Connecticut
Employment and Training Commission
Advanced Manufacturing Work Group
PHASE ONE Report
CTDOL-Administered Training Programs
Relevant to Advanced Manufacturing
Preliminary Observations and Recommendations
Background
In the October, 2011, Special Session, the General Assembly adopted Public Act 11-1, An
Act Promoting Economic Growth and Job Creation in the State, subsequently signed by
Governor Malloy. Section 30 of PA11-1 provides that:
On or before January 1, 2012 the Labor Commissioner, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development and representatives from minority firms,
regional community-technical colleges, the regional vocational-technical school system, organized labor and small manufacturing firms shall review 1) the Labor Department’s current
training programs, and 2) the use of volunteers from the manufacturing industry for training
in manufacturing skills at regional vocational-technical schools during hours other than
those in the regular school day and at regional community-technical colleges, and submit a
report, in accordance with provisions 11-4a of the general statutes, to the Governor and the
joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to
higher education and employment advancement and labor, with its findings, including recommendations on how state resources can be reallocated to meet current training needs in
the manufacturing industry in this state.
In November 2011 the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission (CETC) established an Advanced Manufacturing Work Group as a subcommittee of its newly created Industry Sectors Committee, co-chaired by Labor Commissioner Glenn Marshall and Economic and Community Development Commissioner Catherine Smith. The Work Group is
charged to develop short-term recommendations (for immediate impact) and long-range proposals (projecting over the next 5-10 years) addressing workforce challenges confronting the
growth of advanced manufacturing in Connecticut. The Work Group comprises thirty members, including representatives of employers/manufacturers, key State agencies, higher education, technical high schools, workforce development system, training providers, labor, and
CETC members. Co-conveners are Elliot Ginsberg (CT Center for Advanced Technology)
and John Harrity (GrowJobsCT, International Association of Machinists).
In light of the expertise represented at its table, Commissioner Marshall asked the Work
Group to assist in conducting a review of the Labor Department’s training programs relevant
to advanced manufacturing and developing recommendations intended to have an impact in
the short-term. In December the Commissioner wrote to Governor Malloy to indicate that the
report and short-term recommendations would be delivered in February. The Work Group
met in November and December. Efforts to gather and review program information and develop corresponding recommendations were conducted in January.
This report represents Phase One of the effort. Information about relevant Labor Department
programs is included in the chart that follows. Observations concerning those programs and
challenges inherent in current program funding and in the workforce system itself are presented. These are followed by recommendations intended to have short-term impact and to
improve training funding options going forward. The report concludes with a discussion
about the use of volunteers to support manufacturing training efforts in the technical high
schools and community colleges. Additional information about the full array of advanced
manufacturing-relevant training programs and funding and long-range recommendations will
be developed and provided in Phase Two.
1
Highlights of Manufacturing Employment in Connecticut
While manufacturing as a share of total employment in Connecticut has been declining for
years, the drop has occurred mostly due to increased productivity rather than a decline in the
economic importance of manufacturing to the state economy. According to the US Bureau of
Economic Analysis the value of manufacturing output in Connecticut in real dollars ($25.9
billion in 2010) is higher than ten years ago ($20.7 billion in 2000).
Manufacturing continues to provide a vital source of high paying jobs in Connecticut. As of
January 2012 there were 165,800 manufacturing jobs in Connecticut representing 10.2% of
the state’s total nonfarm employment.
Manufacturing jobs continue to pay higher than average wages in Connecticut, particularly in
industries associated with advanced manufacturing processes and products, including Chemicals (especially Pharmaceuticals), Transportation (especially Aerospace and Shipbuilding),
Fabricated Metal Products, and Computer & Electronics manufacturing.
The table below compares the average wages for a core set of traditional manufacturing industries to a core group of industries characterized as advanced manufacturing. The table establishes that, as a baseline, average wages paid to manufacturing employees in Connecticut
were 26% higher than average wages paid all employees. The table further documents that
industries employing advanced manufacturing techniques or producing high value products
tend to pay wages well above averages for all workers in the state.
Averages Wages Paid in Selected Connecticut Manufacturing
Industries as a Percent of Total Nonfarm Average Wages: Third
Quarter, 2011
% of Total Nonfarm
Average Annual Average Annual Wages
NAICS Code
Industry
Wages Paid
Paid
All CT Employees
58,144
100%
All CT Manufacturing Employees
73,060
126%
Select Traditional Manufacturing Industries
311 Food Manufacturing
41,040
71%
321 Wood Products
42,012
72%
323 Printing & Related
54,764
94%
327 Nonmetallic Minearl
Products
51,204
88%
Select Advanced Manufacturing Industries
Fabricated Metal
332 Products
58,240
100%
Computer &
334 Electronics
67,464
116%
335 Electrical Eq.
84,488
145%
336 Transportation Eq.
86,020
147%
Source: CTDOL Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
2
Although manufacturing employment has been declining as a share of total employment in
Connecticut, demand for production occupations will continue for the foreseeable future,
both to replace retiring workers and to accommodate fields where growth is occurring.
CTDOL’s long-term occupational forecast projects the need for nearly 2,200 production
workers annually – many in advanced manufacturing occupations requiring increased skill
levels in science, technology, engineering and math.
Occupational demand will be particularly high for quality inspectors and testers, computer
numerical control (CNC) tool operators, first-line supervisors, machinists, and team assemblers and fabricators.
To further emphasize the consistent demand for manufacturing employment in Connecticut –
even in a recovering economy – the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness and
University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute recently reported that electronic job board
data indicates 22,680 vacancies advertised by Connecticut manufacturers. Only Health Care
& Social Assistance, Finance & Insurance, and Professional, Scientific& Technical Services
had more apparent vacancies than manufacturing.
3
CTDOL-Administered Manufacturing-Relevant Training Programs
Target
Customers
Program
21st Century
Training Fund
Incumbent workers
Workers and
Employer sponsors
Apprenticeship
Program
Early Warning
System
Incumbent Worker
Training
National Emergency
Grants
Workforce Investment Act (WIA)/
Dislocated Workers
Incumbent workers
(in declining or transforming industries)
Incumbent workers
(Allied Health and
Manufacturing)
Dislocated workers
Purpose
Upgrade skills of workers
and help employers
retain skilled workforce
Prepare workers for lifelong careers; provide employers skilled workers
Incumbent worker training to avoid manufacturing layoffs
Upgrade skills of workers
and help employers
retain skilled workforce
Expand training and
employment services
during large dislocations
Dislocated workers
Employment services,
including training
WIA/Adult
Unemployed adult
workers
Provide employment
skills and training
WIA/Youth
Youth ages 14-21
Provide employment
skills and training
WIA/Reserve Funds
(Required Activities)
Participants in WIA supported programs
WIA/Reserve Funds
(Optional Activities)
STRIVE
Spanish American
Merchants Center
Incumbent workers
in targeted sectors
Workers dislocated
by jobs moving overseas
Incumbent workers
Unemployed workers
Veterans; At-risk
youth; Ex-offenders
Incarcerated or paroled unemployed
with barriers
Unemployed workers
with barriers
Latino/minority owned/small businesses
Administration/oversight
of required WIA efforts
Innovative programming
(including incumbent
worker training)
Provide income support
to unemployed workers
in full-time training
System of career paths
and training in selected
occupations for targeted
workers
Employability preparation
Opportunities
Industrialization
Centers
Unemployed and
incumbent workers
with barriers
Trade Act
Adjustment Grant
State Energy Sector
Partnership Grant
STRIDE
Employability preparation
Technical assistance for
small business growth
Increased skills with
certifications
Workplace skills
Desired
Outcomes
Skills upgrade
Job retention
Skills, credentials,
licensing, career
progression
Increase skills of
targeted workers
to avert layoffs
Keep workers
employed and
businesses viable
Employment
Retention
Increased earnings
Employment
Retention
Increased earnings
Employment
Retention
Increased earnings
Employment
Retention
Increased earnings
Effective results
for One-Stop
participants.
Keep workers
employed and
businesses viable
Employment
Retention
Increased earnings
Increased skills
Employment
Retention
Wage gains
Employment
Retention
Employment
Retention
Jobs creation/retention in targeted communities
Employment
Total
Budget
$450,000
$1,064,292
$1,841,377
Funding
Sources
State General Fund
and Employer contributions
State General Fund
and Employer contributions
Numbers
Served
1,486 workers
5,055 apprentices
Federal
Government
State General Fund
and Employer contributions
963 workers
$4,103,287
Federal
Government
873 workers
$7,110,347
Federal
Government
4,166 workers
$6,714,784
Federal
Government
2,430 workers
$7,538,866
Federal
Government
Federal Government and Employer
Contributions
Federal Government and Employer
Contributions
1,409 youth
$450,000
$2,799,680
$703,391
$12,930,117
3,656 workers
(Included in WIA
numbers above)
1,511 workers
Federal
Government
1,921 workers
Federal
Government
500 individuals
$1,368,000
$770,000
State General Fund
232 individuals
$270,000
State General Fund
123 individuals
$570,000
State General Fund
30 small businesses
$500,000
State General Fund
864 individuals
$49,184,140
[Note: For the current program year and going forward the new Step Up program will be included in the inventor.]
4
25,200
CTDOL-Administered Manufacturing-Relevant Training Programs
Program information presented in the preceding chart is relevant for the 12-month program/fiscal year July 2010 – June 2011. Under the aegis of the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission (CETC), this information (and information about the
full array of relevant Connecticut training programs) will be updated at least annually.
Most of the programs included operate year-to-year with reasonable consistency and
predictability. Some of the programs receive funding that overlaps the regular JulyJune operating year. Funding from competitive grants expires when the varying grant
periods are completed. The chart does not include new sources of funding that have
come into play since July 2011, including, for example the three-year $5.8 million
Green Jobs Funnel Innovation partnership and two H-1B grants totaling $9,970,000 recently awarded by the US Department of Labor.
The chart has information on 16 programs relevant to advanced manufacturing for
which CTDOL had lead administrative responsibility during the 12-month period.
Target participants for these programs include a mix of incumbent workers, dislocated
workers, un/under-employed job seekers, veterans, ex-offenders and older youth.
These programs are intended to meet a wide array of objectives. There is not a high
degree of strategic consistency across the programs and their respective funding
streams. There are also inconsistencies in the measures used to assess the impact of
these programs, reflecting differing purposes, variations in funding sources and an
overall lack of strategic direction.
Total available funding for those programs during the 12-month period (July 2010 –
June 2011) amounted to $49,184,140.
Of that amount, at least $41.6 million was Federal funding. Of those Federal dollars,
$18,874,841 came from sources (Early Warning System, Trade Act Adjustment and
National Emergency Grant) responsive to specific negative economic conditions and
decline in manufacturing.
State General Fund support in these programs was approximately $4 million, concentrated in the 21st Century Training Program, Apprenticeship, Incumbent Worker Training and several smaller programs (STRIDE, SAMA, STRIVE and Opportunities Industrialization Centers).
These programs counted 25,200 individuals served, a mix of incumbent workers, dislocated workers, adult job seekers (including un/under-employed), older youth and special populations. A significant number received training not related to manufacturing.
The total likely includes duplicate counts (i.e., an individual may have been served by
more than one program and counted more than once). Collectively the programs employ a mix of varied outcome measures that make it difficult to assess their impact and
effectiveness in the aggregate.
5
Challenges Inherent in Current Program Funding
State funding represents a modest training investment in comparison to other states
against which Connecticut competes for advanced manufacturing business and expansion. For example, FY10-11 State General Fund support for incumbent worker training
in Connecticut was $450,000. The equivalent amount in Massachusetts was $19.9 million, $2 million in Vermont, and $1.7 million in Rhode Island.
Most of these training program funds (approximately 85%) administered by CTDOL
are Federal dollars, with more than half of those funds from grants targeted to address
specific economic problems and the remainder based on formulas, allocated to reflect
general economic conditions. Therefore, much of this funding is reactive, responding
to events that have already occurred. These funds fail to provide capacity to use training resources proactively, to strategically anticipate, encourage and direct change that
meets the State’s economic and workforce development priorities.
Significant barriers impede the ability to use much of the currently available funding
strategically to support State priorities, including advanced manufacturing. For example, most Federal training funding administered by CTDOL is inflexible and categorical. These funds usually must serve individuals meeting specific eligibility criteria for
a prescribed set of services from among a limited universe of training providers. In addition, much of the available training funding is subject to self-selection by eligible individuals who wish to participate in training but may have no interest in pursuing career opportunities in targeted, high-value/high-impact priority industry sectors.
Most incumbent worker training funding in Connecticut targets manufacturing and/or
health care, as a matter of administrative policy and in response to employer demand.
Incumbent worker training funding is heavily over-subscribed. Employers value these
high-impact training services. Available funding is insufficient to satisfy employer demand (including manufacturers). CTDOL intends to survey employer demand and analyze return on training investment for CETC, to inform future planning.
In prior years the Federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) allowed the Governor to
reserve up to 15% of the state’s total annual WIA funding allocation to conduct statewide workforce activities. In recent years a significant portion of those “discretionary”
funds have been used to support incumbent worker training, much of it targeting small
manufacturers. In FY10-11, after allocations for required and other allowable WIA activities, $703,391 was available for incumbent worker training.
Constrained by these limitations, the State (through CTDOL) is challenged to direct
training resources strategically to address economic/workforce priorities, including advanced manufacturing.
6
Challenges Inherent in the Workforce System
The following observations reflect insights provided by Work Group members, review of the
CETC’s Annual Legislative Report Card, input from employers and employer surveys, examination of various recent reports to the General Assembly, etc.
Youth/Future Manufacturing Talent Pipeline
Despite increased outreach, communications and marketing efforts, too many of Connecticut’s young people (and their parents, teachers and counselors) are ill-informed
about the career opportunities available in manufacturing. Initiatives such as the Manufacture Your Future Expos, Learning and Career Symposia, Regional Center for Next
Generation Manufacturing teacher externships, guidance counselor workshops and the
Connecticut Dream It/Do It Program exemplify current worthy efforts.
Connecticut’s young people lack sufficient opportunities – during summer months and
throughout the regular school year – to get real-world exposure to and work experience
in manufacturing.
Some of Connecticut’s high school and community college manufacturing program instruction lacks practical connection to the demands of Connecticut’s manufacturers.
Few students have access to focused career counseling. Most school counselors are
overburdened with demands requiring immediate attention and are unable to spend
time advising young people on career exploration.
Incumbent Manufacturing Workers
Incumbent workers are one of our best talent resources to address manufacturing workforce challenges, but Connecticut does not offer sufficient incumbent worker training
to meet current need, and makes it difficult for employers to participate.
Dislocated Manufacturing Workers
Dislocated workers, laid off due to plant closings and reductions in force, are another
immediate resource to address manufacturing workforce challenges. But we fail to offer sufficient linkages and supports to move these highly motivated workers back into
the workforce with the new skills needed for success.
Connecticut’s workforce system does not do a good enough job of assessing and
matching the workforce needs of employers (having job vacancies) with job seekers
who have the relevant skills and experience. The experience of the recently conducted
Connecticut Manufacturing Job Match Initiative underscores this reality.
Many Connecticut job seekers may be nearly job-ready but lack basic skills that would
allow them to develop the job-specific skills necessary to fill manufacturing vacancies.
7
Training Program Results
Connecticut’s workforce system does an inadequate job of aligning training program
performance/results standards with employers’ real-world expectations and needs.
Connecticut’s current community college manufacturing technology programs are neither systematically aligned nor linked to meaningful, certified credentials. Similarly,
new training programs often are not linked to employer-validated credentials.
Connecticut’s community college manufacturing programs are not systematically
aligned with manufacturing technology programs offered by the technical high schools.
Most Connecticut manufacturing-related education and training programs operate as
independent entities, not systematically aligned with rigorous program performance
standards responsive to employer needs or aligned with statewide strategic planning.
Connecticut’s publicly funded workforce system lacks the expertise to fully understand
the particular realities and special needs of the manufacturing industry to be able to respond with maximum effectiveness.
Systemically, the State lacks the critical strategic intelligence needed be able to make
smart, timely decisions about effective workforce policy and strategy to support growth
of Connecticut’s manufacturing sector.
Recommendations
Youth/Future Manufacturing Talent Pipeline
1. Support the Connecticut Dream It/Do It statewide initiative, to establish a positive image of manufacturing careers within Connecticut’s future workforce, align education
systems with industry’s skill needs, and strengthen collaboration among key stakeholders and existing partnerships. All efforts promote use of the National Association of
Manufacturers-endorsed (NAM) Skills Certification System, beginning with the National Career Readiness Certificate.
2. Expand the number and quality of “work and learn” opportunities for young people participating this year in the 2012 Summer Youth Employment and Learning Program (and
expand these opportunities in future years, linked to year-round academic learning and
career exploration). The Labor Department (CTDOL) and Workforce Investment
Boards (WIBs) must collaborate effectively with employers/manufacturers and local
school districts to achieve this objective. The General Assembly should adopt statutory
changes as necessary to permit 16-18 year old youths access to the shop floor as part of
this manufacturing-related work experience.
3. Expand the number and quality of manufacturing internships for high school students
participating in manufacturing technology programs (in either technical or comprehensive high schools).
4. Provide employer incentives to participate in internships, apprenticeships and other employer-directed work experiences.
8
5. For students enrolled in Manufacturing Technology courses in the Connecticut Technical High Schools due to graduate in 2013, and subsequent graduates, promote acquisition of appropriate industry-endorsed certifications (credential), including National Career Readiness Certificate. Expand support for the continued use of assessment for the
National Institute for Metalworking Skills (NIMS) certificate.
6. Promote opportunities for instructors in secondary school manufacturing technology
programs to participate in manufacturing externships to remain current with the rapidly
changing realities and demands of the manufacturing workplace. Reward those participating, to encourage externships as a major component of professional development.
7. Evaluate the Manufacturing Pre-Apprenticeship Program at Central Connecticut State
University’s School of Engineering and Technology to determine options for expansion
and possible replication at other sites.
Incumbent Manufacturing Workers
1. Expand opportunities for incumbent worker training that would allow attainment of industry-endorsed credentials or certification. Include collaborative efforts with employers
to develop streamlined procedures for administration and evaluation of these efforts.
2. Simplify/streamline employer incentives to make it easier for employers to navigate
governing regulations and participate effectively and efficiently in incumbent worker
training efforts.
Dislocated Manufacturing Workers
1. Expand/institutionalize the Connecticut Manufacturing Job Match Initiative strategy on a
statewide basis. This framework features effective screening of both job-seekers and
employers, innovative “speed interviewing” practices, and a customized mix of preemployment services aligned with the job-readiness and “fit” for each job candidate.
Develop a template for operations, process map, and “train the trainer” component to
make the program sustainable anywhere in Connecticut, responsive to the needs of manufacturers in each region.
Provide customized “Tier 1” services to dislocated, experienced manufacturing
workers identified as job-ready, including assessment, interview workshop, resume writing assistance, job referral/employer referral and follow-up, etc.
Provide customized “Tier 2” services to candidates with manufacturing experience but in need of skills upgrades, a mix of options including use of Key Train
curriculum, access to apprenticeships, customized job training, community college manufacturing centers, soft skills enhancement, on-the-job-training, etc.
Provide customized “Tier 3” services to individuals with no manufacturing
work experience but an interest in exploring manufacturing career options, including pre-assessment and assessment services, individualized career planning, and referral to programs that increase skills needed to become job-ready
(contextualized learning/I-BEST, adult education, pre-apprenticeship, technical
high school offerings, internships, job shadowing, etc.)
9
Workforce System
1. Develop and apply rigorous program standards governing implementation of the new
Manufacturing Technology Centers at Housatonic, Naugatuck Valley and Quinebaug
Valley Community Colleges, reflecting best practices, addressing program design, instructor competencies, program supports, and credential attainment. Standards should be
developed with industry. Evaluate and report annually on results, beginning with the initial year of program operation.
2. Implement system-to-system articulation agreements between the Manufacturing Technology programs in the Connecticut Technical High Schools and the Manufacturing
Technology Centers at Connecticut Community Colleges to strengthen the manufacturing career pathway, including college credit for credentials earned in high school.
3. Establish advanced manufacturing expertise in the CTWorks One-Stop Career System to
ensure that knowledge/intelligence about careers in advanced manufacturing is available
in Career Centers to unemployed, dislocated and under-employed workers/job-seekers.
4. Develop and implement a new CNC Machinist/Operator (Computer Numerical Control)
registered apprenticeship under the revived Connecticut State Apprenticeship Council.
Develop appropriate curriculum. Determine what other new manufacturing-related apprenticeship efforts should be developed. Provide requisite technical assistance to participating employers, educators, labor organizations and the Council.
5. Ensure that all State-supported manufacturing-related training and education efforts prepare participants to meet national employer-endorsed credentialing/certification standards. This should apply as a condition for State funding, for State support of proposed
competitive grant submissions, etc.
6. Require inclusion of a rigorous evaluation aligned with State workforce policy objectives, to assess both program results and quality, as a condition of State support (from
Governor, CETC, CTDOL, DECD, Higher Education, SDE, etc.) for any competitive
grant submissions (for Federal funding, etc.). Include a set of common measures as feasible to allow cross-program comparisons in all evaluation frameworks.
7. As a general proposition, specific, rigorous, consistent program effectiveness standards –
aligned to the extent feasible with the needs and expectations of manufacturers – should
be established and enforced if/as these various recommendations are adopted and funded. The State must be able to compare results across multiple programs, agencies and
funding streams and report accurately on outcomes achieved/return on investment.
Strategic Intelligence
1. Improve/institutionalize State capability to: inventory manufacturing-related training/education programs (credit/non-credit, certificate, degree[s] at technical high
schools, community colleges, four-year institutions, etc.) in real-time; identify demand/supply gaps; evaluate and report on program effectiveness; and, collect and assess
manufacturing-relevant occupational demand and workforce supply data to identify critical opportunities and inform State strategic planning.
10
Funding and Resources
Following is a list of proposed steps intended to direct more training funds to support advanced manufacturing as a State economic development priority.
1. Labor Commissioner Marshall should direct CTDOL and the Workforce Investment
Boards to focus Workforce Investment Act (WIA) individual training accounts, Incumbent Worker Training program and On-the-Job Training program funds on advanced
manufacturing-related training as a priority whenever feasible.
2. Governor Malloy should direct that proposals from State agencies (and related entities)
pursuing Federal competitive grants focus as a priority on training opportunities that
support advanced manufacturing, as feasible.
3. CTDOL should assume administrative oversight of that portion of funding available under the Economic and Manufacturing Assistance Act (MAA) intended to support targeted job training. MAA training resources should be focused strategically and leveraged creatively to support advanced manufacturing as a priority. A $500,000 set-aside in
MAA funding is targeted to support statewide implementation of Connecticut Dream
It/Do It.
4. Resources provided through the STEP-UP program and DECD-based incentives recently
established under the new Jobs Bill should be leveraged to promote manufacturing jobs
creation and improve job placement outcomes of education and training programs.
5. State funding for incumbent worker training should be merged into a single revenue
stream – to allow for strategic targeting of available resources – and funded at an appropriate level in comparison to states with which we compete for qualified advanced manufacturing talent. As resources become available the State investment in targeted incumbent worker training should be increased.
6. State funding/financial aid should be provided to support individuals enrolled in nondegree manufacturing technical training that leads to industry-recognized credentials.
7. Governor Malloy and Labor Commissioner Marshall, with CETC support, should advocate for consolidation of relevant Federal funding streams to provide the State with the
flexibility to deploy resources strategically, responsive to changing priorities. Support
for consolidation should be conditioned by the expectation that current Federal funding
levels will be maintained or increased.
8. Governor Malloy and Labor Commissioner Marshall, with CETC support, should advocate for a change in Workforce Investment Act (WIA) provisions, with the objective of
increasing the set-aside for the Governor’s discretionary reserve funds to 15% of the total state WIA annual allocation (from the current 5%), to expand resources potentially
available to support targeted training for manufacturing employment.
9. The current $600,000 in State General Fund dollars designated for the Spanish American
Merchants Association (SAMA) through CTDOL should be reallocated to the Small
Business Express program at DECD to support SAMA’s ongoing programs, freeing-up
11
an equivalent amount of General Fund dollars that can be used with flexibility to invest
in customized training that supports manufacturing.
10. Current rules provide a degree of flexibility in the ways a State may use its 25% Federal
Rapid Response funding. For example, other states have used these dollars to engage career development staff with manufacturing expertise to work at the regional level to enhance worker/employer job-matching outcomes. Labor Commissioner Marshall and
CTDOL should pursue the possibility of using Rapid Response funding to support similar efforts in the CTWorks One-Stop Career System to support efficient re-employment
of laid-off manufacturing workers with state manufacturers.
Industry Volunteers
As noted above, PA11-1, Section 30 requires Labor Commissioner Marshall to offer recommendations concerning the use of volunteers from the manufacturing industry for training
in manufacturing skills at regional vocational-technical schools during hours other than
those in the regular school day and at regional community-technical colleges.
Observations and Recommendations
Use of volunteers from the manufacturing industry to augment classroom instruction
in manufacturing technology programs in both the Connecticut Technical High
Schools and in Community Colleges can be a good idea if structured properly.
Manufacturing industry volunteers can bring useful expertise into the classroom as a
valuable human resource to augment instruction provided by certified educators.
The objective of such efforts should be to augment instructional capacity, under proper supervision, as part of an educational team led by qualified teaching professionals.
Volunteers who participate in augmenting classroom instruction should only serve as
part of a teaching/instructional team, with a prescribed/defined role, properly supervised, having met relevant qualifying selection criteria.
Industry volunteers should not replace qualified teachers. Such efforts should in no
way be intended to displace existing instructional staff/faculty. Volunteers should not
be engaged in any manner that violates existing collective bargaining agreements. The
integrity of existing collective bargaining agreements should be protected.
An example of an effective effort is the Roving Mentors initiative within the community colleges, a feature of the Skills in Manufacturing and Related Technologies
(SMART) grant, where industry experts serve to support participating students, helping to connect them to industry by pursuing internships and job opportunities.
The Connecticut Technical High School system (CTHSS) has a robust infrastructure
of Trade Technology Advisory Committees (TTAC) to support each trade technology
(including manufacturing) in each of its schools statewide. Each TTAC comprises selected representatives of the targeted industry and related trades. CTHSS should explore opportunities to use experienced volunteers from manufacturing to work through
the manufacturing TTACs as part of a coordinated professional development strategy
12
to help faculty keep abreast of contemporary practices, processes and demands of the
constantly changing manufacturing workplace.
The State may want to explore the concept of an educators’ academy whereby experienced teacher mentors can provide guidance concerning teaching methodology and
pedagogy to potential volunteer candidates from industry who have relevant technical
expertise and the desire to help students prepare for manufacturing careers.
Volunteers must be properly vetted and prepared to play their role effectively. The
Connecticut Technical High Schools and Community Colleges, respectively, should
establish vetting processes with appropriate criteria to screen and select volunteer candidates to assure requisite quality control.
A precise position description should be developed and employed to guide the selection of volunteer candidates and supervise/direct their performance.
Criteria guiding the use of industry volunteers to augment the classroom learning experience should include, at a minimum:
- Demonstrable practical, relevant manufacturing experience and expertise
- Familiarity with and ability to follow instructional curricula used by the classes for which they volunteer
- Capacity to interact effectively with students and faculty to support a positive
learning experience
- Ability to adhere to a predetermined schedule and time commitment
Under these conditions – and with support, participation and guidance from the affected collective bargaining units – use of volunteers from manufacturing warrants further exploration.
13