Defining and Measuring College 

and Career Readiness 

David T Conley, PhD 

CEO, Educational Policy Improvement Center 

Professor, University of Oregon 

2 

  College readiness and career readiness have become 

important policy goals for education over the past few 

years. 

  Common Core State Standards point toward college and 

career readiness. 

  However, many people contend that it is unclear what is 

meant by these terms. 

  What do they mean? What are some definitions? How can 

college and career readiness be measured? What are the 

implications of various measurement approaches? 

Context 

3 

1.  Provide an overview of the evolution and current 

state of definitions of college and career readiness. 

2.  Examine current understandings of college and 

career ready. 

3.  Review recent research on the Common Core in 

relation to college and career readiness. 

4.  Consider issues related to measuring college and 

career readiness. 

Purposes of This Session 

4 

  Conley, 2007, 2010 

  The level of preparation a student needs in order to 

enroll and succeed—without remediation—in a credit‐

bearing course at a postsecondary institution that offers 

a baccalaureate degree or transfer to a baccalaureate 

program, or in a high‐quality certificate program that 

enables students to enter a career pathway with 

potential future advancement.  

  Succeed is defined as completing the entry‐level courses 

or core certificate courses at a level of understanding 

and proficiency that makes it possible for the student to 

consider taking the next course in the sequence or the 

next level of course in the subject area or of completing 

the certificate.  

College and Career Ready Definition 

5 

  ACT, 2008  

  The level of achievement a student needs to be ready to 

enroll and succeed—without remediation—in credit‐

bearing first‐year postsecondary courses. And by 

postsecondary we mean primarily two‐year or four‐year 

institutions, trade schools, and technical schools. Today, 

however, workplace readiness demands the same level 

of knowledge and skills as college readiness. 

College and Career Ready Definition 

6 

  National Assessment Governing Board defines 

preparedness as a subset of readiness: 

  “Preparedness focuses on academic qualifications, 

which are measured by NAEP. Readiness includes 

behavioral aspects of student performance—time 

management, persistence, and interpersonal skills, for 

example—which are not measured by 

NAEP.” (Technical Panel on 12th  Grade Preparedness 

Research Final Report, 2009). 

Readiness vs. Preparedness 

7 

Different Types of Readiness 

 Work ready = Meets basic expectations regarding 

workplace behavior and demeanor 

  Job ready = Possesses specific training necessary to 

begin an entry‐level position 

  Career ready = Possesses key content knowledge and 

key learning skills and techniques sufficient to begin 

studies in a career pathway 

  College ready = Is prepared in the four keys to college and career readiness necessary to succeed in entry‐

level general education courses 

8

Four Keys To College And Career Readiness 

Key Content 

Knowledge 

Key Cognitive 

Strategies 

Key Learning Skills & 

Techniques 

Key Transition Knowledge & 

Skills 

+  Key terms and terminology 

+  Factual information 

+  Linking ideas 

+ Organizing concepts 

+  Time management  

+  Study skills  

+ Goal setting  

+  Self‐awareness  

+ Persistence 

+ Collaborative learning 

+  Student ownership of 

learning 

+  Technology proficiency 

+ Retention of factual 

information 

+  Postsecondary program selection 

+  Admissions and financial aid 

requirements 

+  Career pathways 

+  Affording college  

+  Postsecondary culture  

+  Role and identity 

issues 

+  Agency 

© 2011 David T Conley 

9 

  Standards for Success (2003) 

  First comprehensive set of college readiness standards. 

  Collected information from 400+ faculty at AAU 

universities on what was necessary to be ready to 

succeed in entry‐level courses. 

  Identified “Knowledge and Skills for University 

Success.” 

  Listed specific objectives and content knowledge. 

  Outlined cognitive strategies and described learning 

strategies. 

  Did not explicitly address career readiness. 

Prior Readiness Standards 

10 

  American Diploma Project Benchmarks (2004, with 

revisions in 2008) 

  Contracted with economists to identify “promising jobs.” 

  Surveyed employers from 22 occupations. 

  Conducted focus groups with secondary and postsecondary 

educators from two‐year and four‐year institutions. 

  Included business representatives in discussions and reviews 

of resulting standards. 

  Claim the standards reflect an “unprecedented convergence” 

of educator and employer opinions on what it means to be 

college and career ready. 

Prior Readiness Standards 

11 

  College Board Standards for College Success (2006) 

  Derived from multiple sources and formulated by 

College Board Standards Advisory Committees, 

consisting of secondary and postsecondary educators. 

  Sequenced from 6‐12 and not specifically a set of 

outcome standards. 

  Claim to be aligned with Advanced Placement and 

college readiness. 

  No specific reference to career readiness. 

Prior Readiness Standards 

12 

  ACT College Readiness Benchmarks (2007) 

  Analyzed Zone 3 O*NET jobs. 

  Found that 90% of Zone 3 jobs require a 5 on the ACT WorkKeys 

assessment. 

  Keyed College Readiness Benchmarks to cut scores on the ACT. 

  Conducted a concordance between ACT and WorkKeys scores 

on statewide sample of 11th graders. 

  Identified comparable scores on WorkKeys and ACT College 

Readiness Benchmarks. 

  Identified common skills associated with each score. 

  Concluded that college and work readiness were functionally 

equivalent. 

Prior Readiness Standards 

13 

  Texas College and Career Readiness Standards (2009) 

  Developed via convergent consensus method with 

teams of secondary and postsecondary educators. 

  Reviewed extensively by secondary and postsecondary 

educators in Texas. 

  Validated via postsecondary instructor input from 913 

courses at two‐year and four‐year Texas institutions. 

Prior Readiness Standards 

14 

  Common Core State Standards (2010) 

  English Language Arts/Literacy Standards designed 

down from the College and Career Ready Standards. 

  “the CCR standards anchor the document and define 

general, cross‐disciplinary literacy expectations that must 

be met for students to be prepared to enter college and 

workforce training programs ready to succeed.” 

  Mathematics Standards are silent on reference point 

beyond stating they are to enable students “to access 

the knowledge and skills necessary in their post‐school 

lives.” 

Current Readiness Standards:  

Common Core 

Current Readiness Standards: 

 NAEP 

  Preparedness represents academic knowledge and skill 

levels in reading and mathematics necessary for placement 

into: 

  Job training programs  

  Credit‐bearing entry‐level general education courses that 

count toward a four‐year degree  

  Preparedness is not readiness 

  NAEP definition is academic preparedness—not success 

  Readiness is more inclusive than NAEP preparedness 

 �Habits of the mind” and behaviors that cannot be measured by 

NAEP, although they are necessary for success. 

16 

  CA CTE Standards in 15 industry sectors 

  Linked Learning 

  Movement to design CTE courses that also meet college 

entrance requirements 

  High Schools that Work 

  University of California project to design CTE courses 

that fulfill UC A‐G requirements 

Current Readiness Standards: 

CTE 

17 

  Industry Standards 

  Many industrial groups have set standards that require 

high levels of education and preparation. A few 

examples illustrate: 

  SAE International Standards for Aerospace, Automotive, 

Commercial Vehicle 

  National Retail Federation for Customer Service, Retail 

Management, Retail Business 

  National Bioscience Industry Skill Standards for Technicians 

Current Readiness Standards: 

Work Readiness 

18 

  EPIC Texas College Career Readiness Initiative 

  Analyzed instructor ratings of TCCRS and syllabi from 

913 entry‐level courses at two‐ and four‐year public 

institutions in Texas. 

  Determined that specific content knowledge 

expectations varied significantly in both two‐ and four‐

year programs, particularly across certificate programs. 

  Found a core of common expectations in the learning 

behaviors and cognitive strategies students needed to 

demonstrate. 

College and Career  

Readiness Research 

19 

Common Core Research 

  Conley, et al. (2011). Reaching the Goal: The Applicability and Importance of the Common Core 

State Standards to College and Career Readiness  

  Study of 1900 entry‐level courses 

in 25 areas, 12 from four‐year 

institutions, 13 from two‐year. 

  Gathered instructors’ ratings of 

importance and applicability of 

CCSS to their courses. 

  Collected syllabi and key 

assignments and exams. 

20 

  Key Findings 

  CCSS are applicable and important to success in a wide 

range of postsecondary courses 

  Cognitive challenge level of the CCSS is sufficient. 

  CCSS are a coherent representation of the knowledge 

necessary for success in college courses. 

  The CCSS do not omit key knowledge and skills. 

  A core of knowledge and skill is common across general 

education and career oriented courses. 

  However, career areas tend to have distinct knowledge 

profiles that differ from general education. 

Common Core Research 

21 

1897 Courses Rated 

Content area Course category N Total

English language arts

Composition I

312

1315

Composition II

English Literature

Mathematics

Calculus

302 College Algebra

Statistics

Science

Biology

281 Chemistry

Physics

Social science

Introduction to Economics

420

Introduction to Psychology

Introduction to Sociology

U.S. History

U.S. Government

Business management

Human Resource Management

243

582

Introduction to Accounting

Introduction to Business Management

Introduction to Marketing

Computer technology

Computer Science I

153 Database Management Systems

Fundamentals of Programming

Healthcare

Anatomy and Physiology

186 Foundations of Nursing

Human Development

Pharmacology

22 

Respondents Geographically Distributed 

23 

 

Applicability Ratings for ELA and Literacy: 

 General Education Courses 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Reading for

Literature

Reading for

Informational Texts

Writing Speaking and

Listening

Language Reading for

History/Social

Studies

Reading for

Science and

Technical Subjects

Writing for History/

Social Studies,

Science, and

Technical Subjects

Percent

aApplicable is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.

Figure 14. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standard within the ELA and Literacy Strand as Applicablea to their Course, for ELA, Math, Science, and Social Science

ELA (312 respondents)

Math (302 respondents)

Science (281 respondents)

Social science (420 respondents)

24 

 

Applicability Ratings for ELA and Literacy: 

 Career Oriented Courses 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Reading for

Literature

Reading for

Informational

Texts

Writing Speaking and

Listening

Language Reading for

History/Social

Studies

Reading for

Science and

Technical

Subjects

Writing for

History/Social

Studies, Science,

and Technical

Subjects

Percent

aApplicable is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.

Figure 15. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standard within the ELA and Literacy Strand as Applicablea to their Course, for Business Management, Computer Technology, and Healthcare

Business management (243 respondents)

Computer technology (153 respondents)

Healthcare (186 respondents)

25 

Applicability Ratings for Mathematics: 

 General Education Courses 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Number and

Quantity

Algebra Functions Geometry Statistics and

Probability

Mathematical

Practices

Percent

aApplicable is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.

Figure 34. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standard within the Mathematics Conceptual Category as Applicablea to their Course, for ELA, Math, Science, and Social Science

ELA (312 respondents)

Math (302 respondents)

Science (281 respondents)

Social science (420 respondents)

26 

Applicability Ratings for Mathematics: 

 Career Oriented Courses 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Number and

Quantity

Algebra Functions Geometry Statistics and

Probability

Mathematical

Practices

Percent

aApplicable is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.

Figure 35. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standard within the Mathematics Conceptual Category as Applicablea to their Course, for Business Management, Computer Technology, and Healthcare

Business management (243 respondents)

Computer technology (153 respondents)

Healthcare (186 respondents)

NAEP Preparedness Studies 

  Content alignment studies to evaluate extent of content overlap between NAEP and other assessments (completed) 

  Judgmental standard‐setting studies to set cut scores on NAEP 

using definitions of preparedness for the specific post‐secondary 

activity (underway) 

  Statistical relationship studies to project preparedness indicators 

onto NAEP scale by relating NAEP to performance on other 

assessments (underway) 

  Survey study to collect data regarding cut scores on other 

assessments used for placement decisions (underway) 

  Benchmarking studies to collect NAEP data on performance of  

students who have entered post‐secondary activities (cancelled 

for now). 

500

391

367

336

327

313

297

286

277

256

243

0

346

302

265

College and Career Preparedness:  

Same 

C ollege

P reparednes s

S tandards :A

C ollege

P reparednes s

S tandards :B

E xemplarJ ob1E xemplarJ ob2

E xemplarJ ob3

E xemplarJ ob4

E xemplarJ ob5P lac ementin

entry‐level

c redit‐bearing

cours e

500

391

367

336

327

313

297

286

277

256

243

0

346

302

265

College and Career Preparedness:  

Different 

E xemplarJ ob1

E xemplarJ ob2

E xemplarJ ob3

E xemplarJ ob4

E xemplarJ ob5

C ollege

P reparednes s

S tandards :A

C ollege

P reparednes s

S tandards :B

P lac ementin

entry‐level

c redit‐bearing

cours e

College and Career Preparedness: 

Unclear 

500

391

367

336

327

313

297

286

277

256

243

0

346

302

265

C ollege

P reparednes s

S tandards :B

C ollege

P reparednes s

S tandards :A

P lac ementin

entry‐level

c redit‐bearing

cours e

E xemplarJ ob4

E xemplarJ ob1

E xemplarJ ob5

E xemplarJ ob3

E xemplarJ ob2

31 

  College eligibility measures are well developed but 

exceedingly narrow in scope. 

  Few general career readiness measures exist. 

  Each phenomenon is far more complex than current 

instruments and methods can gauge. 

  An openness to a wider range of indicators and data is 

necessary to understand the relationship between 

the two and to develop new systems for quantifying 

readiness across both dimensions. 

Measuring College and Career 

Readiness 

32 

Measuring College and Career 

Readiness 

 

  A broader range of measures is necessary to capture 

college and career readiness. 

  Not all students need the same set of knowledge and 

skills to succeed in college and careers. 

  Profiles of student strengths and weaknesses in 

relation to specific postsecondary programs of study 

would allow for better matches between students 

and programs and would enhance student success. 

33 

  College and career readiness can be defined along a 

continuum from narrow to broad, from unidimensional to 

multidimensional. 

  A narrow definition is easier to measure and may be useful 

at a state level as a gross indicator of readiness but is far 

less useful at the individual student level. 

  A more expansive definition is more challenging to 

measure but yields more accurate data at the state level 

and more actionable information at the school and student 

level. 

  College and career ready definitions have areas of 

significant overlap in necessary Key Content Knowledge 

and Key Learning Skills and Techniques. 

  College readiness and career readiness are not exactly the 

same, but the commonalities are sufficient for developing 

simultaneous measures. 

Conclusion 

34 

To Learn More About College and  

Career Readiness: 

For more information, 

visit www.epiconline.org 

Rigor and R

elevance Defined

Traditionally, rigoris m

easured by how dem

anding the instructional material is and how

thoroughly the teacher covers its. D

aggett shifts the focus of rigor from teacher to student

and measures rigor by the

higher-order competencies

the students have mastered as result

of the lesson.

Relevance

extends the learning beyond the classroom by teaching students to apply w

hat

they are learningto real w

orld situations.

Rigor/R

elevance Fram

ework

The Rigor/Relevance Framew

ork is a tool developed by Willard D

aggett and the staff of the International C

enter for Leadership in Education to examine curriculum

, instruction, and assessm

ent and based on two dim

ensions of higher standards and student achievement:

1.K

nowledge Taxonom

y:The increasingly com

plex ways in w

hich we think. This m

oves from

the acquisition of knowledge and being able to recall or locate that know

ledge to m

ore complex w

ays in which individuals take several pieces of know

ledge and combine

them in both logical and creative w

ays.

2.A

pplication Model:

Five levels which put know

ledge to use. While the low

end is know

ledge acquired for its own sake, the high end signifies use of that know

ledge to solve com

plex real-world problem

s and to create unique projects, designs, and other w

orks for use in real-world situations.

Rigor

&Relevance

An

Overview

“

”

As students m

ove from class to class and progress to the next grade, they are

exposed to isolated bits of content-specific knowledge, but they are not taught how

what they learn in one class relates to another or its application in the w

orld outside

of school. . .What is im

portant is that students enter the global economy w

ith the ability

to apply what they learned in school to a variety of ever-changing situations that they

couldn’t foresee before graduating. That is the mark of a quality education and a truer

indication of academic excellence.

– Willard R. D

aggett, Ed.D.

Prentice H

all tools for rigor & relevance

Key features include:

•A

n Inquiry-based approach supports the individual and active learning process•

The Integrated multi-discipline instruction connects learning experiences in a m

eaningful way

•Em

bedded practice and instant feedback gives students the opportunity to identify their strengths and w

eakness and actively participate in the learning process•

A variety of assessm

ent options offered before, during, and after each lesson effectively measure

student competencies

•Real-w

orld connections apply acquired skills to help students become inform

ed decision makers

and active citizens•

Hands-on and technology activities encourage students to think and act beyond the classroom

•

Pedagogy and content help students connect key concepts, identify patterns, and predict outcomes

Where can I find m

ore information?

•http://w

ww

.leadered.com/rigor.shtm

l•

http://ww

w.sum

mit-academ

y.com/InternetResources/parent_resources/Rigor_Relevance_intro.pdf

•http://w

ww

.leadered.com/PP/Rigorrelevance.ppt (pow

er point presentations)•

http://ww

w.daggett.com

/RRRResources.pdf (catalog of publications and tool kits)

QuadrantC

– Assim

ilation

Students extend and refine their acquired know

ledge to be able to use that knowledge

automatically and routinely to analyze and

solve problems and create solutions.

QuadrantD

– Adaptation

Students have the competence to think in com

plex ways and

to apply their knowledge and skills. Even w

hen confrontedw

ith perplexing unknowns, students are able to use extensive

knowledge and skill to create solutions and take action that

further develops their skills and knowledge.

QuadrantA

– Acquisition

Students gather and store bits of knowledge

and information. Students are prim

arily expected to rem

ember or understand this know

ledge.

QuadrantB

– Application

Students use acquired knowledge to solve problem

s, design solutions, and com

plete work. The highest level of application

is to apply knowledge to new

and unpredictable situations.

Rigor &

Relevance Q

uadrant Descriptions

Rigor/R

elevance Fram

ework

The Rigor/Relevance Framew

ork has four quadrants. It shifts from teacher-centered instruction

to student-centered learning focusing less on the material the teacher covers and m

ore on the com

petencies students have mastered as a result of the lesson:

C– A

ssimilation

A– A

cquisitionB

– Application

D– A

daptationEvaluation 6Synthesis 5A

nalysis 4A

pplication 3C

omprehension 2A

wareness 1

Knowledge

Application

Knowledge in

one disciplineA

pply knowledge

in one disciplineA

pply knowledge

across disciplinesA

pply knowledge

to real-world

predictable situations

Apply know

ledge to real-w

orld unpredictable situations

12

34

5

rom the C

ivil War until the

1970s, the United States w

as the w

orld’s most successful m

ass-pro-duction econom

y, the very best at producing standardized goods and

services at least cost and selling them at

the lowest price.

These

mass-production

successes required rigorous discipline and narrow

skill. Final products and services w

ere broken dow

n into their smallest repro-

ducible components and rigid single-pur-

pose machinery w

as built to mass-pro-

duce standardized components. A

large

mass of unskilled labor w

as used to tend the m

achines. A m

uch smaller group

of broadly skilled and broadly assigned w

hite-collar and technical elites were

installed at the top of large-scale organi-zational pyram

ids.

Something happened in the early 1970s.

Suddenly the United States’ m

ass-pro-duction system

seemed to lose its com

-petitive edge. People began to dem

and m

ore than mass-produced standard-

ized goods and services because often they could afford m

ore. Family incom

e doubled betw

een 1946 and 1972 in the U

nited States, and Am

erica’s economic

“golden age” was m

irrored in the rest of the w

orld. A

s the world got richer, the appeal

of standardized comm

odities and ser-vices declined. C

ompetition shifted rap-

idly to new kinds of value added that

required new kinds of skill. W

ith added w

ealth consumption shifted to serv ices

like health care, education and media.

Service func-

tions even began to dom

inate manu-

facturing where m

aking products becam

e a simple parlor

tricks and more of the value added cam

e from

marketing, financing, custom

er service and m

anaging quality, variety, custom

ization, innovation, convenience, novelty and speeded operations.

In addition, as the rest of the world

dug out from the rubble of W

orld War

II and began to prosper, they began to com

pete with us at hom

e and in world

markets. W

e are no longer insulated from

head-to-head global competition. T

he increasing com

petition and the demand

for new kinds of value added have cre-

ated more intense, constantly escalating

and increasingly complex com

petitive requirem

ents. The traditional com

peti-tion based on the ability to m

ass pro-duce standardized goods and services and sell them

at low cost has been gradually

displaced by a competition based on a

diverse mix of requirem

ents and new

kinds of value added, including: Productive investm

ent. The new

know

ledge economy requires constant

investments in hum

an capital, technol-ogy and infrastructure, and if w

e don’t invest to keep up and get ahead, our com

petitors will. T

he old-time religion

of cost reduction does not work in the

knowledge econom

y because it tends to reduce investm

ents in the constantly flourishing m

ix of skilled employees,

information-based technologies and flex-

ible organizational formats necessary

to meet new

performance standards. In

the knowledge econom

y, productivity is pursued through constant investm

ents in the synergies betw

een technology and skill that lead to institutions that are suf-ficiently robust to com

pete in modern

markets. In the 21 st century that m

eans every child needs som

e postsecondary education or training.

Quality. Q

uality is a primary stand-

ard for competitive success. Busy people

have no time for products or services

that don’t work for them

, and they can afford m

ore. Quality requires lots of new

skills up and dow

n the line ranging from

technical competency to the ability to

take responsibility for the final product or service regardless of one’s job descrip-tion. In a quality w

orkplace, “It’s not my

job” doesn’t cut it anymore.

Variety. A

s competition has inten-

sified, plain vanilla is no longer good enough. T

o satisfy the growing diversity

of demand in both dom

estic and global m

arkets, the once-standardized offerings

of mass production have given w

ay to an explosion of choices. A

BC, N

BC and

CBS w

ere good enough in the 1950s, but now

adays there are 500 cable channels and people still com

plain there’s nothing w

orthwhile on T

V and they need m

ore choices. T

he ability to produce variety requires w

orkers with the creativity and

problem-solving skills necessary to pro-

vide more than one-size-fits-all products

or services. C

ustomization. O

ne-size-fits-all stand-ardization has been superseded by cus-tom

ized goods and services from clothing

to health care, financial managem

ent, m

edicine and salad bars. Custom

iza-tion, like variety, requires the ability to be able to problem

solve and empathize

with custom

er wants and needs.

Convenience. B

usy people crave convenience. W

hy drive anywhere or

stand in line when you can get w

hat you w

ant 24/7 on the Internet. Convenience

requires workers w

ho can empathize w

ith custom

er needs and use comm

unication and listening skills necessary for good old-fashioned custom

er service. C

onsistency. Meeting perform

ance standards som

e of the time is not enough.

Workers require dependability and com

-m

itment in order to m

eet efficiency, quality, variety, custom

ization, conve-nience, speed, innovation and social-responsibility standards all the tim

e. Speed and continuous innovation.

Various benchm

arks exist for improve-

ments in speed or cycle tim

e. The first

is generating a new idea ahead of the

competition. B

ut getting ideas first is not enough. T

he only way to establish

trust and an organizational brand name

with clients is by getting new

ideas off the draw

ing board and into the hands of custom

ers. Improving or expanding value

in products or services incrementally and

continuously to stay ahead of the compe-

tition also is critical. There’s a Starbucks

on every corner for a reason. Social responsibility. A

s consumers

are given more and m

ore goods and serv-ices to choose from

, the values associated w

ith a particular brand can make a com

-petitive difference. C

onsumers w

ho becom

e wealthier and have m

ore choices tend to w

ant to satisfy more than their

material needs. C

ustomers w

ant products and services from

organizations that, at least, do not violate their values and, at m

ost, represent their values.

The fundam

ental change in skill require-m

ents in the Am

erican economic system

has been due to the shift from

the indus-trial era to the postindustrial era of the know

ledge economy. T

he new know

ledge econom

y that has emerged has replaced

the rote skills of the assembly lines of

yesteryear with flexible technologies and

“high-performance w

ork systems” that rely

on more skilled and autonom

ous work-

ers. In an era of flexible production and service delivery system

s and more rapid

economic change, w

orkers not only need better technical preparation, they also need sufficiently robust skills to adapt to changing requirem

ents on the job.

As the structure of the U

.S. economy

has shifted from an industrial econom

y to a postindustrial service econom

y, new

skill requirements have em

erged. In gen-eral, the dem

and for specific academic

and vocational skills has been augmented

with a grow

ing need for general skills, including learning, reasoning, com

muni-

cating, general problem-solving skills and

behavioral skills.

The new

postindustrial jobs in indus-tries like business services, education, health care and office service require higher levels of interpersonal and prob-lem

-solving skills because the work

entails higher levels of human interac-

tion and personalized responses to peo-ple’s w

ants and needs. T

hese same behavioral skills are

required in high-technology and man-

ufacturing jobs as well because the

technology itself takes on more of the

rote, manual processing tasks, allow

ing em

ployees to spend more tim

e interact-ing w

ith each other to exploit the new

flexible technologies in order to provide cutting-edge value added such as qual-ity, variety, custom

ization, convenience, speed and innovation.

Most em

ployers today cannot compete

successfully without a w

orkforce that can use solid academ

ic skills in applied set-tings. Increased interaction w

ith sophis-ticated com

puterized machinery requires

good technical reading skills for efficient use. A

nd writing is frequently the first

step in comm

unicating with custom

ers, docum

enting competitive transactions or

successfully moving new

ideas into the w

orkplace. Em

ployers need workers w

ho have m

astered reading processes that allow

them to locate inform

ation and use

higher-level thinking strategies to solve problem

s. Similarly, w

riting on the job often requires analysis, conceptualization, synthesis and distillation of inform

ation and clear articulation of points and pro-posals. In a w

ork environment, m

ath skills need to be contextual and rooted in problem

identification, reasoning, esti-m

ation and problem solving.

Foundation skills, or knowing how

to learn. Learning is now

a fact of life if w

orkers are going to keep up with the

blur of change in modern w

orkplaces. W

orkers who have “learned how

to learn” can achieve com

petency in other required w

orkplace skills, but for those w

ho have not, learning is not as rapid, nor as efficient or com

prehensive. C

omm

unication skills: Listening and oral com

munication. C

omm

unication is central to the sm

ooth operation of all w

ork environments. W

orkers spend most

of their days in some form

of comm

unica-tion. T

hey comm

unicate with each other

about procedures and problems, and they

also relay and receive information to and

from custom

ers. Effective oral com

munication also

requires that workers have sufficient

self-awareness to understand how

they are perceived and w

hat they hear. It is im

portant for workers to understand and

value comm

unication approaches that are different in style from

their own, as w

ell as adjust their style w

hen in comm

unica-tion w

ith someone w

ho has a style that is different from

their own. Listening skills

also affect the efficient transmission and

receipt of information in the w

orkplace.C

omm

unication skills are at the heart of getting and keeping custom

ers and gathering product feedback, as w

ell as for participating in w

ork teams and resolving

conflicts on the job. A

daptability: Problem solving and

creative thinking. An institution’s ability

to achieve its strategic objectives often depends on how

quickly and effectively it can transcend barriers to im

proved productivity and com

petitiveness. These

pressures put problem solving and cre-

ative thinking at a premium

— at all

levels of an organization.Problem

solving includes the ability to recognize and define problem

s, invent and im

plement solutions, and track and

evaluate results. Cognitive skills, group-

interaction skills and problem-processing

skills are all crucial to successful prob-lem

solving. New

approaches to problem

solving, organizational design or product developm

ent all spring from the individ-

ual capacity for creative thinking. G

roup effectiveness: Interpersonal skills, negotiation and team

work. Interper-

sonal, negotiation and teamw

ork skills are basic tools for achieving the flexibil-ity and adaptability that A

merica’s w

ork-force m

ust have to remain com

petitive.T

he use of workplace team

s to meet

complex sets of standards is now

com-

monplace in m

any Am

erican businesses. C

hange strategies also are dependent on the ability of em

ployees to pull together and refocus on the new

comm

on goal.T

his pooling of resources, however,

frequently requires team m

embers to have

an array of skills that individual or routine jobs do not dem

and. Quality team

work

results when team

mem

bers know how

to recognize and cope w

ith various and unique personalities and w

hen each has a sense of the cultures and approaches that

other team m

embers represent. Interper-

sonal and negotiation skills are the cor-nerstones of successful team

work. U

nre-solved conflicts can sap productivity and short-circuit strategic plans.

Influence: Organizational effectiveness

and leadership. Both organizational effec-tiveness and leadership skills are essential to successful institutions. T

o be effective in an organization, w

orkers need a sense of the cultural w

orkings of the organiza-tion and how

their actions affect orga-nizational and strategic objectives. A

t the sam

e time, organizational effective-

ness requires that workers understand

what organizations are, w

hy they exist and how

to navigate the social waters of

varying types of organizations.

At its m

ost basic level, leadership m

eans that a person can influence others to act in a certain w

ay. Organizational

skills are the building blocks for leader-ship. U

naccompanied by them

, leader-ship skills can be m

isplaced and even counterproductive. Every person m

ay need, at tim

es, to lead or influence a w

ork group or provide a vision of what

the organization as a whole requires.

Personal managem

ent: Self-esteem

and motivation/goal setting. In the past,

employers view

ed workers w

ith solid occupational-specific skills as sufficient for success on the job. But as w

orkers are increasingly called upon to m

ake deci-sions at the point of production or point of sale and display good interpersonal skills w

hen working in team

s or with

customers, the confidence that engenders

success in these areas springs from a posi-

tive sense of self-worth or self-esteem

.Self-esteem

is at the core of many

other skills required on the job. Work-

ers with a healthy self-esteem

are able to recognize their current skills, be aw

are of their im

pact on others and understand their em

otional set points and abilities to cope w

ith stress, change and criticism on

the job. They also are able to recognize

their own lim

its and seek new inform

a-tion or assistance to solve problem

s and construct solutions.

Workplace success also depends on

workers w

ho are motivated and able to

set and meet reasonable goals. W

orkers’ lack of m

otivation or goal-setting skills can produce an organizational undercur-rent of repeated errors, absenteeism

and quality problem

s, or it can construct bar-riers along the path to change. Poor per-form

ance can often be lined to deficien-cies in self-esteem

or motivation.

Resilience: C

ognitive style. The

new, fast-paced and unforgiving global

economy results in constant change in

skills required for specific jobs. Constant

economic and technological change also

discourages growth in job tenure and

increases the overall rate of job creation and job destruction. T

he subtlest behav-ioral asset in m

anaging school, work and

life in the constant flux of modern tim

es is a positive cognitive style.

The notion of “positive cognitive style”

is more than self-esteem

or the power of

positive thinking. Self-esteem and positive

thinking are internal attitudes that persist

regardless of external experiences of suc-cess or failure. C

ognitive styles are the various w

ays people process information

gained from experience —

positive cogni-tive styles encourage success and negative styles encourage failure.

Those w

ith a negative cognitive style tend to see failure as a result of causes that are perm

anent, pervasive and per-sonal. T

hey tend to discount successes as tem

porary, limited in scope and unrelated

to personal merit. People w

ith a negative cognitive style tend to be less successful because they cede control over the choices in their lives to their circum

stances, reducing their ability to act and persevere. T

he available evidence and old-fashioned com

mon sense suggest that the feelings of

helplessness that underlie a negative cog-nitive style are a learned behavior subject to environm

ental influences. If those sub-jected to persistent negative feedback in their interactions w

ith the world learn to

perceive failures as permanent, pervasive

and personal, this can lead to learned helplessness unless extraordinary com

pen-satory support is provided.

At som

e point, everyone has to put an occupational point on their educational pencil. A

small share of students begins

to receive occupational preparation in high school through vocational program

s, career academ

ies and other applied curri-

cula. In general, with notable exceptions,

high school vocational preparation does not provide long-lasting earnings advan-tages. For the m

ost part, these programs

survive as an alternative applied pedagogy to m

eet statewide academ

ic performance

standards and as an alternative prepara-tion for further postsecondary education.

Am

ong those who term

inate their education w

ith high school, most get job

training primarily on the job, although as

a general rule those with the m

ost post-secondary education get the m

ost train-ing on the job.

For most high school students, occu-

pational preparation continues or begins w

ith some kind of postsecondary educa-

tion or training. A sm

aller share of elite college graduates continues their gen-eral education through the bachelor’s degree and then gets their occupational or professional education in graduate or professional school. A

s a general rule, those w

ith the richest mix of educational

attainment and occupational or profes-

sional education earn the most m

oney.T

o some extent, the increase in the

demand for both education and occu-

pational credentialing derives from the

changing relationships between em

ploy-ers and em

ployees. As change accelerates

on the job, employers need better learn-

ers and cannot take the time to develop

talent from the ground up. Education

credentials increasingly are used to signal learning potential. A

nd when relation-

ships between em

ployers and employees

become less stable, reliable educational

and occupational credentials become

more im

portant in matching individual

skills to new job requirem

ents.T

he increasing reach of economic

market com

petition raises educational hiring standards. A

s economic m

arkets for goods, services and labor go from

local to regional to national to global, skill requirem

ents also escalate from local

to national and, ultimately, to w

orld-class standards. In addition, in larger geographic m

arkets employers are hiring

strangers, putting a premium

on proven education and occupational degrees and certified experience.