For Educators
How might we design high-value learning and validate student growth?
If learners are the core user and employers are the demand side, then educators are the supply side.
The Evaluation Layer: New Rubrics
For educators, the goal of this layer is to move beyond the traditional transcript—which only captures course completion—toward validating the context of a student’s capability. To do this, educators must integrate the 3-Level Framework (Follow, Assist, Apply) directly into rubrics for Project-Based Learning (PBL), capstones, and work-based learning.
Moving Beyond “Proficiency”
Traditional rubrics often fail to measure durable skills because they focus on “proficiency” (e.g., “communicates succinctly”). The observable behavior of a durable skill often does not change; what changes is the context.
- Old Rubric: Did the student collaborate well? (Yes/No/Maybe)
- New Rubric: In what context did the student collaborate? (Level 1: Within a team vs. Level 3: Influencing a team) .
The Experience Quality Indicators
Educators should adopt a Standardized Marking Rubric that assesses the experience against the three core anchors. This transforms a classroom project into a verifiable data point for a digital wallet or learner record.
1. Assessing Autonomy (Agency): Instead of just grading the final output, assess the process.
- Criterion: Did the student require step-by-step instruction (Level 1), or did they identify the problem and execute the solution with general direction (Level 3)?.
- Rubric Application: “Student collected data and tested ideas under general guidance (Level 2)” vs. “Student co-designed the project and managed resources independently (Level 3)”.
2. Assessing Complexity (The Challenge): This measures the difficulty of the environment.
- Criterion: Was the work routine and structured (Level 1), or did it involve ambiguity, novelty, and multi-variable problems (Level 3)?.
- Rubric Application: “Tasks were well-defined with clear instructions” vs. “Tasks required navigating unfamiliar, high-stakes situations with diverse stakeholders”.
3. Assessing Contribution (Impact): This measures the student’s role relative to others.
- Criterion: Did they simply contribute to a team (Level 1), or did they mobilize others and shape the outcome (Level 3)?.
- Rubric Application: “Supported others by completing assigned tasks” vs. “Led or influenced others and had a clear impact on results”.
Implementation: Stacking the Deck
This language should not exist in isolation. It should be “stacked” into high-level measurement protocols, such as Portraits of a Graduate or other institutional outcome frameworks. By using these anchors as the common denominator across different subjects (e.g., a Robotics Club project vs. a Debate Team win), schools can normalize assessment. A “Level 3 Autonomy” rating becomes a universal signal of capability that both the robotics teacher and a future employer understand
The Design Layer: Employer Partnerships
One of the greatest friction points in work-based learning is the language barrier: educators speak in terms of learning objectives and pedagogy, while employers speak in terms of productivity and ROI. This framework provides the necessary translation layer to bridge this gap.
Too often, educators approach employers with vague requests like, “Can you host an intern?” or “Do you have any opportunities?” This places the burden of design entirely on the employer, who may not know how to structure a learning experience.
By using the 3-Level Framework, educators can instead approach partners with a specific spec sheet. They can make actionable, high-fidelity requests that define the scope of work before the student even arrives.
- The Vague Ask: “We have a student interested in marketing. Can they intern with you?”
- The Strategic Ask: “We are looking for a project (Level 2 Autonomy) where a student can work under routine supervision to manage a social media campaign. They need to exercise discretion on daily posts, but will require weekly check-ins on strategy”.
This specific request tells the employer exactly what is required: they don’t need to babysit (Level 1), but they shouldn’t expect a full application (Level 3). It turns a favor into a defined scope of work.
Co-Designing with the Supervisor Guides
Once a partnership is established, the framework serves as a shared blueprint for co-designing the experience. This collaborative process leverages the unique strengths of both parties: the educator designs based on their knowledge of the student’s current capabilities, and the employer designs based on the organization’s needs.
Educators should provide employers with the Supervisor Guides (see The Employer Section) to help them structure the daily environment:
- For a Level 1 Request: The educator advises the employer to prepare clear instruction manuals and schedule daily check-ins to build confidence.
- For a Level 2 Request: The educator advises the employer to step back, allowing the student to handle routine issues and learn from minor failures.
This process might follow the following steps:
- Initial employer outreach with level-specific request
- Co-design meeting to align student capabilities with employer needs
- Provision of Supervisor Guides and framework training
- Ongoing check-ins during experience
- Final evaluation using the framework
Student-Centered Design
Finally, this layer offers a unique opportunity to invite the student into the design process. By sharing the framework with the learner beforehand, educators can ask, “What level of autonomy are you ready for?” This ensures the placement is not just a “job,” but a personalized developmental step aligned with the learner’s zone of proximal development.
The Storytelling Layer: Teaching “Narrative Currency”
Educators must explicitly teach this framework to students via career navigation courses. Students need to move from simple journaling to structured reflection using the framework’s driving questions:
- Autonomy: “What was your specific role? How available were resources and mentorship, or did you have to find them yourself?”.
- Complexity: “How difficult and intricate was the experience? Did you follow existing rules, or did you have to define new ones?”.
- Contribution: “How much of a leadership role did you take? Did you simply participate, or did you mobilize others to achieve the outcome?”
The Enabling Infrastructure: Data Sovereignty and AI
When this common language and a synergistic digital wallet are fully adopted, the experience gap that currently defines our talent market will close. It requires a deliberate commitment to three strategic expansions: expanding access (ensuring the system works for all learners, especially those on the margins), expanding experiences (viewing experiences as a core component of verifying skills), and expanding value (ensuring the new credentials and records are valued by both learners and the workforce).
This new ecosystem, built on a foundation of trusted, verifiable evidence, creates a more transparent and equitable market. Learners from all backgrounds—K-12, community college, university, and the existing workforce (STARS)—can finally have their diverse experiences validated and translated into a common, understood currency of capability:
- Employers gain accurate signals to hire the right talent.
- Educators provide durable, verified value to their students.
- Learners gain transparency and agency over their own futures.
The final vision is one of transparency and agency, where every individual can identify their current location on the continuum and navigate a true, skills-based market. The Learner Employment Record, powered by a common language of experience, becomes the new, equitable engine for human advancement and economic mobility.
