A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Rich lessons exist 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. The projects received general guidelines regarding their responsibilities but few prescriptions were attached to their grants regarding how standards were to be developed. Each project was to identify not only occupation specific skills, but also basic academic knowledge and skills and workplace basic skills. They were charged with validating skill requirements through procedures in compliance with civil rights laws. Also each project was to develop a sustainability strategy for the project to continue after the federal funds were withdrawn. (See Attachment A).

The types of organizations varied as well as the scope of the industry/occupation on which they focused their work. Five were sponsored by a single industry trade association, six by consortia of trade associations, four by applied research and development organizations with strong ties to the education enterprise, two by consortia of state and student organizations, two by registered apprenticeship bodies, and two by professional societies (IEL, 1996).

Within the 22 projects, organizations that had some longstanding interest and involvement in standards for the workplace also focused on developing or enhancing program standards for program accreditation purposes. These organizations include the National Automotive Technicians Education Foundation (NATEF), the American Chemical Society (ACS), and the American Welding Society (AWS). Organizations with close ties to or operators of apprenticeship programs also have used the standards to upgrade their program standards. These include the National Institute for Metalworking Standards (NIMS), the Laborers-Associated General Contractors, and the National Electrical Contractors Association. Organizations involved in the Human Services Consortium are also using the standards to modify accreditation materials.

Several organizations with deep roots in the education enterprise placed most of their emphasis on the development of products that could be used by educators. This was less true of the organizations that had stronger roots within industry trade associations. One organization, the Industrial Launders, recognized from the outset that it would be highly unlikely any public education institution would become involved in the training of workers for their industry. They, therefore, constructed their whole project based on the assumption that all training of the workers, based upon the standards, would take place within the workplace. All other projects presumed that standards would be of use to institutions within the publicly funded education and training enterprise.

Twelve projects developed standards for entry level workers only, the others centered attention on entry-level to mid-level or mastery-level technicians. Some developed "synthesis standards," specifically for the purposes of identifying training-related materials. This form of standards does not lend itself readily to use in a formal national credentialing service, but has substantial utility for educators as instructional tools and assessments of students. For example, the Bioscience project, managed by the Education Development Center (EDC), developed "training standards" presented as scenarios. They based their material on an amalgamation of skill and knowledge requirements across several jobs and industries. They were particularly concerned from the outset in the development of materials that would be useful in classroom instruction. The Center for Occupational Research and Development (CORD) also developed synthesis standards for emerging occupations in photonics and hazardous material management. One of the two National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM) projects differed slightly by developing standards around a particular "skill set" for computer-aided drafting and design required in multiple occupations across several industries. NACFAM's other project, manufacturing technicians standards, was built upon a skill set model but with a single sector focus. The other projects centered their attention on specific occupations/jobs. Ten sets of the standards developed cross over two or more of the economic sectors selected by the NSSB.

There are some general observations to be made regarding the relationship among the 22 projects and the education enterprise to date. These include:

• Representatives of the education enterprise, most specifically those involved in vocational training work, have been the heaviest consumers of information about skill standards.

• There have been concerns arising from several state representatives about the lack of consistent approaches used by the national projects in the presentation of materials.

• Few states or individual institutions are adopting the skill standards as published to be a part of their curriculum frameworks, modifications are being made.

• National standards are being reviewed by local employers in the same industry. In some cases this is an explicit strategy of the sponsoring national organization to adapt to specialties within the sector. For others, the practice is being discouraged.

• The small staffs of organizations responsible for the pilots do not have the capacity or means to respond to requests from the education enterprise and are concerned about how to find more effective and efficient ways to work with the education providers.

The Education Industry

The education industry employs approximately 8 percent of the total labor force, or about 10 to 11 million workers. Of that number, 3.1 million are employed by the 14,770 public school districts, of which 6.5 percent are in vocational education. They all need to know about and be able to use standards-related material. There are 3,600 plus two year colleges and the 2,215 four year plus institutions where occupation specific education is provided. (U.S. Department of Education,1996). An estimate of the firm-sponsored education colleges and universities currently stands at 1,700. No official count of second-chance training organizations (e.g., Job Training Partnership funded programs, welfare-to-work, adult education etc.) exists but they also need to become users of standards related material. Also no official count exists for industry, trade, and professional associations who often provide training for which continuing education credits are awarded. Formal apprenticeship programs often employ their own instructors. Independent contractors work throughout these various milieus.

For individual educators, the direct relevancy of the skill standards will vary but all should be aware of both academic and skill standards, have easy access to information about them, and be able to understand the connection to their own work. In order for this to occur resources will need to be directed toward this end. This has major staff development implications as well as how to build networks with national skill standards partnership bodies that are discussed later.

This paper will focus predominantly on the publicly-funded education and training parts (including the second chance programs) of this large enterprise because this is where the stakes are the highest for the nation as a whole. However, the expertise of individuals engaged in industry-sponsored training (e.g., apprenticeship, association and company specific) needs to be tapped in several different ways to create the connective tissue between the various parts of the enterprise.

Definitions

The word standards has many uses and different meanings within the education enterprise. Clarity about the meaning and use is essential. A core task of the NSSB is to establish a common nomenclature. As of this writing, this task has not yet been tackled, though some work has begun. Therefore, it will be necessary to establish some definitions for use in this paper. Many of the following terms were first codified by Ananda and Rabinowitz (1995) in a paper developed for IEL. These definitions were developed after an extensive review of literature as well as information gleaned from the 22 national skill standards pilot projects.

Two basic types of standards cut across industry and academic circles.

• Content standards refer to what we expect learners to know and be able to perform.

• Performance standards indicate levels of achievement, or competency within a content area (e.g., advanced, proficient, and basic). Performance standards can be set either for an individual content standard or across groups of content standards.

There are several different types of skill standards one building upon the other: core academic, generic workplace readiness, industry core, occupational family, and occupational or job specific.

• Core academic standards cover those subject matter areas such as mathematics, language arts, and science that are necessary for functioning as a member of society and help develop career-related skills.

• Generic workplace readiness standards cover those skills and qualities that workers must have to learn and adapt to the demands of any job. These include personal attributes, interpersonal skills, thinking and problem-solving, communication, and use of technology. (SCANS,1991; CCSSO Workplace Readiness Assessment Consortium, 1993)

• Industry core standards apply to most of the occupations in a particular industry. Thus, there are core standards for the hospitality industry that are distinct from core standards for the electronics industry. Industry specific standards are critical to career-preparation programs (e.g., career majors and programs of study).

• Occupational family standards specify the knowledge and skills that are common to a related set of occupations or functions within an industry or across industries. For example, within the health care industry, occupations in medical laboratory, imaging, and radiography can be thought of as belonging to a larger diagnostic family (or cluster) of occupations. The occupations in this diagnostic family focus on creating a picture of patient health at a single point in time. Whereas individual job-specific requirements may change, depending on changes in the job market as well as changes in the structure of the workplace, occupational family level standards provide a broad base of skills for individuals.

• Occupational or job specific standards address the skill expectations of a specific occupation. This is the level at which many existing career-preparation programs and certification systems are focusing.

Definitions are never static; they take on new meanings with time and experience however, this does not lessen the need to have some common understanding of terms. There have been several examples of definition problems that have continued to plague the nascent standards movement over the past five years.

The reality is there is a search is underway for some common definitions to use in a standards-driven system. The following attempts to capture the essential ingredients of generally understood usage. Some of the definitions are specific wording developed by a particular organization, while others are a synthesis of one or more sources:

• Content Standards specify the content knowledge and skills all students will know and be able to do upon completing particular grades or courses in K-12 education; the content standards state clearly the knowledge and skills to be learned, and at what developmental level content is to be presented. In some states, content standards are a separate state document; in others, they are published in a curriculum framework (CCSSO,1996).

• Curriculum Alignment links academic and vocational curricula so that course content and instruction dovetail across and/or within subject areas. Curriculum alignment may take two forms: horizontal alignment, when teachers within a specific grade level coordinate instruction across disciplines, and vertical alignment, when subjects are connected across grade levels, cumulatively, to build comprehensive, increasingly complex instructional programs (National School-to-Work Office,1996).

• Curriculum Framework is a document published by a state education agency or state board of education that generally includes desired subject content or standards for a core academic subject in K-12 education and is written by a team of content experts, state agency personnel, and local educators. A state framework often serves as a bridge between national profession standards and local curriculum and instructional strategies. It may address areas of pedagogy, classroom examples and vignettes, strategies toward equity, important education policies, and school conditions. The framework document may also refer educators to other materials and resources to support local efforts (CCSSO,1996).

• Curriculum Standards include industry validated knowledge, skills, and abilities that a student is expected to learn in a program of study or specific course. The materials contained in the standards can be a synthesis of task analyses derived from any of the five types of skill standards (core academic, generic workplace readiness, industry core, occupational family, and occupational (or job) specific).¹

• Integrated Curriculum Standards integrates occupational/industry related material with academic standards that may or may not be validated at the worksite.²

• Integrated Academic and Vocational Education Program develops and delivers a curriculum based on three components: academic, technical, and personal qualities delivered in an applied, contextual manner (MERC,1997).

• On-demand assessment, are activities administered on specific dates under secure conditions (WestEd,1995).

• Program Standards are established by national trade, professional associations or certification organizations for the purpose of recognizing education or training institutions. The standards can include references to instructional services, facilities, qualification of staff, equipment, and administrative processes.

• Portfolio is a collection of evidence that shows important work undertaken by a student, in the case of career-related education it would include examples of career-technical and academic knowledge and skills learned by the student. It serves as a vehicle for organizing and presenting students' work for assessment purposes, as well as, to prospective employers or advanced training institutions (WestEd,1995).

• Scenarios are examples of issues and problems found in worksites and validated by industry representatives. The scenarios can be composites of several job specific situations. The scenarios can be used in a variety of ways by education and training providers such as becoming a part of the instructional process as well as being used with on-demand assessments.³

This listing is by no means complete nor official; however, it is an attempt to help clarify discussion that will follow and perhaps become useful for the standards movement, both the academic and occupational initiatives.

A Central Purpose

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).

This quotation provides a compelling argument for both policy makers and practitioners alike to all parts of the education enterprise to become major contributors to finding new ways of organizing institutions, instruction and assessment services for all students.

We will now turn our attention to specific issues that are being addressed, or need to be addressed, in order for the education enterprise to realize the potential of a standards-driven system.

² A portion of this definition is based on work underway by the Center for Occupational Research and Development (CORD, 1996).

³ This definition is derived from the work of WestEd and the Education Development Center (EDC).

-###-

[Preamble]

[Occupational Clusters]