The U.S. economy has undergone major structural changes in the past two decades. Intensified global competition and technological developments have increased the need for workers with flexible and technical skills. Some authors have argued that new labor market entrants will need to demonstrate adaptability and a high degree of specialized knowledge (Murnane & Levy, 1996). Workers are more likely to hold jobs for shorter periods than in the past and, over time, workers will require retraining or upgrading of their skills. At the same time, it is often reported that many employers perceive deficiencies in students' basic literacy and numeracy skills; other evidence suggests that they lack work attitudes and job experience (Grubb & Kraskouskas, 1992). These trends are set against the background of what many perceive to be a weak school-to-work transition system in the U.S., and fragile linkages between formal education and training (Grubb, Dickinson, Giordano, & Kaplan, 1992; Stern et al., 1994). There is also emerging evidence that many young people have difficulty obtaining stable employment (Klerman & Karoly, 1994). All of these points suggest that labor markets and the education-labor market relationship may be changing.[3] In practice, they have been interpreted as a need for closer, reciprocal communication between educators and industry-labor market connectivity.[4] For example, such linkages could help ensure that occupational skills taught in community colleges are up-to-date and useful in the labor market.
Policymakers at state and federal levels underscore the importance of such linkages. For example, the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce (1990), in their often cited report, America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!, argues the need for an improved education and training system in the context of changing work and new skill demands; "Goals 2000" calls on educators and employers to develop skill standards together; the School to Work Opportunities Act specifically funds the development of formal partnerships between employers, public secondary and postsecondary institutions, and labor organizations; and Perkins II tried to stimulate Tech Prep and the integration of academic and vocational subjects at both K-12 and postsecondary levels, calling for the broadening of vocational curriculum to cover "all aspects of the industry," making greater use of work experience, and building a "broad career preparation system."
Community colleges are a critical component of this education and training system. They provide millions of students with the skills they need to enter the sub-baccalaureate labor market. In 1994-1995, community, junior, and technical colleges enrolled over 5.4 million students, some preparing for transfer to a four-year undergraduate institution, others completing occupational training, and still others taking classes in basic literacy and numeracy. These institutions potentially play a crucial role in facilitating school-to-work transition. We, therefore, focus on two-year colleges and their linkages to the labor market and community.
Community colleges may link to the labor market at a variety of levels: institutional, departmental and program, and individual faculty level.[5] While formal arrangements are likely to exist at the former two levels, it is individual faculty who interact on a day-to-day basis with students. Faculty have primary responsibility for providing students with the skills they need for the workplace. For this reason, our primary focus is on the behavior of individual faculty members within the overall institutional context.
The first set of questions we seek to answer are about the types of links faculty have to local labor markets: How do community college faculty obtain information about local labor markets? What is the nature of their personal and departmental ties to local employers? To what extent, and in what ways, do they provide students with information about the local labor market? What kinds of input, both formal and informal, does local business provide for curriculum planning? The second set of questions deals with explaining why some faculty engage in linking behavior and others do not, and why we observe certain types of activities and not others. Toward this end, we explore the influence of some individual characteristics and institutional conditions and, in particular, the barriers and facilitators of labor market connections.
[4]Very little (if any) rigorous conceptual research underlies the assumption behind the school-to-work reform movement. It is important to note that close linkages between employers and the community college may lead to short-term, employer-specific curricula which may not be in the best interests of students.
[5]One additional important linkage is that a very large percentage of community college students have jobs. This may provide an important connection between the classroom and workplace, particularly in areas in which the students' jobs are related to their field of study. In this study, we did not attempt to gather any information about students.