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

This white paper focuses on "taking stock" of how standards, most specifically 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.

The paper probes specific standards-related issues and their relationship to the education enterprise:

• Use of occupational/industrial clusters;

• Development of an integrated academic and occupational curriculum based on both types of standards;

• Development of assessment strategies to eventually establish highly respected portable credentials by both industry and education institutions;

• Implications for program approval or accreditation processes;

• Implications for leadership and staff development efforts;

• Spreading the word about the value of standards to the consumers (e.g., students, counselors, curriculum developers, teachers); and,

• National and state leadership responsibilities.

A brief summary of the findings from a baseline study of five years ago that documented the state of both education and industry driven skill standards in the United States and other countries frame the process for taking stock. These are:

• Few skill standards systems included levels that can assist an individual in moving from novice to master in his or her preferred occupation.

• In some of our most important competitive sectors, little or no work had been undertaken to develop nationwide skill standards.

• A crazy quilt pattern of financing the components of the system existed, raising questions about both the cost efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

• The infrastructure has not adequately supported the development and upgrading of an important component of a high quality skill standards system -- the instructors.

• No common agreement existed about what to include in definitions of an industry or an occupational cluster, leading to confusion across the varied skill standards efforts.

• No common framework or language existed between the industry and education enterprise, or among the general public.

• Few credentialing programs are targeted at the entry-level workforce (IEL, 1993).

That was then; progress has been made, but much work remains.
-###-

[List of Recommendations]

[Preamble]