![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Throughout this paper suggestions have been made regarding several important actions the federal government can follow to improve the likelihood that a standards driven education system can become a reality. Suggestions have also been made about possible approaches the NSSB and states could pursue. Following are recommendations not covered in the previous sections.
Five years ago, one of the findings in the IEL baseline study about how standards are used addressed the particular issue of building the bridge between education and industry based standard setting bodies. This particular finding was informed by the lessons of other countries and the experiences here. The recommendation stated:
"Focused, sustainable, and jointly owned" institutions will be necessary. For lack of a better descriptor, we have called these, linking institutions. There are several approaches that could be considered for the development of such institutions. For example, organizations could be established around major occupational clusters or geographic regions. The essential point is that industry representatives, state governments, and most particularly the representatives of secondary and postsecondary institutions must come together . . . to continuously translate skill standards into curriculum, update curriculum, instructional materials, and make it widely available to all types of education and training institutions (IEL,1993).
The work that has gone on since then has reinforced the general notion contained in that finding. Among the lessons learned, during the past five years by the pilot skill standards projects are some that specifically relate to the education enterprise. A study specifically focused on the role nine of partnership bodies and how they are sustaining their work after withdrawal of federal funds found:
These lessons suggest that as national voluntary partnerships are formed by NSSB, the education and training providers selected need to cover the full range of organizations discussed under the section describing the education enterprise. This should include apprenticeship training organizations, representatives of industry sponsored colleges and universities, and 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, VSOs, curriculum developers, academic standards groups) 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 help 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. These networks should include representatives of the career guidance and counseling organizations in order to improve the quality of career pathway and standards information for students and job seekers. Such a network could also help develop distance learning services.
The legislation charges the NSSB with the responsibility to "encourage the development and adoption of curricula and training materials . . . that provide for structured work experiences and related study programs leading to progressive levels of professional and technical certification and postsecondary education" (National Skill Standards Act, Sec 504 (c) (5)). To be successful this means the work must go far beyond the fiscal resources available from the NSSB. Experience from the last five years does not indicate that industry will willingly step up to the plate to pay for curriculum development work; therefore some form of national consortia that has roots in education but with an industry identity appears to be an important model to pursue.
It has already been noted that 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. Meanwhile states are continuing to move forward in the development of their own state based standards systems. This generates a substantial timing dilemma for the NSSB.
Unless there is established some form of endorsement for standards that have already been developed, experience strongly suggests that it is not possible for any standards to be endorsed and credentials issued, even from the first three sectors, until after the turn of the century. The normal lead time for selecting, validating, and establishing assessment tools is minimally three years based on the experience of the 22 national pilot projects and long standing credentialing programs. However, this does not mean issuance of state based certificates based upon nationally validated standards will not occur. A large number of states are using skill standards developed by the pilot projects and others to develop programs of study and credentials. Clearly some interim steps are desirable.
The current NSSB plans call for the Board to only endorse core and concentration standards within an economic sector with the voluntary partnership organizations then being 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 common place. NSSB should encourage such efforts within the education enterprise but always recognizing the limits of what can be done through their charter.
There are substantial 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 aide 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 plan to develop standards from the general to the specific for the purposes of recognizing only core and concentration standards by the NSSB generates several challenges. Clearly one issue is that no sector has begun to identify core or concentration standards. (The health care pilot project has done perhaps the most work in this regard but they were able to draw upon the a well established body of specialty standards) Another issue is that experience of pilots counsels that standards are best built from the specialties inward to the core competencies as this approach eliminates guess work regarding the essential core competencies beyond the workplace basic ones already discussed. Yet another issue is that many standards that have been developed by both the pilot projects and many well established certification organizations are not in alignment with the current 16 sectors (recall that 10 of the pilot projects standards cross more than one of these economic sectors). The use of terminology is another issue several projects believed they were developing core standards materials but were unsure of the proposed NSSB dividing lines between core, concentration, and specialty.
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 needs to be made 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.
There is mutual self-interest that exists between the whole of state government and a federally supported but voluntary national skill standards system. This mutual self-interest includes:
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 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.
The following represents some suggested operating principles for such an organization:
A panel could serve as the state's single point of contact regarding skill standards; to coordinate within the state; and to serve as the eyes and ears for the state outside the state's borders. Within the state, the coordination role will likewise promote efficiencies and wide adoption. It is probable that as the system evolves, various state agencies will be asked to assume specific tasks that would support the single point of contact function. The single point of contact principle within the state implies collaboration not control. Without some mechanism such as this in the states, a national voluntary system will wane.
This paper has focused on some internal issues of the education enterprise as it relates to building a standards driven system. Yet it is not possible to ignore the central role and influence industry must play to assure any hope of success. As noted earlier, 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. Not all of the employers involved in the pilot projects are ready yet to support credentials (mostly due to the fear of federal intrusion) but most 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. The backers of Achieve in concert with the business leadership who were tapped by the skill standards pilot projects and the industry trade associations who have long been involved with credentialing services and the pilot skill standards projects need to come together to clarify messages. A bridge must be built between the different voices in the business community. Perhaps using the same standards language would help build that bridge.
-###-
[Final Thoughts]