During the past several months many of us have been anxiously following the development of new federal legislation which will determine the future of the federal investment in vocational education. While the proposals among the House of Representatives, Senate, and the Clinton administration vary considerably, there are some common elements.
The most obvious is the streamlining of federal programs and funding sources, which is called a "block grant." The Clinton administration's proposal is unique in that it focuses only on streamlining the existing Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education and Applied Technology Act of l990 with the School to Work Opportunities Act of l994, and continues the emphasis on reforming the education system to be more responsive to workforce preparation. The proposals in the House and Senate are much more comprehensive and combine a variety of federally funded job training, adult education, and vocational education programs into one large block grant directed to each state. Within these block grants there are several funding "streams" that require funds to be used for a particular client or population group, some directed to educational institutions while the rest may go to alternative delivery systems created at the state or local level.
Although each of these proposals is designed to provide as much flexibility to the states as possible, there is tremendous variation and debate about the governance structures and administration of these block grants at the state and local levels. This has been a major issue and will be worked out over the next several weeks.
One desirable concept contained in each of the proposals is a provision for an accountability system which uses measures and standards to assess performance, similar to the requirement in the current Perkins law. Again, there is considerable variation in the approach among the proposals, but each at least attempts to establish a mechanism to measure progress and outcomes.
Because NCRVE has been extensively involved with states and localities implementing the performance measures and standards under Perkins, we have been asked to provide data and assistance to Congressional staff as the proposals are being developed. Due to this continued interest in using performance measures and standards as the basis for workforce development accountability systems, we feel it is important to share with our readers the position and recommendations the Center has made. The following is excerpted from Legislative Principles for Career-Related Education and Training: What Research Supports, a document developed by the Center, based on our research, and distributed to federal and state policymakers.
Performance measures and standards should continue to be used to gauge the success of programs and guide their continuous improvement; these program measures should incorporate newly developing academic and occupational skill standards for individuals.
By requiring states to develop performance measures and standards, the 1990 Amendments to the Carl Perkins Act helped educational institutions shift from a concern with inputs and process-related standards to outcomes. In the first round, states appear to have done a good job of developing performance measures, but their local implementation has lagged. In addition, the systems of measures and standards developed so far have often been unconnected with the other components of the 1990 Amendments (e.g., with tech-prep programs or the treatment of special populations), and states have paid little attention to how data will be used to promote program improvement. New Federal legislation should therefore stress the continued development of performance measures and standards to improve accountability; however, it should concentrate on local implementation of outcome measures to provide feedback to both students and educational institutions in the interests of program improvement.
In addition, the development of accountability measures has now proceeded to the point that several problems have emerged requiring Federal attention. For instance, some states have not yet addressed the measurement problems inherent in some outcome measures (e.g., gains in academic skills at the postsecondary level), and the reliability and validity of outcome measures have not been carefully examined. Many of these problems are too large or technical for states to address without Federal help. Moreover, states are currently swamped by conflicting demands and will flounder without explicit guidance about how to reconcile different accountability systems; at the local level, teachers and administrators are often bewildered by the different assessments and standards they face. While Federal legislation should continue to develop performance standards, Federal efforts should consider carefully the ways in which they reinforce or conflict with other standards. Also, the Federal government could help convene the various groups that are developing assessments to explore ways to make them consistent.
Performance measures and standards for programs should be connected to occupational and industrial skill standards for individuals, as these are developed. Such standards can help students understand what they need to learn, help schools decide what they need to teach, and give employers a stronger sense of the skills and abilities of applicants. Developing and administrating systems of skill standards will also provide a natural forum for cooperation between schools and employer. Skill standards should have the following characteristics: (1) They must be easily updated. (2) They must be specific enough to be a meaningful indication of the skills and abilities of workers and students, yet broad enough to allow job mobility and flexibility. (3) They must help students prepare for emerging jobs rather than declining jobs. (4) Workers, unions, employers, and educators must be involved in developing, implementing, and administrating skill standards systems. (5) They must be widely recognized and accepted by students, employers, and educational institutions. While these issues are being considered by the current pilot projects and may be addressed by the National Skill Standards Board to some extent, there has been little discussion so far about how curriculum and in-school as well as on-the-job pedagogy must change to reflect the standard.
Finally, performance standards for career-oriented education and training programs must also be linked to academic skill standards for individual students. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act established a process for creating standards that reflect the nation's goals for education. Some of these goals relate to performance in particular academic subjects, while others refer to more general thinking skills and preparation to compete in the world economy. All of these goals are relevant to career-focused education and training programs in schools and colleges and for youth and adults who are not in school.
Note: The complete text of Legislative Principles for Career-Related Education and Training: What Research Supports, MDS-900, can be ordered from the Materials Distribution Service msmds@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu, (800) 637-7652, or read online through VocServe or the World Wide Web (see Cyberspace Update ).