When you set the system options (Registration and Login
section above), you defined the beginning status for all student enrollments.
If you entered “Active” as the Enrollment Status, then all student enrollments
will be automatically approved and you do not need to use the Approve
Enrollments option.
If, however, you entered another Enrollment Status
(“Pending”) in the System Options, then you must approve (or “Activate”) each
enrollment using the Approve Enrollments feature on the administrator’s menu.
In that case, the sequence of events would be:
1.The class is scheduled.
2.A student signs up for the class.
3.You approve the enrollment in the Approve
Enrollments screen.
4.The student is allowed to sign on to his class
and use the Student Menu.
Note: You can also un-enroll a student from the
selected class by clicking on the “Un-enroll” link next to the student’s name
and then click the “Yes” button to complete the transaction.
Training
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.