Introducing....
Canada’s Training Standards

Here is a brief overview of the Training Standards past, present and future:

• the content and unique nature of the Training Standards;
• who developed them, the rationale and the process; and 
• the actual and potential uses of the Training Standards. 

These recommended national Training Standards were developed in 1995 by the Canadian Labour Force Development Board (CLFDB). The purpose of the Training Standards, in keeping with the mission of the CLFDB, is to contribute to improving the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of Canada’s training and labour force development system.

Included in this brief are:

• a copy of the CLFDB Training Standards, 
• the CV of Dr. Kathryn Barker with information about FuturEd, and 
• brochures with information about the FuturEd Training Quality Audit and Training Standards workshops. 

1. What do these Training Standards look like? What makes them special?

The Training Standards are made up of seventeen statements that include all aspects of a training service — inputs and resources, processes and practices, and outputs and outcomes. Taken together, they describe the minimum standard for quality training services. For example, the first standard is that training should take into consideration the labour force development needs of industry and the economy. This indicates that quality training is based on a solid needs assessment of those who would be making work for trainees. There is nothing radical or revolutionary about the content of the standards. They speak to good instructional methods, qualified instructors, accessibility and accountability. Copies of the Training Standards are available from the CLFDB . 

What is somewhat revolutionary is that they are the first such standards in Canada. Despite provincial jurisdiction over education and training, they are national — they are intended for application across Canada in order to increase and systematize the quality of education and training for all Canadians. 

• They are consumer-oriented — a composite view of quality training held by all the labour market partners. 
• They are consensus-based — developed in a process in which decisions were arrived at through collaboration and consultation. 
• They are holistic — they cover all elements of quality training. 
• They are future-oriented — many of the standards imply change to current practice, stipulating that trainers, for example, institute systems for Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR). 
• And they are recommended — there is no enforcement mechanism or compliance regulation. 

In fact, it is assumed that consumers will — with these Standards in their hands — know quality training when
they see it and demand quality service for their investment in training . 

2. Who needs Training Standards? Who developed these? Why? Why are they called standards?

2.1 What is the CLFDB? Who are these consumers?

The consumers of training may be businesses, sectoral councils, governments, agencies and individuals. The CLFDB is made up of representatives from all these groups: business, organized labour, the designated equity groups (women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and Aborignal peoples), and the education / training community, federal and provincial governments in an ex officio capacity. The Training Standards were, in essence, developed by consumers for consumers. 

Created in 1991, the CLFDB is mandated to develop policy and program ideas that will improve the skills of the Canadian labour force — ideas that have included policies and practices to improve occupational standards, career and employment counselling, labour market informations systems, prior learning assessment and recognition, government programs, and many other areas. The CLFDB represents consumers of workforce development and adjustment programs and services. As a CLFDB staff member , Dr. Kathryn Barker had responsibility for the project to develop Training Standards.

2.2 Why is the CLFDB interested in Training Standards?

Where did this project come from?

The development of the Training Standards arose out of CLFDB work on occupational standards. A 1994 document entitled CLFDB Occupational Standards and Training Standards Position Paper concluded that:

• occupational standards and training standards are two different, but related things; 
• regarding occupational standards, the role of the CLFDB should be to develop guidelines for standards to enable development and implementation of occupational standards on a pan-Canadian basis; and 
• regarding training standards, the role of the CLFDB should be to develop a set of principles or standards to be applied in the purchase of training using public funds. 

In effect, occupational standards are a subset of training standards — they are the intended outcomes of some forms of quality training. 

In an earlier joint document of the CLFDB and the Conference Board of Canada (1992), the issue of standards and measurement was identified as one of six pressing concerns. At that time, a formal joint statement related training standards to: 

• the evaluation of training courses, and the appropriate roles for all stakeholders in the evaluation process; 
• quality, effectiveness, efficiency and costs of existing training courses and programs; 
• accreditation, equity and access in training; 
• pan-Canadian / national standards, certification, and recognition of credits for training; and 
• transferability and portability of skills. 

These relationships formed the foundation of the CLFDB project to create training standards. 

Finally, there have been repeated calls for national standards in education, based on concerns about educational accountability, effectiveness and efficiency, and outcomes of education / training. Specifically, there have been calls for standardized quality indicators by the Corporate-Higher Education Forum (1993), the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (1993), the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, and Human Resources Development Canada. It is felt that standardized indicators would ensure that: 

• Measurement and accountability became standard elements of lifelong learning methods and systems (Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 1994);
• Performance results or outcomes of training are systematically demonstrated (CLFDB and Conference Board, 1992); and 
• Education and training in Canada are improved through a focus on results, development of competency-based systems, monitoring of system achievements, and a commitment to quality and service (Steering Group on Prosperity, 1992). 

Canadians were not alone in this endeavor. The CLFDB project was set in a workforce development context
that had many similarities with New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, and the United States. This project drew
heavily on ideas and initiatives in the economic, human resources development, and education reforms in the
international community.

2.3 Why was the term standards chosen? Who can create national standards?

The term standards is always contentious. The CLFDB deliberately chose this word, and continues to advocate for national standards on the following basis . 

Standards describe what is acceptable and what isn't; therefore, standards are a standard means by which to implement public policy. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, in its 1992 document Global Standards: Building Blocks for the Future, observes the following:

Standards govern the design, operation, manufacture, and use of nearly everything that mankind produces. There are standards to protect the environment and human health... There are even standards of acceptable behaviour within a society. Standards generally go unnoticed. They are mostly quiet, unseen forces, such as specifications, regulations, and protocols, that ensure things work properly, interactively, and responsibly (p. iii).

Standards, like policies, exist whether they are clearly stated or just generally accepted; however, standards that are not clearly stated often allow too much room for interpretation, confusion and abuse. Fair and justifiable formal standards are often needed to ensure quality of products and accountability of systems. In the view of the labour market partners, this is the value of national standards.

The Office of Technology Assessment also notes that standards are developed or achieved by one of three methods: 

• by government, though a regulatory process (authority); 
• through the market, on a de facto basis (custom); 
• negotiated through a voluntary consensus process (consent). 

The CLFDB process is the latter process — the Training Standards have been developed and recommended by labour market representatives on the Board and constituents across Canada. While the CLFDB has no authority to enforce standards, it has the responsibility to generate recommended national standards that describe best practice and contribute to the achievement of a labour force development system that is effective, efficient and equitable. 

Following the development of the Training Standards, the CLFDB produced recommended national PLAR Standards — Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition — intended to guide the development and implementation of PLAR processes and practices in both training and employment circumstances. Working groups of the CLFDB are currently working to create LMI Standards — standards for a Labour Market Information system in Canada — and on SKP Standards. The SKP Standards are intended to be a comprehensive description of best practice in the development and use of a Skills and Knowledge Profile — a record of learning — that accounts for an individuals entire repertoire of learning, not just credentials and work experience. More information on all of these is available from either the CLFDB or FuturEd. 

2.4 What process was used?

Were they created through authority, custom or consent?

The ultimate strength and credibility of these standards is that, in fact, they were (and still are being) negotiated through voluntary consensus. The CLFDB has never had either the intention or the ability to enforce or regulate these Standards. It was, in effect, sketching a picture of quality training for others to recognize and use. 

The process, then, of creating the Training Standards began with Board approval of terms of reference for this project in the spring of 1994. A Working Group was assembled with representation from the CLFDB constituents: business, labour, education/training, equity, local boards, and sectoral councils . A background paper, available from either the CLFDB or FuturEd, was prepared for the Working Group by K. Barker and it contained: 

• background and rationale to the project. 
• the situational context including related training standard developments in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and federally in Canada. 
• a discussion of terminology including training, standards, and quality. 
• samples of practice to draw on, for example training performance indicators and training quality indicators found in the literature review. 
• a framework within which to guide what was then called Standards to Guide the Purchase of Training. 

The Working Group brought their constituency views and personal expertise to the project and, with the background paper as a basis, began to draft principles of good practice or quality indicators for training that is effective, efficient and equitable. The draft standards were approved in principle by the CLFDB in December 1994, and then an extensive national consultation process began. The draft standards were distributed as widely as possible, by direct mailing and through the CLFDB’s extensive number of constituency organizations:

• 17 business organizations including, eg., the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association; 
• 2 labour organizations — the Canadian Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress; 
• 10 national education and training organizations including, eg., the Association of Canadian Community Colleges and the National Association of Career Colleges; 
• 69 organizations representing Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, women and persons with disabilities; 
• all provincial governments through the ministries of training and/or labour; and 
• the federal government — Human Resources Development Canada. 

On this basis — the extensive national consultation and the national / pan-Canadian nature of the CLFDB — the Training Standards are termed national. 

All organizations were asked to distribute and make comments on the draft standards: 

• 1. Are the standards clear? 
• 2. Is there anything that should be added or deleted? 
• 3. How could the standards be implemented? 

The responses were highly supportive and constructive. Responses were received every constituency, for example, from: 

• the YMCA and the BC Teachers’ Federation (education/training), 
• the Royal Bank and CP Rail (business), 
• CUPE and the IWA (labour), 
• the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the CLFDB Women’s Reference Group (equity), 
• the Sectoral Council Committee of the CLFDB, 
• the labour force development boards of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, 
• the governments of Canada (HRDC) and 5 provinces. 

The Working Group analyzed and assimilated the recommendations, and took a final draft of the standards to the Board in March 1995 where they were approved for publication. More than ten thousand copies have been distributed to date. 

The CLFDB began with the stated premise that training is critical to the survival of Canadian business and industry, and the economic and social well-being of all Canadians. The CLFDB feels that the Training Standards combine the perspectives and needs of learners, trainers and communities with all the elements of a training program. They suggest that, in making a decision about the purchase of training, a consumer should gather a significant amount of information from print materials, interviews and conversations, and site visits. The recommended national Training Standards are intended as a tool to guide the development and purchase of training that is effective, efficient and equitable.

3. Are the Training Standards being used in any way?

What does FuturEd have to do with them?

There are three significant ways that the CLFDB Training Standards are being “used.” 

First, the development and utilization process designed by Dr. Barker is a model for the creation and implementation of national standards in general and in education / training in particular. 

As described earlier, the process and the resulting standards were designed to be: 

• national or pan-Canadian; 
• consumer-oriented; 
• consensus-based; 
• holistic or comprehensive; 
• future-oriented; and 
• recommended only. 

FuturEd believes that the success of the process hinges on, among other things:

• defining and involving all the key stakeholders (consumers with minimal producer input), 
• finding a method of true representative participation (not tokenism), 
• consensus-based decision making (not majority rule), 
• collaboration and mutual respect (a win-win orientation), 
• extensive consultation using various media, 
• responsible, credible leadership and project management, 
• an iterative process that encourages creativity and flexibility, 
• the use of plain language, and 
• a comprehensive, holistic perspective of the service being provided. 

These are among the “lessons learned” from the design and use of this standards development process used on three occasions by Dr. Barker. 

Following this development process, and based on the nature of the standards, FuturEd has designed a two-pronged utilization process: 

• 1. a quality audit process for providers of training to assess their services against the national standards, and
• 2. a consumer’s guide process for individuals to use when making choices between providers of training. 

Fundamentally, the concept is based on the power of consumers to bring about change and increase quality by refusing to pay for less than excellence . Related to this is the producer’s need to plan for and/or market product excellence that meets the consumers’ requirements. In the case of training, few consumers are aware of the many and varied components that combine to create quality training. This is the gap that the Training Standards fill! 

This combined process — consensus-based national standards, quality audit and consumer’s guide — is the easiest and most appropriate means of developing and implementing national standards aimed at improving quality in any product or service! The process of development and utlization of national standards can be replicated in other jurisdictions, and FuturEd is expert in that process. 

The second way, then, is the actual tools based on the Training Standards and created by FuturEd.

Under a contract with the CLFDB, FuturEd has created a quality audit and is researching a consumer’s guide based on the Training Standards. Similarly, a PLAR Quality Audit is being developed and researched for the CLFDB by FuturEd. It is likely that the SKP Standards and the LMI Standards will lead to quality audits and consumer’s guides as well. FuturEd is in the business of developing Transformation Tools that help change learning systems for the future! 

The FuturEd Training Quality Audit, and the FuturEd Consumer’s Guide to Training are two such Transformation Tools. The first is a workbook and workshops that help training providers assess how well they meet the recommended national standards. They could, of course, ignore the Training Standards if not for the fact that a Consumer’s Guide, currently being researched with funding from HRDC, will be made available to all consumers very soon. This Guide, available in both hardcopy and via the Internet, gives potential students the questions to ask to determine if, in fact, the providers they have in mind deliver quality services. Presumably, they will select the providing institutions or agencies that best meet the recommended national standards. The Quality Audit is a money-making venture for FuturEd. The Consumer’s Guide is intended as a service to students and those who help them make decisions about where to make their training investment.

Information about either the FuturEd Training Quality Audit or the Consumer’s Guide to Training is available from FuturEd directly or via the website: www.FuturEd.com .

It is conceivable that the FuturEd Training Quality Audit could become recommended or mandatory for use by training institutions in Canada to systematize and ensure quality to students. This could, for example, reduce the risk inherent in taking or making large student loans for both lenders and students. It is also conceivable that the Consumer’s Guide could form the basis of a national assessment of training services akin to the MacLean’s survey of universities. Suffice it to say, there are numerous possibilities. The validity and reliability of using the CLFDB recommended national Training Standards for these two Transformation tools rests on:

• the development process and the nature of the standards, 
• maintaining the integrity of the standards (i.e, no changes or deletions), 
• the independence and credibility of FuturEd. 

FuturEd will continue to develop Transformation Tools in other areas, eg., PLAR, LMI and other non-CLFDB standards, as opportunity permits. 

The third use is the application of the actual Training Standards in related areas. Some ideas being pursued by FuturEd include research into, for example:

• the applicability of the Training Standards to training via learning technologies; 
• the applicability of the Training Standards to workforce essential skills (literacy) education; 
• the applicability of the Training Standards by CIDA and the World Bank in selecting and financing training projects; 
• the applicability of the Training Standards by conference and seminar organizers. 

In conclusion...

The CLFDB was on the right track when it developed the recommended national Training Standards. FuturEd is looking for partners and ideas to promote the Training Standards and to use the Transformation Tools.

FuturEd... helping change learning systems for the future! 

References: 

Barker, K. (1994). Background Paper: CLFDB Training Standards Project. Ottawa: CLFDB. 

Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Education Committee. (1994). A National Direction for Learning: A Business Perspective. Ottawa: author. 

Canadian Labour Force Development Board, and Conference Board of Canada. (1992). Canadian Training and Development Symposium: Issues and Perspectives. Ottawa: authors. 

Corporate-Higher Education Forum. (1993). To Be Our Best: Learning for the Future. Montreal: author.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. (1993). Public Education: Retracing our Path. An examination of the goals of public education, its role in society and directions for reform. Toronto: author. 

Steering Group on Prosperity. (1992). Inventing our Future: An Action Plan for Canada's Prosperity. Ottawa: author. 

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1992). Global Standards: Building Blocks for the Future. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

FuturEd
Dr. Kathryn Barker, president
101-1001 West Broadway, pod 190
Vancouver BC  V6H 4E4  Canada

Phone 604-873-4700
Fax 604-873-4790
email: info@futured.com