We're Education...You're Semiconductors

We’re educat ion…you’re semiconductors

Improving worker

skills through

employer-

community college

partnerships

David Gruber

A P U B L I C A T I O N O F P U B L I C / P R I V A T E V E N T U R E S

VenturesWorking

9968 PPV; WV; Semi Blue 1 2/10/00 10:37 AM Page 3

We’re educat ion…you’re semiconductors

Improving worker

skills through

employer-

community college

partnerships

David Gruber


2 Working Ventures

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank a num-ber of people who contributed gener-ously of their time and patience tohelp make this report possible. HollyMoore, Brian Bosworth, Carol Clymerand Brandon Roberts generouslyshared their insights and nationalexperience in pointing the way toeffective collaborations. Don Schultz,Cindy Geise, Regina Stanback-Stroud, Ingrid Thompson and WilfredSaunders contributed valuable per-spective on their individual partner-ships and on the role of communitycolleges in general, in offering educa-tion and training services.

Gary Sivertson, Dave Yulans, C.Johnson, Cindy Campbell andLawrence Gladstone took time fromtheir corporate and professionalresponsibilities to describe how theyand their colleagues approacheddevelopment and operation of part-nerships from a corporate perspec-tive.

Julian Alssid contributed his exper-tise, research and reporting skills,broadening the scope and compre-hensiveness of the work presentedhere. Yet again, Natalie Jaffe’s sharplyhoned editing skills helped to clarifyand refine the text. Sheila Maguireand Mark Elliott played a critical rolein shaping the report throughout;sharing their wide-ranging experi-ence, questioning assumptions, andoffering sure-handed guidance anddirection.

I would also like to thank The FordFoundation and Charles Stewart MottFoundation for their support ofWorking Ventures and this report.


We’re education…you’re semiconductors 3

As Alan Greenspan recently testi-

fied, sustaining today’s growing

economy will require finding some

way to ensure that everyone—both current

and potential workers—gets the training they

need to keep pace with rapidly changing tech-

nology. While much national attention has

focused on ways to include those outside the

workforce in the economic boom, many of the

same issues apply to those on the inside. To

remain competitive in today’s economy, com-

panies need to adopt new technologies and

train current workers to use them.


4 Working Ventures

This, in turn, means that companies willneed to devote greater resources to train-ing. Some of this training will be providedby the company itself. Yet, in many cases—where training is large-scale, complex,technologically advanced or can simply becompleted more cheaply elsewhere—com-panies will need to create an effective part-nership with an outside provider—a pri-vate training organization, nonprofit orpublic institution.

It is likely that many of these new trainingpartnerships will be formed with communi-ty colleges. Once largely offering prepara-tion for four-year colleges, community col-leges have increasingly become traininginstitutions in their own right—in fact, thelargest local delivery system for training inthe United States. Formerly academic cam-puses have seen vocational enrollmentsdouble in the last few years and contracttraining become a major revenue source.New community colleges have been createdwith the primary aim of serving industry.For some states, community and technicalcolleges, with their capacity for large-scaleadvanced training, have become economicdevelopment tools to lure major employers.

Community colleges have also become amajor resource for employers seeking toupgrade the skills of current workers. Fromsmall manufacturers like SequinsInternational in Queens, New York, to indus-try leaders like Boeing, Intel and Daimler-Chrysler, community colleges are seen by anumber of employers as the provider of

choice for training, ranging from teaching asingle computer program to consolidatingall the work tasks in a large factory.

Of course, for all their success as traininginstitutions, community colleges vary widelyin their ability and interest in performingthe role of corporate trainer. Many commu-nity colleges continue to view themselvesprimarily as academic institutions—“juniorcolleges” to prepare students for transfer tofour-year institutions. These colleges maydisdain the training role or perform it inonly a very limited way. Other institutionshave accepted or embraced a training role,but have yet to develop the capacity neces-sary to meet large, diverse or advancedtraining needs.

Yet, some community colleges haveemerged as “stars”—institutions with thecapacity, resources, flexibility and interest todevelop effective training partnerships withbusiness. As corporate spending for traininggrows, we believe employers will need toseek out these leading-edge institutions tomeet their own expanding training needs.

This paper is intended as a guide—foremployers, training providers and others—to developing effective partnerships withleading-edge community colleges. It recog-nizes that corporations are large and grow-ing training consumers, with the potential,at least, to shape the way community col-leges respond to their needs. It also recog-nizes that planning, developing and operat-ing a training program involving two part-ners is a difficult proposition, and that



seemingly simple training questions—whoprovides it, where it is delivered, how it isdelivered, how much it costs—do not seemto have correspondingly simple answers.

While there is, of course, no one model forbuilding a successful partnership, thispaper highlights some of the best practicesin developing, planning and operatingcommunity college training partnerships byreviewing the strategies employed by foureffective training initiatives:

Sequins,International/LaGuardiaCommunity CollegeWith the aim of improving the competitive-ness of a relatively small manufacturer, thispartnership assists a Queens, New Yorksequins manufacturer to implement a qual-ity management program. Designed toteach more efficient production techniquesto all 250 employees, the ongoing QualityManufacturing program began in 1996.

LaGuardia management training providesstrategic assistance to Sequins workers inareas including production planning andcontrol, strategic decision-making, using acomputer database, benchmarking, costing,process control, team development, activity-based accounting and ergonomic training.Training has been delivered to workers overthe course of three years. In addition to thetechnical assistance provided to Sequinsworkers, LaGuardia has also enrolled partic-ipants in its extensive English as a SecondLanguage (ESL) program.

Daimler-Chrysler/MacombCommunity CollegeA large-scale partnership, this training pro-gram for auto workers reflects continuingmodernization in the auto industry.Working with both company and union rep-resentatives, Macomb is providing extensiveretraining to the workers at Chrysler’sJefferson North Macomb County, MichiganAssembly plant, consolidating 23 traditionalskills/trades classifications into eight.Training, begun in 1990, initially focusedon 350 workers, and has continued to servenew employees.

The Chrysler-Macomb partnership providesa broad range of skills training at bothbasic and advanced levels in professionalareas including electrician, toolmaker, pipe-fitter, millwright, machine repair, mechan-ic-gas and electric jitney, carpenter/painterand energy center operator. Each of theprofessional areas encompasses seven class-es per trade. To fully ready workers formeeting new employment classifications,basic and advanced training includes 69individual courses ranging from math andcomputer drafting to advanced hydraulics,computerized numerical control and main-frame computer network applications.

Intel/Mission CollegeThis partnership provides postsecondarytraining to Intel employees through an on-site college campus in Santa Clara, California.Recognizing that many employees hiredduring the company’s early days now lackthe skills needed for a more competitive


6 Working Ventures

environment, the Adxpress program, whichserves approximately 100 to 150 students atany given time, is intended to lead to anAA degree and other certification nowrequired for many Intel jobs. Designed toprovide all the skills needed for a degree,the program begins with pre-enrollmentassessment in English and math andincludes English fundamentals and effec-tive writing, arithmetic functions, elemen-tary algebra, chemistry, macroeconomics,technical writing, physics, and even coursessuch as music.

The Intel program is also intended to readyparticipants to move into training in thesemi-conductor manufacturing program.More advanced courses offered to Intelworkers include digital principles, introduc-tion to semiconductor manufacturing,electromechanical systems, robotics and statistical process control.

Boeing/Shoreline CommunityCollegeThis partnership to train Boeing workers inthe use of a specific manufacturing softwareprogram operates in Seattle, Washington.Emblematic of continuing advances inmanufacturing and expanding use of com-puterized production techniques, Shoreline’sSmart CAM training enrolls 250 workers inon-site training. The Smart CAM courses,less extensive than the others profiled,include training and competency testing inall aspects of using the program softwareand understanding how it relates to themanufacturing process.

Drawing on the experience of these fourpartnerships, this paper focuses on the keyissues and questions likely to be raised byemployers in considering community col-leges as training providers. These include:

• Economic rationale: Why choose com-munity colleges over other trainingproviders?

• Choosing the appropriate communitycollege.

• Structuring the partnership.

• Developing and delivering curriculum.

• Budget.

• Assessment.

This paper concludes with lessons learnedfrom the four programs and recommenda-tions based on their experiences.



Economi c ra t i ona le :Why invest in workers?

The choice of a community college as atraining provider has its roots in a compa-ny’s larger decision to pursue additionaltraining and education for its current work-force. When asked why they made this deci-sion to invest, staff from each of the compa-nies interviewed spoke of the economy andits recent dramatic changes.

Underlying the establishment of each ofthe partnerships we looked at is some com-bination of higher levels of competition,rapidly advancing technology and a tighterlabor market—conditions that translateinto a need for more training at reasonablecost. This goal, in one form or another, isat the center of each company’s trainingprogram and in its choice of a communitycollege as a training provider.

Intel, a rapidly growing industry leader, hasseen the pace of technological changeadvance faster than the skills of its originalworkforce. As one company representativenoted, in those early days, the companywould “hire anyone” regardless of degree oreducational level. A number of these earlyhires, now in jobs that have a threshold

standard of an AA degree (or higher), maylack both the academic credentials andneeded English, math, communications,SCANS and management skills to functioneffectively in a changed environment. Tomaintain its competitiveness, the companysees the need to provide both basic andapplied education for these workers, and toencourage the active pursuit of an AAdegree for anyone who does not have onein designated job levels.

For Chrysler, technological change requiredan ambitious makeover of an entire factorymodel—from “low-tech to high-tech,” as oneinvolved staffer put it. One outcome of theModern Operating Agreement (MOA)between the UAW and Chrysler, was thatChrysler’s new Jefferson plant consolidated23 traditional, highly defined classified jobtitles into eight—creating an immediateneed to retrain a senior workforce with anaverage age of 54. In addition to transform-ing the jobs of every worker, the changerequired many to learn new skills such ascomputers and PLC robotics.


8 Working Ventures

For Boeing, another industry giant, trainingneeds have also been driven by advancingtechnology, and the concomitant need totrain workers to operate new computerizedmachining equipment at a reasonable cost.As with most manufacturers, Boeing faces acontinuing challenge to find cost-effectivemeans to keep its workforce current with newequipment and manufacturing techniques.

The pressures of meeting the dual require-ments of high quality and low cost are, ifanything, more intense at small manufac-turers such as Sequins, which confronts ahighly competitive environment withoutthe resources of a large or even mid-sizecorporate base. Sequins is competing withChinese and Indian firms that have muchlower labor costs. The firm needs to lowercosts and raise product quality to meet cus-tomer expectations and remain viable.

Why choose a communitycollege?For each of these employers, the economicfactors described here led to a choice of acommunity college over other optionsranging from training companies to propri-etary schools to in-house training. How didthey come to a decision? For some of theemployers profiled here, there was no realchoice: training requirements were of ascope or complexity that no other providercould meet or meet easily.

For these employers, with large-scale andintensive training requirements, communitycolleges have the potential to offer, in oneplace, a broad range of existing or easilyadapted courses; access to a pool of facultyexpertise; academic credit for training; and acontinuing educational resource for a com-pany and its employees—all attributes notreadily duplicated by other providers. As theexperience of these companies makes clear,some community colleges are well-positionedto meet ambitious training needs: particularlythose that require comprehensive, long-termor complex training services.

For more narrow or limited training, howev-er, there is greater competition—from in-house providers, training firms and manufac-turers. For two companies profiled here,however, community colleges are competitiveon services that other providers also offer.These companies cite high flexibility and lowcost as reasons to use a community collegerather than a competitor organization.

In general, five key reasons for choosingcommunity colleges emerged from discus-sions with these companies:



1 Continuing ConnectionAs a stable and accessible presence

in the community, community colleges canprovide continuing educational and train-ing benefits to workers.

Several employers cited this continuingaccess to training, beyond the specific pro-ject studied, as an important considerationin developing a partnership with communi-ty colleges. At a time when employersincreasingly see the need for continualupgrade training to keep pace with tech-nology, creating personal connections foremployees with community colleges is natu-rally viewed as an important outgrowth of atraining relationship. For Intel, of course,creating this connection is at the center ofthe training mission. Other employers alsosee fostering ongoing individual connec-tions to colleges as a key long-term benefitof a more limited training program. Ofcourse, part of this benefit derives from thefact that community colleges, unlike privateproviders, will always be there, “stable anddependable,” as one Boeing staffer noted,and thus accessible to employees who wantto continue their training.

The sense of community colleges as anessential—and cost-effective—resource foremployees beyond the immediate trainingprogram is shared by most of the employ-ers. At Sequins, the CEO views LaGuardiaCommunity College as a rich and underuti-lized community educational opportunitythat could help his largely low-skilled, non-English speaking workers in a broad arrayof areas from language skills to personaldevelopment to improved technical skills.

2 Scope and CapacityFew other providers can match the

breadth of training offered at some com-munity colleges. With an established pres-ence in the community, a ready pool ofinstructional staff, dedicated funding andthe ability to offer scores of courses, com-munity colleges provide a level of capacityfor large-scale or long-term training that isdifficult for other providers to duplicate.Chrysler, for example, with a mandate toprovide extensive retraining for 350 work-ers over a period of several years (and con-tinuing training for new workers), “neverconsidered” other vendors. Charged withproviding over 50 classes in eight separateconsolidated work areas, Chrysler’s trainingpartner, Macomb Community College, hasbeen able to draw on related curriculum,assemble needed instructors and providerequired class and lab space. Faced withdemands of this magnitude, communitycolleges are, as one Chrysler staffer noted,“the natural” training provider. Few organi-zations can compete on this scale.

While the other employers studied did notreach the same scope in their training, theytoo have drawn on the resources of com-munity colleges to create large-scale long-term training. Intel’s on-site college cam-pus, for example, required MissionCommunity College to provide instructionand curriculum in seven subject areas atIntel, while also offering access to a muchbroader range of advanced and appliedtraining at its nearby campus.


10 Working Ventures

3 Academic CreditPostsecondary institutions in gener-

al, and community colleges in particular,have a significant advantage over mostother vendors in that they can offer a fullrange of academic services—a degreeand/or a wide spectrum of academicallycertified programs and individual classesearning academic credit. Perhaps the mostobvious reason to choose a community col-lege is the kind of academic accreditationthat most vendors or in-house providerscannot offer. For Intel, for example, anAssociates degree has become a requiredcredential for many job titles. Intel’s goal incontracting with a community college isessentially to establish a college on-site as away to provide basic skills training and cre-dentials to its employees. Boeing, too, seesthe potential provision of credit for trainingas an additional reason to seek a communi-ty college as its primary training provider(although Boeing students did not in factreceive credit for the training provided).

4 Complementary ServicesCommunity colleges provide a

range of services beyond the usual focus ofa training project, including counseling,evaluation and testing. For several employ-ers, these ancillary services were an addi-tional benefit of their college partnership,with counseling in particular seen as ameans to help students adjust to trainingand benefit from the educational opportu-nities available.

5 CostFor some kinds of training, com-

munity colleges can provide low-cost ser-vices. For two of the companies profiled,cost has been the determining factor inchoosing the community college over com-peting providers, where community collegeadvantages of scale and capacity are not amajor factor. For Boeing, for example,Shoreline Community College has beenable to significantly undercut industryproviders in offering its training on adapt-ing a specific piece of equipment. Thisadvantage in cost over private providers is,for Boeing, enhanced by the dependabilityand stability of the community college.

Similarly, LaGuardia has provided its qualitymanagement training at a large discount,compared with the private managementconsulting firm used previously. Interestingly,lower costs in both these cases do not resultdirectly from any public sector subsidies(beyond those that provide the foundation forpublic education) but are based on the pre-vailing fee structure at the community college.

Unlike the other factors, cost is not aninherent advantage of community collegetraining, and may, in fact, be seen as anissue when colleges are chosen for otherreasons. For Intel and Chrysler, for whichthe community colleges are the logical, ifnot the only provider, cost has been less ofa factor in selecting a training provider. ForIntel, in fact, community colleges are seenas less competitive and less flexible in thecost arena than are other providers. Inteltypically requires its contractors to reduce



costs from year to year. Due to state-fixedcharges for college credit, this has not beenpossible in the on-site college project—much to Intel’s chagrin. The unique natureof Mission’s services, however, precludesany other provider.

Choosing a community college providerOnce companies recognize that their train-ing needs are best fulfilled by communitycolleges, how do they choose a specific col-lege as the training provider?

The companies studied pursued a variety ofmeans to link their training needs to acommunity college provider. Two of thecompanies chose an RFP: a formal requestfor proposals that looked at factors likelogistics, pricing, facilities and services. Theothers selected providers based on moreinformal contacts or a prior relationship. Inall cases however, selection (and the ongo-ing relationship) depended on a sometimesextensive series of meetings at which thestructure and fabric of the partnershipwere negotiated. For the larger partner-ships, an established planning groupworked over a period of months to fullydefine the training program.

While there is no single model, the experi-ence of these employers suggests a basic listof objectives to be considered in selecting aparticular community college:

• Faculty and academic capacity;

• Flexibility in delivering training;

• Ability to deliver other needed servicesand supports;

• Prior experience in the training area;

• Prior contacts; and

• Cost.

Beyond the basics, specific process andselection requirements will naturally varyacross partnerships.

Employers with extensive training needswill develop an elaborate bid process.Chrysler, recognizing from the outset thatit needed the scale of a community collegeto fulfill its complex and broad-rangingtraining requirements, put together anextended RFP/bid process that served asthe basis for discussion with three commu-nity colleges. The Chrysler process beganwith laying out the basics of the trainingneed—by far the largest and most compre-hensive of the partnerships studied. Toretrain all the workers at its Jefferson plant,Chrysler required over 50 separate classesacross eight different professional fieldsscheduled over a three-year period.Moreover, classes needed to be offeredwithin a relatively tight time schedule—7:00a.m. to 3:00p.m.—requiring the collegeto have significant resources in terms ofboth available faculty and space.


12 Working Ventures

To familiarize the colleges with the compa-ny’s training needs, Chrysler union andmanagement representatives conductedseveral meetings with each college. Theultimate choice of Macomb was based onlogistics, pricing and facilities. Because ofits pool of faculty and experience in offer-ing similar courses, Macomb had thebroadest spectrum of training available—it“could do all of it,” and at a reasonableprice. For Chrysler, however, selection of aprovider was only the first step in a processthat was still in a very formative stage. Asone college staff person noted, even afterinitial selection, Chrysler’s objectives werestill vague. For its part, Macomb, while ithad experience in the required fields, didnot actually offer many of the neededcourses. The ultimate shape of the trainingprogram was forged over a six-month plan-ning period featuring frequent meetingsbetween Chrysler union and managementrepresentatives and Macomb staff.

The same pattern of a formal RFP followedby extensive negotiation characterized theother large-scale partnership, Intel andMission College. Intel’s RFP focused oncost, capacity, flexibility and services. Intelspecifically looked for:

• Capacity to provide a pool of faculty thatcould deliver literacy, math, science andcommunication courses;

• Flexibility as to the time and place class-es could be delivered;

• Services including counseling and assessment;

• Prior partnership history with Intel;

• Ability and willingness of the communitycollege to assume complete responsibili-ty for administration, including enroll-ment, continuing operation and counsel-ing; and

• Credit for classes offered.

The choice of Mission among the threecommunity colleges that responded wasbased on these factors, its experience inoffering the “corporate college” model toother employers and on a prior trainingrelationship. Unlike Chrysler, Missionoffered many, if not all the coursesrequired by Intel. However, because theprogram was to be offered on the Intelcampus and designed to meet the compa-ny’s specific needs, creating the partner-ship was not simply a matter of adding newsections of existing courses. As withChrysler, an advisory council comprised ofIntel and Mission staff continue to shapethe program model.

Boeing’s requirements, for a much smallerprogram, reflected, if in miniature, thebasic elements of other training frame-works. Before finalizing its decision to workwith Shoreline, Boeing asked for:

• Faculty who could assess needs anddevelop and deliver the curriculum;

• Delivery adapted to Boeing time andplace needs;

• Connection to other Shoreline courses; and



• Credit for classes offered (ultimately notgranted for cost reasons—see below).

For Sequins, the partnership resulted froma seminar sponsored by LaGuardia Collegeon quality management implementation insmall companies. Sequins management,interested in introducing the training tothe company, agreed to contract withLaGuardia as a training provider. AtBoeing, the process was similarly informal,with Shoreline’s selection based primarilyon capacity and prior relationship.

One issue in choosing community collegesis geography and designated “turf.” In somecases, the most appropriate community col-lege to meet the training need is not theclosest to the employer. Because many com-munity colleges operate within designateddistricts, crossing lines to seek another com-munity college provider becomes some-thing of a political concern. This is hardlyan insurmountable problem; companies aregenerally free to work with any communitycollege they choose, and two of the partner-ships profiled here were able to overcomethe geography issue. Nevertheless, thiscould be a concern in some community col-lege partnership decisions.


14 Working Ventures

Structuring the relationship: roles and responsibilities

“We’re education…you’re semiconductors.”

Selection of a provider, of course, is justthe first step in developing a training pro-gram. As discussed earlier, much of thecritical early work in developing an effec-tive program lies in defining how theemployer and community college will allo-cate planning and implementing a com-plex training program. Which partner isresponsible for program design? How dopartners divide responsibility for programoperation? How are issues that arise duringthe partnership resolved?

In some of the partnerships, this division ofresponsibilities is complex, due largely to thescope of the effort. For Chrysler’s initialwholesale factory retraining project, the part-ners had to plan and develop curricula cov-ering two levels of training, create 402 classsections, establish guidelines, orient employ-ees, find faculty, find space, monitor out-comes and deal with inevitable conflicts. TheBoeing partnership is much smaller, but stillhas required Boeing and Shoreline to devel-op and operate a training program for 250employees working on three different shifts.

Regardless of size, however, while each part-nership has handled these concerns some-what differently, all have pursued a similarorganizational framework. This strategycombines a clearly defined division ofresponsibilities between college and employ-er, with a joint advisory group to govern thepartnership and resolve difficult issues.

The basic operating principle for all thepartnerships studied is probably bestexpressed by a Mission College administra-tor describing how Mission and Intel havedivided their respective responsibilities:“We’re education…you’re semiconductors.”

While somewhat simplistic, this formulareflects the fundamental line of demarca-tion underlying the partnerships. On oneside of the line is the college faculty andstaff charged with developing, designingand operating the educational program.On the other is the employer, often in con-sultation with union representatives,responsible for internal management andreview of plans and progress. Typically, thisseemingly sharp divide is bridged by some



form of joint advisory committee thatreviews plans, formulates policy andresolves issues.

In at least three of the partnerships studied,it is this committee that has given shape tothe partnership through modifying theplans and procedures initially proposed bythe community college, and infusing thetraining model with the culture and prac-tice of the workplace. Committees haveincluded key employer and union represen-tatives who devote considerable time to pro-gram planning and continue to meet regu-larly throughout the period of operation. Inthe early stages particularly, this planning oradvisory group has been the mechanism forprogram design and development.

Four key stepsTo structure and organize the training ini-tiatives, most partnerships have followed afour-step process:

Step 1:

Employer lays out general training objec-tives, scope, outcomes and budget.

Step 2:

Community college responds with a model defining proposed classes, facultyand logistics.

Step 3:

Advisory committee negotiates and agreeson the training model.

Step 4:

Advisory committee provides implementa-tion, continued oversight and recommendsany necessary modifications through anadvisory committee.

Across the partnerships, this pattern hasled to a similar division of roles and respon-sibilities:

Employer role• Develop training plan. Employers need

to develop an internal consensus on theobjective, scope and direction of train-ing. In some projects, this may requireinvolving management, supervisors andunion representatives in a series of meet-ings to develop agreements. In at leastone of the projects studied, manage-ment has noted that insufficient atten-tion was paid to this step prior to thestart of training.

• Set formal training objectives. Not sur-prisingly, these partnerships had theirgenesis in training needs evident to eachemployer. In approaching communitycolleges, the first, and perhaps mostimportant, employer responsibility is todefine, at least in broad terms, the train-ing required, and to set training objec-tives. In the partnerships studied, thistraining outline included the kinds oftraining needed; the number to betrained, the location of training, theduration, outcomes and the ancillaryservices required.


16 Working Ventures

One variant of this model, seen in theSequins example, occurs when the col-lege offers a specific kind of training—such as quality management training—and the employer responds, seeing achance to meet a clear need. As with theother partnerships, however, the trainingprogram as delivered is modified as aresult of a close collaboration betweenthe college and employer.

• Set budget. Employers take final respon-sibility for budgeting, of course, butapproach this role differently. In two ofthe partnerships studied, employersbegan with a set budget figure, whichprovided a foundation for programdesign. In the two other partnerships,the community college first proposed abudget, which was accepted by theemployer. In most cases, as above, bud-geting is a continuing process.

• Review training model. One of the mostimportant employer roles is to providecontinuing guidance to the communitycollege as the training design is devel-oped. Across the partnerships, employerroles have included participation inareas like needs assessment, course selec-tion, approval of proposed faculty, test-ing needs, and logistics and scheduling.

• Recruit participants. Employers areresponsible for setting up a recruitmentmechanism, including developing stan-dards and policies for program participa-tion, selection and program outreach.This effort includes establishing formalguidelines as well as developing writtenmaterials outlining program operations.

Operational decisions may also involve across-section of the company. Supervisorsand others may need to be involved inrecommending recruits, in approvingcompany training practices andmonitoring outcomes. In some of thepartnerships studied, costs of participa-tion are billed to supervisory budgetsrather than to a central training account,leading to continuing supervisor involve-ment in training efforts.

• Review operations. Employers play acontinuing role in reviewing trainingimplementation, monitoring outcomesand modifying program design. In boththe Chrysler and Intel partnerships,employer advisory committees havereviewed individual class experiences,resolving such issues as employee com-plaints and problems with faculty.

Achieving these objectives requires a signifi-cant time commitment. Chrysler manage-ment and union representatives, for exam-ple, reported that they worked nearly fulltime for a year to develop the training pro-gram and have been on site nearly everyday. In all the partnerships, staff from bothemployer and college agree that an exten-sive time commitment, particularly duringthe planning period, is necessary to makethe program work.



Community college role• Develop training model. Based on the

objectives laid out by the partneremployer, community colleges havetaken responsibility for developing ormodifying curriculum and presenting adetailed class plan to employers. Thiscan be a lengthy process and oftenrequires a good deal of interactionbetween the college and the employer’sadvisory committee.

• Select faculty pool. Based on articulatedneeds of the employer, community col-leges select qualified faculty who canalso deliver courses at the time and placechosen. In large partnerships, such asthe Chrysler-Macomb program, whichhave required that colleges develop anumber of new courses taught during alimited time window, this has proved tobe a significant challenge. Matching fac-ulty to employer culture and needs alsohas proved to be an important, and attimes difficult, part of this responsibility.

• Define logistics. Based on the frameworkagreed to by the partners, communitycolleges are responsible for establishingand supporting a schedule of classes thatfit the needs of potential trainees. This,too, can be a difficult task, particularlywhen training is conducted at the com-munity college. In a partnership such asthat between Macomb and Chrysler, forexample, training segments for hundredsof workers have had to be scheduled fora seven-week period, with training deliv-ered in the space of a designated seven-and-one-half-hour period each day.

• Provide ancillary services. Some partner-ships, like that between Intel andMission, call for services beyond class-room training, like counseling, testingand evaluation, and links to other col-lege courses and services. This kind ofemployer need requires colleges toaddress issues of staffing, space andaccess beyond the core training model.

• Modify budget. Budgeting can be a con-tinuing issue, particularly in long-termpartnerships. Often, as in two of thepartnerships studied, the initial budgetproposed by employers serves as a guide-line, which is modified during the plan-ning process based on factors such asfixed costs for courses, space and loca-tion needs, faculty availability, addedmaterials and costs. Budgets are alsorenegotiated as training is extended.

• Manage operations. In general, collegesare responsible for day-to-day programadministration to assure that classes andother services run smoothly. Larger part-nerships tend to appoint a coordinator,full- or part-time, who can serve as a sin-gle point of contact with participants,employer and college administration. Insome of the partnerships studied, thecoordinator is also responsible for moni-toring attendance and performance andproducing regular outcome information.With partnerships such as Intel, thoughthe coordinator is a college employee,the position is based on site at theemployer and reports to a joint advisorycouncil comprised of both employer andcollege staff.


18 Working Ventures

This interactive partnership model requiresan even greater commitment of time onthe part of the community college. Collegestaff in one of the larger partnershipsreport that they spent nearly 100 percent oftheir time on the planning portion of theprogram and 30 to 40 percent duringimplementation. Larger partnerships mayalso require separate day-to-day manage-ment. Two of the colleges, Mission andMacomb, have hired coordinators toadminister the program. At Mission, thecoordinator serves as a full-time contact,manages scheduling, serves as a liaisonbetween participants, college and employ-er, and collects data on program outcomes.The Mission coordinator is a full-time posi-tion, while at Macomb a half-time coordina-tor is assigned to program operations.

Curriculum and deliveryDeveloping and delivering curriculum is atthe heart of any training partnership, andpresents two critical challenges to trainingproviders. First, how can a partnershiptranslate the sometimes vague objectivescontained in an RFP to a concrete courseor series of classes? Second, once devel-oped, what is the best way to deliver thecurriculum so employees learn?

These larger tasks in return raise a numberof practical concerns: To what degreeshould training be customized? What is therespective role of college and employer?Should training be delivered on-site or at

the college? Should it be classroom or indi-vidualized? Should it be after hours or dur-ing the work day?

Clearly, the answers to these questionsdepend on the particular context—theemployer’s and college’s needs, capacityand resources. Yet the experience of thesevery diverse training initiatives suggests thatsuccessful development and delivery oftraining depends primarily on the ability ofcommunity college providers to performfour critical tasks:

• Draw on a strong foundation of existingcurriculum and faculty expertise;

• Contextualize and relate curriculumdirectly to the company environmentand needs;

• Deliver the curriculum at a time andplace that best meet worker needs; and

• Teach the curriculum in a way that fitscompany culture and accounts foremployee learning styles and skill levels.

Although these seem to be obvious thresh-olds, they are in practice sometimes difficultto meet. The experience of these partner-ships suggests that in some ways, communitycolleges are among the training providersbest suited to the task. Comprehensive anddiverse, the best of these institutions com-bine the academic capacity required bymore extensive training designs with theflexibility to deliver training customized tocompany needs. Yet community collegesalso are institutions with their own tradi-tions, style and culture. Meshing these with



the corporate environment—a baserequirement of any successful training—isoften a struggle even for the most successfulof partnerships.

Developing curriculum

Building on a strong foundationIn developing a curriculum, the first step isto look at the academic foundation alreadypresent—the existing college courses andthe pool of faculty expertise. Each of thesecolleges was able to draw on currentresources to adopt or develop the trainingrequested. This foundation is central to thecreation of an effective training program.

All the courses requested by Intel for exam-ple—both general and technical—are partof the Mission curriculum and offered on aregular basis to other students. LaGuardia,too, has previously offered its managementcurriculum to other employers and neededonly to adopt it for Sequins.

Where courses did not exist, communitycollege partners had the capacity to developthem. Macomb did not offer most of thecourses required by Chrysler, and needed todesign much of the 69-course curriculum“from the ground up.” It is striking, however,that this task, requiring six months of inten-sive planning and continuing curriculumdevelopment to complete the trainingdesign, was not seen as particularly taxingby college administrators. Macomb hadaccess to a pool of faculty familiar with thegeneral subject matter and has been able to

create the needed courses, through drawingon faculty expertise and a related library ofclasses. In fact, the largest concern forMacomb administrators involved in the pro-ject has not been in curriculum develop-ment but logistics—scheduling the facultyto deliver classes at the time required.

Shoreline, too, was able to find an instruc-tor with the requisite expertise to developthe Smart CAM training program. Like theother colleges, Shoreline has been ablealso to draw upon a strong foundation ofrelated training.

For employers seeking college partners,this depth of expertise and prior experi-ence should be viewed as a necessary pre-requisite in provider selection.

Adapting curriculum designThe experience of these partnerships sug-gests that effective training requires col-leges to adapt pre-existing curriculum tomeet specific training requirements. Manyemployers expect colleges to study theirtraining needs and worker abilities and cre-ate customized training accordingly.Colleges, too, recognize the need to ensurethat programs are fully responsive to thecompany’s training needs, and perhapsmore importantly, that they use the compa-ny’s business and product as an integralpart of the training offered.

An important element in the success of thetraining programs studied has been thisflexibility in curriculum design—the will-ingness and ability of selected community


20 Working Ventures

colleges to adopt, refine and in some casescreate curriculum and course material thatmirror the workplace.

Each of the colleges has worked to createtraining that makes this kind of concreteconnection with work. Once the training-award decision was made, colleges began theprocess of developing a customized trainingprogram. Typically, the first step was a fact-finding process that included visits andmeetings with company staff and potentialtrainees to determine training needs.

Macomb, for example, sent instructors tothe plant to observe tasks and interviewsupervisors. Instructors then developed aprototype curriculum and brought it backto the advisory group for review. Shoreline,too, began the process with a needs analysisthat involved “lots of dialogue” with Boeingsupervisors and training staff, while Missiondrew upon the expertise and experience ofthe advisory council for input. At Mission,as at Macomb, the advisory group hasserved both as a forum and review boardfor curriculum decisions, a process thatincluded frequent meetings and resulted incontinuing program modification.

LaGuardia’s Quality Management Trainingprogram has been adapted from previoustraining provided by the college to othermanufacturers to suit Sequins’ operation.LaGuardia had spent 10 months develop-ing the basic quality management modelthat has now been used by the college at 14companies (seven manufacturing firms andseven service firms). Sequin’s director of

human resources has served as the in-housepoint person for the program and hasworked with the LaGuardia consultant andthe project advisory group to customize theexisting curriculum.

All the colleges studied view the task of tak-ing a standard curriculum and adopting itto the specific needs of the companies as afundamental part of a successful trainingprogram. As one Mission administratorcommented: “If there is any way you cancontextualize…do.”

Each of the partnerships followed this man-date, looking for ways to bring businessinto the classroom. Mission asked itsinstructors to gear presentations to semi-conductor manufacturing if possible, andto relate class discussions to the workassignments of classroom participants. Thereal life environment at Intel has been usedas a focus of classes from English to physics,with homework specific to the industry andproblems and paperwork drawn from thejobs of students.

At Macomb, where classes were developedspecifically to meet Chrysler requirements,contextualization began with basic curricu-lum planning; each class was designed toconform to the framework set by Chrysler.Because workers are being trained for newChrysler job classifications, tasks are imme-diately relevant to jobs. Classes are builtaround defined competencies that are mea-sured at the completion of training.



At Shoreline, too, training, by contract, hasbeen designed to connect to Boeing’s man-ufacturing needs. Classes are built aroundthe computer software employed byBoeing, and Boeing blueprints and partsare integrated into classes. Class design isbased on achievement of defined compe-tencies as at Chrysler. Shoreline has alsotrained a Boeing employee who is responsi-ble for continued employee training uponcompletion of the project.

Delivering curriculumAfter creating a curriculum, partnershipsmust find a way to deliver it that fits thecompany’s schedule, capacity and needs,and resonates with the trainees. The first ofthese tasks—fitting the company’s needs—occurs in the planning period; the secondand harder task—teaching effectively—occurs in implementation.

Meeting employer time and placeneeds: wherever, whateverAll training programs must deal early onwith the question of where training shouldbe delivered—on campus or at the work-place; and whether it should be conductedduring or after the normal working day.Considerations include the number ofemployees to be targeted; the kind of train-ing to be offered, the duration of the train-ing, whether training is voluntary ormandatory, and the capacity of the compa-ny training site and community college.

Three of the companies studied—Boeing,Intel and Sequins—chose to provide train-ing on-site. This training is more conve-nient for employees and does not disruptthe overall operation of the plant.Chrysler, by contrast, with the largest scaletraining, chose the community college asthe training site.

At Boeing, Chrysler and Sequins training ispart of the working day. It is required andworkers are learning a specific task or tasksthat they immediately put to use. At Intel, bycontrast, training is after work. Intel trainingis voluntary and unpaid, and focuses moregenerally on individual career advancementrather than work-specific training.

Regardless of the decisions made, it is clearthat the ability to adopt training to compa-ny time and place needs is a third key ele-ment of successful partnerships. Flexibilityof time and place is described by employ-ers as one of the most critical elements—initially—in making the decision to workwith a training provider, as well as in subse-quent planning and operation. The com-munity colleges, too, value and sell theirability to deliver “wherever, whenever”training, seeing their ability to take train-ing elsewhere as an important part of thepackage they offer employers.

For community colleges suffering the com-mon predicament of space limitations, pro-viding off-site training is also a vital part ofany business plan. The college’s chiefassets—curriculum, faculty and credit—areall more or less portable; selling them off


22 Working Ventures

campus can add significantly to revenueand capacity without imposing greatlyadded costs. For this reason, several of thecommunity colleges studied see this as anarea of great potential and are actively mov-ing to market this capacity.

For all these reasons, flexibility in serviceprovision and the ability to meet employerrequirements is an important part of all thetraining programs studied. Each of theseinitiatives require community colleges toadapt or change traditional class structuresand faculty schedules to meet the needs ofparticipating companies. Three of the part-nerships require community colleges todeliver services at the workplace, while allfour require adaptation to the shift patternsof the workers served.

For Boeing, the need has been to train allworkers who need Smart CAM during theirregular working shift on-site at the factory.This has required Shoreline to offer itsone-week training during all three shifts,though most classes have been scheduledfor the first and second shifts. Shorelinehas reported little difficulty in maintainingthis schedule.

Although Intel is located only a short dis-tance from Mission College, the company’sgoal has been to establish a college on-sitethat could provide most of the generalrequirements for an AA degree, and couldoffer these classes at a time convenient forworkers. Based on the work of the planningcommittee, Mission agreed to offer classeson-site at Intel, after the close of the work-

ing day. Most classes begin at 5:00 or 5:30and are, unlike other programs, voluntary;workers are not paid for attendance.Mission has been able to offer most of theclasses required by Intel at the Intel site,although some lab courses and other class-es requiring special equipment are provid-ed at the nearby Mission campus.

Chrysler training, located on the Macombcampus, posed a different kind of chal-lenge than did the other programs. Ratherthan adapting to a company worksite,Macomb has had to adapt its own campusto Chrysler’s large-scale training need.Macomb’s training plan put some strain onthe college, particularly in finding andretaining appropriate faculty who wouldteach the designated classes during the des-ignated times. This kind of flexibility, how-ever, is necessary to meet the demands oflarge-scale corporate training.

All Sequins training is provided on-site,during the working day. Individual trainingin areas like ESL is offered at theLaGuardia campus.

Matching faculty and companyculturesDeveloping curriculum and program deliv-ery that satisfies employers has been attimes a difficult challenge, but one thatfalls well within the capacity of these com-munity colleges. A harder issue, however, isteaching the curriculum in a way thatengages and benefits trainees, and that fitsthe prevailing company culture.



One concern facing training providers isthe need to ensure that all students meetthe academic requirements of the class-room; i.e., that they have the basic reading,math and computer skills to succeed in thetraining proposed.

Partnerships studied here have recognizedthe skills issue and have responded by ask-ing instructors to gear training to prevailingskills levels, and by providing individualremedial instruction when needed. AtMission and Macomb, for example, studentscan receive individual tutoring and counsel-ing, while at Laguardia they can be referredto ESL training. Shoreline requires that stu-dents have some familiarization with PCsprior to enrollment in training.

A second concern is to ensure that teachingconforms to the culture of both the compa-ny and its workers. As staff from several ofthe colleges noted, many of the trainees, whoare long-time employees, have absorbed theattitudes and style of their workplace. Tosome extent, this means instructors can facea classroom of students who share a way oflearning and responding that can be verydifferent from those in the average diversecommunity college class. Lack of familiarityor comfort with these kinds of corporatecultures can create conflicts in a classroomwhere faculty are used to setting the toneand teaching environment.

Adapting teaching to company culture inthe classroom has been a difficult issue forseveral of the partnerships, and is animportant factor to consider in developing

training relationships between communitycolleges—or any outside provider—andcompanies with a strongly established work-ing culture. This is particularly true in com-panies where workers to be trained are lesseducated, have been employed for a longtime, have received most of their trainingthrough internal sources, and have notdeveloped a pattern of continuing educa-tion. To some extent, these conditionsapply at all the partnerships studied and, of course, at many industrial concernsthroughout the country.

At two of the partnerships, Intel/Missionand Chrysler/Macomb, conflicts emergedbetween one or two instructors andtrainees. Although the environment is verydifferent at the two firms, the cause—theperception that instructors did not under-stand or respect the company culture—hasbeen the same.

The Intel training program presents aninteresting study in contrasts. Althoughworkers are burdened with low basic skills,they are also, by virtue of long service atone of the world’s most successful compa-nies, well paid, often wealthy individuals,with significant professional responsibilities.Moreover, Intel students are part of anaggressive company that encourages whatone Mission staffer calls “constructive con-frontation.” Facing a room that includessometimes aggressive and challenging stu-dents, have been some community collegeinstructors who—both partners agree—arenot necessarily ready for such a competitiveenvironment. The result has been occasional


24 Working Ventures

classroom clashes and the belief on thepart of some students that some instructorsdid not treat them like professionals. Intelultimately asked to pull two instructors,while Mission recognized that instructorswho “pushed back” were more effectivewith students.

At Chrysler, a different situation prevailed.There, during initial training, Macombcommunity college instructors, teaching anolder workforce with an average of 27 yearsof seniority and job security, had to find away to motivate trainees in making a diffi-cult change in their working lives. Giventhis challenge, Chrysler employer andunion representatives feel strongly that inorder to teach effectively, instructors needto have a background in the industry andan understanding of the labor force. Inpractice there have been complaints thatsome of the instructors did not relate wellto the trainees and that the teaching styleemployed by one or two instructors is “toodirective” for the trainee group. As a result,these instructors were taken off the trainingproject. As with Mission, Macomb has recog-nized the importance of grounding instruc-tors in the industry and corporate cultureto as great a degree as possible, throughprior experience or intensive orientation.

It is significant that the question of how fac-ulty can effectively relate to corporate cul-ture arises even at institutions that areamong the more notable nationally indeveloping successful partnerships withbusiness. The gulf between academic andcorporate culture is often a wide one, diffi-

cult to bridge even for experienced facultyand college administrators. In developing apartnership, college administrators, even atleading institutions, face the inherent chal-lenge that a great majority of their instruc-tors will not be steeped in the ways of theirpartner’s businesses. This, combined withissues of availability and competence in theneeded subject areas, highlights the needfor professional development and planningas well as occasional on-the-job training.



Among the most important questions foremployers entering a training partnershipare those that relate to the cost of training.What are actual costs? How negotiable arecosts? Are there opportunities for publicgrants or discretionary funds? What abouttax benefits? In working with communitycolleges, additional questions are naturallyraised: Are community colleges competitivewith other providers? Is there a potentialfor college aid or other public subsidiesthat might not otherwise be available?

Unlike the other key components of train-ing discussed here, there is no clear-cutdistinction between community collegesand other training providers, at least asseen in the partnerships studied here.There are also no firm guidelines foremployers to follow, beyond the basics ofgood negotiating and seeking whateveraccommodation is available. If any lessondoes emerge it is that colleges will be mostflexible on price in delivering the kind ofshort-term, no-credit training also offeredby other providers. Where colleges offer aunique service-credit, intensive or compre-

hensive training, award of academic certifi-cates, or continuing training, costs aremore likely to be fixed.

All the companies studied here paid all ormost of the training costs, either directly orthrough the participation of union trainingfunds. While some of the partnerships havebeen able to attract some public subsidies,others have not. Moreover, the subsidiesgained are not necessarily related to thecommunity college connection.

Similarly, there is no common experiencewith costs as compared with those of othertraining providers. Two of the partnershipsprofiled here are seen by employers ascheaper and more flexible than other kindsof training providers. Two others are seenas providing unique services that otherproviders could not match, but are alsoseen as largely inflexible in costs.

Training costs naturally varied with thescope and intensity of training offered. The88-hour quality management training atLaGuardia cost $11,000 per semester($22,000 per year) for the 250 participants,

Budget


26 Working Ventures

with eight semesters of training conductedto date. Shoreline’s Smart CAM training,priced at $40,000 for training 70 studentsin one-week classes in its initial phase—thesame price structure remains in place—hastrained 250 workers.

From here, costs rise considerably. TheIntel community college training at Missioncosts approximately $200,000 for the 100 to150 students served at any given time, whilethe extensive Chrysler training at Macombwas initially budgeted at $3 million for 350students.

Budgets at three of the partnerships—allnew training designs—were developedthrough a process of negotiation betweenthe employer and college, while the fourth,LaGuardia’s quality training, is fixed-pricebased on similar training LaGuardia hasoffered at other companies. Interestingly,employer partners have found that the twolower-cost training projects—those operat-ed by Shoreline and LaGuardia—whichboth offer training that is available else-where, are cheaper when offered by thecommunity college than by other providers,or when provided internally.

Boeing, for example, has found that theShoreline cost of training—$16/hour foreach trainee—is far less than the $40/hourbudgeted for internal training. The man-agement consulting assistance provided toSequins by LaGuardia includes both in-depth analysis and continuing, hands-onstrategic assistance for $22,000 per year. Amajor consulting firm offered Sequins a

somewhat more comprehensive assessmentservice with no additional training for$95,000—more than four times as much.

These same cost benefits do not hold truein the larger and more unique trainingmodels. At Intel, Mission College is tied toa state-established cost structure for anycourses for which credit is awarded. Thishas limited cost flexibility and the ability toreduce expenses as the program evolves.This in turn has caused the Mission part-nership to be an exception among Intelsubcontractors, who typically are requiredto reduce costs from year to year. The issueof fixed fee structures tied to credit extendsbeyond the Intel partnership to otherstates; in Washington for example,Shoreline and Boeing ultimately decidednot to provide credit for Boeing studentssince it would raise training costs. AtMacomb, where Chrysler training imposeda significant burden both in faculty timeand overall capacity, the budget has beendeveloped on a cost-plus basis.

An important question for any employer toconsider is the potential for community col-lege help in subsidizing training costs. In anumber of states, public subsidies availableto community colleges working withemployers can pay for curriculum develop-ment and instructional costs, and even pro-vide cash to companies in the form of wagesubsidies or direct cost reimbursement.Other resources, such as foundation fund-ing, also sometimes support community col-lege/employer partnerships. The AlfredSloan Foundation, for example, supports



LaGuardia’s work with manufacturers, andprovides opportunities for workers toreceive additional management-relatedtraining, conference fees and other services.

With the exception of the LaGuardia pro-gram, however, community college subsidieshave played a relatively small role in thesepartnerships, with Macomb drawing downsome state funding to assist in curriculumdevelopment. Other colleges that haveexplored state funding report that fundingoptions do not fit, for one reason or anoth-er, the design of the training program.

Potentially at least, the availability of subsi-dies for community college directed train-ing does provide a clear opportunity foremployers that is not available when work-ing with other training providers. However,employers also need to consider that thesesubsidies may carry restrictions with them,such as the need to serve low-income work-ers or to link subsidized training for cur-rent employees with guarantees to hireentry-level workers.


28 Working Ventures

Any look at larger lessons offered by com-munity college partnerships should beginwith an assessment of the training conduct-ed in these four initiatives. After three yearsof training, how do the employers studiedview their partnerships? Are they seen aseffective? Did they lead to measurableimprovements? What are the benefits—andcosts—relative to other kinds of training?Do companies plan to expand training?What are the lessons for other employers?

OutcomesAll of the companies interviewed believethat training to date has been a success. Byand large, the measures they used have notbeen global ones, such as improved produc-tivity or market share, difficult to measureor attribute in the context of industry lead-ers like Intel, Boeing and Chrysler. Rather,the focus has been more immediate, partic-ularly on measures like successful comple-tion of training provided. In all cases thishas been high. This relatively short-termview of training impact may also reflect thefact that these programs are continuing.

At Intel, the company estimates that 80 to87 percent of enrolled students completeindividual courses. The college’s minimumstandard of academic progress requires stu-dents to maintain a grade point average of2.0 and complete 50 percent of the overallcredits in which the student has enrolled.The larger impact of training on degreesearned—the ultimate goal of the Intel pro-gram—has not been assessed due to vary-ing progress rates and the relatively longtime needed to complete all requirements.Intel initially sought to get grade reports asa measure of progress, but this was turneddown by Mission as violating student confi-dentiality. Intel reports it has done nointernal competency assessments beyondcourse completion.

At Chrysler, success is measured throughpre- and post-tests, based on the definedcompetencies to be delivered in classes.Classes are tested as a group, with successdefined as all members achieving compe-tencies. For the first 350 workers throughthe program, the partnership rates 99.7percent of trainees as completing Level 1—the basic level of skills upgrade—and “99

A s s e s s i n gP a r t n e r s h i p s



percent plus” as completing the moreadvanced Level 2. Chrysler has deliberatelyavoided any individual testing of traineeseither in basic skills capability or achieve-ment of desired competencies, preferringto focus on results by training class.

Shoreline’s program, also designed to aidparticipants in meeting defined competen-cies, has a similarly high success rate for the250 employees who have entered training,with only a few failing to complete therequired coursework. Again, training successis measured by Boeing in terms of this com-pletion rate, rather than any larger impact.

Sequins, by far the smallest employer stud-ied, expects the most ambitious outcomesfrom its program, believing that company-wide management training will improveproductivity and decrease costs. Althoughall 250 of its workers are now participatingin the four-year-old training program,quantifiable results have been limited dueto a longer than expected information-gathering process. Sequins expects to havea new information management system inplace by the end of 1999. The full impactof the LaGuardia training cannot be real-ized until these data are available.

More telling perhaps than individual out-comes has been the decision of all the com-panies participating either to continuetraining or to enter into new training agree-ments with community colleges. This deci-sion does not reflect any single advantageoffered by these community colleges overother training providers, but rather the fact

that the colleges studied here have beenable to bring together a number of trainingadvantages in one place. If there is onetheme underlying all these partnerships, itis that all the community colleges studiedhere have been able to combine attributessuch as expertise, capacity and credit-bearingcourses in a well-established and easilyaccessible institution. This has created, forthese companies, a training environmentthat few other providers can duplicate.


30 Working Ventures

These four partnerships are in their wayexemplary, representing a successful matchbetween training need and provider. Thecommunity colleges, too, are not represen-tative of all community colleges, nor mayother employers have the same trainingopportunity afforded to Boeing, Intel,Chrysler and Sequins. For employersnationally, it is important to recognize thatmany community colleges focus more onacademic than vocational preparation, andthat others are struggling to define theirmission in a rapidly changing educationaland economic environment.

Nevertheless, we believe that these exam-ples fairly represent the potential of theseinstitutions as training providers, and thatthe issues raised here are reflective ofthose likely to arise in partnerships estab-lished between employers and colleges.The experience of these partnershipsoffers a number of lessons employers maywant to consider as they seek to meet theirown training needs, and to plan, structureand operate programs.

Selecting a ProviderCommunity colleges can be well-positioned to meet critical training needs in today’s economy.

The first lesson these partnerships offer thelarger community of employers is thatsome community colleges are especiallywell-suited to meet the diversity of trainingneeds likely to be faced by manufacturingemployers in a competitive environment.As advancing technology increases theneed for continuing education and train-ing, community colleges are among thetraining providers best positioned to meettraining requirements like:

• A continuing connection to an educa-tional institution;

• Large-scale, complex and/or long-termtraining;

• Accreditation for training or receipt of apostsecondary degree; and

• Ancillary services such as counseling andevaluation.

L e s s o n s



Among the community of training providers,community colleges have a clear advantagein meeting the training requirements andchallenges raised by large employers likeIntel and Chrysler. For example, few othertraining entities can offer, in one place,degrees and transferable credits to otherinstitutions (important to Intel and ofinterest to Boeing); the capacity to mobilizefaculty; established curriculum to train inmultiple subject areas (necessary for bothChrysler and Intel); and the potential tooffer continuing training and educationextending beyond the initial training plan(a virtue for all the companies studied).

With the ability to hire part-time instructorsand take advantage of existing faculty, com-munity colleges may also offer cost advan-tages in smaller and less demanding train-ing programs that do not require a largeeducational infrastructure.

Employers should seek community col-leges that combine capacity, area exper-tise and flexibility.

Not all community colleges in a regionwill be able to meet employer trainingrequirements. While, clearly, the appropri-ate institutional choice will depend on agreat variety of factors, the experience ofthese diverse training partnerships stillsuggests a core list of characteristics thatemployers should consider in any selec-tion process including:

• Established curriculum and courses inthe training field;

• A pool of experienced and available fac-ulty;

• Training delivery flexible enough tomeet employer time and place require-ments;

• Capacity to deliver training on-campus ifneeded;

• Willingness to engage in an intensivecurriculum development process;

• Willingness to adapt curriculum to meetemployer needs;

• Willingness to devote extensive staff timeto management and operation; and

• Willingness to seek outside funding tohelp support training.

In larger partnerships particularly, companiesshould familiarize providers with trainingneeds through meetings prior to selection.Companies should also be prepared forextensive early planning to refine objectives,structure and costs.

Realizing the advantages of communitycollege training can also mean additionalcosts and program burdens.

The experience of these partnerships showsthat the advantages often sought byemployers in choosing community collegesas providers are not always realized. Theseadvantages can also carry additional costsand program requirements.


32 Working Ventures

Credit has been cited by several of theseemployers as a reason to consider commu-nity colleges. Pursuing accreditation, how-ever, raises training costs and may delayprogram implementation. As described ear-lier, state cost frameworks and require-ments for credit-bearing courses can resultin higher costs than noncredit training, aswell as limiting flexibility in negotiatingprice. Creating new courses to meet compa-ny needs can require time-consuming facul-ty approval and may also impose individualtesting requirements that companies maywish to avoid.

Similarly, employers cite the potential ofcommunity colleges to offer life-long learn-ing for their employees. Community col-leges do provide these opportunities, butthe link with training programs is not auto-matic. Ensuring a continuing connection tocommunity colleges requires that compa-nies commit themselves to programsthrough efforts like individual education,planning and counseling. Although trainingis continuing, it is not clear that students inthese partnerships have taken full advan-tage of continuing educational opportuni-ties offered by the community colleges.

Structuring TrainingRelationshipsEmployers and community colleges needto take clearly defined roles.

Partners need to decide early on how roleswill be divided, and maintain a clear set ofresponsibilities throughout the trainingprogram. While this will likely vary depend-ing on the nature of training and manyother factors, the experience of the part-ners studied suggests that employers shouldtake on a management and review role,and leave planning and operational respon-sibilities to colleges.

Specifically, employers should focus onareas including:

• Setting objectives;

• Internal management;

• Setting budget parameters;

• Reviewing program organization anddesign;

• Recruitment and internal operations; and

• Monitoring.

Community colleges should focus on areas including:

• Curriculum development;

• Faculty selection;

• Scheduling and logistics;

• Training design;

• Day-to-day operation; and

• Outcomes and evaluation.



Partnerships should be managed jointly.

As partnerships evolve, it is a near certaintythat tensions will arise between employerand training provider, that initial programplans will be modified and that unexpecteddevelopments will require changes andquick decisions. All partners agree that inthe larger partnerships especially, the for-mal division of responsibilities underlyingtraining structure should be accompaniedby a joint college-employer group to serveas a vehicle for overall management, toreview key decisions, modify programdesign and operation, and monitor pro-gram results. This group should includeemployer, union (if appropriate) and col-lege representatives. The advisory groupshould meet regularly during planningstages and periodically during the opera-tional phase.

Larger partnerships require a full-timeadministrator.

Even with an extensive commitment of timeby higher level employer and college repre-sentatives, large training programs, such asthose sponsored by Boeing and Intel, needa full-time administrator who can serve as asingle point of contact for program partici-pants, employer and college.

Developing and deliveringcurriculumPartnerships should incorporate exten-sive curriculum planning.

One of the strongest lessons to emergefrom discussions with college administra-tors is the need to determine employerneeds and wants. Even where communitycolleges have a strong pre-existing curricu-lum base, program curriculum developmentshould begin with an extensive preparationperiod—lasting several months or longer inlarger or more complex training designs—when college staff meet with supervisorsand workers, visit the workplace, observetasks and needs, and review preliminarydesigns with employers.

Curriculum should reflect the workplace.

College administrators agree that trainingprograms are most effective when they con-nect in a concrete way with the workplace.As part of the development process,instructors should seek, to the greatestdegree possible, to incorporate real-lifework context, practices and products as anintegral part of classroom learning.

Program delivery and teaching shouldreflect the workplace.

Different workplaces reflect different cul-tures and ways of learning. Just as curricu-lum needs to incorporate the real-lifeworkplace, so does the way in which thecurriculum is conveyed. Some administra-tors feel that instructors should shareexperience or background with workersbeing trained, particularly in cases wherelong-time older workers are being asked to


34 Working Ventures

develop new skills. In any case, all agreedthat selected instructors must understandand feel comfortable with workplace cul-ture and practices so as to teach in a waythat resonates with trainees. This suggeststhat instructors become familiar with cor-porate culture prior to the beginning oftraining through workplace visits andmeeting with corporate staff. As the experi-ence of even this very limited sampleshows, this can also mean encouragingvery different classroom styles—rangingfrom supportive to challenging—depend-ing on the workers to be trained.

Program delivery should fit with time andplace needs of the employer and workers.

Effective training should fit as well as possi-ble into trainee schedules, reflectingemployer rather than college needs.Partnerships should explore options thatinclude providing training at the worksite,scheduling training to fit pre-existing work-er schedules (including all shifts), surveyingworkers as to best available training times,and delivering training in small groups.

Partnerships should incorporate supportive services.

Trainees may require a variety of servicesoutside formal classroom training.Partnerships should incorporate individualtutoring for employees below the basicskills threshold established for classroomtraining. This availability is particularlyimportant for employers reluctant to indi-vidually test basic skills prior to start oftraining. To meet employer objectives ofexpanding a worker’s access to the educa-

tion beyond formal training, partnershipsshould incorporate a career and educa-tional counseling component.

BudgetingCommunity colleges should explore publicgrant resources to help support partnershipefforts. In a number of states, funds availablesolely or primarily to community collegescan help support curriculum developmentand training efforts. While these resourcesmay carry restrictions that make themimpractical or irrelevant to employer needs,consideration of these opportunities shouldbe part of the budget process. Communitycolleges should also work to familiarizeemployers with other resources that mightbe available, including state and communityeconomic development funds, and—whereappropriate—should serve as a co-applicantfor these dollars.



Conclusion

The experience of these training programsreflects both the importance of partner-ships between employers and training insti-tutions such as community colleges and thedifficulties inherent in making them work.

The pace of economic and technologicalchange has increasingly driven firms, largeand small, to become consumers of train-ing, often provided by outside entities.Accustomed to setting high thresholds forother suppliers, companies are proving tobe demanding and influential consumersin the training marketplace as well.

To succeed, the ideal training providermust be able to offer a great deal: in-depthtraining across a wide range of skills andknowledge; services delivered anytime andanywhere; continuing presence and accessi-bility; and competitive price.

As we have seen, few, if any, trainingproviders can meet all these conditions.Yet, as publicly supported local institutions,community colleges have the inherent

advantages of accessibility, capacity, conti-nuity and scope that few other trainers—private, nonprofit or public—can match.

Employers should not expect that any orevery community college can deliver onthis promise. Many community collegeshave an academic mission, rejecting orminimizing a vocational role. Others havefailed to develop the depth and breadth oftraining services that can meet the needs ofindustries where technology changes week-ly. Still others have yet to develop the mar-ket perspective and flexibility to meet thechanging and often complex requirementsof corporate consumers.

One of the strongest, if least surprising,lessons here is that a successful partnershipdepends on the ability of the college—inmany ways a traditional educational institu-tion—to act in a nontraditional way. All thecolleges profiled here view their role less asinstitutions than as corporate partners, withcurriculum, staffing and delivery treated asflexible and negotiable services, ratherthan fixed features. This kind of negotia-tion and flexibility, is, of course, less of a


36 Working Ventures

departure for the corporate partners, usedto working with suppliers to get the servicesthey need. Yet, business partners mustconsciously maintain flexibility in workingwith community colleges, recognizing thatthey, as large public entities, do have restric-tions that other service providers do not.

An equally powerful lesson is that the rightperspective is only the start. Each of thesepartnerships—and they are among thebest—featured a long and at times difficultnegotiation process requiring a strong com-mitment from both partners. Even with thiskind of accommodation, barriers, like thoseof reconciling community college and cor-porate cultures, will likely arise despitegood will and strong effort.

Accepting these difficulties and caveats,inevitable in any kind of partnership, theexperience of these four programs showsthat for employers seeking to develop andretain a competitive workforce, communitycolleges can be an important—and perhapsnecessary—resource.



Contact Information

Boeing/Shoreline Community CollegeSeattle, Washington

Don Schultz

tel: [email protected]

Daimler-Chrysler/MacombCommunity CollegeMacomb County, Michigan

Cindy Geise


Intel/Mission Community CollegeSanta Clara, California

Ingrid Thompson


Sequins/LaGuardia CommunityCollegeLong Island City, New York

Wilfred Saunders



38 Working Ventures



Board of DirectorsSiobhan Nicolau, Chair

PresidentHispanic Policy Development Project

Amalia V. BetanzosPresidentWildcat Service Corporation

Yvonne ChanPrincipalVaughn Learning Center

John J. DiIulio, Jr.Fox Leadership Professor of Politics,

Religion and Civil SocietyUniversity of Pennsylvania

Alice F. EmersonSenior FellowAndrew W. Mellon Foundation

Susan FuhrmanDean, Graduate School of EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania

Matthew McGuireDirector of Private Sector InitiativesWildcat Service Corporation

Michael P. MorleySenior Vice PresidentEastman Kodak Company

Jeremy NowakChief Executive OfficerThe Reinvestment Fund

Marion PinesSenior FellowInstitute for Policy StudiesJohns Hopkins University

Isabel Carter StewartNational Executive DirectorGirls Incorporated

Mitchell SviridoffCommunity Development Consultant

Marta TiendaProfessor of SociologyPrinceton University

Gary WalkerPresidentPublic/Private Ventures

William Julius WilsonLewis P. and Linda L. Geyser

University ProfessorHarvard University

VenturesWorking

Public/Private Ventures is anational nonprofit organiza-tion whose mission is toimprove the effectiveness ofsocial policies, programs andcommunity initiatives, espe-cially as they affect youth andyoung adults. In carrying outthis mission, P/PV works withphilanthropies, the publicand business sectors, andnonprofit organizations.

We do our work in four basicways:

• We develop or identify socialpolicies, strategies and prac-tices that promote individ-ual economic success andcitizenship, and strongerfamilies and communities.

• We assess the effectiveness ofthese promising approachesand distill their critical ele-ments and benchmarks,using rigorous field studyand research methods.

• We mine evaluation resultsand implementation experi-ences for their policy andpractice implications, andcommunicate the findings topublic and private decision-makers, and to community leaders.

• We create and field test thebuilding blocks—model poli-cies, financing approaches,curricula and trainingmaterials, communicationstrategies and learningprocesses—that are neces-sary to implement effectiveapproaches more broadly. Wethen work with leaders of thevarious sectors to implementthese expansion tools, and toimprove their usefulness.

P/PV’s staff is composed ofpolicy leaders in variousfields; evaluators andresearchers in disciplinesranging from economics toethnography; and experi-enced practitioners from thenonprofit, public, businessand philanthropic sectors.

Working Ventures seeks toimprove the performance ofthe workforce developmentfield by providing practition-ers and policymakers withthe knowledge and toolsneeded to operate effectiveemployment programs. Wesupport the field by docu-menting effective employ-ment strategies and prac-tices, convening practition-er workshops and providingresources to encourageprogram innovation.


40 Working Ventures


2 Working Ventures

Public/Private Ventures

The Chanin Building122 East 42nd Street, 41st FloorNew York, NY 10168Tel: (212) 822-2400Fax: (212) 949-0439

For additional copies of reports or for more information:

One Commerce Square2005 Market Street, Suite 900Philadelphia, PA 19103Tel: (215) 557-4400Fax: (215) 557-4469Url: http://www.ppv.org

January 2000


We're Education...You're Semiconductors

Education

Transcript of We're Education...You're Semiconductors