The last two points, the lack of a framework and information regarding career progression information that shows the escalating knowledge requirements normally attained through formal education, has lead to some serious problems. It is hindering the full potential of integrating the occupational skill standards within the overall curriculum frameworks established by the states. They are also hurting students: 1) it is difficult for them to grasp the full implications of why a standards based education matters for them; 2) it limits their visions of opportunities; and, 3) it impedes their understanding of what it is going to take to get to the "top" if that is their aspiration.
Just exactly what is meant by the term integration of standards driven curriculum is still in the stage of development but it is possible to assert that priorities can be established for specific types of skills being addressed as early as possible in the schooling process. The academic and workplace readiness skills need to be acquired long before high school graduation dates. The states promoting mastery proof prior to the last two years of free public education schooling are on the right track.
The 22 skill standards pilot projects were asked to focus part of their work on the skill requirements in high performance workplaces. Gaining agreement within the industry group regarding what constituted a high performance work organization was not always possible. Some found the characteristics of high performance workplaces can be identified within the sector but that few, if any firms, were practicing all of the identified characteristics of a high performance workplace. Even with these types of identification challenges, it is possible to report a key general finding. The type of skills that are most likely to be required in high performance workplaces than others are: personal attributes, interpersonal skills, thinking, problem-solving, communications, basic academics, and an understanding of the use of technology -- the generic workplace readiness skills. All projects found the need for these skills to one degree or another but, as noted, more so, in high performance workplaces.
Such findings support the work of other research such as the Secretary's Commission of the Skills of the American Workforce (SCANS). Additionally state after state's efforts to identify workplace requirements from their own employers affirm these findings. In the face of all these affirmations of the need for such skills, the education enterprise needs to explicitly incorporate such skills and knowledge throughout the learning process.
The academics and the general workplace basics standards are the foundations. However -- and it is an important however -- individuals with occupation and industry knowledge are the more sought after employees and they earn more. While some employers may say "we will teach them the specifics" they are normally referencing machine specific or site specific processes. They are not referencing the type of skills under the industry and occupation family skill categories. Much of the underlying knowledge about industries and occupations needs to gained in a structured education program. And employer organizations need to help frame that portion of the curriculum.
A cause for celebration exists in that so many work-related materials are being made available for use in improved curriculum and instructional materials. The growing research and knowledge base regarding how individuals learn strongly supports the inclusion of contextual learning opportunities into the instructional methods used in all classrooms (including second chance programs). Industry and occupational standards have potency as instructional materials throughout any curriculum.
Regardless of the some groups' rhetoric that fear insertion of career clusters and industry standards into school curricula, no one has argued that occupational or standards should, alone, drive all curricula. Such rhetoric defies history, curricula from high schools through Ph.D. programs in the professions, have long been users of occupational standards. Indeed, the professional schools (such as medicine, engineering, law, accounting, social work, the arts, and teaching) provide important models for integrating work-based requirements into curriculum.
One of the lessons that can be gleaned from other countries who have had more experience than the U.S. in the development of standards based curriculum is that identifiable mechanisms need to exist that help translate the work requirements into useful material for the education enterprise (IEL,1993). Since that study, two other countries have developed stronger ties with the education policy making bodies (Britain and Australia) In the U.S. there are some efforts that can be used to build support systems that connect industry and education policy making bodies together to help integrate standards based materials into curriculum and instruction materials.
Assessment and testing are fundamental to any conception of a national standards program. Assessment and testing are the core tools to recognize the competencies of individuals and to promote improved hiring and placement practices. Assessments also are key career planning tools for individuals. Information derived from assessments can help determine the effectiveness of education and training programs.
Although assessment programs are prolific, what is sorely lacking are the connecting links between and among the component parts of the workforce preparation industry. An "ideal model" for a certification system that begins at the middle school level with general career awareness training and moves up to occupation specific is provided in the full report. A key feature of this model is the relationship of the categories of standards described earlier -- core academic, generic workplace, and industry specific core, occupational family, and occupational-specific -- required for success in any given job or career.
Many would consider employer community an obvious candidate to turn to for possible support in the financing of new forms of workplace related assessment. Employers have often indicated interest in skill standards credentials for the very purpose of reducing the cost of recruitment. However, experience from the 22 pilot projects provides mixed messages regarding assessments. Acceptance of certification as an ultimate outcome received mixed reviews from industry primarily due to fears the certification would become mandatory due to government involvement. However, the projects that have gained consensus to support credentials have been those that have centered attention on specialty or occupation specific skills.
This generates a substantial dilemma, in that it is not probable that states and local education and training institutions can reasonably expect to shift the cost of work related assessments to the private sector. It is clear many employers bear a substantial financial burden in the testing of workers. Numerous examples exist where hundreds or even thousands of applicants must be tested in order for even a few applicants to pass a screening test. These tests have a direct correlation to the job specific requirements of their workplace and cannot easily be substituted without assurances that an adequate broad-based validation study has occurred.
By using the ideal model as a starting point it is possible to address some key financing issues in a manageable way. For example, assume that assessments for workplace basic skills should not be developed by each individual school district nor by each state. Also assume the cost for each NSSB recognized voluntary partnership to validate these cross-sectors skills, which do not change as rapidly as specific technical skills, would be beyond the partnership's means (both technically and fiscally) and perhaps even interest. Then other more cost efficient ways must be found to develop assessment tools for the workplace basics skills. The natural federal agency to take the lead in supporting such an effort would be the Department of Labor.
Through collaboration of several stakeholders it may be possible to "unbundle" the assessment components (i.e. academic, workplace basics, and specialties) in ways that can make sense. A beginning point may well be bringing organizations together to develop some common strategies.
Just as there cannot be national voluntary skill standards system without portable credentials based on the third party assessment -- some believe that without program standards you will never have people qualified to pass the tests -- whatever form they may take. This view is supported by a long history of industry associations and professional societies seeking better qualified graduates. Program standards are a natural by-product of skill standards. How they are used and by whom needs to be carefully considered.
Proliferation of program accreditation organizations, in whatever form, even if based on internationally recognized systems will meet resistance by many education policy making bodies. What is needed is a clear message from industry about the importance of the program standards.
The need for staff and leadership development cannot be overstated. The evidence abounds that without such support a standards driven system will not become part of the complex technologies of teaching or useful in providing information to assist policy making within the education enterprise.
The topics that need to be addressed include several "hot button" issues. Standards and assessments often conjure very negative responses on the part of teachers and school administrators. Anti-federal and state control flags are waved. Emotions run high within some minority communities that standards and assessments are just another way to discriminate. Animosities between academic and vocational educators arise. Reform weary educators believe another fad is upon them. Already noted is the concern of some vocal conservative groups that standards are mind control of children. Turf issues between agencies arise. The list can go on.
A strategic effort could begin at both the state and federal level by asking what is being done in all currently funded leadership and staff development efforts to promote:
An integrated academic and occupational standards-driven system is an information-driven system, even at the most rudimentary level. For a national voluntary system to be nurtured, a substantial amount of attention needs to be given to the development of an information infrastructure that can grow, be easily accessed, and have multiple uses.
With forethought, and by using technical working teams drawn from a variety of federal organizations and states, much can be done to assist in bringing on-line information about both academic and occupational skills standards that are accessible to all. Relational data bases can be constructed that would be able to identify common skill requirements across a wide range of economic sector, data bases that correlate academic and occupational standards can become common place. This is possible to do. It can, as well, save taxpayers substantial monies.
The capacity exists; the will to make it happen may not be. The common definition issues, can be a stumbling block. A "thousand flowers blooming" approach for describing standards would seriously hamper any such effort. This means that those involved in setting the framework for a skill standards system need to establish some basic operating groundrules regarding what goes into common data bases. It may well mean that O*NET (the replacement for the outdated Dictionary of Occupational Titles) developers will need to change some of their working definitions. States will need to agree to follow some common design rules as systems are established. In other words collaboration will not come easily unless all the stakeholders understand the value added purpose. Noble reasons can be made; such as by doing so standards have greater chance of becoming household words and will be discussed at the dinner table and on the news. There is a less noble reason and perhaps more practical. There is not enough money for any of the key stakeholder groups to go it alone.
Lessons from the pilot projects suggests that as national voluntary partnerships are formed by NSSB the education and training providers selected need to cover the apprenticeship training organizations, representatives of industry sponsored colleges and universities as well as representatives of public institutions. These educators should be asked to help design an infusion strategy that would tap the existing networks (e.g., the array of state consortia, vocational student organizations, curriculum developers, academic standards groups, etc.) of education organizations that will need the material.
Skill standards partnerships may find it advantageous to establish a companion organization or at least an informal network that could assist them with an array of important but technical tasks of preparing education centered materials. This could include the identification of common core academic and concentration curriculum and instructional materials that would promote integrated learning opportunities.
There are several poor timing problems. The development of a standards driven education system has been neither linear nor always logical. The legislative time clock is part of the equation; the NSSB legislation must be renewed in 1999 and STWOA sunsets in the year 2001. To date no national standards have been endorsed by the NSSB and no across states portable credentials have been developed under the auspices of the STWOA. Meanwhile states are continuing to move forward in the development of their own state based standards systems.
The current NSSB plans call for the Board to only endorse core and concentration standards within an economic sector. Their recognized voluntary partnership organizations would then be responsible for endorsing the specialty credentials. These plans may be modified as experience is gained but as of this writing this is the planned approach. A better approach would be to recognize specialty standards on an interim basis. The criteria for endorsing such standards could clearly indicate the temporary nature of endorsements. This approach does not ignore the need for focusing on academic and generic workplace basic standards. To the contrary, these must become a part of all education programs. This is beginning to become more commonplace and the NSSB should work in concert with federal agencies and state to encourage expansion of such efforts.
There are several reasons for developing interim criteria to recognize specialty standards. First, it makes sense to build upon what exists and there are several quality programs and organizations that need to become a part of the national voluntary standards system. Second, many of them will be updating standards in the near term and with NSSB "interim criteria" could help guide such work. Third, it can build a stronger knowledge base regarding effective practices. Fourth, it can expand the involvement of the education enterprise's by helping to develop tools to aid in the development of programs of study and contextual learning materials. Finally, there is much to be gained from continuing to draw upon the already made substantial public and private investments.
The federal agencies could work with the organizations involved in providing specialty credentials in a variety of ways. Those interested in developing better career pathway information for career guidance and job placement services could work with an array of standards based groups to incorporate the current information into their materials. By working through a variety of the state and local consortia organizations the federal government could help promote standards based programs of study guidelines. (This could include organizations not involved with just the three economic sectors targeted for establishment of Partnerships).
Though not required in the federal legislation a special connection is needed between the states and NSSB efforts. Our nation's size, diversity, and form of governance dictates the NSSB will not be successful unless there is a set of mechanisms established between the work of the national voluntary partnership bodies and the vast network of education and training providers throughout the country. Also, the national effort will be fraught with frustration unless the key education policy making bodies in the nation become a part of the national network to develop and use skill standards as a part of the mortar in the workforce development system. These realities lead to the door of state government; this tier of government is the only level positioned to provide the "walking legs" to make the NSSB vision become alive.
A single point of contact organization in a state (ala a skill standards board or panel) can do much to achieve coherence in promotion of a standards driven education system. Many states already have established an organization that includes several stakeholders groups to help guide the development and implementation of academic standards. There is a need to develop a counterpart organization which has similar but different functions to help implement the occupational portion of the standards system. Essential tasks of such a panel would include the establishing priorities within occupational/industry sectors, reviewing available standards from national and other state sources, working with other states and national organizations in occupations where no standards exist for a high priority industry, establishing processes to review curriculum, marketing, and establishing an assessment system for use in schools and by industry. The assessment component should be geared to promoting portable credentials across state lines.
It is not possible to ignore the central role and influence industry must play to assure any hope of success to promote a standards driven education system. Some national industry leaders have centered their attention on improving the academic standards. This is understandable from their individual perspectives as each is a busy CEO of some of the largest corporations in the world. They can only do so much. But it cannot be the whole story. While business leaders may want to send a common and clear message to education policy makers that a standards driven education system is essential the fact is the message is still murky. The message is not yet coming through "standards language."
There are many employers who have devoted substantial time and attention to the development of skill standards. Evidence suggests many have become "true believers" of the value of the standards. Many have found the standards to be important tools to communicate their needs to their education suppliers. These employers did not stop with "just academics," they centered attention on the full range of knowledge and skill requirements. Perhaps a mini-summit is in order. Business representatives need to come together to address the different voices in the business community. Perhaps using the same standards language would help build that bridge.
All of the recommendations in this report are predicated upon the concept of the need to develop a national collaborative strategy between the public and private sectors to build the necessary infrastructure. Such an approach is in keeping with our nation's traditions. Exhibit I, provides a road map for action by key stakeholder groups that must be involved in the fulfillment of the vision to make our education enterprise standards driven.
The statements identifies where responsibility lies for the recommendation. When the federal government is listed it is assumed that the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) would take the lead to explore the feasibility of the recommendations with other parts of the federal government, unless another agency is explicitly identified. The recommendations related to the work of the NSSB address select issues that are singularly within their domain as well as many where they are one collaborator. NSSB has neither the resources or scope of authority to accomplish all of the task necessary to build the national infrastructure. Therefore partnering will be essential.
Due to the wide variations of states governance structures to meet the functions discussed in this report, the recommendations do not identify who in the state governance should assume the lead responsibility to address these recommendations. Clearly a logical starting point would be the organizations involved in the School-to-Work initiative and vocational preparation programs.
[List of Recommendations]