The Journey
A newsletter for chapter advisors, chapter officers, and regional officers.

The Alliance for Educational Excellence:
Striking a Balance Between Liberal Arts Education and Workforce Training

By Rod A. Risley Executive Director

There exists a “reluctant” coalition operating under the umbrella of a comprehensive community college — proponents of general education and advocates for workforce development. Preferring to operate as autonomous, isolated provinces with differing agendas, these coalition members assume positions of tolerance toward one another -- during good financial times. Today, however, with the economy showing signs of weakness, this coalition appears to be unraveling and the balance of power shifting.

Ignoring burgeoning enrollment increases in community colleges, state legislatures are slashing funds for traditional higher education programs, while increasing funding for workforce development programs. Public policy du jour suggests it is more important for our country to train rather than educate our students. In other words, priority should be given to teaching students skills for earning a living rather than an understanding of how to live a meaningful life.

I find most disconcerting that the debate to “train or educate” students has been moved from the halls of professional educators to the arena of politicians whose narrow perspective is ephemeral at best, who are looking no farther than their next election, with their ill-conceived outcome models and standardized tests, which will inevitably skew disproportionately the balance between general and workforce development funding. It’s all about jobs and re-election.

What is at risk? Not much unless you believe that the future of democracy is rooted in a broadly educated electorate. Not much unless you are concerned that ours will be a society led by specialized technicians with a limited global view or cultural understanding. Not much unless you are convinced that inquiry into the meaning of life is found through the broad study of arts, humanities, and sciences. Not much unless you are worried that a large population of first-generation college students who cannot afford senior college tuition will be diverted to a career path limiting their pursuit of the American dream.

Proponents of workforce development argue that career training should take priority over general education programs because of new demand in the marketplace. They argue that students are now consumers of education and we must give them what they want.

Yes, educators must indeed understand that students see themselves as consumers, and they view education as a product. To many, this notion is distasteful, but it is reality.

The challenge then is to offer these consumers a solid rationale as to why a general education has value in a technology-driven society.

Many students enroll in community colleges not with the thought of purchasing a broadly based education, but rather to register for the minimum number of courses necessary to enter the job market or climb the career ladder. They are mesmerized by the salaries commanded in the high-technology arena. Forget general education -- they want the bare-bones number of courses that will get them out of college and into the job market as quickly as possible. These students are becoming savvy consumers of training, but they are not necessarily well-informed consumers of education.

Professional educators, therefore, have a responsibility of meeting the demands of the marketplace, but must also become creative and proactive in communicating the value of a broad-based education.

Over the next decade the number of graduating high school students will steadily increase each year. During that same time period, it is projected that 65 percent of all students receiving a baccalaureate degree will attend two institutions of higher learning, one a community college. Rising tuition costs of senior institutions will continue to direct more students to community colleges for their first two years of study.

The battleground then for the future of general education will be fought on the grounds of our nation’s two-year colleges. If we fail to convince students attending two-year colleges of the value of a general education, it will be too late. Every effort then must be given to inform high school students and parents of the importance of a broad-based education. Thus, community colleges must be prepared to offer a balance of programs -- general education and workforce development to meet the needs of students in the future. Community colleges for decades have struggled for legitimacy. The last few years, it seems that our colleges have been “discovered” by the national media, corporations, and government leaders as the efficient conduit for the development of a skilled workforce. This newly found recognition and its trappings can become intoxicating. Our institutions cannot afford to lose sight of their raison d’etre and become institutions with a single-minded mission.

Proponents of general education and advocates of workforce development must recommit themselves as members of a coalition to provide the programs and services meeting the needs of those in the community they serve. Neither program should necessarily dominate an institution, and models should be constructed to bridge these programs where possible.

The fate of these programs rests with the politicians. Community college leaders -- coalition members -- must exercise leadership and communicate to public leaders that these programs are not mutually exclusive and both are necessary to meet fully the needs of our communities.

For many years community colleges have campaigned to overcome the sobriquet of “junior” colleges and demanded to be considered as educational equals of the senior institutions. We now have the opportunity to mold the intellectual climate of the next generation. Our response to this challenge will either propel us into an even greater position of leadership and respect, or relegate us to the second-rate status we had almost left behind.

Risley may be contacted at rod.risley@ptk.org.

Copyright 1996-2001 by Phi Theta Kappa, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The name, logo and various titles have been registered with the U.S. Patent Office.

This page last modified -- [an error occurred while processing this directive] (llm)