The Status of Standards Reform
Over the last decade, concern over our global economic status and
the role of public education in preparing workers has led to a push
for standards reform. Two converging reform strategies have emerged:
1) to create a voluntary system of academic standards (e.g.,
in math, science, English, civics) for students in kindergarten
through twelfth grade, and 2) to create a voluntary system of
industry skill standards that specify prerequisite
skills for individuals planning to enter certain industries and
occupations (e.g., electronics, health care, printing, human
services).
Standards-driven reform is not without controversy. The notion of
national academic standards, synonymous in many minds with federal
efforts such as Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994,
raises concern that local autonomy will be jeopardized. Meanwhile,
industry skill standards, when linked to public school curricula,
trigger concerns that schools will simply become a training ground to
ensure better products and services.
The question is not so much whether academic or industry skill
standards should exist. They already do -- at state, local, and
federal levels. At issue is who should be setting standards, how they
should be implemented, how the multiple and diverse standards
development efforts should be integrated, and which types of
standards will best improve learning and ensure a high-performing
workforce.
Currently, business and education officials are joining forces to
use industry skill standards as an important tool for integrating
vocational and academic curricula among secondary, post-secondary and
workplace education programs. While many concur that a coherent
system of academic and industry standards makes sense, tensions arise
over who should lead the shaping of such a comprehensive effort:
educators? business leaders? parent coalitions?
Business has asserted greater influence over public schooling in
recent years, citing as motivation its contribution to the taxbase
and its need to maintain economic competitiveness through
well-prepared workers. Some are concerned that an industry-dominated
agenda, driven by market considerations, would sacrifice, over time,
a well-rounded education. But most, including business leaders,
acknowledge that schools must also prepare students to be literate
citizens, able to contribute to their communities and make informed
decisions as voters.
The challenge facing policymakers is to determine how and to what
degree academic and industry skill standards systems should be
integrated. To make sound decisions, policymakers need to understand
the complexities involved in standards-based reform and cross-sector
collaboration.
This Policy Brief reviews the issues surrounding standards
reform, with a particular eye on the use of industry standards. It
discusses the history and evolution of the role of schools in worker
preparation, describes types of standards currently under
development, proposes ways to create a more coherent standards
infrastructure, and elaborates on the tensions that must be navigated
at various stages of development and implementation.
The Past: A Dual Track System
Throughout the years, school reforms have more or less paralleled
fluctuations in labor market demands. During the industrial
revolution at the turn of the century, for example, educational goals
reflected the skills needed by the manufacturing industry: e.g., a
seventh or eighth grade level of literacy and a day or two of skill
training (Tucker, 1995). Meanwhile, those training for management or
professional positions were given more extensive general education
with few job specific applications.
Over time, a two-tiered system evolved, comprising an academic
track for college-bound students and a vocational track for the
non-college bound. By providing the first federal funding
specifically designated for vocational education programs, the
Smith Hughes Act of 1917 served to further reinforce this dual
system.
The duality continued for several decades, with increased funding
for vocational education coinciding with peak periods of economic
activity (e.g., World-War II). However, concerns were raised that
vocational track students were consigned to an inferior education.
Later, this criticism expanded to question the quality of the entire
educational system. Reports and studies of the last decade (Nation
at Risk, 1983; America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages,
1990) point to the high numbers of students entering the labor force
without the requisite academic and work-related skills needed to
succeed in an increasingly competitive workforce.
Disturbed by this trend, industry has led the push for reforms
that equip students with the adaptable, higher level skills needed
for a "high performance," decentralized workplace where workers are
required to take on greater responsibility, collaborate effectively,
and become more involved in decision-making processes. Several
national reports in recent years underscore industry's demand for
employees with competencies in these areas (Commission on the Skills
of the American Workforce, 1990; CCSSO, 1995; SCANS, 1991).
The Present: Greater Integration
The move to create an integrated academic and vocational system is
an attempt to address these high performance workplace needs. Since
the early 90s, state and federal government proposals have aimed to
upgrade the caliber of curriculum by creating a coherent system of
aligned standards and assessments. These standards and assessments
are designed to promote high level competencies through applied,
work-based learning experiences.
The passage of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act (Perkins II) in 1990 significantly
advanced this concept of integrated academic and industry standards
by encouraging broad-based consensus building. This pivotal law
required vocational education programs to develop and implement a
system of performance standards, assessment measures, and services
that provide "strong experience in and understanding of all aspects
of the industry students are preparing to enter, including planning,
finance, management, technical and production skills, underlying
principles of technology, community issues, labor issues, and health,
safety and environment" (Perkins II).
Overseas examples also fueled support for standards. Successes of
other standards and certification systems in industrialized nations
such as Japan, Germany, Denmark and Canada led the Bush and Clinton
Administrations to champion standards as the cornerstone of their
education and labor reform agendas. In 1992, the U.S. Departments of
Labor and Education jointly initiated funding for projects to develop
industry skill standards in 22 diverse industries such as
agricultural biotechnology, electrical construction, printing and
health care. All 22 projects are expected to have final standards, as
well as assessment & certification procedures, by Fall of 1996.
The standards movement reached new heights in 1994 when Congress
passed three interlocking pieces of legislation: the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act, Goals 2000: Educate
America Act, and Improving America's Schools Act, which
jointly promote the development of voluntary systems of national
academic and industry skill standards and assessments.
In 1994, the U.S. School-to-Work Office, housed under both the
U.S. Departments of Labor and Education, provided grants to help each
state develop a comprehensive plan for students' school-to-career
transition. This year, school-to-work implementation grants are
providing "venture capital" to states whose comprehensive plans
include, but are not limited to: partnering with multiple agencies
and organizations; integrating school-to-work with other reforms,
workforce development plans, and economic development plans;
combining work-based and school-based learning; using portable skill
standards and certification; and providing universal access to
school-to-work programs.
The Future: Streamlining and
Consolidation
Current Congressional proposals, such as block granting numerous
programs to states, sends a clear message: Coordination is not
enough. Several pending bills would consolidate over 100
vocational education, training, and school-to-work programs currently
in place into a single workforce preparation block grant. Fueling
this movement are studies such as a 1993 General Accounting Office
report, which revealed that many of these programs duplicate services
to targeted populations. Moreover, conflicting requirements and
operating cycles hamper general service delivery. Opponents to block
grants, however, worry that such efficiency efforts will go too far,
leading to funding cuts that cripple needed programs.
Several proposals before Congress would create new funding
streams, most likely sending block grants to the governor of each
state. This would shift responsibility for such activities as
negotiating allocation formulas and monitoring equity compliance from
state departments of education to the governor or his/her designee.
New relationships with the Governor's Office will need to be forged,
not only by state departments to facilitate strong state leadership,
but by districts as well.
Tensions in the Standards Debate
Forging these new relationships will be made easier if a common
level of understanding is reached about how standards are defined,
developed and implemented.
Creating Common Definitions and Formats. Whether standards
are academic or industry-related, they should convey expectations of
what individuals should know and be able to do. Developing a
consistent, high quality format for standards, however, has been
hampered by a lack of consensus about what form standards should
take, their purpose, and their level of detail. Surprisingly little
agreement has been reached even within projects sharing the same
goals and funding sources. Existing standards differ significantly in
breadth, depth, specificity and many other important dimensions,
largely due to the prevailing philosophy of the lead group
responsible for development.
This confusion is a significant obstacle as groups of educational
professionals, industry leaders and policymakers attempt to develop
and implement academic and industry standards. In order to provide
some clarity, a typology for standards currently under development is
suggested in Sidebar One.
To facilitate the standards development process, some suggest that
jobs be grouped according to the skills needed to perform them,
rather than grouping them according to their job titles or industry
group (Tucker, 1995).
The Feasibility of Standards Reform. Supporters contend
that a standards-driven instructional system, coordinated across
industry and education, could benefit many cross-sections of society.
Workers, for example, would have "portable" credentials giving them
greater mobility to pursue positions with higher wages, better job
security and opportunity for advancement. Employers would have
uniform criteria to recruit, screen, and place employees more
efficiently. Students would have a clearer set of directions to help
them prepare and set goals for future employment. Educators would
have guidelines for designing curriculum and instruction at a more
consistent and higher level for all students. Finally, consumers
would have an accountability infrastructure for judging the quality
of performance by schools, programs, workers and students.
But critics remain skeptical. Apart from philosophical concerns
mentioned earlier, many worry about the ability of a standards-driven
system to produce universally positive results. They fear that a
system of standards, without the resources necessary to carry out
genuine changes, will simply raise expectations without leading to
any real results.
Several related implementation issues exist. For example, how will
those at the school level be aware of, or be able to adopt, the
numerous academic and industry skill standards being developed at the
national, state and local levels? Others point out that most service
providers currently lack the training and capacity necessary to
support students and workers in developing the skills required by new
standards. Is it realistic, for example, to expect that teachers will
have the appropriate professional development and the time necessary
to upgrade their instructional strategies to address both vocational
and academic standards? If not, how long will it take to retrain
them, how much will it cost, and who will pay?
Coalition Building. Policymakers who have built support for
standards have typically done so by arguing they will be created
through a broad-based deliberative process. Development should
include balanced representation from all constituencies that have a
direct material interest in the resultant standards (workers, labor
organizations, K-12 and post-secondary educators, employers,
professional associations, consumers, government).
Such consensus building is not simple. Education and business
often lack a process for communicating among themselves. Partly, as a
result, they have mixed success with collaboration that leads to
genuine systemic reform. If the joint product of these disparate
groups is to be useful and acceptable to all, it must be developed
through careful facilitation and coordination. In
Sidebar Two is an example of a standards
development process that illustrates ways to optimize coalition
building.
Deciding when different stakeholders' input should be included is
another issue. Some propose that business constituencies direct the
development of industry skill standards while education
constituencies direct academic standards development. Others have
proposed that educators lead all standards development up until the
later high school years, at which time industry skill standards tend
to play a more predominant role. Within the skill standards
development process, similar questions exist. For example, at which
point should the opinions of on-line workers, supervisors or
employers be included?
Another source of tension is that standards, once developed, may
serve different uses for different groups. Educators, for example,
increasingly want less prescriptive and less narrowly defined
standards. On the other hand, business typically desires a more
specific level of standard articulation because of intended uses
(e.g., to use skill requirements for hiring and promotion). Thus,
"translation" between groups is often required for an integrated set
of standards if all intended uses across constituencies are to be
satisfied.
Equity. A driving force behind support for standards-based
reform is the desire to raise capability levels of all students and
workers. But is it reasonable to expect that all students and
workers, including those who are limited-English proficient or
physically or mentally disabled, meet the same set of high standards
at the same time and in the same way?
Proponents believe that if standards are developed and widely
disseminated, all segments of society will understand the
requirements for reaching high levels of performance and,
consequently, have a fairer opportunity for success. However, others
worry that higher standards will only widen the gap between the haves
and have nots because disadvantaged groups will not be provided the
support necessary to achieve at higher levels. Equally important is
developing assessment practices to measure whether standards have
been met that consider the variable learning and performance styles
of all students.
Equity problems have already surfaced in the performance-based
assessment movement. In some cases, achievement gaps appear to widen
between traditionally low and high performing groups as new forms of
assessment are introduced. Some analysts predict that because of
legal protections ensuring equal educational access for females,
minority group members, and persons with handicaps, some proposed
sets of standards and related assessment systems may be challenged
under existing civil rights laws (Pullin, 1994). These standards may
be challenged for their potential ability to lead to exclusion from
certain job or educational opportunities. Such a scenario underscores
the importance of consulting with the special education or the
second-language development community during the standards and
assessment development process.
Continual Updating. Knowledge and skill requirements are
constantly changing in the workplace. For standards to be maximally
useful, development efforts must balance current business needs with
anticipated future needs. Standards should not be static; given the
rapid pace of industrial transformation, they should be continuously
updated to reflect current industry and employment realities. This
updating is consistent with business organizational change strategies
that promote continuous improvement, such as Total Quality
Management.
At the same time, standards cannot be so future-oriented that they
produce employees without currently needed skills. A 1995 survey of
over 4,000 private firms conducted by the National Center on the
Educational Quality of the Workforce found that, contrary to popular
opinion, "high performance" work systems are still more the exception
than the rule. The demand is for standards that are both grounded in
current workforce conditions and reflective of likely, as opposed to
highly speculative, future needs.
Today's technology can play a major role in ensuring that
standards stay current. Databases and on-line networks can be used to
update, disseminate, and validate standards before they become
obsolete or dated.
Portability of Certification. Researchers argue that
national voluntary standards are key to preparing an internationally
competitive workforce. For the most part, the business community also
supports centralized, nationalized skill standards and associated
assessments. Unlike other countries, however, education and training
in the U.S. is highly decentralized and does not lend itself readily
to a top-down approach. This means that a voluntary national system
of standards-based certification and accreditation must allow states
and localities the flexibility to determine for themselves what
students and workers should know and be able to do. But in order for
certification and accreditation to be portable across states and
regions, some degree of local flexibility may have to be sacrificed.
Standards Development in the
States
To develop a skill standards and assessment system, state
leadership is imperative. States are making progress developing skill
standards systems. A number are working closely with industries to
define the skills required in the modern workplace (Ganzglass and
Simon, 1993). Several states have governance structures, such as
state skill standards boards, to provide assistance in such work as
developing and implementing skill standards and establishing
partnerships between schools and industries. Only a few, however,
have begun to link skill standards with academic standards through
various collaborative means and have begun to develop certifications
that lend themselves to portability.
According to a 1993 survey of state vocational-technical education
agencies and their use and development of skill standards, 48 states
use occupational skill standards for curriculum development, 47 for
articulation between secondary and postsecondary programs, and 42 for
assessing acquired skills (Institute for Educational Leadership,
1993). A substantial portion of the state-level skill standards
activities are being conducted through consortia, such as the
Vocational Technical Education Consortium of the States, with member
states regularly reviewing and adding to the pool of standards.
Despite these reports of widespread development of, use of, and
collaboration on skill standards across the states, no one set of
skill standards has been adopted across all states, and no more than
half are using a common set of standards for a particular occupation
(Wills, 1994).
States in the FWL Region
Two of the four states in the Far
West Laboratory (FWL) region, Arizona and Utah, received
federal School-to-Work implementation grants this year ($3.6
million and $2.4 million, respectively). The remaining two states,
California and Nevada, while they did not receive federal
School-to-Work funds this year, have designed alternative
methods for continuing work in this area.
Arizona. Since 1989 Arizona has conducted occupational
analyses to determine the occupational and academic skills needed to
perform particular occupations. These skill standards are intended to
be compared with the new academic subject matter standards (to
replace the state's Essential Skills, i.e., content standards)
currently under development at the state level. According to the
state's school-to-work proposal submitted by the Governor's Office, a
comparison with applicable products from the national skill standards
projects, as well as those produced by other associations, is also
intended, to keep standards current and comprehensive.
The statewide school-to-work plan describes a comprehensive system
emphasizing a high level of basic skills and academic knowledge
integrated with general workplace skills and initial occupational
skills to prepare all 12th grade students for postsecondary
education, postsecondary training or entry into the workforce. The
system will emphasize career guidance and will provide work-based
learning opportunities and a diverse set of career pathways to all
students. It is planned that all students will have received a
certificate of initial mastery (CIM) in their chosen career path or
major by the 10th grade and all 11-12th grade students will complete
a high school diploma, career portfolio and workplace-specific or
higher education placement test. Local planning and implementation
grants will be awarded in Winter 1996.
California. California has outlined an extensive
School-to-Career system, in which issues surrounding the integration
of academic and industry standards are specifically addressed. This
system was outlined by the Governor's School-to-Career Task Force, a
collaboration of industry, education, state agency, and business
representatives. The California Department of Education is currently
collaborating in the development of a template for performance-based
assessments, using grade-level content standards. This template, part
of the Career-Technical Assessment Program (C-TAP), will be adaptable
to new and emerging career pathway programs. The template is based on
both content and performance standards and includes portfolios,
on-demand problem solving, and other performance-based activities.
In addition, State Superintendent Delaine Eastin has proposed the
Golden State Achievement Certificate as a requirement for graduates
of the class of 2004. The Certificate is part of the Department's new
Challenge initiative, which includes career preparation studies as
part of the graduation requirements for all students. As such, the
Certificate would address workplace readiness, as well as academic
skills.
Nevada. Nevada's state legislature has provided $2 million
in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to implement a statewide school-to-work
transition initiative. Nevada's state planning team -- made up of
members from across state agencies, community colleges, labor
organizations, etc. -- the Nevada Workforce Agencies, has developed,
as part of the Nevada 2000 school reform plan, a school-to-work
transition plan in which the Nevada Department of Education along
with other state organizations and associations, will identify
necessary skills, learning contexts, and work-based learning
opportunities to enable students to "compete in a global economy and
exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship"
(School-to-Work Goals from the Nevada 2000 plan).
This school-to-work initiative, because of the availability of
state funds, has entered the implementation stages. Four regional
partnerships are established to provide local leadership and a
governance system to serve all geographic areas of the state. The
Nevada Workforce Agencies also developed and approved the criteria in
the application guidelines for local implementation grants. The
guidelines provide a structure for providing career development to
all students and a curricular structure emphasizing career
paths/majors, secondary to postsecondary education program
articulation, and work-based learning opportunities.
As yet, there has not been a strong focus on industry skill
standards, although their state funding is fostering considerable
local momentum in broad-based standards development. Their state
planning team has also recently expanded its membership to include
business community representation, in order to address some of the
industry skill needs.
Utah. Utah's statewide school-to-work plan, awarded a $2.4
million implementation grant for this year, is designed to be closely
aligned with three other major statewide initiatives: its Five-Year
Strategic Plan, its Centennial Schools program to promote the
innovative restructuring of schools, and the development of a core
curriculum guided by high standards. A key part of its school-to-work
effort is a program that provides each student with a Student
Educational Occupational Plan (SEOP), which includes a career major,
career awareness and exploration opportunities, and work and/or
service learning experiences.
The state has placed a strong emphasis on technology. They will
also be using their state electronic network, UTAHNET, to integrate
and connect various information and technical assistance resources to
schools and career preparation programs. Distance learning programs
will assist students in rural areas.
Skill standards development is occurring in cooperation and
consultation with employers and other stakeholders. Student skills
will be certified and portable, by integrating industry and academic
standards and learning from the standards other national
associations, national standard's projects and others have already
developed and implemented.
The state also provides local school districts with categorical
funding to ensure that Applied Technology Education programs have the
resources for equipment, curriculum, and training updates. Ten
percent of those funds are allocated on the basis of documented
student placement; another ten percent is allocated on the basis of
their skill certification.
Conclusion
States currently face a formidable challenge. The development and
integration of standards remains complicated and largely uncharted.
What is clear is the importance of creating standards with all
interested parties at the same table. Standards have a greater chance
of being widely supported, meaningful and practical when they are
developed through a carefully facilitated process that considers the
needs and interests of all sides.
Setting standards is important, but it is only a first step.
Equally important are other related education and worker preparation
program reforms, such as implementing performance-based assessments
and certifications, incentive systems and professional development.
When aligned to support the attainment of standards, many hope that
together these efforts will create an effective infrastructure to
guide the improvement of all students' transitions through school and
the world of work.
Many voice a familiar caution that raising standards without
raising resources will ultimately prove to be an exercise in
futility. Even so, laying out a clear vision of what students need to
know and do in order to succeed, others say, is not only fair but
ought to be a reform strategy to which everyone can agree.
Sidebar One: Types of Standards
Currently Under Development
The following general definitions provide a typology of standards
currently under development. These standards sometimes overlap and
are best used in conjunction with one another, as part of an
integrated system.
Core academic standards cover school subject
matter areas such as mathematics, language arts and science, the
necessary building blocks for functioning as a member of society as
well as for developing career-related skills. An example of a science
standard is one that requires a student to demonstrate that he/she
"knows that by eating food, people obtain energy and materials for
body repair and growth" and "can design a well-balanced diet."
Workplace readiness standards cover generic skills and
qualities that workers must have in order to learn and adapt to the
demands of any job. Recent studies (SCANS, 1991 and CCSSO
Workplace Readiness Consortium, 1995, Revised) have pointed to
interpersonal skills, critical thinking and problem-solving,
communication, and information and technology skills as keys to
success in the future workplace.
Program specific standards address the knowledge and skills
needed for a particular program or career focus, such as humanities,
arts, or industry-specific areas (e.g., health care, electronics,
human services, printing). Within industry-specific standards, there
are three additional layers: 1) industry-core standards that
cover skills needed in nearly all the occupations of a particular
industry; 2) occupational family standards, which include the
skills and knowledge needed to perform functions across a family of
occupations in a particular industry (a variant of occupational
family standards examines common skills, or "cross-functional
skills," not only within industries but across industries -- e.g.,
retail skills cross over several industries); and 3) job-specific
standards, which relate to skills of a specific occupation. In
the agricultural biotechnology field, for example, a technician is
required to have certain job-specific technical skills such as the
ability to "maintain and analyze fermentation materials" (National
FFA Foundation, 1994).
Each type of standard listed above can take the form of a content
or performance standard. Content standards refer to what we
expect individuals to know and be able to do (Kendall & Marzano,
1994). Regardless of the intended use, content standards should
consist of two parts -- cognitive, indicating the type of knowledge
expected, and behavioral, which specifies how a student applies that
knowledge. Performance standards indicate levels of
achievement or competency within a content area, e.g., advanced,
proficient and basic.
Sidebar Two: One Approach to Standards
Development Through Coalition Building
Policymakers who wish to adapt industry skill standards and
integrate them into their other educational reform efforts, may wish
to follow the methodology used by the National Health Care Skill
Standards Project, directed by Far West Laboratory. Several lessons
were learned during the course of this project, including:
Don't Reinvent the Wheel. Gather any analyses
or related research that helps to identify the specific skills
required in the industry, within and across specific occupations or
occupational clusters. Review work done by other professional
associations or agencies in developing sets of competencies required
by industry. This research can be synthesized and summaries drafted
that are categorized by skill area. These summaries and existing
examples of standards could be organized in a project database.
Create an Inclusive Drafting Process. Bring together
stakeholders (e.g., representatives from industry, labor, and
education, parents and students) to begin drafting industry
standards. Convene separate committees, representing an array of
expertise relevant to the skills necessary for the industry, the
designated occupational cluster, and/or individual occupations.
Drawing on the skill area summaries, facilitated group discussion,
and their own expertise, members of committees then formulate a draft
version of the standards, to be subject to review and validation.
Ensure Validity and Clarity of Standards Using Multiple
Forums. To ensure conceptual soundness and broad applicability,
the review process should be quite extensive and include multiple
methods. For example:
The authors would like to thank Barbara Nemko & Sandra Sarvis
for overall comments and revisions. In addition, we would like to
thank the State Departments and Governor's Offices in our four-state
region for their assistance and input in this Brief.
State Contacts
Arizona:
- William Morrison, Director, School-to-Work Division
- Governor's Office of Community and Family Program
- (602) 542-2315
-
- Charles Losh, Director of Vocational Education
- School-to-Work Division
- Arizona Department of Education
- (602) 542-5106
California:
- Robert Hotchkiss, Deputy Director
- Program and Policy Development
- Employment Development Department (EDD)
- Governor's Office
- (916) 654-8656
-
- Sonia Hernandez
- Chief Advisor and Policy Coordinator to the Superintendent of
Public Instruction
- (916) 657-5485
Nevada:
- Phyllis Rich, Director
- Occupational and Continuing Education
- Nevada Department of Education
- (702) 687-3144
-
- Barbara Weinberg, Administrator
- Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation
- (702) 687-4310
-
- Janet Eckle, State Coordinator, North
- School-to-Work
- Nevada Department of Education
- (702) 888-0455
Utah:
- Scott Hess, Coordinator
- School to Careers
- Department of Education
- (801) 538-7850
-
- Lynn Jensen, Coordinator
- Integrated Curriculum and Student Services
- Department of Education
- (801) 538-7851
References
- Brustein, M., & Mahler, M. (1993). AVA guide to the
school-to-work opportunities act. Alexandria, VA: American
Vocational Association.
- Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act of
1990, 10 U.S.C. 2321.
- Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (1990,
June). America's choice: High skills or low wages!
Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
- Conference Board, Inc. (1995, June). Schools: Should business
set their agenda. Across the Board, 32(6). p. 16.
- Council of Chief State School Officers. (1995, July).
Consensus framework of workplace readiness, 1995 revision.
Washington, DC: Author.
- Ganzglass, E., & Simon, M. (1993). State initiatives on
industry-based skill standards and credentials. Washington,
DC: National Governor's Association.
- General Accounting Office. (1993, June). Multiple
employment training programs: Conflicting requirements hamper
delivery of services. Washington, DC: Author.
- The Institute for Educational Leadership (1993) An overview
of skill standards systems in education and industry, Volume
I. Washington, DC: Author.
- Kendall, J.S. & Marzano, R.J. (1994). The systematic
identification and articulation of content standards and
benchmarks. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational
Laboratory.
- Lee, C., Casello, J., May, T., Bryant, C., Foster, R.,
Goodwin, W., & Meeham, M. (1994). Occupational skill
standards projects. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education and U.S. Department of Labor.
- McCarthy, K. (1994). School-to-work. A guide for state
policymakers. National Conference of State Legislatures and
Jobs for the Future. Investing in People Project, Issue Paper No.
3.
- Morra, L. (1993). Occupational skill standards: Experience
shows industry involvement to be key. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S.
General Accounting Office.
- National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A
nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
- National FFA Foundation. (1994). National voluntary
occupational skill standards: Agricultural biotechnology
technician. Washington, DC: Author.
- Pearlman, K. (1993) The skill standards project and the
redesign of the nation's occupational classification system.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
- Pullin, D.C. (1994, Spring). Learning to work: The impact
of curriculum and assessment standards on educational
opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1).
- Resnick, L., & Nolan, K. (1995, March). Where in the
world are world-class standards? Educational Leadership,
52(6).
- Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991).
What work requires of schools: A SCANs report for America
2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
- Sheets, R.G. (1994). Skill standards systems in Germany,
Japan, and Canada: Implications for a U.S. skill standards system.
Washington DC: National Governor's Association.
- Tucker, M. (1995). On occupational clusters: Early thoughts
on organizng the work of the National Skill Standards Board.
Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
- Wills, J.L. (1994). Skill standards in the U.S. and
abroad, (four volumes). Washington, DC: Institute for
Education Leadership.
