Again, they were willing to stake their reputation on their ability to provide the necessary skills for the local community. They became, in a sense, validators and champions of their students and the skills they acquired at their institutions. They used a workforce perspective to guide the entire institution.įinally, while the chapters correctly focus on how the colleges responded to the needs of their local communities, all continued to focus on the success of their students. These institutions simultaneously participated in reforming community college practice in many areas. They infused equity concerns with their programs. The often-merged credit and non-credit together. Career pathways and student success are framed as occupational strategy. Rather, they made it an overriding mission within all aspects of the institution. Third, they did not just isolate their workforce and economic development activities as a siloed operation within their colleges. They took seriously the long-term needs of the sector, not just one company - which made them respond to their needs more effectively. They were also willing to alter their internal college activities to meet the needs of these sectors. They researched their needs, met regularly with the local leadership of these sectors, and often hired staff from these sectors. These colleges became local “experts” in the needs of these sectors. It was ship construction in Mississippi, energy and petrochemicals in Texas, information technology in North Virginia, healthcare in Arizona and metal manufacturing in Ohio. Second, the colleges focused on the needs of the dominant private sectors in their communities. Top leadership participation signals businesses and community leaders that the college is taking their needs seriously and leads to positive interactions between the local companies and the college. They often took this on directly, not delegating the leadership role to others at the institution. However, as presidents, they understood the need to play a leadership role within their communities. Before becoming president, these leaders were significant advocates for internal workforce development within their institutions. While the strategies and tactics employed by the college fit their specific local context, some important themes woven within each institution account for much of their success.įirst, what leadership does matters. In their discussion of the case studies, the editors quickly point out that there is no cookie-cutter approach to success in the workforce. Pima became a significant player in the workforce and economic development issues relatively quickly. For example, the chapter on Pima Community College might be particularly interesting to first-time presidents or those starting at a new institution because it outlines how a new leader (in this case, Lee Lambert) initiated cultural change. Each chapter has valuable and relevant nuggets of their work that practitioners could learn from and adapt for use at their institutions. For years, those of us who focus on workforce issues have turned to these institutions for insights into good workforce development practices. There is little to quarrel about in their choice of institutions to examine. Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College.Lorain County Community College in Ohio.The five colleges selected in this study are: The book comprises five chapters devoted to each community college, with two chapters written by the authors to tease out the implications of these studies for others in the field. Schwartz and Lipson have provided practitioners and policy advocates with important lessons through a case study of good community colleges’ practices in workforce development. The book provides valuable evidence linking student success with employment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |