APPENDIX A
EXERCISE MATERIALS

This appendix contains the four-part manual provided to exercise participants. Part A was handed out prior to the opening dialogue, Part B before Move 1 of the seminar game, Part C before Move 2, and Part D before the "Back from the Future" session. There were two versions of the manual, one with data specific to the hypothetical state of Algonquin and the other with data specific to Montoya. This is the Algonquin version.

POLICY PLANNING EXERCISE:
EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY

CONTENTS

POLICY PLANNING EXERCISE:
EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY

This manual is an introduction to a planning exercise for exploring possible changes in education and training policy at the state and federal levels as the international and domestic economic environment changes. Additional information and materials will be made available to participants as the exercise is conducted.

1. AGENDA

Day & Time	Activity	Location
Monday
6:00 p.m.	Dinner and welcoming	Reception Center
7:30	Dialogue: issues in education	Seminar Rooms
9:00	Adjourn
Tuesday
7:00 a.m.	Breakfast begins	Reception Center
8:30	Introduction to the seminar game	Lauder
9:30	Game Move 1: decision making in 1998 at the state level	Seminar Rooms
11:30	Team presentations on Move 1 recommendations	Lauder
12:30 p.m.	Lunch	Reception Center
1:30	Feedback on Move 1	Lauder
2:00	Game Move 2: decisionmaking in 2002 at the state level	Seminar Rooms
4:30	Team presentations on Move 2 recommendations	Lauder
5:30	Adjourn
6:15	Dinner	Reception Center
Wednesday
7:00 a.m.	Breakfast begins	Reception Center
8:30	Introduction to final exercise	Lauder
8:45	Back from the Future: policy recommendations for 1997 at the federal level	Seminar Rooms
10:45	Presentations on 1997 recommendations	Lauder
12:00 p.m.	Lunch	Reception Center
1:00	Concluding discussion	Lauder
2:00	Adjourn

2. OVERVIEW OF THE EXERCISE

Purpose

This exercise is designed to help participants explore alternatives in public policy for education in the context of the new or emerging economy. Its purpose is not to provide solutions to problems but, rather, to provide insights and increased understanding, which may later prove useful in attempts to formulate or implement policy. In line with this, the exercise also has the goal of encouraging systemic thinking about academic and work-related education and training.

Scope

The exercise provides a forum in which participants can share views on education and its relationship to social goals and economic prosperity. In particular, participants can discuss and formulate possible future policy positions and their implications in a seminar game in which they play the part of an advisory panel to the governor of their state. The exercise also provides participants the opportunity to make recommendations for federal policies currently being considered by Congress.

Structure

About 40 people will participate in the exercise beginning in the evening of June 23 and ending after lunch on June 25. Participants, in their role as advisors to the governor, will be supported by facilitators and support personnel from RAND and the National Center for Research on Vocational Education. "Advisors" will be assigned to groups or "panels" of approximately eight people from varied backgrounds. A facilitator and a recorder will be assigned to each panel. Each "advisor" will remain on the same panel throughout the exercise.

The policy planning exercise consists of a series of group activities meant to help players think constructively about education and the new economy.

1. A small-group dialogue on views held by the advisors. It is meant to give people a chance to get to know one another, express their opinions or agendas, and gain a shared understanding of a range of differing views on the subject.

2. A two-move seminar game in which panels of advisors are asked to formulate policy recommendations for the Governor and Legislature of their respective states: first, to recommend near-term policies for implementing assumed federal workforce education and training legislation and, then, to recommend longer-term, more ambitious state policies. It is meant to help people work together in the simplified but concrete context of a game to consider workforce education policies.

3. A final activity bringing advisors back from the future of scenarios and seminar games to forge their recommendations for federal policy in 1997. Having "experienced" a possible future, they may now be better equipped to apply their real-world knowledge and experience to this task, which is meant both to provide players with insights and to furnish senior policy makers with a concise set of alternative policy recommendations from varied groups of knowledgable, experienced people.

A concluding discussion will be moderated by RAND and NCRVE staff.

3. DIALOGUE ON EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY

In the dialogue session, groups do not play roles; rather, individuals get to know one another better by expressing their views on each of three topics related to education and the economy. A staff member will actively facilitate these dialogue discussions. (See also the ground rules given below.)

This one-hour session deals with three topics pertaining to education and the new economy. Each group will spend 15 to 20 minutes discussing each question. There is no need to reach consensus among members of the group. The recorder will take notes on points of consensus and disagreement. These discussions should be useful background to the seminar game that follows and points made here may be recalled by exercise staff in the concluding discussion on Wednesday.

a. What do you see as the relationships among education, work, and the economy?

This topic gives you opportunity to reflect on and share your personal experiences, stories, and perspectives. Since personal experiences often shape our ideas and beliefs, this lays a foundation for subsequent discussion.

Some issues you might choose to address:

1. How well did your education prepare you for the work you are doing or have done? What was superfluous? What was missing?

2. How important is it that education prepare people for work? Is it more important to educate people for citizenship? Or to rise to the level of their potential?

3. How is the economic picture changing? Is education responsive?

4. What is the connection between education for work and for citizenship in a civilized culture?

b. What are the objectives of education for individuals and for the nation as a whole?

Before attempting to diagnose the problems with education or prescribe any cures, we should consider the objectives we may be seeking. Although it is not always necessary for everyone to agree on them, it can be helpful to understand the range of objectives an individual or group of people may have.

Here we present some possible objectives for discussion. The list is not exhaustive, and some of the views may overlap. With which do you agree? Or disagree? Are other objectives important to you?

1. The objective of education and training is to make the country economically competitive and prosperous.

2. The objective is to reduce poverty and socio-economic inequalities.

3. The objective is to provide the kind of education and training best suited to individual differences, so that all people have opportunity to realize their potential

4. The goal of education is social efficiency. Uneducated people are wasted resources.

5. The goal of education is social mobility. This produces continual renewal of society.

6. The goal of education is to make democracy work. Democracy requires an educated and informed citizenry.

7. The goal of education is to maximize individuals' contribution to society, the nation, and the world.

c. What are the main challenges facing education in America today with respect to how the economy is changing?

Again, here are some possible challenges for discussion. Agreements? Disagreements? Other possibilities?

1. It leaves too many people behind, relegating them to unemployment or underemployment.
2. Vocational education is largely focused on helping people get jobs rather than hold jobs or advance over time.

3. Vocational education is too often poorly designed, taught, and equipped.

4. Education is insufficiently responsive to changing and uncertain future skill demands.

5. Academic and job-related education are poorly integrated--to the detriment of both.

6. For those most in need, high school education does not sufficiently engage young people to help them achieve either academic or vocational pursuits.

7. Basically, the system works well; there's not much wrong with it.

GroundRules for Useful Dialogue:

• Each group member should briefly introduce himself or herself, stating why there're here and what they're expecting.

• The role of the facilitator is to guide discussion of each topic according to the ground rules and to see to it that the group gets its job done.

• All group members should be encouraged to express and reflect on their honest opinions; all views should be respected.

• It is important to hear everyone. People who tend to speak a lot in groups should make special efforts to allow others the opportunity to speak.

• Though disagreement and conflict about ideas can be useful, disagreements should not be personalized. There should be no put-downs, name-calling, labeling, or personal attacks.

4. SEMINAR GAME ON EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY

Simulating Future Decisions at the State Level

A seminar game is a role-playing exercise in which teams or panels of players (in this game called "advisors") meet in seminars to discuss policy issues they have been asked to address and to decide on policy recommendations. This game consists of two moves, each assumed to take place at a specified point in game time. During each move participants are informed by staff of the current situation and the policy issues they are being asked to address. They then meet as separate panels to discuss the issues and formulate recommendations. After that, a plenary session is held for the panels briefly to present their recommendations. Finally, the staff estimates the effects of panel recommendations and other factors on the situation at some future date.

The scenario assumptions consist of data on the nation and state that may be useful to the panels, as well as information on the current political and economic situation. These are meant to be accepted by participants as plausible simplifications of reality. Participants are not asked to view the future situation as a valid prediction but, rather, as one plausible way the future might unfold. They are then asked to make policy recommendations in that future context.

During the seminar game, each group plays the role of a panel of senior advisors appointed by the governor of their state, charged with advising the governor on matters related to workforce education and training. For game purposes, two states with different characteristics are represented: "Montoya" and "Algonquin."

Each panel will hold two meetings of approximately two hours duration to deliberate their policy recommendations. The first meeting will focus on recommendations for the State's 1998 budget; the second meeting will be set four years in the future. For these sessions, each panel will select a leader from among its members. The leader will chair the meetings and will subsequently present the panel's recommendations in plenary session. In these sessions, facilitators will act as resource people.

In Move 2, players will be presented with a situation that has evolved over the previous four years, partially in response to their recommendations in Move 1, which they may assume to have been implemented. Of course, we cannot make an accurate, confident prediction. The projection will be informed by data and by what is known about cause and effect, but the knowledge base is insufficient to permit rigorous analysis or simulation modeling, and we shall not claim the projection to be "true" in any sense. We shall ask players to simply accept the situation presented to them in Move 2 as plausible.

Each panel is given 15 minutes to present its recommendations, and we shall encourage panel leaders to stick to that limit.

BACKGROUND ON ALGONQUIN

Algonquin is a large Midwestern state with an economy that has been hurt by the decline of the manufacturing sector but that is now basically stable. Outmigration to other states keeps Algonquin's population growth rate to about 6 percent per decade. Eleven percent of the population (and 18 percent of the K-12 enrollment) is minority--about half the rate for the nation as a whole.

The state's unemployment rate has recently been running below the national average by 1.5 to 2 percentage points. Population below the poverty line is typical of that of the nation as a whole, as is the percentage on AFDC and SSI.

The state government has in recent years ranked around 36th in revenue per capita, and its debt outstanding per capita is about two-thirds the national average across state. The state currently ranks 12th in K-12 expenditures per pupil, though that position is likely to erode given current spending trends. Funding varies widely from district to district, giving rise to criticisms that indicators of average education success hide underachievement by large numbers of children.

In 1992, eighth-graders ranked 22nd out of 41 participating states in math achievement, according to the NAEP, although, as with funding, achievement results varied widely across districts. The state ranks 20th (out of 38 for which data are available) in the percentage of students taking upper-level math courses. The dropout rate among 16- to 19-year-olds at 9 percent is below the national average (11 percent), though the Algonquin population as a whole is less well educated than that in the rest of the country (61 percent with no college vs. 55 percent). Eighth-grade NAEP ranking in math was 18th in 1992. Teacher quality, as measured by various requirements, standards, funding provisions, and qualifications, is about average relative to the rest of the country. The state is a little below average in such indicators of school climate as class size, local autonomy, and student safety.

Secondary level. Algonquin's State Board of Education confers approval on policy decisions, exerting a great deal of influence through program approval, evaluation, and performance reporting mechanisms. The state has developed content standards for two core subjects, but students need not meet statewide standards for high-school graduation except for passing a 9th-grade-level test.

General education funding follows a foundation program based on pupil units per ADM (average daily membership, which equates roughly to enrollment). (Under a foundation program the state guarantees each district a specified minimum amount of revenue per pupil (the foundation level) at a stipulated tax rate. A district's aid is the difference between the foundation level and the per-pupil revenue the district raises at that stipulated tax rate.) Funding has some restrictions, as it is limited to specific programs and to specific target groups.

Algonquin has about 750 comprehensive high schools and 25 vocational high schools providing secondary vocational education. In addition, 61 area vocational technical centers and 9 correctional institutions provide vocational education and training at the secondary level. Algonquin has a state director of vocational education with direct authority over the secondary and postsecondary vocational programs and a more complete program approval process.

Total vocational education funding is about $328 million for classroom units, adult programs, career education and equipment. Contributions are dispersed as follows: 43.9 percent local, 49.5 percent state, and 6.6 percent federal. About two-thirds of Perkins funds are allocated to secondary vocational education.

Postsecondary level. In Algonquin, postsecondary vocational education is available at 10 community colleges, 13 technical institutes or colleges, 49 area vocational technical centers, and at 30 regional campuses. The State Board of Education (for nondegree programs) and the Board of Regents (for degree programs) have governing responsibility over postsecondary programs. The Board of Education sets the general policy direction, is responsible for program review and approval, and sets standards. It has significant influence over funds allocation and program content, but allows for local adaptation to state criteria.

Algonquin uses formula-cost based funding: allocation of state funds is based on multiple cost centers, detailed instructional discipline categories, program functions, or budgeted object of expenditures. Funding is related to actual costs, which are assumed to vary with program and institutional factors. State funds can only be used for existing services and programs, not new programs. Funding contributions are as follows: 44 percent local; 50 percent state; 6 percent federal. About 33 percent of Perkins funds are allocated to postsecondary vocational education.

JTPA. JTPA funds are allocated through an RFP process to educational institutions and SDAs approved by the Private Industry Council. The state does not set funding priorities. Coordination goes beyond federal requirements and is encouraged through such means as incentive funds, model sites, and interagency task forces.

Welfare to Work. Algonquin's work program requires mandatory participation of welfare recipients with children over age 3. It provides education, training, child care, transportation and health benefits, at a cost of about $350 per fiscal year. About 55 percent of the funds are federal, 45 percent state, and less than 1 percent local. JOBS legislation increased contracts with local providers and intra-state agency involvement.

State Approaches to Job Training for Economic Development. Algonquin's industry training program targets manufacturing businesses and provides outreach to minority- and woman-owned firms. The program is administered by the state department of development, and offers both on-the-job and classroom training. Funds are by legislative appropriation, with a 1:1 matching requirement (firms pay 50 percent of training costs). Firms apply for funds through a proposal process to local districts. LEAs serve as fiscal agents. In 1989, Algonquin spent 11 million dollars on its training program.

SummaryData. Following tables give the number of participants in various programs in 1997, a variety of education and training success indicators for that year, and the educational attainment distribution for the state, with average earnings for each level attained.

POLICY PLANNING EXERCISE:
EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY

4. SEMINAR GAME ON EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY

First Move:
Decisions in 1998: Instructions to Advisory Panels

Situation

Today is January 10, 1998.

Congress has passed the Education, Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997, which, among other requirements, establishes a block grant to provide

• up to two years of postsecondary education or training,

• adult employment and training,

• disadvantaged youth training, and

• adult education and literacy enhancement.

The postsecondary funding was a compromise between Congress and the President, who had originally wanted funds earmarked to guarantee two years of college to qualified applicants. States must decide how much of the block grant funds should go to school-to-career reforms, community college opportunities, vocational education, and other worthy educational or job training programs.

The state and the local workforce development boards must set goals they intend to achieve with block grant funds for each of the following program client indicators:

• Number receiving a high school diploma.

• Number finding and holding a job.

• Average earnings.

• Number attaining industry-recognized job skills.

• Number independent from welfare.

• Number attaining literacy and numerical skills, including level of literacy deemed necessary for "productive and responsible" citizenship.

• Number placed in and and completing postsecondary-education and job-training programs.

States' ability to reach performance benchmarks can affect future federal funding levels.
The task for panels in their first move is to decide how to allocate the block grant for adult and vocational education and training, given the goals represented by the benchmarks.

How to Proceed

1. You will have a total of an hour and 45 minutes to deliberate and reach decisions.

2. Keep in mind that you are in the role of a panel of senior advisors to the Governor and Legislature of the State of Algonquin.

3. At the beginning of the move you will be given approximately ten minutes to quickly read through
   • these instructions and

   • a draft memo for the Governor prepared by the panel staff.
4. As soon as it is practical, the leader of the panel will ask each member to comment briefly on the draft memo. The leader will then chair an orderly discussion of points raised in the draft memo. This discussion may include whether or how the allocation might be reframed, what options might be added or deleted, or how text should be reworded. You may find helpful the state and national data and state program descriptions attached at the end of this manual.

5. You should then attempt to reach consensus on an allocation to be recommended to the Governor. If a consensus cannot be reached, vote to progressively eliminate positions with the least support. Record the final vote on the master copy of the draft memo. The leader or a designated member must maintain this master copy of the draft memo on which is recorded any rewording, additions or deletions, and recommendations.

6. After deliberations, the panel leader will be asked to summarize and explain the panel's final decisions and recommendations. The leader may refer to the master copy of the draft memo for making this presentation. The leader will give the master copy to the facilitator after the presentation.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE GOVERNOR OF ALGONQUIN

January 1, 1998

FROM:	The Algonquin State Panel on Education and the New Economy
SUBJECT:	Recommendations on Allocating Federal Block Grant Funds for Adult and Vocational Education and Training

We have reviewed recently enacted block grant Federal legislation in light of the situation and environment in the State. The following table shows

• state and federal funds committed for expenditure within Algonquin on specified educational and training programs in FY98 (first data column),

• federal funds previously dedicated to various categories that are now being combined into the new block grant (second column), and

• percentage breakdown for the latter, excluding unallocated (third column).

The state is now free to allocate the $773 million block grant total among educational and training purposes as it sees fit. We note that the portion of the block grant labeled "unallocated" was originally intended (and publicized) by the President to fund college tuition tax credits and deductions.

Our ability to continue receiving elevated levels of federal funding will depend on our achieving certain performance benchmarks in education, employment, earnings, welfare dependency, literacy, and numerical ability among those we serve.

With those goals in mind, we recommend the federal monies to be received this year be allocated to adult and vocational education and training programs as shown in the last column of the table.

Our reasons for the allocation shown are as follows:

POLICY PLANNING EXERCISE:
EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY

4. SEMINAR GAME ON EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY (cont.)

Second Move:
Decisions in 2002: Instructions to Advisory Panels

Situation

Today is February 5, 2002.

The accompanying data sheet shows changes over the last four years in program participation, various diplomas received, employment, earnings, and educational attainment of the workforce. It may be of significance that, around this time, the five-year limit on welfare benefits that was passed in 1996 will be coming into effect for some people.

The Governor has been reelected on a platform calling for systemic reform of education, to better prepare all citizens for the world of work and to further strengthen the state's position in a learning-intensive economy. The Governor has identified several long-term objectives of this reform:

• Create a coherent system of high quality, relevant workforce education and training that serves the needs of all people, regardless of whether their formal education ends with high school, includes college or technical postsecondary education, or includes retraining to meet the demands of a changing economy.

• Train and sustain the highly skilled workforce necessary to support a vibrant and prosperous state economy, benefiting all its citizens.

• Meet the special needs of those who are disabled, receiving welfare benefits, in correctional facilities, and others.

The Governor has also set out two near-term objectives:

• Comply with all provisions of federal legislation.

• Protect public and private service providers, as well as service recipients, from excessive, revolutionary shocks to the system that would do more harm than good.

The task for panels in their second deliberative meeting is to make broad recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on design of the education and training system. The draft issue paper provided to panels by their staff lists the major issues to be addressed and some of the recommendations the team might make. Teams are then free to reframe the issues, refine the discussion, and select from or augment the recommendations.

How to Proceed

Proceed according to the instructions for the previous move, except that in this case, the goal is to specify approaches to transforming the current set of education and training programs into a coherent system. You should begin with a discussion of the pros and cons of various possible approaches, with the goal of reaching a consensus as to which approaches would be advisable to take.

The Governor would also like your advice on how to choose between the approaches judged advisable if resources don't permit adopting them all. Rank the approaches according to four general priority categories (see attached draft issue paper).

Among the approaches you might consider are the following, which you may take to have been previously identified by a separate task force:

Vocational skill training of varying length, to prepare individuals for jobs of different levels of skill, responsibility, earnings, and stability.

Academic instruction, integrated with occupational education. In job training programs, this could refer to remedial instruction, which proves to be necessary for many individuals.

Inclusion of work-based education, coordinated with classroom-based instruction, through "connecting activities." Work-based learning can provide a different kind of learning, complementary with classroom instruction.

The connection of every program to the next in a hierarchy of education and training opportunities. Some high school programs are explicity linked to post-secondary opportunities through tech prep. The analogy in job training programs is to connect every program to a further program at a higher skill level.

Use of applied teaching methods and team-teaching strategies. All school-based and work-based programs should incorporate pedagogies that are more contextualized, more integreated, student-centered, active, and project- or activity-based.

A method for tracking individuals' progress through the system.

A set of standards and certifications associated with program completion that signify progress toward higher skill levels.

ISSUE PAPER FOR THE GOVERNOR

February 1, 2002

FROM:	The State Panel on Education and the New Economy
SUBJECT:	Designing an Education and Training System: Issues and Recommendations

In what follows, we present our understanding of the major issues for the state in the coming fiscal year, together with our recommendations for resolving them.

System Design Issues

Federal legislation aims to encourage states to design and implement workforce education and career development as a system. Part of public education is a system: kindergarten leads through a sequence of grades with each a prerequisite for the next, and on to higher education; this is the "schooling system." However, the existing set of job-related programs was constructed apart from the schooling system. That made more sense when the schooling system could generally be regarded as the "normal" or "first chance" system, and job training could be viewed as a "second chance" opportunity offered to those who couldn't make it through normal education. Nowadays, the situation is different:

• The schooling system is faulted for insufficiently preparing many of its graduates for the world of work.

• The average worker can expect to have to change jobs or even fields one or more times during his or her working lifetime.

• Continual learning is an increasingly important part of work itself.

As a result, demand is mounting for a systems approach to encompass both academic and work-related education and training. A unified system has the potential of being more effective--particularly for those who find themselves in short-term job training programs with small and short-lived payoffs.

At issue in the near term is what measures should be taked to create an education and training system for the state, as opposed to a collection of programs.

System Design Approaches

You have asked us to review approaches proposed by your Task Force on Creating an Education and Training System in light of the current situation and our previous recommendations regarding funding priorities. Below, we check off those approaches that we believe would contribute to a coherent, integrated education and training system.

	__	Vocational skill training of varying length and for different skill levels.
	__	Academic instruction, integrated with occupational education.
	__	Inclusion of work-based education.
	__	The connection of every program to the next in a hierarchy.
	__	Use of applied teaching methods and team-teaching strategies.
	__	A method for tracking individuals' progress.
	__	A set of standards and certifications.
	__	Additional approaches:
	__	_______________________________________________________________
	__	_______________________________________________________________
	__	_______________________________________________________________
	__	_______________________________________________________________

Our reasons for omitting previously suggested approaches and our reasons for including additional ones are as follows.

Prioritizing the Approaches

We recognize that limited state resources may not permit funding all approaches that could be of value. Therefore, in the following list, we rank the approaches on the following scale:

	A	Must do in the near future if the Governor's goals are to be achieved.
	B	Of substantial help in achieving the Governor's goals
	C	Could be of some help in achieving the goals
	D	Not recommended
	__	Vocational skill training of varying length and for different skill levels.
	__	Academic instruction, integrated with occupational education.
	__	Inclusion of work-based education.
	__	The connection of every program to the next in a hierarchy.
	__	Use of applied teaching methods and team-teaching strategies.
	__	A method for tracking individuals' progress.
	__	A set of standards and certifications.
	__	Additional approaches:
	__	_______________________________________________________________
	__	_______________________________________________________________
	__	_______________________________________________________________
	__	_______________________________________________________________

Our reasons ranking some of these approaches above others are as follows:

POLICY PLANNING EXERCISE:
EDUCATION AND THE NEW ECONOMY

5. BACK FROM THE FUTURE

Panels return to 1997. Based on their experience in Moves 1 and 2, as well as their real-life experience, each team is now asked to prepare a 10-minute briefing on near-term policy recommendations for workforce education and training for the Secretaries of Education and Labor.

In contrast to the deliberations in the seminar game, we shall not provide teams with a staff issue paper or any other structure. You are simply to frame and present the recommendations as you think best. (Here, you are not role-playing.) Deliberations will be chaired by the team leaders, with facilitators acting as resource people.

As was the case with the two seminar game moves, the "Back to the Future" exercise will be followed by a plenary session in which each Team Leader will briefly present his or her team's recommendations.

The exercise will then conclude with a discussion of insights gained from the exercise and possible next steps.