Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Postsecondary Education Goes to Work

May 15, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

President Obama’s speech on connecting education and jobs and his lightning quick move opening Pell Grants up to unemployed adults deserves more attention. It tells a lot about the shape of things to come. Education, training and employment and social services policy have always been grouped in the same federal budget category -- Function 500 in the federal budget -- and shared an appropriations subcommittee in Congress. But the programs have never been integrated.

In tough times the connections are obvious, especially the connections between education, training and employment. The Obama administration seems to be making the connections and moving toward a legislative program that will connect the dots as they were intended to be connected when Function 500 was created during the stagflation of the ‘70s -- another era of extended joblessness that ended only with the last great recession in 1980.

Expanding Pell eligibility for workers was a very good first move toward opening up some space in Function 500 for integrating education and employment policy. The Pell move is pivotal because it shows that the president understands that postsecondary education is the work force development system and a key piece of the work force adjustment system in response to trade and technology change.

Most sensible policy that links education and jobs gets lost on the National Mall between the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Labor. With one quick opening step Obama crossed the Mall between the DOE and DOL. He created a new space for a dialogue aligning education and careers. He found his way across the Mall; perhaps others will follow, and fewer good ideas will get lost along the way.

I think the president is serious about connecting education and jobs because he started the conversation by putting earnest money on the table. Pell provides a robust funding stream, soon to be an entitlement, that is the natural instrument for signaling a new federal commitment to lifelong learning. This speech and the action on Pell is clearly more than another love note to community colleges, gushing over how they do so much with so little, or another boutique program funded with departmental transfers.

The Pell move is a beauty. It may well be the long overdue down payment on a grand strategy to build a 21st Century work force development and adjustment system. Actually, there's nothing that prevents adults from getting Pell money. We just don't tell them about it when they show up at the employment service and they are not preferred customers in postsecondary institutions, especially private and four year colleges.. Most thought that the federal policy of "work first" choked off real postsecondary access for adults and nontraditional students (especially welfare recipients) once and for all in the booming ‘90s. Recessions make "work first" foolish, but that didn't stop the Bush administration from holding the line on education and training for those out of work, and time on their hands, in the last recession.

In truth, Pell still isn't ready for either young or adult workers. We need a separate title in the Higher Education Act that tracks more to work force needs and technical training. And we need federal institutional aid that leverages state institutional aid based on proportions of Pell recipients. That's the best way to meet the special burdens of colleges that serve low-income students and to close the 6 to 1 gap in revenue between community colleges and private universities. And we need a cost structure for Pell that recognizes that a chemistry credential costs more than a credential in English lit.

Universal access postsecondary education and training is about money. All by itself, of course, money doesn't matter, but it still buys most things that do -- including change. And if we are truly going to double the numbers of Americans who get postsecondary credentials we will need more money. Sure, every college doesn't need a graduate school. There are efficiencies to be had. But policies that propose universal access while reducing tuitions get way beyond finance into loaves and fishes territory.

Obama’s already famous capacity for persistence will be crucial if we are going to link education and careers. The future of a real work force development and adjustment system runs along a very tricky legislative track, because there are so many stops and rice bowls to be filled along the way.

A Tangled Web

There is no one route through Congress. To do it right, the President will have to coordinate changes in the Adult Education Act, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, the Higher Ed Act, and the Workforce Investment Act and Trade Adjustment Assistance reauthorizations. Very tricky without presidential and Congressional leadership. But the urgency of the economic crisis and the need to save free trade may provide enough political juice to get the job done.

The President has good leadership already on board. Jane Oates, the new assistant secretary for employment and training at the Labor Department, could pull this off. She has accumulated the breadth of experience on and off the Hill to straddle postsecondary and employment policy.

History shows occasional, if mostly failed, attempts to bring sense and order to integrate our education and training systems. Obama's idea on making Pell available to adults was actually in the law in the ‘70s, when Congress mandated that unemployment insurance applicants be notified of federal student aid eligibility. But Rep. William Ford, more higher ed than labor, changed it because it threatened the focus on Pell for 18-24 year olds and ultimately spread the grants in ways that threatened the growth in the maximum grant.

The federal government has run through an alphabet soup of approaches to job training, from CETA to JTPA to WIA, a downhill ride.The Labor Department’s Employment and Training Administration still provides crucial labor market services and needs to do more, but postsecondary education has become the work horse on human capital development. President Clinton made a run at using Pell as the universal education and training grant by running the issue through his Domestic Policy Council, but DOL and DOE couldn't play nice. DOL didn't want to lose the training mission to DOE. DOE didn't want labor to get into its budget and feared they couldn't keep increasing the maximum grant if the Pell was aggressively extended to adults.

The Path Going Forward

The assumption underlying President Obama’s speech last week -- that postsecondary education is at the core of our work force training and adjustment capability -- should set a clear path for overcoming this history of false starts, even if the path is littered enough with legislative complexity that it will have to be an iterative process.

Emphasizing Pell as the president did puts a politically robust common funding mechanism at the center of a combined postsecondary and labor market system; now the job is to assemble the pieces already scattered about in the federal policy basement in ways that align education and employment policy. The end result will expand the Labor Department role in worker adjustment and the Education Department role in workforce development, and make the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at DOE a real player instead of a poor relation in the federal policy system. Here are some possible next steps:

  • We might start with an employability standard for postsecondary outcomes. No problem. We can use employer wage records already in place since the 1930s to track earnings returns to degrees, awards and course clusters. And we can use some of the $250 million in the DOE stimulus package mandated for state data systems to pay for it (see next bullet).
  • The money’s already in the bank to build a market driven postsecondary workforce development system. The stimulus package provides "up to $250 million, which may be used for Statewide data systems that include postsecondary and workforce information." And the Labor Department has another $250 million in stimulus booty to build information systems to serve job seekers.
  • No need to reorganize. Better to use information systems to create market driven education and training. Building better information systems that link education and careers is far more effective than moving the boxes around on the government’s organization chart.
  • Information that connects real jobs with postsecondary programs makes postsecondary more labor market driven without lots of fussing over regulatory and accountability issues.
  • For starters, we need a nationwide online Labor Exchange that shows all job openings connected with an on line Learning Exchange that links job requirements to qualifying courses, awards and degrees.
  • Then the real work begins: We integrate WIA into a bigger adjustment package leveraged by the politics of trade. Take the the "T" (Trade) out of TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance) and write a worker adjustment package for all workers (with three years' experience) who lose jobs. The adjustment package would be something like Barney Frank's "grand bargain" on trade, including wage insurance, health care, asset protection (houses and cars) as well as a robust education and training title. We also need to start paying a lot more attention to community college certificates and industry based certifications with real labor market value.
  • While we’re at it, we can make adult education, remediation, English language learning, etc., all work related.
  • Along the way President Obama will need to continue to breathe new life into Career and Technical Education, or live with the growing numbers of dropouts foundering on Algebra II and not completing any postsecondary certificates or degrees.
  • The educationally disadvantaged are a first priority but we also need a second policy focus on the more than 500,000 high school students from working families who graduate in the upper half of their class every year but never get a two- or four-year degree.

Most of this has been proposed before but with little legislative success. But the length and depth of this recession may be a turning point in the in the relationship between education and employment policy. At long last lifelong learning may make the leap from an applause line every stump speech to a line in public budgets.

Anthony P. Carnevale is research professor and director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Postsecondary Education Goes to Work

  • a new tangle
  • Posted by Theron on May 15, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • While connections between training, employment and education are crucial, (as is addressing the needs of the suddenly unemployed) so too is being up front and clear about how 'education' is defined: its purpose and how many types of education and purposes there are (or can be). To use "education' to link traning and employment without doing so leads to fundamental philosophical conflicts that will spill over into funding formulas within schools and between funding agencies and school systems.

    When I read phrases like "earnings returns to degrees, awards and course clusters," I forsee administrators and politicans using their budget scapels to slice departments that don't produce grants, have fewer majors and whose courses do not show up in "earnings returns."

    In Wisconsin, the UW-system budget has been cut each of the ten years I have worked here while at the same time pressured to 'retain' students. I can see administrators, caught in this situation, focusing money on only those programs that produce cash results, not mere learned results. While such a focus makes sense for training, it may not make as much sense for a liberal arts based program.

    Thus, I go back to my orignal point: we must distinguish between types of education and purposes and be up front when the decisions are made. Personally, I fear that such an apparent business focus feeds the sense many students already have that education can be valued only in so far as it provides added value for the work world and their paychecks. I fear this since such an attitude already exists and directly affects student sucess and institutional retention. Students already cannot understand that they make choices when they miss class (and tests) when their employers call them in for extra hours; they already complain about courses that do not directly connect to work (courses like English composition or literature or history...).

    Finally, I am not suggesting an either-or process; I am asking that when "integrating" training, education and employment, that this be done with care, especially when setting outcomes and benchmarks.

  • Confused
  • Posted by Julie , FAA at EIT on May 15, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I am confused, just a bit, by the statement that Pell would be made available to Adult students by the President. Pell is already available to any student with an EFC below 4617 (for 09/10) - secondly, I am reading this well written article and finding information tucked in (neatly, I might add) that shows the Federal Government removing money from state run programs like Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding for dislocated workers, Trade Act Adjustment (TAA) and WIA for adults and youths (typically run by local/county agencies).

    And I'm sorry, but negotiated rule making for the 09/10 FAFSA was done way before President Obama took his oath wasn't it? The FAFSA asks if the student, student's spouse, or parents are dislocated workers already.

    I think we are running the risk of taking one step closer to allowing the federal government tell the colleges, university, and business/trade/technical schools what programs can be funded (thus changing diversity, curriculum and other aspects of education) and worse tell the students what they can take...if they want to be able to receive funding.

    And Pell as an entitlement? What? It has always been and should always be a poverty grant. Raise the poverty level and the funding, but don't make it an entitlement grant. Take the TAA/WIA funds if you must and add them to the Title IV program if you must - or a seperate fund run through the states, before making PELL an entitlement grant. Pretty soon everyone will have to work to get aid - oh wait, there was mention of a 3 year work requirement...What about the people who have recently accepted a position at a new company, are there for 3 or 4 weeks and the plant closes? How are they compensated under this new idea?

    I'm not as articulate as the author of this article, but I can't help to feel fearful about the changes planned for funding to our students. Sure, it may benefit them now, but in the long run, their children's children will be paying for their educations. It's just another way to tax us. And I see a future of everyone having to work before going to college (serving their communities), choice being taken away, and the long standing private universities that have blessed this nation with outstanding graduates for more than 100 years will be forced to cut back so much that the quality of education will be lost.

     

     

     

  • Have a degree? No Pell.
  • Posted by FA Admin , Director of SFA at Montgomery College on May 15, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Yes, the Pell grant has always been available to adults, part-time students, and dislocated workers. Even the dislocated worker question added back to the FAFSA (remember when it was there before?) doesn't help as much as meeting with a financial aid administrator to see if your information can be recalculated using expected income if you've lost your job or had your hours reduced. Doesn't do much to help a dislocated worker with a bachelor's degree who is seeking training in a new, hopefully employable, degree field. Pell is restricted to students without bachelor's degrees. So if you have a bachelor's degree, lose your job, and now want to pursue training in (for example) an allied health field where you might find a job -- you won't receive a Pell grant. And institutional funds are limited this year. Loans may be your only option.

  • Right-On, Theron
  • Posted by Anthony Carnevale , Professor at Georgetown University on May 16, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • The first respondent, Theron, to my IHE piece on Pell worries that the Presidents actions connecting Pell to employment needs will shift the education system too far toward a vocational and occupational perspective. I share the concern and believe it is well founded. For me it’s personal. I was raised in a backwoods household with no full time job. Myself and my two brothers all went to first rate Liberal Arts colleges and graduate school on VA education benefits and the War Orphans Act – mostly because we ran into people like Theron along the way.

    If not for educators, like the first respondent, who insisted, over our own objections, that we should go to college I suspect we all would have become second rate hourly workers. Instead we all got our PhD’s at government expense and with the generous guidance and support of postsecondary institutions. So I agree that we should be concerned that the growing value of education as human capital may force a counterproductive reckoning of narrow economic needs and broader educational goals, resulting in a “commodification” of education.

    To some extent I think this in not “a new tangle”. We have been in this tangle since industrialization and urbanization turned education into human capital, especially since the surge in the economic value of postsecondary education in the eighties. We put out abut 1.5 million BA’s every year and fewer than 60,000 are awarded in the liberal arts and humanities. Almost half of community college awards and degrees are occupational. The vast majority of graduate and professional degrees are occupational.

    But Theron makes an important point. The temptation to provide narrow vocational training rather than more general learning is strong in a market economy, especially in our current resource poor environment.

    As the economic value of education increases we will need to remember that education, especially higher education, is about more than dollars and cents. It should do more than provide new technology and foot soldiers for the American economy. Education has intrinsic as well as extrinsic value. Higher education, for instance, is a crucial anchor for the professions in their struggle to maintain their professional values and standards in a world increasingly driven by the narrow valuation of cost efficiency and direct earnings returns – the medical professionals are the most obvious case in point.
    Educators in both secondary and postsecondary institutions have cultural and political missions to ensure that there is an educated citizenry that can continue to defend and promote our democratic ideals. Streams of inquiry that trace back to various sources from Theodor Adorno to the late Seymour Martin Lipset, demonstrate convincingly that once nations achieve a basic level of wealth, tolerant political attitudes and political participation depend more on education than economic class. Moreover, the same streams of research suggest that more general forms of education, as opposed to narrow vocational or technical schooling, tend to promote tolerance and undermine the development of authoritarian personalities.
    But ……….If “commodification” means investing in narrow occupational training, its not just bad education its bad economics, because the economic value of general competencies exceeds and is growing faster than job specific competencies. It’s why managers and professionals make more than technicians, even in high tech firms. Moreover while specific occupational skills have greater short term economic value, more general skills has long term latent value. General competency leavens all subsequent learning and practical experience. It is the educator's version of patient capital or long-term human capital investment. The latent value of general skill is one reason why engineers start out way ahead but fall behind managerial generalists in middle age.
    Most jobs now require preparation that sounds a lot more like liberal education and professional education than narrow job training. All occupations share a common set off measured characteristics more akin to the broader purposes of education and professionalism than narrow forms of job training.
    We need to aspire to a dual bottom line in American Higher education. We need to aspire to a pragmatic balance between educations growing economic role and its traditional cultural and political independence from economic forces.
    Ultimately, however, the economic role of postsecondary, especially its role in preparing American youth for work is central. The inescapable reality is that ours is a society based on work. Those who are not equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to get, and keep, good jobs are denied full social inclusion and tend to drop out of the mainstream culture, polity, and economy. In the worst cases, they are drawn into alternative cultures, political movements, and economic activities that are a threat to mainstream American life. Hence, if secondary and postsecondary educators cannot fulfill their economic mission to help youths and adults become successful workers, they also will fail in their cultural and political missions to create good neighbors and good citizens. And increasing the economic relevance of education should, if done properly, extend the educators ability to empower Americans to do work on the world, rather than retreat from it.
    In the end I think we all agree with Theron and that is why I worry less than others that we will turn the best of general education into the worst kind of narrow job training. If I’m proven wrong on that, then shame on me.