Search News


Browse Archives

News

Building Up Job Training

June 19, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Community colleges are thrilled that President Obama is planning a major infusion of federal support for their job training programs, and they are talking about how this might best be done.

The latest indication that such an announcement is imminent came Wednesday, when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was speaking at a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, said it is the president’s goal to help 5 million more students through the community college system in the next 10 years than is currently projected. There are now 11.5 million students in the country’s two-year institutions, and some experts predict that this figure will nearly double in the coming decade.

Though Emanuel kept details of the president’s financial proposal close to the vest at the event, he did hint that the plan would focus primarily on the role of community colleges in “job training and vocational education.” He further noted that all legislation related to these roles would need “rewriting” to emphasize the president’s plan.

J. Noah Brown, president of the Association of Community College Trustees, said he takes Emanuel’s suggestion to mean the revamping of the Workforce Investment Act, a federal program adopted under President Clinton that funds job training initiatives and whose reauthorization is on the horizon. He noted that this “would serve as a likely vehicle for these changes.”

Other community college advocates have also been weighing in on possible changes.

David Baime, vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges, stated that his organization has made a number of suggestions to the Obama administration and Congress about increasing federal support for two-year institutions, including making significant changes to the Workforce Investment Act.

He noted that he would like to see the act shift away from its “voucher-based system,” which provides money to individual workers on a restricted basis for retraining, to one that allows local workforce investment boards to make contracts directly with training providers, such as community colleges. Under the current distribution of funds, for example, displaced workers sometimes cannot complete training programs with the resources given them by their voucher.

“While shifting these models would likely result in more opportunities and better support for community colleges as leading workforce training providers, additional statutory language prioritizing the use of community colleges for training would help to ensure a national-level of integration of these institutions into the workforce development system,” Baime wrote in an e-mail describing some of his organization's ideas.

Baime noted he would also like to see a revamped and reinforced version of the program for Community-Based Job Training Grants, which was started under President Bush and designed to boost the capacity of community colleges to train workers in high-demand fields.

Baime said that the first item on his wish list for community colleges was his organization's request that the government provide two-year institutions around the country $5 billion to directly address the “accumulated need for infrastructure support.”

“In the short term, federal funding to support two-year community and technical college capital will temporarily invigorate local construction businesses, which would serve or possibly save job-starved communities experiencing little or no growth,” Baime wrote. “In the long term, this funding will prepare community colleges to produce workers in the key industries of the future, such as alternative energy technologies and health care, for which our colleges prepare more than half of all new workers.”

Around Washington, at least, some community college advocates say their sector is getting more respect than in recent memory, thanks in part to recent high-profile comments like those by Emanuel the other evening.

“A lot of people want to talk about education, talk about our universities,” Emanuel said. “What has been forgotten is how important the community college system is to our economy, our ability to compete in a global economy. It is, literally, the conveyor belt to allow people to upgrade their skills when they are going from X job to Y profession.”

If community colleges are to be substantially supported by the government, Emanuel noted that they will only thrive if the government develops a more cohesive vision of the system and its role.

“In the past, our job training system in vocational ed has basically been a program per problem,” Emanuel said. “We’ve not had a comprehensive view. What I mean by program is that if you were a veteran, you had a program. If you were a displaced worker because of competition, we had a program. But, we really need to not just have a program per problem but a comprehensive view of job training, what it is supposed to accomplish, and then set up a program based on that.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Building Up Job Training

  • lean and mean
  • Posted by Gary Davis on June 19, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Attending a Workforce Investment Board meeting is often more painful than a bad migraine. Employer reps often don't show up and process takes precedent over product. The country needs a lean and mean, Larry the Cable Guy approach. Just "get 'er done." Community colleges will use that approach if Obama gives them the opportunity. Results will follow.

  • Don't forget certificate programs
  • Posted by Libertarian on June 19, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Non-collegiate career schools often do a better job training people, because they are better supervised. In colleges, short non-degree programs often seem shoddy because no one cares for them. I hope they're not forgotten in the bill.

  • Count on strings
  • Posted by Trace Urdan , Research Analyst at Signal Hill on June 19, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • On the K12 side, the administration seems to be intent on providing more funding for NCLB but also on enforcing its provisions strictly. You can tell Arne Duncan is doing something right because he is offending interest on the right and the left in equal measure. It would be nice to see the same rigor and pressure for accountability applied to new dollars aimed at community colleges.

    When Emanuel asserts that these institutions are "literally the conveyor belt to allow people to upgrade their skills when they are going from X job to Y profession," he is accurately describing their mission. What is less clear (completely unclear in fact) is that they are actually accomplishing this mission in any meaningful manner, because it is not measured.

    David Baime uses the phrase "voucher-based system" as somehow derogatory. Yet a system where the consumer is making the choice for him or herself -- a market-based system -- works surprisingly well in the post-secondary world in the form of Title IV. The administration wants to single out community colleges for funding because they cost less. But they cost less because they are already receiving extraordinary subsidies without measurement. There is no evidence that they are operating more efficiently or providing a better-quality alternative than market-based providers because it is not measured. To double down on this system in the absence of any effort to hold the institutions more accountable for outcomes is to effectively apply the worst lessons of the broken health care system to an area that is working quite well under consumer direction.

    If you want more job retraining, then provide laid off workers better "vouchers" to direct as they wish. As they apply those vouchers, the good institutions -- the ones where students complete and find gainful employment -- will prosper, while the ones that do not, will, quite rightfully, stagnate and fail. If the administration must pick winners, at least let it put in some measures for taxpayers to determine whether the incremental money has been well spent.

  • Community Colleges are more
  • Posted by David , Professor/English at Jefferson Community and Technical College on June 20, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Community colleges provide the first two years of college to students who wish to transfer to four year institutions. It is short sighted to view their only purpose as vocational or job training. Community College students take 24-30 hours of general education courses such as freshman composition, college algebra, history, philosophy, public speaking, music and art appreciation, and literature. I hope that this role of the community college does not get lost in the rush to turn them into job training centers.

  • Certification Programs
  • Posted by Matt Klabacka , Executive Director at Nahets.com on June 22, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Specialized certification(s) of program(s) not offered at the community college level should not be overlooked similar to those certifications not offered at community colleges but vital to the industry(s) which the serve. Example, the National Commission For The Certification Of Crane Operators www.nccco.org, and the National Association of Heavy Equipment Training Schools www.nahets.org.

  • Advocate For Your Community Colleges!
  • Posted by Judi Garcia , Career Advisor at EDD Job Training Center, Sunnyvale, CA on June 23, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I am very encouraged to hear that community colleges are getting more respect in Washington, and throughout the country. The proposed federal funding is especially critical at this time of employment uncertainty. It would offer many displaced workers the opportunity to improve their education and skills in a shorter amount of time, and allow them a successful transition to their current industry in a new role, or to another key industry. I want to help with that transition. Thank you for this important article.