Our hope was that through a comparative perspective--with participants from so many different countries, and from the education, business, labor, and government communities within those countries--we would have a greatly enriched discussion. We realized that for our respective nations to be truly successful in educating and training an innovative work force, we would have to draw on such diverse visions.
This chapter begins by examining the context in which this meeting took place. It then explores what we meant by "Education and Training for an Innovative Work Force" and why this theme was particularly important for the United States at this time in its political and educational history. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of America's "New Visions" for education and training.
A working group was set up with the objective of increasing the mutual understanding of the United States and the EU in activities related to higher education and vocational education and training. The first meeting to exchange ideas and experiences on work force preparation was held in The Netherlands over three years ago. The focus of that meeting was "Schools and Industry: Partners for a Quality Education."
In the years since the Transatlantic Declaration was signed, the focus on work force training and education has intensified. All of our economies have faced unparalleled challenges in the face of global economic competition. With such daunting challenges, we all share concerns over unemployment, job creation, wages, and productivity. We all seek solutions. And, we can all learn from each other.
In May 1994, U.S. Secretary of Education Riley met with Secretary General Ruberti of the EU and agreed to hold a second conference to further the exchange of ideas on work force preparation. Central to all of these discussions were questions about the adequacy of our education and training systems in relation to the new demands of the global economy. This second U.S.-EU Conference, with its theme of "New Visions," was an opportunity for us to further discuss how our education and training systems are structured to respond to ever-changing economic challenges.
I see new visions as the changes--the new paradigms--that are revolutionizing our education and training systems. In the U.S., we are making these important changes because our past educational models are no longer sufficient to equip today's workers with the education and skills they need to prosper in an information-based, global economy.
Today, competitive advantage is afforded companies that offer high-quality, individually tailored products and services. Delivering such tailored products requires flexible modes of production, a highly trained and skilled frontline labor force, and workers trained very differently than in the past. These challenges force us to rethink how we educate our students for the future workplace.
In 1994, just before the conference, Fortune Magazine had a very provocative photo and headline for their cover story. The headline read, "The End of the Job." In the cover story, the job was discussed as an artifact of the time of mass production in which job holders followed orders and performed repetitive tasks. The article also highlighted how the job-creating and fast-moving organizations of the present were replacing the old bureaucratic dinosaurs of the past. The new, fast-moving organizations hire individuals with a package of capabilities. They are, in short, workers who can innovate.
In reality, the American and European economies are clearly not at the point the article portrays--we all know jobs are still around--but it is quite clear that workers need different skills than in the past. The question is, what core skills does a worker need to be innovative in an evolving workplace and a labor market characterized by churning dislocation?
In the U.S., we have spent a great deal of time searching for the best way to equip workers with these skills. For example, at the Saturn automobile plant in Tennessee, I spoke with the Chief Executive Officer, who emphasized the necessity of changing the culture in their company to move towards having the type of work force I have been discussing.
At our most recent conference in Europe, we focused on the differences and similarities between the American and European approaches to involving industry as full partners. We in the U.S. had learned much from studying European models of education and training. We were just beginning to implement uniquely American strategies such as Tech Prep and starting to expand youth apprenticeship. The meeting then provided us with an excellent opportunity to further explore the transferability of models and best practices.
Many of the questions and concerns discussed at the 1992 Conference remained pressing topics of concern when we met in San Diego. In organizing the San Diego Conference, the following three promising avenues were identified as the focus for discussion on enhancing the development of the work force through education reform: (1) the importance of local leadership, (2) the enhancement of innovation by leveraging the creativity of human diversity, and (3) the service to and involvement of small- and medium-sized enterprises. We enlisted a host of policy experts to address how various countries were attempting to enhance work force development through such strategies.
With the election of President Clinton in 1992, the federal government began approaching our education and training challenges in a systematic fashion, from preschool to adulthood. The Clinton Administration began a number of initiatives to turn a work force development vision into a reality.
We recently completed twenty-two pilot projects sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor to develop voluntary skill standards for various industries. The projects were only the beginning. Goals 2000 authorized the creation of a National Skill Standards Board to improve the connection between the skills needed in the workplace and skills gained through education and training.
The National Skill Standards Board is a non-federal entity composed of 24 leaders from business, education, and labor--with twelve appointed by the President and twelve named by Congress. The board is responsible for identifying broad clusters of major occupations in which common skill standards can be developed among voluntary partnerships of business, labor, and education. The Board is authorized to endorse those skill standards that meet certain prescribed criteria.
It is important to note that both the occupational and academic skill standards would be voluntary. Unlike many countries with a centralized education system, in the United States, education is mainly a local and state affair. The U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, however, likes to say that although education is a local and state responsibility, it is a national priority.
Both of these efforts are excellent examples of the federal government serving as the catalyst and facilitator for positive change in an area that is truly a national priority. These efforts are also an example of a productive partnership between government and industry. By bringing together all the relevant players at the national level, we provide the localities and states with a powerful tool for benchmarking their own standards.
Without these standards, we were like an archer shooting into the sky: aiming nowhere and hitting nothing in particular. Now we have a target--if not a bull's-eye--to help focus our education and training efforts.
The Corporation for National Service was set up in 1994 to allow students to work on pressing community needs while receiving credit towards college tuition or forgiveness of loans borrowed in college. For others, the new Direct Loan Program is helping those at the beginning of their careers set up Individual Education Accounts to pay for college. Students will be able to borrow money for university education and choose a variety of options for repayment, depending on their financial situation.
The STWO Act is a joint venture among communities, states, and the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor. This initiative provides a national framework to expand the educational, career, and economic opportunities of all youth. It involves new partnerships between businesses, schools, community-based organizations, and local and state governments.
The STWO Act involves significant changes in the way teachers teach and the way students learns. It includes the following components:
Federal venture capital is being used by communities and states to plan and implement changes that meet their unique needs. We also see an important federal government role as that of facilitating communication between various parties. We are assisting communities and states to come together to learn about best practices--learning about what is, and what is not, working.
In December 1994, President Clinton and thirteen heads of large corporations announced the creation of the School-to-Work Opportunities National Employer Leadership Council. Members of Fortune 500 and small businesses are represented. Ford Motor Company CEO, Alex Trotman, has served as the chair. Members of the Council are charged with implementing school-to-work programs throughout their companies and encouraging their suppliers and other companies to participate.
In the aftermath of the November 1994 Congressional elections, the policy climate changed dramatically. It triggered great activity in education legislation. Both Houses of Congress now have Republican majorities where there had heretofore been Democratic majorities working with a Democratic President.
Several times over the past few years, both houses of Congress have made radical proposals to reduce the size of government dramatically, or even to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. Even though those proposals failed, more moderate pieces of legislation have passed, leading to modest reductions in the size of the federal government, expanded roles for states, and changes in funding.
I think we succeeded. Through the field trips, plenary sessions, and working groups, we indeed learned from each other. We engaged in a productive dialogue. We shared our opinions and our visions. We even explored how we could accomplish these mutual visions.
Since the Conference, the United States and the European Union signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing a more solid foundation for cooperation in higher education and vocational training. The concrete result of this memorandum, a grants program for joint U.S.-EU consortia cooperating in exchanges in higher education and vocational training, will begin making its awards in 1996. The U.S. and EU have discussed a third conference, and we are exploring avenues to further the exchange of information.
The participants in this conference came together in a spirit of cooperation. While our government structures and histories are different, we all share a common concern for the present and future well-being of our citizens. We all seek new visions on how to better educate and train for an innovative work force. Hopefully, having shared our visions together will help us to better accomplish this important goal.
* Assistant Secretary of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, at the time of the San Diego conference, November 1994
