BY GLYNN WOLAR

The push toward implementing a workforce development orientation at the community colleges has been ongoing for several years. In 2016, the Brookings Institute published an extensive report articulating what might be termed an uncritically positive posture toward this development. There is no doubt that community college administrators are generally enthused about implementing such orientations within their respective institutions. Generally, as a faculty member in academic transfer courses in the social sciences and humanities fields, I recognize the obvious positive aspects of workforce development in the community college environment.

Keeping an eye on the mission of the AAUP—that is, to encourage and protect academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance—I think that certain questions concerning the desire to adopt workforce development plans are appropriate. The AAUP’s joint Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities makes it clear that institutional faculty have a role in determining general educational policies. According to section 2b of the statement, once that educational policy is determined, “it becomes the responsibility primarily of the faculty to determine the appropriate curriculum and procedures of student instruction.”

This shared governance prerogative makes it apparent that any orientation toward workforce development needs to be considered in a context of administrative collaboration with its faculty. Unfortunately, communication about and coordination of certificated workforce development programs by administrators with faculty is rare.

If a student is to earn a certificate for completion of a particular workforce development program, who determines the appropriate requirements for successful completion of the program?  The above-cited AAUP policy states in section 5, “The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees offered in course, determines when the requirements have been met, and authorizes the president and board to grant the degrees thus achieved.” Might a skills-based workforce development certificate be granted de facto equivalence with an academic degree? Would that equivalence relieve faculty of a time-honored responsibility for determining minimum qualifications for the granting of a degree? Section 5 also states, “The faculty have primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction . . . and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.” The faculty cannot have primary responsibility for an area of curriculum if they are not privy to the implementation of the objective at the outset.

The above concerns reflect past precedents of institutions that have implemented “job-oriented” goals in such a way that faculty (particularly the academic transfer faculty) are ignored. Could the pressure to provide swift skills-based training for the job market hamper the fundamental mission of the community college—that is, to provide an initial higher education, accessible to economically challenged students? Would corporate educational providers—not tenured faculty—utilize the community college facilities to implement their own goals using local or state tax funds?

The notion of “stacking” workforce development certificates in sufficient quantity to ultimately qualify for an associate’s degree at a community college is questionable. Given the above discussion, it would appear to be evident that the faculty needs to be intimately involved in the installation of an appropriate workforce development curriculum that incorporates solid communication skills. Some academic transfer faculty members are in contact with business leaders, who consistently express the need to cultivate written and verbal communication skills, which indicates that academic transfer faculty who can cultivate those skills are a necessary component of any workforce development program at the community college level.

Ultimately, would aggressive implementation of a workforce development program signal the proverbial “beginning of the end” of the role of community colleges in helping students learn to think rationally and independently, as well as in assisting them to lead more meaningful lives as individuals? Will faculty members sense that their responsibility to direct the focus of a college education is so negated by exterior corporate interests that they become effectively irrelevant?

Glynn Wolar is an instructor in history and philosophy at North Platte Community College in Nebraska and a member of the AAUP’s Committee on Community Colleges.