defining and measuring college and career …...act college readiness benchmarks (2007) analyzed...
TRANSCRIPT
Defining and Measuring College
and Career Readiness
David T Conley, PhD
CEO, Educational Policy Improvement Center
Professor, University of Oregon
2
College readiness and career readiness have become
important policy goals for education over the past few
years.
Common Core State Standards point toward college and
career readiness.
However, many people contend that it is unclear what is
meant by these terms.
What do they mean? What are some definitions? How can
college and career readiness be measured? What are the
implications of various measurement approaches?
Context
3
1. Provide an overview of the evolution and current
state of definitions of college and career readiness.
2. Examine current understandings of college and
career ready.
3. Review recent research on the Common Core in
relation to college and career readiness.
4. Consider issues related to measuring college and
career readiness.
Purposes of This Session
4
Conley, 2007, 2010
The level of preparation a student needs in order to
enroll and succeed—without remediation—in a credit‐
bearing course at a postsecondary institution that offers
a baccalaureate degree or transfer to a baccalaureate
program, or in a high‐quality certificate program that
enables students to enter a career pathway with
potential future advancement.
Succeed is defined as completing the entry‐level courses
or core certificate courses at a level of understanding
and proficiency that makes it possible for the student to
consider taking the next course in the sequence or the
next level of course in the subject area or of completing
the certificate.
College and Career Ready Definition
5
ACT, 2008
The level of achievement a student needs to be ready to
enroll and succeed—without remediation—in credit‐
bearing first‐year postsecondary courses. And by
postsecondary we mean primarily two‐year or four‐year
institutions, trade schools, and technical schools. Today,
however, workplace readiness demands the same level
of knowledge and skills as college readiness.
College and Career Ready Definition
6
National Assessment Governing Board defines
preparedness as a subset of readiness:
“Preparedness focuses on academic qualifications,
which are measured by NAEP. Readiness includes
behavioral aspects of student performance—time
management, persistence, and interpersonal skills, for
example—which are not measured by
NAEP.” (Technical Panel on 12th Grade Preparedness
Research Final Report, 2009).
Readiness vs. Preparedness
7
Different Types of Readiness
Work ready = Meets basic expectations regarding
workplace behavior and demeanor
Job ready = Possesses specific training necessary to
begin an entry‐level position
Career ready = Possesses key content knowledge and
key learning skills and techniques sufficient to begin
studies in a career pathway
College ready = Is prepared in the four keys to college and career readiness necessary to succeed in entry‐
level general education courses
8
Four Keys To College And Career Readiness
Key Content
Knowledge
Key Cognitive
Strategies
Key Learning Skills &
Techniques
Key Transition Knowledge &
Skills
+ Key terms and terminology
+ Factual information
+ Linking ideas
+ Organizing concepts
+ Time management
+ Study skills
+ Goal setting
+ Self‐awareness
+ Persistence
+ Collaborative learning
+ Student ownership of
learning
+ Technology proficiency
+ Retention of factual
information
+ Postsecondary program selection
+ Admissions and financial aid
requirements
+ Career pathways
+ Affording college
+ Postsecondary culture
+ Role and identity
issues
+ Agency
© 2011 David T Conley
9
Standards for Success (2003)
First comprehensive set of college readiness standards.
Collected information from 400+ faculty at AAU
universities on what was necessary to be ready to
succeed in entry‐level courses.
Identified “Knowledge and Skills for University
Success.”
Listed specific objectives and content knowledge.
Outlined cognitive strategies and described learning
strategies.
Did not explicitly address career readiness.
Prior Readiness Standards
10
American Diploma Project Benchmarks (2004, with
revisions in 2008)
Contracted with economists to identify “promising jobs.”
Surveyed employers from 22 occupations.
Conducted focus groups with secondary and postsecondary
educators from two‐year and four‐year institutions.
Included business representatives in discussions and reviews
of resulting standards.
Claim the standards reflect an “unprecedented convergence”
of educator and employer opinions on what it means to be
college and career ready.
Prior Readiness Standards
11
College Board Standards for College Success (2006)
Derived from multiple sources and formulated by
College Board Standards Advisory Committees,
consisting of secondary and postsecondary educators.
Sequenced from 6‐12 and not specifically a set of
outcome standards.
Claim to be aligned with Advanced Placement and
college readiness.
No specific reference to career readiness.
Prior Readiness Standards
12
ACT College Readiness Benchmarks (2007)
Analyzed Zone 3 O*NET jobs.
Found that 90% of Zone 3 jobs require a 5 on the ACT WorkKeys
assessment.
Keyed College Readiness Benchmarks to cut scores on the ACT.
Conducted a concordance between ACT and WorkKeys scores
on statewide sample of 11th graders.
Identified comparable scores on WorkKeys and ACT College
Readiness Benchmarks.
Identified common skills associated with each score.
Concluded that college and work readiness were functionally
equivalent.
Prior Readiness Standards
13
Texas College and Career Readiness Standards (2009)
Developed via convergent consensus method with
teams of secondary and postsecondary educators.
Reviewed extensively by secondary and postsecondary
educators in Texas.
Validated via postsecondary instructor input from 913
courses at two‐year and four‐year Texas institutions.
Prior Readiness Standards
14
Common Core State Standards (2010)
English Language Arts/Literacy Standards designed
down from the College and Career Ready Standards.
“the CCR standards anchor the document and define
general, cross‐disciplinary literacy expectations that must
be met for students to be prepared to enter college and
workforce training programs ready to succeed.”
Mathematics Standards are silent on reference point
beyond stating they are to enable students “to access
the knowledge and skills necessary in their post‐school
lives.”
Current Readiness Standards:
Common Core
Current Readiness Standards:
NAEP
Preparedness represents academic knowledge and skill
levels in reading and mathematics necessary for placement
into:
Job training programs
Credit‐bearing entry‐level general education courses that
count toward a four‐year degree
Preparedness is not readiness
NAEP definition is academic preparedness—not success
Readiness is more inclusive than NAEP preparedness
�Habits of the mind” and behaviors that cannot be measured by
NAEP, although they are necessary for success.
16
CA CTE Standards in 15 industry sectors
Linked Learning
Movement to design CTE courses that also meet college
entrance requirements
High Schools that Work
University of California project to design CTE courses
that fulfill UC A‐G requirements
Current Readiness Standards:
CTE
17
Industry Standards
Many industrial groups have set standards that require
high levels of education and preparation. A few
examples illustrate:
SAE International Standards for Aerospace, Automotive,
Commercial Vehicle
National Retail Federation for Customer Service, Retail
Management, Retail Business
National Bioscience Industry Skill Standards for Technicians
Current Readiness Standards:
Work Readiness
18
EPIC Texas College Career Readiness Initiative
Analyzed instructor ratings of TCCRS and syllabi from
913 entry‐level courses at two‐ and four‐year public
institutions in Texas.
Determined that specific content knowledge
expectations varied significantly in both two‐ and four‐
year programs, particularly across certificate programs.
Found a core of common expectations in the learning
behaviors and cognitive strategies students needed to
demonstrate.
College and Career
Readiness Research
19
Common Core Research
Conley, et al. (2011). Reaching the Goal: The Applicability and Importance of the Common Core
State Standards to College and Career Readiness
Study of 1900 entry‐level courses
in 25 areas, 12 from four‐year
institutions, 13 from two‐year.
Gathered instructors’ ratings of
importance and applicability of
CCSS to their courses.
Collected syllabi and key
assignments and exams.
20
Key Findings
CCSS are applicable and important to success in a wide
range of postsecondary courses
Cognitive challenge level of the CCSS is sufficient.
CCSS are a coherent representation of the knowledge
necessary for success in college courses.
The CCSS do not omit key knowledge and skills.
A core of knowledge and skill is common across general
education and career oriented courses.
However, career areas tend to have distinct knowledge
profiles that differ from general education.
Common Core Research
21
1897 Courses Rated
Content area Course category N Total
English language arts
Composition I
312
1315
Composition II
English Literature
Mathematics
Calculus
302 College Algebra
Statistics
Science
Biology
281 Chemistry
Physics
Social science
Introduction to Economics
420
Introduction to Psychology
Introduction to Sociology
U.S. History
U.S. Government
Business management
Human Resource Management
243
582
Introduction to Accounting
Introduction to Business Management
Introduction to Marketing
Computer technology
Computer Science I
153 Database Management Systems
Fundamentals of Programming
Healthcare
Anatomy and Physiology
186 Foundations of Nursing
Human Development
Pharmacology
22
Respondents Geographically Distributed
23
Applicability Ratings for ELA and Literacy:
General Education Courses
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reading for
Literature
Reading for
Informational Texts
Writing Speaking and
Listening
Language Reading for
History/Social
Studies
Reading for
Science and
Technical Subjects
Writing for History/
Social Studies,
Science, and
Technical Subjects
Percent
aApplicable is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
Figure 14. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standard within the ELA and Literacy Strand as Applicablea to their Course, for ELA, Math, Science, and Social Science
ELA (312 respondents)
Math (302 respondents)
Science (281 respondents)
Social science (420 respondents)
24
Applicability Ratings for ELA and Literacy:
Career Oriented Courses
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reading for
Literature
Reading for
Informational
Texts
Writing Speaking and
Listening
Language Reading for
History/Social
Studies
Reading for
Science and
Technical
Subjects
Writing for
History/Social
Studies, Science,
and Technical
Subjects
Percent
aApplicable is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
Figure 15. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standard within the ELA and Literacy Strand as Applicablea to their Course, for Business Management, Computer Technology, and Healthcare
Business management (243 respondents)
Computer technology (153 respondents)
Healthcare (186 respondents)
25
Applicability Ratings for Mathematics:
General Education Courses
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number and
Quantity
Algebra Functions Geometry Statistics and
Probability
Mathematical
Practices
Percent
aApplicable is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
Figure 34. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standard within the Mathematics Conceptual Category as Applicablea to their Course, for ELA, Math, Science, and Social Science
ELA (312 respondents)
Math (302 respondents)
Science (281 respondents)
Social science (420 respondents)
26
Applicability Ratings for Mathematics:
Career Oriented Courses
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number and
Quantity
Algebra Functions Geometry Statistics and
Probability
Mathematical
Practices
Percent
aApplicable is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
Figure 35. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standard within the Mathematics Conceptual Category as Applicablea to their Course, for Business Management, Computer Technology, and Healthcare
Business management (243 respondents)
Computer technology (153 respondents)
Healthcare (186 respondents)
NAEP Preparedness Studies
Content alignment studies to evaluate extent of content overlap between NAEP and other assessments (completed)
Judgmental standard‐setting studies to set cut scores on NAEP
using definitions of preparedness for the specific post‐secondary
activity (underway)
Statistical relationship studies to project preparedness indicators
onto NAEP scale by relating NAEP to performance on other
assessments (underway)
Survey study to collect data regarding cut scores on other
assessments used for placement decisions (underway)
Benchmarking studies to collect NAEP data on performance of
students who have entered post‐secondary activities (cancelled
for now).
500
391
367
336
327
313
297
286
277
256
243
0
346
302
265
College and Career Preparedness:
Same
C ollege
P reparednes s
S tandards :A
C ollege
P reparednes s
S tandards :B
E xemplarJ ob1E xemplarJ ob2
E xemplarJ ob3
E xemplarJ ob4
E xemplarJ ob5P lac ementin
entry‐level
c redit‐bearing
cours e
500
391
367
336
327
313
297
286
277
256
243
0
346
302
265
College and Career Preparedness:
Different
E xemplarJ ob1
E xemplarJ ob2
E xemplarJ ob3
E xemplarJ ob4
E xemplarJ ob5
C ollege
P reparednes s
S tandards :A
C ollege
P reparednes s
S tandards :B
P lac ementin
entry‐level
c redit‐bearing
cours e
College and Career Preparedness:
Unclear
500
391
367
336
327
313
297
286
277
256
243
0
346
302
265
C ollege
P reparednes s
S tandards :B
C ollege
P reparednes s
S tandards :A
P lac ementin
entry‐level
c redit‐bearing
cours e
E xemplarJ ob4
E xemplarJ ob1
E xemplarJ ob5
E xemplarJ ob3
E xemplarJ ob2
31
College eligibility measures are well developed but
exceedingly narrow in scope.
Few general career readiness measures exist.
Each phenomenon is far more complex than current
instruments and methods can gauge.
An openness to a wider range of indicators and data is
necessary to understand the relationship between
the two and to develop new systems for quantifying
readiness across both dimensions.
Measuring College and Career
Readiness
32
Measuring College and Career
Readiness
A broader range of measures is necessary to capture
college and career readiness.
Not all students need the same set of knowledge and
skills to succeed in college and careers.
Profiles of student strengths and weaknesses in
relation to specific postsecondary programs of study
would allow for better matches between students
and programs and would enhance student success.
33
College and career readiness can be defined along a
continuum from narrow to broad, from unidimensional to
multidimensional.
A narrow definition is easier to measure and may be useful
at a state level as a gross indicator of readiness but is far
less useful at the individual student level.
A more expansive definition is more challenging to
measure but yields more accurate data at the state level
and more actionable information at the school and student
level.
College and career ready definitions have areas of
significant overlap in necessary Key Content Knowledge
and Key Learning Skills and Techniques.
College readiness and career readiness are not exactly the
same, but the commonalities are sufficient for developing
simultaneous measures.
Conclusion
34
To Learn More About College and
Career Readiness:
For more information,
visit www.epiconline.org
Rigor and R
elevance Defined
Traditionally, rigoris m
easured by how dem
anding the instructional material is and how
thoroughly the teacher covers its. D
aggett shifts the focus of rigor from teacher to student
and measures rigor by the
higher-order competencies
the students have mastered as result
of the lesson.
Relevance
extends the learning beyond the classroom by teaching students to apply w
hat
they are learningto real w
orld situations.
Rigor/R
elevance Fram
ework
The Rigor/Relevance Framew
ork is a tool developed by Willard D
aggett and the staff of the International C
enter for Leadership in Education to examine curriculum
, instruction, and assessm
ent and based on two dim
ensions of higher standards and student achievement:
1.K
nowledge Taxonom
y:The increasingly com
plex ways in w
hich we think. This m
oves from
the acquisition of knowledge and being able to recall or locate that know
ledge to m
ore complex w
ays in which individuals take several pieces of know
ledge and combine
them in both logical and creative w
ays.
2.A
pplication Model:
Five levels which put know
ledge to use. While the low
end is know
ledge acquired for its own sake, the high end signifies use of that know
ledge to solve com
plex real-world problem
s and to create unique projects, designs, and other w
orks for use in real-world situations.
Rigor
&Relevance
An
Overview
“
”
As students m
ove from class to class and progress to the next grade, they are
exposed to isolated bits of content-specific knowledge, but they are not taught how
what they learn in one class relates to another or its application in the w
orld outside
of school. . .What is im
portant is that students enter the global economy w
ith the ability
to apply what they learned in school to a variety of ever-changing situations that they
couldn’t foresee before graduating. That is the mark of a quality education and a truer
indication of academic excellence.
– Willard R. D
aggett, Ed.D.
Prentice H
all tools for rigor & relevance
Key features include:
•A
n Inquiry-based approach supports the individual and active learning process•
The Integrated multi-discipline instruction connects learning experiences in a m
eaningful way
•Em
bedded practice and instant feedback gives students the opportunity to identify their strengths and w
eakness and actively participate in the learning process•
A variety of assessm
ent options offered before, during, and after each lesson effectively measure
student competencies
•Real-w
orld connections apply acquired skills to help students become inform
ed decision makers
and active citizens•
Hands-on and technology activities encourage students to think and act beyond the classroom
•
Pedagogy and content help students connect key concepts, identify patterns, and predict outcomes
Where can I find m
ore information?
•http://w
ww
.leadered.com/rigor.shtm
l•
http://ww
w.sum
mit-academ
y.com/InternetResources/parent_resources/Rigor_Relevance_intro.pdf
•http://w
ww
.leadered.com/PP/Rigorrelevance.ppt (pow
er point presentations)•
http://ww
w.daggett.com
/RRRResources.pdf (catalog of publications and tool kits)
QuadrantC
– Assim
ilation
Students extend and refine their acquired know
ledge to be able to use that knowledge
automatically and routinely to analyze and
solve problems and create solutions.
QuadrantD
– Adaptation
Students have the competence to think in com
plex ways and
to apply their knowledge and skills. Even w
hen confrontedw
ith perplexing unknowns, students are able to use extensive
knowledge and skill to create solutions and take action that
further develops their skills and knowledge.
QuadrantA
– Acquisition
Students gather and store bits of knowledge
and information. Students are prim
arily expected to rem
ember or understand this know
ledge.
QuadrantB
– Application
Students use acquired knowledge to solve problem
s, design solutions, and com
plete work. The highest level of application
is to apply knowledge to new
and unpredictable situations.
Rigor &
Relevance Q
uadrant Descriptions
Rigor/R
elevance Fram
ework
The Rigor/Relevance Framew
ork has four quadrants. It shifts from teacher-centered instruction
to student-centered learning focusing less on the material the teacher covers and m
ore on the com
petencies students have mastered as a result of the lesson:
C– A
ssimilation
A– A
cquisitionB
– Application
D– A
daptationEvaluation 6Synthesis 5A
nalysis 4A
pplication 3C
omprehension 2A
wareness 1
Knowledge
Application
Knowledge in
one disciplineA
pply knowledge
in one disciplineA
pply knowledge
across disciplinesA
pply knowledge
to real-world
predictable situations
Apply know
ledge to real-w
orld unpredictable situations
12
34
5
rom the C
ivil War until the
1970s, the United States w
as the w
orld’s most successful m
ass-pro-duction econom
y, the very best at producing standardized goods and
services at least cost and selling them at
the lowest price.
These
mass-production
successes required rigorous discipline and narrow
skill. Final products and services w
ere broken dow
n into their smallest repro-
ducible components and rigid single-pur-
pose machinery w
as built to mass-pro-
duce standardized components. A
large
mass of unskilled labor w
as used to tend the m
achines. A m
uch smaller group
of broadly skilled and broadly assigned w
hite-collar and technical elites were
installed at the top of large-scale organi-zational pyram
ids.
Something happened in the early 1970s.
Suddenly the United States’ m
ass-pro-duction system
seemed to lose its com
-petitive edge. People began to dem
and m
ore than mass-produced standard-
ized goods and services because often they could afford m
ore. Family incom
e doubled betw
een 1946 and 1972 in the U
nited States, and Am
erica’s economic
“golden age” was m
irrored in the rest of the w
orld. A
s the world got richer, the appeal
of standardized comm
odities and ser-vices declined. C
ompetition shifted rap-
idly to new kinds of value added that
required new kinds of skill. W
ith added w
ealth consumption shifted to serv ices
like health care, education and media.
Service func-
tions even began to dom
inate manu-
facturing where m
aking products becam
e a simple parlor
tricks and more of the value added cam
e from
marketing, financing, custom
er service and m
anaging quality, variety, custom
ization, innovation, convenience, novelty and speeded operations.
In addition, as the rest of the world
dug out from the rubble of W
orld War
II and began to prosper, they began to com
pete with us at hom
e and in world
markets. W
e are no longer insulated from
head-to-head global competition. T
he increasing com
petition and the demand
for new kinds of value added have cre-
ated more intense, constantly escalating
and increasingly complex com
petitive requirem
ents. The traditional com
peti-tion based on the ability to m
ass pro-duce standardized goods and services and sell them
at low cost has been gradually
displaced by a competition based on a
diverse mix of requirem
ents and new
kinds of value added, including: Productive investm
ent. The new
know
ledge economy requires constant
investments in hum
an capital, technol-ogy and infrastructure, and if w
e don’t invest to keep up and get ahead, our com
petitors will. T
he old-time religion
of cost reduction does not work in the
knowledge econom
y because it tends to reduce investm
ents in the constantly flourishing m
ix of skilled employees,
information-based technologies and flex-
ible organizational formats necessary
to meet new
performance standards. In
the knowledge econom
y, productivity is pursued through constant investm
ents in the synergies betw
een technology and skill that lead to institutions that are suf-ficiently robust to com
pete in modern
markets. In the 21 st century that m
eans every child needs som
e postsecondary education or training.
Quality. Q
uality is a primary stand-
ard for competitive success. Busy people
have no time for products or services
that don’t work for them
, and they can afford m
ore. Quality requires lots of new
skills up and dow
n the line ranging from
technical competency to the ability to
take responsibility for the final product or service regardless of one’s job descrip-tion. In a quality w
orkplace, “It’s not my
job” doesn’t cut it anymore.
Variety. A
s competition has inten-
sified, plain vanilla is no longer good enough. T
o satisfy the growing diversity
of demand in both dom
estic and global m
arkets, the once-standardized offerings
of mass production have given w
ay to an explosion of choices. A
BC, N
BC and
CBS w
ere good enough in the 1950s, but now
adays there are 500 cable channels and people still com
plain there’s nothing w
orthwhile on T
V and they need m
ore choices. T
he ability to produce variety requires w
orkers with the creativity and
problem-solving skills necessary to pro-
vide more than one-size-fits-all products
or services. C
ustomization. O
ne-size-fits-all stand-ardization has been superseded by cus-tom
ized goods and services from clothing
to health care, financial managem
ent, m
edicine and salad bars. Custom
iza-tion, like variety, requires the ability to be able to problem
solve and empathize
with custom
er wants and needs.
Convenience. B
usy people crave convenience. W
hy drive anywhere or
stand in line when you can get w
hat you w
ant 24/7 on the Internet. Convenience
requires workers w
ho can empathize w
ith custom
er needs and use comm
unication and listening skills necessary for good old-fashioned custom
er service. C
onsistency. Meeting perform
ance standards som
e of the time is not enough.
Workers require dependability and com
-m
itment in order to m
eet efficiency, quality, variety, custom
ization, conve-nience, speed, innovation and social-responsibility standards all the tim
e. Speed and continuous innovation.
Various benchm
arks exist for improve-
ments in speed or cycle tim
e. The first
is generating a new idea ahead of the
competition. B
ut getting ideas first is not enough. T
he only way to establish
trust and an organizational brand name
with clients is by getting new
ideas off the draw
ing board and into the hands of custom
ers. Improving or expanding value
in products or services incrementally and
continuously to stay ahead of the compe-
tition also is critical. There’s a Starbucks
on every corner for a reason. Social responsibility. A
s consumers
are given more and m
ore goods and serv-ices to choose from
, the values associated w
ith a particular brand can make a com
-petitive difference. C
onsumers w
ho becom
e wealthier and have m
ore choices tend to w
ant to satisfy more than their
material needs. C
ustomers w
ant products and services from
organizations that, at least, do not violate their values and, at m
ost, represent their values.
The fundam
ental change in skill require-m
ents in the Am
erican economic system
has been due to the shift from
the indus-trial era to the postindustrial era of the know
ledge economy. T
he new know
ledge econom
y that has emerged has replaced
the rote skills of the assembly lines of
yesteryear with flexible technologies and
“high-performance w
ork systems” that rely
on more skilled and autonom
ous work-
ers. In an era of flexible production and service delivery system
s and more rapid
economic change, w
orkers not only need better technical preparation, they also need sufficiently robust skills to adapt to changing requirem
ents on the job.
As the structure of the U
.S. economy
has shifted from an industrial econom
y to a postindustrial service econom
y, new
skill requirements have em
erged. In gen-eral, the dem
and for specific academic
and vocational skills has been augmented
with a grow
ing need for general skills, including learning, reasoning, com
muni-
cating, general problem-solving skills and
behavioral skills.
The new
postindustrial jobs in indus-tries like business services, education, health care and office service require higher levels of interpersonal and prob-lem
-solving skills because the work
entails higher levels of human interac-
tion and personalized responses to peo-ple’s w
ants and needs. T
hese same behavioral skills are
required in high-technology and man-
ufacturing jobs as well because the
technology itself takes on more of the
rote, manual processing tasks, allow
ing em
ployees to spend more tim
e interact-ing w
ith each other to exploit the new
flexible technologies in order to provide cutting-edge value added such as qual-ity, variety, custom
ization, convenience, speed and innovation.
Most em
ployers today cannot compete
successfully without a w
orkforce that can use solid academ
ic skills in applied set-tings. Increased interaction w
ith sophis-ticated com
puterized machinery requires
good technical reading skills for efficient use. A
nd writing is frequently the first
step in comm
unicating with custom
ers, docum
enting competitive transactions or
successfully moving new
ideas into the w
orkplace. Em
ployers need workers w
ho have m
astered reading processes that allow
them to locate inform
ation and use
higher-level thinking strategies to solve problem
s. Similarly, w
riting on the job often requires analysis, conceptualization, synthesis and distillation of inform
ation and clear articulation of points and pro-posals. In a w
ork environment, m
ath skills need to be contextual and rooted in problem
identification, reasoning, esti-m
ation and problem solving.
Foundation skills, or knowing how
to learn. Learning is now
a fact of life if w
orkers are going to keep up with the
blur of change in modern w
orkplaces. W
orkers who have “learned how
to learn” can achieve com
petency in other required w
orkplace skills, but for those w
ho have not, learning is not as rapid, nor as efficient or com
prehensive. C
omm
unication skills: Listening and oral com
munication. C
omm
unication is central to the sm
ooth operation of all w
ork environments. W
orkers spend most
of their days in some form
of comm
unica-tion. T
hey comm
unicate with each other
about procedures and problems, and they
also relay and receive information to and
from custom
ers. Effective oral com
munication also
requires that workers have sufficient
self-awareness to understand how
they are perceived and w
hat they hear. It is im
portant for workers to understand and
value comm
unication approaches that are different in style from
their own, as w
ell as adjust their style w
hen in comm
unica-tion w
ith someone w
ho has a style that is different from
their own. Listening skills
also affect the efficient transmission and
receipt of information in the w
orkplace.C
omm
unication skills are at the heart of getting and keeping custom
ers and gathering product feedback, as w
ell as for participating in w
ork teams and resolving
conflicts on the job. A
daptability: Problem solving and
creative thinking. An institution’s ability
to achieve its strategic objectives often depends on how
quickly and effectively it can transcend barriers to im
proved productivity and com
petitiveness. These
pressures put problem solving and cre-
ative thinking at a premium
— at all
levels of an organization.Problem
solving includes the ability to recognize and define problem
s, invent and im
plement solutions, and track and
evaluate results. Cognitive skills, group-
interaction skills and problem-processing
skills are all crucial to successful prob-lem
solving. New
approaches to problem
solving, organizational design or product developm
ent all spring from the individ-
ual capacity for creative thinking. G
roup effectiveness: Interpersonal skills, negotiation and team
work. Interper-
sonal, negotiation and teamw
ork skills are basic tools for achieving the flexibil-ity and adaptability that A
merica’s w
ork-force m
ust have to remain com
petitive.T
he use of workplace team
s to meet
complex sets of standards is now
com-
monplace in m
any Am
erican businesses. C
hange strategies also are dependent on the ability of em
ployees to pull together and refocus on the new
comm
on goal.T
his pooling of resources, however,
frequently requires team m
embers to have
an array of skills that individual or routine jobs do not dem
and. Quality team
work
results when team
mem
bers know how
to recognize and cope w
ith various and unique personalities and w
hen each has a sense of the cultures and approaches that
other team m
embers represent. Interper-
sonal and negotiation skills are the cor-nerstones of successful team
work. U
nre-solved conflicts can sap productivity and short-circuit strategic plans.
Influence: Organizational effectiveness
and leadership. Both organizational effec-tiveness and leadership skills are essential to successful institutions. T
o be effective in an organization, w
orkers need a sense of the cultural w
orkings of the organiza-tion and how
their actions affect orga-nizational and strategic objectives. A
t the sam
e time, organizational effective-
ness requires that workers understand
what organizations are, w
hy they exist and how
to navigate the social waters of
varying types of organizations.
At its m
ost basic level, leadership m
eans that a person can influence others to act in a certain w
ay. Organizational
skills are the building blocks for leader-ship. U
naccompanied by them
, leader-ship skills can be m
isplaced and even counterproductive. Every person m
ay need, at tim
es, to lead or influence a w
ork group or provide a vision of what
the organization as a whole requires.
Personal managem
ent: Self-esteem
and motivation/goal setting. In the past,
employers view
ed workers w
ith solid occupational-specific skills as sufficient for success on the job. But as w
orkers are increasingly called upon to m
ake deci-sions at the point of production or point of sale and display good interpersonal skills w
hen working in team
s or with
customers, the confidence that engenders
success in these areas springs from a posi-
tive sense of self-worth or self-esteem
.Self-esteem
is at the core of many
other skills required on the job. Work-
ers with a healthy self-esteem
are able to recognize their current skills, be aw
are of their im
pact on others and understand their em
otional set points and abilities to cope w
ith stress, change and criticism on
the job. They also are able to recognize
their own lim
its and seek new inform
a-tion or assistance to solve problem
s and construct solutions.
Workplace success also depends on
workers w
ho are motivated and able to
set and meet reasonable goals. W
orkers’ lack of m
otivation or goal-setting skills can produce an organizational undercur-rent of repeated errors, absenteeism
and quality problem
s, or it can construct bar-riers along the path to change. Poor per-form
ance can often be lined to deficien-cies in self-esteem
or motivation.
Resilience: C
ognitive style. The
new, fast-paced and unforgiving global
economy results in constant change in
skills required for specific jobs. Constant
economic and technological change also
discourages growth in job tenure and
increases the overall rate of job creation and job destruction. T
he subtlest behav-ioral asset in m
anaging school, work and
life in the constant flux of modern tim
es is a positive cognitive style.
The notion of “positive cognitive style”
is more than self-esteem
or the power of
positive thinking. Self-esteem and positive
thinking are internal attitudes that persist
regardless of external experiences of suc-cess or failure. C
ognitive styles are the various w
ays people process information
gained from experience —
positive cogni-tive styles encourage success and negative styles encourage failure.
Those w
ith a negative cognitive style tend to see failure as a result of causes that are perm
anent, pervasive and per-sonal. T
hey tend to discount successes as tem
porary, limited in scope and unrelated
to personal merit. People w
ith a negative cognitive style tend to be less successful because they cede control over the choices in their lives to their circum
stances, reducing their ability to act and persevere. T
he available evidence and old-fashioned com
mon sense suggest that the feelings of
helplessness that underlie a negative cog-nitive style are a learned behavior subject to environm
ental influences. If those sub-jected to persistent negative feedback in their interactions w
ith the world learn to
perceive failures as permanent, pervasive
and personal, this can lead to learned helplessness unless extraordinary com
pen-satory support is provided.
At som
e point, everyone has to put an occupational point on their educational pencil. A
small share of students begins
to receive occupational preparation in high school through vocational program
s, career academ
ies and other applied curri-
cula. In general, with notable exceptions,
high school vocational preparation does not provide long-lasting earnings advan-tages. For the m
ost part, these programs
survive as an alternative applied pedagogy to m
eet statewide academ
ic performance
standards and as an alternative prepara-tion for further postsecondary education.
Am
ong those who term
inate their education w
ith high school, most get job
training primarily on the job, although as
a general rule those with the m
ost post-secondary education get the m
ost train-ing on the job.
For most high school students, occu-
pational preparation continues or begins w
ith some kind of postsecondary educa-
tion or training. A sm
aller share of elite college graduates continues their gen-eral education through the bachelor’s degree and then gets their occupational or professional education in graduate or professional school. A
s a general rule, those w
ith the richest mix of educational
attainment and occupational or profes-
sional education earn the most m
oney.T
o some extent, the increase in the
demand for both education and occu-
pational credentialing derives from the
changing relationships between em
ploy-ers and em
ployees. As change accelerates
on the job, employers need better learn-
ers and cannot take the time to develop
talent from the ground up. Education
credentials increasingly are used to signal learning potential. A
nd when relation-
ships between em
ployers and employees
become less stable, reliable educational
and occupational credentials become
more im
portant in matching individual
skills to new job requirem
ents.T
he increasing reach of economic
market com
petition raises educational hiring standards. A
s economic m
arkets for goods, services and labor go from
local to regional to national to global, skill requirem
ents also escalate from local
to national and, ultimately, to w
orld-class standards. In addition, in larger geographic m
arkets employers are hiring
strangers, putting a premium
on proven education and occupational degrees and certified experience.