1. INTRODUCTION |
BACKGROUND
Over the past several years concern has grown about the competitiveness of the U.S. workforce and the efficacy of the U.S. education systems to develop and maintain a skilled labor pool. This concern is widespread. According to a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report, "[A]s skill levels are increasing, employers are finding that many young workers are inadequately prepared for many entry-level as well as most higher-skilled jobs."[1] Concern about workforce competitiveness is echoed in the administration's school reform proposals as well; two of the six national goals proposed by the administration are directly related to workforce productivity.[2]
One of the primary ways in which policymakers have addressed this concern is with an increasing emphasis on educational accountability. For example, a major theme of the Bush administration's proposal, America 2000, is "creating better and more accountable schools for today's students."[3] Never before have so many diverse groups focused their attention on questions of standards and measures of school performance as one means to hold schools accountable. Under the umbrella of the administration's initiative to achieve six national goals for education, politicians, business people, parents, child welfare advocates, educators, and researchers have begun to discuss proposals for establishing national educational standards and for developing national tests to assess students' performance relative to these standards.[4] The intent of these proposals is to create a new framework that can be used to monitor the progress of students and to hold schools and school districts accountable.
As concern about workforce competitiveness grows, local systems of vocational education are receiving greater attention. Within the educational system, vocational educators have been among the most concerned about students' preparation for work and the impact of education on productivity and competitiveness.
Some might argue that vocational educators have been leading the debate about performance-based accountability as well. One reason may be that vocational education, by its nature, is more "accountable" than nonvocational education. This is because vocational programs have specific outcomes that are conceptually easier to monitor--preparing students for jobs--and have clearly identifiable constituents--employers--who participate in the monitoring function. Vocational education programs have had informal accountability systems built around job training and placement for years.
In addition, federal vocational education and training program initiatives have included formal accountability mechanisms. For example, the federal Job Training Partnership Act tied resources for training directly to job placement and retention through the vehicle of performance contracting. Similarly, the 1990 re-authorization of the federal vocational education act[5] explicitly mandated that states establish standards and measures for program performance and the use of these measures to target efforts at program improvement.
The Perkins Act and the reforms it promotes embody concerns about both competitiveness and accountability. The act has as its intent "to make the United States more competitive in the world economy by developing more fully the academic and occupational skills of all segments of the population."[6] Accountability is one of the vehicles to be used to accomplish these goals. The Perkins Act requires the development of state and local standards and measures, state assessments, and procedures for program evaluation and improvement.[7] These assessment and improvement mandates apply to local districts and to states, with most of the final responsibility resting at the state level. It is unclear how these requirements will be translated into action or how they will affect ongoing formal or informal accountability systems at the local level.
This project focuses on the juncture of local and state accountability in vocational education. Specifically, we are interested in understanding local accountability systems in vocational education, the way they operate, and the data that support them. We also are interested in the limitations inherent in existing local systems and the effects of federally mandated accountability requirements on these systems.
The present Note looks at accountability at the local level; a future report will explore the conjunction of local and state/federal initiatives. The reason we begin at the local level is that it is at this level that a competitive workforce is either achieved or not. It is at this level that programs are initiated, continued, and canceled; that students enroll, continue, drop out, or complete; that skills are learned; and that hiring occurs and workers succeed or fail. It is only with data from the local level that we can judge the success of our system of vocational education, and ultimately it is at this level that federal and state policies either advance or hinder the competitiveness of America's workforce.
SITE VISITS
To examine local accountability in greater detail, we visited vocational education programs in five states: California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Oklahoma. The selection was based on geographic diversity and the presence of one or more strong accountability-related factors, such as a statewide occupational competency system, a set of performance standards, or innovative occupational assessment tools.
Initial contacts were made with the office responsible for vocational education within each State Department of Education. We spoke with program staff who were familiar with the state's efforts in vocational education assessment and program monitoring and/or accountability, and we collected related documents.
Based on recommendations from the state's Office of Vocational Education and from other RAND and National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE) researchers familiar with activities in the state, we arranged to visit at least two local service providers. Depending upon the organization of the state's vocational education system, these providers were area vocational technical schools, joint vocational school districts, comprehensive high schools, vocational high schools, and/or community colleges.
At each site we interviewed administrators (e.g., the superintendent, principal, vocational coordinator, and program coordinator), instructors, students, employers, and, occasionally, parents. We spoke with approximately 20 people individually or in small groups. We also collected documents describing the school's goals, programs, assessments, and accomplishments.
These interviews and documents permitted us to test and refine our ideas about local accountability. The insights we gained from these conversations are reflected in the discussions that follow: we draw upon them for general formulations as well as for specific examples.
OVERVIEW OF THE NOTE
This Note is divided into five sections. Section 2 provides a brief discussion of the nature of accountability in educational systems and describes a conceptual framework for accountability in vocational education at the local level. Section 3 presents a detailed composite description of a local accountability system that one might find in operation in vocational programs around the country. Section 4 discusses the limitations in practice that effectively prevent local accountability systems from mirroring our conceptual model. Section 5 presents a summary of our interim results and conclusions.
[1]General Accounting Office, Training Strategies: Preparing Noncollege Youth for Employment in the U.S. and Foreign Countries, GAO/HRD-90-88, Washington, D.C., May 1990.
[2]These two goals are as follows: (1) "American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy." And (2) "Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship." The White House, DFO1()America 2000: The President's Education Strategy, Washington, D.C., April 1991.
[3]The White House, 1991. For a wide range of comments on this proposal, see The William T. Grant Foundation Commission of Work, Family, and Citizenship and the Institute for Educational Leadership, Voices from the Field: 30 Expert Opinions on "America 2000," The Bush Administration Strategy to "Reinvent" America's Schools, Washington, D.C., 1991.
[4]For example, see The National Council on Education Standards and Testing, Raising Standards for American Education, Washington, D.C., January 1992; W. Johnston and A. Packer, Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenty-first Century, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN, June 1987; Science, Education, and Transportation Program, Office of Technology Assessment, Performance Standards for Secondary School Vocational Education, Washington, D.C., April 1989; "One Nation, One Curriculum?" Newsweek, April 6, 1992, pp. 59-60.
[5]The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-392).
[6]Ibid., Section 2.
[7]Ibid., Sections 115, 116, and 117.