Legislative Principles

9. Collaboration among career-related education and training programs in different institutions, or with different funding sources, is desirable and can be facilitated if all programs adhere to the same principles, such as those stated in principle 1 above.

Collaboration across different Federal programs is difficult to achieve, because they often serve different purposes or client populations. However, there are some opportunities for collaboration related to work-centered education that have not yet been well-developed, which could be encouraged by new Federal legislation. For example, Federal agencies that support curriculum development, like the National Science Foundation and the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, could support the creation of career-related curriculum materials as part of their portfolios of new curricula. This would avoid the present necessity for every local program to develop its own curriculum virtually from scratch.

While such economies of scale should be sought, they would not address the complex problems and possible inconsistency caused by the fact that a number of different Federal education and training programs do exist. To coordinate programs that appear similar, consolidation may seem to be a simple solution. However, Federal programs in the area of work-related education and job training often have quite different objectives; as a result, there is remarkably little "waste and duplication," despite discussion to the contrary (NAVE, 1994, Vol. V, Ch. 3; Bailis and Grubb, 1993; Grubb et al., 1989, 1990; Grubb and McDonnell, 1991; Trutko, Bailis, and Barnow, 1989). Consolidation by itself would be unlikely to eliminate what waste there is, or to create more effective programs.

To increase effectiveness, we propose that the key elements outlined under principle 1 be applied in all Federally supported education and training programs. These features--combining academic and vocational education, connecting classroom instruction with work-based learning, and linking every program to the others in a sequence (as tech prep does)--offer various learning opportunities, connections to employment, and links to further education and training.

Currently, however, most Federal job training programs fail to attain this vision. For example, the Adult Education Act usually funds adult remedial programs that are free-standing, unconnected to either vocational skills training, work-based instruction, or higher level programs. And these remedial programs usually use outdated modes of didactic instruction, often because they are driven by the GED (Grubb and Kalman, 1994). Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs often fund on-the-job training, which is intended to be a form of work-based learning. However, the learning on the job is often insubstantial (Kogan et al., 1989), and it is unconnected to remedial academic or vocational skills training and to any further training opportunities. Also, JTPA programs tend to use rote and didactic teaching. JOBS programs sometimes support client-initiated programs, and at their best can provide various support services (e.g., child care), remediation, and instruction through community colleges. But in other cases, clients receive job search assistance without either academic or vocational skills training, or work-based learning--which is particularly inappropriate for individuals who lack both education and labor market experience because it does not prepare them to cope with change.

In addition to creating greater consistency among different programs, new Federal legislation should also try to establish links among programs. This would help ensure that the paths and the referral mechanisms from shorter, lower level programs to more advanced programs is clear to both providers and participants.

Requiring collaboration in order to achieve greater coherence will entail some politically difficult decisions. For example, the principle of requiring links among academic and vocational skills training and between lower level and more advanced programs suggests that isolated agencies providing only a single service (short-term remediation, narrow vocational skills training, or job search assistance) should no longer be funded, unless they are clearly cost-effective. Instead, there is a presumption in favor of funding institutions like community colleges or stable consortia of local institutions that can provide a variety of well-connected services.

Collaboration to achieve greater coherence and consistency among Federal programs ought to improve their ability to help youth and adults participate as lifelong learners in a changing economy. Such collaboration requires a well-defined framework, the articulation of which is a primary challenge for new Federal legislation.