The Education Reform, School To Work, Workforce Training Initiative July 1997

The Education Reform
School-To-Work
Workforce Training
Initiative
Washington State
and the
National and Federal
Agenda
July 1997
This report, completed in July 1997, is dedicated to all the citizens who have
worked long hours without recognition, appreciation, or compensation;
researching and fighting to save our God given right to Freedom, Liberty, and
Justice. At no time has our nation been so endangered. As Americans, we live
in a time of greater oppression than did our Founding Fathers when they
declared their independence from Britain. The forces for democracy will not be
satisfied until our God given rights are gone; God is banished from our homes
and our society; and our once great nation is embroiled in the cauldron of
humanist oppression. We fight evil greater than man himself. May God save
our nation.
Lynn M Stuter
This report, as typed and presented to the legislature, totaled

138 pages and consists of three parts: the first two dealing with
education reform; the third with school-to-work and workforce
training. This document takes the reader through the history of
education reform, school-to-work, and workforce training in
Washington State. Research would most likely produce a similar
document for other states.
i
Table of Contents
Alphabet Soup ...........................................................................................................iii
Education Reform; Washington State and the National Agenda ..................................................1

The NASDC; NCEE/NARE/NSP Connection to Washington State.............................................1
The Washington Alliance for Restructuring Education/
Washington Alliance for Better Schools................................................................. 14
Summation ........................................................................................................ 21
Education Reform; Washington State and the Federal Agenda ................................................. 23

Washington State and Goals 2000 ............................................................................. 23
Washington State and the Improving America’s Schools Act .............................................. 41
Summation ........................................................................................................ 43
School-to-Work/Workforce Training; Washington State and the

National and Federal Restructuring Agenda ................................................................. 45
School-to-Work/Workforce Training — The Early Years.................................................... 45
A State Workforce Training and Education System ......................................................... 51
Federal Grants and Out-of-State Technical Assistance .................................................... 58
Money With Strings Attached................................................................................... 73
The CQI/PMCI/HPWO Framework.............................................................................103
National Influence in Washington State .....................................................................106
Summation ....................................................................................................... 106
Appendices:
A ................................................................................................................... 113
B ................................................................................................................... 114
C ................................................................................................................... 116
D ................................................................................................................... 118
E ................................................................................................................... 120
F.................................................................................................................... 122
G ................................................................................................................... 123
H ................................................................................................................... 124
I .................................................................................................................... 125
J.................................................................................................................... 127
K ................................................................................................................... 128
L.................................................................................................................... 130
© July 1997; Lynn M Stuter
ii
Alphabet Soup
For the purposes of ready access and ease of reading, the alphabet soup used in this report is
defined here:
AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children

CEEC Center for Education, Employment, and Community
CFEE Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy
CIM Certificate of Initial Mastery
CQI Continuous Quality Improvement
CSAW Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce
CSL Commission on Student Learning
DSHS Department of Social and Health Services
ECS Education Commission of the States
EDC Education Development Center
ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act
GCERF Governor's Council on Education Reform and Funding
HB House Bill
HPWO High Performance Work Organization
IASA Improving America's Schools Act
IPPM Institute of Public Policy and Management
ISO International Standards Organization
JTPA Job Training Partnership Act
JFF Jobs For the Future
JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
LEA Local Education Agency
LMI Labor Market Information
LRDC Learning Research and Development Center
MAT Metropolitan Achievement Test
NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress
NARE National Alliance for Restructuring Education
NAS New American Schools
NASDC New American Schools Development Corporation
NCEE National Center on Education and the Economy
NCES National Center on Educational Statistics
NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures
NGA National Governors' Association
NPC National Policy Center
NSP New Standards Project
OBE Outcomes-Based Education or Outcome-Based Education
OFM Office of Financial Management
OSPI Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
PMCI Performance Management for Continuous Improvement
PPBS Planning Programming Budgeting Systems
PTA Parent Teacher Association
RFP Request for Proposal
SB Senate Bill
SCANS Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
SEA State Education Agency
iii
Alphabet Soup
SIGs School Implementation Grants
SPI Superintendent of Public Instruction
TQM Total Quality Management
VTI Vocational Technical Institute
WAB Washington Association of Business
WABS Washington Alliance for Better Schools
WARE Washington Alliance for Restructuring Education
WASA Washington Association of School Administrators
WCC Work-related Competencies Committee
WIAT Washington Institute of Applied Technology
WNSP Washington New Standards Project
WSSDA Washington State School Directors Association
WTECB Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
iv
Education Reform Washington State and the National Agenda
The NASDC; NCEE/NARE/NSP Connection To Washington State
In 19901 the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE) was formed by four states
and five large urban school districts who became site partners2 — Washington State being one
of the states. NARE is a program of National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE),
Marc Tucker, president. Funding for NARE came from the Pew Charitable Trusts.3
NCEE was centered in Rochester, New York; and is now centered out of Washington, DC.4
NCEE was formerly the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (CFEE) of which Tucker
was Executive Director. CFEE was formed in 1985 with funding from Carnegie Corporation.
NCEE has received funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund,
and the German Marshall Fund.5 The Center also received more than $5 million in New York
state funds from Mario Cuomo when he was Governor of New York and also honorary chair of
NCEE.6
The year 1990, however, was not the first contact between Washington State and Marc
Tucker. In 1986, the year that CFEE produced A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st
Century, then Governor Booth Gardner invited Tucker to Washington State to discuss the
report.7 In 1987, Tucker returned to Washington State, addressing the Legislature on
legislation proposing the Schools for the 21st Century Program. The proposal, SB 5479, passed
and Brian Benzel, Superintendent of the Edmonds School District, became the chair of the
Schools for the 21st Century Program. At its inception, the program piloted education reform
in twenty-one schools and school districts in Washington State. Two years later, twelve more
schools and school districts were added. In total, 52,106 students in 111 schools and 27
school districts were affected by the project.8 The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) was
to be used to measure academic achievement but the scores were not reported to the
Legislature and attempts by the public to obtain the scores were to no avail. While the
program claims climbing test scores, the CTBS scores in one participating school — Orondo
Elementary, did not support the contention of the reformers. “One of the goals of the
Orondo 21st Century project was to raise schoolwide achievement scores from the 30th to
the 45th percentile in five years. In just two years, the scores climbed to the 62nd
percentile.”9 Orondo became a 21st Century school in the second round, in 1990-91.10 Two
1
Some sources put the year at 1989. NARE was officially recognized in February 1990.
2
National Alliance For Restructuring Education, brochure put out by National Center on Education and the Economy;
page 9.
3
“Beyond Model Schools”; Education Week; February 8, 1995.
4
NCEE moved to Washington, DC, about the time that the New York state Attorney General began investigating the
lobbying activities of NCEE, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; also the $101,630 NCEE paid to the Rose Law Firm
for the services of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a member of the NCEE Board of Trustees and head of the NCEE
Workforce Skills Program.
5
“Education group boasted a lineup of heavy hitters,” Gregg Birnbaum and Fredric U. Dicker, Post Correspondents;
January 11, 1996. The German Marshall Fund is also a primary source of funds to the Northwest Policy Center at
the University of Washington. Workforce training is one of the Northwest Policy Center's primary focuses, along with
economic and environmental challenges facing the Pacific Northwest (Investing in People; National Conference of
State Legislatures; March 1993).
6
Ibid.
7
8
Report to the Legislature on the Schools for the 21st Century Program; January 1993, p 8.
9
Ibid; p 9.
1
years would be 1992; five years would be 1995. The following chart11 shows the CTBS test
scores for the Orondo 4th Grade Class.12
This is a far cry from the 62 percentile published in

the Report to the Legislature on the Schools for the Orondo Read. Lang. Math Ttl
21st Century Program, January 1993. Even though Btry
these scores are from different tests, there should 1991 50 40 40 43
not be that much difference in the scores between
% tested 86 86 86 86
the CTBS and the MAT. The afore-mentioned report
also includes an evaluation by Jane David, ED.D of 1992 24 25 21 21
Bay Area Research Group, acting under the auspices % tested 88 88 92 88
of NCEE.
1993 32 37 32 34
When Tucker formed NARE in February 1990, % tested 91 93 98 91

Gardner signed on as a site partner and Benzel13 1994 22 21 20 22
became the state's representative to the alliance.
% tested 100 96 100 96
One year later, in February 1991, NCEE, in

1995 39 43 42 40
collaboration with the Learning Research and % tested 87 87 87 87

Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh,
established the New Standards Project (NSP)
charged with the development of “world class standards for student achievement and to
develop a student performance assessment system to measure student progress against those
standards.” The New Standards Project was initially funded by more than $8 million from the
Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.14 An
anonymous donor contributed $2 million; the membership fee structure was expected to raise
$12 million from the current members (of which there were eighteen states and six school
districts at that time); and the remaining $10 million needed could be “raised from a variety
of federal government sources.”15
The standards would be built on the national standards as developed by such as the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, National Science Foundation16, the National
Council of Teachers of English, and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The
10
Report to the Legislature on the Schools for the 21st Century Program; January 1993, p 41.
11
Washington State Assessment Program, Grades 4, 8 and 11; A Five-Year Summary of Achievement Test Trends
in Washington School Districts; Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; February 1996.
12
Orondo School District has but one school — the elementary school that became a 21st Century School.
13
Brian Benzel carries an interesting resumé: Future of Washington's Schools Project; Superintendent of Edmonds
School District; Coordinating Council, NARE; Board of Directors, CSL; Member, National Council on Education
Standards and Testing; Advisory Board, Washington 2000; Director, Schools for the 21st Century Program; Member,
National Education Goals Panel; Member, National Standards Task Force; GCERF; Advisory Council, New Horizons
for Learning.
14
Chronological History; National Center on Education and the Economy.
15
NARE funding proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts, June 1993 – June 1996.
16
Six school districts—Bellevue, Lake Washington, Mercer Island, Northshore, Seattle, and Shoreline—linked to
UW's College of Education, Department of Mathematics, and Educational Outreach Program, recently receive a $2.7
million grant from the National Since Foundation. Northshore, Seattle, and Shoreline are known WABS schools
(Washington Learning).
2
SCANS competencies are also being sourced.17
The assessments developed by the New Standards Project would be of three interrelated
types — performance tasks, projects (on-demand examinations), and portfolios — that would
establish … international benchmark standards for performance.18 The applied learning
performance standards were built, in part, on the application projects developed by
Mountlake Terrace High School19 in the Edmonds School District.20
The New Standards Project was also charged with the task of establishing the Certificate of
Initial Mastery (CIM)21 for the NARE site partners as well as other states and school districts
who joined the New Standards Project but not NARE. Information provided in a booklet
produced by NCEE in April 1994, entitled The Certificate of Initial Mastery: A Primer, outlines
the CIM program. This publication states that the New Standards Project will manage the CIM
system as a way of “assuring students and parents that Certificates they issue will be
honored in other states,”
The national Certificate of Initial Mastery system would provide a means for making
sure that students receiving a Certificate in one state or district had reached a
standard of accomplishment substantially equal to the standard reached by a student
in any other jurisdiction.
The CIM, received at or about the age of 16, will be based on assessments:
The standards for the Certificate of Initial Mastery will be set by the Governing Board
of New Standards. … The majority of the members of this broadly representative body
have been assembled from the states and districts that will use the standards and
assessments that New Standards develops.
In setting the standards, the governing board will draw on the work of the national
professional groups now developing standards in the various subject matters, the
benchmarks set by other countries and the views of the public.22
The CIM being based on the assessment … which will be based on the newly emerging national
17
New Standards; NCEE and University of Pittsburgh; 1997; lists as a source the Secretary's Commission on
Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS); 1992.
18
NARE funding proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts, June 1993 – June 1996.
19
Mountlake Terrace High School was a 21st Century school.
20
Performance Standards; Volume 2; Middle School; National Center on Education and the Economy and the
University of Pittsburgh; 1997.
21
In the booklet, The Certificate of Initial Mastery: A Primer, put out by the Workforce Skills Program, National Center
on Education and the Economy, April 1994, is stated on page 1: “The New Standards Project, a partnership involving
19 states, is well along a path that will provide the technical means to implement the Certificate of Initial Mastery
plan.” On page 10, “Following the release of America's Choice, the report of the Commission on the Skills of the
American Workforce, a new organization – the New Standards Project – was formed to develop the standards and
student performance assessment system required to make the Certificate of Initial Mastery a practical reality.” On
page 17, “Join the New Standards Project. This is necessary because New Standards will manage the Certificate of
Initial Mastery system, and states that are not partners in the system will have no way of linking their standards to the
Certificate system or of assuring students and parents that Certificates they issue will be honored in other states.”
22
The Certificate of Initial Mastery: A Primer; National Center on Education on the Economy; April 1994.
3
standards to include the SCANS competencies23 … means that the curriculum used to pass the
assessment to achieve the CIM will also have to be based on the newly emerging national
standards. Comparison of the Essential Academic Learning requirements produced by the
Commission on Student Learning and the three volume set, entitled New Standards24,
published by the National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of
Pittsburgh, © 1997, would certainly suggest that such alignment has been made. Such would
also be suggested from the “Primary Sources” listed in the back of the March 1995 Work in
Progress Draft for Goal I of the Essential Academic Learning Requirements. Among the listed
resources are the New Standards Project, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, SCANS
and the Boeing Company.
Also in 1991, the New American Schools Development Corporation25 (NASDC) was formed by
leaders of American business at the request of President George Bush, Sr. Their charge was
to oversee the thoroughgoing redesign of America's education schools — public, private, and
homeschool. NASDC is a nonprofit organization of twenty four non-elected persons with an
advisory panel of nineteen non-elected persons.26 They are accountable to no one. This was
the first inclusion of the business sector into the field of education. In November 1991,
NASDC issued a request for proposals (RFP) for design teams to oversee the restructuring
process within states and school districts. The NASDC proposal is based on a three-phase
reform initiative:
Phase I (1992-1993) allowed Design Teams to develop and refine their designs.
Phase II (1993-1995) involved the testing and implementation of these designs in
real school settings.
Phase III (1995-1997) New American Schools will implement designs nationally,
with a focus on collaborative work in state and metropolitan jurisdictions.27
23
The newsletter of NARE, The Alliance, Volume 2, Number 2, June/July 1994, actually states, “The heart of the
school-to-work initiative is the Certificate of Initial Mastery…”
24
Of note is the “Select Bibliography” of sources listed in the back of New Standards, to include: Dutch Ministry of
Education and Science; Educational and Cultural Exchange Division, UNESCO; Ministère de l’Education Nationale,
France; Ministry of Education, New Zealand; Ministry of Education and Research, Norway; Ministry of Education of
the Russian Federation and the General School Education Institute of the Russian Academy of Education, Moscow;
Ministry of Education and Training, Canada; School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, London, England;
Scottish Office of Education Department, Edinburgh, Scotland; Utbildningsdepartmenter, Stockholm, Sweden. Also
acknowledged are several Washington schools: Meadowdale High School, Lynnwood; Mountlake Terrace High
School, Mountlake Terrace (Edmonds SD); Edmonds School District; and Newport High School.
25
The first president of NASDC was Thomas Kean who sat on CSAW in 1990. Kean had been a member of the
Executive Committee of the NGA; Chairman of NGA's Task Force on International Education; a member of the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; chairman of the Education Commission of the States; member
of the Carnegie Forum's Task Force on Teaching as a Profession; former Governor of New Jersey and former
member of the New Jersey State Assemby. (America's Choice: high skills or low wages!; p 139).
26
From its inception, Frank Shrontz, CEO of Boeing in Washington State, has been a member of the executive
committee. Shrontz is also one of the founding members of the new non-elected board of ACHIEVE; is part of
Partnership for Learning; sits on the Washington Business Roundtable; was/is on the advisory board of Washington
2000; and was on the board of GCERF. In April 1994, Shrontz was a speaker at a conference held by the Workforce
Skills Program of the National Center on Education and the Economy to discuss the Certificate of Initial Mastery (The
New Standards; Volume 2, Number 5; May 1994). [Update; 1999: Shrontz is now Chairman Emeritus of Boeing; but
he is still very active in pushing education reform in Washington State. In 1997, Shrontz was “appointed” to the
Accountability Task Force established to determine accountability measures under ESHB 1209, laws of 1993,
officially sanctioning outcome-based education in Washington State, even though said appointment represented a
conflict of interest in that Boeing stands to profit from the gathering and storing of personally identifiable data on
people (See Footnote 58). In their usual fashion, the Washington legislature refused to address this obvious conflict.]
27
Letter from NASDC dated November 30, 1995, signed by Shannon Knutti, Communications Associate.
4
Proposals were to meet certain fundamental requirements:
Explain what was to be accomplished;

Describe the basic concept and how it would be developed;
Identify who would be involved;
Explain what research or experience supports the design;
Provide a credible budget for design;
Define how the bidder and NASDC would know if the design works.28
One such design team was the National Alliance for Restructuring Education, formed in 1990,
headed by Marc Tucker, president of National Center on Education and the Economy. On
February 7, 1992, Washington Governor Booth Gardner, Washington Superintendent of Public
Instruction Judith Billings, and Brian Benzel signed a memorandum to Marc Tucker and David
Hornbeck confirming…
the participation of Washington State in our proposal to the New American Schools
Development Corporation for funding of a contract to design a new system of 'break
the mold' public schools.
The memorandum went on to say,
Our joint efforts through the National Alliance for Restructuring Education, which
have led to this proposal, clearly establish the potential for radical restructuring of
our education system. Washington's Schools for the 21st Century has led the way in
our state in this regard and provides a fertile and active basis on which to design a
new system.
On June 8, 1992, the same three individuals signed a Design Team Member Acknowledgment
Form directed to NASDC, acknowledging Washington State as part of the NCEE design team
and further acknowledging that Washington State was “prepared to provide the services and
perform the role as described in that proposal and as described below.”
NARE was one of eleven design teams who received the blessing of NASDC, and, in 1992,
secured the largest of the NASDC grants awarded the design teams —$2.5 million.29 The NARE
proposal is built over five design tasks:
1. Standards/Assessment — Defining what outcomes are wanted and creating good

measures of progress toward those outcomes. … We are committed to developing
standards and developing an examination system in all the content areas covered by
Goals 3 and 4 of the National Education Goals as well as work skills at the 4th, 8th
and 10th grade levels. … Work has begun on the tasks that will constitute the core of
the examinations. The first valid, reliable and fair exams will be available for use in
math and English language arts by 1994-95; in work readiness by 1995-96 and science
by 1996-97. …The New Standards Project is developing a mastery-based examination
28
Request for Proposals; New American Schools Development Corporation; October 1991.
29
5
system with known standards.30
Implementation Partners:
The New Standards Project

Center on Student Learning, Learning Research and Development Center at the
University of Pittsburgh.
2. Curriculum, Instructional Strategies, and Technology — Connecting schools to the

curriculum and instructional resources they need to perform to high standards. … At
its heart is the idea of setting tasks for students to do. It is the performance31 of
students on these tasks that will be assessed by the system.32
Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT)

Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce (CSAW)
3. High Performance Management — Adapting for education the principles of the total
quality movement as they have evolved recently in the best American firms.… Our
strategy is to involve a growing number of industrial corporations with a strong
reputation in the quality management field to direct technical assistance
relationships with the schools, districts and states — first those in our Alliance and
then others all over the country.33
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

High Performance Management Group, National Center on Education and the
Economy.
National Alliance of Business
Xerox Corporation
4. Health and Human Services — Improving the planning, financing and delivery of
health and human services to more effectively support student learning. …
Specifically, we aim to produce a design that will assure that all children will enter
school ready to learn and that none will fail to learn because of health, family or
other problems that effective human services could have prevented. This means
assuring the availability of integrated, comprehensive services, beginning with
prenatal care, and including continuing health care, family support services, child
care and preschool education.34
30
From the NARE proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation.
31
Perform: to adhere to the terms of : FULFILL; to carry out : DO; to do in a formal manner or according to prescribed
ritual; to give a rendition of : PRESENT; to carry out an action or pattern of behavior : ACT, FUNCTION; to give a
performance : PLAY. (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary)
32
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
6
Harvard Project on Effective Services; The Center for the Study of Social
Policy35; National Center for Service Integration.
5. Public Engagement — Identifying those strategies that will foster sustained public
support for world-class student performance standards and the revolutionary changes
in policy and practice needed to meet them. … What we are proposing is unique in
two ways. We are putting in motion a process that will yield new, world-class
standards; new assessment system; management techniques and systems that are
rare in corporate America and almost non-existent in education America; curriculum
and technology that will make our classrooms look quite unlike any that we went to
school in, and so on. Then we are proposing to put all those parts together, to
create the pedagogical analog to a chemical reaction which yields a product wholly
different from any of its parts. To provoke and sustain this change will require a
measure of public support and understanding that does not presently exist. … To
accomplish this, we will put together a comprehensive package that includes all the
techniques of the modern media strategist as well as the proven methods of
community organizing. We intend to build on very effective strategies developed by
some of our state Partners and to bring in other partners who have established
national reputations for effective work in this arena.36
The Public Agenda Foundation

Industrial Areas Foundation37
In the 1991 legislative session, legislation was introduced relative to education reform and
school-to-work/workforce training. The workforce legislation, SB 5184, passed, but the
education reform bill failed. The bill report for SB 5184 references America's Choice: high
skills or low wages! written by the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, a
program of NCEE. It is of interest to note that William Brock, who sat on CSAW, became the
head of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) under the auspices
of the U.S. Department of Labor, and currently sits on the governing board of the New
Standards Project. SB 5184 established the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
35
From the Washington Gap Analysis, authored by David Hornbeck, Ronn Robinson and Milt Doumit for the
Business Roundtable in July 1992, comes this revelation on page 25, “According to the Center for the Study of
Social Policy supported by the Annie E Casey Foundation, (two of whose Advisory Board members are Council
members Norm Rice and Frank Shrontz)…” Other financial support for the Center comes from the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
36
37
The Industrial Areas Foundation was founded in 1940 by radical activist Saul Alinsky, who, in his book, Rules for
Radicals (1971, Vintage Books), paid homage to Lucifer and stated, in the prologue, “Few of us survived the Joe
McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s and of those there were even fewer whose understanding and insights had
developed beyond the dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxism.” He also stated, in the same book, that people …
“must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the
past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this
reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system”. The Industrial Areas Foundation is in many states
but is not known by its name. In Washington State, the Industrial Areas Foundation has two affiliate organizations –
the King County Organizing Project and the Spokane Area Empowerment Project. The IAF mainly organizes around
moderate to liberal churches, seeking representation of the masses to accomplish its mission of political power.
7
Board to coalesce education reform, school-to-work, workforce training, local economic
development strategies, and local labor market needs. In 1994, the Workforce Training and
Education Coordinating Board published their comprehensive plan, High Skills, High Wages. In
the back of that document is listed the organizations and people who assisted in the
development of the document. Among those listed is Jobs for the Future —an implementing
partner to the five design tasks of NARE (not listed above), and Hilary Pennington, head of
Jobs for the Future. Also noted is the National Governors' Association (NGA) and Evelyn
Ganzglass, Director, Employment and Social Services Policies Study for the NGA. In May 1994,
Washington State was one of six states selected to … participate in a project to design the
next generation of performance management strategies to guide the design of cohesive
workforce development systems sponsored by the NGA.38 The project was funded by the
Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the U.S.
Departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services.39 The NGA would provide
…
the selected states with the assistance necessary for them to serve as laboratories to
establish joint accountability across workforce development programs and
incorporate principles of quality assurance and continuous improvement.40
By executive order41 in 1991, Gardner established the Governor's Council on Education

Reform and Funding — GCERF “to develop a long-term action plan to reform the state's
elementary and secondary schools and significantly improve student performance.”42 GCERF
council members included Governor Booth Gardner, Representative Clyde Ballard, SPI Judith
Billings, Senator Jeanette Hayner, Carla Nuxoll, Representative Kim Peery; C T Purdom, Vice-
President, Washington Education Association; Seattle Mayor Norm Rice, and Frank Shrontz,
Chairman and CEO, The Boeing Company. GCERF was to issue an interim report and action
plan by December 1, 1991, with a final report and action plan by December 1, 1992. The first
meeting was August 16, 1991, with Brian Benzel, Marc Tucker and Jane David as keynote
speakers. At that meeting, Tucker is quoted as saying that what is needed is a certification
system that defines …
what it is we want students to know and be able to do to be world class. An

educational system built on the concept that all kids can learn won't happen until we
have one standard.43
In June 1992, the final recommendations report, the cumulation of the subgroup reports, was
submitted. Many names that have become well-known in education restructuring within
Washington State — Brian Benzel, Dee Dickinson, Donna Dunning, Bob Hughes, Jerry
Litzenberger, Al Rasp, and Frank Shrontz, showed up on the subgroup reports along with
names from out-of-state who have also become well-known — Richard Stiggins on
assessments, Linda Darling-Hammond of Columbia University, and Dr Shirley McCune44 then of
38
Memorandum of April 4, 1994; National Governors' Association.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Executive Order 91-04 dated May 16, 1991.
42
Ibid.
43
Governor's Council on Education Reform and Funding; August 1991.
44
McCune is, as of the February newsletter of the Washington State OSPI, Washington Learning, now a member of
the staff of Dr Terry Bergeson, SPI. McCune is also listed on the international advisory board of New Horizons for
8
Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratories based in Aurora, Colorado.
In December 1992, GCERF published Putting Children First, a blueprint or action plan for
change. Among the notables listed as expert consultants appears the names of Marc Tucker,
Jane David, Michael Kirst45, and Shirley McCune. Special thanks was given to, among others,
David Hornbeck,46 co-director, National Alliance for Restructuring Education and senior
education consultant for the National Business Roundtable; and to Brian Benzel.
The Washington New Standards Project (WNSP) was formed in 1991/92. At that time, WNSP
represented … a partnership with:
o Seventeen actively engaged Washington districts

o Washington's Commission on Student Learning
o The national New Standards Project which includes 17 states and six urban school
districts 47
In the first two years of its existence, the WNSP was engaged in “the national effort to write
performance tasks, develop scoring rules and pilot performance assessments.”48 In 1992-93,
the Washington New Standards Project, whose steering committee includes …
representatives from Seattle, Shoreline, OSPI, Northshore, Edmonds, Boeing and

Bellevue … reached over 450 educators from more than 50 districts statewide …49
Activities of the WNSP in 1992-93 include…
o Statewide Awareness — 100 teachers were trained in performance assessment in

the Fall of 1992. 280 teachers were trained during the Spring of 1993 with the
help of a grant from OSPI
o Performance Assessment … Twenty teachers from Washington were involved in a
national effort to write performance assessment tasks in math and literacy.
Fifty-five teachers wrote nine performance tasks during a two day task writing
workshop in Bellevue
o Pilot Assessments … 137 teachers in Washington piloted national performance
assessments in math and literacy in the Spring of 1993. Twenty teachers from
Washington participated in national scoring of those assessments. Fifty teachers
Learning, a Seattle-based group that promotes Eastern mystic practices in the classroom. From Mid-continent
Regional Educational Laboratories, McCune became part of an educational consulting firm in Washington, DC. She
comes to Washington State from the College of Extended Education, University of Arizona. [Update: In 1996,
McCune co-authored a book with Dr Norma Milanovich, entitled The Light Shall Set You Free, in which she claims to
be a channeler for the theosophical Ascended Masters El Morya, Kuthumi, Pallas Athena, Sananda, St Germain,
Hilarion, Mother Mary, Quan Yin, Melchizedek, Archangel Michael and Walt Disney.]
45
Of Stanford University. On the Education Advisory Panel, NASDC. In the 1970's, Kirst worked with PPBS
(Planning Programming Budgeting Systems) in California. PPBS is another term for the total quality management
concept. [also management by objective, continuous quality improvement, the high performance work organization,
outcome-based education (by all its various and assundry names).]
46
Hornbeck, along with Milt Doumit and Ronn Robinson (Boeing) also produced the Washington Gap Analysis in July
1992. The report was prepared under the auspices of the Business Roundtable. Although supposedly tailored
specifically to Washington State, the report ran parallel to reports completed by Hornbeck for other states.
47
Performance Based Learning; A New Focus on Student Performance; Washington New Standards Project.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.
9
from Washington participated in a state scoring conference to review the quality
of those assessments (funding from Boeing helped with this activity.)
o Applied Learning … Five teams are partnering with business in writing
interdisciplinary high school level performance assessments.50
On March 3, 1993, Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction Judith Billings

signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing Washington to a … partnership role with
LRDC, the National Center and others in the New Standards Project and to share in the
activities of the Project as described below, for the period of July 1, 1992, through June 30,
1995.51 The memorandum committed Washington State to a fee of $125,000 for the 1992-
1993 fiscal year and $250,000 per year thereafter for the duration of the contract contingent
on legislative appropriation. Indications are, however, that Washington State was involved in
the New Standards Project from its inception. In a letter signed by Billings, dated February
17, 1995, she states,
It is my understanding that shortly after the New Standards Project was launched, the
Boeing Company provided funding to the National Center on Education and the
Economy so that during the first year of operation Washington State could be a New
Standards Project partner and begin participation in activities.
Washington State, from January 1993 through January 1995, paid $625,000 in membership
fees and was projected to pay another $625,000 in membership fees between July 1995 and
July 1997 — $1,250,000 in total.52 Washington State was also projected to pay, from August
1995 through 1997, another $662,400 in fee for service charges for portfolios and for the
reference exam and scoring — both NSP projects.53 In a legislative hearing conducted
February 28, 1997, Dr Terry Bergeson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, formerly the
Executive Director of the Commission on Student Learning, stated that she cancelled the
contract that was paid through June 1995 and terminated in June 1995.
Indications are, also from the letter signed by Billings, that 25 Washington educators
(primarily from the Edmonds and Bellevue School districts) participated in the 1991 New
Standards Project Snowmass conference “when more than 400 teachers from across the
nation came together with top experts in assessment, learning and curriculum to create the
first … of the performance tasks that [would] constitute the essence of the new system.”54
From this conference, it was … up to teachers to take their lessons learned at the summer
meeting back to their peers.55 In the letter signed by Billings, she goes on to say, “Since
1991, the New Standards Project has expanded in Washington to include many schools and
teachers.”
50
Performance Based Learning; A New Focus on Student Performance; Washington New Standards Project.
51
The Memorandum of Understanding between The Washington Department of Public Instruction, The Learning
Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh, and The National Center on Education and the
Economy concerning The New Standards Project.
52
Commission on Student Learning, Proposed Operational Budget; FY 1994-97.
53
Ibid.
54
New Standards Project brochure put out by NCEE and LRDC/University of Pittsburgh.
55
The New Standard; Volume 2, Number 7; July 1994.
10
According to a letter, dated March 31, 1995, from Kathy Kimball and Rosalind Philips56 to the
Commission on Student Learning, Washington State …
joined the project in order to take advantage of pooled resources for research and
development in the area of performance assessment. The Commission's goal is to gain
access to information, expertise and a nationally validated bank of assessment tasks
that we can use as we create our own assessment system.
In the fall of 1994, seventy-two randomly selected school districts in Washington State,
representing approximately 6,900 students, participated in the New Standards reference
exam — “a series of performance tasks that are based on content and performance
standards.”57 The test was administered by Westat58 under contract to the New Standards
Project. A scoring conference was planned for the end of April 1995 …
so that the exam participants can learn to score performance based tasks. The
scoring conference is an excellent capacity building activity. Teachers will train to
qualify on two tasks. New Standards is providing student work; CSL will print anchor
sets and calibration materials. The conference raises assessment awareness and gives
teachers the opportunity to experience scoring and evaluating student work to a
standard.59
In early 1995, twenty-five Washington State classrooms were piloting items for the 1995 fall
mathematics reference exam and thirty classrooms were piloting items for the 1995 fall
English/language arts exam.60 In August 1994, teachers in twenty districts voluntarily began
participation in field trials on the use of math and language arts portfolios in the classroom.61
A portfolio field trial is a process used over an extended period of time; with teacher and
student feedback collected periodically and used to revise the portfolio handbook and
rubrics. New materials are then sent out for evaluation and the process starts again. In
August 1994 a conference was held at the Shoreline Center62 to orient 125 teachers from
twenty school districts, almost 1,000 students, to the New Standards Project portfolio
process. Support meetings for teachers were held in November 1994 and February 1995, and
a two-day meeting to concentrate on scoring issues was planned for May 1995.63 In 1994/1995
Phil Daro64 and Elizabeth Stage of the University of California Office of the President65 came
56
In 1994, Rosalind Philips won a Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. She is
listed as a New Standards teacher in the journal of the New Standards Project, The New Standard.
57
Letter of Kathy Kimball and Rosalind Philips to the Commission on Student Learning, dated March 31, 1995.
58
It is of worthy note that Boeing Computer Services owns one of two mainframe computer systems that house
restricted use NAEP data files of personally identifiable information for the National Center on Educational Statistics
(NCES) under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education. Other organizations, contractors and
subcontractors may access this information with the proper license. Two such contractors, known to be accessing
data on students and unemployment insurance files in Washington State, are National Computer Systems and
Westat.
59
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
62
This is a TDC – teacher development center.
63
64
In the April/May 1994 issue of The Alliance, the newsletter of NARE, Phil Daro is listed as … “director of
assessment development at the New Standards Project.” In 1997, Daro was listed as the Executive Director of the
New Standards Project in NCEE documents.
11
to Washington State to map the Essential Learnings with New Standards Project performance
standards and performance tasks. During the same time frame…
Eugene Paslov, NSP Executive Director and Cheryl Tibbals, NSP Director of State and
Local Relations, came to Washington State to discuss linking Washington State goals
and assessment directions with New Standards goals and directions.66
On July 25, 1993, HB 1209 was signed into law by Governor Mike Lowry. HB 1209 further
defined SB 5953 passed in 1992, and is credited with bringing education reform to Washington
State. The legislation was built over the five design tasks of the NARE proposal to the New
American Schools Development Corporation:
1. Standards and Assessments: Defining what outcomes are wanted and creating good
measures of progress toward those outcomes.
HB 1209:
Part I — Student Learning Goals

Part II — Commission on Student Learning
2. Learning Environment: Connecting resources they need to the curriculum and

instructional resources they need to perform to high standards.
HB 1209:
Part III — Student Learning Improvement Grants

Part IV — Educator Training and Assistance Programs
Part VI — School-to-Work Transitions
Part VII — Technology
3. Community Services and Support: Improving the planning, financing and delivery of
health and human services to more effectively support student learning.
HB 1209:
Part IX — Readiness to Learn
4. High Performance Management: Adapting for education the principles of the total
quality movement as they have evolved in the best American firms.
HB 1209:
Part VIII — Educator Performance Assessment

Part X — Deregulation, Accountability, Funding and Legislative Oversight
65
Listed in the front of the 1997 publication of NCEE and LRDC University of Pittsburgh, New Standards, as a base
of the New Standards Project.
66
12
5. Public Engagement: Identifying those strategies that will foster sustained public
support for world-class student performance standards and the revolutionary changes
in policy and practice needed to meet them.
HB 1209:
Part V — Center for the Improvement of Student Learning
A pamphlet put out by NCEE, entitled Workforce Skills Program (which is also the name of
another program of NCEE) states,
Our assistance to the states takes multiple forms. We help state leaders draft
legislation, then develop strategic plans for implementing new education, training
and employment systems. We help leaders in government, business and education
make the case for change. We help states monitor their progress and when
necessary, make recommendations to help them ensure that their activities match
the intent of their policies.
Yet another pamphlet of NCEE, entitled Alliance for Restructuring Education, states,
The Shoreline [Washington] central administration also has embraced the Alliance's
five design tasks; in fact the superintendent has persuaded the school board to
evaluate her performance on the design tasks, since they represent the real work of
the district. She also is working with the Alliance to decentralize resources down to
the school site.
The district's prospects also are aided by the state, which is pursuing a common
agenda. That is not a coincidence. The Alliance consulted on the drafting of the
state's 1993 reform law, which calls for developing a Certificate of Mastery and lays
out a design for helping students achieve it that mirrors the Alliance design.
It becomes very apparent that NARE helped write HB 1209 referred to in the latter paragraph
as “the state's 1993 reform law.”
HB 1209, Section 202, § 3(h), lays the groundwork for ensuring the enforcement of the NARE
design — with or without their assistance, in the schools and school districts of the state of
Washington…
By December 1, 1998, [the commission on student learning and advisory committees

shall] recommend to the legislature, governor, state board of education, and
superintendent of public instruction:
i A statewide accountability system to monitor and evaluate accurately and fairly

the level of learning occurring in individual schools and school districts. … The
system shall include school-site, school district, and state-level accountability
reports;
ii A school assistance program to help schools and school districts that are having
difficulty helping students meet the essential academic learning requirements.
iii A system to intervene in schools and school districts in which significant numbers
13
of students persistently fail to learn the essential academic learning
requirements…
In other words, any school or school district which fails to meet the requirements of HB 1209
(inclusive of the five design tasks of NARE), will be subjected to state intervention.
The Washington Alliance for Restructuring Education / Washington

Alliance for Better Schools
In October 1992, Brain Benzel, Superintendent of the Edmonds School District, Dennis Ray,
Superintendent of the Northshore School District, and Mary Anne Kendall-Mitchell,
Superintendent of the Shoreline School District, collectively representing the Washington
Alliance for Restructuring Education (WARE), entered into a signed agreement with Marc
Tucker representing National Center on Education and the Economy. The agreement,
administered by David Hornbeck on behalf of NCEE, covered the period from September 1,
1992, through August 31, 1993, and was restricted to four schools in the area:67 Eisenhower
Middle School in Everett; Lynnwood High School in Lynnwood; Kellogg Middle School, Seattle,
and Bear Creek Elementary School in Woodinville.68 According to the agreement, the site
partner known as the Washington Alliance for Restructuring Education, would…
work diligently to design and implement "break the mold" school systems as described
in the "Schools - and System - for the 21st Century" proposal that was submitted to
the New American School Development Corporation (NASDC). Specifically, the Site
Partner agrees to:
o Develop and implement an action plan for addressing each design task described in
the NASDC proposal. The action plan should be submitted to the Center by
November 9, 1992.
o Develop a budget, using the attached format, to support the implementation of
the action plan. The budget should be submitted by November 9, 1992.
o Develop a plan for supporting Tier 269 schools in the 1993-94 school year and
scaling up in subsequent years. This plan should be submitted by May 1, 1993.
o In cooperation with the Washington School Performance Council (check name),
develop a plan for expanding the work of the Alliance statewide.
o Develop a preliminary design based on the action plans indicated above. The
preliminary design should be submitted by May 1, 1993.
o Develop a final design by July 15, 1993. See Exhibit C of the NASDC contract for a
more detailed description of this work product.
In addition, the Site Partner agrees to comply with the applicable provisions of the
attached contract between the Center and NASDC.
A second agreement, dated November of 1992, between WARE and the South Snohomish
67
Washington Alliance for Better Schools; September 1995.
68
New American Schools Implementation Sites; 1995-1996, NASDC.
69
Tier 2 schools are those that have … “Action Blueprints for breaking the mold…” (1992 Proposal to the New
American Schools Development Corporation by the National Center on Education and the Economy).
14
County Chamber of Commerce establishes the Chamber of Commerce as the fiscal agent of
the Alliance, further holding the Chamber of Commerce harmless as the fiscal agent of the
Alliance. The contract is signed by Benzel, Mitchell and Ray for the Alliance and Pat
Campbell and Ron Harper of the Chamber of Commerce.
While it is not known if a contract exists for the period between September 1, 1993, and
August 31, 1994, indications are, from a contract dated September 8, 1994, between NCEE
and WARE, that such a contract does exist. Parties to the 1994/1995 contract between NCEE
and WARE were Richard Cannon representing NCEE and Brian Benzel, MAK Mitchell, and Karen
Forys (replaced Dennis Ray70 as Superintendent of Northshore School District) representing the
Washington Alliance. Judy Codding was named project manager for NCEE. Under the terms
of the agreement, the Washington Alliance would…
work diligently to design and implement "break the mold" school systems as described
in the Phase II71 proposal that was submitted to the New American Schools
Development Corporation (NASDC). Specifically the Site Partner agrees to:
o Develop, by September 1, a site professional development plan to include the
following:
- professional development strategies in all design tasks
- plans for roll-out of the portfolio system
- continued work on strategic planning
- further development of the Teacher Development Centers
o Develop, by September 30, final site and school strategic plans for 1994-95 that
reflect significant progress toward meeting the indicators of Core Commitment
o Provide, to the extent that such data is available, baseline student and program
evaluation data for school years 1990/91, 1991/92, and 1992/93 for a
representative sampling of schools as mutually agreed upon by the Site partner
and the Alliance:
- contextual student and program evaluation for the site/system
- student performance data on one or more norm referenced tests for
site/system
o Quarterly submission of student and program evaluation data for a representative
sampling of schools as mutually agreed upon by the Site Partner and the Alliance:
- contextual student and program evaluation data for site/system
- student performance data on one or more norm referenced tests for
site/system
- student performance on new assessment instruments
- student, parent, teacher, and administrator perception data
- generalized student performance and program outcome date
o Ensure adequate participation of each Alliance school in the professional
development and technical assistance offerings of the Alliance and in the site
specific offering
o Ensure consistent participation of designated representatives in the meetings of
the Coordinating Council
o Identify and establish appropriate linkages between the work of the Alliance and
other existing school, district and state programs
70
In 1994, a Dennis A Ray is listed as working for Northwest Regional Educational Laboratories of Portland, Oregon,
as Director, Washington State Center for Educational Partnerships. This is the same year that Dennis Ray left
Northshore School District.
71
See page 5 of this report to see what the three-phase reform initiative of NASDC entails.
15
o Ensure that each Alliance school has access to the equipment, software, and
training necessary for cross-organization, cross-site communication (e.g., America
on Line)
o Produce quarterly progress reports that report on progress in each design task,
specifically progress toward achieving the indicators of Core Commitment
o Submit, by October 1, a budget for total contract amount
The Site Partner agrees that all products produced under this agreement will be made
widely available, at the lowest possible cost, to facilitate replication in other school
systems. In addition, the Site Partner agrees to comply with the applicable provisions
of the attached contract between NCEE and NASDC.
Budget sheets for WARE, dated October 5, 1994, show support from Boeing — $220,000, and
from NCEE — $76,912. The budget is broken down according to the five design tasks of NARE.
Of the $220,000 from Boeing, $100,000 was budgeted to teacher development centers,
another $100,000 to the Executive Director (of WARE) and another $20,000 to facilitator
support statewide. Other budgeted activities paid for by NCEE included a NSP conference at
Indian Wells, California, on “portfolio culture, portfolio analysis, performing to standards,
and public engagement”72 — Design Tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5. The budget sheet indicates four
school districts involved in WARE: Northshore, Shoreline, Everett and Edmonds. According to
an article, entitled Beyond Model Schools, published in the February 8, 1995, issue of
Education Week, there are seven teacher development centers nationwide, four of which are
in Washington State — one in each of the four WARE districts.73 A fifth teacher development
center was added in the Seattle School District in 1995.74 Teams of teachers from visiting
schools attend week long practicum’s that emphasize the development of units of study “that
not only integrate subject matter content but technology as well while promoting a
constructivist75 approach to student learning.”76 The Education Week article also states that
the Shoreline School District plans to pilot the CIM with the 1996 freshman class. Since the
CIM is to be achieved at the end of the 10th grade, Shoreline is planning on piloting the CIM at
the end of the 1997/98 school year.
A January 20, 1994, discussion paper gives some suggestions for Boeing participation in
Alliance activities:
1. Provide project assessment tools, train district personnel in use of tools and assist
in assessment activities.
2. Develop strategies and assist in their implementation to speed the installation of
Alliance programs across the districts.
3. Provide assistance in school-to-work programs integrating district activities with
related programs such as South Snohomish County Workforce Development
Alliance.
4. Continue support to the New Standards Project within the four districts, across
the state as it moves to other districts and within the Commission on Student
72
The New Standard; Volume 2, Number 6; June 1994.
73
Washington Alliance Leadership Structure; September 1995.
74
75
Constructivist is … “The notion that individuals create personal constructions of reality.” (Roadmap to
Restructuring; Conley, David; Eugene, OR: University or Oregon: ERIC; 1993; analogous with self-constructed
classroom or child-centered learning.
76
16
Learning.
5. Introduce Cities in Schools and Micro Society to districts not now participating,
assist in evaluating their potential benefit and aid in implementation planning if
adopted. (underlining added)
The South Snohomish County Workforce Development Alliance consists of …
Everett, Edmonds, Shoreline, and Northshore School Districts; Everett, Edmonds,

Shoreline Community Colleges, and the Applied Technology and Training Center; and
the business, labor, government, community-based organizations, and the community
through the Workforce Development Alliance of South Snohomish County.77
The goal of WARE is to meet the requirements of the federal School-to-Work Opportunities
Act…
(1) to see that all students acquire and demonstrate the skills and knowledge they
need to achieve the Certificate of Mastery (high standards in core subjects); (2) to
integrate academic and applied learning; and (3) to make connections with the
workplace and to post secondary education and training partners.78
The funding request accompanying the grant was for $1,250,905 in the 94/95 school year,
$1,088,784 in the 95/96 school year, $958,637 in the 96/97 school year, $976,601 in the
97/98 school year, and $983,690 in the 98/99 school year.
The Washington Alliance for Better Schools (WABS) appeared on the scene in 1995. On June
20, 1995, a Memorandum of Understanding was drawn between NASDC, NARE and The
Washington Alliance for Better Schools. Indications are, from a study of documents available,
that WABS took over and expanded on the role of WARE. The agreement called for sweeping
change that aligns with the NCEE/NARE proposal:
o Promote the autonomy and accountability provided for in Washington's 1993

Education Reform act, so that principals, instructional staff, parents, and
community members at each school site have an appropriate and significant role
in
- Managing the school's budget
- Hiring and deploying staff
- Choosing the curriculum and instructional strategies used in the school,
consistent with District standards
- Determining the schools' schedule and teacher and student assignments
- Choosing whether to extend performance standards beyond those required by
the District or by the state
- Choosing whether to employ additional measure of accountability, beyond
those required by the District or the state
o Implement high standards of achievement for all students, as specified by the
Washington state Commission on Student Learning, and align those standards with
77
South Snohomish/North King County School-to-Work Partnership; Summary-Grant submitted to Federal School-to-
Work Opportunities funds.
78
Ibid.
17
curriculum, assessment, and professional development.
o Utilize multiple assessment strategies, such as those developed by the New
Standards Project.
o Integrate advanced technology in the instructional process, in the management of
schools, and in the work of school improvement.
o Partner with community agencies to provide support systems that strengthen
family and community engagement in schools and reduce barriers to learning.
o Solicit the active involvement of the business community; union; parents; civic,
professional, and service organizations; elected officials and the media in the
work of school improvement.
o Allocate the resources necessary to improve schools.
o Create and sustain flexible, responsive management and governance systems that
provide both the broad guidance and individual autonomy that schools need to
improve student learning. (underlining added)
The contract set down the mutual expectations of NASDC (including seeking “funding to
provide core support to the NASDC Design Teams for their work with the Washington Alliance
during Phase Three”79; the Washington Alliance for Better Schools and each school, each local
Association, parents and the College of Education at the University of Washington
participating in the Washington Alliance for Better Schools; and the National Alliance to
include the Education Commission of the States (ECS)80.
A September 5, 1995, document carrying the WABS heading, states, “Last year we
successfully applied to become one of ten places in the country to become a New American
Schools Jurisdiction.” Ken Hoover was noted as the Executive Director of WABS. WABS is
comprised of the districts of Edmonds, Everett, Northshore, Shoreline and Seattle and the
College of Education at the University of Washington.
The purpose of the Washington Alliance is to dramatically improve student

performance. This will be accomplished by building better communication and
through fund raising, collaboration, grants and technical assistance to public
education in the Puget Sound region. When feasible, this assistance will extend to
other schools and districts within the state of Washington. … The Washington Alliance
confines its grants and technical assistance to school districts and institutions of
higher education participating in the New American Schools Jurisdiction in the Puget
Sound area.
The Washington Alliance targets its assistance and support to public education to
improve the achievement of all students through work in the following areas:
o Standards and Assessments;

o Learning Environments;
o Community Services and Supports;
o High Performance Organization; and
79
See page 6 of this report to see what the three-phase reform initiative of NASDC entails.
80
ECS is a non-profit, nationwide compact formed in 1965 to help governors, state legislators, and state education
officials and others develop policies to improve the quality of education. (Press Release, NASDC, February 24,
1995.)
18
o Public Information81 (highlighting added)
By becoming a New American Schools Jurisdiction, schools within participating school districts
were eligible to select from one of the seven New American Design Teams: Roots and Wings,
Modern Red Schoolhouse, Co-Nect, Audrey Cohen Colleges, Atlas Communities, Expeditionary
Learning Outward Bound and National Alliance for Restructuring Education.
As part of a NASDC Jurisdiction, schools were eligible to apply for grants from the Annenberg
Foundation82 under an agreement between the Annenberg Foundation and the Education
Commission of the States to disperse $6.5 million to schools that adopted one of the NASDC
design team models. The grant applications had to be filed before October 31, 1995.
Effective use of the grants was to be measured …
1. By the second year, meeting or exceeding our goal of having 30 percent of the
schools formally partnered with New American Schools Design Teams and be
seriously engaged in this work.
2. By the second year, having sufficient numbers of our schools choose to partner
with Design Teams so that at least four (striving toward all seven) Design Teams
are working in our Jurisdiction.
3. Each year, partnered schools will develop step-by-step action plans to bring school
reform into the classroom following the format and strategies of their Design
Team partners.
4. There are specific examples of schools that are using this work which can
demonstrate improvement in student achievement or the number of students
achieving high standards.83
Grants were also available from Boeing. Income, expense and cash balance worksheets
published by the WABS from November 30, 1995, through December 31, 1995, show
anticipated revenues of $300,000 from the New American Schools and $120,000 from Boeing
Grants. These same reports show bank balances for The Future of Washington's Schools
Project.84 Another document published by the WABS dated December 15, 1995, states,
Boeing will provide $250,000 ($50,000 to each school district) to support schools
working with the National Alliance Design Team. Boeing will provide another
$250,000 to school sites in the Washington Alliance for allocation to schools who
partner with other NAS Design Teams. Boeing will provide a $50,000 grant to the
College of Education to support the districts in their reform efforts. Boeing will
budget similar amounts for the subsequent annual period.
A February 1996 WABS director meeting outline lists as a discussion item the Boeing grants
81
“Washington Alliance for Better Schools; Grant and Technical Assistance Guidelines”, October 10, 1995. Note that
these five design tasks align with the five design tasks of NARE.
82
Walter Annenberg, diplomat, publisher, and philanthropist, sits on the board of NASDC.
83
Washington Alliance for Better Schools; December 15, 1995.
84
This should really come as no surprise considering that Brian Benzel, Ken Hoover and MAK Mitchell sit on the
Executive Committee of The Future of Washington's Schools Project. Also of note is the fact that Jeannette Hayner,
Kim Peery, Susan Trimingham (WSSDA), John Fotheringham (WASA), and Dwayne Slate (WSSDA) of the Steering
and Executive Committees, also sat on GCERF. Other notables are L.E. "Bud" Scarr, former Superintendent of the
Lake Washington School District, and Brian Talbot, Superintendent of ESD 101 in Spokane.
19
and how they will be administered. The agenda indicates that Ronn (Robinson)85 will be at
the meeting to discuss implementation issues. A proposed budget for the calendar year 1996
and 1997 indicates that Boeing was prepared to provide $50,000 to each of the five districts
for the two years ($500,000), another $250,000 for each year ($500,000) in School
Implementation Grants (SIGs), $50,000 for each year ($100,000) to the University of
Washington, and $100,000 in 1996 and $50,000 in 1997 to the Washington Alliance, for a sum
total two year contribution of $1,250,000.
A document dated December 11, 1995, labeled “Confidential, Proposed Modifications to

Washington Alliance”, further elaborates on how the $50,000 Boeing grant to each of the five
districts for two years is to be used: “Districts are to use these resources to support National
Alliance systems work including any National Alliance schools or Teacher Development
Centers.”
In a letter dated February 13, 1997, speaking of an upcoming workshop, Testing Our Future:
New Assessments in Our Public Schools, Marlene Holaytor, current Executive Director of the
Commission on Student Learning, stated, “Please direct questions to your Regional Learning
and Assessment Center director (in most instances, at your Education Service District).”
Appendix XII of that document lists the Washington Regional Learning and Assessment Center
- Directors, one of those being the Washington Alliance for Better Schools. In Conditions of
Education in Washington State 1997, compiled and published by the University of Washington
& Management Analysis and Planning Associates as part of the Future of Washington's Schools
Project, comes this revelation, “The state has made a good start with the Regional Learning
and Assessment Centers and other initiatives launched by the Commission on Student
Learning.” One could arguably claim that the assessment centers are not linked to the CSL,
except for this admission,
To help equip teachers to succeed on these critical elements of education reform, the
Commission has established, through contracts primarily with education service
districts, 15 regional training centers.
These centers have already provided training to approximately 1,200 teachers and
other school staff, with the intent that those educators, when they go back to their
school buildings and districts, will in turn serve as trainers of their colleagues and as
mentors to them.
The focus of the training centers has been on building a firm understanding of the
academic standards and on helping educators use high quality assessment practices.
The training centers are helping teachers understand effective ways of measuring
student achievement in the classroom on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis.86
That the Washington Alliance for Better Schools is listed as one of the 15 regional training
centers for OSPI; that WABS is receiving funding from NASDC not to mention Boeing; that
WABS has become the umbrella for the scale up and dissemination of the NASDC/NCEE/NARE
design model in the state of Washington, inclusive of the New Standards Project and the
85
Ronn Robinson, Corporate Director, Education Affairs, The Boeing Company, provided assistance to GCERF;
was/is on the management advisory council of NASDC; was/is on the working committee of the Business
Roundtable; and, in 1990, was Education Assistant to Governor Booth Gardner.
86
Annual Report to the Joint Select Committee on Education Restructuring on the Progress of the Commission on
Student Learning; September 1996.
20
training of teachers in the New Standards assessment system; that teachers trained at the
WABS will be expected to take their training back to their schools, precludes any claim of
OSPI that they are not working with sources from outside the state of Washington that have
national interests.
Summation
Marc Tucker stated, in the 1992 NARE proposal to the New American Schools Development
Corporation,
Our objective is to make schools of the kind we have described the norm, not the
exception, first in the cities and states that are Alliance members, and later
elsewhere. Getting there will require more than new policies and different
practices. It will require a change in the prevailing culture — the attitudes, values,
norms and accepted ways of doing things — that defines the environment that
determines whether individual schools succeed or fail in the transformation process.
We will know that we have succeeded when there are enough transformed schools in
any one area, and enough districts designed and managed to support such schools,
that their approach to education sets the norms, frames the attitudes and defines the
accepted ways of doing things in that part of the world. Then there will be no
turning back.
The passage of HB 1209, written over the five design tasks of NARE, ensures the
implementation of the NARE design in the schools and school districts of the state of
Washington. Further, this report has outlined the multitude of connections between the state
of Washington and the New American Schools Development Corporation, National Center on
Education and the Economy, the National Alliance for Restructuring Education, and the New
Standards Project — all of which purport a national agenda in education with a uniform
system of education for all. This removes all question of local control, local governance, and
local autonomy. The local school districts will only decide how they will implement the what
outlined via the passage of HB 1209 which was written with consultation from NARE, and
other legislation which fleshes out the education reform/school-to-work/workforce training
initiative.87
By their own admission, NCEE has acknowledged helping to write the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act and the School to Work Transition Opportunities Act88 in 1993, and consulting
with the Clinton Administration and Congress at the federal level, leaving no doubt as to why
education reform in Washington State is coalescing the federal agenda in education, and
leaving no doubt as to why Washington State is considered to be on the cutting edge of
education reform. HR 1617 introduced to Congress in June 1995 — the infamous CAREERS Act
— had the fingerprints of Marc Tucker all over it. It aligned too closely with Tucker's 1992
publication, A Human Resource Development Plan for the United States, in which he called
for …
87
In a document entitled Performance Management for Continuous Improvement, published by the Washington State
Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board in January 1996, it is stated, on page 14, The state as a whole
determines WHAT is to be achieved, local providers determine HOW to achieve.
88
Chronological History; National Center on Education and the Economy.
21
a vision of the kind of national — not federal — human resources development system
the nation could have. This is interwoven with a new approach to governing that
should inform that vision. What is essential is that we create a seamless web of
opportunities to develop one's skills 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. It needs to be a system driven by client needs (not agency regulations or the
needs of the organizations providing the services), guided by clear standards that
define the stages of the system for the people who progress through it, and regulated
on the basis of outcomes that providers produce for their clients, not inputs into the
system.
Such is the system being built in Washington State via the education reform/school-to-
work/workforce training initiative. From the state house to the school house, public servants
have tried to claim that education reform in Washington State is generic, our own. Some
have even tried to claim that we are no longer connected to NASDC and NCEE or its programs
and partners in implementation. What has been outlined in this report, however, removes
any credence of that claim.
22
Education Reform Washington State and the Federal Agenda
Washington State and Goals 2000
In July 1994, Washington State applied for a Goals 2000 development grant. The grant
application was written in response to a request for proposal (RFP)89 published by the U.S.
Department of Education. Said RFP states,
The Secretary will approve applications that demonstrate that there is a substantial
likelihood that the SEA will be able to develop and implement an education
improvement plan that complies with Section 306 of the Act90. Therefore, in
preparing applications for plan development funding, SEAs should consider the
required components of the comprehensive State plan as identified in Section 306.
(highlighting added for emphasis)
It becomes very obvious from this disclosure in the RFP that state plans that do not meet the
requirements of Section 306, Goals 2000: Educate America Act, will not be considered for a
grant award. Such obviously establishes mandates as condition of receipt of the Goals 2000
money. The RFP continues,
To receive funding, an SEA must submit to the Department an application that

provides the following information:
1. Information on the application cover sheet, including the signature of the

authorized SEA representative;
2. A narrative describing—
A. The process by which the SEA will develop a comprehensive State improvement
plan that meets the requirements of Section 306, including milestones,
products and timelines for the planning year;
B. How the SEA will make subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) or
consortia of LEAs in accordance with Section 309(a) of the Act;
C. How the SEA will make subgrants to LEAs or consortia of LEAs to provide for
(1) preservice teacher education; and (2) professional development activities
in accordance with Section 309(b) of the Act;
D. The process by which the SEA will develop a systemic statewide plan to
increase the use of state-of-the-art technologies that enhance elementary and
secondary student learning and staff development, if the SEA wants a
technology grant under Section 317 of the Act;
3. A budget, including allocations and utilization of Title III funds for plan
development, LEA subgrants, preservice teacher education and professional
development; and if the application also includes a request for funds for
technology planning under Section 317, a description of how those funds will be
89
When the federal government publishes a request for proposal (RFP), and that RFP sets down certain conditions
that the states must meet in order for their grant application to be considered, when the grant application restates the
requirements of the RFP, when a state official with the proper authority signs that grant application, the state has
effectively entered into a contract with the federal government; the state has agreed to meet the mandates of the
federal government. The state may have entered into the contract voluntarily but once the grant application is
submitted and accepted at the federal level and funds disbursed, the terms and conditions stipulated in the RFP are
no longer voluntary, they are mandatory.
90
Referencing the Goals 2000: Education America Act.
23
spent; and
4. The signature of the authorized SEA representative on the application assurance
sheet. (highlighting added for emphasis)
In order to receive the grant award, the state had to agree to comply with the terms and
conditions of Sections 306, 309(a) and (b) and if the state wanted money for technology,
Section 317 of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
SEC 306. STATE IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

(a) BASIC SCOPE OF PLAN.—Except as provided in section 305(c)(2) and consistent
with the requirements of this section, any State educational agency that wishes to
receive an allotment under this title after its first year of participation shall develop
and implement a state improvement plan for the improvement and elementary and
secondary education in the State.
(b) PLAN DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A State improvement plan under this title shall be
developed by a broad-based State panel in cooperation with the State
educational agency and the Governor. The panel shall include—
(A) the Governor and the chief State school officer, or their
designees;
(B) the chairperson of the State board of education and the
chairpersons of the appropriate authorizing committees of the State
legislature, or their designees;
(C) teachers, principals, and administrators who have successfully
improved student performance, and deans or senior administrators of a
college, school or department of education;
(D) representatives of teacher's organizations, parents, secondary
school students, institutions of higher education, business and labor
leaders, community-based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness,
organizations serving young children, local boards of education, State
and local officials responsible for health, social, and other related
services, private schools in which students or teachers participate in
Federal education programs, and, as appropriate, Indian tribes and
others;
(E) representatives from rural and urban local educational agencies
in the State, as appropriate; and
(F) experts in educational measurement and assessment.
(2) APPOINTMENT.—The Governor and the chief State school officer shall
each appoint half the members of the panel and shall jointly select the
Chairperson of the panel and the representatives of private schools described
in paragraph (1)(D).
(3) REPRESENTATION.—(A) To the extent feasible, the membership of the
panel shall be geographically representative of the State and reflect the
diversity of the population of the State with regard to race, ethnicity, gender,
and disability characteristics.
(B) The membership of the panel shall be composed so that the
minimum total number of members of the panel with expertise or
background in the educational needs or assessments of children from
low-income families, children with minority backgrounds, children with
limited-English proficiency, or children with disabilities, serving on the
24
panel—
(i) bears the same relation to the total number of members
serving on the panel as the total number of all such children in
the State bears to the total number of all children in the State;
or
(ii) is at least one-third of the number of members of the
panel, whichever is less.
(4) CONSULTATION.—The panel shall consult the Governor, the chief State
school officer, the State board of education, and relevant committees of the
State legislature in developing the State improvement plan.
(5) OUTREACH.—The panel shall be responsible for conducting a statewide,
grassroots outreach process, including conducting public hearings, to involve
educators, related services personnel, parents, local officials, tribal
government officials as appropriate, individuals representing private nonprofit
elementary and secondary schools, community and business leaders, citizens,
children's advocates, secondary school students, and others with a stake in the
success of students and their education system, and who are representative of
the diversity of the State and the State's student population, including,
students of limited-English proficiency, students with disabilities, and, as
appropriate, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students, in
the development of the State improvement plan and in a continuing dialogue
regarding the need for and nature of standards for students and local and
State responsibilities for helping all students achieve such standards in order
to assure that the development and implementation of the State improvement
plan reflects local needs and experiences and does not result in a significant
increase in paperwork for teachers.
(6) PROCEDURE AND APPROVAL.—The panel shall develop a State
improvement plan, provide opportunity for public comment, and submit each
plan to the State educational agency for approval.
(7) SUBMISSION.—The state educational agency shall submit the original
State improvement plan developed by the panel and the State improvement
plan if modified by such agency, together with an explanation of any changes
made by such agency to the plan developed by the panel, to the Secretary for
approval.
(8) MATTERS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE
EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—If any portion of the State improvement plan
addresses matters that, under State or other applicable law, are not under the
authority of the State education agency, the state education agency shall
obtain the approval of, or changes to, such portion, with an explanation
thereof, from the Governor or other official responsible for that portion
before submitting such plan to the Secretary.
(9) MONITORING; REVISIONS; REPORTING.—After approval of the State
improvement plan by the Secretary, the panel shall be informed of progress on
such plan by the State educational agency, and such agency, in close
consultation with teachers, principals, administrators, advocates and parents
in local educational agencies and schools receiving funds under this title, shall
monitor the implementation and operation of such plan. The panel shall
review such plan, and based on the progress described in the preceding
sentence, determine if revisions to such plan are appropriate and necessary.
The panel shall periodically report such determination to the public.
25
(c) TEACHING, LEARNING, STANDARDS, AND ASSESSMENTS.—Each State
educational agency, with broad-based classroom teacher input, shall establish and
include in its State improvement plan strategies for meeting the National Education
Goals by improving teaching and learning and students' mastery of basic and advanced
skills in core content areas, such as English, mathematics, science (including physics),
history, geography, foreign languages, the arts, civics and government, and
economics. —Such strategies—
(1) shall include—
(A) a process for developing or adopting State content standards
and State student performance standards for all students, which
process shall include coordinating the standards developed pursuant to
section 115 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act;
(B) a process for developing and implementing valid,
nondiscriminatory, and reliable State assessments—
(i) which assessments shall—
(I) be aligned with such State's content standards;
(II) involve multiple measures of student
performance;
(III) provide for—
(aa) the participation in such assessments of
all students with diverse learning needs; and
(bb) the adaptations and accommodations
necessary to permit such participation;
(IV) be consistent with relevant, national recognized
professional and technical standards and assessments;
(V) be capable of providing coherent information
about student attainments relative to the State content
standards; and
(VI) support effective curriculum and instruction; and
(ii) which process shall provide for monitoring the
implementation of such assessments and the impact of such
assessments on improved instruction for all students;
(C) a process for aligning State or local curricula, instructional
materials, and the State assessments with the State content standards
and State student performance standards; and
(D) a process for familiarizing teachers with the State content
standards and State student performance standards and developing the
capability of teachers to provide high quality instruction within the
content areas described in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of this
subsection; (2) may include strategies such as—
(A) a process for providing assistance and support to local
educational agencies and schools to strengthen the capacity of such
agencies and schools to provide all students the opportunity to increase
educational achievement and meet State content standards and State
student performance standards;
(B) assessing the effectiveness and equity of the school finance
program of the State to identify disparities in the resources available
to each local educational agency and school in such State and how such
disparities affect the ability of the State educational agency and local
26
educational agencies to develop and implement plans under this title;
(C) a process for developing, selecting, or recommending
instructional materials, including gender equitable and multicultural
materials, and technology to support and assist local educational
agencies and schools to provide all students the opportunity to meet
State content standards and State student performance standards;
(D) a process for providing appropriate and effective professional
development, including the use of technology, distance learning, and
gender-equitable methods, necessary for teachers, school
administrators, and others to help all students meet State content
standards and State student performance standards; and
(E) a process for improving the State's system of teacher and school
administrator preparation and licensure, and of continuing professional
development programs, including the use of technology at both the
State and local levels, so that all teachers, related services personnel,
and administrators develop the subject matter and pedagogical
expertise needed to prepare all students to meet State content
standards and State student performance standards.
(d) OPPORTUNITY-TO-LEARN STANDARDS AND STRATEGIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State improvement plan shall establish standards or
strategies for providing all students with an opportunity to learn. Such
standards or strategies shall include such factors as the State deems
appropriate to ensure that all students receive a fair opportunity to achieve
the knowledge and skills as described in State content standards and State
student performance standards adopted by the State.
(2) IMPLEMENTATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
implementation of opportunity-to-learn standards or strategies shall be
voluntary on the part of the States, local education agencies, and schools.
(3) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to—
(A) mandate equalized spending per pupil for a State, local
educational agency, or school; or
(B) mandate national school building standards for a State, local
education agency or school.
(e) GOVERNANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANAGEMENT.—Each state
improvement plan shall establish strategies for improved governance, accountability
and management of the State's education system, such as—
(1) aligning responsibility, authority, and accountability throughout the
education system, so that decisions regarding the means of achieving State
content standards and State student performance standards are made closest
to the learners; and
(2) creating an integrated and coherent approach to recruiting, retaining
and supporting the continued professional development of teachers (including
vocational teachers), and other educators, giving special attention to the
recruitment into and retention of qualified minorities in the education
profession.
(f) PARENTAL AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND INVOLVEMENT.—Each State
improvement plan shall describe strategies for how the State educational agency will
involve parents and other community representatives in planning, designing, and
implementing the State improvement plan, including strategies such as—
(1) focusing public and private community resources and public school
27
resources on prevention and early intervention to address the needs of all
students by identifying and removing unnecessary regulations and obstacles to
coordination; and
(2) increasing the access of all students to social services, health care,
nutrition, related services, and child care services, and locating such services
in schools, cooperating service agencies, community-based centers, or other
convenient sites designed to provide "one-stop shopping" for parents and
students.
(g) MAKING THE IMPROVEMENTS SYSTEMWIDE.—To help provide all students
throughout the State the opportunity to meet State standards, each State
improvement plan shall describe strategies, such as strategies that—
(1) provide for the availability of curricular materials, learning
technologies, including distance learning, and professional development in a
manner that ensures equal access by all local educational agencies in the
State; and
(2) develop partnerships with Indian tribes and schools funded by the
Bureau, where appropriate, to improve consistency and compatibility in
curriculum among public elementary and secondary schools, and such schools
funded by the Bureau at all grade levels.
(h) PROMOTING BOTTOM-UP REFORM.—Each State improvement plan shall include
strategies for ensuring the comprehensive, systemic reform is promoted from the
bottom up in communities91, local educational agencies, and schools, as well as
guided by coordination and facilitation from State leaders, including strategies such
as—
(1) providing flexibility to individual schools and local educational agencies
to enable such schools and agencies to adapt and integrate State content
standards and courses of study appropriate for individual schools and
communities; and
(2) facilitating the provision of waivers from State rules and regulations
that impede the ability of local educational agencies or schools to carry out
local improvement plans.
(i) DROPOUT STRATEGIES.—Each state improvement plan shall include strategies
for assisting local educational agencies and schools to enable such agencies and
schools—
(1) to meet the needs of school-aged children who have dropped out of
school;
(2) to bring such children into the education system; and
(3) to help such students meet State content standards and State student
performance standards.
(j) COORDINATION WITH SCHOOL-TO-WORK PROGRAMS.—If a State has received
Federal assistance for the purpose of planning for, expanding, or establishing a
school-to-work program, then a State shall include in the State improvement plan a
description of how such school-to-work program will be incorporated into the school
reform efforts of the State. In particular, the State improvement plan shall include a
description of how secondary schools will be modified in order to provide career
guidance, the integration of academic and vocational education, and work-based
learning, if such programs are proposed in the State's school-to-work plan.
(k) BENCHMARKS AND TIMELINES.—Each State improvement plan shall include
91
This does not stipulate, however, that support shall be promoted on an informed basis.
28
specific benchmarks of improved student performance and of progress in
implementing such plan, and timelines against which the progress of the State in
carrying out such plan, including the elements described in subsections (c) through
(j), can be measured.
(l) COORDINATING STRATEGIES.—Each State plan shall include strategies for
coordinating the integration of academic and vocational instruction pursuant to the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act.
(m) PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.—Each State improvement
plan shall describe—
(1) how the State will monitor progress towards implementing the State
and local improvement plans; and
(2) procedures the State plans to use, consistent with State law, to
improve schools that are not meeting the State content standards voluntarily
adopted by the State within the established timelines.
(n) PEER REVIEW AND SECRETARIAL APPROVAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) The Secretary shall review, within a reasonable
period of time, each State improvement plan prepared under this section, and
each application submitted under section 305, through a peer review process
involving the assistance and advice of State and local education policymakers,
educators, classroom teachers, related services personnel, experts on
educational innovation and improvement, parents, advocates, and other
appropriate individuals. Such peer review process shall be representative of
the diversity of the United States with regard to geography, race, ethnicity,
gender and disability characteristics. Such peer review process shall include
at least 1 site visit to each State, except during the period when a State
improvement plan is being developed.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (A), in the first year
that a state educational agency submits an application for development of a
State improvement plan under this title the Secretary shall not be required
to—
(i) review such application through a peer review process; and
(ii) conduct a site visit.
(2) APPROVAL.—The Secretary shall approve a State improvement plan if
such plan is submitted to the Secretary not later than 2 years after the date
the State educational agency receives its first allotment under section 304(b),
and when the Secretary determines, after considering the peer reviewers'
comment, that such plan—
A) reflects a widespread commitment within the State;
(B) holds reasonable promise of helping all students to achieve at
the high levels called for by this Act;
(C) meets the requirements of subsections (a) through (k); and
(D) allows local schools, local educational agencies and communities
the flexibility to implement local improvement plans in a manner
which reflects local needs92 and requirements in order to promote a
'bottom up' system of school reform.
(3) DISAPPROVAL.—The Secretary shall not disapprove a State
improvement plan, or any State application submitted under section 305,
92
Needs and wants are not the same. What the local community wants may not be deemed needed by the state
and federal government.
29
before offering the State—
(A) an opportunity to revise such plan or application; and
(B) a hearing.
[(4) ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,
any State educational agency that wishes to receive an allotment under
this title after the first year such State educational agency receives
such an allotment may, in lieu of submitting its State improvement
plan for approval by the Secretary under this subsection and section
305(c)(2), or submitting major amendments to the Secretary under
subsection (p), provide the Secretary, as part of an application under
section 305(c) or as an amendment to a previously approved
application—
(i) an assurance, from the Governor and the chief State
school officer of the State, that—
(I) the State has a plan that meets the requirements
of this section and that is widely available throughout
the State; and
(II) any amendments the State makes to the plan will
meet the requirements of this section; and
(ii) the state's benchmarks of improved student performance
and of progress in implementing the plan, and the timelines
against which the State's progress in carrying out the plan can
be measured.
(B) ANNUAL REPORT.—Any State educational agency that chooses to
use the alternative method described in paragraph (1) shall annually
report to the public summary information on the use of funds under
this title by the State and local educational agencies in the State, as
well as the State's progress toward meeting the benchmarks and
timelines described in subparagraph (A)(ii).]93
(o) REGULAR REVIEW.—Each State improvement plan shall include a process for
periodically reviewing and updating any State content standards, State student
performance standards, State opportunity-to-learn standards or strategies,94 and
State assessments.
(p) AMENDMENTS TO PLAN.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State education agency shall periodically review its
State improvement plan and revise such plan, as appropriate, in accordance
with the process described in subsection (b).
(2) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall review any major amendment to a State
improvement plan and shall not disapprove any such amendment before
offering a State educational agency—
(A) an opportunity to revise such amendment; and
(B) a hearing.
(q) PREEXISTING STATE PLANS AND PANELS.—If a State has developed a
comprehensive and systemic State improvement plan to help all students meet State
standards or any component of such plan, that meets the intent and purposes of this
93
As amended by section 703(a) of Public Law 104-134 — the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996, April 26, 1996.
94
As amended by section 703(a)(9) of Public Law 104-134 — the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
30
section, then the Secretary may approve such plan or component notwithstanding
that such plan was not developed in accordance with subsection (b) if the Secretary
determines that such approval would further the purposes of State systemic
educational improvement.
(2) SPECIAL RULE.—(A) If, before the date of enactment of this Act, a
State has made substantial progress in developing a plan that meets the intent
and purposes of this section, but was developed by a panel that does not meet
the requirements of paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b), the
Secretary may, at the request of the Governor and the State educational
agency, treat such panel as meeting the requirements of this title if the
Secretary determines that there has been statewide involvement of educators,
parents, students, advocacy groups, and other interested members of the
public in the development of the plan.
SEC. 309. SUBGRANTS FOR LOCAL REFORM AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
(a) SUBGRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) Each state education agency shall make subgrants,
through a competitive process to carry out the authorized activities described
in paragraph (4), to local education agencies (or consortia or such agencies) in
accordance with section 308.
(B) In making such subgrants, the State educational agency shall award not
less than 1 subgrant in each fiscal year to an urban local education agency and
not less than 1 subgrant in each fiscal year to a rural local educational agency,
where appropriate, except that this provision shall not apply to the District of
Columbia. An education agency may serve as a fiscal agent for a rural local
education agency.
(2) APPLICATION REQUIRED.—(A) A local educational agency desiring to
receive a subgrant under this section for the development of a local
improvement plan shall submit an application to the State educational agency.
Such application shall contain assurances that the local educational agency
intends to develop a local improvement plan that meets the requirements of
this section.
(B) A local educational agency only shall be eligible to receive a subgrant
under this subsection to develop a local improvement plan for one fiscal year.
(3) PLAN REQUIRED.—Each local educational agency desiring to receive a
subgrant under this subsection to implement a local improvement plan shall
submit a local improvement plan to the State education agency. Each such
plan shall—
(A) be developed by a broad-based panel that—
(i) is appointed by the local educational agency and is
representative of the diversity of students and community with
regard to race, language, ethnicity, gender, disability, and
socioeconomic characteristics and includes teachers, parents,
advocacy groups, school administrators, business
representatives, and others, as appropriate, and
(ii) shall, following the selection of its members, establish
the procedures regarding the operation of the panel, including
the designations of the chairperson;
(B) address districtwide education improvement, directed at
enabling all students to meet the State content standards and state
student performance standards, including specific goals and
31
benchmarks reflect the priorities of the State improvement plan
(either approved or under development) and include a strategy for—
(i) ensuring that all students have a fair opportunity to
learn;
(ii) improving teaching and learning;
(iii) improving governance and management;
(iv) generating, maintaining, and strengthening parental and
community involvement; and
(v) expanding improvements throughout the local
educational agency;
(C) promote the flexibility of local schools in developing plans
which address the particular needs of their school and community and
are consistent with the local improvement plan;
(D) describe a process of broad-based community participation in
the development, implementation, and evaluation of the local
improvement plan;
(E) describe how the local educational agency will encourage and
assist schools to develop and implement comprehensive school
improvement plans that—
(i) focus on helping all students reach State content
standards and State student performance standards; and
(ii) address relevant elements of the local improvement plan
of the local educational agency identified in subparagraph (B);
(F) describe how the local educational agency will implement
specific programs aimed at ensuring improvements in school readiness
and the ability of students to learn effectively at all grade levels by
identifying the most pressing needs facing students and their families
with regard to social services, health care, nutrition, and child care,
and entering into partnerships with public and private nonprofit
agencies to increase the access of students and families to coordinated
nonsectarian services in a school setting or at a nearby site;
(G) describe how the subgrant funds will be used by the local
education agency, and the procedures to be used to make funds
available to schools in accordance with paragraph (6)(A);
(H) identify, with an explanation, any State and Federal
requirements that the local educational agency believes impede
educational improvement and that such agency requests be waived in
accordance with section 311, which requests shall promptly be
transmitted to the Secretary by the State educational agency; and
(I) contain such other information as the State educational agency
may reasonably require.
(4) SUBMISSION.—A local educational agency which has approved a local
improvement plan shall submit such plan to the State education agency for
approval together with a description of modifications to such plan and any
comments from the local panel regarding such plan.
(5) MONITORING.—The panel described in paragraph (3)(A), after approval
of the local educational agency's application by the State educational agency,
shall be informed of progress on such plan by the local educational agency,
and the local educational agency shall monitor the implementation and
effectiveness of the local improvement plan in close consultation with
32
teachers, related services personnel, principals, administrators, community
members, and parents from schools receiving funds under this title, as well as
assure that implementation of the local improvement plan does not result in
significant paperwork for teachers. The panel shall review such plan and
based on the progress described in the preceding sentence, determine if
revisions to the local improvement plan should be recommended to the local
education agency. The panel shall periodically report such determination to
the public.
(6) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—(A) A local educational agency that receives
a subgrant under this subsection—
(i)in the first year such agency receives the subgrant shall use—
(I) not more than 25 percent of the subgrant funds to
develop a local improvement plan or for any local educational
agency activities approved by the State educational agency that
are reasonably related to carrying out the State or local
improvement plans, which may include the establishment of
innovative new public schools; and
(II) not less than 75 percent of the subgrant funds to support
individual school improvement initiatives related to providing
all students in the school the opportunity to meet State content
standards and state student performance standards; and
(ii) in subsequent years, shall use subgrant funds for any acclivities
approved by the State educational agency which are reasonably related
to carrying out the State or local improvement plans which may include
the establishment of innovative new public schools [and the acquisition
of technology and use of technology-enhanced curricula and
instruction]95, except that at least 85 percent of such funds shall be
made available to individual schools to develop and implement
comprehensive school improvement plans which are designed to meet
the needs of their particular student population and help all students
meet state content standards and State student performance
standards.
(B) At least 50 percent of funds made available by a local educational
agency to individual schools under this section in any fiscal year shall be made
available to schools with a special need for such assistance, as indicated by a
high number or percentage of students from low-income families, low student
achievement, or other similar criteria developed by the local educational
agency.
(C) A local education agency may not use more than five percent of the
subgrant funds such agency receives in each fiscal year under this title for
administrative expenses.
(7) SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.—The State educational agency shall give
special consideration in awarding a subgrant to—
(A) a consortium of local educational agencies; or
(B) a local educational agency that provides in the application or
local improvement plan described in paragraph (2) or (3), respectively,
that such subgrant funds will be used to assist a consortium of schools
95
As amended by section 703(a)(11) of Public Law 104-134 — the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
33
that has developed a plan for school improvement.
(b) SUBGRANTS FOR PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) Each State educational agency shall make subgrants,
through a competitive, peer-reviewed process to a local education agency, or
a consortium of local educational agencies, in cooperation with institutions of
higher education, nonprofit organizations, or any combination thereof, in
accordance with section 308 to—
(i) improve preservice teacher education programs consistent with
the State improvement plan, including how to work effectively with
parents and the community; and
(ii) support continuing, sustained professional development
activities for educators and school administrators or related services
personnel working with educators which will increase student learning
in accordance with the State improvement plan.
(B) Each State educational agency awarding subgrants under subparagraph
(A) shall give priority to awarding such subgrants to—
(i) a local educational agency or consortium serving a greater
number or percentage of disadvantaged students than the statewide
average of such number or percentage;
(ii) a local educational agency or consortium that forms
partnerships with collegiate educators to establish professional
development sites; and
(iii) a local education agency or consortium that—
(I) focuses on upgrading teachers' knowledge of content
areas; or
(II) targets preparation and continued professional
development of teachers of students with limited-English
proficiency and students with disabilities.
(2) APPLICATION.—Each local educational agency or consortium that
desires to receive a subgrant under this subsection shall submit an application
to the State educational agency which—
(A) describes how the applicant will use the subgrant to improve
teacher preservice and school administrator education programs or to
implement educator professional development activities consistent
with the State improvement plan;
(B) identifies the criteria to be used by the applicant to judge
improvements in preservice education or the effects of professional
development activities consistent with the State improvement plan;
and
(C) contains any other information that the State educational
agency determines is appropriate.
(3) REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.—A recipient of a subgrant under this section
shall use the subgrant funds for activities supporting—
(A) the improvement of preservice teacher education and school
administrator programs so that such programs equip educators with the
subject matter and pedagogical expertise necessary for preparing all
students to meet standards; or
(B) the development and implementation of new and improved
forms of continuing and sustained professional development
34
opportunities for teachers, principals, and other educators at the
school or district level that equip educators with such expertise, and
with other knowledge and skills necessary for leading and participating
in continuous education improvement.
(4) PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.—A recipient of a subgrant under this
subsection may use the subgrant funds for costs related to release time for
teachers to participate in professional development activities, which
professional development shall include related services personnel as
appropriate.
SEC 317. STATE PLANNING FOR IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH
INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY INTO CURRICULUM.
(a) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section to assist each State to plan
effectively for improved student learning in all schools through the use of technology
as an integral part of the State improvement plan described in section 306.
(b) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—
(1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall award grants in accordance with
allocations under paragraph (2) to each State education agency that, as part of
its application under section 305, requests a grant to develop (or continue the
development of), and submits as part of the State improvement plan described
in section 306, a systemic statewide plan to increase the use of state-of-the-
art technologies that enhance elementary and secondary student learning and
staff development in support of the National Education Goals and State
content standards and State student performance standards.
(2) FORMULA.—From the amount appropriated pursuant to the authority of
subsection (f) in each fiscal year, each State educational agency with an
application approved under section 305 shall receive a grant under paragraph
(2) in such year in an amount determined on the same basis as allotments are
made to State educational agencies under subsections (b) and (c) of section
304 for such year, except that each such State shall receive at least $75,000.
(c) PLAN OBJECTIVES.—Each State educational agency shall use funds received
under this section to develop and, if the secretary has approved the systemic
statewide plan, to implement such plan. Such plan shall have as its objectives—
(1) the promotion of higher student achievement through the use of
technology in education;
(2) the participation of all schools and school districts in the State,
especially those schools and districts with a high percentage or number of
disadvantaged students;
(3) the development and implementation of a cost-effective, high-speed,
statewide, interoperable, wide-area-communication educational technology
support system for elementary and secondary schools within the State,
particularly for such schools in rural area; and
(4) the promotion of shared usage of equipment, facilities, and other
technology resources by adult learners during after-school hours.
(d) PLAN REQUIREMENTS.—At a minimum, each systemic statewide plan shall—
(1) be developed by a task force that
(A) includes among its members experts in the educational use of
technology and representatives of the State panel described in section
306(b); and
(B) ensures that such plan is integrated into the State improvement
plan described in section 306;
35
(2) be developed in collaboration with the Governor, representatives of
the State legislature, the State board of education, institutions of higher
education, appropriate State agencies, local educational agencies, public and
private telecommunications entities, parents, public and school libraries,
students, adult literacy providers, and leaders in the field of technology,
through a process of statewide grassroots outreach to local educational
agencies and schools in the State;
(3) identify and describe the requirements for introducing state-of-the-art
technologies into the classroom and school library in order to enhance
educational curricula, including the installation and ongoing maintenance of
basic connections, hardware and the necessary support materials;
(4) describe how the application of advanced technologies in the schools
will enhance student learning, provide greater access to individualized96
instruction, promote the standards and strategies described in section 306(d),
and help make progress toward the achievement of the National Education
Goals;
(5) describe how the ongoing training of educational personnel will be
provided;
(6) describe the resources necessary, and procedures, for providing ongoing
technical assistance to carry out such plan;
(7) provide for the dissemination on a statewide basis of exemplary
programs and practices relating to the use of technology in education;
(8) establish a funding estimate (including a statement of likely funding
sources) and a schedule for the development and implementation of such plan;
(9) describe how the State education agency will assess the impact of
implementing such plan on student achievement and aggregate achievement
for schools;
(10) describe how the State educational agency and local educational
agencies in the State will coordinate and cooperate with business and
industry, and with public and private telecommunications entities;
(11) describe how the State educational agency will promote the purchase
of equipment by local educational agencies that, when placed in schools, will
meet the highest possible level of interoperability and open system design;
(12) describe how the State education agency will consider using existing
telecommunications infrastructure and technology resources;
(13) describe how the State educational agency will apply the uses of
technology to meet the needs of children from low-income families;
(14) describe the process through which such plan will be reviewed and
updated periodically; and
(15) describe how the State educational agency will facilitate collaboration
between State literacy resource centers, local educational agencies, and adult
and family literacy providers, to ensure that technology can be used by adult
and family literacy providers during after school hours.
(e) REPORTS.—Each State educational agency receiving a grant under this section
shall submit a report to the Secretary within 1 year of the date such agency submits
to the Secretary its systemic statewide plan under this section. Such report shall—
(1) describe the State's progress toward implementation of the provisions
96
As amended by section 703(a)(16)(A) of Public Law 104-134 — the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
36
of such plan;
(2) describe any revisions to the State's long-range plan for
technology;[and]97
(3) describe the extent to which resources provided pursuant to such plan
are distributed among schools to promote the standards and strategies
described in section 306(d); and 98
(4) [(3)]99 include any other information the Secretary deems appropriate.
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1994 to carry out this section.
(highlighting has been added for emphasis)
This is all the state of Washington had to agree to do in order to receive the Goals 2000 grant
award. The initial grant application was to show how the state would meet these
requirements. The second through fifth year grant application would spell out how the state
would implement the plan. It is of interest to note that in the three sections shown above,
the word shall appears 78 times. It is also of interest to note that the federal mandates do
not carry a funding formula to cover the cost. In other words, the State costs in meeting the
Goals 2000 requirements would far exceed Goals 2000 grant monies received; the mandates
of the federal legislation would be largely met by monies from the state coffers.
The grant applications submitted by the state of Washington conform to the federal
requirements for obtaining Goals 2000 grant monies. The development grant assures the
federal government that Washington State, via ESHB 1209, will make a … 39.9 million dollar
investment for additional time (up to four days) and resources for school site-based planning
and staff development and planning consistent with the student learning goals100 (student
learning improvement grants); an $8 million investment in … support for 23 model projects
involving consortiums of education, health, employment, and social services providers in
support of families101 (readiness-to-learn grants through the Family Policy Council); and that
Washington State has made an … appropriation of almost 75 million dollars in the past two
years102 … to support ESHB 1209.
In the first year103, Washington State received $1,471,287 in Goals 2000 grant monies, broken
down to $1,061,721 for subgrants under sections 309(a) and (b); and $409,566 in
administrative costs. While the development grant applied for $75,000 in technology grant
funds, said funds are not annotated as part of grant receipts. This does not mean, however,
that the funds were not received, only that they were not received through the Washington
Goals 2000 office. In October 1994, the state distributed RFP's for local educational agency
planning grants. Twenty-seven schools, school districts, and school district consortiums
received Goals 2000 planning grants, also known as student learning improvement grants.
The funded schools and districts were selected for exemplary planning processes which will
97
As amended by section 703(a)(16)(B)(i) of Public Law 104-134 — the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
98
As amended by section 703(a)(16)(B)(ii) of Public Law 104-134 — the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
99
As amended by sectopm 703(a)(16)(B)(iii) of Public Law 104-134 — the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
100
Washington State Goals 2000 Development Grant; July 1994.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.
103
The first grant award was made in August 1994.
37
enable them to attain the state's education goals.104 The largest grant award was $90,000 to
the Washington Alliance for Better Schools.105
The grant application for years two through five held the same requirements as the
development grant with an additional requirement that—
If a State's plan has not been completed, the State must submit information
demonstrating that it has made substantial progress in developing a plan, a statement
of the steps it will take to complete the plan, and a schedule for doing so. [Sec.
305(c)]
SEC. 305 (c) SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—A State educational agency's application for
the second year of assistance under this title shall—
(1) cover the second through fifth years of the State's participation;
(2) [except in the case of a state educational agency submitting the
information described in section 306(n)(4)]106 include a copy of the State's
improvement plan that meets the requirements of section 306, or if the State
improvement plan is not complete, a statement of the steps the State will
take to complete the plan and a schedule for doing so; and
(3) include an explanation of how the State educational agency will use
funds received under this title, including how such agency will make subgrants
to local educational agencies in accordance with section 309(a), and how such
agency will use such funds received under this title for education preservice
programs and professional development activities in accordance with section
309(b).
In June 1995, Washington State applied for continued funding under Goals 2000. As
Washington State had not yet completed its plan, the state was required to comply with
section 305(c). In applying for continued funding under Goals 2000, Judith Billings,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, agreed to comply with all terms and conditions as set
down in the RFP and thus the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. In her letter of June 13,
1995, to Richard Riley, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, attached to the grant
application, Billings states,
The state of Washington submits this application addressing all the conditions
pursuant to Sections 305(c) and 309(a) and (b) of the Act. Washington State's
Comprehensive Education Improvement Plan is well under way. The enclosed draft
contains all of the main elements required of the finalized plans. It will be
completed within the next year.
Additionally, by signing OMB Form No. 1810-0564 for both the development and continuation
grants, the “State educational agency (SEA) hereby certifies the following assurances, which
have been previously filed with the U.S. Department of Education.
104
Washington Goals 2000; Local Grant Awards; February 1995; OSPI.
105
Northshore, Shoreline, Edmonds, Everett and the Seattle School Districts make up the Washington Alliance for
Better Schools.
106
As amended by section 705(b) Public Law 104-134 — the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations
Act of 1996, April 26, 1996.
38
o As applicable, the assurances as specified in OMB Form No. 0348-0040, relating to
legal authority to apply for assistance; access to records; conflict of interest;
merit systems; nondiscrimination; Hatch Act provisions; labor standards; flood
insurance; environmental standards; wild and scenic river systems; historic
preservation; protection of human subjects; animal welfare; lead-based paint;
Single Audit Act; and general agreement to comply with all Federal laws,
executive orders and regulations.”
The Washington State proposed budget for the 1995-96 grant year was $6,328,974; broken
down as follows107:
District Planning and Implementation Grants $3,000,000

Regional Staff Development Networks $1,500,000
Teacher Training Grants $600,000
Mentor School Grants $600,000
Administrative
Assessment Development (Commission on Student Learning) $382,897
Subgrant and Panel Administration $246,077
The Comprehensive Plan for the Improvement of Student Learning was finalized in June 1996
and submitted for federal review in July 1996.
Pursuant to Public Law 104-134—the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations

Act of 1996, amendments were made to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act that required
states receiving Goals 2000 funds to file and annual report with the U.S. Department of
Education.
In a letter, dated February 20, 1997, to Mr Thomas Fagan of the U.S. Department of
Education, Dr Terry Bergeson, OSPI, states…
Our Legislature has invested state money for standards, new assessments and
professional development at five times the rate of the Goals 2000 funds we have
received. Our business community and our teachers union are on board. Our
Commission on Student Learning, which I headed until recently, is developing our
state essential learning requirements108 and assessments, supported in part with
Goals 2000 funds. Almost all of our schools have site plans to bring student learning
up to state standards. Over half the state's districts are developing and implementing
(with Goals 2000 funds) comprehensive plans with their communities109 for improving
107
Washington State Goals 2000 Implementation Grant; June 1995.
108
Note the exclusion of the world academic. These are presented to the public as the state essential academic
learning requirements.
109
A document published by Dr Bergeson in March 1995 shows that public understanding of education reform was
very low, with only 5% very familiar and 27% somewhat familiar. The remaining 68% were unfamiliar or didn't know.
This was further confirmed by a study in 1996, prepared by Schroth and Associates for the Future of Washington
Schools Project, in which "only 16% of those surveyed had any familiarity with the Education Reform Law passed by
the legislature in 1993." This confirms the allegations of opponents of education reform that community participation
and input is not on an informed basis; that citizens and communities are being facilitated into acceptance of the Goals
2000 agenda with no real understanding of what it means for them, their communities, or their children; that people
39
student learning, including curriculum alignment and professional development. Our
universities are aligning their admissions standards and teacher training curriculum
with our state K-12 standards (again with support from Goals 2000). Nearly 60,000
fourth grade students (representing 85% of Washington's school districts) participated
in the voluntary pilot test of the new state assessments in reading, writing,
communications, and mathematics (partly funded by Goals 2000). Our public schools
and universities will al be networked together within two years. (Highlighting added
for emphasis)
The annual report lists what Washington State has done to comply with the requirements of
Goals 2000 and the state Comprehensive Plan for the Improvement of Student Learning:
o Washington has developed essential academic learning requirements (standards)

for each of the state learning goals.
o Washington adopted a Consolidated Plan to align federal and state categorical
programs with state student learning goals.
o Elementary level reading, writing, communication, and math assessments have
been pilot tested.
o State Student Learning Improvement Block Grant ($39 million in 1995-97) funding
has been restricted to planning and staff development activities and made subject
to building plans and school performance reports.
o Each school is required to develop a student learning improvement plan and to
disseminate an annual school performance report.
o Regional Assessment Centers have been established to train teachers in the
appropriate use of assessment tools and information, and Regional Networks have
been funded to support professional development.
o Community Public Health and Safety Networks have been formed to coordinate
community resources in support of children and families.
o New performance-based teacher certification standards for academic and
vocational teachers have been developed and are being pilot tested. (highlighting
added for emphasis)
Included in the appendices of the annual report is the Washington State Consolidated IASA
Plan; May 1996.110 According to the plan,
This consolidated plan explains how Washington State will coordinate the use of
federal funds to support educational reform in a manner consistent with recent state
educational reform legislation and with the state's Comprehensive Plan for the
Improvement of Student Learning (the state plan under Goals 2000). This
consolidated plan maintains and supports the integrity of the individual programs
included, as these programs work collaboratively in support of improved educational
opportunities for all children, including children attending non-public schools.
(highlighting added for emphasis)
who do know are being kept off of restructuring teams and if on a team, are kept in a minority with tactics used to
marginalize and neutralize them.
110
Although carrying a date of May 1996, this report lists Dr Terry Bergeson as the Superintendent of Public
Instruction. She did not take office until January 1997.
40
Washington State and the Improving America's Schools Act
The IASA—Improving America's Schools Act of 1994—is the re-authorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The ESEA, since its passage in 1965, has become an
ever increasing source of funding for the states, schools and school districts such that states
and school districts would find it very difficult to operate without it; with the greatest
amount of money coming through Title I. In 1994, when the ESEA was re-authorized via the
infamous HR 6, the original Act was changed (and renamed), requiring that states and schools
meet new criteria. Title XIV of the IASA lays out the general provisions that the states and
school districts must meet as condition of continued receipt of title monies…
SEC 14307. RELATIONSHIP OF STATE AND LOCAL PLANS TO THE PLANS UNDER THE
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT.
(a) STATE PLANS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State plan submitted under the following
programs shall be integrated with each other and the State's
improvement plan, if any, either approved or being developed, under
title III111 of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act112, the School-to-
Work Opportunities Act of 1994, and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Applied Technology Education Act:
(A) Part A of title I (helping disadvantage children meet high
standards).
(B) Part C of title I (education of migratory children).
(C) Part D of title I (education of neglected, delinquent, and at-
risk youth).
(D) Title II (professional development).
(E) Title IV (safe and drug-free schools).
(F) Title VI (innovative education program strategies).
(G) Subpart 4 of part A of title IX (Indian education).
(2) SPECIAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
if a requirement relating to a State plan referred to in paragraph (1) is
already satisfied by the approved State improvement plan for such
State under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the State
plan referred to in paragraph (2) need not separately address that
requirement.
(3) AMENDMENT.—Any State plan referred to in paragraph (1) may,
if necessary be submitted as an amendment to the State improvement
plan for such State under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act.
(b) LOCAL PLANS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each local educational agency plan submitted
under the following programs shall be integrated with each other and
its local improvement plan, if any, either approved or being developed,
under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act:
(A) Part A of title I (helping disadvantaged children meet
high standards).
111
Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act encompasses Sections 306, 309(a) and (b) and 317.
112
In other words, the state and local education agencies must meet the requirements of Title III, Goals 2000:
Educate America Act as condition of continued receipt of title monies listed.
41
(B) Title II (professional development).
(C) Title IV (safe and drug-free schools).
(D) Subpart 4 of part A of title IX (Indian education).
(E) Subpart 1 of part A of the title VII (bilingual education).
(F) Title VI (innovative education program strategies).
(G) Part C of title VII (emergency immigrant education).
(2) PLAN OF OPERATION.—Each plan of operation included in an
application submitted by an eligible entity under part B of title I (Even
Start) shall be consistent with, and promote the goals of, the State and
local improvement plans, either approved or being developed, under
title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act or, if those plans are
not approved or being developed, with the State and local plans under
sections 1111 and 1112.
(3) SPECIAL RULE.&—Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, if a requirement relating to a local plan referred to in paragraph
(1) is already satisfied by the local educational agency's approved local
improvement plan under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act, the local plan referred to in paragraph (1) need not separately
address that requirement.
(4) SUBMISSION.—Any local plan referred to in paragraph (1) may, if
necessary, be submitted as an amendment to the local educational
agency's improvement plan under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act. (highlighting added for emphasis)
In clarifying the relationship between the IASA Consolidated Plan and the Goals 2000
Comprehensive Plan for the Improvement of Student Learning, the consolidated plan states,
Both documents will reference one another, with the consolidated plan operating
under the umbrella of the comprehensive plan. (highlighting added for emphasis)
In other words, the Goals 2000 Comprehensive Plan for the Improvement of Student Learning
is the master plan — the blueprint for education reform in Washington State as indicated in
the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. All other plans are subordinate, peripheral.
Further in the Consolidated IASA Plan, in elucidating Washington's vision for improving
education, the plan states,
The vision for education that has inspired the development of Washington's
consolidated plan is one in which students have the opportunity to become
responsible citizens; to contribute to the economic well-being of themselves, their
families, and their communities; and to enjoy productive and satisfying lives. To
these ends, the goals that each school district develops, with the involvement of the
parents and community members, should be to provide opportunities for all students
to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the state's education goals and
challenging content and performance standards. (highlighting added for emphasis)
42
Summation
Via their own words, it becomes very apparent that a) by taking the Goals 2000 money, the
state education reform agenda must align with that of Goals 2000, b) to continue receiving
federal ESEA title money, the state must develop and implement a State improvement plan
under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and c) the amount of money the state
will spend complying with Goals 2000 far exceeds the Goals 2000 grant money received. The
consistent claim that Goals 2000 is voluntary is misinformation.
The Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, section 706, amends
Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act by adding the following:
SEC 320. LIMITATIONS.

(a) PROHIBITED CONDITIONS.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a
State, a local educational agency, or a school, as a condition of receiving assistance
under this title—
(1) to provide outcomes-based education; or
(2) to provide school-based health clinics or any other health or social
service.
(b) LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.—Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to require or permit any Federal or State official to inspect a home, judge
how parents raise their children, or remove children from their parents, as a result of
the participation of a State, local educational agency, or school in any program or
activity carried out under this Act. (highlighting added for emphasis)
If read very carefully with knowledge of education reform and the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act, it becomes very obvious that this amendment gives the impression that these
conditions are prohibited. However, this is not accurate. These conditions will be verboten
but only under the predicated environment or structure (the underlined words) which are not
the environment or structure under which these conditions exist.
From the state house to the school house, public servants have tried to convince parents,
citizens, taxpayers that education reform is bottom-up, local in flavor, grass-roots. What is
outlined here, in this report, in the words of the reformers, is a top down federal program
foisted on states and school districts via the Improving America's Schools Act and the Goals
2000: Educate America Act. At no time has the state or a local school district sat down at the
drawing table with a blank sheet of paper. Thousands, if not millions of dollars, are being
spent on ad hoc restructuring committees at the state and local level, partly to give the
appearance of local control, mainly to facilitate public buy-in, when, in fact, local school
district and state officials are only deciding how they will implement the what decided at the
federal level.
As so well documented in their own words, this report puts to rest forever the claim that
education reform is bottom-up, local in flavor, grass-roots. People are not involved in
education reform on an informed basis as so ably shown in Washington State already.113 Yet
our public servants continue trying to cultivate this myth as though if stated often enough, it
will become fact instead of fallacy.
113
Reference footnote number 109.
43
44
National and Federal Restructuring Agenda
School-to-Work/Workforce Training — The Early Years
In 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed SB 6411, directing the Office of Financial
Management (OFM), with the advice of the Council on Investment in Human Capital (also
established by SB 6411), to “administer a study of the training needs of the state’s
workforce, businesses, and the economy, including an evaluation of the training system.”114
The study included—
1. approximately 300 focus group participants including employers, state and local
vocational education and training administrators and instructors;
2. survey responses from 4,200 Washington employers, employing approximately ten
percent of the state’s workforce;
3. survey responses from some 2,700 former participants of vocational education and
job training programs, including representative samples from secondary
vocational education, vocational technical institutes, community college
vocational students, apprentices, and job training partnership act participants;
and
4. survey responses from representative samples of both the recently unemployed
(1300 respondents) and the economically disadvantaged (600 respondents).115
The study was to be completed by December 1, 1990.
A request for proposal (RFP) for completion of the study was issued:
After a comprehensive Request for Proposal (RFP) process involving business, labor,
legislative, and executive branch representation, the Battelle Human Affairs Research
Centers was selected as the prime contractor for the study. The accounting firm of
Deloitte and Touche was chosen as the major subcontractor.
In addition, affiliates of three Washington colleges and university were selected
to complete other important portions of the study, including: the University of
Washington, Northwest Policy Center; The Evergreen State College, Washington State
Institute for Public Policy; and the Washington State University, Social and Economic
Sciences Research Center.116
From this group came the OFM report, Investment in Human Capital Study. From the Council
on Investment in Human Capital came the report, Investing in Workforce Education and
Training. Both reports are dated December 1, 1990.
These reports were the foundation for what was to come in Washington State. Interestingly,
both reports reference the 1990 report of the Commission on the Skills of the American
Workforce (CSAW)—America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!117 — CSAW is one of several
114
Investment in Human Capital Study; Findings; State of Washington: Office of Financial Management; 1990; p 1.
115
Ibid, p 3.
116
Ibid; p 1.
117
Made possible by financial support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the State of New York, Towers
Perrin, Cresap/Telesis, SJS, Inc. and The German Marshall Fund. (America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!;
45
programs of National Center on Education and the Economy118 (NCEE), Marc Tucker president.
It is of interest to note that earlier in this same year—February 1990119, Washington State,
along with four other states and five large urban school districts formed the National Alliance
for Restructuring Education (NARE), another program of NCEE. The goal of NARE is to
radically transform schools by … breaking this system, root and branch.120
This was not, however, the first contact between Marc Tucker and Washington State. In
1986, the year that the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (the predecessor to
NCEE) released A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, then Governor Booth
Gardner invited Tucker to Washington State to discuss the report.121 In 1987, Tucker returned
to Washington State, addressing the Legislature on legislation proposing the Schools for the
21st Century Program. The proposal – SB 5479 – passed, and Brian Benzel, Superintendent of
the Edmonds School District, became the chair of the Schools for the 21st Century Program.
When Tucker formed NARE in February 1990, Gardner signed on as a site partner and
Benzel122 became the state’s representative to the alliance. It is inconceivable that such an
alliance would be formed but not utilized by Washington State in addressing that for which
the alliance was formed.
The OFM report, Investment in Human Capital Study, was to review previous Washington
State studies and examine workforce training policies and programs in other states and
nations.123 In the course of its work, the study speaks of the “new basic skills,” defining them
as…
o can quickly adapt to change

o as the ability to perform more abstract work processes
o can assume more decision-making authority, and
o can work in teams, and
o understand system-wide needs
These types of skills are not peculiar to specific occupations, but are rather part of
the “new basic skills” that all workers will require to function effectively in the
Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy, Commission on the Skills of the American
Workforce; p 129)
118
Meeting packets for the January 28, 1997, meeting of the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
Meeting contained literature from NCEE relevant to workforce development, labor market systems, and one-stop
career centers.
119
Some sources put the year at 1989. NARE was officially recognized in February 1990.
120
NCEE/NARE design team proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation; p 2.
121
122
Brian Benzel carries an interesting resumé: Future of Washington’s Schools Project; Superintendent of Edmonds
School District, Coordinating Council, NARE; Board of Directors, CSL; Member, National Council on Education
Standards and Testing; Advisory Board, Washington 2000; Director, Schools for the 21st Century Program; Member;
National Education Goals Panel; Member, National Standards Task Force; GCERF; Advisory Council, New Horizons
for Learning.
123
Investing in Workforce Education and Training; The Report of the Advisory Council on Investment in Human
Capital; December 1, 1990; author; p 3.
46
economy and labor market of the future.124
The study speaks of lifelong learning, competency-based education, hands on learning, work-
based learning, performance measures, outcomes, critical thinking/problem solving, cultural
diversity, assessment, portfolio, two-plus-two or tech prep programs, customized job
training, school-to-work transition, youth centers, dislocated workers, at-risk youth, and
women, minorities and the economically disadvantaged—all buzz words and phrases that
people generally associate with the advent of education reform. Obviously they, as the
education reform/school-to-work/workforce training initiative, were already in use in certain
circles.
One of the groups that helped compile the information that became the Investment in Human
Capital Study was the Northwest Policy Center (NPC). NPC is…
an applied policy research center serving the five states of the Pacific Northwest:
Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. NPC was established through
grants from the Northwest Area Foundation125 to conduct policy research and assist
policymakers in devising and implementing strategies to improve the vitality of the
regional economy.
At the request of OFM, the Northwest Policy Center of the University of Washington Graduate
School of Public Affairs carried “out a project to identify model approaches, systems, and
programs for improving employment-related education and training.”126 Among the issues
studied were… (highlighting added)
o integration and coordination of employment-related education and training

programs and services;
o business and labor involvement in education and training efforts;
o basic skills training;
o the mission and role of various segments of the education and training system and
the way in which services are provided;
o innovative vocational education programs;
o data and research systems;
o services for target populations (at-risk youth, women and minorities, economically
disadvantaged, and dislocated workers);
o support services; and
o alternative funding mechanisms.
NPC’s investigations of model education and training approaches, systems, and

programs is part of Washington State’s Investment in Human Capital study. Other
parts of the study undertaken by NPC are: an analysis of the current and emerging
demand for skilled workers in Washington and the impact of this demand on the
state’s education and training system; and an examination of the extent to which the
124
Investment in Human Capital Study; State of Washington: Office of Financial Management; 1990; p 17.
125
Northwest Areas Foundation was represented at the 1993 conference co-sponsored by Jobs For the Future and
Center on Wisconsin Strategy.
126
47
education and training needs of target populations (adults with literacy problems,
dislocated workers, and people with disabilities) are now being met and will be met
in the future, given existing levels of service.
The NPC preliminary report was a group effort; the majority of the members coming from
NPC. The list of those who did not come from NPC includes Betty Jane Narver127 — director of
the Institute for Public Policy and Management128, University of Washington.129 Ms Narver
would become board chairperson of the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board.130
As part of their research into states having “model approaches, systems, and programs for
improving employment-related education and training”,131 study team members traveled to
the states of Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Illinois in August 1990.
Expenses were covered through a contract with OFM. These states were identified as…
having model education and training programs and systems through an extensive
review of the literature, discussions with state and federal policy analysts and
consultants, and recommendations from associations and organizations familiar with
state and federal education and training policies (for example, the National
Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Education
Commission of the States, and the National Center on Education and the Economy).132
(highlighting added)
The study team met with “state and local government officials, business and labor
representatives, and visited schools, youth centers, county welfare and Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) offices, employment service offices, dislocated worker programs, and
community colleges.”133 Ms Narver was a member of this study team.
NPC also secured a grant from the German Marshall Fund of the United States134 to fund a trip
to Europe to study “human investment strategies.”135 The trip, in the summer of 1990, took
the study group, made up of Washington State policymakers, through Denmark, Sweden, and
127
Betty Jane Narver was/is on the Advisory Board of New Horizons for Learning – the Seattle-based education
group that endorses the use of Eastern mystic practices in the classroom and has held conferences featuring such
speakers as Marilyn Ferguson, author of The Aquarian Conspiracy. Narver also sat on a GCERF subcommittee; she
also sits as a member of the Governor’s Task Force on School-to-Work Transition; in 1992, was on the Working
Committee of the Washington Business Roundtable (Enriching the Education Profession, K-12; Washington Business
Roundtable; 11/1992); and in December, 1996, Narver is listed as a member of the ad hoc Revision Committee,
Commission on Student Learning. In 1996, Narver is still listed as being with Institute of Public Policy and
Management on various state documents.
128
129
Getting It All Together; School-to-Work Transition; Tech Prep 3; Northwest Regional Conference; April 22-24,
1996.
130
In February 1997, as a member of the ad hoc revision committee to the Commission on Student Learning, Narver
was listed as “Director, Institute for Public Policy & Management,” University of Washington where NPC is also
located.
131
132
Ibid; p 173-174.
133
Ibid; p 173.
134
As noted in Part I, the German Marshall Fund of the United States has also helped fund NCEE.
135
48
Germany. The group focused on…
o the integration and coordination of education, training, and human service

programs;
o the role of apprenticeships in a comprehensive training system;
o the role of business in providing and funding worker training;
o the relationship of training programs to economic development; and
o the evaluation of training programs.
(See Appendix A for a list of the members of the European study group.)
One of the subgroup reports—Recommendations on the Governance of the Washington

Institute of Applied Technology — completed in the third phase of the project, lists those who
made the subgroup report possible. (See Appendix B for a list of those members.)
A second report was issued by the Advisory Council on Investment in Human Capital, entitled
Investing in Workforce Education and Training. The mission of the Advisory Council was “to
make recommendations on changes necessary to improve state policies for workforce
education and training.”136 The Council was made up of twenty members, appointed by the
Governor:137 (See Appendix C for a list of the Advisory Council members.)
The Investing in Workforce Education and Training report referenced two reports that were
completed prior to the Investment in Human Capital initiative and that influenced its
establishment – Workforce 2000, completed by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1987; and
Washington Works Worldwide, completed by the Washington Economic Development Board in
1988.138 The latter report “strongly concluded that a well-trained workforce is critical in
order for the state to compete in the global economy.”139 (highlighting added)
The Investing in Workforce Education and Training report also referenced a report published
during the time of its charge: the report of CSAW – America’s Choice: high skills or low
wages!, noting that this …
report drew the conclusion that if the United States is going to maintain high wages
the public sector and private sectors must better train the workforce and employ the
full capacities of their employees’ skills and brains.
The Advisory Council on Investment in Human Capital made nine recommendations regarding
education and workforce training in Washington State: (highlighting added)
1. Coordinating Structure – The council recommends the establishment of a new

coordinating board140 in order to create a more integrated system of adult
136
Investing in Workforce Education and Training; The Report of the Advisory Council on Investment in Human
Capital; December 1, 1990; author; p 1.
137
Ibid; p 1-2.
138
Ibid.
139
Ibid, p 1.
140
This was accomplished by SB 5184; 1991 Legislative Session.
49
workforce education and training. The membership of this board should represent
a balanced, tripartite partnership of business, labor, and government.
2. Accountability – The workforce education and training system must be accountable
for the outcomes it produces. … The coordinating board should facilitate the
establishment of a competency-based Certificate of Initial Mastery141 to recognize
the attainment of basic skills.142
3. Governance of Adult Skills Education –
a) Technical Colleges (currently, vocational technical institutes)—The council
recommends that vocational technical institutes be removed from the
jurisdiction of local school boards and the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and be transferred to a new state board for community and technical college
education.143
b) Washington Institute of Applied Technology (WIAT)—The council recommends
that WIAT be administered at the local level as part of the Seattle Community
College District.144 Program funds should flow through the newly designated
State Board of Community and Technical College Education to the SCC District.
c) Adult Literacy—For the purpose of uniform governance of adult workforce
education and in order to join responsibility for governance and service
delivery, the Council recommends that federal funds for adult literacy (adult
basic education, adult homeless education, state legalization impact
assistance grants, and other federal funds) be channelled through the State
Board of Community and Technical College Education.
4. Apprenticeship – The council recommends adequate funding and staff to promote
apprenticeship training models in non-traditional occupations and industries. The
state should explore the use of apprenticeship training for workforce education at
the secondary level and as part of 2+2 programs (sequential programs
encompassing two years of secondary education and two years of post-secondary
education. The state should also establish linkages between apprenticeships and
programs under the job training partnership act; and the state should explore
financial incentives for businesses to participate in apprenticeship programs.
5. Adult Literacy and Basic Skills – The State through the coordinating board should
enhance workplace literacy (a curriculum or instruction which is specific to a
workplace or a cluster of workplaces) by providing technical assistance for
workplace literacy, including training for providers and guidelines for employers.
… The coordinating board should recommend competency measures indicating the
mastery of basic skills, including minimum levels for high school graduation. …
Competencies should be demonstrated through a variety of assessment
techniques, not just by means of written tests.145
6. K-12 Workforce Education – The Council recommends a review of K-12 vocational
education programs in all Washington school districts for the purpose of enhancing
the variety and adequacy of vocational curriculum. Vocational and academic
141
The Certificate of Initial Mastery is a program unique to the New Standards Project, a program of National Center
on Education and the Economy. That the Certificate of Initial Mastery (also known as the Certificate of Mastery) is
noted in this 1990 publication of the Advisory Council on Investment in Human Capital more than suggests that
NCEE consulted on the writing of this report.
142
This was accomplished via HB 1209, 1993 Legislative Session.
143
This was accomplished via ESSB 5184; 1991 Legislative Session.
144
This was accomplished via ESSB 5184; 1991 Legislative Session.
145
50
curriculum should be integrated146 … A Certificate of Initial Mastery should mark
the attainment of basic skills and be required for entry into all post-secondary
education. Competencies should be assessed through a variety of techniques
which recognize cultural diversity and different needs of people with disabilities.
… Reducing the dropout rate of K-12 students is a high priority of the Council.
One way to work on this problem is to establish a system of youth centers
(alternative schools).147 The youth centers would be for drop-outs or potential
drop-outs to achieve their Certificate of Initial Mastery.
7. Access – The State should encourage the co-location of health, social, and
vocational counseling support services at institutions providing workforce
education; for example, on-site child care.
8. Cultural Diversity – The state should encourage the private sector to recruit and
assist target populations148 with scholarships, internships, job guarantees, and
mentors.
9. Funding – The Governor and the legislature must give the needs of workforce
education and training as high a priority in funding as any program before the
government of Washington State, and every effort must be made to maintain
current workforce education and training funding in the 1991-93 biennium.
A State Workforce Training and Education System
The Investment in Human Capital Study and Investment in Workforce Education and Training
became the impetus for legislation introduced and passed in the 1991 Legislative Session—
ESSB 5184, that established the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board,
combined … community and vocational-technical schools under one agency149 known as the
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC)150, and established the Office of
Adult Literacy under the auspices of the newly formed SBCTC.151 The bill report makes this
disclosure:
In June 1990, the National Center on Education and the Economy’s Commission on the
Skills of the American Workforce produced a report, “America’s Choice: High Skills or
Low Wages,” which underscores the work of the preceding reports and makes a
number of bold recommendations for change.
ESSB 5184, Section 4,
The purpose of the board is to provide planning, coordination, evaluation,

monitoring, and policy analysis for the state training system as a whole, and advice to
146
147
In 1994, in Washington State, there were 191 Alternative Schools (Youth Centers), and 76 Teen Parent Programs
– some in schools and some in an off-campus setting. In America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!, youth centers
are defined as “the dropout recovery system” (p 71).
148
For the purposes of this study, target populations refers to minorities, women, people with disabilities, dislocated
workers, illiterate adults, and other economically disadvantaged people who are not fully employed.
149
Final Bill Report, ESSB 5184.
150
School-to-work developmental grant application; November, 1993.
151
Ibid.
51
the governor and legislature concerning the state training system, in cooperation with
the agencies which comprise the state training system, and the higher education
coordinating board.
ESSB 5184 assigned WTECB with other responsibilities—to… (highlighting added)
o Review the state’s workforce training and education system for consistency with
the plan;
o Promote coordination among workforce training and education programs at the
state and regional levels;
o Assess the workforce training and education needs of employers and workers;
o Develop a consistent and reliable workforce training and education database for
service delivery and evaluation;
o Evaluate the results of the training system as a whole and establish minimum
standards for evaluating programs within the system; and
o Advocate for the workforce training and education system to meet the needs of
employers and workers.152
In 1994, after two years of work, the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
published its first comprehensive plan for workforce training and education—High Skills, High
Wages. (Board members, in 1994 and 1996, are listed in Appendix D.)
The vision of WTECB is… (highlighting added)
To develop a globally competitive workforce supported by an accessible, flexible,

competency-based, and technologically current training and education system.153
The mission of WTECB is “to actualize Washington’s Workforce Vision by: (highlighting
added)
o Establishing a new workforce partnership to include active participation by

leaders from labor, business, education and government;
o Empowering change to all levels of the training and education system as needed
by all participants, including students, workers, employers, educators, trainers
and political leaders;
o Increasing the number of participants from traditionally underserved populations
participating in training programs that are responsive to ethnic and cultural
diversity;
o Increasing self-sufficiency of families by advocating for support services so that
individuals access training opportunities and prepare for jobs that bring a living
wage;
o Improving coordination among all programs and providers, public and private,
within the state’s workforce training and education system;
o Promoting training and education that is competency-based, with equal emphasis
on academic and occupational skills acquisition; and
152
High Skills, High Wages; Washington State: Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; 1994.
153
Ibid.
52
o Generating new and leveraged resources for an integrated, cost-effective,
statewide training and education system.” 154
The goals of WTECB are …
o Ensuring that the people of Washington will succeed in an economy that requires
higher levels of skill and knowledge,
o Ensuring that all Washington residents have opportunities to learn and to advance
in their chosen field of work throughout their lifetimes, and
o Changing the way we learn and teach, so that all training and education programs
are customer-driven 155, competency-based and focused on achieving results.156
High Skills, High Wages (1994) outlines what an ideal education and training system would
look like. The ideal workforce training and education system would: (highlighting added)
o Be customer driven — organized around the needs of students, workers and

employers;
o Be easy to find and enter, and be designed so that people can move easily among
and between programs, and between programs and the workplace;
o Meet the needs of all learners, including those who have been underserved in the
past because of racial, ethnic or cultural differences; gender; disability or
learning style;
o Provide support services such as career counseling, child care and financial aid to
those who need them;
o Be competency-based, so that all students are able to master the skills and
knowledge they need in as much or as little time as they need to do so;
o Be staffed by people who are prepared to teach a diverse student body, and who
have relationships with employers that help them stay up to date on changes in
their fields;
o Be coordinated with private sector training programs, with social and other
services, and with economic development strategies;
o Be based on full partnerships between business, labor, and training and education
representatives;
o Promote the dignity of work and the value of workforce training and education;
o Rely on the best labor market information, so that people acquire skills that local
industries need;
o Provide students and workers with a foundation of basic skills that equip them to
be lifelong learners; and
o Be accountable for results, and committed to using outcome measures to
continuously improve program quality.
High Skills, High Wages (1994) outlines the “mostly urgently needed actions”, stating that
“Many changes in our attitudes and actions will be necessary to achieve these goals, and
154
High Skills, High Wages; Washington State: Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; 1994.
155
One need ask who the customer is. While one might assume the person receiving training as the customer, in
total quality circles, the customer might be the worker, the student, or the business.
156
High Skills, High Wages; Washington State: Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; 1994; p 8.
53
these changes are outlined and explained in this plan.” The most urgently needed actions
were: (highlighting added)
1. Confirm a coherent vision of a system of lifelong learning;

2. Develop a competency-based workforce training and education system;
3. Serve the needs of an increasingly diverse population;
4. Make workforce training and education accountable for continuous quality
improvement157 in meeting customer needs;
5. Increase public awareness about the importance of workforce training and
education;
6. Build partnerships between the private sector and workforce training and
education, including work-based learning and skill standards.
7. Integrate employment- and training related services so that they are easier to
find and enter;
8. Consolidate programs where coordination and efficiencies can result;
9. Coordinate workforce training and education with state and local economic
development strategies;
10. Make the last years of high school part of a school-to-work transition system;
11. Improve the basic skills of today’s workforce.
The last section of High Skills, High Wages (1994) contains the recommendations of WTECB.
While the vision, mission, goals, and needed actions might seem vague and generalized, the
recommendations shed considerable light on the course of workforce training and education,
and leave no doubt as to the new purpose of education. Consider the following quotes from
the recommendations section of High Skills, High Wages (1994): (highlighting added)
In order for business and labor to be full partners with training and education
providers, there must be greater capacity on the part of both business and labor to
participate effectively in designing programs, ensuring that programs meet the labor
market needs and providing meaningful work-based learning opportunities. (p 62)
Everyone involved in the workforce training and education system must work to
integrate services so that customers can find the education, training, and support
services and job placement help they need when they need it. (p 62)
Workforce training must be linked to economic development strategies so that the

supply of highly skilled workers is coordinated with the demand, and that
Washington’s training efforts help attract family-wage jobs. (p 63)
The training system must work with industry partnerships of management and labor
in order to obtain information on what skills are needed in the workplace and the
expectations for future employment. (p 63)
The training system must also use labor market information in evaluating the results
of training. WTECB, the Employment Security Department, and the workforce
training and education agencies should work together with business and labor on an
157
Also known as Total Quality Management (TQM).
54
ongoing basis to analyze the match between the supply of trained workers completing
programs and the demand in the labor market. (p 64)
While the aims of public education must include preparation for successful
citizenship, the promotion of the life of the mind158, and the creation of well-
rounded human beings, greater attention is needed to the role our public schools play
in preparing young people for economic self-sufficiency and a lifetime of continuous
learning. (p 64)
And all government agencies must help ensure that public school students get the
social and health services they need in order to learn. (p 65)
To succeed in high performance work organizations, today’s students must master the
new basic skills — teamwork, critical thinking, making decisions, communication,
adapting to change and understanding whole systems. (p 65)
Under school-to-work reforms, students who have attained the Certificate of Mastery
will also have received career guidance, have been exposed to career opportunities,
and will be making choices that shape their last two years of high school. After the
Certificate of Mastery, students will be increasingly engaged in work-based learning
supported by applied academics, with learning organized around career pathways.159
(p 66)
The state must support family literacy programs that are directed at breaking the
cycle of multi-generational poverty and illiteracy so that parents can help their
children succeed in school. (p 68)
Basic skills programs must become an integral part of an education system that is
geared toward lifelong learning. There must be consistency, for instance, between
the Essential Academic Learning Requirements being developed for public schools by
the Commission on Student Learning and the Core Competencies for Adult Basic
Education developed for adults.160 (p 69)
In the past, the words “education” and “learning” immediately conjured up a picture
of a classroom, usually filled with children or young people, and with a specially-
trained teacher or professor facing neat rows of desks and delivering a lecture.161 In
158
Lifelong learning.
159
Applied academics are specific courses that involve “real world” exercises used to demonstrate established
academic principles. Such courses offer students the opportunity to relate theory with practice through hands-on
learning. These courses require specific instructional training in the curriculum area. They tend to have high start-up
costs and often can accommodate larger class sizes. The vocationally approved academics courses are Principles of
Technology, Applied Math, and Materials Science Technology. (Secondary Vocational Education in the State of
Washington; Report of the Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Program Committee; February 1995)
160
A student is defined as someone who has been, is now, or will be in the public schools. (“WISE/Student Entity-
Relationship Diagrams;” Washington School Information Processing Cooperative; March 21, 1994.)
161
Desks lined up in a row, a teacher or professor lecturing, does not depict the reality of an academic education, nor
does it denote the traditional education system. Nor does the rote memorization of facts constitute an academic
education. In the traditional paradigm, academic is defined as the acquisition of knowledge (content strong) with the
child being challenged to use the scope of that knowledge to formulate a reasoned conclusion. As opposed to
55
the future, the words “education” and “learning” will conjure up a much wider
variety of images:
o Adult workers learning from each other and from their supervisors on the job,
o Classrooms filled with people of all ages working at computers,
o Video teleconferences that bring together teachers and learners from across the
state, and
o Students of all ages at home accessing information and gaining skills from the
information superhighway. (p 69)
Knowing what we face, we are confident that Washington has the leadership, energy,
and perseverance to make it to our destination: a world class workforce. (p 70)
The 1994 edition of High Skills, High Wages acknowledges “those organizations and
individuals who assisted with the development … of the document.” That list includes
organizations from outside the state of Washington—the National Governors’ Association
(NGA), National Conference of State Legislatures, and Jobs For the Future162 (JFF) – an
implementation partner for NCEE’s NARE design team; individuals outside the state of
Washington to include Evelyn Ganzglass of the NGA, and Hilary Pennington of JFF. Within the
state of Washington are listed groups/organizations with a known agenda in education reform
and workforce training—Association of Washington Business and the Washington Roundtable.
Also noted is Hugh Walkup of the Washington Goals 2000 office.
In 1992, NCEE published a document entitled A Human Resource Development Plan for the
United States. The document lays out a plan for education reform/school-to-work/workforce
training, summing it up this way,
What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s

skills 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.
From High Skills, High Wages, 1996 edition, this revelation,
We need to create a seamless system of learning opportunities that starts with

preschool education and continues through the entire lifespan of every citizen and
worker.
High Skills, High Wages (1996), the above quote is elaborated further:
The assessments and certifications that are created when skill standards are
developed provide an ongoing means for aligning educators’ and industry’s
outcome-based education, this approach teaches the child to discipline his or her mind such that s/he knows how to
think, can employ mental thought processes. With outcome- or performance-based education, the child is put
through a process (content weak) that does not teach him or her how to think but rather what to think, the child
merely responding, as does a computer, to the commands or prompts given.
162
Literature contained in meeting packets for the January 28, 1997, meeting of the Workforce Training and
Education Coordinating Board contained material published in cooperation of JFF.
56
expectations of competency standards, even when conditions change. Assessments
must result in certification that is valid among all education and training agencies
and employers. Educational competency standards must align the Certificate of
Mastery, high school graduation, college admissions requirements, and the host of
degrees that certificate postsecondary graduation. In turn, those educational
standards must be aligned with the skills certified in occupations as workers progress
through their careers. … The State Board of Community and Technical Colleges must
continue to lead training and education agencies and the private sector in developing
skill standards163 and certificates for occupational clusters. And they must do their
work in collaboration with those who will implement it in the field. … Skills and
knowledge should be recognized no matter where or how they are obtained.
Additional work will be needed to maintain the alignment of education and industry
as the economy evolves. … Competency-based learning and skill standards—fortified
by employer hiring and promotion practices that reward achievement—can make the
training and education system truly seamless.
In 1995, SSB 5992 broadened WTECB’s powers and duties, clarifying “the preeminent role
intended for the work force training and education coordinating board in coordination and
policy development of the state’s workforce development efforts,”164 and gave WTECB
greater authority over operating agencies165. Additionally, the legislation directed…
o that the state comprehensive plan for work force training and education shall be
up dated every two years and presented to the governor and the appropriate
legislative policy committees. Following public hearings, the legislature shall, by
concurrent resolution, approve or recommend changes to the initial plan and the
updates. The plan shall then become the state’s work force training policy unless
legislation were enacted to alter the policies set forth in the plan.166
o the board shall perform the functions of the human resource investment council
as provided for in the federal job training partnership act; …provide policy advice
for any federal act pertaining to work force development that is not required by
state or federal law to be provided by another state body; …advise the governor
and the legislature on mechanisms for integrating…federal initiatives into the
state’s work force development system and make recommendations on the
legislative measures necessary to streamline and coordinate state efforts to meet
federal guidelines.167
o the board to specify, by July 1, 1995, the common core data to be collected by the
operating agencies of the state training system and the standards for data
collection and maintenance…168
o the board to complete, by January 1, 1996, its first outcome-based evaluation
and, by September 1, 1996, it nonexperimental net-impact and cost-benefit
evaluations of the training system… and to use the results of its outcome, net-
163
Skill standards are tied to the SCANS competencies, the National Skills Standards Board, and ISO 9000/14000
certification.
164
SSB 5992; Section 1.
165
Those agencies whose operational purpose brings them within the charge of WTECB.
166
SSB 5992; Section 2(1).
167
SSB 5992; Section 3(2), (3), and (4).
168
57
impact, and cost-benefit evaluations to develop and make recommendations to
the legislature and the governor for the modification, consolidation, initiation, or
elimination of work force and education programs in the state.169
o the board shall, by January 1, 1996, and biennially thereafter: (1) Assess the
total demand for training from the perspective of workers, and from the
perspective of employers; (2) assess the available supply of publicly and privately
provided training which workers and employers are demanding; (3) assess the
costs to the state of meeting the demand; and (4) present the legislature and the
governor with a strategy for bridging the gap between the supply and demand for
training services.170
o the board, by January 1, 1996, to identify policies to reduce administrative and
other barriers to efficient operation of the state’s work force development
system and barriers to improved coordination of work force development in the
state. These policies shall include waivers of statutory requirements and
administrative rules, as well as implementation of one-stop access to work force
development services and school-to-work transitions.171
o the board, by January 1, 1996, report to the governor and the appropriate
legislative committees its recommendations for any statutory changes necessary
to enhance operational efficiencies or improve coordination. The board shall
work with the operating agencies of the state’s work force development system to
reduce administrative barriers that do not require statutory changes.172
Federal Grants and Out-of-State Technical Assistance
On March 31, 1993, a proposal—signed by Brian Ebersole (Speaker, House of

Representatives), Clyde Ballard (Minority Leader, House of Representatives), Marc Gaspard
(Majority Leader, Washington State Senate), and George Sellar (Minority Leader, Washington
State Senate)—was submitted to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The
proposal was in response to a request for proposals (RFP) issued by NCSL and Jobs for the
Future (JFF). The RFP stated that…
five states will be selected on a competitive basis to participate in a comprehensive

effort to develop a world-class workforce.
The RFP outlines its purpose as follows:
This project will not only educate state policymakers about the issues and policy
options in the areas of economic development, education, and workforce preparation
but also guide them through the process of strategy development and plan
implementation. … Over the next two years, this project will help five states
transform the way they develop and implement their education and workforce
preparation policies.
169
170
SSB 5992; Section 5.
171
172
58
The RFP states that the project was created “in response to the economic and social
problems facing states as budgets have dwindled and the economic recession has continued.”
According to the RFP, the five participating states…
will be provided with supplemental resources to develop and implement a new and
more effective workforce development strategy. … NCSL and JFF will provide your
state, if selected, with:
o …Through the project’s advisory committee and the extensive knowledge and
contacts of NCSL and JFF, you will be provided with resources to help prepare
your state’s economy for the workforce challenges that lie ahead.
o Seminars and Meetings to educate and help state teams create and implement
their workforce development strategy.
o Diagnostic guides and briefing papers on workforce development and human
investment issues. These publications will supply information on workforce policy
issues and help diagnose the state’s workforce development problems to improve
the effectiveness of that system.
State proposals would be evaluated by four “minimum applications requirements:
o Identification of problems, goals, and strategies (25 points)

o Team composition and organization (25 points)
o Commitment of state resources (25 points)
o Unique Resources (25 points)
The Washington State proposal was written over the four minimum requirements as laid out in
the RFP. The five states chosen to participate were Kentucky, West Virginia, Connecticut,
Iowa and Washington. A sixth state—Ohio—joined the other five later. The project was
funded by the DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund who also funds NCEE’s Workforce Skills
Program. Of the sponsor’s, the RFP states that NCSL…
is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that represents the legislators and

legislative staff of the nation’s fifty states, commonwealths, and territories.
and JFF…
is a non-profit, non-partisan organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that

works with political and civic leaders, educators, employers, and intermediary
organizations to advance knowledge and practice in workforce improvement,
economic development, and education reform.
What the proposal doesn’t say is that Jobs For the Future is an implementation partner to the
National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE)—a program of National Center on
Education and the Economy (NCEE)—and was at the time of the Investing In People Project.
A booklet put out by the National Conference of State Legislators entitled Investing In People;
59
Working Together for a Competitive Workforce; A Handbook for State Policy Teams, gives
insight to the scope and purpose of the Investing In People Project. Quotes from the IIP
Project handbook give insight to the facilitated consensus-building process173 used to insure
the outcome:
The teams attended two workforce policy institutes designed to educate team
members and build their unity and sense of purpose. … The institutes used
presentations, workshops, team-building exercises, and work-sessions to help team
members understand the team process, gain a greater knowledge of economic and
workforce development policy issues, and create a personal commitment to the team.
The first institute, held in June 1993, concentrated on the process of developing a
shared vision, setting policy goals, creating legislative strategies, and establishing or
strengthening bonds between team members. The teams heard presentations on
strategic planning, high-performance work organizations, education reform, school-
to-work transition, and workforce development.
The second institute, held in December 1993, offered additional technical
assistance and guidance to the teams on their strategies and implementation plans. …
The theory behind using teams is that better decisions are made by team
collaboration than by individual choice. The NCSL/JFF IIP Project assumed that a
public-private group of individuals could be forged into an effective state policy team
through shared experiences of new knowledge, team-building exercises, and out-of-
state, intensive policy institutes. Over a long period of time, such a team could
create a political consensus and will to recommend and implement significant
initiatives to improve its states’ workforce and economic development system. …
The teams agreed on how the members would work together, including rules for
conduct, participation, and procedure. In order to accomplish its goals, the IIP teams
required a significant amount of time to absorb new policy concepts and approaches,
consider the consequences of decisions, and develop legislative recommendations.
… The right combination of people and organizations they represent can be a
powerful catalyst for change.
… In view of the NCSL/JFF IIP Project staff, these accomplishments validate the
project’s methodology to help states take major steps forward to improve their
workforce and economic development systems.
This handbook describes the IIP Project, explains the institute process, and
examines the team concepts used in this project. … The appendixes provide guidelines
for building successful state policy teams…
During the three-year project, staff produced policy reports, diagnostic guides,
and resource notebooks. The policy reports included education reform, workforce
development, school-to-work transition, adult retraining and education, and
economic development. The diagnostic guides helped the teams examine their
purpose, goals and obstacles; assess the state’s economic development, education and
workforce development programs; and develop short- and long-term strategies. The
resource notebooks summarized broad issues focusing on education reform, workforce
preparation and economic development; included key policy documents relating to
workforce preparation; gave examples of state legislation; and provided a glossary of
terms and an extensive bibliography.
173
What is spoken of here is otherwise known as the decentralized decision making process.
60
… Both institutes offered participants presentations by nationally-known experts,
workshops, team-building exercises, and extended team work-sessions. Institutes
were held at neutral sites where, removed from their usual roles and activities, team
members could focus on new policy issues and get to know each other as individuals
rather than as representatives of interest groups and organizations. …
… NCSL/JFF project staff expected that each team member would leave the first
policy institute with a clear understanding of the team process, a greater knowledge
of workforce policy issues, and a personal commitment to the team. …
The first policy institute also focused on team-building activities and
interpersonal relationships. The teams spent most of their time together, getting to
know and trust each other. The teams participated in several team-building
exercises, building a simulated arctic survival activity that showed how group
decisions can be more effective than individual decisions.
Unlike traditional state public policy decision-making, the team process used in
this project was consensus-driven with team members participating from both the
public and private sectors. A discussion of the team process is helpful in
understanding the dynamics of the IIP teams and the methodology of the IIP
Project.174
So important was the consensus-building team process to the outcome of the project, that
one whole section of the handbook was devoted to the team process. What becomes very
apparent in the team process is what becomes apparent whenever and wherever the process
is used:
the teams/groups do not set down at an empty table; the agenda and outcome are
already predetermined and preset—the teams/groups only decide how they will
implement the what that has already been decided;
if facilitators are used, they are not neutral, they ensure the outcome;
the focus of the teams/groups is very narrow and very narrowly defined;
the outcome cannot be assured if the group cannot be facilitated to a collective
mindset marked by a move away from a belief in absolutes to a belief that right
and wrong are situational, relative, a matter of perception;
debate and divergent views are counterproductive to achieving the wanted
outcomes;
dissention is counterproductive and disruptive to the process; and
the process is very exclusionary and divisive.
Besides laying out the vision of the Washington team, the handbook had this to offer
regarding Washington State participants,
The Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board was established to provide
planning, coordination, evaluation, monitoring, and policy analysis for the state
employment training system. Several members of the board, as well as its executive
director, were members of the IIP team and were able to link the work of the
subgroups with the development of the Board’s comprehensive plan for workforce
174
Investing in People; Working Together for a Competitive Workforce; A Handbook for State Policy Teams; National
Conference of State Legislators; November 1994.
61
training, which was formally adopted in July 1994 and released in fall 1994.175 The
comprehensive plan included IIP recommendations on school-to-work transition,
coordination of workforce development programs, coordination of training and
economic development, and facilitating high-performance work organizations.
As with many of the genre, the IIP Project drew on the work of the NCEE Commission on the
Skills of the American Workforce’s America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!, the work of
the Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), Thinking for a Living by
Ray Marshall and Marc Tucker (NCEE), and the work of Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline;
The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization — all of which are listed in the bibliography
of the handbook.
According to letters signed by then Governor Mike Lowry, the Governor’s Council on School-
to-Work Transition was formed in January 1994. (For a list of the members of the Council,
see Appendix E.) According to a 1995 implementation grant submitted to the U.S.
Department of Labor, the work of the Governor’s Council was funded by a School to Work
Opportunities Act (STWOA) development grant176 in the amount of $525,000177 from the
United States Department of Labor. However, according to information published in the
Federal Register on October 14, 1993, the development grant was funded by…
funds requested by the Department of Labor under the Job Training Partnership Act
[and would be] awarded to States from October to December 1993178 to permit them
to begin or enhance planning and developmental efforts to create comprehensive
statewide School-to-Work Opportunities systems.
The $525,000 actually consisted of two grant awards. The first was in the amount of
$280,000 for a development or planning grant submitted in November 1993. The grant would
cover a nine-month period.179
According to the Federal Register, published February 3, 1994, the Secretaries of Education
and Labor could make…
additional Development Grants available subsequent to that period [nine months] to

States that do not receive an Implementation Grant under this competition, if those
States demonstrate substantial progress towards developing a comprehensive
statewide School-to-Work Opportunities plan and if they demonstrate that Federal
funds will be used effectively.
The second grant was for $245,000 for a continuation grant submitted to the Department of
175
Otherwise known as High Skills, High Wages.
176
Working and Learning Together: Creating Washington’s Comprehensive School-to-Work Transition System;
Executive Summary; June 16, 1995.
177
Implementation of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994; Report to Congress; US Departments of
Education and Labor; September 1996.
178
This was actually extended into January 1994 according to information published in the Federal Register on
February 3, 1994, p 5267.
179
Federal Register, October 14, 1993, p 53388.
62
Labor in October 1994.
In order to obtain the planning and continuation grants, the state of Washington agreed, via
the grant applications, to comply with terms that became law under the STWOA of 1994.
According to the Federal Register, February 3, 1994, the Federal role was to… (highlighting
added)
o. invest in State and local initiatives by providing seed capital;

p. help States and localities learn from each other and from the experience of our
international competitors;
q. build a knowledge base of effective school-to-work models, including strategies
that meet the needs of disadvantaged youth and that can be implemented
successfully in poor communities; and
r. create a national framework through common core criteria and national
standards.180
On November 29, 1993, Governor Mike Lowry signed a letter addressed to Ms. Laura Cesario,
Grants Management Specialist, U.S. Department of Labor. The letter asks that the U.S.
Department of Labor “accept Washington State’s application for a School-to-Work
Opportunities Development Grant.”181 The letter further acknowledges…
an Executive Order establishing a Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition.

The Council will be responsible for carrying out the tasks associated with the
Development Grant, and for preparing the implementation strategies for our state’s
school-to-work transition system.182
(See Appendix F for the Governor’s Ad Hoc Steering Committee on School-to-Work Transition.)
The grant application is divided up into four parts:
1. Define Washington State’s vision for a system of school-to-work transition;

2. Identify the challenges that must be addressed to achieve our vision;
3. Demonstrate our progress to date towards development of a statewide system for
school-to-work transition; and
4. Describe our strategies for action.
As introduction, the grant application states… (highlighting added)
Washington State’s school-to-work transition initiative will not be a program that is

established in addition to or in competition with current activities. Rather, school-
to-work transition will be integral to the employment, training and education system,
will encompass our state’s current programmatic innovations in education and
training, and merge them into a single, comprehensive, statewide system.
180
Federal Register, February 3, 1994; p 5266.
181
Washington State development grant application, November 29, 1993.
182
Is it possible that this is the reason why block grant money connected to HR 1617—the CAREERS Act, would
have gone to the Governor instead of through the Legislature?
63
The grant application sets down, as the vision of the school-to-work transition, the 21 goals as
published in the Final Report of the Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition in March
1995.
Under “challenges for achieving the vision”, the grant makes some interesting disclosures:
3. While our Education Reform Act (ESHB 1209) provides a process for determining
what students should know and be able to do up to receiving a Certificate of
Mastery at about 16 years of age (see Section III, Performance-Based Education
Act), we must develop a process for defining learning requirements and
performance-based assessments of students after they receive the Certificate of
Mastery. We must also determine what should be required for high school
graduation in addition to the requirement of a Certificate of Mastery.
4. We must create a process for establishing statewide, industry-driven occupational
skill standards, including entry-level skills for each career pathway or career
major, and a process for awarding portable skill certificates that are transferable
across industries to individuals who demonstrate mastery of those standards. We
must link the development of our state standards to a national system of skill
standards. …
6. We must reach consensus on definitions for work-based learning and the
connecting activities between school-based and work-based learning and develop
a process for involving local business and labor in work-based learning and the
connecting activities.183 …
8. We must devise competency-based admission requirements for higher education
in order to ensure a seamless transition for secondary to postsecondary
education.
9. Programs and services available through private industry councils must be
integrated with other education and training services targeted for disadvantaged
youth. …
12. The school-to-work transition system must target and combine financial
resources, including but not limited to, state education funding and funding
under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act and the Job
Training Partnership Act. Federal funds should be used as “seed” monies for
leveraging long-term shifts in state expenditures. …
14. We must establish statewide processes for using labor market information in the
strategic planning of workforce development programs including matching
students with jobs, making employment trends and forecasts available to youth,
and providing labor market information in an easy-to-use format. …
15. We must create a state process for analyzing the post-high school employment
and education experiences of secondary students.184
Part three of the grant application speaks of the many different activities occurring that
correspond to the school-to-work initiative, including the “Investing in People” Project
sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and Jobs for the Future
183
The first mention of work-based learning, school-based learning and connecting activities was in the STWOA act
of 1994, signed six months after this grant was written!
184
This refers to the gathering of personally identifiable information on program graduates.
64
(JFF) in which Washington State participated as one of five states (detailed earlier); National
Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) and the National Alliance for Restructuring
Education (NARE); applied academics, private industry councils; and the “Governor’s Youth
Agenda.” The efforts of Boeing in this arena are enumerated in this manner:
The Boeing Company has been a key partner in efforts to achieve statewide
comprehensive education reform. Boeing has also been instrumental in developing
and promoting high-quality Applied Academics programs and in integrating these
programs with TECH PREP. More than $3 million has been provided by Boeing over
the past four years to support TECH PREP. Boeing has also provided opportunities for
secondary and post-secondary student and faculty internships. The intern program,
which began in the summer of 1993 and 25 students, is expected to serve over 240
students by 1997.
Part three also speaks to the child labor laws that were revised in 1992 by the Department of
Labor and Industries, restricting the number of hours a minor could work, then making this
very revealing disclosure:
Employers may receive a variance from many of the rules if they agree to work with
the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction or their local school district to
develop apprenticeship, vocational education, diversified career education, work
experience, and cooperative education programs. Consequently, the new minor work
rules inherently provide an incentive for employers, schools, and students to work
cooperatively to enhance work-based learning.
According to the grant, the executive director of the ad hoc steering committee was
budgeted to receive $55,000 ($6,111/month) for nine months work; $42,000 ($4,667/month)
for a communications manager for nine months; $21,000 for staff support for nine months;
and $162,000 for public awareness — for a total of $280,000.
On October 13, 1994, Governor Lowry signed a letter addressed to Ms Janet Moore, School-
to-Work Team, U.S. Department of Labor. The letter ask that DOL accept “Washington
State’s application for a School-to-Work Opportunities Development Continuation Grant.”
The letter further states that…
Washington State has made great progress in education reform, in developing school
to work activities and in building partnerships between education, business, labor and
government to improve education and to link it to the workplace. …
Washington’s challenge now is to integrate school to work transition efforts with
education reform, to increase the scale of school to work activities so that all
students can benefit, and to build the capacity of education, business, labor and
other partners to make school to work efforts successful. A key part of that
challenge is to build a strong consensus185 among key business, education, labor and
185
Consensus means solidarity of belief (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). Consensus finds basis in
the Hegelian Dialectic of thesis, antithesis and syntheses in which opposite ideas are synthesized to form a new
thesis. Through continual evolution to higher level, oneness of mind theoretically occurs. Consensus, by construct,
65
government leaders of the need for a school to work system in the state and
agreement on its major elements. …
…I believe that the result of their [Governor’s Council on School-to-Work
Transition] work will be the establishment of a state framework for school to work
activities and a consensus of key leaders in the state. …
According to the grant application “the Council created five work groups, each responsible to
address specific portions of the tasks identified in the original development grant
application. Specifically:
o The Major Components Work Group… Their work … has provided a comprehensive
definition of work-based learning, encompassing both paid and unpaid activities,
appropriate to all students, and securely connected to school-based learning. In
addition, the work group has sought to design learning requirements that would
follow the achievement of a Certificate of Mastery and specified the connecting
activities needed to unite school-based and work-based learning.
o The Communications Work Group … has been working to design a public campaign
for School-to-Work issues, recognizing that building demand for school-to-work
transition means explaining the need for meaningful learning experiences and
conveying the vision of successful school reform. School-to-Work staff have built
marketing partnerships with various state agencies and Tech Prep consortia to
coordinate promotion of opportunities for youth through Tech Prep and School-to-
Work initiatives.
o The Local Connections Work Group … [whose] charter [it] has been to investigate
the best practices in use among current school-to-work transition practitioners
and developed a template to use in profiling, designing, implementing and
evaluating local programs.186
o The Assessments Workgroup … studied changes in university requirements and the
admissions process to accommodate applied academics. They have considered the
methods by which labor market information can be made available to students
and educators, and are being provided with analysis of the current process by
which labor market information is collected and analyzed by staff of the state
Department of Employment Security, NOICC/SOICC,187 Washington Occupational
Information Systems,188 and local career centers. The Work Group has
investigated a process of analyzing post-secondary employment and education of
high school students, information available from Employment Security, and is
working on a way to make the information available to and useful to school-to-
work transition programs.
o The Policy Work Group … was formed to elaborate and unite the work of all the
above-named groups to produce a comprehensive set of recommendations for the
Governor and the State Legislature. The final report of this Work Group will be
precludes absolutes, instead finding construct in relativism and situation ethics. Consensus, by construct, excludes
those who do not agree with the intended outcome, including only those who agree.
186
This template is found in the back of the Final Report of the Governor’s Council on School to Work Transition,
March 23, 1995.
187
National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee/State Occupational Information Coordinating
Committee. Vernon E. Stoner was/is chair of SOICC.
188
WOIS.
66
forwarded to the Full Council for adoption in December, 1994.189
From the recommendations of the Policy Work Group come the following:
o …endorsed work-based learning and recommends that the state make a major
commitment to support expansion of work-based learning. They have agreed that
work-based learning is important to ALL students, not only for vocational
students.
o …that school-to-work learning standards should be integrated into the education
reform learning requirements against which students and schools will be
measured.
o …A current effort at collaboration seeks to include skills necessary for lifelong
career management as an essential learning requirement among the core
competencies required for a Certificate of Mastery.
o …endorses the use of career pathways by Washington schools. … Career pathways
… have proven a useful means of designating a range of related careers, the
preparation needed for each, and the pattern of progression between different
positions within the career group.
o …The Council is still debating whether the adoption of skill standards and the use
of skill certification will create enough similarity among schools to remove the
need for mandated pathways.
o The work group has also identified a number of issues that must be addressed by
the full Council and its agents prior to the implementation of skill standards in
the school to work system. These issues include:
1. defining the terms used in skill standards programs;
2. integrating national skill standards with state standards;
3. developing the process for approving skill standards;
4. determining the frequency with which standards must be updated;
5. developing appropriate assessment instruments or strategies to be used in
competency-based programs;
6. creating employer demand for training programs based on skill standards; and
7. determining how to pay for the development of programs based on skill
standards.
o work-based learning should not be limited to the K-12 education system. …
workbased learning should also involve community and technical colleges, the
business community, labor, local intermediary organizations and others.
o the viability of using skill standards as a basis for school-to-work programs.
…they are very interested in the notion that skill [standards] can create
uniformity in programs across the system without using mandated or centralized
curriculum. This leaves institutions free to work with local business and labor to
customize curricula to meet industry’s need in a specific labor market.
The grant concludes this section with…
The Council’s activities reflect the unusual status of school-to-work transition

development in Washington. As a state already engaged in comprehensive
189
For a list of the Policy Work Group, See Appendix G.
67
educational reform and with numerous state-funded school-to-work pilot projects in
operation, the Council has served as forum for school-to-work activists: a place to
identify common problems and find collaborative solutions. As evident in the
discussion to follow, the effort at consensus-building underway in Washington reflects
more than planning for school-to-work; it is planning to move school-to-work to scale
throughout our state—coordinated with broad educational reform, supported by
committed partners, and focused on performance.
The timetable and estimate of required funding states:
Developing Washington’s school-to-work transition system requires consensus-building

among key leaders and stakeholders. The Governor’s Council has provided crucial
leadership, but its work is not yet complete. Over the coming months, the Council
will complete its recommendations to the Governor and activity in support of
development of the system will expand.
From October 1994 through June 1995, the Council’s planned work included…
o Contract for descriptive and evaluative assessment of current school-to-work

transition activities throughout Washington.
o Prepare analysis of best school-to-work practices currently operating nationwide
through review of state level policy activities, including survey and site visits. …
o Contract with nationally recognized school-to-work specialist to assist state with
development of plan and final recommendations. …
o Support skill standards development by facilitation of education, business, and
labor network.
o Support business and labor capacity building through grants to respective
associations.
Part three of the grant application speaks directly to the Executive Order (No. 94-02) of
Governor Lowry, dated January 28, 1994, stating that “Governor Lowry requested that the
new school to work system include at a minimum: (highlighting added)
o …Essential learning requirements and performance-based assessments for

secondary students after they achieve their Certificate of Mastery.
o Effective working partnerships between education, labor, business, community
based organizations and government at all levels.190
o An education and training system that is competency or performance based with
competencies validated by representatives from business, labor, education,
government, and the community.
o Industry-based skill standards coordinated with the national standards, and the
awarding of a skills certificate to students who demonstrate skill competencies. …
o A seamless system of competency attainment and recognition at secondary
schools, community and technical colleges, and four-year colleges and
universities.
o A process of using labor market information for program planning and for
190
Such a public/private partnership precludes accountability to the people for the work of public servants.
68
counseling students concerning education and career choices.
o A process for evaluating the post-secondary education and employment outcomes
of former secondary students, and for analyzing the relation of these outcomes to
secondary school experiences.”191
The grant continues…
The Governor directed the Council to: issue a report to the Governor recommending
actions needed to implement the school-to-work transition system, specifying the
needed legislation and other actions that should be taken to implement the system;
and coordinate its work with other education reform and workforce development
activities currently taking place in the State of Washington. In addition, Governor
Lowry has dedicated substantial time from two senior policy analysts to assist in the
school to work planning efforts. (highlighting added)
The grant then lists key partners culminating with this disclosure,
In addition, these partners are working to build awareness and support among their
constituencies for the critical changes and commitment necessary to successfully
implement our new state system.
The grant includes a list of those that Governor’s council reached out to “build awareness and
support for the Council and its objectives.” The list of employers and other interested
parties includes the five school districts of the Washington Alliance for Better Schools:
Edmonds, Everett, Northshore, Shoreline and Seattle. It also includes the Northwest Center
for Equity and Diversity, the Association of Washington Business, the Washington Education
Association, the Seattle Education Association, the Seattle, Olympia and Asian/Pacific
Chambers of Commerce, the Washington State Labor Council, The Boeing Company, U.S.
West, and the Fluke Corporation. Several community based organizations, culturally diverse
communities, and several professional associations are listed including the National Alliance
on Restructuring Education and the Economy (NCEE/NARE) and the Washington School
Directors Association.
In describing the continuing “progress made through government, community, and business
partnerships”, the grant makes some very interesting disclosures with regard to SSB 5953 and
HB 1209 …
Business leaders, including the Boeing Company and the Washington Roundtable, were
extremely supportive of this education reform initiative and were instrumental in
assuring its final passage.…
The Certificate of Mastery will guarantee that all young people meet rigorous
internationally competitive standards for basic academic and job readiness skills.
The Certificate of Mastery will not be aged-based; it will be based on the
demonstrated mastery of competencies.
191
This entails the gathering of personally identifiable information on students for statistical analysis purposes to see
if outcomes are being attained. This is a crucial piece of the total quality management or continuous quality
improvement concept.
69
and School-to-Work (HB 1820)…
The School-to-Work Task Force, coordinated by the Superintendent of Public

Instruction and responsible for awarding grants, recently designated $125,000 in
school-to-work funding for four regional areas to design and implement collaborative
school-to-work systems. The Task Force, made up of business, labor, principals,
school directors, and training experts, directed the regional consortiums to
emphasize structured work-based learning experiences for students in developing
these regional efforts.
Section seven of the grant states that…
The fundamental principal of K-12 education reform adopted by the 1993 Legislature
is that “All Kids Can Learn”. The new law embodies this principle by directing state
education efforts to insist that all students achieve a Certificate of Mastery by about
the age of 16. … The state school-to-work program, an integral component of
education reform, also embodies this “all students” principle. … The name “program”
for this initiative is a misnomer since in reality in these schools a fundamental change
occurs, offering a new focus for all students; it is not a program that only selected
students can enter.
Attached is the proposed budget of $245,000 for continuation activities.
Attached to the grant application as appendices is the report of the work-based learning
subcommittee (For a list of those members, see Appendix H), the connecting activities report,
and the best practices template. The following is from that template…
A method of involving students with or without parents is readily available and

accepted.
On March 23, 1995, the Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition issued its Final
Report, Second Edition. The Council was charged with…
the task of examining the problems and making recommendations in an area of

education reform that had not received nearly enough attention: how to increase the
success of students moving from secondary education to the worlds of work,
postsecondary education, and continued training.
Governor Lowry’s letter continues…
I asked the School-to-Work Council to develop the design for a system that would give
young people exposure to the work of work, would help them to explore career
options and would link academic work with work experience, to help ease the
transition for young people from school to further education and long term work. I
was particularly struck by the concept of employers providing work experience
connecting young people to employment opportunities.
… The Council’s plan for a process of continuous education and training will
70
provide the framework for both students and workers of all ages who need additional
knowledge and skills to improve their economic position and quality of life.
The Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition outlined 21192 goals for Washington’s
School-to-Work System… (highlighting added)
1. A seamless system of educational opportunities that facilitates lifelong learning

and transition from secondary to postsecondary education and from education to
the world of work.
2. Continuation of the fundamental redesign of the K-12 education system.
3. A system that is tied to statewide strategies for developing high skill/high wage
occupations.
4. Effective working partnerships between educators, labor, business (including
small business), community-based organizations, and government at all levels of
the education system.
5. A system based on innovations, best practices, and existing model programs.
6. An educational system that provides equitable opportunities for an increasingly
culturally diverse population.
7. Reform of the education system to maximize use of funding and assure long-term
support for an education, employment, and training system.
8. An education and training system that is competency- or performance-based193
with competencies validated by representatives from business, labor, education,
government, and community.
9. Statewide, industry-based skill standards in coordination with national standards
and the awarding of skill certificates to students who demonstrate skill
competencies.
10. All students, including college- and noncollege-bound students and targeted
populations participating in general workplace competencies, and broad
instruction in a variety of elements of an industry.
11. Work-based learning experiences, including paid work experience, workplace
mentoring, instruction in general workplace competencies, and broad instruction
in a variety of elements of an industry.
12. Instruction that is clearly applicable and relevant to work and life experience.194
13. Systematic and comprehensive career counseling provided for all students.
14. Integration of vocational and academic instruction.
15. Utilization of career majors (or education pathways) for all secondary students.
16. Opportunities for students who have dropped out of high school to return to an
education and training system that integrates school, work, and life management
skills.195
17. Competencies accepted for admission requirements by community and technical
colleges and four-year institutions.
192
These were outlined, in the November 1993 developmental grant application to the U.S. Department of Labor, as
Washington’s “Vision for a Statewide System of School-to-Work Transition.”
193
Also known as outcome-based.
194
Also known as applied learning, life-role education, hands-on learning and learning by doing — all concepts
advocated by Socialist John Dewey as part of Progressive Education.
195
This is the purpose of the Youth Centers advocated in the Investing in Workforce Education and Training report.
71
18. A systematic method for analyzing the post-high school experiences of students.196
19. Development and use of labor market information for program planning.197
20. School-to-work transition activities included as an element of every student’s
educational experience, not simply as a list of competencies or an add-on activity.
21. Students acquiring competencies in life management skills.
The Final Report outlined several obstacles to the creation of a school-to-work system. One
such obstacle is athletics:
Tradition also has created a high school culture that values sports, social activities,
and clubs, and these activities may create conflicts for students striving to raise
academic achievement levels and to participate in work-based learning.
What place will be made for athletics under this new system? Will athletics become a thing
of the past? A week-end occurrence? Will athletics be moved to those hours when children
are in school? If so, when will core knowledge be taught? This problem will be more
pronounced in the two years post-Certificate of Mastery when students spend half days in
school and half days in a work-based learning environment, but will also be a problem in the
ninth and tenth grade when children will be job shadowing and participating in non-paid
work-based learning experiences.
Another obstacle outlines the impetus for Youth Centers…
The period of transition between today’s graduation requirements and the new,
competency-based standards also presents problems. Students who graduate under
the existing system may be at a competitive disadvantage with their younger brothers
and sisters, who will be held to higher standards, and who will have a Certificate of
Mastery to show to prospective employers. The “transitional” students will need
some way to document their levels of skill and knowledge as they go out into the
workplace or on to further education and training. They may need the opportunity to
achieve the Certificate of Mastery as adults.
The Final Report outlines its recommendations as follows… (highlighting added)
o Build a school-to-work transition system on the foundation of successful school

reform to maximize the education and career opportunities for young people.
196
A guiding principle of the total quality management concept is incremental improvement (kaizen in Japanese) as
measured by the gathering and analyzing of statistical data. In the case of the education reform/school-to-
work/workforce training initiative, the measure of whether the program is evolving incrementally toward a given goal is
the analysis of statistical data on students. Tab 3—School-to-Work Goals and Indicators—of the January 28, 1997,
meeting of the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board outlines the goals and indicators of the School-
to-Work system and how the statistical data is to be gathered for analysis of whether the students and programs are
evolving incrementally toward to goals.
197
We must establish statewide processes for using labor market information in the strategic planning of workforce
development programs, including matching students with jobs, making employment trends and forecasts available to
youth, and providing labor market information in an easy-to-use format (Final Report, Governor’s Council on School-
to-Work Transition; March 23, 1995) (Highlighting added for emphasis). Local labor market needs and local
economic development strategies will drive workforce training and school-to-work programs. There will not be
training for jobs that do not exist.
72
o Broaden the development of work-based learning as part of school-to-work
transition activities.
o Expand and accelerate the development of industry-defined skill standards.198
o Support changes in school-based learning, including efforts to develop new
educational methodologies, new teaching methods, and the development of
educational pathways that customize199 high school student’ course of study and
integrate academic and occupational education.
o Increase the ability of business and labor to participate in the development and
implementation of school-to-work activities.
o Expand the base of local school-to-work transition activities and link them to the
effort to build a single, statewide system.200
o Integrate statewide school-to-work transition responsibilities and institutionalize
partnerships.
o Address the needs of special populations that are currently under-represented in
technical training, higher education, and high-wage work.
o Create a sustained, coordinated public information campaign that will raise public
awareness about the need for a school-to-work transition system for our young
people.
o Submit a School-to-Work Opportunities Development Grant proposal to the
federal government for the 1995 funding cycle.
The first nine recommendations align with the nine steps enumerated by Education
Development Center, Inc (pages 92-93) for developing a “flexible STW process.”201
As outlined in this report, the Certificate of Mastery will be the prerequisite to entering the
workforce and “will be the foundation on which minimum freshman [college or university]
admissions standards are built.”202
Subsequent to the Final Report, the Governor appointed a smaller, permanent body, called
the Governor’s Task Force on School-to-Work Transition. (For a list of those members, see
Appendix J.) The Governor’s Task Force completed the application for an STWOA grant in
1995.
Money With Strings Attached
Washington State took “advantage of three national initiatives to make progress toward the
198
We must create a process for establishing statewide, industry-driven occupational skill standards, including entry-
level skills for each career pathway or career major, and a process for awarding portable skill certificates that are
transferable across industries to individuals who demonstrate mastery of those standards. We must link the
development of our state standards to a national system of skill standards (Final Report, Governor’s Council on
School-to-Work Transition; March 23, 1995) (Highlighting added for emphasis).
199
If pathways are customized, how will they be flexible?
200
This is necessary because skill certification will be in accordance with state and nationally developed skill
standards that will be uniform across the nation and will be aligned with ISO9000/14000 certification requirements.
201
EDC National STW TA Provider RFI; Education Development Center, Inc; Newton, Massachusetts; 1995; author.
202
The Higher Education Coordinating Board’s minimum freshman entrance requirements as outlined by the
Admissions Standards Action Committee. (For a list of members, see Appendix I.)
73
‘most urgently needed actions’ identified in ‘High Skills, High Wages.’ These national
initiatives are…
o Federal funding to implement a statewide School-to-Work Transition system.

o A federal grant to plan a “One-Stop Career Center” system.
o A National Governors’ Association Project to design the next generation of
performance management systems for workforce development programs.203
In September, 1995, Washington [state] received $4.3 million in funding for the first
of a five-year, $26 million federal grant to help implement a School-to-Work
Transition system statewide.”204
Condition of receipt of this federal grant was compliance with Title II, Subtitle B, Section 213
(d) of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, which states that the “state plan … shall
… (highlighting added)
(1) designate the geographical areas, including urban and rural areas, to be served
by local partnerships that receive grants under section 215(b), which geographic areas
shall, to the extent feasible, reflect local labor market areas;
(2) describe the manner in which the State will stimulate and support local
School-to-Work Opportunities programs and the manner in which the statewide
School-to-Work Opportunities system will be expanded over time to cover all
geographic areas in the State, including urban and rural areas;
(3) describe the procedure by which the individuals and entities described in
subsection (b)(4) will collaborate in the implementation of the School-to-Work
Opportunities system;
(4) demonstrate the support of individuals and entities described in subparagraphs
(A) through (J) of subsection (b)(4) for the plan, except in the case where the
Governor is unable to obtain the support of such individuals and entities as provided
in subsection (a)(2);
(5) describe the manner in which the State has obtained and will continue to
obtain the active and continued involvement, in the statewide School-to-Work
Opportunities system, of employers and other interested parties such as locally
elected officials, secondary schools and postsecondary education institutions (or
related agencies), business associations, industrial extension centers, employees,
labor organizations or associations of such organizations, teachers, related services
personnel, students, parents, community-based organizations, rehabilitation agencies
and organizations, registered apprenticeship agencies, local vocational educational
agencies, vocational student organizations, State or regional cooperative education
associations, and human service agencies;
(6) describe the manner in which the statewide School-to-Work Opportunities
system will coordinate with or integrate local school-to-work programs in existence
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, including programs financed from
State and private sources, with funds available from such related Federal programs as
programs under—
203
A Report to the Legislature; 1995 Progress Report; 1996 Operating Plan; WTECB.
204
Ibid.
74
(A) the Adult Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1201 et seq);
(B) the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(C) the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.);
(D) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.);
(E) part F of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 681 et seq.);
(F) the Goals 2000: Education America Act;
(G) the National Skills Standards Act of 1994;205
(H) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.);
(I) the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);
(J) the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly known as the “National
Apprenticeship Act”; 50 Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.);
(K) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.);
(L) the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et
seq.);
(7) describe the strategy of the State for providing training for teachers,
employers, mentors, counselors, related services personnel, and others, including
specialized training and technical support for the counseling and training of women,
minorities, and individuals with disabilities for high-skill, high-wage careers in
nontraditional employment, and provide assurances of coordination with similar
training and technical support under other provisions of law;
(8) describe how the State will adopt, develop, or assist local partnerships to
adopt or develop model curricula and innovative instructional methodologies, to be
used in the secondary, and where possible, the elementary grades, that integrate
academic and vocational learning and promote career awareness, and that are
consistent with academic and skill standards established pursuant to the Goals 2000:
Education America Act and the National Skills Standards Act of 1994;206
(9) describe how the State will expand and improve career and academic
counseling in the elementary and secondary grades, which may include linkages to
career counseling and labor market information services outside of the school system;
(10) describe the strategy of the State for integrating academic and vocational
education;
(11) describe the resources, including private sector resources, the State intends
to employ in maintaining the statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system when
funds under this Act are no longer available;
(12) describe the extent to which the statewide School-to-Work Opportunities
system will include programs that will require paid high-quality, work-based learning
experiences, and the steps the State will take to generate such paid experiences;
(13) describe the manner in which the State will ensure effective and meaningful
opportunities for all students in the State to participate in School-to-Work
Opportunities program;
(14) describe the goals of the State and the methods the State will use, such as
awareness and outreach, to ensure opportunities for young women to participate in
205
This is Title V of the P.L. 103-227 (Goals 2000). This title established the National Skills Standards Board to
establish voluntary national skills standards and to endorse skills standards submitted to them according to pre-
established criteria, and to certify those skill standards which meet the criteria—Section 504(d).
206
Goals 2000 and the National Skills Standards Act just became mandatory.
75
School-to-Work Opportunities programs in a manner that leads to employment in
high-performance, high-paying jobs, including nontraditional employment, and goals
to ensure an environment free from racial and sexual harassment;
(15) describe how the State will ensure opportunities for low achieving students,
students with disabilities, school drop-outs, and academically talented students to
participate in School-to-Work Opportunities programs;
(16) describe the process of the State for assessing the skills and knowledge
required in career majors, and the process for awarding skill certificates that is, to
the extent feasible, consistent with the skills standards certification systems
endorsed under the National Skills Standards Act of 1994;
(17) describe the manner in which the State will ensure that students
participating in the programs are provided, to the greatest extent possible, with
flexibility to develop new career goals over time and to change career majors;
(18) describe the manner in which the State will, to the extent feasible, continue
programs funded under title III in the statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system;
(19) describe how the State will serve students from rural communities with low
population densities;
(20) describe how local School-to-Work opportunities programs, including those
funded under title III, if any, will be integrated into the statewide School-to-Work
Opportunities system;
(21) describe the performance standards that the State intends to meet in
establishing and carrying out the statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system,
including how such standards relate to those performance standards established
under other related programs;
(22) designate a fiscal agent to receive and be accountable for funds provided
from a grant under section 212; and
(23) describe the procedures to facilitate the entry of students participating in a
School-to-Work Opportunities program into additional training or postsecondary
education program; as well as to facilitate the transfer of the students between
education and training programs.”
The 75-page grant application, Working and Learning Together, dated June 16, 1995, was
constructed around these guidelines as shown by the following goals and tasks enumerated in
the Comprehensive Plan section of the grant:
Goal 1: Build a STW transition system on the foundation of successful school

reform to maximize the educational and career opportunities of young
people. (STWOA—10, 13)a
Task 1: The Commission on Student Learning will work to ensure that
STW transition is fully integrated in the development of the
Essential Academic Learning Requirements that spell out what
students should know and be able to do when they leave
elementary, middle, and high school. (STWOA—9)
Task 2: Designate and establish transitional and permanent geographical
areas for the STW system. (STWOA—1)
Task 3: Expand grants for STW implementation to the entire state.
(STWOA—3, 11, 19, 20)
Task 4: Integrate STW system with Goals 2000 and Education Reform
(STWOA—6, 17, 20)
76
Goal 2: Support changes in school-based learning, including efforts to develop new
education methodologies, new teaching methods, and the development of
educational pathways that customize high school students’ course of study
and integrate academic and occupational education. (STWOA—10, 13)
Task 1: Develop new teaching methods through research and
development, changes in teacher preparation programs, and
staff development for today’s teachers. (STWOA—7, 8)
Task 2: Develop educational pathways (STWOA—23)
Task 3: Develop new curriculum that supports STW goals (STWOA—8)
Goal 3: Broaden the development of work-based learning as part of STW activities
(STWOA—10, 12, 13)
Task 1: Overcoming current barriers to youth employment
Task 2: Vastly expand work-based learning opportunities for youth
(STWOA—5, 14, 19)
Goal 4: Expand and accelerate the development of industry-defined skill standards
(STWOA—12, 15)
Task 1: Select industry clusters to participate in skill standard
development from the Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development’s list of targeted sectors.
Task 2: Involve full partnerships of business, labor, and other parties in
the development of skill standards to determine duties, tasks,
skills, knowledge, and attributes of successful workers.
Task 3: Integrate basic and specific industry skills into the fabric of
Washington’s academic standards, curriculum frameworks, and
certifications.
Task 4: Join the K-16 education systems into one effort that translates
skill standards into curriculum and student competencies.
Task 5: Create an assessment process for industry standards, the
centerpiece of which is “assessment scenarios” that represent
problems that are expected to be solved by new workers.
Task 6: Prepare schools and teachers to use skill standards to shape
learning.
Goal 5: Increase the ability of Business and labor to participate in the development
and implementation of STW activities. (STWOA—5, 7)
Task 1: Create a business/labor workforce Alliance (STWOA—10, 11, 23)
Task 2: Participate in STW infrastructure development
Task 3: Expand work-based learning opportunities for students
Task 4: Assure that students’ work-based learning experiences are
coordinated with school-based learning and that they are
uniformly high in quality and educational content. (STWOA—12)
Goal 6: Enhance the development and implementation of connecting activities as
integral aspects of STW. (STWOA—10)
Task 1: Define roles and responsibilities for the regional structure of
STW (STWOA—5)
Task 2: Implement connecting activities
Goal 7: Address the needs of special populations that are currently under-
represented in technical training programs, higher education, and high-
wage work. (STWOA—13, 14, 15)
Task 1: Form a statewide STW Work Group on equity and diversity.
77
Task 2: Design and monitor pathways to ensure equity of access,
participation, treatment, and outcome.
Task 3: Design and monitor STW programs in elementary and middle
schools to ensure equity and diversity.
Task 4: Design mentoring programs to encourage girls, young women,
students with disabilities, low achieving students, and language
and ethnic minorities to enter nontraditional occupations.
Task 5: Develop and teach equity-related competencies to students
Task 6: Develop requirements and criteria in the state grant process.
(STWOA—19)
Task 7: Provide equity and diversity training for business and labor
leaders and mentors, school officials, teachers, and other STW
participants.
Task 8: Expand and enhance STW programs for at risk and out of school
youths.
Task 9: Provide STW opportunities for academically talented students.
Task 10: Provide STW opportunities for students with disabilities.
Goal 8: Integrate statewide STW responsibilities and institutionalize the
partnerships (STWOA—3, 4, 6)
Task 1: Implement Task Force satellite structure (STWOA—9, 10, 23)
Task 2: Conduct performance review of partners
Task 3: Partner’s mutual responsibilities (STWOA—11)
Goal 9: Create Public Demand
a
correlation with Title II, Subtitle B, Section 213(d)( ) by number, of the STWOA of 1994.
The nine goals enumerated above also align with the first nine recommendations of The Final
Report, Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition, March 23, 1995, Second Edition
(pages 80-81); also the nine steps enumerated by the Education Development Center (pages
92-93) for developing a “flexible STW process.”207
Other sections of the grant dealt with the historical context, progress to date on programs
and standards and assessment, management and accountability, and crosswalks (how the
grant meets the requirements of the STWOA as annotated above).
Title II, Subtitle B, Section 215(b)(2) sets down the terms and conditions that must be met by
local partnerships that seek a subgrant to School-to-Work,
(2) APPLICATION.—A local partnership that seeks a subgrant to carry out a local
School-to-Work Opportunities program, including a program initiated under section
302, shall submit an application to the State that—
(A) describes how the program will include the program components described in
sections 102, 103, and 104b and otherwise meet the requirements of this Act;
(B) sets forth measurable program goals and outcomes;
(C) describes the local strategies and timetables of the local partnership to
provide opportunities for all students in the area served to participate in a
207
78
School-to-Work Opportunities program;
(D) describes the extent to which the program will require paid high-quality,
work-based learning experiences, and the steps the local partnerships will take to
generate such paid experiences;
(E) describes the process that will be used to ensure employer involvement in the
development and implementation of the local School-to-Work Opportunities
program;
(F) provides assurances that, to the extent practicable, opportunities provided to
students to participate in a School-to-Work Opportunities program will be in
industries and occupations offering high-skill, high-wage employment
opportunities;
(G) provides such other information as the State may require; and
(H) is submitted at such time and in such form as the State may require.
b
Sections 102, 103, and 104 of STWOA read as follows:
SEC. 102 SCHOOL-BASED LEARNING COMPONENT. The school-based learning

component of a School-to-Work Opportunities program shall include
(1) career awareness and career exploration and counseling (beginning at
the earliest possible age, but not later than the 7th grade) in order to help
students who may be interested to identify, and to select or reconsider,
their interests, goals, and career majors, including those options that may
not be traditional for their gender, race, or ethnicity;
(2) initial selection by interested students of a career major not later
than the beginning of the 11th grade;
(3) a program of study designed to meet the same academic content
standards the State has established for all students, including, where
applicable, standards established under the Goals 2000: Education America
Act, and to meet the requirements necessary to prepare a student for
postsecondary education and the requirements necessary for a student to
earn a skill certificate;
(4) a program of instruction and curriculum that integrates academic
and vocational learning (including applied methodologies and team-teaching
strategies), and incorporates instruction, to the extent practicable, in all
aspects of an industry, appropriately tied to the career major of a
participant;
(5) regularly scheduled evaluations involving ongoing consultation and
problem solving with students and school dropouts to identify their
academic strengths and weaknesses, academic progress, workplace
knowledge, goals, and the need for additional learning opportunities to
master core academic and vocational skills; and
(6) procedures to facilitate the entry of students participating in a
School-to-Work Opportunities program into additional training or
postsecondary education program, as well as to facilitate the transfer of the
students between education and training programs.
SEC. 103. WORK-BASED LEARNING COMPONENT.
(a) MANDATORY ACTIVITIES.—The work-based learning component of a School-
79
to-Work Opportunities program shall include—

(1) work experience;
(2) a planned program of job training and work experiences (including
training related to preemployment and employment skills to be mastered at
progressively higher levels) that are coordinated with learning in the school-
based learning component described in section 102 and are relevant to the
career majors of students and lead to the award of skill certificates;
(3) workplace mentoring;
(4) instruction in general workplace competencies, including instruction
and activities related to developing positive work attitudes, and
employability and participative skills; and
(5) broad instruction, to the extent practicable, in all aspects of the
industry.
(b) PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Such component may include such activities as
paid work experience, job shadowing, school-sponsored enterprises, or on-the-job
training.
SEC. 104. CONNECTING ACTIVITIES COMPONENT.
The connecting activities component of a School-to-Work Opportunities program
shall include—
(1) matching students with work-based learning opportunities of
employers;
(2) providing, with respect to each student, a school site mentor to act
as a liaison among the student and the employer, school, teacher, school
administrator, and parent of the student, and, if appropriate, other
community partners;
(3) providing technical assistance and services to employers, including
small- and medium-sized businesses, and other parties in—
(A) designing school-based learning components described in section
102, work-based learning components described in section 103, and
counseling and case management services; and
(B) training teachers, workplace mentors, school site mentors, and
counselors;
(4) providing assistance to schools and employers to integrate school-
based and work-based learning and integrate academic and occupational
learning into the program;
(5) encouraging the active participation of employers, in cooperation
with local education officials, in the implementation of local activities
described in section 102, section 103, or this section;
(6)(A) providing assistance to participants who have completed the
program in finding an appropriate job, continuing their education, or
entering into an additional training program; and
(B) linking the participants with other community services that may be
necessary to assure a successful transition from school to work;
(7) collecting and analyzing information regarding post-program
outcomes of participants in the School-to-Work Opportunities program, to
the extent practicable, on the basis of socioeconomic status, race, gender,
ethnicity, culture, and disability, and on the basis of whether the
80
participants are students with limited-English proficiency, school dropouts,

disadvantaged students, or academically talented students; and
(8) linking youth development activities under this Act with employer
and industry strategies for upgrading the skills of their workers.
Further conditions were placed on the award of subgrants to local school-to-work consortia.
Section 215…
(4) ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES.—A local partnership shall expend funds provided through
subgrants under this subsection only for activities undertaken to carry out local
School-to-Work Opportunities programs, and such activities may include, for each
such program—
(A) recruiting and providing assistance to employers, including small- and
medium-sized businesses, to provide the work-based learning components
described in section 103;
(B) establishing consortia of employers to support the School-to-Work
Opportunities program and provide access to jobs related to the career majors of
students;
(C) supporting or establishing intermediaries (selected from among the
members of the local partnership) to perform the activities described in section
104 and to provide assistance to students or school dropouts in obtaining jobs and
further education and training;
(D) designing or adapting school curricula that can be used to integrate
academic, vocational, and occupational learning, school-based and work-based
learning, and secondary and postsecondary education for all students in the area
served;
(E) providing training to work-based and school-based staff on new curricula,
student assessments, student guidance, and feedback to the school regarding
student performance;
(F) establishing, in schools participating in the School-to-Work Opportunities
program, a graduation assistance program to assist at-risk students, low-achieving
students, and students with disabilities, in graduating from high school, enrolling
in postsecondary education or training, and finding or advancing in jobs;
(G) providing career exploration and awareness services, counseling and
mentoring services, college awareness and preparation services, and other
services (beginning at the earliest possible age, but not later than the 7th grade)
to prepare students for the transition from school to work;
(H) providing supplementary and support services, including child care and
transportation, when such services are necessary for participation in a local
School-to-work Opportunities program;
(I) conducting or obtaining an in-depth analysis of the local labor market and
the generic and specific skill needs of employers to identify high-demand, high-
wage careers to target;
(J) integrating school-based and work-based learning into job training
programs that are for school dropouts and that are in existence on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act;
(K) establishing or expanding school-to-apprenticeship programs in cooperation
81
with registered apprenticeship agencies and apprenticeship sponsors;
(L) assisting participating employers, including small- and medium-size
businesses, to identify and train workplace mentors and to develop work-based
learning components;
(M) promoting the formation of partnerships between elementary schools and
secondary schools (including middle schools) and local businesses as an investment
in future workplace productivity and competitiveness;
(N) designing local strategies to provide adequate planning time and staff
development activities for teachers, school counselors, related services personnel,
and school site mentors, including opportunities outside the classroom that are at
the worksite;
(O) enhancing linkages between after-school, weekend, and summer jobs,
career exploration, and school-based learning; and
(P) obtaining the assistance of organizations and institutions that have a
history of success in working with school dropouts and at-risk and disadvantaged
youths in recruiting such school dropouts and youths to participate in the local
School-to-Work Opportunities program.
It becomes very apparent in reading the federal requirements attached to the $26 million
grant to Washington State, and reading Washington State and local partnership grant
applications, as well as the State request for proposal (RFP) for the local consortia school-to-
work grants, that Washington State and local partnerships are aligning their school-to-work
programs to P.L. 103-239—The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. Such is also clearly
stated in the state RFP for local consortia grants applications. As specified in the STWOA of
1994, Section 215(b)(7), in the first year the state must subgrant 70% of the federal grant
award; in the second year—80%; and in the third year—90%.
The Washington State STWOA grant application also makes the following revelation in meeting
the requirement of Title II, Subtitle B, Section 213(8):
Washington’s plan to build a seamless and fully integrated education and training
system for young people is based upon three major initiatives: The state’s Education
Reform Act of 1993, The Goals 2000 Education America Act208, and our STW
Opportunities System. Our state’s Goals 2000 plan emphasized building upon the
state framework created by the 1993 Education Reform Act and our STW initiatives.
As we work toward the goal of a unified, statewide STW system, we will also ensure
that STW goals are consistent with Goals 2000 and our state’s school reform goals.
From a pamphlet put out by the National Center on Education and the Economy on NCEE’s
Workforce Skills Program,
Many of the ideas in America’s Choice are now law or on their way to becoming law.
With leadership from the executive branch, Congress has passed legislation that
establishes challenging national education goals, a national board to oversee
208
Washington State also has a Goals 2000 grant, requiring that Washington State submit to the federal government
a comprehensive plan for the improvement of student learning, and requiring that Washington State comply with the
terms and conditions of P.L. 103-227—the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994.
82
development of voluntary skill standards to oversee development of voluntary skill
standards for occupations, and more quality school-to-work programs for students.
Our reports are providing the intellectual framework for many of these policy
changes. National Center staff regularly consult with leaders from the Clinton
administration, Congress, governors, and industry, labor and education groups. And
we organize coalitions of major national organizations to build consensus on emerging
education, employment and training issues.
But NCEE, although a primary player, is not the only

Federal NCEE organization working within the state of Washington to
Government ensure that Washington reforms align with the
national and federal agenda,
The National School-to-Career Consortium is a

Washington collaborative of 21 organizations under the
State leadership of Education Development Center, Inc.
(EDC) availing their knowledge, experiences, and
Implementation of NCEE Agenda resources for technical assistance to states with
School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA)
Implementation grants. …The goal of the National School-to-Work Career Consortium
is to provide high-quality and cost-effective technical assistance. …By forming this
consortium, the members offer state and substate grantees the following advantages
in using technical assistance: Teamwork … Peer-to-peer sharing and learning …
Systems Approach. …For each technical assignment, EDC will work with Department
of Labor (DOL), state and substate grantees, and the STW Learning Center to
determine the most effective and cost-efficient combination of Consortium members
to accomplish the task. EDC will be the main technical assistance provider, and will
pull in Consortium members as the need is identified.209
Among the members210 of the National School-to-Career Consortium:
Education Development Center, Inc. (leader)

The Boeing Company
National Alliance of Business (NAB)
National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education (NCSEE)211
National Future Farmers of America Organization (FFA)
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
State of Washington Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board (WTE)
National School-to-Work Consortium “members understand how to create a ‘fit’ between
seemingly different arenas and how to work through obstacles to learning and system
change. This flexible STW process follows these steps:
209
EDC National School-to-Work Technical Assistance Provider RFI; Educational Development Center, Inc; Newton,
Massachusetts; 1995; author.
210
211
Based in Washington State.
83
1. Develop a comprehensive STW design…
2. Integrate STW into the states education reform
3. Develop structures of governance and accountability
4. Develop seamless articulation in a K-life system of learning communities
5. Design skill standards for identified key industry sectors
6. Design and develop curricula for school-based learning…
7. Design and develop curricula for work-based learning…
8. Conduct system and program evaluation
9. Disseminate information on the project…”212
Compare these nine steps to the nine goals outlined in Working and Learning Together:
Creating Washington’s Comprehensive School-to-Work Transition System as outlined earlier in
this report pages 84-86) and earlier yet (pages 80-81) as the first nine “recommendations of
the council” in the Final Report, Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition, March 23,
1995, Second Edition. Such more than suggests a connection between Education Development
Center, Inc. and the Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition.213
Key National School-to-Work Consortium staff includes:214
Joyce Malyn-Smith, EDC

John H. Wong, EDC
Peter James Joyce; National Alliance of Business
Ed Little, National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education (NCSEE)215
Kyra Kester, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, Washington
State
Education Development Center, Inc. …
is an international nonprofit research and development organization committed to

human development through education and training. Working in the United States
and in more than 75 other countries, EDC has been a leader in efforts to solve a wide
range of educational, health, and social problems since it was founded in 1958.
EDC is at the forefront of developing national, voluntary skill standards. EDC is
also developing science education standards for curriculum, teaching, and assessment
for the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, and is
developing professional teaching standards for early childhood educators and for
language arts teachers. With 37 years experience in curriculum development, EDC
works with employers and educational institutions to translate skill standards into
curriculum and training programs and to integrate STW into school reform.216
212
213
Supposedly, however, no contract between the Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition and Education
Development Center, Inc. exists.
214
Washington State Application for Continuation of the School-to-Work Opportunities State Development Grant,
October 13, 1994; p 5.
215
A Washington middle school principal.
216
84
One of EDC’s projects is “The Teaching Firm” carried out through the Center for Education,
Employment, and Community (CEEC), a division of EDC, Inc.:
(CEEC) is committed to improving the ways we live, learn, and work together to
achieve economic and social well-being in a pluralistic society. CEEC brings together
the initiatives of Education Development Center’s Institute for Education and
Employment and the Center for Equity and Cultural Diversity. CEEC is committed to
innovation and continuous improvement in learning and working, integrating diverse
perspectives to produce excellence.217
On November 8, 1996, the Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board entered into a contract with Education Development Center, Inc.218 for the purposes of
participating in The Teaching Firm Project. Length of the contract is three years, terminating
November 8, 1999.219 Cost of the contract is not to exceed $300,000.220
The Teaching Firm project, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of
Labor, and the Pew Charitable Trusts221 “to undertake research on informal teaching and
learning in high-performance workplaces”222, defines a teaching firm as…
a workplace where continuous teaching and learning are embedded into all aspects of
the work process. The Teaching Firm synthesizes research on work-based learning
from Europe, total quality management principles from Japan, and learning
organizations from the United States and represents a new concept in the links
between education and workforce preparation and development.223
The Teaching Firm project is a three step project…
In Phase I, CEEC, together with its partners, identified characteristics of teaching

firms and produced case studies of four U.S. employers working to establish this kind
of workplace. … CEEC also conducted focus groups of employers, trade union
representatives, and government leaders based on the case studies.224
In phase II, CEEC plans to launch a major research effort at nine selected
companies in the United States to understand the practices associated with both
explicit and implicit teaching and learning at work and conduct an analysis of the
economic and social benefits and barriers for the firms, its workers, the schools, and
surrounding communities.225
In phase III, CEEC will use the Phase II research findings to generate strategies
that show real promise for helping companies learn how to embed teaching and
217
CEEC Mission Statement; Education Development Center, Inc.; Newton, Massachusetts; 1995; author.
218
Contract between WTECB and Education Development Center, Inc.
219
Ibid.
220
Ibid.
221
The Teaching Firm; Education Development Center, Inc.; Newton, Massachusetts; 1995; author.
222
Ibid.
223
Ibid.
224
Ibid.
225
Ibid.
85
learning into their work places. …226
The first phase of the project is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, U.S.
Department of Labor, and the German Marshall Fund of the U.S.227
From page 112 of the 1996 edition of High Skills, High Wages comes the following revelation,
WTECB and its business, labor, and education partners should participate in further
research into Teaching Firms. This research will benefit businesses seeking to become
high performance work organizations. As we understand what informal learning skills
successful workers use, our workforce training and education system can develop
curricula to teach these skills. Successful students will then be prepared to be
successful workers in high performance work organizations.
No mention is made of either CEEC or EDC.
Other EDC documents show EDC as a partner in the Pew Network for Standards-Based Reform
with the Pew Charitable Trusts and National Center on Education and the Economy.
In March 1995 EDC submitted to the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board a
document entitled School-to-Work Opportunities Act: A Proposal to Assist the State of
Washington to Prepare an Implementation Grant.228 The proposal was “to assist the State of
Washington to prepare an implementation grant application under the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act (STWOA).” While EDC makes no mention of a prior contact with WTECB, it
states that, “The Council’s Final Report is a blueprint for action that will significantly
enhance the competitiveness of the State’s workforce in the global economy.” The proposal
goes on to explain that Maine, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Oregon, Michigan, New York, New
Jersey, and Wisconsin have won STWOA implementation grants, further stating that “these
states had many common elements”; that “these core elements are also recognized in the
Governor’s Council’s Final Report as critical components of a comprehensive STW system.”
Part C of the proposal lists the “key parameters for a successful implementation grant:
o STW is designed as a system that integrates, supports, and enhances—not simply

expands—local and regional programs. It maximizes the cost-effectiveness of local
and regional programs.
226
The Teaching Firm; Education Development Center, Inc.; Newton, Massachusetts; 1995; author.
227
Ibid.
228
This proposal was signed by Janet Whitla. At the October/November 1991 first annual conference, titled Learning
for All: Bridging Domestic and International Education, Whitla was chair of the opening and concluding presentations
as well as president of the board of directors of The United States Coalition for Education for All presenting the
conference. Keynote speaker at the opening presentation was James P Grant of UNICEF; keynote speaker of the
concluding presentation was Federico, Mayor, Director General, UNESCO. Among others listed as participants was
Susan Bibi Essama, Vivian Guilfoy, Katherine Hanson, Mona Hashim, Dr Nina Schlossman and Cheryl Vince
Whitman of EDC, and organizations such as The World Bank, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S.
Departments of Education and Labor, Council of Chief State Schools Officers, Business Roundtable, National
Occupational Informational Coordinating Committee (NOICC), Association for the Supervision of Curriculum
Development (ASCD), IBM, Apple Computer, Academy for Educational Development, Houghton Mifflin,
MacMillan/McGraw Hill International, The Ministry of Education of Russia, Public Broadcasting System (PBS),
American Federation of Teachers, and Baha’i International Community.
86
o STW goes hand in hand with systemic reform. Education, workforce, and
economic reforms are important factors for successful STW design and
implementation. Conversely, STW can also be designed as a catalyst for making
those reforms successful.
o STW is driven by skill standards that address the need for an adaptable, broadly
trained workforce.
o An STW system has the active participation of all stakeholders. STW is not a relay
race. Industry manager cannot be involved in designing skill standards and then
pass the job to workers to be mentors. School administrators cannot design a
school- and work-based plan and then leave the teachers to design the curricula.
All stakeholders—particularly students, parents, small employers, and other
groups that tend to be ignored—must participate throughout the entire process.
o STW must address the needs of underserved students in a detailed and well-
conceived way.
o Career pathways, with appropriate mastery certificates and benchmarks, are
designed to not only integrate but improve academic and vocational education.
o An evaluation mechanism is in place to monitor progress and adjust course. This
mechanism should also extend out to other states to exchange ideas and to learn.
These and other parameters must be adapted to fit the strengths and weaknesses of
the State of Washington so that realistic goals, processes, and benchmarks can be
presented.”
Part C culminates with an analysis of the nine recommendations (Final Report) or goals
(Working and Learning Together) and identifies five areas that need to “be examined and
strengthened prior to the submission of a State Implementation Plan.”
Part D of the proposal lays out the workplan and timeline, stating that the “workplan is based
on two parts:
1. Develop a State of Washington STW Model. This model will be based

integrating the vision and goals of the State with knowledge on STW on the
national level and in other states. Specifically, EDC will present it innovative
approach to integrated skill standards and it experience in implementing STW.
More importantly, we will listen and understand the partners’ various
perspectives on the ends to achieve the State’s vision, and work with the partners
to mold them into a comprehensive model.
2. Develop a Comprehensive Plan of Implementation. Based on the State of
Washington STW Model, EDC staff and partners will work to design a
comprehensive plan detailing objectives, strategies, benchmarks, time table,
partnerships, organizational structure, feedback mechanism, and other
elements.”
Staffing for the contract were Joyce Malyn-Smith, D.ED. and John H. Wong, Ph.D., with
Monika Aring and Vivian Guilfoy, codirectors, Center for Education, Employment, and
Community as supervisors of the contract. Original cost of the contract…$9,993.00; final cost
of the contract—$30,584.
87
How did the EDC nine steps for creating a flexible STW process get incorporated in the Final
Report of the Governor’s Council on School-to-Work Transition if the first contract between
the Governor’s Council and EDC was dated May 1995 after the Final Report was published?
Was there prior contact between the Governor’s Council on School to Work Transition and
EDC? Or was there prior contact between the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board and EDC? Or is it mere coincidence that the nine steps of EDC were incorporated into
the recommendations of the Final Report?
EDC has been a presenter at and cosponsor of at least two School-to-Work Transition Tech
Prep conferences put on by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory in which both the
WTECB and OSPI were also participants and presenters.
In October 1996, the Commission on Student Learning announced that…
The commission is beginning another round of revisions of the academic standards,

focusing on the determination of benchmarks in all subject and skill areas. The
revision of the technical manuals will be conducted with several purposes in mind: to
ensure consistency within and between the documents, to improve and clarify the
language and the examples in the benchmarks, to enhance the integration of
standards addressing state learning Goal III (thinking skills) and Goal IV (importance
of work), and to improve the overall balance and quality of the documents. An ad
hoc revision committee made up of people who represent a systemwide perspective
will develop recommendations by January. After review of comments, revised
technical manuals will be distributed to school districts and others in February.229
In November 1996, the Commission on Student Learning announced that…
The revision committee met for the first time on November 4. The committee will
continue meeting through December in order to have the revisions completed by early
1997. The revised documents will be distributed at the annual CSL Ellensburg
Conference in January and to school districts, legislators, and others beginning in
February. The Ellensburg Conference date is January 21-22, 1997.230
Such disclosures, however, only tell part of the story…
On October 15-16, 1996, members of the Workforce Training and Education

Coordinating Board (WTECB), the Commission on Student Learning (CSL), the
Governor’s Task Force on School-to-Work Transition (GTFSTWT), and invited guests
met to discuss the progress the CSL has made on identifying what students need to
know and be able to do to meet the four state goals in The Education Reform Act of
1993 (ESHB 1209). Specifically, the discussion centered on Goal 3 (thinking and
problem solving) and Goal 4 (connection between students’ current education and
their later learning and career opportunities).
229
Education Improvement October 1996 Update; Commission on Student Learning; Washington State; 1996;
author. (See Appendix K for a list of the ad hoc Revision Committee members).
230
Education Improvement November 1996 Update; Commission on Student Learning; Washington State; 1996;
author.
88
During the October meeting the CSL offered representatives of the GTFSTWT and
the WTECB the opportunity to review the current EALRs and inform the CSL if there
were gaps between the EALRs’ content and the requirements necessary to meet state
learning goals 3 and 4. This offer resulted in the formation of the Work-related
Competencies Committee (WCC).
…The CSL has convened an ad hoc Revision Committee to conduct a review of the
EALRs to judge the quality, internal consistency, and balance across the documents.
Joe Pinzone, WTECB Board member and Chair of the WCC is also a member of the
CSL-convened Revision Committee as is WTECB Chair Betty Jane Narver and board
member Jeff Johnson. Joe reported that to date, the CSL-convened Revision
Committee has revised the Reading, Writing, and Communication EALRs. …
…The explicit purpose of the review by the Work-related Competencies
Committee is to:
o examine the extent to which the core competencies required to meet the
state learning goals 3 and 4 are addressed in the EALRs,
o identify areas where the integration of Goals 3 and 4 are insufficiently
addressed, and
o advise the CSL on practical methods to address any insufficiencies that are
found.
Drs. Joyce Malyn-Smith and John Wong of the Education Development Center
(Newton, MA) have been retained to provide technical expertise in academic and
workplace skill competency development and performance-based education. …231
The above is the summary of the December 10, 1996, meeting between the Work-related
Competencies Committee (WCC) and Education Development Center, Inc. WCC committee
members present were Joe Pinzone, Karen Carter, and Gay Dubigk. Staff present were Kyra
Kester, Ellen O’Brien Saunders, and Jill teVelde.232
On January 25, 1997, a report, prepared for the Washington State Work-related Competencies
Committee and the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, was submitted by
Education Development Center, Inc., Center for Education, Employment and Community. The
report, entitled Education Reform in Washington State, Essential Academic Learning
Requirements, A Review of the EALRs for Inclusion of Goals 3 and 4 was funded by the
National School-to-Work Office, which allotted technical assistance vouchers to states that
received STWOA implementation grants. Authors of the report were Joyce Malyn-Smith,
D.Ed, John Wong Ph.D., and Susan Park. The report outlines recommendations for changes
and additions to the Washington State Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs),
components, and benchmarks, and analyzed the EALRs for inclusion of the SCANS
competencies and foundation skills.
This was not, however, the first contact between the Office of the Superintendent of Public
231
Meeting Summary of December 10, 1996 between EDC and Work-related Competencies Committee; Education
Reform in Washington State; Essential Academic Learning Requirements; A Review of the EALRs for Inclusion of
Goals 3 and 4; Education Development Center, Inc, Center for Education, Employment, and Community; January 25,
1997; author.
232
Ibid.
89
Instruction, Washington State, and Education Development Center, Inc. On June 28, 1995,
the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction entered into a contract with
Education Development Center. The contract expired midnight, June 30, 1995. The purpose
of the contract was to “provide an evaluation of the 1994-95 on-line projects, and determine
if” the delineated outcomes “have been achieved.”233 The outcomes enumerated in the
contract are:
o increased sense of students’ role as active participants in the learning process,

o increased understanding of the targeted curricular area(s), and
o increased awareness and focus by the targeted schools on their local community
and its resources234
A final report was to be submitted to the OSPI by June 30, 1995. Cost of the contract was not
to exceed $25,000.235
EDC website documents speak to the project, indicating that Washington State funded a
project by the EDC Center for Children and Technology; describing the project as an…
Evaluation of online curricular projects … to see if the projects achieved intended

outcomes: helping students become more active learners, increasing student
understanding in target areas, and raising schools’ awareness of local community
resources. The evaluation included site visits, extensive interviews, and materials
review.236
High Skills, High Wages, 1994, was the first indication that Washington State was looking
toward a one-stop career center system237 …
The existence of so many separate programs makes it difficult for workers to know
where to go to get the help they need or could benefit from. Workers may not be
eligible for the kind of training or assistance they need, and the kind of assistance
they are offered may not be what they want. The problem is compounded by the fact
that true employment security today depends much more on a worker’s ability to
maintain marketable skills than on his or her ability to remain attached to a single
employer.
The Clinton administration is promoting legislation to update and supplement this
“unemployment system” with a “re-employment system.” The system would link
employment benefits with participation in re-employment services which would be
available to all workers, laid-off or not, through a network of customer-oriented
career centers. To help workers transition to a new job, these centers would offer
233
Contract No. C between the Superintendent of Public Instruction and Education Development Center, Inc.
234
Ibid.
235
Ibid.
236
EDC Center for Children and Technology; Washington Online Curricula Evaluation; Education Development
Center, Inc.; Newton, Massachusetts; 1996; author.
237
High Skills, High Wages was first published in 1994. HR 1617, which would have made the one stop career
center system a reality in federal law, was not introduced until June 1995. The 1994 edition of High Skills, High
Wages makes several references to what was to become HR 1617. Obviously states were made aware the bill was
in the works long before the public was aware of its presence.
90
1. Job search assistance,
2. Labor market information,
3. Counseling,
4. Consumer-oriented information on how various training providers perform in
training and placing their students,
5. Referrals to training, and
6. Income stipends.
In 1994, Washington State applied for and received a $300,000 U.S. Department of Labor
planning grant for a One-Stop Career Center System. Condition of receipt of this grant was
that the states plan and implement a One-Stop Career Center system that met four
principles:
a. Universality: All population groups are to have access to a broad array of high
quality job seeking and employment development assistance. A One-Stop system
should recognize and respond to a wide variety of access barriers, including
language, disability, and emotional and self-esteem issues.
b. Customer focus: Employers and job seekers are to have choices in where and how
they obtain information and services and have access to the information they need
to make informed choices about education and training options. The One-Stop
Career Center system may be physically located at one comprehensive site, in
many sites, through electronic and technological access points, or through a
combination of these approaches.
c. Integration: A One-Stop Career Center system is to offer a seamless approach to
service delivery, including integration of program governance structures at both
the state and local levels.
d. Accountability: To ensure customer satisfaction, One-Stop Career Center systems
must have clear performance-driven outcome measures and consequences for
failing to perform on those measures.238 (highlighting added)
The planning grant cites, as its foundation, the work of the Investment in Human Capital
study and advisory group; also the work of the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board, who, in High Skills, High Wages, cites the following urgently needed actions:
4) Make workforce training and education accountable for continuous quality

improvement in meeting customer needs.
7) Integrate employment- and training-related services so that they are easier to
find and enter. … The Governor should continue to take leadership to establish “one
stop” or integrated service delivery systems for employment- and training-related
services…
In July 1994 Governor Lowry convened a steering committee to oversee the planning and
development of the statewide One-Stop system.239 This group developed the strategic plan
238
High Skills, High Wages; Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; 1996.
239
One-Stop Career Center System Planning & Development Grant Application, State of Washington, September 15,
1994.
91
that would be basis of the grant application.240 (See Appendix L for a list of the One-Stop
Steering Committee.)241
The vision on the one stop career center system effort would be to “revitalize the system”
such that customers would benefit in many ways:
a. Information about labor markets, options for employment services, job

opportunities, and training option will be readily available at local service
provider locations or through other means such as modem, phone or kiosk.
b. Job seekers and employers will no longer be required to give the same
information over and over again because information is shared across the delivery
system.
c. Services will be easier to access because each community will have at least one
One-Stop “supermarket” for reemployment services which is available to all job
seekers — one place where anyone who wants a job for any reason can go to get a
wide variety of high quality services.
d. It will be easier for customers to judge the quality of services because
information about program performance is readily available.
e. Job seekers and employers will no longer feel trapped in a maze of programs and
service providers because aggressive use of technology, service integration, and
interagency collaboration will result in a truly “seamless” system with multiple
entry points.
f. Customers will have confidence in the quality of our services because each service
provider will be certified to meet statewide customer-focused quality
standards.242
The grant continues by laying out the principles under which the proposed system would
operate as correlated with the conditions of receipt of the grant (see page 31):
The intent of Washington State’s collaborative one-stop planning process is to create

a customer-focused rather than a program-focused reemployment and workforce
development system. Key principles of Washington’s one-stop vision are:
1) Universal Access Making it easier for people to get help in finding work or
for employers to find qualified employees;
Making basic employment related assistance available

regardless of program eligibility
Ensuring that there is no wrong point of entry to the

workforce training and development system; and
Focusing on what customers need to get new or better
240
1994.
241
Ibid.
242
Ibid.
92
jobs, rather than on the narrow requirements of current

individual training programs.
2) Integrated Systems Reducing the time that people are out of work and
speeding their reentry into the workforce;
Using information technology and agreements between

programs and agencies so customers make fewer stops in
the process of obtaining services and give information to
the system only once;
Making access to needed services quick and easy;
Ensuring that information provided is consistent from one

site or program to another;
Increasing responsiveness of the system to employers,

making the workforce development system easier and
more desirable for employers to use;
Increasing the quantity and quality of job matches that

employers make from the system; and
Increasing the chances that a job seeker can not only get
a job, but get a good job.
3) Customer Choice Empowering job seekers, treating them as customers
rather than clients;
Increasing the information available to job seekers on

economic prospects, career demand, the availability and
quality of workforce training, and the choices of services
and training options available to them;
Providing multiple points of entry to the system, any of

which will provide a uniform set of basic services; and
Using technology to introduce new options for ways of

accessing information and services.
4) Performance Outcomes Providing evaluation information on training and other
service providers, including information on customer
satisfaction.
Gathering ongoing and continuous feedback from worker

and employer customers to tell us whether our system is
meeting their needs on an ongoing basis; and
93
Developing ways to ensure that the workforce
development system will change in response to how well
it achieves clearly defined system-wide outcomes.
The grant continues by laying out the system objectives: (highlighting added)
a. Continuing local collaborative processes to establish one-stop centers and “no

wrong door” approaches to workforce services.
b. Developing new ways for customers to interact with the system from a distance,
to allow them to meet some of their needs without needing to come to agencies
or programs in person.
c. A statewide network of service outlets offering a wide range of information and
initial entry into the workforce system.
d. Developing and testing models for one-stop centers in every region of the state.
e. Defining a set of core basic services to be available at one-stop centers.
f. Developing a common information infrastructure for the One-Stop system
including common data elements and protocols across delivery systems so that
customers are not required to re-enter the same information endlessly.
g. Developing a management information system, including outcome measures, to
permit monitoring of the workforce system to be sure that system is delivering on
common goals.
h. Developing labor market information on local economies and career demand which
is easily accessible to customers.
i. Planning for system-wide capacity building and staff training.
j. Developing evaluation information on training providers, including information on
customer satisfaction and outcome measures.
k. Developing local infrastructure for common eligibility, assessment, and service
planning processes.
l. Developing collaborative planning and governance structures at both the local and
state level.
The grant further indicates that Vernon Stoner, Commissioner of the Employment Security
Department and member of WTECB, the Family Policy Council, and administrator of the State
Job Training Coordinating Council, would be the Project Manager in administering the grant
and overseeing the One-Stop Career Center planning process.243 The major thrust of the
planning grant would be to analyze existing customer needs assessments, conduct additional
customer surveys, analyze current One-Stop related program activities and develop a
strategic plan for a statewide One-Stop system.244 The process would be guided by a
Management Team made up of representatives from principal organizations and agencies that
provide employment and training, and business and labor.245
The measure of whether the One-Stop system is attaining its goals will be, as is inherent with
the continuous quality improvement or total quality system, the gathering and analyzing of
243
1994.
244
Ibid.
245
Ibid.
94
statistical information on the customers of the system. This will be implemented through the
Performance Management Project under way in conjunction with the National Governors’
Association.246 This project will design the performance management system for One-stop—
including expected program outcomes, consumer reports, and data features—in sync with the
performance management system for the rest of workforce development.247 The ultimate
goal of the new One-Stop Career Center system is “to create a system leading to full
employment248 for the people of the state of Washington by…
a. Integrating employment and training related services so that they are easier to
find and enter, and
b. Consolidating programs where coordination and efficiencies can result.”249
In August 1996, the Washington State Employment Security Department submitted a second
One-Stop implementation grant application to the U.S. Department of Labor.250 The grant
seeks $14.8 million in federal funds over the next three years to help build the One-Stop
Career Center system. According to the grant application, Washington State would input
$17.6 million to the project during the same timeframe. The implementation grant builds on,
and further defines, the framework outlined in the One-Stop planning grant; the executive
summary opening with this statement:
Washington’s vision for its One Stop Career Center System flows from a convergence
of reforms in our adult training and education program, our employment and job
placement policies and services, our public schools, and our state’s economic
development strategies.
According to the grant application, the “following outcomes will result from the
development of Washington’s One Stop Career Center System:
a. The quality of employment-related services will be higher, because customers will

help design them, because continuous quality improvement will be an accepted
part of service delivery, and because customers will choose among multiple sites
and methods of service delivery.
b. Computer-based technologies will continue to expand access, reduce costs, and
allow more resources to be directed to helping people overcome barriers to
employment that would otherwise keep them in poverty and dependency.
c. In local areas across the state, customers and service providers will work together
to design and deliver services that meet the needs of their communities, and local
partnerships will receive support from the state and federal government to help
them do so.
d. The front-line staff who deliver services will be respected for their skill and
246
Ibid.
247
1994.
248
“Full Employment” is a concept relative to a planned economy. While there will be a body for every job, there will
not necessarily be a job for every body. With a full employment system, Russia has a very high rate of
unemployment.
249
High Skills, High Wages; Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; 1996.
250
The WTECB contracted with EDC to prepare this implementation grant proposal.
95
creativity, for their dedication to continuous improvement of customer service,
and for the important contributions they make to designing and implementing
improvements in the service delivery system.
e. Citizens will see that government is an effective and responsive partner that
contributes to the well-being of citizens, businesses, and communities.”
The grant is divided into four parts, each part addressing the overall system:
1. The design of the one-stop career center system which speaks to the four guiding
principals required by federal mandate: universality, customer focus, integration,
and performance-driven, outcome-based measures.
2. Readiness for implementation which speaks to: governance, collaboration,
stakeholder support, local market information (LMI) and automated system
support, and the status of One-Stop efforts.
3. The implementation plan which speaks to: local implementation, local
agreements, labor market information and system support development, staff
development and training, and obstacles and barriers.
4. The Administration of implementation: costs/resources, agency contact, and
financial management.
The performance of the One-Stop Career Center System will be based on the same seven
goals as School-to-Work: 1) workforce competencies; 2) employment; 3) earnings; 4)
productivity; 5) reduced poverty; 6) customer satisfaction; and 7) return on investment. In
the total quality system, however, the input of time and resources is not considered in
judging the success or failure of the program. In the words of High Skills, High Wages, 1996,
The framework does not focus on judging programs as to whether they are “good” or
“bad,” but instead recognizes that every program can and must improve its
performance over time.
In other words, time and resources ($$$) are not of importance, only whether the program is
evolving incrementally toward a given goal or outcome. This is part of the Performance
Management for Continuous Improvement (PMCI) concept.
On July 22, 1996, the Washington Stated Employment Security Department entered into a
contract with the Education Development Center, Inc. The “purpose of this Contract to
obtain assistance in the drafting of a proposal for implementation of a statewide one-stop
career center system.”251 The length of the contract was from July 22, 1996, to September
3, 1996. Original cost of the contract—$9,870252, with the final cost—$19,129.253
Responsibilities of the contractor (EDC), as delineated in Exhibit A, Statement of Work,

attached to the contract, is as follows:
251
Contract Number 97-PS-099 between EDC and the Washington State Employment Security Department.
252
Contract Number 97-PS-099 between EDC and the Washington State Employment Security Department.
253
Modification 1 to Contract Number 97-PS-099 between EDC and the Washington State Employment Security
Department.
96
o Provided strategic consultation to the one-stop partners on how the federal One-
Stop Implementation Grant Proposal should be written.
o Identify and write those sections of the proposal in which these strategies
(identified above) need to be presented or included.
o Identify strategies that will finalize necessary agreements among Washington
partners and facilitate communications among these partners to reach
agreements.
o Identify local One-Stop strategies to be presented as part of the “roll out”
implementation plan in the proposal.
o Provide strategic overview of the proposal on its quality and cogency.
o Assist the Program Manager in facilitating communication among the team
members regarding concerns members have on draft sections of the proposal.
o Assist in making sure the proposal is developed on time and is of high quality
(succinctly addresses all the items requested in the federal SGA).
o Help identify those issues which must be decided by the project Steering
Committee and/or Management Team and assisting the process for making those
decisions.
o Other activities as mutually agreed upon by the parties and fully funded by the
Department.
The third national initiative that Washington State took advantage of in addressing the most
urgently needed actions outlined in High Skills, High Wages, was the National Governors’
Association’s Performance Management Project.
In April 1994, the National Governors’ Association254 issued a “request for technical
assistance” or RFP, for six states to participate in a project “to design the next generation of
performance management strategies.”255 The project, funded by the Joyce Foundation256,
the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation257 and the U.S. Departments of
Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, would…
establish outcome-based accountability models for programs preparing youth for the
transition from school-to-work, retraining and transition workers, and assisting
disadvantaged adults enter and reenter the workforce.258
The participating states would serve as “laboratory states:
254
In 1994, NCEE published a booklet, entitled A School-to-Work Transition System for the United States; authored
by Marc Tucker. The booklet acknowledges that the booklet is a “condensed version of a paper originally prepared
for the National Governors’ Association” (p 18).
255
Memorandum to JTPA Liaisons, Human Service Commissioners, Vocational Education Directors, Adult Education
Directors, from Evelyn Ganzglass, Director, Employment and Social Services Policies Studies, National Governors’
Association; April 4, 1994.
256
The Joyce Foundation has been a funding source for Jobs for the Future, an implementation partner to NCEE’s
NARE design team.
257
The John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation has been a funding source of NCEE’s NARE design team.
258
Memorandum to JTPA Liaisons, Human Service Commissioners, Vocational Education Directors, Adult Education
Directors, from Evelyn Ganzglass, Director, Employment and Social Services Policies Studies, National Governors’
Association; April 4, 1994.
97
Selected states will join NGA and federal workforce agencies in establishing outcome-
based accountability models to guide the design of cohesive state workforce
development systems. …
Numerous states are restructuring workforce development systems into seamless,
customer-driven delivery systems to meet the challenge of worldwide economic
realities. These states have identified incompatible federal and state program
missions, performance expectations, funding incentives, definitions, and operational
procedures. This project will provide the selected states with the assistance
necessary for them to serve as laboratories to develop the next generation of
performance management systems that establish joint accountability across
workforce development programs and incorporate principles of quality assurance and
continuous improvement. …
In the project, each participating state will establish a quantifiable set of state
goals for their workforce system, identify expected outcomes, and develop a common
performance management language for use across programs. The states will work
closely with localities and the federal partners to design federal, state, and local
roles and responsibilities that ensure accountability throughout the system.259
According to the RFP, participating states would “focus on developing a common performance
management system across the following three program clusters, including programs that…
1. Support youths; transition from school to work;

2. provide worker retraining and transition assistance; and
3. assist adults who face multiple barriers to employment, enter and reenter the
workforce.
…As appropriate within each of these clusters, the state will be required to include
basic skills/adult literacy programs and issues.” (highlighting added)
Further, participating states would,
o design a performance management system that cuts across these program

clusters;
o develop strategies for linking the newly designed performance management
systems to system-wide continuous improvement processes and other components
of a quality assurance system, including program accreditation and approval
processes;
o participate in interstate coordination efforts to facilitate the individual state
work; and
o contribute to national efforts to restructure workforce development performance
management systems.260
The culminating expectation of the project was that…
259
Letter signed by Raymond C Scheppach of the National Governors’ Association, dated April 4, 1994, to all
Governors. Scheppach is acknowledged as one of the “presenters” before the SCANS Commission.
260
Request for Proposals; Performance Management Project; National Governors’ Association; April 1994.
98
by the end of the twelve month state design phase the state project team will have
designed a performance management system that…
♦ is organized around program clusters serving three population cohorts (youth in

transition, workers in retraining, and disadvantaged adults entering or reentering
work);
♦ establishes a coherent set of quantifiable state goals for these population
cohorts, including a system for tracking the state’s progress toward achieving
these goals;
♦ includes state and local performance standards regarding expected outcomes from
the publicly financed workforce development service delivery system that result
in real outcomes for individuals who are customers of the system;
♦ uses a common language of definitions and measures, including occupational
standards, in defining performance standards across programs;
♦ uses the system-level standards as the basis for measuring the collective effect of
multiple workforce programs on achieving specific goals for the particular
population cohorts; and
♦ includes methods for holding state and local program managers and operators
jointly accountable for achieving system-level performance expectations.261
Terms and conditions agreed to by participating states were…
o formalize an agreement for project participating including a plan for conducting

the design work that will outline the action steps that will be taken by the state
and local participants who will be included in the process and specify timelines,
deliverables, and needs for technical assistance from NGA;
o designate an interagency policy team consisting of state and local administrators
from the programs included in the project;
o designate an interagency technical workgroup to support the policy team;
o designate a lead staff coordinator who will be the NGA contact and head of the
interagency policy team;
o involve the state human resource investment or related council that has
membership representing affected programs;
o involve service providers and communities in project activities by a method most
o appropriate to the state’s administrative structure and ongoing communication
linkages;
o submit a project report at the conclusion of the state design phase that is
approved by the state team and reviewed by the state human resource investment
or other council, documents project results including state and local agency
involvement, and presents a plan for implementing the performance management
system designed during this project; and
o participate in three project meetings.262
States were also expected to identify barriers in federal and state statutes and regulations
that would impede the implementation of the performance management models. Such would
261
262
Ibid.
99
then be used to design waiver requests to remove the barriers. States would also document
their process in designing, developing and implementing their performance management
system to be used as lessons for other states and for recommending federal action.263
According to the RFP, the NGA might, as requested, provide assistance…
in helping states set state-wide goals, system- and program-level performance

standards, design data systems to track progress toward achievement of these goals,
and design incentive and sanctions policies.264
The requests for technical assistance were to center around five tasks:
1. workforce development goals, initiatives, and performance management;

2. proposed project tasks;
3. anticipated outcomes;
4. project management;
5. linkages to future plans; and
6. technical assistance needs.265
The NGA also agreed to provide assistance to the states in addressing issues of common
concern; to include…
o making available the work of the NGA’s Reinventing Government Task Force
advisory committee, appropriate private sector representatives, national experts,
and consultants266;
o highlighting successful state practices including such things as jointly funded or
inter-agency cross-training of staff;
o outlining a process whereby national, state and local research findings are fed
back into the local program planning process;
o conceptualizing a set of outcome and process criteria to assist the states in
designing continuous improvement processes. Those quality criteria would be
based on the principles of ISO 9000267, the Baldridge award268 and three self-
263
264
Ibid.
265
Ibid.
266
One such consultant made available was Dr Robert Sheets of Northern Illinois University. Dr Sheets was also a
participant at a 1993 conference co-sponsored by Jobs For the Future and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy. The
conference dealt with how state and local policies could steer small- and medium-sized firms to HPWO—the High
Performance Work Organization. The conference was made possible by a grant from the Joyce Foundation. In
1993/94 the NGA, with support from the Joyce Foundation, worked with Northern Illinois University’s Center for
Governmental Studies “to develop a conceptual framework for addressing issues of improving program accountability
and quality improvement within the contest of more integrated and coherent workforce development service delivery
systems.” (NGA Technical Assistance RFP).
267
ISO stands for International Standards Organization—based out of Geneva, Switzerland. ISO standards certify
human systems (ISO 9000) and environmental systems (ISO 14000). In the not too distant future, all companies
exporting goods will have to be ISO 9000 and 14000 certified, and all companies with whom they do business will
have to also be so certified, creating a domino effect in which all companies will be certified. Some schools in the
U.S. are also seeking ISO certification; that their graduates will already be ISO certified to enter the workforce. One
such school is in Philadelphia.
100
assessment guides developed by the NGA with USDOL funds that contain criteria
for JTPA program managers to use in evaluating the quality of youth and adult
program outcomes and processes and financial management;
o facilitating the development of waiver requests based on the state work;
o tracking activities related to federal and state performance measures and
monitoring school-to-work transition and worker retraining legislation, skill
standards initiatives, JOBS269 performance measures development, adult
education quality indicators implementation, the development of common data
definitions, and the uses of wage record data as a common language; and
o providing a list of available consultants who have experience with performance
management systems development for state use related to this project or other
ongoing work within the state.
Washington State was one of six states chosen to participate in this project. Other states
were Texas, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York. The application submitted by
Washington State follows the guidelines of the RFP, but makes some very interesting
disclosures in so doing; one being the following:
WTECB is also coordinating the state’s involvement in the National Conference of

State Legislatures/Jobs for the Future270 (NCSL/JFF), “Investing in People Project.”271
Washington was one of five states selected to participate in the Project. The Project
is providing technical assistance for workforce development policy. (Performance
management, however, is not an area covered by the NCSL/JFF project.)272
Washington’s involvement concentrates on school-to-work transitions, building the
skills of current workers, coordinating workforce training with economic
development, and public awareness.
Washington’s team for the Project includes the Governor’s Deputy Staff Director,
the Speaker of the House, the President of the State Labor Council, and three chairs
and three ranking minority members of legislative committees, among others. The
lessons learned from the Project are being incorporated into the State Comprehensive
Plan for Workforce Training. Both the Plan and the Project are likely to result in
legislative proposals for the 1995 session of the Legislature. WTECB’s role as
268
“The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award sets the standard for excellence for U.S. companies. Named for
the former Secretary of Commerce, the award was established by an Act of Congress on January 6, 1987, to
promote quality awareness, recognize quality achievements of U.S. companies and publicize successful quality
strategies. … Companies submit written applications, in which they respond to numerous questions that attempt to
determine how well organized they are to promote a TQM environment. Up to six companies can win the award each
year, with awards being granted in three categories—manufacturing, services and small business. (Taking the
Mystery Out of TQM; Capezio, Peter and Debra Morehouse; Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press; 1995)
269
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills – a program which targets applicants and recipients of welfare AFDC,
administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, within states by Department of Health and
Human Services or its equivalent.
270
Jobs For the Future is an implementation partner for the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE)
on design task two—learning environments.
271
A paper produced by the WTECB, in February 1994, used as a “background paper” to the WTECB publication,
High Skills, High Wages, entitled “High Performance Work Organizations”, notes Brian Bosworth as an “economic
development consultant and faculty member for the NCSL Investing in People project.” Bosworth has ties to Jobs
For the Future.
272
This is not exactly accurate as indicated by Investing in People; Working Together for a Competitive Workforce,
put out by the National Conference of State Legislators subsequent to the Investing In People Project.
101
coordinator for the NCSL/JFF Project will help enable WTECB to communicate lessons
learned from the NGA project to the State Legislature.
The state application also acknowledges the establishment of the “Washington Performance
Partnership.” This was accomplished during the 1994 Legislative session via ESB 6601 which
passed both the Senate and House by a unanimous vote of those present. The bill also
established the performance management operating committee, giving it powers and duties.
In the 1995 Legislative session, Senate Concurrent Resolution 8407 was adopted by the Senate
on April 22, 1995, and by the House on April 23, 1995. Via the resolution, the Legislature
officially recognized the Washington Performance Partnership statement of strategic intent.
This was followed, in the 1996 Legislative session by two bills, SHB 2758 relating to the
measurement of state fiscal conditions and economic performance, and ESSSB 6680 relating to
the performance assessment of state government.
The Washington State application for technical assistance also states that the WTECB…
intends to establish a data system design taskforce to develop an integrated data

system273 for workforce development. The taskforce will develop recommendations
to WTECB on the following issues:
• Common data elements to be collected at a minimum by each workforce training

and education program;
• Compatible or common definitions and reporting requirements for the common
core data elements;
• Participant confidentiality;
• Methods for avoiding data duplication between programs;
• Methods for improving the portability of data between programs;
• Whether agency data systems should be integrated into a single data system;
• The training needs of staff for the data system; and
• The computer hardware and software needs of the data system.
And the application delineates what assistance “will make sense for all five tasks:
1. Sharing with WTECB information on best practices in other states and the latest
ideas in literature.
2. Identifying the best available consultants for the tasks and making the consultants
available to WTECB.
3. Assisting WTECB in identifying and requesting any federal waivers that are
necessary for the implementation of the performance management system; and
4. Keeping WTECB up to date on the latest relevant federal developments.
Ellen Saunders O’Brien, Executive Director of the Workforce Training and Education
273
Such a system would require a centralized computer data bank congruous to all the various federal and state
employment, unemployment and training programs. As it would have to contain data elements relevant to one or
multiple programs, this data bank would require the centralized compilation of an inordinate amount of personally
identifiable information.
102
Coordinating Board, served as lead coordinator for the project. She was assisted by Bryan
Wilson, Association Director of WTECB and responsible for the agency’s Outcomes and
Evaluation Team. He also served as the chair of the Technical Workgroup and was a member
of the Interagency Committee.
Programs that participated in the NGA Performance Management Project were 1) secondary
vocational-technical education; 2) community and technical college workforce training; 3)
adult basic skills program; 4) & 5) JTPA training for dislocated workers, disadvantaged youth,
and adults; 6) the employment service; the 7) JOBS program for people on welfare; and 8)
private vocational education.274
The CQI/PMCI/HPWO Framework

Performance management for continuous improvement (PMCI) is…
the process of setting goals, evaluating results, and continuously improving

performance.
… The PMCI framework manages performance by focusing on results, not on what
processes are pursued to achieve results. It focuses the attention of providers, state
agencies, and policymakers on the difference that workforce development makes in
the lives of program participants, their families, and their communities.275
The first component of PMCI is setting the goals. The goals of the workforce development
program are set at three levels:
o Workforce Development Goals for the system as a whole (the eight programs plus
the One-Stop Career Center System…)
o Cluster Goals (clusters of programs that serve similar program participants—youth
who are in school, out-of-school youth, current and unemployed adult workers,
and adults with barriers to employment); and
o Statewide Program Goals (for the eight programs and One-Stop)276
Each level will be assessed for continuous improvement via the seven goals previously
mentioned and further elaborated here:
♦ Competencies Washington’s workforce possesses the skills and abilities

required in the workplace.
♦ Employment Washington’s workforce finds employment opportunities.
♦ Earnings Washington’s workforce achieves a family-wage standard
of living from earned income.
274
A Report to the Legislature; 1995 Progress Report; 1996 Operating Plan; Washington State: Workforce Training
and Education Coordinating Board; 1995.
275
“Performance Management for Continuous Improvement”; WTECB paper; January 23, 1996.
276
Ibid.
103
♦ Productivity Washington’s workforce is productive.
♦ Reduced Poverty Washington’s workforce lives above poverty.
♦ Customer Workforce development participants and their employers
Satisfaction are satisfied with workforce development services and
results.
♦ Return on Workforce development programs provide returns that
Investment exceed program costs.277
The second component of PMCI is evaluation. Goals will be evaluated at four levels:
o System evaluations … will measure progress toward system goals and inform policy
improvement.
o Cluster evaluations … will measure progress toward cluster goals and inform
policy improvement.
o Agency program evaluations … will measure progress toward statewide program
goals and analyze the relationship between program characteristics, including
program sub-components, and results. This information will be used for policy
review and program improvement.
o Local program evaluations … will analyze local program characteristics and results
in order to inform continuous improvement efforts at the local level.278
The third component of PMCI is continuous quality improvement (CQI).
CQI is central to this new approach to performance management. CQI is a process of

evaluating performance, using the findings of the evaluation to develop a plan,
implementing the plan, and evaluating the results, in a continuous cycle of
evaluating, planning, doing, and evaluating. 279
CQI is analogous with total quality management (TQM). The process being used here is one
developed by a man by the name of Walter A. Shewhart. Shewhart was a mentor to W.
Edwards Deming. The “continuous cycle of evaluating, planning, doing, and evaluating” is
called the Shewhart PDSA cycle—PDSA meaning plan–do–study–act; a cyclical evolution that 1)
evolves incrementally, and 2) evolves continuously.
The WTECB paper continues by stating,
CQI represents a cultural change. If the PMCI framework is to be successful, cultural

change will have to occur at all levels. In order to promote this change, state
277
“Performance Management for Continuous Improvement”; WTECB paper; January 23, 1996. Note the way in
which the last goal is stated. The program cost is objective; program returns are subjective—a matter of
interpretation. According to the One-Stop Implementation Grant application, one of the outcomes of the One-Stop
Career Center System will be that “Citizens will see that government is an effective and responsive partner that
contributes to the well-being of citizens, businesses, and communities.” As such, if just one person is helped, then
this goal of the One-Stop Career Center System has been met.
278
279
Ibid.
104
agencies will develop technical assistance and incentives.280
While CQI is a component part of PMCI, PMCI is also a component part of the High
Performance Work Organization (HPWO). Generally accepted traits of the High Performance
Work Organization include: (highlighting added)
o demonstrates a commitment to continuous improvement of products and services

and to cost reductions for such products and services;
o encourages decentralized decision making, worker participation at all levels, and
greater reliance on front-line workers;
o develops a worker-manager relationship based on consideration of mutual
interests and concerns;
o adopts an organizational structure which includes flexible, cross-functional teams
responsible for training, customer service, operational problem solving, and
product design and development;
o cultivates an environment which permits a manager to assume motivational
leadership functions, including, but not limited to, long-range planning, coaching,
and facilitation, rather than limiting the role of the manger to that of an
enforcer;
o demonstrates a commitment to on-going training of all workers, including front-
line staff;
o implements a flexible benefits program and innovative compensation schemes,
including, but not limited to, profit sharing, gainsharing, skill-based pay,
employee stock ownership, and pay-for-performance system;
o demonstrates a commitment to a safe and healthful workplace;
o systematically solicits suggestions from customers and suppliers for designing and
developing products and services; and
o demonstrates a commitment to delivering a greater variety of high-quality
products at lower cost through manufacturing innovation such as concurrent
engineering, flexible manufacturing, and just-in-time production.281
High Skills, High Wages, 1996, states that in order…
To meet the needs of a high performance work organizations, tomorrow’s workers

must not only receive job-specific and basic skills training, they must also:
1. Adapt quickly to change;

2. Perform more abstract work processes;
3. Assume more decision-making authority;
4. Work in teams; and
5. Understand systemwide needs.282
280
281
“High Performance Work Organizations”; Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; February 1994.
282
What is being referenced here in the use of “systemwide thinking” is what is known as systems thinking or general
systems theory. Under this concept, everything is seen in wholes—holistic—that what affects one part effects all
parts. This concept is central to not only TQM but also to Outcome-based education which is TQM for children.
105
High Skills, High Wages, 1994 edition, words it a bit differently:
To succeed in high performance work organizations, today’s students must master the
new basic skills — teamwork, critical thinking, making decisions, communication,
adapting to change and understanding whole systems.
Dr William Spady, sociologist, and OBE guru, states that “transformation outcome-based”
education is intended to graduate children who are “self-directed learners; quality producers
and performers; goal setters and pursuers; collaborative contributors; creative, complex,
and perceptive thinkers; innovative problem solvers; and effective communicators.” In the
context of total quality, they mean the same thing, speak the same language.
National Influence in Washington State
Six organizations are known to be steering—through grants, partnerships, projects and

technical assistance—the direction of the education reform/school-to-work/workforce
training initiative in Washington State, ensuring that it coalesces the federal agenda. Those
six organizations are:
a. Education Commission of the States

b. National Conference of State Legislatures
c. National Governors’ Association
d. Jobs for the Future
e. National Center on Education and the Economy/NARE
f. Education Development Center, Inc/Center for Education, Employment and
Community
All, except EDC/CEEC, are listed in Changing Education, Resources for Systemic Reform as
National Organizations with Goals-2000 Oriented Activities and Resources.283
Summation
Under the total quality concept, the job of the school is to meet the needs of its ultimate
customer—business. As these are the traits that are needed by the high performance work
organization into which the student will graduate, these become the defining goals of the
schooling experience. All else becomes subordinate, including that which produces an
innovative, creative, intelligent child capable of reaching for the star or stars of his or her
choice — a rigorous core knowledge education with the child being challenged to use the
scope of that knowledge to formulate a reasoned conclusion as an individual. —The school-to-
work grant, submitted by Washington State, in June 1995, brings clarity to the purpose of the
new education system, (highlighting added)
The transformation of K-12 education system into an integrated system that is
283
Changing Education, Resources for Systemic Change; U.S. Department of Education; 1994.
106
performance-based and in which STW is a central focus, in conjunction with industry-
driven skill standards, will drive the necessary changes in our entire education and
training system.284
Likewise, this quote from America’s Choice: high skills or low wages! also gives clarity to the
transformation of America’s schools: (highlighting added)
But in a broad survey of employment needs across America, we found little evidence
of a far-reaching desire for a more educated workforce.285
Nor should we forget this quote, from Thomas Sticht286 — who sat on the SCANS commission —
as he testified before the 101th Congress, October 23, 1989: (highlighting added)
Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly
educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force
and how well it can be managed and trained—not its general educational level,
although a small cadre of highly educated creative people is essential to innovation
and growth. Ending discrimination and changing values are probably more important
than reading and moving low-income families into the middle class.
That the defining goals of the educational experience are those goals needed by the
workplace of tomorrow; that education, as now conceived, is being written from the pages of
business instead of responding to those who own the schools, those whose children are in the
schools—parents, also speaks to why the outcomes—from school districts to states—are
uniform in definition if not in context. The NGA explains it this way:
State-managed quality assurance systems should coordinate quality standards and

functions for all workforce development programs within and across the school-to-
work, worker upgrading and transition assistance, and adult workforce entry
subsystems. At a minimum, this means that states must establish common or
consistent educational and occupational skill standards and credentialing systems,
performance outcome standards and measures, and supplier process and outcome
standards and certification requirements.287
School-to-work, as made very clear by both the 1994 and 1996 editions of High Skills, High
Wages, will be based on local economic development strategies and local labor market needs
as controlled by the local One-Stop Career center responsible for the training and retraining
of workers. This means that the choices for children as to occupations from which they
choose, will be limited to the region in which they live. Further, that children will be
284
Working and Learning Together: Creating Washington’s Comprehensive School-to-Work Transition System;
Washington State Grant to the Department of Labor, June 16, 1995.
285
America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!; Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy,
Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce; 1990.
286
At the time of this statement, Sticht was president and senior scientist at Applied Behavioral and Cognitive
Sciences, Inc, San Diego, California.
287
Building State Workforce Development Systems based on policy coordination and Quality Assurance; Baj, John,
Robert G. Sheets, and Charles E. Trott; Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association; 1994. This publication
was funded by the Joyce Foundation.
107
channeled into jobs according to the needs of the labor market and economic development
strategies. Children will not be trained for jobs that do not exist. Such would obviously
violate the “return on investment” goal of the state workforce system.
The following schematic shows the new structure brought about by the education
reform/school-to-work/workforce training initiative, as it appeared in the 1992 Winter
HECB
Legend:
L&I OSPI Workforce Training and Education
WTECB
WSATC SBE Coordinating Board
HECB Higher Education Coordinating Board
Office of Superintendent of Public
OSPI/SBE
Instruction/State Board of Education
WTECB
State Board of Community and Technical
SBCTC
Colleges
Employment Security Department/State
ESD/SJTCC
Job Training Coordinating Council
COVE SBCTC
COVE Council on Vocational Education
Labor and Industries/Washington State
L&I/WSATC
Apprenticeship and Training Council
ESD
Labor and Industries/Washington State
SJTCC DOC
Department of Corrections
edition of Workforce Training News. Such clearly defines the new role of our schools.
The claim of reformers has consistently been that…
Workforce training must be linked to economic development strategies so that the

supply of highly skilled workers is coordinated with the demand, and that
Washington’s training efforts help attract family-wage jobs.288
However, this revelation from the 1996 Report to the Legislature, indicates otherwise:
SBCTC conducted its second annual evaluation of training programs funded by the
Employment and Training Trust Fund. Community and technical colleges will receive
$58.6 million during the 1995-97 biennium to provide new and expended training
opportunities and support services for eligible students.
Among the evaluation’s findings are:
288
High Skills, High Wages; Washington State: Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; 1994; p 63.
108
1. 89 percent of the graduates were employed after completing the training.
2. Median wage of graduates was $10.29 per hour, or 89 percent of their prejob
loss wage)
3. 59 percent of the students continued their training into a second year.289
One has to ask—How does the State define a family-wage job?—Can a family make it on
$10.29per hour? Possibly we can discern some definition from this excerpt from a paper
written by WTECB in February 1995: (highlighting added)
Group participants reached no real agreement on the desired level of earnings or on

what constitutes a “living wage”, but acknowledged that combined wages and
benefits should enable employees to meet basic needs.290
In the context of the learning organization, also known as the high performance work
organization, decentralized decision making is a central concept. In the education
environment, schools are moving to site-based councils—decentralized decision-making, with
budgetary, personnel and maintenance and operations decisions made at the school level,
removing the need for a central administration and circumventing the purpose for which the
school board was elected—accountability to parents for the use of tax dollars and for the
maintenance and operation of the school, to include school environment and curriculum.
Indications are, from the federal school-to-work grant application, that funding for school-to-
work will, in the year 2000, be through the regional One-Stop Career Center. Coupled with
the integrating of academic and vocational, this certainly suggests the probability of school
funding moving to the regional level with individual schools becoming satellites of the One-
Stop Career Center.
Individuals serving on site-based councils are appointed or elected by the council. Such
precludes the elective process and purpose of representative governance. However, these
people are said “to represent the community.” Individuals serve on site-councils and school
committees only if they agree with what is being implemented; and in the event they are on
the committee and don’t agree, they are always in the minority. Parents are now supposed
to take their concerns to the site-based council, but concerns are only addressed in the
context of the “common good”—the community, the collective. Such very effectively
precludes the individual right of the parent to oversee the education of his or her child, to
have his or her concerns regarding his or her child, or the school, addressed. In the
community concept of education, community comes before individual.
According to the advocates of the education reform/school-to-work/workforce training

initiative, parents support the same. A March 1995 document, put out by the Commission on
Student Learning, shows that only 5% of the people knew what education reform is; another
27% where somewhat familiar and the rest were unfamiliar or didn’t know—68%. A more
recent survey done for The Future of Washington’s Schools Project states,
289
A Report to the Legislature; Progress of Operating Agencies in Implementing High Skills, High Wages;
Washington’s Comprehensive Plan for Workforce Training and Education; Washington State: Workforce Training and
Education Coordinating Board; July 1995-June 1996.
290
Performance Management Project; Program Cluster Groups; Report of Findings; Workforce Training and
Education Coordinating Board; February 28, 1995.
109
Although only 16% of those surveyed had any familiarity with the Education Reform
Law passed by the legislature in 1993, an impressive 86% favored one of the key
reforms in the legislation: setting clearer and higher academic standards291 and
requiring that every student meet them before they can be promoted.292
The disparity here indicates that parents define academic in the traditional manner—reading,
writing and arithmetic. Such would clearly explain the difference between the 86% in favor
of one of the key reforms and the 16% who indicated any familiarity with the Education
Reform Law of 1993.
To claim that parents support something that they do not understand is to claim support by
virtue of ignorance. By virtue of their silence, the tacit support of parents is also being
claimed. Too many parents are too busy with keeping food on the table, a roof over the
head, and clothes on the back to worry about schools. Most grew up at a time when parents
did not have to worry about what their child would be taught in the school, or what their
child would be subjected to at school. Many parents haven’t a clue that something is
decidedly amiss in the classroom until something happens that sends up red flags.
Books on books on books have been published and are available on the facilitated consensus
process built on the work of behavioral science and being used to bring about planned
change—
The truth is that not until the late 1940’s when American behavioral scientists began
exploring and developing the ideas of émigré psychologist Kurt Lewin, did we really
have anything like a systematic science and practical craft of planned change in the
kinds of social systems that matter most—families, small groups, organizations,
communities.293
The behavioral scientists have done their job well. The best way to describe this phony
consensus process is how to facilitate a group to a preset outcome or how to make the group
think the outcome really was their idea when it was actually pre-determined as so well
demonstrated by this quote,
A Gap Analysis… Understanding where you are, where you want to be and then
strategizing how to get there… 294
The gap analysis is the difference between “where the people are now” as opposed to “where
291
That the state essential academic learning requirements have anything to do with academics is a matter of
conjecture on the part of education reform advocates. They are only academic, as parents would define academic, in
the redefining of the term. Parents have found, in the context of education reform, that many terms have been
redefined.
292
The Future of Washington’s Schools; A Comprehensive Survey of Attitudes Toward Public Education in the State
of Washington; Schroth & Associates; December 1996.
293
The Change Agent’s Guide; Second Edition; Havelock, Ronald G with Steve Zlotolow; Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications; 1995. (The first edition of this book was titled The Change Agent’s Guide to
Innovation in Education and was published in 1973 by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratories, Portland,
Oregon, under contract to the U.S. Department of Education.
294
Report to the Legislature on the Washington State Technology Plan for the K-12 Common School System;
September 1994.
110
we295 want them to be.” The strategizing is the planning that goes into the facilitative
process to move the people “from where they are now” to “where we want them to be.”
This is the purpose of the facilitated community meetings, etc, in which any meaningful
discourse is stifled; where only facilitated discourse — immersed in the dialectical process of
group “relationship building” based on feelings rather than on fact — is allowed to happen.
The process is dishonest, divisive and totally counter to the tenets on which our nation was
founded. If an idea or issue cannot be debated publicly according to the facts of the matter—
even though sometimes heatedly—then the idea or issue is not worth its consideration.
Parents, citizens, taxpayers have found themselves excluded from an honest debate by a
process that is very closed ranks, secretive, and deceptive; that is, by its very construct,
purposely exclusionary; and is what Alexander Hamilton spoke to when he wrote in Federalist
Paper No. 10,
…From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by
which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and
administer that Government in person, can admit of no cure for mischiefs of faction.
A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the
whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and
there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an
obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal
security, or the rights of property296; and have in general been as short in their lives,
as they have been violent in their deaths…
This is why America was established with a representative governance structure. But the
people are seeing that governance structure eroded by a manipulative process intended,
specifically, to circumvent representative governance in the name of decentralized decision
making, placing power in the hands of non-elected entities and bodies.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent in this endeavor, which is growing an increasingly
bigger bureaucracy of people who have authority and powers but are not elected by, or
accountable to, the people. Our representative governance structure, purposely established
on a system of checks and balances, has been eroded to the point that it will soon cease to
exist as a representative governance structure. Civil unrest is increasing as a growing number
of people realize that freedom, liberty and justice are rapidly vanishing. The resulting chaos
threatens the very future of this nation.
The education reform/school-to-work/workforce training initiative is a debate that never

happened. And more than education reform, school-to-work and workforce training, this is—
as Dr Shirley McCune, then of McREL297 Laboratories, now of the Washington State OSPI—
stated, about the total restructuring of our society. And the whole of it has been brought
into Washington State and implemented without the knowledge or informed consent of the
people. Various people, groups, and organizations have tried to claim that our reform is
295
As used here, we refers to the planners of change, to the change agents and those they represent.
296
Property is more than that which has a physical presence—land, possessions, etc, property is also man’s title to
personal thoughts, actions, and beliefs.
297
Mid-continent Regional Education Laboratory of Aurora, Colorado—one of the ten regional laboratories primarily
funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Education.
111
generic, voluntary, bottom up, grass-roots, representative of what the people want. As this
report proves, such is clearly not the case.
112
Appendices
Appendix A
Investment in Human Capital Study

European Study Group
Al Brisbois* ..........................Treasurer, Washington State Labor Council
Don Brunell* ........................President, Association of Washington Business
Earl Hale*............................Executive Director, State Board for Community

College Education
Merritt Long.........................Executive Director, State Board for Vocational

Education
Stan Marshburn .....................Director of Executive Policy Division, Office of the

Governor
George Sellar .......................Chair, Senate Republican Caucus, 12th District
Paul Sommers298 ...................NPC Research Director
Isiah Turner* ........................Commissioner, Employment Security Department
Art Wang ............................Chair, House Revenue Committee, 27th District
Bryan Wilson299 .....................Executive Policy Assistant, Office of the Governor
*On other task forces, committees, groups, subgroups, etc, concerning the education reform/school-to-
work/workforce training initiative.
298
Also involved in the OFM project to identify "model approaches, systems, and programs for improving
employment-related education and training."
299
Became an Associate Director, Outcomes and Evaluation Team, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board.
113
Appendices
Appendix B
Recommendations on the Governance of the Washington

Institute of Applied Technology
Subgroup Report Members
Rick Bender* ........................Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council

Art Binnie300 ........................Seattle Public Schools
Jerry Butts301 .......................Seattle Public Schools
Barbara Daum ......................Executive Director, WIAT
Susan Dunn ..........................Employment Security Department
Larry Gossett* ......................Central Area Motivational Program
Pat Green ...........................State Board for Community College Education
Ken Hoover302.......................Office of Financial Management
Julie Hungar ........................Seattle Community College
Robin Hunt ..........................Office of Financial Management
Ken Kenickenberg..................Legislative Staff
Gary Locke ..........................Representative, 37th District
Tom Lopp*...........................OSPI
Dan McDonald.......................Senator, 48th District
Steve Neilson303 ....................U.S. West
Jerry Shigaki ........................Center for Career Alternatives
Bonnie Snedecker ..................City of Seattle
Al Starr304* ..........................Private Industry Council
300
Also served on the Ad Hoc Committee on the Role of Vocational-Technical Education in Washington Public
Schools; Fall 1991.
301
Ibid.
302
Became Executive Director of the Washington Alliance for Better Schools.
303
Co-host of "Bold Visions"—July 1990 Conference in Seattle of (ECS). Those present included Bill Clinton, Booth
Gardner, Joel Pritchard, Ronn Robinson, Carla Nuxoll, Kim Peery, David Hornbeck, Marc Tucker, Theodore Sizer,
John Goodlad, Chester Finn, Brian Benzel, Judith Billings, and Hilary Pennington; on National Education Goals
Panel; Special Assistant to the Governor, GCERF; helped with transition between GCERF and CSL; on the Advisory
Council of New Horizons for Learning; consultant to Washington Education Association in the writing of Restructuring
Public Education: Building a Learning Community; working in the Edmonds School District under Brian Benzel. (It
should be noted that Neilson has never acknowledged his role on the Goals Panel. The Neilson listed is noted as
being from Milliman & Robertson, Inc, of Seattle. A call to that group disclosed that Neilson could be reached at U.S.
West and that he had had an office there when he worked for the Governor.) Name has been spelled Nielsen,
Nielson, and Neilson.
114
Appendices
Dean Stephens......................Deloitte and Touche
Sheri Story ..........................Legislative Staff
Jim Thorpe ..........................Chairman, WIAT Board of Directors
Gina Wikstrom......................Federation of Private Schools
Bryan Wilson ........................Governor's Office
Jesse Wineberry....................Representative, 43rd District
Jay Wood ............................OSPI
304
Schools; Fall 1991.
115
Appendices
Appendix C
Advisory Council on Investment In Human Capital

Joseph McGavick ...................Deloitte and Touche, Former State Representative,
Chair of Council (c)
Judith Billings* .....................SPI (c)
Dale Boose* .........................Corporate Director, IAM/Boeing Quality Through
Training Program (d)
Al Brisbois* ..........................Secretary-Treasurer, Washington State Labor Council
(d)
Joe Dear305 ..........................Director, Department of Labor and Industries (c)
Susan Fish ...........................Program Coordinator, Learning Assistance Center,
Moses Lake (c)
Earl Hale*............................Executive Director, State Board for Community
College Education (c)
Larry Gossett* ......................Executive Director, Central Area Motivation Program
(c)
Marcia Henkle ......................Director, Trend College, Wenatchee (c)
Clyde Hupp..........................Vice President, Washington State Labor Council;
Secretary-Treasurer, Pierce County Labor Council (d)
Phyllis Kenny........................general public (c)
Eleanor Lee .........................Senator, 33rd District (c)
Israel Mendoza* ....................Acting Commissioner, Department of Employment
Security (c)
Shirley Rector ......................Representative, 5th District (c)
Dick Schoon .........................Representative, 30th District (c)
Bill Smitherman ....................Senator, 26th District (d)
Larry Stanley........................President and CEO of Empire Bolt and Screw,
incoming Chair of the Washington Association of
Business (d)
Tim Strege ..........................Executive Director, Washington State Council of Area
Vocational Technical Institutes (c)
Dr Marian Svinth*...................Employee Development Manager, Simpson Investment
Company (d)
Isiah Turner* ........................Commissioner, Department of Employment Security
(c)
305
Working for the Office of the Governor, 1997.
116
Appendices
Ed Tyler..............................Trustee, Joint Council of Teamsters No. 28 (d)
(c) Non-voting members of the Council

(d) Voting members of the Council
117
Appendices
Appendix D
Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
Board of Directors, 1994

Betty Jane Narver*.................Chairperson
Gilberto Alaniz .....................Representing Targeted Populations
Judith Billings* .....................SPI
Dale A Boose306* ....................Representing Business
Al Brisbois* ..........................Representing Labor
John Carter .........................Representing Labor
Karen Carter ........................Representing Labor
Roberta Greene ....................Representing Business
Earl Hale*............................Executive Director, State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges
Vernon E Stoner307* ................Commissioner, State Employment Security
Department
Marian K Svinth308*.................Vice Chair, Representing Business
Ellen O'Brien Saunders309* ........Executive Director
Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
Board of Directors; 1996

Betty Jane Narver*.................Chairperson
Gilberto Alaniz .....................Representing Targeted Populations
John Carter .........................Representing Labor
Karen Carter ........................Representing Labor
Roberta Greene ....................Representing Business
306
Listed as providing "Resource Assistance" in Putting Children First; GCERF; 1992.
307
Was/is Chair of the Washington State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (SOICC).
308
Schools; Fall 1991.
309
Member of Washington State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (SOICC).
118
Appendices
Technical Colleges
Jeff Johnson* .......................Representing Labor
Gary Moore..........................Commissioner, State Employment Security
Department
Joseph J. Pinzone..................Representing Business
Dick Spangler* ......................Representing Business
Ellen O'Brien Sanders* .............Executive Director
119
Appendices
Appendix E
Governor's Council on School-to-Work
Transition Members; 1994
Mic Dinsmore* ......................Chair, Port of Seattle

Rick Bender* ........................Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Judith Billings* .....................Superintendent of Public Instruction
Don Brunell* ........................Association of Washington Business
Chuck Collins* ......................Commission on Student Learning
James Collins* ......................Weyerhauser Company
Suzette Cooke* .....................Representative, 47th District
Virginia Cross .......................Muckleshoot Tribe
Randy Dorn*.........................Representative, 2nd District
Ruta Fanning*.......................Office of Financial Management
Jack Faris............................Cole and Weber
Mike Fitzgerald310 [310]* ..........Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development
Elson Floyd* .........................Higher Education Coordinating Board
Amelia Garza .......................Yakima Valley Opportunities Industrialization Center
Carver Gayton311 [311]* ...........The Boeing Company
Adelina Gonzalez*..................Commission on Student Learning
Earl Hale*............................State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
Judy Hartmann* ....................Washington Education Association
Irene Hays* ..........................Battelle – Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Alan Link ............................Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Betty Jane Narver*.................Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
Steve Nourse........................University of Washington
Larry Parsons* ......................Spokane School District #81
310
Member of the Washington State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee.
311
Director of college and university relations for The Boeing Company. A proponent of Tech Prep programs
nationally; chair of business/industry affiliates for the National Tech Prep Network. Was a participant in a project
funded by the German Marshall Fund under contract to the Center for Learning and Competitiveness, School of
Public Affairs, University of Maryland, to study school-to-work transitions in the countries of Germany, Sweden and
Denmark. Other participants included Dr Larry McClure of Northwest Regional Educational Laboratories (Portland,
Oregon), Harriet Van Deursen of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State, Estevan
Rodriguez of Jobs For the Future, Dr Lila Norris of Education Testing Service, and Dr Thomas Hamilton.
120
Appendices
Gene Prince .........................Senator, 9th District
Veronica Santacruz ................Toppenish High School
Sylvia Skratek*......................Senator, 47th District
Dick Spangler* ......................The Boeing Company
Vernon Stoner* .....................Employment Security Department
Sue Tupper ..........................Gogerty and Stark, Inc.
Tim Washburn* .....................Council of Presidents
Gene Canque Liddell ..............Executive Director

Steve Bader .........................Communications Coordinator
Karen Naughton* ...................Community Coordinator
121
Appendices
Appendix F
Governor's Ad Hoc Steering Committee on School-to-Work Transition
November 1993
Rick Bender* ........................Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Don Brunell* ........................Association of Washington Business
Suzette Cooke* .....................Representative, 47th District
Chuck Collins* ......................Chair; Commission on Student Learning
James Collins* ......................Washington Roundtable
Randy Dorn*.........................Representative, 2nd District
Tim Erwin ...........................Senator,
Ruta Fanning*.......................Office of Financial Management
Mike Fitzgerald* ....................Director, Department of Trade & Economic
Development
Elson Floyd* .........................Executive Director, Higher Education Coordinating
Board
Adelina Gonzales*..................Parent, Commission on Student Learning
Technical Colleges
Judy Hartmann* ....................Field Representative, Washington Education
Association
Betty Jane Narver*.................Chair, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board
Larry Parsons* ......................Principal, Central Valley High School
Sylvia Skratek*......................Senator, 47th District
Vernon Stoner* .....................Commissioner, Employment Security Department
122
Appendices
Appendix G
Governor's School to Work Transition Council

Policy Work Group
Mic Dinsmore* ......................Chair; Executive Director, Port of Seattle
Rick Bender* ........................President, Washington State Labor Council
Chuck Collins* ......................Chair, Commission on Student Learning
Tom Dooley* ........................Association of Washington Business
Randy Dorn*.........................Representative, 2nd District; Chair, House Education
Committee
Carver Gayton* .....................Corporate Director, College and University Relations,
The Boeing Company
Technical Colleges
Betty Jane Narver*.................Chair, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board
Dick Spangler* ......................Corporate Manager, Education Affairs, The Boeing
Company
Vernon Stoner* .....................Commissioner, Employment Security Department
Tim Washburn* .....................Executive Director, Admissions and Records,
University of Washington (representing Council of
Presidents)
Don Wolgamott* ....................Governor's Special Assistant for Workforce
Development
123
Appendices
Appendix H
Work-Based Learning Subcommittee

Major Components Work Group
Chuck Bailey* .......................Washington State Labor Council
Bill Crossman .......................Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Ray Harry............................State Board of Community and Technical Colleges
Mike Henderson* ...................House Democratic Caucus Research
Kyra Kester*.........................Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
Tom Lopp*...........................Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Sheila McCartney...................Northwest Policy Center
124
Appendices
Appendix I
Higher Education Coordinating Board

Admissions Standards Action Committee Roster
Members; November 1994
Michelle Anciaux ...................Parent, PTA

Jack Beal ............................Faculty, University of Washington
Brian Benzel* .......................Washington Association of School Administrators (CSL)
Rhonda Coats .......................State Board of Community and Technical Colleges
Karen Copetas ......................Western Washington University
Eileen Coughlin.....................Western Washington University
Ron Crossland.......................State Board of Community and Technical Colleges
Larry Davis ..........................State Board of Education
Virginia Damey .....................Faculty, The Evergreen State College
Lynne De Laubenfels ..............Counselor, Reardan High School
Donna Dunning* ....................Washington Education Association
Buck Evans ..........................Selah School District
Cynthia Flynn .......................Council of Presidents
Terry Flynn..........................Washington State University
Josh Gadbaw........................Student, Western Washington University
Kyra Kester*.........................Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
Roberta Krause* ....................Vocational Education, Highline School District; CSL
Brian Levin-Stankevick ............Eastern Washington University
George Mills.........................University of Puget Sound
Karen Naughton* ...................School-to-Work
Jim Pappas ..........................Central Washington University
Rosalind Philips*....................Commission on Student Learning
Bill Ponder ..........................Pierce Community College
Kathy Purcell .......................Vice Principal, Nathan Hale High School
Arnaldo Rodriguez .................The Evergreen State College
Ginger Sarver .......................Counselor, Olympia High School
Doug Scrima.........................Higher Education Coordinating Board
Bill Smith ............................Faculty, Western Washington University
125
Appendices
Jan Toner ...........................Washington Principal's Association
Hugh Walkup........................Washington Goals 2000
Tim Washburn* .....................University of Washington
126
Appendices
Appendix J
Governor's Task Force on School-to-Work Transition Members
Mic Dinsmore* ......................Chair; Executive Director, Port of Seattle

Betty Jane Narver*.................Chair; Vice Chair, Workforce Training and Education
Coordinating Board
Rick Bender* ........................President, Washington Labor Council
Don Brunell* ........................President, Association of Washington Business
Chuck Collins* ......................Chair, Commission on Student Learning
Technical Colleges
Dick Spangler* ......................Corporate Manager, Education Affairs, The Boeing
Company
Ex officio
Ruta Fanning*.......................Director, Office of Financial Management
127
Appendices
Appendix K
Ad Hoc Revision Committee

Joe Pinzone312 * ....................Chair, Sharp Micro Electronics Technology, Inc
Denise Anderson....................Health Program Coordinator, Royal School District
Mark Anderson......................Teacher, Springbrook Elementary School
Marilyn Ash..........................Executive Director for Applied Learning, Bethel School
District
Patti Banks ..........................Director, Instruction and Personnel, Fife School
District
Sheila Bell ...........................Teacher, Horizons Middle School
Tom Carter..........................Teacher, Inglemoor Senior High School
Irene Clise...........................Librarian, River Ridge High School
Dee Dickinson313....................Director, New Horizons For Learning
Jane Gutting314* ....................Assistant Superintendent, ESD 105
Tonda Hager ........................Teacher, Bethel School District
James Hasz..........................Teacher, Pine Tree Elementary
Irene Hays* ..........................Manager, Batelle Pacific NW National Laboratory
Teresa Hemphill....................Teacher, Bemis Elementary
Mike Henderson ....................Coordinator, Jobs for Washington Graduates –
OSPI/Renton SD
Kathy Hirose ........................Teacher, Auburn High School
Robert Isgur .........................Teacher, Washington Middle School
Jeff Johnson315* ....................Research Director, Washington State Labor Council
Doris Liebert ........................Director, Student Teachers, Whitworth College
312
Also on the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board.
313
New Horizons for Learning is a Seattle-based group that endorses the use of Eastern mystic practices in the
classroom. The NHL newsletter, On the Beam, has published such authors as Beverly Gaylean; NHL conferences
have sported an interesting array of speakers, including Marilyn Ferguson. The Board of Directors and International
Advisory Board, past and present, is a who's who in education reform and New Age religious practices to include
Howard Gardner, James Botkin, Barbara Clark, Arthur Costa, Marian Diamond, Reuven Feuerstein, Jane Healy,
Jean Houston, Malcolm Knowles, Paul McClean, Luiz Alberto Machado, Robert McClure, Shirley McCune, David
Perkins, Colin Rose, Robert Sternberg, John Anderson, Terry Bergeson, Brian Benzel, Steve Nielsen, Donna
Dunning, Reese Lindquist, Bob Hughes, Martha Darling, Betty Jane Narver, and Cal Crow. New Horizons for
Leaning is listed as a source in the back of Marilyn Ferguson's book, The Aquarian Conspiracy; as a "resource for
change" in the back of Freedom to Learn; Third Edition (Rogers, Carl and H. Jerome Freiberg; New York: Macmillan
College Publishing Co, Inc; 1994) in which the use of guided visualization/guided fantasy is promoted on pages
135/136.
314
Now of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
315
128
Appendices
Belinda Louie .......................University of Washington
Karen McElliott .....................Teacher, College Place Middle School
Karen Madsen.......................Parent
Steve Mullin316 ......................Public Affairs Director, Washington Roundtable
Betty Jane Narver317* .............Director, Institute for Public Policy and Management,
University of Washington
Bill Porter ...........................Executive Director, Partnership for Learning
Steve Regan.........................Teacher, Toppenish Middle School
Rochelle Robinson .................Member, Arts Subject Advisory Committee
Margaret Soderman ................Teacher, Butler Acres Elementary
Rosa Young ..........................Gifted Program Coordinator, Riverview School District
316
Is also listed on Partnership for Learning documents. Listed on the GCERF report, Putting Children First, as
providing "Resource Assistance."
317
129
Appendices
Appendix L
One-Stop Steering Committee
Check Bailey* .......................Washington State Labor Council

Tom Campbell ......................Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development
Colin Conant ........................Tacoma/Pierce County Private Industry Council
Doug Connell........................Department of Labor and Industries
Carol Felton.........................Department of Social and Health Services
Larry Goodman .....................Washington Federation of State Employees
Steves Hodes........................Office of the Governor
K. Wendy Holden...................Chair, Employment Security Department
Jeff Johnson* .......................Washington State Labor Council
Larry Malo ...........................Employment Security, Employment & Training Division
Dan McConnon ......................State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
Mark McDermott....................Department of Social and Health Services
Israel David Mendoza* .............Employment Security, Poly Support & Communications
Al Starr* .............................Seattle-King County Private Industry Council
Bryan Wilson* .......................Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
Don Wolgamott* ....................Office of the Governor
Dale Ziegler .........................Employment Security, Unemployment Insurance
Division
Staff
Gary Gallwas........................Employment Security, Employment and Training
Division
Joe Racek ...........................Employment Security, Employment and Training
Division
Kathy Countryman .................Employment Security, Unemployment Insurance
Division
130

The Education Reform, School To Work, Workforce Training Initiative July 1997

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Education Reform, School To Work, Workforce Training Initiative July 1997

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Education Reform

This report, as typed and presented to the legislature, totaled

Education Reform; Washington State and the National Agenda ..................................................1

Education Reform; Washington State and the Federal Agenda ................................................. 23

School-to-Work/Workforce Training; Washington State and the

© July 1997; Lynn M Stuter

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children

The NASDC; NCEE/NARE/NSP Connection To Washington State

This is a far cry from the 62 percentile published in

When Tucker formed NARE in February 1990, % tested 91 93 98 91

One year later, in February 1991, NCEE, in

collaboration with the Learning Research and % tested 87 87 87 87

 Explain what was to be accomplished;

The memorandum went on to say,

1. Standards/Assessment — Defining what outcomes are wanted and creating good

The New Standards Project

2. Curriculum, Instructional Strategies, and Technology — Connecting schools to the

Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT)

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

The Public Agenda Foundation

By executive order41 in 1991, Gardner established the Governor's Council on Education

what it is we want students to know and be able to do to be world class. An

o Seventeen actively engaged Washington districts

representatives from Seattle, Shoreline, OSPI, Northshore, Edmonds, Boeing and

Activities of the WNSP in 1992-93 include…

o Statewide Awareness — 100 teachers were trained in performance assessment in

On March 3, 1993, Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction Judith Billings

Part I — Student Learning Goals

2. Learning Environment: Connecting resources they need to the curriculum and

Part III — Student Learning Improvement Grants

Part IX — Readiness to Learn

Part VIII — Educator Performance Assessment

Part V — Center for the Improvement of Student Learning

By December 1, 1998, [the commission on student learning and advisory committees

i A statewide accountability system to monitor and evaluate accurately and fairly

The Washington Alliance for Restructuring Education / Washington

The South Snohomish County Workforce Development Alliance consists of …

Everett, Edmonds, Shoreline, and Northshore School Districts; Everett, Edmonds,

o Promote the autonomy and accountability provided for in Washington's 1993

The purpose of the Washington Alliance is to dramatically improve student

o Standards and Assessments;

A document dated December 11, 1995, labeled “Confidential, Proposed Modifications to

Washington State and Goals 2000

To receive funding, an SEA must submit to the Department an application that

1. Information on the application cover sheet, including the signature of the

SEC 306. STATE IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

District Planning and Implementation Grants $3,000,000

Pursuant to Public Law 104-134—the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations

o Washington has developed essential academic learning requirements (standards)

SEC 320. LIMITATIONS.

School-to-Work/Workforce Training — The Early Years

The study was to be completed by December 1, 1990.

o can quickly adapt to change

o integration and coordination of employment-related education and training

NPC’s investigations of model education and training approaches, systems, and

o the integration and coordination of education, training, and human service

One of the subgroup reports—Recommendations on the Governance of the Washington

1. Coordinating Structure – The council recommends the establishment of a new

A State Workforce Training and Education System

ESSB 5184, Section 4,

The purpose of the board is to provide planning, coordination, evaluation,

ESSB 5184 assigned WTECB with other responsibilities—to… (highlighting added)

The vision of WTECB is… (highlighting added)

Explain what was to be accomplished;

Education Development Center, Inc. (leader)

Joyce Malyn-Smith, EDC