Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Stone, J. R., III, Latting, J., & Dornsife, C. (1994). Research on School-to-Work Programs in the United States (MDS-771). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Apprenticeship

Two-year colleges are expected to play a major role in new youth apprenticeships (see preceding section) or Tech Prep programs (see next section), based on the 2 + 2 or 4 + 2 model. In addition, two-year colleges have long been active in traditional apprenticeship programs.

The essential components of traditional apprenticeship have been summarized as follows: A supervised, structured training program which (1) combines on-the-job with related theoretical instruction for skilled employment and is (2) sponsored by employers or labor/management groups; (3) the result of a legal contract leading to a certificate of completion and official journeyperson status; (4) a tangible and sizable investment on the part of the program sponsor; (5) a wage-paying activity, at least during the on-the-job phase of the program, in accordance with a predefined wage progression scale; (6) a training strategy in which participants learn by working under the direct supervision of masters of the craft or trade; and (7) a written agreement in which the apprentice can expect to be hired by the sponsor upon completion of the program and the sponsor is obligated to hire the apprentice (William T. Grant Foundation, Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship, 1992).

Over the past decade, two-year colleges have managed to fit into this complicated set of requirements by offering, in a way satisfactory to all parties involved, the theoretical components of apprenticeship training. That is, while the sponsor provides the job-specific training at the work site, the college provides the general training related to the craft or trade. The apprentice-sponsoring organizations that enter such agreements with two-year colleges presuppose that some amount of literacy, numeracy, and fluency, as well as some familiarity with the natural and physical sciences, are prerequisites for expertise in any particular field (Casner-Lotto, 1988).

Two-year college involvement in any particular apprenticeship program is typically a result of a three-way partnership between a corporation, the relevant trade union, and the college itself. Union involvement is not a necessity in arranging an apprentice-like training program; such "non-joint" apprenticeship programs, however, with the exception of the auto industry's mechanic training programs, have not been successful over the long term. The tie between employers and the college have generally failed to remain close enough to sustain the training program (Conklin, 1987). Occasionally, a professional organization such as the Oregon Precision Metal Fabricators Association and the National Tooling and Machining Association will take a leading role in the partnership (Liston & Ward, 1984; Skinner, 1990). Of course both the state and federal apprenticeship agencies and the state department of education must approve the apprenticeship program and the coursework provided, respectively.

The majority of partnerships between two-year colleges and industry in apprenticeship training exist in established trades such as shipfitting, machining, pipefitting, and sheet metal working. Litton Industrial Products in Massachusetts, for example, has formed a partnership with area community colleges to help train its apprentices in the metal cutting tool industry (Tuholski, 1982). The maritime industry, in particular, relies upon its long-standing apprenticeship programs in the face of the current labor market situation: The industry is beset by severe literacy problems among shipyard workers while, at the same time, technical requirements for the work are increasing. The equivalent of two postsecondary years of education and training are now required for the majority of shipyard work (Cantor, 1992). The U.S. Navy has integrated two-year college coursework into its formal four-year apprenticeship programs at each of its eight domestic shipyards (Cantor, 1988). These programs are generally quite large as all but one of the Navy sites trains over 150 apprentices at any given time. Several of the programs consist of over 500 trainees. Tidewater Community College in Norfolk, Virginia, and Trident Technical College in Charleston, South Carolina, are among the leaders in these federal shipyard partnerships (Cantor, 1992).

Private sector shipyard apprenticeship training has also moved toward the community college partnership model. Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock, NASSCO, Ingalls, Bath Iron Works, and the Avondale Shipyard have each initiated programs of this kind. Thomas Nelson Community College provides on-site trade theory classes, advanced technical training, and general education courses as part of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company's prestigious four-year apprenticeship program (Cantor, 1992), and the Community College of Rhode Island offers classroom training as part of the apprenticeship program of the Electric Boat Division of the General Dynamics Corporation (Liston & Ward, 1984).

More recent community college-employer partnerships have developed in other areas. The construction and fire fighting sectors, for example, are cultivating community college involvement in their apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship training. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local #3 in Flushing, New York, and the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), two construction industry unions, are working with contractors and area community colleges to offer three- and four-year apprenticeship programs leading to associate's degrees. The IBEW Local #3 collaborates with Empire State College, and the IUOE collaborates with community colleges nationwide. In California, 62 community colleges offer fire service programs. Many are part of dual-enrollment apprenticeship programs, generally as part of the academy process (Cantor, 1992).

It is the automotive industry, however, that has been at the forefront of using two-year colleges for the educational needs of industry (Conklin, 1987). In order to meet the steady demand for auto repair mechanics, most of the major American and Japanese manufacturers have forged links with their local auto dealers, the dealers' trade associations, a few independent repair garages, and community colleges. It is estimated that General Motors, and subsequently Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and Honda, now operates over 500 apprenticeship programs involving two-year colleges throughout the United States and Canada (Cantor, 1991).

Although there is some variety in the industries that have created links with two-year colleges in apprenticeship training, colleges tend to take a similar role in these partnerships. The training normally takes place in college facilities and is offered by college faculty. If a training class is sufficiently large or specialized, however, it might take place in company facilities. The dean or director of vocational education at the college receives a rough outline of the course from the employer (or from an employer/union training advisory board) then prepares a curriculum for review and feedback (Casner-Lotto, 1988).

The apprentices in the program generally work on alternating schedules, that is, working full-time for a period of months then studying full-time. The apprenticeship might consist of several such cycles. In GM's Automotive Services Excellence Program (ASEP), apprentices participate in a six-part cycle consisting of five to eight weeks of full time school then five to eight weeks on the job. Apprentices work an eight-hour day on both cycles, beginning at 7:30 a.m. (Casner-Lotto, 1988). There are also examples of "parallel" training programs, where apprentices put in classroom time after work. In a Pennsylvania machine technology program, for example, trainees spend two nights each week at a community college over the course of their three-year apprenticeship (Whitworth, 1982).

The classroom component of the apprenticeship training usually consists of both general and technical courses. In fact, most apprenticeship programs linked to two-year colleges are constructed to allow trainees to earn both a certificate of completion for the apprenticeship program as well as an associate's degree from the college. The Navy shipyard program, for example, consists of the following courses: expository writing, technical writing, arithmetic, chemistry, physics, a social science elective, drafting, and blueprint reading (Cantor, 1988). The GM mechanic training program consists of state-of-the-art automotive theory courses as well as courses in English, mathematics, history, and psychology (Casner-Lotto, 1988). Rancho Santiago Community College's offerings on behalf of the Santa Ana Fire Department consist of eight core courses which are prerequisites for fire fighter certification. These classes also provide 24 units toward an associate's degree in Fire Science Technology (Cantor, 1992). There are some apprenticeship programs that do not require the general education courses that are required as part of community college degree programs. Nearly all, however, offer incentives of some kind to encourage apprentices to take advantage of the college partnership by completing a degree program in addition to the apprenticeship.

The college component of apprenticeship programs is shared among the parties involved. Trainees normally pay the standard college tuition for the courses they take as well as pay for their books and tools (the latter costing upwards of $1,000, in many cases). The sponsoring organization supplies equipment; manuals; uniforms; and, of course, the wages for the on-the-job phase of training. The college provides instructors, the classroom and shop space, and administrative expenses (Casner-Lotto, 1988). Many training programs are more extensively supported by the sponsoring corporation or trade association, however. As part of the Community College of Rhode Island and General Dynamics' partnership, the company paid the full tuition of trainees as well as a stipend for books and supplies (Liston, 1986). Funding for the IBEW and IUOE apprenticeship programs is supplemented by a journeyman's wage tax levied by employers. In the case of the IBEW program, the New York State Department of Labor also enters the funding picture by providing $1.00 per training hour per apprentice. The Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company pays all training costs for its apprentices, including college fees (Cantor, 1992). In perhaps the most generous of these kinds of programs, Chrysler Motor Corporation provides to its mechanics-in-training a $1,500 grant toward educational costs, a salary of 160% of the sponsoring dealership's minimum wage during both phases of training, and a $.50 per hour raise after each semester. In addition, Chrysler places $1.00 for every hour worked and studied by the trainee in escrow--the entire amount to be awarded to the trainee upon completion of the program, at which time he or she is guaranteed two years of full-time employment (Cantor, 1991).

The selection process for these apprenticeship partnerships is often quite rigorous: Applications can far outnumber available places (Tuholski, 1982). The IBEW Local #3 apprenticeship program, for example, receives 2,000-4,000 applications annually for its roughly 700 apprenticeship positions (Cantor, 1992). Recruitment is normally undertaken by the future employer as well as the college, often through area secondary schools. Apprentices attracted in this way are uncommon among all American apprentices, however, where the average age is 27 years (Stern, 1990).

Employers are seeking literate, motivated, and mechanically able individuals. Sponsoring organizations use interviews and ability tests in the selection process (Cantor, 1992; Casner-Lotto, 1988). Intellectual measures used in the selection of trainees include high school and college transcripts and aptitude tests (Cantor, 1992). The apprenticeship selection process has not always been equitable in its treatment of some populations, particularly women. In response, a pre-apprenticeship program has begun in Oregon with the expressed goal of increasing the percentage of women in apprenticeship programs (which stood at 3.4% as of 1987). Students in the program, located at Portland Community College, go through a curriculum of machinery, electronics, construction, carpentry, and even weight training in preparation for traditional apprenticeship (Portland Community College, 1991).

The costs and benefits of these two-year college and industry partnerships in apprenticeship training are relatively straightforward. The costs to the trainee can be significant, including tuition (usually $400-$500 per semester), tools, and room and board (if necessary), in addition to the opportunity cost of their time. Occasionally the employer covers out-of-pocket costs. The benefits to trainees include certification leading to journeyperson status from the sponsoring agency and the state, an associate's degree in some field of applied science, and a strong likelihood of employment (Casner-Lotto, 1988; Conklin, 1987; Whitworth, 1982). Lynch (1992) estimated from NLSY data that the apprentices' rate of return on their investment averaged 13%, which is higher than the average rate of return to a year in college.

Costs to the employer stem from wages paid to the trainee as well as the equipment supplied to the college for training. Benefits from apprenticeship training partnerships include an increased supply of workers with improved communications skills and up-to-date technical skills, occasional retraining of displaced workers, and employee loyalty, all at a lower cost to the employer than if the training program were undertaken entirely under company auspices (Cantor, 1991; Casner-Lotto, 1988; Skinner, 1990). Colleges benefit from such partnerships with industry insofar as they are able to provide vocational and technical courses at a cost that is less than the fees and public subsidies they receive. Whether these subsidies are productive investments for taxpayers depends on the amount of taxable economic activity that is attributable to the apprenticeship programs.

Despite the efforts of community, junior, and technical colleges to meet industry's needs by providing inexpensive, flexible, and often high-quality additions to training programs (Casner-Lotto, 1988), the future of such relationships is unknown. As of 1984, community colleges in California accounted for 75% of the apprenticeship instruction done by educational institutions. By 1987, however, two-year colleges reportedly accounted for only 51% of such instruction (Farland & Anderson, 1988). Apparently in California, the sponsors of apprenticeship programs in the 1980s were turning more to regional vocational programs and adult schools to provide the classroom component.

Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Stone, J. R., III, Latting, J., & Dornsife, C. (1994). Research on School-to-Work Programs in the United States (MDS-771). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.