NCRVE Home |
Site Search |
Product Search
5. SYNTHESIS OF THEMES
In
this section, we review the issues raised in Section 4 along with some others,
drawing more heavily on the various discussions--in the dialogue sessions, in
the substantive sessions preceding formulation of positions, and in the
concluding plenary session. Here, we are less interested in the diversity of
philosophies we reported in Section 4 and more in views the several panels
shared and in combining variously expressed viewpoints into a coherent
perspective. It is thus not an output of the exercise (in contrast to the
tables in Section 4) but a documentation of the process of thought that led to
the various outputs reported above.
The
reader should keep three important caveats in mind for this section:
- This
discussion represents views expressed during the exercise and not necessarily
those of the authors of this report or of the exercise sponsors. For ease of
reading, we omit phrases like "some panelists thought that," "several spoke in
favor of," and "it was suggested that," though every paragraph could be so
conditioned.
- The
perspectives summarized in the following pages were each expressed by at least
one person during the exercise, and we have taken only minor elaborative
liberties in weaving them into a coherent characterization of the issues.
However, this section does not represent a consensus position to which the
participants have subscribed. In particular, it would not be appropriate to
associate any of the views stated with any given participant.
- The
discussion of issues was influenced by the design of the exercise. This
synthesis of perspectives should not be viewed in isolation from the exercise.
The discussion may have gone in a different direction had the participants come
from different organizations, played different roles, or been given a different
scenario to work from.
We divide this discussion into thematic categories, but of course, there is
considerable overlap among them. We conclude with an afterword in which we
discuss the position of some of the themes in the policy debate as it stands
today.
PURPOSE AND PLACE OF EDUCATION IN THE NEW ECONOMY
As
discussed in Section 1, the changing economy is characterized by greater
international competition and greater market opportunities, a perceived need
for workers with different kinds of skills, unequal distribution of talent and
wages, a more fluid employment environment, and other factors. These changes
represent new challenges for the U.S. education and training system.
Education
must prepare prospective workers for an environment in which new kinds of
jobs--and, for that matter, many old kinds--require new skills, e.g., more
widespread computer usage. It must do this at the same time that many
high-school graduates have not acquired basic 10th grade skills. Yet those who
wish to get education to meet this challenge must overcome the resistance of a
large number of educators who do not believe education's importance lies in
preparing people for work. (In fact, without pressure from outside, there
might well be no job-oriented training in high school.)
But
the economic challenge of increasing worker skill levels across demographic
groups is just one of those faced by education, which must also prepare
Americans for their roles as citizens, consumers, and family members.
Fortunately, the requirements of these various roles are not dissimilar. If
people receive the kind of education required for high-skill jobs, they will
also have the preparation needed for college. Furthermore, free exercise of
civil rights and civic responsibilities requires a degree of economic
self-sufficiency, so education undertaken to achieve the latter facilitates the
former.
But
if the new economy is the principal motivator of the current drive for improved
education, why not just leave it to business to supply the increment in
quality? A good deal of learning needed for a particular job is already done
in the workplace, leading to the question, "What is school for?" The workplace
needs a set of skills, attitudes, and values that are very difficult to
inculcate in individuals if they do not come to the job with them. Businesses
expect schools to provide kids with basic skills in math, science, reading,
communication, and technology. They expect prospective workers to come to them
skilled as individuals and as members of a team. They expect these individuals
to have acquired the ability to solve problems, the values and education
entailed in what's required to be good citizens, and basic habits like getting
to work on time. And, although many employers do invest heavily in on-the-job
training, the workplace cannot be relied upon to produce the type of broadly
applicable and flexible education and edification that will generate
responsible, productive citizens in a responsive economy. The workplace, after
all, has to respond to short-term pressures of its own, and it can't do so if
it must also provide a liberal education.
The
evolving workplace actually needs skills at more than just a high-school level,
but there is an advantage to the employer, the individual, and society if the
time required to achieve these skills can be condensed. Business does not
necessarily want to wait until kids get a four-year college degree to hire
them. (That such a degree is required to succeed is more a notion parents hold
than employers, who are more concerned with what prospective workers can do.)
This suggests a requirement for some new college-level courses in high school
(which some schools are now providing) and some contact with business during
the high-school years.
In
considering what purposes education should fulfill, we are not just indulging
in a philosophical debate but a debate over outcomes. We want to know what
measures to use to decide whether reforms are successful. These measures might
be civic, social, and educational as well as economic. To date, educational
measures (grades, test scores, degrees attained) have dominated.
FIRST CHANCE VERSUS SECOND CHANCE
If
limited resources force a choice between improving the "first-chance" K-12
system and the "second-chance" system of adult education or training and
welfare-to-work programs, the K-12 system should have the higher priority. We
will always be struggling to catch up through the second-chance system if the
first isn't good enough, and if the first is good enough, the second might not
be needed as much.
Therefore,
if additional education and training funds become available, a substantial
portion should be directed toward the K-12 system. Creating a better-skilled
workforce might not necessarily be more effectively achieved by enhancing the
adult-level programs that are more explicitly oriented toward it. At the same
time, however, simply pouring more money into the K-12 system, which is failing
in a number of cities, will not solve its problems.
The second-chance system should not be forgotten, however.[11]
Abandoning it would mean abandoning many clients who, having been failed by
the first-chance system, need a second chance to succeed. Typically, these
clients are economically disadvantaged. And, as welfare limits take effect,
welfare-to-work programs will become more important. There should also be a
payback to children in the first-chance system from helping their parents with
literacy and basic skills.
However,
the outcomes from second-chance programs like those under JTPA have not been
very good--not surprising, since these programs are sometimes too schoolhouse-
or book-oriented and not sufficiently related to job skills. Training provided
by employers to similar populations has had a somewhat better, though hardly
unmixed, record of success.
There
is also substantial political resistance to school-to-work programs and others
with similar goals because they are seen as favoring underachievers. If such
programs are to get the kind of broad support they need to succeed, they must
serve a broader clientele. There must be, for example, a component oriented to
the school-to-work needs of the top quartile of students, an "honors"
component, as it were.
Better-designed
second-chance programs (or integrated academic-vocational programs) might
result from a competition among providers. Competitive grants might initially
be awarded on the basis of creativity and likelihood to succeed at improving
participants' employment or earnings and then renewed on the basis of outcomes.
A premium could be placed on getting institutions to work together as partners
in the grant applications. However, one might expect richer institutions
serving better-qualified students to be more creative in coming up with new
solutions than those serving the disadvantaged, so some compensatory program
(perhaps like Pell grants to college students) would have to be maintained.
In
awarding grants, an effort should be made to serve the disadvantaged while
avoiding the failures of previous programs with a broad "at risk" clientele.
There needs to be a way to target individuals who are more likely or more
willing to succeed. Given that, a premium should also be placed on
capacity-building by institutions willing to hire previous welfare recipients
and try to retain them.
To
the extent both first- and second-chance systems are to remain in existence,
they need integration. This is further discussed below.
STANDARDS, CERTIFICATION, AND INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
There
is too much inequality in the schools--some have good teachers and good
programs, others, inadequate teachers. Various reasons have been advanced for
this inequality, e.g., decentralization of funding and governance. Causes
aside, schools' and teachers' expectations for many students are often very
low. In too many states, for example, there are high-school graduates who
can't read. And even if students don't manage to meet expectations, there
isn't a bottom line consequence for the schools or teachers. The result is
that colleges and businesses don't necessarily believe the A's students get in
many high schools. Parents in disadvantaged districts are particularly
shortchanged, because an A in their district may not represent the same level
of achievement as an A in a suburban district. However, they may not realize
that until their child encounters the expectations of colleges or employers, in
SATs or other entry-level tests.
One
answer to these problems is to hold schools and possibly students accountable
for meeting certain performance measures, for showing progress from year to
year. What should the performance indicators be? Obviously, current input
measures such as dollars expended per student are not good proxies for
performance. More meaningful measures include attendance rate, dropout rate,
and number of students taking a rigorous curriculum. A more valid output
measure, though, could be scores on statewide assessments and how they compare
to clearly established academic standards. The validity of such scores as
indicators of meaningful achievement would depend on how carefully the
assessments are designed; those based on task performance are generally thought
to be the most valid. If the primary concern, however, is to achieve favorable
economic outcomes, school performance might also include measures of
skill-standard achievement or job market success (or college placement). Such
measures are particularly applicable to high-school vocational education
programs, the funding and quality of which could be bolstered if measures of
success attached to them reflected on schools and school districts.
Regardless
of what indicators are chosen, there must be a consequence for failing to meet
performance goals. In systems where parents are allowed to choose among
schools, an underperforming school can lose its clientele and go out of
business. Where choice is not permitted or where there are no alternatives at
acceptable cost to parents, the state should be empowered to take corrective
measures, which might include assuming control over the school. This is not to
say that the state should micromanage a school's attempt to meet performance
expectations--only that there will be a consequence if the plan devised by the
school does not pay off.
It
may also be possible to set up incentives in addition to disincentives. If
some districts or schools can be shown to have better-than-average placement
records (normalized for differences in inputs), they may be allowed a greater
share of the tax funds generated from those placements.
High-school
standards need not be restricted to some body of knowledge everyone must know
when they graduate. There could be a progression of academic-skill levels to
be attained, and everyone could be required to graduate with competency in some
discipline (for those going on to college) or some job-relevant topic or skill.
But whether it is the last credential earned in high school or the only one,
the high-school diploma should be regarded as an initial certification in a
system of recurrent training and lifelong learning (see discussion below). It
should truly be a commencement, a link between the academic and vocational
systems.
On
the vocational side, the United States is already moving toward workplace skill
standards and certification of standards attainment. Skill standards are being
developed within various industries and are likely to become widespread over
the next five years. It is unclear, however, whether these developing
standards will evolve into a coherent system, even within industries; firms
that do now have the ability to discriminate among employment prospects may not
want to share that ability with others. This may be a place where states or
the federal government could take a leadership role while not imposing an
outcome. The need for institutionalizing the development of standards becomes
apparent when we consider that this is not a one-shot effort. Standards
development would have to be ongoing to keep abreast of changes in technologies
and in skills required. There needs to be continuous input to the development
of vocational
and
academic
standards
from employers who see the needs for various skills evolving before their eyes.
Among
its other advantages, a system of academic standards and assessment would
counter inflated high-school grades. The latter are not likely to change
unless many people within the system rebel against them. And what parent (or
teacher) is going to volunteer his or her children (or students) as the first
to be graded more rigorously? Attaining a widely recognized academic standard
would also give a new worker a truly meaningful bargaining chip to take into
the job market--something equivalent to the endorsement from teachers or
schools required for job placement in some foreign countries.
Standards
are not a panacea, of course. They cannot provide an incentive to students who
still do not see a connection between schoolwork and the "outside" world.
Various alternative pedagogies may be of help (see "Teacher Training and
Development," below).
And,
in any system, there is the potential for abuse. Here it may come in the form
of falsified certificates. This suggests the need for some authorizing entity
working on a statewide or higher basis with whom an employer could check. It
also suggests some sort of system for tracking individual progress, e.g., a
system in which an individual builds a portfolio spanning his or her education
and work experience over the course of a career.
LIFELONG LEARNING
Career
portfolios, of course, are one facet of lifelong learning. In a
lifelong-learning system, persons might get a progression of certifications
along a career ladder in a given discipline or skill area. At a minimum,
people's skill levels would be judged throughout their lifetimes on the basis
of their having trained to certain standards at various points in their
careers. Such standards would then form the basis of a pay-for-skills system.
Persons would reenter and exit the education and training system as they felt
it advantageous to do so.
Just
as education would infiltrate the working years, so would career considerations
come up in the years of compulsory education. One objective of the K-6 years
might be to make children aware of the variety of career options they have, so
that they might undertake more directed learning in what are now the
high-school years. In recognition that education and training needs can
diverge before students finish high school, the core curriculum might end short
of 12th grade by as much as two years.
There
are two ways of looking at this, with quite different implications for the
resources to be devoted to the K-12 system. In one, K-12 is the foundation and
becomes the focus for most of the near-term funding. In the other, the
extension of learning to cover a lifetime results in a relative decrease in
K-12's importance.
As the economy evolves and individuals grow, persons will want to make career
changes. So within each track there will be a need to recognize training
equivalents from other tracks. Skills may have to be defined in building-block
elements, but however they are defined and whoever does it, it will be better
to do it before a massive demand for it arises.
Lifelong
learning would require that individuals invest in updating their skills from
time to time. But they might get a leg up if the funds the state decided to
invest in postsecondary education could be more flexibly applied--and if
postsecondary education could be more broadly understood to include training in
workplace skills. The amount the state is projected to spend on an
individual's lifetime education could be put into an account and perhaps
augmented to match contributions from business and from the individual. He or
she could draw from the account to support progress along some sequence of
certifications (each of which would require continuing education to keep it
current). The recipient would have to complete some compulsory curriculum that
it is agreed all should take, but, generally speaking, he or she would be
funded to meet some sort of job qualification standard, not to get a degree.
(A step toward this concept has been taken with the lifelong-learning tax
credit in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.)
A
lifelong-learning system cannot replace the current system rapidly, if only
because the state must continue to serve those who have gone through high
school in the older system. Some kind of voucher system might be implemented
as a first step in the direction of individual training accounts. More
emphasis might also be placed on funding training to upgrade the skill of
incumbent workers instead of only that which attempts to provide skills to the
unskilled.
TEACHER TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
Neither
a standards-based system nor lifelong learning will be achieved successfully
without reorienting teachers to these new system designs and, in particular,
preparing them to teach so that students will attain standards. Alternative
pedagogies may help improve teacher capacity as well as student achievement.
Teachers might be required, for example, to master skills they need to promote
contextualized learning if they want to be recertified. Of course, a
characteristic shared by pedagogies characterized as "alternative" is that
their effectiveness has not been proven yet. Teacher education curriculums
must thus temper enthusiasm for new, promising approaches with caution and must
be responsive to the latest research findings. It may also be that teachers
themselves should spend time in the workplace so they can better understand
what will be expected of their students. And, naturally, this all applies to
those who teach teachers as well. More broadly, state agencies distributing
education and training funds should perhaps require that all receiving agencies
spend some percentage on professional development (not development of the old
kind, but of the kind just indicated above).
To
be consistent, there should be a performance-based certification system for
teachers, through which they would have to become periodically recertified to
receive pay increases. That is, teachers would have to be certified to teach,
and teachers in vocational programs would also need the certificate toward
which their students were working. Such certification would only mean
something if out-of-field teaching were prohibited.
One
element of such a certification system might be a requirement that all teachers
get a graduate education degree. With such a requirement, it might make more
sense to have prospective teachers spend their undergraduate years becoming
expert in the topics they intend to teach. There might then not be a further
need for undergraduate teaching programs. And if teaching were
professionalized and if schools were held accountable for results, there
wouldn't be as much of a need for teacher unions or the tenure system. What
would
be
required is a way to remove incompetent teachers.
COORDINATION
Clearly,
a truly integrated academic-and-vocational education-and-training system would
have manifold advantages. It would promote vocational education and training
from the second-class "second-chance" system to the first-chance system,
according workforce development the priority it deserves in the new economy.
It would lend more "real world" purpose to academic education and possibly
motivate more high-school students to realize their potential. It would also
motivate employers to shift the qualifications they desire to more meaningful
job-specific certifications from the generic college degree that many of them
now rely on. (And it would arrest the ratcheting up of academic qualifications
and schooling attained that is occurring in sectors with a labor surplus and
that wastes society's resources procuring a college education for people who do
not need it.)
Reforms
of the type suggested above would require coordination at the state level and
among organizations involved in education and training that are used to acting
separately, even defending turf against others. Coordination is needed from
level to level within academic and within vocational education, so some
assurance can be given that individuals are making progress. It is needed
between academic and vocational educators. And it is needed between educators
and the workplace. At the same time, coordination will become even more
challenging to achieve as responsibilities decentralize, competition for
provision of educational services increases, and more funding is tied more to
individuals than institutions.
One
possible means of coordination is the establishment of regional workforce
development boards responsible for linking labor information, workforce skills,
educational reform, and economic development. But these boards cannot restrict
themselves to establishing weak connections among independent actors or to
creating a plethora of partnerships. There must be a multistakeholder,
high-priority, collaborative effort to bring about a seamless transition from
school to work and vice-versa--to promote, in other words, lifelong learning.
A
multistakeholder effort must not, of course, neglect the biggest and ultimately
most powerful stakeholder of all--the public, including the parents of those
who would most benefit. The public must "sign on," must understand what
schools are trying to achieve as they evolve.
As
already mentioned, because the workplace will continue to evolve, it will be a
good idea to have the business community collaborating in the design and
oversight of education and training programs. In fact, community college
systems that have good relations with employers already do lots of training
for
those
employers. Too often, business is brought in after the educators are finished
to rubber stamp what has already been done.
Finally,
we do not mean to give the impression that integration is a one-way
street--that it will be sufficient for institutions now devoted to providing a
liberal education to think more about careers. Vocational education and
training need to be "liberalized" to encourage critical thinking and inquiry on
the job. It is that kind of thinking that will lead to greater productivity,
not just the acquisition of various certificates.
A
truly coordinated workforce development effort may turn out to be too much to
expect of regional boards. It may require leadership at the state level, e.g.,
by an independent state board in charge of all education and training under a
lifelong-learning rubric. Such a board might promulgate models for career
guidance, define clear career ladders with identification of points at which
training is needed, and provide information as to where skills are needed. In
practicing this kind of coordination, states would be following in the
footsteps of nations like Germany and Australia that already consolidate
education and training.
THE FEDERAL ROLE
We
have said little so far about the role of the federal government. Clearly,
there are many places the federal government can help out. It could help fund
system-building at the state level or capacity-building among employers willing
to hire disadvantaged trainees, to name just two. But it seems unlikely that
major new federal funding will be forthcoming outside of tax deductions or
credits to be allowed for college expenses and lifelong training. And there
are some constituencies that would prefer no federal role at all. What about
those who believe that a nationwide commitment is required to ensure a
competitive American workforce in the new economy and that such an effort
should not exclude the federal government and may require its leadership? The
most that it seems reasonable that they hope for is a strong federal
coordinative role and high-profile use of the "bully pulpit." That is
particularly true in an environment in which the impetus seems to be to merge
the funding for federal programs in block grants that the states would decide
how to spend.
Through
the bully pulpit, federal officials might educate the public about a number of
things: the greater challenge now faced by education because of the changing
economy, the long-term nature of this challenge, the need for standards, the
difficulty of teaching to new standards, and the need for new pedagogies. At a
minimum, they could promote a national discourse on education--e.g., what the
purpose should be, which level of government should do what--that could help
raise the profile of the issue.
A
federal coordinative role might include recruiting key stakeholders to the
cause, setting up forums for dialogue and collaboration among players, and
joining with whatever states wished to participate in a national
standards-setting effort. This last would require some funding to match that
committed by states, and the federal government may also have the wherewithal
for small, strategic investments to support various of the other initiatives
suggested in the preceding subsections.
One
way in which limited federal monies can exert great leverage is through
research, particularly that addressing the problem of getting change to happen.
The nation could benefit from reviewing what has become of various past
initiatives--which have been successful and which not. For example, the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 envisioned a merger of education and
labor interests, but that has not happened yet and the law is due to expire
this year. Should the act be reauthorized, or should something else be tried?
If so, what and why? Federal funds might also support the evaluation of
various state-level initiatives.
The
federal government should also pay some attention to coordination among its
component agencies. A joint policy for the Departments of Education and Labor
with respect to every area discussed above is essential. Policies must support
cooperation among stakeholders rather than permitting divided camps (e.g.,
vocational-education proponents versus school-to-work enthusiasts); the aim
should be to avoid competition for resources and encourage all parties to seek
ways to gain the widest leverage possible off funds that are committed to
anyone. Finally, if business is to play a central role in education and
training reform in the states, the Department of Commerce should have a role to
play at the federal level. Through a joint strategy among its own departments
for coordination of state-level initiatives, the federal government might be
able to build confidence within the private sector that things can be
changed--and that may be as valuable a contribution as any large pot of money
can make.
AFTERWORD
At
the time of this writing (December 1997), many of the themes revealed through
the policy planning exercise are much discussed in policy circles and in public
forums. Others seem less pressing or at least capture less policy or media
attention. It seems useful to end our discussion of themes with some thoughts
about their status within the current debate.
A
central theme from the planning exercise was the importance placed on
standards, including content standards for school learning, industry standards,
and, relatedly, standards assessment. Standards remain a controversial topic
in American education. In the current debate on national standards and tests,
for example, the President and Congress hold opposing positions. The
administration's action plan to educate and prepare America for the 21st
century explicitly commits to setting "rigorous national standards, with
national tests." Over the summer, the federal government supported the
development of specifications for tests in fourth-grade reading and
eighth-grade math, and the president has used the bully pulpit to persuade the
public of their importance. Even though the national testing plan is
voluntary, some critics argue that the federal government should not promote
such tests because a national standard threatens local control of schools.
Others fear that such standardized testing would stigmatize as low scorers many
economically disadvantaged students who have not been permitted an equal
opportunity to learn. For various reasons, then, federal legislators are
seeking to block the test by refusing to appropriate funds for its development.
Meanwhile, some urban school officials reconsidered plans to administer the
test once a decision was made to administer the reading portion only in
English. The controversy temporarily stopped work on the project, but a
compromise between Congress and the administration has been reached. Under the
compromise, the National Academy of Sciences will examine the possibility of
expressing in common terms the results of different tests devised by the
various states. The National Assessment Governing Board will reconsider the
choice of contractor for developing a proposed national test by September 30,
1998. Finally, the administration will not spend any money on implementing
national testing before that date.
Prior
to the current testing debate, the policy discussion on national standards for
academic subjects was also lengthy and often rancorous. Since first proposed
under the Bush Administration, several national groups representing the various
disciplines involved have developed voluntary standards and a few state
governments have adopted statewide curriculum standards. In addition, the
Departments of Education and Labor supported the development of voluntary skill
standards in 22 industries. Although a national skill-standard board oversees
the skill-standard initiative, a sister board for curriculum standards was
abolished by the 104th Congress. At present, academic and industry standards
continue to be developed in isolation of one another in spite of many obvious
reasons for collaboration and coordination.
A
second theme from the policy planning exercise was the call for more
coordination between different components of the education and training system.
Efforts to coordinate can be seen, for example, in the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act, which mandates integration between work-based and
school-based learning experiences. It can be seen in the growth of tech-prep
programs, which articulate high school with two- and four-year college programs
to assist youth transition from school to career. It can also be seen in
legislative efforts to streamline the patchwork of current programs for
vocational education and job training. Coordination is certainly on the minds
of U.S. senators, who have recently proposed to consolidate vocational
education, adult education, and job training programs and to link federal job
training activities to other related programs through a "one-stop service
system." The related House proposal calls for consolidation of job training
and adult programs, but the House voted to separately reauthorize vocational
education. While federal legislators may agree that consolidation is
important, they by no means agree on how to do it.
Participants
in the policy planning exercise often discussed improvements to teacher
education as a necessary ingredient for achieving other reform goals, such as
standards-based assessment or lifelong learning. Their sentiments often echoed
the bleak picture presented in a recent report from the National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future. That report identified several problems with
the teacher training and development system, including unenforced standards,
major flaws in teacher preparation, slipshod recruitment, and lack of
professional development and rewards for knowledge and skill. The report
agreed with policy exercise participants that standards for teachers are as
important as standards for students. Currently, the tests administered by the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards provide a start toward such
standards. The Commission report also notes progress on other fronts,
including new programs for recruiting and mentoring teachers or the growth of
professional networks, but much of the education and certification system
remains with teacher-training institutions and individual states. Some of
these issues may be addressed in 1998 when Congress takes up the Higher
Education Act and the role of teacher training.
The
issues just discussed and many others raised in the planning exercise
deliberations often revolved around state versus federal roles and
responsibilities. The organization of this exercise assumed the current
climate in which federal dollars are increasingly dispersed in block grants to
state governments where they can presumably be directed to better meet local
conditions and needs. It is not surprising then that discussion about the
federal role was largely limited to the bully pulpit, support of research, and
coordination. At the same time, however, the tensions between the federal and
state roles were far from absent. It can be difficult to argue simultaneously
for national standards and block grants to states. A future policy exercise on
education and the new economy could certainly take another tack and entertain
an expanded federal role in support of a truly national system.
[11]It
is noteworthy that three of the four panels, in making their Move 1
allocations, did not forget it.
NCRVE Home |
Site Search |
Product Search