Standards and accountability, a modest federal role, increased necessity for lifelong learning--these were some of the themes that emerged from NCRVE's Policy Planning Exercise on Education and the New Economy, held June 23-25 in Aspen, Colorado. Intended to help NCRVE understand the possible development of education and training policy in the near future, the exercise gave participants an opportunity to pull back from the immediate concerns of day-to-day business and ponder long-term strategy. The diverse array of stakeholders present assured a variety of viewpoints and some lively give and take.
The exercise was developed by specialists at RAND who have had extensive experience designing "war games" for the Department of Defense. In these games, military officers played both sides in computer-simulated battles to gain insight into enemy thinking and successful strategy and tactics. RAND's first post-Cold War game brought together defense and business leaders in a one-sided "game" to play out an "information warfare" scenario in which vital U.S. military and commercial electronic links came under attack. This exercise, intended to generate policy options for increasing the security of the information infrastructure, inspired analogs in other policy areas such as drug control and (somewhat ironically) violence control in urban neighborhoods. These exercises brought together various combinations of federal, state, and local officials, academics, and neighborhood activists to interactively explore the implications of different policy choices.
In like manner, the Policy Planning Exercise on Education and the New Economy assembled vocational-education researchers, federal and state voc ed officials, leaders of nonprofit organizations with an interest in this area, and representatives of the business community. Participants were divided into four panels, each constituted to encompass a mix of perspectives. The exercise started off with an after-dinner dialogue in which participants got to know one another and the experiences and views they brought to the table. The dialogue was loosely structured around a set of questions addressing the relationships among education, work, and the economy and the objectives of education and the challenges facing it today.
In the second day of the exercise, panelists participated in a two-move "seminar game" in which they took on the roles of advisors to the governor of a hypothetical state. Panelists were briefed on the demographics, economy, and educational systems within their "states." In move 1, participants were transported to January 1998 and invited to suppose that federal funds for various education and training programs had been combined (and augmented) into a block grant that their state would now have to allocate. As advisors to the governor, they would have to recommend an allocation. At the end of this move (and of the next two sessions), participants gathered in plenary session to allow each panel an opportunity to present its recommendations to the others and to allow the entire group a chance to react.
For move 2, panelists journeyed even further into the future, to 2002. They were given some updated information on educational attainment, employment levels, and earnings within their state and asked to suggest a redesign of the state's education and training system. Specifically, they were asked to prioritize a list of reforms (e.g., inclusion of work-based education or applied pedagogy, adoption of standards and certifications) and, if they wished, extend the list.
On the final day, panelists were brought back to the present to apply what they'd said and heard in previous sessions to federal policy in the very near term. Participants were requested to draw up their recommendations in the form of a presentation to the U.S. Secretaries of Education and Labor. The exercise concluded with a plenary session in which participants drew overall inferences from what had been discussed over the previous two days and commented on aspects of exercise design.
One of the central themes that emerged from the discussions was the importance of standards. Exercise participants believed it important to establish standards both for what ought to be learned in school and for what needs to be known to function well in the full range of jobs available. There appeared to be a consensus that achievement of standard-level competence is best assured through assessments that have stakes. And it was pointed out that statewide (or nationwide) assessments could serve as a way of holding school districts accountable for equity of educational effort. For example, inner-city parents could be assured that, when their children graduated with A's, they would be viewed by colleges or potential employers as competitive with suburban children graduating with A's.
Despite the emphasis on standards, participants were generally cautious in what they expected of the federal government. They believed the Secretary of Education should use his "bully pulpit" to help frame issues: He might familiarize Americans with the different challenges a globalizing economy poses for the U.S. education and training systems, the need for students to meet higher standards. There was little call for mandates from the federal government, but participants did feel that federal officials could work with states to achieve several objectives. They could encourage the establishment of standards, help recruit various stakeholders to actively support standards, or identify ways to coordinate the activities of institutions involved in workforce development. Panelists seemed to regard limited investment of federal monies in such activities as more likely than large new federally funded programs.
While the tasks assigned to participants provided a framework to guide discussion, the exercise structure was loose enough to allow panelists to break out on their own, which they did. For instance, in move 1, the panels found it helpful in allocating monies to first make the sort of broad review of goals and strategies that had originally been planned for move 2. The result of these deliberations was a tendency to redirect the hypothesized federal funds to new initiatives in K-12 education. Panelists were also unanimous in retaining funding for Pell-like grants; indeed, there was considerable sentiment for an education and training system in which funds followed individuals rather than institutions. Interestingly, while in allocating funds and designing a system, panelists paid some attention to the rather disparate challenges affecting their hypothetical states, panel recommendations were more like than different. This suggests that the participants viewed the most important challenges facing workforce education and training as national in scope and character.
Along with standards and accountability, the system design feature considered most desirable, even essential, was, not surprisingly, coordination: better coordination between the academic and vocational education systems, and better coordination between such human resource development systems and the private sector in matching individuals to employer needs. There was also considerable sentiment for making true lifelong learning available. This grew out of a recognition that the economy is now changing so rapidly most people must continue to learn throughout their careers. Two of the four panels emphasized the need for a more individually tuned system, one which persons could easily leave and return to, possibly as early as what is now grade 11, drawing on individual accounts, perhaps cofunded by the individuals themselves.
Several reports will be produced from this event At RAND, a brief report will be prepared for those interested principally in the conclusions reached, while a longer document, MDS-1097, is expected to be available sometime in 1998 and will provide more of the exercise detail. Results of the exercise will also be used in a report analyzing the evolution of education and training policy up to the present and projecting possible futures. For more information about the RAND brief, contact RAND at the address below. To receive a notice announcing publication the longer document, contact the Materials Distribution Service, by phone (800) 637-7652, by e-mail, NCRVE-MDS@wiu.edu, or by sending your request to: NCRVE Materials Distribution Service, Western Illinois University, Horrabin Hall 46, Macomb, IL 61455.
For more information about this study, contact: Cathy Stasz, RAND, 1700 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 Phone: (310) 393-0411 ext. 6326 Fax: (310) 393-4818 Email: cathy@rand.org
Cathy Stasz is a senior behavioral scientist and NCRVE site director at RAND.