Home » Curriculum Trends, School-to-Work

A Report on National Standards, Assessments, and Certificates in Education (Part I)

April 15, 2010

A Report on

National Standards, Assessments, and Certificates

in Education – (Part I)

Prepared for the Ohio State Board of Education

Researched and compiled by Diana M. Fessler

For further information, see http://www.fessler.com

December 10, 1996

Copyright 1996. All rights reserved. Posted in the United States. No part of this posting may be used or reproduced in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without prior written permission of the author, except that the right to print a single copy of the full document for personal use is granted, provided that it is not altered in any manner whatsoever. Permission to post this on CURE’s Web site granted by the author(s).

(Note: this article is about 60 pages in length.)

Memo by the Webmaster:

This research document outlines the plan laid out at the national level to reform education as prepared for the Ohio State State Board of Education. There are several key organizations, most of which are organizations derived from the Carnegie Foundation. In addition, there are key concepts like new governing and economic systems with standards required for accompanying certification (license).

To help keep them straight in the reader´s mind, this Web page has highlighted several of the acronyms and terms. They include in red:

  • Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM),
  • high performance work organization (HPWO),
  • National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE) New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDAC),
  • National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE)
  • National Skill Standards Board (NSSB),
  • School–to–Work (STW),
  • New Standards, and standards. Additionally,
  • systems is in purple, and
  • certificate / certification / or other credentials are in pink.

This is done for ease of reading and not in the original text.

Ohio Report´s Table of Contents

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

  • To: Members of the Ohio State Board of Education, and Dr. Goff
  • From: Diana M. Fessler, Third District
  • Date: December 10, 1996
  • RE: Standards, Assessments, and Certificates

At the close of the August State Board of Education Retreat, Ms. Purdy asked me to present a twenty minute report on a conference that I had attended earlier that week. As you will recall, I presented an oral report on the work of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) at the close of our September meeting.

The National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) is an organization dedicated to the development of a unified system of education and employment. The National Center’s (NCEE) vision is to create a national human resources development system, interwoven with a new approach to governing. This report is a summary of the National Center’s (NCEE) agenda, that is, by design and intent, applicable to all states, and it is now being implemented in many of them.

As you are well aware, the Standards for Ohio Schools: Coming Together to Build a Future Where Every Child Counts document is coming up for a vote in the near future. It is riddled with continuous improvement, professional development, diminished authority for local schools boards, school performance standards, a call to “organize” programs according to labor market needs, a provision for worksite–based learning opportunities; all of which dovetail quite nicely with the NCEE agenda.

In preparation for giving the requested report, I outlined the various programs provided by the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). Over the course of time, the outline expanded to approximately 75 pages. Although the original outline was a useful tool for me, it was totally inadequate for submission as a written report due to the lack of formatting and the use of casual grammar and punctuation. While revising that outline, double-checking for accuracy, and creating a more reader-friendly format, this report took shape. For the sake of the children, it is my sincere desire that this report will begin a much needed discussion, and that it will lead to corrective legislative, and corrective regulatory, action.

That corrective action is predicated on first recognizing how successful the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) has been in moving their agenda forward. Collectively, the NCEE / New Standard partners “teach more than half of the public school students in the United States.” Accordingly, the NCEE agenda cannot be dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant.

There is no doubt that H.R. 1617 (known as the “Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act” or “CAREERS Act“), and the Senate version of the same bill, S. 143 (The Workforce Development Act of 1995), are extensions of the 1994 School–to–Work Act. They represent the culmination of the NCEE´s effort to get Congress to impose The System on all Americans. However, federal control is not needed to put The System in place in every state. The only thing that is needed is the federal money that will become available as a result of the legislation being passed. As an aside, although a very important one, the proposed legislation would have sent the money to the office of the governor, by-passing the General Assembly.

On September 27, 1996, the NCEE plan was temporarily halted from being incorporated into federal law when the Careers Bill was defeated in Conference Committee. Undoubtedly, the bills will be re-introduced in 1997. Nevertheless, much of the plan can be, and is being, implemented under existing laws, regulations, and/or waivers. Unless something is done to stop it, the NCEE agenda will continue to be implemented, albeit on a less expansive scale, to the detriment of our children and grandchildren.

By not bringing forth in-depth information, for and against initiatives such as the NCEEs, state education agency employees — specifically those whose job it is to inform and advise members of the State Board of Education, members of the General Assembly, and the Office of the Governor — have disclosed, by virtue of their silence, that they either don’t know what’s going on, or they are enabling participants. To narrow the field, and to eliminate the first possibility, I am asking Dr. Goff to distribute this report to his senior staff and the division heads, for their review.

When talking about the need to restructure education, mention is often made of the practice of “leaving one’s head at the factory gate” thereby implying that workers have been in the habit of leaving their brains outside of the workplace — to the detriment of business, industry and the economy. However, when proponents of education restructuring are confronted with facts and sound reasoning — the result of not leaving one’s head at the gate — they often attempt to label their critics as uninformed or reactionary, and to label their views as mere extrapolation, misunderstanding, supposition, distortion, etc., etc., etc. Therefore, to preclude such response, and to foster constructive debate of the facts, this report is heavily footnoted. My personal comments are clearly labeled as Notes.

Because of the complexity of the material and the interwoven nature of the many facets of what I refer to as The System, additional research is needed. Accordingly, this report is a work-in-progress. I recognize that external input will inevitably produce a more comprehensive report. Therefore, I welcome submission of additional information and rebuttals, providing that supporting documentation is included with it.

Your letter of support will be very much appreciated.

Return to Table of Contents

Revision Notes

  • Dec. 17, 1996: Changes were made on page 30 (School-to-Work and Assessments) regarding Occupational Competency Analysis Profiles (OCAPs).
  • Jan 2, 1997: The most significant change is the reduction in font size to compress the file to 58 pages. Also additional information on Ohio’s alternative schools on page 46, and a postscript on page 57..
  • Jan. 10: List of New Standard Governing Board members. Pages 60-61..
  • Jan. 27: The NCEE is under investigation by the New York Attorney General. See pg. 9..

Return to Table of Contents

Introduction

  • “. . . it is essential that we create a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone – young and old, poor and rich, worker and full–time student.”.
  • “. . . a seamless system of skill development that begins in the home with the very young and continues through school, post-secondary education and the workplace.”.

– National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE)

  • “We are moving toward a seamless education system, where there is a continual lifelong learning process.”.

– Virginia Purdy, President, Ohio State Board of Education

Return to Table of Contents

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Annual Conference

As a member of the Ohio State Board of Education, I attended the First Annual National Standards-Based Reform Conference, August 8-10, 1996, in San Antonio, Texas. The Conference was sponsored by the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), an organization dedicated to the development – in the United States [not by the United States]- of a unified system of education and employment. The stated purpose of the conference was to “take stock, gather strength, and share the energy needed to move the NCEE‘s agenda forward.”

The conference literature referred to the recent Governor’s Education Summit meeting in Palisades, New York, as a major turning point in American education. NCEE literature states that there is “an increased consensus that the path to better student performance is through a broad system of standards.” Seemingly, the consensus referred to here is shared by the governors and business leaders who attended the Education Summit and by the members of the NCEE. The governors have created a new group, Achieve, to achieve better educational outcomes. Achieve‘s directors are: Governors Tommy Thompson (R-WI), Roy Romer (D-CO), John Engler (R-MI.), George Voinovich (R-OH), Bob Miller (D-NV), and James Hunt (D-NC). Other board members are: Louis Gerstner, Jr. (IBM), John Pepper (Proctor and Gamble), Robert Allen (AT&T), John Clendenin (BellSouth), George Fisher (Eastman Kodak), and Frank Shrontz (Boeing Co.). The group will monitor state progress toward restructuring schools around standards and assessments.

The governors promised during the March 1996 summit to restructure their state school systems within two years.

Return to Table of Contents

________________________________________________________________________________________

Origin of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE)

A 1986 report entitled A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century called for fundamental restructuring of American schools. The report was commissioned by the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, and the principal author was Marc Tucker, the Carnegie Forum’s Executive Director. To implement the recommendations of the report, Tucker formed the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) 1988.

Return to Table of Contents

Original NCEE Board Members

It is important to note that the original twenty-seven NCEE board members were, and still are, very influential people, most notably: Ira Magaziner, principal in the Clinton national health care plan; Mario Cuomo, Governor of New York; John Scully, then President and CEO of Apple Computer, Inc.; Vera Katz, then Oregon´s Speaker of the House; Marc Tucker; David Rockefeller, Jr.; and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was at the time a partner in the Rose Law Firm. NCEE paid Mrs. Clinton $102,000 in 1992 for her work as a consultant.

According to constitutional law scholar Karen Iacovelli, “NCEE and its payment to Mrs. Clinton are currently under investigation by New York Attorney General Dennis Vacco. As a tax–exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, NCEE has admitted to spending more than $2 million lobbying. This is not only a violation of federal and state tax statutes, but the lobbying effort and payment to Mrs. Clinton also raise other legal and ethical questions: What was the nature of NCEE ´s lobbying, and who were the beneficiaries of $2 million in “fees”? Did NCEE violate New York’s competitive bidding laws? Was NCEE , in fact, a political strategy organization using taxpayer money and the protections of tax–exempt status to advance a socialist scheme? Apparently, NCEE had a contract with the controversial Arkansas Rose Law firm to perform work that, to date, the firm is unable to identify. It is also unable to explain the $102,000 fee paid to Mrs. Clinton. While we await the results of Mr. Vacco´s legal probe, there is abundant evidence available exposing the tangled web and tentacles of NCEE and its questionable motives.”

After the National Center (NCEE) was established, NCEE/Tucker then created the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. The Commission issued America´s Choice: high skills or low wages!, a 1990 report that contained a series of recommendations to improve our position in the global economy. Membership on the NCEE board and the Commission overlapped and included Marc Tucker and Ira Magaziner. Curiously, the meeting minutes of the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB), an off–shoot of Goals 2000, record that “The Skills Commission began because Ira Magaziner resided in the State of Rhode Island, and he had been very much involved in the development of the America´s Choice report. He was asked by the then governor of Rhode Island to look at how that report might influence education and the economy, and so Ira . . . decided to engage a very large grassroots effort in looking at how to implement the national report . The recommendations that the Rhode Island group came up with were quite similar to the kinds of things that we´re hearing at the national level . . . that [were] largely translated into the School-to-Work Opportunities Act.”

Return to Table of Contents

Five Recommendations

The NCEE /Commission made recommendations to the NCEE board for the creation of five interlocking systems. The remainder of this report is divided into chapters that correspond to NCEE ‘s five systems. I refer to these systems, collectively, as The System:

  • A system to certify student readiness to enter the workforce.
  • A system of Youth Centers for those not certified labor ready.
  • A system of occupational certificates.
  • A system of finance for education and workforce training, and.
  • A system of labor market boards to pull it all together..

The magnitude and interdependence of NCEE ‘s five system can be difficult to grasp, but it is essential to do so. It may help to consider the folk tale about four men, blind from birth, describing an unknown creature after touching just a portion of it. The first man, feeling an elephant’s trunk, described it as a thick, snake-like creature. The second man, feeling the elephant’s leg, argued that it was a large, column-like creature. The third man, feeling the elephant’s ear, insisted it was a fan-like creature. Finally, the fourth man, feeling the side of the elephant’s body, described it as a giant, wall–like creature. The parts of an elephant do not convey even a rudimentary picture of the whole animal. Likewise, the parts of the NCEE ‘s family of systems do not convey the whole. This report examines the NCEE “elephant” as a whole.

Return to Table of Contents

Clinton Administration Receives NCEE’s Plan

The day after the November, 1992 elections, Tucker sent Hillary Clinton an eighteen-page congratulatory letter. In it he presented the incoming Clinton administration û through Mrs. Clinton, his fellow NCEE board member – NCEE‘s revolutionary national human resources development plan for the United States – the five interlocking systems. The plan built upon the proposals that Bill Clinton had advanced during his first presidential campaign. Tucker’s letter was also published as a 26-page booklet entitled A Human Resources Development Plan for the United States. Both the letter and the booklet declare that Clinton’s election was an opportunity to remold the entire American system by developing a national system for human resources development.

Human resources are people; remolding them is the task at hand. The main activities in human-resource management are: planning and forecasting the need for the right number of people, with the right training, to do the

  • work that needs to be done,
  • selecting people to hire,
  • training people for the job,
  • evaluating workers’ actual performance based on what was expected,
  • career planning (planning the sequence of jobs someone has until retirement),
  • compensating workers, and
  • moving people by promoting them, transferring them, or de-hiring them.

[Note: This human–resource work is done to achieve organizational goals. Envision if you will, human resources development/management system that based on national standards and assessments, and carried out on a national scale. This is what NCEE has in mind when speaking of education and workforce development.

Return to Table of Contents

NCEE’S Agenda

The NCEE agenda is four-fold:

  • Use an apprenticeship system as the foundation for putting a “whole new post–secondary training” and human resources system in place nationwide,.
  • Create a new system of labor market boards. This is the backbone of the system..
  • Concentrate on the inner cities [Note: An urban initiative?], and.
  • Take advantage of the legislation which Congress has been working on to advance the elementary and secondary reform agenda..

Return to Table of Contents

NCEE’s Family of Programs for Accomplishing the Agenda

To carry out its agenda NCEE , as the parent organization, created a family of programs, each with its own distinctive mission:

  • NCEE /The New Standards Program – In 1990, New Standards began “creating a system of internationally benchmarked standards” for student performance, and an assessment system to measure whether individuals are meeting the standards. When an individual meets the standards, as verified by assessment, he receives a document called a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). He then becomes eligible for work or more schooling. “New Standards is by far the nation’s largest and best funded program to develop a multistate system of standards and assessments to match them.”.
  • NCEE /The National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE) – The National Alliance (NARE) is a partnership of states, school districts, and organizations that focus on ensuring that all students, except the most severely disabled, attain a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). The National Alliance (NARE) focuses on “how–to” put the Certificate system created by New Standards into place..
  • NCEE /The Workforce Skills Program – The Workforce Skills Program works to influence public policy and legislation, especially regarding Certificates of Initial Mastery (CIM), School–to–Work transition systems, occupational certificates, and a national labor market system..
  • NCEE /The High Performance Management Program – This program focuses on implementing how NCEE thinks schools and other government entities should be organized and how they should be governed..

Return to Table of Contents

Overview of NCEE´s System of

Standards, Assessments and Certificates

NCEE has developed a three–tier framework for national standards, assessments, and certification.

Tier I – General standards for everyone: This tier is associated with elementary and secondary education and adult basic education. These are the “standards for what everyone in the society ought to know and be able to do to be successful at work, as a citizen and as a family member.”

When an individual meets the standards, as verified by assessment, he receives a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), and becomes eligible for work or more schooling.

[Note: Although it is audacious for anyone to presume to set such standards for others, it is even more audacious for government schools to assess — and then reward or punish people — based on whether such standards have been attained.]

Ohio´s School–to–Work Grant application discloses that the Ohio Department of Education will “begin to explore the need for the development of a Certificate of Initial Mastery.” Further into the document we read: “Ohio´s school–to–work system must . . . create certificates . . . [that are] recognized throughout the State and nation . . .” It also clarifies the design of the STW system. It includes, education and training options, curriculum and instruction, assessment, and career development.

Tier II – Standards that build on the general standards: These standards are associated with the education and training that takes place after meeting the Tier I standards for being “successful at work, as a citizen and as a family member.” Those meeting the Tier II standards and passing the performance assessments, will receive occupational certificates, permitting them to enter the workforce.

Tier III – Standards for individual jobs and for individual firms: This Tier is associated with occupational training that takes place after meeting the Tier I good worker, good citizen, and good family member standards. It then draws on the Tier II occupational standards, augmenting them with specific standards set by individual firms for individual jobs. The government would have no more to do with setting standards for Tier III than it does now, “at least at the beginning.”

Return to Table of Contents

National Impact of the NCEE Programs and Funding

Again, it is important to recognize just how very successful NCEE has been in moving their agenda of national standards, assessments and certificates along. The National Alliance (NARE) partners teach nearly 5 million students in over 9,000 schools. And, collectively the NCEE /New Standards partners “teach more than half of the public school students in the United States.” Accordingly, the NCEE agenda cannot be dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant.

Funding for the central staff, professional development program and relation functions of the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE) is provided by the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDAC) and The Pew Charitable Trusts of Philadelphia. A “substantial share of the Alliance’s (NARE´s) costs are borne by the state and school district partners. Additional funding has been provided to Alliance (NARE) partners by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, an Anonymous Donor, Apple Computer Inc., Carnegie Corporation of New York, Danforth Foundation, DeWitt Wallace–Reader´s Digest Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Xerox Corporation.”

With major support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and an anonymous donor, New Standards has involved some of the nation’s leading education experts, curriculum experts, psychometricians, and cognitive scientists in the development of the New Standards system. Part of the funding has been provided by corporations and private foundations. In addition, partner states and school districts paid NCEE membership dues that ranged from $100,000 to $500,000 per year, depending on student population.

[Note: When multiple states and districts ‘volunteer’ to participate, the result is the creation of a national system. Thus, The People, without their informed consent, have been paying for the development and implementation of a national system, certainly with state and local money, and most likely with federal dollars as well.]

Return to Table of Contents

Review

To organize standards, assessments, and certificates, the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) has developed a three-tier framework. Tier I standards are associated with elementary and secondary education and adult basic education. Tier II standards are associated with education and training of individuals after they have met the Tier I standards. Tier III standards are for individual jobs in individual firms.

NCEE expects that all students, except the most severely disabled, will meet the standards by the time they are sixteen years of age, “regardless of future career and education plans.” Those who do will receive a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), further education, and good jobs. Workers who do not possess CIMs “will be condemned to dead–end jobs that leave them in poverty even if they are working.” The standards, set at an international level, are for what everyone ought to know and be able to do to be successful at work, as a citizen and as a family member. New Standards, an arm of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), is developing the “standards and assessment system needed to make the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) a reality.”

“Much of the system is in place.”

Return to Table of Contents

System # 1: Certifying Workforce Readiness

Part A: Setting up Standards

States, districts and localities will be “permit[ted] considerable [some] freedom to come up with their own standards and examinations, providing that they are reasonably congruent [the same] as those developed by New Standards .”

– National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE)

Return to Table of Contents

Why is the CIM Needed?

“The Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) is intended to be the first tier in a three–tier system of national education and training standards.” The development of the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) system was the first of the five recommendations made by National Center on Education and the Economy’s (NCEE´s) Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce in its 1990 report, America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!

According to NCEE literature, the United States became the world’s wealthiest country by inventing and by fully exploiting mass production – using low skilled workers to produce low-priced standardized products. The NCEE asserts that mass production is obsolete, so a new system must be established.

[Note: Confining the discussion of what made our nation wealthy only to economic competitiveness, and viewing workers as uneducated, unskilled cogs in the machinery of mass production, does our forefathers a grave disservice.]

NCEE cites other developments that contribute to making mass production obsolete: declining shipping costs, improvements in telecommunications, electronic transfer of capital (money), and increased second and third world literacy levels. NCEE reports that countries with lower cost structures are also exploiting mass production and will “beat us at our own game” unless we lower the costs of goods and services by increasing hours and lowering wages, or by finding an alternative.

According to NCEE, the alternative is the creation of a demand for high–quality products and services that cannot be achieved by mass production. Firms that meet the need for non–mass–marketed goods and services will reportedly be able to demand high prices and pay high wages. Supposedly, meeting the demands of this new market will require employees to possess the knowledge and skill levels as high, or nearly as high, as the “knowledge and skills formerly required only of management and the professional staff of the firm that was organized for mass production.” Thus, we have the philosophy behind the perceived need for a national strategy to develop a system of standards geared to the needs of work.

These standards will:

  • Inform people what education and training will be “demanded,”
  • Tell providers of education and training programs what skills will be needed in the marketplace,
  • Provide an easy way for employers to determine whether the individual has the qualification needed, and
  • Inform employers whether job applicants have the knowledge and skills they say they do through certification.

However, only five-percent of employers feel that education and skill requirements are increasing significantly. Author Samuel Blumenfeld points out that,

“Apparently, the Commission found no great sense of urgency among American companies for a radical restructuring to meet skill demands that do not exist. Nevertheless, the Commission decided to anticipate the changes that American employers might be forced to make in the future, therefore making it urgently necessary to destroy every last vestige of traditional education and put an entirely new School–to–Work system in its place to help American students meet this unknown future demand.”

Building on the premise that we need a new system, NCEE believes that something is needed to compel schools to abandon “the curriculum that is taught to many students” and our system of credentialing that is based on fixed time and on course completion. The NCEE further believes that something is needed to bring an end to tracking, i.e., “academic, vocational, and general” programs. The NCEE thinks that they have that something: their Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) – a document that certifies that certain standards have been met and that the holder of it is ready for the workplace.

Return to Table of Contents

Content Standards versus Performance Standards

Even NCEE acknowledges that “Standards mean different things to different people.” To understand which standards are being met, it is necessary to differentiate between content, performance, and assessment standards. First are the Content Standards that “identify what a student should know and be able to do.”

Next are the Performance Standards; they recommend the level of achievement students should perform or demonstrate. These standards are for mathematics, English language, arts, science, and applied learning. “Applied learning refers to the ability to solve problems (See Problem Recognized – p. 52), use communication and technology tools and techniques, and work well on their own and in groups.” Performance Standards include: descriptions that have been pulled from the content standards; samples of student work, sometimes called portfolios; and commentaries to explain how the sample work meets the required standards . “Performance Standards require “a different kind of assessment system.”

Return to Table of Contents

Assessing Whether the Standards have been Met

In 1995, New Standards issued Content Standards derived from national consensus standards developed by professional societies.

[Note: It is important to understand that members of the various societies who developed the content standards, and the people developing the subsequent assessments, are not elected representatives of The People. They represent no one but themselves, their respective societies, and/or their employers.]

New Standards is run by NCEE and the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh. They are, by their own admission, “well along a path that will provide the technical means to implement the CIM plan.” Known partners are the states of Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Washington, and school districts in Fort Worth, TX; New York City, Pittsburgh, PA; Rochester, NY; San Diego, CA; and White Plains NY. The states and districts that joined New Standards did so to develop performance assessments that are set to national and international standards.”

[Note: An assessment is not a test. To assess something is to determine the value or worth of something. In the case of Tier I standards, the value and worth of people is being assessed, i.e., whether they are good workers, good citizens, and good family members.]

“To assess how well students meet the Performance Standards,” NCEE´s New Standards developed Reference Examinations . . . and a “Portfolio System that complements the Reference Examination. “Taking into account national standards, New Standards is developing two sets of assessments.” One set is for use toward the end of elementary and middle school and the other for use at the high school level. “It is this last set of assessments that will be available as the basis for awarding the CIM.” New Standards Reference Examinations are available only through Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement as part of a system of examinations and portfolios based on New Standards standards. The exams, available in English and Spanish for fourth, eighth, and tenth grades, include essay, extended open–ended responses, short–answer responses, and some multiple–choice items.

[Note: How can open–ended questions be evaluated objectively?]

Students take the New Standards Reference Examinations in three, forty–five minute classes. The scoring, which is holistic and dimensional (as opposed to scoring based on straightforward right or wrong answers), is also done by Harcourt Brace according to New Standards guidelines. Harcourt Brace then creates reports on student, classroom, school, and district performance in relation to the standards.

In June 1997, NCEE will “enter the market place to receive the value for [their] products that will allow [their] work to continue.” Specifically, New Standards is establishing a joint venture with Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement to market, publish and distribute standards, and to score the examinations.”

[Note: NCEE, et. al., will be selling their wares to schools, districts, and/or states.]

Return to Table of Contents

How State Standards Become Linked to NCEE‘s New Standards

Implying that there is local control, New Standards proclaims that “each state will determine for itself the rules governing the awarding of CIMs. . ., ” but then negates that notion by adding that states will operate “within the context established by the consortium of participating states.” “States and districts wishing to participate in the CIM system agree on a set of content standards and agree to benchmark their performance standards to a common reference standard.” States, districts and localities will be “permit[ted] considerable [some] freedom to come up with their own standards and examinations, providing that they are reasonably congruent [the same] as those developed by New Standards.” Supposedly, states and districts, “will find it relatively easy to comply with the technical standards that New Standards will require its partners to live up to.”

[Note: The very idea of New Standards presuming to permit governmental bodies [states and districts] SOME degree of liberty to adopt standards, providing that they are, for all practical purposes, the same as New Standards‘ standards, is absurd. What rational person, board, general assembly, governor, or state would for one minute surrender one ounce of liberty to these self–appointed central planners regardless of how “relatively easy” compliance might be? Yet, because of pressure to conform, or lack of knowledge, a lot of surrendering has already taken place – since, collectively, New Standards ‘ partners teach “more than half of the public school students in the United States.”

Recently, in Ohio’s School–to–Work Application, the Governor pledged to the United States Department of Labor to “continually examine and refine proficiency tests to ensure they are benchmarked to high standards.”

[Note: In light of what is taking place nationwide, one might safely assume that the reference to ensuring that Ohio “standards” are benchmarked to “high standards” is a not–too–subtle reference to the development of standards that are congruent with NCEE standards]

To ensure that all ´partners´ in the system are consistently adhering to the same standard, New Standards aspires to take on the role of national auditor, by establishing “an auditing system . . . that will ensure that the partners in the system are grading to the same standard.” “The national CIM system will provide the means for making sure that a student receiving a Certificate in one state or district has reached a standard of accomplishment substantially equal to the standard reached by a student in any other jurisdiction.”

[Note: I found the use of the word jurisdiction interesting; I wonder why it was used rather than “state or district.” Perhaps ´jurisdiction´ is a subtle reference to the CIM being recognized internationally.]

NCEE seeks a system in which districts have “delegated authority to confer Certificates of Initial Mastery (CIM).”

[Note: The result of non–adherence to The Certificate System will mean, among other things, that citizens in non-member states will not be able to receive the CIM/work permit required to secure employment in states that are members.]

The CIM is clearly an NCEE product. Therefore, school districts would be seeking the authority from the product´s owner, NCEE , to dispense their product, the CIM. Under The System, the standards, the assessments, and the Certificates of Initial Mastery (CIM) are all under the domain of a non-governmental body, the NCEE. Therefore, they cannot issue these certificates in the way that a state or district issues diplomas. Yet, NCEE speaks of districts having delegated authority to confer CIMs.

Return to Table of Contents

Who Sits on the New Standards Governing Board?

Various entities influenced the standards and the assessments, but who actually set the standards? Drawing on the work of the national societies, the standards set by other countries, and the views of the public, “the standards for the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) are set by the Governing Board of New Standards, a 65–member body that consists of governors, chief state school officers, state and local board of education members, school superintendents, college presidents and professors, chief executive officers of corporations, union presidents, youth advocates, civil rights leaders, classroom teachers, subject matter experts and people from other walks of life.” Accordingly, I contacted New Standards and requested a current list of board members and received the following response:

Dear Ms. Fessler,

The New Standards Governing Board consists of about sixty people . [Emphasis added.] This is probably the board that you were referring to. The Washington D.C. office of New Standards is located at the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). The New Standards Board of Trustees is the same board that governs the National Center on Education and Economy (NCEE), as well as the other organizations located here. The other organizations are the Workforce Skills Program, which [sic] guidelines are laid out in “America’s Choice: high skills of [sic] low wages!“, and the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE), who´s [sic] hallmark is the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM).

I hope this clarifies some questions for you. Unfortunately, I have been advised not to release the names of the New Standards Governing Board to inquiries such as yours without asking what the purpose is in having the names.

If you need the actual list of the New Standards Governing Board, you may contact Eugene Paslov, the Executive Director of New Standards, at the Washington D.C. office, (202) 783-3668. Also his Staff Assistant, Real Thornton may be able to help you as well, if Dr. Paslov is not available.

I replied:

My, such intrigue. As I mentioned on the phone, I attended the recent conference in San Antonio. At the request of our Board president, I was asked to prepare a twenty minute report for presentation at our board meeting last week. At the close of my oral report, I asked if any of my fellow board members would care for a copy of my written report, which was at the time, only an outline. Now that the board meeting is over, I am trying to pull together a respectable written report. Accordingly, I re-read NCEE materials – came across the reference to a 65-member Governing Board. Having read America’s Choice, including the appendices, it didn’t seem that the two boards would be one and the same due to the difference in size. Thus, my phone call to you. So, yes I would still like to have the current Governing Board list of members/trustees. I am thrifty, therefore would you please forward this message to Eugene or Real? Thornton.

Diana M. Fessler

Ohio State Board of Education – Third District

[Note: The following day I received, via electronic-mail, a list of forty-nine names, not the sixty or 65 previously cited. The name of the file I received was “Bd.External.” I wonder how many names are on the “Bd.Internal” list? As an aside, the reluctance of the part of NCEE to provide a complete list of members reminds me of First Lady Hillary Clinton´s reluctance to provide the names of those individuals who were working on the national health care plan.]

The majority of NCEE board members are not elected representatives of the people. Those who are elected, were not elected to put in place a national education system. In addition, it is important to note that although prominent Democrats are often associated with education restructuring, prominent Republicans have been involved as well. Regardless of how many people are on this board, or who they are, the fact remains that the members of this board set the standards for the CIM.

By their own admission, NCEE says that “future workers” without a CIM “will be condemned to dead–end jobs that leave them in poverty even if they are working.” It should be readily apparent that the NCEE Governing Board is setting up a monopoly, since there is no other source for the CIM.

[This raises a series of very important questions that need to be answered:

  • Who is on the Governing Board of the NCEE ?.
  • In which states are the NCEE and its off-shoots incorporated?.
  • How are board members compensated?.
  • And, who are the stockholders?].

Return to Table of Contents

Review – Part A

The National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) asserts that there is a tremendous gap between what our education system is producing and what they believe is needed for the United States to remain competitive in the global economy. To that end, they have developed what they consider to be a remedy that includes, in part, content, performance standards. Those who meet the Tier I standards, verified, in part, by non-objective, open-ended assessment questions, will receive a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), a passport allowing them to pursue further education or to get a decent job.

The NCEE / National Standards Governing Board sets the standards for the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). States and districts that wish to participate can come up with their own standards, but their standards and assessments must be virtually the same as those adopted by New Standards. Many states and districts have joined with the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) and are implementing The System.

Return to Table of Contents

Part B: The Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM)

The Ohio Department of Education will “begin to explore the need for the development of a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM).”The State of Ohio will implement a full range of strategies that allow all students to achieve the competencies necessary to be successful in their adult lives. This means that Ohio’s STW system must . . . create certificates . . . [that are] recognized throughout the State and nation . . .

Workers who do not possess CIMs “will be condemned to dead–end jobs that leave them in poverty even if they are working.”

– National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE)

Return to Table of Contents

National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE)

Another National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE ) offspring, the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE), co–chaired by Marc Tucker and David Hornbeck, was established in 1989 to “transform school systems, not just individual schools.”

The National Alliance (NARE) is in “partnership” with states, school districts, corporations, universities, foundations and non-profit organizations, including Arkansas, Kentucky, New York, Vermont and Washington, and districts in Pittsburgh, PA; Rochester, NY; San Diego, CA; and White Plains, NY. “Collectively, Alliance (NARE) partners teach nearly 5 million students in over 9,000 schools.”

The “hallmark” of the Alliance (NARE) “effort is the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM).” The NCEE / Alliance (NARE) has developed an Implementation Guide for schools and districts to develop a first phase Certificate system to use until a state and/or national system is in place. The guide equips Alliance (NARE) partners to implement the system by the fall semester of 1997. “The Alliance (NARE) assumes that “initially, the CIM . . . will be optional for students . . . [but] after two or three years, all [Alliance (NARE)] students will be required to achieve the CIM.”

In July 1992, the NCEE / Alliance (NARE) became one of eleven national design teams funded by the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC), which was founded in 1991. Many of the original NASDC board of directors are now serving on the board of directors of Achieve. NASDC funding helps organizations such as the National Alliance (NARE) to “break–the–mold” of today’s schools. The design teams work with ten partners including Cincinnati, OH; Dade County, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Memphis, TN; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA; Kentucky; Maryland; and five districts in the Seattle, WA area. The collective mission of these design teams is the “total reformation of our country´s education system.”

According to a newsletter published by Cincinnati Public Schools, representatives of the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) approached the Ohio Department of Education in search of a reform–minded district that would be receptive to their “break – the – mold” agenda. Reportedly, state school officials didn´t hesitate to recommend Cincinnati Public Schools. On November 1, 1995, Cincinnati Public Schools and NASDC signed an agreement “sealing the collaboration” to transform at least 24 schools — one third of the schools in the district by the year 2000. Reportedly, the choice of whether to become a New American (NASDC) school is left to each school “community.” At least 80% of each school´s staff agreed to adopt a NASDC design, and the school’s “Local School Decision–Making Committee” also approved the agreement. Funding for “total reformation” is being provided primarily through Venture Capital grants and Title I money, along with other grants from the state, and the Annenberg Foundation. The bulk of the cost is devoted to training school employees.

Return to Table of Contents

Timeline and Purpose

To understand the focus of the National Alliance (NARE), it may be helpful to first see the Alliance’s (NARE) chronological relationship to other restructuring efforts.

  • 1988 – The National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) was formed. Their goal: To put a whole new cradle – to – grave human resource education and workforce training system in place.
  • 1989 – An NCEE offspring, The National Alliance for Restructuring Schools (NARE), was formed. Goal: To ensure that all students attain a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM).
  • 1990 – Another NCEE offspring, New Standards, was formed. Goal: To create a national / international system of content, performance, and assessment standards that culminate in a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM).
  • 1991 – New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) was formed. Goal: To “break the mold” and totally reform our country´s education system.
  • 1992 – NCEE / National Alliance (NARE) becomes a New American Schools (NASDC) partner. Goal: To attain “critical mass” toward “breaking the mold” and restructuring education.
  • 1994 – Goals 2000 / National Skill Standards Board become law. Goal: To set up a system for national occupational skill standards.
  • 1995 – Cincinnati Public signs agreement with New American Schools (NASDC) and becomes an NAS / NCEE / National Alliance (NARE) partner. Collective goal: Implementation of a whole new human resource management and workforce training system based on national / international standards, assessments, and certificates.
  • 1996 – National Governor’s Summit . Goal: To restructure state school systems within two years.

Return to Table of Contents

Alliance (NARE) Programs and Tasks

While implementing the NCEE / National Alliance (NARE) agenda, the partners, including Cincinnati Public Schools, use Alliance (NARE) tools, pursue Alliance (NARE) results, engage in Alliance (NARE) strategic planning programs, participate in Alliance (NARE) professional development programs, use Alliance (NARE) technical assistance, implement the Alliance (NARE) design, and work on five integrated tasks.

[Note: It appears that a partnership with the National Alliance (NARE) is the antithesis of local control.]

States and districts that contract to become Alliance (NARE) partners commit themselves to five tasks and all of them are addressed, as much as practicable, at the same time. The tasks are:

  • Using advanced assessing techniques to assess the progress toward the [New Standards] standards.
  • Building a national and regional professional development system.
  • Redesigning health and social service programs so they “work hand in glove with the schools.”
  • Restructuring the organization and management of schools, school districts and state departments of education and the system in which they do their work.
  • Engaging the public about how the goals should be achieved.

[Note: The NCEE / National Alliance (NARE) seeks, among others things, to build a national professional development system, to connect state and local standards to New Standards, and to redesign health and social service programs and reconfigure schools. Their audacious goal of restructuring state departments of education is a direct assault on the rightful authority of state boards of education to structure their respective departments of education as they see fit. Likewise, their goal of restructuring school districts is one of usurping the rightful authority of locally elected school boards, as representatives of The People, to organize local schools as they see fit.

Return to Table of Contents

Engaging the Public

However, the most ingenious of the tasks that NCEE / The Alliance (NARE) has appointed for themselves is that of “engaging the public” in discussing how the pre–determined goals should be achieved, thereby appearing to welcome public input, while avoiding the real issues. Determining how pre-defined goals will be achieved is meaningless when compared to determining what the goals are going to be and determining who will set the goals.

[Note: For example, if someone says “Here is your airplane ticket. Your flight leaves tomorrow. How do you want to get to the airport?” Someone has already decided that you will be taking a trip. Likewise, those who have decided that the United States will have a seamless human resource development system, cradle to the grave, have already filed flight plans for us, our children, and our grandchildren.

Participating in a discussion of how we can get ready for take–off has absolutely no impact on the cost of the ticket, the safety of the plane, the training of the pilot, the time of departure, the final destination, or whether we even want to take the trip.]

Return to Table of Contents

High Schools Reconfigured

One of the NCEE / Alliance (NARE) goals is the reconfiguration of high school into two divisions:

  • the junior division corresponding to the current 9th and 10th grades, and
  • the senior division corresponding to the current 11th and 12th grades.

If the student receives a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) while in the junior division, he advances to the senior division – with honors. If the student does not earn sufficient points to get a CIM while in the junior division, he can still advance to the senior division, but he is not eligible for the ‘honors’ program.

[Note: The designation of honor student or an honor’s course is being changed from meaning that a student is excelling academically, or that the course is particularly challenging, to an indicator that the CIM was earned during the first two years of high school.]

Return to Table of Contents

Capstone Project

To receive a CIM, individuals must accumulate sufficient points (recorded by the Guidance Office) in math, English language arts, science, and a local option, and they must complete a special project called a Capstone Project. The Capstone Project must demonstrate “applied learning” in a tangible way, such as an actual product or service. The project is guided by a committee that includes a teacher/advisor, a practitioner in the field or area of interest, and another CIM candidate. The project must include a proposal approved by the committee, two progress reports made to the committee, and a final presentation to a targeted high-stakes audience to whom the practitioner or committee [not the student] could present the project.” The Capstone Project “requires substantial outside–of–school work.”

[Note: If one cannot get a good job or further education without receiving a CIM, and if out-of-school work is required in order to get a CIM, it becomes imperative for the state to provide every student with multiple opportunities for applied learning and opportunities for students to do “out–of–school work.” No mention is made where these large numbers of jobs are to come from, nor is mention made of the displacement of the currently employed school children. In the past, some students have been involved in cooperative work programs as a matter of choice, usually because they are struggling with the academic program, or because they have chosen to pursue a service – orientated occupation. Now, if all goes according to plan, such work will be universal and non–optional, and this will undoubtedly result in a longer school day, an increased number of school days, and an increase in the number of school years to accommodate on-the-job-training.]

Return to Table of Contents

Schools Move to the Work-Site

The writers of Ohio’s STW grant application acknowledge that work–site accidents are possible, and that it is a “serious legal concern that needs additional study and research and that [it] will ultimately be addressed through statute and regulation.” To address this major issue, “some of the pilot projects have contracted with a third-party intermediary to be the employer of record.”

According to the STW grant, “This approach appears to result in a “shared legal responsibility or the youth while at the work sight.”

[Note: Such an arrangement suggests that another business will be the employer, but on paper only.]

It is planned, and actually the state has given their word, that “Every student will have the opportunity to benefit from the advice and counsel provided by a workplace mentor.” These “mentors” will be trained to “assist in the instruction and evaluation of student competencies, and to work in consultation with school–based personnel.”

[Note: Ohio’s School-to-Work plan does not address who will be conducting the training, who will pay for training the mentors, or who will be paying the mentors for their ´assistance.´ At some sites, unionized workers are serving as workplace mentors.]

SchoolNet, originally sold to the public as the means to put computers into the classroom, will also be used to connect “school–site staff and workplace mentors.”

Return to Table of Contents

Ohio´s Individual Career Plans

“Ohio already has one of the most extensive and systematic Career Development programs in the nation.” It is a process “that begins in kindergarten, leads to an Individual Career Plan in the eighth grade,” and results in ongoing refinement throughout the high school years.”

According to the School to Work (STW) grant, the development of a comprehensive system that reaches all students requires that:

” . . . new partners representing schools, families, communities, and workplaces take on responsibility for the education of each young person. This more expansive view of educating students is a true paradigm shift away from the traditional view that education is the exclusive domain of the educational system. To be successful in making this shift, STW activities must begin with all learners at the earliest age possible.”

All students are required to complete an Individual Career Plan document in the eighth grade unless their parents request that they not participate.”

[Note: It is unfortunate that the Parental Rights brochure distributed earlier this year by the Ohio Department of Education did not disclose that the Individual Career Plan is, at least for now, optional.]

The Individual Career Plan provides information to employers, colleges, and training institutions for screening, interviewing, and selecting applicants. In 1994, “over 92 percent of Ohio’s eighth graders initiated an Individual Career Plan.”

Return to Table of Contents

Career Passports

For students enrolled in vocational education, the Career Plan culminates with a Career Passport,

“…a portfolio containing formal documentation of work and/or community experience, a competency profile, student achievement and attendance records, leadership experiences, an outline of continuing education needs, and career credentialing.”

The Passport is a “learner credential.” In the Ohio School–to–Work Grant we read, “The Ohio Department of Education is currently in the process of redesigning the existing Passport to serve all students, not only vocational education completers, as is currently the practice.” It will be expanded to all students – “including out – of – school – youth, adults and students with disabilities” – to serve as a portable credential.”

“Ohio clearly has set itself an ambitious agenda for making School–to–Work a reality for its citizenry. It is committed to this plan and seeks venture funding . . . to firmly place STW on the road to full implementation in this state.”

Return to Table of Contents

Ohio’s School–to–Work (STW)

Ohio´s School–to–Work Plan acknowledges that the Ohio Department of Education will “begin to explore the need for the development of a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM).” The meaning of “begin to explore” is then clarified:

“The State of Ohio will implement a full range of strategies that allow all students to achieve the competencies necessary to be successful in their adult lives. This means that Ohio´s STW system must . . . create certificates . . . [that are] recognized throughout the State and nation . . .”

Governor Voinovich believes that “our implementation efforts can serve as a model for the nation.” Legislative leadership for STW in Ohio includes Senator Linda Furney, Senator Charles Horn, Representative Priscilla Mead, and Representative C. J. Prentiss.

[Note: Until recently, even I, as a member of the State Board of Education, did not comprehend the scope of education restructuring in this state and across the nation. Because education and workforce development are complex initiatives, and because legislators are very busy people, until I know otherwise, I will continue to hope that these and other legislators are not fully aware of what they are supporting.]

In order to fully implement the STW system, the state will be pursuing partnerships with the Ohio Business Roundtable, the Ohio Manufacturer´s Association, and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce “to develop a strategic plan “involving their members as full partners in all School–to–Work activities.” The Governor’s Human Resources Investment Council (GHRIC) “created the opportunity for the STW endeavor to be included in a partnership with other members of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, “regarding the development of universally accepted industry skill standards and the training and certification of its regional workforce to meet world–class standards.” “The GHRIC helps to link STW with broader workforce and economic development strategies.”

The State of Ohio has embarked on a five–year implementation plan that has already been approved by the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor. At the heart of it is the “inclusion of world class standards.” “All students in Ohio´s school system engage in learning that is organized around a common core of academic and occupational competencies.” Ohio has laid “a strong foundation of . . . skill standards . . . through the Occupational Competency Analysis Profiles (OCAPs) and the Tech Prep Competency Profiles.”

[Note: These profiles are lists of the occupational outcomes/standards/expectations for students.]

Return to Table of Contents

Assessments

To date, 63 separate Occupational Competency Analysis Profile booklets have been developed, and each one “identifies occupational, academic, and employability skills needed to enter a given occupation.” The OCAP process is directed by the Vocational Instructional Materials Laboratory located at The Ohio State University’s Center on Education and Training for Employment.

OCAPs list the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (competency builders) needed to perform each occupational area.

[Note: Because of Ohio’s STW commitment to the federal government ,all students must be involved in some form of occupational training beginning in kindergarten. Therefore, the content of the OCAP booklets, and the corresponding assessments, are important, and in the mind of some people, just as important as Ohio’s model curricula.]

Student achievement, as it relates to the OCAP curricula, is then assessed through the administration of the Vocational Competency Assessment – developed in conjunction with American College Testing. The assessment “consists of two separate components – tests developed based on the OCAP competency standards and on Work Keys.” According to the Ohio STW grant, “During 1994–95, 55,000 assessments were administered through the Work Keys tests.” Work Keys is a national system for teaching and assessing workplace academic skills:

  • Applied Mathematics – focuses on mathematical problems in the workplace;
  • Reading for Information – focuses on reading memos, bulletins, notices, letters, policy manuals;
  • Locating Information – focuses on workplace graphics
  • Applied Technology – focuses on generic technological literacy;
  • Teamwork – focuses on behaviors that support team relationships;
  • Listening – focuses on work-related listening skills;
  • Writing – focuses on writing work-related messages.

The results of these tests are documented in the Career Passport.

[Note: Ohio is using WorkKeys to pilot the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM).]

Return to Table of Contents

Ohio’s School-to-Work (STW) Funding

Ohio has already received $9 million dollars of the expected $45 million in seed money for School-to-Work. This money is in exchange for carrying out the many activities listed in the application. Implementation is expected to cost $1 billion in state and federal money.

[Note: $45 million subtracted from the needed $1 billion, leaves us $955 million needed from other sources.]

Return to Table of Contents

Post-CIM Options for School and Work

According to the TASKit Implementation Guide put out by the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE), individuals who receive a CIM will “go through a ceremony and rite of passage” and will receive a high school diploma with “the gold CIM seal.” They will also receive a reformatted high school transcript (via Worklink or Work Keys programs), a bronze medallion, and a diploma awarded by their business-industry mentor, teacher/advisor and/or other significant adult partner. According to the Implementation Guide, “schools will hold an assembly three times a year involving the entire student body, the CIM candidates, their Capstone Project committee members and parents or guardians.”

With CIM in hand, the student can then prepare to attend college, actually attend college, begin work on an occupational certificate, or go to work. Students are entitled to the equivalent of three more years of free additional education. It is expected that the last two years of high school and one year of apprenticeship, redefined as college, will be paid for with “federal and state matching funds.” “Eighty percent or more of American high school graduates will be expected to get some form of college degree, though most of them less than a baccalaureate.”

1. Prepare for College

a) College Placement Plus Regular – While attending the restructured high school, the student can earn college level credits by taking Advanced Placement exams. In addition, these students can take weekend and summer classes at a state university.

[Note: No mention is made of private colleges or universities. It is also important to understand that a student can take college level “certificate” courses that do not lead to an associate or baccalaureate degree.]

b) College Placement Honors – Students who have received their CIMs can earn college level credits by taking Advanced Placement exams, and by taking weekend and summer classes at a state university. In addition, they will be allowed to take college or university courses and participate in youth apprenticeship or national (community) service described below.

c) Accelerated College Education Honors only – Students following this track fulfill their high school English and government credit through independent study and complete a senior project. Students will be allowed to attend community college, technical school, or university full time.

2. Begin Occupational Certification

a) Career Tech Plus Regular – This program combines English, science and mathematics with an occupational, professional or technical course at both the high school and a community / technical college.

[Note: Such training is the antithesis of a liberal arts education and, in the mind of some people, such training will result in the production of technocrats who lack exposure to the humanities.]

b) Career Tech Honors – In this program, business and industry provide mentors and internships for students. This program includes youth apprenticeship or national (community) service. An undefined Senior Project is required.

c) Youth Apprenticeship, Honors Only – This program is a full-time program in which students complete English and government requirements through independent study. In addition, students must complete a Senior Project and submit a portfolio to an advisory committee made up of school and business partners.

3. Going to Work

a) Cooperative Work Honors Programs, Honors Only – Students choosing this option will meet their English and government requirements through independent study and will complete a Senior Project exhibiting their workplace skills.

b) National (Community) Service, Honors Only – Students in this program will complete their high school English and government requirements through independent study. In addition, these students will be placed in “helping roles” within local agencies and community–based organizations. Students must demonstrate skill knowledge by completing a Senior Project and by submitting a portfolio to an advisory committee of school and agency partners.

Return to Table of Contents

“Choice” In Education is Promoted

NCEE is promoting an “aggressive program of public choice” in education. Accredited proprietary schools, employers, and community–based organizations will be allowed to offer the reconceptualized college programs, (i.e., apprenticeships). “This funding ties apprenticeship and college together in a seamless web.”

[Note: “Choice” will allow any accredited entity to receive federal, state and local dollars earmarked for education or workforce training. This, of course, adds a whole new dimension to the discussion of “charter schools,” choice, and vouchers. If I understand this correctly, and I believe I do, any school, business, or industry that provides training based on applicable standards that lead to a CIM will be eligible for local, state, and federal money. This would totally redefine “public education” and create a major incentive for business and industry to “get involved” in education as never before; they would have much to gain in terms of training future workers to meet their needs while receiving local, state and federal dollars to offset the cost of the training. When all students must meet the same national / international standard, it makes little difference who provides the program. This is like asking someone if they prefer stale rye bread or stale whole wheat bread. Either choice results in the same outcome, stale bread.]

Return to Table of Contents

What Happens to Students Who Don’t Receive a CIM?

Students who are “having problems” in meeting the standards, and therefore have not received a CIM, are eligible for assistance from accredited alternative learning environments.” NCEE believes that “students who have not received their CIM by age 16 should be able to enroll in a School–to–Work transition program at that age, but they should not be able to get an occupational skills certificate without first getting their CIM. Students can enroll in these transition programs but they will not be able to get anything but menial work without the CIM.

In this vein it is noteworthy that the NCEE has raised the issue of “what will happen when parents are told that their children cannot meet the new standard?” Their reply is,

“Much depends on how well the American people are prepared for this eventuality. What we do know is that in those states that are installing new assessment systems with high proficiency standards, the majority of students are not meeting them. And the public, having been prepared for that result, is neither surprised nor outraged.”

[Note: This may be because the students in the trail-blazing states and districts who are having problems are not yet being relegated to Youth Centers or School–to–Work transition programs. Anyone who believes the NCEE statement that there will be no public surprise or outrage is engaging in wishful thinking.]

Return to Table of Contents

Engaging the Public

The CIM Implementation Guidebook admonishes schools not to “drop” the CIM on people but to “develop the system with them” creating “listening systems” for stakeholders. Under the heading, “Lessons learned from other early CIM efforts,” the Guide states that schools are encouraged to stress “the basics” and to hire “public engagement help” if needed. “Research will help you identify existing beliefs, attitudes, values, perceptions and expectations among the public about education and education reform” and it will “help identify supporters, fence sitters and opponents.”

[Note: This tax–supported “research” is nothing more than an illegitimate attempt to accumulate a demographic profile in order to size–up the field.]

Return to Table of Contents

Public Acceptance

According to NCEE, “there is increasing acceptance of this vision and structure among the public at large, within the relevant professional groups and in Congress.”

[Note: Although the “relevant professional groups” are probably dancing in the aisles, the public, as a whole, knows very little about The System.]

Supposedly, “the notion of a national certificate . . . has captured the imaginations of thousands . . . and, as is natural for any proposal that would produce a profound change in our conception of the purposes of education and in its institutional structure, this proposal has generated a lot of debate.”

[Note: Again, actuality does not match NCEE ´s declaration.]

From November 1992, until the present, the Ohio State Board of Education has not engaged in discussion, let alone debate, on national content, performance or assessment standards, and/or Certificates of Initial Mastery (CIM). I presume that no such discussion is taking place in the legislature. The result of this grievous omission is that the necessary groundwork for The System continues to be laid in Ohio without the informed consent of elected representatives of The People. And all the while, control of education is shifting from state and local school boards to NCEE and company.

Return to Table of Contents

What the Minutes Say

The following quotations were taken from official transcripts of Goals 2000 National Skill Standards Board meetings. These statements appear to be totally inconsistent with NCEE ´s stated rationale for the entire system, (i.e., that we need to close the gap by upgrading and restructuring education and workforce training.) When first reading these quotations, it occurred to me that the perceived public acceptance of national standards, assessments, and certificates has been over–estimated. No one likes to be mocked or duped, especially parents and taxpayers.

“We ended up with an understanding across the table among all the participants that there is a good deal of dignity whether you are a dishwasher or a $65,000 banquet waiter in doing whatever it is that you like to do and increasing your skill set . Remaining in essentially the same position or transferring inside your industry doesn’t mean that it is a negative thing. Not everyone needs to have the ongoing career development to be a general manager … so as the Board looks across, please keep in mind that not everything needs to be a career path to somewhere else; that changing work environment can also mean improvement of skills to do the job that you’re already doing.”

“I think that a piece of your job, all of our jobs, is on the education of our populace. In large measure, we spend most of our time, dealing with reactions because people are uninformed. I think a measure of that is because most of our population went to school. It is one of the few industries everyone believes they are the expert in terms of education. As a result of that, they believe, for example, that an 8th grade math is inadequate and inappropriate and that is not a high enough standard on the continuum that Paul articulated when, in fact, it may be more than adequate, but without first educating your population about what that really entails in terms of what does 8th grade math – and by the way could anybody in this room pass a test – educating the rest of the country around those standards and that reality is fundamental before you go forward in articulating those standards or they will apply it to their knowledge base which I suggest is flawed, based on what’s happening in education.” [sic]

[Note: Most parents would heartily disagree with the notion that 8th grade math competency “is more than adequate.” Personal and national freedom as well as self-determination require and educated populace. Eighth grade math is not good enough even if central planners, with their poor grammar, are convinced that it is.]

Return to Table of Contents

Review – Part B

The hallmark of the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE) is the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). To that end, Career Development will begin in kindergarten and will culminate in a Career Passport. The Passport is for all students, not just vocational students. Ohio is committed to this plan. Those with a CIM will be permitted two additional years of high school and one year of free college. However, it is important to understand that what we now consider vocational education is clearly being redefined as college. This is being done because parents everywhere want their children to go to college as opposed to going into vocational programs.

The NCEE ‘s mission is to transform our country’s education and labor system. To that end, a plan has been developed, and it is being followed in over half of all the schools in this nation. The central planners know full-well that a significant number of students will not be able to meet the standards that are being required. The public knows that eighth grade students are not ready to choose a career at such an early age.

NCEE and other economic reconstructionists know that their efforts will continue to move forward unchecked as long as the general public remains ignorant of their agenda, and their success, as demonstrated in their having impacted over one–half of all the students in this nation without significant “interference” on the part of the general public.

Return to Table of Contents

Part C: Standards for School

“… the Certificate idea will challenge the schools to make fundamental changes in the way they operate. No change in the last 60 years has had an effect as profound as this one will be…”

– National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE)

Return to Table of Contents

Performance Standards for Schools

NCEE literature states that “All students are guaranteed that they will have a fair shot at reaching the standards, that is, that whether they make it or not depends only on the effort they are willing to make.” However, the NCEE also states, in their Human Resources Development Plan, that the guarantee of equal opportunity will take “a determined effort on the part of the federal government.” What role might the federal government play? NCEE suggests some involvement in school delivery standards that will have the same status as the student performance standards.

Since, the student performance standards are non–optional in terms of the student mastering them or suffering the consequence of not possessing a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), we can conclude that any proposed school delivery standards will be non-optional as well.

[Note: “School delivery standards,” re-named “opportunity–to–learn standards,” by the Clinton Administration, was the most hotly debated portion of Goals 2000 when it was making its way through the Congress.]

School performance standards for all school districts and school buildings are a part of the proposed “Standards for Ohio Schools” regulations. At minimum, Ohio schools and districts must show a 75% cumulative passage rate on the 4th, 6th, and 12th grade state proficiency tests. For the 9th grade test, the passage rate is being set at 75% for ninth graders and at 85% for tenth graders. The minimum attendance rate is tentatively set at 93%, and the proposed dropout ceiling is 3%. More stringent levels are set for Ohio schools who seek to be named “high performance” schools. Failure to meet the minimum standards will trigger state intervention to ensure that the school performance standards will be met.

[Note: These performance levels are unrealistic and they will force many districts to establish Youth Centers or Alternative Learning Centers for the placement of those students whose inclusion in the main program would dilute a school’s statistical showing.]

School delivery standards put tremendous pressure on teachers. When speaking of teachers, NCEE says, “Everything in your world has changed.” The “measure of success” and “sense of accomplishment and professional responsibility” for teachers will “hinge on the proportion of the school´s students who reach these new [performance and assessment] standards“

[Note: It is hard to imagine a single teacher who decided to pursue a career in the field of education to spend whatever time it takes making sure that students meet national / international content, performance, and assessment standards. I do hope that I am being realistic, but I am still of the persuasion that teachers are in the field of education, above all, because they want to impart knowledge to their students – a noble calling quite different from, and superior to, being a human resource development facilitator who is dedicated to training workers for the good of the economy.]

NCEE recognizes that “teachers cannot possibly get all students up to an internationally benchmarked standard of performance . . unless the performance of the students entering high school improves radically. Ideally, this would lead to a process in which the elementary schools reach agreement with middle schools on the standards they will meet for students leaving elementary school, and the middle schools then agree to a standard they will meet before the end of middle school. . . “

[Note: These agreements between and among schools have been set in stone by entities far removed from local communities. In Ohio, such “agreements” are in place via the 4th, 6th and 9th grade proficiency tests.]

Again, the objective is to achieve the school performance standards. To do that, all students, except for the severely handicapped, must meet the student performance and assessment standards. “All teachers will be involved in the CIM, either teaching to the standards or through being a teacher/advisor to ´x´ number of students.” School professionals will “spend whatever time it takes to do the job and to be fully accountable for the results of their work.”

“Everyone discovers that the most important variable is time. Some students are simply going to need more time to reach these high standards than others. If they are all going to get to middle school meeting the new targets when they should, then some will have to be at school for longer school days, or come on Saturdays or be at school during a substantial part of the summer. “

“What we have just described here is . . . the extent to which the Certificate (CIM) idea will challenge the schools to make fundamental changes in the way they operate. No change in the last 60 years has had an effect as profound as this one will be. . . ” NCEE envisions school professionals putting in “a full year . . . spending whatever time it takes to do the job. . . .” It is expected that “federal, state and local governments will provide the time.”

[Note: “Time” is not under the jurisdiction of local, state or federal governments. What government can do is to collect more tax dollars to pay people to work the hours it demands. In this case, to do whatever it takes to bring all students, except the most severely handicapped, up to national standards, ideally by the time the student is sixteen years of age.]

Return to Table of Contents

Diminished Academic Freedom

NCEE states that “There is no standard curriculum.”

“[Teachers] are free to decide whether to use a text, and, if so, which text to use. You are free to decide how to organize the topics you will teach and the order in which to teach them. And you are free to figure out which kinds of experiences your students need to learn. . . from your point of view, this is great, because your students are very different from the students in several other schools in the same district and will need to travel a different path to get to the standards. But the curriculum you and your colleagues decide on will have to be designed to get your students up to the same . . . standards everyone else meets.”

[Note: Since the vast majority of teachers will not have the time or expertise to write curriculum benchmarked to national / international standards, school districts will simply purchase pre-packaged standards, curricula, and assessments, and teachers will be given the freedom to organize the topics and to decide the order in which they will teach the material.]

Although espousing academic freedom, NCEE ´s goal is a “national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations and teacher education and licensure systems are all linked to the national standards.” NCEE boldly proclaims, “The standards are the same everywhere.”

[Note: It is now well established that NCEE / New Standards controls student standards, assessments, and certificates. Since everything is linked, how are teacher education and licensure standards linked to NCEE? In Ohio, a college or university desiring to prepare teachers must meet the standards of an external entity, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). When NCATE changes their standards for accrediting teacher training institutions, all Ohio teacher training colleges and universities will be obligated to comply with them. Therefore, NCATE is controlling teacher education and licensure in Ohio, and most assuredly, in other states as well.]

Further research will be required to establish the link between NCEE and NCATE, but it appears that the foundation for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards was a result of a Carnegie report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (See Origin of the National Center on Education and the Economy [NCEE]).

In addition, Ohio standards require an assessment for teachers. Although our board has never taken formal action, it appears that PRAXIS III, a product of the Educational Testing Service, has been established as the assessment standard for Ohio’s teachers. Further research will be required to establish the link between NCEE and the National Teaching Examination (NTE). The NTE, a product of the Educational Testing Service is being phased out.]

Return to Table of Contents

Grants and Waivers

In late 1992, NCEE wrote that they envisioned a time when “most of the existing rules and regulations affecting relevant federal education programs would be waived” except for health, public safety and civil rights.” NCEE´s expectations for waivers from existing federal rules and regulations became a reality in 1994 when Goals 2000 became the law of the land. That legislation contains a program called Educational Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act (Ed-Flex) that allows the United States Secretary of Education to issue federal waivers if the state is already waiving state education laws and regulations. Ohio was one of the first states to achieve Ed–Flex status, thus both state and federal laws and regulations can be waived.

Supposedly, these waivers are to remove legislative or regulatory burdens. Applications for waivers are often coupled with requests for money. The result is that laws and regulations that were lawfully imposed are removed and the district uses new money for some “innovative” program, practice, or venture. What is missing are the checks and balances that would come into play if waivers were reviewed by the legislative or rule making body who put those laws and regulations in place. If a law or regulation was put in place by duly elected representatives of the people, and if it is no longer needed, it should be abolished by the same elected body. At a minimum, those bodies should be notified that the legally adopted laws and/or regulations are being dispensed with. The Ohio Department of Education as earmarked approximately $2 million of our $52 million in Goals 2000 money to encourage “de–regulation.”

[Note: It seems reasonable that as a result of a district being relieved of the “burden” imposed by law or regulation, that the district would need to spend less money, not more.]

NCEE proposed that states and/or districts would get waivers by showing how they would do the following:

  • Implement an examination system related to the new standards,.
  • Empower school staff to make the key decisions as to how students will meet the standards (See Engaging the Public),.
  • Provide curricula related to the standards and examinations,.
  • Reorganize professional development programs to focus on teaching professionals how to get all students to meet the new national standards..

NCEE literature states that “to build the restructured system will require an enormous amount of professional development and the time in which professionals can take advantage of. . . the research, development, and technical assistance provided by the federal government. Professional development, and time for it, cost money.”

[Note: Historically, taxpayers have knowingly and willingly agreed to pay for the education of children by paying taxes to support public schools. The shift that is taking place, unrecognized by most people, is toward the use of tax dollars to pay for the education of adults who happen to work in the field of education. And it is worthy of note, that we are not talking about occasional in-service days for faculty; professional development is a major focus of education “reform.”

According to NCEE , there are existing U. S. Department of Education program funds that could be redirected to support professional development. I have specifically asked for a complete listing of how much federal and state money is being spent, in Ohio, on Professional Development. To–date, I have not received this information. Putting money and time aside, as if we could, those resources are not being used to equip teachers to be better teachers, but to re–train them to facilitate implementation of The System.]

Reorganize delivery of health and social services to children and their families.

  • Deploy [Note: An interesting word choice] advanced technologies to support student learning “in and out of school.”
  • Restructure the organization and management of schools on the principles of quality management,’ empowering the staff, reducing the burden of rules and regulations from the state, the board of education and the unions, and holding the staff accountable for student progress.”

[Note: That means that schools will:

  • (1) be reorganized around the philosophy of Total Quality,.
  • (2) staff will be “empowered,”
  • (3) and at the same time, local and state laws and regulations will be reduced!

Several problems arise when staff is accountable for progress of students in achieving national / international standards. First is the presumption that parents want their children to achieve national / international standards. Second, staff is undefined. And third, parents will have no way to hold staff accountable. As it is, parents are, at times, hard pressed to get elected officials to take needed action, but at least elected officials can be voted out of office. What recourse will parents have if accountability for student progress is transferred from an elected board to an undefined staff?]

The following is an example of an actual waiver/grant transaction.

The current teacher certification renewal process is being replaced with teacher licensure standards. Instead of waiting for the regulations to take effect, districts can ask the state to waive the current regulations so they can begin using the new regulations ahead of time. The new standards call for the creation of local professional development committees.

All schools will be required to have such committees by the fall of 1998, but prior to that time, the state will pay out $1,000,000 to a group of districts for the development of local professional committee guidelines that, among other things, directly support the district-wide “continuous improvement plan. In the December 1995 draft of Standards for Ohio Schools, Continuous Improvement is defined as: “An ongoing process measuring and documenting progress in meeting goals.”

When asked to define continuous, most people would respond with a synonym such as on-going. Likewise, most people agree that improvement means getting better. Therefore, to the majority of people continuous improvement means “always getting better and better,” not “measuring and documenting.” This is but one example of the continual re–definition of words by policy–makers and their advisors. Some people deem such re–definitions as an attempt to deceive the public.

Return to Table of Contents

“Quality“

When speaking of quality, most people think of superiority or excellence, (i.e., quality schools.) However, in many fields, especially in education, business, and industry, quality has a totally different meaning. Total Quality is a philosophy, and its practice is called Total Quality Management (TQM), Total Quality Education (TQE), or Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). The actual label is relatively unimportant.

What is important is the philosophy, principles, methods and tools, how they are applied, and to what they are being applied to. One of the tenants of quality is a continuos improvement cycle. In the field of education the continuous improvement, data-driven cycle, links: outcomes, curriculum, instruction, assessment and rewards or consequences. This cycle is the heart of Outcome–Based and Performance-Based education, both offspring’s of Total Quality.

In his book, Schools of Quality: An Introduction to Total Quality Management in Education, John Bonstingl says, “TQM is . . . a new way of thinking and living that pervades all aspects of life. When the TQM philosophy is fully implemented in an organization, it becomes the heart and soul of the organization’s way of operating.”

[Note: Bonstingl’s book is essential reading for anyone wishing to learn more about TQ as it relates to education reform, i.e., parents are suppliers of the raw material (the child). The school in turn shapes the child (the product) to the specifications required by the customer (business and industry). The result is that the parent is no longer the primary customer of the school. Parents are merely suppliers of the material for production, children (i.e., the human resource).]

Return to Table of Contents

Review – Part C

State and local school boards are no longer in the driver’s seat when in comes to establishing standards for students or for the local school. Teachers will be expected to bring all students, except the severely disabled, up to international standards. NCEE states that teachers will be allowed to use their own methods and develop their own curricula to meet the standards, but most will not have the time or expertise to do so. However, they will be held accountable for whether their students reach the standards, so they will be required to work Saturdays, summers, spending whatever time it takes. Grants and waivers will be used to remove any so-called burdens or barriers that get in the way of accomplishing the goal: meeting the standards.

We have national / international general knowledge and skill standards that are the target for all basic education programs for students, dropouts, and adults. It´s “all the same system.” It does not matter whether this system is called Outcome–Based Education, Performance-Based Education, High–Performance Education, Competency-Based Education, School–to–Work, School–to–Career, Tech–Prep, Vocational Education, Community College, XYZ, Mastery Learning, or any other name; they share a uniform characteristic: All represent the continuous improvement, data–driven cycle model that links learner outcomes, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and rewards or consequences.

Return to Table of Contents

System # 2: Youth Centers for those not Certified A New Spin on Compulsory Schooling

“. . . future workers” without a CIM “will be condemned to dead–end jobs that leave them in poverty even if they are working.”

Return to Table of Contents

Legal Responsibility Wanted

Reportedly, one of the purposes of the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) is to improve employment opportunities. NCEE wants students who do not meet the standards required to receive a CIM by age sixteen will be dealt with by Local Youth Centers – often referred to as Alternative Learning Centers – or other transition programs.

In its report America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!, NCEE advocates Youth Centers “which will be legally responsible for those between the ages of fourteen and twenty–one who have left schools without a Certificate.” According to the report, “ideally there would be a Youth Center in every community or neighborhood … to ensure that every young person attains the Certificate” in a supportive, “family–like environment.”

In these Youth Centers, “young people would have year-round access to education in alternative settings” that include connections to the full range of community health and social services agencies, along with employment and career counseling.

NCEE literature states that “some young people will not exercise their ‘right’ to a good education. …[therefore] success must also depend on placing an obligation on young people” to meet standards. Accordingly, once these Youth Centers are established, NCEE proposes that”child labor laws be amended to make the granting of work permits to young people up to age eighteen contingent on either their possession of a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), or their enrollment in a program leading to the Certificate.”

Ohio´s House Bill 601 took effect on November 1, 1996. The law permits any two or more districts to create an alternative schools for students who have discipline, attendance, academic, or other problems which cause them to be at risk.

Return to Table of Contents

Funding Youth Centers

In order for these Youth Centers to succeed, “districts would be required to notify the nearest Youth Center about any student who drops out.” NCEE encourages states that wish to participate in the CIM system to redefine dropout to mean “someone who leaves high school without meeting the CIM standard.”

When a student drops out, the district would “transfer to the Youth Center the average per-pupil expenditure (including all state and Federal funds) that the school would have received for that student.” These funds would continue “until the student receives a CIM or reaches age 21, whichever comes first.” NCEE also proposes an “added premium of 20% for every dropout attending a Youth Center program.”

NCEE estimates that if it took “two extra years in a Youth Center to attain the CIM, the Youth Center system would cost about $8.2 billion per year.” Who is going to pay? NCEE believes that is would be unreasonable to expect inner cities and rural communities to pay for the Youth Centers. Accordingly, they propose that “help should be forthcoming from both state and Federal government.” This would include “reallocating funds that now go to wealthier districts, but the most likely source will be new revenues (taxes).”

Return to Table of Contents

Review – System # 2

NCEE envisions Youth Centers or Alternative Learning Centers for students who have not received an CIM within the framework designed for the majority of students. Alternative Centers are often being presented as places for unruly youths, though the NCEE literature makes no distinction between an unruly youth and someone who does not possess a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). Nor does NCEE elaborate about national discipline standards that this type of environment would require, although they do mention that prisoners could have their sentences reduced by earning the CIM, as though a CIM could be equated with rehabilitation. With a 20% premium, per students, there would be little motivation for Youth Centers to “release” their “students” on a timely basis.

Return to Table of Contents

System # 3: Occupational Certification

. . . the National Board will not be verifying or confirming the 2,000 occupational standards that currently exist: “These are not the kinds of standards we have in mind.”

Clearly, this idea redefines college.

Return to Table of Contents

Overview

Individuals who have met the Tier I – Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) standards are “entitled to the equivalent of three more years of free additional education.” NCEE clarifies “years” by stating that students “who meet the [CIM] standard at 16 will be entitled to two free years of high school and one year of college.

[Note: The idea of two years of high school being free for students who have received a CIM suggests that students who have not received the CIM by the age of sixteen may be required to pay to attend school.]

Return to Table of Contents

Apprenticeship Programs for 80% or More

“Eighty percent or more of American high school graduates will be expected to get some form of college degree, though most of them less than a baccalaureate.” Accordingly, national sub–baccalaureate standards will be established with the participation of employers, labor, and higher education.

[Note: Typically, a baccalaureate degree is associated with a four–year program, and associate degrees with two-year programs. Sub–baccalaureate programs would be of shorter duration, probably one year, or less.]

Return to Table of Contents

National Skill Standards Board (NSSB)

One item on NCEE ‘s legislative agenda was the creation of a national board that would create a system of work skill standards in approximately twenty areas for the 80% or more people who do not earn a baccalaureate degree. This agenda item was achieved when the Goals 2000: Educate America Act was signed into law. Among other things, Goals 2000 included the National Skill Standards Act of 1994 which established the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB). The board was directed to stimulate the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and assessment and certification.

Thus, the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB), per Goals 2000 legislation, was established in 1994 and given the responsibility to set up a system for the Tier II occupational standards. “Most people will get their Tier II qualification through some combination of high school programs, community college or other post secondary programs and on–the–job training.” although they could get the needed training and occupational certificates through community agencies or through business-related programs.

The re–naming of the combined classroom instruction and on–the–job–training as something other than apprenticeship, is important because “unions are very concerned that the new apprenticeships will be confused with the established registered apprenticeships” for licensed occupations. NCEE acknowledges that the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) will not be verifying or confirming the 2,000 occupational standards that currently exist: “These are not the kinds of standards we have in mind.”

By requiring these programs to be a combination of classroom instruction, and structured on–the–job–training, and creating a standard-setting board that includes employers and labor, and re-naming the programs, “all the objectives of the apprenticeship idea are achieved, while at the same time assuring much broader support .

. .” (See Choice.)Support is needed because:

  • “Focus groups . . . show that parents everywhere want their kids to go to college, not to be shunted aside into a non–college apprenticeship vocational program.”
  • To foster needed acceptance, NCEE supports legislation for the “reconceptualization of the apprenticeship proposal as a college–level education program” combining it with an entitlement “to a free year of higher education, paid for with”combined federal and state funds,” for those who possess a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). Reportedly, this new apprenticeship program will capture “all of the essentials of the apprenticeship idea, while offering none of its drawbacks.”

“Clearly, this idea redefines college.”

President Clinton’s proposal for this renamed “apprenticeship system” is touted as “the keystone of a strategy for putting a whole new postsecondary training system in place.” This new system will alter the way postsecondary education is financed and expand a “whole new human resources system nationwide . . . using the renamed apprenticeship idea as the wedge” to start the process.

Return to Table of Contents

Setting Up The System

The primary task of the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) is to serve “as a catalyst in stimulating the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and of assessment and certification of the attainment of those skill standards. . . “

To that end, NCEE proposed that associations, firms, unions, and individuals be selected to participate in a process of identifying clusters of jobs for which standards would be set. To be selected, one needed to have evidence of a proven “track record of concern for, understanding of, and commitment to high performance work organization (HPWO).” The system developed by the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB) “will serve as a cornerstone of the national strategy … to ensure … the development of a high performance workforce…”

Return to Table of Contents

High Performance Work Organization (HPWO)

It is impossible to understand a system of national standards and certificates, or to fully comprehend the work of the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB) apart from understanding what the phrase high performance work organization (HPWO) means. Both NCEE literature and The National Skill Standards Act of 1994 are replete with references to high performance work organization (HPWO). Ray Marshall, an NCEE board member, lists eight key elements of a high performance work system. The eighth, and most telling element of a HPWO, is:

“An independent source of power for workers – a labor union and collective bargaining agreement – that protects employee interests in the workplace; helps to equalize power relations with management; and provides a mechanism to resolve disagreements that arise because of inherently adversarial nature of labor–management relations.”

So, the individuals and groups organizing the framework for the national standards had to have previous commitment to the concept of unionism and collective bargaining as a basic principle of doing business. National Skills Standards Board (NSSB) staff, and the pro-union / collective bargaining advisory committee, were charged with blocking out the clusters [units] of skills for which standards would be set. Ultimately, the object was to find groupings that covered “up to 80% of the front–line jobs in high performance work organization (HPWO) across the whole country.” NCEE saw value in starting slowly, so that the methodology for doing the work “could be worked out.” NCEE readily admits that:

“. . .there is no inductive or deductive logic that can yield the clusters. Forming the clusters will have more to do with alchemy than science . . . it will be a political process, and the test of its success is not the degree to which it fits any logic of economic analysis or of the specialist in job description but the degree to which the people who will have to use it are comfortable with it.”

According to The National Skill Standards Act of 1994 (Title V of Goals 2000), which is now the law of the land, the goal is to ensure that the national system of standards, assessments and certification can be used by the Nation, to ensure the development of a high performance workforce. The standards, assessments, and certificates will be used by industries, employers, labor organizations, workers, students, government, and training providers. Why will all these groups be using the national standards? They will use them to “facilitate the transition to high performance work organization (HPWO).”

In HPWOs, “layers of management” are eliminated as direct labor takes on what used to be the duties and responsibilities of management. “High performance work organization (HPWO), and the disciplines of quality management with which it is associated, requires that the people on the front line become and be treated as professionals.”

“This is a profound social change, not just a change in organizational arrangements and economic systems” and it “requires big investments in training.”

[Note: This “profound social change” is a shift from our current method of management in the workplace, to a system where management is severely curtailed or eliminated. Front–line workers (also known as direct labor) perform their traditional duties, but also take over the duties of management. In the field of education, front-line workers are teachers. Therefore, teachers are among the many recipients of the ‘big investments in training’ needed to prepare them to take on the duties and responsibilities that currently rest with management. This ‘big investment’ in re-training teachers is called Professional Development. Teachers are being retrained to carry out the NCEE agenda at the classroom level. The result of this retraining is, in part, the shift of control of all resources to teachers, with an accompanying decrease of responsibility and control of resources from management – the elected school boards.]

Return to Table of Contents

But Isn’t This a Voluntary System?

The National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) meeting minutes shed considerable light on the issue of whether the national system is voluntary:

“This is all about development of voluntary skill standards. It´s called voluntary . . . but somewhere along the way in the system, voluntary gets changed to required, not because you intended, but because that’s what happens with every kind of set of standards. Somewhere in the system a change from being voluntary to being required. To be explicit about it, they either get incorporated in a particular school curriculum that you must take, or a particular examination that students have to pass, or they get incorporated in specifications for a position, you must be able to do these things or you don’t get the position.”

“If they [the standards] are broadly accepted in the industry, broadly enough to bind, that makes the transition from being voluntary to, in effect, mandatory because you can’t get a job at Motorola or IBM or whatever, not by legislation, but by collaboration among the industry leaders that say this is what’s required to get there.”[sic]

Return to Table of Contents

The Motivation Cycle

Business and industry, having had an integral part in developing the occupational standards, will be using them in making hiring decisions. To receive the education and/or training to obtain an occupational certificate, “a student may need to pursue a program beyond the Certificate [of Initial Mastery] in a college/university, community college, apprenticeship program or other program to receive the [occupational] certificate from the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB).” As a matter of fact, it is considered very likely “that the standards to be established by the NSSB will be designed in such a way that most students will have to have some [redefined] college in order to reach them.”

Current and future employees will be motivated to seek standards–driven training. As a result, education and training providers who receive state and federal funds for their programs will base them on the national standards. The result: Students and adults who wish to secure employment will meet the national “voluntary” standards. Work is also in progress to develop certificates for those that meet the new standards; and “people with the right certificates [will be] given preference in hiring, promotion, and pay by employers.”

Ohio´s School–to–Work (STW) Glossary acknowledges that skill certificates “may assist students in finding work within their community or state, or elsewhere in the nation.” The Governor´s Human Resources Investment Council (GHRIC) serves as the lead entity in our School–to–Work (STW) system “to ensure that all skill standards and skill certificates are both industry–based and coordinated with national skill standards efforts.”

[Note: A major issue, in regard to occupational certificates, is the extent to which they will be standardized to ensure their acceptance in different locations. Some people consider the occupational credentials nothing more than thinly disguised work–permits.]

Return to Table of Contents

Problems Recognized

Defining standards for general skills is controversial. Even NCEE recognizes that a person may be a consummate problem solver in one domain and quite incompetent to solve problems in another context. According to NCEE literature “it is doubtful that there exists something called domain-free problem solving that transfers across substantive areas and can be taught in a domain independent of context.” In other words, “there is problem solving, or critical thinking, in auto mechanics, psychology, farming, etc., but there is not a general problem solving or critical thinking skill.

[Note: The current fad in education is to teach children how to “problem–solve” as though it were a specific skill like knowing how to multiply or how to divide numbers.

NCEE admits that they are “less than clear about how to characterize skills for the purpose of setting occupational standards.” “There is no road map connecting skills with the competencies needed to do work of particular kinds, and our methods for analyzing the requirements of work have serious deficiencies.”

[Note: The object of the national standards and certificates is to certify individuals and to establish some score or level that represents mastery. Yet if there is no road map, and if no logic can be employed in identifying the groupings, let alone the standards for those groupings, how can mastery of anything be defined?

What’s more, depending on where the arbitrary cut-off scores are set, perfectly competent people could be denied access to a job they could perform well. Therefore, since national skill standards, assessments, and certificates will have enormous consequences in terms of employment and further advancement, civil rights issues become critically important.

Return to Table of Contents

Civil Rights

NCEE acknowledge that the issue of civil rights must be dealt with. The cause for concern is that civil rights groups sued the Duke Power Company on behalf of a man whose last name was Griggs in what became a landmark civil rights case. Civil rights groups maintained that “Griggs and other African Americans who did low–paying, low status work outside on the grounds of the power company were kept from better paying, higher status jobs indoors by the use of an employment test,” (i.e., possession of a high school diploma.) Because a high school diploma was unrelated to the job of indoor janitorial work, the Supreme Court, in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, barred the power company from requiring a diploma.

The Griggs decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1989 in Wards Cove v. Antonio, and what initially appeared to be a negative decision eventually led to the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Court found that the disparate impact of such employment tests constituted prima facie evidence of unlawful employment discrimination, even if there was no intent to discriminate. Employers must now show ‘business necessity’ of any practice that plaintiffs reveal to have disparate impact on a protected group.

The NCEE acknowledges that:

“No issue will be more important for the Board (NSSB)” than the issues related to Griggs v. Duke Power Company and the resulting Civil Rights Act. No firm will knowingly use standards promulgated by the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) if those standards will result in a successful suit. The cost for a firm that is successfully sued for unlawful employment discrimination can be staggering.

Since Griggs was decided, firms have avoided these suits by not using such tests or examinations, or by validating the tests that they use at every plant location at which they are used, as the law requires.

Matching the test to the job begins with a detailed job analysis. The difficulty encountered in terms of national skill standards, assessments, and certificates is that the Goals 2000: Educate America Act calls for broad standards rather than detailed ones. A firm can screen only for the specific job for which the potential employee is applying; not “for [broad] characteristics that might be needed for other jobs to which the applicant might be promoted at some later date.” It appears that existing “civil rights law so constrain[s] the work of the Board (NSSB) in its work as to make it virtually impossible to achieve its goals.”

Therefore, the NSSB must persuade firms that the use of the national skill standards will either not result in disparate impact, or if there is disparate impact, the NSSB must persuade firms they can still win in court. NCEE is working on the latter of the two options because, “to the extent that the Board´s certificate standards will require a high level of basic education skills, a disparate impact is likely because African-Americans and certain other protected groups have not been well served by the education system, and, as a consequence, are less likely than other groups to score well on examinations that demand academic mastery.”

Recognizing the problem, the NCEE commissioned David Tatel, a distinguished civil rights lawyer, to prepare a report. In Tatel’s report, he reasoned that if the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) develops certificate standards explicitly for high performance work organizations (HPWO), and validates them for high performance work organizations (HPWO), then such organizations should only have to make an adequate showing that they are, in fact, high performance work organizations (HPWO) in order to use the standards without fear of losing a civil rights case in court. Attorney Tatel is now Judge Tatel.

Return to Table of Contents

Opposition Recognized

Framers of this system of national standards, assessments, and certificates for everyone from high school to the temporarily unemployed, from the perpetually unemployed to adults who are employed, recognize that these are massive changes that may not be enthusiastically embraced by the majority. NCEE states that, “The question is how to get from where we are to were we want to be. Trying to ram it down everyone´s throat would engender overwhelming opposition.”

To circumvent or overcome anticipated opposition, NCEE has extended the “opportunity” for states and large cities that are excited about national standards, assessments, certificates, apprenticeships, workforce development, labor boards, choice, vouchers, urban initiatives, etc., to join with one another, and with the federal government in an alliance, to begin laying the necessary groundwork. In other words, they expect to overcome any opposition to The System by inviting enough participants to guarantee that the movement toward change reaches critical mass, and cannot be turned back without tremendous effort.

NCEE initially proposed that for a state or large city to be selected to participate, the state or city should demonstrate a commitment to:

  • Design all programs around the CIM,
  • Pass legislation enacting the CIM,
  • Provide alternative schools,
  • Offer sub-baccalaureate programs, certificates, and degrees;
  • Use the new occupational standards,
  • Institute state and local labor boards including a uniform, computer-based reporting system that combines data from the labor market board with state employment data for use by counselors and other “clients,”
  • Develop an outcome and performance-based system for human resources development,
  • and Exchange information with all the other volunteers.

As soon as the first set of volunteer states and cities was set up, NCEE planned to invite another group to volunteer “until most or all of the states are involved.” This early involvement was intended so that the “states and cities (and all their partners) would be able to implement the new standards as soon as they become available, although they would be delivering services on a large scale before that happened.” All of the above indicators are in place, or in the pipeline, in Ohio at this time.

Return to Table of Contents

Setting Policy

Another offspring of the NCEE , the Workforce Skills Program, is charged with converting the recommendations in America’s Choice: high skills or low wages! [the five systems] into policy. The Workforce Skills Program is credited with the following activities:

  • helping to establish the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB),.
  • assisting states to craft legislation establishing a CIM policy and working with the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE), to help districts to put the CIM into practice,.
  • developing comprehensive school–to–work (STW) transition systems and labor–market systems driven by one-stop career centers, and.
  • creating its own offspring, the High Skills State Consortium, a group of 12 states, to define the central elements of a labor market system and to identify successful models..

Return to Table of Contents

One-Stop Career Centers

Ohio is one of a few states leading the nation in the implementation of a one-stop employment and training system. The concept of a one-stop employment and training system is part of Ohio’ workforce development effort. Currently, Ohio has seven One-Stops with plans to open 23 more during the next three years.

On December 6, 1996, Governor Voinovich’s office announced disbursement of approximately $3 million to assist with the implementation of one-stop employment service centers as part of a three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Labor. Ohio plans to create 30 one-stop centers to provide job training programs, unemployment compensation information, veteran employment services and senior community service employment programs. They may also provide vocational education and adult basic education.

“Ohio has established itself as a national leader in the development of new partnerships in workforce development,” the governor said. “These new one-stop systems allow us to coordinate the efforts of many state and local agencies to ensure that our workers and our employers get the most effective training and placement programs in history.”

We also have a Work Keys Service Center System that has been honored as one of the midwest´s ten most innovative state government programs. The Work Keys Service Center System is a statewide network of 37 adult vocational education centers created to strengthen workforce development efforts. It is a partnership between vocational education and American College Testing. The system promotes a “research2based workforce assessment and training program called Work Keys. The assessment and training program has three major components:

  • (1) job profiling to assess the skills required for specific jobs;
  • (2) assessment of existing and prospective employees; and
  • (3) training that is customized to meet employers´ needs.

This network of adult vocational education centers is the first statewide system of its magnitude tied directly to workforce development. After an initial state government investment of $114,000, the Service Center System is now fully self–sufficient.

Return to Table of Contents

Review – System # 3

All NCEE education and labor programs / standards are national / international in scope, and they lead eventually to occupational standards, assessment, certificates, and endorsements and then loop back to local labor market boards. Receiving a CIM is the prerequisite for enrollment in all professional and technical degree programs — the last two years of high school and the first year of the redefined college. Occupational standards serve as a cornerstone of the national strategy to ensure that industries, employers, labor organizations, workers, students, government and training providers use the standards to “facilitate the transition to high performance work organization (HPWO).”

FrontŸline workers, or direct labor, will take on all functions of management. NCEE readily admits that this is a profound social change, not just a change in organizational arrangements and economic systems.

High performance work organization (HPWO) is, in part, a euphemism for what has all the trappings of a national labor union. Labor unions as individual entities are one thing; a national union that has been in on the ground floor of the development of national standards, assessments, certification, and endorsements is something entirely different.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, included the National Skill Standards Act of 1994 which established The National Skill Standards Board (NSSB). This board is currently working to establish a system of standards, assessments, and certification for general knowledge required for specific jobs. NCEE admits that developing the standards “will have more to do with alchemy than science,” and that their “methods for analyzing the requirements of work have serious deficiencies,” yet their work goes on.

Return to Table of Contents

System # 4: Acquiring Training

Providers of education and training for individuals currently employed will be paid as a result of a taxation requirement that “their employers spend an amount equal to one and one-half percent of their salary and wages.”

Return to Table of Contents

Guaranteed Funding (Sustainable Funding)

In 1990, NCEE envisioned that the years of education beyond the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) would be financed through a system similar to the GI Bill, or through a “self–financing scheme” in which “the government would loan all students the funds … and then recoup the loan through a small surcharge on an individual´s income taxes over many years.” Just two years later, NCEE saw merit in “federal and state governments match[ing] funds to guarantee one free year of college education to everyone who meets the new national standards for general education. …so a student who meets the standard at 16 would be entitled to two free years of high school and one of college.”

Government loans for those seeking education beyond the two free years of high school and one free year of college would “be forgiven for public service.” According to NCEE, “loan defaults” will be “reduced to a level close to zero . . . because the new postsecondary loan system uses the IRS to collect what is owed from salaries and wages as they are earned.”

Return to Table of Contents

Free Market Economy Under Attack

NCEE believes that the small minority of companies that do train their employees beyond normal on–the–job training “are not being treated fairly.” Believing that our nation “will not compete effectively unless all employers participate,” NCEE recommends “that the Federal government require all employers to spend a minimum amount of funds annually to send their workers through certified education and training programs.” “In unionized workplaces, companies and unions should jointly negotiate and administer the training program.”

NCEE acknowledges that “everything we have heard indicates virtually universal opposition in the employer community to the proposal for a 1 percent levy on employers for training to support the costs associated with employed workers gaining these skills, whatever the levy is called.”

“Initially, employers would be required to spend approximately one percent of payroll on education and training (with the amount increasing progressively over the decade).” Although NCEE states that “compulsion is never a popular approach to public policy,” they still recommend that “employers failing to meet this target would be required to contribute approximately one percent of payroll to a national Skills Development Fund.” NCEE recommends that “all companies, organizations and institutions, regardless of size or type of business, including local and state governments and schools,” be required to participate.

Initially, employers will be allowed to “use their training allotment for tuition and instructional costs for any type of organized instruction.” “After the occupational certification programs are established” NCEE recommends that “only accredited courses that form part of a formal certification program or a college degree program be counted toward the employer’s minimum training obligation.

[Note: Currently, employers decide whether they will use corporate dollars to train their employees. Such decisions are based, in part, on need and on whether individual companies can afford to educate their employees. Some employers, recognizing that their investment would be wasted when employees move on to other employment, may choose not to invest in employee education and training programs. But, in The System, in order to level the playing field, all employers must participate in national employee training, near universal opposition notwithstanding.

Return to Table of Contents

Compulsion

NCEE has a solution to the universal opposition by employers:

“The President may choose to press forward with this proposal nevertheless. Alternatively, he could take a leaf out of the German book” and use some good old–fashioned arm–twisting:

“One of the most important reasons that large German employers offer apprenticeship slots to German youngsters is that they fear, with good reason, that if they do not volunteer to do so, the law will require it. The President could gather a group of leading executives and business organization leaders, and tell them straight out that he will hold back on submitting legislation to require a training levy, provided that they commit themselves to a drive to get employers to get their average expenditures on front-line employee training up to two percent of front-line employee salaries and wages within two years. If they have not done so within that time, then he will expect their support when he submits legislation requiring the training levy.”Return to Table of Contents

Why is Universal Participation Needed?

Suppose a company, Captive Corp. of The System, bears the financial burden of training or re-training an employee. The company could recoup the cost of the training by increasing the costs of the goods or services, or as a result of an improved workforce, increase productivity. Suppose that another company, Independence, did not invest in employee training programs, but instead, hired System trained employees and paid them just a little more money.

Captive Corp. of The System, having lost their trained workers, would need to replace and retrain them. Meanwhile, Independence enjoys the benefits of a trained workforce without having had to incur the cost of, or the down-time for training. As a result, Independence would have a lower cost of doing business, and as a result be able to sell their goods and services at a lower price. In the mind of some people, this would be an unfair advantage. To eliminate the perceived unfair advantage, all companies, firms, business, and industry entities must participate in the forced employee education and training programs; the programs that are based on national standards, assessments, and certification.

Return to Table of Contents

Review System #4

Further workforce training for those who have a CIM will be made available. It appears that funding will come from state and federal taxes and/or a levy placed on employers. Employers can volunteer or be coerced, via legislation, to participate. Initially, training programs can be independent, but over time it is expected that individuals will receive workforce training only from accredited providers. Despite employer opposition, NCEE is determined to press forward with their socialistic plan for training workers. The next section focuses on the competition for the local, state, and federal workforce training dollars.

Return to Table of Contents

System # 5: A Labor Market System

This is not a system for the poor, or for the unemployed; it is “for everyone.”

Return to Table of Contents

The Backbone of The System

NCEE states that the backbone of The System is a new system of labor market boards and a rebuilt employment service combined into a single employment program. These new labor boards will supervise an upgraded Employment Service. The system is fully computerized; it list job seekers (with their qualifications), job openings, institutions that offer Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) training, and the institutions with programs for occupational certification. NCEE envisions that, “All available front–line jobs ù whether public or private – must be listed in it by law.” In addition, ideally “all trainees in the system looking for work are entitled to be listed” at no charge. This is not a system for the poor, or for the unemployed; it is for everyone.

According to NCEE , states will need to “work with each other, perhaps through an interstate compact, and with the Federal government, to make the national system work smoothly.” Labor market boards will receive the local, state and federal funds and contract with providers for needed services.

Return to Table of Contents

Seamless Web

Labor boards are the “means of joining all the pieces together into one seamless web.”

Labor boards will:

  • Take responsibility for School–to–Work (STW),
  • Manage and oversee the Youth Centers,
  • Manage and oversee a system for adults who are seeking a CIM,
  • Manage and oversee the system for awarding occupational certificates,
  • Manage a labor market information system (the databases),
  • Manage a service to provide counseling for individuals seeking jobs, and
  • Coordinate existing job placement, vocational education, the Job Training Partnership Act, and welfare related job training.

Return to Table of Contents

Competition for the MoneyNCEE “would make individuals, their families and whole communities the unit of service, not agencies, programs and projects. Wherever possible, we would have service providers compete with one another for funds that come with the client. . .” NCEE envisions that their new national education and training system for employed and unemployed adults will be funded in four different ways. Providers of education and training –

  • 1. for dropouts under the age of 21 will be paid by the same local, state and federal dollars that would have been available had they stayed in school.
  • 2. for dislocated workers, i.e., the unemployed, are to be “funded by the federal government through federal programs for that purpose and by state unemployment insurance funds.”
  • 3. for those who are chronically unemployed will be “funded by federal and state funds established for that purpose.”
  • 4. for people currently employed will be paid as a result of a taxation requirement that “their employers spend an amount equal to one and one-half percent of their salary and wages.”

The Alliance (NARE) TasKit Guide says that, education and employee training will be linked to labor market boards that will oversee certification for dropouts through the Youth Centers, adults seeking the CIM, and a new system of skill certificates for job advancement. The business community and regional labor and industry groups recognize the CIM through commitments to first hire those youth and adults who have a CIM.

Return to Table of Contents

Ohio Systems – A

Ohio Job Net – is a job matching system, is the key element of the One-Initiative. It will become the single point of access for job matching for all employment and training programs.

The Ohio Career Information System (OCIS) is a computer–based guidance system that provides information on national, state and local occupations, educational training programs, teaching activities, and financial aid. It is currently available at over 1500 sites statewide. It is targeted for people who are in the process of planning, preparing for, or changing careers, which includes middle, junior high, and high–school students, college students, mid-career changers, parents and teachers, and out–of–school youth.

“Ohio will investigate the possibility of enhancing and connecting OCIS and Job Net to meet the needs of a School–to–Work (STW) system.” These networks will provide access to labor market information for every student, teacher and counselor at various levels within the system.

[Note: Although the concept of constructing databases to help people with particular skills to find employment outside of their immediate community may have some merit, such a database leaves room for abuse.]

The Ohio Labor Market Information System (LMI) – is a “computer–based human resource system” geared to program planners, career counselors, and job developers and includes current labor force and employment estimates, historical and recent data on employment, employment service job opening and placement statistics, projections on employment by industry and occupation, etc.

Return to Table of Contents

Urban Initiative

NCEE refers to the combination of a computerized labor market board combined with the renamed apprenticeship idea [college] as an urban initiative. All current programs for the poor, the unemployed and dropouts will be integrated into the labor market boards. Here it is important to note that NCEE proposes that the term dropout be redefined to mean someone who leaves high school without meeting the CIM standards.

[Note: This is significant in Ohio since the drop–out rate is one of the accountability indicators in the proposed State Performance Accountability Standards.]

Unemployed workers are to receive vouchers for education and workforce training. Case managers will “qualify” their “clients” for “benefits” and assist them in selecting a program. This “consolidated and voucherized program will operate nationwide.” It appears that these “clients” will be the first of many adults who will participate in the CIM and occupational certificate system.

Return to Table of Contents

Elected School Boards Obsolete

In it´s July issue, Education Week reported on the recommendation of the Education Commission of the States (ECS) that school boards be eliminated: ECS ” builds its recommendation around the premise that district school boards have become such a serious impediment to school improvement that state officials might consider disbanding them in favor of new boards with new roles.”

[Note: ECS participants are primarily state superintendents, legislators, and governors.

It is my contention that local, city, and exempted village school boards will be merged into the Regional Economic Development Boards as put forth in Ohio’s School–to–Work (STW) plan. These boards, although very important, have not been the focus of my attention. However, considerable attention needs to be given to them, and I shall do so in a future report.

Return to Table of Contents

. POSTSCRIPT – Recommendations Implemented

In 1995, NCEE affirmed that the five recommendations put forth in America’s Choice “did not sit on a shelf.” “At the national level, an impressive number of the recommendations made in America’s Choice have been implemented.” In all, remarkable progress has been made. Much of what the Commission recommended is now incorporated in federal law.”

NCEE reports that “The nation has been hard at work developing the standards and assessments needed to support national certificate system. . . Seven states [Oregon, New York, Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Washington] have adopted the CIM idea as state policy. More than 50 schools involved in the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE), a consortium of five states and four urban school districts, are well along in piloting the CIM idea as a lever for making fundamental changes in educational practice.”

During Clinton´s first term, the Administration submitted legislation to Congress “that would have implemented much of what the Commission thought necessary to create a national labor market system. In its one–stop–shop proposal, the Administration laid the groundwork for developing such a system by making some initial pilot awards to the states to create one–stop–centers where workers could learn about available jobs, the skills and credentials needed for those jobs and sign up for quality training. . . The Administration and the new Congress appear to be moving toward some combination of job training vouchers, program consolidation in block grants and new forms of further education and training entitlements as the way to reorganize the provision of job training in the United States. If any combination of those approaches becomes law, the states will be in a position to establish the labor market system envisioned by the Commission, unencumbered by . . . the federal laws that now preclude such an outcome.”

For additional information regarding progress toward implementing The System, readers should read NCEE ‘s 1995 publication, Building a System to Invest in People: States on the Cutting Edge.”

Return to Table of Contents

Shift in Focus

The traditional purpose of education in America has been to transfer the general knowledge, wisdom and values of the previous generation to the young to equip them to realize their potential. It is well known that only in a totalitarian system is education linked directly to the workplace.

In 1983, Dr. Eugene Maxwell Boyce, professor of education administration at the University of Georgia, and author of The Coming Revolution in Education wrote:

In the Communist ideology, the function of universal education is clear, and easily understood … Education is tied directly to jobs — control of the job being the critical control point in an authoritarian state. No such direct, controlled relationship between education and jobs exists in democratic countries.

There is no doubt that H.R. 1617 (known as the “Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act” or “CAREERS Act”), and the Senate version of the same bill, S. 143 (The Workforce Development Act of 1995), are extensions of the 1994 School–to–Work (STW) Act. They represent the culmination of the NCEE ´s effort to get Congress to impose The System on all Americans. However, federal control is not needed to put The System in place in every state.

The only thing that is needed is the federal money that will become available as a result of the legislation being passed. As an aside, although a very important one, the proposed legislation would have sent the money to the office of the governor, bypassing the General Assemblies in their respective states. On September 27, 1996, the NCEE plan was temporarily halted from being incorporate, as a whole, into federal law when the Careers Bill was defeated in Conference Committee. Undoubtedly, the bills will be re–introduced in 1997.

Nevertheless, much of the plan can be, and is being, implemented under existing laws, regulations, and/or waivers. The work goes on. Accordingly, this report is a work in progress that will be revised and expanded as additional information becomes available, and/or my understanding increases.

The National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) has been in moving their agenda forward. Collectively, the NCEE /New Standard partners teach more than half of the public school students in the United States. Therefore, the NCEE agenda cannot be dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant. If children are as important to us as we say they are, we must act responsibly and take corrective action immediately.

Return to Table of Contents, or Return to CURE’s Table of Contents

New Standards Governing Board Members Named (Partial List)

November 19, 1996

State Name State Position
California Delaine Eastin State Superintendent, Chair
California Pete Wilson Governor
California Sonia Hernandez California Dept. of Education
San Diego Bertha O. Pendleton Superintendent
San Diego Shirley Weber VP, Board of Education
Colorado William T. Randall Commissioner of Education
Colorado Roy Romer Governor
Connecticut Edmund Gordon Yale
Delaware Michael C. Ferguson Acting State Superintendent
Illinois Joseph Spagnolo State Superintendent
Iowa Terry E. Branstad Governor
Iowa Ted Stilwill Acting Director of Education
Kentucky Wilmer S. Cody Commissioner of Education
Maine Randy Walker Policy Director, Maine Dept. of Education
Maryland William E. Brock Annapolis, MD
Missouri Robert E. Bartman Commissioner of Education
Missouri Joe Maxwell State Senator
New York Walter Cooper Board of Regents
New York Richard Mills University of the State of NY
New York Thomas Sobol Teachers College, Columbia University
New York City Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Chancellor
New York City Illeana Ordonez Public School 84, 3rd District
Rochester Clifford B. Janey Superintendent
White Plains Judith Johnson Assistant Superintendent
White Plains Saul Yanofsky Superintendent
Oregon Norma Paulus Superintendent of Public Instruction
Oregon Joyce Reinke Lyons, OR
Pennsylvania Eugene Hickok, Jr. Secretary of Education
Pennsylvania William L. Lepley Milton Hershey School
Philadelphia Warren Simmons Philadelphia Education Fund
Pittsburgh Louise R. Brennen Superintendent
Pittsburgh Paul H. O’Neill ALCOA
Pittsburgh Robert Blaser University of Pittsburgh
Rhode Island Peter McWalters Commissioner of Education
Texas Michael A. Moses Commissioner of Education
Texas William R. Ratliff State Senator
Fort Worth Thomas Tocco Superintendent Fort Worth I.S.D.
Fort Worth Marsha West Fort Worth I.S.D. Board member
Vermont Douglas Walker Acting Commissioner of Education
Vermont Clare Forseth Marion Cross School, Norwich
State Unlisted Marian Wright Edelman Children’s Defense Fund
Keith Geiger National Education Association
Leon Lederman Fermilab
Arturo Madrid Trinity University
Shirley M. Malcom American Assoc. for Advancement of Science
Phyllis P. McClure Education and Equity Consultant
Lauren B. Resnick Co-Director of New Standards
Marc S. Tucker National Center on Education and theEconomy (NCEE )
Raul Yzaguirre National Council of LaRaza

Return to Table of Contents

Tags: , ,

Digg this!Add to del.icio.us!Stumble this!Add to Techorati!Share on Facebook!Seed Newsvine!Reddit!Add to Yahoo!

 

  © 2025 CURE Washington   |   Powered by WordPress   |   Theme base by Techblissonline.com