Efforts
to broaden accounting skill standards and re-align educational requirements
have presented reformers with a series of philosophical obstacles that go
beyond the actual development of high-performance standards and requirements.
Individuals and organizations have been forced to rethink traditional
definitions of work and appreciate the boundaries that traditional industrial
categorizations have created. Furthermore, in order to promote the full
development and maturity of high-performance workplaces, those involved with
contemporary skill standards development must understand the cultural changes
necessary to expand the often-limited roles held by individuals in traditional
occupational hierarchies.
These
philosophical adaptations are particularly difficult for industries that have
operated in isolation and pigeonholed workers into narrowly defined, technical
job responsibilities. Workers' roles must be expanded so that they will be
encouraged, allowed, and required to apply all of their skills and knowledge
(technical, academic, and real world) to more proactive, more expansive, less
supervised, and less routine job responsibilities. Standards must not be merely
tolerated; organizations must be educated and convinced that the drastic
restructuring and the development of different relationships between and among
workers and managers is not only beneficial but necessary for success and
survival in a new, competitive global economy. Assessment tools and educational
programs must be developed so that employers and educators can be confident in
a worker's ability to perform proactively with minimal supervision. Workers
must become lifelong learners, willing and able to stay current on
technological and workplace changes.
In
rapidly changing industries, standards can actually become obsolete before they
are published and well before educational programs can be adjusted to prepare
students appropriately. Standards-setting efforts that dissolve after an
initial set of standards has been produced have doomed those standards to
imminent obsolescence. Even worse, groups that support such one-shot activities
may eventually hold people to standards that fail to represent reality.
Standards, assessment, and training tied to such a static certification process
has little, if any, worth to practitioners, educators, employers, or the lay
public. In the end, the most valuable contribution of the standards-setting
process may simply be the continuing dialogue between practitioners, employers,
customers, and educators. The most important characteristic of any
standards-setting process is that it promotes, or indeed requires, constant
updating and communicating.
The
accounting community's criticisms of their own educational system and
examination process offer evidence of the problems that can arise from a lack
of consistent communication between stakeholder groups and periodic revisions
of all aspects of the certification system. The disjointed relationship that
exists between accounting's education and practitioner communities has slowly
eroded the confidence that has traditionally been placed on accounting's
professional credentials (the university diploma and CPA exam). The CPA exam,
no longer capable of evaluating all of the broad-based, advisory
responsibilities that accountants must assume, is not supplemented by a dynamic
educational system that can adjust its curricula with changes in the
marketplace. Employers are dissatisfied with the inadequate skills and
abilities of their new recruits. Students are dissatisfied with their poor
preparation for and lack of understanding of the workplace. Educators are
frustrated by the mixed signals they are receiving to stay abreast of new
workplace dynamics, yet continue to produce research that has long-term,
conceptual implications.
Solid
and continuous input from both practitioners and educators is required if
education and workplace requirements are to be constantly re-defined and
re-aligned. A strong complementary relationship must exist between standards,
training, and assessment activities. A technical credential such as the CPA
exam will contribute more to the status of the profession if the practitioners
developing and updating it work with academic educators who can share their
knowledge of a wider range of disciplines and improved assessment techniques.
Accounting curricula will, in turn, be improved if educators work more closely
with practitioners to construct a learning environment in which students are
required to demonstrate broad-based competencies that are consistent with
changing workplace expectations.
The
current skill standards effort, under the direction of the NSSB, must strive to
create a system comprised of educational and assessment components that can and
will be continuously updated and improved. The 22 skill standards pilot
projects were required to develop partnerships between educators, employers,
and labor unions and allocate time and resources for periodic updates.
Unfortunately, employers took an early leadership role in the development of
standards in the pilot projects and sought to involve educators in the process
only when it moved toward the development of curricula and assessment tools.
Educators, for the most part, were handed a final document from which to
develop support materials without much industry background or knowledge to
guide them. Furthermore, the pilot projects appeared to establish a process
that offers only vague plans for keeping the standards current. Perhaps taking
lessons from these early attempts to establish standards-setting processes, the
NSSB funded the development of industry coalitions or voluntary partnerships in
1997. These partnerships, which were established early in the process, will
constitute a project management structure that will ultimately guide system
development. Although the development of standards is to remain
industry-driven, key stakeholders must be involved in all phases of the
standards-setting process so that their input can be considered and included
throughout the development of standards, curriculum, and assessment tools.
It
is hard to deny the parallels between the professional evolution of accountants
over the past century and the current movement to professionalize the workforce
in a wide range of U.S. industries. As is now the case in many contemporary
industries, accountants are required to perform an increasingly broader set of
duties that offer less guidance and more ambiguity. Accounting jobs now require
skills such as the ability to judge, problem solve, investigate, clarify, and
communicate--what contemporary skill standards developers refer to as SCANS
skills. The complexity and depth of these skills cannot be adequately
represented by technical standards that merely list and measure the performance
of isolated tasks and procedures. Instead, standards must offer guidance for
the professional workforce and a conceptual basis for which to make
non-routine, intricate activities and decisions.
Despite
the difficulties that accounting standards-setters have experienced in
attempting to develop standards systems that reflect broader responsibilities,
the call for them grows. Although there is no agreement on the form and format
of such standards, accountants, employers, educators, students, government
regulators, and the lay public appear to support standards that resemble
conventions or conceptual principles rather than narrowly defined rules and
procedures.
Unlike
the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that has not made significant
progress in their attempts to create a conceptual framework for accounting, the
NSSB has proposed the guidelines or standards framework that will be used to
endorse the standards created by voluntary partnerships. Their framework,
comprised of core, concentration, and specialty knowledge and skills, provides
a consistent structure and terminology for those developing the standards. It
is broad enough so that standards-setters can develop the specific skills and
competencies of the standards in an autonomous and independent fashion. If
anything, the structure for standards, as it is being developed by the NSSB,
will gain the support of the various stakeholders since it embodies the
philosophy that skill standards need to be industry-driven and flexible enough
to adapt to the changing demands of the high-performance workplace. Standards,
although there is no empirical evidence to support them, are thought to play a
central role in a new system of education and workforce preparation by
providing timely and accurate information to educators, employers, and workers.
Skill
standards do not function in a vacuum. They affect many individuals and
organizations. The success and sustainability of standards systems demands
adequate time for initial planning, research, and experimentation.
Standards-setters need to understand and appreciate the sweeping effects of
their efforts: the threats standards pose, the territories that will be
infringed upon by standards, and the dynamics that surround the
institutionalization of standards. Understanding such issues requires time and
coherent direction. More importantly, understanding requires solid
communication and support from all of those involved.
The
accounting profession has often been given inconsistent signals from government
regulatory agencies and the public regarding their latitude to set and govern
their own standards. Although the FASB has been established as the profession's
sole standards-setting body, it is constantly criticized for taking too long to
establish standards. Regulatory efforts often threaten to overturn their power
and authority.
The
NSSB has taken proactive steps to guarantee the support of the constituency
groups that, if not supportive, could ultimately present insurmountable
obstacles for the development of a national system. First, the NSSB has
established itself as the governing body that will endorse, direct, and promote
standards, but that it will not develop and implement the standards. Second,
the NSSB has, since its inception, stressed the importance of firmly
establishing voluntary partnerships among those that will be ultimately
responsible for the skill standards and certification process--educators,
employers, union representatives, and community-based organizations.
Despite
a master plan that appears to be well-planned and orchestrated, the NSSB may
suffer from many of the difficulties that the FASB experienced in attempting to
develop a solid basis for and understanding of the standards-setting process
before acting. Without proper understanding, the NSSB may be accused of acting
too slowly, addressing the wrong issues, and handling issues incorrectly. They
must, therefore, stress the necessity of adequate time to develop and pilot
test different aspects of a national skill standards system. Although not used
to produce tangible results, having adequate time will allow the NSSB to avoid
costly mistakes that could jeopardize the entire effort.
With
the expansion of accountants' duties, the certification process in accounting
has been subjected to increasing criticisms for not reflecting actual work
experiences--a well-known controversy in all certification systems, especially
those in which certified practitioners have traditionally had limited formal
responsibility. Narrowly defined assessments do not provide all of the
information that consumers need to make informed decisions and therefore fail
to protect public interest by limiting risks. They limit consumer choice by
decreasing the supply of practitioners and, therefore, increase the prices that
consumers must pay for services. Although there is no established gauge to
monitor the magnitude of these disadvantages to consumers, advocates of the
current national skill standards movement hope that the negative aspects of
certification will be minimized by the benefits that a better trained workforce
offer to society and individual consumers. In addition, the NSSB's new
certification scheme resembles more of a stepladder approach to certification
than a one-time examination. Workers will be progressively evaluated as their
knowledge becomes more occupationally specific (after attaining broad- and
industry-specific skills). Their credentials and job opportunities will match
their level of skill advancement.
Despite
the potential for certification to act as a gatekeeper and keep supply down and
drive up the prices of services, it has many advantages that skill-standards
advocates hope to achieve through the work of the NSSB. Established standards
and assessments facilitate employment mobility and provide consistent
information about skills and abilities to prospective employers or clients. An
established and consistent certification process, as demonstrated by the
Automotive Service Excellence initiative created by the National Automotive
Technician Education Foundation, increases the public's trust in practitioners
and helps promote a sense of professionalism.
One
conclusion that emerges clearly from this analysis is the importance of an
institutional standards-setting infrastructure that is led by practitioners.
Professional organizations, founded and comprised of practicing accountants,
have directed the discussion about accounting skill standards and educational
requirements since the profession was established in the late 19th century.
Despite the fact that regulatory agencies have periodically threatened the
private sector standards-setting infrastructure, the system has managed to
maintain its distance from non-accountant business interests and governmental
regulators who conspire to define accounting procedures and, therefore,
accountant skills to meet their short-term needs. One important motivation for
keeping standards setting in the private sector is the ability to control and
upgrade the professional image of accountants through standards. Accountants
have been particularly interested in trying to achieve the same status and
prestige as professions such as medicine and law that direct their own
standards and certification processes. Outsiders in the standards-setting
process often limit the prestige and image of the profession.
Pressures
to manipulate professions and trades from the outside have been important in
strengthening the drive of practitioners to maintain control over their
standards-setting processes. Although the NSSB has taken a less threatening,
adversarial position than the SEC in influencing standards development, one
reason for what appears to be overall industry support for the current skill
standards movement may be to maintain industry control and limit the potential
of outside influence. Certainly the NSSB has strenuously emphasized that all of
the standards developed under their auspices will be voluntary. Indeed, much of
the NSSB's efforts are actually directed towards gaining industry's favor and
support. Industry leaders, however, may be slow to accept the promises of
quasi-governmental agencies such as the NSSB. Instead of waiting for outside
regulatory bodies to find fault with their industry's performance and workforce
training and development efforts and attempt to take control, many industries
have chosen to take a proactive role in the development and
institutionalization of skill standards.
No
set of standards can specify all of the knowledge and skills necessary to
perform in a complex workplace environment. Similarly, no singular set of
experiences (be them classroom or workplace) can ensure the ability to apply
the necessary skills, knowledge, and insights in the most efficient, effective
manner. A broad-based certification that encourages the type of professional
performance required in high-performance workplaces must, therefore, be
comprised of three components: (1) education, (2) hands-on experience, and (3)
an examination process to demonstrate the skills that educational and workplace
experiences develop. All of these components must be improved if they are to
work symbiotically and ensure that employees are capable of complex workplace
roles and responsibilities.
Accounting
educators and practitioners, realizing the growing gap between the training
that accounting students receive and the skills employers need, are currently
revising their curricula and certification requirements. Initially,
policymakers focused on increasing the number of hours required in school and
work experiences without specifying what those increases meant in terms of
added skills and knowledge. This approach has been criticized, however, for not
supplying sufficient information to build a uniform training program and ensure
consistent accounting services. There is a similar thrust for outcome standards
in the current skill standards movement as industry leaders and the public
demand better quality performance at the workplace and are less satisfied with
the traditional efforts by educators and trainers that stress seat-time and
hours of training for workers.
Today's
employees need a mix of classroom and workplace experiences that are tied to
exact outcome measures. The quality of classroom and workplace experiences must
be specified and firmly established. Specifying educational requirements that
are in line with new workplace demands has been especially difficult for
academic programs, which are run by educators that often have little first-hand
experience with the workplace. The experience of schooling must support
internship experiences in the workplace. Given constant communication and
partnership between the academic and practitioner communities, a young person
who goes through all of the requirements will gain a variety of experiences
that together will provide a broad background and preparation--a professional
preparation. The relationship that is being developed between the NSSB and the
National School-to-Work Office offers hope for such a combination of
experiences and a well-balanced, productive training experience. Such
relationships between education and business/industry must continue and grow.
Although
the content of the CPA exam has been criticized, its format has much strength.
The exam has varied parts and requires the candidates to demonstrate a wide
variety of knowledge and to apply that knowledge to complex situations.
Although many of the questions are objective, one-answer questions, others
require essays and the demonstration of technical, writing, and higher order
thinking skills. Therefore, the exam is more likely than multiple-choice exams
to develop into a test that can assess the judgment and problem-solving
abilities that are increasingly important in accounting, and in many other
occupations. Although they have yet to develop the assessment tools for their
standards, many developers of industry standards are using complex scenarios to
articulate standards and plan to assess the standards by requiring candidates
to demonstrate their ability to perform the duties the scenarios require.