NCRVE Home | Site Search | Product Search

Hull, G. (1992). "Their Chances? Slim and None":An Ethnographic Account of the Experiences of Low-Income People of Color in a Vocational Program and at Work (MDS-155). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

RECOMMENDATIONS: MAKING SOMETHING BETTER THAN NOTHING

Here are some suggestions for reorganization and reform in both the community college vocational program and the workplace. Although the program in Banking and Finance and banks as workplaces are addressed specifically, I believe the recommendations will hit home for other short-term, narrowly focused job training programs and will be relevant to students who are women and/or people of color in such programs.

I turn first to the short-term improvements that could be made in vocational programs like Banking and Finance:

* Match job placement to students' aspirations.
There was often a serious mismatch between students' aspirations and the jobs they got. Many students dreamed of professional careers, and almost all of those who planned to work in banks thought they would be working as tellers rather than proof-operators. The banks involved seemed to expect to hire most students as proof-operators; indeed, interviews and testing for this job were conducted on campus. Jobs as tellers or other positions seemed to be more hit or miss; when there was a vacancy, the instructor might be told, or perhaps not. If a community college vocational program is going to serve local corporations so directly, training students for specific jobs, then it seems reasonable to expand the range of positions that students can reasonably expect to apply for. This would perhaps mean lengthening the program and broadening its scope, issues I address below. I think every effort should be made, not to shape students' aspirations to fit the bank jobs that are most abundant, but to provide opportunities for students to acquire the experiences and training they need to get the jobs they want.
* Attend to job retention as well as job placement.
It is quite obvious from the relatively high placement rate and the quite low retention rate that students from the vocational program are getting hired but are rarely keeping their jobs beyond two to six months. The instructor usually loses touch with students after they leave the program except through random news brought by their friends or coworkers. Thus, when things go awry at work--when students are having trouble with tardiness or making production--they have no counsel and no intermediary. This is especially the case since, of course, there is no union. There needs to be serious attention to follow-up--regular meetings with new workers at the job site and regular discussions with supervisors. Vocational education for "at-risk" adults cannot end with the end of the semester.
* Broaden narrow skills training.
The Banking and Finance program is an example par excellence of a training program whose curricula fit exactly and narrowly the needs of an employer. Obviously this focus serves the current needs of the employer but certainly not the long-term and perhaps not even the short-term interests of the students. Jobs as proof-operators will likely give way to mechanization and are being deskilled even now. One way to broaden the program in a way that would serve students is, as I just mentioned, to make sure that students are able to train and apply for positions other than proof-operator. I am also supportive of the administration's attempts to introduce theory into the program in hopes of enabling some students to complete an associate's degree and eventually transfer to a four-year college.
* Update available technologies.
The program owned one old proof machine which was cantankerous and unreliable, so students got very little practice with this specialized machine, despite the fact that most students got jobs as proof-operators. (In some follow-up interviews, students mentioned the desirability of more practice on these machines prior to being hired.) There were no computer terminals or any training with computer technology, despite the fact that banks increasingly depend on electronic media, and that all tellers now operate such equipment. Incorporating experience with these technologies would likely increase students' chances of getting a wider range of banking jobs.
* Integrate literacy instruction into the vocational program.
I have discussed in detail in a previous section the sorts of literacy instruction that might be incorporated into a vocational program. Here I will simply say again that, while the reading and writing required to work as a proof-operator were limited, students were stymied by the reading and problem solving required on screening tests, and if they are planning to advance in banking, competency at reading and writing would be required. I believe that literacy instruction should be based partially on occupation-specific reading and writing activities, but should go well beyond these, and should include extended reading and writing for personal purposes as well as "critical" literacy.
* Coordinate vocational and academic offerings.
The vocational teacher said again and again that he did not teach reading. It was clear that there was virtually no coordination between the banking program and programs on campus which did provide literacy instruction. I do not think the solution is merely to shuttle students who need to brush up on math or to gain experience in writing over to remedial classes. There is a stigma associated with such classes, and there is no guarantee that they will offer instruction in literacy that will serve students well. Instead, there is much evidence to the contrary. I recommend that literacy specialists work with vocational teachers to design reading, writing, and math activities that grow out of vocational concerns and occur as part of the vocational program. There is a great need for "model curricula"--not materials that can be duplicated and used exactly in another program, but materials that can serve as innovative examples of what might be done to integrate literacy instruction with vocational training.
* Extend short-term program.
The recommendations I have made above cannot be implemented in a short-term program where some students stay six weeks, many two months, and only a few for a whole semester. The problem here, of course, is that the big draw of a short-term program is immediate employment. However, the advantages associated with such a program evaporate when students lose their jobs just as quickly as they get them, as we have demonstrated was the case for students in Banking and Finance. I believe that for most students to learn the things they will need for long-term employment, the program should last at least a semester. However, a more radical reorganization would be to design a course of study that gave students training in a cluster of vocations, with satellite courses on literacy and other "academic" subject matters, in lieu of short-term training in only one occupation. It was clear that many students came to Banking and Finance, not because they had a burning desire to work in a bank, but because they needed to get a job. Exposure to a variety of occupations might serve students better than short-term training, or even intensive training, in one area. To make this kind of reorganization viable, however, we must find some way to deal with the material circumstances of students who desperately need to work and cannot afford to take off extended time for training.

The above recommendations for the most part deal with changes in the curriculum and organization of a vocational program within a community college, but I think there needs to be reform at work as well. A long time ago, John Dewey was concerned that secondary vocational education not merely "'adapt' workers to the existing industrial regime." "I am not sufficiently in love with the regime for that," he wrote. Dewey thought that, rather, we should work for "a kind of vocational education which will first alter the existing industrial system, and ultimately transform it" (quoted in Lazerson & Grubb, 1974, p. 37). Reform at work may be an old topic, but it remains a crucial one and an issue that all educators, not just vocational teachers, need to confront. It is not enough to twist and shape vocational courses or literacy programs to suit the specialized needs of industry and business, or more positively, to search for ways around the constraints and the less than desirable conditions of many forms of work. Given the interest taken these days by businesses and corporations in partnerships and collaborations with schools, there is perhaps a window of opportunity to influence, or at least to air, conceptions of work and workplace organization which take advantage of and support human ability and potential. (One step in this direction is America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! [National Center on Education and the Economy, 1990]. Although I do not agree with all of the recommendations of this report, I do support both its assessment that insufficient skills are not the problem and its call for a reorganization of work.)

* Invest in long-term employment.
The proof-center that I studied was designed for turnover. In fact, one manager saw her job as dependent on a revolving door policy. Thus, no provisions were made to assist the predominantly female and minority workforce in keeping their jobs--rules were not bent, for example, when single mothers were late because of child-care responsibilities--and virtually no guidance was available to help workers advance in the corporation or even to move laterally. It is hard not to view this kind of job, as it is currently defined, as merely exploitative. But it would be possible for the corporation to invest in its workforce over the long-term, as I outline below.
* Decentralize production tasks and diversify front-line workers' responsibilities.
By everyone's admission, operating a proof-machine is stressful and deadening work. In fact, this job is so stressful and intense that proof-centers prefer part-time employees who do not work many hours a day; this way they "get the most out of workers." Ironically, at the same time as banks have moved to centralize these "low-level" jobs, some corporations (and banks, too, in terms of other operations) are considering a move (or being urged to consider it; see National Center on Education and the Economy, 1990) to decentralize work and to give more and more diverse responsibility to front-line workers. Not only are such changes expected to improve efficiency and profitability, but they also work against the ghettoization that occurs when certain routine tasks are lumped together and offered as reasonable employment to desperate people. (I recall a conversation with a bank executive from an eastern city during an airport cab ride. This high-level executive, who had worked in banking all his career, did not even know what proof-operators were.)
* Provide child-care services.
The most pressing work-related problem for many women is child care. It is either nonexistent or the services are exorbitantly expensive. The provision of on-site, low-cost child-care facilities would make it possible for many women to work irregular hours and also would solve many instances of absenteeism and tardiness.
* Create opportunities for full-time employment.
One of the ironies for many students in the Banking and Finance program was that they could not live on the part-time salaries that were available to proof-operators. I frequently heard stories from bank personnel of housewives who wanted part-time work, and that is fine, but the people in the Banking and Finance program need a full-time salary if they are ever to escape welfare dependence. There needs to be a range of jobs, some part-time but most full-time, with attendant benefits. Hiring people who cannot possibly live on the available wage is simply unproductive for all concerned. But rather than look to another part-time labor pool, such as college students, I would urge the more socially responsible policy of decreasing part-time jobs and creating opportunities for full-time employment.
* Create career paths and make them visible.
Many women and minorities are being pushed off whatever career ladder exists in banking simply because opportunities have decreased for advancement through on-the-job training and experience. As far as those people who are hired as proof-operators from the Banking and Finance program are concerned, the notion of advancement is so remote as to be almost laughable. These workers are not normally viewed as having the potential for promotion to higher levels. But one can imagine ways to encourage these workers to make banking a career--for example, by broadening their orientation and training to include a more comprehensive picture of what the world of banking is about, by making explicit what the "next step up" would be and what kinds of qualifications are needed for that move, and by subsidizing needed college courses.
* Admit educators and researchers to the work sites.
Educators in general, not just vocational educators, need to know what the work world is like; they need to experience a variety of kinds of work, if not firsthand, at least through a grand tour. Without this kind of knowledge, we all have our heads in the sand, preparing students in our classrooms for a work world we are only vaguely acquainted with. Something similar applies to educational researchers, who traditionally have kept their hands clean of industries and corporations, focusing their investigations on the classroom and school, no matter that classrooms and schools supposedly prepare children for another world. However, one of the roadblocks for both teachers and researchers who would understand work is the inaccessibility of workplaces. It is not at all easy, we have found (cf. Kusterer, 1978) to attain entry to a work world, much less to study it in depth. Thus, I urge educators and educational researchers to acquire knowledge of workplaces, and I urge leaders of business and industry to facilitate the acquisition of that knowledge by opening their doors.

To these specific recommendations for reorganization and reform in vocational education and the workplace, I would add the following more general observations about the implications of this study for thinking about schooling, work, and the experiences and chances of our students. The study reveals a harsher world than some of us are accustomed to--a world where education holds out false promises, where work is monotonous and uncertain, where the workplace is autocratic and punitive, where the chances of those who are most in need are "slim and none." I think one common and understandable response to such harshness is to treat it as an anomaly, a rare and extreme departure from the norm for schooling and work. But such a response prevents us from examining the extent to which the harsh realities visible in the lives of Jackie and Alma and their friends are present as well, if not so visibly, in the lives of others elsewhere. The study provides the starkest of demonstrations of social reproduction. This does not mean, however, that the process does not occur in other classrooms, other educational institutions, and other workplaces; rather, it simply may not be quite so obvious. (A conversation with Urvashi Sahni helped me understand the value of studying situations that may seem extreme cases for what those situations force us to see or to consider in other settings [Sahni, 1992].) The study brings to light a job which is rapidly being deskilled and a workplace where workers enjoy precious few rights and benefits. However, instead of dismissing this job as merely an anachronism, as a temporary curiosity in a high-tech, high-skilled world, we need to continue to ask just how prevalent "unskilled" and "deskilled" jobs are. (Indeed, we might find ourselves increasingly pressed to ask how prevalent new jobs of any variety are.) Similarly, instead of looking with a disbelieving eye on the working mother who gets fired for being three minutes late, we need to investigate how often democracy really does stop at the workplace door. We need to find out how often, and to think hard about why, the workers therein turn out to be predominately low-income women and people of color.

Let us end by considering again one of Mr. Parker's favorite sayings, one of his favorite summations of the Banking and Finance program. Mr. Parker often told me, when I expressed dismay at the jobs students got and the brief amount of time they kept them, that "something is better than nothing." This comment haunted me, for I knew very well what he meant. Many of the students in Mr. Parker's program did appear to lack support, confidence, and prospects--and in that way something really was better than nothing. For a time the students experienced Mr. Parker's support, they grew in self-confidence, and they got work, however briefly, in a big corporation. But I came to believe, in the course of my research, that Mr. Parker's modus operandi--"something is better than nothing"--framed the problem in the wrong way. Instead of assuming that the "something" the students get is their only possible alternative to "nothing," we need to find alternate pathways, different, more helpful, and humane ways of assisting people in vocational education and work, of improving their life chances. Instead of offering patchwork solutions--such as focusing solely on building up the literacy skills of the American workforce--we need to examine the pathways that are and are not provided from education to work as well as the conditions of work. We need to insure that survival is not an issue, indeed, that the "something" we are prepared and able to offer is a great deal more.

NCRVE Home | Site Search | Product Search

*			Match job placement to students' aspirations. There was often a serious mismatch between students' aspirations and the jobs they got. Many students dreamed of professional careers, and almost all of those who planned to work in banks thought they would be working as tellers rather than proof-operators. The banks involved seemed to expect to hire most students as proof-operators; indeed, interviews and testing for this job were conducted on campus. Jobs as tellers or other positions seemed to be more hit or miss; when there was a vacancy, the instructor might be told, or perhaps not. If a community college vocational program is going to serve local corporations so directly, training students for specific jobs, then it seems reasonable to expand the range of positions that students can reasonably expect to apply for. This would perhaps mean lengthening the program and broadening its scope, issues I address below. I think every effort should be made, not to shape students' aspirations to fit the bank jobs that are most abundant, but to provide opportunities for students to acquire the experiences and training they need to get the jobs they want.
*			Attend to job retention as well as job placement. It is quite obvious from the relatively high placement rate and the quite low retention rate that students from the vocational program are getting hired but are rarely keeping their jobs beyond two to six months. The instructor usually loses touch with students after they leave the program except through random news brought by their friends or coworkers. Thus, when things go awry at work--when students are having trouble with tardiness or making production--they have no counsel and no intermediary. This is especially the case since, of course, there is no union. There needs to be serious attention to follow-up--regular meetings with new workers at the job site and regular discussions with supervisors. Vocational education for "at-risk" adults cannot end with the end of the semester.
*			Broaden narrow skills training. The Banking and Finance program is an example par excellence of a training program whose curricula fit exactly and narrowly the needs of an employer. Obviously this focus serves the current needs of the employer but certainly not the long-term and perhaps not even the short-term interests of the students. Jobs as proof-operators will likely give way to mechanization and are being deskilled even now. One way to broaden the program in a way that would serve students is, as I just mentioned, to make sure that students are able to train and apply for positions other than proof-operator. I am also supportive of the administration's attempts to introduce theory into the program in hopes of enabling some students to complete an associate's degree and eventually transfer to a four-year college.
*			Update available technologies. The program owned one old proof machine which was cantankerous and unreliable, so students got very little practice with this specialized machine, despite the fact that most students got jobs as proof-operators. (In some follow-up interviews, students mentioned the desirability of more practice on these machines prior to being hired.) There were no computer terminals or any training with computer technology, despite the fact that banks increasingly depend on electronic media, and that all tellers now operate such equipment. Incorporating experience with these technologies would likely increase students' chances of getting a wider range of banking jobs.
*			Integrate literacy instruction into the vocational program. I have discussed in detail in a previous section the sorts of literacy instruction that might be incorporated into a vocational program. Here I will simply say again that, while the reading and writing required to work as a proof-operator were limited, students were stymied by the reading and problem solving required on screening tests, and if they are planning to advance in banking, competency at reading and writing would be required. I believe that literacy instruction should be based partially on occupation-specific reading and writing activities, but should go well beyond these, and should include extended reading and writing for personal purposes as well as "critical" literacy.
*			Coordinate vocational and academic offerings. The vocational teacher said again and again that he did not teach reading. It was clear that there was virtually no coordination between the banking program and programs on campus which did provide literacy instruction. I do not think the solution is merely to shuttle students who need to brush up on math or to gain experience in writing over to remedial classes. There is a stigma associated with such classes, and there is no guarantee that they will offer instruction in literacy that will serve students well. Instead, there is much evidence to the contrary. I recommend that literacy specialists work with vocational teachers to design reading, writing, and math activities that grow out of vocational concerns and occur as part of the vocational program. There is a great need for "model curricula"--not materials that can be duplicated and used exactly in another program, but materials that can serve as innovative examples of what might be done to integrate literacy instruction with vocational training.
*			Extend short-term program. The recommendations I have made above cannot be implemented in a short-term program where some students stay six weeks, many two months, and only a few for a whole semester. The problem here, of course, is that the big draw of a short-term program is immediate employment. However, the advantages associated with such a program evaporate when students lose their jobs just as quickly as they get them, as we have demonstrated was the case for students in Banking and Finance. I believe that for most students to learn the things they will need for long-term employment, the program should last at least a semester. However, a more radical reorganization would be to design a course of study that gave students training in a cluster of vocations, with satellite courses on literacy and other "academic" subject matters, in lieu of short-term training in only one occupation. It was clear that many students came to Banking and Finance, not because they had a burning desire to work in a bank, but because they needed to get a job. Exposure to a variety of occupations might serve students better than short-term training, or even intensive training, in one area. To make this kind of reorganization viable, however, we must find some way to deal with the material circumstances of students who desperately need to work and cannot afford to take off extended time for training.

*			Invest in long-term employment. The proof-center that I studied was designed for turnover. In fact, one manager saw her job as dependent on a revolving door policy. Thus, no provisions were made to assist the predominantly female and minority workforce in keeping their jobs--rules were not bent, for example, when single mothers were late because of child-care responsibilities--and virtually no guidance was available to help workers advance in the corporation or even to move laterally. It is hard not to view this kind of job, as it is currently defined, as merely exploitative. But it would be possible for the corporation to invest in its workforce over the long-term, as I outline below.
*			Decentralize production tasks and diversify front-line workers' responsibilities. By everyone's admission, operating a proof-machine is stressful and deadening work. In fact, this job is so stressful and intense that proof-centers prefer part-time employees who do not work many hours a day; this way they "get the most out of workers." Ironically, at the same time as banks have moved to centralize these "low-level" jobs, some corporations (and banks, too, in terms of other operations) are considering a move (or being urged to consider it; see National Center on Education and the Economy, 1990) to decentralize work and to give more and more diverse responsibility to front-line workers. Not only are such changes expected to improve efficiency and profitability, but they also work against the ghettoization that occurs when certain routine tasks are lumped together and offered as reasonable employment to desperate people. (I recall a conversation with a bank executive from an eastern city during an airport cab ride. This high-level executive, who had worked in banking all his career, did not even know what proof-operators were.)
*			Provide child-care services. The most pressing work-related problem for many women is child care. It is either nonexistent or the services are exorbitantly expensive. The provision of on-site, low-cost child-care facilities would make it possible for many women to work irregular hours and also would solve many instances of absenteeism and tardiness.
*			Create opportunities for full-time employment. One of the ironies for many students in the Banking and Finance program was that they could not live on the part-time salaries that were available to proof-operators. I frequently heard stories from bank personnel of housewives who wanted part-time work, and that is fine, but the people in the Banking and Finance program need a full-time salary if they are ever to escape welfare dependence. There needs to be a range of jobs, some part-time but most full-time, with attendant benefits. Hiring people who cannot possibly live on the available wage is simply unproductive for all concerned. But rather than look to another part-time labor pool, such as college students, I would urge the more socially responsible policy of decreasing part-time jobs and creating opportunities for full-time employment.
*			Create career paths and make them visible. Many women and minorities are being pushed off whatever career ladder exists in banking simply because opportunities have decreased for advancement through on-the-job training and experience. As far as those people who are hired as proof-operators from the Banking and Finance program are concerned, the notion of advancement is so remote as to be almost laughable. These workers are not normally viewed as having the potential for promotion to higher levels. But one can imagine ways to encourage these workers to make banking a career--for example, by broadening their orientation and training to include a more comprehensive picture of what the world of banking is about, by making explicit what the "next step up" would be and what kinds of qualifications are needed for that move, and by subsidizing needed college courses.
*			Admit educators and researchers to the work sites. Educators in general, not just vocational educators, need to know what the work world is like; they need to experience a variety of kinds of work, if not firsthand, at least through a grand tour. Without this kind of knowledge, we all have our heads in the sand, preparing students in our classrooms for a work world we are only vaguely acquainted with. Something similar applies to educational researchers, who traditionally have kept their hands clean of industries and corporations, focusing their investigations on the classroom and school, no matter that classrooms and schools supposedly prepare children for another world. However, one of the roadblocks for both teachers and researchers who would understand work is the inaccessibility of workplaces. It is not at all easy, we have found (cf. Kusterer, 1978) to attain entry to a work world, much less to study it in depth. Thus, I urge educators and educational researchers to acquire knowledge of workplaces, and I urge leaders of business and industry to facilitate the acquisition of that knowledge by opening their doors.