Some Community Colleges Moving Back Toward 70’s Approach to Vocational Programs; Why Did it Take So Long?

Dr. Dave Just, formally Dean of Corporate and Continuing Education at Community Colleges in MA, OH, PA, SC. Currently President of K&D Consulting

In a recent article in the Community College Daily News entitled, “A Shift Back to Trades,” , which is an excerpt from an article by Matt Krupnick entitled, “After Decades of Pushing Bachelor’s Degrees, U.S. Needs Mores Trades People,” it appears that many in institutions of higher learning are accepting the realization that not everyone is suited for college or a career requiring 4-year, or more, college degrees. Some people learn better, faster and become more productive from a program focused on training rather than the conveyance of knowledge.

Societies have always had a natural division of labor, represented at one end of the spectrum by those who predominantly work with their hands (e.g. craftsman, builders, fixers) and those who primarily work with their accumulated knowledge (e.g. managers, lawyers, teachers). Closer to the center of the spectrum, some of these types of labor overlap, requiring the application of knowledge in practical uses, such as doctors, accountants, software programmers. Traditionally, careers in the latter required a 4 -year education or more and experience in the field since the positions were heavy on knowledge requirements and industry-general standardized practices.

At the other end of the spectrum, training is focused on tasks routinely required of the worker – this becomes the focus of mastery of specific tasks of the job area. This is what an employer values and which make workers valuable. Knowledge conveyed at the point of utilizing it in the task, coupled with the convergence of core skills and core abilities, followed by repetitive practice of precise procedural steps develops trade-specific, higher-order skills. These skills yield a meaningful unit of work that is marketable to an employer in the industry. While one can say that occupations at the other end of the spectrum perform units of work as well, the type of work performed is more “situational” and less repetitive the higher up the organizational chart.

Leading up to the 1970’s, this was understood. In fact, many high schools around the country had very effective “vocational” programs, in many cases as good and relevant as the local community colleges. Competitions for students to show off their trade skills were held in each state and nationally by the Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, which was replaced in the 1990’s by SkillsUSA. But as the movement that “everyone needs to go to college” grew, schools cut these vocational programs from the budgets and education systems pushed more of the responsibility for these programs on the community college that served high school graduates, the transition lasting from the 1980’s through the early 2000’s. In some states, “Regional Career Centers” were established in an attempt to provide a bridge of access for high schoolers to vocational education for “paying” member school districts.

The 1990’s emphasis on “college education for all,” lead to a K-12 education focus on coursework to prepare students for college entry. The “No Child Left Behind of 2001” and similar measures emphasized standardized testing in K-12 as preparation for college entrance examinations. Community colleges tried to fill the void in vocational instruction with their packaged programs that had not changed all that much since the 1970s. The repeated criticisms during this time of radical technological advancement (e.g. computers and microprocessors changing all aspects of work, trade agreements changing the availability of jobs for which these programs were training workers, Wall Street’s insistence on increasing shareholder value – driving constant cost-cutting leading to perpetual changes to job requirements) was that “continuing education,” “adult education” and “customized training” programs were out-of-date, instructors were ill-prepared, and community colleges were ill-staffed and under-funded to meet the constantly changing needs of employers. Most institutions turned inward and back to what they new; “credit courses” for college preparation and relied more on marketing their vocational programs than the quality and effectiveness of the content.

Trades have long been associated with apprenticeships but need not be, and apprenticeships that train workers generally for the industry but not enough for the employer paying the wages fell out of favor. While institutions were trying to find their role in workforce development, employers – often not clear themselves on what they needed in skilled workers and that have cited the “skills gap” as a major concern since the early warnings in the 1980’s – cut their internal budgets for the task training that only they can provide. The hope is that the educational system will find their way in time to provide them the workers they need, ready on day one to be 100% productive.

So, it makes sense that some semblance of a movement is appearing to take us back to a clear dichotomy between vocational training and traditional education. But it is important to re-institutionalize the difference, allowing for overlaps only to the degree they are relevant. It doesn’t mean institutions, employers and agencies shouldn’t cooperate; they should. But cooperation should never lose sight of each player’s strengths and honestly weed out the weaknesses.

We should avoid, at all costs, the inclination to characterize a 2-year community college program as an “apprenticeship” UNLESS the employer is fully and actively (not in name only) engaged with structured on-the-job training that provides the capstone to job-relevant related technical instruction, which is still best provided by local training institutions and providers. Anything less short-changes the trainee, the employer, the community and the economy. Just because an employer (who will usually agree to anything that is grant funded) agrees to look at graduates of a program doesn’t imply there is an apprenticeship in place. We need to be careful not to sully the good reputation of the term “apprenticeship” for political expediency. Although the employer’s common apprehension towards apprenticeships was the 8-year length and cumbersome management requirement of a program for the too few apprentices their operation needed – that along with the fact that nothing else in a company is static for 8 years – the underlying premise of apprenticeships is sound and they do have a role in vocational development if designed to be precise and practical.

Hopefully, the rush toward offering 1 and 2-year certificates meant to represent employability will not threaten all certificate’s credibility and result in wasting another decade focusing not on the solution, but on a reason for institutions to exist instead. And, schools that squander this opportunity and resources to build advanced manufacturing centers that quickly become outdated and fail to attract or maintain employers’ interest do the students and community a disservice and cast doubt on all who genuinely want to be part of the solution.

This transition away from vocational training took several decades, so conceivably returning to a model that worked might take decades, as well, to become effective and consistent. The net effect will be generations of workers negatively impacted, hundreds of thousands of employers living with underutilized worker capacity, and the US economy missing out on hundreds of billions – maybe trillions – in economic transactions. Employers who relinquish control of their worker training programs for their companies, to the local educational system do so at their own peril and folly. Conversely, it is the employer that needs to hire and train these workers while institutions transition to a better operating “system” of worker development.

In the meantime, my advice for employers when selecting a worker development strategy is to start with the “end in mind” as Stephen R. Covey emphasized. Be clear and accurate of what you want the outcome to be, and do not compromise on that singular focus. Separate the marketing hoo-haw from the practical training methods that intuitively make sense and have measurable outcomes. Exercise your important role as customer to make sure you get what you need from entry-level competencies upon which you can continue with your structured on-the-job training. And do not shirk your employer’s role in developing the worker on tasks you need performed, and for which only you know the specifications and standards important to your organization and business model.

I am glad that there is a refocus on the difference between college for education and college for trades, but this realization underscores what some of us have been echoing for decades; education is not training; only training is training.

Learn more about Dr. Just’s partnerships with Proactive Technologies, Inc.  in setting up and maintaining “hybrid models” of worker development. Select “Contact Us” to contact a representative.

.