Community College and Secondary School Collaboration on Workforce Development and Education Reform

Catalyst, The, Spring 2004 by Orr, Margaret Terry

A limited number of partners. The community colleges that had only one or two school districts in their service area had the most substantive collaborations. A limited number of partners made it easier for college and school district officials to develop a common vision and maintain a common focus. This type of collaboration was almost impossible for the two community colleges that worked with a large number of school districts, each with different priorities and levels of commitment to workforce development and school-to-work transition.

State policy interpretation. Each state's interpretation of how Tech Prep and STWOA funds should be focused, the target areas to be served, and the role of community colleges influenced the collaborative outcomes. The two intensively involved community colleges were in states that stressed K-14 system-building through Tech Prep and STWOA funds, targeted coterminous areas for grant initiatives, and stressed a substantive community college role in local planning efforts. Their states also allocated their STWOA funds according to the same regional areas as they had their Tech Prep funds. In both cases, these regions matched the community college's service area and local school district boundaries, simplifying regional planning.

In contrast, the other two states narrowly interpreted Tech Prep and STWOA as primarily secondary school reform, did not try to integrate their planning by allocating the funds to the same service delivery areas, and seemed ambivalent about secondary school and community college collaboration. Moreover, rather than consolidate their Tech Prep and STWOA policy efforts, these two states encouraged competition among educational agencies over STWOA funding.

Leadership priority within the community college. The two intensively involved community colleges had strong, visionary presidents who made workforce development a priority well before Tech Prep and STWOA funds were available. These officials and their staff reshaped their vision as they increased their collaborations, experimented with different approaches, and obtained complementary public and private funding. Their efforts to improve workforce development combined secondary school reform and community college reform. They were as committed to helping the local school districts improve their academic and technical skill preparation as they were to improving the quality and relevance of their own programs.

Multiple opportunities for collaborative planning. The two community colleges with intensive and integrated STWOA/Tech Prep programs described their model building process as iterative. Their integrated governance structures supported and deepened the process, drawing the business community into more significant roles. The STWOA funds, in particular, promoted more substantive business participation, which in turn led to new program ideas. Such iterative and reflective planning seemed to be feasible only because the same institutional partners were engaged in planning for all of the funding sources.