The legislature and state agencies do not always negotiate as successfully as happened this week when the House Higher Education Finance Committee and Minnesota Colleges and State Universities (MnSCU) got their heads together to hammer out a compromise on technical college requirements.

Monday, April 5, 1999

The legislature and state agencies do not always negotiate as successfully as happened this week when the House Higher Education Finance Committee and Minnesota Colleges and State Universities (MnSCU) got their heads together to hammer out a compromise on technical college requirements. At issue, in my thought, is the fact that trades students need to be educated as responsible citizens as well as trained as employable workers.

MnSCU was considering a plan that would require all those enrolled to learn one of the trades to complete 15 percent of their credits in general education courses such as math or English. Many of those students protested the plan, saying they aren’t interested in such subjects and threatened to quit if the requirement became adopted. Even some of the trades instructors complained that enrollment would drop, which shows a genuine concern for their programs as well as a fear of losing their own jobs.

They found a sympathizer in Rep. Bob Ness (R-Dassel) who introduced HF1811, which would prohibit MnSCU institutions from making any such requirements unless the student is aiming for a degree. Those enrolled in a technical college or the technical side of a comprehensive community college and were satisfied with a certificate or diploma would never need to take any course informally referred to as "gen ed."

Moreover, the schools could be prevented from administering assessment tests as part of the enrollment process.

MnSCU people reacted to Ness’ proposal, insisting assessment tests are essential and that tech students need a reasonable amount of general education. They also protested that such considerations require the judgment of professional educators and should not become a political issue. The legislature, they feel, was attempting to micromanage the schools.

The compromise achieved would allow "relevant general education courses" and the assessment would be allowed only on the condition that it would not disqualify a student for a certificate or diploma program. Those determinations are to be left with the individual schools as advised by industry committees.

The value of the compromise is that it returns education decisions to the education institutions. The weakness is that those decisions are in danger of further compromise by marketing advantages and educational short-sightedness. There is a dangerous tendency in these schools to lower requirements to whatever students are willing to meet in order to maintain programs and school jobs. While trades instructors may be skilled in their trades, few are educators who are capable of seeing the larger picture. Moreover, education of the whole person is neither the interest nor the expertise of the advisory councils who can be expected to go for a short shot rather than the long haul.

For generations tradesmen were actually taught the 3Rs in elementary and high schools and then successfully trained in skills on the job. As skills required became increasing complex, more formal approaches to training became necessary and schools took over the task. They also assumed many of the new welfare programs designed to increase employability.

It is still possible for people to learn the trades in proprietary schools, which are in business to make money by training in the trades. If a person does not want to learn how to speak, write, read, and compute effectively, those schools are still available. They are customer oriented; they give what the customer pays for.

Colleges are something different. When one enrolls in a college, that person becomes a student more than a trainee. Colleges educate as well as train. This is especially necessary today, because students of earlier generations could read, write, and figure better than today’s average high school graduate or even college student. Much instruction in colleges is catching students up to what they did not learn in high school. The expectation of general education, then, is not just extending training into education but preparing the student to learn a trade.

When one enrolls in a proprietary school he pays the full fee and the product belongs to him. MnSCU schools are tax-supported and students pay a fraction of the cost, so that the public has a right to expect a return on our investment. What students get there must benefit the public as well as the students. Extremely important is that the programs prepare responsible citizens, those who contribute to and participate in community life. They should produce not just a tradesman who can lay bricks for me but a brick layer I would want to represent me on the city council.

The idea, asserted by some tech instructors, that general education is non-threateningly taught within the context of the trade training has merit that deserves accommodation. However, a carpentry instructor can no more teach language effectively than a language instructor can teach carpentry. Trades students need to be taught math by mathematicians and English by English instructors.

If we could assure trades students that training we give them now will last until retirement, we might justify giving nothing but training. Because we cannot do that, it is more important we teach them how to learn than to learn only a trade.

For these reasons, it is a relief that Rep. Ness does not press his original proposal, but it now becomes the burden of local tech colleges to ensure they not only make trades students employable but whole persons and responsible citizens.

Wallace Alcorn’s column appears Mondays